Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Builder 2010 View Post
    Reagan didn't come into an office with an economy in gravitational collapse as it was when Obama took office. It's very convenient to ignore the shape of our and the world's economy at the end of 2008. The fact that we pulled out better than most of the rest of the world was remarkable and independent assessment says that BHO "saved the US economy". Bush came in with a surplus and then black-budgeted a 1 trillion dollar war while giving tax breaks to all the wealthy. When was the last time we went to war and decided to not pay for it and then stick the next guy to sit at that table with the check? Republicans are wonderful revisionists simply ignoring those 8 years and pretending that BHO took the reins directly from Clinton. Unfortunately, this tactic seems to work.
    So what did President Obama spend the other 8 trillion on?
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • Doktor,

      Debt-to-GDP rose under Reagan, which is another way of saying debt rose more than GDP. It’s math, not opinion. However, to say George W or Herbert Hoover didn’t have anything to do with the economy Obama or FDR had to cope with is simplistic.

      The clock doesn’t start with every new administration, even though we like to use those four year periods to analyze things. I know I do it.

      But, your graph nicely illustrates my point about the USSR. As you show, right up until the end of the 1980s … post-Reagan … the economy was growing. In real terms. Per capita.

      = = = = =


      GVChamp
      ,

      Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante? Sure, the military got more money (GOPers are good at that, especially in times of peace), and Latin America got invaded two or three times. But, there was no progress from SALT II to START I.

      As for a “light footprint,” that tripling of the debt laid the groundwork for later problems. Let us not forget that it was Reagan’s advisor who started the debt/deficits don’t matter nonsense.

      And, as for climate change, it isn’t (never has been) all GOPers in denial. Just the ones the GOPers put in charge of the House committee that deals with it.

      = = = = =

      Parihaka,

      Presidents don’t spend; Congress does. As for what it was spent on, the answer is simple: national economic security and reconstruction.

      Remember GM?
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DOR View Post
        Parihaka,

        Presidents don’t spend; Congress does. As for what it was spent on, the answer is simple: national economic security and reconstruction.

        Remember GM?
        $8T on workers retirement benefits? Astonishing. Weren't you screaming blue murder because the republicans in congress were trying to halt spending? And President Obama is I believe in second place for the all time record of Pocket Veto's to overcome said congress's atttempts to reign back spending?
        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

        Leibniz

        Comment


        • pari,

          $8T on workers retirement benefits? Astonishing. Weren't you screaming blue murder because the republicans in congress were trying to halt spending? And President Obama is I believe in second place for the all time record of Pocket Veto's to overcome said congress's atttempts to reign back spending?
          a lot of canards in play here with that "OMG 8 TRILLION DOLLARS" number. there's a recession Obama inherited; there's inflation; most importantly, there's mandatory spending from social security and medicare.

          ironically, out of the three Obama policies that created the most debt, the first was the continuation of the Bush tax cuts; and the third was the increase in defense spending...IE republican priorities. (second was stimulus.)

          but all of this pales against the increase in mandatory spending.

          re: the spending actually being economically harmful and pushing out private spending, it's not that hard to look at the current interest rates...
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DOR View Post


            Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante?
            Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I Limited long-range nuclear forces in the United States and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to 6,000 attributed warheads on 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interm..._Forces_Treaty Created a global ban on short- and long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as an intrusive verification regime. Ronnie and Gobi best work ever.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              $8T on workers retirement benefits? Astonishing. Weren't you screaming blue murder because the republicans in congress were trying to halt spending? And President Obama is I believe in second place for the all time record of Pocket Veto's to overcome said congress's atttempts to reign back spending?
              "Rein in spending"? Really?

              First, quick falls into deficits are almost always the result of revenue slaughter; spending takes far too long.

              Second, why would anyone expect a reduction in GVT (government consumption expenditure) or public capital expenditure to be useful to an economy where demand has been pounded into the ground? Makes no sense at all, not even to a supply sider or other versions of voodoo economics.

              Third, if you are going to talk about Congress -- on strike since 2011 -- at least acknowledge the heavy lifting the Fed has had to do in the absence of any useful fiscal policy. There's plenty of criticism of QEs, but not much about why it was the only way to save the economy. Congress was AWOL!
              Trust me?
              I'm an economist!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DOR View Post

                GVChamp
                ,

                Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante? Sure, the military got more money (GOPers are good at that, especially in times of peace), and Latin America got invaded two or three times. But, there was no progress from SALT II to START I.
                SALT limits production. It was basically McNamara's plan to let the Soviets catch up to the US so that both can reduce together. The Soviets, however, not only caught up but surpassed the US. SALT sets a ceiling to which both can achieve, only the Soviets were a lot closer to their ceiling than we were to ours.

                Reagan's confrontation was to untie American legs and jumped into the race with both legs. They didn't try to match the Soviets in numbers but with quality to the point that the Warsaw Pact of 173 Divisions had no hope of taking West Germany from NATO's 73 divisions. It was Reagan who forced the Soviets into negotiating a reduction.

                Given the US VII Corps' performance in Iraq, the GSFG (Group of Soviet Forces in Germany) was mighty glad they didn't have to take them on.

                Originally posted by DOR View Post
                And, as for climate change, it isn’t (never has been) all GOPers in denial. Just the ones the GOPers put in charge of the House committee that deals with it.
                Republican deniers ain't the ones who came up with the carbon tax non-solution.
                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 15 Jul 16,, 04:10.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  pari,



                  a lot of canards in play here with that "OMG 8 TRILLION DOLLARS" number.
                  Asty, this entire thread is a canard. I had thought that was its purpose ;-)
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • One more question to be added. If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did it? While on the other hand there have been regimes tumbling without the use of any arms or the shot of a single bullet due to People power. The fall of Marcos was one example and the Georgian rose revolution is another.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by sabathiel View Post
                      One more question to be added. If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did it?
                      It certainly prevented the South from imposing her will on the North.

                      Originally posted by sabathiel View Post
                      While on the other hand there have been regimes tumbling without the use of any arms or the shot of a single bullet due to People power. The fall of Marcos was one example and the Georgian rose revolution is another.
                      Because the army sided with the people.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did i
                        Had the slaves been armed there would have been no need for a war.

                        he fall of Marcos was one example
                        Bungled coup from extreme right wing officers (which included some top human rights violators), indecision and weakness at the top of the regime which caused them not to simply shell the rebel camp, troublesome ties between officers which led to further waffling, US pressure not to murder civilians when they finally came out...

                        Further acts of people power did not stop those same rebel officers from trying to take power over the following years and killing civilians and activists who got in their way.
                        Last edited by troung; 17 Jul 16,, 23:26.
                        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          Doktor,




                          GVChamp
                          ,

                          Why do you consider Reagan’s confrontation better than Nixon’s detante? Sure, the military got more money (GOPers are good at that, especially in times of peace), and Latin America got invaded two or three times. But, there was no progress from SALT II to START I.

                          As for a “light footprint,” that tripling of the debt laid the groundwork for later problems. Let us not forget that it was Reagan’s advisor who started the debt/deficits don’t matter nonsense.

                          And, as for climate change, it isn’t (never has been) all GOPers in denial. Just the ones the GOPers put in charge of the House committee that deals with it.
                          Detente does not accomplish the goal of pressuring the Soviet bloc, and the pressure is required to make the system actually collapse. Detente is explicitly based on seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union which we determined was impossible back in the 1940s.

                          The basic framework of the 1940s was correct, but the US overthought and overmoralized, and that goes back to Eisenhower thinking he could go negotiate with Kruschev. It was really simple: Communism was a monstrous, inhuman ideology, the Soviet Union was an evil empire, and it needed to die, and it was going to die. It was really that simple.


                          Originally posted by sabathiel View Post
                          One more question to be added. If the right to bear arms which is conservative so ardently argue is to protect the people from tyrannical government by allowing an armed population or regulated militia then why the South which were armed by the right to bear arms couldn't protect itself from the North imposing its will on the South on the issue of slavery. The right to bear arms didn't help them much did it? While on the other hand there have been regimes tumbling without the use of any arms or the shot of a single bullet due to People power. The fall of Marcos was one example and the Georgian rose revolution is another.
                          SMDH
                          "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                          Comment


                          • Sometimes I miss this place more than other times. Howdy friends, non-howdy non-friends!

                            -dale

                            Comment


                            • Good to see you Dale.

                              We need to see you on a more frequent basis around here.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by troung View Post
                                Had the slaves been armed there would have been no need for a war.
                                Consider the case of China, mid-20th Century.
                                The slaves [peasants] were not armed, until they took arms from the masters [landlords]. That didn't stop the war, just raised it to another, more intense level.
                                Trust me?
                                I'm an economist!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X