If I hear one more person romanticize the Reagan era …

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

You damn commie...

Reagan is the best president us american's ever had!

That may be but it doesn't mean it was the VERY best of times ... and in reality he was senile for the last half of his second term!

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That may be but it doesn't mean it was the VERY best of times ... and in reality he was senile for the last half of his second term!

That's what Gorbachev thought too.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

the notion that rising inequality is due to technological change that rewards skills is a myth. most of the rise has been among college grads.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

Is that article your proof text? Not very persuasive.

Yeah executive pay is disparate, and I agree paying these guys for failure makes no sense, but for all you naysayers, the economy has strengths and weaknesses, highpoints and lulls.

It is inaccurate to say the economy is weak or strong. Sectors are experiencing corrections or downturns which impact other sectors. However, after corrections which now last longer than before but which should not last too long if money supply is accounted for, if we continue to develop capital and skill sets and look at troubled sectors then our economy will succeed.

Liberal naysayers are about control. They believe in centralized control even though wherever it has been fully implemented it has completely failed. China, Russia and to a lesser degree France. Whenever capital and investment is encouraged and sector and money supply analysis is employed, economies flourish.

I just don't buy this bullshit. "Our economy, [which is actually cobbled together set of mini and overlapping economies and sectors and industries] is horrible and can only be fixed by eliminating huge executive compensation, taxing everybody above 200K into oblivion, and controlling all sectors by those infinitely wise but unelected career bureaucrats, a la Chino, Obama, Hillary and Edwards. Your models don't work.

Why in the Hell do you wish to exercise so much f...ing control over other people, goddammit?

Leave everybody alone.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That may be but it doesn't mean it was the VERY best of times ... and in reality he was senile for the last half of his second term!

What are you talking about? If people had stayed with the program and stopped being f..ing democrats it would have been even better times.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What are you talking about? If people had stayed with the program and stopped being f..ing democrats it would have been even better times.

I endorse this post. Though I would have said stopped being f...ing liberals.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Venkman

That's what Gorbachev thought too.

And who were the biggest agents of change in the cold war -I suppose Reagan did it all by himself. What of Gorbachevs contributions -his openess and willingness to see that the soviet system was broken and insist on radical change -that was ALL Gorbachev.

Oh, and to be certain we are honest about the whole end to the cold war etc. it's important to note the role the Pope played -for if he had not been as couragous glastnost and perestroyka would have never gained legs

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What are you talking about? If people had stayed with the program and stopped being f..ing democrats it would have been even better times.

The United States HAS stayed with the program through the Bush Sr., Clinton maintaining the status quo administrations and jr's formative years.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The United States HAS stayed with the program through the Bush Sr., Clinton maintaining the status quo administration and jr's formative years.

It has not stayed with the program.

Fiscal responsibility requires you pay for things as you go, you have reasonable tax cultures, you have necessary services and support programs with skinny bureaucracies, efficiently organized and managed.

Reagan started paring down the bureaucracies but received tough resistance. Clinton cut the military and nothing else.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It has not stayed with the program.

Fiscal responsibility requires you pay for things as you go, you have reasonable tax cultures, you have necessary services and support programs with skinny bureaucracies, efficiently organized and managed.

Reagan started paring down the bureaucracies but received tough resistance. Clinton cut the military and nothing else.

And Bush jr. placed some old reaganites in his cabinet to run the country while he picked a few fights. Only problem is the reaganites ran amok and abolished any notion of fiscal responsability.

And everyone romanticizes the Reagan era instead of looking forward ... kinda ironic considering we are BYU fans who enjoyed the Lavell era

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

And Bush jr. placed some old reaganites in his cabinet to run the country while he picked a few fights. Only problem is the reaganites ran amok and abolished any notion of fiscal responsability.

And everyone romanticizes the Reagan era instead of looking forward ... kinda ironic considering we are BYU fans who enjoyed the Lavell era

During the first two years, Reagan tried to do it right. After Stockman lost favor, it got worse.