A Memorial For America

[Toronado3800]

Fair point about the cold war. I guess you can say the same about our winding down wars against terrorism. [/quuote]

except we know that the liberal objective is more and more welfare for all regardless of debt load because rich now pay for everything!

Ed, who are you talking to? I just sat here and said debt sucks but deficit spending can be a tool like taking out a college loan is a tool. Settle down on the name calling and your points will be coherant.

Here is an off topic example. Instead of just yelling MARINO IS THE BEST, an intelligent statement is - Marino was a great quarterback look who he played with but he was not as mobil as Fran Tarkenton so for a team with a poor line maybe Tarkenton would be the better choice.

So you can say - I liked this this and that about Ronald but his deficit spending and bank bailouts turned me off. Overall his good outweighed the bad.

When you say - Debt is bad! Reagans's debt was good! It seems strange.

Free yourself from the hero worship and you make more sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When you say - Debt is bad! Reagans's debt was good! It seems strange.

It seems strange to liberals only because liberals have no brains. Conservatives are fine, generally, with military debt, since there is no point in building a conservative utopia if it is not defended very well. As the last best hope for freedom on earth America should be defended very well!!

 

[Toronado3800]

Tread carefully, I know these numbers.

Defense Spending Since WWII United States 1947-2015 - Federal State Local Data

So now the debate has shifted to defense spending. Lets say there was a sixty year period of predictable military expendatures. Should we put these on a credit card or just pay for them?

Not the sudden cost of wwi or wwii or even the civil war. But six decades, the entire working life of a human.

Your theory sounds like you want to spend money you do not have now to pump the economy on the hopes GDP will keep increasing and swallow it up.

Sounds like the TVA theory and not one I am surprised by given Reagan's political roots.

Was your point that military deficit spending is superior to domestic deficit spending for pumping the economy? There is a cultural point to be made I will admit. Or are these deficits no big deal? Or? Notice Obama's military spending percentage climb then tail off as the GDP percent. I do admit I am grasping for your straw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Tell me how Obama's debt is bad but Reagan's was good."

Not as simple as you, but simple, none the less:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How's dat, booooyyyyyyeeeee?

and lets not forget Reagan's debt ended the Cold War, saved the earth from possible nuclear anniliation, and freed about 2 billion people from liberal socialism en masse starvation, while Obama's debt is merely prolonging the recession and making more Americans dependent on welfare entitlements.

Wow. Where do they issue the koolade these days, Ed? Are you aware that the objective of the "enemy" was to get the US to bankrupt itself? Russian had a hard time holding on to Yugoslavia. No honest person with a three digit IQ and a clue ever believed they could invade Europe for more than a weekend.

I am laughing out loud that Russia was buying Canadian wheat and South American beef to feed its people and neocons thought it was an existential threat to as you so pithily note, "earth". That is hilarious.

Even more hilarious you nutballs claim it was "worth it". Jesus. No wonder the country is swirling above the drain.

Are you lying, or merely uninformed?

1. Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland).

2. What would have happened had Western Europe finally buckled, had it refused to station INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) ? Moscow's boldest dream would have come true: to separate Western Europe from its transatlantic protector, to create zones of inferior security and, thus, to end up dominating the entire continent. Detente and Ostpolitik had already driven a sizeable wedge into the Atlantic Alliance, pushing Western Europe, and especially West Germany, closer toward the Soviet orbit. Now imagine that hundreds of Soviet SS-20s and Backfires had remained unmatched and unbalanced. Posing a separate threat, they would have consecrated Soviet strategic superiority on the Old Continent while silently reminding the West Europeans to remain on their best behavior. NATO would have collapsed de facto right then and there, and not twenty years later, when Berlin and Paris joined with Moscow in 2003 to try to derail the American war against Saddam Hussein.

3. . At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_3/?tag=content;col1


Why are you Leftists so afraid of the truth?
Because it proves the counterfactual nature of your philosophy?
Could be?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Governments do not make wealth, only their citizens do.

this is so true. IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Intel, Amazon, Oracle, Facebook,Yahoo, Google were not started by government bureaucrats. They were started by individuals who loved business and wanted to build something, rather than by individuals who hated business as most of our liberals do. Imagine it, business got us from the stone age to here and yet liberals have been brainwashed to hate business. Its like being told to hate your mother and actually learning to hate her.

Makes sense. Wasn't it Bill Ayers who instructed his disciples to go out and destroy property of those who have wealth, do violence in the streets, then go home and kill your mother and father? This was Obamas friend. Scary.

 

[NoNukes]

When socialists thump their chests, and make obeisance to the collective, marginalize the efforts of the rugged individualist, the entrepreneur, e.g., "You didn't build that!," well, perhaps we should recall what made America great.



Carl Schramm is president of the [non-partisan] Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation, known to National Public Radio listeners and a few others as "the foundation for entrepreneurship.”
Carl Schramm Says Capitalism Allows Entrepreneurship to Thrive - WSJ.com

Mr. Schramm has written “Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity,” and “The Entrepreneurial Imperative: How America's Economic Miracle Will Reshape the World (and Change Your Life)” among others.






In an interview on May 20, 2009, he discussed the following.
1.Economic growth owes more to the forbearance of the state than to its intervention. Governments do not make wealth, only their citizens do.

2. The $7.4 Trillion in federal debt works out to $508,000 per household. There is currently no plan to settle the debt, it is ongoing. [And Obama's promise to cut this debt???]

3. To see the result of government dependency programs, we can study Europe in the post-1960 period, and it becomes eminently clear that the result of government debt is slow growth in the economy. Real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, after growing 3.2% a year from 1962 to 1973, sank to a 1% annual growth rate from 1974 to 1982 [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/economics_and_the_entrepreneur.html], ‘stagflation’ period based on Vietnam debt. .






We thought that the Japanese economic model was correct, and many in our government thought to use a central-planning model, here as well. But it proved dead wrong: the attempt to absorb risk into the state and grow the state government, has resulted in almost 15 years of slow growth.

4. The problem seems to rest in the human psyche, using the magical phrase “this time is different.” We are so needing to have certainty in an economic context, that any government official who speaks with authority rules in the current circumstances. We forget to apply this phrase: “Past is prologue.” Either economic growth will come in at 4-5-or 6% a year, or we will have to inflate our currency. With inflation in ’81-’82-’83 [16% CPI, 18% Medical Price Index, 15% housing mortgages] we paid for Vietnam and the Great Society.


5. Can the poor still get rich? Immigrants do it. As entrepreneurs, they accomplish the following: 1) Innovation, they bring out new things. 2) Almost all jobs are created by new businesses, firms less than five years old. 3) They drive efficiency into the system by competition.

It is interesting that John Kenneth Galbraith, a Keynesian and an institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and progressivism, wrote in 1984, that entrepreneurs are no longer important to American development, and all economic innovation will occur in large labs, like Bell Labs. When he wrote that, Microsoft was four years old. “Galbraith had written in 1967 that the entrepreneur was a "diminishing figure": "Apart from access to capital, his principal qualifications were imagination, capacity for decision[making] and courage in risking money, including, not infrequently, his own.”
RealClearPolitics - Economics and the Entrepreneur






6. American capitalism is based on the entrepreneurs who risk their own capital, and produce the supply that causes demand as represented by Says Law of Economics.:
“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com

Regulation and taxation are impediments to these entrepreneurs.




Memorial Day....in memory of the once great American culture......

Now? Saddled with socialists and whiners who believe that there is a 'free lunch.'

if you don't like America you can go back where you came from then and "enjoy" your culture as we have enough homegrown nutcases here

If I ever needed a brain transplant I’d want yours….’cause I’d want one that had never been used.

Luckily, you already have one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Governments do not make wealth, only their citizens do.

this is so true. IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Intel, Amazon, Oracle, Facebook,Yahoo, Google were not started by government bureaucrats. They were started by individuals who loved business and wanted to build something, rather than by individuals who hated business as most of our liberals do. Imagine it, business got us from the stone age to here and yet liberals have been brainwashed to hate business. Its like being told to hate your mother and actually learning to hate her.

Makes sense. Wasn't it Bill Ayers who instructed his disciples to go out and destroy property of those who have wealth, do violence in the streets, then go home and kill your mother and father? This was Obamas friend. Scary.

And more:

1. For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen ‘Days of Rage’ protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said “We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen.”
Susan Braudy, “Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188

a. Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to this Democratic President.

b. At a 1969 “War Council” in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn, spouse of Bill Ayers, gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman “fork salute,” she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death:

“Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks
This is the savagery of the Left.




2. At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."

After a Chicago Democratic official, Richard Elrod, became paralyzed while fighting with a privileged looter during the Weathermen's "Days of Rage," Dohrn led the Weathermen in a song sung to the tune of Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay":

Lay, Elrod, lay,
Lay in the street for a while
Stay, Elrod, stay
Stay in your bed for a while
You thought you could stop the Weatherman
But up-front people put you on your can,
Stay, Elrod, stay
Stay in your iron lung,
Play, Elrod, play
Play with your toes for a while.
Coulter, “Demonic,” p. 162-163.



Glimpse the caring, concerned, sympathetic Left.....

 

[sjay]

Are you shorting the market yet,you never responded before,ran away and hid like a little kid.I mean if you're making money shorting you should thank me or at least pay me a commission for the advice.

 

[Freemason9]

Meth and talk radio is a dangerous combination, PoliticalChic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Meth and talk radio is a dangerous combination, PoliticalChic.

Gee....a non-post.


To which of my posts are you afraid to respond?

All of 'em?


Well, the good news is that your post supports nativist theories that man is formed from clay.

 

[Toronado3800]

"Yes the debt sucks. Sure I will quote you in the next Reagan thread."

And watch me rip you a new one......

Fine. Tell me how Obama's debt is bad but Reagan's was good. I can accept pumping the economy with deficit spending as a theory btw so I am not automatically throwing Reagan under the bus. I just see it as the same creature.

Now sometimes folks have tried to blame Ronald's debt on Congress but that flies in the face of ppl who claim he was a great communicator and not Jimmy Carter ineffective. It also gives his Congresses more credit for the recovery. A trail we can run down I suppose.

"Tell me how Obama's debt is bad but Reagan's was good."

Not as simple as you, but simple, none the less:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How's dat, booooyyyyyyeeeee?

You did not refute my reply in #16. Did it sneak by?

Here is a chart instead of the link.

My reply stated your numbers while true are misleading.

The deficit spending of Reagan's failed as a percentage of GDP to provide a stimulus. It was somewhat military (which may be necessary at times but I doubt it was then) and his spending was unguided.

In the end of reply #16 I should have been nicer. My urge is for you all who read SOOO much to quit finding answers to support your team and start forming consistent theories. Notice I am not defending the current debt load so much as requesting we all look at it fairly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fine. Tell me how Obama's debt is bad but Reagan's was good. I can accept pumping the economy with deficit spending as a theory btw so I am not automatically throwing Reagan under the bus. I just see it as the same creature.

Now sometimes folks have tried to blame Ronald's debt on Congress but that flies in the face of ppl who claim he was a great communicator and not Jimmy Carter ineffective. It also gives his Congresses more credit for the recovery. A trail we can run down I suppose.

"Tell me how Obama's debt is bad but Reagan's was good."

Not as simple as you, but simple, none the less:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How's dat, booooyyyyyyeeeee?

You did not refute my reply in #16. Did it sneak by?

Here is a chart instead of the link.

My reply stated your numbers while true are misleading.

The deficit spending of Reagan's failed as a percentage of GDP to provide a stimulus. It was somewhat military (which may be necessary at times but I doubt it was then) and his spending was unguided.

In the end of reply #16 I should have been nicer. My urge is for you all who read SOOO much to quit finding answers to support your team and start forming consistent theories. Notice I am not defending the current debt load so much as requesting we all look at it fairly.

You don't have a post #16.


What is your point?

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh drat, Edward got in lol. I ended up #17.

My point is to be fair about the deficit spending criticism. Spread it around, nothing greater.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh drat, Edward got in lol. I ended up #17.

My point is to be fair about the deficit spending criticism. Spread it around, nothing greater.

Please- articulate your question....


Are you denying that Reagan purchased the end of the cold war with the military buildup?

Are you denying that the Reagan Boom was astoundingly successful?


1. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

2. Ultimately the Reagan boom would raise private-sector assets by another $60 trillion over 20 years, not halting until 2007. Under the Obama administration, for the first time since the 1970s, the U.S. economy is suffering capital flight. For the first time ever, as economist David Malpass has reported, it is experiencing a net emigration of high-technology talent.
George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com


3.'His policies worked spectacularly! The Reagan recovery started officially in November of 1982 and lasted 92 months without any more than a shallow, short recession, until July 1990, when tax increases of the ’92 budget deal killed it.
Robert Bartley, “The Seven Fat Years,” p. 135, 144.




4. This was a new record for the longest peacetime expansion, the previous being 58 months. During this seven year recovery, the economy grew by nearly one third.
The poverty rate, which had started to rise under Carter, declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one sixth from its peak.http://www.presidentreagan.info/poverty.cfm




OK???


Now....do the right thing: find a photo of President Reagan, and begin your penitential prostrations.

 

[Toronado3800]

Deficit spending in my home or on the national level sure will lower the poverty rate is my response. As a former New Dealer Reagan apparently agreed. When targeted to something useful like infrastructure it can have long term benefits. To be fair, so can proper tax incentives (loopholes) which lower spending.

The 17 trillion is a strange number as I refuted with the Debt as a percentage of GDP chart. It is akin to saying I spent $40,000 more last year, look how well I did, without mentioning the home equity loan I took out.

Should we blame the years 1989 to 2009 on Reagan? I dunno. That is to be debated.

He did use a strange protectionist movement to get some Japanese car plants built in the poor south. A domestically built Honda is less bad than an imported Acura I agree. Still hurts a bit to serve our Japanese big government overlords.

The freakishly low interest rate period also blunts the negative effects of our debt for awhile.

And my goodness, if the Cold War is to be taken into account so is the War on Terror which bloats our current deficit and does not help our economy. And how was that Soviet economy in 1980 doing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Deficit spending in my home or on the national level sure will lower the poverty rate is my response. As a former New Dealer Reagan apparently agreed. When targeted to something useful like infrastructure it can have long term benefits. To be fair, so can proper tax incentives (loopholes) which lower spending.

The 17 trillion is a strange number as I refuted with the Debt as a percentage of GDP chart. It is akin to saying I spent $40,000 more last year, look how well I did, without mentioning the home equity loan I took out.

Should we blame the years 1989 to 2009 on Reagan? I dunno. That is to be debated.

He did use a strange protectionist movement to get some Japanese car plants built in the poor south. A domestically built Honda is less bad than an imported Acura I agree. Still hurts a bit to serve our Japanese big government overlords.

The freakishly low interest rate period also blunts the negative effects of our debt for awhile.

And my goodness, if the Cold War is to be taken into account so is the War on Terror which bloats our current deficit and does not help our economy. And how was that Soviet economy in 1980 doing?

"... will lower the poverty rate...."

There is no "poverty rate."

The numbers are a total fabrication designed to disguise ever increasing government.


Here....try something new: embrace reality.

 

[Toronado3800]

Explain the "there is no poverty rate" statement. Did I mispeak? Is it termed poverty level now or rate of poverty? Your point #4 mentioned poverty rate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Explain the "there is no poverty rate" statement. Did I mispeak? Is it termed poverty level now or rate of poverty? Your point #4 mentioned poverty rate.

1. Poverty= no home, no heat, no food.

2. Do you know how the bogus 'poverty rate' is determined?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire",

yes, but in the end there was only one force, conservative capitalist Republicans like Reagan who knew it was an evil empire and opposite of the American empire. Democrats actually spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. For them it was not an evil empire at all.

One can read "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charon to see the full catalogue of outrageous liberal stupidity in support of the evil empire.


For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith,[famous Harvard economist] the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist.


John Kenneth Galbraith, an intellectual icon of the Old Left and New Left, said of the Soviets’ overtaking of Poland after World War II: “Russia should be permitted to absorb Poland, the Balkans, and the whole of Eastern Europe in order to spread the benefits of Communism” (Emphasis added).

Paul Samuelson( famous MIT economist)
”The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many sceptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive”.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Explain the "there is no poverty rate" statement. Did I mispeak? Is it termed poverty level now or rate of poverty? Your point #4 mentioned poverty rate.

1. Poverty= no home, no heat, no food.

2. Do you know how the bogus 'poverty rate' is determined?

so far as I know its determined by not using any of the income poor people get from government so they will not be poor