Your last sentence seems disconnected from reality:
"The public option still remains very popular with the public."
There is no way you can make this case; a summary of polls over the last month by Real Clear Politics shows average support for "Obama and the Democrats" Health Care Plans at 38.1%, opposition at 52.9%:
While I'm sure you wish that there were public support for a public option, you would be hard pressed to offer any recent empirical evidence that this is the case. Moreover, the polls in the RCP summary are reasonably close (Post/ABC being the outlier), suggesting that public opposition to the plans in Congress is growing.
But all you're doing is reciting economic statistics, which most people are aware of. It's unclear what point you're trying to make, or if there even is one. If there are two things you do well, they're (a) rambling, and (b) gobblygook.
As to the 10-yr. old bit, why don't you try to be original for a change, and come up with your own snark?
Basically, I think you were just trying to help your buddy nd, who was stumbling over dates and seemed confused....something you're all too familiar with. But in one sentence about George W. Bush, you go from 2001 to 2000, then on to 2004, before finishing up in 2003....I'm sure if you read it again now, even you yourself couldn't follow it. It's unclear what your point is.
President Reagan actually asked the question during the 1980 campaign, as he debated Jimmy Carter. It was a very skillful attempt by the Gipper to use the "misery index"---something Carter had used in defeating Gerald Ford---against Carter four years later. The misery index is the sum of unemployment and inflation, and was first devised by economist Arthur Okun.
Although it had averaged 14.93 under Ford, it then spiked to 20.27 under Carter, leaving him wide open to be savaged in the debate by Reagan.....who used typical understatement in quietly asking the devastating question, "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" To your point, Reagan was actually fine when he ran in 1984, as the the misery index for his time in office averaged 11.19, almost half of Carter's average.
One very basic rule in marketing is to reinforce the things that are good and/or going well, i.e., make the big things bigger. And at the same time, don't dwell on the negatives.....just quietly walk away from them.
Obama's new "saved or created" metric for evaluating job growth from the stimulus is a nice try, but the public isn't buying it. A CBS/New York Times poll released last week indicates that only 6% of the public believes that this program has created any jobs. And why should they, when the Labor Department numbers show that we lost over 4 million jobs in 2009. When the President boasts about "saving jobs" against that backdrop, the average American simply concludes that he is disconnected from reality.
I cited specifics to verify what is common knowledge to most people: that President Reagan cut taxes during his two terms. The top marginal rate went from 70% to 28%, but maybe somehow you consider that an increase. If you want to view the other rates, I'll be glad to provide them. OR, we could use Jimmy Carter's misery index, in (a) 1980, and (b) 1989. But somehow, I doubt you wanna go there.
You speak in generalities, and all you've proved so far is that you know how to do a Google search. If you measure the key metrics of (a) jobs created, (b) inflation, and (c) annual economic growth, the Reagan Presidency was a success. Try to explain it away all you want; and then when you're done, you call tell us all how 2+2=5.
Given that the country's #1 challenge is job creation, it seemed strange that right from the start, Obama had no high profile business leaders in the cabinet. As someone with no managerial or executive experience, it's not surprising that he has no strong CEO's on his team; but it's an obvious void. The chosen few came from either academia, Wall Street, or....where else? Government.
A John Chambers from Cisco, a Dan Damico from Nucor....people like this could have played an important role in ensuring that our recovery created jobs. Beyond that, Obama needs someone like Leon Panetta to come in and run the show if he wants his Presidency to survive. Nobody can argue with the impact Panetta had in saving Clinton's Presidency.
That said, Clinton relished a good fight, even thrived on it. Obama seems to cower and shrink from fighting, a trait which may end up being his fatal flaw.
Wow....more gobblygook? Haven't you ever heard the expression, "just give me the bottom line"?
Bottom line---Reagan whipped inflation (which was over 14% when he took office), reduced unemployment to 5.5%, and won the Cold War. You want to argue otherwise, so have at it. But obviously most Americans, as well as most Presidential historians disagree with you. Like most liberals, you bring up all kinds of trivia in an attempt to besmirch him....go ahead and have at it. You must have a lot of time on your hands. Before this is all over, you'll be asserting that 2+2=5.
btw, your writing makes no sense; did you graduate from HS? Go back and get your GED, at least....look at what you just wrote:
"they just differed the true rate from the early 1980s to the early 1990s"
What is it that you're trying to say in this sentence? Tell me "Vecky".......I care.
You conveniently avoid specific %'s in your little fable about "Reagan, the Great Tax Hiker" (which sounds a whole lot like a NYT op-ed piece I once read by Paul Krugman; you really should give him attribution...) Of course there were some tax increases during the 80's; but nobody argues that the overall NET impact of tax policy in the 80's was to cut tax rates, and to let people keep more of what they earn.
As a specific example, the top marginal rate was cut from 70% to 50% in ERTA (1981), and then to 28% in the Tax Reform of 1986. The tax increases along the way were small, designed to make Congressional Dems feel like they were doing something useful....kind of like the credits and rebates they shoe-horned into the Obama stimulus. One time credits don't work to stimulate the economy; permanent changes in tax rates do.
Tax policy is one of the chief tools of fiscal policy, just as the Fed changes its rates in crafting monetary policy. Using your argument that Reagan somehow "flip-flopped" when altering rates is like suggesting that Bernanke should leave the Fed Funds rate near 0% forever. When economies come out of recession, policy makers use the tools at their disposal to alter strategy and achieve an appropriate mix.
As to tax receipts, total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue. So while I know you have trouble with facts, the real facts are that Reagan increased tax receipts to the Treasury, even while cutting taxes. That's not voodoo economics, it's reality.
I cited the economic successes of JFK and Ronald Reagan, not George W. Bush. For you to call him "my hero" is yet one more thing you pulled out of thin air, just like your numbers and shopworn, discredited ideas.