It's demand that drives the economy and other things Liberals get consistently wrong

[Rshermr]

you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on.

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

 

[Iceweasel]

you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on.

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

 

[Rshermr]

you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on.

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in beleiving in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

 

[Iceweasel]

you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on.

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in beleiving in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer.

 

[Rshermr]

you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on.

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

 

[Iceweasel]

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent. Of course the libs will always hate him for that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent. Of course the libs will always hate him for that.

Progressives hate Reagan because he called their hometeam an "Evil empire" and a miserable failures and by the time he left he had completely defeated them

 

[Rshermr]

typo. I know well the time period. Meant to type 1982. But here is the deal, me dear, Reagan was not president in 1980. It was not until January of 1981 that he took office. Dipshit.

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent.
So, rationally, what you just said was that Reagan should not be held responsible for tripling the debt and for tripling the national debt, and all of his spending on the military should be disregarded. Sorry, me boy, his spending was his spending. And you are correct that he helped win the cold war by making the soviets spend more than they had. But that was not new. The soviets were on the way down that tube for a couple decades. Reagan, and every president since Eisenhower, were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet economy. Fact.
As a con, you are unable and unwilling to understand what happened during the reagan admin. It had, you see, a TIMELINE. In the beginning, there was a huge tax cut. In the end, there was a strong economy. But you forget the 5 years after the tax cut. Because, after the tax cut and spending cuts in the private sector, the ue rate went to 10.8%. And the reagan team dealt with that with SPENDING. Tons and tons of spending. More than all the US presidents before him COMBINED. True keynesian policy. Stimulative spending. And the economy responded well over the next few years.
Of course the libs will always hate him for that.
Hardly. I never hated any president. That is something for cons. They tend to jin up hate. Truth is, I voted for Reagan the first time. Gives you some idea of how old I am.

Funny, me boy. You want me to back up everything. But you never back up anything.
"The federal debt was $994 billion when Reagan took office in 1981, and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989."
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

Or 2.91750503018 times, which would be 2.918 times the national debt at the beginning of his term. Which is why people shorten it to 3 times.
Your welcome.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Production or expansion without demand is doomed to fail

Exactly, China is dealing with that reality with large blocks of new cities lying empty. Our Federal Reserve is desperately trying to reverse prime the pump by printing money without expansion. And what do they get instead of growth? Companies buying their own stock back instead of hiring more people or building new factories, an inflated housing market and stock market which benefits the haves while hurting the have nots. There will be a price to pay for this notion that you can create growth by trying to force production. Might want to have some gold in the portfolio.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Frank, I'm an entrepreneur and you're not so I have low expectations of your ability to understand these things. Let me try this way of explaining; I'd rather arrive on a semi-fertile planet with starving people than an abundantly fertile planet with very few people. I make a living supplying demand. You, well you're probably just a wage slave.

The biggest problem us entrepreneurs have is a restrictive and bureaucratic government run by politicians, elected by morons - none of which have ever signed the front of a paycheck.

Jomama, I am an entrepreneur as well, and I will take that abundantly fertile planet over the starving semi-fertile planet every time. It's about growth. If the planet is not very fertile but well populated then you will have little or no growth, because you can't feed more people. On the other hand, a very fertile planet with few people is full of upside potential growth. , and as the population grows because of the abundance then the producers get rich. Maybe being an entrepreneur where you live is different than where I come from, but I like a lot of upside.

Think back to the beginning of this country. It was a wide open fertile land with very few people, and now it is the most successful country on earth. Would you have gone to the new world back in the 1700's or sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Production or expansion without demand is doomed to fail

Exactly, China is dealing with that reality with large blocks of new cities lying empty. Our Federal Reserve is desperately trying to reverse prime the pump by printing money without expansion. And what do they get instead of growth? Companies buying their own stock back instead of hiring more people or building new factories, an inflated housing market and stock market which benefits the haves while hurting the have nots. There will be a price to pay for this notion that you can create growth by trying to force production. Might want to have some gold in the portfolio.

^ not such a moron after all

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent.
So, rationally, what you just said was that Reagan should not be held responsible for tripling the debt and for tripling the national debt, and all of his spending on the military should be disregarded. Sorry, me boy, his spending was his spending. And you are correct that he helped win the cold war by making the soviets spend more than they had. But that was not new. The soviets were on the way down that tube for a couple decades. Reagan, and every president since Eisenhower, were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet economy. Fact.
As a con, you are unable and unwilling to understand what happened during the reagan admin. It had, you see, a TIMELINE. In the beginning, there was a huge tax cut. In the end, there was a strong economy. But you forget the 5 years after the tax cut. Because, after the tax cut and spending cuts in the private sector, the ue rate went to 10.8%. And the reagan team dealt with that with SPENDING. Tons and tons of spending. More than all the US presidents before him COMBINED. True keynesian policy. Stimulative spending. And the economy responded well over the next few years.
Of course the libs will always hate him for that.
Hardly. I never hated any president. That is something for cons. They tend to jin up hate. Truth is, I voted for Reagan the first time. Gives you some idea of how old I am.

Funny, me boy. You want me to back up everything. But you never back up anything.
"The federal debt was $994 billion when Reagan took office in 1981, and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989."
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

Or 2.91750503018 times, which would be 2.918 times the national debt at the beginning of his term. Which is why people shorten it to 3 times.
Your welcome.

"Reagan's budgets are dead on arrival" -- Democrat Congress 1981-89

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent.
So, rationally, what you just said was that Reagan should not be held responsible for tripling the debt and for tripling the national debt, and all of his spending on the military should be disregarded. Sorry, me boy, his spending was his spending. And you are correct that he helped win the cold war by making the soviets spend more than they had. But that was not new. The soviets were on the way down that tube for a couple decades. Reagan, and every president since Eisenhower, were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet economy. Fact.
As a con, you are unable and unwilling to understand what happened during the reagan admin. It had, you see, a TIMELINE. In the beginning, there was a huge tax cut. In the end, there was a strong economy. But you forget the 5 years after the tax cut. Because, after the tax cut and spending cuts in the private sector, the ue rate went to 10.8%. And the reagan team dealt with that with SPENDING. Tons and tons of spending. More than all the US presidents before him COMBINED. True keynesian policy. Stimulative spending. And the economy responded well over the next few years.
Of course the libs will always hate him for that.
Hardly. I never hated any president. That is something for cons. They tend to jin up hate. Truth is, I voted for Reagan the first time. Gives you some idea of how old I am.

Funny, me boy. You want me to back up everything. But you never back up anything.
"The federal debt was $994 billion when Reagan took office in 1981, and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989."
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

Or 2.91750503018 times, which would be 2.918 times the national debt at the beginning of his term. Which is why people shorten it to 3 times.
Your welcome.

"Reagan's budgets are dead on arrival" -- Democrat Congress 1981-89

Funny. You do not seem to have a link to a source for this sentence. Why/ is that, me boy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent.
So, rationally, what you just said was that Reagan should not be held responsible for tripling the debt and for tripling the national debt, and all of his spending on the military should be disregarded. Sorry, me boy, his spending was his spending. And you are correct that he helped win the cold war by making the soviets spend more than they had. But that was not new. The soviets were on the way down that tube for a couple decades. Reagan, and every president since Eisenhower, were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet economy. Fact.
As a con, you are unable and unwilling to understand what happened during the reagan admin. It had, you see, a TIMELINE. In the beginning, there was a huge tax cut. In the end, there was a strong economy. But you forget the 5 years after the tax cut. Because, after the tax cut and spending cuts in the private sector, the ue rate went to 10.8%. And the reagan team dealt with that with SPENDING. Tons and tons of spending. More than all the US presidents before him COMBINED. True keynesian policy. Stimulative spending. And the economy responded well over the next few years.
Of course the libs will always hate him for that.
Hardly. I never hated any president. That is something for cons. They tend to jin up hate. Truth is, I voted for Reagan the first time. Gives you some idea of how old I am.

Funny, me boy. You want me to back up everything. But you never back up anything.
"The federal debt was $994 billion when Reagan took office in 1981, and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989."
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

Or 2.91750503018 times, which would be 2.918 times the national debt at the beginning of his term. Which is why people shorten it to 3 times.
Your welcome.

"Reagan's budgets are dead on arrival" -- Democrat Congress 1981-89

Funny. You do not seem to have a link to a source for this sentence. Why/ is that, me boy

When I source it do you promise to STFU and never ever post on economics again?

 

[Iceweasel]

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent.
So, rationally, what you just said was that Reagan should not be held responsible for tripling the debt and for tripling the national debt, and all of his spending on the military should be disregarded. Sorry, me boy, his spending was his spending. And you are correct that he helped win the cold war by making the soviets spend more than they had. But that was not new. The soviets were on the way down that tube for a couple decades. Reagan, and every president since Eisenhower, were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet economy. Fact.
As a con, you are unable and unwilling to understand what happened during the reagan admin. It had, you see, a TIMELINE. In the beginning, there was a huge tax cut. In the end, there was a strong economy. But you forget the 5 years after the tax cut. Because, after the tax cut and spending cuts in the private sector, the ue rate went to 10.8%. And the reagan team dealt with that with SPENDING. Tons and tons of spending. More than all the US presidents before him COMBINED. True keynesian policy. Stimulative spending. And the economy responded well over the next few years.
Of course the libs will always hate him for that.
Hardly. I never hated any president. That is something for cons. They tend to jin up hate. Truth is, I voted for Reagan the first time. Gives you some idea of how old I am.

Funny, me boy. You want me to back up everything. But you never back up anything.
"The federal debt was $994 billion when Reagan took office in 1981, and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989."
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

Or 2.91750503018 times, which would be 2.918 times the national debt at the beginning of his term. Which is why people shorten it to 3 times.
Your welcome.

I said Reagan increased military spending, no one can receive that for you but I can ridicule you for being willfully ignorant. If you look at federal spending you need to include congress, Clinton had a Republican congress, Reagan, not so much.

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan, like most conservatives, believe in supply side economics. You must first have the supply, then the demand drives the market. If it's something people want and are willing to pony up the coin, everybody is happy. Except liberals for some reason.

Actually, liberals are typically rational and like any economic system that works for the people, as defined as the middle class.
Reagan came in believing in supply side economics, no doubt. He had a fast huge tax cut, and the ue rate went up to 10.8%. Highest ever except for the great depression of 1929. When he had that problem, he suddenly switched to Keynesian theory. Increased taxes several times, and spent like crazy. Tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the federal gov.
Keynesian's believe that in bad economic times, corporations will take any money they get and use it in ways that are not helpful in getting the economy moving. As with the Reagan experiment. When things got tough, reagan did not try tax cuts. Just the opposite. He raised taxes to finance stimulus spending. Spent like a drunken sailor, tripled the national debt. Great stimulus spending. Kind of military Keynes theory. But it worked for him.
You see, corporations that are facing a recession with poor aggregate demand see no reason to increase production until demand gets corrected. Because demand does not always exist, because we are talking about economic demand. And economic demand includes both want and the means to pay. You talk about demand as though it is simply want. And like the means to pay always exists. It does, but not in sufficient quantity to keep the economy working.

No, he didn't "switch theories" he had to compromise with the left and small increases in the tax rate were made. The debt doubled but GDP wen't way up and we all benefited. Liberals lie to this day, it's really all they ever have to offer. Sorry, me boy. I never lie. But you are either rally stupid, or you are lying.
No, me boy. He had cooperation from dems. He chose to spend like a drunken sailor. No one else made him do so. You can find him apologizing for it later, me boy. If you ever got out of the con talking points and read a little economic history.
You see, to a true believer in supply side economics, when the economy went into the shitter, they would cut taxes. He raised taxes, only because the deficit was climbing to fast. And he needed money to spend to stimulate the economy. He did not cut taxes again until much later, when his economy was good.
By the way, no small changes in the tax rate were made by Reagan. He raised tax rates and cut out tax deductions because he had to. And it worked for him. Cutting taxes caused serious problems, spending like a drunken sailor helped the problem. Sorry, I just like the truth, not con talking points.
Debt did not double, it tripled. And gdp went down during the Reagan Recession in 1982. It went back up after he spent like crazy, stimulating the economy.
Try looking up the Reagan Recession, and see if you are capable of learning anything at all. Probably way beyond you.

You need to start backing up your shit, everything I saw was debt doubled but GDP went way up. Military spending was a big part of it, and the dems spending, but the commies couldn't keep up and they fell, so it was money well spent.
So, rationally, what you just said was that Reagan should not be held responsible for tripling the debt and for tripling the national debt, and all of his spending on the military should be disregarded. Sorry, me boy, his spending was his spending. And you are correct that he helped win the cold war by making the soviets spend more than they had. But that was not new. The soviets were on the way down that tube for a couple decades. Reagan, and every president since Eisenhower, were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet economy. Fact.
As a con, you are unable and unwilling to understand what happened during the reagan admin. It had, you see, a TIMELINE. In the beginning, there was a huge tax cut. In the end, there was a strong economy. But you forget the 5 years after the tax cut. Because, after the tax cut and spending cuts in the private sector, the ue rate went to 10.8%. And the reagan team dealt with that with SPENDING. Tons and tons of spending. More than all the US presidents before him COMBINED. True keynesian policy. Stimulative spending. And the economy responded well over the next few years.
Of course the libs will always hate him for that.
Hardly. I never hated any president. That is something for cons. They tend to jin up hate. Truth is, I voted for Reagan the first time. Gives you some idea of how old I am.

Funny, me boy. You want me to back up everything. But you never back up anything.
"The federal debt was $994 billion when Reagan took office in 1981, and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989."
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

Or 2.91750503018 times, which would be 2.918 times the national debt at the beginning of his term. Which is why people shorten it to 3 times.
Your welcome.

I said Reagan increased military spending, no one can receive that for you but I can ridicule you for being willfully ignorant. If you look at federal spending you need to include congress, Clinton had a Republican congress, Reagan, not so much.

Your sentence is short on making sense. Look, me poor ignorant tool, I have been fully aware of what Reagan spent tax money on for the past 35 years. Everyone, except apparently you, knows that he cut budgets of spending on non military divisions of the government by large amounts, driving up unemployment like a rocket. Because his spending in the gov was not for labor intensive things. And it took a while before the spending was done. Non military spending tanked in late 1981 through most of 1982, while military spending increased later. Big time.
You see, being ignorant of facts relative to economic history is a typical problem for cons. Their effort is to re-write the history they do not like.

Here is a simple and concise explanation of the basic cuts and expansions of spending under Reagan:
"In his two terms in office, Reagan continually tried to balance the budget by cutting federal spending. He cut the budgets of many federal departments, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (by 40%), the Department of Transportation (by 18%), the Department of Education (by 19%), the Department of Commerce (by 32%), and the Department of Agriculture (by 24%). Reagan never cut the budgets for the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State. [4]
President Reagan also presided over the biggest peacetime defense buildup in history. Reagan expanded defense spending from $178 billion in 1981 to $283 billion by 1988, an increase of 58.9%. [5]"
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

 

[Iceweasel]

"In his two terms in office, Reagan continually tried to balance the budget by cutting federal spending. He cut the budgets of many federal departments, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (by 40%), the Department of Transportation (by 18%), the Department of Education (by 19%), the Department of Commerce (by 32%), and the Department of Agriculture (by 24%). Reagan never cut the budgets for the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State. [4]
President Reagan also presided over the biggest peacetime defense buildup in history. Reagan expanded defense spending from $178 billion in 1981 to $283 billion by 1988, an increase of 58.9%. [5]"
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

...and the economy increased. I was there. We need to remember what works and dump what doesn't. Cutting the government is essential and since Reagan bankrupted the commies we don't have that threat, although the next Republican will have to rebuild the military. Leftists always cut it and obie is no exception.

 

[Rshermr]

"In his two terms in office, Reagan continually tried to balance the budget by cutting federal spending. He cut the budgets of many federal departments, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (by 40%), the Department of Transportation (by 18%), the Department of Education (by 19%), the Department of Commerce (by 32%), and the Department of Agriculture (by 24%). Reagan never cut the budgets for the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State. [4]
President Reagan also presided over the biggest peacetime defense buildup in history. Reagan expanded defense spending from $178 billion in 1981 to $283 billion by 1988, an increase of 58.9%. [5]"
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

...and the economy increased. I was there. We need to remember what works and dump what doesn't. Cutting the government is essential and since Reagan bankrupted the commies we don't have that threat, although the next Republican will have to rebuild the military. Leftists always cut it and obie is no exception.

I love military stuff. Can not help myself. But since we have way more military than any other nation, I am not nearly as concerned as you pretend to be. Cons are stimulated by the military industrial complex. They love those guys, who coincidently spends millions supporting mostly republican politicians. What a coincidence.
But here are the facts. The US military budget is $612 Billion. We spend more than any ten countries you can find. Russia is second, at $77 Billion.
But the push is on as republican congressmen make all kinds of untrue claims relative to US military power, and by coincidence again, the Republican congressmen fomenting the issue all get HUGE $ from the companies in the military industrial complex. What a surprise.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"In his two terms in office, Reagan continually tried to balance the budget by cutting federal spending. He cut the budgets of many federal departments, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (by 40%), the Department of Transportation (by 18%), the Department of Education (by 19%), the Department of Commerce (by 32%), and the Department of Agriculture (by 24%). Reagan never cut the budgets for the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State. [4]
President Reagan also presided over the biggest peacetime defense buildup in history. Reagan expanded defense spending from $178 billion in 1981 to $283 billion by 1988, an increase of 58.9%. [5]"
Ronald Reagan - ProCon.org

...and the economy increased. I was there. We need to remember what works and dump what doesn't. Cutting the government is essential and since Reagan bankrupted the commies we don't have that threat, although the next Republican will have to rebuild the military. Leftists always cut it and obie is no exception.

I love military stuff. Can not help myself. But since we have way more military than any other nation, I am not nearly as concerned as you pretend to be. Cons are stimulated by the military industrial complex. They love those guys, who coincidently spends millions supporting mostly republican politicians. What a coincidence.
But here are the facts. The US military budget is $612 Billion. We spend more than any ten countries you can find. Russia is second, at $77 Billion.
But the push is on as republican congressmen make all kinds of untrue claims relative to US military power, and by coincidence again, the Republican congressmen fomenting the issue all get HUGE $ from the companies in the military industrial complex. What a surprise.

We are world's policeman, the last best hope for freedom on earth, but just lost wars in Korea Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan so a bigger better military is clearly in order!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I love military stuff. Can not help myself. But since we have way more military than any other nation, I am not nearly as concerned as you pretend to be. Cons are stimulated by the military industrial complex. They love those guys, who coincidently spends millions supporting mostly republican politicians. What a coincidence.
But here are the facts. The US military budget is $612 Billion. We spend more than any ten countries you can find. Russia is second, at $77 Billion.
But the push is on as republican congressmen make all kinds of untrue claims relative to US military power, and by coincidence again, the Republican congressmen fomenting the issue all get HUGE $ from the companies in the military industrial complex. What a surprise.

We're at almost $900B -- and out of ammo!

WTF are we spending money on? 3 and 4 Star Generals and their staff?? Mars base? UFO's?