| # | Author | Message |
231
| dshyates
Tue 5/20/2008 7:37a | There is tons of evidence that supply-side economics doesn't work. Reagan and W. both subscribe to supply-side economics and got the same results. Economic growth, but at the expense of the American people with economic inequality and bloated deficits.
Here is an interesting article. it seems to me that only politicians think it works. Economists think the country now due to supply side economics is in worse shape than before W. took over. |
232
| dshyates
Tue 5/20/2008 7:38a | Dang, forgot the link.
http://www.thestreet.com/story...darticle |
233
| Dabob2
Tue 5/20/2008 8:45a | <<Every budget Reagan presented to Congress had large deficits built in to them.>
<And which the Democrats proceeded to increase.>
By a small amount. As I said. But Reagan raised the military budget by more than he cut discretionary spending, thus raising government spending overall. And that was built in to all the budgets he presented to congress. Congress restored a few cuts in some discretionary programs every year, and let other cuts remain. The budgets as finally signed were primarily Reagan's design. And the right is STILL pretending that it was those few restored discretionary programs that busted the budget in the 80's. Pathetic.
<I don't think it's mrkthompsn getting history wrong.>
He did when he said congress changed the proposals by more than a small amount. |
234
| DouglasDubh
Tue 5/20/2008 7:32p | <There is tons of evidence that supply-side economics doesn't work.>
And tons more that it does.
http://www.heritage.org/Resear...m755.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/...rPrint=1 |
235
| DouglasDubh
Tue 5/20/2008 7:34p | <By a small amount.>
Small percentages of very large numbers make for large numbers.
<He did when he said congress changed the proposals by more than a small amount.>
I don't believe he said that. I took him to mean that you were wrong when you claimed the small increases were insignificant. They weren't. |
236
| dshyates
Tue 5/20/2008 7:43p | You do realize Heritage.org is a right-wing cheerleader website. They have a What Would Reagan Do headline banner on their homepage. Do you really think that you will get the truth about Reagans failures on a site that equates him to Jesus?
Get real. |
237
| DouglasDubh
Tue 5/20/2008 7:46p | Yes, I sure "theStreet" is much more credible. |
238
| dshyates
Tue 5/20/2008 8:16p | The Street is a financial website that in general is very republican friendly. If I had to put my finger on a bias I would say it is a conservitive web site. |
239
| DouglasDubh
Tue 5/20/2008 8:45p | Well, I don't trust your finger. The article you linked to is a review of a book by a dedicated leftist. Do you really think you'll get the truth about President Reagan's successes from an editor of the New Republic? |
240
| dshyates
Tue 5/20/2008 8:51p | I don't know what the political bias of the street.com is but I just noticed that they use Jim Cramer as an financial advisor so it is obvious that they are idiots and what they think doesn't count. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I'll find a better example. |
