If they were not socialists then what were they?

This date in history is part of the origin of "social democracy" (about which you have written on this site). To explain more would be to take the thread far from its subject, Ronald Reagan, so I'll give you an assignment to figure it out. If you run into difficulty, my friend, you know where to find me.

I will try, Mentor.

Mentor, eh?

Like David, Cal, and Jay in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin"?
"You plant the seed … then you wait for the seed to grow into a plant, and then you fuck the plant."

Or Mister Miyagi in "The Karate Kid"?
"We make sacred pact. I promise teach ... you, you promise learn. I say, you do, no questions."

Or Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Star Wars"?
"Use the force, Enoch."

Or Yoda in "Star Wars"?
"Adventure. Excitement. Capitalism. A Jedi craves not these things."

Or just complete the damn assignment and be sure to turn it in when it's due! ;)

You've seen the 40-year-old virgin? You surprise me every day.

I am Telemachus. You are Mentor. I can't believe I had to look up this shit. All this time I had my Greek mythology confused and thought Mentor was the centaur that trained Achilles (assuming I'm getting that right...).

Stage 2. Crushing debts from domestic excesses, war mongering

Stockman says "the second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970." Who's to blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "from the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
Back "in 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts," but Stockman makes clear, they had to be "matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration's hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces -- the welfare state and the warfare state -- that drive the federal spending machine."
OK, stop a minute. As you absorb Stockman's indictment of how his Republican party has "destroyed the U.S. economy," you're probably asking yourself why anyone should believe a traitor to the Reagan legacy. I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences.
Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans' fiscal religion."
When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."
Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy." Takes two to tango.



Tracy should red this.

Considering she does not believe Bush is responsible in great part for the current economic woes, yes, yes she does.

Why wouldn't I have seen the film? I enjoy a good comedy.

Telemachus, eh? How's mom holding up?

The suitors are beginning to get...friendly with her and I think she likes it.

Oh, look, here comes Tiresias...

By the way, The Age of Reason should be required reading in junior high.

Just wonderen what this has to do with Ronny?

Ronny is as a beast of Classical mythology. He is the modern avatar of Typhon, son of Gaia, the many-headed dragon of primordial chaos that now resides in the realm below Hades called Tartarus. Such is his evil. Such is his prison.

So as Typhon, he is able to survive below hades because of his Teflon coating? :lol:

Yes. It also helps he has a large cadre of worshipers who sacrifice their souls for him.

Tartarus, randolph, Tartarus. It is a prison below Hades. As deep down as Olympus is above the world.

Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion'

Stockman continues pounding away: "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector." He warns that "Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation." Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing.
They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute control of Wall Street's too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will culminate in the coming "American Apocalypse."
Stockman refers to Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards of the state." Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive" trading is "extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives." Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money from the Fed's discount window to cover their bad bets."



The people of Egypt finally got it, when are we going to "get" it? :frown:

Perhaps once we fall into atavism.

Just what have the Egyptians gotten; anarchy, insurrection, uncertainty, a terrorist organization possibly forming the next government? The Egyptians could have had an orderly transition if only they had let Mubarak serve out his term. If Mubarak hadn't followed through on his promise to quit this fall then that would be the time to force a regime change. As it is now there will be a great upheaval in the region and I believe that it will not be for the good.

Yeah, I know you guys got your freedom from English domination without a revolution. Many peoples are not so lucky. The Egyptians endured a corrupt pseudo-democracy dominated by the Mubarak family who enriched themselves at the expense of the people.

We had our revolution and established the best and most powerful Democracy in the world. Where upward mobility was a given. Work hard and be rewarded for being thrifty and staying out of debt. Since the military/industrial complex has taken over the country, the middle class is being diminished and upward mobility is fading away. Only the rich are prospering. College graduates are languishing at home with their parents. The "lucky" ones find a job in fast food joints, Walmart or Home Depot. Why, because the rich have sucked all the money out of the system. We are now saddled with public debt far into the future. :censored:

Is that even a real thing, pseudo-democracy? It sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. What do they call it? Intellectual dissonance?

And I'm not so sure about the upward mobility and most powerful democracy stuff. Farming's always been hard work and at least in the South it was sharecropping all the way. Once the Industrial Revolution got going and cities began to develop the conditions for the workers were terrible. Case in point (if I am getting my history correct): there never was such a thing as "London fog." Care to guess what it was? It was very fine coal dust! Everything dirty and the presence of so many people packed into confined spaces is always a great way to spread disease.

There was child labor (for those times when tiny hands were an absolute must) and long long work hours. You know the eight hour day randolph, I don't. I imagine there were times when you cursed your boss for keeping you 2 hours longer or you cursed even those 8 hours because you wanted to be in your wife's arms or talk to your children. Imagine being driven like a dog. And imagine having to sacrifice your life in your struggle against the Rockefeller types of America in order to bring about worker's rights. And only then might it be possible for upward mobility to occur except this was tied to the utter destruction of any possible competition from the likes of Germany and Japan courtesy the world war, wasn't it (not a rhetorical question)?

Women couldn't vote for the longest time because they are obviously mentally inferior to we men and a new form of math was discovered along with black men considering they were only 3/4 human. Curious. And once upon a time only landowners were allowed to vote. Or are we talking about the world post-1960s and all I'm doing is bringing the mood down to abysmal black here?

Post-college life does suck though. Tens of thousands of dollars in loans and no jobs around. Granted, all I want to do is write (novels, comic books, video games, maybe even nonfiction if the moon is blue and positioned just right in relation to the sun). This all began with Ronny did it not, the rise in college tuition? (I really would like an answer to that one, randolph...s if you feel like it). It is astounding to me that education is not free. You would think that something so vital and noble would be open to everybody.

And if I'm wrong about any of this then feed my brain.

There's only two things a person needs to know:

Jesus was black. Ronald Reagan is the devil. That's about it.

(Oh, and let's not forget that Reagan vetoed anti-apartheid legislation; a veto that was overridden in Congress.)

BULLETIN!!!!!

Rich people win
Poor people lose

ANOTHER BULLETIN!!!!!

Olympic gold medalists win gold medals
Couch potatoes get squat

Another Bulletin!
The fat ass brokers at Goldman Saks are like Cowbirds that lay their eggs in other birds nests so they don't have to feed and raise them. They let the honest hard working birds feed their parasitic offspring. The cowbird eggs hatch first and actually push the other eggs out of the nest.
The rich are lazy cowbirds! :censored:

Perhaps it is you who keeps viewing things in terms of money. I'd even say obsessed with money.

In high school, my grades sucked. Yet I seem to be able to provide for my 3 kids and save for their college expenses on my own just fine.

I seem to remember a time within the last 20 years where college dropouts were getting salaries of $45K or more on their first professional job. Unemployment was around 5%, and stocks were skyrocketing.

Please explain how I am portraying this rich person as a freeloader:
I'm not sure who these suffering people are, but the democrats want their voters to suffer. If they did not suffer, why would they need all these big government social programs? Who do the democrats actively go out and seek for support? Those that need booze in exchange for registering. Those that need to be bussed to the voting booths. Illegal aliens. People who don't even have a drivers license. They go on and on about the plight of the poor, but very rarely to you see them tell the poor to get their shit together. To quit buying $90 shoes and put that towards improving their lives. To stop this idea that going to college and making something of yourself makes you 'too white'.

If no one were poor, how does capitalism suffer? It doesn't. It goes along just fine. That's more people who can buy goods and services. More opportunities to sell your products. And instead of illegals doing grunt work you'd have American teens and lower 20s working again.

I do own my land.

Then you should probably correct wikipedia on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries

China: Life expectancy is 73 years. 12% of the population is malnourished. Health is improving though with the introduction of western style medical facilities. China still has several emerging health problems though such as respiratory problems as a result of widespread air pollution, HIV/AIDS beginning to approach epidemic proportions, increasing obesity, and close living quarters lead to disease outbreaks like SARS (a pneumonia-like disease). It's estimated that 760,000 people per years die from environmental pollution. China is the world's largest producer of CO2. 90% of China's cities suffer from some degree of water pollution. 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water. 93.3% of the population over age 15 are literate.

Cuba: Health challenges include low pay of doctors (only $15 a month), poor facilities, poor provision of equipment, and frequent absence of essential drugs. Life expectancy in Cuba is 78 years. Literacy rate is 97%.

Laos: Life expectancy is at 64 years. Healthy life expectancy was at 54 in 2006. In 2006, two fifths of the population were not using an improved water resource. The total Literacy Rate Is 73%.

Vietnam: Life expectancy is 74. Malnutrition is common in provinces. Tuberculosis claims 57 lives per day. 40-50 new infections per day of HIV. They receive funding from the US to fight AIDS. Literacy rate is 90%. Facing serious crises, Vietnam's education system is under a holistic reform launched by the government.

In comparison, US life expectancy is 78 years, and the literacy rate is 99%. Your assertion that these countries I'm assuming are socialist are healthier and better educated is false. I didn't find a happiness scale, but I think we can assume that health and education plays into that.

There is an effort by the left to downplay the role of the Founding Fathers, and an effort by the right to keep fueling creationist BS. That is true. And yes, many on the right try to claim that the Constitution was handed to the founding fathers by Jesus, or God. That is also BS and I wish it would stop.

Evidence?

Under the 1st two years of the Obama regime the American people were not represented. There were numerous protests about the national health care system where the democrats were trying to ram it down our throats despite the fact that the majority of Americans did not want it. There was also the problem of the numerous stimulus packages that Americans did not support and subsidizing mortgages of those who defaulted on their loans. The American people were NOT being represented. Here is the genesis of the modern Tea Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEDlod2V80U


It ranks pretty high. Beyond the obvious, that they are coming into the country illegally (something any other country would prosecute sternly) and taking jobs away from those poor suffering Americans you speak of, and that they don't pay taxes, yet reap the benefits of those taxes, there is an epidemic of well armed gangs in Mexico right along our borders. I have a Mexican friend. She went back to Mexico for the first time in 3 years to visit family. She said she was told to stay indoors at night because of the gangs, which was unusual before, and has also seen mid-easterners hanging out with these gangs. It's very easy for Al Qaeda operatives to come into the US through the Mexican border.

lol whatever. What is the ideal country on this planet, and why aren't you there? Don't use the excuse that it costs too much. History is full of examples of very poor people leaving everything behind to come to America. If there is a will, there is a way. If things are that bad here, a reporter reassuring people that all is well is not going to change what they can see for themselves.

Enoch vs Tracy
A very impressive point/counterpoint discussion. Keep at it you guys but don't forget this thread is about Ronny. ;)

OK let's get back to Ronnie and what David Stockman has to say.
Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon

Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."
As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."
Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy. :frown:

George HW Bush won an award today, Jeez, at least that guy had a conscience.
But I'll tell you one thing, the Gurus on Wall street know things we can't even grasp in our semi-honest little heads. The Middle Class will win when the money's all gone. And we'll all be saying "What the fuck happened?"

Well, you guys (Tracy and Enoch) both have some good points. However
I had a secure University job for many years, raised a family and put them through college. I took early retirement and went into business producing an agricultural product. I quickly learned how difficult it is to run a small business and there is no job security. Finding workers willing to work nine hours a day six days a week is extremely difficult. I tried to hire local guys but they were worthless and not willing to work long hours. The best workers were from Guatemala. They grew up on farms and were used to real work for long hours. Without those hard working guys we would not have survived. I put in more hours than they did, by the way. It was a constant struggle to pay the wages, the endless bills, the taxes and complying with regulations.
Running a small business is not easy!
It is very hard for me to see these assholes on Wallstreet making tons of money while sitting at a computer all day.

There are socialist countries, Tracy named the current ones.
But the quote
is taken out of context. Subsequent, the response is not applicable. Also Tracy compares countries with big differences on the human developing index and different preconditions, which makes it a bit unfair to compare these on long lasting facts like life expectancy and literacy rate.

Enoch Root wrote:
I assume Enoch Root refers, among others, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and west European countries, who mostly have better stats in those areas.

I found a Happy Planet Index. I can not speak for all countries but I have a few doubts about the ranking. I.e. some of the North African or Middle East ones didn’t seem/seemed that happy these days. It could be a clue that plays into happiness. See point 3. Views in the Link.

I think capitalism doesn’t work without the poor. There are even big ones that need illegal immigrants. A lot of industries are based on cheap workers. If you pay them enough to not be poor, everything would cost more so most people buy less goods and services.

Henry Ford changed that paradigm. Before the model T, cars could only be afforded by the rich. Ford realized if he paid his workers enough (five dollars a day) they could afford to buy his cars. This set the stage for the development of the American middle class that prospered for many years. We built all the things we wanted, cars, radios, tv sets, whatever. Workers were reasonably well paid. We could buy modest houses and a car to get to work.
Everything started to change when we began to import major items like tv sets and cars. This put increasing pressure on the blue collar part of the middle class. Various types of welfare was established (ie food stamps, etc), government expanded dramatically. National debt exploded. Everything is imported. In the final years of our country, everyone is poor because the rich have moved away with all the money.

Back then the raw material costs were the biggest price factor, if paid your workers generous, the final price didn?t change much. But now the workers are the biggest factor, if you pay them less the final price changes significant. And cheapest workers are not in our countries, or not legal.
What I have no clue about in the newer time are the Stock Exchanges. Without changes in offer and demand or any services the price seems to rise magically.

it's all about..
 

it's all about the ALIENS!!!! and nuclear weapons...come on people everybody should know by now...
I hope they don't come to earth and they keep it the way it is...it will change life on earth forever...it will ruin everything!!!, I don't mind having a males bathroom, female bathroom or unisex bathroom, I can use all 3 of them very comfortable, but an alien bathroom,, I wouldn't wanna go in there..or at least I'm not ready or correct me please...

Finally, back to the thread subject. I think you've really nailed one of Ronald Regan's pet peeves about aliens.

Have you heard about Quantitative Easing?
Check it out on Youtube.

I?ve heard about the principle. But here it is a bit more complicated with the single country, Europe, European Union, Eurozone, European Central Bank and non European influences.
I can?t say much about it, and I can?t say how it would be without Quantitative Easing. It is very unclear to me when it is or was used and it wasn?t mentioned or in which recession degree it is useful. It didn?t seem that bad for i.e. the Germans but for many others like Japan or the US.
If it is used only over a short time period and the economy is not weekend too much it could possible be useful, but over a long time it seems to do more harm.

Tracy

I am not obsessed with money. It would be no more reasonable to suppose that those who campaign against rape are the sexual deviants. It is clear from everything I write (even the quote you pulled where I state that the ruling class takes all the money, takes everything including our freedom from us. No man is truly master of his destiny so long as there is a ruling class. You do a terrible job of turning my quote against me, mostly because you're incapable of it) that I am not obsessed. Your posts lack any substance so instead you divert attention away from yourself and unto me. I want to empower people. Is it not the case that a small group of people have all the power and all the money and that necessarily that means they have taken it from the people?

This is the final part of the Stockman review.


Has the class war already started in some state capitols?

I wouldn't call the politicians helpless. The people are helpless thanks to the wholesale plundering they have suffered. But the politicians are willing participants in the destruction of freedom, in selling the people to private industry.

I think your views of America and evil corporations are tainted by American/Puerto Rican relations, which, given our history, I can certainly understand.

No Tracy, my views are not "tainted" by said relations. I am not fooled by your faux-understanding and faux-concern. I can hear the condescension in what you wrote. I am not speaking as a victim traumatized. I am speaking as a man who wants to empower his people and all the people of the world. It is a fact that the American Empire in both its governmental and private industrial capacity has exploited the peoples of the world and their lands.

Further, why did you bowdlerize my quote?

It is telling that you did not answer my question: Is it not the case that a small group of people have all the power and all the money and that this necessarily means they have taken it from the people?

Well let's see, the government can take from the people through taxes, which is one reason I support a smaller government, but since no rich & powerful person has his hand in my wallet (the local courts have their hand in my wallet getting $200 just because I like to speed a little, which reminds me I have to go pay them tomorrow), you'll have to give me an example where one of these rich and powerful people has become rich by taking money from the people.

If Democrats had any sense, they would go out looking for oil.:yes:

Fraking is the way to go nowadays.

Frak mother earth and make her cum.
fill up that big oil drum
no more toil just lots of oil.

Yeah, I know. :rolleyes:

he may have been the worst president ever... he started the debt cycle we are currently in

Yep, the Republican delusional idea that you can cut taxes in order to reduce the deficit. Ronnie had to bite the bullet after cutting taxes the debt soared and he had to raise taxes several times. Nevertheless, the Republicans cling to the tax cutting mantra as the solution to all our problems.
Although, currently they are making a big issue of cutting public benefits. Its hard to take them seriously when they just want to give it to the Pentagon. :censored:

The Pentagon, the biggest welfare program the world has ever seen. It keeps thousands of workers busy building bombs and tanks and guns.
Things that are so useful!

Hmmm now let's see. Who was that that controls the money?