jtssrx

I think the Chewbacca mask lady video is stupid but this opinion piece is idiotic. If you read the women's other articles you'll understand why she wrote this one. She's wrote one that she was raped in her sleep as well.

It's really sad the way we as humans tend to ignore the truth. There are flat out flames surrounding the Clintons they are so corrupt. This is no different republicans who still blindly support a guy like Paul Ryan.

In English please

Do you have an opinion. I assumed you don't approve of assult

I want to know what your take on San Jose is. Are you ok with Illegal Aliens assaulting United States citizens?

What language is this?

Can you for one second be honest about something? Telling company's if you donate to money to X group we will reduce your fine is flat out wrong. Can you ever call a spade a spade? Do you think this is an acceptable practice?

So once again you have nothing

- LifeZette - http://www.lifezette.com - Hillary’s IT Expert Mutes Himself Posted By Alicia Hesse On June 2, 2016 @ 1:06 PM In Uncategorized | Comments Disabled The man suspected of setting up Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s private email server is shielding himself by asserting his Fifth Amendment rights in an open records lawsuit against the State Department. IT expert Bryan Pagliano refused to answer questions from Judicial Watch, a Washington-based watchdog organization, during a deposition scheduled for Monday, according to his lawyers. Pagliano’s lawyers asked Judicial Watch to drop its subpoena after asserting that Pagliano is declining to answer questions, but the conservative watchdog group didn’t budge. The attorneys requested that Pagliano’s deposition only have a written transcription instead of being recorded, warning that videotaped depositions “pose a serious danger to deponents invoking the Fifth Amendment.” “Given the constitutional implications, the absence of any proper purpose for video recording the deposition, and the considerable risk of abuse, the Court should preclude Judicial Watch, Inc. (‘Judicial Watch’) from creating an audiovisual recording of Mr. Pagliano’s deposition,” the motion filed Wednesday states. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan already ruled that all the recordings would be put under seal. The lawyers remain wary that the tapes could still get leaked with or without permission from the court, especially with Judicial Watch’s relentless investigations into the case, according to Politico. “Judicial Watch may move to unseal the materials at any time. Furthermore, in the event of a leak or data breach at the court reporting company, Mr. Pagliano would be hard-pressed to prevent further dissemination and republication of the video,” Pagliano’s attorneys said. Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, received even more scrutiny after cutting a deal in March with the federal government to receive immunity in exchange for cooperating with the FBI’s investigations into Clinton’s off-the-books server. To read more about the Clintons’ cover-ups, click here [1].

I fixed this

Bank of America has been able to reduce a multi-billion dollar mortgage fraud penalty imposed by the Justice Department by giving millions of dollars to liberal groups approved by the Obama administration. The bank has wiped about $194 million off its record $16.6 billion 2014 mortgage settlement by donating to nonprofits and legal groups. Thanks to little-known provisions in the settlement, the bank only had to make $84 million in donations to do that. The bank wasn't exploiting any loophole. It's a key part of the deal the Justice Department offered to get it to settle in the first place. For every dollar the bank has given the nonprofits — none of which were victims of fraud themselves — it has claimed at least two dollars off the settlement. The deal ensured the Obama administration that a certain part of the settlement funds would go to friendly liberal groups, bypassing the normal congressional appropriations. Among the groups receiving the money were Hispanic civil rights group the National Council of La Raza ($1.5 million), the National Urban League ($1.1 million) and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America ($750,000). "The consumer relief appears to be going to where the settling parties intended," professor Eric Green, the settlement's official monitor, said in a statement Tuesday. Republicans have sharply criticized that part of the settlement as well as near-identical language in multi-billion settlements with Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, arguing that the administration has created a "slush fund" for liberal groups. The settlement skirts federal law, which says that any revenue obtained by the government must go to the Treasury and cannot be redirected to third parties. The deals circumvented that by requiring the banks to make "voluntary" donations before they officially entered into the settlement. "This is nothing short of a shakedown and another example of how the Obama administration is rigging the system to benefit their political allies. Instead of directing settlements directly to victims or returning the money to the U.S. Treasury, President Obama set up a slush fund for community organizers and other liberal activists. This is outrageous," said Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., chairman of the Financial Services Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. A Justice Department spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Bank of America and the Justice Department reached the record settlement in 2014 to address violations stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. Most of the violations involved Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, which Bank of America bought, with the government's encouragement, during the crisis. That meant taking on both entities' assets and liabilities. Also from the Washington Examiner The settlement has been a good deal for Bank of America, which is obligated to donate only $100 million to the nonprofit groups: $20 million to housing groups, $30 million to legal aid groups and $50 million to public or private community development funds. There is no limit on the amount the bank can give, however, and the double credit it gets toward the settlement gives it a strong incentive to keep on donating. It got a second bonus for all consumer relief "offered or completed by Aug. 31, 2015." "The monitor found that the bank had cleared the hurdle for the extra credit of 115 percent for every dollar donated," said Thomas Mulligan, spokesman for Green. That ultimately netted the bank another $26 million off the settlement. The bank already has exceeded the minimum for legal aid groups by more than $4 million and for community development groups by about $3 million. "At its current pace, Bank of America appears likely to fulfill its consumer-relief obligations well ahead of the August 2018 deadline," Green noted. Direct consumer relief, on the other hand, such as forgiving delinquent loans, earns the banks at best only $1 of credit for each dollar it spends. Also from the Washington Examiner In a statement to the Washington Examiner, Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon said the bank had paid out $4.4 billion in consumer relief overall. "These activities have benefited thousands of mortgage customers through principal forgiveness and lending to lower-income borrowers, as well as communities and nonprofit organizations," Simon said. Please enter your information below to begin receiving the Examiner Today newsletter. Thank you for signing up for the Examiner Today newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon. We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.

THE CASE FOR REFORMING PRIMARIES By: Daniel Horowitz | June 02 2016Font Size A A A Print Images @CR Ever since the Democrat Party has succeeded in promoting cultural and economic Marxism over the past half-century, the Republican Party, with rare exceptions, has failed to serve as a counter-balance. Over the past few years, this dichotomy has reached critical mass, in which Democrats are now able to win 50-year culture war battles without even firing a shot. We conservatives are left without a party that fights for conservatism on any level, even among the state and federal officials in the reddest states, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters agree with conservatives on the issues. There are only a handful of Republicans that are willing to fight for anything, but they are too marginalized to affect any change. It is incontrovertibly clear that we need a new party. The age old question is how do we start a new party out of nothing? The short answer is that we begin by operating as a third party within the Republican Party by defeating incumbent Republicans and replacing them with conservatives who will remain loyal to the Constitution. The reason conservatives have failed at replacing incumbents is because the ability of the grassroots to knock off incumbents in primaries has been such a dismal failure. I’m here to warn everyone that this cycle of failure will continue unless we succeed in returning the nomination process, at least for congressional elections, to representative forms of state conventions instead of media-driven popular primary contests. That is the only way to place everyone on an equal playing field and elect enough committed conservatives in a short enough time period to either take over the Republican Party nationally or have a large enough platform from which to launch a new party. The Failure to Win Primaries The level of betrayal and the degree of perfidy among Republicans elected on a both the state and federal level is so bad that we can’t even fight the most extreme policies of the Left in the most conservative states, much less in Washington, D.C. And yes, despite the “rebellious” electorate looking for change, every single House and Senate incumbent has been re-nominated and the Establishment has won most of the open seats this cycle. What gives? Knocking off incumbents in House races in nearly impossible and doing so in a Senate race is virtually impossible. And for a variety of factors, it has become even harder in recent years. Waiting to change the party quickly enough through primary challenges under the existing rigged system would work as well as trying to drink a big gulp with a fork. It can truly be said that just one individual over the past 100 years has successfully challenged a sitting elected Republican senator from the Right in a direct popular primary and came out stable enough to win the general election. Yes, it happened only once in the century since the progressives replaced party conventions with popular primaries: Alfonse D’ Amato beating incumbent Senator Jacob Javits in New York in 1980. And even that race was an anomaly because Javits was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease before running for reelection. Also, it’s not like D’ Amato was Ted Cruz in terms of his commitment to conservatism. The only other time a right-leaning challenger won a primary and general election was when Sam Brownback knocked off RINO Sheila Frahm in 1996 in Kansas, but Frahm had just been appointed to the seat a few months prior and was never elected. Bob Smith was knocked off by John Sununu in New Hampshire in 2002, but that proves our point: Smith had lost the support of the party establishment and Sununu challenged him from the Left with the support of the media and the elite donors. Joe Miller in Alaska and Richard Mourdock in Indiana are the only two recent success stories in primaries, but they both failed to close the deal in the general election because they were so weakened and undermined by the party. Thus, we’ve come full circle whereby the popular vote process put into place last century by the progressives in order to weaken the party establishment and “empower the people” has actually ensured that the party hacks always win and the true will of the people always loses. This is exactly what our Founders feared in a pure democracy over a representative republic. Ordinary conservatives seeking to challenge the system simply cannot get their message out even in most open seats, much less when challenging an incumbent, in order to reach “the masses.” It is even harder for conservatives to win primaries nowadays for a number of reasons: While in the old days a lot of people were uninformed, now millions of people are misinformed by the mass weapon of dis-information that has become ubiquitous in mass media. Election results in presidential and Senate primaries are directly related to media coverage and name recognition. Further, there is simply no way for a constitutional conservative to talk over the soap opera narrative of the campaign with serious issues. Whether its Megyn Kelly’s endless saga with Donald Trump in the presidential election or “the nursing home scandal” in the 2014 Mississippi Senate primary, conservatives cannot break through the media’s chosen focus of an election and direct people’s attention to the issues and records of the candidates. Everyone wants to know why your ‘ordinary Joe-six pack’ can’t win an election. The answer is simple. With the growth of the country, even a single House district covers over 700,000 people and a Senate seat almost always represents millions. Again, elections are not about ideas, but money and name recognition. In presidential and Senate elections it is all about the media coverage. In House races, it’s all about paid media. Ordinary conservatives seeking to challenge the system simply cannot get their message out even in most open seats, much less when challenging an incumbent, in order to reach “the masses.” With few exceptions, they lack the requisite sources for funding their campaign. “Letting the people decide” party nominees has resulted in letting the media and money decide. Unlike during the few successful primary challenges in the past, incumbent RINOs no longer run as Rockefeller Republicans. They all run as conservatives and have more money to get their message out when they run as self-described conservatives. Indeed, they often paint the challengers as less than conservative. Coupled with name recognition and support from the media, it’s impossible for most voters to connect the right candidate with their preferred views. In fact, I’ve witnessed liberal Republicans who support retaining Obamacare and bailouts win reelection because they have the support of the special interests precisely because of those views, yet they use the money to convince voters that they are just the opposite! This is elective despotism at its core. Even open seats are hard for conservatives to win. Given that almost all Republicans run as conservatives, the one with the most money usually wins the open House seat and the one with the most money and favorable media coverage wins the Senate seat. That almost never works in the favor of a constitutional conservative candidate. The net result is that conservatives pick off a Senate seat once a decade, knock off an incumbent House member once or twice a cycle, and win perhaps one open Senate seat and 5-7 open House seats per cycle. Because they are too few in numbers to have a significant impact on the party or the legislative process, half of the “good guys” get picked off by the establishment within a year or two in office. What we are doing now is clearly not working. The Left is winning 50-year cultural battles in the bat of an eyelash and all these Republicans, who run on the promise to counter this social transformation, will do nothing to lift a finger and will often side with Democrats depending on the issue. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) was just re-nominated to represent Republicans in North Carolina, even as he sides with the transgendered mafia on one of the most extreme issues. Yet, he has millions of dollars from K Street to run as a conservative and drown out any competition. The near impossibility of winning against an incumbent and the arduous nature of standing out in an open seat has created a brain drain in which talented and impressive conservatives have no interest in running for office. We have a lot of good long-term and short-term constitutional reform ideas but we can never implement them if we don’t have men and women on the field in elected office. SHARE TWEET EMAIL Direct Primaries: An Enduring Progressive Legacy Direct primaries are not something that should be defended by conservatives; the practice should be rigorously scorned and overturned. Until the turn of the 20th century, party nominees for president and Congress were chosen at state conventions. Obviously, many of these conventions had their own problems and were often dominated be party oligarchs in what was notoriously referred to as “smoke-filled rooms.” But instead of reforming the convention process to be more in line with representative democracy – a grassroots precinct-level endeavor similar to what Utah uses to this day – the progressives succeeded in transforming the nominating process for congressional elections to direct popular vote contests within a decade. Until 1912, most states still used the convention method during presidential elections, but that changed with the emergence of Teddy Roosevelt as the progressive leader. As Professor Sidney Milkis, a noted scholar on the progressive era, observed, Roosevelt’s “crusade made universal use of the direct primary, a cause célèbre.” Roosevelt went on to win most of the primaries, but conservative Howard Taft won the states that still had conventions and therefore won the party’s nomination at the national convention. However, Roosevelt’s views lived on through the election of Woodrow Wilson. It’s no coincidence that progressives succeeded at changing the nominating process precisely as the “newly emergent mass media” became dominant in our political culture, as Milkis puts it. Sound familiar to our time? Mass media and campaign advertisements determining the nominee among “the people?” As one groups of political scientists declared in a 2004 study on the effects of direct primaries, “the direct primary stands as one of the most significant and distinctive political reforms of the Progressive era in America.” While the 17th Amendment is what allowed progressives to ensure half the country would elect senators in line with the views the elites use to manipulate the masses, the institution of direct primaries ensured that even in conservative states only progressive Republicans would be able to survive the money/media/name recognition juggernaut. 100 years later, with a progressive oligarchy in Washington, they can declare mission accomplished. But Aren’t Conventions Smoked Filled Rooms? Progressive proponents of direct popular vote primaries complain that conventions allow the party hacks to choose the nominees behind the doors of “smoke filled rooms” without the input of the people. And undoubtedly in some states in the 1800s that is exactly what happened. But the convention model we are speaking of – “the Utah style convention” – achieves the perfect middle ground between the tyranny at both ends of the spectrum from oligarchy to pure democracy. In Utah, every neighborhood holds a caucus meeting where people who are familiar with each other debate and discuss the races at hand. They select a delegate to represent the precinct at the convention. In the Beehive State, there are 4,000 delegates – all selected by the people in a process that tends to attract high information voters. This is true representative democracy our Founders envisioned, one which would foster an informed patriotism. The benefits of representative conventions to choose party nominees include the following: In most states the selection process would be dominated by grassroots activists. Money and media would play a relatively minimal role in choosing the nominee. Conservatives could put numerous Senate seats and dozens of House seats in play per cycle in the 25 more conservative states. The threat of numerous senators and House members in the South and Great Plains knowing that a Mike Lee-style conservative could down them at a convention the same way Senator Bob Bennett was defeated in Utah could instantly change their behavior. At present, primary challenges are so unsuccessful they rarely serve as a deterrent in the long-run. The prospect of winning with a grassroots ground game, without the need for a massive money and media campaign, would attract better conservative talent to run for office. The requirement to show up for precinct caucuses would automatically end the odious practice of “early voting” in primaries, which not only has a disruptive effect in fluid presidential primaries, but hurts insurgent congressional candidates who tend to surge during the final week – after “voting” has already begun. Selecting state government officials through conventions would help build up a cadre of state governments that push back against federal tyranny. At present, Republicans control the trifecta of state government in 23 states, yet conservatives cannot count on a single state to consistently fight for conservative values because either the governor or state legislative leaders are part of the GOP establishment black hole. Our Founders left us a republic – one which was divided between the rights of the individual and the powers of the states and federal government. The federal government itself was divided into three branches, which were supposed to serve as checks and balances against each other. That system has gradually been replaced with a political party system. Conservatives can’t even rely on a conservative party to save us, even as the federalist system has collapsed. While our Founders obviously prescribed no rules and conditions on party nominations, given that party politics has replaced the original system of governance, shouldn’t we at least replicate their ideal of representative democracy at the party level? Changing back to conventions in states where Republicans reliably win the general election will serve as a back door avenue to repealing the 17th Amendment without going through the nearly-impossible process. In the long run we must work towards restoring our original republican form of government, but in order to implement those ideas we must first secure our men and women on the field and win over the current party system. Representative conventions are the only achievable means of restoring that system and serving as a force multiplier for more enduring reforms in the future. SHARE TWEET EMAIL Author Daniel Horowitz RMConservative - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/case-for-reforming-primaries#sthash.cq20UKXK.dpuf

This women was fucking one of her 13 year old students https://www.google.com/amp/heavy.com/news/2016/05/alexandria-vera-texas-teacher-sex-student-instagram-facebook-photos-pictures/amp/#

This is a personal opinion. I'm not saying I'm not going to vote for him. Between trump and Hillary it's a no brainer. However people who think trump is the answer you're fooling yourself. Trump is basically going to be the conservative version of Obama. He will write executive orders when congress refuses to do what he wants. If you disagree with him he will bully you. This country needs a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. The constitution is the reason this country became the freeest strongest richest nation in the history of man. Regular people had the freedom to go out and build wealth. What people don't get is people like Hilary and trump don't care or want you and I building wealth. They think we have it to good. Obamacare and other government programs are meant to control us and our wallets. Its to bad most of you will hammer me for this

He's intellectually dishonest.

I live in Michigan. Detroit spends the most money per student with the worst results.

You two are in denial

Here's a link to an archive of the story as it appeared on the huffington post https://archive.is/bERJ6#selection-40.2-428.0

She signed multiple nondisclosure statements. She sent out classified information. Please take your blinders off.

Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges Posted By: Alex May 29, 2016 The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices. James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic. James Comey “The New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.” Bloomberg Politics Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillary’s home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling. Here’s what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities. A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and there’s no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public. Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it’s the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons’ downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan. It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. In spite of her repeated statements to the effect that everything that she did with her home brewed email server as Secretary of State was above-board and approved by the State Department, the Inspector General Report vehemently refutes this claim. Hillary refused to be interview by the Inspector General’s office in their investigation, claiming that her upcoming FBI interview took precedent but it seems more likely that Hillary is more concerned about committing perjury or admitting to anything that can be used against her in a court of law. “Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” Inspector General Report Hillary Clinton is guilty of exposing classified documents to foreign governments by placing them illegally on her server, of sending and receiving classified documents and conspiring with her staff to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by avoiding the use of the State Department run servers. Some of the documents were so highly classified the the investigators on the case weren’t even able to examine the material themselves until they got their own clearances raised to the highest levels. While there is an excellent cast to be made the Hillary committed treasonous actions, the strongest case the FBI has is charging both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation of Racketeering. There’s no wonder why it’s taken this long for the FBI to bring forward a recommendation. The rabbit hole is so deep on this one that it has taking dozens of investigators to determine the full extent of the crimes that have been committed. Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBI’s investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering.

She broke the law. She transmitted classified information on a private unsecured server. I am an IT professional. I worked in banking for years. I now manage a team of techs for a large MSP. We also own a data center. I deal with auditors on a weekly basis. Don't try to fucking tell me what I know. She's built the server to hide what she was doing. Anyone who thinks differently is a lying to themselves

Explain to me how trump sucking excuses anything Hilary has done?

You're assessment of the worst economic times since the great depression is a laugh. First and foremost there wouldn't have been an issue in 2007 if Bill Clinton didn't reverse the Glass/Steagal Act. You have a unique way of framing all these issues as problems created by republicans. Bush is a fucking idiot. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a waste of American lives and treasure. But please stop pretending the debt we are occurring today is a result of those wars.

This was written in 2014. The number are worse now. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#7a29aeb13c92 Supporters of President Barack Obama, such as one of his campaign donors Robert Deitrick, an Ohio financial advisor often quoted in Forbes and elsewhere, insist that the Obama economy has been much more robust than Ronald Reagan’s. Are they right? Let’s look at some numbers. President Reagan entered office in a period of high inflation which was stamped out by high interest rates that in turn led to the 1982 recession. His job-creation record after that may fairly be termed outstanding: nearly 20 million more Americans were employed when he left office than when the recession ended. Overall, including the recession on his watch, Reagan’s net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million. Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Barack Obama entered office in different circumstances: He inherited a recession that was already well underway, which ended much earlier in his presidency than did the Reagan recession. If you think of the economic cycle like a bouncing ball, Obama entered office just as the ball was about to strike the pavement. The bounce, though, has proceeded in agonizingly slow motion. Some eight million jobs have been created under Obama since the mid-2009 end of the recession, with a net gain of about five million. Charting Obama and Reagan’s job-creation against overall U.S. population increases makes the picture look even worse for Obama, and the Reagan-era U.S. had a much smaller population. At any rate, more people have been added to the food-stamp rolls than the job rolls under Obama. It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed. Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978. Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field. Recommended by Forbes How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one. Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total . Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate. Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama. English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years. Does a president control the economy like a puppeteer? No, nor does a president have the power to spend; that’s a Congressional duty. Nevertheless, to argue that the economy is doing better under Obama than it did under Reagan is at best obtuse and at worst partisan hackery.

Just an FYI the Debt Prior to Bush was 5.6 trillion. So why do you keep pretending all of the 10.6 trillion is from the war in Iraq? Furthermore I am not a supporter of Bush or the war in Iraq. However at the time I was just like the 99% of congress was. Unlike you I don't support republicans or Democrats. This bullshit pointing the finger crap your doing doesn't excuse the doubling of our national debt. If you want to excuse it that's your prerogative but your only making the problem worse.