A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

Originally posted by mental modulator

IT is OPEN SOURCE GOV

I will link you to the US gov site, unless you are anti US. which I doubt.

You keep saying it as if it means something?

Anyway it still and one last time Does not show who voted for these budgets?
Reagan and Bush spent all that money all by themselves and the democrats were all on vacation?



[edit on 3-3-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by mental modulator

 

I noticed you avoided the Clinton facts, so just to prove the point US National Debt by Presidential Term

Obama just signed off on the new Budget. Here's the write-ups on it
Kansas City Star
CBS News
Bloomberg

And those projections are going on HOPE that the economic conditions in the US and World will CHANGE for the better.

What if that doesn't happen?

12/31/1981 REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,000 11% $3,128,400,000,000 32.9%
12/31/1982 REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,000 16% $3,255,000,000,000 36.8%
12/31/1983 REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,000 18% $3,536,700,000,000 39.9%
12/31/1984 REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,000 18% $3,933,200,000,000 42.3%
12/31/1985 REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,000 17% $4,220,300,000,000 46.1%
12/31/1986 REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,000 14% $4,462,800,000,000 49.6%
12/31/1987 REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,000 10% $4,739,500,000,000 51.3%
12/31/1988 REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,000 10% 189% 23.6% $5,103,800,000,000 52.6%





the graph you linked to indicates a 189% growth in the gross national debt during RR.

and a 10% REVERSAL of GND during clinton...



WTF??? are trying to be funny???

zfacts.com...

About zFacts / Contact Information

Write us at: help
atcom




ZFacts Material licensed under
Creative Commons License
Attribution 2.5 License.
Material on zFacts.com may be used freely provided its meaning is not deliberately distorted and zFacts is cited. If used on another web site, zFacts.com must be given a normal HTML link. The following is always acceptable:

Text-of-your-choice.


Who’s behind zFacts, oil companies or what? Nope. I’m Steve Stoft and this is my web site. I’m building it with a little help from my friends and volunteers, but so far, it’s mostly my work. I’m a Ph.D. economist and my day job is consulting for electricity markets—California, PJM, ISO-NE. That provides 99.9% of the funding for this site. (Google ads are now providing about $12 / day). My professional web site is stoft.com, my blog is zReason.

What are your biases? At heart, I’m a scientist; that means I’m a skeptic. I don’t trust easy answers especially from politicians. I also don’t trust extremists, either left or right. But I don’t think these are biases; they’re based on observation. It’s hard to know your own biases, but I believe openness, information, and clear thinking are helpful—maybe those are my bias.

Why are you building zFacts? I like to figure things out, and I don’t like deceptions or misunderstandings, especially ones that harm people. So with zFacts, I get to investigate many of my interests and perhaps expose some deceptions and clear up some misperceptions.

Are you opposed to alternative energy? No, I love the idea of harnessing wind and solar. I’m just opposed to hyping things that don’t work to well-meaning people. Corn ethanol is not working. Brazilian ethanol may be. Home-based solar voltaics are a rip off. The better hybrid cars are a great idea. With my physics and economics background, I’m sorting this out for myself and posting it on zFacts.

What about global warming, markets, poverty and neocons? I admit it; I’m curious about a lot of different things. Global warming is looking pretty likely, but the case is not quite closed. No need to wait till we’re 100% sure of getting mugged before we take action. Markets are amazing for what they can do, but are no more of a cure-all than antibiotics. Poverty is mainly a social-economic problem, but individual responsibility plays a key role in any solution. Neocons venerate clear thinking, secretiveness and deception. Unfortunately those keen on secrets and deceptions, also have secret agendas.

What’s on the zFacts agenda? I plan to keep working on puzzles I find interesting. Would you like to document an important scandal, figure out who really owns the ownership society, or just help organize the site? If you’re willing to work carefully I’d love have your help. Almost everything remains to be done.

But I don’t think these are biases; they’re based on observation.

Well at least hes is honest at it's based on his [cough] "observation"

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by mental modulator

IT is OPEN SOURCE GOV

I will link you to the US gov site, unless you are anti US. which I doubt.

You keep saying it as if it means something?

Anyway it still and one last time Does not show who voted for these budgets?
Reagan and Bush spent all that money all by themselves and the democrats were all on vacation?



[edit on 3-3-2009 by SLAYER69]

YES it indicate reality which does not seem to be of great concern to you.

The real question is why are you here???

I already stated that both parties are responsible... but my main motivation
is to point out that RR was not a fiscal conservative - he was the opposite -

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by SLAYER69

You keep saying it as if it means something?

YES

I'll let my previously posted statement speak for itself.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

But I don’t think these are biases; they’re based on observation.

Well at least hes is honest at it's based on his [cough] "observation"

GLAD you have a PHD... do you???

12/31/1981 REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,000 11% $3,128,400,000,000 32.9%
12/31/1982 REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,000 16% $3,255,000,000,000 36.8%
12/31/1983 REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,000 18% $3,536,700,000,000 39.9%
12/31/1984 REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,000 18% $3,933,200,000,000 42.3%
12/31/1985 REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,000 17% $4,220,300,000,000 46.1%
12/31/1986 REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,000 14% $4,462,800,000,000 49.6%
12/31/1987 REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,000 10% $4,739,500,000,000 51.3%
12/31/1988 REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,000 10% 189% 23.6% $5,103,800,000,000 52.6%
12/31/1989 BUSH $ 2,952,994,000,000 10% $5,484,400,000,000 53.8%
12/31/1990 BUSH $ 3,364,820,000,000 14% $5,803,100,000,000 58.0%
12/31/1991 BUSH $ 3,801,800,000,000 13% $5,995,900,000,000 63.4%
12/31/1992 BUSH $ 4,177,009,000,000 10% 55.6% 13.9% $6,337,700,000,000 65.9%
12/31/1993 CLINTON $ 4,535,687,054,406 9% $6,657,400,000,000 68.1%
12/31/1994 CLINTON $ 4,800,149,946,143 6% $7,072,200,000,000 67.9%
12/31/1995 CLINTON $ 4,988,664,979,014 4% $7,397,700,000,000 67.4%
12/31/1996 CLINTON $ 5,323,171,750,783 7% $7,816,900,000,000 68.1%
12/31/1997 CLINTON $ 5,502,388,012,375 3% $8,304,300,000,000 66.3%
12/31/1998 CLINTON $ 5,614,217,021,195 2% $8,747,000,000,000 64.2%
12/31/1999 CLINTON $ 5,776,091,314,225 3% $9,268,400,000,000 62.3%
12/31/2000 CLINTON $ 5,662,216,013,697 -2% 36% 4.4% $9,817,000,000,000 57.7%
12/31/2001 BUSH $ 5,943,438,563,436 5% $10,128,000,000,000 58.7%
12/31/2002 BUSH $ 6,405,707,456,847 8% $10,469,600,000,000 61.2%
12/31/2003 BUSH $ 7,001,312,247,818 9% $10,960,800,000,000 63.9%
12/31/2004 BUSH $ 7,596,165,867,424 8% $11,685,900,000,000 65.0%
12/30/2005 BUSH $ 8,170,424,541,313 8% $12,433,900,000,000 65.0%
12/29/2006 BUSH $ 8,680,224,380,086 6% $13,194,700,000,000 65.7%
12/28/2007 BUSH $ 9,229,172,659,218 6% $13,927,000,000,000 66.3%
12/31/2008 BUSH $ 10,699,804,864,612 16% 89% 11.1% $13,692,160,000,000 78.1%

www.skymachines.com...

DO you think RR decreased gross national debt???

proof???

HERE again

a spike of 189% gross national debt growth during RR

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by SLAYER69

You keep saying it as if it means something?

YES

I'll let my previously posted statement speak for itself.

You have no leg to stand on...

do you think RR reduced government spending?

ok 1964 you may be surprised. Also one last time I didnt mind spending that money to rid the world of the Soviet Union.

Well, I've got the audio playing now - AMAZING speaking! Makes Obama look like like a palsy victim...

He was warm even when he was just sitting in a chair as I recall, he like the outdoors
and always thought it was a beautiful day.

Originally posted by mental modulator


You have no leg to stand on...

do you think RR reduced government spending?

Your talking about the deficit under Reagan and I'm saying it was good money spent up to and including 1992 after that it's all up in the air and both are responsible.

I'm willing to bet that in one way shape or form you and your family have a good living because of those Reagan dollars and the Soviet Union is gone.

Money spent between 1981 and 1992 was well worth it in my opinion.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


Let's do keep this thread on topic.

Because I don't have a party. But I have seen how Reaganomics have changed this country for the worst.

If that's your picture in your Avatar you look a little green behind the ears to really know Reagan. Again Unless you lived during his years everything you know and Everything else is just propaganda

Heh.. I look young for my age... 36 thank you. I remember Carters admin, and I remember Reagans, specifically the effect his policies had on medicare and medicaid. My mother was a Nurse during that time, and it became something of a concern of hers as her field was geriatrics.

So even as I followed the wonderful changes which were occurring in the world, like the fall of communism, stories like hers kept me abreast of what the impact of his domestic policies...

I think his works in the international realm were great... it's those darned economics of his which I have such an issue with.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by mental modulator


You have no leg to stand on...

do you think RR reduced government spending?

Your talking about the deficit under Reagan and I'm saying it was good money spent up to and including 1992 after that it's all up in the air and both are responsible.

I'm willing to bet that in one way shape or form you and your family have a good living because of those Reagan dollars and the Soviet Union is gone.

Money spent between 1981 and 1992 was well worth it in my opinion.

Thats a fair point - you should have went there 10 posts ago

My family was good, the only thing that negatively effected my family was the closing down of the fed funded loony bins, dropping my families property values a good deal.

I recall the places I would frequent became real hoobo -ee over night.

NOW the same neighborhood has gone way up in value...

BTW Nancy was VERY loving and sweet, one of my ultra liberal friends (past me) just had the opportunity to dine with her and he loved her regardless of politics.

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
How about retracting the rapid, ramped, rabbid rabbitesque exponential growth of Government?

I was reading my states 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report earlier and as I concluded, the revenues grew at ..well here's an excerpt:

General Fund-State revenues are forecasted to grow at a 5.0 percent rate in the 2009-11 Biennium, compared
to the 3.1 percent increase in the 2007-09 Biennium, and the 18.7 percent pace in the 2005-07 Biennium. A
portion of the slow growth in the 2007-09 Biennium is due to economic changes in the tax system that were
scheduled to take full effect in the 2007-09 Biennium, including aerospace industry tax credits. The slowing
economy and slumping housing markets have also had a negative effect on revenue growth. Particularly hard
hit have been retail sales and real estate excise taxes.

Key words...
real estate excise taxes and 2005-07 biennium increase of state revenues at 18.7 percent.

Just when the housing bubble was bloating, the 3X overvalued properties were shoveling tax revenue to the states general fund as if a steam locomotive's fireman was shoveling coal at a rate worthy of a Comcast high-speed broadband comercial.

It also notes that the revenues came from attributable to gains in both wage and nonwage income. I.E./AKA equity from cashing out homes at 3X purchased values.
Along with the increased tax base, the new-found spendable income from the instant equity was also slowly milked back to the state through consumption (what a grande plan).

And with Bushes administration along with Congress, the S&L scandal of the 80's Bushes was but a speck of sand for what they had in store for us this last time around. It took..about 17 years to repay the S&L robbery. This is a thousand fold worse so what, 17,000 years to pay off the last pilfering?
If there is a hell in the afterlife, it will give a new meaning to the "burning Bush".

Not only all this muck and quicksand, but now the Gov. is still throwing dollars at a Mel's Hole, in a Darwinistic attempt to create life from zombie banks, thrifts and financial institutions.

(I prefer the earned title, "Mafia And Governmental Opressors Group" or MAGOG.
D.B.A. Mafia And Governmental Goals Of Treason, or MAGGOT.)

While tossing millions to Sporting Associations, Billions to Auto Manufacturers, and Trillions to Zombie Banks, we labor onward to pay for these illegitimate debts.

Now, the "too big to fail" asset-less Lending Gods, so much like the free meal, they are returning for seconds.

Democrates, Republicans, and other worthless arrogant creatures alike.

They need more funding to continue - (whatever the heck they are needing to continue doing. It surely is not to save the middle class, it is to immortalize an infinite distance between themselves, the Haves and Have-mores, from us, the have-nots and never-will-have-agains.

So, as they re-wrap their lips of suction around the soon to be milkless tits the sheeple are unknowingly still exposing for their greedy psychopathic pleasures, I remembered another report I had read earlier and pondered.

According to the data found HERE

showing assets of these Zombie Necromancers; (displayed in thousands)

Rank Institution Name (RSSD ID) Location Total Assets 12/31/2008 Total Assets 09/30/2008
1 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. (1039502) NEW YORK, NY $2,175,052,000 $2,251,469,000
2 CITIGROUP INC. (1951350) NEW YORK, NY $1,947,439,000 $2,050,131,000
3 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (1073757) CHARLOTTE, NC $1,822,068,028 $1,836,452,425
4 TAUNUS CORPORATION (2816906) NEW YORK, NY $396,659,000 $624,162,000
5 WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (1120754) SAN FRANCISCO, CA $1,309,639,000 $622,361,000

(it was a chart so may not transfer properly but, lets just take #1;
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
Total assets as of 31-12-2008
$2,175,052,000

Oops...I forgot this is displayed in thousands. Let me correct the numbers into laymen's terms.
$2,175,052,000,000.00

That's a more accurate presentation.

Let's see. I haven't counted these numbers since Mathematics but It looks to me like two months ago, their assets were...

$two trillion one hundred seventy-five billion fifty-two million dollars.

Yep, March is around the corner, they be needin' some more financial aid.

I only wish I could look twelve of you in the eyes and end with:
The Prosecution Rests!

That's all I really wanted to say.

Glad you mentioned the CAFR actually. A lot of you out there might be asking what exactly the "CAFR" is and how it relates, well: CAFR thread That should satisfy any curiosity about it. Theres a huge amount of deception going on regarding it. Sorry if I'm pushing on going O/T but financially this report provides ground breaking evidence that this policy Obama is trying to pass and everything before were just shams keeping us complacent in our ignorance.

In the end all Obama is going to prove is that Reagan was right.

And in the end the republicans will only have to give the democrats the rope they need.

All they need to do is let the democrats tie there own necktie.

that just means letting the democrats vote in stupid laws while the republicans vote against them.

When the laws do not work they can then say i told you so and we did not vote for them.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by ANNED]

Hey, I am an old guy that can remember when Reagan was the Governor of California..... I hardly ever went into a restroom that I didn't see written on the wall "Flush Twice, it's a long way to Sacramento" .... Reagan was a liberal Democrat prior to becoming the mouthpiece for the ultra huge and omnipotent General Electric Corporation.

Yay? I hated Reagonomics

You know whos rich? The owner of the company I work for. Want to tax him? Well guess what, most everyone got great job reviews, and no one got a raise. Go across the street, and you will find the same story.

The "rich" might be a simple business owner, who has to put the business profits on his tax income sheet. You think hes gonna take the hit? oh look, I have to pay 70% now? I dont think so, he will make the workers take the hit. Thats why you will see diminished Christmas bonus's. Thats what I'm seeing now all over.

Why punish someone who took all the risk with his money, works 60, 70, 80 hours a week, goes through 4-8 years of college, and becomes successful? Its class envy and its wrong.

Theres no reason at all that we cant live with everyone paying 10% tax.

do the math. a person making 1,000,000 pays 100,000 in taxes. Someone making 10,000 a year, pays 1,000 in taxes. The guy with a million bucks already pays enough!

The problem is people are brainwashed by these politicians. Dont you see how much money is going to Washington? Its their SPENDING! You dont want more money in that hole of a place do you? Do you think they are wise with money?

Stop being selfish. Taxing the rich isnt going to pay your mortgage and Obama isnt going to cut you a mortgage payment. and if he does, its unethical. I want to be empowered to earn on my own strength, and pay for what I have ON MY OWN. I dont want hand outs because I have dignity.

Get government away from me!

Most everything that can be said has been said already in this thread.

Just my 2 cents:

In the 1950's and 60's both corporations and the rich were taxed at a much greater rate than they are now. There was NOT massive unemployment, deep recession or any of the dire things predicted by the Reaganites.

Au contraire, the middle class grew exponentially in that period, something that stopped happening during the RR years, when it actually began shrinking as it is doing now. It was a bottom-up phenomenon: wages were increased for the working class (partly due to union activity), eventually allowing them to move up to the middle class. The middle class was also becoming more upwardly mobile, many moving to the upper middle class and so on. The greater spending power of the working and middle classes made many people and companies rich. It wasn't just the largesse of the rich as we are supposed to believe.

The 50's and 60's are remembered as a period of great prosperity for all, not just one class. There were still the very rich; they weren't wiped out or eliminated. According to my parents, though, the rich were more modest about their prosperity. They didn't flaunt their wealth the way the nouveau riches do now, but tended to identify with the middle class. The corporations were also doing gangbusters business, despite the taxes that they paid.

Reaganomics would make us believe differently, but bottom-up prosperity has worked in the past and will work again if it is allowed to. Contrary to popular belief, we don't need the rich in order to survive.

Originally posted by Sestias
In the 1950's and 60's both corporations and the rich were taxed at a much greater rate than they are now. There was NOT massive unemployment, deep recession or any of the dire things predicted by the Reaganites.

Arnt we already in a recession? Perhaps you can tell me how retroactively overtaxing the American people is going to get us out of a severe recession? tsk tsk tsk..its never been done.

Under the right circumstances, you can tax the American people, this of course means when economic times are good...

Au contraire, the middle class grew exponentially in that period, something that stopped happening during the RR years, when it actually began shrinking as it is doing now.

The global economy did not exist in the capacity it does now. We didnt have China or India, along with a #load of other nations competeing with us.

It was a bottom-up phenomenon: wages were increased for the working class (partly due to union activity),

And how well has that worked for the "Big 3?" Look at toyota, Honda, etc...They pay their workers comparativly worse then the failed US automakers do. Tell me why is it of great importance to pay some one $70/hr wage, when their job title is "lug nut installer."

Can we finally admit that the so called "Workers Union" is an EPIC FAILUR? These dumb nuts are spending themselves out of jobs...then you ppl wonder why the middle class is in the sorta sh!t it is today?...

Ill tell you why, because the world economy is far more competitve then it used to be. Todays demands by the workers unions are hard to listen to, when some guy named Jong tung over in hong kong can install lug nuts for $5/hr, that union worker whos makeing $70 is sh!t out of luck. This is the challenges we face in a globalized economy. Union workers are F'kn themselves over, thus I have absolutly no sympathy for them.

eventually allowing them to move up to the middle class. The middle class was also becoming more upwardly mobile, many moving to the upper middle class and so on. The greater spending power of the working and middle classes made many people and companies rich. It wasn't just the largesse of the rich as we are supposed to believe.

Two words, "GLobalized Economy."

The 50's and 60's are remembered as a period of great prosperity for all, not just one class. There were still the very rich; they weren't wiped out or eliminated.

If you want to blame RR for one thing, blame him for kick starting the global economy...

Reaganomics would make us believe differently, but bottom-up prosperity has worked in the past and will work again if it is allowed to. Contrary to popular belief, we don't need the rich in order to survive.

No, you just need them to pay your taxes, utitliy bills, heating, cooling, energy, etc etc etc... Provide you with jobs to make an income with..... How exactly would you survive without them?