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.
it's puzzling for sure. i guess he flip flopped. imagine that!
thats not really fair. sometimes people are required to be members of unions no matter what they support or dont support. however, i believe reagan was the president of the screen actors guild so you have a better case with him. not sure exactly what he did there but it doesnt necessarily have to be a flip flop situation. a union can work cooperatively with business and everything is fine. if i had to join a union and couldnt shut it down, i wouldnt mind being the president of it.
i guess if you think stimulus makes sense you have to believe the ridiculous notion that its good for people to get $500 and immediately spend $500. not sure where the net gain is supposed to be there. it was pretty embarrasing having obama go to europe and talk about the need for stimulus while they are talking about spending cuts.
its kind of funny to see people talk against reaganomics. its more just being anti-reagan than anything else. america has seen a lot of prosperity since reagan took office and lots of people have improved their economic status.
i'm not anti-reagan. i don't care one way or another about the person. (some of) americans have seen a lot of prosperity since reagon took office. mostly, the ones at the top of the income brackets. middle class and lower class is still right where it was 30-40 years ago. look at the data. maybe the data is anti-reagan?
you know, there was also a lot of prosperity since clinton took office. but of course, that had nothing to do with clinton. i guess it was still the effects of reagonomics? funny thing is, the severe crashes happened right after reagan and right after bush...both of which applied the ideas of reagonomics that are championed so often....
firstly, you gave your opinion, why cant i give mine? secondly, being an economist wouldnt make me any more right or wrong. there are economists on both sides of the argument.
i am right, btw.
i didn't say you couldn't give your opinion. just state it as an opinion instead of as fact. there are economists on both sides of the argument. just so happens that most of them are not on your side of the argument, including reagan's own economist.
thats not really fair. sometimes people are required to be members of unions no matter what they support or dont support. however, i believe reagan was the president of the screen actors guild so you have a better case with him. not sure exactly what he did there but it doesnt necessarily have to be a flip flop situation. a union can work cooperatively with business and everything is fine. if i had to join a union and couldnt shut it down, i wouldnt mind being the president of it.
yeah. reagan was a member of a union, enjoyed the benefits of it, and moved on in his life. then, he forgot that he got to enjoy all the benefits of a union, and when he no longer needed the unions, didn't care about it. there's two words for people like this: 1. selfish 2. republicans
you said this as if it was a fact, but i understood it was your opinion not fact.
its pretty simple, you help promote businesses (lower barriers to entry and more opportunity for wealth) and then the businesses hire people. "trickle down" doesnt really sound appropriate because it gives people a sense that you are giving money to rich people and expect them to give a little to poor people. thats not really how its supposed to work. you give opportunities for people to gain wealth and that helps get people to work. now, more barriers to entry makes it harder for less wealthy people to take advantage. thats a problem.
anyway, you pile on the immigrants (legal and illegal) and average income per person is going to go down. you have 2 parents working in a family and average income will go down. in spite of that, i think the economy has been generally prosperous and people who started in lower incomes have had opportunities to move up and many have.
yeah. reagan was a member of a union, enjoyed the benefits of it, and moved on in his life. then, he forgot that he got to enjoy all the benefits of a union, and when he no longer needed the unions, didn't care about it. there's two words for people like this: 1. selfish 2. republicans
yeah. reagan was a member of a union, enjoyed the benefits of it, and moved on in his life. then, he forgot that he got to enjoy all the benefits of a union, and when he no longer needed the unions, didn't care about it. there's two words for people like this: 1. selfish 2. republicans
what benefits did he enjoy as a member of the screen actors guild? did he really need the union when he was a member of the screen actors guild? you are ignoring the reality that most union members are forced to join whether or not they "need" the union. but you are just talking out of your butt as im sure you know nothing about his time with the union.
found this tidbit:
"Amid the Red Scare in the late 1940s, Reagan provided the FBI with names of actors whom he believed to be communist sympathizers within the motion picture industry.[38] Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on the subject as well.[39] A fervent anti-communist, he reaffirmed his commitment to democratic principles, stating, "I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment."[39]"
you said this as if it was a fact, but i understood it was your opinion not fact.
its pretty simple, you help promote businesses (lower barriers to entry and more opportunity for wealth) and then the businesses hire people. "trickle down" doesnt really sound appropriate because it gives people a sense that you are giving money to rich people and expect them to give a little to poor people. thats not really how its supposed to work. you give opportunities for people to gain wealth and that helps get people to work. now, more barriers to entry makes it harder for less wealthy people to take advantage. thats a problem.
anyway, you pile on the immigrants (legal and illegal) and average income per person is going to go down. you have 2 parents working in a family and average income will go down. in spite of that, i think the economy has been generally prosperous and people who started in lower incomes have had opportunities to move up and many have.
ummm....i believe i referred to the facts about the income gap widening between the top and the rest of us over the past 30-40 years. so yeah, nothing trickled down. i'd call that a fact - the data supports it as a fact. but if you want to call it my opinion, that's your right to free speech. heck, even those funeral protestors have that right.
helping to promote business is good, but reagan didn't do that. he raised corporate taxes in fact, but lowered taxes on the CEOs that ran the corporations. reaganomics, if it's based on what he ACTUALLY did and not what people who love him CLAIM he did, is, in fact, giving money to the rich people and expecting it to trickle down to poor people. if you want to create a business environment that fosters hiring americans as employees and doesn't reward companies for sending their jobs to the cheapest parts of the world, then i'm all for it. Reagan didn't do that though. Reagan raised Social Security tax ceiling. Raised taxes on coporations (agreed to because he threw a bone to people on the personal income tax level - CEOs benefited nicely from that and didn't care much that their company may pay higher taxes), and then the "prosperity" that everyone wants to point to came to a screaming halt in the latter part of the decade. But of course, that wasn't his fault. Republicans only get credit for what good things happen. Never get blame for the bad things that happened. The bad things get blamed on whatever the last Democrat in office was, even if you have to go back multiple terms to do it.
Again, I don't hate Reagan. I like a lot of what he did. He's not the conservative darling tea partiers dream he was though.
thats your opinion. the income gap will always grow. thats an argument thats purely jealousy. the important part is did people have jobs, support their families, have opportunities to grow.
what benefits did he enjoy as a member of the screen actors guild? did he really need the union when he was a member of the screen actors guild? you are ignoring the reality that most union members are forced to join whether or not they "need" the union. but you are just talking out of your butt as im sure you know nothing about his time with the union.
found this tidbit:
"Amid the Red Scare in the late 1940s, Reagan provided the FBI with names of actors whom he believed to be communist sympathizers within the motion picture industry.[38] Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on the subject as well.[39] A fervent anti-communist, he reaffirmed his commitment to democratic principles, stating, "I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment."[39]"
what benefits did he enjoy? the moment you enter SAG, your wages go up, automatically. you also get access to cheaper health insurance through SAG.
as for your "reality" that most members are forced to join...where the heck do you get that from? do you even speak to people who belong to a union? honestly captain...what PLANET do you live on? your dribble drabble is getting worse and worse.
and what the heck does communism have to do with any part of this discussion? great for him...he was against communism. i think almost every american citizen agrees with him on that one! but thanks for the irrelevant tidbit of information!
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.
