Worst vice president of all time

Originally posted by sh76
Okay.

But Reagan being forgetful does not mean that G HW Bush was de facto President during Reagan's second term. I think Reagan did just fine during his second term; the Iran-contra circus notwithstanding.

The Reagan administration was a disaster for the US economy, how can you say he did "just fine"?!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The Reagan administration was a disaster for the US economy, how can you say he did "just fine"?!

What is a "disaster for the US economy" is subjective. For every person that tells you that Reaganomics was a disaster, as you no doubt would, there is someone who will tell you that Reaganomics has fueled the amazing growth in the US economy from the early 80s through 2008; and will continue to do so after this recession blows over, which may actually happen one of these days.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/27/news/economy/NABE_recovery_outlook/?postversion=2009052703

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_bi_ge/us_home_sales;_ylt=AimCtx5UZlVgLNXPudqIUTR34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTJmOWc0OTFoBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTI3L3VzX2hvbWVfc2FsZXMEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNhcHJpbGV4aXN0aW4-


Even Clinton did not really roll back the basics of Reagan's economic policies. In fact, economically, Clinton was middle of the road, maybe even slightly conservative.

Originally posted by sh76
What is a "disaster for the US economy" is subjective. For every person that tells you that Reaganomics was a disaster, as you no doubt would, there is someone who will tell you that Reaganomics has fueled the amazing growth in the US economy from the early 80s through 2008; and will continue to do so after this recession blows over, which may actually happen o ...[text shortened]... ies. In fact, economically, Clinton was middle of the road, maybe even slightly conservative.

Your denial is strong. From the 50s to the 70s, the US provided the best living standard for the general populace in the world. Under Reagan this position quickly deteriorated, and now the US does not even make it into the top 10 as only the wealthy have benefited from economic growth. Reagan also doubled the state debt, which is now reaching dangerously high levels.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
as only the wealthy have benefited from economic growth.

That's your partisanship talking.

The hard data indicates that all classes have benefited from the economic growth since 1980.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p60no231_tablea3.pdf

Or, for those with short attention spans

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SZpa2MmFMzI/AAAAAAAAA8A/hYSNYifyurc/s1600-h/clinton2.PNG

Your statement that "only the wealthy have benefited from economic growth" is a refrain that we hear over and over again from liberals so that it almost takes on an aura of fact even though it is simply not true.

Incidentally, before anyone points out that the Clinton years were strongest across the board:

1) I agree. But, as I said earlier, Clinton didn't really depart much from the "Reaganomic" philosophy. Under Clinton, taxes on the "rich" were still much, much lower than they had been before Reagan (the top marginal tax bracket was 39.6%, when it has been 70% before Reagan, to cite one example). In any case, I'd take Clinton over GW Bush from an economic policy standpoint any day of the week. Also, by your standards (KazetNagorra) wouldn't you consider Clinton a right winger economically?

2) The first couple of years of an administration has to at least partially be attributed to his predecessor, which means Bush Sr. gets some credit for 1993-1994 and Clinton some blame for 2001 (and yes, Bush Jr. some blame for 2009).

On the whole, as you can see, every class has done well since 1980, even if the rich have done comparatively better.

Originally posted by sh76
That's your partisanship talking.

The hard data indicates that all classes have benefited from the economic growth since 1980.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p60no231_tablea3.pdf

Or, for those with short attention spans

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SZpa2MmFMzI/AAAAAAAAA8A/hYSNYifyurc/s1600-h/clinton2.PNG

Your statement tha ...[text shortened]... every class has done well since 1980, even if the rich have done comparatively better.

sh76 Does know what he is talking about.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
sh76 Does know what he is talking about.

Why, thank you. 🙂

Originally posted by sh76
That's your partisanship talking.

The hard data indicates that all classes have benefited from the economic growth since 1980.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p60no231_tablea3.pdf

Or, for those with short attention spans

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SZpa2MmFMzI/AAAAAAAAA8A/hYSNYifyurc/s1600-h/clinton2.PNG

Your statement tha ...[text shortened]... every class has done well since 1980, even if the rich have done comparatively better.

Does the net income change take into account, for example, the changes in health care costs, education costs, etc.?

Even if it does, a measly rise in inflation corrected income is hardly good news for the Reagan camp, when the potential for much larger increases was there.

Clinton didn't change Reagan's policies much. That's true. He did better, but he was a right wing conservative, thus applying right wing conservative policies, shipping billions to the rich. I don't understand why you accuse me of partisanship - clearly history shows Dems have done slightly better than Republicans, but the difference between the parties is negligible, so if one supports Democrat policies one also supports Republican policies and vice versa. Obviously I support neither, since both parties are far too right wing to be good for the economy. The income inequality is causing the US economy huge damage, but I suppose your spite against the poor is blinding you from realizing that.

My "spite against the poor"?

What would I possibly have against the poor?


You call Bill Clinton a "right wing conservative" and then you want to know why I think you're partisan?

And, FYI, I don't consider calling you partisan an "accusation." There's nothing wrong with being partisan. Most of us are, to one degree or another.

Originally posted by sh76
My "spite against the poor"?

What would I possibly have against the poor?

Personally I don't know the answer to that question. But I think such 'spite' is something that people can assume you feel, perhaps unwittingly, when they see your see-only-what-you-want-see approach to the Reagan legacy.

[Is this degree of brusqueness ok with you?]

Originally posted by sh76
What would I possibly have against the poor?

cont'd...

It could be a result of your upbringing, or your ideology, or a function of your own financial insecurity. What you "have against the poor" and the reaons why uopu "have" these things "against the poor" are closely intertwined. So it's difficult for me and KN to explain to you what is is that you have against them and the spite that you (and KN) mentioned.

Originally posted by FMF
Personally I don't know the answer to that question. But I think such 'spite' is something that people can assume you feel, perhaps unwittingly, when they see your see-only-what-you-want-see approach to the Reagan legacy.

[Is this degree of brusqueness ok with you?]

Yes, your tone is perfectly civil. Thank you.

I don't see why supporting Ronald Reagan has to mean that I hate the poor. I think that's just rhetoric.

Poor, in any case, is a relative term.


"The average electrician, air-conditioning mechanic, or burglar-alarm repairman (lives) a life that would have made the Sun King blink"

- Tom Wolfe, Hooking Up

Originally posted by FMF
cont'd...

It could be a result of your upbringing, or your ideology, or a function of your own financial insecurity. What you "have against the poor" and the reaons why uopu "have" these things "against the poor" are closely intertwined. So it's difficult for me and KN to explain to you what is is that you have against them and the spite that you (and KN) mentioned.

Okay, I opened the door to that by putting my point in the form of a question.

Silly me.

Now I am closing the door: I have nothing against the poor and I will not participate in further discussion that is based on the preposterous presumption that I do.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, I opened the door to that by putting my point in the form of a question.

Silly me.

Now I am closing the door: I have nothing against the poor and I will not participate in further discussion that is based on the preposterous presumption that I do.

If it's not spite, then it must be ignorance of the facts.

Originally posted by sh76
Poor, in any case, is a relative term.

Being one pay cheque away from financial disaster is a pretty good working definition of "poor" in the "rich" world. If one of your children gets sick in a fairly straight forward way and yet it wreaks an existential threat upon your household economy, despite both parents working long and hard and honestly - that's a passable, rough-hewn definition of "poor" applicable to everyday life in developed countries. Working 60 hours a week but barely making do and saving nothing, while living modestly on the money that all those hours earn - that's a not unreasonable benchmark for coping with the fact that the word "poor" is "a relative term" in "rich" economies. No? Is it really such a hard term to use?

Originally posted by sh76
Now I am closing the door: I have nothing against the poor and I will not participate in further discussion that is based on the preposterous presumption that I do.

Calm down. That second post of mine ("cont'd" ) was clearly tongue in cheek. Did it really require a smiley?