djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2014 23:39:10 GMT -5
It was all of his moving around that got to me... not his speaking or points. I got tired just WATCHING him. he is quite exhausting. you might try minimizing the screen he is on.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 17, 2014 23:43:07 GMT -5
If they send stuff that the American Public wants/likes to the President... even if he Vetoes it... they will be seen as doing what the American Public want. That will allow the Republicans to keep their Majority... even if nothing actually gets done, because then they can blame it all on "Obstructionist Obama" using the "Well... we did send everything up as far as we could!" defense for the failures. again, i don't think who wins in congress has very much to do with politics any more. the rift of partisanship is so deep that half the electorate (the half that is MOST motivated to vote) would never change parties- EVER. they would sell their soul first. that leaves the half that are less likely to vote. they are a bad group to hitch your wagon to, in my experience. dj, you just described a third of the Democratic base in the last sentence.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2014 23:55:54 GMT -5
again, i don't think who wins in congress has very much to do with politics any more. the rift of partisanship is so deep that half the electorate (the half that is MOST motivated to vote) would never change parties- EVER. they would sell their soul first. that leaves the half that are less likely to vote. they are a bad group to hitch your wagon to, in my experience. dj, you just described a third of the Democratic base in the last sentence. you just uncovered one of the main reasons i am a Republican, VB. i find Democratic politics incredibly frustrating at that level. moreover, the GOP has served me very well. i probably owe 1/4 of my assets to the lower taxes i have pocketed. it would be indecent of me to not at least pretend to be a member of their party.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 18, 2014 9:41:18 GMT -5
for the record, i will take the 20th century over this one, any day. I disagree. This century is young yet, and I will choose to be an optimist.
By this time in the last century there was already a world war on.
One of two, I might add. Yeah- I'm looking forward to good things to come. The beauty of big government is that it is unsustainable. Time is on our side.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 18, 2014 9:51:18 GMT -5
I think that depends on how well the current make-up of the Senate works... the one that starts in January, I mean. i predicted that the GOP would win this year in 2012. it wasn't that hard. neither is 2016. it doesn't really depend on anything other than voting patterns. but i can see you don't like providential thinking, which is why i laid odds. i give the GOP a 10% chance of retaining the Senate. if the Obama administration is as much of a disaster as you say, it should be no problem for them to make good on those very long odds. The Obama regime is a disaster, and GOP voters are growing frustrated with GOP complicity with it. The House is the purse. I've long held there were no "Reagan Deficits" because the Democrats held the House and the Senate and any time they wanted to stop out-of-control spending, they could have. They instead chose to piss and moan about defense spending while passing a big, bloated domestic spending agenda under Reagan's nose because Reagan was focused on winning the cold war. On the flipside, you can't really say the debt ballooned to over $18 trillion under Obama because the GOP has had control of the purse since January of 2011. 4 million fewer Republican voters turned out for Romney than turned out for McCain. Obama lost voters, too- and in fact if Romney had held onto those specific 4 million voters, he'd be President. But as the author of RomneyCare, he was uninspiring as a candidate that could address the largest, most transformative- and the most wildly unpopular social program in history. And while Bush 43 was unpopular- he did some things right. Jeb Bush has given assurances that he would double down on W's worst mistakes- he'll take NCLB and institute Common Core; he'll leave ObamaCare in place, he favors blanket amnesty for illegal aliens which goes well beyond any of our previous amnesty disasters like the famous Reagan amnesty and neglects it's most important features-- like boosted border security, he's never even mentioned the debt and deficit spending. The man is a joke. He is a characture of W's worst qualities. He might consider running as a Democrat. In that instance I think he'd be unbeatable by the current GOP establishment.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 18, 2014 9:51:50 GMT -5
I think if Jeb and Hillary ran as a third-party / independent ticket-- they'd win.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 11:24:52 GMT -5
i predicted that the GOP would win this year in 2012. it wasn't that hard. neither is 2016. it doesn't really depend on anything other than voting patterns. but i can see you don't like providential thinking, which is why i laid odds. i give the GOP a 10% chance of retaining the Senate. if the Obama administration is as much of a disaster as you say, it should be no problem for them to make good on those very long odds. The Obama regime is a disaster, and GOP voters are growing frustrated with GOP complicity with it. The House is the purse. I've long held there were no "Reagan Deficits" because the Democrats held the House and the Senate and any time they wanted to stop out-of-control spending, they could have. They instead chose to piss and moan about defense spending while passing a big, bloated domestic spending agenda under Reagan's nose because Reagan was focused on winning the cold war. On the flipside, you can't really say the debt ballooned to over $18 trillion under Obama because the GOP has had control of the purse since January of 2011. 4 million fewer Republican voters turned out for Romney than turned out for McCain. Obama lost voters, too- and in fact if Romney had held onto those specific 4 million voters, he'd be President. But as the author of RomneyCare, he was uninspiring as a candidate that could address the largest, most transformative- and the most wildly unpopular social program in history. And while Bush 43 was unpopular- he did some things right. Jeb Bush has given assurances that he would double down on W's worst mistakes- he'll take NCLB and institute Common Core; he'll leave ObamaCare in place, he favors blanket amnesty for illegal aliens which goes well beyond any of our previous amnesty disasters like the famous Reagan amnesty and neglects it's most important features-- like boosted border security, he's never even mentioned the debt and deficit spending. The man is a joke. He is a characture of W's worst qualities. He might consider running as a Democrat. In that instance I think he'd be unbeatable by the current GOP establishment. interesting perspective. i largely agree with it. the general population doesn't see government as serving them. but we probably disagree on the reasons why.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 18, 2014 12:09:55 GMT -5
spectator.org/articles/34316/romney-beats-McCain
Sorry Paul, but once again you are way off base on something easily verified with a click.
Well, the final count is alas approaching, chronicled by the 2012 National Popular Vote Tracker, maintained by David Wasserman. And it has a rare flicker of good news for Mitt Romney: He has surpassed John McCain's 2008 vote total.
The latest near-final tally has Romney with 60.6 million votes, which is higher than McCain's 59.9 million votes. That's the good news. The bad news: It's not a lot higher than McCain's total, and certainly not high enough to have overtaken Barack Obama. In fact, Romney's total is only about 1 percent higher than McCain's.
Who among us would have predicted that? Republicans expected far more votes for Mitt Romney in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. Sorry, didn't happen.
So, Mitt Romney beats John McCain, but he didn't beat Barack Obama.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 18, 2014 12:27:43 GMT -5
The House is the purse. I've long held there were no "Reagan Deficits" because the Democrats held the House and the Senate and any time they wanted to stop out-of-control spending, they could have. They instead chose to piss and moan about defense spending while passing a big, bloated domestic spending agenda under Reagan's nose because Reagan was focused on winning the cold war.
This is the typical apologista the right uses to let Reagan off the hook for his tripling of the national debt. But guess what? The POTUS can veto Congressional appropriation bills and I don't recall Ronnie doing that. I do recall him increasing both government spending and the size of the government.
What I do recall is the real conservatives of the day howling at the moon over Reagan's egregious spending and how he sold out (alleged fiscally responsible) conservative principals so readily. As usual, those that attempt to revise history can easily get it horribly wrong simply due to activating their own personal biases and opinions and not relying on the facts. The tax cuts and spending increases took us from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation yet Reagan is still worshipped like some conservative God.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 12:51:22 GMT -5
The House is the purse. I've long held there were no "Reagan Deficits" because the Democrats held the House and the Senate and any time they wanted to stop out-of-control spending, they could have. They instead chose to piss and moan about defense spending while passing a big, bloated domestic spending agenda under Reagan's nose because Reagan was focused on winning the cold war.
This is the typical apologista the right uses to let Reagan off the hook for his tripling of the national debt. But guess what? The POTUS can veto Congressional appropriation bills and I don't recall Ronnie doing that. I do recall him increasing both government spending and the size of the government.
What I do recall is the real conservatives of the day howling at the moon over Reagan's egregious spending and how he sold out (alleged fiscally responsible) conservative principals so readily. As usual, those that attempt to revise history can easily get it horribly wrong simply due to activating their own personal biases and opinions and not relying on the facts. The tax cuts and spending increases took us from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation yet Reagan is still worshipped like some conservative God. i am so tired of the "party of personal responsibility" blaming the other party. so very tired.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 18, 2014 12:57:39 GMT -5
True dat!
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 18, 2014 13:35:53 GMT -5
Oh Boy, early political prognostication for 2016!
I also think it is likely that the Dems retake the Senate. Especially if they keep the White House- which I am not yet confident of.
The House? I don't see it. I don't see a Democratic path to a majority in 2016.
But perhaps one of you more enlightened types can help me see that?
What I find interesting is the focus (both here and in the national media) on the shift in control on a national level but not nearly as much coverage has been focused on the shift in control at the state level. I live in a state that has been solid blue for over a decade but there was a noticeable increase in the number of republican candidates elected in our assembly including our first republican governor in a decade. In fact, the entire state was red except for one county.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 13:55:28 GMT -5
Oh Boy, early political prognostication for 2016!
I also think it is likely that the Dems retake the Senate. Especially if they keep the White House- which I am not yet confident of.
The House? I don't see it. I don't see a Democratic path to a majority in 2016.
But perhaps one of you more enlightened types can help me see that?
What I find interesting is the focus (both here and in the national media) on the shift in control on a national level but not nearly as much coverage has been focused on the shift in control at the state level. I live in a state that has been solid blue for over a decade but there was a noticeable increase in the number of republican candidates elected in our assembly including our first republican governor in a decade. In fact, the entire state was red except for one county.
are you familiar with Project Red State?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 18, 2014 15:00:35 GMT -5
What I find interesting is the focus (both here and in the national media) on the shift in control on a national level but not nearly as much coverage has been focused on the shift in control at the state level. I live in a state that has been solid blue for over a decade but there was a noticeable increase in the number of republican candidates elected in our assembly including our first republican governor in a decade. In fact, the entire state was red except for one county.
are you familiar with Project Red State? DJ - No and I just googled it and came up with a bunch of hits for aids awareness so my search engine is obviously biased . A link would be appreciated.
I've said many times that my belief is the two party system does this country more harm than good. I prefer to vote for the person, not the party. However, I do watch trends and was not really surprised to see the shift at the state level in the last election.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 18, 2014 16:08:50 GMT -5
spectator.org/articles/34316/romney-beats-McCain
Sorry Paul, but once again you are way off base on something easily verified with a click.
Well, the final count is alas approaching, chronicled by the 2012 National Popular Vote Tracker, maintained by David Wasserman. And it has a rare flicker of good news for Mitt Romney: He has surpassed John McCain's 2008 vote total.
The latest near-final tally has Romney with 60.6 million votes, which is higher than McCain's 59.9 million votes. That's the good news. The bad news: It's not a lot higher than McCain's total, and certainly not high enough to have overtaken Barack Obama. In fact, Romney's total is only about 1 percent higher than McCain's.
Who among us would have predicted that? Republicans expected far more votes for Mitt Romney in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. Sorry, didn't happen.
So, Mitt Romney beats John McCain, but he didn't beat Barack Obama.
That's a revised figure from what I've read. Still, Obama got far fewer votes in 2012- in fact, he got fewer votes than W did in his re-election bid. My point isn't ONLY that Romney got fewer votes (I guess he didn't) than John McCain. My point, which still stands is that Romney failed to inspire the Republican base. The fact is that Ford, Bush 41, Dole, W to some degree- though he eeked out an electoral victory in 2000, and a slim popular vote win in 2004, McCain, and Romney are all establishment candidates, and Jeb Bush represents the absolute worst aspects of each of them, with none of their positive traits. That is the point.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 18, 2014 16:34:11 GMT -5
Parties are supposed to help us identify the basics of where a candidate stands. I don't know what a Democrat is supposed to actually stand for exactly, but I know they're generally going to vote for a tax increase, they're generally going to have an unrestricted abortion on demand stance, they favor gun control, they're generally going to favor cutting defense, and increasing spending on social programs without regard to costs, debt, or deficits.
The GOP is SUPPOSED to be the party of smaller government- a government smaller in both size AND scope, less spending, lower taxes, a strong national defense (which isn't supposed to include quagmires and nation-building), fewer regulatory burdens, and a more efficient operation of what government there is. Does anyone even remember if there's ever been a candidate like this- Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect, but he came the closest.
Democrats don't have this problem- they generally get a liberal candidate. There's never been a Democrat POTUS candidate that was iffy on abortion on demand. Clinton paid lip service to "safe, legal, and rare" but he fundamentally favored unrestricted, taxpayer funded abortion on demand. He fiddled around in Iraq, Bosnia, and who can forget- Somalia. Clinton got the so-called "Brady Bill" passed which banned certain kinds of rifles they mislabeled and demagogued as "assualt weapons". Clinton raised taxes- it was pretty much the first thing he did. He tried, unsuccessfully, to ram through HillaryCare. He was constrained by the first GOP house in generations for his over-reach, but left to his own devices, he was a liberal, and wouldn't have caved on anything.
The GOP on the other hand is not reliably conservative.
DJ- you keep saying you're a Republican, and it's pretty obvious you aren't of the TEA Party wing- so what is a Republican to you? I'm no longer a Republican, because I AM a proud TEA Partier- a conservative first, and lately I'm wondering if even voting for very conservative GOP candidates might be a mistake since all it really serves to do is prop up the likes of Boehner and McConnell.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 18, 2014 17:37:42 GMT -5
No, this was your point:
4 million fewer Republican voters turned out for Romney than turned out for McCain. Obama lost voters, too- and in fact if Romney had held onto those specific 4 million voters, he'd be President. But as the author of RomneyCare, he was uninspiring as a candidate that could address the largest, most transformative- and the most wildly unpopular social program in history.
Obama received 10 million less votes than in 2008 and Romney received more votes than McCain and lost. If those folks had voted for Obama again, it would have been a landslide.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 19:23:18 GMT -5
are you familiar with Project Red State? DJ - No and I just googled it and came up with a bunch of hits for aids awareness so my search engine is obviously biased . A link would be appreciated.
I've said many times that my belief is the two party system does this country more harm than good. I prefer to vote for the person, not the party. However, I do watch trends and was not really surprised to see the shift at the state level in the last election.
the website got taken down! i will have to do some more digging. but i will find it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2014 19:25:59 GMT -5
DJ- you keep saying you're a Republican, and it's pretty obvious you aren't of the TEA Party wing- so what is a Republican to you? I'm no longer a Republican, because I AM a proud TEA Partier- a conservative first, and lately I'm wondering if even voting for very conservative GOP candidates might be a mistake since all it really serves to do is prop up the likes of Boehner and McConnell. i am a small L libertarian. i believe that individuals should be able to do what they damned well please, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. Buckley and i had a lot in common philosophically. i liked Rockefeller, and IKE. but now, i just use it to vote for candidates in the primary that are closer to my values than Democrats. my turn: why do you even care, since you are no longer a Republican?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 26, 2014 23:50:45 GMT -5
dj, you liked IKE? (Eisenhower) surprising choice imo.
I do not see IKE being a libertarian, and was barely a Republican
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2014 12:47:52 GMT -5
dj, you liked IKE? (Eisenhower) surprising choice imo.
I do not see IKE being a libertarian, and was barely a Republican i think he was a really effective president. but i also like his parting address.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 27, 2014 14:29:35 GMT -5
You have unwittingly nailed exactly why Reagan was such a horrible President for me, and I am continually stunned when people who claim to be fiscally conservative express admiration for him. Yes, the GOP is supposed to be the party of smaller government and less spending. (Lord knows they keep telling us that.) But they're not, and haven't been for decades. Since...Reagan! The Reagan administration effectively created in this country the idea that massive deficit spending was acceptable, and that deficits and the debt were "no big deal." That mindset is what I believe will eventually sink this country, and I do blame the Reagan administration for it and for much of what followed with Bush II. I have made the point previously that deficit spending is appropriate at only two times: recession and war. Deficit spending during times of peace and prosperity is unconscionable.
And while it is a given that neither party is going to be, or is even remotely interested in, reining in spending, I would guess even you would have to admit that it is at least more honest both to ourselves and our children to at least attempt to pay for some of that spending through tax increases rather than to continually borrow to finance it and thus increase the debt. Ill-advised tax cuts that lower revenue only exacerbate the problem. I agree that spending is too high, but it is not spending per se that will ruin us. It is the massive deficits that result from increased spending over and above revenues that will ruin us. And you can lay that right at Reagan's door. The man was a disaster in that respect, and that fact FAR outweighs any "feel-good" sentiment that his image inspired. (For me, at least, but probably less so for the "less-thinking" segment of voters who remember mostly the image he projected.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2014 14:37:47 GMT -5
You have unwittingly nailed exactly why Reagan was such a horrible President for me, and I am continually stunned when people who claim to be fiscally conservative express admiration for him. Yes, the GOP is supposed to be the party of smaller government and less spending. (Lord knows they keep telling us that.) But they're not, and haven't been for decades. Since...Reagan! The Reagan administration effectively created in this country the idea that massive deficit spending was acceptable, and that deficits and the debt were "no big deal." That mindset is what I believe will eventually sink this country, and I do blame the Reagan administration for it and for much of what followed with Bush II. I have made the point previously that deficit spending is appropriate at only two times: recession and war. Deficit spending during times of peace and prosperity is unconscionable.
And while it is a given that neither party is going to be, or is even remotely interested in, reining in spending, I would guess even you would have to admit that it is at least more honest both to ourselves and our children to at least attempt to pay for some of that spending through tax increases rather than to continually borrow to finance it and thus increase the debt. Ill-advised tax cuts that lower revenue only exacerbate the problem. I agree that spending is too high, but it is not spending per se that will ruin us. It is the massive deficits that result from increased spending over and above revenues that will ruin us. And you can lay that right at Reagan's door. The man was a disaster in that respect, and that fact FAR outweighs any "feel-good" sentiment that his image inspired. (For me, at least, but probably less so for the "less-thinking" segment of voters who remember mostly the image he projected.)
what Reagan did was usher in Voodoo Economics (supply side rubbish). the theory was that by cutting taxes, not only would there be no deficits, but there would be huge surpluses, as people would take their tax savings and do things like raise wages, build more factories, and spend it on luxury (presumably domestically produced) goods that would create American jobs is a sort of virtuous cycle of enlightened capitalism. but actually, none of those things happened: wages stagnated, then fell. jobs were offshored, along with tax savings. capital that was previously productively employed in the US got turned into totally unproductive assets such as derivatives, and stocks and bonds for enterprises that created NO US jobs. and the deficit SOARED. now, 30 years and dozens of research papers into the experiment, it is clear that it was a complete failure, and that supply side economics is a disaster for the US (unless, of course, you are part of the 1%, in which case it is the greatest thing for capitalism since slavery). but since it was, is, and probably will always be a country that is set up and run by the 1%, they don't really give a fuck that it is a complete and utter failure for the 99%. all they need to do is keep telling us that it "works". edit: one final point- thanks for bolding the last sentence there. i just realized that it is completely false. Reagan didn't come closest to realizing the "smaller government, lower taxes, lower deficit" ideal AT ALL. government grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan (and under W). deficits exploded under Reagan, from a post WW2 average of 3% GDP to 6% of GDP under his administration. and he signed the biggest tax increase of the post WW2 era into law during his term in office. in short, it is hard to imagine an administration further away from those ideals than Reagan.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 27, 2014 14:51:57 GMT -5
Exactly right.
"Trickle-down" economics does not, has not, and will never work. When properly articulated, it is almost as good of a theory as communism. The problem for both, however, is that they are doomed to failure because they depend on people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2014 14:55:25 GMT -5
Exactly right.
"Trickle-down" economics does not, has not, and will never work. When properly articulated, it is almost as good of a theory as communism. The problem for both, however, is that they are doomed to failure because they depend on people. that is precisely it. i get accused of not being realistic all the time, but no economic theory i have ever seen requires more idealistic naivete than supply side economics.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 27, 2014 14:56:11 GMT -5
Reagan was an experienced TV pitchman. He could sell 20 mule team Borax to Eskimos. As POTUS he sold us that Iran~Contra was OK, you know....selling weapons with Israeli help to the Islamo-Fascists of Iran. That supporting the Contra importing of cocaine, under the wing of the CIA, was ok as the ends justified the means. It was OK to support the Guatemalan dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands of Mestizos. It was OK to take us from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation, to triple the debt, to grow the size of government.
Maybe that's why all the hypocrites on the right still worship him so....he was the best of their bunch of phonies, sell-outs, and treasonous dogs(October Surprise)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 27, 2014 14:58:59 GMT -5
Reagan was an experienced TV pitchman. He could sell 20 mule team Borax to Eskimos. As POTUS he sold us that Iran~Contra was OK, you know....selling weapons with Israeli help to the Islamo-Fascists of Iran. That supporting the Contra importing of cocaine, under the wing of the CIA, was ok as the ends justified the means. It was OK to support the Guatemalan dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands of Mestizos. It was OK to take us from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation, to triple the debt, to grow the size of government.
Maybe that's why all the hypocrites on the right still worship him so....he was the best of their bunch of phonies, sell-outs, and treasonous dogs(October Surprise) you forgot to mention that he saved social security by pushing through the largest and most regressive tax increase in US history. but you have mentioned it often enough that i can carry the water for you, here.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 27, 2014 15:03:06 GMT -5
I actually used to muse about how much better off this country would have been if Hinckley could shoot straight....
Yes, I'm a bad person. Realistic, but bad.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 27, 2014 15:14:46 GMT -5
Thanks DJ. I also forgot to mention all the other Reagan tax increases although that one on the middle class and working poor was surely a salvo across the bow and a portent of things to come for income inequality in America.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,177
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2014 15:24:46 GMT -5
Let's not forget Beirut Grenada
|
|