Liz Peek: What Trump DIDN'T do in 2017: President's hysteria-prone critics must be sorely disappointed

[Steeleballz 7,550]

42 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Under Reagan, the national debt increased by $1.86 Trillion.

UnderObama, the national debt increased by $7.92 Trillion.

 

 

 

  Reagan almost tripled the debt. GWB doubled it. Obama increased it by 68%. Clinton by 32%. Yet there are still dimwits out there that think the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. Sure there were a lot of man crushes over Reagan's tough guy routine. That doesn't mean he was a good president. He wasn't even a mediocre one. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Obama was President some 30-40 years later. Surely you understand that you can't take absolute numbers.

 

Why don't we compare him to the 18th century. He'll look even worse!

True.  And the cost of living is always going up.  But it’s a lot easier to triple $10 than it is to triple $50, I’m sure you’d agree.  

Unfortunately, I don’t think we will be seeing a reversal of the national debt anytime soon, though it would be nice.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Reagan almost tripled the debt. GWB doubled it. Obama increased it by 68%. Clinton by 32%. Yet there are still dimwits out there that think the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. Sure there were a lot of man crushes over Reagan's tough guy routine. That doesn't mean he was a good president. He wasn't even a mediocre one. 

As the years move forward, each president SHOULD be increasing the debt by a lower percentage, wouldn’t you agree?  If not, we will find ourselves in a serious world of hurt.  That 68% under Obama was a lot more than the 168% under Reagan.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

True.  And the cost of living is always going up.  But it’s a lot easier to triple $10 than it is to triple $50, I’m sure you’d agree.  

Unfortunately, I don’t think we will be seeing a reversal of the national debt anytime soon, though it would be nice.

 

   Yeah if you do it in the same year and don't take inflation into account. The value of $10 in 1981 is the equivalent of $33 today. Let's not diminish Reagan;s remarkable accomplishment.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

As the years move forward, each president SHOULD be increasing the debt by a lower percentage, wouldn’t you agree?  If not, we will find ourselves in a serious world of hurt.  That 68% under Obama was a lot more than the 168% under Reagan.  

 

  It's 186% under Reagan, actually higher if you go by a non partisan source. If you look at inflation adjusted figures you are looking at roughly similar pictures. They were both big spenders, but only one gets credit for that.

[Boiler 45,486]

36 minutes ago, bcking said:

Why don't we compare him to the 18th century. He'll look even worse!

 

I like it!

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

 

I like it!

In 1836 President Jackson increased the National Debt by only 3,780 dollars (~92,000 dollars in 2015).

 

These youngins best get their act together.

Edited January 5, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,492]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

In 1836 President Jackson increased the National Debt by only 3,780 dollars (~92,000 dollars in 2015).

 

These youngins best get their act together.

Wasn’t Jackson a racist?

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Wasn’t Jackson a racist?

1836 man. Everyone was a racist.

Edited January 5, 2018 by bcking

[Boiler 45,486]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

1836 man. Everyone was a racist.

So no different to now.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Apparently, some here mistakenly think that making deals with terrorists in order to covertly raise money for the purpose of overthrowing a democratically elected government is the stuff of presidential greatness.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

28 minutes ago, Tahoma said:

Apparently, some here mistakenly think that making deals with terrorists in order to covertly raise money for the purpose of overthrowing a democratically elected government is the stuff of presidential greatness.  

You mean Iran?

 

Or the whole Bergdahl debacle?

[Boiler 45,486]

12 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You mean Iran?

 

Or the whole Bergdahl debacle?

I think Obama?

[Merle 458]

On 1/5/2018 at 12:34 AM, Tahoma said:

Is this what they mean by "greatest?" 

I think that fellow might have had something to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union or something like that. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

34 minutes ago, Merle said:

I think that fellow might have had something to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union or something like that. 

 

   Reagan's biggest contribution to ending the Soviet Union was supporting and arming groups like the Mujahideen. The consequences of that aspect of the Reagan doctrine are still being felt today. The Soviet Union would have ended with or without Reagan. It was crushed under it's own weight and most of that pressure came from within. We give him too much credit for a truly historic speech without acknowledging how destructive many of his policies towards ending the Soviet Union ended up being.

 

  I think it's fair to say Reagan help speed the collapse of the Soviet Union (in any way he could), but the debate should not be over Reagan's policies towards the Soviet Union, it should be whether the immense collateral damage was worth it for something that was going to happen anyway.