Reagan Unumployment rate was 10.8% at the End of 82

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting to note that all the usual suspects have recoiled from addressing the point that Reagan's economic models included cutbacks in federal spending and bureaucracy, which never came to pass.

Pretty much impossible to disprove the workability of something that hasn't even been tried.

Since Reagan was dealing with TIP O'Neal and a Statist Congress that fought him all the way...

Only idiots use the word "Statist".

 

[Oddball]

Why don't you and/or that Rhodes scholar guy deal with the fact that Reagan's economic model proposed substantial cuts in spending and bureaucracy, which never came about?

C'mon, Vermin, dazzle us.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Trickle down Reaganomics was a failure to Democrats because Americans prospered, 20 million jobs were created, the USA was respected and feared due to our might, wealth was created and freedoms restored.....................


Nothing Democrat



Democrats thrive in ghettos and poverty

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting to note that all the usual suspects have recoiled from addressing the point that Reagan's economic models included cutbacks in federal spending and bureaucracy, which never came to pass.

Pretty much impossible to disprove the workability of something that hasn't even been tried.

Yep. He was the first in a long line of conservative hypocrites. Suggesting Government is the problem as he expanded federal spending and during his tenure oversaw deficit spending and the creation of a huge public debt.

 

[T-Bor]

The best you can do to support your argument is a video by that guy Mr. Maddow? He's a shining example of how people can get educated out of their common sense.

Reading this post provides clear evidence you're an asshole, a bigot and too stupid to offer any evidence to write a counter argument.

And yet all you did is bash the post without offering any type of counter argument as well. Now who is the stupid one? Idiot.

 

[Oddball]

Interesting to note that all the usual suspects have recoiled from addressing the point that Reagan's economic models included cutbacks in federal spending and bureaucracy, which never came to pass.

Pretty much impossible to disprove the workability of something that hasn't even been tried.

Yep. He was the first in a long line of conservative hypocrites. Suggesting Government is the problem as he expanded federal spending and during his tenure oversaw deficit spending and the creation of a huge public debt.

So, you admit that his model was never completely implemented, yet can sit there and call it a failure.

And you wonder why guys like me don't take dimwits like you seriously.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting to note that all the usual suspects have recoiled from addressing the point that Reagan's economic models included cutbacks in federal spending and bureaucracy, which never came to pass.

Pretty much impossible to disprove the workability of something that hasn't even been tried.

Yep. He was the first in a long line of conservative hypocrites. Suggesting Government is the problem as he expanded federal spending and during his tenure oversaw deficit spending and the creation of a huge public debt.

So, you admit that his model was never completely implemented, yet can sit there and call it a failure.

And you wonder why guys like me don't take dimwits like you seriously.

Guys like you?
The fact is he never intended to cut military spending, his goal was to redistibute the wealth and he did.

 

[Oddball]

The fact is that no spending was cut...Military or otherwise.

Try again...Vermin.

 

[Wiseacre]

Yep. He was the first in a long line of conservative hypocrites. Suggesting Government is the problem as he expanded federal spending and during his tenure oversaw deficit spending and the creation of a huge public debt.

So, you admit that his model was never completely implemented, yet can sit there and call it a failure.

And you wonder why guys like me don't take dimwits like you seriously.

Guys like you?
The fact is he never intended to cut military spending, his goal was to redistibute the wealth and he did.

Reagan never intended to cut military spending, and for good reason. Why do you think we won the cold war? But he did intend to cut about everything else, but had a democratic Congress who lied to him about making cuts after he raised taxes in his 2nd term.

His goal was to redistribute wealth? You are a lunatic if you really think that.

 

[bripat9643]

And you wonder why guys like me don't take dimwits like you seriously.

Guys like you?
The fact is he never intended to cut military spending, his goal was to redistibute the wealth and he did.

He campaigned on increasing military spending, so why would anyone attack him for doing exactly that? He did intend to cut government spending, but he had to fight a gang of criminal Democrat parasites in Congress. They declared every budget he submitted "dead on arrival" and proceeded to pass one that had for more spending. Claiming Reagan for increasing spending during his administration is the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

[T-Bor]

Interesting to note that all the usual suspects have recoiled from addressing the point that Reagan's economic models included cutbacks in federal spending and bureaucracy, which never came to pass.

Pretty much impossible to disprove the workability of something that hasn't even been tried.

Yep. He was the first in a long line of conservative hypocrites. Suggesting Government is the problem as he expanded federal spending and during his tenure oversaw deficit spending and the creation of a huge public debt.

So, you admit that his model was never completely implemented, yet can sit there and call it a failure.

And you wonder why guys like me don't take dimwits like you seriously.

There is MORE than enough proof out there to show that Reganomics was a failure. The fact is his plan increased the national debt and did absolutely NOTHING for the middle class which represents the majority of Americans. I don't need to provide links to you, there is plenty of them out there. Go look it up. Reagan sucked, and so did his policies. Glad he is dead. He is in hell where he belongs. Thank god.

 

[The T]

Interesting to note that all the usual suspects have recoiled from addressing the point that Reagan's economic models included cutbacks in federal spending and bureaucracy, which never came to pass.

Pretty much impossible to disprove the workability of something that hasn't even been tried.

Since Reagan was dealing with TIP O'Neal and a Statist Congress that fought him all the way...

Only idiots use the word "Statist".

And morons as YOU are the epitome of it because it describes *YOU* perfectly, thus your objection.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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

No! Oh and it is called supply side Economics, not Trickle down, If you expect a real debate You may want to not start out by calling it by it's dirty liberal name in your title. You also might want to try and find a less biased source for your "proof" than RM. You might as well have been defending Bush by posting a rant by Rush, or Hannity.

It is very interesting to me that your Name is TruthSeeker, and you use a source like RM in a post. If you really seek the truth, I suggest you broaden your information sources and not rely only on known Democrat/Liberal Supporting Commentators like RM Her Clear Left wing Bias is known to us all.

 

[Charles_Main]

Since Reagan was dealing with TIP O'Neal and a Statist Congress that fought him all the way...

Only idiots use the word "Statist".

And morons as YOU are the epitome of it because it describes *YOU* perfectly, thus your objection.

The Meaning of the word describes them well. The problem is half these Big Government is always the answer types think you are talking about States Rights types when you say statist. They simply do not understand the world describes Liberal, Nanny state, Big Government bureaucracy types, not States rights advocates.

 

[The T]

Only idiots use the word "Statist".

And morons as YOU are the epitome of it because it describes *YOU* perfectly, thus your objection.

The Meaning of the word describes them well. The problem is half these Big Government is always the answer types think you are talking about States Rights types when you say statist. They simply do not understand the world describes Liberal, Nanny state, Big Government bureaucracy types, not States rights advocates.

Right. Those that belive all wealth and rights belong to the State to be parsed by the State's good will...total 180 of the founding.

 

[skookerasbil]

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

Just to keep it real for the curious checking into this thread..............

Paul Krugman is a writer for the New York Times..........a committed Maoist. Also....he's a guest on MSNBC about 14 times a week and particualrly on the Maddow Show. Of course, for those who dont know Maddow........she's a radical feminist with close ties to Marxist organizations and a daily poster on the DailyKos......a committed communist website.

Just keeping it real...............

 

[NYcarbineer]

The best you can do to support your argument is a video by that guy Mr. Maddow? He's a shining example of how people can get educated out of their common sense.

Reading this post provides clear evidence you're an asshole, a bigot and too stupid to offer any evidence to write a counter argument.

And yet all you did is bash the post without offering any type of counter argument as well. Now who is the stupid one? Idiot.

Why would you need to offer a counter-argument to a post that has no argument in it? The MadSci post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

That is not an argument.

 

[skookerasbil]

Reaganomics stems from the economic theories of Arthur Laffer, as brilliantly laid out in the priceless 1970's book by Jude Wanniski, "The Way the World Works". If you're out in the real world with real responsibilities.......particularly if you run something ( I'm a Human Services Administrator) you know the theory is bulletproof.


Supply side economics is a no-brainer. The problem comes when you pair it with massive government spending for the losers, then, of course it becomes less effective. Just imagine if Reagan had not compromised with the Dums in the day where we would be.

I work in a field that is government funded. The amount of waste I see would boggle the mind. Boggle the mind.

If you're not in the real world, you're just spitting out jargon and theory............FTMFL.


Make no mistake..........alot of people on this forum implicitly trust government to be honest, fair and ethical. But those people dont navigate in the real world............

 

[Rinata]

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

First of all, the right wing idiots hate Rachel. As you know, she is very bright and researches her stories thoroughly. That is a big no no to the stupid right. So no, they will never agree that any story from Rachel is accurate. Actually they won't believe any true story if they don't lke it. They are a pretty messed up bunch.

She's not accurate in this case because spending was never cut, which was an integral part of Regan's economic model....Moreover, both she and Krugman are inaccurate on propose, which makes them bald-faced liars.

Talk about messed up.

Yeah, okay.

 

[Rinata]

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

First of all, the right wing idiots hate Rachel. As you know, she is very bright and researches her stories thoroughly. That is a big no no to the stupid right. So no, they will never agree that any story from Rachel is accurate. Actually they won't believe any true story if they don't lke it. They are a pretty messed up bunch.

Why is i that those on the right acknowledge that Hannity is a noticebly partisan commentator who has a very far right agenda and is an entertainer for those that like to listen to that type of commentary...

But....

the left sees Rachel Maddow (who is the exact same thing Hannity is, but on the left) as a bright well informed honest and balanced commentator?

I mean...it scares me to see a post like yours....implying htat her reporting is balanced and accurate.

Do you truly not see how all she reports on leans to the left?

That is scary shit.

This implies that your opinion of Rachel and Hannity is right on. It's not.