rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The war brought us out of the depression and Reagan used tax cuts to get us out of the 1980 recession. well, it was not the war, and just about every economist out there (except revisionist history supporters) agree on that. but lets pretedn for a moment (as yu seem to love to do) that it was the war. What about the war do you think would end the depression? MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON THE WAR EFFORT!! Now I asked this before - but, are you really as stupid as you come across or ar you just takin one for the team by acting so stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I said those were two types of programs used to bring us out of those economic downturns and if you remember correctly, the stock market was at an all time high while unemployment was low during those two wars and the tax cuts. So what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 well, it was not the war, and just about every economist out there (except revisionist history supporters) agree on that. but lets pretedn for a moment (as yu seem to love to do) that it was the war. What about the war do you think would end the depression? MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON THE WAR EFFORT!! Now I asked this before - but, are you really as stupid as you come across or ar you just takin one for the team by acting so stupid? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html Unemployment rose between 1936 and 1938, that's contrary to what happens when you're getting out of a depression. Only when WWII started and Americans were producing products being bought by the allies did this decline. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm Shows that GPD didn't significantly rise until we entered the war, something you would expect when you're exiting a depression. Rocco, you're unable to spell coherently or debate without attacking the poster and you call me stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 So what happened? People in charge of the Government and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 100% failed to do their jobs, that's what happened. Along with a change to mark-to-market security valuation which forced companies to recognize gains or losses as the fair market value of assets changed, rather than when they sold them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4unoit Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 why - because I pay attention to history? by the way - showed your posts to a psychiatrist friend - he says it is a classic example of projection - 100% classic. Was that during your last visit? Or did you just call and have him go online? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The war brought us out of the depression and Reagan used tax cuts to get us out of the 1980 recession. by the way - ask the economists what it was about Reagan's plan that helped the recession. it was massive government spending - doubling the size of government and quadrupling the deficit. Now we all know he ran on making government smaller and lowering the deficit - but that aint what he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 b4unoit has "issues". Ya think!!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 by the way - ask the economists what it was about Reagan's plan that helped the recession. it was massive government spending - doubling the size of government and quadrupling the deficit. Now we all know he ran on making government smaller and lowering the deficit - but that aint what he did He doubled the size of defense spending which traditionally isn't counted as "Growing government", but you already knew that, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html Unemployment rose between 1936 and 1938, that's contrary to what happens when you're getting out of a depression. Only when WWII started and Americans were producing products being bought by the allies did this decline. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm Shows that GPD didn't significantly rise until we entered the war, something you would expect when you're exiting a depression. Rocco, you're unable to spell coherently or debate without attacking the poster and you call me stupid? and in 1937 - why did unemployment go up from 11 to 17? after it had gone down from 25%? Roosevelt had listened to republicans who wanted him to cut spending and cut taxes for the rich - hence, his recovery stonewalled and retreated. so - now I know you like revisionist history and you also like to make things up and pretend they are real - but this is a no bullshitt zone and ya simply cant get away with it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 yea Right - I am going to post my investment strategy on an on line forum with a bunch of freakin fruitcakes - especially when they "demand" it. LOL. you folks get more entertaining all the timewhy not you don't seem to mind posting anything about everything else. Now you say that you have invested and you continue to do so. Tell in what type funds,companies etc that you consider a good investment in this climate.You don't have to post your net worth (although you have said your business is worth millions) just post the types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Was that during your last visit? Or did you just call and have him go online? He stopped over for a cigar in front of the fireplace and we chatted, then I showed him the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 It is just that you are one of the 8% that think it was created by him - not one of the 82% that think he inherited it.. by the way - I agree with your additional stimulus ideas also - his approach has been the only one proven to help and economy in this situation, so you are simply incorrect in your statement. I know you have trouble mustering up within yourself to support the president. fortunately - most people feel differntly. Please don't pay any more attention to Rocco. Rocco has become a troll in every sense of the word. He just makes up stats that he can't support just to inflame those of us who dare to question Rocco's messiah. Rocco. Give us any credible source that only 8% of Americans feel that Obama's Stimulus/Bailout/Budget is having a negative affect on the stock market. Also, please provide a reliable source that most people feel the way you do about this issue. You can't! Also, let us know where you teach so those of us who would prefer not to have our kids exposed to your obvious biases could take steps to avoid them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 People in charge of the Government and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 100% failed to do their jobs, that's what happened. Along with a change to mark-to-market security valuation which forced companies to recognize gains or losses as the fair market value of assets changed, rather than when they sold them off. What did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail to do? After a homeowner borrowed money to buy a home, the original lender likely resold that loan to Fannie or Freddie. Should they have scrutinized each mortgage they bought? Or was that the original lender's responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4unoit Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 by the way - ask the economists what it was about Reagan's plan that helped the recession. it was massive government spending - doubling the size of government and quadrupling the deficit. Now we all know he ran on making government smaller and lowering the deficit - but that aint what he did On this board rocco you and your type are my main issue, you want facts these are facts. President Reagan's economic recovery plan included four specific components on which he explicitly campaigned over and over and then implemented once elected. These were: 1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth. This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates 2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in 2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10% 3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth. 4. Deregulation. Reagan's deregulation plan has now saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan's first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%. The results were spectacular. These four components produced a 25-year economic boom from 1982 to 2007. In their new book, "The End of Prosperity," Art Laffer and Steve Moore call the these years "the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet." They note that — adjusted for inflation– more wealth and income was created during this Reagan boom than in any other prior period in U.S. history. That's right, than any other entire period dating from President George Washington all the way up to Ronald Reagan. But Barack Obama is doing exactly the opposite on each of these four points: –He is still promising tax rate increases, at least by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. –He just passed the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet. –He is promising massive increases in regulatory burdens, including global warming cap and trade regulation that would cost the economy another trillion dollars a year. –The Fed is already furiously reinflating the money supply, sowing seeds of further havoc in the future. Even the Obama tax cuts do not follow the Reagan economic recovery plan because they are not reductions in tax rates, which is what drives the incentives that govern the economy. A reduction in tax rates increases incentives by allowing people to keep a higher percentage of what they earn from productive activity. But Obama's tax cuts are all based on tax credits, which do nothing to improve incentives. They are really just the same as his government spending in terms of their effect on the economy, just like sending more welfare checks out to everyone. Obama keeps saying he is only interested in what works, not ideology. So why doesn't he include any of the above components that have a proven track record of effectiveness? Why is our president ignoring what works and insisting on embracing an ideology that will simply expand big government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 why not you don't seem to mind posting anything about everything else. Now you say that you have invested and you continue to do so. Tell in what type funds,companies etc that you consider a good investment in this climate.You don't have to post your net worth (although you have said your business is worth millions) just post the types. You first...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4unoit Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 He stopped over for a cigar in front of the fireplace and we chatted, then I showed him the posts. CO2 my boy CO2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Please don't pay any more attention to Rocco. Rocco has become a troll in every sense of the word. He just makes up stats that he can't support just to inflame those of us who dare to question Rocco's messiah. Rocco. Give us any credible source that only 8% of Americans feel that Obama's Stimulus/Bailout/Budget is having a negative affect on the stock market. Also, please provide a reliable source that most people feel the way you do about this issue. You can't! Also, let us know where you teach so those of us who would prefer not to have our kids exposed to your obvious biases could take steps to avoid them. nope - never make up numbers - always are real and right - always say where they come from - never been "caught" as there is nothing to get "caught" about. all my posts are factual and provable. Now I know that kind of pisses ya off - but thats the way it is. already provided (in this thread a swell as others) the info you requested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 by the way - ask the economists what it was about Reagan's plan that helped the recession. it was massive government spending - doubling the size of government and quadrupling the deficit. Now we all know he ran on making government smaller and lowering the deficit - but that aint what he did http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-constant-dollars.png National deficit was just under the 150 mark when Reagan entered office, and just under the 200 mark when he left, but somehow that equates to quadrupling the size. http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png I even checked as a % of GDP and that didn't happen either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 and in 1937 - why did unemployment go up from 11 to 17? after it had gone down from 25%? Roosevelt had listened to republicans who wanted him to cut spending and cut taxes for the rich - hence, his recovery stonewalled and retreated. so - now I know you like revisionist history and you also like to make things up and pretend they are real - but this is a no bullshitt zone and ya simply cant get away with it here. Isn't 1937 just the time where the world was entering WW2? couldn't that of had something to do with the employment climate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 On this board rocco you and your type are my main issue, you want facts these are facts. President Reagan's economic recovery plan included four specific components on which he explicitly campaigned over and over and then implemented once elected. These were: 1. Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth. This consisted of, first, a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. Reagan also cut corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates 2. Spending Reductions. The reductions included a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $150 billion in spending cuts for the year in 2008. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10% 3. Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth. 4. Deregulation. Reagan's deregulation plan has now saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan's first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%. The results were spectacular. These four components produced a 25-year economic boom from 1982 to 2007. In their new book, "The End of Prosperity," Art Laffer and Steve Moore call the these years "the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet." They note that — adjusted for inflation– more wealth and income was created during this Reagan boom than in any other prior period in U.S. history. That's right, than any other entire period dating from President George Washington all the way up to Ronald Reagan. But Barack Obama is doing exactly the opposite on each of these four points: –He is still promising tax rate increases, at least by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. –He just passed the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet. –He is promising massive increases in regulatory burdens, including global warming cap and trade regulation that would cost the economy another trillion dollars a year. –The Fed is already furiously reinflating the money supply, sowing seeds of further havoc in the future. Even the Obama tax cuts do not follow the Reagan economic recovery plan because they are not reductions in tax rates, which is what drives the incentives that govern the economy. A reduction in tax rates increases incentives by allowing people to keep a higher percentage of what they earn from productive activity. But Obama's tax cuts are all based on tax credits, which do nothing to improve incentives. They are really just the same as his government spending in terms of their effect on the economy, just like sending more welfare checks out to everyone. Obama keeps saying he is only interested in what works, not ideology. So why doesn't he include any of the above components that have a proven track record of effectiveness? Why is our president ignoring what works and insisting on embracing an ideology that will simply expand big government? A copy and paste from a blog Do you posses an original thought of your own? Or is there not enough room in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 What did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail to do? After a homeowner borrowed money to buy a home, the original lender likely resold that loan to Fannie or Freddie. Should they have scrutinized each mortgage they bought? Or was that the original lender's responsibility? It was both. You're saying because they bought that mortgage from another lender that they're not responsible for the money? Each mortgage is assigned a rating as to determine the likelihood of it being paid back, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both bought tons and tons of subprime mortgages because the riskiest loans are the ones who pay back the highest dividends. What you said there is that it's ok for you to buy a house sight unseen and say it's not your responsibility to fix the hole in the ceiling because the person who had it before you didn't do it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Isn't 1937 just the time where the world was entering WW2? couldn't that of had something to do with the employment climate? The War actually started around 1939, when unemployment rates dropped and stayed down effectively ending the depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 A copy and paste from a blog Do you posses an original thought of your own? Or is there not enough room in there? no - no they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 no - no they don't The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/r...ct/reagtxct.htm House.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 nope - never make up numbers - always are real and right - always say where they come from - never been "caught" as there is nothing to get "caught" about. all my posts are factual and provable. Now I know that kind of pisses ya off - but thats the way it is. already provided (in this thread a swell as others) the info you requested. For those of us who don't dwell on your every biased, voluminous inane arguments, it should be easy to refer us to your supporting facts. Please verify the facts of your 8% number. And again, where do you teach so our kids can avoid your bias. You should be embarrassed to admit you are a teacher. It does a great disservice to a respected and honorable profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.