The New Deal was a joke and a failure saved by World War II.

 

I thought everybody, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, knew that already as fact, because that's what it is.....

There's a HUGE flaw here that I can't believe people haven't picked up on, yet.? Who says the guy (whose window got broken) would've spent the $500 in the first place?? That's an assumption that he's trying to tout as fact.

562001[/snapback]

So what is the guy going to do, sit on the 500 forever? One way or another, that will see it's way back into the economy, whether it's now or a year from now.

 

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up,

 

 

The huge national debt is the legacy of Reganomics, or are you going to pretend that it doesn't exist? You could counter back and forth that Regan's economic record benefitted from a normal boom cycle or that Roosevelt benefitted from the war, but that debt is here and it's real. I've heard a lot of talk about how the debt doesn't matter since we owe the huge majority of it to ourselves, but there can be no talk of serious downsizing of government costs without first substantially reducing the debt and debt servicing.

 

For all of you supply-siders, read the comments on the link by "Phillip Schuman" on the evils of taxation (and he backs it up with numbers, not misleading analogies):

 

http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/comments.html

562019[/snapback]

You want to go back to the reason the debt is so high?

 

There was no deficit spending until FDR invented it. No deficit spending, the debt doesn't balloon higher and higher until it is unpayable.

562331[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

How did every president after FDR manage to escape his debt creating invention accept Reagen, Bush, and Bush?

Why is the debt so high when Truman's name starts? Curious that the name starts on him, and not say someone like Hoover.

Why is the debt so high when Truman's name starts? Curious that the name starts on him, and not say someone like Hoover.

563934[/snapback]

 

You evaded my question. Ill concede FDR increased the national debt. Now you explain Reagen-Bush-Bush massive increases in debt.

Different times different economy. however the problem with reagan was that he wante dto increase military spending b/c of the cold war and cut taxes, w/o doing away with the wasteful new deal spending programs. The problem is that with these programs in effect siphoning money out of people's pockets the coutnry is unable to institute tax cuts w/o further going itno debt. Had Reagan seriously cut at least 50% of the entitlements that were around at the time AND done the tax cuts, the debt would have remained the same or lower than it did previously.

Different times different economy. however the problem with reagan was that he wante dto increase military spending b/c of the cold war and cut taxes, w/o doing away with the wasteful new deal spending programs. The problem is that with these programs in effect siphoning money out of people's pockets the coutnry is unable to institute tax cuts w/o further going itno debt. Had Reagan seriously cut at least 50% of the entitlements that were around at the time AND done the tax cuts, the debt would have remained the same or lower than it did previously.

564375[/snapback]

Bingo.

the problem with reagan was that...w/o doing away with the wasteful new deal spending programs

 

So you argue that Reagen-Bush-Bush actually want to keep the spending programs which conservatives blast as unnessary and accuse democrats of keeping around? Or is it that they dont want to lose the political capital hence throwing out the arguments that they have convictions that they stick by? Or is it that the American people actually want these programs around which means Republicans do also? Wouldnt that mean that when the people want something, government should spend around it instead of irresponsibly creating a national debt? By the logic used by Juanky, my mom has demanded I go to college and I have and I realize its good for me. But it costs a lot and addition to having my car which I also think is necessary. But when I go out and buy rims, a state of the art stereo system, and just throw money into it, I can blame my mom for making me go to college when I incure the debt from the car. By your logic, Clinton could have skyrocketed the debt and then blamed Eisenhower for creating the military industrial complex! He didnt though, did he?

 

Sound to me like a blatant disregard for taking responsibility for what happens during your administration.

 

And do you, in all honesty, think that there was no wasteful military spending during the Reagan years?

 

 

You cant sit there and engage in heavy spending military action, then gain the political capital of the non action of keeping the social programs, then cut taxes, and then blame FDR for the massive debt YOU CREATED by saying he started it! Its irresponsible. But you guys are giving him a free pass.

 

 

Its a simple thing we are dealing year when you look at that graph and you see the increases under Reagan, Bush, Bush. They want their cake and they want to eat it to. Like I said, free pass.

the problem with reagan was that...w/o doing away with the wasteful new deal spending programs

 

So you argue that Reagen-Bush-Bush actually want to keep the spending programs which conservatives blast as unnessary and accuse democrats of keeping around? Or is it that they dont want to lose the political capital hence throwing out the arguments that they have convictions that they stick by? Or is it that the American people actually want these programs around which means Republicans do also? Wouldnt that mean that when the people want something, government should spend around it instead of irresponsibly creating a national debt? By the logic used by Juanky, my mom has demanded I go to college and I have and I realize its good for me. But it costs a lot and addition to having my car which I also think is necessary. But when I go out and buy rims, a state of the art stereo system, and just throw money into it, I can blame my mom for making me go to college when I incure the debt from the car. By your logic, Clinton could have skyrocketed the debt and then blamed Eisenhower for creating the military industrial complex! He didnt though, did he?

 

Sound to me like a blatant disregard for taking responsibility for what happens during your administration.

 

And do you, in all honesty, think that there was no wasteful military spending during the Reagan years?

 

 

You cant sit there and engage in heavy spending military action, then gain the political capital of the non action of keeping the social programs, then cut taxes, and then blame FDR for the massive debt YOU CREATED by saying he started it! Its irresponsible. But you guys are giving him a free pass.

 

 

Its a simple thing we are dealing year when you look at that graph and you see the increases under Reagan, Bush, Bush. They want their cake and they want to eat it to. Like I said, free pass.

564848[/snapback]

 

 

You completely misunderstood my statement. I clearly said that Reagan overspent on military. But I also said which is true, that WASTEFUL spending programs had they been cut by any president would have reduced the debt. Americans in general dont want wasteful spending programs, the problem is that influential and very rich people are involved with many of these programs, not to mention how many people are employed in these programs as well. Every politican, even democrats such as Clinton wanted to reduce wasteful spending social programs, but did not b/c they are afraid of angering influential people that can make strong push against a candidate if needed. Thats simple politics, its not hypocrisy or partisanship, its the fact that to ALL politicians the votes are important, and they will not committ political suicide even if its whats best for america. Should they? Defintely. But not since the FDR days has anyone done anything honorable in terms of losing an election or so forth for the common good.

You completely misunderstood my statement. I clearly said that Reagan overspent on military. But I also said which is true, that WASTEFUL spending programs had they been cut by any president would have reduced the debt. Americans in general dont want wasteful spending programs,

 

I would change that to say that "Americans, in general, don't want wasteful spending programs when those programs don't benefit them". I remember when Michael Moore's "TV Nation" program was still on the air, he did a segment on how the "Contract With America" Republicans went on and on about wanting to cut wasteful government spending; yet it turned out that Newt Gingrich's district was the biggest recipient of pork barrel spending. When it came to them getting the money, the people in his district, all of a sudden, didn't think it was so bad.

 

 

But not since the FDR days has anyone done anything honorable in terms of losing an election or so forth for the common good.

 

 

Do you seriously think political corruption is that recent of a phenomenon in this country?

Different times different economy. however the problem with reagan was that he wante dto increase military spending b/c of the cold war and cut taxes, w/o doing away with the wasteful new deal spending programs. The problem is that with these programs in effect siphoning money out of people's pockets the coutnry is unable to institute tax cuts w/o further going itno debt. Had Reagan seriously cut at least 50% of the entitlements that were around at the time AND done the tax cuts, the debt would have remained the same or lower than it did previously.

564375[/snapback]

 

So, you're saying Reagan was irresponsible, right? At least FDR was fighting a real war, what was Reagan's excuse?

You completely misunderstood my statement. I clearly said that Reagan overspent on military. But I also said which is true, that WASTEFUL spending programs had they been cut by any president would have reduced the debt. Americans in general dont want wasteful spending programs,

 

I would change that to say that "Americans, in general, don't want wasteful spending programs when those programs don't benefit them". I remember when Michael Moore's "TV Nation" program was still on the air, he did a segment on how the "Contract With America" Republicans went on and on about wanting to cut wasteful government spending; yet it turned out that Newt Gingrich's district was the biggest recipient of pork barrel spending. When it came to them getting the money, the people in his district, all of a sudden, didn't think it was so bad.

 

 

But not since the FDR days has anyone done anything honorable in terms of losing an election or so forth for the common good.

 

 

Do you seriously think political corruption is that recent of a phenomenon in this country?

565339[/snapback]

 

 

The key word is WASTEFUL. no one wants WASTEFUL spending programs.

Different times different economy. however the problem with reagan was that he wante dto increase military spending b/c of the cold war and cut taxes, w/o doing away with the wasteful new deal spending programs. The problem is that with these programs in effect siphoning money out of people's pockets the coutnry is unable to institute tax cuts w/o further going itno debt. Had Reagan seriously cut at least 50% of the entitlements that were around at the time AND done the tax cuts, the debt would have remained the same or lower than it did previously.

564375[/snapback]

 

So, you're saying Reagan was irresponsible, right? At least FDR was fighting a real war, what was Reagan's excuse?

565341[/snapback]

 

Read the other post as a reply to that. And you're history is a little botched if you dont see the cold war as a real 'war'. In fact the imminent threat from the soviets was just as great if not greater to the US than the threat of nazi expansion.