Author Topic: I seriously don't think it's possible for the politial left to have commonsense  (Read 5386 times)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61594
  • It’s All Bullshit
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/

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
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.  

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33732
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Epic wall of text no one is reading.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Epic wall of text no one is reading.

You guys asked for it, He finally provided something,  break it down or accept?

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
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.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33732
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
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.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61594
  • It’s All Bullshit
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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.


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy



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.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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?

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61594
  • It’s All Bullshit
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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.......

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Whatever you say Chief.

Joe, can you remind us again how much Reagan grew the size of the government payroll?

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
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?


avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
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 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.

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, 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 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. Here's a link to the article "The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan" 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.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
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.



LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33732
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
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. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33732
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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.   

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33732
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
In other words he will ignore this thread now.

Lol.  That's his pattern.