|
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2007 19:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Student loans are one of the best vehicles we have for people to better their lives (and salaries). I absolutely wouldn't have gone to school without them and I absolutely wouldn't have had such a rewarding career without them.
Like I said, Americorps is now one way to bring down that debt, so is military service. One reason we've had so much economic prosperity since WWII is the GI Bill.
I mean Preach, no disrespect, but you can't be arguing against extending the benefits of further education right? This is what propels us to do so well economically, especially compared with the rest of the world. There are increasingly few jobs in America that involve manual labor. Employers for any other job won't look at anybody without a bachelors and most now want a Masters. I had to get my masters at night while in the middle of my carer just to keep up. Of course I don't regret that for a sec, or the money I had to borrow to do so- because it has come back to me in a higher salary ever since.
I had trouble paying off my student loans at first. I didn't default, I just deferred when I wasn't making much money- the debt was waiting on me when I got my big break. Of course, I could have just hung in there and gotten my masters if I hadn't been so eager to work in the media. I'd say that was a pretty dumb move for a poor guy, IF i hadn't learned so much doing it. I still had to work at 4am for 10 bucks an hour with no insurance, but there are certainly worse fates. I wouldn't even have been hired there without college.
Take my father for instance. His great grandfather worked for the railroad. His grandfather worked for the railroad. His father worked for the railroad. He didn't, because he went to college and used the skills he learned there to start his own business where he has made a great living. Good thing he did, because the railroad company the previous generations had worked for ceased to exist after a merger and operations were moved elsewhere after extensive downsizing.
But my father worked hard and paid off his debts and was rewarded with more autonomy and freedom to choose how he spent his life. Thats the American dream right? No way could that have been done without student loans.
Regarding rates of default on student loans- I'd expect them to be pretty high, since the borrowers are all young people attempting to get jobs right out of school. Some of them went to much better schools than others and almost none of them have financial connections- otherwise they wouldn't have loans! I've seen claims that the rate of default was as low as 2.5% or as high as 10%. Not surprisingly, both extremes came from biased sources, so I'd guess the rate is somewhere in the middle. (I had trouble finding numbers on this, so by all means, help is welcome).
I'm sure student loan rates of default are around the same rates in which people default on cars and homes, but there are big differences in that investment. A car wears down to where it can't be sold. A home might make a person some money, but it is expensive to maintain and the bank can take it back if you can't afford it. An education however, will always benefit a person and their society. Thats one more person that will be a more informed voter and skilled worker. If they're in a financial hole, the odds are much greater that they'll be able to climb out of it. There are very few downsides to making sure our people are educated to the greatest extent possible.
Also, default rates can only tell us so much. They could mean that the price of education has gone up unfairly despite a higher demand for the service. I'd get behind that. What default rates DON'T tell us is that we should make less money available to students. If we do that- we run the risk of falling farther behind other countries in terms of education. and decrease the potential for people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. I worked the entire time I was in college, took out loans and I was still broke the entire time, living in the hood and grateful if I had a piece of junk car to drive. I went to a cheap state school. Had those loans been cut any smaller, I don't think I could have stuck with it. So really, I'm all for improving the loan system, but I don't ever want to see it tossed out completely.
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2007 19:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Ah, sorry Preach- I didn't see that you had posted again. There is this as well for getting performance measures on various government programs- Expectmore.gov
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2007 20:24 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I mean Preach, no disrespect, but you can't be arguing against extending the benefits of further education right? Well, this is a long way from the pros and cons of Reagannomics, but I will say this. I am a little uneasy about the idea of the government loaning money to people, since it had to take that money from someone else to start with. I also don't really see the government as obligated to pay for your education, especially when truckloads of private scholarship money goes unclaimed every year. However, I do at least understand the argument that a person who borrows the money and the improves their life with that oppurtunity, they woudl theoretically pay enough back into the system through taxes that it balances out, in addition to paying the loan back. I understand the argument, but it still makes me a little uneasy.
Now, where were we?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2007 21:09 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
However, I do at least understand the argument that a person who borrows the money and the improves their life with that oppurtunity, they woudl theoretically pay enough back into the system through taxes that it balances out, in addition to paying the loan back. I understand the argument, but it still makes me a little uneasy.
Well to get back to Reaganomics- this is a perfect example of why I favor what you just outlined as opposed to hoping increased GDP will raise revenues. I say make that investment in the people, the GOP says into business. I say that people will HAVE to pay it back, as I have- as you and your wife have, through interest and loans, our increased skill set, and as you point out- higher rates of taxation as we become better earners.
If we go the opposite way, we have to count on the wealthy or corporations reinvesting in the American economy. As I've shown, they have other options, which are often more lucrative- leaving them with no choice but to take the money elsewhere.
Additionally, if education for an individual offers more economic and intellectual freedom- you can't beat that, especially not a nation full of them. Innovation is unlocked, but so is the human spirit. This seems to me what we're all looking for in life and what makes us happy in our endeavors, as opposed to just doing whatever we can to pry a dime from companies with whom we could never hope to compete. The wealthy, one would suppose, already have such knowledge or can afford it if they want it. Corporations can also train, but they need people to work- not go to school- and their knowledge specific requirements are not interested in making critical thinkers or good voters out of us. The best thing I think we can do for America is get everyone to college. Loans seem to be the best way to do it that I've seen. That to me, is investment in the middle class and working poor. People get out what they put in with school. They can chase a dream as far as they're willing to run. I think that's as honorable a system as we're gonna get.
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2007 19:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok, let me make sure I've followed you so far. You claim that the supply side economics that were part of Reaganomics did not provide the level of employment that was predicted, and you cite the high unemployment at the beginning of Reagans term as proof of this. You give supply side partial credit for the subsequent drop, but you feel an equally valid way to handle it is to encourage what you call 'investment in the middle class and working poor'. By that you mean things like student loans and grants which enable people to better their lives and becoem productive members of society shouldf they choose to do so. Your position is that a well-educated society produces more oppurtunity for everyone.
Am I right so far?
By the way, sorry I dropped out of sight for a few days. I got tired of watching otherwise rational discussions spiral into name calling.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2007 20:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Correct, and I won't take away from Reagan that after unemployment was as high as it had ever been in modern times- between 81 and 83, the numbers got better every year. Now some of that (but as I've shown- not all, and not likely even most or much) may have been from the original tax cut finally trickling down. That is totally possible.
However- Reagan also began raising taxes around 1985, just like Mondale said he would. So the second half of his term wasn't really Reaganomics, which by that point were much less politically popular, seemingly with good reason if one assumes the headlines reflected that chart.
More than anything else, I think supply side economics brings a great deal of instablitiy to the lives of the populace. My initial feeling has always been that such things are bad for America, regardless of how rich some of us get. We're not just numbers, especially just the numbers of our wealthiest people. However, our economy hasn't grown any faster when we've employed supply side economics.
(Though I DO think it grows faster under free trade and less restricted capitalism the likes of which we've seen world wide in the past 20 years. But there is a difference in these two beliefs...)
If this were a sacrifice for greater GDP gains, it might not be moral, but it might be practical. However, since that hasn't been the case, Reaganomics are really just a short term "get richER quick scheme", somewhat like what Homer Simpson might cook up if he were an economist.
Regarding investment in people of socio economic classes below rich- yes, I believe that is where we need to put our money, national investment, and national energy. The squeaky wheel should get the grease, but I also take into consideration that we need people like yourself to question how much grease is just too much. These things have been known to get out of hand. Of course, if it were up to me- we'd take most of that load off the middle class to unleash the consumer and productive energy of our typically hardest working bunch: the middle class. However, I am often met with much resistance when suggesting that.
Part of the reason I think this comes from a track analogy I learned in highschool. If a coach has two runners of about even speed, he's going to look for the one with the worst form and give that guy most of the chances to improve. Why? Because the guy with the great form is already running about as fast as he's gonna go. The guy with the bad form is already doing well, but has a lot of room to improve.
So I'd be in favor of tax breaks for small businesses that show substantial growth, until they reach a certain size. I don't think we should restrict people's ability to innovate or work their way into wealth or whatever it is they might want. In the first few years of such growth, a company is doing more with less. When they get bigger- they eventually have to compensate the system for their additional weight.
However, if a small operation has momentum, let 'em go until they are a big operation. Currently, we don't have such a system and I think it is one of the best arguments against progressive taxation- though it still doesn't trump all the benefits of such.
|
| Posted: 29 Oct 2007 20:43 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
And yes, I think more education is the cornerstone of economic improvement. A friend of mine once pointed out that although American schools tend to look bad against global standards, our scholastic competition teams often walk away with a sweep of blue ribbons.
Why? First because we traditionally import the smartest people from other countries. We should continue to make this our priority to continuously reinvigorate our workforce. As Thomas Friedman replied when questioned about the rise of China, "I'd put our Asians up against their Asians any day..."
Secondly, our smartest people are not sequestered in a library or a lab. They're clawing their way up through socio-economic classes and peers, gaining strength and practical knowledge from the experience. Not all of them end up rocket scientists in accordance with their talents- but many of them find better ways to make our economy hum. Hollywood, for all the problems we each have with it- is the envy of the world. We don't benefit if we share the work of our engineers with the world (think Iran) but we hope they will keep buying DVD's of Smallville.
Here we educate everybody and were one of the first countries to do so. Whether on the farm or on Wall Street, we can all read and therefore tend to be better voters. While our political system is still corrupt, it is still nowhere near as corrupt as many in the rest of the world. I credit this to people across our country every morning who simply pick up a newspaper.
In a lot of countries traditionally (though most have moved away from this to copy our model) if you aren't reading well as a youngster, you're sent out to plow.
Our dumb people might hold down our math averages, but if they make smarter consumers, workers and voters- mission accomplished. The more "irrational choice" we can flush out of our system, the better we will all be. Education helps tremendously with that endeavor.
|
| Posted: 01 Nov 2007 12:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok, Danny, leaving aside the education aspect of this for a while , ( I intend to return to it), I thnk we can definitely agree at least on an individual basis that it's better to be smart than stupid.
But please, if you don't mind, explain to me this second set of charts you posted.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 02 Nov 2007 20:15 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
What would you like to know? This is percentages of GDP increase or decrease. I believe it is chained to fiscal year 2000 dollars, so as to show how much our economy was worth in the dollar of that year. If we go by how much a dollar was worth at different times, we would get very different numbers as a result of not comparing the same thing.
Bear in mind that I do not advocate GDP as the ultimate understanding of how an economy is doing. Just like looking at Wall Street to determine how things are going on Main Street- they don't account for many many things. Life is just bigger than economics alone. If it weren't, Alan Greenspan would be married to an attractive blonde.
Wait a sec...
But seriously, I listed these numbers more to prove that supply side economics is not a "Miracle Cure" for the economy as is so often stated. For this reason, I broke things up along administration lines. I don't think reality is as cut and dry as that. But given the numbers, the R's can't say how awesome their economic schemes have been. That much is for certain.
A more interesting take on this mght be color coded along the terms of war. War does generate more profit in the short term (though I believe really screws you up in the long term... if you lose). If you look at the numbers, our GDP soared when we were winning a war or staying out of them. When we got involved, we did well initially, then saw things drop except when we won decisively. Unfortunately, in 1991 this didn't hold true immediately for some reason. I have my theories as to why, but I need to investigate further.
|
| Posted: 02 Nov 2007 20:37 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
All I know is the government wastes money, and the more tax hikes you give them the more they waste and the less we got.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 02 Nov 2007 21:01 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
All I know is the government wastes money, and the more tax hikes you give them the more they waste and the less we got.
"Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers."
-Adam Smith
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2007 16:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Well Danny, we can agree on at least these four points, I think. One, that supply-side stuff deserves at least partial credit for the reversal of the unemployment rate from '82 to '88. Two, that an economy is so big and complicated its hard to look at any one set of numbers and decipher exactly what's going on(hence the different schools of economists). Three, war may stimulate the economy short term, but Orwell notwirthstanding, you will eventually pay for sending generations off to potentially die, and that's even if you win. And fourth, Adam Smith was incredibly wordy, wasn't he? I've read a lot of his stuff and I always have to read it 3 or 4 times.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2007 16:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Congratualtions by the way, of having such great examples in your own family of how to be enterprenuriual and upwardly mobile financially. A lot of my family could stand to read "Who Moved My Cheese?".
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2007 19:49 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Danny, here's an idea. I'm not baiting you or setting you up, but let's think this thru. Let's say you were elected President tomorrow. But President Danny is an evil clone of the one we know here, and his goal is to get unemployment up to 15% for some strange reason. President Evil-Clone Danny cannot force companies to fire people or anything like that. Using the powers already present in the office of President, how would your evil clone pull it off? I'll even give your evil clone 4 years to pull it off.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2007 17:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
One, that supply-side stuff deserves at least partial credit for the reversal of the unemployment rate from '82 to '88.
Hrm... I'm not sure how you got that. I actually disagree on this point. I'd be willing to look at any info that demonstrates something counter to my findings, but what I posted led to the reverse conclusion.
The most I can say in favor of supply side economics is that there isn't conclusive proof that it alone contributed to massive unemployment in the 1980's. There probably were many factors. However, it is clear that SSE didn't help if it wasn't in fact, what was hurting employment in the first place.
I'm sure that some of the money did go into job creation, but there isn't much of a means of tracking how much (unless I really put a weekend into it). Given the rise of foreign direct investment in the '80's, I'd say not much.
Furthermore, supply side economics didn't enjoy that long of a test. It appeared to fail initially after the '81 tax cut- demonstrated by Reagan raising taxes after his first term. So, he wasn't really practicing supply-side economics during most of this unemployment recovery.
The first chart also showed that during the 90's and the 60's, unemployment took long smooth curves downward. Could there have been other factors in this? Say like cheap oil promoting investment? Sure. But in the absence of SSE, unemployment was lower. So we do know that we don't have to give business a tax break to curb unemploynment.
I hope all the reasoning along the way makes it clear that I'm drawing from research, not partisanship. Even the best data won't change ideological loyalty. I can't make anyone a Democrat if they've spent significant time disliking Democrats. Nor do I want everyone to be a Democrat, as there needs to be balance. But the facts are there, and we can learn a lot from those economic trends. Some things work out, and some things just shouldn't be repeated.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2007 17:55 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
I said Quote:
Ok, let me make sure I've followed you so far. You claim that the supply side economics that were part of Reaganomics did not provide the level of employment that was predicted, and you cite the high unemployment at the beginning of Reagans term as proof of this. You give supply side partial credit for the subsequent drop, but you feel an equally valid way to handle it is to encourage what you call 'investment in the middle class and working poor'. And then you said Quote:
Correct, and I won't take away from Reagan that after unemployment was as high as it had ever been in modern times- between 81 and 83, the numbers got better every year. Now some of that (but as I've shown- not all, and not likely even most or much) may have been from the original tax cut finally trickling down. That is totally possible.
That's where I got the idea that we were at least in partial agreement.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2007 18:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
I wil be responding to some of your original points here shortly, but I wanted to address this Quote:
I hope all the reasoning along the way makes it clear that I'm drawing from research, not partisanship. I have no reason to believe you're a partisan hack. I daresay that despite our disagreements on many issues, I think you're one of the most fair-minded people that post here. I do take issue with some of your interpretation of the facts at hand, but I think you're looking at this as honestly and openly, but just coming to different conclusions than I am.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2007 10:15 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
By "totally possible" I mean that it IS likely that some of that money went into job creation, but as all my posts including that one have shown- it is unlikely and impossible that such was the case. There were too many other places the money could have gone and Reagan started raising taxes.
Thanks for the affirmation that I'm not just promoting my team. I do think partisanship has its benefits- I don't want anybody- even a Clinton, Roosevelt or Kennedy to have a 90+ approval rating.
I don't want anyone to think I'm hating on Reagan or Bush because they aren't Democrats. I just don't think the data shows that Reaganomics holds up at all. If you've got a different narrative on the same data- or even on things you've found- I'd be eager to get another point of view on this.
I will say this for Reagan. He did lay the groundwork for trimming down government. Carter tried to achieve the same end, but never could communicate the idea, or generate any enthusiasm for it. Reagan did plant the idea, though it would take a different generation of politicians to get this right in the 90's, (then totally blow it in this decade). At the very least however, America has seen a working example of a government that spends wisely within its means. Reagan's rhetoric went a long way to achieving that, even if his actions didn't.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2007 14:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So what about your evil clone President?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2007 15:08 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Clinton, Roosevelt or Kennedy Please don't put Clinton in the same category as Roosevelt or even Kennedy, but really especially not Roosevelt. You might as well put him up there with Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.
Reagan turned this country around economically, morally, and even brought back a feeling of patriotism that had been sorely missed. I think if we hadn't had Reagan this country would have really been in trouble.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2007 17:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
I know you like Reagan Tim, but look at the stats I've been posting. He might have made you feel better in those days, but that wasn't the case for everybody. Clinton is by no means without his problem, but he had better numbers than just about anybody up there and I was normally very inspired by his service and Presidency.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2007 17:52 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
So what about your evil clone President?
This is actually a tough question if taken seriously. (My first impulse was to announce George W. Bush as chairman of the Federal Reserve.)
But seriously, let me get back to you. I'm kicking around some ideas.
|
| Posted: 14 Nov 2007 15:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Well, take your time, this already has to be some sort of record for the length of a post. And I will get back to addressing your original points after we get done with this intellectual exercise.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 14 Nov 2007 18:00 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Clinton is by no means without his problem, but he had better numbers than just about anybody up there and I was normally very inspired by his service and Presidency. Clintons' presidency was saved by the work of Reagan before him and the fact the republicans got into Congress. Left to his own devices, Clinton would have ruined this country.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 14 Nov 2007 19:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Clintons' presidency was saved by the work of Reagan before him and the fact the republicans got into Congress. Left to his own devices, Clinton would have ruined this country.
Really? Who caused the recession before Clinton got into office? Was Clinton secretly working on it then? What about Reagan's successes? Were those all Carter?
Look, as Preach has pointed out- you can't completely nail a presidency to the economy. But if you do take it into consideration at least a little, you can't move around the responisbility for ups and downs wherever fits your agenda. By that point- there is nothing to tether a viewpoint to reality.
If you stand by your statements- then prove it or at least give some kind of narrative backed up by data.
After the first year or so, things can be attributed in some reasonable scale to the people IN office at that time. Besides, the best years of the Clinton economy were at the end of his Presidency. Reagan certainly didn't engenieer that more than Bush 41 (generally an economic moderate who raised taxes) if you can't stand to give Clinton credit for anything, as seems to be the case.
Also, presidents submit budgets to congress. If both parties hadn't made spending cuts a priority, the cuts wouldn't have happened. Actually, as I showed a while back- somone in there increased services, such as education grants, while springing the country back from Reagan's deficits. I'd like to see that kind of Republican make a comeback if a Democrat is elected President. Its just the ones from the past 7 years or so that have driven the country into a ditch.
Take a look at those graphs. Give us some interpretations based on data, not punditry. I welcome your input.
|
| Posted: 14 Nov 2007 21:40 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Just take Hillary's health care bomb. That alone would have sunk the economy. The republicans got in, and at that time were serious about cutting spending otherwise Bill and Hillary would have rammed as many socialist programs they could into law and would have had no problem increasing taxes to do it.
Reagan laid the foundation for the good economy we've enjoyed all these years. So what if there was a slight downturn the year before Clinton got elected. One could blame that on Bush Sr. very easily, but even at that I don't think the economy was really as in bad as shape as the media tried to make it out to be just in time for the election.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 17 Nov 2007 22:02 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Well, was going to pull some quotes from that post, but on second thought- it is all unfounded opinion.
Please cite a fact, figure or unbiased news report that could prove any of this.
Otherwise, I'm forced to just see it as more "I hate the Clintons, I'm in love with Reagan, and I don't have any concrete reasons why in either case."
|
| Posted: 19 Nov 2007 14:57 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I lived it. My opinions are not based on that of a citizen from another country. I was here when it all went down.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2007 00:42 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
My opinions are not based on that of a citizen from another country.
Huh? Who are you refrencing? Adam Smith?
I was here too Tim. But that doesn't add or remove any credibility in our arguments. Why trust your opinion any more than that of Vanilla Ice? He was here during the 80's and 90's as well (I think).
But there is a difference between your argument and mine. I've shown you plenty of facts and figures from non-biased sources. I've articulated my thoughts along those lines. You've shared only an unsupported opinion, despite me asking you to prove any part of what you're saying.
Even if you disagree with me, and plenty do- you can at least learn something factual from the things I've presented. What have you taught me, other than you don't like Clinton and worship Reagan?
This is a reoccuring problem and greatly detracts from the usefulness of posting here.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2007 16:49 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I'm sorry Danny, I've not paid as much attention to this thread as I should have. I don't see a chart for the inflation rate during the 80's, or the price of gas, or how about the overall economic picture.
On your first unemployment rate graph it shows it going pretty low by 1990 from it's all time high in 1980 (Jimmy Carter) and starts to go back up again in what looks to be what 93 94. I suppose you could blame that on Bush Sr. I wouldn't be the first conservative to do that. He was always more about this grand foreign policy kick than domestic policy.
Still I don't see as to how you can knock Reagan with that at least.
Correct me if I'm wrong, or point me to another graph you'd like me to look at.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
|
