Reaganomics: 32 Years of Failed Policy

There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty. If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

This is so typical of your all-or-nothing approach. I didn't say anything even approaching what you're suggesting, nor did the video. Which means you got nothing from it.

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

So what are you suggesting here exactly? That if someone disagrees with trickle-down economics, it must therefore follow that they are in favor of a purely command and control communist government?

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

So what are you suggesting here exactly?  That if someone disagrees with trickle-down economics, it must therefore follow that they are in favor of a purely command and control communist government?

No, bds, I'm not part of the wrastlin match. I don't actually have any of the ideas promoted by talk radio and fox news. I don't worship any nonsense which says there are only two economic philosophies, and it's either capitalist or it's communist with nothing in between or outside of that. If I did I would also believe Ann Coulter when she says we have to be either liberal or conservative and there is nothing else.
But I must say, for you to even ask this question is a good indication that you're no different from them only that you're on the other side of the same wrastlin ring.

I hate math and am no expert in economics. But I can review history and see that something good came out of Clinton and Gingrich's time together - balanced budget and a surplus.

Let's get that done again.

Let's get that done again.

Be careful now....I have been roasted here and on the PNJ for my support of the intelligence of Newt and his experience in actually governing.

SheWrites wrote:I hate math and am no expert in economics.  But I can review history and see that something good came out of Clinton and Gingrich's time together - balanced budget and a surplus.

Let's get that done again.

I agree with you 100%, these years were booming.

I voted straight party line at that time and always voted republican. Haven't since.

ppaca wrote:

SheWrites wrote:I hate math and am no expert in economics.  But I can review history and see that something good came out of Clinton and Gingrich's time together - balanced budget and a surplus.

Let's get that done again.

I agree with you 100%, these years were booming.

I voted straight party line at that time and always voted republican. Haven't since.

Bush2 talked this game really well in 2000... but it was obvious to me within a year that he was a fos progressive.

Until obama I don't think anyone expanded govt more since lbj.

nope....debt and government growth are owned by President Reagan.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/ronald-reagan-big-government-legacy

Reagan may have showed them how again by buying into quick fix keynesian crapola like fdr did... but bush2 and obama put it on steroids. Love the motherjones link btw... lol. The historical comparisons start about half way down the page:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

So what are you suggesting here exactly?  That if someone disagrees with trickle-down economics, it must therefore follow that they are in favor of a purely command and control communist government?

No,  bds,  I'm not part of the wrastlin match.  I don't actually have any of the ideas promoted by talk radio and fox news.  I don't worship any nonsense which says there are only two economic philosophies,  and it's either capitalist or it's communist with nothing in between or outside of that.  If I did I would also believe Ann Coulter when she says we have to be either liberal or conservative and there is nothing else.
But I must say,  for you to even ask this question is a good indication that you're no different from them only that you're on the other side of the same wrastlin ring.

Well what point were you trying to make there then? FlaTex posted a video that critiqued Reaganomics. Your response to that was a sarcastic jab as if to say that any critique of Reaganomics must also be a promotion of communism.

If that wasn't your point, what was your point? Can you clarify that?

The simpleton argument that clown makes in that video is this.
________________________

1.  Reagan enacted the ERTA Bill 32 years ago.

2.  Because of that "we're now living in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's" (his words).

Conclusion:  Reagan created the worst economic crisis since the 1930's which we're living in NOW.
________________________

First of all,  if we NOW we are living in "the worst economic crisis since the 30's",  what does that do to about a dozen threads you've started to tell us Obama has ended all that and everything is now sweetness and light?
There's an old saying, bds, that applies here.  You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  lol

But regardless,  this academic MENSA is leaving out totally the ACTUAL REASON we're in economic decline.  
The REAL reason for it happened after Reagan left office.  Our country, after having 100 years of a world dominant manufacturing based economy,  began to see it all slip away and relocate to Asia.  It happened mainly over the course of two decades.  
That didn't happen because of any fucking "trickle-down economics".  
That happened for two reasons.  One,  American business wanted dirt cheap labor costs.  And two,  American consumers wanted dirt-cheap products.  
Those two things had a symbiotic relationship.  The politicians of both political parties campaigned for it.  And the electorate put those politicians in office and kept them in office,  because the people bought the lie that "this will create a one-way street of trade FROM the U.S. TO China" (those were Clinton's words).  And bought into the combined Republican/Democrat claim that ALL those middle class lifestyle supporting manufacturing jobs would be replaced by even better jobs and everybody will live happily everafter like in a fairy tale.   Which of course never happened.  In actuality,  it replaced a manufacturing economy with a service economy.
We struggled along with that while continuing to bleed good jobs.  And then when that resulted in less revenue coming into the federal government,  we went in the direction of borrowing money to maintain the government spending levels we could actually pay for when we had that manufacturing economy.

Then along came the politicians again (both democrat and republican),  and together with Wall Street they came up with this notion that everybody should be able to own a home no matter if they had any money or not.
The politicians OF BOTH PARTIES wanted those votes and Wall Street wanted to sell worthless paper.  And again,  just like with the outsourcing of jobs,  the people bought into that once again.  Because of course everybody wants to own a house and especially if the politicians and Wall Street are telling us "by all means,  we can get you in a house of your own".
And out of that the bubble grew and grew.  Until 2007 when it began to burst.  
All that is what led us to where we are now.  Not fucking Reaganomics.  
Please don't waste 8 minutes of my life again with more horseshit videos like that.

Bob wrote:The simpleton argument that clown makes in that video is this.
________________________

1.  Reagan enacted the ERTA Bill 32 years ago.

2.  Because of that "we're now living in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's" (his words).

Conclusion:  Reagan created the worst economic crisis since the 1930's which we're living in NOW.
________________________

First of all,  if we NOW we are living in "the worst economic crisis since the 30's",  what does that do to about a dozen threads you've started to tell us Obama has ended all that and everything is now sweetness and light?
There's an old saying, bds, that applies here.  You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  lol

But regardless,  this academic MENSA is leaving out totally the ACTUAL REASON we're in economic decline.  
The REAL reason for it happened after Reagan left office.  Our country, after having 100 years of a world dominant manufacturing based economy,  began to see it all slip away and relocate to Asia.  It happened mainly over the course of two decades.  
That didn't happen because of any fucking "trickle-down economics".  
That happened for two reasons.  One,  American business wanted dirt cheap labor costs.  And two,  American consumers wanted dirt-cheap products.  
Those two things had a symbiotic relationship.  The politicians of both political parties campaigned for it.  And the electorate put those politicians in office and kept them in office,  because the people bought the lie that "this will create a one-way street of trade FROM the U.S. TO China" (those were Clinton's words).  And bought into the combined Republican/Democrat claim that ALL those middle class lifestyle supporting manufacturing jobs would be replaced by even better jobs and everybody will live happily everafter like in a fairy tale.   Which of course never happened.  In actuality,  it replaced a manufacturing economy with a service economy.
We struggled along with that while continuing to bleed good jobs.  And then when that resulted in less revenue coming into the federal government,  we went in the direction of borrowing money to maintain the government spending levels we could actually pay for when he had that manufacturing economy.

Then along came the politicians again (both democrat and republican),  and together with Wall Street they came up with this notion that everybody should be able to own a home no matter if they had any money or not.
The politicians OF BOTH PARTIES wanted those votes and Wall Street wanted to sell worthless paper.  And again,  just like with the outsourcing of jobs,  the people bought into that once again.  Because of course everybody wants to own a house and especially if the politicians and Wall Street are telling us "by all means,  we can get you in a house of your own".
And out of that the bubble grew and grew.  Until 2007 when it began to burst.  
All that is what led us to where we are now.  Not fucking Reaganomics.  
Please don't waste 8 minutes of my life again with more horseshit videos like that.

Really good stuff Bob.

The only thing that's kept us out of total decline has been our continued dominance in designing all things related to technology.  Not manufacturing it here,  but designing it here.
A silicon valley company,  Google,  is still the company which designs Android.  But a South Korean company has now become the dominant manufacturer of it.
Another silicon valley company,  Apple,  designs everything too.  But it's all manufactured by slave (and in some cases suicidal) labor in China.  

But the rest of the world is now wanting to compete with us on the design part too.  If they're successful with that,  we won't have anything to brag about any longer. Well except for the Pensacola Wahoos.

Bob wrote:The simpleton argument that clown makes in that video is this.
________________________

1.  Reagan enacted the ERTA Bill 32 years ago.

2.  Because of that "we're now living in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's" (his words).

Conclusion:  Reagan created the worst economic crisis since the 1930's which we're living in NOW.
________________________

First of all,  if we NOW we are living in "the worst economic crisis since the 30's",  what does that do to about a dozen threads you've started to tell us Obama has ended all that and everything is now sweetness and light?
There's an old saying, bds, that applies here.  You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  lol

But regardless,  this academic MENSA is leaving out totally the ACTUAL REASON we're in economic decline.  
The REAL reason for it happened after Reagan left office.  Our country, after having 100 years of a world dominant manufacturing based economy,  began to see it all slip away and relocate to Asia.  It happened mainly over the course of two decades.  
That didn't happen because of any fucking "trickle-down economics".  
That happened for two reasons.  One,  American business wanted dirt cheap labor costs.  And two,  American consumers wanted dirt-cheap products.  
Those two things had a symbiotic relationship.  The politicians of both political parties campaigned for it.  And the electorate put those politicians in office and kept them in office,  because the people bought the lie that "this will create a one-way street of trade FROM the U.S. TO China" (those were Clinton's words).  And bought into the combined Republican/Democrat claim that ALL those middle class lifestyle supporting manufacturing jobs would be replaced by even better jobs and everybody will live happily everafter like in a fairy tale.   Which of course never happened.  In actuality,  it replaced a manufacturing economy with a service economy.
We struggled along with that while continuing to bleed good jobs.  And then when that resulted in less revenue coming into the federal government,  we went in the direction of borrowing money to maintain the government spending levels we could actually pay for when we had that manufacturing economy.

Then along came the politicians again (both democrat and republican),  and together with Wall Street they came up with this notion that everybody should be able to own a home no matter if they had any money or not.
The politicians OF BOTH PARTIES wanted those votes and Wall Street wanted to sell worthless paper.  And again,  just like with the outsourcing of jobs,  the people bought into that once again.  Because of course everybody wants to own a house and especially if the politicians and Wall Street are telling us "by all means,  we can get you in a house of your own".
And out of that the bubble grew and grew.  Until 2007 when it began to burst.  
All that is what led us to where we are now.  Not fucking Reaganomics.  
Please don't waste 8 minutes of my life again with more horseshit videos like that.

So where does communism enter that? That was the question. What did you mean by this?

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:The simpleton argument that clown makes in that video is this.
________________________

1.  Reagan enacted the ERTA Bill 32 years ago.

2.  Because of that "we're now living in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's" (his words).

Conclusion:  Reagan created the worst economic crisis since the 1930's which we're living in NOW.
________________________

First of all,  if we NOW we are living in "the worst economic crisis since the 30's",  what does that do to about a dozen threads you've started to tell us Obama has ended all that and everything is now sweetness and light?
There's an old saying, bds, that applies here.  You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  lol

But regardless,  this academic MENSA is leaving out totally the ACTUAL REASON we're in economic decline.  
The REAL reason for it happened after Reagan left office.  Our country, after having 100 years of a world dominant manufacturing based economy,  began to see it all slip away and relocate to Asia.  It happened mainly over the course of two decades.  
That didn't happen because of any fucking "trickle-down economics".  
That happened for two reasons.  One,  American business wanted dirt cheap labor costs.  And two,  American consumers wanted dirt-cheap products.  
Those two things had a symbiotic relationship.  The politicians of both political parties campaigned for it.  And the electorate put those politicians in office and kept them in office,  because the people bought the lie that "this will create a one-way street of trade FROM the U.S. TO China" (those were Clinton's words).  And bought into the combined Republican/Democrat claim that ALL those middle class lifestyle supporting manufacturing jobs would be replaced by even better jobs and everybody will live happily everafter like in a fairy tale.   Which of course never happened.  In actuality,  it replaced a manufacturing economy with a service economy.
We struggled along with that while continuing to bleed good jobs.  And then when that resulted in less revenue coming into the federal government,  we went in the direction of borrowing money to maintain the government spending levels we could actually pay for when we had that manufacturing economy.

Then along came the politicians again (both democrat and republican),  and together with Wall Street they came up with this notion that everybody should be able to own a home no matter if they had any money or not.
The politicians OF BOTH PARTIES wanted those votes and Wall Street wanted to sell worthless paper.  And again,  just like with the outsourcing of jobs,  the people bought into that once again.  Because of course everybody wants to own a house and especially if the politicians and Wall Street are telling us "by all means,  we can get you in a house of your own".
And out of that the bubble grew and grew.  Until 2007 when it began to burst.  
All that is what led us to where we are now.  Not fucking Reaganomics.  
Please don't waste 8 minutes of my life again with more horseshit videos like that.

So where does communism enter that?  That was the question.   What did you mean by this?

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

What's wrong - can't wrap your head around subtle humor? Bobs longer post was an excellent, apolitical, and objective lesson for partisan whiners about how this country got here from there. You didn't answer his question (highlighted in red) but instead reverted to type and asked a meaningless question to sidestep serious conversation. So typical.....

boards of FL wrote:
So where does communism enter that?  That was the question.   What did you mean by this?

What has been at the center of our political debate in this country for some time now?
It's the all-out wrastlemania bout between the "public sector" and "the private sector".  
Or better stated,  in one corner of the wrastlin ring is the all-consuming notion that "only unbridled, unregulated capitalism can solve all our problems".  And on the other side of that ring is the all-consuming notion that "only government can solve all our problems".

If you or anyone else does not know that this is at the core of all the political debate and dialogue coming from our political and media celebrities;   I would have to ask what planet have you been living on?

I used the term "communism" simply because a large faction on one side of the wrastlin ring labels anything that has to do with government as "communism".
Anyone who exposes himself to as much of the media as I have knows that to be the case.   It derives from cable tv "news" and AM talk radio.  And it comes from the internet produced "alternative media" as well.  And it comes from many right-wing politicians,  some of which are both politicians and paid media personalities at the same time.  

Does that answer your question?

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
So where does communism enter that?  That was the question.   What did you mean by this?

What has been at the center of our political debate in this country for some time now?
It's the all-out wrastlemania bout between the "public sector" and "the private sector".  
Or better stated,  in one corner of the wrastlin ring is the all-consuming notion that "only unbridled, unregulated capitalism can solve all our problems".  And on the other side of that ring is the all-consuming notion that "only government can solve all our problems".

Well then my original interpretation of what you said was in fact accurate.  You're basically framing the the situation - incorrectly - as if there are only two options.  You're either all-in on Reagonomics, or you're all-in on communism.  I'm not for either of these, though I'm still somehow a "wrastler"

This was my original response to you:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:There's just no doubt about it.  All capitalism has ever done is make rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Only the federal government can create jobs for poor people to get them out of poverty.  If we would just put government in control of the whole private sector we would all be rich and prosperous.

So what are you suggesting here exactly?  That if someone disagrees with trickle-down economics, it must therefore follow that they are in favor of a purely command and control communist government?

You said that the fact that I asked that alone means that I am a "wrastler", though now here you are confirming exactly what I originally thought you were suggesting.

Bob observes someone critique Reagonomics.

Bob concludes that the guy is a wrastler and must therefore support communism.

I don't support Reagonomics or communism.  Further, a critique of Reagonomics is not a promotion of communism.  It is simply a critique of Reagonomics.

gatorfan wrote:What's wrong - can't wrap your head around subtle humor? Bobs longer post was an excellent, apolitical, and objective lesson for partisan whiners about how this country got here from there.

And it had absolutely nothing to do with what I had asked him.

Bob wrote:The simpleton argument that clown makes in that video is this.
________________________

1.  Reagan enacted the ERTA Bill 32 years ago.

2.  Because of that "we're now living in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's" (his words).

Conclusion:  Reagan created the worst economic crisis since the 1930's which we're living in NOW.
________________________

First of all,  if we NOW we are living in "the worst economic crisis since the 30's",  what does that do to about a dozen threads you've started to tell us Obama has ended all that and everything is now sweetness and light?
There's an old saying, bds, that applies here.  You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  lol

I don't agree with with the conclusions that you lay out there - nor have I ever argued as much - so I have no need to defend them.

There. I had to do that for gatorfan since he couldn't deduce that on his own.

boards of FL wrote: a critique of Reagonomics is not a promotion of communism.  It is simply a critique of Reagonomics.

If it had been "simply a critique of reaganomics" I would have no problem with it.  Reagonomics has always been over-hyped by so many on the right and still is.

But his little speech was a lot more than just a critique of reaganomics.
The whole point of the video was him arguing that reaganomics is the reason for the economic downfall of America.  
Bullshit.

You and fl texan believe that because you're willing to believe anything that says reagan and all other republicans are fools.
Just exactly like merkel and pacedog are willing to believe anything that says obama and all other democrats are fools.

We read that here day in and day out ad nauseum from most all of you.  It blocks out most every other idea here like a big elephant turd blocks out the blades of grass it falls on.

edit: make that a big elephant and a big donkey turd.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote: a critique of Reagonomics is not a promotion of communism.  It is simply a critique of Reagonomics.

If it had been "simply a critique of reaganomics" I would have no problem with it.  Reagonomics has always been over-hyped by so many on the right and still is.

But his little speech was a lot more than just a critique of reaganomics.
The whole point of the video was him arguing that reaganomics is the reason for the economic downfall of America.  
Bullshit.

Maybe you're right, but that has nothing to do with communism.  If someone makes the claim that Reaganomics was the downfall of society, that isn't the same as promoting communism.  It doesn't therefore follow that a person is a "wrastler" just because they have an opinion on the subject of Reaganomics.

I had a course in grad school called Advanced Econometrics.  I think there were only six left in the class by the time it was over.  The part that many couldn't seem to wrap their head around was the fact that a failure to confirm one hypothesis was not the same as a confirmation of an alternative hypothesis.  I suspect you would have fallen prey to that mistake as well, Bob.

Bob wrote:You and fl texan believe that because you're willing to believe anything that says reagan and all other republicans are fools.
Just exactly like merkel and pacedog are willing to believe anything that says obama and all other democrats are fools.

We read that here day in and day out ad nauseum from most all of you.  It blocks out most every other idea here like a big elephant turd blocks out the blades of grass it falls on.

edit:  make that a big elephant and a big donkey turd.

I'm not like Markle or Pacedog in any way.   I'm not even remotely close.  I agree with you that they are both "wrastlers", but I'm not a "wrastler".   If someone can point to various data sets, scientific research, or empirical observations as a means of showing you why they believe what they believe, that doesn't make them a "wrastler".  That just makes them someone who has a well formed opinion that is rooted in reality.  

In contrast, if someone simply subscribes to an ideology where  "Every idea that that guy suggests must be bad simply due to the fact that he is a democrat or republican", that person would in fact be a "wrastler".

Put another way, when I produce charts, data, graphs, whatever that support a particular opinion that I hold, that doesn't make me a "wrastler".  That just makes me someone who believes something and who can explain why they believe it.  

In contrast when someone says this...

Pacedog wrote:Well Mr Moderator,

Anything that is the opposite of what has been offered in the last six years and seven months could be a start. It is obvious that this administration doesn't have a clue and the policies pushed forth have failed. So, if you are purporting that more of the same medicine is what will cure what ails us, I think your thought plan is lacking logic.

...that makes them a "wrastler".  That makes them someone who is essentially saying "I don't even have any policies that I support specifically.  I just conclude that whatever is the opposite of what the other guy is doing must be good."

One more time, we can't conclude that someone is a "wrastler" simply due to the fact that they have an opinion on a subject.   What separates a "wraster" from someone who simply has an opinion on a particular subject is whether or not they have any reasoning behind their beliefs at all.

I realize this sounds crazy to you, but it is possible to have well formed opinions on various subjects rather than blindly being a "wrastler", even if the subject is politics.