jclalor 12 #1 July 20, 2011 If only Reagan were here to handle the debt ceiling crisis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #2 July 20, 2011 QuoteIf only Reagan were here to handle the debt ceiling crisis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70 I applaud his sentiments, but in practice he was not very good at arithmetic. The bottom line is that we're hosed, and there is not a lot we can do but brace for impact. It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #3 July 20, 2011 I just find it ironic that all the right loves to worship the myth of Ronald Reagan, but in pratcie he was very differnent. Though he did seem to have a grasp of what defaulting on the debt could do to the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 July 20, 2011 QuoteI just find it ironic that all the right loves to worship the myth of Ronald Reagan, but in pratcie he was very differnent. Though he did seem to have a grasp of what defaulting on the debt could do to the country. So, what was the excuse for EVERY Democrat (including Reid and Obama) voting against the debt limit increase in 2006, then?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #5 July 20, 2011 Quote Quote If only Reagan were here to handle the debt ceiling crisis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70 I applaud his sentiments, but in practice he was not very good at arithmetic. The bottom line is that we're hosed, and there is not a lot we can do but brace for impact. It was fun while it lasted. You sound like Lewis Black in his recent special filmed here in Detroit - Stark Raving Black. Good stuff, though not his best. I can't upload my edits to youtube but the video is available for streaming on Netflix btw, he's Jewish to...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 July 20, 2011 QuoteI just find it ironic that all the right loves to worship the myth of Ronald Reagan, but in pratcie he was very differnent. Though he did seem to have a grasp of what defaulting on the debt could do to the country. I love how the left proclaims Reagan to be an idiot with Alzheimers until they need to drag him out to try and make a point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #7 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteI just find it ironic that all the right loves to worship the myth of Ronald Reagan, but in pratcie he was very differnent. Though he did seem to have a grasp of what defaulting on the debt could do to the country. I love how the left proclaims Reagan to be an idiot with Alzheimers until they need to drag him out to try and make a point. Idiot? Possibly not. Traitor? Possibly, yes. Sold weapons to the enemy (Iran). Used illegal funds from weapons sales and drug sales (if questioned, just say no!) to fund a civil war in Nicaragua. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/ http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 July 20, 2011 He'd probably show some leadership and find a way to get on the same page with Tip O'Neil, Rostenkowski, etc. It's interesting because Reagan never had a Republican House and had a Republican Senate from Jan 85-Jan 87. Obama faces this situation now. So Reagan made deals. As much as I hate to break it to those on the left and right, neither Reagan nor Obama nor Clinton nor Bush is responsible for budgets and debt. That's Congress. And as much as I'd like to blame Obama for the massive increase in debt, it was Congress that authorized it. The President has the bully pulpit. But he doesn't have authority (which is why his last budget proposal didn't get a single vote in the Senate). Carry on... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 July 20, 2011 A Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 July 20, 2011 QuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Which means approximately nothing. Check how many hits you get for the following words; UFO, Angles, Jesus. Does that actually tell you anything?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Which means approximately nothing. Check how many hits you get for the following words; UFO, Angles, Jesus. Does that actually tell you anything? So you are claiming many people on the left haven't referred to Reagan as an idiot? Or made claims that alzheimers didn't affect his Presidecy? You make the most ridiculous arguments sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #12 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Which means approximately nothing. Check how many hits you get for the following words; UFO, Angles, Jesus. Does that actually tell you anything? So you are claiming many people on the left haven't referred to Reagan as an idiot? Or made claims that alzheimers didn't affect his Presidecy? You make the most ridiculous arguments sometimes. It is called "deflection." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Which means approximately nothing. Check how many hits you get for the following words; UFO, Angles, Jesus. Does that actually tell you anything? So you are claiming many people on the left haven't referred to Reagan as an idiot? Or made claims that alzheimers didn't affect his Presidecy? You make the most ridiculous arguments sometimes. It is called "deflection." I just figured he likes to argue. Like my ex-wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 July 20, 2011 Nonsense. Grav brought up the subject of google hits as if that actually meant anything. It's he that is attempting to steer the conversation in a different direction.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #15 July 20, 2011 Quote***QuoteHe'd probably show some leadership and find a way to get on the same page with Tip O'Neil, Rostenkowski, etc. It's interesting because Reagan never had a Republican House and had a Republican Senate from Jan 85-Jan 87. Obama faces this situation now. So Reagan made deals. There was never anything close to the political climate back then that Obama now faces. Congress has 100 freshman Republicans who are scared to death of being single termers if they don't suck up to Grover and the tea party. With the lowest income tax levels in recent history, two wars, the drug plan and the stimulus. Outside of making spending cuts, revenues were gonna have to be raised one way or another, And up until the last couple of days showed zero flexability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #16 July 20, 2011 Quote Quote A Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Which means approximately nothing. Check how many hits you get for the following words; UFO, Angles, Jesus. Does that actually tell you anything? Just Sayin 6,090,000 Amazon.com helps me to win the numbers game though20,800,000 hits Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #17 July 20, 2011 QuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Well, 7,560,000 people can't all be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #18 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Well, 7,560,000 people can't all be wrong. On the lighter side, Google "skydivers are idiots" and you get 7,100,000 hits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #19 July 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote A Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Well, 7,560,000 people can't all be wrong. On the lighter side, Google "skydivers are idiots" and you get 7,100,000 hits. Well, skydivers are idiots, so there you go. Proof positive that Google works and Quade is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #20 July 20, 2011 Quote If only Reagan were here to handle the debt ceiling crisis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70 He would have created millions of jobs and increased revenue to the treasury because of those new jobs. Congree would more than likely spend more money Vs pay down our national debt.Note: Lawrocket mentioned that Ragen made every effort to work with Tip Oneill, less anyone forget Tip Oneill dispissed Ronald Reagan and held him in Great Contempt. "The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold, He's mean. He's got ice water for blood." Tip Oneill On Liberalism "It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital, such as it was..and it has done its deeds." Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan also had this to say discussing his former political faith as a Democrat: "The party of Jefferson and Jackson had headed down a different road altogether"under the banners of Marx, Lenin and Stalin." The objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. So what would Reagan Do? He wouldn't have compromised from doing what is right for the American People. Socialism has failed every time its been tried...just my .02 cents. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #21 July 20, 2011 QuoteHe would have created millions of jobs and increased revenue to the treasury because of those new jobs. Remind me of how many jobs Reagan created in his first 2 years? QuoteThe objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. Do you remember the LP that Reagan made in 1962, espousing the horrors of medicare? Medicare just happens to be the most popular government programs ever. Try to find any pole, from any time period, where the overwhelming majority of Americans say they don't love it. Then again, one of the funniest memory I have during the Obama healthcare debate, was the senior tea bagger with the sign " Keep the Government out of my medicare" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #22 July 20, 2011 >The objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. And the objective of the modern conservative is to remove the constitutional rights of the people of the United States and give them to the big corporations. (And yes, both positions are as accurate.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #23 July 20, 2011 Obama is 2.5 years into office. Compare that to a few economic numbers 2.5 years after Reagan entered office. Real GDP Growth: Jan. 1981-June 1983: 1.1% Jan. 2009-June 2011: 4.7% Unemployment Rate: June 1983: 10.1% June 2011: 9.1% Jobs created (lost) Jan. 1981-June 1983: (1.86 million) Jan. 2009-June 2011: (3.3 million) Stock market: Jan. 1981-June 1983: +24% Jan. 2009-June 2011: +50% Corporate profit margins 1981: 6% 2011: 13.3% Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP 1983: 17.5% 2011: 14.4% Federal spending as a percentage of GDP 1983: 23.5% 2011: 25.3% (23.8% in 2010) Top marginal tax rate (personal income) 1983: 50% 2011: 35% Top marginal tax rate (corporate income) 1983: 46% 2011: 35% He also cut n run in Beirut after the murder of our Marines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #24 July 20, 2011 Quote>The objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. And the objective of the modern conservative is to remove the constitutional rights of the people of the United States and give them to the big corporations. (And yes, both positions are as accurate.) I shall ponder this and weigh it carefully. I guess as it is in Sports we tend to rally behind our team. Its would be nice if we could agree on cutting spending, Vs this continue desire to start providing new programs. Came accross this, "Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families" Income Equality Tied To Economic Growth "One criticism that is raised against the Reagan years is that there was a rise in income inequality. The historical record, however, does not support such a conclusion. Data collected by the Federal Reserve reveal that there was, at worst, no significant change in income inequality between 1983 and 1989.[7] Moreover, IRS data indicate that the wealthy paid an increasing share of income taxes during the 1980s.[8] These observations are consistent with economic theory. In a slowdown or a recession, the wealthy can take care of themselves through their savings and investments. Data show that the wealthy derive a much greater portion of their income from capital investments.[9] Low-income individuals, however, derive most of their income from wages and salaries, which typically decline during recessions. Since they have less savings to draw on, low-income individuals bear the burden of anemic growth far more than the wealthy. Low-income individuals are further hurt by the fact that wage and salary growth is contingent on economic growth. Critics of the Reagan years assert that cutting taxes on capital is unfair because more of the benefits (in terms of taxes returned to taxpayers) go to individuals with higher incomes. Cutting taxes on saving and investment, however, has implications beyond just the effect on tax returns, particularly with regard to which people are affected. Lower taxes on capital serve to encourage its use. More capital leads to higher wages, increased incomes, and more high-quality jobs. By raising real wages, a reduction in taxes on capital encourages greater workforce participation and spurs investments in human capital, education, and training. Whenever the economy's stock of capital increases, the relative income shares of those already wealthy decline. As a result, the gains from economic growth are spread more evenly across the population. In fact, data from the 1980s show that a good deal of the alleged rise in inequality is attributable to greater workforce participation. Most studies on income inequality rely on data compiled from tax returns. These studies often point to the fact that the income of some tax returns increased faster than others (even if most households increased in wealth). The problem with these numbers is that they fail to account for increased female labor force participation. Women who were not working previously chose to enter the labor market, since lower taxes on the product of labor increased the net compensation of their work. With two earners, families with these new labor force entrants saw rapid increases in their family income, creating the appearance of inequality. In reality, these number's simply reflect the fact that more people were working." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #25 July 20, 2011 >Its would be nice if we could agree on cutting spending, Vs this continue >desire to start providing new programs. Yep. We have to cut spending AND increase taxes if we want to get out of this hole - but neither side is willing to agree to both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Amazon 7 #16 July 20, 2011 Quote Quote A Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Which means approximately nothing. Check how many hits you get for the following words; UFO, Angles, Jesus. Does that actually tell you anything? Just Sayin 6,090,000 Amazon.com helps me to win the numbers game though20,800,000 hits Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #17 July 20, 2011 QuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Well, 7,560,000 people can't all be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #18 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteA Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Well, 7,560,000 people can't all be wrong. On the lighter side, Google "skydivers are idiots" and you get 7,100,000 hits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 July 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote A Google search for "Reagan idiot" returned 7,560,000 hits. Well, 7,560,000 people can't all be wrong. On the lighter side, Google "skydivers are idiots" and you get 7,100,000 hits. Well, skydivers are idiots, so there you go. Proof positive that Google works and Quade is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #20 July 20, 2011 Quote If only Reagan were here to handle the debt ceiling crisis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70 He would have created millions of jobs and increased revenue to the treasury because of those new jobs. Congree would more than likely spend more money Vs pay down our national debt.Note: Lawrocket mentioned that Ragen made every effort to work with Tip Oneill, less anyone forget Tip Oneill dispissed Ronald Reagan and held him in Great Contempt. "The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold, He's mean. He's got ice water for blood." Tip Oneill On Liberalism "It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital, such as it was..and it has done its deeds." Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan also had this to say discussing his former political faith as a Democrat: "The party of Jefferson and Jackson had headed down a different road altogether"under the banners of Marx, Lenin and Stalin." The objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. So what would Reagan Do? He wouldn't have compromised from doing what is right for the American People. Socialism has failed every time its been tried...just my .02 cents. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #21 July 20, 2011 QuoteHe would have created millions of jobs and increased revenue to the treasury because of those new jobs. Remind me of how many jobs Reagan created in his first 2 years? QuoteThe objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. Do you remember the LP that Reagan made in 1962, espousing the horrors of medicare? Medicare just happens to be the most popular government programs ever. Try to find any pole, from any time period, where the overwhelming majority of Americans say they don't love it. Then again, one of the funniest memory I have during the Obama healthcare debate, was the senior tea bagger with the sign " Keep the Government out of my medicare" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #22 July 20, 2011 >The objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. And the objective of the modern conservative is to remove the constitutional rights of the people of the United States and give them to the big corporations. (And yes, both positions are as accurate.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #23 July 20, 2011 Obama is 2.5 years into office. Compare that to a few economic numbers 2.5 years after Reagan entered office. Real GDP Growth: Jan. 1981-June 1983: 1.1% Jan. 2009-June 2011: 4.7% Unemployment Rate: June 1983: 10.1% June 2011: 9.1% Jobs created (lost) Jan. 1981-June 1983: (1.86 million) Jan. 2009-June 2011: (3.3 million) Stock market: Jan. 1981-June 1983: +24% Jan. 2009-June 2011: +50% Corporate profit margins 1981: 6% 2011: 13.3% Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP 1983: 17.5% 2011: 14.4% Federal spending as a percentage of GDP 1983: 23.5% 2011: 25.3% (23.8% in 2010) Top marginal tax rate (personal income) 1983: 50% 2011: 35% Top marginal tax rate (corporate income) 1983: 46% 2011: 35% He also cut n run in Beirut after the murder of our Marines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #24 July 20, 2011 Quote>The objective of the Modern Liberal is "to impose socialism" on the American people. And the objective of the modern conservative is to remove the constitutional rights of the people of the United States and give them to the big corporations. (And yes, both positions are as accurate.) I shall ponder this and weigh it carefully. I guess as it is in Sports we tend to rally behind our team. Its would be nice if we could agree on cutting spending, Vs this continue desire to start providing new programs. Came accross this, "Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families" Income Equality Tied To Economic Growth "One criticism that is raised against the Reagan years is that there was a rise in income inequality. The historical record, however, does not support such a conclusion. Data collected by the Federal Reserve reveal that there was, at worst, no significant change in income inequality between 1983 and 1989.[7] Moreover, IRS data indicate that the wealthy paid an increasing share of income taxes during the 1980s.[8] These observations are consistent with economic theory. In a slowdown or a recession, the wealthy can take care of themselves through their savings and investments. Data show that the wealthy derive a much greater portion of their income from capital investments.[9] Low-income individuals, however, derive most of their income from wages and salaries, which typically decline during recessions. Since they have less savings to draw on, low-income individuals bear the burden of anemic growth far more than the wealthy. Low-income individuals are further hurt by the fact that wage and salary growth is contingent on economic growth. Critics of the Reagan years assert that cutting taxes on capital is unfair because more of the benefits (in terms of taxes returned to taxpayers) go to individuals with higher incomes. Cutting taxes on saving and investment, however, has implications beyond just the effect on tax returns, particularly with regard to which people are affected. Lower taxes on capital serve to encourage its use. More capital leads to higher wages, increased incomes, and more high-quality jobs. By raising real wages, a reduction in taxes on capital encourages greater workforce participation and spurs investments in human capital, education, and training. Whenever the economy's stock of capital increases, the relative income shares of those already wealthy decline. As a result, the gains from economic growth are spread more evenly across the population. In fact, data from the 1980s show that a good deal of the alleged rise in inequality is attributable to greater workforce participation. Most studies on income inequality rely on data compiled from tax returns. These studies often point to the fact that the income of some tax returns increased faster than others (even if most households increased in wealth). The problem with these numbers is that they fail to account for increased female labor force participation. Women who were not working previously chose to enter the labor market, since lower taxes on the product of labor increased the net compensation of their work. With two earners, families with these new labor force entrants saw rapid increases in their family income, creating the appearance of inequality. In reality, these number's simply reflect the fact that more people were working." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #25 July 20, 2011 >Its would be nice if we could agree on cutting spending, Vs this continue >desire to start providing new programs. Yep. We have to cut spending AND increase taxes if we want to get out of this hole - but neither side is willing to agree to both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
