Reagan Unumployment rate was 10.8% at the End of 82

[Nic_Driver]

So do you advocate a continuation of the same failed policy?

 

[rdean]

Republicans constantly work at rewriting history. See "Reagan Legacy Project".

 

[Oddball]

Wow, snappy retort!

You're ok with Regan turning us from the single largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation, in 8 short years? You don't see how that's applicable today? Do you advocate a continuation of that same policy?

Who is the 'they' in your quote anyway?

"They" would be the Obama administration.

Was it Reagan's fault the democrat controlled House wouldn't cut spending like they agreed to when he raised taxes in '86? His presidency turned the corner on our economy and started a boom period that lasted about 25 years.

**Sigh**



The Republican Party was in control of the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987. Besides, Congress actually spent less than what Regan originally had asked.

More information here: Budgets and Spending - The Reagan Years

Doesn't matter....Reagan still didn't cut spending.

Y'know, cut as in spent less this year than last?

 

[Douger]

NO.
You should agree that freeDumb to vote has been an absolute failure.

 

[Wiseacre]

"They" would be the Obama administration.

Was it Reagan's fault the democrat controlled House wouldn't cut spending like they agreed to when he raised taxes in '86? His presidency turned the corner on our economy and started a boom period that lasted about 25 years.

**Sigh**



The Republican Party was in control of the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987. Besides, Congress actually spent less than what Regan originally had asked.

More information here: Budgets and Spending - The Reagan Years

Doesn't matter....Reagan still didn't cut spending.

Y'know, cut as in spent less this year than last?

Reagan had to deal with a Dem controlled House, which as I'm sure you know is where all appropriations begin. At one point they enjoyed a 100 seat margin, and that is why he couldn't cut spending as much as he wanted to. Plus, our DoD was in bad shape after Carter raped it, and that's where most of his spending increases went. And it was money well spent IMHO. I do know thatr Reagan vetoed dozens of spending bills that were too ihgh, so don't be giving me this crap about his deficit spending.

From Heritage.com:

Though Reagan promised deep cuts in domestic spending, that did not turn out to be the case. Indeed, overall welfare spending increased during the Reagan presidency -- primarily because Reagan could not overcome, even with vetoes and the bully pulpit of the White House, the spending impulses of Congress, which, after all, signed the checks. Throughout his two terms, he was confronted by Democrats still enthralled by the New Deal as well as Republicans (particularly in the Senate) still mesmerized by its political appeal.

When the administration proposed to abolish the Department of Education in 1981, Howard Baker, the first Republican Senate majority leader since 1954, actively opposed abolition.[x] Baker wanted to remain majority leader and was worried that getting rid of the department would alienate too many voters.

Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

 

[Wiseacre]

Following up, from conservative dailynews.com:


" Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.) "


http://conservativedailynews.com/20...ax-increases-reagan-awaits-his-just-desserts/

 

[editec]

Can We All Agree Reaganomics/Trickle Down Theory Is A Complete Failure

Not unless we can all agree on what COMPLETE FAILURE really means, no.

Clearly there are differings opinions about what a good economy even looks like.

 

[bripat9643]

**Sigh**



The Republican Party was in control of the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987. Besides, Congress actually spent less than what Regan originally had asked.

More information here: Budgets and Spending - The Reagan Years

That's an outright lie. Congress passed spending bills that were larger than every budget Reagan submitted.

Dems are simply incapable of telling the truth about anything.

 

[bripat9643]

Doesn't matter....Reagan still didn't cut spending.

Y'know, cut as in spent less this year than last?

Name one Democrat who ever cut spending.

 

[Oddball]

Truman drastically cut spending after WWII.

Clintoon cut military spending, while increasing deployments.

That said, nether of them ever cut back on the domestic socialistic welfare state spending.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Show: Paul Krugman on the Failure of Reagonomics

Krugman?

Why would you hold out this washed up has been that never was as a credible source for anything other than how to completely fuck things up?

The man's still arguing we need to borrow more money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

**Sigh**



The Republican Party was in control of the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987. Besides, Congress actually spent less than what Regan originally had asked.

More information here: Budgets and Spending - The Reagan Years

That's an outright lie. Congress passed spending bills that were larger than every budget Reagan submitted.

Dems are simply incapable of telling the truth about anything.

Liberalism/socialism/progressivism/communism, whatever we're calling it today is a lie.

 

[jgarden]

It just isn't going to work, and it's very interesting that the man who invested this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy...

- GWH Bush speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980), allegedly referring to Ronald Reagan

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.

- Warren Buffett, commenting on "trickle down" economics

Read more: Warren Buffett Quotes - Page 2 - BrainyQuote

GWH Bush and Warren Buffett may not agreed on much - but both have spoken out strongly against "supply-side" economics!

 

[Nic_Driver]

It bears repeating;

Did Reganomics live up to it's promises more than three decades later?

Since 1980, when Reagan won the presidency promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the vast majority—the bottom 90 percent of Americans—has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent. Put another way, for each dollar people in the vast majority made in 1980, in 2008 their income was up to $1.01.

Those at the top did better. The top 1 percent’s average income more than doubled to $1.1 million, according to an analysis of tax data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. The really rich, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, each enjoyed almost $4 in 2008 for each dollar in 1980.

The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million.



Prosperity for the already wealthy, that's what happened, regardless of any claim to the contrary by whatever statistical manipulation can be delivered.

The wealth gap continues to grow while the GOP asks the poor to make up for the disproportionate amount of our nations wealth they gave to those at the top.

 

[bripat9643]

It bears repeating;

Did Reganomics live up to it's promises more than three decades later?

Since 1980, when Reagan won the presidency promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the vast majority—the bottom 90 percent of Americans—has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent. Put another way, for each dollar people in the vast majority made in 1980, in 2008 their income was up to $1.01.

Those at the top did better. The top 1 percent’s average income more than doubled to $1.1 million, according to an analysis of tax data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. The really rich, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, each enjoyed almost $4 in 2008 for each dollar in 1980.

The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million.

Prosperity for the already wealthy, that's what happened, regardless of any claim to the contrary by whatever statistical manipulation can be delivered.

The wealth gap continues to grow while the GOP asks the poor to make up for the disproportionate amount of our nations wealth they gave to those at the top.

I see you're still pushing this swill. It's already been pointed out that you have no support other than the claims of some notorious left-wing "journalist" who admits he conjured up the numbers.

 

[skookerasbil]

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Show: Paul Krugman on the Failure of Reagonomics

And just how many people saw that spot?

179?






Just to point something out........Krugman is a devout Maoist. And why does one think the stock market has been performing so well this past quarter assholes?????

 

[skookerasbil]

EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............wrong answer.



Investors see the writing on the wall.........the end of ODumbanomics.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is how stupid liberlas are................

This is classic by the way................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores[/ame]



Talk about the IQ of a small soap dish.

 

[Nic_Driver]

It bears repeating;

Did Reganomics live up to it's promises more than three decades later?

Since 1980, when Reagan won the presidency promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the vast majority—the bottom 90 percent of Americans—has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent. Put another way, for each dollar people in the vast majority made in 1980, in 2008 their income was up to $1.01.

Those at the top did better. The top 1 percent’s average income more than doubled to $1.1 million, according to an analysis of tax data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. The really rich, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, each enjoyed almost $4 in 2008 for each dollar in 1980.

The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million.

Prosperity for the already wealthy, that's what happened, regardless of any claim to the contrary by whatever statistical manipulation can be delivered.

The wealth gap continues to grow while the GOP asks the poor to make up for the disproportionate amount of our nations wealth they gave to those at the top.

I see you're still pushing this swill. It's already been pointed out that you have no support other than the claims of some notorious left-wing "journalist" who admits he conjured up the numbers.

Really? While it's typical of the GOP to try to discredit anyone with an opinion that differs from the propaganda they are trying to sell, the least you can do is get the profession of the person you are trying to discredit correct.


Economist's View: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez Respond to Alan Reynolds

Here's the response of Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez to Alan Reynold's op-ed in the WSJ

Take a look and read before you mispeak again.

In sum, our work has shown the top 1% income share has increased dramatically in recent decades and has reached levels which had not been seen since before World War II and even since before the Great Depression when including capital gains. The reduction in taxes at the top since 2001 has mechanically exacerbated the discrepancy in disposable income between the rich and the rest of us. Thus, it is obvious that the progressive income tax should be the central element of the debate when thinking about what to do about the increase in inequality. Even conservatives like Alan Reynolds would agree and that is why they prefer to dismiss the facts about growing income inequality rather than face the debate on income tax progressivity at a time of growing economic disparity.

 

[bripat9643]

I see you're still pushing this swill. It's already been pointed out that you have no support other than the claims of some notorious left-wing "journalist" who admits he conjured up the numbers.

Really? While it's typical of the GOP to try to discredit anyone with an opinion that differs from the propaganda they are trying to sell, the least you can do is get the profession of the person you are trying to discredit correct.

You claimed he was a journalist. I can't be held responsible for your claims.

Economist's View: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez Respond to Alan Reynolds

Here's the response of Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez to Alan Reynold's op-ed in the WSJ

Take a look and read before you mispeak again.

In sum, our work has shown the top 1% income share has increased dramatically in recent decades and has reached levels which had not been seen since before World War II and even since before the Great Depression when including capital gains. The reduction in taxes at the top since 2001 has mechanically exacerbated the discrepancy in disposable income between the rich and the rest of us. Thus, it is obvious that the progressive income tax should be the central element of the debate when thinking about what to do about the increase in inequality. Even conservatives like Alan Reynolds would agree and that is why they prefer to dismiss the facts about growing income inequality rather than face the debate on income tax progressivity at a time of growing economic disparity.

So you found some other left-wing hacks who are willing to defend propaganda?

Yeah, that certainly proves a lot.

NOT!