So, this has been happening....

I hate Reagan, he's not the worst, but I think over time when we realize how terrible the movement in the economy that started in his reign was.

You seem quite biased. The economy will be fine once we recover from the housing crisis. The housing crisis just flumoxed everything and screwed up median household net worth. But eventually that will come back.

Honestly the economy is rolling just fine outside of the occasional recessions, which are inevitable.
 
You seem quite biased. The economy will be fine once we recover from the housing crisis. The housing crisis just flumoxed everything and screwed up median household net worth. But eventually that will come back.

Honestly the economy is rolling just fine outside of the occasional recessions, which are inevitable.

weso, the economy is not fine, it has not been fine, and will not ever be fine with 20% of the population owning 90% of the wealth in country and this gets worse every single year. You can ease your mind with the typical Repub lines if it makes you feel better but while I am convinced communism is a stupid system that doesn't work, capitalism with this kind of effed up wealth distribution won't work either People have to have some incentive, your party's friends have all but taken that away and it started during Reagan's terms. Ignoring it won't make things better. Oh and as for Bush 41, google the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal sometime and find a good thorough article and see if you recognize any of the prime offenders last name.
 
You seem quite biased. The economy will be fine once we recover from the housing crisis. The housing crisis just flumoxed everything and screwed up median household net worth. But eventually that will come back.

Honestly the economy is rolling just fine outside of the occasional recessions, which are inevitable.

It's fine of rnow but at some point deby based spending has to stop. And that's when Reagan willbe reconned upon.

Look at the graph and notice when the first major jumps started

increases-us-debt-limit-560.jpg


Don't get me wrong, every president since Reagan has contributed.
 
It's unfair to extrapolate Reagan's debt spending out to today. Reagan clearly had no intention to create some exorbitant debt total. Most of what was spent on the debt was in regards to ending the Cold War which wasn't meant to be long lasting, and wasn't. Debt hasn't been a real issue until the most recent financial crisis.
 
weso, the economy is not fine, it has not been fine, and will not ever be fine with 20% of the population owning 90% of the wealth in country and this gets worse every single year. You can ease your mind with the typical Repub lines if it makes you feel better but while I am convinced communism is a stupid system that doesn't work, capitalism with this kind of effed up wealth distribution won't work either People have to have some incentive, your party's friends have all but taken that away and it started during Reagan's terms. Ignoring it won't make things better. Oh and as for Bush 41, google the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal sometime and find a good thorough article and see if you recognize any of the prime offenders last name.

But the economy has been fine in the past. That's fine if you think it will never be fine again. We just disagree on that.

You talking about Neil Bush's scandal? I seriously doubt Bush 41 was involved in that. It wouldn't make any sense.
 
It's unfair to extrapolate Reagan's debt spending out to today. Reagan clearly had no intention to create some exorbitant debt total. Most of what was spent on the debt was in regards to ending the Cold War which wasn't meant to be long lasting, and wasn't. Debt hasn't been a real issue until the most recent financial crisis.

Reagan started that spending, no president did that before. Speculating on what Reagan wanted or not is moronic. Obama wants universal health care, but gave us ****ty Obamacare.
 
Reagan started that spending, no president did that before. Speculating on what Reagan wanted or not is moronic. Obama wants universal health care, but gave us ****ty Obamacare.

But Reagan hasn't been president in nearly 30 years. You're blaming all debt after he was in office on him? And what do you mean no president did that before? We've had a long history of federal debt way before Reagan was in office.
 
Reagan's economic strategy is debt based, so yeah I'm blaming debt on him after he left office.

I wouldn't call it debt based, but even if you're right I don't understand how that applies to our current debt. I mean are you going to blame Obama if Hillary Clinton decides to raise taxes to 80%? His economic policy is tax based after all, so she's just continuing what he started. No, I mean there are clearly sustainable levels of debt and then we have what we have now.

I think your assumption that Reagan's policies implied some infinite increase in federal debt is misguided.
 
But the economy has been fine in the past. That's fine if you think it will never be fine again. We just disagree on that.

You talking about Neil Bush's scandal? I seriously doubt Bush 41 was involved in that. It wouldn't make any sense.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we aren't going to agree on much if we're talking about the 80's and that's fine, but google (I assume you trust google to not be a left wing schill) wealth distribution by class and find a grid/table/chart that you feel comes from a source you think is relatively honest and go back to the 1980's and then follow how things were then and how they've developed into how they are now. Remember this though, I'm not setting up what I think we need to do next regarding the unfreakingbelievable disparity in wealth and I'm not even calling out the top 5%-10% (mainly) on what a bunch greedy c*cksuckers I think they are, I'm really just talking about how thing were wealth distribution wise 30 years ago and then see how things are now and I challenge you and all other Repubs to just say "oh well things have been bad before economically speaking and they got better ergo they're going to get better again". Well your Repub buddies had better get their heads out of their arses and start making some changes in how they do business or things WILL start to equalize out but not in a way they're going to be happy about.

Oh and on the Neil Bush/Bush 41 thing check the dates and ask yourself what really big went on around that same time that made everyone forget about Silverado and really all the savings and loan scandals.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we aren't going to agree on much if we're talking about the 80's and that's fine, but google (I assume you trust google to not be a left wing schill) wealth distribution by class and find a grid/table/chart that you feel comes from a source you think is relatively honest and go back to the 1980's and then follow how things were then and how they've developed into how they are now. Remember this though, I'm not setting up what I think we need to do next regarding the unfreakingbelievable disparity in wealth and I'm not even calling out the top 5%-10% (mainly) on what a bunch greedy c*cksuckers I think they are, I'm really just talking about how thing were wealth distribution wise 30 years ago and then see how things are now and I challenge you and all other Repubs to just say "oh well things have been bad before economically speaking and they got better ergo they're going to get better again". Well your Repub buddies had better get their heads out of their arses and start making some changes in how they do business or things WILL start to equalize out but not in a way they're going to be happy about.

Oh and on the Neil Bush/Bush 41 thing check the dates and ask yourself what really big went on around that same time that made everyone forget about Silverado and really all the savings and loan scandals.

This is a straw man argument. You're making the assumption that Reagan is responsible for income disparity or that he had significant control over it and I call BS on that. Don't forget that Reagan raised cap gains rates and corporate tax rates whilest lowering rates for low income families at the end of his tenure. So how is he responsible if he argued for higher tax rates than Obama is arguing for? I've been arguing on this board for a while now that pubs are dumb for becoming obsessed with lowering taxes. Reagan understood this. It's not about minimal changes to tax rates so long as you stick with the basic supply side philosophy.

I feel like anti Reagan liberals extrapolate current pub policies back to the past onto Reagan.
 
This is a straw man argument. You're making the assumption that Reagan is responsible for income disparity or that he had significant control over it and I call BS on that. Don't forget that Reagan raised cap gains rates and corporate tax rates whilest lowering rates for low income families at the end of his tenure. So how is he responsible if he argued for higher tax rates than Obama is arguing for? I've been arguing on this board for a while now that pubs are dumb for becoming obsessed with lowering taxes. Reagan understood this. It's not about minimal changes to tax rates so long as you stick with the basic supply side philosophy.

I feel like anti Reagan liberals extrapolate current pub policies back to the past onto Reagan.

You know, I typed out a fairly long (well not for me) response to this, but you know what, I just don't want to continue with this. It's obvious we don't agree and we never will. Keep believing that the Repubs are the right, correct, and noble party that wants to help regular folks when the only things he you ever hear from them are let's cut SNAP (while rolling that money back into more subsidies for "corporate ag"), cutting funding for the arts and PBS, that Social Security is a non-sustainable "entitlement", even though those people have been paying in (along with their employers) for years or even decades and it's Congress who can't stop spending the money. Keep cutting those PELL grants because $5000 or so YEAR is just too damn much money to give to college students, while their kids are getting full paid scholarships to big named schools whether they're straight A students or straight D-minus students. After all we don't want to muddy the waters of college graduates with a bunch of "takers" do we? Keep talking about Benghazi and ignoring all the embassy attacks and those American casualties while W was president, keep pretending that 85 people worldwide owning as much wealth as 3 1/2 BILLION people is a good and admirable thing and that just gives those 3 1/2 BILLION people some real role models to emulate. Keep thinking Obamacare is the devil when major US corporations make BILLIONS in profits and don't want to cut into their CEO's A-Rod type contracts by giving some back to their workers (I actually about small businesses having an exemption) but how long have major corporations hidden behind helping small businesses, that is when they're not using laws they helped create to put them out of business or take them over legally. Let's keep giving BILLIONS in subsidies to oil companies but at the same time pretending the oil and gas business is simply a supply and demand industry with no collusion going on.

Republicans didn't create all those problems but they sure seem to support them all don't they? Even the Pope gets called names for suggesting that maybe just having almost all the wealth in the world might be enough, and that maybe they should actually listen sometimes when they're sitting in the front row of their churches to all that nonsense about the poor not being just put here on this Earth for their amusement and starvation. After all it's the suggestion that maybe they shouldn't exploit all those rules and laws they and their bought and paid for legislators created to not be happy until they have 100% of the world's wealth. But is that really going to make them happy either???

Picture it this way, you're on a mountaintop with two other people, one is actively trying to push you off, stepping on your fingers as you hold on for dear life, while the other guys sits there telling you how much he cares about you, while reading a Gold Digest and a copy of Ebony, bemoaning your fate but not actually doing anything about it, except to occasionally tossing you a biscuit that you can eat as long as you can do so while dodging the other guys' attempt to finish you off. Want to guess which political party (and their agenda) goes with which guy?

So go ahead and believe whatever you want, defend Reagan perpetually, defend Bush 41 and 43, blast anyone who favors a system where everyone might have a chance to make it, though to be fair are only passive supporters of that philosophy. I'll bet that after having your fingers stomped on for a few years by one of those guys, especially when you spend most of your life supporting him, sounds even worse than the other guy, even though he isn't really anything to write home about either.

Oh and be careful of those straw men, sometimes those finger stomping guys come dressed as one of those and you only find out the truth after you're hanging from the ledge.
 
You know, I typed out a fairly long (well not for me) response to this, but you know what, I just don't want to continue with this. It's obvious we don't agree and we never will. Keep believing that the Repubs are the right, correct, and noble party that wants to help regular folks when the only things he you ever hear from them are let's cut SNAP (while rolling that money back into more subsidies for "corporate ag"), cutting funding for the arts and PBS, that Social Security is a non-sustainable "entitlement", even though those people have been paying in (along with their employers) for years or even decades and it's Congress who can't stop spending the money. Keep cutting those PELL grants because $5000 or so YEAR is just too damn much money to give to college students, while their kids are getting full paid scholarships to big named schools whether they're straight A students or straight D-minus students. After all we don't want to muddy the waters of college graduates with a bunch of "takers" do we? Keep talking about Benghazi and ignoring all the embassy attacks and those American casualties while W was president, keep pretending that 85 people worldwide owning as much wealth as 3 1/2 BILLION people is a good and admirable thing and that just gives those 3 1/2 BILLION people some real role models to emulate. Keep thinking Obamacare is the devil when major US corporations make BILLIONS in profits and don't want to cut into their CEO's A-Rod type contracts by giving some back to their workers (I actually about small businesses having an exemption) but how long have major corporations hidden behind helping small businesses, that is when they're not using laws they helped create to put them out of business or take them over legally. Let's keep giving BILLIONS in subsidies to oil companies but at the same time pretending the oil and gas business is simply a supply and demand industry with no collusion going on.

Republicans didn't create all those problems but they sure seem to support them all don't they? Even the Pope gets called names for suggesting that maybe just having almost all the wealth in the world might be enough, and that maybe they should actually listen sometimes when they're sitting in the front row of their churches to all that nonsense about the poor not being just put here on this Earth for their amusement and starvation. After all it's the suggestion that maybe they shouldn't exploit all those rules and laws they and their bought and paid for legislators created to not be happy until they have 100% of the world's wealth. But is that really going to make them happy either???

Picture it this way, you're on a mountaintop with two other people, one is actively trying to push you off, stepping on your fingers as you hold on for dear life, while the other guys sits there telling you how much he cares about you, while reading a Gold Digest and a copy of Ebony, bemoaning your fate but not actually doing anything about it, except to occasionally tossing you a biscuit that you can eat as long as you can do so while dodging the other guys' attempt to finish you off. Want to guess which political party (and their agenda) goes with which guy?

So go ahead and believe whatever you want, defend Reagan perpetually, defend Bush 41 and 43, blast anyone who favors a system where everyone might have a chance to make it, though to be fair are only passive supporters of that philosophy. I'll bet that after having your fingers stomped on for a few years by one of those guys, especially when you spend most of your life supporting him, sounds even worse than the other guy, even though he isn't really anything to write home about either.

Oh and be careful of those straw men, sometimes those finger stomping guys come dressed as one of those and you only find out the truth after you're hanging from the ledge.

Well, that's disappointing. I feel like I made some good arguments itt and dispelled a few Reagan myths. I would have liked to hear your opinion on those. If anything I think sturg has something to complain about rather than the liberals. Reagan is more up my alley as a moderate conservative... A compassionate conservative. Never underestood the liberal hate for him. It's pretty obvious to me that he never intended current pub philosophy of no tax increases no matter what and no debt. He seemed quite translational in his decision making. Also, he believed in defense by strength but that was during the cold war. It's unfair to extrapolate that policy to today when there isn't a cold war. Sure you could argue slippery slope, but why only argue that in the case of conservatism. Sturg's libertarianism is based on slippery slope. They very well could be right, but it doesn't fit the liberal perspective.
 
Wes you act like Reagan entered the scene in the late 70's with a blank slate. You also forget the inncident in Philadelphia,Mississipi the site of the murder of 3 civil rights workers.

from Wiki:

On August 3, 1980, Ronald Reagan gave his first post-convention speech at the Neshoba County Fair after being officially chosen as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. He said, "I believe in states' rights ... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them".[6] Analysts believed that his use of the phrase was seen by many as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, while some argued it reflected Reagan's libertarian economic beliefs. The speech drew attention for his use of the phrase "states' rights" at a place just a few miles from a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers

////////////////////////////////////

You also are leaving out his years as Governor of California. A simple review of just these two examples should tell you why liberals have never seen Reagan as St Ronnie
 
Well, that's disappointing. I feel like I made some good arguments itt and dispelled a few Reagan myths. I would have liked to hear your opinion on those. If anything I think sturg has something to complain about rather than the liberals. Reagan is more up my alley as a moderate conservative... A compassionate conservative. Never underestood the liberal hate for him. It's pretty obvious to me that he never intended current pub philosophy of no tax increases no matter what and no debt. He seemed quite translational in his decision making. Also, he believed in defense by strength but that was during the cold war. It's unfair to extrapolate that policy to today when there isn't a cold war. Sure you could argue slippery slope, but why only argue that in the case of conservatism. Sturg's libertarianism is based on slippery slope. They very well could be right, but it doesn't fit the liberal perspective.

Every time I read or hear the term compassionate conservative... I just wonder why they just don't say A Conservative that likes Spending.

Compassionate conservative makes it sound like they really care and are breaking their own rules to help out.

Reality is the conservatives like spending just as much as the liberals.
 
Back
Top