Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency.
For just one example, do a web search using these words:
ARRA Highway Project List Wisconsin
And you will find a list of highway projects completed using ARRA funding.
Quit spouting nonsense, get off your posterior, and do some research instead of showing everyone you are an ignorant fool.
OR, you could just change your alias and start over. You have done that many times in the past.
A complete lie on your part. A simple web search will show many jobs that came out of the stimulus.
"A year after Obama signed the bill, the percentage of the public that believed it had created jobs was lower than the percentage that believed Elvis was alive. But at its peak, the Recovery Act directly employed more than 700,000 Americans on construction projects, research grants and other contracts. That number doesn’t include the jobs saved or created through its unemployment benefits, food stamps and other aid to struggling families likely to spend it; its fiscal relief for cash-strapped state governments; or its tax cuts for more than 95 percent of workers. Top economic forecasters estimate that the stimulus produced about 2.5 million jobs and added between 2.1 percent and 3.8 percent to our gross domestic product."
Reagan "massaged" his numbers by including the military in the employment numbers. Prior to Reagan's "massaging," the military were excluded from the calculation.
Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.
You apparently do no realize that the weather knows non political borders and that what happens elsewhere in the World affect the US weather, e.g., El Nino
The story of 1937, of F.D.R.’s disastrous decision to heed those who said that it was time to slash the deficit, is well known. What’s less well known is the extent to which the public drew the wrong conclusions from the recession that followed: far from calling for a resumption of New Deal programs, voters lost faith in fiscal expansion.
Consider Gallup polling from March 1938. Asked whether government spending should be increased to fight the slump, 63 percent of those polled said no. Asked whether it would be better to increase spending or to cut business taxes, only 15 percent favored spending; 63 percent favored tax cuts. And the 1938 election was a disaster for the Democrats, who lost 70 seats in the House and seven in the Senate.
Then came the war.
From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today.
Had anyone proposed spending even a fraction that much before the war, people would have said the same things they’re saying today. They would have warned about crushing debt and runaway inflation. They would also have said, rightly, that the Depression was in large part caused by excess debt — and then have declared that it was impossible to fix this problem by issuing even more debt.
But guess what? Deficit spending created an economic boom — and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity. Overall debt in the economy — public plus private — actually fell as a percentage of G.D.P., thanks to economic growth and, yes, some inflation, which reduced the real value of outstanding debts. And after the war, thanks to the improved financial position of the private sector, the economy was able to thrive without continuing deficits.
Reagan cheated on his employment numbers by changing the rules -- he added in military personnel as employed. Prior to Reagan the unemployment numbers excluded military personnel.
Sorta makes you wonder what he's been pokin' all his Life?
Noble thought, but do you really think that a child growing-up in a poor family has the same opportunities to "earn it" as a child in a rich family?
I have always wondered why the money one earns via "sweat of the brow," or "Ordinary Income" in IRS-speak, should be taxed at a higher rate than money made by simply investing it and watching it grow over time.
I have heard it said that the most productive economic system is one where it is "easy to get rich, but difficult to stay rich." We seem to have the opposite ingrained into the tax code.
No. While it might provide some short-term relieve, it is unsustainable in the long-term.
You have to use government policy to provide the ability for people to be productive, e.g., ensure the poorest segments of society have equal educational opportunities and support. If this requires feeding children so they can study and learn more, so be it.
Historically, societies with wide and increasing income differences have failed over time.
Practically speaking, such a system is unsustainable over time. That's just a fact of life.
The key to a healthy long-term society is a large, broad, and productive middle class. As a result, the government needs to support policies to increase the middle class and reduce poverty. This must start with a strong educational system which provides opportunities to develop useful skills and expertise.
Everyone should be concerned with ways to do this as if it is not done, the long-term does not look good for everyone, not just those in the lower economic classes.
That was the original reasoning for the government getting involved in support of the mortgage industry in the 1930's -- there is nothing quite as effective in convincing people to respect property rights and legal system as owning property. During the Great Depression many "Movers and Shakers" were concerned that Communism might get major support, as it did in Russia, if nothing was done. The establishment of Fannie and Freddie were are direct result of this thinking.
There are a total of 101,411 identified glaciers in the world as of December 2009.
He was only off by a factor of a thousand!
Why bother to state the obvious?
There is little argument that Free Market Capitalism, or some variant of it, is the best economic system in terms of matching supply to demand. I don't think anyone with any sense would disagree with that.
There are negatives with any economic system, including Capitalism, but matching supply to demand is not one of them for Free Market Capitalism.