Ronald Reagan - Prophet

[GuyPinestra]

Care to dispute any of the statement, del, or are you satisfied demonstrating your ignorance with childish insults?

 

[regent]

Prove we owe foreign nations more than they owe us. And, prove foreign nations owed foreign nations more than they owed us during Reagan. That's your challenge. The fact is, we likely don't owe any nation as much as some people would likely try to believe we do. Many nations were still in debt to us from WWI, WWII and several other incidents involving military activity as well as other activity.

Furthermore, federal debt isn't exclusively a matter of how much it is the United States owes some other country. There is internal debt and external debt, both of which are part of the federal debt. Go ahead, show us how much it is we owe in external debt, then prove this is more than what they owe us.

I don't do research for posters no more than a teacher does research for students.

You don't do research for yourself, is more like it. You make baseless claims, then just simply can't back up your claims.

I would suggest you do your own; in this day it is the easiest of tasks.

I just did do my own and I told you your claims are dubious based on my findings.

In fact, I would suggest you do it before you post. But I'll help you this once google "Reagan debtor nation."

I'm not interested in your liberal bash-Reagan rags. If you're going to make claims like this, "In the sense that we own foreign nations more than they owe us, we became a debtor nation under Reagan"? You need to back them up. And, I'm not asking you to back up your claim the U.S. became a debtor nation under Reagan. I'm asking you to back up your claim "we own(sic) foreign nations more than they owe us". You make the claim, YOU ought to be prepared to back it up "before you post"...skippy.

In a formal debate I would have to submit evidence, but these boards are not formal debates. Every poster could demand proof of anything, and once evidence is submitted, then reject the evidence as insufficient and demand more. Not a game I'll play.
If you doubt my argument that we are now a debtor nation and it happened on Reagan's watch then don't accept it, I really don't care if you accept it or not. But do your own homework. By this time I suspect that you have checked and have seen the evidence for yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ronald Reagan - Prophet

Here's a more fitting title: Ronald Reagan - Puppet

"A Chance for Leftists to Spew Vapid Hatred" would have been accurate, but that's really a by-product, rather than my actual topic.

Now run along, Junior. The grown-ups are trying to discuss ACTUAL topic points and issues. Get someone else to change your dirty diaper.

 

[Cecilie1200]

During Reagan's presidency, the US went from a creditor to debtor nation and marked a take-off for financial inequality.

Reagan Mythology is Leading US Off a Cliff

If I want to read idiot leftist blogs, I can go look them up myself, so stop wasting screen space in here with them. I already have surfeit of idiot leftists right here on the board, thanks so much.

 

[del]

Care to dispute any of the statement, del, or are you satisfied demonstrating your ignorance with childish insults?

i'd just as soon laugh at you, if you don't mind.

thanks for asking, though.

who do you think mitt will nominate for secdef?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Care to dispute any of the statement, del, or are you satisfied demonstrating your ignorance with childish insults?

You HAVE read Del's posts before, haven't you? You should just be glad he doesn't ALSO feel compelled to tell you all about his sexual fantasies about you.

 

[del]

During Reagan's presidency, the US went from a creditor to debtor nation and marked a take-off for financial inequality.

Reagan Mythology is Leading US Off a Cliff

If I want to read idiot leftist blogs, I can go look them up myself, so stop wasting screen space in here with them. I already have surfeit of idiot leftists right here on the board, thanks so much.

idiot leftists are like butt plugs, cesspool, you can never have too many

amirite?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't do research for posters no more than a teacher does research for students.

You don't do research for yourself, is more like it. You make baseless claims, then just simply can't back up your claims.



I just did do my own and I told you your claims are dubious based on my findings.

In fact, I would suggest you do it before you post. But I'll help you this once google "Reagan debtor nation."

I'm not interested in your liberal bash-Reagan rags. If you're going to make claims like this, "In the sense that we own foreign nations more than they owe us, we became a debtor nation under Reagan"? You need to back them up. And, I'm not asking you to back up your claim the U.S. became a debtor nation under Reagan. I'm asking you to back up your claim "we own(sic) foreign nations more than they owe us". You make the claim, YOU ought to be prepared to back it up "before you post"...skippy.

In a formal debate I would have to submit evidence, but these boards are not formal debates. Every poster could demand proof of anything, and once evidence is submitted, then reject the evidence as insufficient and demand more. Not a game I'll play.
If you doubt my argument that we are now a debtor nation and it happened on Reagan's watch then don't accept it, I really don't care if you accept it or not. But do your own homework. By this time I suspect that you have checked and have seen the evidence for yourself.

In other words, "I said it, and you just have to take my word for it, because I don't have any proof, and now I'm going to bullshit you about how I really have REAMS about it, but I'm JUST too lofty to be bothered on a piddly little message board, and you wouldn't accept it anyway. Oh, and I think substantiating MY dumbass claims is YOUR job, so go out there and prove me right!"

Or, in the shorter version, "I'm a lying shitstain and you caught me!"

 

[del]

You don't do research for yourself, is more like it. You make baseless claims, then just simply can't back up your claims.



I just did do my own and I told you your claims are dubious based on my findings.



I'm not interested in your liberal bash-Reagan rags. If you're going to make claims like this, "In the sense that we own foreign nations more than they owe us, we became a debtor nation under Reagan"? You need to back them up. And, I'm not asking you to back up your claim the U.S. became a debtor nation under Reagan. I'm asking you to back up your claim "we own(sic) foreign nations more than they owe us". You make the claim, YOU ought to be prepared to back it up "before you post"...skippy.

In a formal debate I would have to submit evidence, but these boards are not formal debates. Every poster could demand proof of anything, and once evidence is submitted, then reject the evidence as insufficient and demand more. Not a game I'll play.
If you doubt my argument that we are now a debtor nation and it happened on Reagan's watch then don't accept it, I really don't care if you accept it or not. But do your own homework. By this time I suspect that you have checked and have seen the evidence for yourself.

In other words, "I said it, and you just have to take my word for it, because I don't have any proof, and now I'm going to bullshit you about how I really have REAMS about it, but I'm JUST too lofty to be bothered on a piddly little message board, and you wouldn't accept it anyway. Oh, and I think substantiating MY dumbass claims is YOUR job, so go out there and prove me right!"

Or, in the shorter version, "I'm a lying shitstain and you caught me!"

we know, cesspool, but we cut you some slack because of your obvious emotional problems.

now, go have a cookie.

 

[Bfgrn]

For all their bluster about how they don't trust government, Republicans have a very passionate devotion to a man who doubled the spending and deficits of Carter.

For every dollar Reagan took from social programs, he put ten dollars into defense to pay for things like the Star Wars Missile Defense Shield - which was a complete hoax.

Reagan was the first president to abandon "pay as you go". FDR had more of a commitment to balanced budgets than Reagan by an embarrassing margin. Reagan's deficits are historic. He created a more expensive government than Carter ever dreamed possible. For god's sakes, he radically increased the size of the government work force in order to combat the unemployment Volker caused by raising interest rates. Obama was forced to cut off aid to the states, so they had to shed massive jobs. Reagan kept the piggy bank open for the states, bailing them out so they could maintain their work forces.

Reagan was fucking MASSIVE spender.

And yet he had the audacity to warn us about taxation?

Ronnie, we're still trying to pay off your debts.

How is it that the Republican party is raising a generation of people who don't know history.

The OP is getting history from political speeches. He not only trusts government leaders, he gets his education from them.

God help us.

Nice try, pissbrain, but no dice.

1) Distrusting government does NOT mean thinking there should be no government at all, or that there are not specific and proper purviews for government, no matter how often you disingenuous liberal hacks want to try to force this "all-or-nothing" canard onto us.

2) National security is one of the federal government's proper areas of interest; social programs are not. Thus, we did indeed not mind at all taking money away from useless welfare giveaways to put into defense spending and win the Cold War, and if you're looking for us to apologize for it because it doesn't meet with the approval of a vacuum-skull like you, I'd like to politely request that you PLEASE hold your breath while you wait for that to happen.

3) The Strategic Defense Initiative, which you leftist twerps insist on misnaming "Star Wars" (like being nicknamed after a cool movie is some sort of INSULT; you guys really suck at insulting, has anyone ever told you that?), was never a hoax, nor even a failure. History Resources

4) The President does not legally control federal spending, and never has. Congress does. Some Presidents have been very successful at getting Congress to rubberstamp their budget plans - or in Obama's case, just spend money like water without ever having a budget at all. Reagan was not one of those Presidents. Every single budget proposal he ever sent to Congress was proudly pronounced DOA by the Democrats.

5) If you ever feel the need to actually address the points in the OP, rather than just ranting on about how much you hate Ronald Reagan, DO let me know, won't you?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Seriously Cecilie, you are ignoring the facts. The chart clearly shows the spending Reagan and Bush proposed in their budgets and how Congress responded to their spending proposals.

And this is not a liberal calling out Reagan.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan Mythology is Leading US Off a Cliff

If I want to read idiot leftist blogs, I can go look them up myself, so stop wasting screen space in here with them. I already have surfeit of idiot leftists right here on the board, thanks so much.

idiot leftists are like butt plugs, cesspool, you can never have too many

amirite?

See what I mean, Guy? You should just be thankful YOU aren't the object of his sick, 50-year-old-virgin sex fantasies.

 

[del]

If I want to read idiot leftist blogs, I can go look them up myself, so stop wasting screen space in here with them. I already have surfeit of idiot leftists right here on the board, thanks so much.

idiot leftists are like butt plugs, cesspool, you can never have too many

amirite?

See what I mean, Guy? You should just be thankful YOU aren't the object of his sick, 50-year-old-virgin sex fantasies.

i wouldn't fuck you with guy's dick and romney pushing, you twisted bint..

 

[Cecilie1200]

In a formal debate I would have to submit evidence, but these boards are not formal debates. Every poster could demand proof of anything, and once evidence is submitted, then reject the evidence as insufficient and demand more. Not a game I'll play.
If you doubt my argument that we are now a debtor nation and it happened on Reagan's watch then don't accept it, I really don't care if you accept it or not. But do your own homework. By this time I suspect that you have checked and have seen the evidence for yourself.

In other words, "I said it, and you just have to take my word for it, because I don't have any proof, and now I'm going to bullshit you about how I really have REAMS about it, but I'm JUST too lofty to be bothered on a piddly little message board, and you wouldn't accept it anyway. Oh, and I think substantiating MY dumbass claims is YOUR job, so go out there and prove me right!"

Or, in the shorter version, "I'm a lying shitstain and you caught me!"

we know, cesspool, but we cut you some slack because of your obvious emotional problems.

now, go have a cookie.

Like having a dog humping your leg. If I had a rolled-up newspaper, I'd swat him on the nose with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For all their bluster about how they don't trust government, Republicans have a very passionate devotion to a man who doubled the spending and deficits of Carter.

For every dollar Reagan took from social programs, he put ten dollars into defense to pay for things like the Star Wars Missile Defense Shield - which was a complete hoax.

Reagan was the first president to abandon "pay as you go". FDR had more of a commitment to balanced budgets than Reagan by an embarrassing margin. Reagan's deficits are historic. He created a more expensive government than Carter ever dreamed possible. For god's sakes, he radically increased the size of the government work force in order to combat the unemployment Volker caused by raising interest rates. Obama was forced to cut off aid to the states, so they had to shed massive jobs. Reagan kept the piggy bank open for the states, bailing them out so they could maintain their work forces.

Reagan was fucking MASSIVE spender.

And yet he had the audacity to warn us about taxation?

Ronnie, we're still trying to pay off your debts.

How is it that the Republican party is raising a generation of people who don't know history.

The OP is getting history from political speeches. He not only trusts government leaders, he gets his education from them.

God help us.

Nice try, pissbrain, but no dice.

1) Distrusting government does NOT mean thinking there should be no government at all, or that there are not specific and proper purviews for government, no matter how often you disingenuous liberal hacks want to try to force this "all-or-nothing" canard onto us.

2) National security is one of the federal government's proper areas of interest; social programs are not. Thus, we did indeed not mind at all taking money away from useless welfare giveaways to put into defense spending and win the Cold War, and if you're looking for us to apologize for it because it doesn't meet with the approval of a vacuum-skull like you, I'd like to politely request that you PLEASE hold your breath while you wait for that to happen.

3) The Strategic Defense Initiative, which you leftist twerps insist on misnaming "Star Wars" (like being nicknamed after a cool movie is some sort of INSULT; you guys really suck at insulting, has anyone ever told you that?), was never a hoax, nor even a failure. History Resources

4) The President does not legally control federal spending, and never has. Congress does. Some Presidents have been very successful at getting Congress to rubberstamp their budget plans - or in Obama's case, just spend money like water without ever having a budget at all. Reagan was not one of those Presidents. Every single budget proposal he ever sent to Congress was proudly pronounced DOA by the Democrats.

5) If you ever feel the need to actually address the points in the OP, rather than just ranting on about how much you hate Ronald Reagan, DO let me know, won't you?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Seriously Cecilie, you are ignoring the facts. The chart clearly shows the spending Reagan and Bush proposed in their budgets and how Congress responded to their spending proposals.

And this is not a liberal calling out Reagan.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Normally, I more-or-less ignore your posts, but I appreciate how much effort you must have gone to to find someone who cherrypicked the questions and tailored his answers so carefully to conform to what you wanted, and who I wouldn't laugh at derisively for being a blogger. Also, after Del, it's refreshing to talk to someone who's not fapping while he types. So I'm going to answer you this time.

First of all, please note that the your bolded part craftily switches halfway through from talking about "budget cuts" to cuts in TOTAL budget". I'm used to people constantly trying to redefine the topic mid-conversation, but redefining it mid-sentence is pretty ballsy.

Also, your bolded part is the ONLY place where your source really talks about REAGAN'S proposals, and then just makes a vague assertion that he doesn't follow-up. Everything else is about what actually got SPENT, and proving that Reagan was responsible for the spending, not Congress, by telling me blank total dollar amounts that were spent is . . . well, NOT proving anything.

Sorry, but again, you haven't disproven my statement. Reagan sent Congress budget proposals. The Democrats proudly pronounced them Dead On Arrival, and then wrote up their own budget bills. If you want to dispute that, you're going to have to show me a Reagan budget that Congress actually passed. Anything else is just diversion.

But again, thank you for at least trying to substantively address the topic.

 

[Chris]

Promoting the financial interest of the 1% is the true agenda of the Republican Party. The party's astronomical fundraising figures demonstrate this. Romney is one of them. To stay in power, the elites manipulate middle class voters into focusing on emotionally-charged social issues, while ignoring financial policies that undermine the existence of the middle class.

 

[Chris]

There was, in fact, only one time that capital gains were taxed at the same rates that were paid by people who earned their money by working. That was during the years 1988 to 1990, as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 — a law championed by President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Chris]

" We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory some of those loophole were understandable, but in practice, they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing." ~ Ronald Reagan.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan never had a Republican Congress

He did the best he could under the circumstances

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Promoting the financial interest of the 1% is the true agenda of the Republican Party. The party's astronomical fundraising figures demonstrate this. Romney is one of them. To stay in power, the elites manipulate middle class voters into focusing on emotionally-charged social issues, while ignoring financial policies that undermine the existence of the middle class.

Black unemployment was lower under Reagan than at any time under Obama, Clueless Class Warrior

 

[Lakhota]