Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on January 02, 2014, 11:26:07 AM
-
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_24825201/california-new-laws-higher-wages-safer-cycling-gun
-
The majority of voters in Cali prefer a nanny state. They wanna be babied and cared for. Conservatives are in the minority there. Most of the laws listed there are total crap.
A few of those laws are actually good for people who enjoy their rights:
I enjoy the right to drive without some asswipe 16 year old jerking off on his phone flirting with his crush crashing into me. I think every one of us sees these DISTRACTED drivers as a risk to our right to be safe on public roads. Pull over and text, kid.
I enjoy being able to ride a bike (if I did) without someone driving by me at 55mph... The law of physics dictate if he's passing me that fast and he's 6 inches away, I'm getting sucked under his big ass truck. So yeah, 36 inches of space is a good idea. Anyone who feels angry they have to respect wind shear, lol.
-
well majority of dems simply hate successful white male
they will rip world to shreds to bring him down
problem is someonie has to invent linux the car pc atomic power and hek big mac
and non whities aint doin good job
-
I live in California.
SACRAMENTO -- New laws taking effect this year will change the way Californians drive, work and go to school.
Starting today, teens can no longer text friends using Siri while on the road, and this summer
,
Good
the minimum wage will increase to one of the highest rates in the nation.
Not sure. But everything else is very expensive here.
DRIVERS: California in September will join two dozen other states in requiring motorists to keep at least three feet from cyclists when passing.
This will cause problems because not all roads are wide enough to do that with on coming traffic
Another law continues until 2019 to permit low-emission or zero-emission vehicle drivers to use carpool lanes even when driving alone.
That's nice but at some point the HOV lanes will lose its advantage.
Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, right, is congratulated by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson after the Assembly approved Alejo
Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, right, is congratulated by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson after the Assembly approved Alejo's minimum wage bill at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Sept. 12, 2013. (Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
WORKERS: Starting July 1, minimum wage earners must be paid $9 an hour, and by 2016, the state's base wage will jump to $10. In-home caregivers who work more than nine hours a day or 45 hours per week must be paid time and a half, and people who work outdoors must get breaks when the weather is hot.
Don't know about wage thing. But like i said its expensive here.
TEENS: Transgender students can choose which restrooms to use and which sports teams to play on,
Don't know about this either
and cyberbullies will face harsher penalties in school.
Still don't get what a cyberbully is
It's already illegal for teens to use cellphones while driving, but now, voice-operated hands-free texting programs are off-limits, too.
Good
IMMIGRANTS: People living in the country illegally can now practice law in California, and by 2015, illegal immigrants will be able to obtain driver's licenses. Gov. Jerry Brown also signed legislation barring county jails from turning illegal immigrants over to federal authorities.
OMFG ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
WOMEN: Many states last year restricted women's abortion rights, but California expanded access to the procedure, allowing certain clinicians other than doctors to perform some early-term abortions.
Cycling on a narrow road, Diablo, Calif.
Cycling on a narrow road, Diablo, Calif. (Jim Stevens, Bay Area News Group)
ok
FAMILIES: Children can now have more than two legal parents, and law enforcement officials must activate an AMBER ALERT when a child is abducted by a parent or guardian who jeopardizes a child's life. Workers now will be eligible to take family leave to care for a wider variety of seriously ill relatives.
good
VICTIMS: Employers can no longer fire, discriminate or retaliate against a worker victimized by domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
good
They're also barred from retaliating against employees who are immigrants by threatening to report their status to federal authorities.
Do they mean illegal immigrants??
PAPARAZZI: Photographers who harass the children of public figures, including celebrities, will face tougher penalties, including up to a year in county jail and a $10,000 fine. This law was backed by actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner.
good
ANIMALS: Homeowners who spot mountain lions in their backyards may not shoot and kill the big cats. Hunters by 2019 will no longer be able to use lead ammunition.
fucking stupid
GUNS: Rifle purchasers must earn safety certificates,
I like it. Nothing wrong with that
and kits that convert regular magazines into high-capacity magazines are banned.
Stupid
Mentally ill people who make violent threats are prohibited from owning guns for five years.
good
-
Common sense is not words that should be uttered by a birther.
-
Common sense is not words that should be uttered by a birther.
That's the first thing i thougth, but there isn't any point lol.
-
Common sense is not words that should be uttered by a birther.
Common sense is also 2 words
-
But... Coach's beliefs about OB's birth place aren't the issue here.
These new laws are.
What's your take on each?
-
Actually, the own article shows that the Governor is pretty moderate.
The 805 bills Gov. Brown signed last year are fairly progressive by national standards, but the 96 bills he vetoed are evidence of hiss moderate side.
The governor gave the National Rifle Association seven of the 11 vetoes it wanted, and he rejected more than three dozen bills labeled "job killers" by the California Chamber of Commerce. Only one of those, the minimum wage hike, became law.
Perhaps the most impressive legislative achievement last year is what didn't get signed into law, said Jack Pitney a political-science professor at Claremont McKenna College.
"We can all be thankful that taxes won't go up in 2014," Pitney said.
I think Joe is a good guy, but if he hates California's politics so much, why does he stay there?
-
"They're also barred from retaliating against employees who are immigrants by threatening to report their status to federal authorities."
So it's now illegal for someone to follow the law.
-
Actually, the own article shows that the Governor is pretty moderate.
The 805 bills Gov. Brown signed last year are fairly progressive by national standards, but the 96 bills he vetoed are evidence of hiss moderate side.
The governor gave the National Rifle Association seven of the 11 vetoes it wanted, and he rejected more than three dozen bills labeled "job killers" by the California Chamber of Commerce. Only one of those, the minimum wage hike, became law.
Perhaps the most impressive legislative achievement last year is what didn't get signed into law, said Jack Pitney a political-science professor at Claremont McKenna College.
"We can all be thankful that taxes won't go up in 2014," Pitney said.
I think Joe is a good guy, but if he hates California's politics so much, why does he stay there?
Well good for Jerry
But fuck him on this Immigration scam
-
Well good for Jerry
But fuck him on this Immigration scam
It's a money making scheme... Whether they are legal or not, they gotta pay for license fees.
-
Common sense is not words that should be uttered by a birther.
Planning economics for a state or country should NEVER be uttered by the left. That's primarily what this thread was started for. There are some good laws but raising minimum wage is ridiculous.
-
Planning economics for a state or country should NEVER be uttered by the left. That's primarily what this thread was started for. There are some good laws but raising minimum wage is ridiculous.
I don't think it's a bad thing from a state or region level.
You and I both know that the cost of living in Los Angeles and the surrounding counties is much much higher than other areas of the country.
I have no issue with raising it a buck or so around LA... other areas, not so much.
-
Planning economics for a state or country should NEVER be uttered by the left. That's primarily what this thread was started for. There are some good laws but raising minimum wage is ridiculous.
Yeah because Repub economics really work huh? Trickle down economics? Bush tax cuts? How about the poorest states in the country being red states? Yep boy... really good examples you got there.
Another fail thread started by you. No surprise.
-
yeah, look what a disaster Jerry Brown has been
he really fucked up the state after Arnold handed it off to him is such great shape
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Good-news-California-Surplus-is-2-4-billion-4997158.php
-
yeah, look what a disaster Jerry Brown has been
he really fucked up the state after Arnold handed it off to him is such great shape
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Good-news-California-Surplus-is-2-4-billion-4997158.php
I don't think it's fair for Joe to complain about the California economy when his Gym memberships start at 350 bucks a month... Very few areas could support a gym membership with that rate.
His area in California (I believe it's OC) is one of the few areas in the country that can.
I like Joe... He's a reasonable guy, but he gets sucked into the "anti-liberal" schtick a little too much.
-
specifically:
IMMIGRANTS: People living in the country illegally can now practice law in California, and by 2015, illegal immigrants will be able to obtain driver's licenses. Gov. Jerry Brown also signed legislation barring county jails from turning illegal immigrants over to federal authorities.
-
specifically:
It's just about money... Whether they are legal or not doesn't change the fact that the California government will take their money for licenses.
-
It's just about money... Whether they are legal or not doesn't change the fact that the California government will take their money for licenses.
did you read the whole thing?
What do you think about it?
Are you ok with it?
I realize most things in our politics is about money. Where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Should there be a line?
Do you believe in borders?
With these new laws why should you have to show you passport?
Props to Jerry for getting the state budget in order.... BWTF??? Jerry supporters are you ok with this?
Might as well call it "Calexico" from now on.
-
did you read the whole thing?
What do you think about it?
Are you ok with it?
I realize most things in our politics is about money. Where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Should there be a line?
Do you believe in borders?
With these new laws why should you have to show you passport?
Props to Jerry for getting the state budget in order.... BWTF??? Jerry supporters are you ok with this?
Might as well call it "Calexico" corm now on.
I understand the revenue aspect, but no... I don't agree with it.
I think it's bad. We have borders and there's a reason why we want to make sure people aren't just running around free whim.
There has to be some ideal for checking on who people are that are coming and going.
You're right also, why should I have to show a passport if illegals can just come and go at whim?
-
You do realize that permitting illegals to obtain drivers licences feeds multiple birds with one worm don't you?
In addition to the additional revenues to the state, and boosts to the insurance industries, among other things,
...it allows the state to know who these people are, as well as where they are. No more getting lost in the wind.
-
You do realize that permitting illegals to obtain drivers licences feeds multiple birds with one worm don't you?
In addition to the additional revenues to the state, and boosts to the insurance industries, among other things,
...it allows the state to know who these people are, as well as where they are. No more getting lost in the wind.
They aren't doing anything with information. What's the point?
-
They aren't doing anything with information. What's the point?
Sure they are. They're calculating the potential workpool for the big corporations who want to hire them.
-
You do realize that permitting illegals to obtain drivers licences feeds multiple birds with one worm don't you?
In addition to the additional revenues to the state, and boosts to the insurance industries, among other things,
...it allows the state to know who these people are, as well as where they are. No more getting lost in the wind.
I don't GIVE A SHIT.
I am not interested in undermining laws to benefit illegals even though it may or may not benefit insurance companies.
I am interested in our representatives representing the will of the people, not the corps.
When you don't permit local law enforcement to report illegals to the feds its goes way over the line, not to mention the Driver's license thing.
To illegal immigrants: GET THE FUCK OUT AND FIX YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
........Other than we are still the greatest country in the world, shitting all over Muslim controlled countries and helping the jews. :D
-
I don't GIVE A SHIT.
I am not interested in undermining laws to benefit illegals even though it may or may not benefit insurance companies.
I am interested in our representatives representing the will of the people, not the corps.
When you don't permit local law enforcement to report illegals to the feds its goes way over the line, not to mention the Driver's license thing.
To illegal immigrants: GET THE FUCK OUT AND FIX YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
Why such a hostile response? ???
I am not condoning it or supporting it, simply pointing out the rationale behind it.
........Other than we are still the greatest country in the world, shitting all over Muslim controlled countries and helping the jews. :D
:o Since you clearly lack the decency to be embarrassed by maliciously uttering such a tacky, classless remark, I will be embarrassed for you. :-[ Let's hope one day you can look back and hang you head in shame
-
Why such a hostile response? ???
I am not condoning it or supporting it, simply pointing out the rationale behind it.
I simply replied about how i felt about it. :) Try not to take it personally. ;)
:o Since you clearly lack the decency to be embarrassed by maliciously uttering such a tacky, classless remark, I will be embarrassed for you. :-[ Let's hope one day you can look back and hang you head in shame
But we are still.... are we not? :D
PS: funny reading you say something about classless and tacky.
-
Yeah because Repub economics really work huh? Trickle down economics? Bush tax cuts? How about the poorest states in the country being red states? Yep boy... really good examples you got there.
Another fail thread started by you. No surprise.
reagan revolution?
obama +11T debt
clinton=2008 by forcing fanny n freddy and leting fed
dems have no leg to stand on and runup debt and leave repubs to pick up pieces
-
reagan revolution?
obama +11T debt
clinton=2008 by forcing fanny n freddy and leting fed
dems have no leg to stand on and runup debt and leave repubs to pick up pieces
Jesus, I bet you actually believe that horseshit
-
Common sense is also 2 words
Not always.
-
Jesus, I bet you actually believe that horseshit
Amazing isn't it? When looks at the actual facts, they reveal the spendthrift liberals actually manage money better than conservatives. The only reason Repubs have a better reputation when it comes to money mgmt. is because they scream about to spending any, but when you examine what previous Repubs did while in office, it would make your head spin. Still the reputation persists. :-\
-
Jesus, I bet you actually believe that horseshit
Pretty sure he does. As the GOP seems to think that if you repeat something enough times it becomes true.
-
Amazing isn't it? When looks at the actual facts, they reveal the spendthrift liberals actually manage money better than conservatives. The only reason Repubs have a better reputation when it comes to money mgmt. is because they scream about to spending any, but when you examine what previous Repubs did while in office, it would make your head spin. Still the reputation persists. :-\
+1
-
Yeah because Repub economics really work huh? Trickle down economics? Bush tax cuts? How about the poorest states in the country being red states? Yep boy... really good examples you got there.
Another fail thread started by you. No surprise.
Yes..it works and it's been proven it works. You think Obama is a genius so what more could be said.
-
I don't think it's a bad thing from a state or region level.
You and I both know that the cost of living in Los Angeles and the surrounding counties is much much higher than other areas of the country.
I have no issue with raising it a buck or so around LA... other areas, not so much.
From a small business standpoint it could kill a business and either stop or slow growth especially in the liberal states like California. A business has to make for that some how and raising the cost of goods and services. Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage.
-
Yes..it works and it's been proven it works. You think Obama is a genius so what more could be said.
Wrong. But then again you think a fake birth certificate has been proven as well. Nothing else needs to be said.
-
No doubt a lot of people from the left have outlandish ideas, some much more than others. I don't agree with most their ideas (and certainly not in the realm of economics) but I assume they genuinely hold those beliefs and respect them for fighting for what they believe within the confines of the system even if I disagree with them. That's the crux of democracy.
But I am curious about something Joe: do you think common sense is possible from the political right? Can you give some examples?
You assert that things like Reagan's economics work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't – my particular opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Can you provide specific figures in support of your position?
-
From a small business standpoint it could kill a business and either stop or slow growth especially in the liberal states like California. A business has to make for that some how and raising the cost of goods and services. Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage.
Joe... Los Angeles is one of the largest economies from a local level... California from a state level.
You charge a premium price for your gym memberships at your gym and I think that's a good thing, but it speaks to the cost of living in the area.
You can't sit here and tell me that raising the minimum wage less than a buck is a big deal.
I agree that when the burger lady says she should be making 15 bucks an hour that it's retarded and on every level and should not occur, but to raise the minimum wage like 75 cents? Come on... That might make my burger go up about 15 cents. I can handle that and there's no reason why anyone should complain about that much of a minimum wage hike.
-
Of course he can sit here and tell you that. He has no other not to since he was fed his talking points by FAUX Noise and Rush.
-
Yes..it works and it's been proven it works. You think Obama is a genius so what more could be said.
Prove it then. Should be easy.
-
Prove it then. Should be easy.
He also claims to have scientific evidence that prayer works too. I have asked dozens of times for a link to this and he never provides one. He won't be providing any proof of this either. Except for the lame excuse "you just don't get it do you..." ::)
-
He also claims to have scientific evidence that prayer works too. I have asked dozens of times for a link to this and he provides one. He won't be providing any proof of this either. Except for the lame excuse "you just don't get it do you..." ::)
LOL at the "scientific evidence" bit.
-
reagan revolution?
obama +11T debt
clinton=2008 by forcing fanny n freddy and leting fed
dems have no leg to stand on and runup debt and leave repubs to pick up pieces
http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
-
He also claims to have scientific evidence that prayer works too. I have asked dozens of times for a link to this and he never provides one. He won't be providing any proof of this either. Except for the lame excuse "you just don't get it do you..." ::)
Then he has a golden opportunity here to prove all us idiots wrong.
I for one cant wait.
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
bush 5T
obama 11T SO FAR debt
WOWWAA!
all other presidents aside from obama 8T!!! obama! 11!
-
Won`t be long before an illegal immigrant will be able to be governor of that lovely state ;)
-
Then he has a golden opportunity here to prove all us idiots wrong.
I for one cant wait.
Waiting is all you can do. It's been a year. You know how the idiot never posts any facts to back up his wild claims.
-
bush 5T
obama 11T SO FAR debt
WOWWAA!
all other presidents aside from obama 8T!!! obama! 11!
Actually, Obama is 3T so far... not 11.
But hey, don't let that fact thing bug ya.
-
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_24825201/california-new-laws-higher-wages-safer-cycling-gun
Another example of why the left is useless.
The only reason they are even in power is because most of the immigrants coming into the usa are socialists or come from socialists nations.
That is another reason to not reform immigration, enforce the current immigration laws and secure the borders.
-
After President George W. Bush sent Congress an outline of his tax reform plan on February 8, some critics immediately began to attack it as a return to what they portray as the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Reagan Administration. According to these commentators, Congress should scale back--if not outright reject--President Bush's tax reform proposals because they are based on a period when the wealthy received excessive tax cuts and revenue was wasted on defense even though most Americans struggled in poverty. This is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the fact that President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture. Congress should embrace President Bush's tax reform plan as a responsible return to the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.
Chart 1
Even with the growing surplus, however, a small but vocal faction in Congress opposes any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts and that generally would shift power from the government to the people. This attempt to rewrite history should not be surprising. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.
history confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17
CONCLUSION
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
-
In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History Peter Ferrara Peter Ferrara Contributor
Obama Victory Could Spell End Of Conservative Supreme Court Daniel Fisher Daniel Fisher Forbes Staff
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? Rick Ungar Rick Ungar Contributor
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church Charles Kadlec Charles Kadlec Contributor
All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.
In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.
The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.
Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.
President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History Peter Ferrara Peter Ferrara Contributor
Obama Victory Could Spell End Of Conservative Supreme Court Daniel Fisher Daniel Fisher Forbes Staff
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? Rick Ungar Rick Ungar Contributor
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church Charles Kadlec Charles Kadlec Contributor
His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.
And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.
As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.
Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.
Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.
These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”
However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?
Peter Ferrara is director of policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at the Heartland Institute. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under President George H. W. Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
-
No doubt a lot of people from the left have outlandish ideas, some much more than others. I don't agree with most their ideas (and certainly not in the realm of economics) but I assume they genuinely hold those beliefs and respect them for fighting for what they believe within the confines of the system even if I disagree with them. That's the crux of democracy.
But I am curious about something Joe: do you think common sense is possible from the political right? Can you give some examples?
You assert that things like Reagan's economics work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't – my particular opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Can you provide specific figures in support of your position?
the Republican party has given me no indication that they could do a better job if they won the election in 2012. because they do not stand by their conservative principles when it comes to spending and fiscal policy in general. they do however, stand strong on their social issues. it's always confused me. my mantra has always been to put money in people's pockets and let social issues take care of themselves after. but no one fucking listens to me.
-
Epic wall of text no one is reading.
-
-
Epic wall of text no one is reading.
You guys asked for it, He finally provided something, break it down or accept?
-
And again, Coach is unable to support his positions, resorting instead to quoting, verbatim, the hagiographies produced by the Heritage Foundation. Now Ronald Reagan was pretty good in his first term*. But he had his faults and made plenty of mistakes. Whitewashing them away does a disservice to everyone - Reagan's legacy included.
It's true that Reagan did push for, and signed into law, reductions in the marginal tax rates in the upper brackets and reductions/eliminations of various loopholes. He held a hard line against the Soviet Union. He held a very hard line against the striking air-traffic controllers. All those are good things and I could go on... But - and there's always a but - that's not all he pushed for nor all he presided over.
He also pushed for and presided over a substantial increase in marginal and effective tax rates of the lower tax brackets, i.e. those making less than $60,000 if I recall correctly. That means that under Reagan a plurality - if not a majority - of Americans paid more in taxes; that's hardly a tax cut. He also pushed for and presided over massive increases in public spending, a lot of it directed to the Pentagon. He also pushed for and presided over a massive increase in the national debt which ballooned from just under one trillion dollars to just under three trillion - a staggering 185% increase. He (and his administration) failed to predict the long-term consequences of their actions in the Iran-Contra scandal or in supporting Osama bin Laden.
Unfortunately for Coach and the Reagan fanbois at the Heritage Foundation, who kneel in prayer in front of Ronnie's presidential portrait, the facts speak for themselves. Reagan was not the virtuous, unerring Saint they "remember" him as. He wasn't even mostly good. He may have had good intentions and he almost certainly genuinely held the beliefs he practiced. But, what it all comes down to, was that he was just another politician who, with the benefit of hindsight, got some things right and some things wrong.
the Republican party has given me no indication that they could do a better job if they won the election in 2012. because they do not stand by their conservative principles when it comes to spending and fiscal policy in general. they do however, stand strong on their social issues. it's always confused me. my mantra has always been to put money in people's pockets and let social issues take care of themselves after. but no one fucking listens to me.
I don't like the Republicans any more than I like the Democrats. Both groups want to run my life - they just want to run different aspects of my life. And while some people think that you should choose the lesser of two evils, I don't ascribe to that mentality. I am a libertarian and I vote that way. Neither party represents me and neither party's viewpoints are sufficiently congruent to mine for me to support that party.
I sorta-kinda agree with your mantra. I disagree with your phrasing - putting money in people's pockets is a bad idea. Letting people keep their own money is quite another thing. As for the social issues, you're right: they will, organically, take care of themselves as the people that make up a society evolve and adapt.
You guys asked for it, He finally provided something, break it down or accept?
Not really. He copy-pasted some articles. Even if those articles perfectly represent his opinions and positions (which I very much doubt) I'd hardly call that providing something. Since when did debating a topic and supporting one's positions devolve into a duel-by-proxy for unwitting columnists?
* And, maybe, in the first quarter of his second, before his brain degenerated into the consistency of jello.
-
You guys asked for it, He finally provided something, break it down or accept?
He did an epic copy and paste job and yet he probably can't even tell you what the article actually says.
-
And again, Coach is unable to support his positions, resorting instead to quoting, verbatim, the hagiographies produced by the Heritage Foundation. Now Ronald Reagan was pretty good in his first term*. But he had his faults and made plenty of mistakes. Whitewashing them away does a disservice to everyone - Reagan's legacy included.
It's true that Reagan did push for, and signed into law, reductions in the marginal tax rates in the upper brackets and reductions/eliminations of various loopholes. He held a hard line against the Soviet Union. He held a very hard line against the striking air-traffic controllers. All those are good things and I could go on... But - and there's always a but - that's not all he pushed for nor all he presided over.
He also pushed for and presided over a substantial increase in marginal and effective tax rates of the lower tax brackets, i.e. those making less than $60,000 if I recall correctly. That means that under Reagan a plurality - if not a majority - of Americans paid more in taxes; that's hardly a tax cut. He also pushed for and presided over massive increases in public spending, a lot of it directed to the Pentagon. He also pushed for and presided over a massive increase in the national debt which ballooned from just under one trillion dollars to just under three trillion - a staggering 185% increase. He (and his administration) failed to predict the long-term consequences of their actions in the Iran-Contra scandal or in supporting Osama bin Laden.
Unfortunately for Coach and the Reagan fanbois at the Heritage Foundation, who kneel in prayer in front of Ronnie's presidential portrait, the facts speak for themselves. Reagan was not the virtuous, unerring Saint they "remember" him as. He wasn't even mostly good. He may have had good intentions and he almost certainly genuinely held the beliefs he practiced. But, what it all comes down to, was that he was just another politician who, with the benefit of hindsight, got some things right and some things wrong.
I don't like the Republicans any more than I like the Democrats. Both groups want to run my life - they just want to run different aspects of my life. And while some people think that you should choose the lesser of two evils, I don't ascribe to that mentality. I am a libertarian and I vote that way. Neither party represents me and neither party's viewpoints are sufficiently congruent to mine for me to support that party.
I sorta-kinda agree with your mantra. I disagree with your phrasing - putting money in people's pockets is a bad idea. Letting people keep their own money is quite another thing. As for the social issues, you're right: they will, organically, take care of themselves as the people that make up a society evolve and adapt.
Not really. He copy-pasted some articles. Even if those articles perfectly represent his opinions and positions (which I very much doubt) I'd hardly call that providing something. Since when did debating a topic and supporting one's positions devolve into a duel-by-proxy for unwitting columnists?
* And, maybe, in the first quarter of his second, before his brain degenerated into the consistency of jello.
Whatever you say Chief.
-
He did an epic copy and paste job and yet he probably can't even tell you what the article actually says.
But you can.
-
Not really. He copy-pasted some articles. Even if those articles perfectly represent his opinions and positions (which I very much doubt) I'd hardly call that providing something. Since when did debating a topic and supporting one's positions devolve into a duel-by-proxy for unwitting columnists?
* And, maybe, in the first quarter of his second, before his brain degenerated into the consistency of jello.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to rip apart.
-
Whatever you say Chief.
Hey Joe. I know you're training hard to go on stage soon, so let's not fuck around too much because you need to go back to working out all the muscles except the one that counts. So... can you debunk or contest a single thing I said? Not all of it. Not even most of it. Just one thing.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to rip apart.
I thought I did... you saw his reply.
-
Hey Joe. I know you're training hard to go on stage soon, so let's not fuck around too much because you need to go back to working out all the muscles except the one that counts. So... can you debunk or contest a single thing I said? Not all of it. Not even most of it. Just one thing.
I thought I did... you saw his reply.
yeah you did, sorry just went right down to your reply to my post lol
-
And again, Coach is unable to support his positions, resorting instead to quoting, verbatim, the hagiographies produced by the Heritage Foundation. Now Ronald Reagan was pretty good in his first term*. But he had his faults and made plenty of mistakes. Whitewashing them away does a disservice to everyone - Reagan's legacy included.
It's true that Reagan did push for, and signed into law, reductions in the marginal tax rates in the upper brackets and reductions/eliminations of various loopholes. He held a hard line against the Soviet Union. He held a very hard line against the striking air-traffic controllers. All those are good things and I could go on... But - and there's always a but - that's not all he pushed for nor all he presided over.
He also pushed for and presided over a substantial increase in marginal and effective tax rates of the lower tax brackets, i.e. those making less than $60,000 if I recall correctly. That means that under Reagan a plurality - if not a majority - of Americans paid more in taxes; that's hardly a tax cut. He also pushed for and presided over massive increases in public spending, a lot of it directed to the Pentagon. He also pushed for and presided over a massive increase in the national debt which ballooned from just under one trillion dollars to just under three trillion - a staggering 185% increase. He (and his administration) failed to predict the long-term consequences of their actions in the Iran-Contra scandal or in supporting Osama bin Laden.
Unfortunately for Coach and the Reagan fanbois at the Heritage Foundation, who kneel in prayer in front of Ronnie's presidential portrait, the facts speak for themselves. Reagan was not the virtuous, unerring Saint they "remember" him as. He wasn't even mostly good. He may have had good intentions and he almost certainly genuinely held the beliefs he practiced. But, what it all comes down to, was that he was just another politician who, with the benefit of hindsight, got some things right and some things wrong.
Well Coach?
-
Well Coach?
Well what? At least I'm proving something to back my position. I want to know where he's getting this info from.
-
Well what? At least I'm proving something to back my position. I want to know where he's getting this info from.
Then ask him.
Refute, it, debate it, SHOW OPPOSING FACTS whatever, but don't just blow it off Geez.......
-
Whatever you say Chief.
Joe, can you remind us again how much Reagan grew the size of the government payroll?
-
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
Do you support higher tax rates Coach?
You always hate on Ob for raising taxes(although you cant give any examples) so im a little confused about your position here?
-
Well what? At least I'm proving something to back my position. I want to know where he's getting this info from.
Are you joking?!? You provided jackshit - just a copy-paste of articles supporting someone else's position. Perhaps your position is the same as the position of the authors of the articles you pasted, but even then, copy-pasting someone else's words does not "back" your position; it only shows you need to use other people's words instead of being able to independently justify the positions you claim to hold. Everything I wrote, on the other hand is a historical fact* and, more than that, I can actually back it up myself.
But since you claim you want to know where I'm getting my info from, I'll play along. Let's take things one by one, shall we?
Claim 1: Reagan pushed for and signed into law reductions in the marginal tax rates in the upper brackets and reductions/eliminations of various loopholes.:
Under the '81 tax cut (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) tax rates for individuals were cut by up to 23% over 3 years; the rate for the highest bracket would be dropped from 70% to 50%. The '81 tax cut also gradually increased the estate-tax exemption up to $600,000 and more. Under the 1986 Tax Cuts, the interest deduction for home mortgages increased and IRAs became available to almost everyone (even if only with a laughable contribution limit).
Claim 2: He held a hard line against the Soviet Union.
Do you want me to back this one up? If so, that's fine. Can I quote you? If not, I'm sure I can pull a quote from Sean Hannity.
Claim 3: He held a very hard line against the striking air-traffic controllers.
Feel free to read all about this awesome thing that Reagan did at this article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html) which was the first thing that popped up in my Google results when I search for "Reagan fires air traffic controllers"
Claim 4: He also pushed for and presided over a substantial increase in marginal and effective tax rates of the lower tax brackets, i.e. those making less than $60,000 if I recall correctly.
Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986:
- The top rate was slashed by almost half, going from the 50% that it was at after the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Cut to 28%. At the same time, the rate for the lowest tax bracket was raised by 36% going from 11% to 15%.
- The applicability of the AMT was significantly expanded and began to affect more Americans.
- Corporate tax rates increased
I could go on listing more but you can read things for yourself: the full text of the act is available here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/62544151/PL-99-514-Tax-Reform-Act-of-1986).
Let's also not forget the '82 Tax Increase (ahem... the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982") which, among other things, instituted a 10% withholding on dividends and interest.
Claim 6: He also pushed for and presided over massive increases in public spending, a lot of it directed to the Pentagon.
According to http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan), Reagan increased defense spending by 35%. That's overly generous and economists and historians calculate the figure is closer to 45%. Regardless of the exact percentage, it was a sizable increase. This was something Reagan admitted when he acknowledged, in a radio address, that the increase he wanted was not only large but also a tough pill to swallow at a difficult time. He did it anyways.
Claim 7: He also pushed for and presided over a massive increase in the national debt which ballooned from just under one trillion dollars to just under three trillion - a staggering 185% increase.
Reagan's deficit spending was notorious. Not even the Heritage Foundation denies it: Check out their article (http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-is-recording-chronic-deficits) for a pretty chart. How can you support deficit spending without borrowing?
Here's a page that has a fancy graph (which, ironically enough, paints Bush II in a great light): http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html). Here's a link to the article "The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488)" by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which says: "Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion." I could provide a link to the Congressional Budget Office if you remain unconvinced.
These are all cold, hard numbers. There's nothing to fudge and there's nothing to tinker with.
Claim 8: He (and his administration) failed to predict the long-term consequences of their actions in the Iran-Contra scandal or in supporting Osama bin Laden.
Well... I think the evidence is right there for you to see: the Iran-Contra scandal further fucked up the situation in the Middle East giving us the Iran we have today. Our short-sighted support of the Afghanis in general and bin Laden, in our proxy war with the Soviets was misguided. It traded short-term benefits against the specter of communism in exchange for what? The "help" of bin Laden and his ilk, who we funded and trained, and which cultivated this virulent and dangerous form of militant Islam and then, not entirely unpredictably, turned around to bite the hand that fed them.
So Joe... Now, that you know where I'm getting my info from, how about you buckle up, act like an adult and address the specific criticisms I made. And don't cop out with something lame like "Whatever you say Chief."
P.S.: Pardon any typos. I replied on my iPhone.
* Well, except the jello bit. Obviously it wasn't jello as jello is not only delicious but much firmer.
-
Then ask him.
Refute, it, debate it, SHOW OPPOSING FACTS whatever, but don't just blow it off Geez.......
This is great Ozmo keep it up and we might even end up with a great political board here.
-
But you can.
Indeed. But :
1 - He can't understand and comprehend simple logic even when you spoon feed it to him.
2 - It's not my place to make his argument for him.
To do either of the above is just a waste of my time.
-
Indeed. But :
1 - He can't understand and comprehend simple logic even when you spoon feed it to him.
2 - It's not my place to make his argument for him.
To do either of the above is just a waste of my time.
True, i should have added, what you can do is show where the article is wrong and therefore he is wrong.
I think axvo is well in the process of doing that.
Waiting to see if Coach can make it past the first round and a half of an intelligent debate, with out solely using blow offs, ad hom and or deflections
-
The deal with Coach is that after you have proven with 1,327,827 facts what he has posted is wrong he simply goes off on another tangent or falls back on his "you just don't get it do you" reply.
I have pretty much determined that refuting and debunking what he posts, along with watching any video 333 posts to be a complete and utter waste of time and no longer do it.
-
The deal with Coach is that after you have proven with 1,327,827 facts what he has posted is wrong he simply goes off on another tangent or falls back on his "you just don't get it do you" reply.
I have pretty much determined that refuting and debunking what he posts, along with watching any video 333 posts to be a complete and utter waste of time and no longer do it.
Yeah, that's been my experience with him also. But this is a great opportunity for him to prove his point or at the very least learn some truth of our 2 parties.
As for the vids, I add 24k to that list.
-
Yeah, that's been my experience with him also. But this is a great opportunity for him to prove his point or at the very least learn some truth of our 2 parties.
As for the vids, I add 24k to that list.
In other words he will ignore this thread now.
-
In other words he will ignore this thread now.
Lol. That's his pattern.
-
The deal with Coach is that after you have proven with 1,327,827 facts what he has posted is wrong he simply goes off on another tangent or falls back on his "you just don't get it do you" reply.
I have pretty much determined that refuting and debunking what he posts, along with watching any video 333 posts to be a complete and utter waste of time and no longer do it.
well thats because you are a religious commy who wont see reason
-
Unfortunately Joe is quite typical. He holds practically immutable positions and talks quite loudly about things he knows, at best, only superficially. When his statements are challenged, he's claims vast political conspiracies and accuses everyone else of wearing partisan blinders and not getting it. He posts walls of text that others wrote and expects those who disagree with him to answer those walls of text. And if they do, he doesn't bother reading or addressing anything; instead he posts something like "Whatever you say Chief" and then moves on to a new thread.
I've expressed my sentiments about Joe (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=481275.msg6829296#msg6829296) before. I've seen this kind before: a hoodlum that walks from proverbial block to proverbial block, flinging shit at all the different storefronts he comes across. When the owners come out, he runs away and does the same thing to some store in the next block. And this is the person we're supposed to debate (i.e. try and chase the shit-flinger from block to block) with? The only thing I haven't quite figured out yet is whether he proves or disputes the maxim that superficial knowledge is far worse and way more damaging than ignorance.
-
Hahaha, axvo still trying to make his case? Good job, not sure what you attempted to prove here except that Reagan had a difficult time in 81'. Something that was common knowledge but he also knows that he won't tell you is that The Reagan economy in his second half probably had the biggest turn around of any president. All presidents raise taxes at one point or another, this is nothing new but axvo seems to in his own way, without really saying it, defending the left by calling me out. Personally I can give a shit. But you also seem to leave put the end result of the Reagan legacy and what he had accomplished. If I remember correctly. It was Bush that had adopted Reagan's policies that Obama kept in despite Obama saying he would recall everything Bush had enacted....he didn't do that...in the beginning. No axvo, hate to burst your little intellectual bubble but I stand by what I say about the left having no commonsense especially when it comes to the economy.
-
Hahaha, axvo still trying to make his case? Good job, not sure what you attempted to prove here except that Reagan had a difficult time in 81'. Something that was common knowledge but he also knows that he won't tell you is that The Reagan economy in his second half probably had the biggest turn around of any president. All presidents raise taxes at one point or another, this is nothing new but axvo seems to in his own way, without really saying it, defending the left by calling me out. Personally I can give a shit. But you also seem to leave put the end result of the Reagan legacy and what he had accomplished. If I remember correctly. It was Bush that had adopted Reagan's policies that Obama kept in despite Obama saying he would recall everything Bush had enacted....he didn't do that...in the beginning. No axvo, hate to burst your little intellectual bubble but I stand by what I say about the left having no commonsense especially when it comes to the economy.
As I explained, my original point was that partisans from both sides lack common sense. Shit, you yourself are a prime example of a right-wing partisan who lacks common sense.
The salient point of my other post was that your copy-pasted defense of Reagan was pointless in that you weren't really defending Reagan but the hagiography of a man that never existed. Reagan was just another politician. He did some good things, he did some bad things and that, in toto, he was better than average but less than we deserve.
You asked to know where I got my information. I quoted my sources. Can you challenge a single thing I wrote and prove it incorrect or inaccurate? You cannot.
Now you try to play it nonchalant while you backpedal and struggle to make me out as the unreasonable one. Do you think that anybody on here buys the shit you peddle? I'm defending the left? Show me one instance where I defend leftist policies on the subject of the economy, or hell... any subject at all.
Reagan's legacy on what topic? That he cut taxes? Not only is that statement not entirely accurate, it actually whitewashes a lot of other things (some good, some bad) but that's irrelevant.
On the taxes bit: He did drastically reform the tax system with the '81 and '86 tax cuts, cutting the number of brackets but his record on actually cutting taxes isn't as cut and dry. He cut the top rate significantly (and he should have cut it more) but he also raised the rate for the lowest brackets, expanded the applicability of the AMT and a few other things. You can't ask that Reagan get credit for the good stuff and a pass for the bad stuff; that's not how it works. He presided over tax cuts and tax raises.
But that is a secondary issue really: the thrust of my argument was twofold.
One part of it focused around the horrible spending policies that Reagan had which resulted in a tripling of the federal debt taking it from under a trillion to just shy of three... that's pretty damn significant.
The other part focused on the bad policies that Reagan and his administration implemented in the Middle East in general and, more specifically, in Afghanistan. Those policies and those decisions led, inexorably, to Osama bin Laden the terrorist and al-Qaeda the terror network.
You may refuse to acknowledge these facts, but that doesn't change them. Role-play an ostrich if you must, but don't think that other, reasonable people are going to play along with you.
How anything I said above or in my earlier posts qualifies as a defense of leftists is beyond me. That you think it is only shows how blindly partisan you are and how constrained and dependent your mind is. Anything that doesn't completely agree with your viewpoint you brand "leftist".
You are an idiot Joe and no different from the rabid leftists you so despise. You and them, you are brothers in spirit and you are, together, fucking this country up more and more with every passing election.
I've told you before: you offend me and you are a disgrace to the appellation "American".
-
As I explained, my original point was that partisans from both sides lack common sense. Shit, you yourself are a prime example of a right-wing partisan who lacks common sense.
The salient point of my other post was that your copy-pasted defense of Reagan was pointless in that you weren't really defending Reagan but the hagiography of a man that never existed. Reagan was just another politician. He did some good things, he did some bad things and that, in toto, he was better than average but less than we deserve.
You asked to know where I got my information. I quoted my sources. Can you challenge a single thing I wrote and prove it incorrect or inaccurate? You cannot.
Now you try to play it nonchalant while you backpedal and struggle to make me out as the unreasonable one. Do you think that anybody on here buys the shit you peddle? I'm defending the left? Show me one instance where I defend leftist policies on the subject of the economy, or hell... any subject at all.
Reagan's legacy on what topic? That he cut taxes? Not only is that statement not entirely accurate, it actually whitewashes a lot of other things (some good, some bad) but that's irrelevant.
On the taxes bit: He did drastically reform the tax system with the '81 and '86 tax cuts, cutting the number of brackets but his record on actually cutting taxes isn't as cut and dry. He cut the top rate significantly (and he should have cut it more) but he also raised the rate for the lowest brackets, expanded the applicability of the AMT and a few other things. You can't ask that Reagan get credit for the good stuff and a pass for the bad stuff; that's not how it works. He presided over tax cuts and tax raises.
But that is a secondary issue really: the thrust of my argument was twofold.
One part of it focused around the horrible spending policies that Reagan had which resulted in a tripling of the federal debt taking it from under a trillion to just shy of three... that's pretty damn significant.
The other part focused on the bad policies that Reagan and his administration implemented in the Middle East in general and, more specifically, in Afghanistan. Those policies and those decisions led, inexorably, to Osama bin Laden the terrorist and al-Qaeda the terror network.
You may refuse to acknowledge these facts, but that doesn't change them. Role-play an ostrich if you must, but don't think that other, reasonable people are going to play along with you.
How anything I said above or in my earlier posts qualifies as a defense of leftists is beyond me. That you think it is only shows how blindly partisan you are and how constrained and dependent your mind is. Anything that doesn't completely agree with your viewpoint you brand "leftist".
You are an idiot Joe and no different from the rabid leftists you so despise. You and them, you are brothers in spirit and you are, together, fucking this country up more and more with every passing election.
I've told you before: you offend me and you are a disgrace to the appellation "American".
That's quite the quick and rather long response. To shorten this up a bit because I'm notgoig.to read through all of this blather, like I have said before, I may be an idiot, but I was far from wrong. BTW, I have a ways before I start contest prep, in the meantime, I'm just capitalizing on capitalism because I have the commonsense to keep overhead low, profits high with virtually no business debt and not spending more than I make.
-
That's quite the quick and rather long response. To shorten this up a bit because I'm notgoig.to read through all of this blather, like I have said before, I may be an idiot, but I was far from wrong. BTW, I have a ways before I start contest prep, in the meantime, I'm just capitalizing on capitalism because I have the commonsense to keep overhead low, profits high with virtually no business debt and not spending more than I make.
How predictable... "I didn't read. I'm shifting the topic. I'm right, blah blah blah, Obama, blah blah blah." Even if you weren't an idiot, you're casting yourself in that light with answers like the above Joe.
More specifically, setting aside the fact that your "predictions" weren't original and were shared with millions of others, I'd hardly say you have cause to pat yourself on the back. Factor in your birther nonsense... and... well... yikes doesn't quite cut it, does it?
As for your business savvy, you should be proud of what you've accomplished; I say this and I mean it. Every person that bootstraps a business and guides it to profits has my respect. It takes more than common sense, even if it's not exactly rocket science. So props there.
But your gym isn't an argument and it doesn't address any of the criticisms I made about your original post or anything I wrote in my subsequent points. Nor does anything you wrote. As I said, not unexpected. You're validating every single thing the left-leaning people on this board accuse you of.
But anyways, enough of this. Now, to the important stuff!
What sort of prep are you going to be doing? It might be interesting to see some photos and learn a bit about what you're doing. I'm always curious to see what works for others and to see what I can adapt for my own use - not that I plan on ever stepping on a stage.
-
well thats because you are a religious commy who wont see reason
No it's because I am a free thinker who isn't immune to facts and "commonsense".
I would suggest you try it once but then you might have a mental fracture and hurt yourself.
-
That's quite the quick and rather long response. To shorten this up a bit because I'm notgoig.to read through all of this blather, like I have said before, I may be an idiot, but I was far from wrong. BTW, I have a ways before I start contest prep, in the meantime, I'm just capitalizing on capitalism because I have the commonsense to keep overhead low, profits high with virtually no business debt and not spending more than I make.
That is the only thing you have posted that everyone here agrees with.