Another help for those mortgages underwater.

As they say in the court room, it is hard to prove a negative. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

LOL

I show them where Reagan enacted laws and they say the link is kooky. They pray at the alter of Ronnie....yet he was the one that got us on this freaking free lunch mentality. Great short term thinker, horrible for this country long term.

I show them where Reagan enacted laws and they say the link is kooky. They pray at the alter of Ronnie....yet he was the one that got us on this freaking free lunch mentality. Great short term thinker, horrible for this country long term. Originally Posted by WTF

Now, that's something I can agree with...

Not what FDR said. Otherwise, how could current retirees in the 30's draw benefits. Yes, there was some rhetoric about paying in, and getting your money out, but it was clear that the design of the program was that current workers paid for current retirees. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

"We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be financed by contributions, not taxes." -- FDR ADDRESS TO ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY ON THE PROBLEMS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SECURITY. NOVEMBER 14, 1934. http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#fireside1

What you are describing is a defined benefit plan -- which is what SS is. It is not uncommon in DB's for people to take out more than they put in. Almost all pl;ans have an "insurance" element to them.

As it should be. It is insurance/tax. I sure as hell ain't depending on it when I retire. That said the government sure does not mind taking that money and spending it.

The problem with SS is not that it was a bad plan....it was a great plan had we not raised the average life expectancy up so high!

Here is the history of how our con men politicans have used off budget on bidget SS tricks for decades. It's a link PJ. Sorry but that is how I roll!

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html Originally Posted by WTF

I'd be the first to admit that they fucked with the financing

...Ronnie....yet he was the one that got us on this freaking free lunch mentality. Great short term thinker, horrible for this country long term. Originally Posted by WTF

Huh??

Looks like you've described President Obama perfectly, except that I would strongly dispute any claim that he is a "great short term thinker", save for the fact that he seems pretty good at political expediency. Just look at all the B.S. he offered up to get himself elected!

What about the GM bailout, where bondholders were stiffed and union members didn't have to give up any candy? Don't you think that's a pretty good-sized free lunch?

But even that pales in comparison to a number of provisions of the disastrous "stimulus package." For instance, just look at all the money sent to profligate states with virtually no accountability. That's tantamount to telling a bunch of alcoholics that they don't need to go into rehab and should instead accept your gift of a truckload of whiskey. It's little more than a gigantic payoff to public employee unions, who virtually own the legislatures of a number of broke states like California, New York, and New Jersey.

Barack Obama's presidency is still very young, but he already qualifies for a Lifetime Achievement Award in the category of "Presidential Provision of Free Lunches."

And let's just do a quick little drilldown concerning the points made in the article to which you linked. For everyone's convenience, here it is again:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

It's really quite a good article, written from the perspective of a libertarian conservative.

Consider the key point: That Reagan's record, despite the rhetoric, is not a conservative one. In fact,for whatever reasons, he failed in a number of key areas. Many departments expanded and government actually grew at an unacceptably rapid rate on his watch.

The author's central contention is that the problem is not that a "conservative agenda" failed; it's that it wasn't enacted.

But what do you think he would say about Obama?

The application of criteria by which the author judged the Reagan administration to be a failure would lead to one conclusion only, and it's quite inescapable -- that the Obama administration, by comparison, is shaping up to be a horrifically catastrophic bust.

Is that the case you were trying to make?

Consider the key point: That Reagan's record, despite the rhetoric, is not a conservative one. In fact,for whatever reasons, he failed in a number of key areas. Many departments expanded and government actually grew at an unacceptably rapid rate on his watch.

The author's central contention is not that a "conservative agenda" failed; it's that it wasn't enacted.

But what do you think he would say about Obama?

The application of criteria by which the author judged the Reagan administration to be a failure would lead to to one conclusion only, and it's quite inescapable -- that the Obama administration, by comparison, is shaping up to be a catastrophic bust.

Is that the case you were trying to make? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Of course the author would consider Obama to be a disaster. Of course Obama has a very different agenda than Reagan. I think the point being made (WTF, politics makes strange bedfellows lol) is that the iconic beacon of the right, Ronald Reagan, was a beacon for the wrong things - when it came to implementation - from a conservative stand point: smaller government, lower spending, etc.

Well lets also not forget that Reagan had a Democratic controlled House for all 8 years (where all appropriations and tax bills must originate).

Reagan's contribution was mainly in the area of geopolitics and philosophy.

In geopolitics (which the President does control) where he broke the back of the Soviet Union by outspending them militarily. He correctly realized that matching what would be a high budget for us would run the wheels off their economy.

His philosophical contribution was making the case for low taxes, limited regulation and small government. He gave the conservative point of view a direction. Remember, even his opponents acknowledged that he was one of the best communicators that ever held that office.

Well lets also not forget that Reagan had a Democratic controlled House for all 8 years (where all appropriations and tax bills must originate). Originally Posted by pjorourke

Quite true, and it's probably the key reason he was not able to enact a conservative economic agenda. I should have mentioned that in my post -- as it certainly was not my intention to bash Reagan, with whose stated philosophy I generally agree. I merely meant to acknowledge that he failed to achieve most of his domestic policy goals.

In geopolitics (which the President does control) where he broke the back of the Soviet Union by outspending them militarily. He correctly realized that matching what would be a high budget for us would run the wheels off their economy. Originally Posted by pjorourke

True, and I would also add that Reagan's encouragement of the Volcker Fed to finish the politically difficult task of breaking the back of inflation gave the effort a very strong impetus. When a return to sound money drove down oil prices in the mid '80s, the Soviet Union was exposed for what it was: A giant third-world oil exporting country with some technology and lots of nukes!

A full-blown collapse began even before we knew it.

Well lets also not forget that Reagan had a Democratic controlled House for all 8 years (where all appropriations and tax bills must originate). Originally Posted by pjorourke

So, what is GWBush's excuse? He had a R controlled Congress which managed to create the 3rd largest US Department virtually overnight. He also took us into 2 wars under false pretenses that are currently killing our kids and bleeding our funds. A rational approach to foreign policy could have prevented all those soldiers' deaths and saved all that money, making financial stability of US on par with that before the war.

So, what is GWBush's excuse? He had a R controlled Congress which managed to create the 3rd largest US Department virtually overnight. He also took us into 2 wars under false pretenses that are currently killing our kids and bleeding our funds. A rational approach to foreign policy could have prevented all those soldiers' deaths and saved all that money, making financial stability of US on par with that before the war. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I don't know. What is GWB's excuse? What does he have to do with Reagan?

btw, Just for the record, I don't consider GWB a fiscal conservative.

Talking primarily of the fiscal conservative proclamations of both. They both espoused "smaller" government, and less expenditure. Both not only failed, but increased the size of government and expenditures. The only President to leave the White House in recent times having showed some fiscal responsibility and leaving us in the black is Bill Clinton. GWB promptly wrecked that.

So, if you don't consider GWB a fiscal conservative, what about Clinton?

Huh??



The author's central contention is that the problem is not that a "conservative agenda" failed; it's that it wasn't enacted.

But what do you think he would say about Obama?

The application of criteria by which the author judged the Reagan administration to be a failure would lead to one conclusion only, and it's quite inescapable -- that the Obama administration, by comparison, is shaping up to be a horrifically catastrophic bust.

Is that the case you were trying to make? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The case I was trying to make was that SPENDING (or better put spending cuts) is just as important as tax cuts. If you INCREASE spending. It is idiotic to cut taxes. Not that Reagan cut taxes....he just shifted the taxes from the richer to the middle class. George W. followed Ronnie's idiotic example.

Obama is trying to do exactly what Reagan did, that is INCREASE taxes on the middle class. (Cap'nTrade) While he is at it he want to raise taxes on the rich. I happen to agree with the latter.

Also I think your reading of Keynes is wrong...where the politicians get it wrong is that he advocated cutting public spending in good times. You fail to acknowledge this. You fail to acknowledge that Milton thought he had taken the cycle out of the capitalist business cycle. He seems as if all he has done is prove that the banks (not that the folks that fuc's us are really banks) when left to their own accord will rob the taxpayers quicker than the politicians.

True, and I would also add that Reagan's encouragement of the Volcker Fed to finish the politically difficult task of breaking the back of inflation gave the effort a very strong impetus. . Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Reagan thought long and hard about firing Volker....Volker the man Jimmy Carter had get us out of the high inflation mess. It cost him his reelection chances along with the Iranians.

When a return to sound money drove down oil prices in the mid '80s, the Soviet Union was exposed for what it was: A giant third-world oil exporting country with some technology and lots of nukes!

A full-blown collapse began even before we knew it. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

This is crap.....The Saudis drove down oil prices because they knew it would hurt the Soviets effort in Afghanistan. They flooded the market and we were the huge benefactor. Problem is they did not do it for us, they did it for their own internal reasons. Unfortunately that spawned Al-Qaeda and subsequently our intrusion into the region and presto high oil prices. That is a very simplified version I know but my point is Reagan military spending was at the very best half the reason for the Soviet demise....if you can even say they are gone. They are still a regional player that has to be reckoned with.

Obama is trying to do exactly what Reagan did, that is INCREASE taxes on the middle class. (Cap'nTrade) While he is at it he want to raise taxes on the rich. I happen to agree with the latter. Originally Posted by WTF

Eventually they all figure out that there are two problems with taxing the rich: first and foremost, there arent enough of the little buggers; and secondly, they won't sit still.

The only way you can meaningfully raise revenues is by taxing the middle class.

Eventually they all figure out that there are two problems with taxing the rich: first and foremost, there arent enough of the little buggers; and secondly, they won't sit still.

The only way you can meaningfully raise revenues is by taxing the middle class. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That is why he was trying the cap'ntrade.

Just where are the rich folks going? That is a myth.

This country was doing just fine before Reagan lowered the MARGINIAL tax rates on the wealthy. The rich are never happy. Fuc, why isn't capatial gain taxes as income? Reagans lowering the rate wasn't good enough for them and they have figured out how to avoid even his lowered tax rate with capital gain tax.

Fuc the rich...if they want to go to war, let them pay. They masses are eating cake and fighting the war for them. Least they can do is actually pay for what they want. Same with the middle class....if they want health care pay more in SS taxes. But save me the rich will leave crap. They have nowhere to go. Our armies will hunt them down! lol

Also I think your reading of Keynes is wrong... Originally Posted by WTF

Oh, really?

Please point to a statement I made leading you to the conclusion that my "reading of Keynes is wrong." (I'm not holding my breath for an answer.)

Before casting aspersions, why not pay attention to what I actually said? You seem a bit fond of twisting people's statements and building little straw men. Try to learn and understand before posting something. And pay attention to what people actually say, not just what you think you can get away with claiming they said.

Reagan thought long and hard about firing Volker....Volker the man Jimmy Carter had get us out of the high inflation mess. It cost him his reelection chances along with the Iranians. Originally Posted by WTF

But he didn't do it, did he? Unfortunately for Carter, he dithered for more than half of his presidency while the fires of inflation burned. Had he appointed Volcker in 1977 with a mandate to crush inflation, he might have gotten the pain out of the way in time to get re-elected.

If that had happened, WTF might be a much happier man today. At least he wouldn't be obsessed and eaten up with all this hatred of Reagan.

This is crap.....The Saudis drove down oil prices because they knew it would hurt the Soviets effort in Afghanistan. Originally Posted by WTF

The Saudis did open the spigot in '86 and drive prices to below $10, but that could never have happened without a return to sounder money, driving oil prices down in dollar terms. The latter was the primary factor. Before accusing someone of posting "crap", I might suggest that you gain a better understanding of the issue.

Just where are the rich folks going? That is a myth.

This country was doing just fine before Reagan lowered the MARGINIAL tax rates on the wealthy. Originally Posted by WTF

Are you kidding? Do you really think returning to marginal rates of 70% is a good idea? (Actually, I'll bet that you do!)

And the 1970s? Yeah, that was a time of real economic Nirvana, wasn't it?

Fuc the rich... Originally Posted by WTF

Why not drop the wealth envy crap, WTF? It doesn't paint you in a very flattering light.