DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say "well-played" by all sides!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You can make any argument you want about the impact of tax policy on the economy, because you can find examples of just about any combination of tax increases and decreases and economic booms and busts.  When the national debt grows and declines, though, is a known fact.  And Reagan definitely increased the debt. Both the Bushes increased it as well, as Obama has. Only Clinton can show a decrease among presidents since Carter. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's a better graph IMO.  And of course debt Y-axis, without an X-axis is a meaningless figure.  So, what we see (and is well known to those who have paid attention) is that the debt-to-GDP was lower under Reagan than it was under Clinton, who you correctly point out, reduced the national debt.

    So, while Reagan used military spending to achieve something many considered unfathomable (the end of the Cold War), Clinton reduced the debt, but increased debt-to-GDP!   As the saying goes - you can't make it up!

    And Obama has taken it to the ionosphere.

    Gross Federal Debt As A Percent Of GDP

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You can make any argument you want about the impact of tax policy on the economy, because you can find examples of just about any combination of tax increases and decreases and economic booms and busts.  When the national debt grows and declines, though, is a known fact.  And Reagan definitely increased the debt. Both the Bushes increased it as well, as Obama has. Only Clinton can show a decrease among presidents since Carter. 

     

     



    Here's a better graph IMO.  And of course debt Y-axis, without an X-axis is a meaningless figure.  So, what we see (and is well known to those who have paid attention) is that the debt-to-GDP was lower under Reagan than it was under Clinton, who you correctly point out, reduced the national debt.

    So, while Reagan used military spending to achieve something many considered unfathomable (the end of the Cold War), Clinton reduced the debt, but increased debt-to-GDP!   As the saying goes - you can't make it up!

    And Obama has taken it to the ionosphere.

    Gross Federal Debt As A Percent Of GDP

    [/QUOTE]

    Debt as a percentage of GDP was lower when Clinton left office then when he started so he didn't increase debt as a percentage of GDP over his two terms.  Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP was higher when Clinton left office than it was when Reagan left office, but that was because the debt kept rising under Bush 1 after Reagan left.

    Spending declined as tax revenues rose through most of the Clinton years.  In Reagan's first term, spending increased dramatically as revenues fell, which drove the debt up.  Later in Reagan's term, spending tapered off, but revenues stayed low so the debt kept growing, but at a slightly slower rate.  When Bush 1 came in, spending again increased, with revenues declining, so the rate of growth in the national debt (as a percentage of GDP) began to increase again.  Clinton reversed the tide, actually lowering the debt for the first time since Carter left office.  The fact is, the two Republican presidents, were debt increasers, while the both Carter and Clinton were debt decreasers. Bush II restored the Republican pattern of raising debt.  So far Obama has continued on the Republican path, but really the recent big peak in the debt started under Bush 2, not Obama. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Debt as a percentage of GDP was lower when Clinton left office then when he started so he didn't increase debt as a percentage of GDP over his two terms.  Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP was higher when Clinton left office than it was when Reagan left office, but that was because the debt kept rising under Bush 1 after Reagan left.

    Spending declined as tax revenues rose through most of the Clinton years.  In Reagan's first term, spending increased dramatically as revenues fell, which drove the debt up.  Later in Reagan's term, spending tapered off, but revenues stayed low so the debt kept growing, but at a slightly slower rate.  When Bush 1 came in, spending again increased, with revenues declining, so the rate of growth in the national debt (as a percentage of GDP) began to increase again.  Clinton reversed the tide, actually lowering the debt for the first time since Carter left office.  The fact is, the two Republican presidents, were debt increasers, while the both Carter and Clinton were debt decreasers. Bush II restored the Republican pattern of raising debt.  So far Obama has continued on the Republican path, but really the recent big peak in the debt started under Bush 2, not Obama. 

    [/QUOTE]

    What I highlighted in red above is false.  It may have appeared to you that Clinton reduced spending but he did not.   Revenues were high, creating a budget surplus to drive down the debt, but spending continued unabated.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

     

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Debt as a percentage of GDP was lower when Clinton left office then when he started so he didn't increase debt as a percentage of GDP over his two terms.  Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP was higher when Clinton left office than it was when Reagan left office, but that was because the debt kept rising under Bush 1 after Reagan left.

    Spending declined as tax revenues rose through most of the Clinton years.  In Reagan's first term, spending increased dramatically as revenues fell, which drove the debt up.  Later in Reagan's term, spending tapered off, but revenues stayed low so the debt kept growing, but at a slightly slower rate.  When Bush 1 came in, spending again increased, with revenues declining, so the rate of growth in the national debt (as a percentage of GDP) began to increase again.  Clinton reversed the tide, actually lowering the debt for the first time since Carter left office.  The fact is, the two Republican presidents, were debt increasers, while the both Carter and Clinton were debt decreasers. Bush II restored the Republican pattern of raising debt.  So far Obama has continued on the Republican path, but really the recent big peak in the debt started under Bush 2, not Obama. 

     



    What I highlighted in red above is false.  It may have appeared to you that Clinton reduced spending but he did not.   Revenues were high, creating a budget surplus to drive down the debt, but spending continued unabated.

     

     



    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

     

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

     

    As an aside, the graph you post above shows pretty clearly that the size of the goverment (measured by spending in inflation-adjusted dollars) increased faster under Reagan and the two Bushes than it did under Clinton.  Odd, isn't it, that the three Republicans grew the government faster than Clinton did, despite their anti-government rhetoric? 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    and too

    Reagan made a deal with Tip to reduce spending and Tip reneged

     

    Not all tax decreases spur growth, he did make a deal to secure SS but he did cut marginal Tax rates to spr growth, he also reduced tax deductions to stop out of control RE investment

    Reagan came into double digit inflation and unemployment, the economy was so screwed up there was no chance in his first two years. The Reagan economy boomed thru to tthetech bubble break and 9-11

    When Clinton took over he was given

    Low tax rates, a strong dollar, a strong banking system, low oil prices , a strong military, a growing economy, and was the only super power in the world. Clinton was forced to not spend money by the GOP, it wasn't his idea at all, then he decided to get a blue dress soiled instead of being able to do anything about Ss and Medicare

    What Clinton left for W were hidden stink bombs,

    Fannie and Freddie, Glass Steagal, he gave our missile technology to china , the wall between the FBI and the CIA, a Wall Street tech bubble collapse , and he allowed OBL free. He also reduced SS benefits by taxing them and putting them back into general revenues

    Ws policies got people back to work, not stopping his own house GOP from spending money brought us the first pelosi house. He knew FAnnie would eventually kill us but he chose not to raise it as a national issue , and his post war Iraq policy suxed. He also spent money on Medicare and just the military

    Obama has done zippity do dah right. And when he ran against MCCain about the economy sinking, he forgot to tell you that he was part of the Pritzker entourage from Chicago that petitioned Clinton to force banks to lend to people who could never be able to pay it back. please see, a Cuomo, j Reno, b frank for starters. oh yeah let's not forget he believes in 4 th trimester abortion

    So now Obama coolaide drinkers believe that obamacare is going to save the day, hmmm, higher premiums, higher deductibles, more people uninsured than before, fewer doctors, high risk insured who now cannot get insurance, and probably a massive bailout to the insurance companies, all run by incompetent, over paid beaurocrats, many on the take cronycapitalists

    There is no Obama foreign policy that works, not the middle east, europe, central - South America, Russia, China, n Korea - None

    He complains about the income gap but his policies make it grow wider. All the while giving federal  money to failed companies. he also gives scmmmmux like W Buffett inside deals.

    At best an incompetent ,and now a proven liar

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure that's fine.  (The first graph I pulled from the internet showing debt went back to the 1800s, though, so it had an even longer timeline.)  

    I'm not against government spending--even for war or the military.  My only point is that the small government rhetoric of the Republicans doesn't match what actually happened under their watches.  

    It's also probably worth pointing out that some of the spike at the beginning of the Obama administration was really the result of the bailouts that started under Bush.  Was that bad spending?  I actually think not.  It may have prevented a depression.  We'll never know for sure, of course, but 2008--as bad as it was--had the potential to be even worse.  Maybe all that spending prevented an even worse disaster. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Clinton years seem like a golden age compared with what the States have had since . . .

    [/QUOTE]


    Nonsense. W had his real estate bubble, just like Clinton had the dotcom bubble. Poor Obama needs a bubble!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He's got one it's called the 

    fed bubble

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, that's where you print money until the presses break down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Obama doesn't control the Fed. They are a private corporation, a charter bank of the Bank of England. So, the federal government, as constituted today doesn't print money. What is funny in this whole mess is that congress supposedly is the only entity suppose to print Money. For whatever reasons, they have turned that power over to a private corporation. 100 years and counting....

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    Obama doesn't control the Fed. They are a private corporation, a charter bank of the Bank of England. So, the federal government, as constituted today doesn't print money. What is funny in this whole mess is that congress supposedly is the only entity suppose to print Money. For whatever reasons, they have turned that power over to a private corporation. 100 years and counting....



    This^

    Bankers run the World.  

    Sorry, but if you think there are any differences between Democrats and Republicans you are a fool.  Politicians who don't play ball get killed or their character gets assasinated, being completely compromised is how they got elected in the first place.  There's no place for honest politicians...  

    Jimmy Carter couldn't get those hostages out of Iran in forever, the day after Regan gets elected his first act is to free them, we find out years later that Bush/Ollie North have been in cahoots with these same Iranian terrorists the whole time trading drugs for guns; Iran/Contra anyone?  If that isn't embarrassing enough the biggest beer brewery in America gave his drunk brother his own beer to shame him.  Billy Beer... character assassination anyone?

    Bush and the CIA making drug deals with the Contras, sounds crazy right, it's a fact not conspiracy, it's what those Congressional hearings were about, but hey drug dealing isn't just for republicans...

    Google "Clinton Mena Arkansas drug airport" and take a gander at that body count, old slick Willie, "the first black president" as he has been called was hugely responsible for the crack epidemic with his coverup of this CIA operation as Governor of Arkansas.  Not only were more black men incarcerated during his presidency but his work with the CIA running drugs killed off more inner city kids than the plague.

    Bush one and two... don't get me started, pure evil.

    Obama; who is this guy, this guy is a Manchurian Candidate.

    Finally I can't bother going on and on about this, but if you think not one but two Kennedy brothers were killed by lone nut assassins you're a complete knob.  

    Why was the first killed, he was breaking up the fraternity that actually ran things, he was going to stop borrowing from the Central Bank, the real leader of the World.  In the words of Mayer Rothschild "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes it's laws."

    Listen to this speech by JFK and tell me secret societies and fraternal orders aren't the backbone of undermining society, they are one big pyramid scam and you and I aren't on top, even if you think you're a bigwig in your local Mason chapter, or your Rosicrucian chapter, or your college frat.... you aren't sht if you can't trace your lineage back to King Solomon or whoever these megalomaniacs claim to be related to.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces 

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The economy struggled under Reagan those first few years after the tax cuts. It was the long term spending. The government went under a huge debt to get the economy rolling and it worked. Obama is doing the same thing. It has improved the economy but the debt has gotten worse. Members of my family worked for defense contractors in the 80's and never had it so good. They became Reagan democrats and it had nothing to do with religion or taxes. They got good jobs that tax payers paid for.

    [/QUOTE]

    Reagan's plan was to increase defense spending 3% per year above inflation, and thus destroy the Soviet Union who could not keep up without breaking. That worked.

    This combined with his tax cuts created large deficits but the economy eventually adjusted and grew to robust proportions despite those deficits and tax revenues actually increased despite the cuts.

    Obama is doing nothing like Reagan. He is still spending huge sums on wars that accomplish nothing, and has effectively raised taxes, all while introducing a mammoth new entitlement program. It is no surprise whatsoever that the economy has struggled to recover. He has done almost everything once could do to assure that.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Correct. Obama is also a LIAR and Nobody disputes that including Melswitt

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess. They never had a middle class of any size. I've read several books on the subject, mostly written by English economic conservatives (Tories if you wish) and the collapse was internal. Our military equipment had been better since the 1960's and it was never close. It wasn't just M1A1's that were destroying T72's in the first gulf war, our M60's had no trouble with them either. The Israeli's had been using French equipment to destroy Soviet equipment for years. The Soviets since Stalin had never been able to compete with us in spending. We now know the Soviets did not increase their defense spending to compete with Reagan. That turned out to be false. They did not bankrupt themselves competing with Reagan. They had bankrupted themselves competing with Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and then finally Reagan. The Soviet military spending did not increase in reaction to Reagan. It was always high. In fact Gorbachev wanted to reduce the military immediately upon becoming premier for idealogical reasons. Remember the talks in Iceland where Reagan actually went liberal and agreed to reduce our arsenal. Something he mocked Nixon about. Many believe "star wars" prolonged Communism instead of destroying it. The belief is with SDI the Soviet Generals refused to accept any weakining of the Soviet Union's military position. Gorbachev for whatever reason was actually a peacenick. He was not a believer in democracy per se. He was trying to reform the Soviet Union, not destroy it but once he reined in his army nothing could protect the eastern European puppets. Once they collapsed the whole house of cards soon came falling.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to melswitts' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You can make any argument you want about the impact of tax policy on the economy, because you can find examples of just about any combination of tax increases and decreases and economic booms and busts.  When the national debt grows and declines, though, is a known fact.  And Reagan definitely increased the debt. Both the Bushes increased it as well, as Obama has. Only Clinton can show a decrease among presidents since Carter. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Obama had to increase the debt in order to maintain programs while paying for the military bills the Texas Moron ran up during his term and to bail out Wall Street, also thanks to the clown president from Texas......he has cut the deficit steadily in the last two FY's, primarily by letting the Texas morons's tax cuts for the upper income brackets go by the wayside, increasing tax revenues, and doing some budget cutting...it will drop faster once the provisions of the ACA go into full effect...more Fact

     

    [/QUOTE]

    melswitt......you are the moron who is now on ignore with Rusty

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    and too

    Reagan made a deal with Tip to reduce spending and Tip reneged

     

    Not all tax decreases spur growth, he did make a deal to secure SS but he did cut marginal Tax rates to spr growth, he also reduced tax deductions to stop out of control RE investment

    Reagan came into double digit inflation and unemployment, the economy was so screwed up there was no chance in his first two years. The Reagan economy boomed thru to tthetech bubble break and 9-11

    When Clinton took over he was given

    Low tax rates, a strong dollar, a strong banking system, low oil prices , a strong military, a growing economy, and was the only super power in the world. Clinton was forced to not spend money by the GOP, it wasn't his idea at all, then he decided to get a blue dress soiled instead of being able to do anything about Ss and Medicare

    What Clinton left for W were hidden stink bombs,

    Fannie and Freddie, Glass Steagal, he gave our missile technology to china , the wall between the FBI and the CIA, a Wall Street tech bubble collapse , and he allowed OBL free. He also reduced SS benefits by taxing them and putting them back into general revenues

    Ws policies got people back to work, not stopping his own house GOP from spending money brought us the first pelosi house. He knew FAnnie would eventually kill us but he chose not to raise it as a national issue , and his post war Iraq policy suxed. He also spent money on Medicare and just the military

    Obama has done zippity do dah right. And when he ran against MCCain about the economy sinking, he forgot to tell you that he was part of the Pritzker entourage from Chicago that petitioned Clinton to force banks to lend to people who could never be able to pay it back. please see, a Cuomo, j Reno, b frank for starters. oh yeah let's not forget he believes in 4 th trimester abortion

    So now Obama coolaide drinkers believe that obamacare is going to save the day, hmmm, higher premiums, higher deductibles, more people uninsured than before, fewer doctors, high risk insured who now cannot get insurance, and probably a massive bailout to the insurance companies, all run by incompetent, over paid beaurocrats, many on the take cronycapitalists

    There is no Obama foreign policy that works, not the middle east, europe, central - South America, Russia, China, n Korea - None

    He complains about the income gap but his policies make it grow wider. All the while giving federal  money to failed companies. he also gives scmmmmux like W Buffett inside deals.

    At best an incompetent ,and now a proven liar

     

    [/QUOTE]

    +10

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    ANYBODY dispute OBAMA is a LIAR???????????????

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only Clinton can show a decrease among presidents since Carter. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well of course Clinton reduced the deficit. He had the largest tax increase in history. Why is this even a point of discussion?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not surprising why the debt grew so much under Reagan is it?

     [/QUOTE]


    Of course it's not a surprise. You lower taxes and increase spending and the debt grows. Would you rather have the old Soviet Union back, and have all of Eastern Europe enslaved?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not surprising why the debt grew so much under Reagan is it?

     [/QUOTE]


    Of course it's not a surprise. You lower taxes and increase spending and the debt grows. Would you rather have the old Soviet Union back, and have all of Eastern Europe enslaved?

    [/QUOTE]

    As I pointed out earlier there is no evidence our increased defense spending caused the Soviet Union to collapse. The Soviets did not increase their defense spending to match our increase. Our increase in spending undoubtedly made the first gulf war an easy victory over Saddam but the Soviet Union collapsed because of Gorbachev's reforms not because of our spending. If we had fought you could make that argument but since defense spending was something Gorbachev went out of his way to decrease from the beginning of his reign you can't argue he spent them into oblivion. He did the opposite, they never tried to match us. They had been an economic basket case for 500 years. They could never outlast the west. They were a technological joke. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. The Soviet economy chugged right along from the end of WW1 until Reagan outspent them in the arms race. The liberal BS spin that glasnost/perestroika was the cause of the collapse is absurd. Rather, glasnost/perestroika was a reaction to the strangulation of the Soviet economy Reagan had perpetrated.

    It is simply repugnant when people's politics make honesty an impossibility for them.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Clinton years seem like a golden age compared with what the States have had since . . .

    [/QUOTE]


    Nonsense. W had his real estate bubble, just like Clinton had the dotcom bubble. Poor Obama needs a bubble!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He's got one it's called the 

    fed bubble

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, that's where you print money until the presses break down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Obama doesn't control the Fed. They are a private corporation, a charter bank of the Bank of England. So, the federal government, as constituted today doesn't print money. What is funny in this whole mess is that congress supposedly is the only entity suppose to print Money. For whatever reasons, they have turned that power over to a private corporation. 100 years and counting....

    [/QUOTE]


    The fed chairman is appointed by the prez. The whole board is appointed by the prez. If they are not doing what the prez wants, they don't get appointed again.

    But "printing money" is a general term to describe spending money the gov doesn't have. Obviously the actual term is "borrowing".

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not surprising why the debt grew so much under Reagan is it?

     [/QUOTE]


    Of course it's not a surprise. You lower taxes and increase spending and the debt grows. Would you rather have the old Soviet Union back, and have all of Eastern Europe enslaved?

    [/QUOTE]

    As I pointed out earlier there is no evidence our increased defense spending caused the Soviet Union to collapse. The Soviets did not increase their defense spending to match our increase. Our increase in spending undoubtedly made the first gulf war an easy victory over Saddam but the Soviet Union collapsed because of Gorbachev's reforms not because of our spending. If we had fought you could make that argument but since defense spending was something Gorbachev went out of his way to decrease from the beginning of his reign you can't argue he spent them into oblivion. He did the opposite, they never tried to match us. They had been an economic basket case for 500 years. They could never outlast the west. They were a technological joke. 

    [/QUOTE]


    SMH. They were already in oblivion by the time Gorby tried to salvage it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. The Soviet economy chugged right along from the end of WW1 until Reagan outspent them in the arms race. The liberal BS spin that glasnost/perestroika was the cause of the collapse is absurd. Rather, glasnost/perestroika was a reaction to the strangulation of the Soviet economy Reagan had perpetrated.

    It is simply repugnant when people's politics make honesty an impossibility for them.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Which is exactly what you are doing. Read about Soviet history. They did not increase there defense spending during Reagans presidency. The Soviet Union like us went back and forth between liberals and conservatives. Kruschev=liberal, Brezhnev=conservative, Andropov=liberal, Chernenko=conservative, Gorbachev=liberal (very liberal). There defense budget was actually relatively small. Their equipment was incredibly cheap to produce (not surprising in a communist country) and their soldiers were paid peanuts. They were actually embarrased to let the world know what they were actually spending. They liked the fact the CIA overestimated their spending. They were making huge profits on their equipment (AK47's are still glamorous throughout the world). Soviet equipment was crap compared to ours. Heck, the Israeli's destroyed billions of rubles worth with their French made equipment. They collapsed when they tried to reform. Once they allowed the Baltic puppets and the eastern europeans puppets to collapse the whole house of cards collapsed. Once you unleash reforms the people demanded more. Gorbachev wasn't a secret capitalist, he was a socialist believer who thought reform would make the Soviet Union the socialist paradise the founders believed in. Once the freedom dog got out of it's pen they couldn't get it back in.  

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. The Soviet economy chugged right along from the end of WW1 until Reagan outspent them in the arms race. The liberal BS spin that glasnost/perestroika was the cause of the collapse is absurd. Rather, glasnost/perestroika was a reaction to the strangulation of the Soviet economy Reagan had perpetrated.

    It is simply repugnant when people's politics make honesty an impossibility for them.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Which is exactly what you are doing. Read about Soviet history. They did not increase there defense spending during Reagans presidency. The Soviet Union like us went back and forth between liberals and conservatives. Kruschev=liberal, Brezhnev=conservative, Andropov=liberal, Chernenko=conservative, Gorbachev=liberal (very liberal). There defense budget was actually relatively small. Their equipment was incredibly cheap to produce (not surprising in a communist country) and their soldiers were paid peanuts. They were actually embarrased to let the world know what they were actually spending. They liked the fact the CIA overestimated their spending. They were making huge profits on their equipment (AK47's are still glamorous throughout the world). Soviet equipment was crap compared to ours. Heck, the Israeli's destroyed billions of rubles worth with their French made equipment. They collapsed when they tried to reform. Once they allowed the Baltic puppets and the eastern europeans puppets to collapse the whole house of cards collapsed. Once you unleash reforms the people demanded more. Gorbachev wasn't a secret capitalist, he was a socialist believer who thought reform would make the Soviet Union the socialist paradise the founders believed in. Once the freedom dog got out of it's pen they couldn't get it back in.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ All nonsense. The Soviet leadership toed virtually the same hard line throughout the 20th century. They chose after WW2 to participate in the "arms race". They didn't have to "spend more" to collapse. Reagan's spending forced them to keep their spending at high levels, lest they fall too far behind, even as their economic system was buckling under the pressure of many years of guns rather than butter. Gorby was brought in to stop the bleeding. It was too late, and the freedoms he brought to improve the economy only whetted the people's appetite for more freedom.

    It isn't that the Soviet economy was robust over the years. It certainly wasn't. But Reagan's spending put pressure on them when they were barely getting along as it was. If they were allowed to cut back their military spending that may well have eased the frustrations of the consumers and allowed that system to have gone on, even until today.

    It is absurd to say in the face of Reagan's plan to spend them into oblivion, and that oblivion actually happening, that it was a "coincidence".

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. The Soviet economy chugged right along from the end of WW1 until Reagan outspent them in the arms race. The liberal BS spin that glasnost/perestroika was the cause of the collapse is absurd. Rather, glasnost/perestroika was a reaction to the strangulation of the Soviet economy Reagan had perpetrated.

    It is simply repugnant when people's politics make honesty an impossibility for them.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Which is exactly what you are doing. Read about Soviet history. They did not increase there defense spending during Reagans presidency. The Soviet Union like us went back and forth between liberals and conservatives. Kruschev=liberal, Brezhnev=conservative, Andropov=liberal, Chernenko=conservative, Gorbachev=liberal (very liberal). There defense budget was actually relatively small. Their equipment was incredibly cheap to produce (not surprising in a communist country) and their soldiers were paid peanuts. They were actually embarrased to let the world know what they were actually spending. They liked the fact the CIA overestimated their spending. They were making huge profits on their equipment (AK47's are still glamorous throughout the world). Soviet equipment was crap compared to ours. Heck, the Israeli's destroyed billions of rubles worth with their French made equipment. They collapsed when they tried to reform. Once they allowed the Baltic puppets and the eastern europeans puppets to collapse the whole house of cards collapsed. Once you unleash reforms the people demanded more. Gorbachev wasn't a secret capitalist, he was a socialist believer who thought reform would make the Soviet Union the socialist paradise the founders believed in. Once the freedom dog got out of it's pen they couldn't get it back in.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ All nonsense. The Soviet leadership toed virtually the same hard line throughout the 20th century. They chose after WW2 to participate in the "arms race". They didn't have to "spend more" to collapse. Reagan's spending forced them to keep their spending at high levels, lest they fall too far behind, even as their economic system was buckling under the pressure of many years of guns rather than butter. Gorby was brought in to stop the bleeding. It was too late, and the freedoms he brought to improve the economy only whetted the people's appetite for more freedom.

    It isn't that the Soviet economy was robust over the years. It certainly wasn't. But Reagan's spending put pressure on them when they were barely getting along as it was. If they were allowed to cut back their military spending that may well have eased the frustrations of the consumers and allowed that system to have gone on, even until today.

    It is absurd to say in the face of Reagan's plan to spend them into oblivion, and that oblivion actually happening, that it was a "coincidence".

    [/QUOTE

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse. Reagan did not spend them into oblivion. They were spending the same under Carter and Ford and Nixon. Reagan spent us into huge debt which had positives but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not one of them. Technically the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 so it would be Bush who beat them not Reagan under your theory.

    Why didn't the Soviets cut back when Carter was president since he was supposedly weak. Why didn't they increase against Reagan when he was spending a fortune. There economy was a mess and it was always a mess. If the economy was enough to kill it it would have died while Stalin was in charge, or Kruschev, or Brezhnev, or Andropov or Chernenko. Remember, Reagan based his spending on CIA analysis which everyone now knows to be completely wrong. Reagan thought the Soviets were spending massively more than they actually were. The CIA, as usual throughout it's history, was completely wrong. Reagan spent the money because he was trying to catch up withn the Soviets. We now know we had long since surpassed them. Looking back at the junk they were producing it's almost laughable but Reagan was a true cold warrior. He believed in the domino theory and the CIA told him what he wanted to hear just like it told Bush what he wanted to hear in 2003 about WMD's. Plenty of democrats believed it too, especially if a defense plant was in their district. I don't blame Reagan completely for the deficit. The American people loved it like they still do. Pay for it on your credit card. You convince yourself after the fact that it was for a worthy cause. Maybe it was but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not caused by Reagans deficit spending.

    Did Reagan cause the Soviets heartburn, of course he did. Supplying the Afghans with weapons certainly killed a lot of Soviet soldiers but that didn't cause the Soviets to lose the war. Heck, with no superpower supplying the Afghani's we can't beat them either. They are tough fighters and they are not afraid of dying because we have killed a lot of them and it does not seem to be improving much there. I actually think Reagans foreign policy was fairly awful. The Beirut fiasco, the embarrasing response to the Falklands war (we actually had parts of the Reagan administration openly support the Argentine dictators) the silly Grenada invasion, supporting violent dictators in central America, supporting the Khmer Rouge for goodness sakes. We supported South Africa and apertheid while Reagan was president also. Don't get me started on the arms for hostages and how that fiasco worked out. The first Bush was great with foreign policy, absolutely brilliant carried us through the 90's. Nixon had his moments too but Reagan was complete amateur hour. Even worse than Bush 2 and Obama and that's saying something.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only Clinton can show a decrease among presidents since Carter. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well of course Clinton reduced the deficit. He had the largest tax increase in history. Why is this even a point of discussion?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    some of these guys don't get it

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ANYBODY dispute OBAMA is a LIAR???????????????

    [/QUOTE]


    NO TAKERS........I thought so

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share