Whats your stance?

[Gotch]

And most of that growth during those 7 years are due to Volcker, plain and simple. I sure hope you don't think it "trickled down" in that small amount of time, or contributed to the massive growth?Reagan can thank Volcker and did by reappointing him in 1983.

You do realize that Carter would not and could not have allowed Volcker's plan to run it's course don't you? It was attacked and criticised from every democratic corner.There was an outpouring of bills and resolutions to impeach Volcker and roll back interest rates. Sen. Byrd , the Democratic floor leader, introduced the Balanced Monetary Policy Act of 1982, which would have forced the Fed to reduce interest rates. In fact most scholars agree that no other president in the nations history would have allowed Volcker's plan to remain in place.

The numbers are plain, they are right in front of you, they speak volumes, they do not support your contention, you continue to blindly ignore and follow your predetermined ideological path.


To try and claim that the turnaround had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, that it was purely and solely the doing of Volcker is among the dumbest and most disingenuous things I'll ever encountered.

[Gotch]

Neither really, they self-destructed with failed policies and failing economy.

Ever hear of the Nuclear Freeze Movement? If the forefathers of your mindset had been given their way the Soviet Union in some form would probably still exist. Would the Soviet Union have eventually fallen anyway? Maybe, but to claim that Reagan had nothing to do with it despite recently declassified documents showing his plan and Krem*lin archive documents showing that it worked?

What is up with your completely closed-minded stance on every single issue. I take positions that put me in opposition to both conservatives and liberals, I have to say that you may be the least open-minded person I've ever dealt with from either side. Blindly following every single dogma of a particular extreme viewpoint. I hope that with maturity will come a realization that everything is not black and white, left and right, good and evil, but that the truth nearly always is to be found somewhere in the middle.

[R13]

The numbers are plan, they are right in front of you, they speak volumes, they do not support your contention, you continue to blindly ignore and follow your predetermined ideological path.


To try and claim that the turnaround had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, that it was purely and solely the doing of Volcker is among the dumbest and most disingenuous things I'll ever encountered.

I know the numbers.

The turnaround had very little to do with Reaganomics, his plan did save the economy...that's a fact, he was accredited to ending stagflation and pouring money back in the economy. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, aka "the Seven Fat Years". I'll admit that the massive spending kept the good times rolling, but yes, Volcker is the main reason for the turnaround. His tightening of the money supply during 80-82, then in the summer of 82 when inflation looked like it was dying, he expanded the money supply and inflation fell to around 8% that winter. You're going with the conservative view that his 81' budget that cut taxes across the board like you mentioned along with deregulation, turned it all around. Nothing more than a myth, to think that those minor cuts would stop stagflation in its tracks and fueled the economy that much is ludicrous.



His deficit spending and deregulating have contributed to what's going on today, I'm not saying he's the sole cause, but Reaganomics has done nothing but hurt us.

What is up with your completely closed-minded stance on every single issue. I take positions that put me in opposition to both conservatives and liberals, I have to say that you may be the least open-minded person I've ever dealt with from either side. Blindly following every single dogma of a particular extreme viewpoint. I hope that with maturity will come a realization that everything is not black and white, left and right, good and evil, but that the truth nearly always is to be found somewhere in the middle.

You're the most conservative self-proclaimed independent I've ever met. This argument, among others we've went back in forth about, isn't in the middle by any means. It's completely the conservative view of Reagan, there's no other way to say it. You may not see it, but most debates we've had, you've been to the far side of the issue. I may have been on the other side pretty far, but no more guilty than you.

[LCAS_712]

You 2 have way too much time on your hands....

[Gotch]

You're the most conservative self-proclaimed independent I've ever met. This argument, among others we've went back in forth about, isn't in the middle by any means. It's completely the conservative view of Reagan, there's no other way to say it. You may not see it, but most debates we've had, you've been to the far side of the issue. I may have been on the other side pretty far, but no more guilty than you.

Well, lets look at the answers given to the 20 questions you asked.

I gave what would be considered the left of center answer on at least 6 questions and a middle of the road answer on a few more.

Your answers fell to the left 20 times and to the extreme left on all but a couple. You are a radical and all radicals are closed minded.

Why have I been on the other side in each of our debates? Because you are constantly "throwing out" extreme ideological opinions and through a use of good internet debate technique and shear volume silencing any who disagree with you. I've got a lot of experience in these types of debates and have wasted many a good hour on them. I see a lot of what you are doing as unfair and also take offense to your extremist views. I know that due to those wasted hours that I can prevent the opposing view from being silenced.

The reality is that no one ever wins an internet "debate" no one has their opinion changed. You nor I have changed any political ideologies on here and we certainly haven't and won't change each others.

[Gotch]

You 2 have way too much time on your hands....

LOL

The one undeniable post on this thread.

[simple man]

Didn't RR fund the first gov bailout? Of his son's S&L business?

[Gotch]

Didn't RR fund the first gov bailout? Of his son's S&L business?

Short answer is no. I realize it was meant as sarcasm, but the first bailout I guess would have been the Hamilton bailout of 1792.

Don't you mean Bush....Neal Bush anyway?

[simple man]

Short answer is no. I realize it was meant as sarcasm, but the first bailout I guess would have been the Hamilton bailout of 1792.

Don't you mean Bush....Neal Bush anyway?

His VP's son? Maybe that was it. One take on the result...and if I remember correctly, the US standard of living fell from 1st in the world to 10 during the Reagan years. He did spend the USSR to death, but now you have a group of splinter countries that have acess to the old countries nukes. As the standard of living falls, RR might just have started the end to the US as it used to be.
Some estimates place the cost of the S&L bailout at 157 billion, with interest it comes to 500 billion to 1.4 trillion- all this for an industry that was robbing people blind and could have been closed for a fraction of the cost.

Corporate Welfare The S & L Bailout: $32 billion every year for 30 years

Here is a Wiki link, the story is spun the other way somewhat and the truth is probably in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis
Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was Director of Silverado at the time. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.[13]
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.[14]
As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners.[citation needed]
Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.

[R13]

Well, lets look at the answers given to the 20 questions you asked.

I gave what would be considered the left of center answer on at least 6 questions and a middle of the road answer on a few more.

Your answers fell to the left 20 times and to the extreme left on all but a couple. You are a radical and all radicals are closed minded.

Why have I been on the other side in each of our debates? Because you are constantly "throwing out" extreme ideological opinions and through a use of good internet debate technique and shear volume silencing any who disagree with you. I've got a lot of experience in these types of debates and have wasted many a good hour on them. I see a lot of what you are doing as unfair and also take offense to your extremist views. I know that due to those wasted hours that I can prevent the opposing view from being silenced.

The reality is that no one ever wins an internet "debate" no one has their opinion changed. You nor I have changed any political ideologies on here and we certainly haven't and won't change each others.

I just honestly don't think you're that independent, pretty right-wing...and very anti-islamic if you don't want to admit it. I'm pretty far left, but I admit that and don't act like I'm in the middle. I've seen a lot of closed-mindedness from your side, esp with this topic and the religion topics.

But I'm just the "forum bully" lmao. I'm opinionated like everyone should be, I'm not siencing anyone...they can call BS just as good as I can. Those were 20 questions I came up with, of course they're pretty much going to have my view. I just went ahead and answered them since I was accused of just posting to get onto everyone elses answers. I asked for others to post questions or critique mine. I'll stop with this back and forth before it would turn into something worse, I was looking forward to a rebuttal on the Reagan post...