how reagan ruined the economy with reagan-nomics, or greed unleashed

FlyersFan

stormson
i just want an example of how things have gotten better for the common man since reaganomics.

Reaganomics isn't what is going on with the USA at this time. So that's impossible.

i win.

Only in your noob mind lil' buddy. But have fun thinking that ...

ever heard the republican line "job-creators"? thats reaganomics.

give the guys at the top a break, and it will trickle down.

thats reaganomics.

i may be new, but i beat you.

you have no evidence to support yourself.

reply to post by stormson

You just want to rape those who are successful and loot from their efforts.
And you want to disguise it as 'the right thing to do for the poor'.
That's not exactly 'moral'. It's parasitic.
And again ... no .... you haven't 'won' anything. Keep dreaming.

FlyersFan
reply to post by stormson

 

You just want to rape those who are successful and loot from their efforts.
And you want to disguise it as 'the right thing to do for the poor'.
That's not exactly 'moral'. It's parasitic.
And again ... no .... you haven't 'won' anything. Keep dreaming.

and the top doesnt rape the little guy?

ceos that do massive layoffs get 40% more the following year than their counterparts that keep their workforce. you know what that means? it means the ceos that fire a bunch of people take their wages and roll it into the ceos compensation.

put another way, im going to fire you, but instead of saving that pay im going to take it and give it to myself.
"but the board decides the pay of the ceo" you counter. yep, and guess who sits on the board? other ceos. so if i give you a raise, then you will give me one. all very neat and tidy.

parasitic is the top dropping our wages and benefits for their own gain.

the top, in their greed and lust for more, are killing the little guy. they take more and more from us to support themselves. thats parasitic.

i won because you cant show how reaganomics has helped the little guy, which is the topic of this thread.

FlyersFan
reply to post by stormson

 

You just want to rape those who are successful and loot from their efforts.
And you want to disguise it as 'the right thing to do for the poor'.
That's not exactly 'moral'. It's parasitic.
And again ... no .... you haven't 'won' anything. Keep dreaming.

I dont get this defence for the 1% I really dont.

Are you honnestly happy with how it is now. Slavering away for the powerfull at the top with little to no hope of being able to better oneself or improve one situation even with hardwork as those at the top are sucking all the money out of the econemy or pissing it all away on bad/corrupt investments.


You talk about not not forceing ones morals on people...... ok great. But the more rich and more powerfull you get the more your actions affcet other people. There morals or lack of morals can be forecfully inflicted on us at the bottom. And thats a real problem. They have the money and power to inflict almost whatever they wont on the masses.

You say those at the bottom should force our morals on those at the top? But what about the other way round? Should they be able to force there morals on us to?

With great power and weath comes great responsibilty like it or not. A bad bay or bad decsion from them can ruin millions of lifes. There fore there should be strict laws to keep them in check. To say otherwise gives them all the power and those underneath none.

So unless you like being trodden into the dirt by those at the top or think they are your betters then there has to be some middle ground.

I dont care if the solution is 100% capitalism, 100% communsim or inbetween as long as it works.
Im still deciding.

But Im looking at these countrys.
Norway
Swedon
Germany
Hong Kong
Canada
Australia
Fineland
Singapore

Some on the list lean one way or another and others in the middle. But they seem to make things work, at least better than the USA and UK.

stormson
i won because you cant show how reaganomics has helped the little guy, which is the topic of this thread.

You lost because you can't show how reaganomics is running America today.
30 years ago ... Back in the 1980's ...sure. But not today. Not even close.

You are a looter. A vampire. Sucking off the successful and providing nothing in return.
And you do so under the guise of 'doing good for the poor'. It's really IMMORAL.
Chew on that .... bu-bye.

crazyewok
I dont get this defence for the 1% I really dont.

I don't get this defense of theft of wealth simply because you think you are entitled to it.
It's looting. It's parasitic. It's an entitlement mentality.
I don't get this trust of government doing the right thing with all that stolen booty.
They NEVER get anything right and they end up wasting our hard earned money.
I don't get this inability for people to acknowledge government corruption and ineptitude.
It's staring you right in the face.

Just because people earn more than you, doesn't mean you have a right to steal it
through unnecessary taxes. If the government would spend more wisely, they wouldn't
be raping us middle class tax payers for more $$$.

stormson
i won because you cant show how reaganomics has helped the little guy, which is the topic of this thread.

Reaganomics provided a mean GDP growth rate of 3.5% over his 2 terms.

That benefited you, and every other American, even if you believe otherwise.

Does this mean that I win?

FlyersFan
Sucking off the successful and providing nothing in return.

I think alot of us want to provide somthing.

Problem is you need money to do anything of use these day. And all the money is being hoarded by those at the top.

If the money flowed abit better to those of all levels thinsg would work abit better.

Fact is someone nowdays can work doing insane hours and doing tons of work and even if they are lucky not to have a heart attack before retirement they will most likley still haveing nothing to show after 50 odd years of work.

On the otherhand a usless waste of space who has a billionaire daddy can go to the top schools and university and there first job will be 6 figures and they will do 10 odd years of real work before working as some CEO doing most there work on a golf course and retiring fully by 40 on a luxory yahct.

Now the secound example isnt nessarly wrong. But only if the common man has some hope of being able to end there working lifes sucessfuly too!

At the moment social mobility is low. And thats where unhappness and resentment sets it. Thats were you get a overclass and aristorcay set up.

peck420

stormson
i won because you cant show how reaganomics has helped the little guy, which is the topic of this thread.

Reaganomics provided a mean GDP growth rate of 3.5% over his 2 terms.

That benefited you, and every other American, even if you believe otherwise.

Does this mean that I win?

nope, because that growth didnt trickle down. it didnt help the common person.

ceo pay started to rise greatly, as i showed earlier, but not the little guys.

if ceo pay and minimum wage had remained parallel since reagan, minimum wage would be over $30 an hour.

edit: OECD members enjoyed real GDP growth rate averaging over 4% each year in the 1950s, and very near 5% a year in the 1960s, compared with 3% in the 1970s and 2% in the 1980s.

FlyersFan
[
I don't get this defense of theft of wealth simply because you think you are entitled to it.

I dont think Im entiled to anything excpet the chance of a fair chance to better myself and to be free of the tryanny and opression from those at the top.

People can have million or billions I dont care.

What I do care about is have future prospects and oppunitys for myself. Which are things deiing out fast as the those at the top hoard all the money and force there power down the lader.

FlyersFan
It's looting. It's parasitic. It's an entitlement mentality.

To be honnest I dont give a flying feck what it is.

Do you honnestly want to live on a world were the 1 % at the top can force there morals on ideals on to everyone else?

No its not right to force our morals on them either. But the fact remains if you have all the money and power youreven you little decsions can have HUDGE effects on those down the bottom of the ladder.

That power needs to be curtailed. Some power needs to be given to those at the bottom of the lader.

Without some sort of law curtailing the power of those with all the wealth then you get a overclass set up that will opress anyone at the bottom. You will get a tyranny.


These needs to be social moblity and some sort of responsibility to those with the money and power.

stormson
nope, because that growth didnt trickle down. it didnt help the common person.

Incorrect. Ridiculously incorrect, but I have neither the time, nor the inclination really, to give you a lesson on how much that little GDP effects your individual purchasing power.

ceo pay started to rise greatly, as i showed earlier, but not the little guys.

Incorrect. CEO pay began to sky rocket in 1996, peaking in around 2000. Had nothing to due with Reaganomics and everything to do with large scale globalization.

if ceo pay and minimum wage had remained parallel since reagan, minimum wage would be over $30 an hour.

Also, incorrect.

See above, CEO wages only moved from approx 45:1 to 55:1 during Reagan's reign. Which is almost exactly in line with technological production increases during that period.

crazyewok
If the money flowed abit better to those of all levels thinsg would work abit better.

The way to make money flow better .... get government to quit wasting it.
Get the gov't to stop blowing it by sending it overseas in 'aid'.
Get the gov't to stop blowing it by unnecessary wars (Libya ... an attempt at Syria, etc)
Get the gov't to stop the pork ... unnecessary spending.
Get the gov't to stop waste.

Then people could keep more of their money. And it would flow better.
If we had more money, there are tons of things we could do with it. It would flow.

reply to post by stormson


Higher tax rates ?

Can you show the real numbers ? and how those higher rates actually *helped* ?

How much did that *actually* amount to in dollars ?

How much exactly would higher tax rates amount to today in dollars ?

And most importantly, how would that amount help ?

Or is it just about jealousy ?

Can you give us the real numbers for higher tax rates today and how they would enter in to deficit spending ?

I'm not sure the real money even exists.

crazyewok
You mean its not 10000000000000000000000000000% Obama fault ?!?!?!?!

I thought he was responisble for EVRTHING!!!!!!!!!!

Everything wrong with what HIS administration has caused us thus far.

reply to post by stormson


Reagan was duped into thinking it good and also was shot.

He did a complete 180 from his earliest position of against the "trickle down".

WHAT IDIOT EVER BELIEVED IN TRICKLE DOWN..

had it EVER worked, there would be NO POOR... ever

buster2010
If you think we are overtaxed now you know nothing about paying taxes. The constant cutting of taxes is what screwed this country.

First off who the hell says they have a legal right to tax us?
Second, why cant they get their spending in line like the rest of us have too?

I wonder how the Guberment would react if I didn't pay my taxes and informed them 'I' was running a budget deficit this year?

HanzHenry
WHAT IDIOT EVER BELIEVED IN TRICKLE DOWN..

had it EVER worked, there would be NO POOR... ever

That is extremely unfair to Trickle-Down theorem.

Before it was co-opted, it was intended to only effect business' and entrepreneurs...regardless of income.

Yup, you had to prove that you were re-investing the money back into the business to apply for the tax brake...imagine that.

If the theory had been used as intended, it would have worked as described.

The problems really didn't blossom until it was expanded to include all upper income persons, as well as all capital gains. But, what can you say, that's what happens when politicians dictate economics...

FlyersFan

crazyewok
If the money flowed abit better to those of all levels thinsg would work abit better.

The way to make money flow better .... get government to quit wasting it.
Get the gov't to stop blowing it by sending it overseas in 'aid'.
Get the gov't to stop blowing it by unnecessary wars (Libya ... an attempt at Syria, etc)
Get the gov't to stop the pork ... unnecessary spending.
Get the gov't to stop waste.

Then people could keep more of their money. And it would flow better.
If we had more money, there are tons of things we could do with it. It would flow.

But without some curtailing of the powers of the super rich and powerfull you will get a new aristrocay where a few people have all the power of the majority. And that is what we have now. Were are going slowly back to the days of serfdom. Thats what happens with wage inequality. When high power jobs are given based of birth and social standing rather than merit, when the best uni places and education are given on the same principle you have a problem. When you get to a point when the common man can work hard for all his life and still have nothing to show you have a problem.

There has to be some checks and balances or in a generation or two our children will have no hope expect to slave away on minimun wage for there enitire life for a very few rich people only to die in poverty with no way out of that cycle.

And yes that can happen in Soclism as well were people at the bottom are so dependant on the goverment those at the top again have all the power.

This is the problem. Both full blown communism and full blown captilism can both end up with this result.

So rather than batter each other with labels and arguing. We should be discuing the best way to have fair system which is fair, makes the most people happey, provides plenty of oppuntitys and is stable and sustainble and not easily abused.

reply to post by stormson


Ronald Reagan Killed the American Dream


www.youtube.com...

Excellent OP!

The point is simple. Ever since Reagan the macro economy has swooned in favor of the super rich, and all the gains up till Reagan of the middle class has dramatically since eroded.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Pfffft! I hope you are kidding. Reagan was a puppet that gave us lip service while the elite shifted that game to a total lose situation for the middle class.

The loss of the middle class began with Reagan. He was a cult of personality that fooled most, while his crony vise and crew changed everything and began the downfall of the American dream.

Has to be something in the airwaves that make smart people not understand things that at one time EVERYONE understood.