The Constitution takes another hit - Page 3

And ya'll sound like you came out of 1989 1979 "woopsies".

 

then came Reagan and turned all that around and the US industries came roaring back.

 

so the pendulum just has to swing back again.

Edited by beaslbob - 11/16/11 at 12:14pm

What year was regan president beaslbob.  Imo regan just destroyed the bases of this country.

care to elaborate?

 

Like Darth said, do tell.

A reminder

 

 

The trickle down effect of reganomics.

 

Iran contra

 

MASSIVE DEBT

 

Refusing aids crisis

 

As governor other issues as raising the cost of beef and the slaughtering of cows.

 

Oh and his saying " I can't remember".  

 

my .02 cents

 

Not sure didn't he break the airline union to.

can you go into detail on each of those points?

do you understand where the debt came from?

how did each contribute to the destruction of the basis for this country?
Edited by Darthtang AW - 11/15/11 at 4:43pm

can you go into detail on each of those points?

do you understand where the debt came from and what affect it had on the global aspect?

Yeah, as a percentage of the workforce what is it today compared to 40 years ago.......

 

 

 

Edited by mantisman51 - 11/16/11 at 7:47am

actually mantis, much of the debt acrued during Reagan's term was Reagans doing. I am curious if morgan understands what became of that debt and how it was racked up.

1979 woopsies and corrected.

 

You're welcome to your opinion but in one month over 1 million jobs were created once the Reagan tax cuts were implemented and after years of slowing down the growth or actually shrinking the government.

 

We're at the same point now as we were under carter.  Even the same types of speaches about how the US has lost it's will to be creative.

 

Not to mention the Hoover-Roosevelt, Bush-Obama parallels.

 

So IMHO history is just repeating itself.

 

Just outta curiosity why do you think is bad about supply side economics?

 

In a nut shell what is so bad about successful employers being allowed to keep their success to build new plants, employ more people, bring new products to market, or even just to buy things?

 

do you actually think paying people unempoyment benefits and food stamps is good for the economy?

 

do you realize that under supply side economics the percentage of tax revenue from more successful people actually greatly increased?

 

And why oh why has unemployment gone from 4.9% to 10 then back to 9.1% after the liberal dems did so much after 1996.

 

After all the bail outs, stimulus, extended government programs we should be thriving is any of those things actually worked.  but in fact all they do is spread poverty around.

 

but then we have been through this all before.  The only way to reverse it is through the same solutions that got our unemployment under 5% before.

 

The Treasury brought in far more than the tax cuts "cost". The 2 for 1 cuts to spending increases were ignored by the Democrats after they agreed to them. So Reagan's military buildup is NOT what ran up the debt. Reagan signed bloated budgets to get the military spending and tax cuts we desperately needed. So the deficits were ALL on the Dems.

Reagan should have vetoed the Democrats spending bill when they crawfished on the spending cuts agreement. That was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

 

However that does demonstrate why the Republicans today will not increase taxes in favor of the promise of spending cuts down the road.

Agreed.

you can not separate the budget deficit and the good that came out of it. reagan takes credit for the good..but he also takes credit for the deficit as well. you cant praise him for one and pass the buck of the other. He was a smart man......he knew what was being done and more good came of it than bad.

darth (the buck stops here) Tang