Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

kalm wrote:You just like her cause she has no tits and is likely a supply side retard like her grand mum.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:You just like her cause she has no tits and is likely a supply side retard like her grand mum.

Britain's best post-war economic years were the years that retard was in office.

kalm wrote:You just like her cause she has no tits and is likely a supply side retard like her grand mum.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Britain's best post-war economic years were the years that retard was in office.

And we had amazing growth under Reagan too.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Britain's best post-war economic years were the years that retard was in office.

And we had amazing growth under Reagan too.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
And we had amazing growth under Reagan too.

Reagan's policies helped set the stage for the growth that we experienced under Clinton which gave us a surplus which Bush and Obama proceeded to go through like drunken sailors in a Manila whorehouse.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Reagan's policies helped set the stage for the growth that we experienced under Clinton which gave us a surplus which Bush and Obama proceeded to go through like drunken sailors in a Manila whorehouse.

I'm too weary to explain the failures of reaganomics...again.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm too weary to explain the failures of reaganomics...again.

Explain? Again?

Just cut-n-paste the usual cherrypicked, poorly researched, opinionated tripe you usually post from Taibbi or Greenwald or thinkprogress.org.

At the end of World War II, the US debt/GDP ratio was 117%. That is, if our GDP were $100B that year, our total accumulated debt since the revolution was $117B. Of course, we had just before that fought a World War, and suffered the worst Depression in our nation's history. Having emerged from those debacles as the world's strongest economy, and soon to control the world's reserve currency, there was no reason to believe it would not decline.

It did. Indeed, that ratio declined every Presidential term thereafter -- under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and inched up only 0.2% under Ford, essentially even. It also declined under Jimmy Carter to a low of 32.5%.

During this period there were wars, recessions, inflation, stagflation, top tax rates ranging from 90% to 70%, mostly Democratic but occasionally Republican Congresses, major industrial strikes, oil embargoes, a national malaise, clean-air and clean-water acts, the EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and even "W-I-N" (whip-inflation-now) buttons, Gerald Ford's lapel-based strategy for combating inflation.

Then, the debt/GDP ratio skyrocketed again.

Now, who followed Carter ... just cannot seem to recall, can you?

Under Ronald Reagan, the debt/GDP ratio ballooned by over 20% to reach levels not seen since Eisenhower. Note that the denominator -- GDP -- grew under Reagan so that must mean ... oh, no, it couldn't ... that the debt grew more rapidly than ever before. Under Reagan. Yes, under the visible hand of "the-government-is-too-big-and-spends-too-much-money ... if-not-us, who-if-not-now,-when" Ronald Wilson Reagan. (Republicans will rush to blame Democrats in Congress for the spending, but two facts render that bogus: i) Democrats had controlled Congress for most of the post-war period when the ratios fell, the only political variable now Reagonomics; and ii) Reagan never even submitted a balanced budget and the Congress appropriated the same in toto as Reagan requested ($7.314T requested; $7.361T appropriated over 8 years).

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Explain? Again?

Just cut-n-paste the usual cherrypicked, poorly researched, opinionated tripe you usually post from Taibbi or Greenwald or thinkprogress.org.

I'm not sure if Taibbi has written a piece about Reagan, Greenwald very rarely dips into economics, and I don't read much think progress. But if you, Baldy, were to read any/all of the three on a regular basis, your level of understanding would grow exponentially from where it currently resides.

Republicans and Democrats alike have pretty much been following Reagan's concepts of deficit spending, globalization, deregulation, and low taxes for corporations and the wealthy for 30 years. Glad you think it's all been a success!

I'll bet if we cut taxes more and deregulated the markets further we'd really start kicking some ass!

kalm wrote:For all you Reaganites...

(Yeah, I know it's not FoxNews but Huffpo Baldy, and if the facts are wrong, feel free to dispute...)

At the end of World War II, the US debt/GDP ratio was 117%. That is, if our GDP were $100B that year, our total accumulated debt since the revolution was $117B. Of course, we had just before that fought a World War, and suffered the worst Depression in our nation's history. Having emerged from those debacles as the world's strongest economy, and soon to control the world's reserve currency, there was no reason to believe it would not decline.

It did. Indeed, that ratio declined every Presidential term thereafter -- under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and inched up only 0.2% under Ford, essentially even. It also declined under Jimmy Carter to a low of 32.5%.

During this period there were wars, recessions, inflation, stagflation, top tax rates ranging from 90% to 70%, mostly Democratic but occasionally Republican Congresses, major industrial strikes, oil embargoes, a national malaise, clean-air and clean-water acts, the EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and even "W-I-N" (whip-inflation-now) buttons, Gerald Ford's lapel-based strategy for combating inflation.

Then, the debt/GDP ratio skyrocketed again.

Now, who followed Carter ... just cannot seem to recall, can you?

Under Ronald Reagan, the debt/GDP ratio ballooned by over 20% to reach levels not seen since Eisenhower. Note that the denominator -- GDP -- grew under Reagan so that must mean ... oh, no, it couldn't ... that the debt grew more rapidly than ever before. Under Reagan. Yes, under the visible hand of "the-government-is-too-big-and-spends-too-much-money ... if-not-us, who-if-not-now,-when" Ronald Wilson Reagan. (Republicans will rush to blame Democrats in Congress for the spending, but two facts render that bogus: i) Democrats had controlled Congress for most of the post-war period when the ratios fell, the only political variable now Reagonomics; and ii) Reagan never even submitted a balanced budget and the Congress appropriated the same in toto as Reagan requested ($7.314T requested; $7.361T appropriated over 8 years).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abra ... 32158.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:For all you Reaganites...

(Yeah, I know it's not FoxNews but Huffpo Baldy, and if the facts are wrong, feel free to dispute...)



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abra ... 32158.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And every single ONE of those presidents prior to Reagan ignored the "Russia" problem. Reagan took it on head on, and in 8 years broke that "other" superpower's back. They haven't been relevant since 1989. That single fact cost a lot of **** money.

JohnStOnge wrote:I checked and she was born in Texas so she's eligible. The Iron Lady's granddaughter Amanda Thatcher. Renaissance woman. Scholar and athlete (http://www.richmondspiders.com/ViewArti ... =205609846" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Budding public speaker. And she's got the look. You can tell the Iron is in her. The Force is with her and if she keeps herself up she'll project well on television:

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm not sure if Taibbi has written a piece about Reagan, Greenwald very rarely dips into economics, and I don't read much think progress. But if you, Baldy, were to read any/all of the three on a regular basis, your level of understanding would grow exponentially from where it currently resides.

Republicans and Democrats alike have pretty much been following Reagan's concepts of deficit spending, globalization, deregulation, and low taxes for corporations and the wealthy for 30 years. Glad you think it's all been a success!

I'll bet if we cut taxes more and deregulated the markets further we'd really start kicking some ass!

*sigh*

1. Deficit spending. Since 1940 (73 years), the US has had exactly 12 fiscal years where the government ran a "surplus". That is 61 years of deficit spending. Doing the math, I don't think it started with Ronald Reagan.

2. Globalization. Sorry, but with the invention of that new thingy called the interwebz, we live in a global society. You really surprised me, kalm, didn't think you would be a proponent of Protectionism.

3. Deregulation. Don't know how to break this to you, but we live under the heel of more regulation now than when Reagan was president, by wide margin.

4. Low corporate taxes. Oh boy. Again...sorry, but you do realize that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, don't you?

Having said all that, suggesting I take your lead and read more Taibbi, Greenwald, and thinkprogress would make me as uninformed as you.

houndawg wrote:

Baldy wrote:
*sigh*

1. Deficit spending. Since 1940 (73 years), the US has had exactly 12 fiscal years where the government ran a "surplus". That is 61 years of deficit spending. Doing the math, I don't think it started with Ronald Reagan.

2. Globalization. Sorry, but with the invention of that new thingy called the interwebz, we live in a global society. You really surprised me, kalm, didn't think you would be a proponent of Protectionism.

3. Deregulation. Don't know how to break this to you, but we live under the heel of more regulation now than when Reagan was president, by wide margin.

4. Low corporate taxes. Oh boy. Again...sorry, but you do realize that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, don't you?

Having said all that, suggesting I take your lead and read more Taibbi, Greenwald, and thinkprogress would make me as uninformed as you.

Still trying to sell that week old fish, eh, Baldy. You've been schooled on that several times right here on this forum.

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Still trying to sell that week old fish, eh, Baldy. You've been schooled on that several times right here on this forum.

Yeah...



Give it your best shot, and I'll be glad to school you too, again.

danefan wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Yeah...



Give it your best shot, and I'll be glad to school you too, again.

Stat rates are worthless.......most countries with low statutory rates have extremely broad bases.

We have a high rate and ridiculously narrow base.

Lowwwwwwwww ETRs.

Oh and yes.....Id most definitely hit it.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

And every single ONE of those presidents prior to Reagan ignored the "Russia" problem. Reagan took it on head on, and in 8 years broke that "other" superpower's back. They haven't been relevant since 1989. That single fact cost a lot of **** money.

I'd hardly call the Berlin Airlift and the Bay of Pigs "ignoring the "Russia" problem". And Vietnam was marketed as a response to the "Russia problem" even though it was about grabbing natural resources.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I'd hardly call the Berlin Airlift and the Bay of Pigs "ignoring the "Russia" problem". And Vietnam was marketed as a response to the "Russia problem" even though it was about grabbing natural resources.

Yeah, and YOU would also call a couple dozen tomahawks fired into empty terrorist camps an acceptable response to the Cole bombing.

Your judgement is severely lacking....