Keynesian economics ~~ Soviet Communism

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by freestater

I'm not defending Reagan here, I'm just pointing out the multi-trillion dollar gorilla in the room.

everyone rants and raves about entitlements, there are economies in Europe right now that are stronger than ours, such as Germany, with higher structural unemployment and never-ending entitlements.

It might annoy people from a moral perspective but economically it's not such a bad problem. Tax breaks while waging multiple wars of choice is a way worse problem than entitlements.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by freestater

Right. Unfunded gargantuan entitlement programs with an ever-expanding recipient base had nothing to do with it.

Oh, and the guy in your avatar who you 'don't know who he is'... he was a murdering POS who enjoyed killing and did it often whenever he found somebody who disagreed with his politics.

I agree about the comment about the avatar - its meant to be a joke on people who think he's a legend. If you look at the avatar its clearly a joke on those who think he's cool, because clearly those people don't know the background.

My previous avatar had Tiger Woods making a "stiffy" with his arm on the 18th at Augusta, which was also a joke. If you look at the picture at the bottom of my posts you will also see a joke on my nationality, so if you miss the humour it probably isn't my fault.

And you can defer attention from the basic facts of Reagan's Presidency as much as you like - the "ever expanding" recipient base had eff all to do with him running up nearly 5 trillion debt in 12 years after the previous 200 years had run up a 5th of that. Where were those recipients then? Or maybe they were all Republican supporters which sort of figures if you think about it.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by Black Death

I'm from Australia - and I apologise if I am overly hurtful to the person a lot of people see as a hero around here. Obviously, as I've stated, I just don't see why Reagan is lionised as he is because the facts as I see it just don't paint him that way. As I see it Reagan is the root cause for your economic ills today, his policies and his economic approach started this entire debt-cycle that you are locked into today. Don't forget he escalated your public debt by a factor of almost 500% (when you count in the fiscal lag experienced by Bush 1) in 12 years what took your country almost 200 years to build. Reagan was awful for your country because your country is built on its well-earned economic might - during his time your country went from the largest creditor in the world to one of the worlds largest debtors - he whittled away centuries of good work of your previous leaders and citizens. The apologists for him claim he did this to "break communism", but if you can make a link between supply-side economics and the breaking of communism I'm a monkey's Uncle. The thing is I just can't understand why he's such a hero to certain people over there when he should be the exact opposite. Reagan had the leadership and economic skills of a poor Hollywood actor, funny that.

While I like your posts, what about the "labor inflation" that Reagan fought against? "Labor" or unions, were flexing muscles like it was their right; and each Union (comprised of homogenous elements) became "islands agaisnt reality" behaving pretty much against the public good as the leaders tried to "earn" a "bigger piece of the pie" for their members.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by freestater

... and I'm cool, WCO. Freestater abides.

Good to hear you good luck out there. It's been a dry summer here. I'm gonna go ahead and bet that late Oct. will be pretty disappointing in these parts.

We have had so much rain that I am fighting back vigorous ivy! The economy being the way it is, I know folks in Wine Country (NOT Humboldt or Mendo)that are growing about 10-20 outdoor plants (and mucho indoor) to sell to the dispenseries. It brings in a little income for them.

I have a "Farm Aid" program...PM me if the October Harvest is not all that.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by bitonti

everyone rants and raves about entitlements, there are economies in Europe right now that are stronger than ours, such as Germany, with higher structural unemployment and never-ending entitlements.

It might annoy people from a moral perspective but economically it's not such a bad problem. Tax breaks while waging multiple wars of choice is a way worse problem than entitlements.

Yep. You know, the moral perspective that theft by majority vote is still theft.

Originally Posted by Black Death

I agree about the comment about the avatar - its meant to be a joke on people who think he's a legend. If you look at the avatar its clearly a joke on those who think he's cool, because clearly those people don't know the background.

My previous avatar had Tiger Woods making a "stiffy" with his arm on the 18th at Augusta, which was also a joke. If you look at the picture at the bottom of my posts you will also see a joke on my nationality, so if you miss the humour it probably isn't my fault.

And you can defer attention from the basic facts of Reagan's Presidency as much as you like - the "ever expanding" recipient base had eff all to do with him running up nearly 5 trillion debt in 12 years after the previous 200 years had run up a 5th of that. Where were those recipients then? Or maybe they were all Republican supporters which sort of figures if you think about it.

Sorry I didn't get the joke. It's good to see someone from the left who understands that Guevera was a monster.

As for the two of you drumming the Reagan-debt montra, there's no doubt that Reagan threw this country into terrible debt. Regardless of the reason, it's what he did. Of course Clinton came in and created a surplus, right? So the debt that Reagan created really is of no issue in the year 2011, is it? Unless (like some said) that Clinton's 'surplus' was really just "creative accounting".

As for the bloated "military industrial complex" and the massive entitlements that are drowning this nation in debt currently, you're not going to hear me defend either. I say de-fund both.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive

While I like your posts, what about the "labor inflation" that Reagan fought against? "Labor" or unions, were flexing muscles like it was their right; and each Union (comprised of homogenous elements) became "islands agaisnt reality" behaving pretty much against the public good as the leaders tried to "earn" a "bigger piece of the pie" for their members.

We had the same issue in Australia - while our private debt is awful, our public debt is basically zilch compared to yours and we never blamed shortfalls in our government's budget because of the influence of unions. Unions could not be responsible for trillions of $ worth of debt, but outright deliberate mismanagement of a countries fiscal status is. That's what happened under Reagan and that's a cold-stone fact.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Black Death

We had the same issue in Australia - while our private debt is awful, our public debt is basically zilch compared to yours and we never blamed shortfalls in our government's budget because of the influence of unions. Unions could not be responsible for trillions of $ worth of debt, but outright deliberate mismanagement of a countries fiscal status is. That's what happened under Reagan and that's a cold-stone fact.

You think Gorbachev was negotiating the end of the Soviet Union because Australia has a copper mine? Get real.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

You think Gorbachev was negotiating the end of the Soviet Union because Australia has a copper mine? Get real.

What so Reagan was solely responsible for the fall of a gigantic super power because he said a few words over a table or spent some money on nuclear weapons? There are a whole slew of factors that fed into the fall of the Soviet Union, most of those actually located in the Soviet Union itself rather than the ditherings of some early-onset-alzheimers dodderer located on the other side of the globe. To my mind the downfall of the Soviet Union was inevitable from its inception - it was going to happen at some stage or other. You only have to know a cursory outline of Soviet/Russian history to realise this. You can kid yourself Reagan rode in like some actor in a Wild West movie to "save the day", as his hagiography claims, when the fact of the matter is he was lucky enough to be around when the inevitable occured.

If you are saying he spent trillions of $ to get rid of Communism, and that that money was well spent, then why is the next world's super-power going to be the biggest Communist nation (and indeed nation full-stop) the world has ever seen?

If the only thing Reagan can hang his hat on is the "fall of communism" he gets a massive fail on that front. And its a fail that cost trillions of $ and has now sent your country into a deflationary spiral it will be extremely difficult to get out of for years.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Black Death

What so Reagan was solely responsible for the fall of a gigantic super power because he said a few words over a table or spent some money on nuclear weapons? There are a whole slew of factors that fed into the fall of the Soviet Union, most of those actually located in the Soviet Union itself rather than the ditherings of some early-onset-alzheimers dodderer located on the other side of the globe. To my mind the downfall of the Soviet Union was inevitable from its inception - it was going to happen at some stage or other. You only have to know a cursory outline of Soviet/Russian history to realise this. You can kid yourself Reagan rode in like some actor in a Wild West movie to "save the day", as his hagiography claims, when the fact of the matter is he was lucky enough to be around when the inevitable occured.

If you are saying he spent trillions of $ to get rid of Communism, and that that money was well spent, then why is the next world's super-power going to be the biggest Communist nation (and indeed nation full-stop) the world has ever seen?

If the only thing Reagan can hang his hat on is the "fall of communism" he gets a massive fail on that front. And its a fail that cost trillions of $ and has now sent your country into a deflationary spiral it will be extremely difficult to get out of for years.

Who said the fall of Communism? I said the fall of the Soviet Union which the US fought for since the end of WW2 at great expense.

When Reagan took office the US was in economic destress, our military was in shambles and we looked like a failed empire. He lead this country through ideas, will, humor, a very tough defense buildup coupled with a brilliantly run State department.

When he took office the US and the Soviet Union were both in decline. When he left the Soviet Union was done and the US was in recovery.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Who said the fall of Communism? I said the fall of the Soviet Union which the US fought for since the end of WW2 at great expense.

When Reagan took office the US was in economic destress, our military was in shambles and we looked like a failed empire. He lead this country through ideas, will, humor, a very tough defense buildup coupled with a brilliantly run State department.

When he took office the US and the Soviet Union were both in decline. When he left the Soviet Union was done and the US was in recovery.

I would argue about the use of the word "recovery", given that what Reagan did is swap pleasure-for-the present of his Presidency for the hugely amplified pain of future Americans. A pain that you are experiencing right now and will probably get worse before it gets better, and a pain Reagan is not around to take responsibility for. Great, Reagan sparked a "recovery" - a recovery that led to the 87 Stock Market Crash a painful recession in 1990 and set a template for what was to come and the Bernie Madoffs of this world. Ever wonder why the catchcry of the 80's was "Greed is Good?" And why we could say the same about the times of Bush 2? But of course all you remember are those good times living on the credit of your children - times are awesome when you are living off someone elses money.

The Soviet Union most certainly is done - but that was inevitable from its inception. Communism isn't however, and Reagan and his cronies have given it the financial ammunition for world domination. Sick.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by freestater

Yep. You know, the moral perspective that theft by majority vote is still theft.




Sorry I didn't get the joke. It's good to see someone from the left who understands that Guevera was a monster.

As for the two of you drumming the Reagan-debt montra, there's no doubt that Reagan threw this country into terrible debt. Regardless of the reason, it's what he did. Of course Clinton came in and created a surplus, right? So the debt that Reagan created really is of no issue in the year 2011, is it? Unless (like some said) that Clinton's 'surplus' was really just "creative accounting".

As for the bloated "military industrial complex" and the massive entitlements that are drowning this nation in debt currently, you're not going to hear me defend either. I say de-fund both.

Have gone too far on Reagan today and given him a thrashing. Probabaly made myself out to be a bit of a demonstrative tit. Apologies if I've come across as obnoxious as I'm not like that *most* of the time.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Black Death

Have gone too far on Reagan today and given him a thrashing. Probabaly made myself out to be a bit of a demonstrative tit. Apologies if I've come across as obnoxious as I'm not like that *most* of the time.

obnoxious, no. one-track-mind, yes.

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by freestater

Yep. You know, the moral perspective that theft by majority vote is still theft.

there's this idea that taxes are theft. it's a service charge for living in the country. don't like it move to mexico. pay their taxes. render unto caesar what is caesars.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by bitonti

there's this idea that taxes are theft. it's a service charge for living in the country. don't like it move to mexico. pay their taxes. render unto caesar what is caesars.

what a tired, contrived response.

Taxes paid for services are not the issue. It's the forced collection of funds from some to be redistributed to others. What service does an entitlement recipient provide the subsidizer? None. When speaking of entitlements, one isn't speaking of taxes collected for the support of government services enjoyed by all. We're talking about is monies collected (through force) and given to those in special, protected status.

I've said this to you before, if you can't tell the difference between the two, I can't help.

(and the next time you use the same contrived, tired response, I'll say it again)

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by freestater

What service does an entitlement recipient provide the subsidizer? None.

if all entitlements were removed tomorrow, there'd be alot of chaos. It's not a great long term solution for poverty but we'd rather have people using food stamps than starving in the street. avoiding that scenario helps everyone... believe it or not. even the super rich.

no one wants to be harassed by starving or dying people on the way to work. it's unpleasant.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Black Death

I would argue about the use of the word "recovery", given that what Reagan did is swap pleasure-for-the present of his Presidency for the hugely amplified pain of future Americans. A pain that you are experiencing right now and will probably get worse before it gets better, and a pain Reagan is not around to take responsibility for. Great, Reagan sparked a "recovery" - a recovery that led to the 87 Stock Market Crash a painful recession in 1990 and set a template for what was to come and the Bernie Madoffs of this world. Ever wonder why the catchcry of the 80's was "Greed is Good?" And why we could say the same about the times of Bush 2? But of course all you remember are those good times living on the credit of your children - times are awesome when you are living off someone elses money.

The Soviet Union most certainly is done - but that was inevitable from its inception. Communism isn't however, and Reagan and his cronies have given it the financial ammunition for world domination. Sick.

You left out 22 years since he left office. Bush's father dealt with the budget and after a rather mild recession lost his Presidency in a 3 way followed by surplus years that were blown when Clinton failed to take out Bin Laden before the WTC were blown up.

In the meantime the military that Reagan built up not only got the Soviets to give it up but defeated the Iraq army twice, the Afganistan army that beat the Soviets and the Serbs under Clinton not to mention defending British and French oil in Libya.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by bitonti

if all entitlements were removed tomorrow, there'd be alot of chaos. It's not a great long term solution for poverty but we'd rather have people using food stamps than starving in the street. avoiding that scenario helps everyone... believe it or not. even the super rich.

no one wants to be harassed by starving or dying people on the way to work. it's unpleasant.

So you agree then. The recipient gives no service to the benefactor.

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by freestater

So you agree then. The recipient gives no service to the benefactor.

not really. there's an idea of common good and its in the interest of the common good to feed the hungry and aid the sick. also today's benefactor might be tomorrow's recipient. it all comes around.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by bitonti

not really. there's an idea of common good and its in the interest of the common good to feed the hungry and aid the sick. also today's benefactor might be tomorrow's recipient. it all comes around.

your obfuscation contains your admission.

In essence, you're arguing that if I we're forced to buy you a sandwich, you eating that sandwich would be a 'service' to me.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

You left out 22 years since he left office. Bush's father dealt with the budget and after a rather mild recession lost his Presidency in a 3 way followed by surplus years that were blown when Clinton failed to take out Bin Laden before the WTC were blown up.

In the meantime the military that Reagan built up not only got the Soviets to give it up but defeated the Iraq army twice, the Afganistan army that beat the Soviets and the Serbs under Clinton not to mention defending British and French oil in Libya.

Just curious, Winston, who do you think was a better president from a strictly economic perpsective: Reagan or Clinton?