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

  1. 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:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 




    The weapons Bush I unleashed in Iraq were built under Reagan...smart bombs, steath technology and the like....

    The Soviets were stunned and shocked.....and soon after done....

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 




    And he did a good thing finally giving the militray service member a well deserved pay raise.

    The militray buildup led to the colapsof the Soviet Union who could not complete with the quantity and quality of our technology, and still can't

    And don't forget SDI, the day he said we would develop it, we deployed it and no one has that capabillity today but us.

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/



    The article was written by someone who worked for Reagan and helped develop Reagan's policies.  It paints a particularly rosy picture of Reagan's accomplishments, as you might expect from such a source.  

    There's no denying that the national debt increased significantly under Reagan.  I'm not sure that was the economic disaster some might portray it as, but it certainly is a fact.  As I said before, economic performance has a lot to do with factors other than Federal policy.  I don't give any president too much credit or too much blame.

     

     

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 




    The weapons Bush I unleashed in Iraq were built under Reagan...smart bombs, steath technology and the like....

    The Soviets were stunned and shocked.....and soon after done....



    All fine, maybe, but let's not pretend that's somehow not government spending  . . . and lots and lots of it. 

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 




    The weapons Bush I unleashed in Iraq were built under Reagan...smart bombs, steath technology and the like....

    The Soviets were stunned and shocked.....and soon after done....



    actually they were already on the ropes of disintegration thanks to our build up when Regan was C.I.C, not Bush 1-he was as weak as Jimmy Carta

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/



    The article was written by someone who worked for Reagan and helped develop Reagan's policies.  It paints a particularly rosy picture of Reagan's accomplishments, as you might expect from such a source.  

    There's no denying that the national debt increased significantly under Reagan.  I'm not sure that was the economic disaster some might portray it as, but it certainly is a fact.  As I said before, economic performance has a lot to do with factors other than Federal policy.  I don't give any president too much credit or too much blame.

     

     

     




    Were you old enough to live through the Carter disaster? I was, darn near lost everything and could only find jobs on second and third shifts...Carter was easily one of the worst Presidents in our history.

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     

     



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

     



    The article was written by someone who worked for Reagan and helped develop Reagan's policies.  It paints a particularly rosy picture of Reagan's accomplishments, as you might expect from such a source.  

    There's no denying that the national debt increased significantly under Reagan.  I'm not sure that was the economic disaster some might portray it as, but it certainly is a fact.  As I said before, economic performance has a lot to do with factors other than Federal policy.  I don't give any president too much credit or too much blame.

     

     

     




    Were you old enough to live through the Carter disaster? I was, darn near lost everything and could only find jobs on second and third shifts...Carter was easily one of the worst Presidents in our history.




    he was bad, but had good character and was not a liar, obama is worse than Jimmy

    Carter's his own party turned their backs on him when he tried to work wth the republicans

     
  10. 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:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.



    They vigorously condemned spending in words, but increased it in action.  I guess I go by their actions more than their words.  

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     

     



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

     



    The article was written by someone who worked for Reagan and helped develop Reagan's policies.  It paints a particularly rosy picture of Reagan's accomplishments, as you might expect from such a source.  

    There's no denying that the national debt increased significantly under Reagan.  I'm not sure that was the economic disaster some might portray it as, but it certainly is a fact.  As I said before, economic performance has a lot to do with factors other than Federal policy.  I don't give any president too much credit or too much blame.

     

     

     




    Were you old enough to live through the Carter disaster? I was, darn near lost everything and could only find jobs on second and third shifts...Carter was easily one of the worst Presidents in our history.



    I was in high school and first few years of college then.  It was a bad economy, but I think that had a lot to do with the adjustment to more vigourous global competition and maybe some complacency among our leading companies.  I can't blame Carter's short presidency for all that happened then. 

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    since ww2 only Ike and RR were really good Presidents

    There is the time they are in office and then their legacy after they leave

    Did you know that Ike had a civil rights act? It was stopped by LBJ

    Jfk was a mixed bag - Camelot was invented the day after he died.

    Bush 1 was a push

    Clinton  had  a few stink bombs that went off after he left, and he was the one president who could have done something about the structural issues of SS and Medicare - that was the real cost of Monica to the usa

    W - he was pretty unlucky, iI don't blame him for wmds - remember even Hillary voted for it, and you can be suretthat Bill was in on that vote. but he did too much else that turned out bad

    And Obama - exactly what policy of his works?

    So we are adrift, I don't want a senator to be president. Our beet chance is. Gov

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.



    Raising spending did lead to a boom. The 80's economic growth was a product of massive military and government spending. It's a fallacy the soviet Union collapsed because of Reagen's spending. The Soviet Union was a house of cards with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev's attempt at saving socialism destroyed it. Once Gorbachev showed he would not use his army to protect eastern european dictatorships there was nothing protecting them and they fell one at a time.  If Chernenko had lived or if Gorbahev had been a hard liner the Soviet Union would have made it until the Clinton years at least. They had ben an economic basket case forever. Remember Gorbachev was considered an Andropov man and he completed the reforms that Andropov probably would have implemented if he had not died. The USSR went back and forth between liberals and conservatives like we do. Kruschev-liberal, Brezhnev- conservative, Andropov-liberal, Chernenko-conservative, Gorbachev-liberal.  Our CIA which has generally been fairly incompetant greatly over estimated Soviet military power always. Reagan believed these estimates so he spent massive quantities to reach an equilibriunm which we now know we already posessed and then some. Many of the military improvements Reagan gets credit for happened under Carter. The M1A1 tank and the Bradley were from well before Reagan and implemented under Carter. It takes many years before a miliary system goes from approval to fruition.  

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.



    Raising spending did lead to a boom. The 80's economic growth was a product of massive military and government spending. It's a fallacy the soviet Union collapsed because of Reagen's spending. The Soviet Union was a house of cards with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev's attempt at saving socialism destroyed it. Once Gorbachev showed he would not use his army to protect eastern european dictatorships there was nothing protecting them and they fell one at a time.  If Chernenko had lived or if Gorbahev had been a hard liner the Soviet Union would have made it until the Clinton years at least. They had ben an economic basket case forever. Remember Gorbachev was considered an Andropov man and he completed the reforms that Andropov probably would have implemented if he had not died. The USSR went back and forth between liberals and conservatives like we do. Kruschev-liberal, Brezhnev- conservative, Andropov-liberal, Chernenko-conservative, Gorbachev-liberal.  Our CIA which has generally been fairly incompetant greatly over estimated Soviet military power always. Reagan believed these estimates so he spent massive quantities to reach an equilibriunm which we now know we already posessed and then some. Many of the military improvements Reagan gets credit for happened under Carter. The M1A1 tank and the Bradley were from well before Reagan and implemented under Carter. It takes many years before a miliary system goes from approval to fruition.  



    This is the thing.  Reagan may or may not have believed in boosting the economy by spending more, but it was a time-tested strategy since FDR.  And when Reagan did it, the economy grew.  Was it the tax cuts or the government spending on the military?  I know my family benefitted from the spending--my father had a good paying job at a big Massachusetts-based defense contractor.  He was a big Republican, so when he got too anti-Democrat I'd have to remind him that his job was just an expensive welfare program for engineers . . .

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:



    Shouldn't you be up on broke-back mountain the is weekend dumbkoff?



    Nope.  Dc this weekend.  Heading back now.  Spy museum was great.  nat geo. Nice to see your homophobic and closeted gayness being showcased, frank fitts.

    Lmao



    You're the one who uses that as an insult phony. The only one I point to in that manner is you, because it's obvious and ironic.

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

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




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

     



    He's got one it's called the 

    fed bubble




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

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.



    Raising spending did lead to a boom. The 80's economic growth was a product of massive military and government spending. It's a fallacy the soviet Union collapsed because of Reagen's spending. The Soviet Union was a house of cards with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev's attempt at saving socialism destroyed it. Once Gorbachev showed he would not use his army to protect eastern european dictatorships there was nothing protecting them and they fell one at a time.  If Chernenko had lived or if Gorbahev had been a hard liner the Soviet Union would have made it until the Clinton years at least. They had ben an economic basket case forever. Remember Gorbachev was considered an Andropov man and he completed the reforms that Andropov probably would have implemented if he had not died. The USSR went back and forth between liberals and conservatives like we do. Kruschev-liberal, Brezhnev- conservative, Andropov-liberal, Chernenko-conservative, Gorbachev-liberal.  Our CIA which has generally been fairly incompetant greatly over estimated Soviet military power always. Reagan believed these estimates so he spent massive quantities to reach an equilibriunm which we now know we already posessed and then some. Many of the military improvements Reagan gets credit for happened under Carter. The M1A1 tank and the Bradley were from well before Reagan and implemented under Carter. It takes many years before a miliary system goes from approval to fruition.  



    This is the thing.  Reagan may or may not have believed in boosting the economy by spending more, but it was a time-tested strategy since FDR.  And when Reagan did it, the economy grew.  Was it the tax cuts or the government spending on the military?  I know my family benefitted from the spending--my father had a good paying job at a big Massachusetts-based defense contractor.  He was a big Republican, so when he got too anti-Democrat I'd have to remind him that his job was just an expensive welfare program for engineers . . .

     



    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.

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.



    Raising spending did lead to a boom. The 80's economic growth was a product of massive military and government spending. It's a fallacy the soviet Union collapsed because of Reagen's spending. The Soviet Union was a house of cards with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev's attempt at saving socialism destroyed it. Once Gorbachev showed he would not use his army to protect eastern european dictatorships there was nothing protecting them and they fell one at a time.  If Chernenko had lived or if Gorbahev had been a hard liner the Soviet Union would have made it until the Clinton years at least. They had ben an economic basket case forever. Remember Gorbachev was considered an Andropov man and he completed the reforms that Andropov probably would have implemented if he had not died. The USSR went back and forth between liberals and conservatives like we do. Kruschev-liberal, Brezhnev- conservative, Andropov-liberal, Chernenko-conservative, Gorbachev-liberal.  Our CIA which has generally been fairly incompetant greatly over estimated Soviet military power always. Reagan believed these estimates so he spent massive quantities to reach an equilibriunm which we now know we already posessed and then some. Many of the military improvements Reagan gets credit for happened under Carter. The M1A1 tank and the Bradley were from well before Reagan and implemented under Carter. It takes many years before a miliary system goes from approval to fruition.  



    This is the thing.  Reagan may or may not have believed in boosting the economy by spending more, but it was a time-tested strategy since FDR.  And when Reagan did it, the economy grew.  Was it the tax cuts or the government spending on the military?  I know my family benefitted from the spending--my father had a good paying job at a big Massachusetts-based defense contractor.  He was a big Republican, so when he got too anti-Democrat I'd have to remind him that his job was just an expensive welfare program for engineers . . .

     



    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.



    Uh huh... Reagan crushed the SOVIETS. OBAMY has crushed the U.S. economy with his POLICIES...Obamacare,enviromental policies,lack of an oil policy and selling out our Allies and race baiting.

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

     

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Reagan's fiscal policy was a failure if you think the federal debt is a problem.  Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue.  It didn't work, and the high spending combined with lower taxes simply produced what simple math suggested it would: higher debt. 

     

     




    Well, to be a little more accurate, Reagan wanted to lower taxes and Tip O'Neill (Speaker) wanted to raise spending.   It was a compromise that Reagan needed to get what he wanted.

     

     



    Reagan was fine raising military expenditures and he did that with gusto. 



    Every president since has raised the military budget further.  I guess it's a little more complex than it appears on the surface.

    But, my main point was to take issue with this statement of yours: "Reagan and his economic advisors believed that lowering taxes and raising spending would lead to an economic boom that would actually increase tax revenue."

    You are correct that about the lowering taxes part.  But please show me where Reagan ever said that raising spending would lead to a boom.

    Reagan believed that the tax rate reduction (revenue decline) would be more than offset by the business investment and job creation that would result from more capital in the hands of business owners.  Increased spending was not part of that theory.



    Raising spending did lead to a boom. The 80's economic growth was a product of massive military and government spending. It's a fallacy the soviet Union collapsed because of Reagen's spending. The Soviet Union was a house of cards with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev's attempt at saving socialism destroyed it. Once Gorbachev showed he would not use his army to protect eastern european dictatorships there was nothing protecting them and they fell one at a time.  If Chernenko had lived or if Gorbahev had been a hard liner the Soviet Union would have made it until the Clinton years at least. They had ben an economic basket case forever. Remember Gorbachev was considered an Andropov man and he completed the reforms that Andropov probably would have implemented if he had not died. The USSR went back and forth between liberals and conservatives like we do. Kruschev-liberal, Brezhnev- conservative, Andropov-liberal, Chernenko-conservative, Gorbachev-liberal.  Our CIA which has generally been fairly incompetant greatly over estimated Soviet military power always. Reagan believed these estimates so he spent massive quantities to reach an equilibriunm which we now know we already posessed and then some. Many of the military improvements Reagan gets credit for happened under Carter. The M1A1 tank and the Bradley were from well before Reagan and implemented under Carter. It takes many years before a miliary system goes from approval to fruition.  



    This is the thing.  Reagan may or may not have believed in boosting the economy by spending more, but it was a time-tested strategy since FDR.  And when Reagan did it, the economy grew.  Was it the tax cuts or the government spending on the military?  I know my family benefitted from the spending--my father had a good paying job at a big Massachusetts-based defense contractor.  He was a big Republican, so when he got too anti-Democrat I'd have to remind him that his job was just an expensive welfare program for engineers . . .

     



    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.



    Uh huh... Reagan crushed the SOVIETS. OBAMY has crushed the U.S. economy with his POLICIES...Obamacare,enviromental policies,lack of an oil policy and selling out our Allies and race baiting.




    Bush destroyed the US ecomomy buy not paying for the Iraq war or Afgan war and still cutting taxes for the upper income brackets...that's fact...deficits went wild and he never paid for it....Wall street went wild because they were unregulated, which started under Clinton and became absolutely wide open under the Texas moron....that led to them taking risks to rape home owners at the precise moment the economy copllapsed ...home ownership expanded under clinton and wall street banks were given the right to get into the home mortgage business, which led to fannie mae and freddie mac to nearly go under...all kinds of mortgage fraud occurred, and then unregulated wall street tried to handle it by packaging bits of bad loans in  "credit default swaps", which was a fancy way of saying, " here, take a bundle of pieces if crappy home mortgages no one can pay" ...all this happened under BUSH...Obama was the poor guy who had to get the congress to bail out wall street , then Chrysler.....you clown republicans have to get away from all this revisionist, simple-minded, Fox News based warped history lesson...what you don't know about why we're in this mess is both laughable and tragic...and BTW...the deficit is lower than anytime since YOUR pres. texas moron was in the White House....that's also a fact...MORONS ACROSS THE BOARD

    Also..remember "reagenomics"...The Laffer curve...raising tide lifts all boats..sound familiar...it should...cutting the top marginal tax rates to spur wealthy folks to invest money to expAND THE ECONOMY DIDN'T WORK AT ALL BECAUSE THE RICH TOOK THE PROFIT AND KEPT THE $$$...WHICH IS WHAT HAPPEND UNDER BUSH AS WELL...currently, wall street banks are extremely capitalized (have lots of cash), but make too much from credit cards and the stock market to make reasonable loans to business to expand, and business refuses to hire more people because no one gets paid enough to buy the kinds of goods that the economy needs to expand...capital goods like the kind that go into new homes...it's only now starting to come around...

    Republican tea party economists...you have to laff...

     
  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:

    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.



    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.

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    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.



    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.

     



    Wrong...Reagan drove deficits up...Clinton increased taxes to balance the budget (there was a budget surplus when he left which the Texas Moron ate through in less than one year due to huge tax cuts for the wealthy and Iraq and Afgan war spending on the cuff) and that led to economic expansion the likes of which we hadn't seen since JFK...get your facts straight Bucko....you know less about economics and it's history than you do about pro football GMs...

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    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.

     



    Nice recap Babe.   When you aren't regurgitating debunked conspiracy theories you show real promise.   :)

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    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. 

     

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    This is an interesting graph too, which shows revenues versus outlays.  Not surprising why the debt grew so much under Reagan is it?

     

     

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

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    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. 

     

     




    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

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share