[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I’m not deriving my history from a rapper. I’ve spent some time and read about it.[/quote]
Clearly, not enough.
Well, they’d be wrong. Feel free to point which policy had this impact, and please, don’t quote pop music performers.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
In before “Reagan killed the steel industry!”[/quote]
the steel industry was dead pre-1981
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
The only thing I regret Reagan DIDN’T do militarily was invade Lebanon after the attack on the Marine barracks and clean house. If he had done so, and the terrorists were obliverated, I doubt they would be screwing with us today.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
The only thing I regret Reagan DIDN’T do militarily was invade Lebanon after the attack on the Marine barracks and clean house. If he had done so, and the terrorists were obliverated, I doubt they would be screwing with us today. [/quote]
Of course they would and he knew that.
There is one thought you kind of need to embrace, which is that the American people are easily cowed.
They should not be your yardstick for the rest of the world.
[quote]orion wrote:
Of course they would and he knew that.
There is one thought you kind of need to embrace, which is that the American liberals are easily cowed.
They should not be your yardstick for the rest of the world. [/quote]
Fixed.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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]
He was not a criminal he was a soldier doing a job
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[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 .
Understand ?[/quote]
Yeah…keep dreaming. I think it’s more about that whole looking like a cranky old man with a shrill voice thing. And rambling endlessly about isolationism. None of that helps.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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]
But that doesn’t make it right. So we should sit around and do nothing to help change the situation?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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]
But that doesn’t make it right. So we should sit around and do nothing to help change the situation?
[/quote]
Like what? Like protest? Like talk on television? Like write letters to our Congressmen? Like sit around and talk about it? Or maybe if we really get pissed throw around bombs and anthrax filled letters?
And who’s gonna listen? It’s just another opinion. Now, maybe, if you had several billion dollars lying around and felt like making an investment, could you really do something. Do you?
But even then you probably would change very little. It’s all face value, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
And jesus christ this whole thread in general was a tremendous waste of time and human effort. Does it make a difference whether Reagan was a good guy? Whether his words speak to your heart, and that’s evidence enough for you? Plus, our deficit relative to our GDP went down while he was in office.
Not at all. But we all like to hear our heads rattle.
Jesus this thread is full of parroted propaganda from both sides.
Supply side “worked” because the debt boom was getting started. Lowering taxes was nice, but it was pissing in the ocean.
The washington consensus didnt work out in a lot of ways, and a good deal of the world resents the man. Not that that makes anyone right or wrong by itself, but it always amazes me how matter-of-fact Reaganites are about their deity. Nobody but white upperclass americans and misguided white not-upperclass americans trying to identify with their overclass worship Reagan.
Ron Paul is NOT IN ANY WAY an isolationist. He wants to trade with everyone. Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.” It also might make you solvent.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Ron Paul is NOT IN ANY WAY an isolationist. He wants to trade with everyone. Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.” It also might make you solvent.[/quote]
Ron Paul would’ve continued to sell oil to the Japanese in 1941 when we now know that they were planning an invasion of British Singapore, U.S. Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. The people who advocated continuing to sell oil to the Japanese up to Pearl Harbor are known to history as “the isolationists” - understand? Paul is the literal heir of the Nazi/Japanese appeasement movement of the 1930’s. The fact that he decides to redefine ‘isolationism’ and ‘conservatism’ and so on doesn’t change facts.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.” It also might make you solvent.[/quote]
A common theme you will notice with my posts is accusing people of lying. This is a new thing for me. Up until now, I really believed that people are mostly misled. But it is becomming increasingly clear that this is not so.
In light of the fact that Western Europe has been relieved of defence spending by the U.S. - 50,000+ troops in Germany, missile defence shield etc. - In light of that, why isn’t Europe “solvent?”
The 2008 bailout alone exceeded nine of the costliest events in American history combined:
Marshall Plan - $115.4 billion
Louisiana Purchase - $217 billion
Race to the Moon - $237 billion
S & L Crisis - $236 billion
Korean War - $454 billion
The New Deal - $500 billion(est.)
Invasion of Iraq - $597 billion
Vietnam War - $698 billion
NASA - $851.2 billion
Total = Over $3.9 trillion
The unfunded liability for SS/Medicare/Medicaid exceeds $100 trillion. Now, can you understand why I find it difficult to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are too stupid to understand what I have written?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.” It also might make you solvent.[/quote]
A common theme you will notice with my posts is accusing people of lying. This is a new thing for me. Up until now, I really believed that people are mostly misled. But it is becomming increasingly clear that this is not so.
In light of the fact that Western Europe has been relieved of defence spending by the U.S. - 50,000+ troops in Germany, missile defence shield etc. - In light of that, why isn’t Europe “solvent?”
The 2008 bailout alone exceeded nine of the costliest events in American history combined:
Marshall Plan - $115.4 billion
Louisiana Purchase - $217 billion
Race to the Moon - $237 billion
S & L Crisis - $236 billion
Korean War - $454 billion
The New Deal - $500 billion(est.)
Invasion of Iraq - $597 billion
Vietnam War - $698 billion
NASA - $851.2 billion
Total = Over $3.9 trillion
The unfunded liability for SS/Medicare/Medicaid exceeds $100 trillion. Now, can you understand why I find it difficult to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are too stupid to understand what I have written?[/quote]
Well said.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]milktruck wrote:
…Ron Paul is NOT IN ANY WAY an isolationist. He wants to trade with everyone. Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.”…
[/quote]
This is easily refuted by pointing out that no one trades with everyone unless one can defend his interests everywhere.
[/quote]
One does not need to trade with everyone to not be considered an isolationist.
One must merely allow for the possibility of it.
Our interests are only served because of trade.
Protectionism is actually a form of isolationism and that is what the British Empire practiced so your example fails. You that believe in protectionism are the real isolationists.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What would have Ronpaulonomics looked like?[/quote]
Reggaenomics.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Our interests that are only served because of trade exist because we have the wherewithal to protect them.[/quote]
This makes no sense.
Protection is unnecessary as long all trade partners are entering into it voluntarily.
The only reason protection would be necessary is if that trade were forced at gun point.
Your argument fails.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]milktruck wrote:
…Ron Paul is NOT IN ANY WAY an isolationist. He wants to trade with everyone. Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.”…
[/quote]
This is easily refuted by pointing out that no one trades with everyone unless one can defend his interests everywhere.
Exhibit A: the British Empire of the 19th and early 20th centuries
Exhibit B: latter half of the 20th century - present USA
It is unfounded idealism to think otherwise. History, not hopes and dreams, confirms this.[/quote]
Thats not true.
Enforceable contracts are very Western, in most other cases reputation mstters.
I dont know what you do, but with small businesses it usually works the same way.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]milktruck wrote:
…Ron Paul is NOT IN ANY WAY an isolationist. He wants to trade with everyone. Not playing world police doesnt make you “isolationist”, it makes you “non-tyrannical.”…
[/quote]
This is easily refuted by pointing out that no one trades with everyone unless one can defend his interests everywhere.
Exhibit A: the British Empire of the 19th and early 20th centuries
Exhibit B: latter half of the 20th century - present USA
It is unfounded idealism to think otherwise. History, not hopes and dreams, confirms this.[/quote]