- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Regicollis;1058691897]Or proving that Obama is as wrong as Bush.
I get it. You think I'm stupid. But please move on and tell me why you think Reagan was a fiscally good president in spite of his borrow and spend policies. Give me all the good arguments why an excellent economic policy should include things as
- Declining real wages
- Tripling of national debt
- Above average unemployment rates
- Below average increases in job creation and productivity
- Tax cuts for the rich paid by the middle class
- Reduction in social programmes
Obviously you didn't live and work in the 80/s because you have no clue as to the economy that was actually inherited, try buying a home at 15% interest rates or having double digit inflation?
Declining wages is a lie
Tripling the national debt happened but Reagan and the Congress doubled the debt, as it ws 900 billion and they added 1.7 trillion to it.
High unemployment was caused by the inherited economic problems left by Carter, something you ignore.
Tax cuts for the rich? LOL, anyone that paid taxes got a tax cut, Obviously you didn't read the facts presented. Tax cuts doubled govt. revenue thus weren't paid for by the middle class. That is an idiotic statement.
Your so called facts are distorted and ignores the conditions in this country when Reagan took office. You also ignore that the American people re-elected Reagan with the biggest landslide in U.S. history in 1984 which goes to prove who they held responsible for the economic numbers of 81-82. Stop talking like an idiot.
I'm really exited to learn about the benefits of these things.
You have no interest in learning the truth because you are conditioned to ignore the truth.
The prime function of government is to provide the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people, to uphold peace and security and to provide a decent standard of living for those who cannot do so themselves.
Never read the Constitution either, I see. It isn't the role of the govt. to provide anything but equal opportunity and protection. History isn't your friend.
If you want a more balanced budget you could start thinking about the insane military spending.
The role of the govt. is to PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. and to PROMOTE, not provide domestic welfare.
Thank you for enlightening me on what the intent of a charity is - I really didn't know.
Obviously.
However that knowledge doesn't tell me anything about who the "intended" provider of social services should be. History can not tell us that.
The intended provider of social services was the individual, not the Federal Taxpayer and if that individual had problems then the local community would step up including the churches and charities.
The average intelligence of this thread would definitely be improved if you started to post arguments in favour of your opinions instead of angry rants.
Actually the average intelligence of this thread would go up if liberals stopped posting.