Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, worked to create greater inequality is exactly what it did. Only a success if you're at the top, but placed others in social programs and shifted the tax burden onto the middle class.
Can you explain why? BTW, I can. But that was an unexpected, if completely logical, consequence of Reaganomics.
Until you can understand why, you will remain lost in your ideology.
I have a bridge out in the middle of the desert to sell you. I am sure you will buy it.
Enjoy. Just be careful when the Cheetos run out. You might be coming back here saying I was right, but at that point I think it will be too late and you won't have computer access.
Can you explain why? BTW, I can. But that was an unexpected, if completely logical, consequence of Reaganomics.
Until you can understand why, you will remain lost in your ideology.
This is senseless, so how is greater inequality, and more for a small portion of society, and less for the majority good for Americans? These are the facts of Reaganomics results that can't be changed. Eventually when we become a 2 class society the 1% that you support will be responsible to pay their way.
Speaking of Reagan and his policies, where the heck is that Star Wars Missile Shield (SDI) he spent billions on?
If it is still not possible today, what insanity drove anyone to believe it was possible thirty years ago? Certainly, we cannot call a president who tripled the national debt any kind of economic genius.
Insanity? This is why it is critical to IGNORE propaganda from politicians and get the facts!
Apparently you doubt the same minds who put men on the moon and built the atomic bomb? The US scientific establishment knew as early as the 60s that High Energy Laser weapons were feasible. The idea was actively promoted during the late 1960s by physicist Dr Edward Teller, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb. By the early 1970s it was clear to the US DoD that an airborne laser weapon was feasible using existing laser technology, This led to a series of experiments during the 1970s by the Navy, Army and Air Force which were highly successful....
SDI laser technology is now operational in a number of High Energy Laser systems or being developed for use in the future. SDI contributed greatly to the advancement of laser technology, particularly in mirror technology. The Air Force fielded a modified Jumbo Jet laser attack aircraft designed to shoot down ICBMs for about 10 years. Called the YAL-1. However, it's costs were deemed no longer practical due to advances in other missile intercept systems coming on line, and the YAL-1 was deactivated in 2013.
Normally, liberals love to posture themselves as the "progressive enlightened ones" who have nothing but the highest regard for scientific research. But, for some "odd and baffling" reason, they just couldn't accept the idea that lasers could be used to shoot down missiles. Maybe it was just rank political bickering, or maybe there was a more sinister agenda at work to block getting an advantage over the Soviets.
As if to say, lasers were just "too far fetched". I remember those days well, and I was baffled at all the skepticism coming from Reagan's opponents on the Left, as if he were proposing time travel or something.
SDI wasn't far-fetched of course, but we've since developed better ways to do the job cheaper with kinetic weapons which were also part of the overall SDI R & D program. Personally, I think the US top secret AURORA project (now operational in space on an unmanned mission) is designed to be a missile interceptor of some sort. And it would be highly effective with it's hyper-sonic capabilities, whatever it actually used to destroy ICBMs..
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 09-15-2014 at 07:02 AM..
The United States was found on Libertarian principles of small government and our Constitution drafted accordingly. By mostly sticking to those ideals for a couple hundred years, the U.S. became the greatest superpower in the history of civilization.
It doesn't take a PHD in Economics to realize that government intervention is the greatest propellant in the growing wealth divide. People who have substantial investments in equity markets are partying like its 1999, while the median family income and net worth have decreased over the same period of time. Why? The Federal Reserve continues to suppress interest rates, causing the people who have a lot of money to put it in equity markets rather than other places, driving up stock prices. The system works... for them. They all make more money. The average family/wage earner does not.
I think the ideological divide is best represented with the current controversy over corporate inversions. The corporate tax rate in the US is 35%. Ireland's is 12.5%, the UK's is 23% and so on. Companies want to be taxed on most of their earnings at a lower rate so they can make more money. That's not evil corporations at work, but human nature. Good luck changing that.
The "anti-Reaganomics" crowd is looking for a way to punish companies that try to legally spend less of THEIR money on taxes. The Reaganomics crowd is trying to make it so that the tax rate is competitive enough that business WANT to be based here. Pretty simple.
It doesn't matter how much legislation you pass, the big companies will find a way to work the system. The small companies will not. They will pay the 35% tax rate and hire fewer people, make smaller capital investments and fail more often. They will have to pay their employees less and offer fewer benefits. Every dollar only contains 100 cents. If you have to give away the first 35 instead of the first 12.5, you won't be able to spend as much on other things.
If you like the European nanny state model, go live there. When those countries run out of money, the US will probably bail them out as usual. Of course that's assuming that we don't become one of them.
To answer the OP's question, it's because they understand economics and human nature instead of relying on naive idealism, anecdote and unproven theory.
Well, for once I have nothing to add to this answer, it says it all. The facts are all there. If most everyone could see through the mist of Liberalism like the post above we would be in much better shape in our nation, enough said...
SDI technology is now operational in a number of interceptor systems, and SDI contributed greatly to the advancement of laser technology. The Air Force even fielded a modified Jumbo Jet laser attack aircraft designed to shoot down ICBMs. Called the YAL-1. However, it's costs were deemed no longer practical due to advances in other missile intercept systems coming on line, and the YAL-1 was deactivated in 2013.
Normally, liberals love to posture themselves as the "progressive enlightened ones" who have nothing but the highest regard for scientific research. But, for some "odd and baffling" reason, they just couldn't accept the idea that lasers could be used to shoot down missiles. Or maybe it was just rank political bickering. As if to say, lasers were just "too far fetched". I remember those days well, and I was baffled at all the skepticism coming from Reagan's opponents on the Left, as if he were proposing time travel or something.
SDI wasn't far-fetched of course, but we've since developed better ways to do the job cheaper, and further diplomatic solutions have led to enhanced treaties between the nuclear nations.
Personally, I think the US top secret aurora project (now operational in space on an unmanned mission) is designed to be a missile interceptor of some sort. And it would be highly effective with it's hyper-sonic capabilities.
So does this mean that the unenlightened will now support California's high speed rail project?
This is senseless, so how is greater inequality, and more for a small portion of society, and less for the majority good for Americans? These are the facts of Reaganomics results that can't be changed. Eventually when we become a 2 class society the 1% that you support will be responsible to pay their way.
I have explained what Reaganomics is, what the debates were all about, and that the screeds of you and your fellow Reagan haters continue to spout are irrelevant at best in terms of this thread. Yet you continue.
In terms of the 1981 debate and the result, Reaganomics worked. This is indisputable.
Now then, if you want to start a separate thread about bifurcation of wealth, and how wealth continues to be concentrated more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer people. ypou are most welcome to start your own thread on the topic. You might even find that I agree with you and that I can add great detail that supports your case.
But stop misrepresenting what Reaganomics is, and stop trying to create some grand unified field theory to support your liberal left hatred of Reagan. Those of us who understand what Reaganomics was find the rants of folks like yourself unpalatable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
