Who cares, with all these ridiculous tax cuts for the past few years and everything's going to shit. How the hell are we supposed to pay for anything if taxes keep getting lowered?
are you fucking retarded? bush gave a shitload of tax breaks to the rich. hopefully they'll get taxed what they should get taxed now. of course whatever anyone ever tries to do with taxes everyone always says it goes against "the middle class" and the "middle class" is too fucking retarded to figure it out for itself
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 11:12
>>9
After all the propoganda, nobody is actually sure if they're part of the middle class anymore. Republicans take advantage of that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 11:39
By Bush's logic, we shouldn't tax the rich at all, as economic growth would then expand infinitely, producing infinite wealth for all of America. Reaganomics, wooooooo.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 11:43
>>11
Reaganomics is a catchphrase given to the theory you described to make economics palatable to Republicans; they spout it all the time in arguments to try to make themselves look like they actually know what they're talking about.
It hasn't worked yet.
Technically, the ideas were brought about during the Nixon administration, but Reagan's administration implemented it more widespread. I'd somehow doubt that they'd like to have such a thing attributed to Nixon, though.
Thus the term "Reagan Hood" (robs from the poor, gives to the rich).
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 13:02
>>12
I don't see how giving people back exactly what they earned involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Most taxation involves stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
>>8
Exactly. I can think of several government programs I'd just love to see get the axe right now off the top of my head. Lets start with foreign aid, welfare of all kinds (including corporate), the war in iraq, the drug war (prohibition), and the BATFE.
They were crumbling. He just happened to be around for the final bell.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 15:14
>>15
Dont forget the biggest one, medicare and SS.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 15:24
>>17
Reagan made Gorbachev lose, by defeating him. >>18
Reagan is why the USSR crumbled.
Name:
Xel2007-01-22 16:56
>>20 No, the USSR collapsed because they were using abacuses by the time the first mac arrived. The Cold War created horrifying leftist and rightist regimes - and it was Reagan that held that terror balance. May he burn along with the rest of superficial cherry-picking christians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 19:28
Reagan accelerated the USSR's collapse. The fact that his buildup lead to the the fall of the Soviet Union is purely coincidental, he was aiming for military supremacy, not to force their economy to collapse. In fact, the US was surprised by the whole thing because according to their estimates, the USSR should've been in better shape.
Anyways, getting back to the original topic, I'm glad something is being done about the deficit. You can say the Democrats had a lot of pork, but at least they had taxes to offset what was spent. Bush just spent and spent while simultaneously lowering taxes. Republicans ceased to be a part of fiscal conservatives in the 80s.
Gerry Ford said he hated it when that was claimed. The USSR's collapse was in the making for years. When it collapsed no one could have been more surprised than Raygun.
He thought the "Evil Empire" was keeping pace with the US. Raygun was an idiot B movie actor and a complete dunce as a president.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 22:57
>>24
Reagan's economic policy was superior, and he was pretty supportive of the 2nd amendment. His more pro-liberty anti-regulatory stand on government regulation helped create jobs for working class people and the poor. He inherited a recession from Jimmy Carter and still managed to turn the economy around. While I don't agree with his position on everything, because of the above positions and actions he is one of my favored presidents, though he wasn't perfect.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 23:16
>>20
Reagan was a true champion. He sold arms and intelligence to BOTH sides of the Iran-Iraq war. Everyone should be glad he did that. If he hadn't, our national debt would have tripled instead of merely doubling under his administration.
Reagan's economic policy was superior, and he was pretty supportive of the 2nd amendment. His more pro-liberty anti-regulatory stand on government regulation helped create jobs for working class people and the poor. He inherited a recession from Jimmy Carter and still managed to turn the economy around. While I don't agree with his position on everything, because of the above positions and actions he is one of my favored presidents, though he wasn't perfect.
Democratic argument on Reagan:
Reagan's economic policy was inferior, and he was supportive of the 2nd amendment. His more pro-liberty anti-regulatory stand on government regulation stifled job growth for working class people and the poor. He inherited a recession from Jimmy Carter and did nothing to turn the economy around. While I don't disagree with his position on everything, because of the above positions and actions he is one of my most hated presidents, though he wasn't the worst.
Name:
Xel2007-01-23 3:53
Reagan created right-wing terror in innocent third-world countries which undermined American credibility in dealing with left-wing terror. No libertarian can stand for social conservatism or the values of JEane Kirkpatrick. He destabilized the economy unneccesarily - Edmund Morris argumented well that the USSR was falling into crippling obsolescence. He raised taxes unneccesarily as well.
Yeah, Ronald Regan's foreign policy turned El Salvador and Guatemala into killing fields that were 1,000 times worse than anything the Sandinista did (and that was mainly as a reaction against the Contras which America-backed on a scale ridiculous for any real 'guerrillas'), his support for free-markets was only rhetoric when you realize how much more government welfare increased to corporates both implicitly and explicitly through military research (which spills into innovation for the whole industry in form of better computers, R&D, etc) and tax cuts, and don't forget the rising poverty rate.
But all of that is incomparable to what he did to Central America... but that was all in the name of liberty (as in pro-American business interests over nationalism) right?
You win, number 30.
Name:
Xel2007-01-23 10:33
>>31 Thanks. While one needs to form an opinion of Reagan with care considering the level of anti-christian bigotry that is sometimes fomented by academics I do believe Raygun is one of the reasons I still prefer democrats if I have to make the choice.
And, no, I am Xel, 31 is not. 31 is someone else. In B4 "same guy" retard.
Name:
Xel2007-01-23 10:46
The hell? Im xel and I haven’t posted yet
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 11:38
>>29
That was my post, and I'm a libertarian, not a republican, thanks.
>>30 & 31
Did you notice how I said I didn't approve of everything he did? You also forgot to mention that he escalated the drug war. I don't approve of his foreign policy, and I don't approve of his policy on drugs. HOWEVER, I DO like Reagan for rolling back senseless government regulation that hampers the economy, pulling us out of Jimmy Carter's recession (Carter was a DEM, FYI), cutting taxes, and protecting the 2nd amendment. Given the choice between Reagan and a true-blue libertarian, I'd take the libertarian in a heartbeat. Given the choice between Reagan and Clinton? Reagan please.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 12:28
>>34
Reagan didn't pull us out of Carter's recession; the recession was caused by the energy crisis of the late 70s and more or less corrected itself when the market coped (oh and btw, Carter began the deregulation; Reagan just finished it). Reagan increased the national debt by over $1 trillion (doubling existing debt). Reagan's foreign policy was idiotic, short-sighted, and sprang from a poor understanding of international and regional atmospheres.
Bush didn't pull us out of Clinton's recession; the recession was caused by the dot-com bubble pop of the early 00s and more or less corrected itself when the market coped. Bush increased the national debt by over $2 trillion (not quite doubling existing debt). Bush's foregin policy was idiotic, short-sighted, and sprang from a poor understanding of international and regional atmospheres.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 13:55
>>35
This man wins. Carter might've been ineffectual a president, but at least he didn't screw anything up (Such as creating a massive debt, pissing off countries that we now have to deal with today). Between an Nuclear Engineer and an Actor, I'd take the Nuclear Engineer because you'd be guaranteed they are reasonably intelligent. The only administration that has managed to match Reagan's spin machine is Bush Jr's.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 17:34
Reagan stopped the cold war by helping central americans defeat communism in central america.
Believe it or not the communists are the true imperialists stamping on the natives. In mongolia they destroyed the mongol nomadic lifestyle in favour of ranches. They would have done the same to the rich culture of central and equatorial south america. The USA is also one of the largest trading partners with these countries and like Castro the communists would have cut off trade with the USA, destroyed the economy and forced the natives into "collective farms" (communist jargon for concentration camp which their socialist buddies in nazi germany were fond of) where they would starve to death.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 18:02
american commercial expansionism has never touched any cultures at all however. gtfo please, cultures die when larger things come by, be that communism or capitalism or whatever, whenever an ideological culture takes over, the old "culture" fades away.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 20:09
>>38
American cartoon industry, disney etc... was marketted in Japan. It created animu combo bonus +1.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-23 21:25
>>37
Yeah, stopping the spread of Communism in Central America totally lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-24 0:11
>>40
The soviet union was looking for wars to justify the existence of it's 40% GDP military budget. In 1980 it was the Americas and Afghhanistan. By 1985 Presdisaint Reagan had closed them off.