Reaganomics

[Picaro]

The GOP controlled the White House and Senate for most of Reagan's Presidency. If they didn't like the House's treatments of his budgets they had more than enough power to stop any spending bill they wanted to. It's a load of BS that Reagan and the GOP were poor helpless victims trying to 'fight the good fight', and were just overrun by Commies, as alleged by the Reagan Deification Society.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

Golly... If I had not just said that Reagan was forced into deficit spending because of the escalating Social Justice spending; known as 'the great society' legislation of the 1960s, THAT would be SUCH a great point.

This policy was passed by SOCIALISTS IN THE LEGISLATURE and that 'most US citizens lack the strength of character to reject monies confiscated from those who produced it by the abuse of government power, by socialists... doesn't change that.

If it helps... not a single of those people can be counted as "Americans". As Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define: America.

See how that works?

If the increases in domestic spending under President Johnson was wrong, Reagan had the responsibility to say so. He had the responsibility to be very specific about which domestic spending programs he intended to reduce or eliminate.

He did not do that, because he knew most of the increases in non military spending under Johnson - like Medicare and environmental protection - were popular with the voters. Instead he made vague generalities saying, "We are going to put the government on a diet," and stuff like that. That left white voters with the delusion that the budget could be balanced by cutting welfare programs for blacks.

If it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980's it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for the increases.

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual the very responsibilities that sustain their rights.


And just in case ya missed it: THAT'S BAD!

Why tell the working class what we already knew?
yet the responsibility of Reagan to reduce govt., the debt, reduce the budget was not what happened..
The only reason Reagan was a republican was because his penis was led into the party by Nancy...that nasty first lady that send out family breaking edicts from her lofty chamber...

LOL! Nonsense.

Reagan was a Republican because he had first hand experience with the true nature of the Left, which literally tried to have him killed, because he opposed them. Things might have been different, if they'd only forced him, through the police powers of the State, to bake a cake for their pretend wedding celebrating unbridled debauchery and hedonism.

But I doubt it, one is pretty much the same as the other.


With regard to the balance of your silliness: You're looking at the results of Reagan's Presidency and you're seeing increases in Federal Debt, which without Reagan would have been exponentially larger, without the benefit of having crushed the Soviet Union, without the benefit of having increased US Domestic output, without the benefit ... period.


One need look no further than the reality of the obama cult, which cried and cried over the 150 billion in average annual deficits of the Bush Administrations, which included the Clinton recession and security deficits that lead directly to 9-11, wherein a trillion dollar in US domestic production was lost as a result of a two hour long attack upon Manhattan and the subsequent world war that followed, all the while having to carry the domestic ideological left which promoted treachery to the point that it ELECTED in the wake of Bush, A MUSLIM MARXIST who increased annual deficit spending by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, from 150 billion in average deficit spending to 1500 billion in annual deficit spending.


The absurdity of the Ideological Left even TRYING to advocate against the infinite ascent of federal debt through spending is now something well beyond LUDICROUS!


So... LOL! It would have been a nice try, if it weren't so palpably PATHETIC.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The GOP controlled the White House and Senate for most of Reagan's Presidency. If they didn't like the House's treatments of his budgets they had more than enough power to stop any spending bill they wanted to. It's a load of BS that Reagan and the GOP were poor helpless victims trying to 'fight the good fight', and were just overrun by Commies, as alleged by the Reagan Deification Society.

Ahhh... the old '"Republicans" had control...' ruse.

The GOP has long been controlled by the Progressive Left. We're presently working through that, even as we speak. And if ya need evidence of it, simply google: "Socialists crying over The Tea Party" or any variation of the theme and you'll see the Left weeping and gnashing their collective teeth over the Party's end.

Party control over the Senate doesn't help when the 'party' is the mirror image of the other party.

Good news there... that crap is quickly coming to a close. Sadly, at least as I see it, it's way too late. Most likely the US is a fair replication of Gaza in ten years and for the same reason Gaza is what it is.

 

[Picaro]

Ahhh... the old '"Republicans" had control...' ruse.

The GOP has long been controlled by the Progressive Left.

Well, they did control the budget process. Whether one likes that fact or not doesn't change it, nor does the 'No True Scotsman' ruse work, either.

 

[Friends]

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.

You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed specific spending cuts. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan.

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.

You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed specific spending cuts. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan.

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse define "The Great Society"...

Now, will there be anything else?

 

[Friends]

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.

You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed specific spending cuts. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan.

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse define "The Great Society"...

Now, will there be anything else?

That is your opinion. It is not the consensus. The War on Poverty was a failure. Medicare is popular. After Bush tried to privatize Social Security he ran into effective resistance not from liberal elitists, but from the voters. Then he expanded Medicare coverage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.

You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed specific spending cuts. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan.

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse define "The Great Society"...

Now, will there be anything else?

That is your opinion. It is not the consensus. The War on Poverty was a failure. Medicare is popular. After Bush tried to privatize Social Security he ran into effective resistance not from liberal elitists, but from the voters. Then he expanded Medicare coverage.

Consensus?

ROFLMNAO!

That's hysterical...

.

.

.

Now do: DE N I I I i i i i i i i E R!

 

[Friends]

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.

You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed specific spending cuts. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan.

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse define "The Great Society"...

Now, will there be anything else?

That is your opinion. It is not the consensus. The War on Poverty was a failure. Medicare is popular. After Bush tried to privatize Social Security he ran into effective resistance not from liberal elitists, but from the voters. Then he expanded Medicare coverage.

Consensus?

ROFLMNAO!

That's hysterical...

.

.

.

Now do: DE N I I I i i i i i i i E R!

That is not a rebuttal. It reveals that you have no rebuttal.

The overwhelming majority of the American people support Medicare.

Google

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.

You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed specific spending cuts. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan.

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse define "The Great Society"...

Now, will there be anything else?

That is your opinion. It is not the consensus. The War on Poverty was a failure. Medicare is popular. After Bush tried to privatize Social Security he ran into effective resistance not from liberal elitists, but from the voters. Then he expanded Medicare coverage.

Consensus?

ROFLMNAO!

That's hysterical...

.

.

.

Now do: DE N I I I i i i i i i i E R!

That is not a rebuttal. It reveals that you have no rebuttal.

The overwhelming majority of the American people support Medicare.

Google

It actually IS a rebuttal... in the form of a belittlement.

The popularity perceived as 'the overwhelming majority of the American people support Medicare is as irrelevant, as would be 'the overwhelming majority of the American people support plucking the eyes out of senior citizens.'

This is because senior citizens have precisely the same claim to the product of labor of non-senior citizens, as would the non-senior citizens to the eyes of senior citizens.

And THAT is setting aside the IRREFUTABLE FACT that 'medicare' is THOROUGHLY UNSUSTAINABLE AS IT WAS WRITTEN... let alone the UTTER BASTARDIZATION of such, which stripped medicare of ALL discernible standards, providing care to people who are otherwise WELL CAPABLE of providing for THEMSELVES.

But these things are what SOUND LEADERSHIP is designed to set straight... and SOUND LEADERSHIP is what POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is designed to DESTROY.

Now, because a culture cannot survive without sound leadership is an incontestable FACT... we can therefore be CERTAIN that Political Correctness was DESIGNED TO DESTROY THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES, along with western culture on the whole.

Feel better?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So, uh, when are those jobs gonna start trickling down?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, uh, when are those jobs gonna start trickling down?

Jobs do not trickledown. State and Federal subsidy checks, 'trickledown'.

Jobs are created by people who join with others to produce products and/or services to those who have a need for such, who trade the value they possess for the value intrinsic to the product/services... . Through that transaction, both all parties profit.

This is known as capitalism... where free people exercise their God-given rights to pursue the fulfillment of their lives.

It runs counter to the irrational notions of socialism, which seeks to confiscate those profits from all individuals, which it uses to pay the oligarchy in extravagance, then trickles-down the balance of the ill-gotten product of the labor of a free people, to the least common denominators, who's low character provides for them to live on stolen monies even as it uses it's vote to undermine the viability of the very system that subsidizes their own existence; these people are known as "THE DREGS". The least productive organism on earth... parasites who threaten the viability of whatever culture they infect.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....

dear, Reaganomics was capitalism to the extent that Reagan could implement capitalism. Do you understand.

 

[EconChick]

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.

Yes, perhaps the biggest mistake people make here is assuming the president is the govt. It would be 100% impossible to recreate the Reagan economic era anyway so looking at those years for lessons about what to do today is absurd. In Reagans era the Japanese were just getting a foothold in the American car market and China had barely taken its first steps toward capitalism.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.

Radical RWs hate our system of checks and balances.

Reagan was corrupt, crooked and a disaster for the country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.

Radical RWs hate our system of checks and balances.

Reagan was corrupt, crooked and a disaster for the country.

1) defeating communism, freeing 2 billon people, saving the world from nuclear anniliation, and starting
the longest period of continuous economic growth in US history was a disaster but only to a libcommie airhead.

 

[EconChick]

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.

Radical RWs hate our system of checks and balances.

Reagan was corrupt, crooked and a disaster for the country.

1) defeating communism, freeing 2 billon people, saving the world from nuclear anniliation, and starting
the longest period of continuous economic growth in US history was a disaster but only to a libcommie airhead.

The ignorance is breathtaking. Like someone saying America was not the first to put a man on the moon.

I expect the revisionists to come up with that one soon.

 

[EconChick]

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.

Radical RWs hate our system of checks and balances.

Reagan was corrupt, crooked and a disaster for the country.

I'm sure the little Red Book says that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]