Ronald Reagan: A Simple Man Who So Nearly Destroyed Us

Damn Yankee said:
Again:

.
Click to expand...

The US establishment could never understand the Russian's mentality when it came to the defence of their territory. They had good reason to be paranoid after the German's reneging on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. A good strategist should always be able to put themselves into the mindset of their opponents, defining them as inherently evil and irrational was just simple minded.

Reagan, in his first term, really saw the world as black hats and white hats, Margaret Thatcher being far more intelligent was able to show him that his admin's behaviour was in grave danger of causing a new war. In his second term he was incredibly lucky that both Andropov and Chernenko had died so quickly paving the way for Gorbachev to come to power.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
So close to being clever, but it doesn't really work, because I'm actually able to read, whereas you...well, not so much.

:)
Click to expand...

ZOMG, all you can do is copy me. ZOMG how embarrassing. ZOMG, you're so stupid. ZOMG, you can't read!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yours truly,

dunceler
 
Yurt said:
ZOMG, all you can do is copy me. ZOMG how embarrassing. ZOMG, you're so stupid. ZOMG, you can't read!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yours truly,

dunceler
Click to expand...

Actually, I have to admit to being wrong here. This isn't really that close at all to being clever.

I should clarify; for YOU, it's probably as close as you can get...
 
NigelTufnel said:
Just to correct one thing, in January 2000 the CBO projected GDP growth of 3% for 2000 and 2001 and an average of 2.8% for the 2002-2010 period, which is lower than annual growth rate for the 1975-1996 (3%) period and substantially lower than the dot com boom years (>4%).


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/18xx/doc1820/eb0100.pdf
Click to expand...

Now read us the part where they state that a large part of the surplus is from expectations that revenues from Cap Gains will remain strong.

Then read us the part where they tell us how they project unemployment will remain at 5% from 2002 on.

then explain this.... (pg 41)

The most significant change is CBO’s upward
revision of its projections of economic growth to reflect
the performance of the economy in recent months
and to incorporate recent revisions in the national income
and product accounts. On a fiscal year basis,
CBO now projects that GDP will grow by 5.1 percent
in 2000 and 4.7 percent in 2001, compared with last
July’s projections of 4.6 percent and 4.2 percent. For
2002 through 2009, the rate of growth of GDP averages
0.2 percentage points higher than the rate noted
in July’s estimates. As a result, current projections of
revenues, which reflect anticipated improvements in
incomes, are more than $500 billion higher over the
2000-2009 period than the amount CBO projected last
July. (Chapter 3 provides the outlook for revenues.)
Click to expand...

page 42....

Overall, changes resulting from technical factors
swell projected surpluses by $366 billion over the
2000-2009 period. Downward revisions to spending
for Medicare account for $141 billion, or nearly 40
percent, of that total.
Click to expand...

also page 42....

Medicare. Technical changes in CBO’s Medicare
projections reduce anticipated spending by $5 billion
in 2000. The size of those reductions grows steadily
each year; in 2009, they lower estimated outlays by
$29 billion. The changes reflect continuing moderation
in the annual rate of growth of Medicare spending,
which analysts attribute to smaller increases than
in past years in the use of medical services and better
compliance by hospitals and other health service providers
with Medicare payment rules.
Click to expand...


we definitely don't want to overlook this....

In 2000, the total surplus is estimated to be $176
billion, which can be divided into a federal funds deficit
of $60 billion and a combined trust fund surplus of
$236 billion (see Table 1-6).
Click to expand...
 
Onceler said:
Actually, I have to admit to being wrong here. This isn't really that close at all to being clever.

I should clarify; for YOU, it's probably as close as you can get...
Click to expand...

ZOMG, how embarrassing. ZOMG, you're so stupid. ZOMG, you can't read!!!!!

yours truly,

dunceler
 
NigelTufnel said:
OK. All of them.
Click to expand...

Exactly... you can't

That's the way I read it.
Click to expand...

Which shows you as a retard then.

Fargle Bargle.
Click to expand...

thanks for again proving you are a retard.

Well, you attribute our current debt problems to the economic collapse brought about by the repeal of Glass Steagal. In so doing, you excuse the Bush policies that are the largest component of our present debt situation.
Click to expand...

I attributed the economic collapse to the repeal of Glass Steagall. I also stated that the insane spending SINCE that time is a result of that. I did not excuse anyone prior for their spending.

and you again are sadly mistaken to proclaim that Bush's policies are the largest component of our present debt situation. They are not. The repeal of Glass Steagall has had a far greater impact than the full 8 years of Bush. Again for the morons... this does not excuse Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility. This is just a correction of the moronic Nigel.

I didn't claim the tax cut and spent policies led to the economic collapse. I said that the tax cuts and spend policies are the largest contributors to out debt, which they are.
Click to expand...

No... they are not.
 
tom prendergast said:
The US establishment could never understand the Russian's mentality when it came to the defence of their territory. They had good reason to be paranoid after the German's reneging on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. A good strategist should always be able to put themselves into the mindset of their opponents, defining them as inherently evil and irrational was just simple minded.

Reagan, in his first term, really saw the world as black hats and white hats, Margaret Thatcher being far more intelligent was able to show him that his admin's behaviour was in grave danger of causing a new war. In his second term he was incredibly lucky that both Andropov and Chernenko had died so quickly paving the way for Gorbachev to come to power.
Click to expand...

complete revisionist garbage.
 
tom prendergast said:
The US establishment could never understand the Russian's mentality when it came to the defence of their territory. They had good reason to be paranoid after the German's reneging on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. A good strategist should always be able to put themselves into the mindset of their opponents, defining them as inherently evil and irrational was just simple minded.

Reagan, in his first term, really saw the world as black hats and white hats, Margaret Thatcher being far more intelligent was able to show him that his admin's behaviour was in grave danger of causing a new war. In his second term he was incredibly lucky that both Andropov and Chernenko had died so quickly paving the way for Gorbachev to come to power.
Click to expand...

You were afraid because he challenged them? :)
 
Onceler said:
SF - it's fairly disingenuous to portray the fiscal irresponsibility & spending of the Reagan years as a pure bipartisan effort. When it came to the bloated military spending (as well as the tax cuts), Reagan set the priorities. He was the last President who could really claim a "mandate" from his elections, and he used that mandate to set us on a course of exploding deficits that haven't let up since....
Click to expand...

Again.... bullshit.

It is the typical bullshit from the left of 'well, gee, if we are in the minority, we really didn't have any power. When we have the majority, well, we can't be blamed for that either because the Reps are stopping us with their power in the minority. When we have a supermajority, well, nothing is still our responsibility because the Reps are the party of no.' blah blah blah....
 
Superfreak said:
complete revisionist garbage.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, I would imagine you were still in short trousers in 1980. Unless you were incredibly precocious, I doubt that you were old enough to appreciate the events first hand as they were unfolding. Everything you know about that era is therefore second hand and apparently heavily nuanced by ideology.

I would also point out that the early warning radars for the US east coast were and are based in England at RAF Fylindales in Yorkshire. We were painfully aware during that time that the UK would have been nuked well before the US, it always seemed that we were considered to be a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Ronnie's right wing rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Now read us the part where they state that a large part of the surplus is from expectations that revenues from Cap Gains will remain strong.

Then read us the part where they tell us how they project unemployment will remain at 5% from 2002 on.

then explain this.... (pg 41)



page 42....



also page 42....




we definitely don't want to overlook this....
Click to expand...


I would address each of these, but the basic point remains the same, your assertion that the CBO projected dot com boom levels of economic growth in projecting that there would be a surplus is simply incorrect. Rather than admitting that fact, you decide to obfuscate. Once you admit your initial error, I will be more than happy to address your additional errors above.
 
Superfreak said:
Again.... bullshit.

It is the typical bullshit from the left of 'well, gee, if we are in the minority, we really didn't have any power. When we have the majority, well, we can't be blamed for that either because the Reps are stopping us with their power in the minority. When we have a supermajority, well, nothing is still our responsibility because the Reps are the party of no.' blah blah blah....
Click to expand...

It's not that; that's a lazy argument.

It wasn't called the "Reagan Revolution" for nothing. If you want to argue that the Dem Congress of the '80's was a big spending Congress, have at it. You'll get no argument from me.

But on the major initiatives of that era - the initiatives that set the tone for the '80's, like military spending combined w/ big tax cuts - that's all on Reagan. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise.

I was down w/ the tax cuts, btw; but when you cut taxes like that, you can't increase military spending like he did. There was no fiscal responsibilty to that entire philosophy.
 
Superfreak said:
Exactly... you can't
Click to expand...

All of them is the correct answer.


Superfreak said:
I attributed the economic collapse to the repeal of Glass Steagall. I also stated that the insane spending SINCE that time is a result of that. I did not excuse anyone prior for their spending.
Click to expand...

Right, you just ignored it.


Superfreak said:
and you again are sadly mistaken to proclaim that Bush's policies are the largest component of our present debt situation. They are not. The repeal of Glass Steagall has had a far greater impact than the full 8 years of Bush. Again for the morons... this does not excuse Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility. This is just a correction of the moronic Nigel.
Click to expand...

It just isn't so:

12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg



Superfreak said:
No... they are not.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.
 
Onceler said:
It's not that; that's a lazy argument.

It wasn't called the "Reagan Revolution" for nothing. If you want to argue that the Dem Congress of the '80's was a big spending Congress, have at it. You'll get no argument from me.

But on the major initiatives of that era - the initiatives that set the tone for the '80's, like military spending combined w/ big tax cuts - that's all on Reagan. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise.

I was down w/ the tax cuts, btw; but when you cut taxes like that, you can't increase military spending like he did. There was no fiscal responsibilty to that entire philosophy.
Click to expand...

ZOMG, how embarrassing. ZOMG, you're so stupid. ZOMG, you can't read!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top