You guys are wasting your time with pittbull - He simply doesn’t accept economics as a valid argument.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
You guys are wasting your time with pittbull - He simply doesn’t accept economics as a valid argument.[/quote]
Apparently he doesn’t accept logic, or facts either.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
His tax cuts along with the increased spending was the beginning of runaway deficits
Because the democrats refused to pass his budget as it was given them. His grand plan was to cut massive amounts of government spending, ending entire agenciess, but politics being what it is he did not get all of what he wanted.
[/quote]
That’s just it, “starving the beast” isn’t a valid stragety. Spending cuts should come first. If you can’t get them, make the people pay the bill. The entire bill. Yes, raise taxes. Force them into a decision. This silliness about cutting taxes and doing jack about spending (if not actually increasing it at the same time) has to stop. Great, we cut taxes…now, let’s borrow on the backs of the next generation.
Find a politician who says we need serious spending cuts, and doesn’t promise to cut taxes ( perhaps proposing to raise them), and you’ll have yourself an honest candidate.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Given that fiscal policy takes between 1 and 5 years to begin to take effect it is childish to try and ascribe ANY economic activity to the policies of any President. When combined with the fact that Congress has far more control over debt and spending levels you simple cannot reasonably make such a statement.
Of course this forum has little to do with reasonable. [/quote]
This, of course, is just ignorant as hell - businesses are holding billions (trillions?) in cash on their balance sheets instead of expanding right now because of policies enacted since 2008 and their uncertainty.
And, were this even remotely true, it would invalidate any argument for any kind of “stimulus” package, because in a given recession, the economy would likely have auto-corrected by the time a year to five years rolls around (when the purported policies finally “kick in”), so it would be like the proverbial fire truck arriving after the house has burned and is already undergoing reconstruction.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Reagan’s record of success:
Fought communism and broke the USSR ending a 40 year cold war.
Restored respect world wide to the USA with many acts, not the least of which was returning the hostages that Iran took and held for 444 days under Jimmy Carter.
Built the US military back up to super power status (peace through strength).
Reagan was truly a great President.
[/quote]
I’ll give you that in many ways Reagen was a good president
But
Reagan had little to do with the break up of the USSR. His rhetoric about evil empire brought the superpowers closer to nuclear war than any period since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika reforms backfired in conjunction with an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. If a Stalin mk 2 had been in control dissent would have been eradicated, like it had been in the purges in the 30s. It was Gorbachev’s mistake thinking that an absolutist system could no longer be absolute that brought its downfall.
Peace through strength? It was under RR that the Afghan Mujahadeen (sp?) were armed and trained by the CIA. The evil Taleban that are railed against every day were firm friends of the USA in the 1980s so intent were they on causing the downfall of the Soviet Union. 9/11 leads back to Reagan. And indeed the Taleban were firm friends in 1997 when US companies wanted an oh-so lucrative gas pipeline through central asia.
(tangent) I have no doubt that the USA has an efficient and capable military, one of the largest in the world in military spending, if not manpower. But you have replaced one sort of anarchy in the middle east with another in order to cement your grasp on dwindling natural resources rather than spreading democracy. Please don’t even pretend that Iraq by itself is a stable democracy, of Afghanistan. Karzai is a corrupt nepotistic oligarch (my enemy’s enemy is my friend I suppose) who has tried to propose laws just as, if not more brutal, than the Taleban./tangent
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Reagan’s record of success:
Fought communism and broke the USSR ending a 40 year cold war.
Restored respect world wide to the USA with many acts, not the least of which was returning the hostages that Iran took and held for 444 days under Jimmy Carter.
Built the US military back up to super power status (peace through strength).
Reagan was truly a great President.
[/quote]
I’ll give you that in many ways Reagen was a good president[/quote]
Glad we agree.
I agree with you on both counts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
His tax cuts along with the increased spending was the beginning of runaway deficits
Because the democrats refused to pass his budget as it was given them. His grand plan was to cut massive amounts of government spending, ending entire agenciess, but politics being what it is he did not get all of what he wanted.
[/quote]
That’s just it, “starving the beast” isn’t a valid stragety. Spending cuts should come first. If you can’t get them, make the people pay the bill. The entire bill. Yes, raise taxes. Force them into a decision. This silliness about cutting taxes and doing jack about spending (if not actually increasing it at the same time) has to stop. Great, we cut taxes…now, let’s borrow on the backs of the next generation.
Find a politician who says we need serious spending cuts, and doesn’t promise to cut taxes ( perhaps proposing to raise them), and you’ll have yourself an honest candidate.
[/quote]
Raise taxes in a recession/depression is a great way to run all the buisnesses to China.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
His tax cuts along with the increased spending was the beginning of runaway deficits
Because the democrats refused to pass his budget as it was given them. His grand plan was to cut massive amounts of government spending, ending entire agenciess, but politics being what it is he did not get all of what he wanted.
[/quote]
That’s just it, “starving the beast” isn’t a valid stragety. Spending cuts should come first. If you can’t get them, make the people pay the bill. The entire bill. Yes, raise taxes. Force them into a decision. This silliness about cutting taxes and doing jack about spending (if not actually increasing it at the same time) has to stop. Great, we cut taxes…now, let’s borrow on the backs of the next generation.
Find a politician who says we need serious spending cuts, and doesn’t promise to cut taxes ( perhaps proposing to raise them), and you’ll have yourself an honest candidate.
[/quote]
Raise taxes in a recession/depression is a great way to run all the buisnesses to China.[/quote]
Not raising taxes on a population that rejects real cuts (not the, “well I support cutting waste” crap) in it’s public goodies is a great way to bankrupt near future generations. Maybe the businesses won’t have to run to China in the future, because they’ll (the Chinese) pretty much own us at that point.
Americans want their SS, Medicare/aid, college educations, and (multi)national defense. Fine. However, I say those present must then pay enough to make such things solvent now, instead of billing it to the next generation. Time to raise taxes on just about everybody. Whatever is needed to satiate the unstarveable beast. Let’s all see just how much it REALLY costs to keep it’s tummy full. It’s put up or shut up time. Time to look at reality on the paycheck, look at what the government offers, and make some real decisions. No more of this bunk “starve the beast,” or “cut some waste to cut spending.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
His tax cuts along with the increased spending was the beginning of runaway deficits
Because the democrats refused to pass his budget as it was given them. His grand plan was to cut massive amounts of government spending, ending entire agenciess, but politics being what it is he did not get all of what he wanted.
[/quote]
That’s just it, “starving the beast” isn’t a valid stragety. Spending cuts should come first. If you can’t get them, make the people pay the bill. The entire bill. Yes, raise taxes. Force them into a decision. This silliness about cutting taxes and doing jack about spending (if not actually increasing it at the same time) has to stop. Great, we cut taxes…now, let’s borrow on the backs of the next generation.
Find a politician who says we need serious spending cuts, and doesn’t promise to cut taxes ( perhaps proposing to raise them), and you’ll have yourself an honest candidate.
[/quote]
Raise taxes in a recession/depression is a great way to run all the buisnesses to China.[/quote]
Not raising taxes on a population that rejects real cuts (not the, “well I support cutting waste” crap) in it’s public goodies is a great way to bankrupt near future generations. Maybe the businesses won’t have to run to China in the future, because they’ll (the Chinese) pretty much own us at that point.
Americans want their SS, Medicare/aid, college educations, and (multi)national defense. Fine. However, I say those present must then pay enough to make such things solvent now, instead of billing it to the next generation. Time to raise taxes on just about everybody. Whatever is needed to satiate the unstarveable beast. Let’s all see just how much it REALLY costs to keep it’s tummy full. It’s put up or shut up time. Time to look at reality on the paycheck, look at what the government offers, and make some real decisions. No more of this bunk “starve the beast,” or “cut some waste to cut spending.” [/quote]
It doesn’t matter if they want them or not, they are going bankrupt, no amount of raising taxes will fix them. If you raise taxes watch unemployment jump. Doing what you said will only bring about a socialist government. THe only way out of this is tax cuts and massive spending cuts. I am talking about bringing the military around the world home, privitizing social security, eliminating medicare/aid(which goes broke in 2017 anyways) getting out of the UN, eliminating foreign aid. This is what is needed to correct this economy, otherwise raising taxes will do nothing because people will be paying higher taxes anyways due to inflation.
There is not enough money in the world to fund these programs, raising taxes will only slightly fight against the massive inflation that will be needed to fund these programs.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Congress sets the budget. Specifically, the House of Representatives.
I’m not even American and know that — your education system sucks.[/quote]
Lol, The President is like the Quarterback of Politics. Sure, he can make or break the team. However, at the end of the day Matt Leinart won the Ship and he sucks as a quarterback. Quarterbacks get all the glory or all the blame, same as the president, which is fine. However realise that there other players on the field besides the quarterback.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Presidents don’t unilaterally control deficits and debt.
[/quote]
Obviously not, but the way they choose to run the country does affect the economy. Historically democratic presidents have been better for the economy than republicans.[/quote]
Historically speaking, Democratic presidents had majority Republican Congressman, who are in charge of the budget…
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
Obviously not, but the way they choose to run the country does affect the economy. [/quote]
No one said any differently. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Oh yeah? I am happy to read any proof you have of this claim that:
-
Controls for the impact of Congress’ policies that are largely independent of the President
-
Controls for the impact of the Federal Reserve, which acts independent of the President’s executive’s policies
-
Controls for the private sector
Perfect example? The 1990s. In the 1990s, the roaring economy in America had little to do with his Clinton. And I don’t say this as a Clinton-hater (I’m not one), but he would get all the glory for your “better economy under a Democratic President”, despite the impact of a Republican Congress and a tech boom that had exactly zero to do with who got elected in 1992 and 1996.
So, with that in mind, let’s hear it all explained from Norway. I’ll wait patiently for your explanation.
[/quote]
What I said was that the US has historically been better of economically with democratic presidents than with republican ones. This isn’t my opinion, this is simply a historic fact. It’s not something that needs explaining, it’s just a simple fact that needs to be stated.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010773.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
[/quote]
Norway is historically been a pussy country with pussy citizens. This isn’t my opinion, this is simply a historic fact. It’s not something that needs explaining, it’s just a simple fact that needs to be stated.
See how dumb that sounds, if you can’t explain a fact, it is not a fact, it is an opinion.
[quote]LankyHubris wrote:
You guys are wasting your time with pittbull - He simply doesn’t accept economics as a valid argument.[/quote]
My feeling on the Economy is that Supply side economics is only half of the picture
My opinion is Republicans are deficit hawks when the Democrats control America
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
His tax cuts along with the increased spending was the beginning of runaway deficits
Because the democrats refused to pass his budget as it was given them. His grand plan was to cut massive amounts of government spending, ending entire agenciess, but politics being what it is he did not get all of what he wanted.
[/quote]
That’s just it, “starving the beast” isn’t a valid stragety. Spending cuts should come first. If you can’t get them, make the people pay the bill. The entire bill. Yes, raise taxes. Force them into a decision. This silliness about cutting taxes and doing jack about spending (if not actually increasing it at the same time) has to stop. Great, we cut taxes…now, let’s borrow on the backs of the next generation.
Find a politician who says we need serious spending cuts, and doesn’t promise to cut taxes ( perhaps proposing to raise them), and you’ll have yourself an honest candidate.
[/quote]
Raise taxes in a recession/depression is a great way to run all the buisnesses to China.[/quote]
That’s exactly what’s going to happen when the Bush tax cuts (for everyone, they were not just for the rich as reported in the mainstream liberal media) expire in January. Obama has given signals that he’d like to hike the taxes for those making 200-K or more and renew the tax breaks for the rest. When (if) he does this you will see the economy take a very nasty turn for the worse as many small business’s are “S” corps and money flows through like personal income. That means every small business with revenue over 200-K, which is just about all of them is going to feel the Obama tax hike.
Since about 67% of all people work for small business the recession will get worse, and the idiots (or should I say Idiologues) who are in power will be even more frustrated than they are now as the country sinks deeper into recession.
As I’ve repeatedly stated, we elected the worst possible individual at a point in time when we needed the very best-A perfect storm, and we are going to pay dearly, very dearly.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Reagan was so bad we should have called him the Anti president[/quote]
For so many reasons he was truly the very best modern day President, no question![/quote]
Decimating an entire , high paying industry, decimating hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs
Decimating the Federal taxes that those hundreds of thousands of high jobs paid. Creating hundreds of thousands of Welfare recipients , Decimating the tax base of thousands of cities and towns , and the tax base of several states.
With ZERO upside , if you care to discus this please be specific on the gains that counter balance the downside
Other wise I will have to contend Reagan was incompetent or a Treasonist.
[/quote]
Reagan’s record of success:
Fought communism and broke the USSR ending a 40 year cold war.
Bombed Libya and drove back their terror driven state, BEFORE they were able to wreak havoc.
Invaded Grenada and rescued hundreds of students who were being held captive by Cuba’s military.
Cut taxes to their lowest point in modern history.
Created over 20 million jobs, in the private sector, not (Obama style)public sector jobs.
Restored respect world wide to the USA with many acts, not the least of which was returning the hostages that Iran took and held for 444 days under Jimmy Carter.
Low inflation, low unemployment.
He survived an assassination attempt in 1981 at the age of 70. When most men are happy to be alive and sitting in their rocking chair he came back stronger than ever, winning a second term in office with an electoral landslide victory over Walter Mondale. Mondale winning only one state! That’s how much Americans thought of Reagan after his first term.
Built the US military back up to super power status (peace through strength).
Most of all he restored confidence in the American people after the corrupt Nixon years, the lethargic Ford years and the failed Jimmy Carter Presidency.
He also did something about immigration. Signing in to law the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” making it illegal to hire,or recruit illegal immigrants. What has your hero Obama done? NOTHING, in addition to that he even tries to stop individual states like Arizona from doing anything by suing them in court.
Reagan was truly a great President.
You are a known Reagan hater and make very little sense whenever you post regarding this mans legacy. Why don’t you do some research and try to separate your hate for a great President from the actual facts.
When you talk about Ronald Reagan do it with respect and reverence, he was truly our greatest modern day President! Or you can keep your ignorant comments to yourself, either is fine with me.
[/quote]
Russia fell because just like us they mired down in Afghanistan[/quote]
The Soviet Union fell because they tried to keep up with the US in our arms build up. Reagan was well aware of their economic frailty. Reagan was well aware that they could not sustain their war in Afghanistan and also an arms build up.
Exactly, glad you got one right. This was a terrorist state which would have become a global menace had it not been for President Reagan.
Because the democrats refused to pass his budget as it was given them. His grand plan was to cut massive amounts of government spending, ending entire agenciess, but politics being what it is he did not get all of what he wanted.
You’re not even making sense with this one (as if all your other empty accusations made sense). He grew the economy by over 20 million jobs. The nation loved him and as I stated previously gave him an electoral landslide victory in his 1984 reelection.
I agree you can continue to type nonsense, but apparently you’re bored.
Your hate for Ronald Reagan is based on nothing more than liberal media propaganda which you obviously swallow without even thinking.
No more of your random attacks on Ronald Reagan. They’re baseless and only make you look like a punk kid who not only didn’t live through this period of history, but refuses to learn about it as well.[/quote]
Zeb , I have told you the enormous price America paid for Reagan’s blunder. You can deny it and you can believe Reagan’s PR department if you like . I do hate Reagan , all of those old steel towns and cities that are now among America’s poorest cities and towns were due to Reagan’s misguided supply side economics .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeb , I have told you the enormous price America paid for Reagan’s blunder. You can deny it and you can believe Reagan’s PR department if you like . I do hate Reagan , all of those old steel towns and cities that are now among America’s poorest cities and towns were due to Reagan’s misguided supply side economics . [/quote]
You are misinformed. You can’t blame Reagan for the steel slow down. We were moving from an industrial, to an information driven economy. I’ve already pointed out the facts to you. Over 20 million private sector jobs under Reagan. I’ve given you the Reagan economic, and foreign policy record. You can choose to ignore it if you like. I lived through those years and remember them well. I’ve also read about those years and compared those years with other modern day Presidents. I pride myself on knowing the Presidents, the good ones and the bad ones from Roosevelt to Obama.
You can stay in the dark, it’s easier to sleep that way.
Just know that from this point forward every time that you speak badly of Ronald Reagan I will be there to correct you If I see it). You really are a hate mongering ill informed youngster.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeb , I have told you the enormous price America paid for Reagan’s blunder. You can deny it and you can believe Reagan’s PR department if you like . I do hate Reagan , all of those old steel towns and cities that are now among America’s poorest cities and towns were due to Reagan’s misguided supply side economics . [/quote]
You are misinformed. You can’t blame Reagan for the steel slow down. We were moving from an industrial, to an information driven economy. I’ve already pointed out the facts to you. Over 20 million private sector jobs under Reagan. I’ve given you the Reagan economic, and foreign policy record. You can choose to ignore it if you like. I lived through those years and remember them well. I’ve also read about those years and compared those years with other modern day Presidents. I pride myself on knowing the Presidents, the good ones and the bad ones from Roosevelt to Obama.
You can stay in the dark, it’s easier to sleep that way.
Just know that from this point forward every time that you speak badly of Ronald Reagan I will be there to correct you If I see it). You really are a hate mongering ill informed youngster.
[/quote]
Zeb I am not misinformed , I lived it . The Union told us when the bill was going across his desk and if he signed it it would be the demise of the Steel Industry as we knew it . He signed it and I watched it deteriorate in DAYS . The next week’s schedule was BRUTAL as were the following months . I saw mills close that months before had employed thousands . This happened in a wide geographical location
So when you tell me I am mistaken , I think you are uninformed or just so intent on your agenda that you are unwilling to grasp to devastation that Reagan Created.
If he created (AS YOU SAY) MILLION of high paying jobs , What and where are they ? Because I told you of hundreds of thousands of HIGH paying jobs Reagan killed.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So when you tell me I am mistaken , I think you are uninformed or just so intent on your agenda that you are unwilling to grasp to devastation that Reagan Created.[/quote]
Yea, Reagan devastated the country by creating over 20 million jobs. What the hell do you call what Obama’s doing to the country if you think Reagan devastated by succeeding.
Ha ha, keep posting you are making me laugh.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So when you tell me I am mistaken , I think you are uninformed or just so intent on your agenda that you are unwilling to grasp to devastation that Reagan Created.[/quote]
Yea, Reagan devastated the country by creating over 20 million jobs. What the hell do you call what Obama’s doing to the country if you think Reagan devastated by succeeding.
Ha ha, keep posting you are making me laugh.
[/quote]
Where are these 20,000,000 jobs , that is approx. 50,000 a state .You avoid answering the question and insinuate any one that disagrees with you is out of touch or ignoring logic . I contend it is your defense so you do not have to answer the question