Thanks to Reaganomics 80 Percent...

[boedicca]

and RR tripled the debt and left the S+L bubble. Great job!

And won the Cold War. Great job!
Obama hasn't won squat, but he has managed to add over $6 trillion to the debt, in less than 5 years. Weak job.

Hey! Obama KILLED BIN LADEN!

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoQz79gMlHA].[/ame]

 

[Londoner]

Corporations got Reagan to construct the regulatory environment conducive to the globalization of production. This allowed Walmart to get over 50% of its products manufactured in Communist China. It allowed Nike to get it's sneakers made in Taiwanese sweatshops. Reliance upon ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating, dictator-lead nations allowed corporations to radically lower their labor costs and increase their profits.

As corporations began to get more and more of their labor and raw material from unstable or hostile parts of the developing world, the military budget skyrocketed. This meant that the taxpayer began subsidizing the "military extraction" costs of corporations. The PC term is "stabilization". (Military protection of private sector supply chains is called welfare capitalism, which happens when business captures government and privatizes public resources. The story of American capitalism is the story of big business special interests which capture the state)

Two important things happened when production was globalized.

1) Corporations and their investors made unprecedented profits.

2) Americans lost good jobs/benefits and began to rely increasingly upon credit (debt) to stat afloat.

Essentially, Reaganomics ushered in the transition from wage-based consumption to debt-based consumption. Starting in 1980, American families began to borrow like never before. This transition to debt-based consumption actually resulted in a boom in the 80s and 90s.

The problem with funding consumption with debt (e.g., credit cards, personal loans) is that it only works for so long. Eventually, too many consumers become financially insolvent; they reach a point where they cannot consume and they cannot borrow another dime. When this happens, consumer demand shrinks to the point where the capitalist has to start laying workers off. This results in fewer consumers, which, in turn, results in more layoffs. It's a toxic cycle.

America swallowed poison in 1980

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations got Reagan to construct the regulatory environment conducive to the globalization of production. This allowed Walmart to get over 50% of its products manufactured in Communist China. It allowed Nike to get it's sneakers made in Taiwanese sweatshops. Reliance upon ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating, dictator-lead nations allowed corporations to radically lower their labor costs and increase their profits.

As corporations began to get more and more of their labor and raw material from unstable or hostile parts of the developing world, the military budget skyrocketed. This meant that the taxpayer began subsidizing the "military extraction" costs of corporations. The PC term is "stabilization". (Military protection of private sector supply chains is called welfare capitalism, which happens when business captures government and privatizes public resources. The story of American capitalism is the story of big business special interests which capture the state)

Two important things happened when production was globalized.

1) Corporations and their investors made unprecedented profits.

2) Americans lost good jobs/benefits and began to rely increasingly upon credit (debt) to stat afloat.

Essentially, Reaganomics ushered in the transition from wage-based consumption to debt-based consumption. Starting in 1980, American families began to borrow like never before. This transition to debt-based consumption actually resulted in a boom in the 80s and 90s.

The problem with funding consumption with debt (e.g., credit cards, personal loans) is that it only works for so long. Eventually, too many consumers become financially insolvent; they reach a point where they cannot consume and they cannot borrow another dime. When this happens, consumer demand shrinks to the point where the capitalist has to start laying workers off. This results in fewer consumers, which, in turn, results in more layoffs. It's a toxic cycle.

America swallowed poison in 1980

This allowed Walmart to get over 50% of its products manufactured in Communist China.

Source?

As corporations began to get more and more of their labor and raw material from unstable or hostile parts of the developing world, the military budget skyrocketed. This meant that the taxpayer began subsidizing the "military extraction" costs of corporations.

The Marines had to protect the ships full of sneakers from China? Really?

 

[freedombecki]

Corporations got Reagan to construct the regulatory environment conducive to the globalization of production. This allowed Walmart to get over 50% of its products manufactured in Communist China. It allowed Nike to get it's sneakers made in Taiwanese sweatshops. Reliance upon ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating, dictator-lead nations allowed corporations to radically lower their labor costs and increase their profits.

As corporations began to get more and more of their labor and raw material from unstable or hostile parts of the developing world, the military budget skyrocketed. This meant that the taxpayer began subsidizing the "military extraction" costs of corporations. The PC term is "stabilization". (Military protection of private sector supply chains is called welfare capitalism, which happens when business captures government and privatizes public resources. The story of American capitalism is the story of big business special interests which capture the state)

Two important things happened when production was globalized.

1) Corporations and their investors made unprecedented profits.

2) Americans lost good jobs/benefits and began to rely increasingly upon credit (debt) to stat afloat.

Essentially, Reaganomics ushered in the transition from wage-based consumption to debt-based consumption. Starting in 1980, American families began to borrow like never before. This transition to debt-based consumption actually resulted in a boom in the 80s and 90s.

The problem with funding consumption with debt (e.g., credit cards, personal loans) is that it only works for so long. Eventually, too many consumers become financially insolvent; they reach a point where they cannot consume and they cannot borrow another dime. When this happens, consumer demand shrinks to the point where the capitalist has to start laying workers off. This results in fewer consumers, which, in turn, results in more layoffs. It's a toxic cycle.

America swallowed poison in 1980

No, it didn't. More Americans had jobs when Reagan left office than when he went in. I didn't vote for Reagan at first, because I didn't think an actor could be a good president. I changed my mind after his first administration because of the way he worked for America's good, although I always liked George H.W. Bush better. At least he had the good sense to offer George the Vice-Presidency.

Ronald Reagan took office on January 20, 1981 and here's the labor statistics from the present government website on labor stats:

On January 20, 1981, there was 7.5% unemployment. On January 20, 1989, the unemployment had fallen to 5.3%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, U. S. Gov.

 

[Katzndogz]

Odd how Reaganomics worked right up to the point where democrats deliberately crashed it.

 

[freedombecki]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2009.

<you must spread some reputation around before giving it to boedicca again>

 

[francoHFW]

RR also tripled the debt and left an S+L bubble/scandal. Reaganomics only worked, AND WORKS, for the rich.

 

[francoHFW]

Odd how Reaganomics worked right up to the point where democrats deliberately crashed it.

You're quite mad lol. 2008 was a giant S+L scandal- Thank Pub deregulation and cronyism...

 

[regent]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2009.

Presidents leave legacies, George Washington did, FDR did and so it is with Reagan's legacy that of tripling the national debt.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2008.

Which is still not enough time to undo the mistakes of the oafish, simple-minded George W. Bush, and his ill-cultured, bible schooled defenders.

Smartest President ever still hasn't fixed things?

But you're forgetting...He DID still the "rising of the oceans" and begin "the earth's healing"......

 

[Londoner]

Source?

The Walmart/Chinese relationship is not kept secret. It's very easy to research. The number is actually higher than 50%. I kept it uncontroversial on purpose, so I could bring out the true crazies.

Communist China is actually one of the better freedom-hating manufacturers for Walmart. Let's call a spade a spade though: Walmart and it's GOP protectorate have been waging war against American workers for decades. Indeed, you won't find two bigger haters of America than Walmart and the their GOP Washington cronies. Of course, you're not going to trust anything you read unless it comes directly from a Republican source, so go into any Walmart and read the labels of the products. Take a random sample of 15 non-food products (your choice) and see where they are made.

John Galt is no longer being persecuted. He owns government and he shipped our jobs to the Communists - and he is one of the biggest contributors to your party and news sources.

Is Wal-Mart Destroying America? 20 Facts About Wal-Mart That Will Absolutely Shock You | Yolohub

Most (70%) of Wal-Mart's Products Are Produced in China

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs | Economic Policy Institute

The Marines had to protect the ships full of sneakers from China? Really?

Nice strawman. When your raw material and labor comes from places as far a field as Africa, the middle east and many parts of developing global south, you have to make sure those regions are stable. It would be nice if there were rational market relationships between the Exxon and the terrorists petrol-states that supply it with product, but ...

 

[francoHFW]

#69- and making Rush Seanbeck etc possible...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Source?

The Walmart/Chinese relationship is not kept secret. It's very easy to research. The number is actually higher than 50%. I kept it uncontroversial on purpose, so I could bring out the true crazies.

Communist China is actually one of the better freedom-hating manufacturers for Walmart. Let's call a spade a spade though: Walmart and it's GOP protectorate have been waging war against American workers for decades. Indeed, you won't find two bigger haters of America than Walmart and the their GOP Washington cronies. Of course, you're not going to trust anything you read unless it comes directly from a Republican source, so go into any Walmart and read the labels of the products. Take a random sample of 15 non-food products (your choice) and see where they are made.

John Galt is no longer being persecuted. He owns government and he shipped our jobs to the Communists - and he is one of the biggest contributors to your party and news sources.

Is Wal-Mart Destroying America? 20 Facts About Wal-Mart That Will Absolutely Shock You | Yolohub

Most (70%) of Wal-Mart's Products Are Produced in China

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs | Economic Policy Institute

The Marines had to protect the ships full of sneakers from China? Really?

Nice strawman. When your raw material and labor comes from places as far a field as Africa, the middle east and many parts of developing global south, you have to make sure those regions are stable. It would be nice if there were rational market relationships between the Exxon and the terrorists petrol-states that supply it with product, but ...

The Walmart/Chinese relationship is not kept secret. It's very easy to research. The number is actually higher than 50%. I kept it uncontroversial on purpose, so I could bring out the true crazies.

That's a relief, I thought you'd have a real source.

The one from the guy in China was funny!
In 2004 (you didn't have a more recent source?), that article said they bought $15 billion from China. In 2004, they bought nearly $200 billion in goods.

Even liberals can see that $15 billion is not more than 50% of $200 billion.

When your raw material and labor comes from places as far a field as Africa, the middle east and many parts of developing global south, you have to make sure those regions are stable.

Raw material? That would mean we make stuff here.
Labor? We need the Marines to protect our foreign labor?
You're not making any sense.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The question is does the work deserve more then minimum wage? Does the corporation make a profit if the wages were raised?

 

[auditor0007]

.
Thanks to Reaganomics 80 Percent...

...Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment


Excerpted from Hope Yen's AP article;
80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment



*The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.



*"They [uneducated whites] don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment.
.

Reagan was a conservative ideologue, but he was also a pragmatist. Liberals love blaming Reagan for cutting tax rates, which he did, but his tax cuts never were the problem. If you look back at the Reagan tax cuts, he cut the top rate to 28%, which is much lower than the top rate today. Here's the thing; the super wealthy make most of their money through capital gains. It's how they made such massive gains over the past thirty years. Now for the big but.... Reagan believed that the capital gains rate should be the same as the income tax rate. When Reagan left office the capital gains rate was 28% on all gains regardless of the length of time held. Since then, that rate has been reduced to 15%, although as of this year, it has been increased somewhat under certain conditions.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2008.

No wonder y'all blame him for the crash of fall 2008

Policies that enabled people to purchase homes with lax financial criteria in place ( e.g. Financial indicators were that they would not be able to pay back loan) was the root cause of the crash.

 

[Star]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2009.

Presidents leave legacies, George Washington did, FDR did and so it is with Reagan's legacy that of tripling the national debt.

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

.​

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2009.

Presidents leave legacies, George Washington did, FDR did and so it is with Reagan's legacy that of tripling the national debt.

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

.​

Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budgets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2009.

Presidents leave legacies, George Washington did, FDR did and so it is with Reagan's legacy that of tripling the national debt.

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

.​

Those fake numbers for Obama are hilarious!

 

[Star]

Presidents leave legacies, George Washington did, FDR did and so it is with Reagan's legacy that of tripling the national debt.

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

​

.​

Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budgets.

Are you suggesting the Republican House vote to raise taxes? As you can see by the above chart spending under Obama is down - way down.

“People ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic” ~ Bill Clinton

Or-----or are you suggesting the Republican House vote to cut popular programs? As you can see from the article below...


...On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.

Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent.

Support for higher taxes rose by 5 percentage points after Obama called for that as one element of his deficit-reduction strategy last week. Opposition dropped by 6 points. The poll was conducted before and after the speech.

Americans clearly don't want the government to cut Medicare, the government health program for the elderly, or Medicaid, the program for the poor. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to drastically restructure and reduce those programs, while Obama calls for trimming their costs but leaving them essentially intact.

Voters oppose cuts to those programs by 80-18 percent. Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported cuts, and 68 percent opposed them.

See what I'm saying, Reaganomic arithmetic is an idiotic economic plan and-----and now-----now a conundrum for the Republican party. Jude Wanniski sold his voodoo economics to Reagan as a political strategy NOT an economic plan.
.