Ronald Reagan on Capitalism and Socialism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You really don’t get it. do you even remember Jimmy Cater. Reagan was the best President and the only President that deserved capital letters in the 20th century. You have your opinion, and I have mine. i’ll go back to my Westvleteren and you can go drink some Coor’s light or whatever heathen rednecks drink.[/quote]

I remember Carter , I made a boat load of money while he was Pres.
The only thing Reagan deserved is what Hinckley gave him :slight_smile:
Tonight the heathens are drinking Blue Moon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I’m interested.
How did you make a boat load of money in a high unemployment, highly inflationary environment with mortgage rates approaching 20%?
Maybe you inherited money that you parked in savings at 18%?

[/quote]

I earned it in the steel mills, and parked it in Cd�??�??�??�?�¢??s. The Republicans like to act as though Democrats don�??�??�??�?�¢??t work. Over all I think I know as many lazy Republicans as I do lazy Democrats. I think the only thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is most Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

If any body has drunk the cool aid it has to be the Republicans, They believe in Reaganomics.

You are wrong Carter turned the economy around from the Ford Admin.
If you think Carter Admin was tough you should have tried the brilliant Nixon admin. I guess you are just like those brilliant Republicans I have mentioned.

In Carters defense of Iran, I thought it was a brilliant plan that fell flat. His plan was to put the whole city to sleep, go in and take the hostages
[/quote]

That makes sense if I am reading you right.
You rode the back of a horse that was weighted down by union requirements until you bled it dry, then blamed everyone but the real culprits for the death. Then you lament the fact that the steel mills finally had to move overseas in order to escape the unions and be profitable. They wouldn’t let you loot them anymore? How dare they!

At least you were smart. You capitalized on the inflation your demon-crats produced by parking your ill earned wages in CD’s at inflated rates.

But I will give you one bullet for your gun, Barney. Its the only true gripe that democrats and the rest of the country should have against Reagan (and the only productive thing Carter did). Yet it is the one thing you never hear.

Carter was able to initiate the beginnings of a plan for energy independence by pushing through tax credits and incentives that were beginning to create a real industry, particularly in solar. I remember that it was growing especially well in Colorado.

Just as momentum was building, Reagan took office with the elder Bush. Credits and incentives were killed as relations with the oil producers improved and it no longer appeared to be cost effective. I often wonder what the technology would look like by now if that seed had continued to be nurtured to this day.

Yes, I realize that I am not showing you much empathy. It just seems that you are either unwilling or unable to put any real thought into a post before puke up a bunch of emotional hyperbole. [/quote]

I have often criticized the Unions, but I think they were a necessary evil; Big Business is not kind to the working man. I believe the Death of the Unions was synonymous of the death of the Mafia.

U.S. Steel producers did not move over seas, foreign Steel producers, mostly third world countries made steel so cheap because they were paying their employees barely livable wages dumped their steel on U.S. shores (unsold) and selling it at fire sale prices.

The Unions got a foot hold because American business is just like business in Viet Nam, only concerned about the bottom line.

I do not consider my opinions of Reagan to be hyperbole; I consider them to be fact. American President Cause vast areas of unemployment due to his misguided opinions of what a healthy economy is. He personally killed hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs; put hundreds of large American Steel producers out of business. He caused the American tax payer to shoulder all the lost revenue lost from the Steel producers and their employees. He effected hundreds if not thousands of communities in a very negative way (DESIMATING THEIR ECONOMIES) Reagan was bad news to all Steel producing Towns and States. Most areas affected have not recovered to this day and may never.

I do not understand the bullet you gave me for my gun?
[/quote]

Protectionism was the disease.

Reagan was the cure.

Withdrawal symptoms hurt.

There, in a nutshell.[/quote]

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Bastiat “What is seen and what is not seen”

Hazlitt " Economics in one lesson"

See, all right there, at your fingertips.

It is almost as if providence has led you here to get a basic economic eduction.

[/quote]

I am not going to read that and then try to apply it to our conversation, If you have the grasp you pretend to have , explain to me what good came out of Reagan fucking America out of itâ??s steel industry

42

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You really don’t get it. do you even remember Jimmy Cater. Reagan was the best President and the only President that deserved capital letters in the 20th century. You have your opinion, and I have mine. i’ll go back to my Westvleteren and you can go drink some Coor’s light or whatever heathen rednecks drink.[/quote]

I remember Carter , I made a boat load of money while he was Pres.
The only thing Reagan deserved is what Hinckley gave him :slight_smile:
Tonight the heathens are drinking Blue Moon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I’m interested.
How did you make a boat load of money in a high unemployment, highly inflationary environment with mortgage rates approaching 20%?
Maybe you inherited money that you parked in savings at 18%?

[/quote]

I earned it in the steel mills, and parked it in Cd�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s. The Republicans like to act as though Democrats don�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t work. Over all I think I know as many lazy Republicans as I do lazy Democrats. I think the only thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is most Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

If any body has drunk the cool aid it has to be the Republicans, They believe in Reaganomics.

You are wrong Carter turned the economy around from the Ford Admin.
If you think Carter Admin was tough you should have tried the brilliant Nixon admin. I guess you are just like those brilliant Republicans I have mentioned.

In Carters defense of Iran, I thought it was a brilliant plan that fell flat. His plan was to put the whole city to sleep, go in and take the hostages
[/quote]

That makes sense if I am reading you right.
You rode the back of a horse that was weighted down by union requirements until you bled it dry, then blamed everyone but the real culprits for the death. Then you lament the fact that the steel mills finally had to move overseas in order to escape the unions and be profitable. They wouldn’t let you loot them anymore? How dare they!

At least you were smart. You capitalized on the inflation your demon-crats produced by parking your ill earned wages in CD’s at inflated rates.

But I will give you one bullet for your gun, Barney. Its the only true gripe that democrats and the rest of the country should have against Reagan (and the only productive thing Carter did). Yet it is the one thing you never hear.

Carter was able to initiate the beginnings of a plan for energy independence by pushing through tax credits and incentives that were beginning to create a real industry, particularly in solar. I remember that it was growing especially well in Colorado.

Just as momentum was building, Reagan took office with the elder Bush. Credits and incentives were killed as relations with the oil producers improved and it no longer appeared to be cost effective. I often wonder what the technology would look like by now if that seed had continued to be nurtured to this day.

Yes, I realize that I am not showing you much empathy. It just seems that you are either unwilling or unable to put any real thought into a post before puke up a bunch of emotional hyperbole. [/quote]

I have often criticized the Unions, but I think they were a necessary evil; Big Business is not kind to the working man. I believe the Death of the Unions was synonymous of the death of the Mafia.

U.S. Steel producers did not move over seas, foreign Steel producers, mostly third world countries made steel so cheap because they were paying their employees barely livable wages dumped their steel on U.S. shores (unsold) and selling it at fire sale prices.

The Unions got a foot hold because American business is just like business in Viet Nam, only concerned about the bottom line.

I do not consider my opinions of Reagan to be hyperbole; I consider them to be fact. American President Cause vast areas of unemployment due to his misguided opinions of what a healthy economy is. He personally killed hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs; put hundreds of large American Steel producers out of business. He caused the American tax payer to shoulder all the lost revenue lost from the Steel producers and their employees. He effected hundreds if not thousands of communities in a very negative way (DESIMATING THEIR ECONOMIES) Reagan was bad news to all Steel producing Towns and States. Most areas affected have not recovered to this day and may never.

I do not understand the bullet you gave me for my gun?
[/quote]

Protectionism was the disease.

Reagan was the cure.

Withdrawal symptoms hurt.

There, in a nutshell.[/quote]

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Bastiat “What is seen and what is not seen”

Hazlitt " Economics in one lesson"

See, all right there, at your fingertips.

It is almost as if providence has led you here to get a basic economic eduction.

[/quote]

I am not going to read that and then try to apply it to our conversation, If you have the grasp you pretend to have , explain to me what good came out of Reagan fucking America out of itâ??s steel industry[/quote]

And if you are true to form you will not answer my question

43

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Bush Sr. is not considered as successful as Reagan for one reason in particular: he had to increase taxes to pay off Reagan’s debts. Also, even John S. could lead the U.S. to relative prosperity after a World War. [/quote]

Great post there, Jackass.
You managed to add nothing, insult a contributing member, and leave a door open wide enough to drive a truck through.
And all by your third post.
Dec. class of '09.
Gotta luv 'em

44

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You really don’t get it. do you even remember Jimmy Cater. Reagan was the best President and the only President that deserved capital letters in the 20th century. You have your opinion, and I have mine. i’ll go back to my Westvleteren and you can go drink some Coor’s light or whatever heathen rednecks drink.[/quote]

I remember Carter , I made a boat load of money while he was Pres.
The only thing Reagan deserved is what Hinckley gave him :slight_smile:
Tonight the heathens are drinking Blue Moon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I’m interested.
How did you make a boat load of money in a high unemployment, highly inflationary environment with mortgage rates approaching 20%?
Maybe you inherited money that you parked in savings at 18%?

[/quote]

I earned it in the steel mills, and parked it in Cd�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s. The Republicans like to act as though Democrats don�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t work. Over all I think I know as many lazy Republicans as I do lazy Democrats. I think the only thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is most Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

If any body has drunk the cool aid it has to be the Republicans, They believe in Reaganomics.

You are wrong Carter turned the economy around from the Ford Admin.
If you think Carter Admin was tough you should have tried the brilliant Nixon admin. I guess you are just like those brilliant Republicans I have mentioned.

In Carters defense of Iran, I thought it was a brilliant plan that fell flat. His plan was to put the whole city to sleep, go in and take the hostages
[/quote]

That makes sense if I am reading you right.
You rode the back of a horse that was weighted down by union requirements until you bled it dry, then blamed everyone but the real culprits for the death. Then you lament the fact that the steel mills finally had to move overseas in order to escape the unions and be profitable. They wouldn’t let you loot them anymore? How dare they!

At least you were smart. You capitalized on the inflation your demon-crats produced by parking your ill earned wages in CD’s at inflated rates.

But I will give you one bullet for your gun, Barney. Its the only true gripe that democrats and the rest of the country should have against Reagan (and the only productive thing Carter did). Yet it is the one thing you never hear.

Carter was able to initiate the beginnings of a plan for energy independence by pushing through tax credits and incentives that were beginning to create a real industry, particularly in solar. I remember that it was growing especially well in Colorado.

Just as momentum was building, Reagan took office with the elder Bush. Credits and incentives were killed as relations with the oil producers improved and it no longer appeared to be cost effective. I often wonder what the technology would look like by now if that seed had continued to be nurtured to this day.

Yes, I realize that I am not showing you much empathy. It just seems that you are either unwilling or unable to put any real thought into a post before puke up a bunch of emotional hyperbole. [/quote]

I have often criticized the Unions, but I think they were a necessary evil; Big Business is not kind to the working man. I believe the Death of the Unions was synonymous of the death of the Mafia.

U.S. Steel producers did not move over seas, foreign Steel producers, mostly third world countries made steel so cheap because they were paying their employees barely livable wages dumped their steel on U.S. shores (unsold) and selling it at fire sale prices.

The Unions got a foot hold because American business is just like business in Viet Nam, only concerned about the bottom line.

I do not consider my opinions of Reagan to be hyperbole; I consider them to be fact. American President Cause vast areas of unemployment due to his misguided opinions of what a healthy economy is. He personally killed hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs; put hundreds of large American Steel producers out of business. He caused the American tax payer to shoulder all the lost revenue lost from the Steel producers and their employees. He effected hundreds if not thousands of communities in a very negative way (DESIMATING THEIR ECONOMIES) Reagan was bad news to all Steel producing Towns and States. Most areas affected have not recovered to this day and may never.

I do not understand the bullet you gave me for my gun?
[/quote]

Protectionism was the disease.

Reagan was the cure.

Withdrawal symptoms hurt.

There, in a nutshell.[/quote]

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Bastiat “What is seen and what is not seen”

Hazlitt " Economics in one lesson"

See, all right there, at your fingertips.

It is almost as if providence has led you here to get a basic economic eduction.

[/quote]

I am not going to read that and then try to apply it to our conversation, If you have the grasp you pretend to have , explain to me what good came out of Reagan fucking America out of itâ??s steel industry[/quote]

THE PRICE OF STEEL WENT DOWN FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS.

Anyone who has ever taken any kind of econ class would know that. Less people bought less steel and a higher price due to protectionism.

Post-Reagan, MORE steel was bought by Americans for a LOWER price.

The cost of goods that are made from steel (that’s a lot of fucking goods) dropped, and more of those goods were bought.

If you can’t see how all this extra buying and selling helps an economy, there is no help for you.

45

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Bush Sr. is not considered as successful as Reagan for one reason in particular: he had to increase taxes to pay off Reagan’s debts. Also, even John S. could lead the U.S. to relative prosperity after a World War. [/quote]

Great post there, Jackass.
You managed to add nothing, insult a contributing member, and leave a door open wide enough to drive a truck through.
And all by your third post.
Dec. class of '09.
Gotta luv 'em
[/quote]

Yeahbut, his post is at least accurate. What have you got to offer? Other than helping Henny Pe…er I mean John S., spread the word about the sky about to fall all over us?

46

Accurate in what sense? I am all for open debate and the sharing of ideas.
So tell me, what was added? Bush Sr. was never a part of the topic at hand.

But I am particularly impressed with the assertion that John S., or anyone else for that matter, could lead the U.S. to relatively prosperity after a World War. Is that what is accurate?
And what of the ten other presidents from Dwight D. to Barrack O. They all lead after WWII. But wait, he wasn’t specific on which world war. Therefore we can add another five names to the list after Woodrow Wilson.
Amazing insight that I am sure only a man of your stature could appreciate.

As for what I have to offer…
Feel free to click on my profile and check my posts.

47

jeaton, the idea that the confrontational tone of my post is out of the ordinary on here is laughable. you call me out for making a legitimate albeit vague point with a playful insult thrown in.

oh, and warren g. harding wasn’t a part of the topic at hand either, you ass. because i didn’t quote the author, or more likely because your history is weak, you may have missed the fact it was he to whom i was referring.

the fact that you think that another president, particularly a regan model president directly and immediately inheriting reagan’s legacy isn’t relevant betrays one of two things: 1) you came here to mutually masturbate with other like-minded people. 2) the little we thought you knew about politics is a gross overestimation of your actual knowledge.

i love how conservatives who don’t oppose some of the vile posted on here come out of the woodworks when we halfheartedly insult reagan or a poster who makes silly arguments. douche.

48

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Bush Sr. is not considered as successful as Reagan for one reason in particular: he had to increase taxes to pay off Reagan’s debts. Also, even John S. could lead the U.S. to relative prosperity after a World War. [/quote]

OK, let’s go over the above again.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
jeaton, the idea that the confrontational tone of my post is out of the ordinary on here is laughable. you call me out for making a legitimate albeit vague point with a playful insult thrown in.[/quote]

Confrontations are generally accompanied by substance. That was what I was looking for. If your whole point was just to bust John’s balls, PM him. And I honest to God have no idea what your " x could run the country to prosperity after a world war" quote was supposed to mean. You seem to be saying something about Harding in the followup, but I have as yet not made the connection. There were 15 of them. Are you saying they all did great? What?

Did not quote the author you were referring to where. My history may be week, but we have a context and semantics issue here, and I don’t get it. But I liked the ass part. That’s good.

It might be relevant in a developed context, or a better constructed post. (and who is the we? Are you and someone else talking about me?)
There seems to be something in here that we could use for your substance problem, but I just got through pinching one and my political knowledge is taking a nap. This might have been a good place to call me a prick or maybe a Nazi.

[guote]i love how conservatives who don’t oppose some of the vile posted on here come out of the woodworks when we halfheartedly insult reagan or a poster who makes silly arguments. douche. [/quote]

You might want to have read the post first. Actually I am the man that criticized Reagon, and on a Renewable Resource issue of all things. Now that wasn’t very conservative of me.

All kidding aside, I probably shouldn’t have called you a Jackass. I just like the sound of it. I kind of dig the fact that you came back with “ass” and “douche”. Douche is so popular these days.

Maybe you were buzzed, maybe stoned, I don’t know. Your post just come off as something better left unsaid, at least until you could say it better. Either way, I like the passion you came back with. If we could just help you get those sentences laid down in a coherent fashion, you just might fit in here.
Welcome aboard. But that TME douche is out. ;-D

49

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Pittbull wrote “I do not understand the bullet you gave me for my gun?”

Reagan allowed the fledgling alternative energy industry to be killed. This is where I differ with some conservatives and most libertarians. There are areas, such as alternative energy, that hold great potential benefit to the country. In the 1970’s, such an industry was unable to exist without governmental subsidies. However, many recognized its potential benefit in the unquantified future. Had it been allowed to grow, I believe we would be far ahead of our current situation and not so nearly dependent on foreign oil. A hard right conservative or libertarian might argue that markets are entirely self regulating and no industry should get government assistance to create a niche for itself. If it cannot support itself without help, there is no appropriate market and it should be allowed to fail.
Again, it is my argument that there are instances where it is in the public’s best interest to lay out a little seed money and assistance to develop industry and technology that while not financial viable at the moment are very likely to be needed in the future. [/quote]

We agree[/quote]

I dont.

Why would he end propping up steel jobs and begin propping up “clean” energy jobs?

Protectionism and government subdidies are morally wrong and a waste of money, even if they fund your pet projects.

50

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I am not going to read that and then try to apply it to our conversation, If you have the grasp you pretend to have , explain to me what good came out of Reagan fucking America out of itâ??s steel industry[/quote]

Yeah, I know, everybody wants to be a body builder but nobody wants to lift the goddamn weights.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as long as you know for yourself that it is based on willful and deliberate ignorance I am fine with that.

Plus, two posters have answered that point.

51

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�??�??�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Unions killed the market, Reagan fixed the strangle hold steel mills had on the market, and instead of the unions giving up some of there demands they just rode the steel industry into the ground. The high paying jobs you speak of where killing the rest of America.

If you want to be mad at anyone don’t be mad at Reagan but be mad at the unions that stalled/killed businesses. If there where no unions the steel industry would still be around.[/quote]
you are wrong , the Unions did not kill the Industry The Unions did not sign the bill[/quote]

He did not kill anything.

He removed the life support of a terminally ill patient.

[/quote]

You are wrong he forced American steel to compete with companies that that under pay their workers and had no environmental standards. American Steel spent allot of money protecting the environment. I was working then we had orders out the ass.[/quote]

Well, yes they have lower environmental standards.

Surprise, there is a trade off, clean air costs money. Interestingly enough, the “greens” never saw that coming.

Then, “underpaid” ?

What does that even mean?

They produce steel cheaper because Amwerca was protected from competiion for far too long and was no longer competitive in the steel industry.

Some of these jobs are in Austria now and we have even higher wages and stricter environmentzal standards.

Thank you for slacking, any other jobs you no longer feel like doing?

52

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You really don’t get it. do you even remember Jimmy Cater. Reagan was the best President and the only President that deserved capital letters in the 20th century. You have your opinion, and I have mine. i’ll go back to my Westvleteren and you can go drink some Coor’s light or whatever heathen rednecks drink.[/quote]

I remember Carter , I made a boat load of money while he was Pres.
The only thing Reagan deserved is what Hinckley gave him :slight_smile:
Tonight the heathens are drinking Blue Moon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I’m interested.
How did you make a boat load of money in a high unemployment, highly inflationary environment with mortgage rates approaching 20%?
Maybe you inherited money that you parked in savings at 18%?

[/quote]

I earned it in the steel mills, and parked it in Cd�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s. The Republicans like to act as though Democrats don�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t work. Over all I think I know as many lazy Republicans as I do lazy Democrats. I think the only thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is most Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

If any body has drunk the cool aid it has to be the Republicans, They believe in Reaganomics.

You are wrong Carter turned the economy around from the Ford Admin.
If you think Carter Admin was tough you should have tried the brilliant Nixon admin. I guess you are just like those brilliant Republicans I have mentioned.

In Carters defense of Iran, I thought it was a brilliant plan that fell flat. His plan was to put the whole city to sleep, go in and take the hostages
[/quote]

That makes sense if I am reading you right.
You rode the back of a horse that was weighted down by union requirements until you bled it dry, then blamed everyone but the real culprits for the death. Then you lament the fact that the steel mills finally had to move overseas in order to escape the unions and be profitable. They wouldn’t let you loot them anymore? How dare they!

At least you were smart. You capitalized on the inflation your demon-crats produced by parking your ill earned wages in CD’s at inflated rates.

But I will give you one bullet for your gun, Barney. Its the only true gripe that democrats and the rest of the country should have against Reagan (and the only productive thing Carter did). Yet it is the one thing you never hear.

Carter was able to initiate the beginnings of a plan for energy independence by pushing through tax credits and incentives that were beginning to create a real industry, particularly in solar. I remember that it was growing especially well in Colorado.

Just as momentum was building, Reagan took office with the elder Bush. Credits and incentives were killed as relations with the oil producers improved and it no longer appeared to be cost effective. I often wonder what the technology would look like by now if that seed had continued to be nurtured to this day.

Yes, I realize that I am not showing you much empathy. It just seems that you are either unwilling or unable to put any real thought into a post before puke up a bunch of emotional hyperbole. [/quote]

I have often criticized the Unions, but I think they were a necessary evil; Big Business is not kind to the working man. I believe the Death of the Unions was synonymous of the death of the Mafia.

U.S. Steel producers did not move over seas, foreign Steel producers, mostly third world countries made steel so cheap because they were paying their employees barely livable wages dumped their steel on U.S. shores (unsold) and selling it at fire sale prices.

The Unions got a foot hold because American business is just like business in Viet Nam, only concerned about the bottom line.

I do not consider my opinions of Reagan to be hyperbole; I consider them to be fact. American President Cause vast areas of unemployment due to his misguided opinions of what a healthy economy is. He personally killed hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs; put hundreds of large American Steel producers out of business. He caused the American tax payer to shoulder all the lost revenue lost from the Steel producers and their employees. He effected hundreds if not thousands of communities in a very negative way (DESIMATING THEIR ECONOMIES) Reagan was bad news to all Steel producing Towns and States. Most areas affected have not recovered to this day and may never.

I do not understand the bullet you gave me for my gun?
[/quote]

Protectionism was the disease.

Reagan was the cure.

Withdrawal symptoms hurt.

There, in a nutshell.[/quote]

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�??�??�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Bastiat “What is seen and what is not seen”

Hazlitt " Economics in one lesson"

See, all right there, at your fingertips.

It is almost as if providence has led you here to get a basic economic eduction.

[/quote]

I am not going to read that and then try to apply it to our conversation, If you have the grasp you pretend to have , explain to me what good came out of Reagan fucking America out of it�?�¢??s steel industry[/quote]

And if you are true to form you will not answer my question [/quote]

If you are true to form you will do nothing to leanr basic ecnomomics and will therefore still not be able to apply the lesson to other areas even if you get it in this one.

Anyway:

People only can spend their income once.

If they have to buy expensive steel, they cannot buy anything else for that amount of money.

Lots of things need steel, so lots of money is wasted.

That money would have been saved or consumed had it not been wasted on artificially inflated steel prices.

Therefore the jobs that would have created the goods and services that could have been never were created.

What is seen by people like you are the steel mills and their employees.

What is not seen is that different demands were not satisfied because the money went to those steel mills.

What is not seen is all the small companies that failed to exist because there was no money to create them.

What is not seen is the jobs that never were because people needed to pay for arificially inflated steel prices, including the construction jobs that never were because steel was just too damn expensive to build something.

You do not see the higher rents because construction just became more expensive.

You do not see the more expensive cars, refrigerators, ships, trains, bridges and planes.

BUT when someone finally yanks the subcidies, and that is what they were in the final analyisis, it is his fault that changes that should have happened over decades MUST happen in a few years which tends to be a tad traumatic for all involved.?

Why would a few thousabd steel workers have the right to live at the expense of millions of others?

If you cannot produce steel competitively, what you have is not a job but a hobby, and as long as nobody subdidizes stamp collecting, nobody should subsidize expensive steel.

53

I donâ??t understand the love affair with Reagan. Do you people forget he brought us Zero Tolerance (guilty without trial or charges), â??deficits donâ??t matterâ??, multiple failed military adventures in empire building, â??cut and runâ??, ignoring the Constitution when it suited him (Iran-Contra), decimation of statesâ?? rights, legalized millions of illegal aliens, and all the other failed financial and ever growing federal police state policies? Or are we just comparing him to Obama and Bush in which case yeah he was awesome!

54

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�??�??�??�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Unions killed the market, Reagan fixed the strangle hold steel mills had on the market, and instead of the unions giving up some of there demands they just rode the steel industry into the ground. The high paying jobs you speak of where killing the rest of America.

If you want to be mad at anyone don’t be mad at Reagan but be mad at the unions that stalled/killed businesses. If there where no unions the steel industry would still be around.[/quote]
you are wrong , the Unions did not kill the Industry The Unions did not sign the bill[/quote]

He did not kill anything.

He removed the life support of a terminally ill patient.

[/quote]

You are wrong he forced American steel to compete with companies that that under pay their workers and had no environmental standards. American Steel spent allot of money protecting the environment. I was working then we had orders out the ass.[/quote]

Well, yes they have lower environmental standards.

Surprise, there is a trade off, clean air costs money. Interestingly enough, the “greens” never saw that coming.

Then, “underpaid” ?

What does that even mean?

They produce steel cheaper because Amwerca was protected from competiion for far too long and was no longer competitive in the steel industry.

Some of these jobs are in Austria now and we have even higher wages and stricter environmentzal standards.

Thank you for slacking, any other jobs you no longer feel like doing?

[/quote]

I asked you what good happened to America because Reagan crushed a industry that was profitable , sustained hundreds of thousands of people well above poverty level that are now unemployed , tapping our social programs . How did it do America any good to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue? Please educate me.

55

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You really don’t get it. do you even remember Jimmy Cater. Reagan was the best President and the only President that deserved capital letters in the 20th century. You have your opinion, and I have mine. i’ll go back to my Westvleteren and you can go drink some Coor’s light or whatever heathen rednecks drink.[/quote]

I remember Carter , I made a boat load of money while he was Pres.
The only thing Reagan deserved is what Hinckley gave him :slight_smile:
Tonight the heathens are drinking Blue Moon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I’m interested.
How did you make a boat load of money in a high unemployment, highly inflationary environment with mortgage rates approaching 20%?
Maybe you inherited money that you parked in savings at 18%?

[/quote]

I earned it in the steel mills, and parked it in Cd�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s. The Republicans like to act as though Democrats don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t work. Over all I think I know as many lazy Republicans as I do lazy Democrats. I think the only thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is most Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans.

If any body has drunk the cool aid it has to be the Republicans, They believe in Reaganomics.

You are wrong Carter turned the economy around from the Ford Admin.
If you think Carter Admin was tough you should have tried the brilliant Nixon admin. I guess you are just like those brilliant Republicans I have mentioned.

In Carters defense of Iran, I thought it was a brilliant plan that fell flat. His plan was to put the whole city to sleep, go in and take the hostages
[/quote]

That makes sense if I am reading you right.
You rode the back of a horse that was weighted down by union requirements until you bled it dry, then blamed everyone but the real culprits for the death. Then you lament the fact that the steel mills finally had to move overseas in order to escape the unions and be profitable. They wouldn’t let you loot them anymore? How dare they!

At least you were smart. You capitalized on the inflation your demon-crats produced by parking your ill earned wages in CD’s at inflated rates.

But I will give you one bullet for your gun, Barney. Its the only true gripe that democrats and the rest of the country should have against Reagan (and the only productive thing Carter did). Yet it is the one thing you never hear.

Carter was able to initiate the beginnings of a plan for energy independence by pushing through tax credits and incentives that were beginning to create a real industry, particularly in solar. I remember that it was growing especially well in Colorado.

Just as momentum was building, Reagan took office with the elder Bush. Credits and incentives were killed as relations with the oil producers improved and it no longer appeared to be cost effective. I often wonder what the technology would look like by now if that seed had continued to be nurtured to this day.

Yes, I realize that I am not showing you much empathy. It just seems that you are either unwilling or unable to put any real thought into a post before puke up a bunch of emotional hyperbole. [/quote]

I have often criticized the Unions, but I think they were a necessary evil; Big Business is not kind to the working man. I believe the Death of the Unions was synonymous of the death of the Mafia.

U.S. Steel producers did not move over seas, foreign Steel producers, mostly third world countries made steel so cheap because they were paying their employees barely livable wages dumped their steel on U.S. shores (unsold) and selling it at fire sale prices.

The Unions got a foot hold because American business is just like business in Viet Nam, only concerned about the bottom line.

I do not consider my opinions of Reagan to be hyperbole; I consider them to be fact. American President Cause vast areas of unemployment due to his misguided opinions of what a healthy economy is. He personally killed hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs; put hundreds of large American Steel producers out of business. He caused the American tax payer to shoulder all the lost revenue lost from the Steel producers and their employees. He effected hundreds if not thousands of communities in a very negative way (DESIMATING THEIR ECONOMIES) Reagan was bad news to all Steel producing Towns and States. Most areas affected have not recovered to this day and may never.

I do not understand the bullet you gave me for my gun?
[/quote]

Protectionism was the disease.

Reagan was the cure.

Withdrawal symptoms hurt.

There, in a nutshell.[/quote]

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�??�??�??�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Bastiat “What is seen and what is not seen”

Hazlitt " Economics in one lesson"

See, all right there, at your fingertips.

It is almost as if providence has led you here to get a basic economic eduction.

[/quote]

I am not going to read that and then try to apply it to our conversation, If you have the grasp you pretend to have , explain to me what good came out of Reagan fucking America out of it�??�?�¢??s steel industry[/quote]

And if you are true to form you will not answer my question [/quote]

If you are true to form you will do nothing to leanr basic ecnomomics and will therefore still not be able to apply the lesson to other areas even if you get it in this one.

Anyway:

People only can spend their income once.

If they have to buy expensive steel, they cannot buy anything else for that amount of money.

Lots of things need steel, so lots of money is wasted.

That money would have been saved or consumed had it not been wasted on artificially inflated steel prices.

Therefore the jobs that would have created the goods and services that could have been never were created.

What is seen by people like you are the steel mills and their employees.

What is not seen is that different demands were not satisfied because the money went to those steel mills.

What is not seen is all the small companies that failed to exist because there was no money to create them.

What is not seen is the jobs that never were because people needed to pay for arificially inflated steel prices, including the construction jobs that never were because steel was just too damn expensive to build something.

You do not see the higher rents because construction just became more expensive.

You do not see the more expensive cars, refrigerators, ships, trains, bridges and planes.

BUT when someone finally yanks the subcidies, and that is what they were in the final analyisis, it is his fault that changes that should have happened over decades MUST happen in a few years which tends to be a tad traumatic for all involved.?

Why would a few thousabd steel workers have the right to live at the expense of millions of others?

If you cannot produce steel competitively, what you have is not a job but a hobby, and as long as nobody subdidizes stamp collecting, nobody should subsidize expensive steel.

[/quote]

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some oneâ??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.

56

Pittbull wrote:
"Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some oneâ??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price."

Pittbull, while I don’t necessarily agree with you on the above post (at least on all points), it is presented in a coherent, reasonable and understandable fashion. I am not trying to be a jackass. I am just trying to point out that you can get your point across very well when you check the emotional overflow at the door.

57

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
There are areas, such as alternative energy, that hold great potential benefit to the country. In the 1970’s, such an industry was unable to exist without governmental subsidies. [/quote]

As someone who works tangentially in the (Alternative) Energy sector, I can say that that industry is unable to exist without governmental subsidies NOW.[/quote]

so almost 40 years and it still can’t exist without government subsidies? Sounds like it is going no where fast.[/quote]

What would your choice be? Wait until everybody runs out of oil then worry about alternative to oil? Or do you believe the oil will last forever?[/quote]

No, I believe the oil companies are smart enough that when the oil begins to run out they will use their vast resources to create an alternative energy, you know so they can stay in business.

Its been 40 years and we don’t have shit to show for it. We just keep throwing good money after bad.

58

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I asked you what good happened to America because Reagan crushed a industry that was profitable , sustained hundreds of thousands of people well above poverty level that are now unemployed , tapping our social programs . How did it do America any good to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue? Please educate me. [/quote]

The money that was spent on expensive steel was saved and used to build something else.

Obviously it was spent on something people wanted more, or else they would have spent it on steel.

More people got what they wanted that way, which is better.

59

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some oneâ??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

60

[quote]orion wrote:

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]
I have been over this exact same topic with him before. He insists on discussing economic policy without ever reading a single book on economics or understanding very simple economic principals. I wouldn’t waste your time.