Arguing With Liberials Pointless
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#22 Jul 26, 2014
Krankenstein wrote:
<quoted text>
Great quote, it is precisely what happened and is what made Reagan one of our greatest Presidents of all time. Reagan was all about the power of the individual and limiting the power of government. Government creates inefficiency because bureaucracy wrests control from local people for its own sake but has no solution or common sense strategy about the way things work.
The bigger our government gets, the worse off we will all become.
>
>
Governments grow out of necessity as populations increase and societies becomes more & more complex. It is no different than a person's jean size growing along with their owners waist size.

As far as the Libertarian Cato institute's view of Reagan goes, it is at odds even with what the Ludwig von Mises Institute has to say about old Ronnie.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx...

and for those who are really, truly interested in the real Ronald Reagan legacy, please do take a gander at the article referenced in the link below.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158321/reaga...
Krankenstein

Chico, CA

#23 Jul 26, 2014
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
Governments grow out of necessity as populations increase and societies becomes more & more complex. It is no different than a person's jean size growing along with their owners waist size.
As far as the Libertarian Cato institute's view of Reagan goes, it is at odds even with what the Ludwig von Mises Institute has to say about old Ronnie.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx...
and for those who are really, truly interested in the real Ronald Reagan legacy, please do take a gander at the article referenced in the link below.
http://www.thenation.com/article/158321/reaga...
Interesting reading. I need to spend some time with the Austrian Economics website, but the Nation article I do not agree with. It is an opinion hit piece without specific examples and to me doesn't have credibility because the statements do jive with my world experience.

Thanks for the links, I will go back to the Mises one in depth.
Krankenstein

Chico, CA

#24 Jul 26, 2014
I meant to say do not Jive above. I am not a good typist.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#25 Jul 27, 2014
At the beginning of Reagan's time in office we had a recession due to runaway inflation. The Federal Reserve (Paul Volker) responded by hiking interest rates.

These higher rates, around 13%, brought inflation under control. Then Volker stopped the suffering, and lowered rates sequentially over several years, and the economy boomed-- more housing, manufacturing and so on.

Sorry, righties, it had everything to do with Volker, then head of the Fed, and little to do with St. Reagan.

Obama, on the other hand, and the current Fed, could do little to lower rates--THEY WERE ALREADY SO LOW, that even bringing them down to almost zero percent couldn't make much of a difference. And, of course, righties complain about the low fed rate anyway.

Reagan's recession had to do with inflation, which was handled expertly by Fed Chief Volker. The Great Recession that Obama inherited from Bush, was the Wall Street driven bursting of the housing bubble they created with the sub-prime explosion.

Obama and Bernacke didn't have 13% rates that they could slash in order to jump start the economy. The rates they inherited were already so low that even cutting rates to 1% didn't affect our economy much.

BTW, Reagan tripled our national debt.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#26 Jul 27, 2014
Ahh, the repubs love to love St. Reagan. He shrunk the government, they all say.

http://www.politicususa.com/2011/08/24/big-go...

"On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reaganís terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000."

But let's move on through our presidents.

Letís move on to President George H.W. Bush.

"On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees."

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees."

" Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.'

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 ó 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 ó 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

But the St. Reagan mythology continues.
Why? Because of the right-wing blogosphere, Fox news, and all the radio hacks.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#27 Jul 27, 2014
St. Reagan tripled our national debt. His trickle-down theory didn't work. It's NEVER worked.

"As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. "

David Stockman, one of St. Reagan's chief economic advisors, confessed lately that ""[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republican...
MooCow

Paradise, CA

#28 Jul 27, 2014
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.[
The CBO estimated that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, and by $134 billion in 2011, or $787 billion over the 2009Ė2019 period
Krankenstein

Chico, CA

#29 Jul 27, 2014
A large part of Reagans deficit increase came from the rebuilding of our military. The military had been neglected after Vietnam because of public negative sentiment. It was this process that introduced a great deal of new technological advancement by defense contractors and high tech companies that brought us the wonderful economic expansion.

Lower taxes on the wealthy was never about "trickle down affluence" it was about making the US a desirable domicile for Companies that brought investment capital and jobs. Increased employment opportunities yield a tighter job market and rising wages through competition to get good employees. Today we have just the opposite, we have a declining industrial base with shrinking job opportunities which is why we have a whole class of kids coming out of college and working at fast food restaurants .

Tax policy is not as simple as looking at the spending budget and deciding how much money must be collected. The tax code is a motivator of major decisions and can have a profound effect on the growth of the economy both for good and bad.

I agree with Solution about the Volker effect and fed policy. The strength of the US dollar was restored through a very painful process but set the stage for its continued power as the reserve currency of choice which always has helped our economy.

Overall, an interesting time in our history to look at.
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#30 Jul 27, 2014
The ronnie ray -gun "wonderful economic expansion" was fueled in part by the fed throwing money at the defense industry butt mostly by consumer spending that was the direct result of an increase in consumer debt.

People believed the "trickle -down" B.S. and went out and barrowed to the hilt because they thought things were going to get better.

And those tax cuts everyone were promised, I'm still waiting.
Krankenstein

Chico, CA

#31 Jul 27, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
The ronnie ray -gun "wonderful economic expansion" was fueled in part by the fed throwing money at the defense industry butt mostly by consumer spending that was the direct result of an increase in consumer debt.
People believed the "trickle -down" B.S. and went out and barrowed to the hilt because they thought things were going to get better.
And those tax cuts everyone were promised, I'm still waiting.
Consumer credit wasn't a large contributor until the late 80's when interest rates finally came down. Your statement about the fed financing the defense industry may have some truth to it in a "behind closed doors way" but technically, the federal government supplies the budget for the department of defense. The strength of the dollar helped preserve buying power which gave us the first leg of the expansion and technological advances moving into the civilian sector from the defense industry was a large part of the second leg.

Trickle down merely referred to job growth creating higher wages. I think the terminology is confused by most people. Overall, I don't agree with your position on Reagans economy.

Have a nice evening.
Krankenstein

Chico, CA

#32 Jul 27, 2014
Grandpa,

BTW, I gave you an interesting judgment for your reading selections. All in the spirit of being more civil, I have graduated beyond peanuts and spam.
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#33 Jul 27, 2014
Krankenstein wrote:
<quoted text>
Consumer credit wasn't a large contributor until the late 80's when interest rates finally came down. Your statement about the fed financing the defense industry may have some truth to it in a "behind closed doors way" but technically, the federal government supplies the budget for the department of defense. The strength of the dollar helped preserve buying power which gave us the first leg of the expansion and technological advances moving into the civilian sector from the defense industry was a large part of the second leg.
Trickle down merely referred to job growth creating higher wages. I think the terminology is confused by most people. Overall, I don't agree with your position on Reagans economy.
Have a nice evening.
I disagree with your hypothesis that "my statement about the fed financing the defense industry may have some truth to it in a "behind closed doors way" parallels your comment about defense spending helping to pump up the economy. Make up your mind!

I don't know how old you are butt I was around when Ronnie was president and the economy was being driven by consumer spending based on credit billions being thrown at the military industrial complex.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#34 Jul 27, 2014
Krankenstein wrote:
A large part of Reagans deficit increase came from the rebuilding of our military. It was this process that introduced a great deal of new technological advancement by defense contractors and high tech companies that brought us the wonderful economic expansion..
It's always interesting to me how righties love defense spending, partly because of the "economic expansion" it can create, but hate important things like infrastructure spending. They hate government spending on our infrastructure, which would not only renovate our roads, bridges, ports, and schools, but which would also create millions of jobs.

Defense spending is simply a type of stimulus program. But since it has to do with defense, repubs love it. They'll even approve tanks and planes that the military doesn't even want, just so that their states benefit from this stimulus.
Krankenstein wrote:
Lower taxes on the wealthy was never about "trickle down affluence" it was about making the US a desirable domicile for Companies that brought investment capital and jobs. Increased employment opportunities yield a tighter job market and rising wages through competition to get good employees..
Sorry, Krankster, but what you're talking about IS trickle-down theory. Call it trickle-down, Reaganomics, or supply side economics-- it's the idea that if we tax corporations less then they will automatically invest in producing more things and services, which will bring us more jobs.

George H. Bush called trickle- down theory voodoo economics. The problem is that giving more tax breaks and tax loopholes to the super-rich does NOT automatically mean that they will produce more goods or services. In fact, there's no reason for them to produce more goods or services if there's little DEMAND for more goods or services.

Instead, the big corporations will take their money to the Cayman Islands, and that's exactly what they're doing.

We DO need tax breaks for the 90% of us who are not so wealthy, because with more money in our pockets we will spend more. And, in reality, the Bush tax cuts continue for 99% of us. Our taxes were not raised. We did let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 1%, and our job growth continues every month, despite the doom and gloom predictions of the righties.
Krankenstein wrote:
Today we have just the opposite, we have a declining industrial base with shrinking job opportunities which is why we have a whole class of kids coming out of college and working at fast food restaurants ..
And that's mainly because the repubs continue to want to cut programs that would help us reinvigorate our economy, and continue to want more lay-offs of government workers. The repubs keep pushing us into a downward, constrictive cycle.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#35 Jul 28, 2014
Krankenstein wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting reading. I need to spend some time with the Austrian Economics website, but the Nation article I do not agree with. It is an opinion hit piece without specific examples and to me doesn't have credibility because the statements do jive with my world experience.
Thanks for the links, I will go back to the Mises one in depth.
>
>
KRANKY, I posted the Mises link not because I subscribe to the Austrian school of economics but to underscore the point there are conservative/libertarian intellectuals out there who do not think highly of Reagan.

As far as the "opinion hit piece," (as you call it) goes, I am sure there are those who would refer to history itself as an "opinion hit pice" on good old Adolf.

I don't know about you but I lived through "the Reagan revolution," in fact I was stupid enough to have voted for Reagan.

Every "opinion" expressed in the piece is real history and easily verifiable.

Reagan increased the size of the government.

The financial crisis occurred after he presided over the S&L deregulation.

The HUD scandal went on during his watch.

Reagan turned the US from a creditor to a debtor Nation.

He perfected government bashing into an art, which manifests itself in today's polarization.

His financial policies enriched the rich and decimated the middle class.

I was an investor at the time and his policies did benefit me personally, but in retrospect, their effects were and continue to be extremely detrimental to the Nation.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#36 Jul 28, 2014
Krankenstein wrote:
Grandpa,
BTW, I gave you an interesting judgment for your reading selections. All in the spirit of being more civil, I have graduated beyond peanuts and spam.
>
>
Thank you KRANKY.

Peanuts are good for you, I still indulge in an occasional PB&J. Spam is almost a national food in Hawaii.

They both store good and make for a good food emergency stash. We always keep a jar or two of PB and several cans of spam in the pantry.;)
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#37 Jul 28, 2014
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
Thank you KRANKY.
Peanuts are good for you, I still indulge in an occasional PB&J. Spam is almost a national food in Hawaii.
They both store good and make for a good food emergency stash. We always keep a jar or two of PB and several cans of spam in the pantry.;)
I'll have to remember to try the spam burger at mcdonalds when I go to Oahu and Maui in November. I usually don't eat the crap mcdonalds sells butt want to say I tried it.

Are you a "prepper"?
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#38 Jul 29, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have to remember to try the spam burger at mcdonalds when I go to Oahu and Maui in November. I usually don't eat the crap mcdonalds sells butt want to say I tried it.
Are you a "prepper"?
>
>
You ought to try some of the local holes in the wall, the mom and pop type of eating joints. Some of them have interesting things for breakfast like a mound of rice topped with eggs over easy and a side of spam, all garnished with some sliced papayas.

I am not one of them hard core survivalists but I do believe in being prepared for the unexpected, we always pack some food and water, blankets and a few other things when we go on a long car trip.

We alway take our dog with us, and since I am one of those who would go hungry before my dog starves to death, we also pack a few things for him in the van.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The FAKE NEWS MASTER 9 hr Mirror - - - Mirror 3
We KNEW THEY WERE RACISTS 9 hr Mirror - - - Mirror 2
Trump CAN'T STOP LYING 10 hr a-citizen 11
No RAPTURE: Proves EvangeliKLANS ARE EVIL! 10 hr Mirror - - - Mirror 5
Obama administration is guilty of acting like 1... 10 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 15
THIS EXPLAINS it ALL!!! 11 hr Wrong Again Grandpa 6
RepubliKLAN & EvangeliKLAN Conduct should be IL... 18 hr Proof 4 Godfrey 4

Chico Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chico Mortgages