Democrats Want The Obama Road To Economic Implosion; I Want A Reagan Recovery

The following article does a great job in ramming home just how miserable Obama has been for the economy versus how wonderful Reagan was for the country.

In fact, the information contained probably explains why Reagan is considered “the greatest president in American history” and Obama is “the most polarizing president in American history” (both as measured by Gallup).

So do you want to recover or do you want another Obama term of abject failure?

The $1.2 Tril Gap: Obama’s Subpar Recovery Continues
Posted 06:50 PM ET

 

Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama’s policies aren’t helping the country get stronger. Rather, they’re smothering what should have been a solid recovery.

Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.

To get a better sense of how bad Obama’s recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.

By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.

Had Obama’s recovery been as powerful as Reagan’s, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.

And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.

So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we’re just now getting back on our feet.

Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.

Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).

But even that didn’t stop a rip-roaring comeback.

Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008.”

Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was.

So what’s different? The presidents’ policies.

Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.

Obama’s approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan’s approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations “has never worked” to spur growth.

Obama might think the U.S. is “getting stronger,” as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.

It strikes even me as strange to conclude one article by producing the opening paragraphs of another, but I wrote this about what Ronald Reagan accomplished a couple of years ago:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

And the only thing that could truly destroy the fruit of Reagan’s policies was the coming of another Jimmy Carter.

And of course that’s exactly what we got in this turd:

Obama obviously has no solution to anything but trying to get himself re-elected so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America into a failed socialist banana republic.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

20 Responses to “Democrats Want The Obama Road To Economic Implosion; I Want A Reagan Recovery”

  1. Jake K. Jones Says:

    Reblogged this on Republican Presidential Candidates 2012.

  2. Michael Johnson Says:

    This has been the worst recession since the Great Depression. Considering the mess he inherited, things aren’t all that bad.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4FV

  3. Pat Says:

    ECONOMIC RECOVERY? LOL!
    There will be no “economic recovery”. We are witnessing the end-game of a strategy whose roots were firmly planted in 1913.

    PRESIDENTS DON’T CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT
    Presidents don’t control the US Government. Jews and Jewish interests control the government. Jewish “money power” controls the government.

    GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE
    The Georgia ballot challenge to Obama intends to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question:
    “Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution, require that both parents of a Presidential candidate must have been U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born?”
    Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question.
    That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up.
    He was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits.
    He does NOT want any court to rule on the factual basis for the court action.
    If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary.
    FORCES BEHIND THE SCENES
    There are forces acting behind the scenes enabling and furthering their own agenda. What sort of forces would have the money to be able to completely subvert our legal system?
    Logic leads directly to the forces that “create” our “money”. Since 1913, those people have literally stolen our republic from us.
    Since 1913, our money has been “created” by the actions of private citizens (not the US Government). When ever a bank issues a loan – that money is “created”. The bank “loaning” the money does not need to have had to previously “earned” that money. That money does not even have to exist previous to the “loan”.
    The bank doesn’t have to have gold in a vault somewhere to back the new money it is issuing.
    When the bank issues a loan – that money is “created” simply through the action of a bank official writing down an amount.
    So what sort of power do you think you’d have if you could “create” money simply by writing down a number?
    That’s one of the biggest problems we face as individuals and as a nation.
    They not only “create” our money – with their ill gotten gains they have purchased our entire news media and bribed our government away.
    MASSIVELY OVER-REPRESENTED IN KEY POLICY MAKING POSITIONS
    So who are these people? It is instructive to note who controls, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department.
    Timothy F. Geithner (Jew) – Secretary of the Treasury
    Neal S. Wolin (Jew) – Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
    Stuart A. Levey (Jew) – Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
    Alan Krueger (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy
    Michael S. Barr (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions
    David S. Cohen (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing
    Herbert M. Allison, Jr.(White European) – Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability and Counselor to the Secretary
    Of the seven (7) top officials in the U.S. Treasury Department, six (6) are Jews. How many of these Jews are citizens of the Jewish Nation (Israel)?
    This is a numerical representation of 86%.
    Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population.
    This means that Jews are over-represented among the top officials of the U.S. Treasury Department by a factor of 43 times, or 4,300 percent.
    This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the top officials of the U.S. Treasury Department cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance.
    You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the U.S. Treasury Department.
    GEORGE SOROS?
    Someone mentioned that Soros might be responsible for aiding in the Obama Deception.
    The birth-name of George Soros is György Schwartz. SOROS aka Schwartz is a Jew. SOROS aka Schwartz is a citizen of the Jewish Nation. SOROS aka Schwartz is a good example of the problem we face.
    NOT AN ISOLATED CASE
    You may want to take a look at other key policy making positions within the government as well – and note who the people are who are holding those positions.
    Prepare to vomit if you decide to look into the ownership of the various media outlets in the US – or management positions in ALL of the US Federal Reserve system member banks. They’re “kosher”.
    POLICIES OF THE JEWISH NATION
    Our perpetual wars against Israel’s enemies – where Israel fights using American soldiers are starting to make more sense now…aren’t they?
    So is it “anti-Semitic” to state facts?

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Pat,

    It is certainly “Anti-Semitic” to essentially say, “Hitler was right!”

    I go after people based on their worldviews and their ideologies and their resulting policies irrespective of race. YOU go after them because of their grandparents. There’s a big difference.

    I WILL be blocking you as a racist bigot, you can be sure. But I did think it prudent to respond.

    You managed to find a few Jews.

    I picked the very first “Jew” you mentioned – Tim Geithner – and googled his religion. I came across this article:

    7/22/11
    Timothy Geithner Jewish? No

    No, Timothy Geithner, Barack Obama’s secretary of the treasury, is not a Jew.

    Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Peter F. Geithner of Larchmont, N.Y.

    According to the Times, he is married to Carole M. Sonnenfeld and has two children. The Rev. Thomas Keehn, a United Church of Christ minister, officiated at his wedding in 1985.

    On 11/22/2008 I received an email reply from Geithner’s father-in-law, Prof. Albert Sonnenfeld, confirming that, “Geithner (is) not Jewish, (he was) raised Episcopalian, but (is) hardly religious now.”

    The reference in Wikipedia that previously (up to 11/2008) said he is a Jew – was removed. See the discussion.

    Now, you’re either going to have to say that Geithner FAKED his religion, or you’ll have to present a Nazi-clone argument about the blood and the race. Or you could admit you’ve been posting lies and start living a decent life. But that last is a very faint hope.

    Jews couldn’t be farmers or ANYTHING that tied them to one physical location because of vile people like you, Patricia. In many cases because of people like you, they were specifically forbidden from owning land. And they had to live (as much as that bothers you). So they had to get into livelihoods that would allow them to quickly pick up stakes and get out of Dodge quickly, lest your vile ancestors stirred up hate such that a hundred people with pitchforks and torches would suddenly come to a family’s house with murder on their hearts. Jews got into things like banking and diamonds because they could flee quickly and carry most of their wealth with them the next time a “Patricia” showed up.

    In other words, to whatever extent the Jews control things the way you assert, they do so BECAUSE OF PEOPLE EXACTLY LIKE YOU, you hater.

    Rodney Stark (in For the Glory of God) documents that the Catholic Church – which is most often depicted as the culprit behind Jew hatred – actually largely tried to STOP the persecuctions of Jews. Many times Jews ran to the Church for help – and priests sheltered them (sometimes to their own great harm). And of course we have seen that the atheist communists and the atheist Nazis were the WORST Jew-haters who have ever lived. This wasn’t YOUR vile argument, Pat (you had a different vile argument); but anyone who tries to make Jew-hatred something “Christian” is simply a terrible liar.

    For the record, I, as a direct consequent of my evangelical Christian faith, stand with Israel and I stand with the Jews.

    If you want to come after them this time, you rabid haters, you’re going to have to come through people like me first.

    When that day comes, I wear a Star of David that was designed from nails (i.e. the nails of the cross) to show my affiliation for the Jew because of Jesus, the Son of David. So I’ll deliberately be easy to spot.

    I’ve said many times, when the socialists finally triumph and bring all the hate that drove them from the past with them once again, I want to be taken in the very first wave. That way I won’t have to worry about being brave after I see you Nazis kick down doors and wondering how I’ll stand up to you.

    But until then, Patricia, I’m going to fight for my Judeo-Christian faith and worldview, and I’ll be damned if I let you just walk over us.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Jake,

    Have at it!

    Hope both our blogs make a difference to enough minds.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    “This has been the worst recession since the Great Depression. Considering the mess he inherited, things aren’t all that bad.”

    Michael,

    With all due respect, things are actually pretty damn terrible.

    First of all, I simply disagree with your premise (that “This has been the worst recession since the Great Depression”).

    You really don’t know how bad things were as Reagan took office, do you?

    Let me refresh memories:

    The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

    And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

    Welcome back, Carter.

    When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

    Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

    Those were TERRIBLE numbers, Michael.

    Carter left Reagan with an unemployment rate that soared to 10.8% – which was WORSE than what Obama faced. Inflation was so crippling and so difficult to “fix” that Carter admitted that liberalism did not have a solution for it.

    That’s not the only terrible economic mess. Consider what George Bush faced. Clinton left Bush with the Dotcom bubble – the collapse of which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and resulted in the Nasdaq losing a massive 78% of its valuation. But that wasn’t all Clinton did. He had guttend the military and the intelligence budget and made America both weak and blind. And the ONLY reason Americans tend to forget how terrible the economy that Clinton left Bush with was the massive 9/11 attack which was also a HUGE blow to the U.S. economy. I wrote this in a comment to someone else:

    And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.

    Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

    Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:

    Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

    In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

    Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

    The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

    “Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

    After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

    “Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

    And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack. That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule.

    So if you want to blame Bush for Obama’s mess, the least you could do would be to have the decency to blame Clinton for Bush’s mess. But you’re not honest enough to do that. Neither you, or your corrupt Democrat Party, or your mainstream media propaganda networks, have any integrity at all. Republicans took responsibility and admitted fault for their overspending. Democrats are like Cain in the Book of Genesis; they refuse to accept responsibility for anything no matter how guilty they are.

    Bush had an INCREDIBLY deep hole to recover from. Not that the liberal media propaganda will ever acknowledge that.

    Bush turned the economy around with his tax cuts, resulting in an unprecedented 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.

    But I’ve got more to say. In considering your chart, I would turn to history:

    The Great Depression was not triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929.[7] Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

    In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worst in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the American economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

    The INCREDIBLY dismal growth that we’ve seen has been seen before – just before the bottom fell out.

    This article (I mean the IBD one within my own) does a pretty good job comparing how incredibly mediocre and pathetic Obama’s “recovery” has been compared to an actual leader such as Ronald Reagan’s. You would be a smarter man if you bothered to read it.

    THEN consider the fact that when you consider things like the fact that last year was the WORST YEAR IN HISTORY for new home sales, or that we have a terrible backlog of inventory, among other dismal measures, tells us that 2012 is NOT going to be a good year for growth under Obama.

    Obama spent a massive $862 billion to get his “recovery.” The REAL cost of that to the American people was $3.27 TRILLION, according to the CBO. And what do we have to show for it???

    So what pathetically little “success” Obama bought he bought at a massive cost that is going to have to be payed back as our debt and interest payments on that debt soar higher and higher.

    Obama has failed. And he has failed massively.

  7. Michael Johnson Says:

    You blame Clinton for the dotcom bubble. Fair enough, it developed and popped on his watch. But the housing bubble destroyed more wealth and caused more damage to the economy – including a financial crisis that required huge government bailouts. The housing bubble inflated on Bush’s watch (while he had a GOP congress) yet you blame Obama for the current housing problems? Seems a little inconsistent to me.

    Regarding your assertion that this isn’t the worst recession since the depression, I will point you to a graph that tells the story very simply and clearly.

    As to your belief that republican presidents have done a great job with the economy, while democrats haven’t, take a look at this graph. Without looking at the years, can you spot the republican booms and democrat busts? I can’t.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4IZ

    And here is one more graph you might find interesting. It shows one way Reagan was a leader. He lead the way to our current debt:

    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

    P.S. I’m a moderate libertarian.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Michael,

    You say,

    But the housing bubble destroyed more wealth and caused more damage to the economy

    That’s not true.

    The housing bubble destroyed $7 trillion in wealth. The Dotcom bubble – as I already documented – destroyed $7.1 trillion. I’m not going to quibble about the decimal point, but you are simply wrong to say the housing bubble destroyed more wealth than the Dotcome bubble because if anything it was the other way around.

    The chart you link to is nice and all, but I don’t make my decisions based on “Advisor Perspectives,” nor do I have any idea what data they relied on or what their ideological leanings are. How about if I draw a chart in crayon on a blank sheet of paper, scan it in and upload it? I’ll bet my chart would look different (even though I’d use red, blue and green crayons to make the colors same-same).

    I also note that the chart completely ignores inflation, which was the biggest crisis Reagan faced. As I documented with Carter’s own words. Reagan faced an inflation rate that was over 13% and was eating our economy like an aggressive cancer. Doesn’t it seem wrong to you to ignore the worst demon that Reagan faced??? Can I similarly salad pick the data that gets considered to determine who had it worst???

    Based on your second chart, which at least has the virtue of coming from an official source, it looks like it doesn’t matter who we vote for. It also looks like we’ve never had a down time since 1940. Both George Bush and Barack Obama can point to that chart and argue that they have each been the best thing since sliced bread. As could Carter. Something seems wrong with that, doesn’t it???

    Is THAT your argument??? That the economy is going to improve no matter who runs the government??? Because if anything that’s what that chart shows.

    You end with a chart that is DEFINITELY an ideological hatchet job. “Voodoo economics”? Is that the way an objective person who isn’t taking a side would refer to the Reagan plan??? That gives me GOOD REASON to question the ideology of your first chart. Why don’t you just get your data from the Daily Kos and be done with it???

    For the record, I put Reagan into a little more context than you are willing to do just a couple of days ago. Here is what I said:

    Reagan succeeded in his overarching vision for America: to defeat the Soviet Union and end the existential threat of global communism. And he succeeded in winning a war that began under Truman in 1945 and continued until Reagan finally ended it in the very short aftermath of his presidency in 1989.

    Other than that, Reagan did NOT succeed. As the left loves to point out, spending (and deficits) skyrocketed. Reagan raised revenue MASSIVELY with his tax cuts which increased investment, but he was unable to do ANYTHING to reign in Democrat spending.

    Reagan wanted to spend massively on military and intelligence capabilities – which Jimmy Carter had gutted during his misbegotten and failed presidency. But Democrats would not cut so much as one penny from ANY of their massive government programs. The end result was that government spent massively more.

    So, in the sense that we are referring to here about spending, Reagan failed. And that can’t be our model now (letting Democrats have what they want as long as we can have what we want).

    If you believe that sweet talking the left is the path to get them to fundamentally acknowledge the error of their ways and start governing like Republicans, I welcome you to start your own blog and try to make your little dream come true.

    My view is that the Democrat Party has to be crushed, because they are the rigid ideological barrier that will prevent America from having any chance whatsoever to escape the debt death-spiral that I documented in my last comment to you.

    Reagan won the Cold War which Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Carter had fought. It was THE most expensive war in human history. The Cold War DWARFED WWII in spending.

    Reagan saw the existential threat of the USSR and global communism. We had ALREADY FOUGHT TWO MAJOR WARS due to that existential threat – Korea and Vietnam were both battles in the Cold War. Maybe you wanted another five or six wars like that where communism kept bleeding us. Reagan had a vision to WIN that war by matching strength for strength and winning economically. But he also had the constraint of Democrats who ran the House EVERY year of his presidency and Democrats who ran the Senate for at least HALF of his presidency.

    For the record, Reagan’s vision was the same as JFK’s: both men saw tax cuts as the means to strengthen the US economy and raise revenue to wage this generational Cold War.

    Reagan’s tax cut resulted in an economic boom and massive increases in revenue. But for Reagan to get his military spending (if nothing else to make up for the spending Carter refused to do), he had to allow the Democrats to get their massive welfare spending. Hence the deficit.

    For the record, Bush II faced the same thing: Clinton gutted the military and intelligence budgets, leaving us weak and blind and culminating in 9/11. Osama bin Laden declared war on America during the Clinton years; he pronounced Amerca a weak paper tiger who would flee if attacked during the Clinton years; and every single terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 was already in the country by the time Clinton left office. Bush was forced to do what ANY responsible president should have done and build up our military to fight a threat that happened under Clinton’s watch.

    And Carter gutted the US defenses, and that’s when Iran – and the power behind them, the USSR – made us look like chumps with the hostage crisis that got Carter’s butt kicked out of office.

    Pretty interesting stuff from a “moderate libertarian,” given that actual libertarians are more for low taxes than I am as a conservative.

    I for one didn’t know that moderate libertarians held the same economic beliefs as liberal Democrats.

  9. Michael Johnson Says:

    Let me start with my claim that the housing bubble destroyed more wealth than the dotcom bubble. Yes, household equity only fell $7T, but the total wealth destroyed was $16.8T from peak to trough. Here is a graph from the Flow of Funds Report. You can see both bubbles effect on net worth and the housing bubble was much worse.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4JK

    And, yes, my second chart demonstrates that it doesn’t matter which party is in charge or whether the marginal tax rates go up or down 5%, the economy will grow – as it has for at least 200 years – at a real annual rate of around 1.8%. Advances in technology happen even when taxes are high or democrats run the government.

    If you don’t trust Advisor Perspectives, here are the charts from Calculated Risk – hardly a liberally biased source.

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/08/recession-measures.html

    If you still have doubts, here is Reagan’s recession from the Fed:
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4JH

    Here is Obama’s recession:
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4JG

    As far as Reagan winning the Cold War is concerned, I wish I could find a reference for something I heard Kissinger say back around 1980. He said the USSR will collapse on it’s own in 10-15 years. Their economy wasn’t strong enough to maintain itself. I spent time in East Germany in 1985 at it was obvious to me it couldn’t last. Reagan probably sped things up, but it’s a stretch to say he “won the Cold War”.

    Weak military?! Compared to what?! We spend 43% of the entire world’s military budget! Over 80% more than all of Europe and over 125% more than all of Asia. This is totally unnecessary.

    Finally, to demonstrate I’m not a liberal democrat… I am totally against Obamacare and think entitlement cuts need to be part of a balanced budget. I also think we need to reduce regulations and simplify the tax code.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Your first chart doesn’t show the case that you have been making: that things have been far worse for Obama taking over for Bush than they were for Bush taking over for Clinton.

    The chart shows the losses it describes as beginning in early 2007 (which it should) under Bush’s watch. Fully HALF the losses occurred under Bush’s watch and he takes the hit for those.

    Whereas the DotCom truly exploded just as Bush was assuming office for Clinton.

    So the article I cited from US News basically gets the figure right on those grounds if nothing else. Bush took a $7.1 trillion hit from Clinton, and Obama took a $7 trillion hit from Bush.

    That chart you cite “Reagan’s recession” is one I’ll save to document what an incredible job Reagan did turning around the economy. It’s so good, in fact, I’ll post it right here as an image for posterity:

    Reagan recovery

    Only I’m calling it “the Reagan Recovery” rather than your quite ideological label of “Reagan Recession.” When GDP takes off like a rocketship, I don’t think of that as a “recession.”

    GDP MASSIVELY climed as Reagan’s tax cut policies he got through in 1982 took effect.

    Your second link still steadfastly refuses to consider the devastating effect of inflation that Reagan faced. Unless you’re going to try to tell me that inflation of 13-20% (it continued to climb as Reagan assumed office) is healthy, it is therefore simply an inadequate measurement.

    It’s a “stretch” to say Reagan won the Cold War? There is NO DOUBT Reagan won the Cold War. He waged that war over every Democrat on earth’s wild objection. They all said he couldn’t win and what he was doing wouldn’t work AND IT WORKED.

    What is a “stretch” is for you to cite an (undocumented) prediction and then view it the way I view God’s prophecies in the Bible. THAT’S a stretch. You don’t seem to think it’s possible that Kissenger could have been WRONG. Kissenger being the guy who was in charge when the North Vietnamese walked all over us and took the entire country of Vietnam. Maybe Kissenger predicted his State Department would accomplish that, too???

    “Weak military” as compared to the military we have had and continued to need.

    Case in point: Obama has MASSIVELY gutted the military. Bush won the Iraq War; Vice President Biden literally took credit for Obama in affirming that Bush won the Iraq War. Now Iraq is on the verge of falling back into despotism, Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear bomb any time it wants and starting World War III, and the Taliban is poised to retake Afghanistan as Obama crawls out.

    All due to a weakened military that Obama is going to make weaker.

    Your last words are puzzling:

    Finally, to demonstrate I’m not a liberal democrat… I am totally against Obamacare and think entitlement cuts need to be part of a balanced budget. I also think we need to reduce regulations and simplify the tax code.

    Why would you be for those things? According to you and according to your own documentation, none of that would matter one bit. You might as well root for lock step Democrat domination as anything else due to your own sources, “Mister Libertarian.”

  11. Michael Johnson Says:

    Sorry you had trouble understanding my graphs. I have to remember that not everyone has had advanced university level courses!

    Here are the baseline DoD budgets for the last few years (doesn’t include war spending) without any confusing graphs:

    2010: $528B
    2011: $549B
    2012: $553B

    http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

    Wow, I guess you are right! Obama is MASSIVELY gutting the military!

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    Michael,

    And we’re done.

    Really don’t like snide appeals to snotty arrogance.

    It’s not my inability to understand graphs that leaves me scratching my head: it’s your fundamental incoherence. You go from saying:

    “This has been the worst recession since the Great Depression. Considering the mess he inherited, things aren’t all that bad.”

    To saying:

    “Finally, to demonstrate I’m not a liberal democrat… I am totally against Obamacare and think entitlement cuts need to be part of a balanced budget. I also think we need to reduce regulations and simplify the tax code.”

    Which is to say you are cheering for a president who has not done ANYTHING you say you stand for. And in fact you champion a guy who has done NOTHING you claim to stand for and SAYS HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING YOU CLAIM TO STAND FOR.

    What, you think Obama was or will be against ObamaCare, do you?

    So you think that Obama is the guy to balance the budget, do you? – Does it not matter that he is the FIRST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE to have budget deficits in excess of a trillion dollars, and have them each and every year of his presidency???:

    [CBO director] Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.

    Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.”

    You say we need to reduce regulations so you cheer a guy who has not only enacted 4,200 new regulations but created the most intrusive and sweeping regulations in American history (such as Dodd-Frank)???

    What I can’t understand is how your skull doesn’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions, you arrogant little smartass.

    You have also repeatedly cited federal reserve figures while at the same time representing yourself as “libertarian.” You would be the FIRST libertarian in history to give the federal reserve credibility (see also here). But that’s minor compared to the above fundamental incoherence.

    So I know you are either pathological or you are an abject liar who is playing the false flag game I get all the time: liberals who try to represent themselves as legitimate moderates who then say, “This guy Eden is just too extreme” or too whatever.

    Let’s consider a few other things that you think Obama is doing great:

    Job creation:

    The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time.

    That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director. “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked.

    “I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”

    And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

    That’s according to CBO director Elmendorf.

    Under Obama, more Americans have lost their jobs and more Americans have lost their homes in US HISTORY. Under Obama, food stamp usage has skyrocketed 45% in just three years. Under Obama, we just had the most expensive year for gasoline IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Under Obama, new home sales were the worst EVER RECORDED going back at least fifty years. And consider that unemployment is going UP not down.

    But things aint bad at all. At least they aren’t if you’re a loon.

    And of course you have attempted to state that it really doesn’t matter WHO runs America; we do equally swell either way.

    You have some chart that purportedly shows defense spending increasing from 2010 (when Obama was also president). Too bad you didn’t go back to Bush when it was over $700 billion. But let me cite a few experts who seem to also have trouble understanding your graphs, such as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

    (AP) Defense spending is about to enter a steep decline that may force the Pentagon to abandon some military missions, shrink the armed forces and perhaps limit the U.S. role in the world, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

    In one of his final policy speeches before retiring next month, Gates said he has been disappointed by Pentagon efforts thus far to find budget savings. But he also cautioned that further cuts on the scale proposed by some — including President Barack Obama — will require tough decisions on eliminating some weapons and overseas missions.

    Well, maybe he never took any of your “advanced university level courses” so you’ll have to excuse him for not being erudite enough to comprehend your assertion that spending is merrily going up under Obama.

    It’s not just Defense Secretary Gates who isn’t smart enough to keep up with you, however. The new guy taking over the Defense Secretary job also just isn’t up to your learned intellect:

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns against defense cuts
    August 04, 2011|By David S. Cloud

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday that deeper cuts in the defense budget risked hollowing out the military and would hamper Pentagon efforts to deal with rising powers such as China, North Korea and Iran.

    It was the second day in a row that Panetta issued a public warning to Congress not to go beyond the roughly $400 billion in defense cuts required over the next decade under the debt reduction bill signed this week by President Obama.

    Speaking to reporters at his first Pentagon news conference, Panetta called on Congress to raise tax revenue and cut mandatory spending programs, which include Medicare and Social Security, rather than slash defense further.

    Now, we could say that defense secretaries just lack the proper level of “advanced university level courses” that has made yours such a powerful intellect. But no, none of us matches up to your genius:

    Obama: the US can no longer fight the world’s battles
    President plans to cut half a million troops and says US can’t afford to wage two wars at once

    The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country’s status as the world’s only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade.

    After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that defined the first decade of the 21st century, Mr Obama’s blueprint for the military’s future acknowledged that America will no longer have the resources to conduct two such major operations simultaneously.

    Instead, the US military will lose up to half a million troops …

    The National Review is another source that just can’t measure up intellectually to your highly advanced mind as they point out the fact that Obama is going for $500 billion MORE cuts in defense. But given that neither Robert Gates, nor Leon Panetta, nor Barack Obama can understand your facts, you have to cut them some slack, I suppose.

    Now, sadly I just lack the “advanced university level courses” to be able to intellectually compete with you. So this will have to be our final chat.

  13. cowboypress Says:

    Where is Reagan today?! Either Newt or Mitt would be better than what we have, but neither is anywhere close to Reagan.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    cowboypress,

    You got that right!

    I think about Reagan and what he brought to the table: he was an older and wiser man (thank young idiot chumps like Obama). He had an established record of leadership, having served as governor of the most economically dominant state in America (unlike the community organizer in chief Obama). He had a proven history of leadership and success in the private sector, having both “made it” as an actor and again as president of the SAG (unlike Obama who never had so much as a newspaper route). And Reagan had a conservative vision for what he wanted to do and how he wanted to do it.

    In God damn America, we don’t deserve a leader like Reagan.

    My fear is that God has so completely left this country that we actually deserve Obama and the complete economic collapse that will result in a second term of Obama.

    My fear is that we’re like the people whom the LORD said:

    “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.” — Jeremiah 11:14

    Because if we are, we’ll get Obama so we can hasten our own implosion.

  15. Michael Johnson Says:

    You’re offended by MY comment?! Compare what I said to what you’ve said to me:

    “But you’re not honest enough to do that. Neither you, or your corrupt Democrat Party, or your mainstream media propaganda networks, have any integrity at all.”

    “What I can’t understand is how your skull doesn’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions, you arrogant little smartass.”

    “But things aint bad at all. At least they aren’t if you’re a loon.”

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Michael,

    I had relegated you to my spam. I bring you back now just to clear the air and offer context and an apology for one of those comments above, specifically, the “But you’re not honest enough” line.

    If you were to go here (close to the bottom), you would be able to see that at that point where I comment about “not honest enough” I was copying and pasting from a previous comment. I do that frequently to save time. Usually I link to my previous words.

    Which is to say that I wrote that particular charge to someone else, not to you.

    I can clearly see why you assumed I wrote that attack at you. I didn’t. I just didn’t read it closely enough to remove unintended vitriol that would result in collateral damage. And I apologize for that.

    For the record, the OTHER TWO comments occurred AFTER you’re “I’m ever so sorry that I am just so damned intellectual and erudite” remark (And for the record, I actually have a fair amount of education – culminating in two separate master’s degrees). If you gave me your “Sorry you had trouble understanding my graphs” line as a reposite to insult me, fine. Had you followed with, “I figured someone of your limited intellect would at least be able to understand a picture given your cartoonish comprehension of reality,” fine. But instead you had to follow up with that hoity-toity self-claim of, “I have to remember that not everyone has had advanced university level courses!” To offer you a word of advice for future reference, if you’re going to insult somebody, fine, insult them; but PLEASE don’t conflate your insult with a claim to your own innate elitist self-superiority. Because it is a truly trivial mind that does that.

    The “things aint bad at all if you’re a loon remark simply stands as a fact of reality.

    All that said, and my apology having been issued, what “offended” me wasn’t your asinine comment about your educational elitism nearly as much as it was the massive contradictions in your statements that I documented.

    When you said, “I am totally against Obamacare and think entitlement cuts need to be part of a balanced budget. I also think we need to reduce regulations and simplify the tax code.” And consequently I’m for Obama who stands for the EXACT opposite of what you claim you stand for, well, I’m walking away from you shaking my head in a combination of disgust, contempt and bewilderment.

    So I was actually “done with you” after your previous post, and the one that began, “Sorry you had trouble understanding my graphs” just gave me a chance to express my ire.

  17. Michael Johnson Says:

    Thanks for the apology, I can see that the first quote was a cut and paste from a previous comment and not intended for me.

    There were, however, other instances where you sarcastically implied that I am lying about being a libertarian and am really a democrat.

    “rather than your quite ideological label of “Reagan Recession.””

    I called the second graph “Obama’s Recession” – both terms were merely descriptive and not ideological.

    “moderate libertarian”
    “Mister Libertarian”

    I’ve been a registered libertarian for 15+ years and not once did I imply that I was “for” Obama. The only positive thing I said about him was: “This has been the worst recession since the Great Depression. Considering the mess he inherited, things aren’t all that bad.” Then I said “I’m totally against Obamacare” – hardly the words of a democrat.

    Finally, I meant to say “not everyone has had advanced university level *math* courses”. And, yes, that was meant to be a jab. I said that in response to your previous sarcastic comments combined with the fact you couldn’t tell that my graphs proved my positions:

    -The current recession is the worst since the depression.
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/08/recession-measures.html

    -Much more wealth was destroyed by the bursting of the housing bubble than by the bursting of the dotcom bubble.
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4JK

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    Michael,

    Again I dig you out of spam.

    Your complaint about my “sarcastically implying” that you are not much of a libertarian somehow managed to utterly ignore my demonstration of that fact.

    Allow me to replay that conversation:

    It’s not my inability to understand graphs that leaves me scratching my head: it’s your fundamental incoherence. You go from saying:

    “This has been the worst recession since the Great Depression. Considering the mess he inherited, things aren’t all that bad.”

    To saying:

    “Finally, to demonstrate I’m not a liberal democrat… I am totally against Obamacare and think entitlement cuts need to be part of a balanced budget. I also think we need to reduce regulations and simplify the tax code.”

    Which is to say you are cheering for a president who has not done ANYTHING you say you stand for. And in fact you champion a guy who has done NOTHING you claim to stand for and SAYS HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING YOU CLAIM TO STAND FOR.

    What, you think Obama was or will be against ObamaCare, do you?

    So you think that Obama is the guy to balance the budget, do you? – Does it not matter that he is the FIRST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE to have budget deficits in excess of a trillion dollars, and have them each and every year of his presidency???:

    [CBO director] Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.

    Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.”

    You say we need to reduce regulations so you cheer a guy who has not only enacted 4,200 new regulations but created the most intrusive and sweeping regulations in American history (such as Dodd-Frank)???

    What I can’t understand is how your skull doesn’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions, you arrogant little smartass.

    You have also repeatedly cited federal reserve figures while at the same time representing yourself as “libertarian.” You would be the FIRST libertarian in history to give the federal reserve credibility (see also here). But that’s minor compared to the above fundamental incoherence.

    So I know you are either pathological or you are an abject liar who is playing the false flag game I get all the time: liberals who try to represent themselves as legitimate moderates who then say, “This guy Eden is just too extreme” or too whatever.

    You somehow never bothered to explain why on earth a “libertarian” who says he is completely against all the major things that Obama a) did and b) says he will continue to do is nevertheless “doing a great job.”

    It would have been nice if you’d bothered to interact with the questions I asked you. But never mind…

    You keep questiong my intelligence in reading a graph when you should be questioning your own intelligence in being able to comprehend a simple point. I’m not going to bother to count the number of times I mentioned to you that Reagan’s primary economic dilemma WAS OUT-OF CONTROL INFLATION. And that NONE of the charts you showed measured inflation AT ALL.

    So here are the first words of the very next chart you provide me with while stating that “I said that in response to your previous sarcastic comments combined with the fact you couldn’t tell that my graphs proved my positions”:

    By request, here are four key indicators used by the NBER for business cycle dating: GDP, Employment, Industrial production and real personal income less transfer payments.

    Let me put it concisely: HEY, MICHAEL, YOU DUMBASS: IF YOU ARE GOING TO COMPARE THE ECONOMIC RECESSION THAT REAGAN FACED WITH THAT OF OTHER PRESIDENTS, MEASURE THE BOGEYMAN REAGAN HAD TO DEFEAT. MEASURE INFLATION!!!!

    Or just keep on idioitcally doing the same thing that I keep throwing back in your face over and over again.

    Reagan’s recession was unique. He had to overcome inflation that was a cancer on the economy. Again, there was NO answe to the dilemma of inflation: Jimmy Carter himself said of it, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    It is therefore misleading of YOU to try to say that it is an irrelevant measure of how grim things were for Reagan.

    The famous “misery” index is measured by unemployment PLUS INFLATION. I already documented that Reagan – who faced a 10.8% employment rate – had it worse than Obama on that score. But if you omit the other factor in the misery index – inflation – you don’t just remove half of the equation; YOU DESTROY THE ENTIRE EQUATION.

    You have tried to pull that misleading trick over and over, and I’m not going to let you get away with it.

    But that’s hardly all you’ve done to be incredibly annoying:

    You complain about my questioning your “libertarianism” without even bothering to WAVE YOUR HAND at the arguments I provided to document the very reasonable grounds for my questioning.

    And you also manage to completely dismiss my refuation of your incredibly arrogant statement combined with your “facts” that Obama has increased the military budget.

    Do you see why you’re in my spam file???

  19. Michael Johnson Says:

    You’re incredibly rude for someone that claims to be a Christian.

  20. Michael Eden Says:

    And there you have it!

    What do you say to someone who says, “You’re incredibly rude for someone that claims to be a Christian.” I mean, isn’t it “incredibly rude” to personally attack someone by calling them a religious fraud and going after that person’s most central and most cherished belief?

    Which is to say, isn’t this kind of a self-demonstration of hypocrisy???

    For the record, Michael attacked both my intellect and my education with the line, “Sorry you had trouble understanding my graphs. I have to remember that not everyone has had advanced university level courses!”

    After saying that, Michael expressed taking offense with three things I’d said to him. Only ONE of those “insults” had occurred prior to his personal attack on my intelligence and education. And I explained that I had cut and pasted from another comment and had failed to delete an insult that had only been intended for that first recipient. And I apologized for that.

    Michael didn’t bother to apologize for his harsh comment. In fact he essentially repeated it.

    So yeah, I went after Michael’s VERY STUPID refusal/inability to interact with what I had repeatedly argued to him. And questioning his intelligence made me “incredibly rude.” Even though he had attacked mine first.

    But there’s more to that all of this: there was Michael’s abject hypocrisy that fit right into a description of pathology that I had recently provided:

    Here are some of my words from a post on pathological liberals:

    What is the real important subject as far as they’re concerned? In a word, it’s that I’m “mean.”

    And, you see, if I’m mean it means that facts don’t matter, so nyah, nyah, nyah. Or something to that effect.

    I tried to respond to somebody the other day that if Aristotle had a scowl, he’d be just as good of a philosopher as if he wore a smile. But that didn’t seem to wash. The “You’re a mean meany so I get to disregard all of your facts” meme continued to play and play like puppies who afterward can’t control their little bladders.

    If you were racing down the road at 120 mph and I had a scowl on my face when I shouted that the bridge had washed out, would it really matter whether I had that scowl and shouted? I mean, if you’re genuinely sane?

    The bottom line, for the record, is that liberals are giving me a play from the Saul Alinksy playbook. He said on page 75 of his Rules for Radicals (which was dedicated to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man”):

    “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”

    And, to an extent, this is true. For one thing liberals don’t have any rules or code of honor that binds them; they can be as vile as they wish: Lucifer sure won’t care. And the Kingdom Jesus established is a spiritual one. And you must therefore either recognize that strife and violence is a part of this world while you strive for the better one to come, or you simply bow your head to the next dictator that comes along. But it is very difficult to fight for a very political world in the here-and-now against a side that has no rules beyond “Rules for Radicals.” It’s a genuine dilemma for Christians.

    This dilemma has increasingly overtaken us during the course of the last century. It was there when the Germans used first poison gas and then total war and then the intentional bombing of civilian populations. Should we have used these vile tactics against an enemy that had no moral restraint, or should we have encouraged more and more of the same by displaying that we wouldn’t fight in such a way that the enemy knew there would be consequences for such terrible actions? By using poison gas ourselves we forced the Germans to quit using it; wouldn’t not using poison gas have amounted to an immoral sacrifice of our own troops?

    I’ve come to realize that I can turn the other cheek to the guy I’m trying to bring into the kingdom of heaven and I can shoot the home invasion psychos who are breaking in my house to murder my family. And I believe that any morally intelligent individual can understand that difference.

    I also believe that most of the reason that culture has degenerated to the shocking extent that it has (I mean Lady Gaga? Seriously?) is related to the fact that too few Christians were willing to stand up and fight – even wrestle in the mud as necessary – for their culture. It was far easier for too many to create their own little sub-culture, much as the monks did in walling themselves up in monasteries lest they have to face a nasty world.

    So I’m fighting as best I know how. And I often must fight against a pseudo-righteousness from a side that calls me all kinds of terrible names and labels even as it hypocritically demands I refrain from doing the same thing they’re doing to me.

    In any event, I’ve recently gotten a larger dose in a shorter period of time crap from liberals that I’ve basically been experiencing since the day I got my “very first comment” and it turned out to be from a liberal hater. I’m getting my fill of liberal avoidance and victimism and projection and other disorders.

    “Victimism” in this context is when a liberal practices a particularly bizarre form of psychological jujitsu in order to make themselves the victim in an argument or debate. You see, in their warped little minds, if they can manage to make themselves the victim, they win. It doesn’t matter how strong your case is or how weak theirs is otherwise; in liberalism the victim always wins. Period. And look; they’re the victim!

    So, of course, if I say something mean – (regardless of anything vile they previously said to me) – they become the victim and therefore they win the debate. Because that’s the way their world works.

    You can, of course, translate this into the larger socio-economic-and-political issues: victimhood means everything to the left. It is a cherished status to be sought above everything else – especially above facts.

    I would rather have someone sitting right next to me raking her fingernails over a chalkboard than be involved in such a “debate.” But as a conservative blogger I am nevertheless forced to endure it most every day.

    There’s a flip side to the victimism, and that is avoidance.

    And on the issue of liberal “avoidance”…

    Notice that Michael can’t touch the arguments that I hit him with, so what does he rely on instead?

    Saul Alinksy.

    I repeatedly challenged Michael on the merits of his claim to be a “libertarian” with the FACT that he was fundamentally incoherent. And he couldn’t respond. Which is to say that I plain and simply REFUTED his claim to be a libertarian. He is in point of fact not telling the truth.

    But Michael also revealed himself to be a guy who doesn’t bother to interact with any argument or fact that would disprove him. So he keeps right on talking as though I’d never made the points I just made. There is simply no point having an argument/discussion with someone who doesn’t bother to interact with you.

    Let me provide just one example: Michael gave me a chart “proving” that Obama’s was the worst recession since the Great Depression. And I challenged that claim, offering the recession Reagan faced. Not only did Reagan face a higher unemployment rate than Obama faced, but there was the little issue of out-of-control inflation that had mortgage loans at 20%!!!

    I said in MY VERY FIRST RESPONSE TO MICHAEL:

    You really don’t know how bad things were as Reagan took office, do you?

    Let me refresh memories:

    The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

    And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

    Welcome back, Carter.

    When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

    Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

    But Michael never mentioned the issue of inflation. He gave me ANOTHER chart that ostensibly “proved” what he was trying to claim. I again pointed out that his chart did not account for the crisis of out-of-control inflation that Reagan faced. The chart did NOT cite inflation as being a criteria that was being measured.

    So I said in MY VERY SECOND RESPONSE TO MICHAEL:

    I also note that the chart completely ignores inflation, which was the biggest crisis Reagan faced. As I documented with Carter’s own words. Reagan faced an inflation rate that was over 13% and was eating our economy like an aggressive cancer. Doesn’t it seem wrong to you to ignore the worst demon that Reagan faced??? Can I similarly salad pick the data that gets considered to determine who had it worst???

    And on and on. Michael never bothered to interact with my point in any way, shape or form.

    In the last comment that I posted about this issue, Michal had posted yet ANOTHER chart “proving” Obama’s recession was far worse than Reagan’s. AND AGAIN THE CHART DID NOT MEASURE INFLATION AS A CRITERION.

    And so I said:

    Let me put it concisely: HEY, MICHAEL, YOU DUMBASS: IF YOU ARE GOING TO COMPARE THE ECONOMIC RECESSION THAT REAGAN FACED WITH THAT OF OTHER PRESIDENTS, MEASURE THE BOGEYMAN REAGAN HAD TO DEFEAT. MEASURE INFLATION!!!!

    Go back and look at the record. I repeatedly raised the issue, and Michael repeatedly ignored it and pretended I hadn’t raised it. And he did this on numerous fronts. Why bother having an argument with someone who doesn’t even try to ever once actually interact with your arguments????

    Trying to bother with someone like Michael makes one become increasingly RUDE. Because just presenting the facts is useless to a guy who won’t even so much as acknowledge your facts.

    Michael COULD have tried to argue that hyperinflation is irrelevant to economic strength. 13.5% inflation? 1350% inflation? It doesn’t have any impact on the economy whatsoever. Mortgage rates and borrowing costs approaching 20% That has no impact on the economy at ALL! He would have been completely wrong to argue that, but at least he would have been taking a stab at trying to interact with me.

    Instead, nada. Nada on pretty much everything I told him. Another example would be our dispute over the Obama military budget, which Michael falsely claims is growing when in fact it is obviously being massively cut.

    I write articles. I truly don’t want to take the time to wrestle with charlatans and frauds such as Michael who end up using every single trick in the liberal playbook as I describe in that article above.

    Combine the fact that I don’t have time to waste on people like Michael with the fact that I’ve been subjected to so many hundred incredibly rude comments that it’s not even funny, and yeah, I can be “rude.” Get over it. Because whether I’m “incredibly rude” or not has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether my arguments and facts are correct. And whenever someone tries to make me the subject, you know that person is trying to avoid the real subject(s) at hand.

    For the record, striking back at liberals is a necessary tactic of political warfare as I wrote about long ago in an article titled “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”

    Now you’ve played your final LIBERAL card here, “Mister Libertarian.” Get lost.

    And you can count on the fact that the left will NEVER quit playing their incredibly hypocritical game of rhetorical jujitsu to make themselves the victims and then whine about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: