Anyone read Stockman's Book on the failure of the Reagan Administration?

[Wry Catcher]

5. Fuck off, you are one of the most arrogant and obnoxious jerks whose posts I've read on this message board.

But dear, is there anything, anything at all that you find mistaken in conservatism or libertarianism? If you cant say but are still a liberal that ought to tell you something about the bigotry of liberalism.

What part of Fuck off didn't you understand? Your red herring 'effort', as weak as it is, is one reason I find you to be ridiculous [as well as an asshole and a partisan punk].

But rather than leave your question hanging, and with only my 'ad hominem' response in retort, I'm compelled to give a brief answer:

Libertarianism is all ideology all of the time and is rarely, if ever, pragmatic. It seems to be descending into a sort of bizarre Christian Anarchistic Totalitarianism (and all of that seems contradictory which is what makes libertarians so odd);

Today, there is no such thing as a "conservative"; those (like you) who pretend to be are also ideologues within a sub set of the Republican Party. No less odd then the libertarians but much more filled with hate, bigotry, racism and greed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The economic miracle of the Reagan years had much more to do with liberalizing the Prime to get the cost of borrowing down AND raiding the social security to give the FED cheap money via that process.

And of course one can see the national debtr rising even while (because) of his tax cuts for millionaires, too.

Most working Americans experienced the largest single TAX INCREASE in history under Reagan.

Or have ya'll conveniently forgotten Reagan's Social Security tax increases?

Raiding Social Security?

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And massively increased the public debt, which does read like the complaint his detractors have been pointing out all along.

I think his book, however doesn't much deal with the Regan era, but rather than the lst couple decades of stupid stupid policies that this government has created.

I haven't read his book yet, buy based on the video interview he is sound more and more like most economists I've been reading warning us about the wholesale theft of value that the FED and treasury allowed to happen on both Bush II and Obama's watch.

It is his opinion that reconstituting the BANKSTERS' too big to fail banks, was a massive error.

I certainly agree with him that the way it was done (leaving the same people in charge and NOT nationalizing those then insolvent banks) was a tragic error in judgement.

He obvious HATES Benacke.

If Reagan's increase was "Massive" Obama's is astronomical

Which in no way absolves Reagan or those perpetuating the Reagan myth.

What myth is that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Reagan's increase was "Massive" Obama's is astronomical

Which in no way absolves Reagan or those perpetuating the Reagan myth.

too stupid!! there is no myth!! Reagan believed in very very very limited government as did our genius Founders. He did not make it happen because of treasonous Democrat and independent opposition.

Why is such a simple concept too complicated for a liberal to grasp.

So the Democrats controlled Congress during all 8 years of Reagan's Presidency, and somehow stopped him from vetoing all the spending?

The answer is no.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

5. Fuck off, you are one of the most arrogant and obnoxious jerks whose posts I've read on this message board.

But dear, is there anything, anything at all that you find mistaken in conservatism or libertarianism? If you cant say but are still a liberal that ought to tell you something about the bigotry of liberalism.

How can both libertarianism and conservatism be without mistakes when they hold completely differing views on many issues? Also, you've been criticizing the libertarian position on Ronald Reagan growing government, but then imply that libertarianism is without mistakes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Which in no way absolves Reagan or those perpetuating the Reagan myth.

too stupid!! there is no myth!! Reagan believed in very very very limited government as did our genius Founders. He did not make it happen because of treasonous Democrat and independent opposition.

Why is such a simple concept too complicated for a liberal to grasp.

So the Democrats controlled Congress during all 8 years of Reagan's Presidency, and somehow stopped him from vetoing all the spending?

The answer is no.

Reagan needed Congress to pass ERTA, he was a smart negotiator, not a Dictator

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

5. Fuck off, you are one of the most arrogant and obnoxious jerks whose posts I've read on this message board.

But dear, is there anything, anything at all that you find mistaken in conservatism or libertarianism? If you cant say but are still a liberal that ought to tell you something about the bigotry of liberalism.

What part of Fuck off didn't you understand? Your red herring 'effort', as weak as it is, is one reason I find you to be ridiculous [as well as an asshole and a partisan punk].

But rather than leave your question hanging, and with only my 'ad hominem' response in retort, I'm compelled to give a brief answer:

Libertarianism is all ideology all of the time and is rarely, if ever, pragmatic. It seems to be descending into a sort of bizarre Christian Anarchistic Totalitarianism (and all of that seems contradictory which is what makes libertarians so odd)

Today, there is no such thing as a "conservative"; those (like you) who pretend to be are also ideologues within a sub set of the Republican Party. No less odd then the libertarians but much more filled with hate, bigotry, racism and greed.

This complaint makes no sense to me. Libertarianism is "all ideology all of the time" because libertarianism is a political ideology. Much like liberalism or conservatism. Also, I'd point out that libertarianism, whether anarchist or not, has nothing to do with Christianity. There are Christian libertarians, of course, but plenty that are not. As for being totalitarian, you'd have to cite an example.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Reagan's increase was "Massive" Obama's is astronomical

Which in no way absolves Reagan or those perpetuating the Reagan myth.

What myth is that?

That Reagan was a great free market supporter and tax cutter. Both are myths.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

too stupid!! there is no myth!! Reagan believed in very very very limited government as did our genius Founders. He did not make it happen because of treasonous Democrat and independent opposition.

Why is such a simple concept too complicated for a liberal to grasp.

So the Democrats controlled Congress during all 8 years of Reagan's Presidency, and somehow stopped him from vetoing all the spending?

The answer is no.

Reagan needed Congress to pass ERTA, he was a smart negotiator, not a Dictator

And in the process of being a "smart" negotiator, he raised taxes and grew government. Sounds like a dumb negotiator to me, if limiting government was indeed his goal. Which I doubt.

 

[editec]

(leaving the same people in charge)

too stupid!! how can the same people be in charge when Bear Lehman Merryl and 1000 others went bankrupt!!!!!!! Slow???

And the other banks that were not allowed to go bankrupt?

Youi conveniently ignored the REST OF THE STORY, mate.

and NOT nationalizing those then insolvent banks) was a tragic error in judgement.

OMG too stupid 1000 times over!!! Stockman is a rigid capitalist, not a socialist who wants libturd soviet Solyndra bureaucrats to own and run the banks!

Ya know in a TRUE capitalistic society, when a publically held corporation goes down, those who come to its aid end up OWNING IT.

The American taxpayers BOUGHT AIG, GM, and the BANKS that needed to be bailed out. We paid far more than their shareprices were worth to save those corporations.

At the point where they had to take money from out government their BALANCE SHEETS indicated that their share pricing ought to have been $0 per share.

So when I say nationalize in this case, I mean take possession of that which our government BOUGHT.



You don't know jackshit about macroeconomics, sport, you really don't.

And while your attempts to fake it (mostly by attacking people who actually do) might impress your fellow know-nothings , you fail to impress those of us on this board who do.

Read a book, lad.

TV will not give you enough information to form a coherent POV.

Econ 101 will note lead you to the truth about how our society's economic really works.

In fact that microeconomics will only confuse you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So when I say nationalizein this case, I mean take possession of that which our government BOUGHT.

too stupid!! Bailout money was repaid, economy was saved,
and last thing on earth that makes sense is soviet Solyndra libturd bureaucrats taking over. Girls Scouts would have a better chance. Did the fool notice China just switched to capitalism or that when we bail out millions if individuals who don't pay a cent back we don't take over their lives????

If you're a treasonous idiot socialist why not go to Cuba and try to figure out why they could not afford new cars from the exact moment the libturds took over??

Easy problem but still over your pretty little liberal head - right?????l

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So when I say nationalizein this case, I mean take possession of that which our government BOUGHT.

too stupid!! Bailout money was repaid, economy was saved,
and last thing on earth that makes sense is soviet Solyndra libturd bureaucrats taking over. Girls Scouts would have a better chance. Did the fool notice China just switched to capitalism or that when we bail out millions if individuals who don't pay a cent back we don't take over their lives????

If you're a treasonous idiot socialist why not go to Cuba and try to figure out why they could not afford new cars from the exact moment the libturds took over??

Easy problem but still over your pretty little liberal head - right?????l

So bailouts can save the economy? Looks like you're the "liberal."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Which in no way absolves Reagan or those perpetuating the Reagan myth.

What myth is that?

That Reagan was a great free market supporter and tax cutter. Both are myths.

Reagan cut taxes

Reagan supported free enterprise

You have him confused with someone else

 

[lynn63]

Neither party ever wanted to reduce our government, the power is in expanding it. While Dems say they want to expand welfare, they never follow through it. The Medicaid Expansion is cheaper for them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What myth is that?

That Reagan was a great free market supporter and tax cutter. Both are myths.

Reagan cut taxes

Reagan supported free enterprise

You have him confused with someone else

Reagan raised taxes.

Reagan talked about supporting free enterprise, then increased government spending dramatically.

 

[Dot Com]

he knows that the country/gov't is a plutocracy/corporatocracy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That Reagan was a great free market supporter and tax cutter. Both are myths.

Reagan cut taxes

Reagan supported free enterprise

You have him confused with someone else

Reagan raised taxes.

Reagan talked about supporting free enterprise, then increased government spending dramatically.

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan cut taxes

Reagan supported free enterprise

You have him confused with someone else

Reagan raised taxes.

Reagan talked about supporting free enterprise, then increased government spending dramatically.

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

Reagan was greatest small government, pro-freedon president since Jefferson for sure but a president needs to be seen for what he wanted to do, not what he was able to do in a democracy wherein power is divided into many many parts. Nevertheless, Reagan was able to start the Great Moderation, end the cold war, defeat communism, free about 2 billion people, and start the Star Wars program which is rapidly becoming our only means of defense given the liberal's cowardly inability to launch an offensive war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Reagan cut taxes

Reagan supported free enterprise

You have him confused with someone else

Reagan raised taxes.

Reagan talked about supporting free enterprise, then increased government spending dramatically.

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

No, I just don't need to hold up the myth of some politician to justify my political beliefs. Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he grew government. Plain and simple.

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)

Income tax rates in the upper brackets have come down. But the odious bipartisan "loophole closing" of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – an act engineered by our Jacobin egalitarian "free market" economists in the name of "fairness" – raised instead of lowered the income tax paid by most upper-income people. Again: what one hand of government giveth, the other taketh away, and then some. Thus, President-elect Bush has just abandoned his worthy plan to cut the capital gains tax in half, because it would violate the beloved tax fairness instituted by the bipartisan Reganite 1986 "reform."

The bottom line is that tax revenues have gone up an enormous amount under the eight years of Reagan; the only positive thing we can say for them is that revenues as percentage of the gross national product are up only slightly since 1980. The result: the monstrous deficit, now apparently permanently fixed somewhere around $200 billion, and the accompanying tripling of the total federal debt in the eight blessed years of the Reagan Era. Is that what the highly touted "Reagan Revolution" amounts to, then? A tripling of the national debt?

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan raised taxes.

Reagan talked about supporting free enterprise, then increased government spending dramatically.

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

No, I just don't need to hold up the myth of some politician to justify my political beliefs. Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he grew government. Plain and simple.

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)

Income tax rates in the upper brackets have come down. But the odious bipartisan "loophole closing" of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – an act engineered by our Jacobin egalitarian "free market" economists in the name of "fairness" – raised instead of lowered the income tax paid by most upper-income people. Again: what one hand of government giveth, the other taketh away, and then some. Thus, President-elect Bush has just abandoned his worthy plan to cut the capital gains tax in half, because it would violate the beloved tax fairness instituted by the bipartisan Reganite 1986 "reform."

The bottom line is that tax revenues have gone up an enormous amount under the eight years of Reagan; the only positive thing we can say for them is that revenues as percentage of the gross national product are up only slightly since 1980. The result: the monstrous deficit, now apparently permanently fixed somewhere around $200 billion, and the accompanying tripling of the total federal debt in the eight blessed years of the Reagan Era. Is that what the highly touted "Reagan Revolution" amounts to, then? A tripling of the national debt?

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

Reagan was greatest small government, pro-freedon president since Jefferson for sure but a president needs to be seen for what he wanted to do, not what he was able to do in a democracy wherein power is divided into many many parts. Nevertheless, Reagan was able to start the Great Moderation, end the cold war, defeat communism, free about 2 billion people, and start the Star Wars program which is rapidly becoming our only means of defense given the liberal's cowardly inability to launch an offensive war