[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Ditto on the job creation and what-not. However, there’s still one thing that my teacher kept stressing and that was the declining standard of living and the increase in the gap between rich and poor (typical Liberal politics). Can anyone justify this?
I know that the standard of living is NOT the biggest indicator of the health of an economy nor is the gap between rich and poor, so shouldn’t that be irrelevant?
I think I answered my own question.
CS[/quote]
You’re really getting into an argument about how aggregate economic wealth correlates with quality of living. Yes, countries with higher GDP per capita (as a proxy for ‘economic health’) have greater standards for living but make no mistake, income distribution does impact on quality of life. Countries like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia have relatively low gini coefficients (measure of income dispersion i.e. income inequality) and are praised as some of the best places to live.
So yes, higher income inequality is bad from any perspective…
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Gullible is exactly the word to describe a large number of Reaganites. [/quote]
No, “gullible” is a word aptly used to describe a person who studies history by listening to a rapper. In fact, a whole list of adjectives, all of them negative in connotation, could be appropriately employed in this case.[/quote]
I’m not deriving my history from a rapper. I’ve spent some time and read about it. I’m just connecting some of Reagan’s policies to hip-hop. Reagan is an enemy to hip-hop because many people believe he and his policies can be directly attributable to the drug epidemic that swamped inner-cities in the 80s.
I’m not deriving my history from a rapper. I’ve spent some time and read about it.
[/quote]
But you made a ridiculous statement then quoted Jaz-Z on the subject. If you’ve “read about it” then why not back up the ridiculous accusation?
An “enemy of hip-hop?” You’re an enemy of common sense, reason and logic. “Gullible” is a very apt description - a generous description in fact. I will assume that your assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood has been misjudged is down to your being “gullible.” Of course, being “gullible” would lead you to believe that Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign was all smoke and mirrors to hide his cocaine empire. And that the libertarians’ bright idea of legalising heroin and crack would solve all the drug problems. Is that “gullible” or “stupid” or “deliberate lying?” It’s hard to tell sometimes.
I’m not deriving my history from a rapper. I’ve spent some time and read about it.
[/quote]
But you made a ridiculous statement then quoted Jaz-Z on the subject. If you’ve “read about it” then why not back up the ridiculous accusation?
An “enemy of hip-hop?” You’re an enemy of common sense, reason and logic. “Gullible” is a very apt description - a generous description in fact. I will assume that your assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood has been misjudged is down to your being “gullible.” Of course, being “gullible” would lead you to believe that Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign was all smoke and mirrors to hide his cocaine empire. And that the libertarians’ bright idea of legalising heroin and crack would solve all the drug problems. Is that “gullible” or “stupid” or “deliberate lying?” It’s hard to tell sometimes.[/quote]
First of all I’m not like you. I’m fresh - do you know what that means?
You’re obviously too mundane and restricted to see the hip-hop connection.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Ditto on the job creation and what-not. However, there’s still one thing that my teacher kept stressing and that was the declining standard of living and the increase in the gap between rich and poor (typical Liberal politics). Can anyone justify this?
I know that the standard of living is NOT the biggest indicator of the health of an economy nor is the gap between rich and poor, so shouldn’t that be irrelevant?
I think I answered my own question.
CS[/quote]
You’re really getting into an argument about how aggregate economic wealth correlates with quality of living. Yes, countries with higher GDP per capita (as a proxy for ‘economic health’) have greater standards for living but make no mistake, income distribution does impact on quality of life. Countries like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia have relatively low gini coefficients (measure of income dispersion i.e. income inequality) and are praised as some of the best places to live.
So yes, higher income inequality is bad from any perspective…[/quote]
Yes I agree with Get. that income disparity hurts a country’s standard of living. We remember the Great Depression and one of the problems was the concentration of wealth at the top. Given that I think giving more tax breaks etc to the 1% makes no sense economically, nor does trickle down, also in the 1890 called " horse and sparrow" the sparrow would get some bits of hey/shit when the horse dumped it on the ground. The argument that give to the wealthy cause they are the “job creators” doesn’t stand to economic reason. The alternative is to help those who have little since they will go out and buy what they need thus stimulate the economy. More people buying means more people get employed to product the products needed.
In Japan and Germany the differential of pay between CEO’s and the average worker is like 10 to 1. Not bad so if i make 1 dollar the boss makes 10. But in the USA its something like 250 to 1 in most cases in corporations.
I personally liked the Cater cheek better
[/quote]
Decimated military, decimated economy, horrific foreign policy failures, geez what not to love. I guess the ‘billy beer’ could make you forget how bad it really was.
[/quote]
Do you remember when Nixon froze the wages , it had to be in response to an economy that was just soaring
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What would have Ronpaulonomics looked like?[/quote]
Economically I believe he would have been sound. It’s his foreign policy ideas that scare the shit out of me…
I like Ron Paul, but not enough to elect him. I think the notions of his that do inspire people are important notions to keep front and center attention on.
I too am for liberty to a fault. But isolationism, as fun as it sounds is a no go. The genie’s out of the bottle, it’s not going back in.[/quote]
I heard him sum up America’s foreign policy simply as , We tell other countries what to do . If they do it we give them money . If they don’t we bomb them . What is wrong with wanting to change American foreign policy ?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What would have Ronpaulonomics looked like?[/quote]
Economically I believe he would have been sound. It’s his foreign policy ideas that scare the shit out of me…
I like Ron Paul, but not enough to elect him. I think the notions of his that do inspire people are important notions to keep front and center attention on.
I too am for liberty to a fault. But isolationism, as fun as it sounds is a no go. The genie’s out of the bottle, it’s not going back in.[/quote]
I heard him sum up America’s foreign policy simply as , We tell other countries what to do . If they do it we give them money . If they don’t we bomb them . What is wrong with wanting to change American foreign policy ?[/quote]
It’s simplistic lines like that which both attract those who want simple answers to complex problems and also kept him at the bottom of the pack through the entire primary season.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Ditto on the job creation and what-not. However, there’s still one thing that my teacher kept stressing and that was the declining standard of living and the increase in the gap between rich and poor (typical Liberal politics). Can anyone justify this?
I know that the standard of living is NOT the biggest indicator of the health of an economy nor is the gap between rich and poor, so shouldn’t that be irrelevant?
I think I answered my own question.
CS[/quote]
You’re really getting into an argument about how aggregate economic wealth correlates with quality of living. Yes, countries with higher GDP per capita (as a proxy for ‘economic health’) have greater standards for living but make no mistake, income distribution does impact on quality of life. Countries like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia have relatively low gini coefficients (measure of income dispersion i.e. income inequality) and are praised as some of the best places to live.
So yes, higher income inequality is bad from any perspective…[/quote]
Yes I agree with Get. that income disparity hurts a country’s standard of living. We remember the Great Depression and one of the problems was the concentration of wealth at the top. Given that I think giving more tax breaks etc to the 1% makes no sense economically, nor does trickle down, also in the 1890 called " horse and sparrow" the sparrow would get some bits of hey/shit when the horse dumped it on the ground. The argument that give to the wealthy cause they are the “job creators” doesn’t stand to economic reason. The alternative is to help those who have little since they will go out and buy what they need thus stimulate the economy. More people buying means more people get employed to product the products needed.
In Japan and Germany the differential of pay between CEO’s and the average worker is like 10 to 1. Not bad so if i make 1 dollar the boss makes 10. But in the USA its something like 250 to 1 in most cases in corporations.
[/quote]
Source for CEO differential?
And you’re going to have to say something other than “doesn’t stand to economic reason” for your position that giving job creators tax breaks does nothing to stimulate economy. That’s fine if you want to make that argument, but you have to put down a few supporting reasons. Also you are neglecting the fact that tax breaks were across the board. As an aside, you can’t really argue that only the 1% ers got breaks because that wasn’t true with the Bush cuts; they were across all brackets.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What would have Ronpaulonomics looked like?[/quote]
Economically I believe he would have been sound. It’s his foreign policy ideas that scare the shit out of me…
I like Ron Paul, but not enough to elect him. I think the notions of his that do inspire people are important notions to keep front and center attention on.
I too am for liberty to a fault. But isolationism, as fun as it sounds is a no go. The genie’s out of the bottle, it’s not going back in.[/quote]
I heard him sum up America’s foreign policy simply as , We tell other countries what to do . If they do it we give them money . If they don’t we bomb them . What is wrong with wanting to change American foreign policy ?[/quote]
It’s simplistic lines like that which both attract those who want simple answers to complex problems and also kept him at the bottom of the pack through the entire primary season.
Understand?
[/quote]
What keeps Ron Paul at the bottom of the pack is that he does not cater to big money. He is anti Military Industrial . American elections are so predictable meaning 9 out 10 races are won by the person that spends the most money .
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
MattyG35 said TheOnion said[quote]
…costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee
[/quote]
Yes, Ronald Reagan was in a 1951 film called Bedtime for Bozo…is that bad?
It was Jimmy Carter who began funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. There were no “military” operations in Latin America - therefore no requirement for Congressional acts under Reagan’s tenure. Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.[/quote]
Oliver North was an absolute criminal who was involved in an illegal war which included an arms for drugs trade. Most others would be in prison.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
MattyG35 said TheOnion said[quote]
…costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee
[/quote]
Yes, Ronald Reagan was in a 1951 film called Bedtime for Bozo…is that bad?
It was Jimmy Carter who began funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. There were no “military” operations in Latin America - therefore no requirement for Congressional acts under Reagan’s tenure. Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.[/quote]
Oliver North was an absolute criminal who was involved in an illegal war which included an arms for drugs trade. Most others would be in prison.[/quote]
You are operating under the assumption that the US is a nation of laws, not men.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
MattyG35 said TheOnion said[quote]
…costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee
[/quote]
Yes, Ronald Reagan was in a 1951 film called Bedtime for Bozo…is that bad?
It was Jimmy Carter who began funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. There were no “military” operations in Latin America - therefore no requirement for Congressional acts under Reagan’s tenure. Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.[/quote]
Oliver North was an absolute criminal who was involved in an illegal war which included an arms for drugs trade. Most others would be in prison.[/quote]
You are operating under the assumption that the US is a nation of laws, not men.
Why?[/quote]
I understand that however, there is no reason we shouldn’t demand justice.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
MattyG35 said TheOnion said[quote]
…costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee
[/quote]
Yes, Ronald Reagan was in a 1951 film called Bedtime for Bozo…is that bad?
It was Jimmy Carter who began funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. There were no “military” operations in Latin America - therefore no requirement for Congressional acts under Reagan’s tenure. Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.[/quote]
Oliver North was an absolute criminal who was involved in an illegal war which included an arms for drugs trade. Most others would be in prison.[/quote]
You are operating under the assumption that the US is a nation of laws, not men.
Why?[/quote]
I understand that however, there is no reason we shouldn’t demand justice. [/quote]
Justice…
But that requires all men to be equal under the law…
That does not apply to presidents, you should know that.
[quote]boomdat wrote:
Someone should explain to me why republicans love Reagan so much. Why is he the considered the epitome of conservative presidents?
[/quote]
There.
The topic is kind of a propos, but just listen to the man speak. [/quote]
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” - Alexander Hamilton[/quote]
That’s rhetorical nonsense! Think of the Cuban missile crises and notice that Reagan didn’t invoke that, but my point is and I liked John F Kennedy, that he didn’t back down but thank God Khrushchev did cause we might not be here today. So who was the sane one? That’s my rhetorical question.[/quote]
Apparently Kennedy, because he knew when to raise the stakes?
