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.
Much of Clinton budget deal with Gingrich was also based on Reagans so called peace dividend after USSR collapsed.just as mnay see a much more dangerous adventurism in the new world created. Also now it seems Obama making fun of Romney in the debate on his dangers of Russia seems to be coming back to bite him in rear.
While Russia is pretty scary to some small country like Crimea, they are no longer a valid non-nuclear threat that they once were. They truly are a local power.
The only remaining scary thing is the nukes. Beyond that they just arent as fearsome as they once were. Its like the difference between the crazy neighbor who is 22, and all roided out on steroids and has a gun, vs's the 90 yr old one using a walker who owns a gun. Yes they both have a gun, but if they don't escalate that far they're toothless....unless you're the 80 yr old neighbor (Crimea)
This is an extremely simplistic analysis that ignores tones of macroeconomic data.
The 70s in general were a dismal time for the American economy - remember stagflation? In short, there was pent-up demand - getting interest rates down was the magic bullet to give the economy a shot in the arm.
The 2000s were built on the housing bubble to an incredible extent, and when it went bust, household and financial debt took years (and is still taking years) to unwind. That housing bubble was in itself the result of a quick replacement for the tech bubble before it. Interest rates were already very low and had nowhere to go, so there was no "magic bullet" to fix the economy. The problems of today's economy, in short, are the product of the last 20 years of economic policy.
It's the waiting game, and it would have been the same whether Obama or McCain were elected in 2008. Japan went through something similar in the very early 1990s, and still has not found the solution.
Why are liberals so against his economic policies again?
Because Reagan did something called supply side/trickle down tax cuts (tax cuts for rich people and large corporations.) Reagan's tax cuts decreased our governments revenues, created huge deficits, then raised our national debt to dangerous levels.
Because Reagan did something called supply side/trickle down tax cuts (tax cuts for rich people and large corporations.) Reagan's tax cuts decreased our governments revenues, created huge deficits, then raised our national debt to dangerous levels.
So why did his tax increases, which hurt the Middle Class, do the same thing?
He didn't reduce spending and grew government.
Not a liberal here. But be honest, Reagan did everything on the credit card. He is the one who created most of this debt we have.
You must have a bizarre definition of "most of," which would normally mean over 50 percent. US debt in 1980 was 997 billion, and at the end of Reagan's second term was $2.1 trillion, for an increase of about $1.1 trillion.
Virtually all was due to increased military spending, which brought about the end of the cold war and freed millions from communist enslavement. Revenue was up under Reagan, and domestic spending was down. Was it worth it? Ask someone from an Eastern Bloc country.
Current US debt stands at $17.5 trillion. $1.1 trillion is approx. 6.2 percent of $17.5 trillion. Since when is 6 percent "most of?"
Leave it to the liberal looney tunes cheerleaders at the LA Times as the Investors editorial board members pointed out to designate that accomplishment as a 'milestone'!!!!!
They go on to report that since the recession began in late 2007, the labor force has grown by 12.2 million, yet this 'recovery' has created an abysmal-and-then-some 11,000net new jobs!.
Obamanomics is an abject failure anyway you slice it, and with Chicago's population having plunged to a level last seen in 1920 as a recent Chicago Tribune editorial pointed out, it's really pathetic that nobody in the liberal media investigated this hopelessly overmatched tax-and-spend character assassinating job-killing incompetent before he was elected.
Small wonder that the unemployment rate among African-Americans continues to exceed 12% and a whopping 20% for teenagers, yet they voted for his middle-class demolishing policies twice, but since when have the Democrats shown the competence to actually grow an economy?
The still unfolding disaster known as Obamacare will be his legacy, and this African-American baby boomer never drank the liberal kool-aid being shoveled daily in our public schools; too bad that far too many of my fellow citizens of all races didn't wake up in time thanks to our corrupt media.
Why are liberals so against his economic policies again?
Under Reagan's plan, rents necessarily skyrocketed. I faced five rent increases in five years, had to move three times when I was priced out by another rent increase, and spent his last four months in office sleeping in my employer's offsite storage space.
Oh and his tax cuts left me worse off when my rent increase far exceeded my tax cut.
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.
