Can someone explain to me why this was such a steaming pile of shit?

Can someone explain to me why this was such a steaming pile of shit?

I wasnt born yet but high school told me that it sucked

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6DClu-4rnmY
redstate.com/diary/nikitas3/2011/05/25/about-that-reagan-debt/
latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-kansas-economy-20161031-story.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

A religious education teach religion , a statist education teach statism.

All around the world teachers teach the shit that makes the government big because the governments pays them or will pay them in some part of their lives.

Reaganomics is one of the names leftist and statist give to some anti big government policies.
They always give names like that to policies that stop big government but at the end of the day the discussion is all about those who believe that government fix everything(leftist) , those that believe too much government fucks everything(conservatives) and those that believe that government always fuck everything (libertarians)

Let Trump explain it.
youtube.com/watch?v=6DClu-4rnmY

>I wasnt born yet
I was alive at the time.

Simple premise: he said he would increase military spending while slashing funding.

Hm, basic math says you're gonna either (a) run deficits, which is what happened or (b) loose a shitload of existing government agencies.

Government actually expanded under his administration....so it's pretty much a given that you will run bigger and bigger deficits.

Speaking of which, this has been the playbook for "both sides" for the last 30 years. We haven't had a single president since Carter that didn't ramp up deficits. Yes, Bill did too, despite his "savings".

It is also a reason that the US is near financial collapse, but it's not the only one, and that's a thread for another time.

>treating real estate as a growth business
Trump also said he was cheering for the housing bubble.

Put the two and two together, tool.

Time magazine has always been a steaming pile of shit, and as for Reaganomics well in order to better understand it you should put yourself in the shoes of someone in the 80's and observe carefully what kind of problems and world events that occurred at the time

Reagan should've been impeached for the Iran-Contra affair.

>Can someone explain to me why this was such a steaming pile of shit?
It wasn't. You're welcome. Unless you were actually referring to Time Magazine. >I wasnt born yet but high school told me that it sucked
t. your leftist "educators," the same we all have to deal with before a good deal of us learn the actual truth of the world.

>>We haven't had a single president since Carter that didn't ramp up deficits

Though in Obama's case, he ran up deficits at low interest rates while paying off the high interest rate debts that already existed, meaning the monthly bills on the debt actually went down over his term. The low interest rate magic is starting to run out as the economy picks up, but that's Trump's problem now.

I was also alive at the time. The simple premise was that he would increase military spending while increasing revenues to the federal government (not slashing it), which happened during his administration thanks to the beneficial affects of the supply side approach towards the economy; loosen regulation and lower taxes to spark economic growth, leading to more wealth being generated which can then be used to fund the government.

So simple that you got it completely wrong.

The deficits and growth of government, which by modern scales aren't all that much, were the result of his administration sharing power with an oppositional congress that would not allow complete adoption of Reagan's philosophical approach towards government. Hell, this would likely have been the case had Republicans had a slight control of congress as well. Congress is philosophically against cutting the tool to their own empowerment.

Now, if you want to point at something which is leading towards our financial collapse, point to where fault actually lies, with the policies brought in under the New Deal and Great Society, that which consumes an overwhelming portion of the federal budget.

>thanks Obama for doubling the debt

sasuga leftists

>high school told me that it sucked
Damn commie core Reaganomics had its flaws but its not a shit tier system there were less poor people at the end of Reagan's presidency than in the beginning

You forgot the part about communism collapsing because Reagan did all that spending.

shh user the USSR was progressive fighting evil rich white males

Belief that we were on the wrong side of the laffer curve and reducing taxes would generate more revenue and increase output by shifting the supply curve to the right.

Good in theory, in practice not so much. But hindsights always 20/20

He forgot that, but spending on the military wasn't the end all be all method of taking down communism. That was just one angle. The other was to have that economic growth, spread about as it was to the general populace (), and so cause the citizenry of the eastern bloc to recognize how backwards their system was. Outrageously priced designer jeans that people could want and shell out their hard earned cash for only if they came from the expanding economies of the west had just as much to do with bringing down the Berlin wall as did Pershing IIs based in Germany.

Probably how half of today's "educators" would characterize the cold war.

>Let's lower taxes (but only for rich people!) and increase government spending at the same time lololololol yeah it will create a fuckload of debt but who the fuck cares?

>Belief
>Good in theory, in practice not so much
Federal revenues increased under Reagan. Fact.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. The deficit skyrocketed under Reagan. In terms of keeping a balanced budget, Reagan was the worst president in the history of this country.

>Reagan was the worst president in the history of this country

Not to the degree that they covered increased spending. And are you sure real values did? There was a fuckton of inflation around that time period and inflation is basically just a tax as well

Again.

redstate.com/diary/nikitas3/2011/05/25/about-that-reagan-debt/

>skyrocketted

What a fucking Jew Lmao. Raise taxes so people will buy my real estate please! HAHAHAHA

The most important duty of the president is to keep a balanced budget and reduce the deficit. Reagan did a piss-poor job at that. His presidency was a victory only for the very rich. Everybody else just got loaded with tons of debt.

Look around, you can see what it's resulted in.
Government meddling in the free market will always without exception end badly.

>Eric Holder giving guns to Mexican cartels and Obama letting Iran have nukes is okay though

He acted like it would actually work

Reagan was based as fuck. His only problems were 1. Dem controlled Congress 2. GHW Bush

His policies created 20million jobs. Actual jobs, not Obama jobs.

>Please don't try to say that my Republican idol wasn't perfect!

Reagan wasn't a good president. Republicans should idolize people like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. Compared to any of those three, Reagan was shit.

>Abraham Lincoln
>couldn't keep the Union together

Holy shit take off the rose tinted glasses you faggot.

>not saying whether it's real or nominal GDP growth

No ones saying obama did a good job but by his own numbers Reagan did almost as shittily as a job.

And I'm going to go ahead and assume he's using nominal GDP in which case the "growth" is exaggerated to a larger degree. Especially so considering inflation was a massive problem under Reagan and wasn't really under Obama.

>Reagan was based as fuck
>Allowed amnesty, thus turning California into a permanent blue state
>based as fuck

Reagan was a naïve fool at best.

>And are you sure real values did?
Certainly. This is undeniable, though not generally part of the discussion by them who typically consider themselves qualified to critique the era or Reagan's administration of it.
>There was a fuckton of inflation around that time period and inflation is basically just a tax as well
Inflation was spiking around the time of Reagan's inauguration at 21%. Crisis levels, by the day's news cycles. By the end of his second year it was halved.
>Not to the degree that they covered increased spending
Well, no. And there's the rub. Because Reagan was not literally god and could not have both purposed spending and overrule congress's budgetary concerns to rule as he might have wanted, he'll forever not live up to how he's advertised. But as the height of debt sustained after eight years of him is but one seventh of what it currently is, I think people being honest about his presidency can at least try to not over represent his part in it.

Reagan spent to end the cold war. He did not manage the country's finances upon the cold war's resolution.

The same people who say Trump is the devil say that about Reagan.

Now that politics is practically a team sport, they'll be fucked with a cactus before they admit Reagan wasn't awful all the time.

Reaganomics WORKS LOOK AT KANSAS. WE ARE AMAZING, ALL OF US ARE IN A SEA OF MONEY
latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-kansas-economy-20161031-story.html

Yea we are all millionaires!
> Fuck us, we are retarded

You realize that Trump's own book called Reagan a senile old fart with Alzheimer's?

It's pseudo-Austrian corporatism minus all the collective bargaining.

Trump is a fiscal-liberal in republican cloth.

youtbue yaron brook
watch a few hours of his capitalism morality
or a bunch of his 10min lectures
capitalism works
there is no such thing as ancap, or crony cap
hong kong
usa
chile
singpore
wseden before 1960
all massive capitalism
econmic successes that are not possible according to univeristy theory
but hey
usa is no1
germany would be 40th richest state in USA

The link was not so much to pit Reagan's record against Obama (though that's what the gist of the article is defending), but to give frame of reference to how debt to GDP growth fared over time as compared to the agendas of those presidents with which they are associated. You want to bitch and moan about debt to GDP growth in a vacuum? It was 116% during FDR's day. Complain about that.

Oh, but was something else going on in the world around that time external to Roosevelt's own person and his hand in the economy to increase the public debt?

I never said I liked Reagan. It's just that leftist cucks only pretend to be nationalist and care about national security when it allows them to chastise a Republican.

Case in point: Hillary started losing to Trump, so all the lefties suddenly became anti-Russian warhawks. Reverse-McCarthyism.

Just goes to show how empty are people's criticisms, generally. They're based on party affiliation. Not real world results. Inclusive of Trump, who went a good deal of his life identifying as a Democrat.

The GOP needs to move beyond the flawed Reagan model. Trump will create a new model for future leaders to follow.

Also, why is Iran even a problem to begin with?

Because Jimmy Carter sat on his cucked ass and dindu nuffin when the Islamist Revolution started. Ayatollah Khomeini was given refuge by leftists/liberals in Paris instead of being sent to a UN court.

If leftists and liberals got their way, over half the world would still be Soviet satellites today. Iran-Contra was ultimately aimed at killing commies.

Wow, are you saying Reagan was meddling in the 'free-market?' That's hilarious.

I know. I favor Trump's nationalism and economic protectionism over the "neocon" model.

Pat Buchanan(R) actually pointed-out that Reagan/Bush's globalism would cuck the US in the end, but nobody listened to him back then.

This, actually.
Good post.

He was great. His policies lowered interest rates so my parents could buy the house that I grew up in 1981. The S&P also more than doubled during his presidency making it so my parents became rich while working average, middle class jobs. He's an American treasure.

obama +20T to deficit
what did we buy for that money?
roads crumblng
prisons fulal domestic violence bs
airports old
regulations crushing
communist judges n lawyers

glad to see Sup Forums actually calling out the Don for being a kike in this case. Reaganomics was great.

>hong kong
>singapore
Aren't these countries only rich because they capitalized on financial market niches like banking and investment?
>Sweden
>USA
Eh, that was just 'cuz they industralized first.
Besides, most people would agree the '50s were when America peaked economically and our country wasn't austrian in the slightest.
>or crony cap
False, even AnCaps agree that crony cap is real and a symptom of the state. It's why they're Anarchists in the firsthand place.
>all economic successes
These are anomolies and aren't the rule. Countries like China, Japan, South Korea, and virtually every current economic success story are economic interventionists.
>chile
Chile nationalized it's copper mines and something like 50% of all export revenue comes from it. The Ancaps like to herald it as proof that supply-side economics works but without it's rich, nationalized copper-mines it would look a lot more like the third world country that it is. Just sayin'.

The GOP needs to ignore fucks like you who brush past and ignores posts which shows how much you're talking out of your ass on issues of substance to keep on with your "current year" political narratives.
>Reagan was a neocon; here, as proof let's pervert the message of this huge Reagan man and booster in particular
Genius.

>what did we buy for that money?
Public service unions are still a thing. Oh, and there's a new 3rd rail of American politics that can't be addressed by reasonable people before the GREAT CRASH comes knocking at our door.