Comments on: Happy Birthday! http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/ Come on in and stay a while... laugh a little. Maybe even think. Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:38:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Cash Tornado http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-51685 Cash Tornado Mon, 09 May 2011 15:53:52 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-51685 You forgot to thank him for his films! You forgot to thank him for his films!

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47358 whall Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:21:56 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47358 Dave2 - yes, I too sense the merry-go-round, when you bring up deficits and debt as part of Reaganomics (not related) or how much you bring up Bush 2 and how bad you think he was (not related) or the War on Drugs (not related). Dave2 – yes, I too sense the merry-go-round, when you bring up deficits and debt as part of Reaganomics (not related) or how much you bring up Bush 2 and how bad you think he was (not related) or the War on Drugs (not related).

]]> By: Dave2 http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47352 Dave2 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:51:44 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47352 It's a merry-go-round with you, because you always bring everything back to the Democrats fault, even if you have to ignore things like adjustment for inflation and growth of income tax receipts to do it. You can play the numbers all you like and paint the picture however rosy you want it, but it's all spin. Any time something good happened, it was because of Reagan. Any time something bad happened, it was because of the Democratic Congress. Blah blah blah blah. It's partisan politics talk as usual. And, of course, you spin the other way when it comes to Clinton's economics, which many economists argue were responsible for giving us the strongest economy in the history of the world. Meh. I'm dizzy... <abbr><em>Dave2´s last blog post..<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Blogography/~3/534692231/day_eight_colog_2.html" rel="nofollow">Day Eight: Cologne</a></abbr></em> It’s a merry-go-round with you, because you always bring everything back to the Democrats fault, even if you have to ignore things like adjustment for inflation and growth of income tax receipts to do it. You can play the numbers all you like and paint the picture however rosy you want it, but it’s all spin. Any time something good happened, it was because of Reagan. Any time something bad happened, it was because of the Democratic Congress. Blah blah blah blah. It’s partisan politics talk as usual. And, of course, you spin the other way when it comes to Clinton’s economics, which many economists argue were responsible for giving us the strongest economy in the history of the world. Meh. I’m dizzy…

Dave2´s last blog post..Day Eight: Cologne

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47349 whall Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:42:32 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47349 Dave2 - I don't see how Reaganomics and increased spending are related, unless you're just using the last name of the President at the time. The massive deficits were unrelated to tax cuts and increased revenue. Reaganomics were about the tax policies. Supply-side. If we doubled tax receipts *and* overspent by 3 times as much, I think it's incredibly apparent that SPENDING is not the answer. It never is. In fact, what Reagan proposed was the huge tax cut with a DECREASE of gov't expenditures by $40 billion. Inflation went from over 12% to under 4.5%. EIGHT MILLION new jobs were created. The President can't spent money - Congress does. Specifically, the House of Representatives are who creates spending bills. Hmm, what Congress was in charge during both of Reagan's terms? If you guessed "Democratic" you'd be right. Is any amount of money enough for a politician? Sure, the debt almost tripled, but as a percentage of GDP or GNP it wasn't so bad, and it's not true that it was "peace time." We out-spent the Soviets because we had to. Without the Cold War buildup, who knows where we'd be with them shortly thereafter. If I recall, Clinton's "budget surplus" only occurred after Republicans gained control of the House in '94. And is it any wonder that Pelosi and Reid took control in 2006 and we have what... budget deficit mushrooming again? Dave2 – I don’t see how Reaganomics and increased spending are related, unless you’re just using the last name of the President at the time. The massive deficits were unrelated to tax cuts and increased revenue. Reaganomics were about the tax policies. Supply-side. If we doubled tax receipts *and* overspent by 3 times as much, I think it’s incredibly apparent that SPENDING is not the answer. It never is. In fact, what Reagan proposed was the huge tax cut with a DECREASE of gov’t expenditures by $40 billion. Inflation went from over 12% to under 4.5%. EIGHT MILLION new jobs were created. The President can’t spent money – Congress does. Specifically, the House of Representatives are who creates spending bills. Hmm, what Congress was in charge during both of Reagan’s terms? If you guessed “Democratic” you’d be right. Is any amount of money enough for a politician?

Sure, the debt almost tripled, but as a percentage of GDP or GNP it wasn’t so bad, and it’s not true that it was “peace time.” We out-spent the Soviets because we had to. Without the Cold War buildup, who knows where we’d be with them shortly thereafter.

If I recall, Clinton’s “budget surplus” only occurred after Republicans gained control of the House in ’94. And is it any wonder that Pelosi and Reid took control in 2006 and we have what… budget deficit mushrooming again?

]]> By: Dave2 http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47346 Dave2 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:15:16 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47346 You only present only the rosy side of the coin... increased revenue. The nasty side of the coin... massive deficits... is being ignored. The Federal debt ballooned to THREE TIMES the amount of the revenue increases. And this was during peace-time! The principles of supply-side economics sounds great at first blush, but didn't really pan out. There's no truer proof than Reagan having to turn around and RAISE taxes to deal with the deficit he created. If Reaganomics was such a massive success and a WONDERFUL thing for our country, why did he reverse direction... FOUR TIMES? I'm not saying Reagan was a bad president... we wouldn't know the meaning of the word "bad" until W got into office... I'm just saying that his two terms in office were not this sublime utopia that people make it out to be. The deficit tripled. The budget increased. Big government got even bigger as he increased the number of Federal jobs (surprise!). And don't even get me started on the billions he spent on his "War on Drugs" which was a total failure. Reagan did some good things, but you're not going to convince me that Reaganomics is one of them. <abbr><em>Dave2´s last blog post..<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Blogography/~3/534692231/day_eight_colog_2.html" rel="nofollow">Day Eight: Cologne</a></abbr></em> You only present only the rosy side of the coin… increased revenue.

The nasty side of the coin… massive deficits… is being ignored. The Federal debt ballooned to THREE TIMES the amount of the revenue increases. And this was during peace-time!

The principles of supply-side economics sounds great at first blush, but didn’t really pan out. There’s no truer proof than Reagan having to turn around and RAISE taxes to deal with the deficit he created. If Reaganomics was such a massive success and a WONDERFUL thing for our country, why did he reverse direction… FOUR TIMES?

I’m not saying Reagan was a bad president… we wouldn’t know the meaning of the word “bad” until W got into office… I’m just saying that his two terms in office were not this sublime utopia that people make it out to be. The deficit tripled. The budget increased. Big government got even bigger as he increased the number of Federal jobs (surprise!). And don’t even get me started on the billions he spent on his “War on Drugs” which was a total failure.

Reagan did some good things, but you’re not going to convince me that Reaganomics is one of them.

Dave2´s last blog post..Day Eight: Cologne

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47336 whall Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:36:22 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47336 martymankins - aight. martymankins – aight.

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47335 whall Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:34:49 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47335 Dave2 - I don't think anyone would argue that lower taxes and proposed decreased spending are a bad way to go. I would have been happier if we had actually decreased spending in the 80's (although defense spending was ultimately critical). Anyone who can cut taxes in half and also double the tax revenue... well, that's a great feat. In the 20's, we cut taxes from 70% to 25% and the revenues went up 61% from '21 to '28. Kennedy cut top tier tax rates from 90% to 70% and revenues went up 62%. Reagan did sweeping tax cuts in early 80's and tax revenues almost doubled. Reaganomics were a WONDERFUL thing for our country. Liberals stopped calling it that when it started working :) Dave2 – I don’t think anyone would argue that lower taxes and proposed decreased spending are a bad way to go. I would have been happier if we had actually decreased spending in the 80′s (although defense spending was ultimately critical). Anyone who can cut taxes in half and also double the tax revenue… well, that’s a great feat. In the 20′s, we cut taxes from 70% to 25% and the revenues went up 61% from ’21 to ’28. Kennedy cut top tier tax rates from 90% to 70% and revenues went up 62%. Reagan did sweeping tax cuts in early 80′s and tax revenues almost doubled. Reaganomics were a WONDERFUL thing for our country. Liberals stopped calling it that when it started working :)

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47334 whall Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:21:17 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47334 Giggle Pixie - I thought about doing the Marilyn Monroe singing thing but... ok, actually I didn't think about it. Giggle Pixie – I thought about doing the Marilyn Monroe singing thing but… ok, actually I didn’t think about it.

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47333 whall Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:20:34 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47333 Sybil Law - ahh, but his legacy lives on. I wish it would, anyway. Sybil Law – ahh, but his legacy lives on. I wish it would, anyway.

]]> By: whall http://whall.org/blog/2009/02/06/happy-birthday/comment-page-1/#comment-47332 whall Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:36 +0000 http://whall.org/blog/?p=2523#comment-47332 Sheila CSR - Wow, great reference! Sheila CSR – Wow, great reference!

]]>