We don't want to pull our troops out of Iraq now Dingbat.

We want to finish what looks to be the most successful military incursion in U.S. history.

Yeh, there are a few more women and kids we need to kill and then there are lot of innocent people we haven't tortured yet, and a lot more money we have to give halliburton before were done so back off!

bushblower: "what looks to be the most successful military incursion in U.S. history."



...call a doc, da bushblower has lost it!

...will tantrum-throwing leftists be dragged into reality.

They stopped calling it "Reaganomics" once it worked

and had nothng to say when Latin America threw off the chains of communism and the Wall fell.

Doesn't matter what the left whines from the playpen, Conservative adults are in power.

I look forward to not only Bush's winning by a landslide in Nov, but even MORE Republicans in Congress after the next election cycle.

It's had the following effects:

- increasing the gulf between rich and poor.

- increasing poverty, and stressing out the family.

- destroying education.

- enlarging the national debt.

It promoted a (literally) bankrupt idea: supply-side economics. We're seeing that, in the absence of adequate wages and capital, people will go into debt, and debt will become a large source of demand.

Economic growth came, but it didn't erase the debt. Deficit spending only increases with each "tax cut" regime in office.

Reaganomics Worked

It's had the following effects:

- increasing the gulf between rich and poor.

Rubbish. All five quintiles from super rich to very poor prospered under Reaganomics. The rising tide DID lift all boats. - increasing poverty, and stressing out the family.

"Stressing out the family" indeed...and what did Carter's 20% inflation do? Misery index, anyone? - destroying education.

Hyperbole. The NEA GREW all during the 80s.

- enlarging the national debt.

It's arguable whether this is even a big deal. Or why tax-n-spend liberals would even care about fiscal solvency. Economic growth came, but it didn't erase the debt. Deficit spending only increases with each "tax cut" regime in office.

Government got larger under Reagan, but let's remember that the Democrat-controlled Congress spent for every of revenue in the 80s. As for the present, yeah, the R's are out of line with their Democrat-type spending.

Lexis-Nexis anecdotes that Reagonomics worked can be found here

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2782

They were compiled by www.tompaine.com A LIBERAL website.

pulling facts out your ass again, I see.

Can't expect much from monkeys. Or Reagan admirers. The rich got very rich while labor and the middle class ate shit. Watching him wander away from the teleprompters was depressing knowing he had his fingers on the nuclear trigger.

He certainly fucked up the people of South America. Corporations did well. A template for facsism that is followed today by pres. Bonzo.

pulling facts out your ass again, I see.

Here's a fact, as quoted by Fred Sanford: "You a dummy." Do your homework before bringing a slingshot to a gun fight.

Ah, the lies you have to believe to stay in the liberal matrix. How ironic that REDS need to keep taking BLUE pills to believe their own bullshit.

Watching him wander away from the teleprompters was depressing knowing he had his fingers on the nuclear trigger.

Yeah, without the Soviet Union who will pay off the demoshit party? Now there's only Cuba and Algore's Red China.

He certainly fucked up the people of South America.

Unlike the communists who invaded there first?

THANKS AGAIN NADER.

The rising tide did not lift all boats equally. The tide rose overall because of the business cycle. We don't really feel the business cycle so much because we don't have depressions every ten years (anymore), but it's still there. Carter exited with a slump, Reagan got lifted by a boom, Bush got hit by a slump, and Clinton got a boom. Bush2 got hit by a slump.

It seems like each president gets a couple chances to get the budgetary act together and boost the booms. Reaganomics inspired the wealthy to invest, by ushering in an era of reduced taxes and weak unions.

Clintonomics (which isn't that different) inspired the wealthy to release capital by balancing the budget and delivering on welfare cuts. (Clintonomics isn't that different from Reaganomics. They're both basically supply side.)

Does it work? It energizes investment, but at the cost of social equality. The rich got a lot richer, and that is indisputable. The poor got poorer (though, by how much is hard to tell).

I've read in a novice econ book that there are political cycles when economic system become more dynamic and increase inequality (capital accumulates), and when systems reform and become more equal (social reforms). I guess this applies to democracies. It seems to reflect recent American history.

That Tom Paine site is just commentary and fluff. Read something like Paul Krugman's site for something more concrete.

Note that the Tom Paine page was published in 2000, at around the peak of the dotcom tech boom.

In 2000, the issue of Wal-Mart-ization hadn't really hit home to the East and West coast thinkiners. The issue of McJobs was of interest mainly to younger people, not the Time/Newsweek demographic. The issue of personal debt was of interest primarily to those in debt, but even they were quick to ignore it... it hit close to home.

These are all "demand-side" concerns. The condition of the average "consumer", or source of demand, is getting worse.

Without demand, supply dries up. Investment in production declines. Scary stuff.

idiot: "Ah, the lies you have to believe to stay in the liberal matrix.....Yeah, without the Soviet Union who will pay off the demoshit party? Now there's only Cuba and Algore's Red China....Unlike the communists who invaded there (South America?) first"

Fuck lies...you obviously need to be outright delusional these days to exist in republicanland!

Another thing he got only half-right:

"The NEA GREW all during the 80s."

The NEA is not a government agency. It's a volunteer organization of educators and others who lobby congress.

Maybe the NEA grew because it had to lobby congress to save the department of education from the deadly buzzsaw of Reagan. I don't remember. All I remember about school was some harebrained nutritionist in the administration saying that ketchup would be called a vegetable. (This same person must have okayed the school lunches as "edible" too.)

Reagan worshipers, they don't know a non-governmental org from a government agency.

Hey, look! It's Archie Bunker!!!!

MORON.