Obama's Economic Miracle

[WillowTree]

The only correct course of action would be for the nation to divide and let libs run their own geography any way they want. It's been done before.

When Germany was divided between East and West, the conservative west prospered and East Germany mired in communist imposed poverty.

What's the people's paradise of North Korea like compared to the capitalist wasteland of South Korea.

Really? Is that why Liberal states have 25% higher GDP per capital, higher living standards, 1/3rd the poverty, more employment, 80% less corruption, less pollution, higher income, better quality/access to health care despite getting on average 25% less money from the federal government?

really? really? really???

 

[starcraftzzz]

"In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown."

ROTFL. A financial crises isn't stock market drops. A financial crises is were the banking industry implodes resulting in the freezing of credit markets etc. The financial crises that occurred in 2008 was larger then the one that occurred in the Great depression.
Second the 1980's recession was caused by the FED jacking up rates, meaning the 1980s expansion was fueled by the FED bringing rates back down.
Third the 2quarters before Reagan became president the economy was growing by over 2% and adding around 100,000 jobs per month

There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.

Hey dumbass Obama's tax cuts were around the same size (as a % of GDP) as Reagan only the vast majority of Obamas cuts went to people making less then 100,000 while the vast majroity of Reagan's when to people making over 200,000.

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?"

Well lets see the stimulus created 4million jobs, and investments in it will save the overall economy several trillion dollars in a 10 year period.
The small business bill which provide tax credits, loans, and aid to small businesses created 1.5millon jobs.
His energy efficiency programs such as BBI, Building star and other measures have created .5million jobs and will save the overall economy tens of billions of dollars.
Lets see what did the Reagan deficits get us. Well we had more bombs, I'm sure that made living standards better, other then that millionaires got more money.

 

[Katzndogz]

The only correct course of action would be for the nation to divide and let libs run their own geography any way they want. It's been done before.

When Germany was divided between East and West, the conservative west prospered and East Germany mired in communist imposed poverty.

What's the people's paradise of North Korea like compared to the capitalist wasteland of South Korea.

Really? Is that why Liberal states have 25% higher GDP per capital, higher living standards, 1/3rd the poverty, more employment, 80% less corruption, less pollution, higher income, better quality/access to health care despite getting on average 25% less money from the federal government?

Well, I live in California one of the most iberal states and don't see it. Texas on the other hand, they are doing much better. North Dakota is doing much better too. Utah is number one for all around quality. Massachusettes that libs dearly love is 16th. New York is way down there at 24. If liberal states have less corruption, what happened to Illinois and Michigan? Did they fall off the wagon?

Where does your state stand?

#1 Utah - Kurt Badenhausen - Forbes

 

[starcraftzzz]

The only correct course of action would be for the nation to divide and let libs run their own geography any way they want. It's been done before.

When Germany was divided between East and West, the conservative west prospered and East Germany mired in communist imposed poverty.

What's the people's paradise of North Korea like compared to the capitalist wasteland of South Korea.

Really? Is that why Liberal states have 25% higher GDP per capital, higher living standards, 1/3rd the poverty, more employment, 80% less corruption, less pollution, higher income, better quality/access to health care despite getting on average 25% less money from the federal government?

really? really? really??? l:

I always find it funny that right -wingers are so ignorant and stupid that reality is beyond them.
Infographics Data Visualization
TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
Percent below poverty level statistics - states compared - Statemaster
America's Greenest States - Forbes.com
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2010/pdf/spi0310.pdf
PERRspectives: Birther Movement Just the Latest Southern Pathology
The Most Corrupt States - The Daily Beast
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

 

[Katzndogz]

"In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown."

ROTFL. A financial crises isn't stock market drops. A financial crises is were the banking industry implodes resulting in the freezing of credit markets etc. The financial crises that occurred in 2008 was larger then the one that occurred in the Great depression.
Second the 1980's recession was caused by the FED jacking up rates, meaning the 1980s expansion was fueled by the FED bringing rates back down.
Third the 2quarters before Reagan became president the economy was growing by over 2% and adding around 100,000 jobs per month

There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.

Hey dumbass Obama's tax cuts were around the same size (as a % of GDP) as Reagan only the vast majority of Obamas cuts went to people making less then 100,000 while the vast majroity of Reagan's when to people making over 200,000.

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?"

Well lets see the stimulus created 4million jobs, and investments in it will save the overall economy several trillion dollars in a 10 year period.
The small business bill which provide tax credits, loans, and aid to small businesses created 1.5millon jobs.
His energy efficiency programs such as BBI, Building star and other measures have created .5million jobs and will save the overall economy tens of billions of dollars.
Lets see what did the Reagan deficits get us. Well we had more bombs, I'm sure that made living standards better, other then that millionaires got more money.

Do you really believe this? In all seriousness do you believe it, or just saying so cause you heard it someplace?

 

[starcraftzzz]

I think Obama's economic performance will give Republicans a lot to worry about in November. His handling of the economy has been almost on par with his grasp of US Constitutional Law.
Consider, the Obama Economic Miracle:
4 straight years of almost 92% employment
Only downgraded once!
Reagan, the Decade of Greed President had whole budgets that were less than Obama deficits!
And he did it all without ever signing a single budget

Given that Reagan inherited a budget deficit around 1% of GDP, an economy growing at around 2%, and Obama inherited a budget deficit over 10% of GDP and an economy shrinking at around 6% anyone who concludes that Reagan performed better then Obama is either being dishonest or is a brainwashed tool.
Only 10% of the current deficit is due to Obama polices, while the vast majority of Reagan's deficit was due to Reagan policies.
Also if government spending under Obama had increased at the same rate under Reagan then the unemployment rate would actually be lower now then it was at the same time under Reagan.

I'll have what he's having.

Either you want to have a dose of relaeity or you're a brainwashed dumbass
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Federal Government Deficit Graph
Reagan, Obama, Austerity - NYTimes.com

 

[PredFan]

Reagan was the beginning of our problem. To triple the debt simply to give tax breaks to the wealthy was criminal. We might have recovered from Reagan but then comes along G. W. Bush and America has its hands full trying to prevent an economic nightmare. We seem to have stabliized now and with some right decisions might get back on the road to prosperity. But the manufacturing world has changed, perhaps forever. China, and soon India, with their cheap labor and perhaps even more modern machinery might soom eclipse America in that area, as we eclipsed England. America has to come up with some new approaches, and those days of America even agreeing on new ideas may be lost in the political arena. The new approach seems to get the money and stash it someplace safe.

"To triple the debt simply to give tax breaks to the wealthy was criminal."

There could be no better proof of the willful ignorance of the Left. Your statement above is the typical slander by your side, Pinocchio.


1. "Reagan’s ideas transformed American finance, global economics and world politics. They reverberated through Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China with the power of Joshua’s trumpets. They made South Korea a more economically important and promising country than France or Germany.

2. Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. During the same time period, Europe and Japan created scarcely any net new employment outside of government. American companies now constitute 57 percent of global market capitalization, and the U.S. commands close to one half of the world’s economic assets. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003. That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

3. The key to this awesome and unprecedented triumph was Reagan’s dismantling of the confiscatory tax codes imposed on the capitalist world during World War II. Supporting Reagan’s tax rate reductions was a movement of economists and journalists called supply-siders.

4. A central component of supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve—named for its inventor, the economist Arthur Laffer—which shows that low tax rates produce more revenue than high ones. Ronald Reagan understood and embraced the Laffer Curve.

a. A rate high on the Laffer Curve, as Reagan knew, means that more work for more income is less profitable than maneuvering to avoid taxes on existing income. According to my research, the correct curve shows that tax rates should be kept very low—well below 20 percent—and that higher rates tend to reduce long run government income and massively reduce private sector wealth.

5. The growth of the private sector is measured not merely by output but also by assets. In the 25 years since Reagan assumed office, U.S. household assets have more than tripled, to a current record of $52 trillion. Driven by a surging stock market, America’s increase in private wealth dwarfs the increases in debt that cause such agony for one-handed economists in Washington, who dutifully gauge the swell of liabilities but seem blinded to the mountainous growth of assets.

6. Meanwhile, with the top tax rate dropping from 50 to 28 percent under Reagan, tax contributions by the top five percent of earners rose from nine to 18 percent of the total, while contributions from the bottom 20 percent dropped from six to two percent. The top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 94.5 percent of the federal income taxes. Lower tax rates resulted in much larger tax payments by the rich. Reagan’s economic policies proved to be so popular that they were extended, for the most part, under President Clinton and a Republican Congress."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

There is a palpable fear by Liberal when the name of Ronald Reagan comes up...so they squirm and twist to deny the benefits of Reagan's plan....

...and reminding all that he defeated the 'Evil Empire' without firing a shot produces the same effect as Dorothy throwing a bucket of water on the Wicked Witch....

...so, reggie......gonna send your flying monkeys?

Well stated.

 

[starcraftzzz]

1. "Reagan’s ideas transformed American finance, global economics and world politics. They reverberated through Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China with the power of Joshua’s trumpets. They made South Korea a more economically important and promising country than France or Germany.

Yea and they resulted in stagnating/declining incomes/wealth for 80% of Americans, a Savings and Loans crisis (the first financial crises since 1930), and an increase in poverty

2. Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. During the same time period, Europe and Japan created scarcely any net new employment outside of government. American companies now constitute 57 percent of global market capitalization, and the U.S. commands close to one half of the world’s economic assets. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003. That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Yes Reagan cut taxes for those making 250,00 and more by 2% of GDP, however if you made less then 100,000 he raised your taxes equal to 2% of GDP.
Second Europe and Japan have more jobs then us. The only reason we have a lower unemployment rate in some cases is because our rate doesn't count millions of people. Europe/Japan have a large percentage of their population age 20-65 working then America

3. The key to this awesome and unprecedented triumph was Reagan’s dismantling of the confiscatory tax codes imposed on the capitalist world during World War II. Supporting Reagan’s tax rate reductions was a movement of economists and journalists called supply-siders.

GDP growth during Reagan's years were lower the second lowest since 1930. In fact in the 30's 40's 50's 60's and 90's the economy did better then it did under Reagan

4. A central component of supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve—named for its inventor, the economist Arthur Laffer—which shows that low tax rates produce more revenue than high ones. Ronald Reagan understood and embraced the Laffer Curve.

And all the evidence shows that the maximum tax rate on the Laffer Curve is above 70% meaning all Reagan did was give millionaires hand outs
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
^The tax rate that would optimize government tax revenue for the richest 0.05% is around 80%
The peak of the Laffer Curve is between 65-80%
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?

Come back when you've got a clue and brain IE never

 

[007]

The only correct course of action would be for the nation to divide and let libs run their own geography any way they want. It's been done before.

When Germany was divided between East and West, the conservative west prospered and East Germany mired in communist imposed poverty.

What's the people's paradise of North Korea like compared to the capitalist wasteland of South Korea.

I agree. Let's divide up the country. But lets FIGHT over it. I don't think the anti second amendment, anti military, pussy leftists could hold on to much. They'd want to protest and sing Kumbaya. So give them Maine and we'll take the rest, by force.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only correct course of action would be for the nation to divide and let libs run their own geography any way they want. It's been done before.

When Germany was divided between East and West, the conservative west prospered and East Germany mired in communist imposed poverty.

What's the people's paradise of North Korea like compared to the capitalist wasteland of South Korea.

Civil war....Abraham Lincoln.....over half a million killed.....ring a bell?

Why does there have to be a civil war? Why not just an amicable divorce? The nation is done. The idealogical division today is much worse than it was prior to the civil war. There is no point on which the nation can agree. Not one. Religion, family, social structure, military, education, economy. No matter what you can think of, there is no point of agreement.

If we do not agree to disagree and move on in separate directions, there is nothing left BUT a civil war.

While there is a sizable section of the electorate that is ineluctably Liberal, and no amount of logic or experience will alter their kamikaze-like trajectory, you underestimate the monumental effect that Barack Obama has had!

In the words of Yamamoto, "all he has done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." who will take the nation back.

Liberals are on track for a nuclear winter.

 

[LoneLaugher]

My goodness. With all the brain power being used up in this thread, how will the rest of the forum survive?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Reagan’s ideas transformed American finance, global economics and world politics. They reverberated through Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China with the power of Joshua’s trumpets. They made South Korea a more economically important and promising country than France or Germany.

Yea and they resulted in stagnating/declining incomes/wealth for 80% of Americans, a Savings and Loans crisis (the first financial crises since 1930), and an increase in poverty

2. Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. During the same time period, Europe and Japan created scarcely any net new employment outside of government. American companies now constitute 57 percent of global market capitalization, and the U.S. commands close to one half of the world’s economic assets. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003. That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Yes Reagan cut taxes for those making 250,00 and more by 2% of GDP, however if you made less then 100,000 he raised your taxes equal to 2% of GDP.
Second Europe and Japan have more jobs then us. The only reason we have a lower unemployment rate in some cases is because our rate doesn't count millions of people. Europe/Japan have a large percentage of their population age 20-65 working then America

3. The key to this awesome and unprecedented triumph was Reagan’s dismantling of the confiscatory tax codes imposed on the capitalist world during World War II. Supporting Reagan’s tax rate reductions was a movement of economists and journalists called supply-siders.

GDP growth during Reagan's years were lower the second lowest since 1930. In fact in the 30's 40's 50's 60's and 90's the economy did better then it did under Reagan

4. A central component of supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve—named for its inventor, the economist Arthur Laffer—which shows that low tax rates produce more revenue than high ones. Ronald Reagan understood and embraced the Laffer Curve.

And all the evidence shows that the maximum tax rate on the Laffer Curve is above 70% meaning all Reagan did was give millionaires hand outs
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
^The tax rate that would optimize government tax revenue for the richest 0.05% is around 80%
The peak of the Laffer Curve is between 65-80%
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?

Come back when you've got a clue and brain IE never

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.

Seems that you obtained your talking points from that James Bond villain, Pelosi-galore.
This is gonna blow your skirt up………

1. “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us - Forbes.com


2. His policies worked spectacularly! The Reagan recovery started officially in November of 1982 and lasted 92 months without any more than a shallow, short recession, until July 1990, when tax increases of the ’92 budget deal killed it. Robert Bartley, “The Seven Fat Years,” p. 135, 144.

More?
Sure:

3. This was a new record for the longest peacetime expansion, the previous being 58 months. During this seven year recovery, the economy grew by nearly one third.
The poverty rate, which had started to rise under Carter, declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one sixth from its peak. The Reagan Information Pageoverty Rates


4. "We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures | The Carleson Center for Public Policy

I explain things to you…now see if you can understand this….for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well.

5. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

And, let's remember that Reagan's defeat of the 'Evil Empire'- without firing a shot- provided Clinton with what is known as the 'peace dividend'....

...and Reagan's Social Security Commission trust fund provided Clinton with $152 billion to use so that he could pretend that he balanced the budget.

I must tell you how much amusement a dolt such as you provides as you squirm and tap-dance to avoid giving Reagan the credit he deserves...and, by the same token, relegating Obama to the dust bin.


Consider this a three finger snap in a z-formation!
Time for you to go home and set up the “Slip and Slide” so it ends in the knife drawer.

 

[regent]

If Reagan did such wonders why in the world didn't he pay off some of that almost one trillion dollar debt he inherited? Instead he triples the debt by borrowing two trillion more, and what did he do with that borrowed two trillion? But I guess we can excuse Reagan if he didn't pay off some of that one trillion inherited debt, but at least he did pay back the two trillion he borrowed, right? Right?
I think most historians give Gorby most of the credit for the ending of the Cold War. In fact, I recently read a history of the Cold War end, and Reagan was mentioned in one sentence, on one page in the entire book, but there was tons of stuff about the USSR's economy and its problems.
But I liked Reagan he was one of the few presidents that could begin the ruin of our economy and make us feel good about the ruining,

 

[starcraftzzz]

The only correct course of action would be for the nation to divide and let libs run their own geography any way they want. It's been done before.

When Germany was divided between East and West, the conservative west prospered and East Germany mired in communist imposed poverty.

What's the people's paradise of North Korea like compared to the capitalist wasteland of South Korea.

Really? Is that why Liberal states have 25% higher GDP per capital, higher living standards, 1/3rd the poverty, more employment, 80% less corruption, less pollution, higher income, better quality/access to health care despite getting on average 25% less money from the federal government?

Well, I live in California one of the most iberal states and don't see it. Texas on the other hand, they are doing much better. North Dakota is doing much better too. Utah is number one for all around quality. Massachusettes that libs dearly love is 16th. New York is way down there at 24. If liberal states have less corruption, what happened to Illinois and Michigan? Did they fall off the wagon?
Where does your state stand?

I see so in order to make it look like right-wing states are doing good you have to cherry pick. Not to mention Texas is a poor state compared to liberal states, its odd that Republicans consider Texas a utopia when Texas has around 17% less GDP per capital, and 50% more poverty then Liberal states.

 

[starcraftzzz]

"In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown."

ROTFL. A financial crises isn't stock market drops. A financial crises is were the banking industry implodes resulting in the freezing of credit markets etc. The financial crises that occurred in 2008 was larger then the one that occurred in the Great depression.
Second the 1980's recession was caused by the FED jacking up rates, meaning the 1980s expansion was fueled by the FED bringing rates back down.
Third the 2quarters before Reagan became president the economy was growing by over 2% and adding around 100,000 jobs per month


Hey dumbass Obama's tax cuts were around the same size (as a % of GDP) as Reagan only the vast majority of Obamas cuts went to people making less then 100,000 while the vast majroity of Reagan's when to people making over 200,000.

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?"

Well lets see the stimulus created 4million jobs, and investments in it will save the overall economy several trillion dollars in a 10 year period.
The small business bill which provide tax credits, loans, and aid to small businesses created 1.5millon jobs.
His energy efficiency programs such as BBI, Building star and other measures have created .5million jobs and will save the overall economy tens of billions of dollars.
Lets see what did the Reagan deficits get us. Well we had more bombs, I'm sure that made living standards better, other then that millionaires got more money.

Do you really believe this? In all seriousness do you believe it, or just saying so cause you heard it someplace?

Of course I believe in reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Reagan did such wonders why in the world didn't he pay off some of that almost one trillion dollar debt he inherited? Instead he triples the debt by borrowing two trillion more, and what did he do with that borrowed two trillion? But I guess we can excuse Reagan if he didn't pay off some of that one trillion inherited debt, but at least he did pay back the two trillion he borrowed, right? Right?
I think most historians give Gorby most of the credit for the ending of the Cold War. In fact, I recently read a history of the Cold War end, and Reagan was mentioned in one sentence, on one page in the entire book, but there was tons of stuff about the USSR's economy and its problems.
But I liked Reagan he was one of the few presidents that could begin the ruin of our economy and make us feel good about the ruining,

"I think most historians give Gorby most of the credit for the ending of the Cold War."

Poor, poor reggie....
Seems you can't tell the difference between Michelob and Michaelanagelo.


1. "Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was.

2. SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

3. Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."

4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'"
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - page 6 | National Interest, The


This is my Easter present to you, reggie: knowledge.

The only thing that remains is to see if you can learn from it.....

 

[Jackson]

I think Obama's economic performance will give Republicans a lot to worry about in November. His handling of the economy has been almost on par with his grasp of US Constitutional Law.

Consider, the Obama Economic Miracle:

4 straight years of almost 92% employment

Only downgraded once!

Reagan, the Decade of Greed President had whole budgets that were less than Obama deficits!

And he did it all without ever signing a single budget

You stand corrected by Politcal Chic and you neglected to enter the cost in the defecit or gas prices. Neither have you mentioned the scandals that plague this administration. It's time for this "MIracle Man" to go.

 

[starcraftzzz]

1. "Reagan’s ideas transformed American finance, global economics and world politics. They reverberated through Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China with the power of Joshua’s trumpets. They made South Korea a more economically important and promising country than France or Germany.

Yea and they resulted in stagnating/declining incomes/wealth for 80% of Americans, a Savings and Loans crisis (the first financial crises since 1930), and an increase in poverty
Yes Reagan cut taxes for those making 250,00 and more by 2% of GDP, however if you made less then 100,000 he raised your taxes equal to 2% of GDP.
Second Europe and Japan have more jobs then us. The only reason we have a lower unemployment rate in some cases is because our rate doesn't count millions of people. Europe/Japan have a large percentage of their population age 20-65 working then America

GDP growth during Reagan's years were lower the second lowest since 1930. In fact in the 30's 40's 50's 60's and 90's the economy did better then it did under Reagan

4. A central component of supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve—named for its inventor, the economist Arthur Laffer—which shows that low tax rates produce more revenue than high ones. Ronald Reagan understood and embraced the Laffer Curve.

And all the evidence shows that the maximum tax rate on the Laffer Curve is above 70% meaning all Reagan did was give millionaires hand outs
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
^The tax rate that would optimize government tax revenue for the richest 0.05% is around 80%
The peak of the Laffer Curve is between 65-80%
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?

Come back when you've got a clue and brain IE never

1. “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”

ROTFL I notice you you left of the years 2008-2010. Nice cherry picking.
Also GDP growth from 1950-1980 was 60% higher then GDP growth after 1980.
Also the poverty rate from 1950-1980 declined by 57% while it increased by 20% after 1980.
Its odd how your economic miracle had lower growth and much more poverty

Come back when you can do something other then copy and paste and are able to think for yourself. which means never come back

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yea and they resulted in stagnating/declining incomes/wealth for 80% of Americans, a Savings and Loans crisis (the first financial crises since 1930), and an increase in poverty
Yes Reagan cut taxes for those making 250,00 and more by 2% of GDP, however if you made less then 100,000 he raised your taxes equal to 2% of GDP.
Second Europe and Japan have more jobs then us. The only reason we have a lower unemployment rate in some cases is because our rate doesn't count millions of people. Europe/Japan have a large percentage of their population age 20-65 working then America

GDP growth during Reagan's years were lower the second lowest since 1930. In fact in the 30's 40's 50's 60's and 90's the economy did better then it did under Reagan

And all the evidence shows that the maximum tax rate on the Laffer Curve is above 70% meaning all Reagan did was give millionaires hand outs
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
^The tax rate that would optimize government tax revenue for the richest 0.05% is around 80%
The peak of the Laffer Curve is between 65-80%
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?

Come back when you've got a clue and brain IE never

1. “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”

ROTFL I notice you you left of the years 2008-2010. Nice cherry picking.
Also GDP growth from 1950-1980 was 60% higher then GDP growth after 1980.
Also the poverty rate from 1950-1980 declined by 57% while it increased by 20% after 1980.
Its odd how your economic miracle had lower growth and much more poverty

Come back when you can do something other then copy and paste and are able to think for yourself. which means never come back

Links.....?

"Come back when you can do something other then copy and paste and are able to think for yourself. which means never come back...:"
How typical of an Obama supporter to fear actual knowledge....and to find someone who reads to have an
unfair advantage...

I’ll slow down…I didn’t realize it was an ‘idiot x-ing.’

Sounds like you took the spanking you deserved....and that line sure sounds a lot like fear of another one....


I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings…I was aiming lower.

Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I don't feel that a President running on the following 3+ years later should be voted in again.

It takes several years for a presidents polices to become enacted, meaning according to you we should blame Obama for things he didn't do. Nice to know you're a partisan hack.

Has a Senate that will not propose a budget.

Again you're blaming Obama for something other people do.

Given that the housing bubble and financial crises occurred before Obama took office not blaming those thins on past administrations would be being dishonest.

I see so according to you Obama doesn't deserve credit for jobs saved/created due to his policies

Uses the "Well it could have been worse without me card".

Given that the stimulus created 4 million jobs, the Auto bailout created 1.5million, the small business tax credits created 1.5 million jobs, new environmental regulations that reduce pollution have/will created 2million jobs, and energy efficient programs such as BBI and CFC have created .5million jobs anyone with a brain would conclude that the economy would of done worse

Has not united the country or Congress to work toward getting this country out of it's economic funk.

I see so Obama proposing health care reform that republicans advocated means he did not try to work with republicans.
You're whole post was pure stupidity, not surprising though

Yes, but was the result of clinton, dodd, and frank, dimwits.