Phatscotty wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:spurgistan wrote:Just curious - what were Reagan's approval ratings after his first two years?
Also, how many people today truly understand that the it was Reagan who actually started this whole "ignore costs, just reward the big guys" attitude that truly began the slide toward larger and larger deficites.
Comparing Reagan, who inherited a solid social security system, an expanding market, just discovered oil reserves in Alaska, etc. AND the upcoming dot.com boom to Obama, who inherited massive spending and debt, along with failing infractructure due to years of neglect, not to mention 2 already committed wars, etc, etc. Is like saying its much easier to build a house when you can just "borrow" wood from your neighbor and there is no wildfire surrounding you.
Um, player? Social Security was running a surplus up until the democrats took over in 2006.
Yes and why? Because the Baby boom generation was greater than the preceding generations. This was known and is why that "extra" money was originally supposed to have been kept in trust for the future, when those baby boomers would retire. Reagan, however decided that this money "just sitting there" was being "wasted".. and pushed it into the general fund.
Phatscotty wrote:oh, and Reagan created 20 million + jobs, not to mention the group of lowest income rose in a huge way. 2% points equals 10's of millions of American citizens who rose out of the lower class and into the middle class.
Try again. The "dot com" boom, the development of Alaskan Oil fields, the fruition of economic policies begun before he came into office.. Oh, yes, and let's not forget moving millions of formerly illegal immigrants, many previously uncounted, THOSE gave us the increase in jobs, not "Reagan".
NO WIN.. just phattscotty ignoring reality, againPhatscotty wrote:Obama has not created a single thing except for unimaginable amounts of debt, and he used confiscated money to do it. Nothing is being produced. only transfered. Reagan created wealth, growth, jobs, which in turn spurred health care investment and advances, set the table for generous unions benefits because the corporations need to be rich first in order for millions of employees to get billions of dollars in benefits
You blather....
Again, "Reagan" did not create those jobs. He came in when those jobs were pending and moving. Obama, by contrast, came in when the economy was on the verge of a collapse not seen since the Depression. We DID avoid a Depression, according to most economists.
He also entered a time when our natural resources are far more limited and when real problems from pollution are beginning to impact the world economy. That's even aside from the rules he inherited which let banks issue loans they could simply sell and not bother with responsibility.
Phatscotty wrote:Living beyond your means today means living under your means tomorrow.
you really paving a better future for your children?
Me? Alone? I am educating my children, giving them decent nutrition and excercise. But, I cannot stop the bit gas companies from destroying our town's water system. I cannot take the lead that still sits in our soil. I can flee to a few other places, but that doesn't really fix the problems.. it just pushes them onto someone else.
Phatscotty wrote:The demand for taxes will not allow anyone to be unemployed. There are plenty of holes to dig.
Apparently you think this applies to me?
I do say that continuing with the Bush-level tax
breaks to the very wealthy is stupid when our deficit is so high, as were the piddly allotments Bush gave most of the population. I ALSO say that unless we start demanding that companies begin paying what they actually cost society, we are sunk. You choose to interpret that as a "tax". I consider it no more a tax than my garbage collection fees.
Beyond that, the situation is getting so desperate that, yes, I actually would be in favor of a small universal increase in tax (yes, higher for the higher income people, but applied some to all) to pay down the deficit. It is not, however what I consider the "solution". It is what I consider necessary. Asking for tax cuts when our deficite is so extreme is plain irresponsible.
Phatscotty wrote:The percentage of households in the low income category dropped during the 1980s. This group comprised 27.5 percent of all households in 1980, 28.5 percent in 1982, and only 25.3 percent by 1989. As a share of all households, the proportion of those with low incomes became less prominent by the end of the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6 percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of high income households is another sign of solid income growth.
Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989. In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?
If the middle class shrinkage had resulted from massive income losses resulting in expansion of the low income group, it would clearly signal that something was seriously wrong. However, a review of the data shows that the reverse was happening. Income gains were pushing a greater proportion of middle class households into the high income category. Of the 4 percentage point reduction in the middle class percentage between 1980 and 1989, all of it is accounted for by net upward movement into the high income category.
Conclusion
Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.
As I have said before, you can "prove" anything by selecting your data. However, even just taking what you show there, you ignore some pretty pertinent facts.
#1 The "dot com" boom and general expansion of technology. This was NOT due to "Reaganomics".
#2. the influx of formerly illegal workers
#3. The flood of new illegal workers who effectively occupied the lowest ranks, thus seriously skewing the data
#4. the HUGE wealth divide that has been compounding since then.
The "dire". "this would be bad if.." did not happen directly in the 80's, no. But, that is when the stage was set. It DID happen thereafter. And no, economic policies don't usually have instant impacts (the TARP, stimulus are noted exceptions!). The blame for the problems we see today DID very much begin with Reagan.
's)