Interesting Facts about Ronald Reagan

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You must not have paid attention when the Bush tax cuts didn't create even half as many jobs as the economy when we had the Clinton era tax rate. Bush also "charged" two major wars without finding any revenue to fund them.

I did pay attention, but apparently you didn't

Did you even read what I wrote? Or what you wrote?

A tax cut does NOT cause unemployment to rise in and of itself. Nothing you wrote contradicts that. Neither does anything about Bush and Clinton tax rates.

The economy boomed during the Clinton era because of the dotcom revolution, not because of any tax rate manipulation or budget proposal caused by Clinton. The ground work for computers and networks had been developed in the 1970s and 1980s. But when the price point of the personal computer finally fell to the point where every business and most individuals could afford them, there was massive increases in productivity that caused an extended economic boom. The information economy took off and Clinton rode the wave. Good for him. But setting the tax rate at 39.6% didn't cause that to happen.

And a major shift in the economy like that happens once in a lifetime, maybe a century. There was a similar extended boom at the end of the 19th century when railroads and industrialization fundamentally transformed the US economy from an agrarian one to a manufacturing one.

Good luck getting that to happen again. Maybe there will be some nanotech revolution or bio-engineering revolution, but don't count on seeing it crop up in the next few years.

And, whether you realize it or not, saying that the Bush tax cuts didn't create half as many jobs as the Clinton era tax rates actually acknowledges that the Bush tax cuts DID create jobs, just not enough. The point I was disputing above was that WellEndowed had implied that the Beagn tax cuts actually caused unemployment to go up. Which is horse shit.

To put it another way, if we raise taxes to say, 90% on the top 1% - with no loopholes like they had back in the 1950s to avoid the maximum rate, do you really think the economy will boom?

And I have no idea what the point about Bush having unfunded wars in the 2000s has to do with the discussion of tax cuts and unemployment rates under Reagan in the 1980s. Are you just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire, WHICH I FAVOR, will cut down on the deficits and slow the growth of the national debt. But don't think for a minute it is going to cause a jobs boom.

My hope is that the increased tax rate will cause only a small harm in the economy that will be more than offset by the increase revenue.

But if you every want to see budget surpluses again, there are only 2 realistic options.

One - cross your fingers and hope for another dot-com-type revolution. Good luck with that. Or...

Two, cut back massively on federal spending - including military and entitlements. Good luck controlling spending. No one is willing to let their shit get cut. They just want everybody else shit to be cut.

We are fucked.

[Little Stevie]

You needn't insult my understanding of the economic issues you cherry-picked to make your "point".

I don't fault you for having an opinion but I do fault you for not understanding what a toll the DEREGULATORS took on our economy. From Reagan, to Bush to Dubya, deregulation played a large part in the RTC Bubble under Reagan as did the "Invention of Credit Default Swaps" or derivatives that were used by clever thieves to "insure" mortgage debt. Those portfolios were not required by the CRA and they would have never been insured with regulated mortgage insurance overseen by state insurance commissioners, regulators and actuaries.

No, the CDS/Derivatives were an end run around proper insurance protocol, rules,regulation, enforcement and the requirement of adequate reserves and even lacked proven models that were fully understood by the industry..

I am not picking a fight with you but I AM SAYING that your view is slanted and does not have the proper amount of regulatory condemnation for additional parts of the economy.

Before you jump me for not playing up Clinton's role in the deregulation, I condemn him, too, but more from a standpoint of doing it to get other compromises out of Republicans.

As long as we're being so forgiving of Reagan and Carter, piss on Carter for not controlling inflation and going after the hostages even if he had to recruit the Israelis to plan the missions and screw Reagan for selling arms for hostages and then lying about it long enough to avert the full blown impeachment effort he should have suffered for selling out Oliver North and lying to save his own hide.

Tax cuts DO NOT and NEVER HAVE created even a modest number of jobs in the grand scheme of things. In addition, attrition and/or drastic spending cuts in a recession are recovery killers and actually could cause another double dip recession or worse a global depression.

The Teapublicans are relying on deregulation, defense spending and more Wall Street Casino games to create another bubble to cash in on before it bursts. They simply do not and never have had the country's best interests at heart.

[Guest032516]

I made a SIMPLE point about the illogic of Item #3 that WellEndowed had made, which implied that tax cuts caused unemployment to rise.

Out of that, you have decided that my view is slanted because I didn't have the "proper amount of regulatory condemnation". Wow. Really?

What, pray tell, is the "proper amount of regulatory condemnation", for future reference? Is there anything else of which I need to add the "proper amount"? Perhaps something about the Austrian school of economics? Bankruptcy reform? Student loan programs?

How in the name of God can you take a simple point like the one I made and manage to drag in CDSs, the RTC, de-regulation, Oliver North, Israel, and - seriously - the HOSTAGES? Why stop there? Why not go back to the Bay of Pigs?

When you were a kid, did you parents drive a Rambler?

[CuteOldGuy]

It's the caffeine. Stevie gets this way when he has caffeine after 4:00pm. We've tried to warn him, but he just can't give it up. In the morning he'll be embarrassed about how stupid he sounds, but he's too shy to admit it.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

And averaged 4.7 during Clinton's 8 years.

Multiyear averages such as this are almost worthless. Year-by-year data would be significantly more interesting, because that would give at least some indication of whether the 1994 midterm elections might have had any effect. (You may not be old enough to remember this, but, during Clinton's first two years, the Democrats owned the House and the Senate. In 1994, the Republicans took both of them, in the single biggest peaceful transfer of power this country has ever seen.)

In the first part of Clinton's first term, he published his deficit reduction plan. A Wall Street Journal columnist crunched the numbers, and printed the result: Clinton's plan NEVER got the deficit below 250 billion dollars per year, and scheduled it to rise again after his re-election. I saved that clipping for quite a few years.

It was only AFTER the Republicans took control of the purse strings that the budget made it into balance. The Clintons try to take the credit for it. They were just along for the ride on Newt Gingrich's budget trolley.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I made a SIMPLE point about the illogic of Item #3 that WellEndowed had made, which implied that tax cuts caused unemployment to rise.

Out of that, you have decided that my view is slanted because I didn't have the "proper amount of regulatory condemnation". Wow. Really?

What, pray tell, is the "proper amount of regulatory condemnation", for future reference? Is there anything else of which I need to add the "proper amount"? Perhaps something about the Austrian school of economics? Bankruptcy reform? Student loan programs?

How in the name of God can you take a simple point like the one I made and manage to drag in CDSs, the RTC, de-regulation, Oliver North, Israel, and - seriously - the HOSTAGES? Why stop there? Why not go back to the Bay of Pigs?

When you were a kid, did you parents drive a Rambler?

LMAO! What did YOU parents drive?

I listed those other factors you left out because you made a narrow point in attacking the meaning of the post from well-endowed1911.

You can take this to the bank and the concept is mentioned in what Maddow said about Reagan and today's Republicans. Cutting taxes, in and of itself, does NOT create jobs and the Bush years PROVED that concept was a farcical notion beyond a doubt!

It appears that you completely misunderstood the rest of my post and its connection to the economic factors that played a BIGGER part in the collapse.

Go bone up on the derivative fiasco. Here's a good primer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I listed those other factors you left out because you made a narrow point in attacking the meaning of the post from well-endowed1911.

Exactly. I made narrow point for a REASON. I even told him in my first post "I have a life". I was deliberately trying to avoid disputing all of his points. And for God only knows what reason, you and others are turning this thread into a 30 year survey of every single aspect of the economy. Why do you keep changing the subject?

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

It appears that you completely misunderstood the rest of my post and its connection to the economic factors that played a BIGGER part in the collapse.

I completely understood the rest of your post and have NO IDEA why you thought it was connected to my statement that cutting taxes in 1981 did not not cause unemployment to rise in Reagan's first term. I never discussed - and had no desire to discuss - the collapse of 2008, so why the fuck did you start talking about derivatives and all that other shit?

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Go bone up on the derivative fiasco.

Why? i already know all that shit and have no desire to talk about it. Why are you handing out reading assignments on UNRELATED topics?

WellEndowed's original post tried to make the point that the Reagan of history does not match the Reagan of some people's sentimental memories. However, some, not all, of the points he copied from that article are erroneous I believe. And I rebutted one.

So, just why are you taking about bank collapses in 2008?

Focus.

[cptjohnstone]

here is what Mt Rushmore should look like

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by boxcardummie

So siding with companies in the Hollywood union riots, siding with the board at Berkeley college protests, breaking the flight controllers union, Lowering taxes to a 50% top tax rate, strong arming the soviet union, lowering the national debt by 1 trillion while in office (he added 3 trillion and then knocked 4 trillion off by the time he left), giving amnesty for the promise of tightening the borders with Mexico (dur i wonder if that happened), and not flip flopping his position every campaign cycle is what OBAMA would do?

This is why Ronald Reagan was a great President. He had a vision for America and while willing to compromise he never wavered on his beliefs.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

This is why Ronald Reagan was a great President. He had a vision for America and while willing to compromise he never wavered on his beliefs.

That post was a lie, Reagan did not slash the national debt by a Trillion dollars!

He did give amnesty to a shit load of Mexicans.

''Lowdy Lowdy we's sure does needs us another Reagan!'' says our Tea Folk.

We got one, he is called Obama. The stupid SOB has extended the Bush tax cuts and lowered the SS tax. We are rolling in debt!

[chefnerd]

Correct, Reagan actually increased the debt by just over $1.7 trillion. One other little-known fact is that under his watch 3 of the 4 largest number of business bankruptcies occurred(since 1980).

[icuminpeace]

Can someone explain to me how Reagan reduced the debt? I must have missed something in the post. When Reagain took office, our debt was below $1 trillion, by the time he left it was over $3 trillion. Unless there is some new math these days, $3 is bigger than $1.

[JD Barleycorn]

You know that doesn't even sound like the little Stevie we all know. Is your sister writing your posts now. They have a feminine sort of feel to them. Here is a little homework for Stevie (or his sister); look up the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Fannie and Freddie, Barney Fwank, and Chris Dodd.

As for the Reagan debt, you all forget that the Congress spends not the president. Reagan cut taxes and lowered the top rate just like JFK did in 1962. The democrats under Tip O'Neil came to Reagan and promised to cut spending three dollars for every dollar of tax increase that Reagan would sign off on. So Reagan signed a tax increase and then the democrats forgot their promise to cut spending. It was Congress that increased the debt. They did the same thing to George H W Bush as well. Got him to break his no new taxes promise. That is why no republican candidate would go on record during the debates to raise taxes for a 10 to 1 spending reduction. The democrats have no credibility.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by boxcardummie

... lowering the national debt by 1 trillion while in office (he added 3 trillion and then knocked 4 trillion off by the time he left),

No, he didn't.

In order to lower the national debt, you must run a surplus in at least one year. Reagan never ran a surplus.

And I say this as someone who liked Reagan.

[icuminpeace]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You know that doesn't even sound like the little Stevie we all know. Is your sister writing your posts now. They have a feminine sort of feel to them. Here is a little homework for Stevie (or his sister); look up the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Fannie and Freddie, Barney Fwank, and Chris Dodd.

As for the Reagan debt, you all forget that the Congress spends not the president. Reagan cut taxes and lowered the top rate just like JFK did in 1962. The democrats under Tip O'Neil came to Reagan and promised to cut spending three dollars for every dollar of tax increase that Reagan would sign off on. So Reagan signed a tax increase and then the democrats forgot their promise to cut spending. It was Congress that increased the debt. They did the same thing to George H W Bush as well. Got him to break his no new taxes promise. That is why no republican candidate would go on record during the debates to raise taxes for a 10 to 1 spending reduction. The democrats have no credibility.

Poor Reagan, tricked by the Dems and didn't have the balls to veto the deficit budgets. Just accept that both parties suck and stop defending the Repubs, they're as responsible as the Dems for the mess we're in.