If Hillary is elected President....

The question on the table was the comparison of the current account deficit under Reagan vs Obama. The facts are clear, Reagan's record is superior on this point, a point you concede by changing the subject. Thank you.

 

Reagan never walked into office with the debt from two wars placed on his deficit that were not on Bush's by use of a supplementary spending gimmick, 700,000 jobs lost a month and the need to supply unemployment benefits, a perscription drug plan giveaway that was milking billions a year out of the budget and a TARP give away, one page long of 700 billion dollars with no provisions to force banks to release funds for job growth.

They milked it for years delaying the recovery. Obamacare has been reducing the deficit. As a percent of GDP, because the economy is so much bigger, it is under 3%, much better then Reagan. It was much higher under both Bush and Reagan at 7% under Bush and grew to 4.2% under Reagan.

If you don't understand what deficits as a percent od GDP means, just look it up. Job growth has been growing for many, many months. Reagan had the most corrupt administration of any ever. I posted all of the indictments...and left the econmy with so much in debt of GDP, Bush one had to raise taxes and lost an election becasue of it.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

Read this.
Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented workers.
The jobless rate went to 10.8% by the end of his admistration.
He helped create the Taliban and Osamabin Ladin's influence
He sold arms to Iran, illegally
And the list goes on for the most corrupt administration ever.
He tripled the national debt
The only reason he was not impeached, was his term was nearly up when the corruption all came to light that began the reach him.
It makes the little impeachment talk of Obama seem insane compared to what Ronny did. He has fostered more felony convictions working in his administration than any president.

 

Givin the mess he was handed, the Obama budget is dropping the deficit dramatically.

http://www.businessinsider.com/deficit-to-gdp-falling-obama-chart-2013-10

The deficit is the yearly expense. He can't control what Bush gave him for expenses that came due from Bush.
Carter gave Reagan an economy that had a deficit of well under 3%. Reagan increased the deficit over three times then Carter's as well as jacking up unemployment to 10.8%.

 

But what about Hillary + the Senate + another lib on the SC?

 

Yeah right. "magnificent" job there on the Federal Debt.

That Hockey Stick at the very end is especially encouraging.

 

Guess you didn't bother reading. I gave you two references. You obviously don't understand where the debt came from. You do know what supplement budget is where all the prosecution of two wars never showed on Bush but was transferred to Obama; you do get that the debt went up dramatically because of the previous 10 percent unemployment benefits that had to be payed out off Bush's tax cut. You do get that unemployment is at 5%, 5.8 % less then when Reagan left office .

Carter left Reagan a deficit of less then 3% GDP. Bush left left Obama with the worse recession since 29. That's where the debt came from, Bush. Yet, the market is strong and there is not the recession of Reagon.
Again, ..9 of 10 recessions under republicans. Ha ha.

.

 

Then we win the Senate back. The SC doesn't overthrow many cases politically. If it did, wouldn't Roe v. Wade have been thrown out years ago? My feeling is if she really tries to push gun control, Bill will set her straight--he knows how much gun control laws hurt him.

I'm not too concerned. That said, I don't see Trump as being any better.

 

Thanks your graph proves dagosa's point perfectly.

We can see the debt exploding starting in 2008 with the housing market crash and the worst recession in 8 decades. By 2012-2013 it starts to level off.

But go ahead and blaaaame Obamaaaama for the Great Recession and its consequences. It's what conservatives do.

 

Na, I think we have learned our lesson. Though I did make a buck last major panic.

 

EVERY time for 30 years that a Presidential election comes up....the NRA and the Gun Fetish crowd give out dire warnings of "A Dem President will take yer gun!!!!!"

And on those occasions a Democrat is elected President....they scream once a month "Bill Clinton/Barack Obama is gonna take yer gun any day now!!!!!!"

And it never happens....and the whole thing starts all over again the next Presidential election season.


Meanwhile gun and ammo manufacturers get RICH off of the paranoia of a bunch of morons. They LOVE when Democrats are elected President...weirdly, they probably vote for them.

 

The debt that was incurred under Bush is shown under Bush. The debt under Obama is shown under Obama. Obama not only is running up more debt than Bush, he is running up more debt than Bush and every other US President combined.. For you to claim Obama has a better record on the debt than Bush suggests that you have recently run very fast, head first, into a pile of rocks.

Sure destroy one full time job and the former job holder now works 3 part time jobs and you all cheer: "Hooray! 2 additional net jobs!" Then when that gets batted down you scream "It's Bush's Fault!" It now appears that Obama's presidency will soon end and he will have never taken responsibility for his own Presidency. A Presidency is a heck of a thing to waste.

What an amazing delusion.

January 1989, Ronaldus Maximus' (The Great One) unemployment rate was 5.4%. Today it is 5.0% You have overstated the difference by nearly 15 times.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

 

If there is 'panic-buying' it will be fools who do it. There isn't even a point to seriously proposing a bill as long as the GOP has control over the House. The only Dems who will sign on to the bill, are representing the deepest blue districts where to do otherwise, is politically unwise.

 

Reagan could not even be elected today...hates homosexuals, hates abortion, hates illegal aliens, hates legalized drugs, loves guns.

 

Yep...well he loved guns till he and poor Brady got shot. Then he signed the assault weapon ban. That and when he came down with Dementia, Nancy signed on to stemcell research. When it hit's home, their tough ,an image wilts like a little flower.

 

" Hinckley fired a Röhm RG-14 .22 long rifle[20] blue steel revolver six times in 1.7 seconds,[9]:82[21] missing the president with all but one shot.[22][19] The first bullet hit White House Press Secretary James Brady in the head."

Yes, that sure was some "Assault Weapon" !!!!

 

Ha ha. It took someone a while to get that. That's what fools conservative politicians are. More people are killed with handguns and more people are killed with a .22. So he signs an assault weapons ban. You and I know a true assault weapon is full auto and these guns are just scary semi auto hunting rifles.

He should have signed a ban on all semi autos if he was serious about gun control. It was a farce....conservative measures usually are.

 

As opposed to measures supported by those affiliated with the liberal end of the spectrum?

 

Conservative solution is free access to all buyers including criminals, kids and lunatics. No secondary regulation, no regulation whatsoever because it might inconvenient some one to show a license. The conservative method is, let's let everyone have a gun so a law abiding citizen won't have to pay $20 for a license and BG check because it's way too much to ask them to pay after they buy a $500 gun. The way you keep criminals from getting guns is to execute them or keep them in jail forever even if they are caught J Walking .

 

And the liberal solution is to restrict and prohibit ownership of certain types of firearms that possess certain features that in no way affect the functionality of a firearm, subject ownership to licenses, registration, annual renewals with the cost being paid by the firearms owner, often for every individual firearm being registered, requiring fingerprinting and psychiatric screening of potential applicants, requiring letters of reference to state that the applicant is of good moral character for owning a firearm, require a demonstration of legitimate need to justify ownership of a firearm, limiting the maximum number of rounds a person can have in a single magazine, granting those in charge of issuing licenses broad discretion to deny applicants for whatever reason even if it is not justified, limit sales to one every thirty days, requiring a liability insurance policy of one million dollars for firearms ownership, denying firearms ownership without due process in violation of the constitution, mandatory implementation of unproven and unreliable technology, mandatory confiscation of firearms without charges, and countless other requirements to try and address the fact that those who are most often misusing firearms cannot legally possess them, all without appearing to be discriminatory or racist by actually focusing on the responsible party, rather than the tool that was used.

 

The liberal solution is simple. First, you guys are wrong as liberals do have guns. We hunt, and we work carrying guns in our jobs and for protection and sport. One of your favorite hit liberals Dianne Feinstein carrys a conceal weapons permit. Many others do too, they just don't brag about it.

You fearful guys are afraid people will take your guns away. Nothing is further from the truth. They just want only qualified people to have guns. We believe that criminals, juveniles without supervision and those adjudged mentally deficient, should not have access to guns.

The more capable the weapon, the more qualified you should be and your permit should reflect it. It's that simple. Liberals I know aren't gun grabbers. But, they don't want to stop a bad guy with a gun with a good guy with a gun; they want only the good qualified guy or gal to have the gun.

It's simple, if you want to buy a gun or ammo, you should need a renewable permit to do it. You should need another permit to carry a gun out side of your home. It should be a federally accepted permit that works anywhere in the US except states that want additional carry laws which would be few in high population design areas. States have the constitutional authority to be more restrictive then federal laws if they want.

Nothing I have said violates any ones rights as only those qualified by age, criminality and mental deficiencies is restricted. Case closed.

 

Nothing in the realm of politics is ever simple.

And yet they do not want that ability to be available to everyone who can legally own a firearm.

Then why do politicians support firearms confiscation? Hillary Clinton has supported implementing the same approach as the nation of Australia, which implemented a mandatory confiscation of firearms that were prohibited by law.

And who is qualified for exercising of a constitutionally recognized and protected right?

Then why so many laws that prohibit the general public from owning firearms without first getting permission from government to do such?

And how does mandating permits under penalty of felony conviction do such? Why are firearm-related charges routinely dropped from criminal prosecutions?

Should someone also need a permit before being allowed to exercise their first, fourth, fifth, or eighth amendment rights?

The case is anything but closed. Tell us how those in charge of issuing licenses having broad authority to deny applications as they see fit does not violate the rights of anyone. Explain how discretionary issue is not a violation.

 

No, not everyone gets to own a gun like everyone does not get all of their rights absolutely. I guess you are either a criminal or underage or a lunatic. Otherwise, you would be not arguing so vociferously for the right to own a gun.

Gun nuts seemed to be fearful little men for the most part. It's hard to tell who they are afraid of most, Dianne Feinstein or ISIS. Neither of which cause a threat in the real world.

You are so afraid to actually read the responses, you feel the need to separate sentences out of paragraphs and make up your own meaning.

 

While republicans bash Hillary because of her ties to Wall Street, they support Ted Cruz who is literally married to a Goldman Sachs investment manager. She use to work for JP Morgan Chase and Merrill Lynch... So tell me how Wall Street is a Clinton issue but not a Cruz issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Show us where it is a recognized legal standard that the public is free to exercise some of their constitutional rights, but not others.

So if someone argues that a constitutional right should not be subjected to excessive government restriction and regulation, they are someone who does not legally have that constitutional right? There are no exceptions as far as you are concerned?

Then it is wrong to be concerned about licensing officials being able to deny firearms licenses at their own discretion, even if the applicant is legally qualified?

Some examples of nonsense deserves a more in-depth response than others.