medicineman
New Member
Reagan is dead, thank God, that trickle down was the worst Idea ever. Even the sound of it sounds evil.
Obama wins, we lose. McCain wins, we lose.
- Thread starter henleyhaze
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Your arrogance is charming.
I am thoroughly awed and impressed by your logical strands. You sure showed me.
I don't remember pointing fingers.
Please reconsider my statement:
In other words, a reason to go into Iraq was to draw the terrorists there.
If we take our foreign policy cues from Al Queda, we must go home. No investment in the Middle East. No cultural exchange. No nothing. And every time our presence anywhere offends Islam we must leave.
No thank you. But I have a non-conventional suggestion for what YOU could do with it.
Last edited:
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
I have a personal grudge against Reagan. My mom died when I was 12, leaving me some minor social security benefits from her years of paying into it. Well, the year I was due to turn 18 and graduate from high school, Reagan signed a law that invalidated social security to anyone turning 18 that year, unless they were fulltime enrolled in college...by March. How can you graduate from high school in June, but be fulltime enrolled in college by March? Obviously, you can't. In effect, he stole three years of my social security (before signing that law the payments were supposed to go until I turned 21), that my mom worked her whole life for.
At the same time, he spent $250,000 on a new set of china for the White House. In protest, I wrote him a letter on a paper plate folded in half and asked him to sell just *one* of those expensive plates and restore the social security that my mom worked for. I never got a reply of course, and now I'm probably on some kind of watch list.
Since I could no longer afford to go to college, I joined the Army. That's when I realized that that was probably his very intention with signing that bill into law, to plump up the ranks of the military by stealing the social security from the poor and leaving them few viable options for a better future. And it worked. Bastard.
At the same time, he spent $250,000 on a new set of china for the White House. In protest, I wrote him a letter on a paper plate folded in half and asked him to sell just *one* of those expensive plates and restore the social security that my mom worked for. I never got a reply of course, and now I'm probably on some kind of watch list.
Since I could no longer afford to go to college, I joined the Army. That's when I realized that that was probably his very intention with signing that bill into law, to plump up the ranks of the military by stealing the social security from the poor and leaving them few viable options for a better future. And it worked. Bastard.
medicineman
New Member
One word for that asshole, "Trickledown". That says it all.
During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years,[9] while payroll taxes increased as well as the effective tax rates on the lower two income quintiles.[
The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[15] due to the facts that the combination of significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits,[16] the U.S. trade deficit expansion,[16] and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis,[17] as well as the stock market crash of 1987. In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[18]
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ViRedd
New Member
At the end of Jimmy Carter's term, the country was "enjoying" an inflation rate and interest rates both exceeding 18%.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854,00.html
Reagan was hired as president by the American people in landslide victories both times he ran for president. His job was to get the economy back on track, which he did, by slashing the income tax rates on the most productive in society, putting that money back into the hands of the private sector, and removing it from the hands of inefficient federal bureaucrats. The Reagan economic policies caused an unprecedented economic boom that lasted to near the end of the Clinton administration.
And by the way, when Ronald Reagan spoke in Berlin, he had something really concrete to talk about.
Vi
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854,00.html
Reagan was hired as president by the American people in landslide victories both times he ran for president. His job was to get the economy back on track, which he did, by slashing the income tax rates on the most productive in society, putting that money back into the hands of the private sector, and removing it from the hands of inefficient federal bureaucrats. The Reagan economic policies caused an unprecedented economic boom that lasted to near the end of the Clinton administration.
And by the way, when Ronald Reagan spoke in Berlin, he had something really concrete to talk about.
Vi
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
If by economic boom you mean 'gigantic debt and deficit that took Clinton eight years to balance', yes, we had an economic boom. It wasn't really a boom though, any more than you're having a financial boom when you go splurge at the mall with your credit card. Spending is not an economic boom. Having enough money to *save* is an economic boom.
It wasn't until the Clinton years that we ever approached a real boom. There was a short period of time near the end of the Clinton when the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a budget surplus of a couple of trillion dollars. Those days seem so very far away now, more than 10 trillion dollars away and rapidly receding into the distance as our debt grows.
It wasn't until the Clinton years that we ever approached a real boom. There was a short period of time near the end of the Clinton when the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a budget surplus of a couple of trillion dollars. Those days seem so very far away now, more than 10 trillion dollars away and rapidly receding into the distance as our debt grows.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
hey VI. you really need to put this in context.. you are comparing the only president since WWII to reduce the USA debt to the president who PRINTED more money than all the presidents from Gorge Washington to Jimmy Carter Combined (times 2)...At the end of Jimmy Carter's term, the country was "enjoying" an inflation rate and interest rates both exceeding 18%.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854,00.html
Reagan was hired as president by the American people in landslide victories both times he ran for president. His job was to get the economy back on track, which he did, by slashing the income tax rates on the most productive in society, putting that money back into the hands of the private sector, and removing it from the hands of inefficient federal bureaucrats. The Reagan economic policies caused an unprecedented economic boom that lasted to near the end of the Clinton administration.
And by the way, when Ronald Reagan spoke in Berlin, he had something really concrete to talk about.
Vi
FYI - reason the dollar aint worth shit today ....lol.. cause of your buddy reagan....
Have you heard of Iran Contra.. GW senior.. head of the CIA.. offering the Iranians 200 million to hold the hostages until after the election (reagan vs carter)...
The most unpatriotic act since... since... well, EVER...
iloveyou
and if that's not enough for you.. how about you look at what the presidents have done since after thet left office.. it gets real ugly.. real ugly bro!
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
so, the weren't there before the GOOD OL' USA showed up on the scene?
Speaking of printing money, McCain actually talked about this and the Fed being a bad thing. Maybe McCain is learning.
ccodiane
New Member
Stupid is as stupid says.....knoman should read before speaking, er, no man should speak before reading....
Money, Value, and Monetary History
after Milton Friedman
The theory that inflation was caused by money creation, rather than by an "overheated" economy, and that economic growth is caused by capital investment in the free market, rather than by high taxes and the
demand-side effects of government spending, led to the tax cuts promoted by President Reagan, the fiscal conservatism of the Volker-Greenspan Federal Reserve System, and the economic prosperity of the 80's and,
evidently, the 90's. This was little more than a vindication of common sense and Classical Economics. However, the political constituency for high taxes and government spending, regardless of their justification, has
not disappeared. On the contrary. The massive "social" spending and expansion of the government in the 70's created whole classes of people who were dependents of that spending and who really knew or cared little
about the sources of growth or prosperity. Indeed, since they didn't have to engage in economically productive activity, just in politics, they perpetuated the Leftist fantasy that politics alone is responsible for wealth.
This is now the greatest problem in American politics: the promotion of essentially Marxist ideas, which are so discredited by history and science and morality as to be laughable, by an educated intelligentsia, among
academia, the press, and the literati, who depend only on the power of their own sophistry. This makes them perfect shills for interest-group politics, where the only real interest is in getting money out of the
government. For this to work, taxes and spending must be as high as possible. But then it was discovered, during the Reagan years, that spending could be run up far beyond the tax base without immediate
consequences. The deficit spending that had been the animus of conservatives since the New Deal now was sold to conservatives on the principle that the relatively low tax rates did promote prosperity, while the high
spending bought off the interest groups. The future, evidently, could take care of itself.
Nevertheless, interest-group politicians, meaning all Democrats and most Republicans (or at least most Republicans in office), retained an instinctive love of taxes. The credulous President Bush was thus duped, with
old fashioned fiscally conservative arguments, to break his only meaningful campaign promise of 1988, and his only real link to the Reagan political constitutency, by raising taxes. A Democratic Congress then never
bothered providing the promised spending reductions. President Clinton, under the deceptive "New Democrat" banner, but still a whole-hearted believer in taxes, spending, and socialist command-economy devices for
politically hot areas like "health care" and "child care," slowed the recovery from Bush's 90-91 recession with his own tax increases.
A new Republican Congress in 1995 derailed, somewhat, where that was all headed; but it is now clear that the Republicans have been corrupted both by the same interest group politics and by fear of the self-righteous
disdain of the intelligentsia. They have thus cooperated with Clinton in the lie that hemorrhaging "social" spending, whose liabilities are kept off budget, does not count and that a "balanced budget" will soon arrive. They
have also joined in the despicable practice of transferring expenses from the government to private business by mandating uneconomic "benefits," like "family leave." The government thus can hand out goodies by law
rather than by taxing and spending. This evades the truth that, as Walter Williams says, "businesses are tax collectors, not tax payers," which means that people will be paying for these "benefits" anyway, in higher
prices, higher unemployment, lower wages, or in whatever ways that businesses will need to use to finance them. It is only the forseeable bankruptcies of Social Security and Medicare, hurried by any unforseen
problems with the economy, that will put an end to the continuation of this era of political dishonesty and looting.
Money, Value, and Monetary History
Money, Value, and Monetary History
after Milton Friedman
The theory that inflation was caused by money creation, rather than by an "overheated" economy, and that economic growth is caused by capital investment in the free market, rather than by high taxes and the
demand-side effects of government spending, led to the tax cuts promoted by President Reagan, the fiscal conservatism of the Volker-Greenspan Federal Reserve System, and the economic prosperity of the 80's and,
evidently, the 90's. This was little more than a vindication of common sense and Classical Economics. However, the political constituency for high taxes and government spending, regardless of their justification, has
not disappeared. On the contrary. The massive "social" spending and expansion of the government in the 70's created whole classes of people who were dependents of that spending and who really knew or cared little
about the sources of growth or prosperity. Indeed, since they didn't have to engage in economically productive activity, just in politics, they perpetuated the Leftist fantasy that politics alone is responsible for wealth.
This is now the greatest problem in American politics: the promotion of essentially Marxist ideas, which are so discredited by history and science and morality as to be laughable, by an educated intelligentsia, among
academia, the press, and the literati, who depend only on the power of their own sophistry. This makes them perfect shills for interest-group politics, where the only real interest is in getting money out of the
government. For this to work, taxes and spending must be as high as possible. But then it was discovered, during the Reagan years, that spending could be run up far beyond the tax base without immediate
consequences. The deficit spending that had been the animus of conservatives since the New Deal now was sold to conservatives on the principle that the relatively low tax rates did promote prosperity, while the high
spending bought off the interest groups. The future, evidently, could take care of itself.
Nevertheless, interest-group politicians, meaning all Democrats and most Republicans (or at least most Republicans in office), retained an instinctive love of taxes. The credulous President Bush was thus duped, with
old fashioned fiscally conservative arguments, to break his only meaningful campaign promise of 1988, and his only real link to the Reagan political constitutency, by raising taxes. A Democratic Congress then never
bothered providing the promised spending reductions. President Clinton, under the deceptive "New Democrat" banner, but still a whole-hearted believer in taxes, spending, and socialist command-economy devices for
politically hot areas like "health care" and "child care," slowed the recovery from Bush's 90-91 recession with his own tax increases.
A new Republican Congress in 1995 derailed, somewhat, where that was all headed; but it is now clear that the Republicans have been corrupted both by the same interest group politics and by fear of the self-righteous
disdain of the intelligentsia. They have thus cooperated with Clinton in the lie that hemorrhaging "social" spending, whose liabilities are kept off budget, does not count and that a "balanced budget" will soon arrive. They
have also joined in the despicable practice of transferring expenses from the government to private business by mandating uneconomic "benefits," like "family leave." The government thus can hand out goodies by law
rather than by taxing and spending. This evades the truth that, as Walter Williams says, "businesses are tax collectors, not tax payers," which means that people will be paying for these "benefits" anyway, in higher
prices, higher unemployment, lower wages, or in whatever ways that businesses will need to use to finance them. It is only the forseeable bankruptcies of Social Security and Medicare, hurried by any unforseen
problems with the economy, that will put an end to the continuation of this era of political dishonesty and looting.
Money, Value, and Monetary History
ccodiane
New Member
From the same article......very interesting stuff.....if you can read....
Money, Value, and Monetary History
The "money-changers" in the Temple were, of course, Jews. Franklin Roosevelt is usually not thought of as anti-Semitic; but Paul Johnson, in his A History of the Jews [HarperPerennial, 1987], says of him:
Money, Value, and Monetary History
The "money-changers" in the Temple were, of course, Jews. Franklin Roosevelt is usually not thought of as anti-Semitic; but Paul Johnson, in his A History of the Jews [HarperPerennial, 1987], says of him:
He was both anti-Semitic, in a mild way, and ill informed. When the topic came up at the Casablanca Conference, he spoke of "the understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely that while they represented a small part of the population, over 50 per cent of the lawyers, doctors, schoolteachers, college professors in Germany were Jews" (the actual figures were 16.3, 10.9, 2.6 and 0.5 per cent). [p. 504]
Even if it were not disturbing that Roosevelt should have held such views, at the time an actual genocide was being carried out against the Jews in Eastern Europe, it should be suspicious that Roosevelt in our "money-changers" quote is clearly laying the blame for the Depression on financiers and on the profit motive. The "ancient truths" he speaks of turn out to be the principles of mediaeval economics, things like the "just price," the "just wage," and a Guild (i.e. union) monopoly over labor. Such principles, dressed up as "Progressivism," created the Depression under Hoover, prolonged it under Roosevelt, and have haunted American politics ever since with destructive and corrupting devices like the minimum wage, "collective bargaining," and Social Security.Bongulator
Well-Known Member
I don't see what's wrong with Social Security. It works basically like any other retirement system. My significant other's retirement system is very similar. You pay into it for the duration of your career. When you retire, you draw back out. It's just a collectivized form of investment and savings accounts. What, nobody should be able to invest and save for the days when they are no longer able to work?
To be fair, my significant other's retirement plan was voluntary. They took out 11 percent of her gross for more than 30 years, and I think they take 12.5 percent now. If people elect not to pay in, that's okay, they just don't get anything for retirement. But she did pay in, and now receives $72k/year for the rest of her life. (It does adjust somewhat for inflation, so she'll get minor raises over time.) If she lives forty more years (on the edge of possibility), that'll be about three million dollars.
The only real difference is that Social Security, depending on your job, is mandatory, and you can't elect not to pay into it. But you *can* elect to take a job that doesn't require it, e.g. one that has its own retirement plan, like my significant other. So it's not inescapable if you just hate paying into Social Security.
I believe the thinking is, if our aging population has some income after they can no longer work, then they'll be able to at least somewhat support themselves rather than becoming homeless or wards of the state or stuck in mental institutions until they die. They are thus able to maintain some semblance of dignity in their latter days.
It's not a big issue to me, since my significant other is ineligible for Social Security, and though I will be eventually eligible, I won't accept the benefits, as I don't need them. I do believe Social Security is a good idea though, for those jobs that offer no retirement plan.
Also, think about the fact that when you pay into Social Security, your employer is contributing just as much into it as you are. Privatize retirement accounts, and that may not be so. Then you might get a better return on your money (or lose it all), but you'd have half the money to get a return on. The end result if they were to dissolve Social Security and throw people to their own retirement-planning devices is that the matching contributions requirement would likely end, and people would be left with *half* the retirement income they were expecting. Instead of it being 12 percent out of your pocket, and 12 percent out of your employer's pocket, it'd be 24 percent out of *your* pocket to achieve the same level of retirement income. Other than businesses, I don't know anyone who'd think that was a good deal. And businesses don't retire, people do.
To be fair, my significant other's retirement plan was voluntary. They took out 11 percent of her gross for more than 30 years, and I think they take 12.5 percent now. If people elect not to pay in, that's okay, they just don't get anything for retirement. But she did pay in, and now receives $72k/year for the rest of her life. (It does adjust somewhat for inflation, so she'll get minor raises over time.) If she lives forty more years (on the edge of possibility), that'll be about three million dollars.
The only real difference is that Social Security, depending on your job, is mandatory, and you can't elect not to pay into it. But you *can* elect to take a job that doesn't require it, e.g. one that has its own retirement plan, like my significant other. So it's not inescapable if you just hate paying into Social Security.
I believe the thinking is, if our aging population has some income after they can no longer work, then they'll be able to at least somewhat support themselves rather than becoming homeless or wards of the state or stuck in mental institutions until they die. They are thus able to maintain some semblance of dignity in their latter days.
It's not a big issue to me, since my significant other is ineligible for Social Security, and though I will be eventually eligible, I won't accept the benefits, as I don't need them. I do believe Social Security is a good idea though, for those jobs that offer no retirement plan.
Also, think about the fact that when you pay into Social Security, your employer is contributing just as much into it as you are. Privatize retirement accounts, and that may not be so. Then you might get a better return on your money (or lose it all), but you'd have half the money to get a return on. The end result if they were to dissolve Social Security and throw people to their own retirement-planning devices is that the matching contributions requirement would likely end, and people would be left with *half* the retirement income they were expecting. Instead of it being 12 percent out of your pocket, and 12 percent out of your employer's pocket, it'd be 24 percent out of *your* pocket to achieve the same level of retirement income. Other than businesses, I don't know anyone who'd think that was a good deal. And businesses don't retire, people do.
Last edited:
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I don't know and I don't really care. Some say they were there and some say they were not.
But they showed up in droves when we did arrive, the second time.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
I think we drew them there. We represented an easy target in a country where they blend in far better than we do.
I'm not necessarily against honeypot techniques, but I'm sure we could've found somewhere to place the honeypot that wouldn't cost us two trillion dollars. Like...oh, I don't know, Afghanistan comes to mind, since we were already there, and that's where the enemy is too.
I'm not necessarily against honeypot techniques, but I'm sure we could've found somewhere to place the honeypot that wouldn't cost us two trillion dollars. Like...oh, I don't know, Afghanistan comes to mind, since we were already there, and that's where the enemy is too.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
THEY DID?
Are you sure?
who are they?
And how can you not care about the specifics of your own argument?
medicineman
New Member
Sounds like you've slipped your mooring, better get a tighter grip on reality. I'd have to say there are millions of Americans that disagree with you, especially us old farts surviving off of SS. I really can't understand your reasoning, but there are mental patients all over the net. What I've found is, most people on the net are from middle to upper class. It takes money to afford a computer, a place to operate from and internet access charges, things a lot of poor folks can't afford. So a lot of opinions, Like yours, are skewed from the gates. Yeah, it's nice to have nothing better to do than sit in my office and play with mental migets, but even I know that I had to work my ass off for 50+ years to get here. Some folks with opinions like mine can't afford to be here, so I'll have to speak for them, I know this is probably too simplistic for you to grasp, but see if you can get it. Thanks for listening.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The enemy. The insurgents, if your are from Reuters. The 'Freedom Fighters,' if you are Cindy Sheehan.
It was in all the papers.
How can you be sure of anything with your nebulous frame of reference? You are not, except that you are sure you are correct and I am wrong.
That's otherwise known as opinion. You are welcome to it. However, it is of no more value than mine.
Last edited:
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
I think you forgot who you were talking to..
Maybe you ment to say
Except that I AM sure I AM correct and you are wrong.
or maybe you ment to say..
Please stop talking and feed me a bannana
I have no interest in being right.. I just want the truth...
I am just trying to figure out wtf your saying...