Reagan: Killer, Coward, Con-man

[BackAgain]

This fully retarded bait thread (regardless of its age) still belongs in the basement.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

reagan was also a pedophile.

As always,when facts of Reagan’s corruption are exposed as this video shows,when the reaganut zombies are cornered and cannot refute them,they try and laugh off the facts knowing they are backed up against the wall with nowhere to run.

The Reaganut zombies like Whitehall for example,will try and tell us if we witness a bank robber who is a friend of his rob a bank,if we report what we see to a cop thst their friend bank robber robbed a bank,they consider us leftists and that we are tearing down the greatness of their bank robber friend cause they are so much in denial mode that their friend robbed a bank despite the mountains of evidence on their friend.comedy gold their Hail Marys they throw on Reagan’s corruption..


This is trollboy Whitehall.

 

[georgephillip]

bummer if true.

If it's true finance capitalism has replaced the industrial capitalism that made the US the leading global economy for a century, the current levels of public and private debt don't provide much economic hope for 90% of Americans.

Reaganomics Sucked Wealth up, Did Not Trickle it Down

"When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

"By 2004 they’d doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth.

"So the economic growth did not accrue to labor. Labor’s living standards and real wages have not increased since 1979.

"During all of Reagan and Bush and Clinton, their living standards didn’t go up.

"So the economic growth was all in the overhead of the financial sector. It was all rentier growth."

Imho, the US economy has never recovered from the 2008 looting for the vast majority of Americans. Now we've seen Covid produce another economic downturn the US dollar as we know it may not survive, and that would be a total bummer.

 

[Dayton3]

Another Reagan ass kisser who when unable to debunk the mountains of evidence in this thread of Reagan’s crimes against mankind,can only offer up a sentence like this as his rebuttal.priceless.

They are really getting desperate calling pesky facts of his corruption they have failed to refute as slander and saying the greatness of Reagan never bothering to read the mountains of evidence of his corruption in this thread proving what horrible debaters they are unable to stand toe to toe in a debate.

Are you one of those whining because Reagan killed some communists here and there?

Your side lost the Cold War. Get over it.

 

[Dayton3]

"When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

Reagan took office in 1981, not 1979.

If you can't get the most basic of facts right why should anyone listen to anything else you post?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If it's true finance capitalism has replaced the industrial capitalism that made the US the leading global economy for a century, the current levels of public and private debt don't provide much economic hope for 90% of Americans.

Reaganomics Sucked Wealth up, Did Not Trickle it Down

"When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

"By 2004 they’d doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth.

"So the economic growth did not accrue to labor. Labor’s living standards and real wages have not increased since 1979.

"During all of Reagan and Bush and Clinton, their living standards didn’t go up.

"So the economic growth was all in the overhead of the financial sector. It was all rentier growth."

Imho, the US economy has never recovered from the 2008 looting for the vast majority of Americans. Now we've seen Covid produce another economic downturn the US dollar as we know it may not survive, and that would be a total bummer.

The Reaganut brainwashed zombies of course will never read that article sense it has too many pesky facts in it that tear down their hero. They will just start calling you names like your a leftist and the like,shooting the messenger instead of addressing his corruption so they can feel good about themselves. It’s always so much easier fir them to shoot the messenger instead of the evidence you post and the source where it came from.

 

[georgephillip]

Reagan took office in 1981, not 1979.

If you can't get the most basic of facts right why should anyone listen to anything else you post?

You're right.
Reagan did not take office in 1979.
What about the remaining claims?

"...the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

"By 2004 they’d doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth."

 

[Dayton3]

You're right.
Reagan did not take office in 1979.
What about the remaining claims?

"...the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

"By 2004 they’d doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth."

How do you know they didn't deserve it?

 

[Mushroom]

What's your opinion of Thom Hartmann, the author of my link?

Simple, he is a biased blowhard that finds work, and is a conspiracy theory nutcase.

I have little trust or faith in anybody that writes extensively for a highly biased website. Even more so when that website claims to be "neutral and editorially unbiased". And when I saw the wide variety of his postings and they all basically say the same thing, I have no faith in him or the site he writes for.

And before you attack me as some kind of "far right" individual, I hold them in just as much contempt. But it seems like that site and all those that follow it live in a giant echo chamber, and like it there.

 

[Mushroom]

Reaganomics Sucked Wealth up, Did Not Trickle it Down

"When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

Wow, and that alone shows me exactly how little I should take any of your references, now or in the future.

that the failure of capitalism to deliver on either shared prosperity or ecological sustainability is an essential backdrop to stories about the political economy of our time.

Well, is interesting that they hate Capitalism, as much as they hate things like "facts".

You know, President Carter was the President for all of 1979. He was also President of all of 1980. He did not take office until 1981.

And the fact that the "Senior Editor" of that very website did not even question him on being off by two years, that shows how little they question anything, so long that it agrees with their beliefs. Once again, you find a website that is nothing but a giant echo chamber, and only repeats things that they want to believe. Who cares if it is horribly wrong, it is a message they like so that is good enough.

Holy hell, you are zero for two here for your "references".

 

[georgephillip]

How do you know they didn't deserve it?

One reason would be how the richest one percent used government to decrease their tax burden on real estate:

Reaganomics Sucked Wealth up, Did Not Trickle it Down

"Most people think of him (Reagan) in terms of lowering income taxes, especially on the higher brackets.

"But one of the key things that people don’t recognize is what he (Reagan) did with the small print of the tax code, especially in the 1981 tax revision as it affected real estate.

"He (Reagan) gave real estate double declining-balance, so that you could depreciate a building as if the building was wearing out, even as the property were gaining price, doubling, quadrupling, as if it were wearing out, and avoid paying any income tax at all."

 

[georgephillip]

Simple, he is a biased blowhard that finds work, and is a conspiracy theory nutcase.

I have little trust or faith in anybody that writes extensively for a highly biased website. Even more so when that website claims to be "neutral and editorially unbiased". And when I saw the wide variety of his postings and they all basically say the same thing, I have no faith in him or the site he writes for.

And before you attack me as some kind of "far right" individual, I hold them in just as much contempt. But it seems like that site and all those that follow it live in a giant echo chamber, and like it there.

Which "conspiracy theories" to you think Thom has advocated?

He was raised in the mid-west as a Goldwater Republican, and he's owned successful small businesses along with working in talk radio for decades.

I don't agree with all of his views, but that doesn't mean I reject all of them either.

For example:

Thom Hartmann - Wikipedia

"Hartmann is a vocal critic of the effects of neoliberal globalization on the U.S. economy, claiming that economic policies enacted during and since the presidency of Ronald Reagan have led, in large part, to many American industrial enterprises' being acquired by multinational firms based in overseas countries, leading in many cases to manufacturing jobs'—once considered a major foundation of the U.S. economy—being relocated to countries in Asia and other areas where the costs of labor are lower than in the U.S. and the concurrent reversal of the United States' traditional role of a leading exporter of finished manufactured goods to that of a primary importer of finished manufactured goods (exemplified by massive trade deficits with countries such as China).

"Hartmann argues that this phenomenon is leading to the erosion of the American middle class, whose survival Hartmann deems critical to the survival of American democracy."

 

[georgephillip]

Wow, and that alone shows me exactly how little I should take any of your references, now or in the future.



Well, is interesting that they hate Capitalism, as much as they hate things like "facts".

You know, President Carter was the President for all of 1979. He was also President of all of 1980. He did not take office until 1981.

And the fact that the "Senior Editor" of that very website did not even question him on being off by two years, that shows how little they question anything, so long that it agrees with their beliefs. Once again, you find a website that is nothing but a giant echo chamber, and only repeats things that they want to believe. Who cares if it is horribly wrong, it is a message they like so that is good enough.

Holy hell, you are zero for two here for your "references".

So you reject every claim made in the link because of a typo which doesn't affect the overall argument.

Good to know.

 

[Mushroom]

So you reject every claim made in the link because of a typo which doesn't affect the overall argument.

It is not a typo. It was shoddy knowledge of the events, and the fact that the editor who interviewed him was just as ignorant.

And funny, how he claims that 1979 was when things were the best in the last 40+ years. I guess the fact that we had double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment means nothing. And once again, it shows that they are not speaking from actual facts, but saying whatever they want because it fits their beliefs.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

So you reject every claim made in the link because of a typo which doesn't affect the overall argument.

Good to know.

dude again WHY do you bother with an obvious paid shill from langley who endorces the lies of the warren commission and believes in magic bullets?,only someone retarded STILL beliecves that shit.

 

[Dayton3]

dude again WHY do you bother with an obvious paid shill from langley who endorces the lies of the warren commission and believes in magic bullets?,only someone retarded STILL beliecves that shit.

What was wrong with the work of the Warren Commission?

 

[georgephillip]

It is not a typo. It was shoddy knowledge of the events, and the fact that the editor who interviewed him was just as ignorant.

Reaganomics Sucked Wealth up, Did Not Trickle it Down

"When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

"By 2004 they’d doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth."

In 1979 when Reagan was not in the White House, the richest one percent of Americans got 29% of the revenue accruing to wealth, interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

In 2004 when Reagan was also not in the White House, the richest one percent took 59% of returns to wealth.

Unless you believe any of those numbers are incorrect or something drastic happened to the US economy between 1979 and 1981, the Reagan Revolution "trickle-down" lie kick-started an economic decline for 90% of Americans.

"JAY: Okay, but the theory is it’s supposed to trickle down. So didn’t it?

"HUDSON: No. There was–it was sucked up. That’s the important thing. Instead of trickling down, there was a huge sucking up of wealth to the top.

"If it trickled down, the richest 1 percent wouldn’t have doubled their share of the returns to wealth.

"If it had trickled down, real wages would have gone up.

"Instead, we have the greatest inequality of any country in the Western world.

"That’s not trickling down."

 

[Billo_Really]

But he sure did love his jelly beans!

 

[georgephillip]

It is not a typo. It was shoddy knowledge of the events, and the fact that the editor who interviewed him was just as ignorant.

And funny, how he claims that 1979 was when things were the best in the last 40+ years.

Where does he say 1979 "was when thing were the best in the last 40 years"? He compares wealth inequality in 1979 to 2004.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If it's true finance capitalism has replaced the industrial capitalism that made the US the leading global economy for a century, the current levels of public and private debt don't provide much economic hope for 90% of Americans.

Reaganomics Sucked Wealth up, Did Not Trickle it Down

"When Reagan took office in 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 29 percent of the revenue accruing to wealth. Interest, dividends, rent, and capital gains.

"By 2004 they’d doubled that proportion to 59 percent of the returns to wealth.

"So the economic growth did not accrue to labor. Labor’s living standards and real wages have not increased since 1979.

"During all of Reagan and Bush and Clinton, their living standards didn’t go up.

"So the economic growth was all in the overhead of the financial sector. It was all rentier growth."

Imho, the US economy has never recovered from the 2008 looting for the vast majority of Americans. Now we've seen Covid produce another economic downturn the US dollar as we know it may not survive, and that would be a total bummer.

you took the shill from langley to school.