Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

Water finds its own level. Originally Posted by pjorourke

As does gas

The thread was about busting Reagan myths. I have said all along that Obama was just borrowing a page from the Reagan economic playbook. Ideologues and people ignorant of actual past history will praise Reagan and curse Obama. Had they a lick of sense in these matters that would see that there is not much difference in the two. Oh yea Reagan spent on Defense and Obama is spending on education and other domestic projects but really that is just a matter of preference. Economically they are very similar. CM, you are one of the few on here that understand this. Originally Posted by WTF

Well interestingly, business is running for the hills from the Obama leadership model...and they did not do so under the Reagan leadership model.

Now that could be that most all of business does not have the wisdom and insight that you...Mr. F...has...or it could be that you don't know WTF your talking about.

Now that could be that most all of business does not have the wisdom and insight that you...Mr. F...has...or it could be that you don't know WTF your talking about. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

has anyone beat me to stating its the latter prospect?

Well interestingly, business is running for the hills from the Obama leadership model...and they did not do so under the Reagan leadership model.

. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Leadership? Reagan, Obama?
Ok if you believe so. Evidently you do not care about debt. That is what this thread is ultimately about.

Now that could be that most all of business does not have the wisdom and insight that you...Mr. F...has...or it could be that you don't know WTF your talking about. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Of course the FIRE economy run to political hacks that enhance their interest. WTF did that lead us to? Oh yea....a huge bank bail out.

Caring what the FIRE business hacks thinks shows no sign of long term thinking. They are the ones who got us here.

Be like giving the Captain of the Titanic another passanger ship to steer because he rescued you in his own private lifeboat. I want to throw the stupid 'F' overboard, you want to give him a medal, WTF sure don't like the sound of that bs!

has anyone beat me to stating its the latter prospect? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

As long as you aren't agreeing with me then Iknoweverythinggoingbeallright

WTF, were you one of those yappy dogs in an earlier life?

WTF, were you one of those yappy dogs in an earlier life? Originally Posted by pjorourke

I do like to argue , stimulates the mind. Obviously something you Reagan lovers don't care for

WTF, were you one of those yappy dogs in an earlier life? Originally Posted by pjorourke

he's Mr. Mxyzptlk

I do like to argue , stimulates the mind. Obviously something you Reagan lovers don't care for
Originally Posted by WTF

Except this is the way you argue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Comparing the Reagan-era debt to that run up over the last couple of years is ridiculous. Back then, a few relatively modest adjustments created a credible path to sustainability, as we saw in the 1990s when the issue was resolved quite nicely.

Today that is obviously not possible. That's why, as RK quite rightly noted, many businesses are running for the hills. Everyone knows that large, economy-dampening tax increases (and not just on the "rich") will be needed to pay for all this out-of-control spending. No wonder Orszag, Romer, and Summers all decided to get the hell out of there. Who wants to have to continue to answer for this abject failure?

Arguing stimulates the mind only if you pay attention to what others say and make a serious attempt to learn something about the issue under discussion. Otherwise it probably stimulates the mind about as effectively as Obama's "stimulus package" stimulates the economy.

(In other words, it retards it.)

Leadership? Reagan, Obama?
Ok if you believe so. Evidently you do not care about debt. That is what this thread is ultimately about. Originally Posted by WTF

Uhh, I didn't say anything about me...or what I believed. I know comprehension is a difficult task for you. But give it a whirl...it might do wonders for you.

Of course the FIRE economy run to political hacks that enhance their interest. WTF did that lead us to? Oh yea....a huge bank bail out. Originally Posted by WTF

Caring what the FIRE business hacks thinks shows no sign of long term thinking. They are the ones who got us here.

Be like giving the Captain of the Titanic another passanger ship to steer because he rescued you in his own private lifeboat. I want to throw the stupid 'F' overboard, you want to give him a medal, WTF sure don't like the sound of that bs! Originally Posted by WTF

I have to admit...I don't know WTF any of that means?

Well interestingly, business is running for the hills from the Obama leadership model...and they did not do so under the Reagan leadership model. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That's why, as RK quite rightly noted, many businesses are running for the hills. Otherwise it probably stimulates the mind about as effectively as Obama's "stimulus package" stimulates the economy. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Businesses started running for the hills long before Obama came along. If anything, he pulled us out of the riptide.

(In other words, it retards it.)

The only thing that's stunted in here is some people's grasp of reality.

Businesses started running for the hills long before Obama came along. If anything, he pulled us out of the riptide. Originally Posted by Doove

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/23/news/economy/Obama_CEO/?section=money_latest

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/548002/201009211903/More-CEOs-Seeing-Obama-As-Bad-Hire.htm

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx

The only thing that's stunted in here is some people's grasp of reality. Originally Posted by Doove

Yep...Yours!!!

Today that is obviously not possible. That's why, as RK quite rightly noted, many businesses are running for the hills. .) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I didn't say it wasn't correct. I said it is idiotic to give a fuc what business people think whose philosophy gave us to big to fail and the bank bail-outs that followed. Can you follow that bouncing ball? It's not really that hard.

Comparing the Reagan-era debt to that run up over the last couple of years is ridiculous. Back then, a few relatively modest adjustments created a credible path to sustainability, as we saw in the 1990s when the issue was resolved quite nicely.

.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Context would do wonder for your posts. After high intrest rates in the late 70's and early 80's we as a nation had paid back our debt to ourself in inflated dollars, we had pent up demand and had increased our savings. We had cheap oil because of the the flood of oil from Middle Easts fear of the Soviets invasion of Afgan. Going to be hard to replicate those conditions seeing how China and India weren't creating much of a demand for oil. Reagan perfect storm had very little to do with him. I have said it a million times you giving Reagan credit for this BS is like giving credit to the Rooster for the sunrise.

Reagan was the one that started this idiotic theme of debt doesn't matter. Just ask Cheney:


Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.





The most enduring legacy of Reagan may be that he taught future Republicans that you could talk about excessive government, cut taxes, NOT cut spending and borrow the money instead. That method was a short term vote winner but a long term poison (at least for the country).

WTF, it's pretty hilarious to see you, of all people, hectoring anyone about context in posts or about one's ability to "follow a bouncing ball."

If you actually wished to demonstrate such ability, you might start by showing that you actually read others' posts before plowing ahead with your usual collection of clueless rants and non sequiturs. Your second paragraph is a good example of that. Where did anyone here "give Reagan credit for all this BS?" (Whatever in the hell you meant by "this BS.")

And you may not "give a fuc" about what business executives think, but probably even you are able to recognize the most anti-growth economic agenda in modern history when you see it. If you can't, I can assure you that those who make business investment decisions most certainly can. The mystery is not that the economic growth and jobs recovery rate is so slow; it's that anyone is surprised to discover that you can't just keep pummeling the economy with wave after wave of bad policy decisions and proposals, and expect any other result.

Millions of unemployed Americans are suffering the consequences and may continue to do so for years to come. I can assure you that they very much do "give a fuc" what business owners and executives think!

opps