How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by lolhahaha

Star Trek 4 welcome to the most advance society over here but, how are you going to pay for all this SHIT, a black Friday black line money laundering scam credit.

Motherfucker! Got me. Nice one.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Motherfucker! Got me. Nice one.

Question eccieuser. If memory serves me correctly, you dislike Reagan. And being more interested in social than economic issues, I suspect you have decent reasons for feeling that way. What are they?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Question eccieuser. If memory serves me correctly, you dislike Reagan. And being more interested in social than economic issues, I suspect you have decent reasons for feeling that way. What are they?

As my profile says, I have more time than expenses. Sir.

[eccieuser9500]

Reagan had every reason to declare a national emergency as soon as he decided to care.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

I've had you and others have proved it. Y'all keep posting exactly where the rise in ratio from debt to GDP ratio took an extreme uptick! 1980

No. your data started at 1980 without any regard to the previous years, i posted the entire list. and it showed Reagan's average Debt/GDP percentage for his 2 terms about the same overall as the previous two decades.

the only thing Reagan actually started was an economic boom.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Reagan had every reason to declare a national emergency as soon as he decided to care.

for what reason? you been drinking?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No. your data started at 1980 without any regard to the previous years, i posted the entire list. and it showed Reagan's average Debt/GDP percentage for his 2 terms about the same overall as the previous two decades.






for what reason? you been drinking?

I have. And my reason is more social than economical. Sir. (If only you know how much it to to tap that out on the keys . . .)

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I have. And my reason is more social than economical. Sir. (If only you know how much it to to tap that out on the keys . . .)

so what exactly are you babbling about?

"Reagan had every reason to declare a national emergency as soon as he decided to care"

about what?


BAHHAAAA

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No. your data started at 1980 without any regard to the previous years, i posted the entire list. and it showed Reagan's average Debt/GDP percentage for his 2 terms about the same overall as the previous two decades.

the only thing Reagan actually started was an economic boom.




for what reason? you been drinking?

If you understood what the data stated that was posted you'd have understood that the debt to GDP ratio significantly increased.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you understood what the data stated that was posted you'd have understood that the debt to GDP ratio significantly increased.

not under Reagan. it was about the same on average as the previous 2 decades. prove that wrong, professor.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you understood what the data stated that was posted you'd have understood that the debt to GDP ratio significantly increased.

Take a look at post 955. Deficits as a % of GDP during the Obama administration were on average 50% higher than those during the Reagan administration.

And also post 989. I put a lot of effort into that to address your criticisms of Reagan and deficits during the 1980's. And to clarify what Stockman said. I don't think you're read that one.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Take a look at post 955. Deficits as a % of GDP during the Obama administration were on average 50% higher than those during the Reagan administration.

And also post 989. I put a lot of effort into that to address your criticisms of Reagan and deficits during the 1980's. And to clarify what Stockman said. I don't think you're read that one.

correct, as i noted here ..

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Obama pledged to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term. how'd that work out?


2008 $10,025 68% Bank bailout & QE
2009 $11,910 82% Bailout cost $250B ARRA added $242B
2010 $13,562 90% ARRA added $400B, payroll tax holiday ended, Obama Tax cuts, ACA, Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95% Debt crisis, recession and tax cuts reduced revenue
2012 $16,066 99% Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99% Sequester, government shutdown
2014 $17,824 101% QE ended, debt ceiling crisis
2015 $18,151 100% Oil prices fell
2016 $19,573 105% Brexit


now before you jabber about Reagan again, let's take a look shall we?


1980 $908 32% Volcker raised fed rate to 20%
1981 $998 31% Reagan tax cut
1982 $1,142 34% Reagan increased spending
1983 $1,377 37% Jobless rate 10.8%
1984 $1,572 38% Increased defense spending
1985 $1,823 41%
1986 $2,125 46% Reagan lowered taxes
1987 $2,350 48% Market crash
1988 $2,602 50% Fed raised rates


in raw numbers Reagan tripled the debt, Obama "only" doubled it. got that, professor?

now look at the GDP percentages. which president really jacked it up? remember professor you blabbered about the ratio in earlier posts so you can't back off now, Yosemite Sam.


Obama. under Reagan it increased 18% capping at 50%. under Obama it increased 37% capping out at 105%.


Lusty is right. Obama is the debt whore prez. and why do you dislike Ronnie so much? did he once fornicate with a close familial relation of yours?


BAHHAAHHAAAA

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

correct, as i noted here ..

Nice summary of the events behind the numbers. It doesn't mention the 1981/1982 recession though, which ran up the deficit during Reagan's first term.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Nice summary of the events behind the numbers. It doesn't mention the 1981/1982 recession though, which ran up the deficit during Reagan's first term.

it's factored in by the percent averages.

Obama. under Reagan it increased 18% capping at 50%. under Obama it increased 37% capping out at 105%.

to compare Reagan to previous numbers i went back to 1960 to exclude 1945 to 1959 to take out the cost of WWII


that's all i need to do to prove the econ professor WTF wrong

[dilbert firestorm]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/xUA7a...iphy.webp&ct=g

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

First, great link. Some very interesting comments by Stockman. I hope he's wrong about a lot of this but fear he may be right.

Art Laffer said he was an admirer of Bill Clinton. No, Clinton didn't get everything right. He did raise taxes on ordinary income. But he, and a Republican Congress, reformed welfare, promoted free trade, balanced the budget, and cut the capital gains tax. And he didn't get us into any wars. And in the words of Laffer, 4 out of 5 ain't bad. Or something like that.

.

Let's try and bring all this together.

Raising taxes when the rate is too low is actually what the Laffer Curve illustrates to be the efficient thing to do. Unless of course you want massive debt! So maybe it was 5 out of 5 for Clinton...although to be fair, Clinton did not balance the budget if you were to take the massive surpluses from entitlement programs out of the equation that LBJ combined to hide the growing cost of Vietnam. Clinton in fact still ran deficits.

This has been the jest of my argument. Reagan was such a good salesman that there is this whole generation of Americans who think cutting taxes is ALWAYS a good thing. it is not, unless you want explosives deficits/debt.

The graph lustylad provided shows exactly that. And it started with REAGAN.