Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough it is fair to point out the fact that he more than doubled the national debt, it should also be noted that his policies helped produce one of the greatest periods of economic growth the US has seen. If only he had not run up the debt and accomplished the same prosperity. Then the left would be completly befuddled.
Why except because you are a partisan shill start in 1990? Consider:
[b]The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in o ...[text shortened]... relenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyNonsense; GNP growth under Reagan was nothing special and virtually all the gains went to the upper class; worker incomes stagnated. Unemployment was still at the historically high level of 5.5% when Reagan left office despite his tax cuts and spending sprees.
Although it is fair to point out the fact that he more than doubled the national debt, it should also be noted that his policies helped produce one of the greatest periods of economic growth the US has seen. If only he had not run up the debt and accomplished the same prosperity. Then the left would be completly befuddled.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSay what you want, all I can tell you is that when Reagan entered office the American economy was in shambles. However, the economy recovered and he was elected a second term and when he left office he was still a popular president.
Nonsense; GNP growth under Reagan was nothing special and virtually all the gains went to the upper class; worker incomes stagnated. Unemployment was still at the historically high level of 5.5% when Reagan left office despite his tax cuts and spending sprees.
I suppose if you wanted to play the Democrat game of blaming "W", if you are a Republican you could blame the fact that the economy did not recover enough in your estimation because he was trying to repair the damage Carter inflicted on the economy. 😛
Originally posted by whodeyIf we're going to go down this path here are some relevant stats...
Say what you want, all I can tell you is that when Reagan entered office the American economy was in shambles. However, the economy recovered and he was elected a second term and when he left office he was still a popular president.
I suppose if you wanted to play the Democrat game of blaming "W", if you are a Republican you could blame the fact that th ...[text shortened]... our estimation because he was trying to repair the damage Carter inflicted on the economy. 😛
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
Originally posted by whodeyThe figures are here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Ronald_Reagan_Legacy.html
Say what you want, all I can tell you is that when Reagan entered office the American economy was in shambles. However, the economy recovered and he was elected a second term and when he left office he was still a popular president.
I suppose if you wanted to play the Democrat game of blaming "W", if you are a Republican you could blame the fact that th ...[text shortened]... our estimation because he was trying to repair the damage Carter inflicted on the economy. 😛
At most, Reagan was President during a shallow if long recovery the vast majority of the benefits of which went to the upper class.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe vast majority of the "benefits" went to producers.
The figures are here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Ronald_Reagan_Legacy.html
At most, Reagan was President during a shallow if long recovery the vast majority of the benefits of which went to the upper class.
You sure are hung up on government "benefits" ... have you ever thought actually being a producer yourself?
1 edit
Originally posted by TheBloopGo empty another waste paper basket, Mr. Producer. Or do you just lick the boots clean at your Fortune 500 company?
The vast majority of the "benefits" went to producers.
You sure are hung up on government "benefits" ... have you ever thought actually being a producer yourself?
The average worker who's wages were stagnant or falling during the Reagan years produces more worth for the economy in a day then people who open dividend checks do in their entire lives.
Originally posted by no1marauderA shallow if long recovery funded by borrowed money.
The figures are here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Ronald_Reagan_Legacy.html
At most, Reagan was President during a shallow if long recovery the vast majority of the benefits of which went to the upper class.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggHowever, the problem is that, to separate the worthy wheat from the unworthy chaff, someone else has to decide who is worthy and unworthy, and to use the machinery of the state to enforce that decision. Given the sordid history of self-appointed elites creating dystopias in pursuit of utopia, it's too risky to let anyone in power make that determination. Everyone should have at least some say.
Disagree.
Clearly, some citizens are more qualified than others to vote, just as some people are more qualified to serve on juries than others are. We may differ on what the qualifications should be; but most people agree that some people are more fit to serve than others.
However, the problem is that, to separate the worthy wheat from the unworthy c ...[text shortened]... t.
P.S. To "acquire the previlege to vote", is the ability to spell correctly required? 🙂
This is precisely the reason why I proposed the use of tests to determine one's relevant knowledge, Im not saying the job of separating the worthy and the unworthy should be done by faceless bureaucrats. People can still have their say, members of pressure groups and similar organizations don't have their freedom of speech limited in any way. The only significant difference between the current system and my visualized system is that only the ones who are well-informed will be able to vote.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggHowever, if one combines as welfare state with a progressive tax system, then I think an additional case could be made for giving those who pay a greater proportion of income or expenditure in tax having a proportionally greater say in elections, assuming it would be practicable to implement such a system. That strikes me as entirely fair and appropriate: if I am required to pay more, then I get a greater say in how that money should be spent.
Disagree.
Clearly, some citizens are more qualified than others to vote, just as some people are more qualified to serve on juries than others are. We may differ on what the qualifications should be; but most people agree that some people are more fit to serve than others.
However, the problem is that, to separate the worthy wheat from the unworthy c ...[text shortened]... t.
P.S. To "acquire the previlege to vote", is the ability to spell correctly required? 🙂
I disagree with this. First of all given how I have a certain aversion to the welfare state it wouldn't be in any way my objective to preserve it.
I believe this would be a great perversion of the electoral system, effectively it would mean one could "buy political power" which strikes me as intensively corrupt, a recipe for the distortion of the political process, so I retain my original view that the right to vote should be determined by knowledge rather than economic status as you imply here.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeythe very fact that you're asking me this question somehow communicates the fact that no matter what I say or how I say you'll still retain your beliefs, as they're impervious to debate, so truly there's no point in me answering this question.
What makes Chavez and Palin extremists and Obama and "W" "moderates"?
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSource, please?
Go empty another waste paper basket, Mr. Producer. Or do you just lick the boots clean at your Fortune 500 company?
The average worker who's wages were stagnant or falling during the Reagan years produces more worth for the economy in a day then people who open dividend checks do in their entire lives.
btw, do you even know what "investment" means?
Oh, be sure to catch Obama's interview on the Ryan Seacrest radio show today!! lol, how pathetic can a President get? Not to mention the people who still support the guy