Auto industry, seeing new life, is on hiring spree

[Will E Worm]

I don't agree of the people I know most of them are buying bigger and getting a second small car for small trips like to the dentist and stuff like that or just getting rid of their small cars all together. Though I will say most of them have 2 kids some 3 so the small car really just isn't practical for 3 car seats and the strollers and diaper bags. Minivan's are still the vehicle of choice.

You tell him. :clap:

 

[monicasilver]

Like thisvvv?


It has been offered that there's is "outrage" with Obama because u/e is going up. Actually the overall trend (over the course of his presidency so far) is down.:2 cents:

Why the "outrage" under Obama...partly due to the fact that most people have no historical basis for determining nor understanding how the u/e numbers should be performing under the circumstances.
The closest circumstance was under Reagan...Ergo, the point of the comparisons.



What you should look at is 2 things IMO; The type of jobs being created and the effect of job creation being a logarithmic effect as opposed to linear. Meaning for example, 3 new, higher paying jobs could have the effect of creating 5 or 6 jobs in the greater economy.:2 cents:

Most would agree that Obama's situation is worse than what Reagan inherited, but to dismiss Reagan's challenge with the recession and inflation is biased. Reagan drove unemployment to 5.5%, compared to Obama's 9.6%. More importantly, he took the a negative GDP growth and grew it by 4.1% compared to Obama's 2.9%.

The both fail at an important metric, Reagan had a consistent 13% of the population below the poverty level, and Obama is showing 15%.

Reagan is rightfully tagged with a high 7% of the GDP on Defense spending, but Obama's 6% isn't far off.

In terms of LF numbers, Reagan created 21M jobs compared to Obama's 2M thus far.

A big one is Reagan's deficit spending was 4.2% of the GDP, while Obama's 9.4% is a record that triples the previous president's numbers.

Fact is while the rich did get richer in Reagan's era, taxes went up for the top 10% of earners while taxes went down for the lower 50% of earners.

Is my analysis that Reagan was a better president? No, it was before my time, but I wouldn't have voted for him - His record on ignoring poverty and AIDS, as well as his flawed economics would have made me go the other way.

Obama is doing at least as well as Reagan did. My point is that we can post competing metrics ignoring whatever we want. The presidents get far to much credit and blame for these changes.

The crime isn't a politician that isn't focused on fixing the problem, but on getting re-elected. The crime is a voter who isn't fully considering the pluses and minuses of a candidate and is blinded by their support for whatever reason.

As the tough questions of Obama and I'll be impressed. Did he push through a realistic Healthcare bill or one just to get a win?
(The question for Republicans is why didn't the Republicans offer a real alternative.)

Is Obama offering a plan to cut spending and increase tax revenue?

I'm not against anyone. I'm just tired of the blind one sided arguments that accepts less than mediocrity.

 

[Hot Mega]

Most would agree that Obama's situation is worse than what Reagan inherited, but to dismiss Reagan's challenge with the recession and inflation is biased.

Who ever dismissed it? I cite it as the 3rd worst economic inheritance behind The Great Depression and the one Obama inherited. To see a dismissal of what Reagan inherited when no such implication or suggestion was made betrays it's own bias.:2 cents:

Reagan drove unemployment to 5.5%, compared to Obama's 9.6%. More importantly, he took the a negative GDP growth and grew it by 4.1% compared to Obama's 2.9%.

You're comparing apples and oranges. At no time did Reagan drive unemployment to 5.5 % in his first 2.5 years. So why compare something that happened for Reagan near the end of his 2nd term to Obama current 9.1 pct..when at the same point in Reagan's term it was 9.4??

I know there was (at least) one other that seemed completely confused by the point of my demonstration.

The point of it was in response to a GOPer ad using the current economic numbers on u/e and the debt as a means to cite Obama as a failure.

Well, who knows what will ultimately be the case for Obama's economy. But for some of the same people who would likely pray at Reagan's alter to suggest Obama is a failure at this point in his presidency because of the numbers cited is WILDLY inconsistent when Reagan's numbers at the same point in his first term were worse.

Frankly, Obama is taking brickbats on the economy when there is a strong likelihood the economy would be much worse but for some of his actions. And that it's not only less worse but actually doing better than the circumstances should permit when analyzing the historical data in similar situations.

What's so funny is the mythical legend on Reagan is so perverted that some of the people that nearly bow at the utterance of his name think you're talking Martian and are in utter disbelief when the comparison is illustrated.

I know they didn't know but that would be the point.

The only criticism I have of Obama on the economy is that he's frittering away his political capital by not taking enough credit for what he's done and putting the circumstance in better perspective so people know or understand what to expect.

There were people literally wondering why the economy wasn't doing better in March of 2009 just because Obama got elected.

 

[monicasilver]

You're comparing apples and oranges. At no time did Reagan drive unemployment to 5.5 % in his first 2.5 years. So why compare something that happened for Reagan near the end of his 2nd term to Obama current 9.1 pct..when at the same point in Reagan's term it was 9.4??

I know there was (at least) one other that seemed completely confused by the point of my demonstration.

The point of it was in response to a GOPer ad using the current economic numbers on u/e and the debt as a means to cite Obama as a failure.

Well, who knows what will ultimately be the case for Obama's economy. But for some of the same people who would likely pray at Reagan's alter to suggest Obama is a failure at this point in his presidency because of the numbers cited is WILDLY inconsistent when Reagan's numbers at the same point in his first term were worse.

Frankly, Obama is taking brickbats on the economy when there is a strong likelihood the economy would be much worse but for some of his actions. And that it's not only less worse but actually doing better than the circumstances should permit when analyzing the historical data in similar situations.

What's so funny is the mythical legend on Reagan is so perverted that some of the people that nearly bow at the utterance of his name think you're talking Martian and are in utter disbelief when the comparison is illustrated.

I know they didn't know but that would be the point.

The only criticism I have of Obama on the economy is that he's frittering away his political capital by not taking enough credit for what he's done and putting the circumstance in better perspective so people know or understand what to expect.

There were people literally wondering why the economy wasn't doing better in March of 2009 just because Obama got elected.

First, you've missed my point. Or perhaps you proved it.

Second, you're comparing apples and oranges as well. I'll admit it though. I'm comparing different time intervals, but total accomplishments. You're choosing a time interval because it makes your point. You're also comparing two completely different situations with different cures.

At an equal time interval Reagan's poll numbers were lower. However, his approval rating among Democrats was higher than Obama's is with Republicans. That is meaningful.

To those who understand Keynesian Economics, you would see that Supply Side or Reagonomics was not in effect (does it exist?), the economy reacted to the Keynesian model. I'm not a Reagon-ite.

From what I see you really don't have an objective view. I haven't seen all of your posts, but in the ones I have seen, you dismiss any negative information you see on Obama and dismiss any positive information you see on Republicans. That kills your credibility. At least with me.

If you want to discuss Labor Force, employment/unemployment ratios, and GDP I'd be happy to put some scuba gear on and go deep with you. Economics is a passion of mine. However, the analysis to-date is that Obama has done at least as well (that gives room for "better) as Reagan did. He is holding his own, but not perfect and not taking a brickbat to the economy.

The US Economy is huge. It is a like a Disney Cruise Ship, it turns slowly. Presidents are given to much credit for their impact on it.

 

[Trident1]

Unemployment under a Democrat reaches all time low. Hmmm fancy that.

 

[monicasilver]

Unemployment under a Democrat reaches all time low. Hmmm fancy that.

I think since 1970, Clinton had the lowest unemployment numbers.

He also had the lowest deficit spending.

The two greatest periods of economic growth were under Reagan and surpassed only by the period under Bush (41) and Clinton.

 

[Trident1]

I think since 1970, Clinton had the lowest unemployment numbers.

He also had the lowest deficit spending.

The two greatest periods of economic growth were under Reagan and surpassed only by the period under Bush (41) and Clinton.

My bad. Instead of "low" it should read "high". The highest rate of unemployment is under a Democrat.

 

[Hot Mega]

First, you've missed my point. Or perhaps you proved it.

Second, you're comparing apples and oranges as well. I'll admit it though. I'm comparing different time intervals, but total accomplishments. You're choosing a time interval because it makes your point. You're also comparing two completely different situations with different cures.

At an equal time interval Reagan's poll numbers were lower. However, his approval rating among Democrats was higher than Obama's is with Republicans. That is meaningful.

What you don't get is the point of the comparison is driven by those who have sought to size up Obama's presidency at the 2.5 year mark.

I'm not comparing what makes my side. I'm comparing the only thing we have to compare so far.

I'd distilled it without prejudice to what was relevant and what can be practically compared.

Adding Reagan driving u/e to 5.5 over the course of 2 terms to a discussion about the rates under Obama in 2.5 years is about as desperate a reach as I've seen..that was sheer cherry picking IMO.

The US Economy is huge. It is a like a Disney Cruise Ship, it turns slowly. Presidents are given to much credit for their impact on it.

The most sensible thing I've read from you in quite some time. That would also be my point in comparing presidents at the 2.5 year mark of their presidencies after inheriting 2 of the 3 worst economic situations. That the economy doesn't turn on a dime and if you're reasonable (sensible) it should be worthy of considering how long it took Reagan's economy to turn when analyzing the Obama economy.

 

[monicasilver]

What you don't get is the point of the comparison is driven by those who have sought to size up Obama's presidency at the 2.5 year mark.

I'm not comparing what makes my side. I'm comparing the only thing we have to compare so far.

I'd distilled it without prejudice to what was relevant and what can be practically compared.

Adding Reagan driving u/e to 5.5 over the course of 2 terms to a discussion about the rates under Obama in 2.5 years is about as desperate a reach as I've seen..that was sheer cherry picking IMO.



The most sensible thing I've read from you in quite some time. That would also be my point in comparing presidents at the 2.5 year mark of their presidencies after inheriting 2 of the 3 worst economic situations. That the economy doesn't turn on a dime and if you're reasonable (sensible) it should be worthy of considering how long it took Reagan's economy to turn when analyzing the Obama economy.

You think it is a valid comparison because you think you like what you see. It isn't because you have to measure what they delivered. Reagan is done and over with. Obama is yet to be seen, but his only numbers are year-to-date.

When given the opportunity to point out and improvement for Obama, you come up with the thought that he should be stronger in telling everyone how great he is doing.

I'm not against the guy. I've said he has done at least as well as Reagan did until the same point (that is the term to-date comparison, but I'm not going to measure 1/8 of what Obama delivers). If you think I'm saying Reagan is the model, you aren't getting it. I am saying you are completely biased and are lowering the bar for Obama.

You're free to have you're opinions on Obama and Reagan.

I"m free to have my opinions about biased people.

 

[Hot Mega]

You think it is a valid comparison because you think you like what you see. It isn't because you have to measure what they delivered. Reagan is done and over with. Obama is yet to be seen, but his only numbers are year-to-date.

When given the opportunity to point out and improvement for Obama, you come up with the thought that he should be stronger in telling everyone how great he is doing.

I'm not against the guy. I've said he has done at least as well as Reagan did until the same point (that is the term to-date comparison, but I'm not going to measure 1/8 of what Obama delivers). If you think I'm saying Reagan is the model, you aren't getting it. I am saying you are completely biased and are lowering the bar for Obama.

You're free to have you're opinions on Obama and Reagan.

I"m free to have my opinions about biased people.

If you think I stump for Obama (or anyone) without deference to the facts or truth then you either don't read my posts, read them but end up confused, are bias to the point that you can't be objective about what you read or are joking.:dunno:

I don't care what you're saying about Reagan other than if you're comparing the performances of relevant numbers, statistics, etc. over a relevant span of time.

You're not measuring Obama on 1/8 of what he delivers....great. But again I would point you to the reason for the comparisons to begin with, a GOP ad targeting the percent increase of the national debt and u/e since Obama was inaugurated and using it as justification for citing Obama as a failure.

Because of that, I thought it reasonable to investigate and cite Reagan's numbers at the exact same point in his presidency.

Of course to some who deify Reagan..they find the revelation unbelievable...the notion that Reagan's numbers were similar and worse than Obama's at the same point is cause for conniption fits among them.

Now to what I believe your objective is, what is being done to make things better this comparison bears no fruit but that wasn't the purpose of it.

 

[monicasilver]

If you think I stump for Obama (or anyone) without deference to the facts or truth then you either don't read my posts, read them but end up confused, are bias to the point that you can't be objective about what you read or are joking.:dunno:

I don't care what you're saying about Reagan other than if you're comparing the performances of relevant numbers, statistics, etc. over a relevant span of time.

You're not measuring Obama on 1/8 of what he delivers....great. But again I would point you to the reason for the comparisons to begin with, a GOP ad targeting the percent increase of the national debt and u/e since Obama was inaugurated and using it as justification for citing Obama as a failure.

Because of that, I thought it reasonable to investigate and cite Reagan's numbers at the exact same point in his presidency.

Of course to some who deify Reagan..they find the revelation unbelievable...the notion that Reagan's numbers were similar and worse than Obama's at the same point is cause for conniption fits among them.

Now to what I believe your objective is, what is being done to make things better this comparison bears no fruit but that wasn't the purpose of it.

If I don't agree with you, I'm confused? I reject that.
I also reject the subset that you narrowly want to view things.
My point is made and my opinion stands.
I'll agree to disagree with you. We're having two different discussions.

As you said, you don't care.


"Yours is a truly dizzying intellect." - The Dread Pirate Roberts

 

[Trident1]

If I don't agree with you, I'm confused? I reject that.
I also reject the subset that you narrowly want to view things.
My point is made and my opinion stands.
I'll agree to disagree with you. We're having two different discussions.

As you said, you don't care.

As you can see Meg is talking down to you because he feels his views and his "knowledge" are superior to yours. Meg does this quite often. He keeps spinning how Otrauma is only "X amount of time in office" as if by some miracle he'll turn the economy around and everything will be peachy.

Meg also despises Reagan as you can see. Arguing with Meg is a bit like talking pig latin to a donkey.

You deserve a ton of rep.

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

My bad. Instead of "low" it should read "high". The highest rate of unemployment is under a Democrat.

Actually it was under Reagan at 9.7%, not counting the great depression. Do you ever check your stats, before you call things out?

Not giving Obama a break, but the stats started under W and Obama has been lackluster in getting them lower

 

[Trident1]

Actually it was under Reagan at 9.7%, not counting the great depression. Do you ever check your stats, before you call things out?

Not giving Obama a break, but the stats started under W and Obama has been lackluster in getting them lower

Reagan's rate is lower than Otrauma's on certain months. On others it is higher.



Reagan Obama
1981 M01 7.5 2009 7.8
1981 M02 7.4 2009 8.2
1981 M03 7.4 2009 8.6
1981 M04 7.2 2009 8.9
1981 M05 7.5 2009 9.4
1981 M06 7.5 2009 9.5
1981 M07 7.2 2009 9.5
1981 M08 7.4 2009 9.7
1981 M09 7.6 2009 9.8
1981 M10 7.9 2009 10.1
1981 M11 8.3 2009 9.9
1981 M12 8.5 2009 9.9
1982 M01 8.6 2010 9.7
1982 M02 8.9 2010 9.7
1982 M03 9.0 2010 9.7
1982 M04 9.3 2010 9.8
1982 M05 9.4 2010 9.6
1982 M06 9.6 2010 9.5
1982 M07 9.8 2010 9.5
1982 M08 9.8 2010 9.6
1982 M09 10.1 2010 9.6
1982 M10 10.4 2010 9.7
1982 M11 10.8 2010 9.8
1982 M12 10.8 2010 9.4
1983 M01 10.4 2011 9.0
1983 M02 10.4 2011 8.9
1983 M03 10.3 2011 8.8
1983 M04 10.2 2011 9.0
1983 M05 10.1 2011 9.1
1983 M06 10.1
1983 M07 9.4
1983 M08 9.5
1983 M09 9.2
1983 M10 8.8
1983 M11 8.5
1983 M12 8.3
1984 M01 8.0

 

[Hot Mega]

If I don't agree with you, I'm confused? I reject that.
I also reject the subset that you narrowly want to view things.
My point is made and my opinion stands.
I'll agree to disagree with you. We're having two different discussions.

As you said, you don't care.


"Yours is a truly dizzying intellect." - The Dread Pirate Roberts

Well, the fact of the matter is I was creating one point and you felt it necessary to try and argue the point I created on different terms. That's not simple disagreement....you're confusing/conflating different circumstances to create a different point of contention based on what you want to discuss. Some would suggest people do that when the facts don't support their position and they just don't want to keep quiet.

But if it's disagreement you're ordering, I can accept that as your position.

PS..Tri is siding with you...I'll rest my case on that alone.:1orglaugh

As you can see Meg is talking down to you because he feels his views and his "knowledge" are superior to yours. Meg does this quite often. He keeps spinning how Otrauma is only "X amount of time in office" as if by some miracle he'll turn the economy around and everything will be peachy.

Meg also despises Reagan as you can see. Arguing with Meg is a bit like talking pig latin to a donkey.

You deserve a ton of rep.

:flame: on :flame: off.

Reagan's rate is lower than Otrauma's on certain months. On others it is higher.



Reagan Obama
1981 M01 7.5 2009 7.8
1981 M02 7.4 2009 8.2
1981 M03 7.4 2009 8.6
1981 M04 7.2 2009 8.9
1981 M05 7.5 2009 9.4
1981 M06 7.5 2009 9.5
1981 M07 7.2 2009 9.5
1981 M08 7.4 2009 9.7
1981 M09 7.6 2009 9.8
1981 M10 7.9 2009 10.1
1981 M11 8.3 2009 9.9
1981 M12 8.5 2009 9.9
1982 M01 8.6 2010 9.7
1982 M02 8.9 2010 9.7
1982 M03 9.0 2010 9.7
1982 M04 9.3 2010 9.8
1982 M05 9.4 2010 9.6
1982 M06 9.6 2010 9.5
1982 M07 9.8 2010 9.5
1982 M08 9.8 2010 9.6
1982 M09 10.1 2010 9.6
1982 M10 10.4 2010 9.7
1982 M11 10.8 2010 9.8
1982 M12 10.8 2010 9.4
1983 M01 10.4 2011 9.0
1983 M02 10.4 2011 8.9
1983 M03 10.3 2011 8.8
1983 M04 10.2 2011 9.0
1983 M05 10.1 2011 9.1
1983 M06 10.1
1983 M07 9.4
1983 M08 9.5
1983 M09 9.2
1983 M10 8.8
1983 M11 8.5
1983 M12 8.3
1984 M01 8.0

Sampling what you typed here against it available data, appears what you've typed here is consistent with what's been chronicled at various online sources. That said for comparisons purposes, Reagan's numbers topped out higher, were higher longer over the comparable period of time and the overall trend downward appears to have started sooner in Obama's 1st 2.5 years than under Reagan.

If you're a person who's inclined to conclude success or failure of either president's economic policies relative to u/e then this is probably instructive;(Since GOPers have attempted to make this the barometric point.)

Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed into law in Aug of 1981. Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law in Feb of 2009.

Here is the side by side comparison of the u/e rates in the ensuing months.

Reagan Obama

1981 M01 7.5 2009 7.8
1981 M02 7.4 2009 8.2
1981 M03 7.4 Obma's ARRA Feb 2009
>>>>>>>>>>2009 8.6
1981 M04 7.2 2009 8.9
1981 M05 7.5 2009 9.4
1981 M06 7.5 2009 9.5
1981 M07 7.2 2009 9.5
1981 M08 7.4 2009 9.7
Reagan's ERTA Aug 1981
1981 M09 7.6 2009 9.8
1981 M10 7.9 2009 10.1
1981 M11 8.3 2009 9.9
1981 M12 8.5 2009 9.9
1982 M01 8.6 2010 9.7
1982 M02 8.9 2010 9.7
1982 M03 9.0 2010 9.7
1982 M04 9.3 2010 9.8
1982 M05 9.4 2010 9.6
1982 M06 9.6 2010 9.5
1982 M07 9.8 2010 9.5
1982 M08 9.8 2010 9.6
1982 M09 10.1 2010 9.6
1982 M10 10.4 2010 9.7
1982 M11 10.8 2010 9.8
1982 M12 10.8 2010 9.4
1983 M01 10.4 2011 9.0
1983 M02 10.4 2011 8.9
1983 M03 10.3 2011 8.8
1983 M04 10.2 2011 9.0
1983 M05 10.1 2011 9.1

The overall difference (from low to high) after Reagan's ERTA in u/e in his first 2.5 years was +3.2%.

The overall difference (from low to high) after Obama's ARRA in u/e in his first 2.5 years is +1.5%

After Reagan's act u/e trended upward for 16 months as compared to only trending upward for 8 months after Obama's act.

So again, for those suggesting Obama's economic policies to this point are a failure...they should have been considering Reagan's a disaster. Consistently so, if Reagan's policies were giving more than 2.5 years to work why shouldn't Obama's since his are better by direct comparison.:dunno:

 

[monicasilver]

Well, the fact of the matter is I was creating one point and you felt it necessary to try and argue the point I created on different terms. That's not simple disagreement....you're confusing/conflating different circumstances to create a different point of contention based on what you want to discuss. Some would suggest people do that when the facts don't support their position and they just don't want to keep quiet.

But if it's disagreement you're ordering, I can accept that as your position.

PS..Tri is siding with you...I'll rest my case on that alone.:1orglaugh


:flame: on :flame: off.




Sampling what you typed here against it available data, appears what you've typed here is consistent with what's been chronicled at various online sources. That said for comparisons purposes, Reagan's numbers topped out higher, were higher longer over the comparable period of time and the overall trend downward appears to have started sooner in Obama's 1st 2.5 years than under Reagan.

If you're a person who's inclined to conclude success or failure of either president's economic policies relative to u/e then this is probably instructive;(Since GOPers have attempted to make this the barometric point.)

Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed into law in Aug of 1981. Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law in Feb of 2009.

Here is the side by side comparison of the u/e rates in the ensuing months.

Reagan Obama

1981 M01 7.5 2009 7.8
1981 M02 7.4 2009 8.2
1981 M03 7.4 Obma's ARRA Feb 2009
>>>>>>>>>>2009 8.6
1981 M04 7.2 2009 8.9
1981 M05 7.5 2009 9.4
1981 M06 7.5 2009 9.5
1981 M07 7.2 2009 9.5
1981 M08 7.4 2009 9.7
Reagan's ERTA Aug 1981
1981 M09 7.6 2009 9.8
1981 M10 7.9 2009 10.1
1981 M11 8.3 2009 9.9
1981 M12 8.5 2009 9.9
1982 M01 8.6 2010 9.7
1982 M02 8.9 2010 9.7
1982 M03 9.0 2010 9.7
1982 M04 9.3 2010 9.8
1982 M05 9.4 2010 9.6
1982 M06 9.6 2010 9.5
1982 M07 9.8 2010 9.5
1982 M08 9.8 2010 9.6
1982 M09 10.1 2010 9.6
1982 M10 10.4 2010 9.7
1982 M11 10.8 2010 9.8
1982 M12 10.8 2010 9.4
1983 M01 10.4 2011 9.0
1983 M02 10.4 2011 8.9
1983 M03 10.3 2011 8.8
1983 M04 10.2 2011 9.0
1983 M05 10.1 2011 9.1

The overall difference (from low to high) after Reagan's ERTA in u/e in his first 2.5 years was +3.2%.

The overall difference (from low to high) after Obama's ARRA in u/e in his first 2.5 years is +1.5%

After Reagan's act u/e trended upward for 16 months as compared to only trending upward for 8 months after Obama's act.

So again, for those suggesting Obama's economic policies to this point are a failure...they should have been considering Reagan's a disaster. Consistently so, if Reagan's policies were giving more than 2.5 years to work why shouldn't Obama's since his are better by direct comparison.:dunno:

No, I made a comment, you chose to argue a different point. I understand it was because you were confused, but it is what it is.

Reagan's poll numbers were low at the time in his presidency that you're focusing on. He got hammered for it, including by the Republicans.

I think it is moronic to back a guy no matter what. Be that "guy" Reagan or Obama.

Fact is, nobody is arguing against the facts you post.

:horse:

 

[Rey C.]

My bad. Instead of "low" it should read "high". The highest rate of unemployment is under a Democrat.

And that Democrat was Roosevelt. But even as the 25% +/- figure of 1933 is widely accepted, prior to 1940 the measurement systems used to gauge unemployment varied from state to state and time period to time period. So getting a reliable number prior to that standardization would be iffy at best. But from 1940 forward, the data has come from the Current Population Survey. And though there have been some tweaks to the calculations over that period, at least we are better able to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. So after the 25%~ unemployment rates of the mid 1930's, the next highest rate of unemployment is the 10.8% under Reagan and then the 10.2% under Obama.

BTW, various posts in this thread perfectly illustrate why I have not, and will never be, a member of EITHER of the two major U.S. political parties. By 1796, factionalism and sectionalism were already beginning to weigh heavily on the nation's future. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton pointed out their concerns in a letter to the nation as Washington was leaving office.

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies amongst groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Sadly, Washington's advice has not been heeded. Each and every one of those concerns has taken place since Washington left office. IMO, far, FAR too many Americans have a greater interest in being loyal servants to a party, rather than loyal Americans, who seek to improve the Republic.

 

[Hot Mega]

No, I made a comment, you chose to argue a different point. I understand it was because you were confused, but it is what it is.

Reagan's poll numbers were low at the time in his presidency that you're focusing on. He got hammered for it, including by the Republicans.

I think it is moronic to back a guy no matter what. Be that "guy" Reagan or Obama.

Fact is, nobody is arguing against the facts you post.

:horse:

You're good but not that good.

Amazing...

1. You made a comment about my point...How on this entire blue planet would/did I then choose to argue different point???:1orglaugh The point still stands in citing Reagan's directly comparable numbers since Obama's numbers are being used to criticize him.

2. I have no idea what Reagan's poll numbers were. But I don't recall seeing ads by his party criticizing the pct. increase in u/e and the debt like is being done against Obama now. Of course as politics go I wouldn't expect to see them but it is (at least sensible and fair) to cite comparable numbers under Reagan since he is regarded as such a success now.

3. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that it's moronic to side with your guy facts, reason or consistency be damned. So I'm glad I'm not in that category of people since this board is replete with my criticisms of Obama (for example) when I disagree with him.

Contrastingly, some that I've seen here side with Bush (for example) have an almost beat it to fit, paint it to match mentality when he did things inconsistent with their beliefs or positions. Case in point, Bush invades Iraq and the very people cheering him during his no nation building speech had found a way to throw their entire support behind his nation building in Iraq. Conversely, when Obama joined in with a policy against Libya I didn't change my position to fit it, I criticized him roundly.:2 cents:

4. Again, you're good but not that good with your semantical parsing. Of course you didn't argue my facts..I never accused you or anyone else of doing so. You were failing at arguing against the point I used the facts to support. Nice try. Speaking of, he would be proud of your wordsmith attempt here.:hatsoff:

 

[Hypergalaxy]

You're good but not that good.

Amazing...

1. You made a comment about my point...How on this entire blue planet would/did I then choose to argue different point???:1orglaugh The point still stands in citing Reagan's directly comparable numbers since Obama's numbers are being used to criticize him.

2. I have no idea what Reagan's poll numbers were. But I don't recall seeing ads by his party criticizing the pct. increase in u/e and the debt like is being done against Obama now. Of course as politics go I wouldn't expect to see them but it is (at least sensible and fair) to cite comparable numbers under Reagan since he is regarded as such a success now.

3. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that it's moronic to side with your guy facts, reason or consistency be damned. So I'm glad I'm not in that category of people since this board is replete with my criticisms of Obama (for example) when I disagree with him.

Contrastingly, some that I've seen here side with Bush (for example) have and almost beat it to fit, paint it to match mentality when he did things inconsistent with their beliefs or positions. Case in point, Bush invades Iraq and the very people cheering him during his no nation building speech had found a way to throw their entire support behind his nation building in Iraq. Conversely, when Obama joined in with a policy against Libya I didn't change my position to fit it, I criticized him roundly.:2 cents:

4. Again, you're good but not that good with your semantical parsing. Of course you didn't argue my facts..I never accused you or anyone else of doing so. You were failing at arguing against the point I used the facts to support. Nice try. Speaking of, he would be proud of your wordsmith attempt here.:hatsoff:

Idk how you have the energy to argue reason with these people mega, its like every thread. My hat goes off to you. :hatsoff:

 

[Hot Mega]

Idk how you have the energy to argue reason with these people mega, its like every thread. My hat goes off to you. :hatsoff:

Frankly, it's not even as difficult as it looks.:dunno: