tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[Oldstyle]

Cons always forget that the 1950's were largely great because of the stimulus spending resulting from the national road-building projects championed by a REPUBLICAN president, by the name of Eisenhower. Seems cons forget that little fact. Hell, poor guy would have been kicked out of the party by current neo-cons.



Funny how that works. Significant deficit spending and a strong economy. And back then, republicans supported the project as well.

Actually the 50's were great because WWII had just ended and we were the only major power without major damage to our economy. Most of the rest of the industrialized world was in shambles. It's hard NOT to succeed when you're the only game in town.

But don't let reality intrude on your silly notion about deficit spending being the be all and end all, Rshermr!

Right. Which also explains the fact that after wwI we did so well. Oh. Yeah. We went into an immediate depression. Because we had hundreds of thousands of gi's coming home, who could not find jobs. And no few nations with sufficient demand for our products because they were in shambles because of the war. Kind of like after wwii.

Really, oldstyle, nice try. But getting your talking points from the bat shit crazy conservative web sites just does not work.
Perhaps that is why you never show a link. Ya think???

Do you TRY to be stupid or is it just a gift? World War One ended in 1920. We then had the Roaring 20's. The depression didn't happen until 1929. That's nine years after WWI...so where is your "immediate depression"? Duh????????????????

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you need a "link" on THAT...you ignorant buffoon?

 

[Rshermr]

You honestly think that we've become a greater country because of Keynesian spending polices? Really? So you're all right with the 17 trillion in debt we now have? With the trillions more in unfunded entitlements that we've promised but in no way can deliver on?

I didn't ask for that spending. As a fiscal conservative it's the polar opposite of what I wanted to see done. The truth of the matter is that Keynes himself would have been horrified at what we've done.

^That^ didn't even make sense. If Keynes would have been horrified at what's been done, then it isn't what he'd have proposed, and couldn't rightfully be called "Keynesian."

It is widely agreed that the American "Golden Age" was the 1950s. Keynesian policies built that.

Reagans policies broke the backs of the people, and their good credit: his policies and the social darwinism wrapped in gawd & the flag that sold them.

Now, after the results of Reaganomics brought us to the brink of disaster, you want to blame what worked BEFORE for what happened over the past 40-50 years, years during which those theories were abandoned.

And you're shocked that I call what you're saying bullshit. Shocked.

If you knew Keynesian economic fundamentals then you'd know that Keynes wouldn't have been on board with this continual and out of control deficit spending. Keynes saw deficit spending as short term solution to spur an economy during an economic downturn...spending that would then be made up when the economy recovered. What we've seen over the past forty years is ever expanding deficit spending at even the hint of a slowdown and no cuts or tax raises to make up for that spending when we do have a boom.

Reagan's policies created more wealth in this country than any President before or after him. I know that you Progressives don't like to admit that...just as I know that you don't want to take your share of the blame for what's going on now. Listening to you people rant about this topic you would SWEAR that not a single Democrat, liberal or progressive had been anywhere NEAR Washington in the past twenty years! Sorry, Barb...you guys have been steadily piling on entitlements and regulations for decades now. So when the bill comes due on all these Progressive "wish lists" like ObamaCare? Is THAT going to the fault of conservatives as well?

Right. That reagan was a great fiscal conservative. I have proven this to you over and over. He was a Keynesian, plain and simple, in the end.
So, lets look. He started by raising taxes. Big time. The ue rate went to 10.8% and the deficit increased. So, he had then created the worst unemployment since the great depression. Worst, me boy. Not just a bit bad. Well worse than the great republican recession of 2008.
Now, being a staunch fiscal conservative, he had promised that his tax decreases would spur business and thereby increase gov revenues, and also, as a result decrease unemployment. If you will remember, his opponent in the republican party had called that voodoo economics. And, kind of went that way, me boy. Because the unemployment rate went UP, receipts went DOWN, and the deficit went up like a rocket. From about 2.6% of GDP to 6% of GDP.
Now, the problem with a democratic republic like the united states is that people choose their leaders. And, in the poles at that time, 2 years plus into the presidency, Reagan was about as popular as a fart in church. His poll numbers, me boy, SUCKED.
So, what does Reagan do??? Why he starts SPENDING. You know, Keynesian style. But he needed to finance his projects, and he did not want to increase the deficit. Had an irrational problem with that issue, like all republicans SAY they do. (In fact, in every case, the biggest deficit increases have happened during republican presidencies. Proving that famous belief voiced by Cheney, that deficits don't matter) So, he increased taxes 11 times to finance his stimulus spending. And, what do you know. The economy got much, much better. He waited until the economy got strong, then tried it all again. Another huge tax decrease. And created the great economic downturn that bush 1 faced. The one that cost him the election. You know, to that famous bad guy, in your circles, at any rate. Clinton, who raised rates and spent providing the best economy in this countries history.

Yup that reagan, he was a great fiscal conservative. Created more government than any president EVER. And he did not have to. He just loved spending. Never stopped.

So, me boy, anyone can call themselves a fiscal conservative. Cheap talk. Because for you, that simply means that you are posting from the bat shit crazy con web sites. ALWAYS.
What you can not do is show where increases in the deficit have EVER hurt during bad economic times. Because, of course, they do NOT hurt. Done properly, they always, always, always help. Low aggregate demand creates depressions. Period. When you follow policies that increase unemployment, aggregate demand decreases. Period. And when you follow stimulative spending policies, you get increased aggregate demand. Always. And when you increase aggregate demand during downturns, you get improvements in employment numbers and improvements in the economy, as measured by gdp. Always. JUST AS DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.

Now, I have proven this to you many times. But it does not seem to stick. Maybe your memory is short, so let me help you AGAIN. So you can go out to the bat shit crazy con web sites again and post MORE revisionist history.

The ue rate by the end of january of 1981, when reagan took office, was 7.4%. It had been dropping since July of 1980, when it had reached a high of 7.8%. Then, it went UP. (try to follow, oldstyle. the unemployment rate is BETTER when it decreases, and WORSE when it increases. Kind of like golf scores). After the great Reagan tax decreases, the unemployment rate went UP.

The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%

The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

And tax receipts went DOWN. And Aggregate demand DECREASED. And the Reagan administration raised taxes, and spent stimulatively.
Then, and only then, did the economy do well. Because, as I have explained to you time after time after time, you can decrease taxes during GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES and have good results. Many presidents, including reagan in his middle and later years have done so.

Now, not that it was a bad thing in reality, but a bad thing in con terms, the deficit, which had not been over 4.2% of GDP since the great depression soared to 6.2% under reagan's policies. Panic city for cons. Here. You can actually find truth in the numbers, me boy.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The nice thing about being a con is that you are capable of believing what you want to believe. It is so comforting to cons. And, by going to the bat shit crazy con web sites, and watching fox, you can get to feeling sooooo good. But you are existing, me boy, in a delusion. Come on out to the world of rational people some day, and look at facts instead of revisionist history. Reagan's economy was indeed good IN THE END. But only after using Keynesian stimulative policies.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, being devoid of knowledge of economic history, makes the following stunning statement:

Do you TRY to be stupid or is it just a gift? World War One ended in 1920. We then had the Roaring 20's. The depression didn't happen until 1929. That's nine years after WWI...so where is your "immediate depression"? Duh????????????????

Now, now, me boy. I know you are a simple dishwasher. So you are getting all pissy saying I am dumb for saying there was a recession after wwI. But you see, what you missed were THE FACTS. Not your fault, oldstyle. You are a con. You live in the bat shit crazy con sites. So, let me take you into the world or RATIONAL people:
The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I.
Now, I tried to keep it simple. That was just a basic Wikipedia quote.

Here, me poor ignorant con. Try this one:

The Panic of 1920 started out as a contender for the greatest depression of all time, with a drop in prices and production during its first twelve months that dwarfed those of any other economic crash, and she piled on an unemployment rate that skyrocketed from invisible to 12% in a flash.
RealClearMarkets - 1920: The Great Depression That Wasn't

now, should you need it, I can provide you with links to actual factual information about why the economy went well for years after the recession of 1920 (you know, the one you said did not exist) and why the policies of that period LED to the great depression of 1929. (Glad to see that you did notice that little downturn.)

Jesus, oldstyle, sometimes you are just too easy. And as always, an economic idiot.

 

[Rshermr]

Do you need a "link" on THAT...you ignorant buffoon?

Do you just post so we can all get some comic relief. Read the above post, if you are capable. Try to understand why you need to try to be rational. Bat shit crazy con web sites do not help you. You see, me boy, there WAS a depression after wwi. You were simply ignorant of it.
Blaming YOUR IGNORANCE on others who simply give you facts is childish. Someone gave you bad invormation. Perhaps the bat shit crazy con sites you frequent. You should be pissed at them. I just tried to help you to understand THE TRUTH. You should be thankful to me, dipshit.

Here. Let me help you more. Read this to understand your mental malfunction:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ews-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, being devoid of knowledge of economic history, makes the following stunning statement:

Do you TRY to be stupid or is it just a gift? World War One ended in 1920. We then had the Roaring 20's. The depression didn't happen until 1929. That's nine years after WWI...so where is your "immediate depression"? Duh????????????????

Now, now, me boy. I know you are a simple dishwasher. So you are getting all pissy saying I am dumb for saying there was a recession after wwI. But you see, what you missed were THE FACTS. Not your fault, oldstyle. You are a con. You live in the bat shit crazy con sites. So, let me take you into the world or RATIONAL people:
The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I.
Now, I tried to keep it simple. That was just a basic Wikipedia quote.

Here, me poor ignorant con. Try this one:

The Panic of 1920 started out as a contender for the greatest depression of all time, with a drop in prices and production during its first twelve months that dwarfed those of any other economic crash, and she piled on an unemployment rate that skyrocketed from invisible to 12% in a flash.
RealClearMarkets - 1920: The Great Depression That Wasn't

now, should you need it, I can provide you with links to actual factual information about why the economy went well for years after the recession of 1920 (you know, the one you said did not exist) and why the policies of that period LED to the great depression of 1929. (Glad to see that you did notice that little downturn.)

Jesus, oldstyle, sometimes you are just too easy. And as always, an economic idiot.

You said depression, Sparky...did a depression happen or a short recession? Oh, let me guess...the "Economics major" doesn't know the difference between the two? Just one more example of why you're full of shit when you try and make yourself out to be something that you OBVIOUSLY are not!

 

[Oldstyle]

And if you'd actually READ your RealClearMarkets piece you'd note that the response to this "crisis" by the Government was essentially to do nothing more than cut Federal spending by almost 50%. So what does THAT almost immediate recovery say to your notion that "stimulus" is what is always needed to get out of recessions?

Your own cites disprove your essential argument which once again illustrates how monumentally stupid you actually are!

 

[Oldstyle]

^That^ didn't even make sense. If Keynes would have been horrified at what's been done, then it isn't what he'd have proposed, and couldn't rightfully be called "Keynesian."

It is widely agreed that the American "Golden Age" was the 1950s. Keynesian policies built that.

Reagans policies broke the backs of the people, and their good credit: his policies and the social darwinism wrapped in gawd & the flag that sold them.

Now, after the results of Reaganomics brought us to the brink of disaster, you want to blame what worked BEFORE for what happened over the past 40-50 years, years during which those theories were abandoned.

And you're shocked that I call what you're saying bullshit. Shocked.

If you knew Keynesian economic fundamentals then you'd know that Keynes wouldn't have been on board with this continual and out of control deficit spending. Keynes saw deficit spending as short term solution to spur an economy during an economic downturn...spending that would then be made up when the economy recovered. What we've seen over the past forty years is ever expanding deficit spending at even the hint of a slowdown and no cuts or tax raises to make up for that spending when we do have a boom.

Reagan's policies created more wealth in this country than any President before or after him. I know that you Progressives don't like to admit that...just as I know that you don't want to take your share of the blame for what's going on now. Listening to you people rant about this topic you would SWEAR that not a single Democrat, liberal or progressive had been anywhere NEAR Washington in the past twenty years! Sorry, Barb...you guys have been steadily piling on entitlements and regulations for decades now. So when the bill comes due on all these Progressive "wish lists" like ObamaCare? Is THAT going to the fault of conservatives as well?

Right. That reagan was a great fiscal conservative. I have proven this to you over and over. He was a Keynesian, plain and simple, in the end.
So, lets look. He started by raising taxes. Big time. The ue rate went to 10.8% and the deficit increased. So, he had then created the worst unemployment since the great depression. Worst, me boy. Not just a bit bad. Well worse than the great republican recession of 2008.
Now, being a staunch fiscal conservative, he had promised that his tax decreases would spur business and thereby increase gov revenues, and also, as a result decrease unemployment. If you will remember, his opponent in the republican party had called that voodoo economics. And, kind of went that way, me boy. Because the unemployment rate went UP, receipts went DOWN, and the deficit went up like a rocket. From about 2.6% of GDP to 6% of GDP.
Now, the problem with a democratic republic like the united states is that people choose their leaders. And, in the poles at that time, 2 years plus into the presidency, Reagan was about as popular as a fart in church. His poll numbers, me boy, SUCKED.
So, what does Reagan do??? Why he starts SPENDING. You know, Keynesian style. But he needed to finance his projects, and he did not want to increase the deficit. Had an irrational problem with that issue, like all republicans SAY they do. (In fact, in every case, the biggest deficit increases have happened during republican presidencies. Proving that famous belief voiced by Cheney, that deficits don't matter) So, he increased taxes 11 times to finance his stimulus spending. And, what do you know. The economy got much, much better. He waited until the economy got strong, then tried it all again. Another huge tax decrease. And created the great economic downturn that bush 1 faced. The one that cost him the election. You know, to that famous bad guy, in your circles, at any rate. Clinton, who raised rates and spent providing the best economy in this countries history.

Yup that reagan, he was a great fiscal conservative. Created more government than any president EVER. And he did not have to. He just loved spending. Never stopped.

So, me boy, anyone can call themselves a fiscal conservative. Cheap talk. Because for you, that simply means that you are posting from the bat shit crazy con web sites. ALWAYS.
What you can not do is show where increases in the deficit have EVER hurt during bad economic times. Because, of course, they do NOT hurt. Done properly, they always, always, always help. Low aggregate demand creates depressions. Period. When you follow policies that increase unemployment, aggregate demand decreases. Period. And when you follow stimulative spending policies, you get increased aggregate demand. Always. And when you increase aggregate demand during downturns, you get improvements in employment numbers and improvements in the economy, as measured by gdp. Always. JUST AS DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.

Now, I have proven this to you many times. But it does not seem to stick. Maybe your memory is short, so let me help you AGAIN. So you can go out to the bat shit crazy con web sites again and post MORE revisionist history.

The ue rate by the end of january of 1981, when reagan took office, was 7.4%. It had been dropping since July of 1980, when it had reached a high of 7.8%. Then, it went UP. (try to follow, oldstyle. the unemployment rate is BETTER when it decreases, and WORSE when it increases. Kind of like golf scores). After the great Reagan tax decreases, the unemployment rate went UP.

The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%

The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

And tax receipts went DOWN. And Aggregate demand DECREASED. And the Reagan administration raised taxes, and spent stimulatively.
Then, and only then, did the economy do well. Because, as I have explained to you time after time after time, you can decrease taxes during GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES and have good results. Many presidents, including reagan in his middle and later years have done so.

Now, not that it was a bad thing in reality, but a bad thing in con terms, the deficit, which had not been over 4.2% of GDP since the great depression soared to 6.2% under reagan's policies. Panic city for cons. Here. You can actually find truth in the numbers, me boy.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The nice thing about being a con is that you are capable of believing what you want to believe. It is so comforting to cons. And, by going to the bat shit crazy con web sites, and watching fox, you can get to feeling sooooo good. But you are existing, me boy, in a delusion. Come on out to the world of rational people some day, and look at facts instead of revisionist history. Reagan's economy was indeed good IN THE END. But only after using Keynesian stimulative policies.

Unemployment went up because Reagan was facing the Stagflation that Carter left him. His solution was to tighten up the money supply first to bring down inflation and then to attack unemployment with tax cuts. Raising interest rates will cause unemployment rates to increase. Reagan understood that yet felt it needed to be done. That's called political courage and leadership.

Your claim that Reagan raised taxes is technically correct...he did raise a number of taxes...but overall Reagan was a tax cutter. You'd know that if you were looking at the actual numbers rather than culling your "misinformation" from progressive leaning web sites that make bashing Ronald Reagan a cottage industry.

 

[Meathead]

History speaks for itself, and for Reagan. Some people need to get over it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Progressives have intensified their attacks on Reagan because they don't want to talk about the Obama record.

It's called misdirection...

 

[Rshermr]

And if you'd actually READ your RealClearMarkets piece you'd note that the response to this "crisis" by the Government was essentially to do nothing more than cut Federal spending by almost 50%. So what does THAT almost immediate recovery say to your notion that "stimulus" is what is always needed to get out of recessions?

Your own cites disprove your essential argument which once again illustrates how monumentally stupid you actually are!

Good. You now admit that there was a recession. See how good it feels to admit you were wrong??

 

[Oldstyle]

And if you'd actually READ your RealClearMarkets piece you'd note that the response to this "crisis" by the Government was essentially to do nothing more than cut Federal spending by almost 50%. So what does THAT almost immediate recovery say to your notion that "stimulus" is what is always needed to get out of recessions?

Your own cites disprove your essential argument which once again illustrates how monumentally stupid you actually are!

Good. You now admit that there was a recession. See how good it feels to admit you were wrong??

I never claimed there wasn't a recession. YOU on the other hand claimed that there was a DEPRESSION immediately following WWI!

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, being devoid of knowledge of economic history, makes the following stunning statement:

Do you TRY to be stupid or is it just a gift? World War One ended in 1920. We then had the Roaring 20's. The depression didn't happen until 1929. That's nine years after WWI...so where is your "immediate depression"? Duh????????????????

Now, now, me boy. I know you are a simple dishwasher. So you are getting all pissy saying I am dumb for saying there was a recession after wwI. But you see, what you missed were THE FACTS. Not your fault, oldstyle. You are a con. You live in the bat shit crazy con sites. So, let me take you into the world or RATIONAL people:
The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I.
Now, I tried to keep it simple. That was just a basic Wikipedia quote.

Here, me poor ignorant con. Try this one:

The Panic of 1920 started out as a contender for the greatest depression of all time, with a drop in prices and production during its first twelve months that dwarfed those of any other economic crash, and she piled on an unemployment rate that skyrocketed from invisible to 12% in a flash.
RealClearMarkets - 1920: The Great Depression That Wasn't

now, should you need it, I can provide you with links to actual factual information about why the economy went well for years after the recession of 1920 (you know, the one you said did not exist) and why the policies of that period LED to the great depression of 1929. (Glad to see that you did notice that little downturn.)

Jesus, oldstyle, sometimes you are just too easy. And as always, an economic idiot.

You said depression, Sparky...did a depression happen or a short recession? Oh, let me guess...the "Economics major" doesn't know the difference between the two? Just one more example of why you're full of shit when you try and make yourself out to be something that you OBVIOUSLY are not!

Na, me poor ignorant con tool. Read above. I said recession. Get a clue.
The important thing is you said that after wwi there was an immediate roaring 20's, with no downturn. Just trying to educate you. sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding truth.

 

[Oldstyle]

Didn't know the difference between the two...did you? LOL

 

[Meathead]

Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance.

As close as any has ever come. Phenomenally successful too.

Get thee a history book not written by a Progressive.

You are such a con. You believe that those who disagree with you, who basically includes everyone except other con tools, are progressives. I have read PLENTY of economic history. Never found an economist that was not on the payroll of the bat shit crazy con web sites that agree that the us was ever a libertarian economy. Perhaps you have one.
The main thing, me boy, is that libertarian economies have started, simply NEVER succeeded. That is what history would teach you, if you actually read it.
Second, you are desperate enough to try to suggest looking at the US in the past as libertarian. It was not. But more importantly, you can not name a current one. Which makes you, well, a desperate con tool.

Wow, great argument dud! ?ROTFLMAO. I wouldn't normally say something like that, but it seemed appropriate> !

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, being devoid of knowledge of economic history, makes the following stunning statement:


Now, now, me boy. I know you are a simple dishwasher. So you are getting all pissy saying I am dumb for saying there was a recession after wwI. But you see, what you missed were THE FACTS. Not your fault, oldstyle. You are a con. You live in the bat shit crazy con sites. So, let me take you into the world or RATIONAL people:
The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I.
Now, I tried to keep it simple. That was just a basic Wikipedia quote.

Here, me poor ignorant con. Try this one:


now, should you need it, I can provide you with links to actual factual information about why the economy went well for years after the recession of 1920 (you know, the one you said did not exist) and why the policies of that period LED to the great depression of 1929. (Glad to see that you did notice that little downturn.)

Jesus, oldstyle, sometimes you are just too easy. And as always, an economic idiot.

You said depression, Sparky...did a depression happen or a short recession? Oh, let me guess...the "Economics major" doesn't know the difference between the two? Just one more example of why you're full of shit when you try and make yourself out to be something that you OBVIOUSLY are not!

Na, me poor ignorant con tool. Read above. I said recession. Get a clue.
The important thing is you said that after wwi there was an immediate roaring 20's, with no downturn. Just trying to educate you. sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding truth.

No, you said depression...

"Right. Which also explains the fact that after wwI we did so well. Oh. Yeah. We went into an immediate depression."

Sound familiar? Doh!!!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, being devoid of knowledge of economic history, makes the following stunning statement:


Now, now, me boy. I know you are a simple dishwasher. So you are getting all pissy saying I am dumb for saying there was a recession after wwI. But you see, what you missed were THE FACTS. Not your fault, oldstyle. You are a con. You live in the bat shit crazy con sites. So, let me take you into the world or RATIONAL people:
The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I.
Now, I tried to keep it simple. That was just a basic Wikipedia quote.

Here, me poor ignorant con. Try this one:


now, should you need it, I can provide you with links to actual factual information about why the economy went well for years after the recession of 1920 (you know, the one you said did not exist) and why the policies of that period LED to the great depression of 1929. (Glad to see that you did notice that little downturn.)

Jesus, oldstyle, sometimes you are just too easy. And as always, an economic idiot.

You said depression, Sparky...did a depression happen or a short recession? Oh, let me guess...the "Economics major" doesn't know the difference between the two? Just one more example of why you're full of shit when you try and make yourself out to be something that you OBVIOUSLY are not!

Na, me poor ignorant con tool. Read above. I said recession. Get a clue.
The important thing is you said that after wwi there was an immediate roaring 20's, with no downturn. Just trying to educate you. sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding truth.

Where did I say there was no downturn? I simply stated that you were completely wrong about WWI being followed immediately by a depression. There was a recession in 1920...a recession that was quickly addressed and cured with spending cuts by government...which in case you don't realize is totally at odds with your claim that stimulus spending by government is the only correct response to an economic downturn.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, an economics expert in his own mind, says:

Unemployment went up because Reagan was facing the Stagflation that Carter left him. His solution was to tighten up the money supply first to bring down inflation and then to attack unemployment with tax cuts. Raising interest rates will cause unemployment rates to increase. Reagan understood that yet felt it needed to be done. That's called political courage and leadership.

Uh, you should check your history, me boy. Yup, indeed, interest rates were a problem. But it is not a president, but the FED, that raises interest rates. That would have been Paul Volcker. The guy the reagan got fired later in his administration. Now, the problem was, while interest rates were very high, that had happened during the later stages of the Carter administration. And the unemployment rates had begun decreasing by 1980. They went up like a rocket AFTER reagan's tax administration did their famous tax decreases with accompanying spending decreases during his first couple of years. So, me boy, perhaps you should suggest that Volcker had the courage and leadership.
w

Your claim that Reagan raised taxes is technically correct...he did raise a number of taxes...but overall Reagan was a tax cutter. You'd know that if you were looking at the actual numbers rather than culling your "misinformation" from progressive leaning web sites that make bashing Ronald Reagan a cottage industry.

Me poor ignorant con. I did not say reagan was a tax increaser. That is what you are saying that I am saying. Really, you need to be honest some times. However, it is true, and I have proved to you before, that reagan did increase taxes 11 times. And he borrowed more than all presidents before him combined. Remember, he increased the national debt more than all presidents before him combined.

The problem you have with my sources, me boy, is that to you anything short of fox is progressive leaning in your little mind. The numbers are mostly from the bls. Sorry, me boy.

Perhaps you have sources that are that impartial suggesting that my links are wrong??? Of course you don't.

 

[Rshermr]

You said depression, Sparky...did a depression happen or a short recession? Oh, let me guess...the "Economics major" doesn't know the difference between the two? Just one more example of why you're full of shit when you try and make yourself out to be something that you OBVIOUSLY are not!

Na, me poor ignorant con tool. Read above. I said recession. Get a clue.
The important thing is you said that after wwi there was an immediate roaring 20's, with no downturn. Just trying to educate you. sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding truth.

No, you said depression...

"Right. Which also explains the fact that after wwI we did so well. Oh. Yeah. We went into an immediate depression."

Sound familiar? Doh!!!!!

Maybe I used the wrong word. I make mistakes. Unlike you. So, is that it, me boy. You now understand that there was a downturn prior to the Roaring 20's. Good.
Again, see how refreshing it is to admit that you were wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, an economics expert in his own mind, says:

Unemployment went up because Reagan was facing the Stagflation that Carter left him. His solution was to tighten up the money supply first to bring down inflation and then to attack unemployment with tax cuts. Raising interest rates will cause unemployment rates to increase. Reagan understood that yet felt it needed to be done. That's called political courage and leadership.

Uh, you should check your history, me boy. Yup, indeed, interest rates were a problem. But it is not a president, but the FED, that raises interest rates. That would have been Paul Volcker. The guy the reagan got fired later in his administration. Now, the problem was, while interest rates were very high, that had happened during the later stages of the Carter administration. And the unemployment rates had begun decreasing by 1980. They went up like a rocket AFTER reagan's tax administration did their famous tax decreases with accompanying spending decreases during his first couple of years. So, me boy, perhaps you should suggest that Volcker had the courage and leadership.
w

Your claim that Reagan raised taxes is technically correct...he did raise a number of taxes...but overall Reagan was a tax cutter. You'd know that if you were looking at the actual numbers rather than culling your "misinformation" from progressive leaning web sites that make bashing Ronald Reagan a cottage industry.

Me poor ignorant con. I did not say reagan was a tax increaser. That is what you are saying that I am saying. Really, you need to be honest some times. However, it is true, and I have proved to you before, that reagan did increase taxes 11 times. And he borrowed more than all presidents before him combined. Remember, he increased the national debt more than all presidents before him combined.

The problem you have with my sources, me boy, is that to you anything short of fox is progressive leaning in your little mind. The numbers are mostly from the bls. Sorry, me boy.

Perhaps you have sources that are that impartial suggesting that my links are wrong??? Of course you don't.

So you admit that Reagan lowered taxes? So what is all your bluster about his increasing taxes 11 times? Oh, that's right...you're attempting to mislead people about what really took place during Reagan's two terms! So why are you doing that? Oh, that's right...you don't want to admit that what Reagan DID actually worked.