Media bias, two governors, same policies, completely different treatment

Guilds · 2020-05-02T03:59:24.982Z

WildRose:

BS, it was created between 1850-1940 before the war ever ended.

Wow…you think the Middle class was created the same time as the ever so popular Gilded age was thriving?

WildRose · 2020-05-02T04:00:42.145Z

You’re having a really bad night.

image784×534 37.8 KB

The highest relative percentage growth in the MC was during the Regan Administration.

It didn’t improve again to previous levels until 2018.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T04:01:23.759Z

WildRose:

Not if you look at them with open eyes.

Let’s look at productivity and wages…track that from 1940’s til present.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T04:10:11.438Z

WildRose:

The highest relative percentage growth in the MC was during the Regan Administration

Do you know how to read a chart?

You are proving my point. In about 1984…4 years into Reaganomics, it started declining…and has continued to the present. We are almost back down to right about the end of WW2.

Notice the upward trend started under FDR,grew even more in the 1950’s, under a Republican POTUS, who embraced the New Deal, unions, and SS benefits, and expanded them.
4 years into Reagan…starts going down.,…and has continued since then.

Appreciate your helping me prove my point.

WildRose · 2020-05-02T04:14:57.196Z

Yes I can read a chart. It peaked in 86-88 and was far higher when he left office than when he entered.

It went completely to hell when we started exporting Jobs en masse to China and Mexico under 41 and dove off a cliff when it accelerated under Clinton.

Buy some glasses and see if you can pick up some objectivity at the same time.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T04:21:05.386Z

WildRose:

Yes I can read a chart. It peaked in 86-88 and was far higher when he left office than when he entered.

Just like Trump, he continued a 40 year trend…and in just over term, started the trend to go down. Every POTUS since Reagan, continued practicing Reaganomics, including Clinton and Obama.

You blast NAFTA.,…That was Reagan’s baby.

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan’s Vision Realized

The Heritage Foundation

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized

The approval by the Congress of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a victory of engagement and competition over withdrawal and complacency. The trade pact, which will eliminate tariffs on goods and services between the United States,...

WildRose · 2020-05-02T04:21:53.098Z

Who signed NAFTA into law? Who negotiated the final bill?

Guilds · 2020-05-02T04:24:02.170Z

WildRose:

Who signed NAFTA into law? Who negotiated the final bill?

Reagan’s VP. Who started the decade long crafting? the Reagan Admin.
It was his vision.
Did you read the article, from that liberal rag, the Heritage Foundation?

WildRose · 2020-05-02T04:30:56.534Z

I’ve read it numerous times. This wasn’t “Reagan’s Vision”, it was Bush’s and Clinton had the authority to stop it and chose not to, Clinton in fact, Not Bush, Signed it into law.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T05:48:14.943Z

WildRose:

it was Bush’s and Clinton had the authority to stop it and chose not to, Clinton in fact, Not Bush, Signed it into law.

And as I stated…Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama…all continued with Reaganomics.

Clinton probably had the most negative impact, with W in a close 2nd.

And once again, you are not correct.

Bush signed the NAFTA agreement in 1992, which was also signed by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Salinas. The agreement went into effect under Bush’s successor President Bill Clinton, who signed the agreement himself on Dec. 8, 1993. By January of 1994, the trade agreement was in effect

WildRose · 2020-05-02T06:41:28.671Z

And you’ve crashed head first into a Brick Wall with every post.

You should have quit long ago, you’re never going to weasel your way out of this one.

This was not Reagan’s Bill, this was not Reagan’s vision, it wasn’t even 41’s.

Sooner or later you need to figure out the wall isn’t going anywhere and neither are you.

Clinton Owns it lock, stock and barrel.

mobulis · 2020-05-02T12:38:11.701Z

WildRose:

BS, it was created between 1850-1940 before the war ever ended.

The GI bill didn’t create those skilled workers and technicians, it created doctors, lawyers, atty’s, engineers etc, professionals not line workers for Frigidaire, GM, Univac, or IBM.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). The original G.I. Bill expired in 1956, but the term “G.I. Bill” is still used to refer to programs created to assist U.S. military veterans.

It was largely designed and passed through Congress in 1944 in a bipartisan effort led by the American Legion who wanted to reward practically all wartime veterans. Since the First World War the Legion had been in the forefront of lobbying Congress for generous benefits for war veterans. Roosevelt, by contrast, wanted a much smaller program focused on poor people regardless of military service. The final bill provided immediate financial rewards for practically all World War II veterans, thereby avoiding the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that had caused political turmoil in the 1920s and 1930s. Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business or farm, one year of unemployment compensation, and dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college, or vocational school. These benefits were available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged.

By 1956, 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program. Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to U.S. stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth. However, the G.I. Bill received criticism for directing some funds to for-profit educational institutions and for failing to benefit African Americans.

Scratch · 2020-05-02T12:43:35.693Z

Lets not forget gun control…and Cons do love themselves some guns. Funny they always overlook that one.

WuWei · 2020-05-02T13:04:05.584Z

H_Arendt:

Half the time he yells at the reporter for asking an inappropriate question

3/4ths of the time the question is inappropriate.

Scratch · 2020-05-02T13:22:21.296Z

WuWei:

in appropriate

Inappropriate…

Scratch · 2020-05-02T13:25:33.894Z

3/4 of the time Trump is inappropriate, so it stands the reason.

JayJay · 2020-05-02T13:49:43.399Z

WildRose:

The only thing that’s hurt the MC is killing off our own industrial sector one industry at a time.

We replaced 40-80.00/hr skilled labor jobs for minimum wage labor jobs a well trained monkey can do.

That’s how you cut your own throat.

You think that happened in a vacuum?

Once a truly global marketplace was established, the most efficient way to grow an economy is via trade and specialization rather than try to do everything in country.

The US became richer as a whole in this manner…but yes, certain types of industries that created certain types of jobs did not thrive.

H_Arendt · 2020-05-02T14:02:24.072Z

WuWei:

H_Arendt:

Half the time he yells at the reporter for asking an inappropriate question

3/4ths of the time the question is in appropriate.

Not at all. Trump does not want to field any question that requires he explain how his actions are always perfect.

gooddad409 · 2020-05-02T14:22:42.998Z

Ben_Natuf:

nah, i’m talking about reality, where you don’t live.

Libs for the most part live in the Twilight Zone. Just saying.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T16:48:17.432Z

WildRose:

Clinton Owns it lock, stock and barrel.

Just because you type something, does not make it true.

Facts, are immune to your attempt to change them.

41 signed the NAFTA agreement.

“As we pursue global trade negotiations,” Reagan said in November 1988, near the end of his presidency, “the United States believes that the future belongs to those who lower trade barriers.”

“These are the countries that will be in the forefront of technology. These are the countries that will see their living standards rise most quickly. And these are the countries that will lead the world in the years ahead.”

As president, Reagan focused on encouraging mutually beneficial trade, not reducing trade deficits.

“The way up and out of the trade deficit is not protectionism, not bringing down the competition,” he said in a 1987 radio address, “but instead the answer lies in improving our products and increasing our exports.”