Good Times! People \Waking Up to the Propaganda

[The Original Tree]

Show us THE DNC SERVER and THE SO CALLED EVIDENCE that Russia Hacked the DNC server.

Had THE DNC done that, they win the White House in a landslide.

Instead they are now resorting to sore loserism, paid fake protestors, and fake news.

Give us some real news and some real evidence, and even THE GOP would go along with impeaching Trump.

The Problem with that is THE DNC won't let anyone look at their server. Because there is no Evidence.

 

[Windship]

President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policies
How Reagan Ended the 1980s Recession

• SHARE
• PIN
• EMAIL

Ronald Reagan Gives A Speech In Washington. Photo By Dirck Halstead/Getty Images

US Economy

• Monetary Policy
• Economic Theory
• Supply
• Demand
• National Debt
• Fiscal Policy
• Trade Policy
• GDP and Growth
• Inflation
• U.S. Markets
• World Economy
• Economy Stats
• Hot Topics
• Glossary

VIEW ALL
By Kimberly Amadeo
Updated February 22, 2017
Reagan and the Economy

Ronald Reagan was the U.S. President from January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989. He was the first conservative President in more than 50 years. But he was similar to President Obama in one respect. The first task of each was to combat the worst recession since the Great Depression.

That's where their paths differed greatly. Reagan promised the "Reagan Revolution." It's focused on reducing government spending, taxes and regulation.


His philosophy was "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

1980-1981 Recession
Reagan inherited an economy mired in stagflation. It's a combination of double-digit economic contraction with double-digit inflation. To combat recession, Reagan aggressively cut income taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent for the top income tax rate, and from 48 percent to 34 percent for the corporate tax rate. He also promised to reduce government spending and regulations, while reducing the money supply to combat inflation.

Reaganomics
Reagan's economic policies are known as Reaganomics. Reagan based his policies on the theory of supply side economics, which states that tax cuts encourage economic expansion enough to eventually broaden the tax base. In time, the increased revenue from a stronger economy offsets the initial revenue loss from the tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts worked because tax rates were so high in the early '80s that they were in the "Prohibitive Range," according to the Laffer Curve.


Reagan and Deregulation
Reagan was applauded for continuing to eliminate the Nixon-era price controls. These were blamed for constraining the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan further removed controls on oil and gas, cable television and long-distance phone service, as well as interstate bus service and ocean shipping.


Bank regulations were eased. In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which removed restrictions on loan-to-value ratios for Savings and Loan banks. Reagan's budget cut also reduced regulatory staff at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. As a result, banks invested in risky real estate ventures (sound familiar?). Reagan's deregulation and budget cutting contributed to the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1989.

Import barriers were actually increased, as Reagan doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988. Little was done in other regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. In fact, although Reagan reduced regulations, it was at a slower pace than under Carter. (Source: William A. Niskanen, "Reaganomics," The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.)

Did Reagan Reduce Government Spending?
Despite campaigning on a reduced role for government, Reagan wasn't as successful as he was at tax cuts. During his first year, he cut domestic programs by $39 billion.


But he increased defense spending to achieve "peace through strength" in his opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union. He was successful in ending the Cold War, with the famous quote "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." However, to accomplish these goals, Reagan wound up increasing the defense budget by 35 percent.

Reagan did not reduce other government programs. He expanded Medicare, and increased the payroll tax to insure the solvency of Social Security. Under Reagan, government spending increased 2.5 percent annually. By the end of Reagan's two terms, the national debt had more than doubled.

Beating Inflation

 

[saveliberty]

We know Obama was a failure, Trump will take eight years to know one way or the other.

 

[Windship]

Debunking the Reagan Myth



Paul Krugman JAN. 21, 2008

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Continue reading the main story
  Paul Krugman[/paste:font]
  Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.
  

• 
  

See More »


Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.

Photo

Paul Krugman CreditFred R. Conrad/The New York Times
For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.

Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)

Opinion Today
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

• SEE SAMPLE
  
• PRIVACY POLICY

But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

 

[BlindBoo]

These protests aren't genuine. They are completely scripted.

On the bright side these assholes will just bring out votes for Republicans in 2018. Sheesh. What stupid idiots think that their yelling and screaming and scripted booing and hissing at these town halls is going to get votes for the D's?

I imagine they're as genuine as the ones we saw in 2009.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Pretty funny, watching the partisans roll out their crystal ball and predict gloom or triumph.

We don't know. No one does. But those of you hoping for gloom might want to put the country over your party.

For a change.
.

Are you talking to me you dope?...the least partisan person on this site? Your a fool. These town hall protests are country wide. You say whatever you want. People are waking up to this tax cuts create jobs bullshit...the, we need deregulation propaganda and the world economy fucking lie. We are not causing "doom and gloom" as you call it. Our treasonous leaders are. Put the blame where the blame is due you hack.

Wow. Decaf maybe, huh?

And I love the "your a fool".

That would be "you're".

If you're going to call someone a "fool" and "hack", you may want to confirm your own fundamental literacy first.
.

I write it like that because its easier and not to many comment on it unless they dont have facts.

Why is it easier? It has the same number of letters as "your a"?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

George Soros funded agitators (usually from out of state) think they can pull a fast one with stunts like these in the age of YouTube and social media. Pretty funny.

"Soros".....well, we know that dog whistle. How much are they paid, btw?

Not sure how much does it cost to import people from other states ?

 

[Mac1958]

Pretty funny, watching the partisans roll out their crystal ball and predict gloom or triumph.

We don't know. No one does. But those of you hoping for gloom might want to put the country over your party.

For a change.
.

Are you talking to me you dope?...the least partisan person on this site? Your a fool. These town hall protests are country wide. You say whatever you want. People are waking up to this tax cuts create jobs bullshit...the, we need deregulation propaganda and the world economy fucking lie. We are not causing "doom and gloom" as you call it. Our treasonous leaders are. Put the blame where the blame is due you hack.

Wow. Decaf maybe, huh?

And I love the "your a fool".

That would be "you're".

If you're going to call someone a "fool" and "hack", you may want to confirm your own fundamental literacy first.
.

I write it like that because its easier and not to many comment on it unless they dont have facts.

So you purposely post to look like you're not terribly literate?

What is this, some kind of reverse psychology or sumpin'?
.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

soros...lmfao...your guys are desperate.

Desperate? You fools lost over 1000 seats of government over the last eight years.

 

[vlad_hombre]

View attachment 114443

Well played, young man.

You punked those pig-ignorant Trump supporters, and how.

 

[Windship]

Pretty funny, watching the partisans roll out their crystal ball and predict gloom or triumph.

We don't know. No one does. But those of you hoping for gloom might want to put the country over your party.

For a change.
.

Are you talking to me you dope?...the least partisan person on this site? Your a fool. These town hall protests are country wide. You say whatever you want. People are waking up to this tax cuts create jobs bullshit...the, we need deregulation propaganda and the world economy fucking lie. We are not causing "doom and gloom" as you call it. Our treasonous leaders are. Put the blame where the blame is due you hack.

Wow. Decaf maybe, huh?

And I love the "your a fool".

That would be "you're".

If you're going to call someone a "fool" and "hack", you may want to confirm your own fundamental literacy first.
.

I write it like that because its easier and not to many comment on it unless they dont have facts.

Why is it easier? It has the same number of letters as "your a"?

Yes, correct but it has a space...thats 6 as oppossed to 4 in "your". Oh shoot...I spelled "opposed" wrong...oh no...and no comma in "that's"...you missed that one?...oh darn...I called an apostrophe a comma....jeeze...

 

[Windship]

soros...lmfao...your guys are desperate.

Desperate? You fools lost over 1000 seats of government over the last eight years.

You think Im a dem....lol...funny.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Debunking the Reagan Myth



Paul Krugman JAN. 21, 2008

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Continue reading the main story
  Paul Krugman[/paste:font]
  Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

See More »


Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.

Photo

Paul Krugman CreditFred R. Conrad/The New York Times
For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.

Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)

Opinion Today
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

• SEE SAMPLE
  
• PRIVACY POLICY

But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

OMG. Hilarious quoting Krugman.

"If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never."
Paul Krugman, election night.

Paul Krugman: The Economic Fallout

 

[jknowgood]

Pretty funny, watching the partisans roll out their crystal ball and predict gloom or triumph.

We don't know. No one does. But those of you hoping for gloom might want to put the country over your party.

For a change.
.

Are you talking to me you dope?...the least partisan person on this site? Your a fool. These town hall protests are country wide. You say whatever you want. People are waking up to this tax cuts create jobs bullshit...the, we need deregulation propaganda and the world economy fucking lie. We are not causing "doom and gloom" as you call it. Our treasonous leaders are. Put the blame where the blame is due you hack.

Yet more than likely the protesters, protesting lower taxes. Don't pay taxes.

 

[tinydancer]

These protests aren't genuine. They are completely scripted.

On the bright side these assholes will just bring out votes for Republicans in 2018. Sheesh. What stupid idiots think that their yelling and screaming and scripted booing and hissing at these town halls is going to get votes for the D's?

I imagine they're as genuine as the ones we saw in 2009.

Indivisibles are just out to spoil the town halls. And to prevent constituents from getting seats and asking questions.

Completely scripted. All the way down to telling the assholes errr agitators to dress like a conservative and don't bring anything that will make you look like a liberal.

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 114443

Well played, young man.

You punked those pig-ignorant Trump supporters, and how.

Of course you support journalists fabricating stories. We all know the left requires lies for their agenda to go anywhere.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Pretty funny, watching the partisans roll out their crystal ball and predict gloom or triumph.

We don't know. No one does. But those of you hoping for gloom might want to put the country over your party.

For a change.
.

Are you talking to me you dope?...the least partisan person on this site? Your a fool. These town hall protests are country wide. You say whatever you want. People are waking up to this tax cuts create jobs bullshit...the, we need deregulation propaganda and the world economy fucking lie. We are not causing "doom and gloom" as you call it. Our treasonous leaders are. Put the blame where the blame is due you hack.

Wow. Decaf maybe, huh?

And I love the "your a fool".

That would be "you're".

If you're going to call someone a "fool" and "hack", you may want to confirm your own fundamental literacy first.
.

I write it like that because its easier and not to many comment on it unless they dont have facts.

Why is it easier? It has the same number of letters as "your a"?

Yes, correct but it has a space...thats 6 as oppossed to 4 in "your". Oh shoot...I spelled "opposed" wrong...oh no...and no comma in "that's"...you missed that one?

But you typed "your a" which has the same number of keystrokes as "you're"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

soros...lmfao...your guys are desperate.

Desperate? You fools lost over 1000 seats of government over the last eight years.

You think Im a dem....lol...funny.

Soooo anarchist.....?

 

[saveliberty]

Liberal cheese keeps sliding a little further south everyday.

 

[The Original Tree]

View attachment 114443

Well played, young man.

You punked those pig-ignorant Trump supporters, and how.

We are still waiting for The Democrat Party to show us Their UBER BOMB in the form of actual evidence that The DNC server was hacked.

They could have won the election with that easily in a landslide. It'd be enough to rally a call for an impeachment if they wanted.

All they have to do is let The FBI, DOJ, CIA, or anyone to look at it.

Why won't they show us?