Reagan's dead.

I'd contend that Reagan's been dead since about 1988, and probably hadn't known who he was since 1984.

he probably had fun playing in his own poop

so sad =(

I'd contend that Reagan's been dead since about 1988, and probably hadn't known who he was since 1984.

I contend that you don't know what your talking about.

I contend that I like sex.

I contend that being effectively brain dead is the same thing as being dead.


Alsheimers (sp probably!) is a terrible thing. Lucky for me it runs in the family, my grandmother was one of the youngest people ever to be diagnosed with it. But Reagan was worse off. This guy did some things that would have been impeachable...but his excuse was not remembering being at the meetings (illegal arms dealings, wasn't it?). And the fact was - he probably didn't.

I contend that being effectively brain dead is the same thing as being dead.


Brain dead? You're the one who is brain dead, Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of the last century(THE greatest of it, imo and easily one of the best overall).

You're probably too young to actually remember his time in office firsthand, so it's understandable that you don't know what you are talking about.

Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of the last century(THE greatest of it, imo and easily one of the best overall).


You're probably one of those people who believe that the President has little to do with the economy, right?

I'd say Clinton was a better president than Reagan. Nixon also. Even though the things those two did was pretty deplorable, they were better in the role of President than Reagan ever was.

Talid, since you seem to be a democrat which also means you are probably under the age of 25, you would not remember much of Reagan anyway. He was probably the last president to make the presidency not look like some kind of joke or at least by all rights, was qualified to do the job. Perhaps he was the last president to have some idealism, which is probably the key ingredient to leadership. The man wasn't perfect, but hey, he was just another human being who had a particularly difficult and complicated job and he carried on to the best of his abilities.

After him we had Bush Sr, who some theorized his attachment to Reagan would create a strong president but they ended up let down. Clinton was probably the luckiest con artist in the history of politics, who many respected because he was a "playah". And now we have "Dubyah", Bush Jr, who could be a good president if he just did his homework. Compared to this crop, with Cartar coming before him, Reagan did a great job and rightfully deserves to be called one of the greater presidents of the past century.

I think that Clintons sexual escapades were absolutely wrong - and that lost a lot of respect I had for him. But to say he was a bad president is pretty innacurate.

Reagan isn't on the same level as an Roosevelt (FDR) or even Johnson - and even, again, Nixon - who if you ignore the whole Watergate thing (ya...right) was probably our most successful president of the last half century.

Reagan put in place policies which have been and continue to be detrimental to this country. Defficit spending is bad. His image is bolstered by the clowns that have been President since. Unfortunately Clinton's stupidity overwrites everything he did right for this country. Remember our friend the Budget Surplus?

Vote ALF '04

Well said, Talid. While there's no doubt that Reagan was a 'Great Communicator', and that he helped facilitate an out for the crumbling Communist regimes of Eastern Europe, much of what he did in office was detrimental to the country as a whole and we, the taxpayers, have paid dearly and continue to pay for it. He was a fascinating, and gifted in his own way, man, but not, in my opinion, one of our 'greatest presidents'. I'm on a 5 min lecture break, but it will be interesting to see if this develops without too much namecalling...

Btw Lummus, or anyone else who might be so presumptuous as to speculate as to the age/informational basis for one's political leanings, I'm 40, or nearly old enough to have voted for Carter in 1980 :) .

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

since you seem to be a democrat which also means you are probably under the age of 25

<42, also a democrat

Sorry he's dead...it's a terrible disease that robs people of their minds way before their time is up. He was probably the GOP's greatest figurehead's of the past century. :p

I'd say Clinton was a better president than Reagan. Nixon also. Even though the things those two did was pretty deplorable, they were better in the role of President than Reagan ever was. Reaganomics, bitch. ;)

You're probably one of those people who believe that the President has little to do with the economy, right?


You are shooting yourself in the foot. Late 70's = recession, Reagan was in office during the huge boom of the 80's.


Reagan isn't on the same level as an Roosevelt (FDR) or even Johnson - and even, again, Nixon - who if you ignore the whole Watergate thing (ya...right) was probably our most successful president of the last half century.


Funny you bring up FDR in this point, I'll touch on him in a second...Johnson was a mediocre president, although I agree Nixon was probably one of the greatest presidents of the last century as well. He was exceptional at foreign policy. He was also the first president to really tackle the drug problem.

Ever watch the movie "The French Connection"? See France used to supply something like 85% of the heroin in the US, piping it up from Turkey(interestingly enough, the people behind the real "French Connection" were almost entirely former French intelligence) where it was a legal cash crop. Law Enforcement in France was pretty much ignoring the drug trade. Nixon not only got Turkey to make the heroin growing illegal, he got France to crack down on the people running the trade there. Think about that for a second, 85% of the heroin coming into the US knocked out.

He also opened the door the China, then fucked himself over with Watergate.

But hey, who hasn't screwed up?

Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs, Johnson ramped up Vietnam, Carter gave away the Panama Canal and had the situation in Iran, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton committed felonies and admitted to them.


Reagan put in place policies which have been and continue to be detrimental to this country. Defficit spending is bad.


Here's where I touch back on good ol FDR that you mentioned. You see FDR was the man who invented deficit spending.

You want to talk about detrimental polices, bring them up.

Which policies?

His Tax policies that lead to the boom of the 80s?

His foreign policies that hastened the fall of the Soviet Union and brought an end to the cold war?

You are incredibly ignorant in your views of him. You need to go back and look at his presidency yourself instead of reading Hartmut style websites for your info.

Ps. "Reagonomics" wasn't invented by Reagan, it is a sound economic policy that was favored by people as far back in our country's history as Alexander Hamilton(first Sec of Treasury, if you didn't know).

Ps. "Reagonomics" wasn't invented by Reagan, it is a sound economic policy that was favored by people as far back in our country's history as Alexander Hamilton(first Sec of Treasury, if you didn't know). Let me guess... Al Gore invented Reaganomics?

All about "Reaganomics"... (http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1997/12/18/opin/opin.2.html)

Actually yes.

Al Gore invented the Internet, Reaganomics, the word "duh", time travel and the telephone.

Hes uber cool. :hat




RIP Reagan

I thought that Greenspan was responsible for much of the economic policy (for good and bad) in this country since the Regan era (as a member of the Economic Policy Advisory Board) until today as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (a position he has held for almost 16 years). Maybe I'm wrong /shrug

The partisanship and "us against them" mentality of politics in this country is sometimes sickening.

The political system of the US has become so bloated that I don't think you can point to any one person as making a difference in politics one way or another any more.

About the only positions that are free of political wrangling once approved are the Justices in the Supreme Court. Sure, the process of getting there is very political, but due to the lifelong nature of the position, once a Justice is in office they can decide things based on their interpretation of the law.

Since life really is about Rational Self Interest, Clinton by far was the worst President. Jobs leaving the country still today (being blamed on Bush) for his NAFTA agreement. I am sure if Clinton didnt sign it, Bush would have but the fact is that Clinton cost me my job.

Johnson was a mediocre president

Look into some of his domestic policies - Johnson was actually pretty remarkable - and his wife was nicknamed Ladybird, how cool is that?! Johnson fucked up with Vietnam, though

FDR didn't 'invent' defficete spending - he had no other choice at the time.

As much as I don't like him for some reasons - you brought up Kennedy. He was a scumbag, and more or less a dunce at times - but to say he is a bad president is unfair. If he hadn't been killed he wouldn't be remembed as 'great' as he is today - but he did a lot of good things for this country.

Talidd do you even remember what things were like in the late 1970s?

Interest rates and inflation were unbelievably high. The threat of nuclear war was real. American morale was probably at its lowest point in the history of the U.S. Highest tax bracket was 70% or so.

Reagan made us proud to be American again. He showed us what made America great.

As one commentator stated, it's what America no longer had after Reagan left office that defined his Presidency:

High inflation and high interest rates were gone (and have been since). The threat of nuclear war from the Soviet Union was gone. Our military was no longer in shambles. It is hard to understate how big of an effect his Presidency had.

The strength of America today as an economic and military force is a result of Reagan's policies.

That's what Reagan is remembered for.

Nixon will always be remembered for China and Watergate.
Johnson for Vietnam and Civil Rights
JFK for his death and Bay of Pigs
Clinton for Monica and NAFTA

I do not think those Presidents are even close to the same league of "greatness" as Reagan

The threat of nuclear war from the Soviet Union was gone

Thank Gorbachev for that one. Saying Reagan caused the Soviet Union to change policies is like saying George Steinbrenner is the *sole* reason the Red Sox lost the playoffs last year. Sure, he owns the Yankees and shapes the way they do things, but the Red Sox caused their own problems. So too the USSR.

Hell, the Berlin wall came down after Reagan was out of office- and that event is used by most to mark the end of the old Soviet policies. Really, what happened was enough of the hardline, old-school Soviet power players had died and more moderate reformists were able to start changing things.

And I've already said his economics were driven by Greenspan-who also is responsible for the economics of both Bushes and Clinton.

He was better than Carter (who did great work outside of the office and who had one good idea that Reagan implemented) and both Bushes, though. He probably did more good than harm during his time in office.

/shrug
Esbat Unseelie
Neither a Republican nor a Democrat be.

Only two presidents in the last 100 years have made a difference in the course of this country. I applaud the work of one and deplore the work of the other.

However you feel about both men you must still respect the fact that they both made a difference. They changed this countries policy to reflect the popular will of the people. They are both great men and great leaders.

I live in Simi Valley. I will be spending my night in line to pay my respects.

I would do the same for the man whose works I deplore.

Only two presidents in the last 100 years have made a difference in the course of this country. I applaud the work of one and deplore the work of the other.

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson, Nixon... You must be counting Reagan in there. Both Bushes. Did I get your other one as well?

More than two right there.

Esbat Unseelie

50 bucks says you could not even wipe your own ass during the 80's.

You have no idea of what happened to our nation in the 70's. and no knowledge of what President Reagan did or did not do.

The man gave the majority of his life in the service of his country. He made a deference in the world. He experienced true love, both for his wife and for America.

Agree or disagree with his politics he is a far greater man then you will ever be.

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson, Nixon... You must be counting Reagan in there. Both Bushes. Did I get your other one as well?

You are now batting .250

Hell, President Wilson did more then 2 of your picks.

50 bucks says you could not even wipe your own ass during the 80's.

In the thread HERE (http://p196.ezboard.com/fayonaerofrm15.showMessage?topicID=1097.topic) I posted my age.

You can send that 50 bucks to my house, PM me on the PRISM boards for the address. Or, use it to buy yourself half a clue.

Did you even READ what I wrote? Or are you having a knee jerk reaction to an opinion that differs from yours?

Was Reagan a great man? Sure was. Did the sun shine out of his ass? No, it did not.

Hell, President Wilson did more then 2 of your picks.
So he must be one of the two Presidents in the past 100 years to have made a difference in the course of the country? Why do you deplore his works so much? Or have you realized that perhaps two isn't an accurate number?

Sounds like deaath has a hard-on for Reagan...

It's highly unlikely Talid would recall the late 70's. See I think he was born round about 87ish. Which puts him at the tail end of Ronnie's great bout as president.

I remember the late 70's however and I recall the happiness at seeing Carter's dithering job as President come to an end. I also recall quite well the booming 80's.

He was a great president. There is simply no rational for denying all that he did.

Well, unless you have your head completely up the ass of some Liberal wingnut and ignore the hard cold facts.

Fandros

I'd like to point out that not being alive during a specific period of time doesn't mean you can't form an opinion about that period of time, nor does it really mean your opinion is less valid than someone who was around. By that logic, no one on this messageboard should be allowed to pass judgement on such historical events in US history as the Civil War, or use those events as evidence in a debate. By extending that logic further, those of you who are saying 'Reagan was the best of all time' should be considered invalid, as I doubt you were alive during George Washington's presidency. The facts are readily available to anyone who is willing to go look for them, and anyone who takes the time to inform themselves of history should have the right to pass judgement on it.

That being said, there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the coin; mainly, that someone who was alive during a specific event would have also experienced the emotions surrounding that event, which are difficult to document accurately. Sure, you have more information, however, emotion can also cloud judgement; can anyone deny that?

I just got back from paying my respects and all I can say is wow. Alot of people stood in line for many hours and not a single person complained.

Very powerfull scene.

:lol

Aparantly if you're not as old as Fandros, you can never have an opinion that disagrees with his.

And, let's face it, not many people are THAT old. Look's like we're living in a confusing world.

I thought that Greenspan was responsible for much of the economic policy


Greenspan influences things such as interest rates, he has absolutely no control over things like tax incentives/cuts and the fiscal policies of the federal government.


Look into some of his domestic policies - Johnson was actually pretty remarkable


Oh yes, his domestic policies were such a wonderful BANDAID that we're still wrestling with how to support them(before they break the bank) today.

Bravo Johnson!


FDR didn't 'invent' defficete spending - he had no other choice at the time.


Not having a choice doesn't preclude him from inventing it. His administration was the first to do it, which makes your earlier complaints of Reagon having deficit spending all the more silly after praising FDR.


you brought up Kennedy. He was a scumbag, and more or less a dunce at times - but to say he is a bad president is unfair.


He was a scumbag. He is probably the only president in our history to rival Clinton for it. I did not however call him a bad president - on the contrary Kennedy gets high marks in my book for being the only democrat I can think of who understood the importance of lowering taxes and how doing so could actually raise tax revenues.


Saying Reagan caused the Soviet Union to change policies is like saying George Steinbrenner is the *sole* reason the Red Sox lost the playoffs last year


Saying Reagan didn't have a major affect on the timeframe of those policies changing is blinding yourself to facts. Without Gorbachev AND Reagan we could still be in the cold war.


who did great work outside of the office


Carter does do great work with habitat for humanity, if only he would have stuck to growing peanuts and doing that we'd have been a lot better off.


I'd like to point out that not being alive during a specific period of time doesn't mean you can't form an opinion about that period of time


Form an opinion all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you don't know what it was like. I could go and tell a room full of WW2 vets what it was like fighting the nazis, for example, or talk about how rough it was during the depression with people who lived through that. In short, not experiencing something firsthand DOES give your opinion on the matter less weight than someone who has experienced it hands on.

Come on, would you really go tell concentration camp survivors what it was like to have been through Auswitz?

like saying George Steinbrenner is the *sole* reason the Red Sox lost the playoffs last yearYou mean he isn't? Oh, please.

Prezto, check your email love.

Not having a choice doesn't preclude him from inventing it. His administration was the first to do it, which makes your earlier complaints of Reagon having deficit spending all the more silly after praising FDR.
The argument is better stated: "Was Reagan's deficit spending as vital to America's economic recovery as FDR's?" Following Carter's presidency, the US economy needed help, no doubt. Did Reaganomics overdo it? Seems to depend on how one feels about the national debt (though it too often boils down to how much one loves/loathes Reagan).

Form an opinion all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you don't know what it was like.
Comparing apples and orangutans here. There's a vast difference between discussing what it was "like" in a concentration camp from an experiential point of view and discussing what it was "like" from from a statistical point of view. To bring the analogy into the current topic: Crist0's objection is valid when it pertains to something like "feeling good to be American again" but is invalid when looking at statistics related to the economy.

Reagan was a great president for a lot of reasons.

He was the 2nd best president of this last century. But as far as his accomplishments. He is equal in my opinion with JFK as far as greatness. Both acheived similar things and were similar type of Presidents. The simularities between the 2 are striking.
*Both lead through Charisma
*Both faced off in serious ways with the Soviet Union.
*The City on a Hill and Shining City allegory defined both mens national philosophy
* "Ich Ein Un Berliner" was the equivilant of "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"
* Both men inspired a Generation of ideological heirs
* Both men suffered assasination attempts (one successful)
There are many other ways, research if you are interested.

FDR is the greatest president of the last century. There can be no real dispute over that fact. Some may claim that he was the greatest world leader of the last century.
Is that a statement on character?
No, but the fact is that the presidency is defined by events as much as a President how the president handles them

Maybe the real reason everyone remembers the 80's so fondly because they snorted so much coke back then?

Seriously though, if the man made his people happy... Isn't that most of what matters? These days, people tend to lose sight of the ends, and focus too much on the means.

I wasn't very old, but I was around for all of Carter on up. I certainly have more positive memories and feelings about Reagan than any other president that I've been alive to experience. I think the man sincerely believed in the greatness of the ideals behind the country, and his enthusiasm was contagious.

The argument is better stated: "Was Reagan's deficit spending as vital to America's economic recovery as FDR's?"


Spoken as someone who doesn't know what he is really talking about. FDR didn't deficit spend for economic recovery, he did it in the mobilization for ww2.

My point was obviously flying right over your head, easily seen from you erroneously trying to restate my arguement - which had nothing to do with which president's deficit spending was more vital to the economy.

My point, since you missed it, is how ironic it is to praise the first person to deficit spend while claiming another president's major fault is to do the same thing.

As far as the "apples and orangutans", Talid isn't talking statistics, he's giving a personal opinion with(as roliel pointed out so well) much less information than those he is disagreeing with. If he were to come in and say "Look, he didn't do that much for the economy because x y and z show no real improvement over his term" it would better fit your observation.

One thing I am tired of though.

People should stop saying "Reagan defeated Communism."

No. This is horsecrap.

Communism failed because of innate failures of its core philosophy when applied to reality.
Did Reagan hasten the demise of the Soviet Union?
Yes, absolutly. The increased spending and the artfully flaunting of technology not even really possible, but caused wholesale panic in the soviet miltary and political heirarchy (thats right folks, Star Wars. all a bluff)
and this masterful move
theage.com.au/articles/20...click=true (http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676960916.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true)

But that aside, it was a continuation of the work of 40 years. (extra slack taken up for Carters blunders)

Greenspan influences things such as interest rates, he has absolutely no control over things like tax incentives/cuts and the fiscal policies of the federal government.

If you don't think Greenspan influences things like tax incentives and the fiscal policies of the federal government, you might want to take a look at how politics works again.

While he might not make the announcements as to what the policy will be, thinking he doesn't have input (and lots of it) is pretty unrealistic.

Saying Reagan didn't have a major affect on the timeframe of those policies changing is blinding yourself to facts. Without Gorbachev AND Reagan we could still be in the cold war.

You just reiterated my statement for me. Thank you for agreeing with me. My point was that Reagan wasn't the sole broker of that change, but simply one of many factors. The biggest of which remains the death of enough hard line, old school Soviet power players to allow even THINKING about reform without getting thrown in a Gulag.
Disagree? Talk to someone from the former Soviet Union and hear their side of it.

Carter does do great work with habitat for humanity, if only he would have stuck to growing peanuts and doing that we'd have been a lot better off

Carter was never suited to be in politics, much less be the President. He didn't have the political acumen and savvy needed, no question about it.
-----

edit: spelled "Carter" wrong, of all things and hit the wrong button.

Oh really, you think Greenspan "drives" fiscal policies such as spending and tax incentives/cuts?

For BOTH parties?


I've already said his economics were driven by Greenspan-who also is responsible for the economics of both Bushes and Clinton.


For fuck's sake, look at what you are saying.

You are trying to say that Mr. Illuminati Greenspan is responsible for the tax/fiscal platforms for both parties? You do understand that the policies of those administrations completely contradict each other? Also, you realize that the general economic philosophies for the policies have been around and part of both parties for longer than he has been alive, not to mention just the last 16 years he has been chairman of the Federal Reserve?


You just reiterated my statement for me.


Hardly.

You said:


Thank Gorbachev for that one.



Hell, the Berlin wall came down after Reagan was out of office- and that event is used by most to mark the end of the old Soviet policies. Really, what happened was enough of the hardline, old-school Soviet power players had died and more moderate reformists were able to start changing things.


Nice try at a backtrack, but you already said Reagan didn't have much of anything to do with it...unless, of course, you are admitting you were wrong in stating that.

You are trying to say that Mr. Illuminati Greenspan is responsible for the tax/fiscal platforms for both parties? You do understand that the policies of those administrations completely contradict each other?

Maybe saying he was responsible was using a word that is too strong for this forum.

I'll stick by my statements that Greenspan has had more to do with fiscal policy in this country than any other single person. He is a power player in Washington- even if he can't dictate what to do to the Democrats, he sure as shit can have his Republican allies do their best to block any fiscal moves that he doesn't think are any good- or force them to craft a program or policy that is a compromise. And that, my friend, is influence- not "drive", a word a never used, but INFLUENCE.

Also, having been an advisor to Reagan, you can be sure as hell both of the Bushes pay/paid close attention when he speaks/spoke.

Above all of that, people don't gather power and then not use it.

If you can't understand the concept of influence, I'm done trying to explain it to you.

Nice try at a backtrack, but you already said Reagan didn't have much of anything to do with it...unless, of course, you are admitting you were wrong in stating that.

Read it again, try going slower. I said Reagan had as much to do with it as Steinbrenner has to do with the Red Sox losing the series.

To explain that analogy: He is just one gear in the machine that brought down the Soviet Union, and not even the most important one. The collapse of the Soviet Union would have happened without Reagan. It may have taken a few years more, but it was almost inevitable.

Lets try it again: How successful would Reagan have been dealing with Stalin? Khrushchev? Hell, Stalin SHOT anyone who he thought might have the wrong ideas (like reform).

AHA! I've got it. How about this: Greenspan is as responsible for the fiscal policy in the US over the past two decades as Reagan was for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Make sense to you now?

He is a power player in Washington- even if he can't dictate what to do to the Democrats


What?

Didn't you say:


Greenspan-who also is responsible for the economics of both Bushes and Clinton


Which is it?


And that, my friend, is influence- not "drive", a word a never used, but INFLUENCE.


Never used?


I've already said his economics were driven by Greenspan


YOU used it..

Which is it?

I'll tell you what, when you pull your head out of your ass long enough to come up with a stance and stick to it more than a post or two we'll talk.

It'll also clear up your intent behind this:


How about this: Greenspan is as responsible for the fiscal policy in the US over the past two decades as Reagan was for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Crist0,
hes right, and to an extent, you are right to.

The Fed has enormous impact on the day to day running of the economy.
His opinion and what he "feels" and anticipates have massive effects on how the economy works.
The Fed is responsible for growth of the economy and and control of inflation. It is the only bulwark against a recession.
Do you think it was a tax cut that held off recession or was it Greenspan cutting interest rates so many times?
March 2003 and interest rates are at the lowest point ever, one year later, 300,000 jobs are created.
Trace in your mind the time it takes to get money and build, get set up and hire people.

Now, the Presidents have been smart in that they have given Mr. Greenspan a free hand to operate on the economy as he sees fit.

People should stop saying "Reagan defeated Communism."
No. This is horsecrap.

LOL To say Gorbachev HELPED bring about the fall of the iron curtain is simple retarded.

Since you like analogies so much, I'll give you one:

A hunter kills a deer. You're giving credit to the deer for being unlucky enough to get shot. That deer wanted to fucking live. Sure it was going to die somewhere, someplace, but the bounty goes to the hunter. And he gets to mount the fucking antlers on his wall because he got his ass out of bed that morning, stumbled into the woods at what ever level of sobriety and shot the stupid animal.

The kooks called Reagan a moron, war-monger, spaced-out, simple-minded, and out-of-touch with reality president the entire time he was in office. Sound familiar? Democrats never change play-books.

The biggest of which remains the death of enough hard line, old school Soviet power players to allow even THINKING about reform without getting thrown in a Gulag.
Disagree? Talk to someone from the former Soviet Union and hear their side of it.

Bullshit. I spent 35 days in Moscow and Leningrad shortly after Reagan left office. "Fuck Gorbachev" was on the lips of 10 year olds and anyone else on the street having to borrow enough rubles to buy a loaf of bread or use the Pravda to whipe their asses with because some Communist bureaucrat forgot to make toilet paper that week.

The question I heard most asked, "Have you met the liberator?" What liberator? REAGAN. I proudly said yes.

Thatcher and Pope John Paul II get credit for it too, but without President Reagan backing up his policies and demands with a skyrocketing economy (due to his tax cuts) the Soviet Union would still be killing tens of millions of people a year.

Gorbachev can go fuck himself along with any other ass-nut Communist sympathizer that wants to rewrite history.

People should stop saying "Reagan defeated Communism."
No. This is horsecrap.

LOL To say Gorbachev HELPED bring about the fall of the iron curtain is simple retarded.

I never said that Akipt.
Communism failed because it was a broken ideology. It would have collapsed in on itself sooner or later. Reagan probably hastened its demise by 10 years.
But he didnt "defeat" communism. Put it out of its misery? Sure.
To say anything else is to say that Communism was a viable system and it needed to be forceably put down to prevent its spread and thriving.
Communism was doomed. And not in historical inevitablity or "all great nations fall".. in the real and immediate sense that it could not achieve its goals, it could not sustain itself, it could not feed its people and it could not compete on the global stage.
Its inability to develop and harness technology crippled its military to the point that its long term planners knew that the US had such a fantastic advantage that they would be unable to fight on the same level as western forces.
This was a systematic problem

Nikita Kruschev knew this the first time he walked into a American Supermarket and almost wept in frustration.

The Soviet Union didnt need to be defeated, it had already lost.

Democrats never change play-books.
Pot..kettle...black

"But.. but.. Clinton" in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Just to jump in..

'Communism failed because it was a broken ideology. It would have collapsed in on itself sooner or later.'

- THAT WASN'T COMMUNISM!

OK, back to your regular schedule of Akipt bullshit.

Two words Halo:
Collective Farming

Two words:

Well duh.

Then dont say it wasnt a failure of communism, when one the Soviet Unions greatest failures was its direct application of a purely communist tenet.

One the big secrets was the only productive farms were the small "privately" owned farms that were allowed to grow for profit.

The ideology of Communism (by Marx Engels) is pretty far from that they created in Russia and Soviet Union. The ideology of the 'soviet' communism has nothing to do what term communist ideology really means, its only the language mixing those.

Yes, the soviet planned-economic system was doomed to fail. But its failure without a strong western civilization would have ended up in bloody wars/rebellions.

It is unquestionable that Reagan, Tthacther and some others had key role enforcing the change and enforcing it without bloody revolutions and massacre. And the star-war project (donno what it was called in US, but i refer to the project using satellites for destroying rockets) was the step where the SU's economy and military could not hold the step.

That Marx Engels was such a silly guy! :(

Btw L2, JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner" not "Ich Ein Un Berliner"

8(

Greenspan-who also is responsible for the economics of both Bushes and Clinton

Yes. Let me try to explain it again, and I'll try to go slower.

Clinton's Democratic base wants to raise taxes ten million times and give all the money to the poor.

Greenspan fiddles with the prime rate, whispers to the right people and WHAM- the Republicans stonewall any move the democrats make until they change their proposal to only fice million times and for every dollar they give to the poor they have to give one to defense spending. Only then will he fiddle with the Prime Rate again.

Understand? You don't have to write the final draft of something in order to be responsible for the product.

as for this:
I've already said his economics were driven by Greenspan[/quote

I was speaking of Reagan- NOT the Bushes or Clinton. I never used the word "driven" in the context of either Bush or Clinton- I used the term "responsible". Try reading it again, slowe

edit: forgot to change the Prime Rate back

Bullshit. I spent 35 days in Moscow and Leningrad shortly after Reagan left office. "Fuck Gorbachev" was on the lips of 10 year olds and anyone else on the street having to borrow enough rubles to buy a loaf of bread or use the Pravda to whipe their asses with because some Communist bureaucrat forgot to make toilet paper that week.

Uhhh-huhhh... Talk to someone now. The transition from one system to another always has some problems.

Also, you neglect completely the fact that had Reagan tried to talk to old-school hardliners, he would have gotten nowhere.

Anyhow, I always thought 10 year olds were a bit young for any true informed political opinion.

Those people begging on the street? We call them bums, and they are usualy pretty pissed off at things ranging from Gorbachev to aliens to ex-wives and a host of other things =)

Do you think it was a tax cut that held off recession or was it Greenspan cutting interest rates so many times?
March 2003 and interest rates are at the lowest point ever, one year later, 300,000 jobs are created.
Trace in your mind the time it takes to get money and build, get set up and hire people.


What do YOU believe has more effect on a business, half a percentage rate of interest on loans or a several percent drop in their taxes? You do understand how cutting taxes leads to large scale growth of the economy right? In fact, people do so well after cutting taxes that doing so actually RAISES tax revenue, even though people are paying at a lower percentage.

Just as a real life example for you, tax revenues DOUBLED from 1980 to 1990 with no tax increases. Even though people were paying a lower percentage, their own households and business ventures did so well that they payed twice as much back in taxes.

Interest rates have some effect on the economy to be sure, but they do not have the large scale effect of tax cuts/incentives, and despite what you tin foil hatters believe Greenspan doesn't call up any president and dictate what their economic policies are going to be.


Greenspan fiddles with the prime rate, whispers to the right people and WHAM- the Republicans stonewall any move the democrats make until they change their proposal to only fice million times and for every dollar they give to the poor they have to give one to defense spending. Only then will he fiddle with the Prime Rate again.


What you are explaining and what you are stating are two different things. Clinton's economics were tax and spend, you said Greenspan was responsible for his tax and spend economics, not that he is responsible for the the finished policy after Congress hashed it out to suit both parties.


I was speaking of Reagan- NOT the Bushes or Clinton. I never used the word "driven" in the context of either Bush or Clinton


You sure know how to talk yourself into a circle, you're saying he is the man behind the policies for Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. Whether you say he "drove" their policies or he "is responsible" for them, you are conveying the exact same idea.

I still would like you to address the most serious flaw to your theory about how Greenspan is at the heart of a vast shadowy conspiracy running our entire economy:

The general economic philosophies for the policies have been around and part of both parties for longer than he has been alive, not to mention just the last 16 years he has been chairman of the Federal Reserve -which of course would also have put him out of his seat of power to "drive" Reagan's economics as you put it. I'm curious, did Greenspan dictate Alexander Hamilton's economics from from sort of all powerful pre-illuminati-birth state of being? You know, since "Reaganomics" were based on the same ideas as his.

What do YOU believe has more effect on a business, half a percentage rate of interest on loans or a several percent drop in their taxes?

Well, first of all it was more than half a percentage rate. And second of all you arent even remotely using your head.
A tax break is a one time thing. you get X amount of cash based on what you earned the year before.
A low interest loan repeats itself, every single month you have save with it. THe economic principle you want to reference for this law is "Opportunity Cost".
If I want to start a business, Im not going to do with a income tax return check. What I AM going to do it with is a loan from the bank, the lower the interest rate, the greater percentage of people that fall into the affordabilty threshold for that loan.
Lower taxes have SOME impact on the economy. The sliding scale between what the government needs to survive and what people can afford to pay before it becomes debilitating are the margins. They are not very wide margins either. Most economists place the top level at 33% before they are considered oppressive and 20% in order for the government to have enough cash to function.

No more than your job giving you a 1 or 2% raise will change your life, a tax cut it nice, but not as big a deal as conservative politicians want you to believe. The conservative view point wants a smaller government for more reasons than just that it puts more cash in your pocket. If you call yourself a conservative and the only reason why is tax breaks, then you are clueless and have really only a superficial knowledge of the core beliefs of what you claim.
Conservatives believe that money is the growing force for government. A government must be starved to the point of efficency and concentrating of its primary functions. A money rich government expands into areas that threaten personal freedoms and infringe on states rights and local control. A loose unregulated economy, with minimal to non existant government restrictions is the primary driving force to a potent market, not a friggin tax cut.

And second of all you arent even remotely using your head.
A tax break is a one time thing. you get X amount of cash based on what you earned the year before.
A low interest loan repeats itself, every single month you have save with it.


You are a moron.

You are going to be a teacher?

How is it that you can't comprehend that cutting taxes means YOU PAY A LOWER PERCENTAGE TO THE GOVERNMENT EVERY YEAR...at least until a liberal gets in there and jacks them back up to pay for stuff like giving good ol Teddy Kennedy swimming lessons to avoid future "accidental" drownings.

It isn't a "one time thing".

Just to give you half a fuckin clue, it was an unheard of event in 2001 when the Fed dropped interest rates 2.5%.

Reagan's individual income tax cuts in 1981 were 23% ACROSS THE BOARD.

Comprende?

Which is larger future educator, a 2.5% reduction or a 23% reduction?

Reagan also decreased the maximum corporate income tax percentage from 46% to 34%.

Since you are an economic genius, I'm guessing that I don't have to tell you how a company with a billion a year in income might benefit from having 120 million they used to pay in taxes in their bank instead. To put that into numbers even you should understand, a billion dollar loan getting that interest rate cut would save about 30 million a year!

Which is the larger savings Professor, 30 million a year or 120 million a year?

Now take a step back and realize that individual tax cuts were cut by twice that percentage, for everyone.


No more than your job giving you a 1 or 2% raise will change your life


You better believe that the equivalent of your job giving you a 12% raise will change your quality of life.

haha.. I love when you start throwing out the insults, it only shows how bad the debate is going for you.

Nobody said tax breaks were bad, or paying a lower tax rate isnt a good thing.

My argument is that a lower interest loan rate has a bigger effect on the economy, and you have shown NO proof to contradict this. If you are going to create jobs, foster industry and have growth, you do NOT do it with tax breaks, you do it with lower loan rates.

New homes get built, businesses get started, cars get bought.

The reality of the tax break for the mega corp is subjective. It "might" translate to universal growth. Or.. it might translate into advertising, competitive aquisition, executive raises, overseas expansion, upgrading of old systems.
In publically held companies growth does not always increase the value of the company.

As a matter of fact, if you want to see what these multi-billion dollar companies did with all this cash the proof is easy.
They bought and dismantled their competition.
This was the hall mark of the 80s.
Corperate Raiding, Hostile Takeovers..
The 80s are called the "decade of greed" for that reason, because wealth turned into the pursuit of acquisition for the sake of itself. Junk Bonds, bad investment, over speculation.. all this caused the bottom to fall out in the end.

Loans go to growth.. tax breaks? who the hell knows.

They bought and dismantled their competition.
This was the hall mark of the 80s.
Corperate Raiding, Hostile Takeovers..
The 80s are called the "decade of greed" for that reason, because wealth turned into the pursuit of acquisition for the sake of itself. Junk Bonds, bad investment, over speculation.. all this caused the bottom to fall out in the end.

Typical liberal stereotyping. But during Clinton's years "it was the economy stupid" and it was all ok.

Loans go to growth.. tax breaks? who the hell knows.

Which makes it all the more obvious that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Get past page 2 of your Economics 101 book and come back and talk about it.

Insults, but no information.
>shrug<

Insults, but no information.

What's it matter to you? And what insult?

Your model of "economics" would only work if the 80's, 90's, and now the turn of the new century never happened.

So tell the truth, you went back and read your 30-year old high school economics book and now you're trying to pass yourself off as some economics expert huh? :lol

Typical liberal stereotyping.

What? Haha.

I love when you start throwing out the insults, it only shows how bad the debate is going for you.


Please.

I throw out insults when I get to the point that I cannot fathom your incredible stupidity.


My argument is that a lower interest loan rate has a bigger effect on the economy, and you have shown NO proof to contradict this.


Your argument is absolute bullshit, and I showed you exactly why it was bullshit. Fuck man, you are going to be a TEACHER and you can't understand that 120 million is more than 30 million.


If you are going to create jobs, foster industry and have growth, you do NOT do it with tax breaks, you do it with lower loan rates.


You -honestly- believe that a corporation is more likely to expand when it has pays a percent or two(none of which happened in the Reagan years btw, that large of a decrease was unheard of when it happened in 2001) less on a loan than it is when it has a garaunteed 12% increase in yearly profit?

Not only that, you are telling me that when individuals find themselves paying 23% less every year in taxes they are less likely to increase their spending than if they can get a loan with a 2% lower interest rate.

And you're telling me my argument is going badly?


all this caused the bottom to fall out in the end.


Actually, if you recall(I can see the smoke from here), Bush Sr bowed down to the democrat controlled congress and raised taxes again.

Your argument is absolute bullshit, and I showed you exactly why it was bullshit. Fuck man, you are going to be a TEACHER and you can't understand that 120 million is more than 30 million.

How did you do that?
You are just wrong, Im sorry if you are having trouble with that fact, but you just are.
Lower loan rates stimulate more growth than tax refunds. A loan, something that has to be paid back, is utilized for something that is pretty much a solid bet that its going to have a return on the investment.
Tax refunds have no such need attached to them. Its "Free" money. You waste it, you squander it... >shrug< its not owed.
Show me the last business that was built with a tax break, or the last house, or the last new car.
Stack em all up and the pile of growth from loans would DWARF anything from tax breaks.
Does that fit with your political ideology? Nope, but thats reality.
There is just no evidence that huge tax breaks create the wide spread growth that lower interest rates do.
Oh and the reason that Bush HAD to increase taxes was because of massive deficit spending. Why? Because the tax breaks never realized into greater government profit from increased tax roles. They gambled on a theory and lost. Thats the reality. Thats why Bush was a 1 term President.
You -honestly- believe that a corporation is more likely to expand when it has pays a percent or two(none of which happened in the Reagan years btw, that large of a decrease was unheard of when it happened in 2001) less on a loan than it is when it has a garaunteed 12% increase in yearly profit?
Uhh yes. You keep saying big corps are expanding.. Who? into what? any specific examples of a business using the money from tax savings to finance a expansion? . Profits do go into reinvestment for a smart company, but that takes on many many forms. Only a small part of which is creation of new jobs or opening of new markets.

Not only that, you are telling me that when individuals find themselves paying 23% less every year in taxes they are less likely to increase their spending than if they can get a loan with a 2% lower interest rate.
Haha.
What YOU are saying is that now a business can project what its profits will be from one year to the next and will make long term commitments based on funds not created and not recieved.
Duh.
ok you are saying that tax breaks create new jobs. Great lets go through this.
We have 2 possibilties.
Possibilty A. Acme Widgit Corp. has a tax break which relieves it of 23% of it of its tax responsibity which ate a total of 30% (VERY high for a industry) of its profits. It decides to expand into a Fidgits. It uses this extra profit to build a plant, hire workers, create an infrastructure, advertise. Next year, they hope that they will continue to be profitable, otherwise the funding for that new venture is gone.

Possiblity B. Acme decides that the loan from the bank to finance its venture for 5 years is of a reasonable rate that they can include the payment back to the bank in a way that has little impact on its profit margin.
And heres the part you seem to keep missing.
MAYBE, the extra room from the tax break is the impedous to take that loan from the bank.

/e shakes his head.. youll get it one day.

God L2, would you cut it out? You liberals are always stereotyping!

What you are explaining and what you are stating are two different things.

Then perhaps I'm not stating it well. If Greenspan forces changes to be made to a policy in order for it to get through Congress, doesn't that make him responsible?

You sure know how to talk yourself into a circle, you're saying he is the man behind the policies for Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. Whether you say he "drove" their policies or he "is responsible" for them, you are conveying the exact same idea

Or maybe you are putting too fine a point on it. See my above paragraph.

I still would like you to address the most serious flaw to your theory about how Greenspan is at the heart of a vast shadowy conspiracy running our entire economy:

Once again, you are trying to argue a point I never had.
Greenspan has had more influence over the economy in the past 20 years than any other person. He is responsible for the FINISHED (does that make you more happy) fiscal policies of every President since Reagan.

fandros

Holly molly me and fandros agree !

Lower loan rates stimulate more growth than tax refunds.

Except the original premise wasn't about tax refunds, it was about tax breaks. Tax breaks encompass a far wider area than a simple tax refund or even a tax cut. Tax refunds have very little effect on the GDP; all of the tax breaks in our tax code likely have a very large effect on GDP although I do not believe you could quantify the effect.

A loan, something that has to be paid back, is utilized for something that is pretty much a solid bet that its going to have a return on the investment.
Tax refunds have no such need attached to them. Its "Free" money. You waste it, you squander it... >shrug< its not owed.


Ok, this is good..you're an inch away from a breakthrough!

When people INCREASE the amount of money they spend on STUFF, the people who make STUFF have increased profits.

You see, people buying more with that "Free" money stimulate the economy!

Sorry, I would have let -you- think all that through..but we don't have all decade.


Oh and the reason that Bush HAD to increase taxes was because of massive deficit spending. Why? Because the tax breaks never realized into greater government profit from increased tax roles.


Tax revenues doubled from 1981 to 1990!

DOUBLED(Means twices as much, Professor)!


What YOU are saying is that now a business can project what its profits will be from one year to the next and will make long term commitments based on funds not created and not recieved.


No, I'm telling you that when businesses know the government won't be digging so deeply out of their pockets for several years they are more likely to create jobs and expand their business.

OH!

Almost forgot, those funds that were "not created and not received("i" before "e" except after "c", and in words with a long "a" sound like "their" professor :) )" are PROFIT from their business that they get to keep instead of Uncle S getting it.


And heres the part you seem to keep missing.
MAYBE, the extra room from the tax break is the impedous to take that loan from the bank.


Cute.

One problem with what you're trying to say: If the tax break is the impetus for them taking a loan then the tax cut is primarily responsible for their expansion, not the interest rate on the loan.

Very entertaining!

Crist0, save your breath. They cannot learn these things.

Here is an example:
I moved to a city that had snow. My employer wanted to help with safety of their new employees by paying for a driver safety class to deal with driving on icy roads.

We were taken after a short class portion to the top of a slight icy incline covered with ice. Out of my group, almost half could not right the sliding car which required turning INTO the direction of the slide until you get traction then you could turn or stop the car. This required the driver to ignore the impulse to turn away from the bundles of hay at the bottom of the hill.

Since I have always been a curious person, I talked to the group to try and find out why some just could not learn to do this simple skill. What I found shocked me!

Of the 12 people that hit the hay, 10 were liberals.

Of the 14 that were able to gain control of the car, only 2 were liberals.

I learned that day that when it comes to doing anything that requires reasoning and then doing something that is contrary to instinct, Liberals are unable to do it. Even after seeing the first successful drivers avoid the hay by turning into the slide, the remaining liberals couldn't do what they were showed would stop or turn the car.

That was the day I became a conservative. And what a relief that became! The endless hours of "discussion" with my fellow Dems were replaced with laughter at said Dems for their inability to comprehend simple concepts. I find life much more enjoyable now that I don't spend my time trying to show liberals that 2 2 = 4.

The office of President is no place for liberals. I am not saying there is no place for liberals, just that it should be only in places where action based on emotion cannot harm my country.

Wow! What a bulletproof study. Someone call the Scientific Journal! Let's get this shit published!

>2 2 = 4

i'm sorry but 22 does not equal 4

Ya know.
Im just getting sick of it.
I acknowledge that some of my posts in the past may have contributed to the atmosphere here now. But maybe for that reason Im an appropriate person to draw this line in the sand.
The personal insults are going to stop, and stop now.
Enough is enough.
I post here because I enjoy the passoniate discourse and the diversity of opinions, but this board has reached the point where inclusion in it is forboding and unsavory because of the level of vitirol and name calling. We are losing the new people, the diverse viewpoints, the people willing to commit passionatly to a healthy and passionate debate.
It ends now.
Crist0, or anyone else, not once in this thread or recently, have I insulted you. Yet you continue to stream insults. I get the feeling that you dont even care about the spirit of the debate, the important part for you is the chance to insult to demean and try to make yourself feel better about something for some reason.
I will no longer tolerate it. If you desire to continue to debate about these things, you are going to have to learn to argue like an adult. You are going to have to learn a modicum of decorum and proper behavior.
You insult me, the debate with me ends.
I call on the people on these boards to start policing ourselves. To refuse to tolerate the bullying and the venom and abuse of each other.
I know in the past I have been guilty of this, but have not entered into it for some time. And Im not saying people shouldnt bust each others balls, but there is line and these boards have crossed it.
We control what our community is.
I wont back down from this, If you think you can continue the arguement without petty useless insults then I have some good counter points to your argument Crist0, if you cant or wont.. >shrug< I no longer am willing to waste my time.

Sorry to those of you that were confused. The addition sign apparently was lost through the spell check.

Btw, I remembered when reading L2's last post something that I had forgotten. When the group libs found out what I had found interesting, they wouldn't talk to me anymore. L2 reminded me of their "I am gonna take my ball and go home!" attitude after that.

L2, don't respond that way. Crist0 may have called you some names but it may have been a result of losing patients with you for not understanding what he feels is basic economics. Been there, done that.

You have alot to offer as far as discussion. Don't give up over something so easily ignored.

Math check 2 2=4
2-2=0

Battle on!


-Xeck-

P.S. Yep. Addition sign is dropped when returning from spell check. Nice bug!

I was at the same driving school, but they had moved the hay bales and changed it to a slalom corse. All of the conservatives returned, wanting another laugh at the liberals .

Each and every conservative hit the bales of hay. When asked why, they said "The way I was doing it worked last week, it should work now". They were unable to comprehend that the layout and purpose of the driving course had changed.

The liberals returned also, but decided to car pool. They couldn't decide which way to turn, in time, changing their minds several times before they smashed into the bales of hay.

Since I don't follow a party line, I was able to make my own damn choice and navigate the course just fine.

Im just getting sick of it...
Enough is enough...
It ends now.

Cute! Little stamped foot, curled lip and all.

unless you have a lump of coal between your butt cheeks. then keep being so uptight, shit, you might get a diamond.

Follow your own advice.

I plan to.

I admited in the past I have helped bring the discourse to this level. I accepted my responsibilty and will now help to change it.

But let me ask you this Xeck, if you have called them Morons, and stupid and whatever foolish insult you could think of, would have been surprised if they tuned you out and walked away from you?
Or would enter into a debate where people had no self control or sense of decorum or respect for another opinion?
Of course not.
Debate, be passionate, argue fiercely, convice me im wrong. I wont leave the debate.
But from here on, If a level of repect isnt maintained, as far as Im concerned, the debate is over.

Dont like it? Too bad, get used to it, or leave.

L2, I can see your point. I am blessed with a thick skin developed from years of being called names. Now when someone uses being called a name as an excuse for doing something I have to remember that some cannot ignore it like I can.
An example of this is a short story by Maya Angelou where she broke some china owned by her mothers employer because the old woman called her Mary. The Eng101 prof tried to tell me that this was justified. I didn't agree and payed for it with my grade.
I don't think anything said in this manner warrants action. Ignoring name calling is made easy when you remember that it is a result of a flaw in them, not you.

Amhorach, nice story. Only one little problem. Economics, unlike your course, has not changed. In my lifetime I have seen taxcuts help our economy. These taxcut were done because the sitting presidents believed it would work based on prior history of such actions.
And yet, liberals STILL would be raising taxes to get revenue. If you can't see the parallel with my story, oh well. I tried. It isn't a goal of mine to educate you.

A question for ya though:

When was the last time raising taxes succeeded in spurring on an economy?

-Xeck-

When people INCREASE the amount of money they spend on STUFF, the people who make STUFF have increased profits.
You see, people buying more with that "Free" money stimulate the economy!

Very nice, if a bit shallow, defense of Keynesian economics. Of course, you realize that Reaganomics is supply side and decidedly anti-Keynesian, right? Of course an economic super mind like yourself does. ( Hint, Reaganomics is the belief that increases in production ( NOT demand ) will increase economic activity because someone has to be paid to do the work that increases production, ie "trickle-down" ) ( and, yes, I admit that is extremely simplified, the difference is putting resources into the publics hand as opposed to the business community, that's why 2 of the 3 big tax cutting presidents have given most of the cuts to the upper end of the spectrum and a token amount to middle class )

Tax revenues doubled from 1981 to 1990!
DOUBLED(Means twices as much, Professor)!

Tax revenues increased by 502% from 41-50, 135% from 51-60, 108% from 61-70, 168% from 71-80, and 100% from 81-90. You are trying to remove things like population growth ( hence larger tax base ) from the analysis, but its fairly clear that the tax revenue has been doubling every ten years at least. ( The aberration in 41-50 is because of the institution of Social Security, primarily, and other New Deal programs in the late 30's greatly increased the total receipts coming into the government during this decade ).

Furthermore, don't you feel a little dishonest counting the 1982 tax increases ( largest in history as a function of GDP ) and the increases in the FICA tax from the 1983 Social Security Amendment Act as part of your justification for tax cuts? You can't get close to that "DOUBLED" figure unless you count the tax increases under Reagan. The FICA increase alone was 126% from 1981 to 1989 in terms of receipts. Individual income tax revenue ( that's what the tax cut affected ) is closer to 56% growth during the Reagan terms.

Now that we have some actual facts, let me state: Tax cuts can help. To a point. It isn't a straight line like some of you want to pretend it is. Would you advocate a reduction to top income tax of 15%? 10%? Abolition of income tax? Do you honestly think that is going to make a strong economy? Maybe a very short spurt of growth until our infrastructure began falling apart. See, unlike you anti-tax gurus, I realize taxes are just the dues you pay for living in the greatest country on the earth. They pave my roads, build my schools, and even created the medium that allows us to argue about them. Taxes can even stimulate the economy through government spending ( both FDR ( hint Xeck, FDR raised taxes and grew the economy ) and Reagan proved that ). Economies are much to complex to hang on any one thing. Personally I would rank the Federal Reserve and deficit spending as more important in the 80's than the tax cuts ever were.

Fil

FDR raised taxes and grew the economy? hmmm. I will read up on this. I have seen many liberals asked for an example raising taxes to stimulate an economy and none said FDR. It is possible that they just didn't know about it. I will do some research.

Where I agree that lowering taxes does not help an economy that already has an average tax rate of say 10% by lowering it to 5%, that is not even close to the lvl of taxes we have been at during my lifetime. In this case the average tax rate was at or close to an all time high.

In these cases are you saying that raising taxes more would have helped spur on the economy?

-Xeck-

When was the last time raising taxes succeeded in spurring on an economy?

No idea, I'm not an expert by any means. Most likely the 18th century.

My little story was mainly to show that the country has become so partisan and divided that it is almost impossible to have a civil political conversation (meaning, one where it does not disintegrate into an us vs. them mentality) anymore.

In these cases are you saying that raising taxes more would have helped spur on the economy?

No, I am not a tax advocate or avoider. What I am saying is it is the height of ignorance to say "tax cuts doubled federal revenue". There are too many factors in an economy ( not to mention most of those gains were in excise and payroll taxes, not income ). Let me put it another way. In 1928-29 the top rate on income tax dropped from 25% to 24% and the bottom rate from 1.125% to .375%. Can't you see, tax cuts caused The Great Depression!!!! ( there were also much bigger cuts in '24 and '26, in case someone wants to make the case it takes awhile ). Can you see how much other information I have to completely ignore to make this claim?

Tax cuts can, in the right conditions, create a short term stimulus. Long term effects are inconclusive. Think about getting a raise at work. This is money you were not expecting and it isn't part of your budget. So you make a large purchase with that money and put it towards paying off the credit card/loan/etc you used to get your item. Now that money is part of your budget and you find yourself right back where you were before the raise. Your income/outlays have increased slightly but the net amount saved every month is the same.

That's the simple version, of course it is much more complicated than that ( what if you had saved your raise, what if you bought an item that could be used to make money ( capital investment), what effect did your buying the item have on the factory where it was made, etc ). But the gist is over a fairly short period of time, people will become used to a tax cut and the stimulus effect loses its punch.

The biggest use of a tax cut is as a political tool. It has much more influence on perception than any economic reality. Just like the Roman praetors that held lavish games and threw money to the crowds in order to gain votes, a tax cut is designed to leave people with a good impression of the tax cutter. ( I would probably argue the Kennedy and possibly one of the Reagan tax cuts were actually needed. 91% is excessive, even the 50/70 until Reagan was a bit harsh )

Fil

You said that the biggest use of a tax cut is political. But wouldn't this be taken away from conservatives if the tax rates were not raised to what even you called "excessive" by liberals?
Also, even after you described the tax rates pre-Reagan as excessive, you still felt the need to hedge by saying you would "possibly" argue that these cuts were needed. What is up with that? Were they needed or not? Did they help, in your opinion?

-Xeck-

Haha LLeauaric...you put the whole teacher mess out there yourself(as I recall you were beating Akipt over the head with it). You've tried to insult the intelligence and the education of others time and again in previous posts( the evolution thread comes to mind).

Trying to say the rules need to be changed when you can't take what you dish out is poor form, but I'll back off from the teacher bit I suppose.