Ronald Reagan was a great man

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're rationalizing. Reagans economic policies resulted in two recesions and forced Bush 1 into a tax increase to pay for Reagans legacy of debt which cost him re-election.

How comes Reaganites and their cult of personality seem to want to shit all over the accomplishments of Bush I?

I mean Bush I may not have had Reagans personality and ability to deal with the media but he was a vastly superior administrator then Reagan (or his son).

Blatantly false. You may argue that the 1990/91 was a result of policies under Reagan, but that is the only recession you can make an argument for. The other recession began six months after he took office. That was a result of policies under Carter, not Reagan. Just as the current recession is more due to Bush policies than Obama. (though Obama is trying hard to take over that responsibility)

The 90/91 recession was in large part due to the real estate decline, which led to the S&L crisis. Mainly in the Real Estate LLCs that high net worth individuals invested in for tax purposes. The tax act of 86 cut their ability to write of depreciation and losses and thus those investors began dumping real estate. In looking back, many of these deals began in the late 70's by high net worth investors taking advantage of real estate gains due to the high inflationary environment. When Volcker started getting inflation under control by raising rates, their returns began to decline.

To say Bush was superior to Reagan is debatable. Bush had some accomplishments, but many were on the tails of what Reagan had done.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Reagan did give people what they want most: freedom.

Who was enslaved, mastermind? Black folk were the last group freed from slavery on masse...there are laws on the books documented that.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

 

[DamnYankee]

Who was enslaved, mastermind? Black folk were the last group freed from slavery on masse...there are laws on the books documented that.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Why is everything always about race with you?

I see you're really on a tirade after your Messiah's beat-down in Massachusetts last night.

 

[Taichiliberal]

What the fuck happened to you Mott? You lived through this shit. What made you forget the real history to believe the revisionists version? A drug overdose; car accident; nervous breakdown cured by electroshock therapy?

The truth has a way of shining through neocon bullshit, Southie. Insipidly stubborn diehards like you just cover their eyes and ears and keep repeating the SOS.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Ronald Reagan was a great man

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Who was enslaved, mastermind? Black folk were the last group freed from slavery on masse...there are laws on the books documented that.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Why is everything always about race with you?

I see you're really on a tirade after your Messiah's beat-down in Massachusetts last night.

No stupid, I just call you on your rhetoric and make you THINK.

YOU made some stupid ass statement that Reagan gave people "freedom". The opposite of freedom is slavery. So again, who are you referring to?

Come on, you willfully ignorant neocon coward....be a man an honestly answer a question.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Blatantly false. You may argue that the 1990/91 was a result of policies under Reagan, but that is the only recession you can make an argument for. The other recession began six months after he took office. That was a result of policies under Carter, not Reagan. Just as the current recession is more due to Bush policies than Obama. (though Obama is trying hard to take over that responsibility)

The 90/91 recession was in large part due to the real estate decline, which led to the S&L crisis. Mainly in the Real Estate LLCs that high net worth individuals invested in for tax purposes. The tax act of 86 cut their ability to write of depreciation and losses and thus those investors began dumping real estate. In looking back, many of these deals began in the late 70's by high net worth investors taking advantage of real estate gains due to the high inflationary environment. When Volcker started getting inflation under control by raising rates, their returns began to decline.

To say Bush was superior to Reagan is debatable. Bush had some accomplishments, but many were on the tails of what Reagan had done.

Why are you pretending that Carter inherited a sound economy? He didn't, he inherited Nixon's 5 year plan, of which some economist said would have a 30 year affect on the nations finances.

And who provided the platform for deregulation for the S&L scandal to happen?

Bottom line: Reagan's temporary fix via Reaganomics supply side economics did NOT trickle down in the way of jobs...he double the national debt.

 

[DamnYankee]

...Insipidly stubborn diehards like you just cover their eyes and ears and keep repeating the SOS.

...

How ironic, Libby.

 

[DamnYankee]

No stupid, I just call you on your rhetoric and make you THINK.

YOU made some stupid ass statement that Reagan gave people "freedom". The opposite of freedom is slavery. So again, who are you referring to?

Come on, you willfully ignorant neocon coward....be a man an honestly answer a question.

What was I referring to you willfully ignorant bigot coward? Freedom from high taxes, excessive regulation, an oppressive economic situation and most especially communism from the Soviets.

YOU injected race into a discussion of freedom in the 1980's. Slavery was eliminated in this county 120 years prior due to the efforts of the Republican Party and in spite of the efforts of your Democrat Party. Yet you're a tool of the Democrats and the issue of race consumes you.

Are you nursing your bruises after your Messiah's beat-down in Massachusetts?

 

[Taichiliberal]

How ironic, Libby.

You don't even know how to properly apply the word...so everytime you use it just indicates that you have no real argument or rational for your blatherings. Now, repeat yourself ad naseum or gives us the faux hyterics or condescending laugh, or just lie...because it's clear you can't defend your position based on logic and facts. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No stupid, I just call you on your rhetoric and make you THINK.

YOU made some stupid ass statement that Reagan gave people "freedom". The opposite of freedom is slavery. So again, who are you referring to?

Come on, you willfully ignorant neocon coward....be a man an honestly answer a question.

What was I referring to you willfully ignorant bigot coward? Freedom from high taxes, excessive regulation, an oppressive economic situation and most especially communism from the Soviets.

YOU injected race into a discussion of freedom in the 1980's. Slavery was eliminated in this county 120 years prior due to the efforts of the Republican Party and in spite of the efforts of your Democrat Party. Yet you're a tool of the Democrats and the issue of race consumes you.

Are you nursing your bruises after your Messiah's beat-down in Massachusetts?

You keep dodging the FACT....YOU said Reagan gave people "freedom"....to date YOU have not explained who was oppressed and how they were oppressed. You see, my intellectually bankrupt neocon friend, oppression is the opposite of freedom.

So grow a pair and honestly answer the question. If you can't, the go blow smoke somewhere else.

 

[DamnYankee]

You don't even know how to properly apply the word...so everytime you use it just indicates that you have no real argument or rational for your blatherings. Now, repeat yourself ad naseum or gives us the faux hyterics or condescending laugh, or just lie...because it's clear you can't defend your position based on logic and facts. Carry on.

How ironic.

 

[DamnYankee]

You keep dodging the FACT....YOU said Reagan gave people "freedom"....to date YOU have not explained who was oppressed and how they were oppressed. You see, my intellectually bankrupt neocon friend, oppression is the opposite of freedom.

So grow a pair and honestly answer the question. If you can't, the go blow smoke somewhere else.

Actually, I posted this before you asked this question:

The largest and longest economic expansion in US history, reduced taxes and regulation, resurgence of military power and morale, end of the Cold War, reductions in nuclear arms, the vision of missile defense, reunification of Germany and freedom for millions of Eastern Europeans: nothing special.

Who and why they were oppressed? That wasn't my point, but nevertheless the answer should be obvious. Sorry if it doesn't specifically include people of your color.

But then again, you're the one who keeps injecting race into discussions that have nothing to do with race.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Actually, I posted this before you asked this question:



Who and why they were oppressed? That wasn't my point, but nevertheless the answer should be obvious. Sorry if it doesn't specifically include people of your color.

But then again, you're the one who keeps injecting race into discussions that have nothing to do with race.

Sorry to burst your bubble, jackass.....but all that rhetoric has been logically and factually disproved on several levels by myself and others in earlier posts. And remember you said Reagan gave US freedom. Since you and I are in the US, your statement is absurd. So now you try to divert your error and lie, which is futile given the chronology of the post. Haven't you learned that by now, genius?

As for the Europeans of the old Soviet bloc...Reagan came in at the END of over 40 years of previous efforts by other administrations...and the FINAL come down was the Soviet Unions waterloo in Afghanistan, which put the financial crippling to terminal. Thank the Afganistanians and Charlie Wilson for that, not Ronnie Raygun. Experts will tell you, if it weren't for that doofus Reagan's posturing and Star Wars, the Soviet Union under Gorbechev's leadership would have folded a LOT sooner. (Star Wars.....a financial pit for a project render moot by the cruise missle a decade earlier).

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Sorry to burst your bubble, jackass.....but all that rhetoric has been logically and factually disproved on several levels by myself and others in earlier posts. And remember you said Reagan gave US freedom. Since you and I are in the US, your statement is absurd. So now you try to divert your error and lie, which is futile given the chronology of the post. Haven't you learned that by now, genius?

As for the Europeans of the old Soviet bloc...Reagan came in at the END of over 40 years of previous efforts by other administrations...and the FINAL come down was the Soviet Unions waterloo in Afghanistan, which put the financial crippling to terminal. Thank the Afganistanians and Charlie Wilson for that, not Ronnie Raygun. Experts will tell you, if it weren't for that doofus Reagan's posturing and Star Wars, the Soviet Union under Gorbechev's leadership would have folded a LOT sooner. (Star Wars.....a financial pit for a project render moot by the cruise missle a decade earlier).

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it.

Experts will tell you nothing of the sort. Even while under the influence of crystal meth. If you want to credit Gorbechev, then remember that he didn't even come to power until 1985, which separates him greatly from the other non-Raygun force you credit, the Afghanis.

 

[DamnYankee]

Sorry to burst your bubble, jackass.....but all that rhetoric has been logically and factually disproved on several levels by myself and others in earlier posts. And remember you said Reagan gave US freedom. Since you and I are in the US, your statement is absurd. So now you try to divert your error and lie, which is futile given the chronology of the post. Haven't you learned that by now, genius?

As for the Europeans of the old Soviet bloc...Reagan came in at the END of over 40 years of previous efforts by other administrations...and the FINAL come down was the Soviet Unions waterloo in Afghanistan, which put the financial crippling to terminal. Thank the Afganistanians and Charlie Wilson for that, not Ronnie Raygun. Experts will tell you, if it weren't for that doofus Reagan's posturing and Star Wars, the Soviet Union under Gorbechev's leadership would have folded a LOT sooner. (Star Wars.....a financial pit for a project render moot by the cruise missle a decade earlier).

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it.

Actually, Libby, here's my quote that set you off on your latest hissy fit:

Reagan did give people what they want most: freedom.

Meaning that Reagan gave a lot of folks freedom, in Europe by winning the Cold War and squashing the soviets and in the US through lower taxes and reduced regulation.

And since you're apparently only concerned about folks of African descent, George W. Bush doled out a tremendous amount of freedom for folks in the African continent by financing initiatives to fight AIDS.

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually, Libby, here's my quote that set you off on your latest hissy fit:



Meaning that Reagan gave a lot of folks freedom, in Europe by winning the Cold War and squashing the soviets and in the US through lower taxes and reduced regulation.

And since you're apparently only concerned about folks of African descent, George W. Bush doled out a tremendous amount of freedom for folks in the African continent by financing initiatives to fight AIDS.

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it.

and I showed you that this is a mythology about Reagan.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Eat shit and die. Bush 41 mentioned New World Order in a speech, and the result was a huge loss in confidence. What the fuck is this "reverse socialism" crap? Supply side works, I happened to be taking economics during Reagan's term from one of the only sane economists in the Northeast.

Bullshit on that Keynesian crap that you liberals espouse. Obama's trying that with the stimulus package. HAS IT WORKED?

Supply Side Economics, particularly Republican interpretation of it, has no economic validity and has never worked. It is just a rationalization for regresive taxation to artificially redistribute wealth upwards (i.e. reverse socialism) to the most wealthy. Like communism it has never, ever been demonstrated to work.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually, the left likes to exagerate the era of Reagan more than the right. Just look above at Cypress's idiocy.

The largest period of economic growth in this country was from Nov. 1982-March of 2000. The only blip during that time was the 8 month recession of 90/91. Conversely, there were four recessions during the time of Roosevelt through the end of Trumans term. To be clear... the boom that began under Reagan had more to due with Volcker than Reagan. But it most certainly is the longest period of economic growth in our countries history.

The cold war was essentially done before Bush ever took over... thanks to a multitude of players.... Gorbachev, The Pope, the polish people, the East German police, Reagan, Thatcher etc... that said you are technically correct in that it officially ended under Bush. Bottom line, the USSR was on the brink of collapse when Bush took over. In large part due to the talks between Gorbachev and Reagan. The reversal of Reagans hardline stance provided Gorby with at least one foot on solid ground when performing his reforms of the USSR.

I know the left likes to harp on his tax increases... bottom line is this... yes, he compromised with Tip on a lot of issues. The gas tax and SS taxes surely rankled conservatives at the time. While they butted heads, they treated each other with a respect between parties that has been lost since Reagan left office.

One thing the left ALWAYS harps on is the deficits under Reagan... yet they forget to mention that bailing out SS was roughly 1/10th of the total deficits under Reagan. That the early deficits were to combat a recession (much as Saint Obama has done during the current downturn). Add in defense spending to help drive the USSR over the edge and there is the bulk of those deficits. ALL done with the approval of Tips House. The Dems could have blocked ANY of the bills to hit Reagans desk... but they did not. Just as Reagan could have vetoed any he wished... but in most cases did not.

The economic upturn during the 1990's was a result of policies and procedures put in place during Reagan's tenure... again, Volcker deserves a lot of the credit. Clinton simply stayed out of the way (after getting his ass handed to him on Hillarycare)... as it turns out... the policies of Clinton (and approved by the Rep Congress) actually were a large part of why we are where we are today.

Reagan's human rights positions seemed dependent on location... he ignored violations in Central and South America and fought for human rights in the Soviet Bloc. To be sure... his ignoring what was occurring south of us is a black mark on his tenure.

As for Cypress's idiocy with regards to 'popularity'.... call us when Obama has a Reagan like landslide re-election... Somehow I doubt he dominates his opponent the way Reagan slapped down Mondale. Because like him or not... Reagan was a good leader. This country came back from the brink during his tenure. The population as a whole was far better off in 1989 than they were in 1981.

Oh I certainly agree with you there. Both sides exagerate Reagan's legacy. Reagan was not evil incarnate nor was he the second coming of Abe Lincoln. He was, in general, a good President. He was in no way shape or form, a historically great President. If Reagan had been tested by history with a Revolution or a Civil War or a Great Depresion or World War he might of made the measure of greatness but the fact is, he didn't. That's hardly to his discredit though.

 

[DamnYankee]

and I showed you that this is a mythology about Reagan.

You provided DNC talking points, which are mythology.

 

[DamnYankee]

Supply Side Economics, particularly Republican interpretation of it, has no economic validity and has never worked. It is just a rationalization for regresive taxation to artificially redistribute wealth upwards (i.e. reverse socialism) to the most wealthy. Like communism it has never, ever been demonstrated to work.

Actually, supply side works every time its implemented:

In 1921 the top marginal tax rate was 73%. The Secretary of the Treasury at that time, Andrew Mellon, managed to convice Congress to pass a series of three tax cuts that reduced that top marginal rate to 25% by the year 1926. While the top rate was being reduced by nearly two-thirds, the bottom tax rates were eliminated altogether. Millions of lower income Americans had their income taxes cut or even eliminated. As a result of those tax rate reductions, the US Treasury increased revenues from earners making more than $50,000 by 63%, from $305 million to $498 million in just five years. At the same time, those earning less than $50,000 had their tax liability reduced by 45%.

By the 1960s, the top marginal rate had once again climbed to a confiscatory 91%. Tax cuts enacted by President Kennedy in 1963 and continued by President Johnson through 1965 reduced that top rate from 91% down to 70%, still ridiculously high, by any measure. At the same time, the bottom rate was dropped from 20% down to 14%. The reduced tax rates benefited nearly nearly every taxpayer. The results were much the same as what was experienced in the 1920s.

...

The Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70% all the way down to 33%. As in previous Supply-Side tax cuts, the real taxes paid by wealthy wage earners increased dramatically, even as rates were reduced. As a proportion of overall revenue, high income earners paid a greater proportion as well. The top ten percent of all wage earners paid almost $200 billion in 1988, compared to about $151 billion in 1981. That is an increase of almost 33%. At the same time, the bottom 90% of all taxpayers found their tax liability reduced by nearly 8% from nearly $162 billion in 1981 to just over $149 billion in 1988.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.co..._supply_side_economic_theory_and_why_it_works