Who is really running the country?

Reagan will go down as one of the two greatest presidents of the 20th century. Yeah, so what if the other was a Demi-crat. Reagan WILL have a city named after him in the US by the time I keel over.

 

Thanks in large part to that "liberal media". Talk about positive PR in the face of failure.

 

Failure? Now I see things differently then you do. His list of accomplishments for the USA is endless. Reaganomics as a failure is totally debatable as well. I see it as a rousing success.

Oh yeah: well Clinton......

 

And this differs from your approach how? Hello pot this is kettle. The problem is the only liberal Presidents of recent memory are Clinton and Carter. And using Carter as an example would be too much like shooting fish in a barrel. At least Clinton gave us some juicy water cooler conversation.

 

You just did it again!
The point is to debate on the merits of your OWN argument (which I do at least most of the time) and not to rely on "Well, you do this." Am I speaking a foreign language? Is your hearing aid turned all the way up?

 

The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, Reagan left office with the country so far in debt that we couldn't buy a half-dozen eggs, Reaganites arrogantly take credit for 40 years of Cold War policy strategy, diplomacy and outrageous military spending in the collapse of the Berlin Wall - you talk about a guy that falls into the $hithouse and comes out wearing a new suit! Not to mention the stuff that was going on in the basement that Ronnie conveniently couldn't recall!!!

I love it how anything positive that happened during the Clinton years was due to the foundation set by Reagan but all the stuff Reagan did was completely as a result of his own doing and he owes nothing to those that came before him. You guys crack me up!!!

 

Can't believe you just labeled me a right-wing nutjob. (No offence at the name-calling I could care less) I don't think I have ever even alluded to my particular political affiliation, or even my stance on any particular U.S. policy. Other then I am pro-war and not particularly opposed to violence to achieve a particular end.

If you must know I don't think either extreme is acceptable, an ultra conservative would be as distasteful to me as the ultra liberal. Neither has their feet firmly planted in reality.

 

I'm sorry. I'm in a particularly wacky mood today and everybody looks like a nutjob today including me. I'm tired of arguing so I feel like just goofing off. Don't take it personal, OK nutjob?

 

I'd much rather antagnonize you than debate you (to this you will reply something to the effect that I'm not causing you any great discomfort and the fact that I implied doing so only speaks to my misplaced aggression and my failures as a man - typical passive agressive approach.) Now, on to the topic of the economy. The only, and best, thing that Clinton did for the economy was to do nothing at all. He left Greenspan alone to make the calls as he saw fit. He basically rode the wave and took the credit. Any dime store economist will tell you that the economy is cyclicle in nature and the highs and lows are going to happen no matter what we do. I do believe, though, that the forward thinkng of both the Reagan and Bush Sr admins helped create an environment in which the economy could flourish and grow. You also have to understand that the fiscal health of the fed is always going to lag behind the fiscal health of the public sector. The taxes being generated during a period of economic growth won't be paid to and realized by the fed for at least another year or two. That's why you see deficit spending in order to bolster the economy. It's a way to leverage future economic success against the current investment in the economy. Now if you really want to takle the deficit then start looking at the current budget and not the economy as a whole. It's a fact of life. So in short, the deficit spending of the Reagan and Bush administrations worked in bolstering the ecomomy and allowing it to rebound to the point that Clinton could produce a balanced budget - with the aid of sever defense cuts but that's another topic all together. Now that the surplus has been spent in order to reduce the deficit and balance the budget guess what? It's time to start all over again. You will see deficit spending by this administration in order to put money back into the economy. Now all we have to do is make sure we elect Republicans so we can take the credit for it when it turns around

 

That's too long, too boring and the same crap that is dished out daily in the WSJ, Weekly Standard, Business Week, Barrons, Forbes, The National Review, FauxNews, The Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, blah, blah, blah. Get an original idea or at least present it in a different format. I think I like it better when you just blame Clinton.

 

"... Reaganites arrogantly take credit for 40 years of Cold War policy strategy, diplomacy and outrageous military spending in the collapse of the Berlin Wall..."

Wow! Like for real, dude? Far out!

Like, man, I thought they just took credit, like, for just that end thingie. You know... where Ronnie got the whole thing like jump-started and out of that MAD rut.... where he sucked the Soviets onto the A-SuperBike grid, and the Soviets were like "Man.... is this Clubman legal?"

But, dude, you're right. If they're gonna claim like the whole 40 years.... that's way rude!

 

I don't get it. I just said something nice about you so you'd better not be busting on me...again.

Hey, what's with the "...can eat with either hand" thingie? What does that mean? Can't everybody? Fill me in.

 

Well... you said:

"Get an original idea or at least present it in a different format."

 

NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!! :up:

 

Why should I go out and get an idea that differs from that of the sources you mentioned when I agree with them on this topic? Gee RS, you think maybe the Journal, Forbes, Barron et al may know something more about economics than you? I mean after all it's not like they write about it for a living or anything. So tell me what is it that you disagree with about this opinion of mine? I mean I would assume by the lack of substance in your reply you are taking the evade and escape approach on this topic. I can go back to blaming Clinton if you feel more comfortable defending your stance on that topic.......

 

The people at WSJ, Forbes, Barron's, etc. all know infinitely more about economics than I do. But their views are slanted toward supply side economics as are yours apparently. There are also a number of economists that speak from the other side who know infinitely more than I do. Either way, it is the same non-productive drivel. I hate money.

 

A rising tide raises all boats. Why pull down everyone to the lowest common denominator. Is it not better to lift everyone up to some degree?

 

Ahhhh, Grasshoper. If the world was only as simple as trite sayings....

 

I was working on my masters in Economics. Think I can pipe back in?

 

No! You quit. Let it go man, let it go!!!