OT .... Thoughts on ..

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:40 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED AND DISGRACED !!

Horse caca.

JFK in 61. Economy recovered.

Reagan in the 80s. Economy recovered.

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered. Every time there is a tax cut,
more money is returned to the government's coffers. Look back in
history.

Dave

On Feb 10, 3:48*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Reagan in the 80s. *Economy recovered.

From the new book, "Tear Down This Myth" by Will Bunch:

"His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely
hear about, and Reagan's real lasting achievement on that front was
slashing marginal rates for the wealthy - even as rising payroll taxes
socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered
so many times that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in
fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post,
and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked
successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government
regulation and oversight - linked to a series of unfortunate events
from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime
mortgage crisis of the late 2000s."


Sorry for the cut & paste, but I took the easy way out instead of
writing it myself. It's been long understood that the Reagan "legacy"
was mostly bull**** concocted as a GOP marketing tool rather than
based on what actually happened under his administration. (And Iran-
Contra is always conveniently omitted from his "legacy".) He's
remembered for his first year tax cuts, but he increased taxes in each
of his subsequent seven years in office. Reagan's real strength and
success was in connecting with the people; but his actual
accomplishments were less than stellar in many ways.

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered.

Huh? A tidy surplus to a defecit, **** poor job creation for eight
years, now the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? This
you call an economic recovery? I'm willing to give Saint Ronnie a
little credit; but Bush has been an epic disaster for the economy.

I realize you may be doing okay; but surely you don't see the present
crisis as an economic recovery for America.

Joe F.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:22:56 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

I realize you may be doing okay; but surely you don't see the present
crisis as an economic recovery for America.

Joe, eveything was going well in the 00s. Bush started off in a hole,
but the economy came around. Unemployment was very low, interest
rates were all but non-existant, there was little if any inflation.
The market was good and continued right up until last year when it was
revealed that all those crazy loans were made and the housing market
crumbled, along with several Wall Street firms, including the two Fs.
It was impossible to play the market and not make a lot of money
during the first six years of Bush.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:22:56 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

Joe, eveything was going well in the 00s.

No, it wasn't. As has been shown to you, an illusion had been created, of
prosperity with nothing to justify it.


Bush started off in a hole

....and, should return to one, immediately IMHO. Seriously, Bush started with
a balanced federal budget, and squandered it.

The market was good and continued right up until last year when it was
revealed that all those crazy loans were made and the housing market
crumbled, along with several Wall Street firms, including the two Fs.

and this is your definition of a good economy? Read your own words, and you
have demonstrated the sham I have been trying to point out to you. Making
money on the market was easy, for a while, but then again, there is always
money to be made on the market for those with the capital to invest
wisely(cue:RDean with a more lucid explanation of this). Still, for a
steadily increasing(over the past 10 years or more) number of folks who have
no excess capital to invest(I work with people who can't even afford to make
401K contributions, a matched investment), due to healthcare costs and other
expenses, playing the market isn't an option, thus is a POOR determination
of economic health in the nation.
Tom

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
JFK in 61. Economy recovered.

start a war in Vietnam, economy picks up.

Reagan in the 80s. Economy recovered.

well, if you consider a fair-sized recession and a Savings and Loan disaster
that cost the nation a ton of money 'recovered', sure.....

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered.

yeah, the country is doing swell. Actually, history shows that most times
when you have a radical tax cut, deficits grow by massive amounts.....then
the nation elects a bunch of Democrats to right the ship as best they
can....
Tom