Reagan Speaks to Us Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

…We have a lot of posters on this site that visit this forum that where alive when Carter and Reagan where in office, you should ask them if there lives improved more under Carter or Reagan…

[/quote]I’m one of those guys.

Life under Carter was relatively miserable for a couple or more reasons:

  1. He was a miserably stupid, arrogant, ineffective estrogen soaked individual.

  2. The chickens came home to roost as a result of the ridiculous Great Society spending of Johnson, Nixon and Ford. (Ford didn’t really cause it; he just went along with what was already rolling along)

Having said those nice things about Carter I think Johnson might have been the most worthless, harmful president of the last 100 years although he’d get stiff competition from Wilson and FDR.

[/quote]

Oh , I love it did you even pay attention to the link I posted , since the second world war the amount that each tax payer owed was going down until you hit REAGAN and inclined until Clinton , then after Clinton it resumed it�??�?�¢??d climb again . Life was good for the Steel worker under Carter, I was a young adult. How old were you?

I do not think there are many here qualified to speak on the State of the nation, during Carter and probably not many qualified under Reagan. Under Reagan I went from a good paying job to competing with Illegal immigrants for a day�??�?�¢??s wage . [/quote]

Well, Pittcow, I wasn’t entirely sure the focus of this thread was supposed to be on lil ol you.

FYI, I was 16 - 20 during Jellyfish Carter’s administration.[/quote]

Well pushitharderupyourass it�¢??s not about me, it is about the worst President America has known RONALD RAGAN :)[/quote]

Isn’t there talk about putting Ronald’s head onto Mount Rushmore? Why would they talk about that for the worst President ever? Some are now talking about Obama, but until he is out of office that talk is crap. 20 years after Reagan and they are talking about it means a lot.[/quote]

There is a book out called tear down this myth; it covers the Reagan Public Relations machine that still exists today. There are people today that make a paycheck promoting Ronald Reagan.

Then you get these you (SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES) that were not even alive when Reagan was president and they buy the shit hook line and sinker :slight_smile:

62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

…We have a lot of posters on this site that visit this forum that where alive when Carter and Reagan where in office, you should ask them if there lives improved more under Carter or Reagan…

I am much older than you think I am. I do remember the election of Reagan vs. Dukakis. Seeing all those Red States, and only one blue one. I was born when Carter was in office.

[/quote]I’m one of those guys.

Life under Carter was relatively miserable for a couple or more reasons:

  1. He was a miserably stupid, arrogant, ineffective estrogen soaked individual.

  2. The chickens came home to roost as a result of the ridiculous Great Society spending of Johnson, Nixon and Ford. (Ford didn’t really cause it; he just went along with what was already rolling along)

Having said those nice things about Carter I think Johnson might have been the most worthless, harmful president of the last 100 years although he’d get stiff competition from Wilson and FDR.

[/quote]

Oh , I love it did you even pay attention to the link I posted , since the second world war the amount that each tax payer owed was going down until you hit REAGAN and inclined until Clinton , then after Clinton it resumed it�??�??�?�¢??d climb again . Life was good for the Steel worker under Carter, I was a young adult. How old were you?

I do not think there are many here qualified to speak on the State of the nation, during Carter and probably not many qualified under Reagan. Under Reagan I went from a good paying job to competing with Illegal immigrants for a day�??�??�?�¢??s wage . [/quote]

Well, Pittcow, I wasn’t entirely sure the focus of this thread was supposed to be on lil ol you.

FYI, I was 16 - 20 during Jellyfish Carter’s administration.[/quote]

Well pushitharderupyourass it�?�¢??s not about me, it is about the worst President America has known RONALD RAGAN :)[/quote]

Isn’t there talk about putting Ronald’s head onto Mount Rushmore? Why would they talk about that for the worst President ever? Some are now talking about Obama, but until he is out of office that talk is crap. 20 years after Reagan and they are talking about it means a lot.[/quote]

There is a book out called tear down this myth; it covers the Reagan Public Relations machine that still exists today. There are people today that make a paycheck promoting Ronald Reagan.

Then you get these you (SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES) that were not even alive when Reagan was president and they buy the shit hook line and sinker :)[/quote]

63

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
Ryan P Mcarter. Respect dude.

some serious ownage going on in this thread. doesent seem like u get too much credit on here, but i enjoy reading ur posts and hope u keep em coming.[/quote]

What are your thoughts on the subject? It is one thing to agree, but another to put what you think down on the interwebz. Join in the topic.[/quote]

Sure, why not:)

I think its funny that republicans are often trying to paint an image of the dems being big spenders while they themselves have little to show for in that regard. during reagan the deficit skyrocketed, growing faster in real dollars than during any other president. he cut social secturity to the bone, and while he did streamline the tax system the tax breaks he gave represented an enormeous shift of wealth from the working poor and middle class to the wealthiest people in the country. talk about wealth redistribution. the kind of policies he enacted is a major contributor to why the american middle class is struggling. in 81 his tax cuts created debt so bad he had to raise taxes for the rest of his two terms to try to make up for it. guess he found out real life macroeconomics was more complicated than the laffer curve after all.

also, we have the foreign policy. what happened in latin america and also in the middle east(iraq/iran war) during reagans presidency was an absolute disgrace.

overall, he was a bad president, with bad polices. who happened to get elected at a time where the global economy as a whole was booming. also he had alot of charisma which accounts alot for his popularity.

64

[quote]John S. wrote:
I am not saying Reagan walked on water[/quote]

Could have fooled me.

65

[quote]John S. wrote:Lets take a look at revenue shall we? This is where I think we are having our biggest missunderstanding.

Lets say your government costs 2 trillion to operate, where mine costs 500 billion.

You bring in 2 trillion dollars where I bring in 600 billion. At the end of the year I have 100 billion left over you have 0. So at the end of the day which government has more money? Even if we do not agree on this point we can agree on the next point.

When Reagan cut taxes in a ten year span federal revenue increased from 500 billion to 1.1 trillion.[/quote]

That’s totally fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was the slowest growth on record in 58 years. If you’re impressed that revenues went from $600 to $1.055 trillion, a 76% increase, why aren’t you more impressed that they went from $187 billion to $600 billion, a 220% increase, in the decade 1971-1981? Or that they went from $94 billion to $187 billion, a 99% increase, from 1961-1971? (in case you ask, chart: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf)

The only reason, and the key to the “misunderstanding,” is what I pointed out before: namely, that you wish to make a case for tax cuts. There is no misunderstanding, Reagan’s policies diminished revenue collection from what they would have otherwise been, especially when you take into account the fact that they were partially offset by a quiet raise in payroll taxes. You don’t have to defend tax cuts here. If you want to cut taxes, that’s fine, but just say so. Don’t try to mislead people into thinking drastic tax cuts do anything to increase revenue, when it is clear that they do not (talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too).

I am more interested in how people did generally under Reagan, not just the few on this forum.

Wages:

http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg

Income to top 0.1%

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/income_top_0_1_marginal_tax.gif

No tax will shrink government down to size. Heh, Reagan and the Bushes proved that. The government grows to proportions necessary to stabilize the capitalist system.

66

[quote]whatever2k wrote:
Ryan P Mcarter. Respect dude.

some serious ownage going on in this thread. doesent seem like u get too much credit on here, but i enjoy reading ur posts and hope u keep em coming.[/quote]

Thank you.

68

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Makes me think of this:

really. Marxism-leninism being taught in America to the student in the 80’s.

How old are you? if you are 40 and in America you were indoctrinated with marxism. Every 40 something American Marxist, show up. no one. In fact culturally every American is indoctrinated against socialism.

I can’t believe you don’t see that THIS is anti-URSS propaganda.

69

It takes a special kind of ignorance not to be able to recognize the changes that have occurred in this country over the past 30 years.

70

Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”

71

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”[/quote]

I disagree; this is what I call rhetoric. Right now we are coming out of a recession, if the so called conservatives can stay focused until we are back to normal and study the true meaning of the word, we can over come. Decrease spending and increase taxes until we are DEBT FREE.

I have said it before that the so called conservative believes the word CONSEVATIVE means anti poor. I think if it would be cheaper to have a public option in health care then a true conservative would opt for the public option. If it would cost American tax payer less money to raise the minimum wage so that no working person would have to apply for any public assistance then a true conservative would raise the minimum wage.

I know it will rattle the free market groupâ??s cage but for them I am waiting for a true example of your so called free market that does not resemble hell.

72

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”[/quote]

I disagree; this is what I call rhetoric. Right now we are coming out of a recession, if the so called conservatives can stay focused until we are back to normal and study the true meaning of the word, we can over come. Decrease spending and increase taxes until we are DEBT FREE.

I have said it before that the so called conservative believes the word CONSEVATIVE means anti poor. I think if it would be cheaper to have a public option in health care then a true conservative would opt for the public option. If it would cost American tax payer less money to raise the minimum wage so that no working person would have to apply for any public assistance then a true conservative would raise the minimum wage.

I know it will rattle the free market groupâ??s cage but for them I am waiting for a true example of your so called free market that does not resemble hell.
[/quote]

You expect politicians to decrease spending? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer…decrease spending…

I can certainly see them raising taxes.

The free market has never been tried. How can you condemn what has never been tried? But we HAVE plenty of examples of command economies. I choose the opposite.

73

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”[/quote]

I disagree; this is what I call rhetoric. Right now we are coming out of a recession, if the so called conservatives can stay focused until we are back to normal and study the true meaning of the word, we can over come. Decrease spending and increase taxes until we are DEBT FREE.

I have said it before that the so called conservative believes the word CONSEVATIVE means anti poor. I think if it would be cheaper to have a public option in health care then a true conservative would opt for the public option. If it would cost American tax payer less money to raise the minimum wage so that no working person would have to apply for any public assistance then a true conservative would raise the minimum wage.

I know it will rattle the free market group�¢??s cage but for them I am waiting for a true example of your so called free market that does not resemble hell.
[/quote]

You expect politicians to decrease spending? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer…decrease spending…

I can certainly see them raising taxes.

The free market has never been tried. How can you condemn what has never been tried? But we HAVE plenty of examples of command economies. I choose the opposite.
[/quote]

I contend that the free market as most free marketers say is an impossibility. I believe it exists in places that most business would fear to go.

74

[quote]Cortes wrote:
It takes a special kind of ignorance not to be able to recognize the changes that have occurred in this country over the past 30 years. [/quote]

the fall of communism in the early 90’s
and then the mondialisation of economy

75

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
It takes a special kind of ignorance not to be able to recognize the changes that have occurred in this country over the past 30 years. [/quote]

the fall of communism in the early 90’s
and then the mondialisation of economy

[/quote]

???

does not compute.

76

forget about that then

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”[/quote]

I disagree; this is what I call rhetoric. Right now we are coming out of a recession, if the so called conservatives can stay focused until we are back to normal and study the true meaning of the word, we can over come. Decrease spending and increase taxes until we are DEBT FREE.

I have said it before that the so called conservative believes the word CONSEVATIVE means anti poor. I think if it would be cheaper to have a public option in health care then a true conservative would opt for the public option. If it would cost American tax payer less money to raise the minimum wage so that no working person would have to apply for any public assistance then a true conservative would raise the minimum wage.

I know it will rattle the free market group�¢??s cage but for them I am waiting for a true example of your so called free market that does not resemble hell.
[/quote]

You expect politicians to decrease spending? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer…decrease spending…

I can certainly see them raising taxes.

The free market has never been tried. How can you condemn what has never been tried? But we HAVE plenty of examples of command economies. I choose the opposite.
[/quote]

I contend that the free market as most free marketers say is an impossibility. I believe it exists in places that most business would fear to go.

78

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”[/quote]

I disagree; this is what I call rhetoric. Right now we are coming out of a recession, if the so called conservatives can stay focused until we are back to normal and study the true meaning of the word, we can over come. Decrease spending and increase taxes until we are DEBT FREE.

I have said it before that the so called conservative believes the word CONSEVATIVE means anti poor. I think if it would be cheaper to have a public option in health care then a true conservative would opt for the public option. If it would cost American tax payer less money to raise the minimum wage so that no working person would have to apply for any public assistance then a true conservative would raise the minimum wage.

I know it will rattle the free market group�?�¢??s cage but for them I am waiting for a true example of your so called free market that does not resemble hell.
[/quote]

You expect politicians to decrease spending? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer…decrease spending…

I can certainly see them raising taxes.

The free market has never been tried. How can you condemn what has never been tried? But we HAVE plenty of examples of command economies. I choose the opposite.
[/quote]

I contend that the free market as most free marketers say is an impossibility. I believe it exists in places that most business would fear to go. [/quote]

Ever wonder why that is?

Freedom and free markets can’t exist so long as (1) people think it is ethical to force those who produce more to give to those who produce less; and (2) people think that obtaining something for themselves without hiring someone to rob for them is ethical (the evil form of selfishness).

The root of this is unselfishness.

Altruism was invented to convince the strong to feed the weak. It is, in essence, the philosophy of vampires. Governments play on this in pursuit of power, using altruism as an ethical excuse to tax and regulate. This requires an ever increasing level of violence against the victims (the producers) until the producers vanish. The Chinese actually have a whole political philosophy of this, about how the dynasties collapse every two or three hundred years. We’re due.

79

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wasn’t it David Stockman who quit because he said to RR that you can’t cut taxes without cutting spending? Apparently you then have to increase borrowing to make up the difference. Charts show borrowing accelerating under RR.

Of course, the American people are even now not willing to tolerate ANY politician who wants to cut or reduce the gravy train. Try telling old people that their check will now be 85% of what they used to get, so the system will just break even. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Borrowing will have to be exhausted to the point where no one will lend to us. Then money printing along with confiscation of all 401-k plans and IRAs, to be replaced by a government pension ‘in the future’, is in play.

Buy silver. Buy gold. Work as little as possible so that mere scraps are left over for the cattle and the thugs they hire to rob us. Oh, and TAKE DELIVERY – paper gold is estimated to be about 100 times the physical gold supposedly to back it up; its a scheme. TAKE DELIVERY.

“This is the strike of the men of the Mind, Ms. Taggart. This is the Mind on strike.”[/quote]

I disagree; this is what I call rhetoric. Right now we are coming out of a recession, if the so called conservatives can stay focused until we are back to normal and study the true meaning of the word, we can over come. Decrease spending and increase taxes until we are DEBT FREE.

I have said it before that the so called conservative believes the word CONSEVATIVE means anti poor. I think if it would be cheaper to have a public option in health care then a true conservative would opt for the public option. If it would cost American tax payer less money to raise the minimum wage so that no working person would have to apply for any public assistance then a true conservative would raise the minimum wage.

I know it will rattle the free market group�??�?�¢??s cage but for them I am waiting for a true example of your so called free market that does not resemble hell.
[/quote]

You expect politicians to decrease spending? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer…decrease spending…

I can certainly see them raising taxes.

The free market has never been tried. How can you condemn what has never been tried? But we HAVE plenty of examples of command economies. I choose the opposite.
[/quote]

I contend that the free market as most free marketers say is an impossibility. I believe it exists in places that most business would fear to go. [/quote]

Ever wonder why that is?

Freedom and free markets can’t exist so long as (1) people think it is ethical to force those who produce more to give to those who produce less; and (2) people think that obtaining something for themselves without hiring someone to rob for them is ethical (the evil form of selfishness).

The root of this is unselfishness.

Altruism was invented to convince the strong to feed the weak. It is, in essence, the philosophy of vampires. Governments play on this in pursuit of power, using altruism as an ethical excuse to tax and regulate. This requires an ever increasing level of violence against the victims (the producers) until the producers vanish. The Chinese actually have a whole political philosophy of this, about how the dynasties collapse every two or three hundred years. We’re due.[/quote]

1
If the free market can not work because of what people think then it fails because it is so weak that it has ZERO creditability

2
I do not understand this statement

Altruism was created by the animal nature, look at ants, bees, wolves, horses, lions look at mothers.

I do not think many people like the idea of feeding the lazy. But in America over my life time the middle class has shrunk considerably and we are going to have more and more poor people if we do not stop the pendulum swing from profiting the upper one percent.

Middle class is almost non existent. You have a vast number of poor a shrinking number of middle class and a very small percentage at the top that are profiting from policy and not any form of superiority.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Altruism was created by the animal nature, look at ants, bees, wolves, horses, lions look at mothers.

I do not think many people like the idea of feeding the lazy. But in America over my life time the middle class has shrunk considerably and we are going to have more and more poor people if we do not stop the pendulum swing from profiting the upper one percent.

Middle class is almost non existent. You have a vast number of poor a shrinking number of middle class and a very small percentage at the top that are profiting from policy and not any form of superiority.
[/quote]

Animals are programmed and are violent. Aren’t we better than that? Sure, we CAN be violent but how do you force someone to think, to invent? North Korea is a prime example of government by force. Want to live there?

If unselfishness is moral, then why is it also moral to force someone to share, at gunpoint? That’s what government does.

Do you think that the middle class can be restored at gunpoint? The only way government does anything is by violence or threats of violence. Taxes are paid because of fear that IRS agents will kick down your door. Surely you don’t want that.

Creating a government and giving it the power to force ‘sharing the wealth’ creates a government using guns and jails to force equality. The end result will be North Korea or Nazi Germany, here in America. I’ll pass.