NationStates Jolt Archive

To whomever is spamming Regan in '08... I hope to God for your sake that you are one of the top 1% of the wealthy in this nation (well, actually... I know you'll burn in your own special hell)!!! We are under the same piss on all the people (Trickle Down Economics) economic theory that that dumbass's administration developed which screwed our economy, leaving us in record national debt, as well as a huge amount of the populace in debt!!!

To further show how ignorant you are, if you unaware of this, most of the REAL PLAYERS in this administration were the same in Regan's. Do some research. Know your history. Know what you're talking about. You have had the same sorry, self-serving administration for twenty of the last twenty eight years. In the eight years it wasn't in power, our economy florished and our national debt was erased!!! Have you checked the status of the national and personal debt lately? Is this mere coincidence!? F#%! You... and everyone who is as ignorant, pathetic, and hopeless as you!!! :mp5:

Bush is nothing but an empty headed puppet, just as Regan was. At least his daddy had substance and intelligence, I'll give him that. He was just very misguided... and realized it. Double-ya is the most empty, vapid, and in the opinion of the majority of the world, evil, president we have had to date!!! There are people that want more of this!!? :upyours:

I have an idea... why don't we clone Hitler, Attilla the Hun, and Napoleon!!? This world will be a much happier and well led place!!!

P.S. Regan should have been defiled the same as Mousilini!!!

Tear down this thread!

what

Zombie Reagan '08!!!111

Tear down this thread!
Reagan smash!

Wouldn't it make more sense to hope they like evil, eye-gouging princesses?

Tear down this thread!

Do you want it taken down because you don't agree, don't understand, or are you sympathetic to people of the mindset to dominate and control the world? I invite intelligent response... however, this is the response of someone who disagrees, but has nothing to back it up. A Nazi or Communist action. If you don't agree with something or someone, destroy/get rid of it.

Are you the spammer I'm addressing!!? If you are, I'd love to take up a debate with you.

To any confused... Cheny and Rumsfeld (among others) were both significant members and confidants of the Regan administration as well. Please feel free to research for youself. The truth (and knowledge) will set you free.

Or... tear down this site!!! People express different viewpoints and this MUST NOT BE ALLOWED!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang:

Who is this Regan guy?

Who is this Regan guy?

The hip, cool, and mainly black man who invented R&B.

P.S. Regan should have been defiled the same as Mousilini!!!

The man is as dangerous as a pasta dish! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!

Tear down this thread!

Who is this Regan guy?

I'm aware it's Reagan... that's the way the spammer spelled it. My ire is mostly directed toward them. But hey, I guess no intelligence allowed, no points can be made, we're all just gonna make snide and childish comments with no substance.

To whomever is spamming Regan in '08... I hope to God for your sake that you are one of the top 1% of the wealthy in this nation (well, actually... I know you'll burn in your own special hell)!!! We are under the same piss on all the people (Trickle Down Economics) economic theory that that dumbass's administration developed which screwed our economy, leaving us in record national debt, as well as a huge amount of the populace in debt!!! by screw up the economy you mean grow at twice the rate of Europe's and Japans economy??? The debt was the only real issue. kinda funny since I lived in the 80's and I am middle class and I have yet to have had a better decade. prior to Reagen the economy was in Recession and inflation was at 10%. Regan dropped unemployment from about 10% to 5.5%.


To further show how ignorant you are, if you unaware of this, most of the REAL PLAYERS in this administration were the same in Regan's. Do some research. Know your history. Know what you're talking about. You have had the same sorry, self-serving administration for twenty of the last twenty eight years. In the eight years it wasn't in power, our economy florished and our national debt was erased!!! Have you checked the status of the national and personal debt lately? Is this mere coincidence!? F#%! You... and everyone who is as ignorant, pathetic, and hopeless as you!!! :mp5:

calling people names is by far a lower form of debate then those who Support Reagan. Though you are right the Clinton years were good.

Bush is nothing but an empty headed puppet, just as Regan was. At least his daddy had substance and intelligence, I'll give him that. He was just very misguided... and realized it. Double-ya is the most empty, vapid, and in the opinion of the majority of the world, evil, president we have had to date!!! There are people that want more of this!!? :upyours:

Reagan was far from empty headed he went against his advisers to lower tax rates (for everyone) and raise interest rates. Bush however favors low taxes (lower then Reagan) and Low interest rates (lower then Clinton)

I have an idea... why don't we clone Hitler, Attilla the Hun, and Napoleon!!? This world will be a much happier and well led place!!!

P.S. Regan should have been defiled the same as Mousilini!!!
to compare and elected leader who stepped down at the end of his tenor to dictators is rather poor form. Also to be fair Reagan has not the military skill to be a Napoleon or Attila.

I know you'll burn in your own special hell)!!! We are under the same piss on all the people (Trickle Down Economics) economic theory that that dumbass's administration developed which screwed our economy, leaving us in record national debt, as well as a huge amount of the populace in debt!!!
1. There is no such thing as "Trickle Down Economics". It's a media invention. The underlying logic is common to all economic theories, regardless whether it's Keynes, Schumpeter, Galbraith, Stiglitz, Krugman (before he became a hack) or Friedman.

2. The Reagan administration didn't develop these economic policies. He acknowledged that himself.

3. I don't think the US economy was screwed by the Reagan years at all. You can argue whether things got much better (the question coming down to whether you can credit the administration with lower inflation, or whether that was all due to the Fed), but they certainly didn't get any worse.

4. The big spending that left the government in such much extra debt wasn't part of the economic program that people mean with "Trickle Down Economics" at all. It was political spending, not economic. Blame Reagan's politics, not his economics.

5. Personal debt is not a government issue. People ended up in a lot of debt because they took on a lot of debt.

Reagan in '08 FTW!

Reagan already had two terms as president, so the constitution forbids his zombie from running.

1. There is no such thing as "Trickle Down Economics". It's a media invention. The underlying logic is common to all economic theories, regardless whether it's Keynes, Schumpeter, Galbraith, Stiglitz, Krugman (before he became a hack) or Friedman.

2. The Reagan administration didn't develop these economic policies. He acknowledged that himself.

3. I don't think the US economy was screwed by the Reagan years at all. You can argue whether things got much better (the question coming down to whether you can credit the administration with lower inflation, or whether that was all due to the Fed), but they certainly didn't get any worse.

4. The big spending that left the government in such much extra debt wasn't part of the economic program that people mean with "Trickle Down Economics" at all. It was political spending, not economic. Blame Reagan's politics, not his economics.

5. Personal debt is not a government issue. People ended up in a lot of debt because they took on a lot of debt.

Point four, well taken... the Federal Reserve (which is completely it's own entity) has sole control over interest rates and currency circulation. That is not my contention. However, our economy is far from just incumbant upon that. I am quite insulted by some of the rest of your assertions! I not only lived through the 80's (unfortunately) , but did a whole lot of researching then and til now as well. I am no idiot, but the spammer I am trying to call out is. Yes, I am stooping to their level. This is an extremely complicated and lenghthy subject/debate... unfortunately, you cannot have intelligent debate with someone incapable of intelligent thought! I am speaking of the spammer.

That being said, friendships and alliances within the Fed Reserve and government CAN influence how the Fed behaves and reacts. Please do not tell me you are unaware of the numerous connections between the Bush family and big business as well as the oil business/families (bin Laden family?). I find it strange that the Fed has behaved quite differently when a Bush was in a high level of government as opposed to when they weren't. Tax shelters and excessive loopholes for business and the wealthy were prevalent in the Reagan administration especially.

I am sorry, but I completely disagree with you on Reagan's intellience as well. He was a terrible movie actor (Bedtime for Bonzo... what a classic!?) who happened to be a pretty good orator and was electable on that characteristic and who (talent or not) had a well known/visible name to exploit when he ran for the California governorship. The rest is history.

Do you remember the the open mic at the U.N incident regarding the Russians!? VERY Double-ya like. He could only repeat the mantra of "I cannot recall" when questioned about the Iran Contra Affair by anyone, under oath or not. He was USED. I believe he had no idea of what was going on in his own administration as he consistantly insisted. One could go on forever with examples... but I do not find that worth my time.

Also, he started going senile (not joking, or talking out of my ass) during his second term. Nancy herself stated that after his death. WHO WAS REALLY IN CHARGE OF RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT THEN!!? The same people who were all along.

Someone else made an ignorant comment asking how I could compare an elected official to dictators. Again, completely missing the point. I was trying to flush out this spammer into a debate, knowing the mindset of such a person. But as I thought, they don't seem capable of intelligent debate or are cowards. I have yet to see a response from them. On top of that, does ANYBODY think we have a popular election after the 2000 and current elections!? That saddens me. :( I thought the last few elections brought attention to the real way our electoral process works, which is a whole new debate. I am refering to the electoral college and democratic "Super" or "Pledged" delegates (I love how people try to use semantics. "It's not a frisbee, it's a flying disk!"), which are two different debates in and of themselves. Do people just not care to learn and empower themselves, much less pay attention to what is going on in the world around them? The 2000 election WAS NOT decided by the popular vote and should have thrown up a red flag to EVERY U.S. citizen, regardless of your political affiliation. Our system is far from perfect.

snip the venting

Ok, we get it. Your young, your pissed, and you want to find somerthing to hate. You picked something people use in their sigs for the lulz, or if they are expressing their distain for the Current democratic party primary going on the US., mainly in regards to how a certian individual whose name rymes with illary Linton is dragging out the race.

And, yes my sig has said that for a while

Point four, well taken... the Federal Reserve (which is completely it's own entity) has sole control over interest rates and currency circulation. That is not my contention. However, our economy is far from just incumbant upon that.
Obviously. But when Reagan came to office, the main issue in the US was inflation. Part of it was due to bad monetary policy in response to oil price hikes and so on, and you'd have to say the Fed was responsible for fixing that (though it hurt).

But the second reason for inflation is always capacity constraints of some form or another. And supply-side policies of the sort Reagan tried to get through (not that he really went very far...) are meant to make it easier to do business and therefore expand production capacity. It's a fix for a longer horizon, and you'd have to say that while it's very difficult to judge whether it worked (there were computers and all that stuff coming through as well to skew data on things like productivity), at least it didn't make things any worse.

In short: his policies combined well with the Fed's, which allowed the latter to build up the credibility it has today.

This is an extremely complicated and lenghthy subject/debate... unfortunately, you cannot have intelligent debate with someone incapable of intelligent thought! I am speaking of the spammer.
I'm of the opinion that you can engage anyone with a rational argument. If they won't listen, there's always the "ignore" option, but I've never had to use it.

I find it strange that the Fed has behaved quite differently when a Bush was in a high level of government as opposed to when they weren't.
I'm an economics student, so I'd be quite interested whether you can find any evidence for that. Central Bank independence is a pretty big deal.

Tax shelters and excessive loopholes for business and the wealthy were prevalent in the Reagan administration especially.
And before then marginal tax rates on top income brackets came to 80%+, so maybe it just made a shift in the other direction to return some sort of balance.

Those particular cuts happen to be a supply side policy, and as I mentioned above, they weren't introduced for no reason.

I am sorry, but I completely disagree with you on Reagan's intellience as well. He was a terrible movie actor (Bedtime for Bonzo... what a classic!?) who happened to be a pretty good orator and was electable on that characteristic and who (talent or not) had a well known/visible name to exploit when he ran for the California governorship. The rest is history.
Lots of presidents aren't particularly intelligent. If that were a requirement, you'd have had Franklin rather than Washington start your country.

The question is the quality of the staff surrounding the president.

Plus, I'd say Arnie has shown himself to be a pretty smart sort of politician, essentially having gone through the same career path.

1. There is no such thing as "Trickle Down Economics". It's a media invention. The underlying logic is common to all economic theories, regardless whether it's Keynes, Schumpeter, Galbraith, Stiglitz, Krugman (before he became a hack) or Friedman.

I remember hearing Trickle Down linked to a section in my U.S. History book somewhere between the 1920s-1950s. Although I can't remember whether the book used the term or my teacher did.

I think Regan is a pretty cool guy. eh rises from the dead and doesn't afraid of anything.

Who is this Regan guy?

A hilarious comic (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Brian+Regan&search_type=) Also, he's apparently a spy.

Oh, you meant Reagan, the President. My bad.

I remember hearing Trickle Down linked to a section in my U.S. History book somewhere between the 1920s-1950s. Although I can't remember whether the book used the term or my teacher did.

Try to guess what's trickling down. And it's not economic opportunity.

I hope the rich don't eat asparagus.

P.S. Regan should have been defiled the same as Mousilini!!!

It's more impressive if Reagan and Mussolini are spelled correctly.

Reagan was a very good President. He is the type we need. He is one tough SOB who doesn't take BS. People respected him internationally. The hostages were released right before he entered office. He really did scare the Russians.
Supply-Side economics does actually work much much better than Keynesian economics. If people have more money, they spend more buying stuff. The government taxes that stuff and gets the money it needs that way(unless congress spends more than it brings in, which ours seems to do quite well). FDR used Keynesian economics. He didn't bring us out of the depression, Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo did. If you look at Hitler's capitalist policies they worked very well. He brought Germany(which was in the worst shape in the depression. At the height of the German depression, one US dollar equaled one trillion deutch marks. A loaf of bread cost billions of marks) out faster than any other nation. The key to saving a faltering economy is not some type of economics, it is a massive increase in production(which is much easier to achieve with supply-side)

Ronald Reagan isn't a zombie. I am here to dispel this radical rumor.
He is a ghost in the White House. Duh. Just check Wikiality, the source of all Truthiness!

I remember hearing Trickle Down linked to a section in my U.S. History book somewhere between the 1920s-1950s. Although I can't remember whether the book used the term or my teacher did.
The idea is basically that when the total wealth of the economy grows, it can't be helped that living standards tend to rise for everyone. That doesn't mean they do it for everyone at the same rate, or to the same extent, but these improvements will eventually reach the poorest in some way, shape or form if they are at all able to participate in economic activity.

It's a long-term process, and no one ever claims it to be anything else. Except the media, when they try to make it look bad.

And as I said, the basic idea is not disputed in macroeconomics. There is no school/ideology that denies its existence, so it's not associated with Republicans, Reagan or libertarians. And if you want empirical support, here it is: http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jecgro/v7y2002i3p195-225.html

Supply-Side economics does actually work much much better than Keynesian economics. If people have more money, they spend more buying stuff. The government taxes that stuff and gets the money it needs that way(unless congress spends more than it brings in, which ours seems to do quite well).
You do realise of course that you are in fact talking about Keynesianism, right? :p

FDR used Keynesian economics. He didn't bring us out of the depression, Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo did.
Actually, FDR used pretty much the same policies as Hitler. Big construction projects, lots of government spending to pick up aggregate demand and employ people. Hitler just used more state-control and -ownership to do it.

If you look at Hitler's capitalist policies they worked very well. He brought Germany(which was in the worst shape in the depression. At the height of the German depression, one US dollar equaled one trillion deutch marks. A loaf of bread cost billions of marks) out faster than any other nation.
Actually, the record for hyperinflation is held by Hungary in 1946.

And I realise this is probably not important to you, but by the time Hitler came to power hyperinflation was already fixed in Germany, and the economy was already growing quite well. What Hitler did was create a lot of jobs in military-related industries and use price controls to stop these expansionary policies from causing too much inflation. FDR was a lot more capitalist than Hitler.

The key to saving a faltering economy is not some type of economics, it is a massive increase in production(which is much easier to achieve with supply-side)
The key to saving a faltering economy depends on the reason the economy is faltering.

The idea is basically that when the total wealth of the economy grows, it can't be helped that living standards tend to rise for everyone. That doesn't mean they do it for everyone at the same rate, or to the same extent, but these improvements will eventually reach the poorest in some way, shape or form if they are at all able to participate in economic activity.

It's a long-term process, and no one ever claims it to be anything else. Except the media, when they try to make it look bad.

And as I said, the basic idea is not disputed in macroeconomics. There is no school/ideology that denies its existence, so it's not associated with Republicans, Reagan or libertarians. And if you want empirical support, here it is: http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jecgro/v7y2002i3p195-225.html


It centers on tax cuts for everyone, even the rich. with their taxes cut, the rich will reinvest that money in the economy (being the venture capitalists many of them are) and create jobs and the middle class will buy nice things for themselves strengthening surrounding businesses. more money to go around to give to charities as well for the poor. tax cuts always result in higher tax revenues, Kennedy proved this in the 60s, so more money for social programs as well. the trickle down effect works, we saw great economic times in the 80s and into the 90s and Bush's tax cuts helped pulled us out of post 911/corporate scandal recession. even deficit spending can be beneficial to a point by infusing our economy with money, problem is it has gone too far. way too much spending, our dollar is incredibly weak and globalization is too tempting for too many businesses these days.

need to cut back on the spending, balance the budget and pay back the national debt. instead congress is forcing through bloated farm bills to farmers who don't need it and demanding more rate cuts...all of this will weaken our dollar more.

tax cuts always result in higher tax revenues, Kennedy proved this in the 60s, so more money for social programs as well.
That's just plain wrong. I suggest you go dig for the actual figures. Tax cuts cut tax revenue 90% of the time. The Laffer curve (and believe me, there has been enough empirical research done on this to fill volumes) doesn't apply until tax rates are edging towards 80%+.

That's not to say that tax cuts are a bad policy - if we assume that private individuals will use the money better than the government, they are a very good policy. But regardless, tax revenue will still go down.

And here's the most current analysis, done by economists for the US Federal Government: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf

the trickle down effect works, we saw great economic times in the 80s and into the 90s and Bush's tax cuts helped pulled us out of post 911/corporate scandal recession.
The latter in particular doesn't have to have anything to do with trickling down though. Keynes also proposed cutting taxes to get aggregate spending going, which is what the Bush tax cuts were all about.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200103/ai_n8946732

even deficit spending can be beneficial to a point by infusing our economy with money, problem is it has gone too far. way too much spending, our dollar is incredibly weak and globalization is too tempting for too many businesses these days.
More Keynesianism.

need to cut back on the spending, balance the budget and pay back the national debt. instead congress is forcing through bloated farm bills to farmers who don't need it and demanding more rate cuts...all of this will weaken our dollar more.
Congress isn't demanding rate cuts. They have no scope to, especially since none of the previous ones has actually reached the consumers.

Why I hate Reagan and the rest of his ilk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.


Isn't that just nice of them, bankrupt the government so they can't interfere with the private sector.

And the point of Bush's tax cuts?

US President George W. Bush has invoked the concept in reference to his administration's tax cuts. He has said "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been."

Anyone have any comments?