emceeemcee
Banned
except the whol bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon thing
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan
- Thread starter tiger1977
- Start date
BC wrote
So what if the Hammer and Sickle flies somewhere? It flies in Viet Nam, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos. 2 countries on this list are VITAL TRADE partners. Hell, without them, we go bankrupt today. 1 country is a legit troublemaker. The other country SHOULD BE a vital trading partner but because of some ingrained, Bipartisan inability to "let go and move on" after 40 years, they aren't. The final country is some small flyweight in the middle of nowhere.
Reagan simply used the fear that Joe McCarthy started 30 years prior and rallied our nation to throw everything aside in some maniacal weapons race. Yeah, they blinked and crumbled first. We're crumbling today. Pyrrhic victory in the end.
Based on present political events in this country, as portrayed and misrepresented by the loons, it's not the Commies we should FEAR but the....gasp...Socialies :crash::fight:
When do we stop using FEAR as either motivation to do something dumb or as the basis for decision-making?
I liked how Reagan really loved Nancy. I liked how their family/children seemed great as in a good collection of different thinking children. I also am bitter that Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's and we don't have a healthcare movement to try our best, as a nation, to try to defeat that horrible disease.
So what if the Hammer and Sickle flies somewhere? It flies in Viet Nam, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos. 2 countries on this list are VITAL TRADE partners. Hell, without them, we go bankrupt today. 1 country is a legit troublemaker. The other country SHOULD BE a vital trading partner but because of some ingrained, Bipartisan inability to "let go and move on" after 40 years, they aren't. The final country is some small flyweight in the middle of nowhere.
Reagan simply used the fear that Joe McCarthy started 30 years prior and rallied our nation to throw everything aside in some maniacal weapons race. Yeah, they blinked and crumbled first. We're crumbling today. Pyrrhic victory in the end.
Based on present political events in this country, as portrayed and misrepresented by the loons, it's not the Commies we should FEAR but the....gasp...Socialies :crash::fight:
When do we stop using FEAR as either motivation to do something dumb or as the basis for decision-making?
I liked how Reagan really loved Nancy. I liked how their family/children seemed great as in a good collection of different thinking children. I also am bitter that Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's and we don't have a healthcare movement to try our best, as a nation, to try to defeat that horrible disease.
I have to make a confession lol.
I voted for Reagan in 1980. It was my first time voting and actually my last untill the last presidential election.I had and still do feel like voting is almost a bad thing to do or atleast not very meaningfull.We are only validating a system that is owned lock stock and barrel by the wealthy power structures and is not really very reprsentative of the common good IMO.
While you may disagree with my outlook beleive me I have always followed such things(politics) since I was very young in the 60s and know the history.
Looking back what Reagan did was being able inspire a mild rise in americas confidence in the future being brighter than the past.That was good but really his typical deregulate approach of most conservatives is the kind of thing that almost recently put us in danger of major collapse of fiancial system.
His 1980 campaign was "it's morning in america".
And it worked, but it was a false optimism born of nothing of reality as our optimism has been since.Our economy and therefore the ecomonies of the world is and has been a house of cards built on mere confidence in the future irrespective of the indicators that say otherwise.Just look at our recent financial crisis.It was born of trillions of dollars being used to speculate that a boom market in housing would be indefinate by reckless unregulated financial types.And to be honest not much has changed to prevent more of the same ,meaning Obama and dems are owned almost as much as the republicans on such issues.Big money really controls all and will someday lead us to ruin in short order,much worse then the 30s depression.
Then things will change politically,but it won't happen through voting.
Hadn't Richie replaced Tommy by the time Bonzo goes to Bitburg cme out?
Clearly that is Tommy in the pic.
RR's 99th Birthday? I though he turned that during his second term.
Ronnie didn't do everything right, but looking back, he was the right leader at the right time, just like Thatcher in the UK.
Happy Birthday Gipper.
Happy Birthday Gipper.
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
hes definitely held in high regards by republicans. like him or not i guess he was a strong leader.
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
Speaking as one of the unemployed at the start of Maggie's reign, you'll forgive me when I state that I'm glad she's gone.
I'll admit to admiring Maggie's convictions...but that's it...
You're looking at it on a personal scale, which is valid... I was thinking about it from a more global scale... I think she and Ronnie helped to bring about the end of communism in Eastern Europe, which freed millions of people from oppression. :thumbsup:
Fuck the global scale! Thatcher decimated Great Britain! Can't wait for her to fucking die!
I bet that all of you haters really feel bad now.
When Reagan couldn't remember where he was while his administration was committing international crimes and domestic felonies, you just thought he was a lying asshole.
Turns out that it was probably just Alzheimer's and he didn't even know where he was at the time he was being asked the question.
When Reagan couldn't remember where he was while his administration was committing international crimes and domestic felonies, you just thought he was a lying asshole.
Turns out that it was probably just Alzheimer's and he didn't even know where he was at the time he was being asked the question.
I just find it funny that most people that say that Reagan's campaign was all about false hope and optimism are the same people who defend Daddy O no matter what the facts are. Just saying.:wave:
Anyways, back on point. Happy Birthday Ronnie.:hatsoff:
Anyways, back on point. Happy Birthday Ronnie.:hatsoff:
GregCentauro
Banned
At least he was an endless source of humor.
No Shit!
First, I don't know why you think I'm trying to defend Obama. I'm also not defending any other democrat, so don't assume I am. I'm not an Obama fan, and quite frankly I think he's doing a lot of things half-assed. (granted that's opposed to the quarter-ass stuff republicans would do in his situation, but that's something else.) I consider myself a staunch independent. I agree with whoever is right about something, period. If they aren't right I don't agree with them, simple. If anything that's my ideology. The ideology of looking at each situation with as much objectiveness and common sense as possible and finding the best, most efficient, fairest, most moral and ethical solution out of that, that helps the absolute greatest number of people possible. Most of the people I know are more or less independent. They view life more on a common sense level, and from a perspective about what they see in real life and how things work in the real world not some philosophy that people only hope will work. Also, for the record I've never set foot inside a coffee shop in my life.
Now for a little education of my own.
The problem that trickle down economics have is that while the people that came up with it like to claim that rising waters raise all ships, in fact it raises only yachts. There is much to be considered in any economic situation. How many people are employed, what type of job do they have, what type of benefits do they have, how much does each household have to work for that, how is the assets and total economic resources of our country spit, how much power does groups or individual economic power give them compared to normal people. You also said how was it possible for the rich to take money from the poor, and the answer is simple, the tax code (Reagan also wrote many new tax loopholes into the tax code, but that is something for another time.). Every bit of money that would have gone to the middle class or the poor that doesn’t and instead is funneled into the wealth of the rich takes what they would have had away. It’s not that hard of a concept.
What also has to be keep in mind is that it isn’t like poor people (as in poorer than the rich) having more money would mean they wouldn’t spend it. Quite the contrary. Do to their circumstances almost every extra dollar they are given is probably going to be spent just out of necessity, something that’s not going to happen with the rich. That alone pretty much negates the whole supply side theory of where it feels giving more wealth to the rich is going to somehow funnel economic growth better than anything else. Not only that but when you give so few people so much wealth it allows them to manipulate it in ways that just can’t be done by the poorer sections of the population, like hording it, using tax loopholes, using it to make them gain even more wealth, using if for “financial engineering”, and using it for dramatically increased privilege within the halls of lawmakers. Who do you think has more say so to somebody in congress, a multi-millionaire that owns a lot of businesses or some average Joe?
Anyhow, only in the most technical of senses did the economy under that system “grow”. The strength of money in the economy is relative. Whenever there is an influx of new cash whether by government borrowing or decreases for taxes for everybody like there was there, each dollar is worth less. In the case where we had the meager tax reductions for the majority of Americans and had the rich receive DRASTIC tax cuts what everybody else got hardly made up for the lack of strength of the money they now had. In effect the pie was artificially made larger do to smoke and mirrors, but only a tiny fraction of Americas benefited (this will be a common theme here in more than just this part.) Worse it gives everybody else a sense they are somehow better off when they aren’t.
Lets look even farther at that. After the war time boom and America’s rise as an unprecedented world economic juggernaut in the 60s the wealth inequalities along with the income inequalities between the rich and the poor either dropped or pretty much stabilized. While it did start to change some time during the mid to late 70’s it was when Reagan came about that the wealth and income inequalities between the rich and everybody else exploded.
Since the very early 70s. The real adjusted income and buying power of almost every household in the country has gone nowhere, and keep in mind that there are much more “two income households” now. (Something that will also be stated more in this to show it‘s even worse than statistics indicate.) From 1970 to 2001 the American economy doubled adjusted for inflation. The total value of our country even outpaced population. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, not really. 4 out of 5 American households had more at that time because they worked more. (Remember two income households) Today American households do over 20 hours more work than they did in 1975. (Well we did until the economy plummeted, again) That was one of the main reasons for America’s economic growth During Reagan and afterworlds, not the Trickle Down. However that also disguise bad things also. Like the fact that adjusted wages for high school graduates dropped after that. People with a 4 year degree saw their real wage stagnate. People under the age of 25 made less adjusted money than the same people from the early 1970s.
Years of inflation fooled people. They were making more money but it was hard to tell if they were really making more than they used to. In the overwhelming amount of cases they weren’t. From 1973 to 1997 99% of Americans incomes declined or where flat. From 1998 to 2000 wages jumped a little (Which considering our economic decline recently takes probably more than all of that away but lets forget that, for now.) If you adjust that to what Americans made during 1970 it comes out to a gain of 5 cents a hour, before taxes, with more people living in two income households, and even then most of the gains came about from 1970-1973 or from 1998 to 2000. (Also keep in mind that things are worse than then. I’m using data from that period, the early 2000s, because I had a feeling at some time some idiot or ignoramus ideologue would want to challenge me on the merits of Reagan trickle down economics so I did save a lot of what I learned from various places just so I could did them out someday. But for people reading this just remember, things are even a lot worse now.)
Lets see how the rich turned out.
In 1977 the richest 1% of Americans made as much money as the bottom 49 million. In 1999 they has as much as the bottom 100 million. (And, yes it’s even more unequal now) The top 1% saw their income more than double during that time, even after taxes. During that time the bottom fifth of households saw their incomes go from 10,000 dollars to 8,800, and keep in mind the raise in two income households and inflation into that also. So it’s even worse than it seems. From 1977 to 2001 the top 5 percent saw their share of Americas income jump from 16.6% to 22.4%. But that also doesn’t tell the whole story. If you divide it further the people between 95 and 99% of all national income saw their income increase during that time by 19.5% The top 1% of Americans saw their incomes grow to the point they were receiving more than a fifth of all the income in the country. The bottom half of the very top percent saw their share of all income grow by 47% of what they were making before. The share of the top 99.5 to 99.9% of Americans grew their income by 90%. The top from 99.9% to 99.99% of all Americans saw their share of American’s income grow by 227% during that time. Finally, the richest .01 percent of the country saw their share of America’s total income grow by 412%. The top .01 saw their share of all Americas income go from 1% in 1970 to 5% in 2000. That top .01 saw their income grow 1000 times faster than even the people in the 90%-95% of share in America’s income. In case your wondering the bottom 90% saw their share of America’s total income decline. If you were lucky enough to be within the 90% to 95% you saw your share only stay the same. (Remember that these are slightly dated statistics and things are even worse and disproportional now.)
If that doesn’t show just how much bullshit Reaganomics/Trickle Down Economics/or Supply Side Economics for those who wan to give it a fluffy name is I don’t know what is. GROWING THE ECONOMY LIKE REAGAN DID DOESN’T MEAN SHIT, WHEN IT BENEFITS SO LITTLE PEOPLE. Sure he increased economic output, and promptly gave it all to a small number of people in this country, at the same time he even decreased the value of what the others had left.
But wait there’s more.
Despite since the beginning when our country implemented income taxes where people thought the ethical and moral thing to do was to be progressing and tax people more based on how much they earned on the basis that they could more easily pay for it and it was less of a burden, it brought about something else, a for all practical purposes flat tax. Many people will like to tell you of how the rich pay so much more than the rest of us in income tax (Also keep in mind that the rich have a lot less portion of their total assets coming in as income as we have it. They have a lot greater percentage of stocks and other things which are taxed very low comparatively), which at it’s more absolutely technical sense is true, but it’s also deeply deceptive. A tax is a tax is a tax, and whatever way you take money from or give money to somebody the net effect ends up the same no matter the method. Creating a system where the non-rich people in this country never see money or services in the first place as they go to fund the rich is not any different on a realistic level than taking it from them when they have it to give to the rich.
If all taxes are counted including things like sales taxes, state taxes, social security payments, taxes on gas, among other taxes and not just income the richest Americans pay less in taxes per dollar than almost anybody else except for the people in very poor conditions some of which are in extreme poverty and can’t even make anything to tax in the first place. That destroys the whole system that people have though is fair for a long time where the rich pay more in taxes than everybody else and as one moves up the income ladder they pay more. Hell, Warren Buffet has even admitted that he pays less in taxes per dollar than his secretary.
But wait there’s more.
I said before that income as assets of America grew a lot since the 1970s. I’ll also admit that at least in a smoke and mirrors sort of way post 1982 Reagan did have the economy grow, even if it benefited almost nobody but a small number of people. While it’s true that in 1982 the economy did seem to grow there is also some things indicating it might have been either a one shot thing, do a lot to random fluctuation, or an anomaly that didn’t have anything to do with giving the rich more money. When Reagan and Bush Sr. went on to cut taxes for the rich growth fell to negative levels in the 1991. Two of the three biggest years of economic growth we have were during the 50’s when the highest tax rate was 91%. If you look at the correlations with income growth you see similar things where there is poor correlation between jumps in income of the overwhelming majorities of Americans and tax breaks for the rich. There is just nothing indicating it happens or is anymore than randomness of the system.
Now lets look at what I said about Reagan raiding social security. It was the early 1980s and the government had run up a debt for a while already. In 1981 the government borrowed 125 billion dollars. That was more than one in ten dollars it spent that year. People supporting Reagan argued that lower tax rates would mean more investments, more jobs, and more income for the government,…but things didn’t work out that way. It didn’t happen. The next few years the deficit ballooned to triple, and Reagan was spending so a third of what the government spent out it borrowed, and he was getting into some deep crap. Government wasn’t taking in any more money, unemployment was still height, and he was running up huge deficits. (Wow, who know that when you cut taxes like that the government would take in a lot less money.) So what did he do, he raised taxes. When he signed them into law he referred to them as “revenue enhancements”. (It looks like Bush Sr. had a good teacher when it came to being deceptive about raising taxes when you indicate otherwise.) They didn’t raise the income tax rate, as they were increases in excise taxes, that of course, hurt the poor much more than the rich. They also didn’t solve the problem.
Anyway the government was taking in less money and by 1983 social security was thought to be in trouble with people saying it would run out in thirty years and other things. It was running a small deficit before but with unemployment it started to get worse. Whether there was really that big of a problem or not or if it would have gotten better once unemployment went down they started slowly raising the tax on social security, and over the years it has just went up. There was a big problem with that and with taxing people for something decades in the future. The American people were lead to believe that the increase in social security taxes would be for social security, and would be saved and invested for that. Of course they weren’t. Remember there was a lot of red ink with Reagan. So what happened, that money went to help fund the rest of the government. Why were they used to fund the rest of government? Because, the taxes that were being paid by the rich were no longer there. So in essence, not only were taxes raised on social security, not only were they not used and saved as they were essentially promised, they ended up subsidizing huge tax cuts for the richest people. Remember how I was asked how it was possible to take money from the poor and give it to the rich, this is just another example of manipulating the tax code to do it.
What’s funny is that republicans and libertarians like to bitch all the time about income redistribution, and socialism. Yet, that what’s been happening for decades now and Reagan had a bigger hand in that than anybody. They have no problem implementing a system that does what they only say not to like if it funnels money to their select chosen. It’s almost a system that’s malefic enough yet at the same time deceptive enough to make the Devil proud. In a sick twisted version of it we have been living in a system that makes income flow up. For decades the poorer people have been subsidizing the huge wealth of the rich. The sad thing is getting just a trickle would be an improvement for most of us. Heck, I didn’t even start to get into things that happened during his watch the like the massive upsurge in outsourcing, and policies that helped it. I didn’t even bring up his multiple moments of scorn or total disconnect with the poor or average American in this country.
I’ve tried to be a seeker of the truth my whole live. I never blindly follow ideology. I’ve never even blindly followed religion even though I’m religious. I don’t dislike Reagan and what he did to the economy because I’m a democrat, which I’m not, or because it doesn’t follow a narrow set of principles that were drilled into my head by my parents or some politician somewhere because that’s the way it has to be. I dislike them because if anybody with a little bit of commons sense just peals back the outer layers and sees the truth they should be able to tell it was nothing but a but of bullshit. Me, as a fan of common sense and being a seeker of truth, am not very big on that. Trying to tell blind Reagan lovers the truth about the real “benefits” we were given can get to be like trying to tell an adult that still believes in Santa Clause that he’s not real even if there is real world obvious evidence that easy to see to the contrary.
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
Jeez D-rock did you really type all that out? Do you think you could type up my final essay for me?
Greatest President of the 20th century.
habo9
Banned
Great minds think alike :thumbsup:
I posted the whole programme on the first page , Spitting Image so influences my way of thinking about him , I like him he had a sense of humour
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
:1orglaugh:rofl::1orglaugh
I don't feel bad at all. I find it worrying that someone with mental health issues was allowed to remain in office. He should have been removed on medical grounds!
