27 May 09
Originally posted by sh76The Reagan administration was a disaster for the US economy, how can you say he did "just fine"?!
Okay.
But Reagan being forgetful does not mean that G HW Bush was de facto President during Reagan's second term. I think Reagan did just fine during his second term; the Iran-contra circus notwithstanding.
27 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat is a "disaster for the US economy" is subjective. For every person that tells you that Reaganomics was a disaster, as you no doubt would, there is someone who will tell you that Reaganomics has fueled the amazing growth in the US economy from the early 80s through 2008; and will continue to do so after this recession blows over, which may actually happen one of these days.
The Reagan administration was a disaster for the US economy, how can you say he did "just fine"?!
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/27/news/economy/NABE_recovery_outlook/?postversion=2009052703
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_bi_ge/[WORD TOO LONG]
Even Clinton did not really roll back the basics of Reagan's economic policies. In fact, economically, Clinton was middle of the road, maybe even slightly conservative.
27 May 09
Originally posted by sh76Your denial is strong. From the 50s to the 70s, the US provided the best living standard for the general populace in the world. Under Reagan this position quickly deteriorated, and now the US does not even make it into the top 10 as only the wealthy have benefited from economic growth. Reagan also doubled the state debt, which is now reaching dangerously high levels.
What is a "disaster for the US economy" is subjective. For every person that tells you that Reaganomics was a disaster, as you no doubt would, there is someone who will tell you that Reaganomics has fueled the amazing growth in the US economy from the early 80s through 2008; and will continue to do so after this recession blows over, which may actually happen o ...[text shortened]... ies. In fact, economically, Clinton was middle of the road, maybe even slightly conservative.
28 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's your partisanship talking.
as only the wealthy have benefited from economic growth.
The hard data indicates that all classes have benefited from the economic growth since 1980.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p60no231_tablea3.pdf
Or, for those with short attention spans
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SZpa2MmFMzI/AAAAAAAAA8A/hYSNYifyurc/s1600-h/clinton2.PNG
Your statement that "only the wealthy have benefited from economic growth" is a refrain that we hear over and over again from liberals so that it almost takes on an aura of fact even though it is simply not true.
Incidentally, before anyone points out that the Clinton years were strongest across the board:
1) I agree. But, as I said earlier, Clinton didn't really depart much from the "Reaganomic" philosophy. Under Clinton, taxes on the "rich" were still much, much lower than they had been before Reagan (the top marginal tax bracket was 39.6%, when it has been 70% before Reagan, to cite one example). In any case, I'd take Clinton over GW Bush from an economic policy standpoint any day of the week. Also, by your standards (KazetNagorra) wouldn't you consider Clinton a right winger economically?
2) The first couple of years of an administration has to at least partially be attributed to his predecessor, which means Bush Sr. gets some credit for 1993-1994 and Clinton some blame for 2001 (and yes, Bush Jr. some blame for 2009).
On the whole, as you can see, every class has done well since 1980, even if the rich have done comparatively better.
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76sh76 Does know what he is talking about.
That's your partisanship talking.
The hard data indicates that all classes have benefited from the economic growth since 1980.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p60no231_tablea3.pdf
Or, for those with short attention spans
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SZpa2MmFMzI/AAAAAAAAA8A/hYSNYifyurc/s1600-h/clinton2.PNG
Your statement tha ...[text shortened]... every class has done well since 1980, even if the rich have done comparatively better.
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76Does the net income change take into account, for example, the changes in health care costs, education costs, etc.?
That's your partisanship talking.
The hard data indicates that all classes have benefited from the economic growth since 1980.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p60no231_tablea3.pdf
Or, for those with short attention spans
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SZpa2MmFMzI/AAAAAAAAA8A/hYSNYifyurc/s1600-h/clinton2.PNG
Your statement tha ...[text shortened]... every class has done well since 1980, even if the rich have done comparatively better.
Even if it does, a measly rise in inflation corrected income is hardly good news for the Reagan camp, when the potential for much larger increases was there.
Clinton didn't change Reagan's policies much. That's true. He did better, but he was a right wing conservative, thus applying right wing conservative policies, shipping billions to the rich. I don't understand why you accuse me of partisanship - clearly history shows Dems have done slightly better than Republicans, but the difference between the parties is negligible, so if one supports Democrat policies one also supports Republican policies and vice versa. Obviously I support neither, since both parties are far too right wing to be good for the economy. The income inequality is causing the US economy huge damage, but I suppose your spite against the poor is blinding you from realizing that.
28 May 09
3 edits
My "spite against the poor"?
What would I possibly have against the poor?
You call Bill Clinton a "right wing conservative" and then you want to know why I think you're partisan?
And, FYI, I don't consider calling you partisan an "accusation." There's nothing wrong with being partisan. Most of us are, to one degree or another.
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76Personally I don't know the answer to that question. But I think such 'spite' is something that people can assume you feel, perhaps unwittingly, when they see your see-only-what-you-want-see approach to the Reagan legacy.
My "spite against the poor"?
What would I possibly have against the poor?
[Is this degree of brusqueness ok with you?]
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76cont'd...
What would I possibly have against the poor?
It could be a result of your upbringing, or your ideology, or a function of your own financial insecurity. What you "have against the poor" and the reaons why uopu "have" these things "against the poor" are closely intertwined. So it's difficult for me and KN to explain to you what is is that you have against them and the spite that you (and KN) mentioned.
28 May 09
Originally posted by FMFYes, your tone is perfectly civil. Thank you.
Personally I don't know the answer to that question. But I think such 'spite' is something that people can assume you feel, perhaps unwittingly, when they see your see-only-what-you-want-see approach to the Reagan legacy.
[Is this degree of brusqueness ok with you?]
I don't see why supporting Ronald Reagan has to mean that I hate the poor. I think that's just rhetoric.
Poor, in any case, is a relative term.
"The average electrician, air-conditioning mechanic, or burglar-alarm repairman (lives) a life that would have made the Sun King blink"
- Tom Wolfe, Hooking Up
28 May 09
Originally posted by FMFOkay, I opened the door to that by putting my point in the form of a question.
cont'd...
It could be a result of your upbringing, or your ideology, or a function of your own financial insecurity. What you "have against the poor" and the reaons why uopu "have" these things "against the poor" are closely intertwined. So it's difficult for me and KN to explain to you what is is that you have against them and the spite that you (and KN) mentioned.
Silly me.
Now I am closing the door: I have nothing against the poor and I will not participate in further discussion that is based on the preposterous presumption that I do.
28 May 09
Originally posted by sh76If it's not spite, then it must be ignorance of the facts.
Okay, I opened the door to that by putting my point in the form of a question.
Silly me.
Now I am closing the door: I have nothing against the poor and I will not participate in further discussion that is based on the preposterous presumption that I do.
28 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Being one pay cheque away from financial disaster is a pretty good working definition of "poor" in the "rich" world. If one of your children gets sick in a fairly straight forward way and yet it wreaks an existential threat upon your household economy, despite both parents working long and hard and honestly - that's a passable, rough-hewn definition of "poor" applicable to everyday life in developed countries. Working 60 hours a week but barely making do and saving nothing, while living modestly on the money that all those hours earn - that's a not unreasonable benchmark for coping with the fact that the word "poor" is "a relative term" in "rich" economies. No? Is it really such a hard term to use?
Poor, in any case, is a relative term.
28 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Calm down. That second post of mine ("cont'd" ) was clearly tongue in cheek. Did it really require a smiley?
Now I am closing the door: I have nothing against the poor and I will not participate in further discussion that is based on the preposterous presumption that I do.