Paging Mr. Bunch

Amen! Reaganism was a total failure but these GOP sycophants have nothing new or better to offer, so they keep chanting that tired old mantra of “Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.” Remember that old definition of madness–doing the same thing, the same way over and over again and expecting a different outcome? HA!

Amen! Reaganism was a total failure but these GOP sycophants have nothing new or better to offer, so they keep chanting that tired old mantra of “Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.” Remember that old definition of madness–doing the same thing, the same way over and over again and expecting a different outcome? HA!

Meh. As far as foreign policy, most of this decade was totally anti-Reagan. One of the first things Joe or Ron Paul or any of the old schoolers will tell you when they discuss the deviation is “worthless foreign wars” and “overextension of the empire.”Reagan was fascinating. Morons such as Thom Hartmann will never understand him, although they obsess about him (which is quite funny). I’ve already outlined the numerous ways in which Hartmann was wrong about Reagan. One of the things that amused me when I visited the Reagan Library last year was a huge section of it was devoted as a sort of apology/explanation of the layoffs of the union air workers. It wasn’t described as “THIS IS WHY UNIONS FAIL.” It was more like “he analyzed the cost to the economy overall, then realized that he HAD to fire them.” Hartmann would say “IT WAS A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW- A SYMBOL OF THE DEVASTATION THAT HE WANTED TO INFLICT ON ALL UNIONS.” Absolute nonsense– just like the solar panel crap.I guess I am thinking about unions because a lot Joe’s show was devoted to talking about them today. The consensus was that THEY failed, not that the government had failed them. I think that both sides are at fault, actually.

Meh. As far as foreign policy, most of this decade was totally anti-Reagan. One of the first things Joe or Ron Paul or any of the old schoolers will tell you when they discuss the deviation is “worthless foreign wars” and “overextension of the empire.”Reagan was fascinating. Morons such as Thom Hartmann will never understand him, although they obsess about him (which is quite funny). I’ve already outlined the numerous ways in which Hartmann was wrong about Reagan. One of the things that amused me when I visited the Reagan Library last year was a huge section of it was devoted as a sort of apology/explanation of the layoffs of the union air workers. It wasn’t described as “THIS IS WHY UNIONS FAIL.” It was more like “he analyzed the cost to the economy overall, then realized that he HAD to fire them.” Hartmann would say “IT WAS A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW- A SYMBOL OF THE DEVASTATION THAT HE WANTED TO INFLICT ON ALL UNIONS.” Absolute nonsense– just like the solar panel crap.I guess I am thinking about unions because a lot Joe’s show was devoted to talking about them today. The consensus was that THEY failed, not that the government had failed them. I think that both sides are at fault, actually.

You know that brassy horn sound they play on Sesame Street whenever a character gets flummoxed by one of the monsters?Wah-wah-wah-wahhhhhhYou totally need an mp3 file to load on blog posts like this one.

You know that brassy horn sound they play on Sesame Street whenever a character gets flummoxed by one of the monsters?Wah-wah-wah-wahhhhhhYou totally need an mp3 file to load on blog posts like this one.

Well, Bob, you know what I think of your statement. The facts call you ignorant, or worse, purposefully misleading.Reagan increased inflation adjusted income for the lowest earners in America by $4000/year. That’s $4000 EXTRA dollars, Mr. Cesca, per year. That is the ONLY measurement of wealth that means anything to anyone living below the “I earn $170,000/year” line.And how has every President since Reagan fared in this important area? They average a decline of $1,500/year for the lowest earners in America. Presidents before Reagan averaged no growth whatsoever in disposable income.If I receive 4,000 extra, real, spendable dollars per year, I don’t give a good crap how much more the uber-wealthy are earning.You can give the poor all the welfare you want. You can provide free service after service after service. You can tax the uber-wealthy up the wingwang. If your end result is a net loss of disposable income year over year for the lowest paid Americans, you are a failure as an economist compared to Reagan. Extra free money for the poor doesn’t translate into actual extra disposable income when all of your economic acts raises sales taxes and costs of living because, wait….wait…the wealthy are passing their tax increases on down the line to the poor, who are paying more for goods and services as a direct result. Learn this foundational rule: If it costs more to do business, it costs more to buy what that business makes or does.When business costs more to operate, someone HAS to pay for that. Or do you REALLY believe that the rich are so beneficent that they’ll swallow those increases themselves?There are some regulations that should not have been removed, but the biggest regulation that was relaxed, the one that directly caused the banks to need a bailout was the regulation requiring the banks to have a certain amount of tier one capital for every dollar of leverage. That little baby was reduced, I do believe, within the last ten years. Reagan had nothing to do with it.But I can see now what your party’s purpose is. If you can destroy a “legend”, you can destroy the entire party, right? That’s the game plan?Your problem, Bob, is that unless you can destroy all evidence at the IRS from the Reagan years, you end up sounding dumber than the Republicans on torture. That’s pretty hard to do, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Well, Bob, you know what I think of your statement. The facts call you ignorant, or worse, purposefully misleading.Reagan increased inflation adjusted income for the lowest earners in America by $4000/year. That’s $4000 EXTRA dollars, Mr. Cesca, per year. That is the ONLY measurement of wealth that means anything to anyone living below the “I earn $170,000/year” line.And how has every President since Reagan fared in this important area? They average a decline of $1,500/year for the lowest earners in America. Presidents before Reagan averaged no growth whatsoever in disposable income.If I receive 4,000 extra, real, spendable dollars per year, I don’t give a good crap how much more the uber-wealthy are earning.You can give the poor all the welfare you want. You can provide free service after service after service. You can tax the uber-wealthy up the wingwang. If your end result is a net loss of disposable income year over year for the lowest paid Americans, you are a failure as an economist compared to Reagan. Extra free money for the poor doesn’t translate into actual extra disposable income when all of your economic acts raises sales taxes and costs of living because, wait….wait…the wealthy are passing their tax increases on down the line to the poor, who are paying more for goods and services as a direct result. Learn this foundational rule: If it costs more to do business, it costs more to buy what that business makes or does.When business costs more to operate, someone HAS to pay for that. Or do you REALLY believe that the rich are so beneficent that they’ll swallow those increases themselves?There are some regulations that should not have been removed, but the biggest regulation that was relaxed, the one that directly caused the banks to need a bailout was the regulation requiring the banks to have a certain amount of tier one capital for every dollar of leverage. That little baby was reduced, I do believe, within the last ten years. Reagan had nothing to do with it.But I can see now what your party’s purpose is. If you can destroy a “legend”, you can destroy the entire party, right? That’s the game plan?Your problem, Bob, is that unless you can destroy all evidence at the IRS from the Reagan years, you end up sounding dumber than the Republicans on torture. That’s pretty hard to do, I’m sure you’ll agree.

So you just made Bob’s point for him. Follow Reagan’s economic policy, and you get a shitty economy.

So you just made Bob’s point for him. Follow Reagan’s economic policy, and you get a shitty economy.

CitizenJ,did you read what I wrote? Because I certainly didn’t say “Follow Reagan’s economic policy, and you get a shitty economy.”

CitizenJ,did you read what I wrote? Because I certainly didn’t say “Follow Reagan’s economic policy, and you get a shitty economy.”

@Matt http://www.sadtrombone.com/Like that, or the deeper sounding one?

@Matt http://www.sadtrombone.com/Like that, or the deeper sounding one?

give it up with the extra $4K annually for the lowest paid workers, PPP. half of that was an increase in the minimum wage and the rest was eaten up. I LIVED thru it as an ACCOUNTANT who understands the difference between adjusted income & spendable income. Reagan pissed on the workers of this country. That’s the fact. He’s only a legend in the minds of people who think he was a fucking saint. He wasn’t. It’s a myth – just like it’s a myth that he single handedly won the Cold War.as for you, MG, with It was more like “he analyzed the cost to the economy overall, then realized that he HAD to fire them.” That’s bullshit. He fired them because they went on strike in violation of law forbidding strikes by federal employees. He ordered them back to work, they refused so he fired them – which was just dandy as far as public safety went. Tell me, how did it “help” the economy to also ban them from working for the federal gov’t for life??’Course now we have GOPers who are aghast at the idea that Obama might be able to fire the CEO of GM, but who cheered Reagan firing over 11,000 air traffic controllers…

give it up with the extra $4K annually for the lowest paid workers, PPP. half of that was an increase in the minimum wage and the rest was eaten up. I LIVED thru it as an ACCOUNTANT who understands the difference between adjusted income & spendable income. Reagan pissed on the workers of this country. That’s the fact. He’s only a legend in the minds of people who think he was a fucking saint. He wasn’t. It’s a myth – just like it’s a myth that he single handedly won the Cold War.as for you, MG, with It was more like “he analyzed the cost to the economy overall, then realized that he HAD to fire them.” That’s bullshit. He fired them because they went on strike in violation of law forbidding strikes by federal employees. He ordered them back to work, they refused so he fired them – which was just dandy as far as public safety went. Tell me, how did it “help” the economy to also ban them from working for the federal gov’t for life??’Course now we have GOPers who are aghast at the idea that Obama might be able to fire the CEO of GM, but who cheered Reagan firing over 11,000 air traffic controllers…

You know this is further proof that the wingnuts do not even know who Reagan was, they just use his name as a buzzword that rings with viewers who don’t know who he was either.

You know this is further proof that the wingnuts do not even know who Reagan was, they just use his name as a buzzword that rings with viewers who don’t know who he was either.

PPP -I also lived through the Reagan snow job as a well paid professional and watched my total tax burden increase every year for eight straight years. For every dollar my federal tax went down my State/Local taxes went up by approximately $1.50. Add to that the increases to payroll tax so that federal programs like SDI could steal from social security to pay for expensive stuff we’ll never use like the B1 bombers and MX missiles, my totol tax burden increased a lot. Reagan depended on the low information crowd to cheer him on while the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and the Savings and Loans were outright robbed.The neoconservatives are always railing against the transfer of wealth. Well not really always. When the transfer of wealth is from the poor to the rich they are actually quite happy with the transfer of wealth. Apparently it’s all about who winds up with the wealth. I ran across this very excellent article at SMU called Reagan: The great American Socialist. So transfer of wealth is fine when it is being transfered from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. Keep that in mind when they start bitching again about the transfer of wealth. We’ve had lots of transfer, but its been in the wrong direction.Reagan did a great job of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. He also stood by while vicious monopolists like Bill Gates eliminated all competition in the computer operating system market. Enforcement of laws is something neocons do only when its a black guy smoking crack. Dismantling the FDA and EPA did wonderful things for us. We never had E. Coli and Salmonella scares in the 60s and 70s. Great job Ronnie!

PPP -I also lived through the Reagan snow job as a well paid professional and watched my total tax burden increase every year for eight straight years. For every dollar my federal tax went down my State/Local taxes went up by approximately $1.50. Add to that the increases to payroll tax so that federal programs like SDI could steal from social security to pay for expensive stuff we’ll never use like the B1 bombers and MX missiles, my totol tax burden increased a lot. Reagan depended on the low information crowd to cheer him on while the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and the Savings and Loans were outright robbed.The neoconservatives are always railing against the transfer of wealth. Well not really always. When the transfer of wealth is from the poor to the rich they are actually quite happy with the transfer of wealth. Apparently it’s all about who winds up with the wealth. I ran across this very excellent article at SMU called Reagan: The great American Socialist. So transfer of wealth is fine when it is being transfered from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. Keep that in mind when they start bitching again about the transfer of wealth. We’ve had lots of transfer, but its been in the wrong direction.Reagan did a great job of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. He also stood by while vicious monopolists like Bill Gates eliminated all competition in the computer operating system market. Enforcement of laws is something neocons do only when its a black guy smoking crack. Dismantling the FDA and EPA did wonderful things for us. We never had E. Coli and Salmonella scares in the 60s and 70s. Great job Ronnie!

Worshipers of Saint Ronnie will never let go of the faith (like every other religion). Fortunately for them, the MSM continues to perpetuate the manufactured history without discussing the real, less discussed, parts of “the legend”.

Funding and equipping “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan.

Funding and equipping warlords in Somalia.

Funding and equipping a chap named Hussein (He was a good dictator then).

As a bonus, those three were all attempts to keep a foothold in the Persian Gulf (officially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by the USG for many years) after we were kicked out of Iran (the pesky Persians so now it’s clear why we called it the Arabian Gulf).

Double bonus! We illegally sold weapons and military parts to Iran to illegally fund illegal operations in South America – can’t let those ELECTED left-leaning governments thrive!

Good thing GHWB liberally pardoned.

Worshipers of Saint Ronnie will never let go of the faith (like every other religion). Fortunately for them, the MSM continues to perpetuate the manufactured history without discussing the real, less discussed, parts of “the legend”.

Funding and equipping “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan.

Funding and equipping warlords in Somalia.

Funding and equipping a chap named Hussein (He was a good dictator then).

As a bonus, those three were all attempts to keep a foothold in the Persian Gulf (officially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by the USG for many years) after we were kicked out of Iran (the pesky Persians so now it’s clear why we called it the Arabian Gulf).

Double bonus! We illegally sold weapons and military parts to Iran to illegally fund illegal operations in South America – can’t let those ELECTED left-leaning governments thrive!

Good thing GHWB liberally pardoned.

I also lived through the Reagan snow job as a well paid professional and watched my total tax burden increase every year for eight straight years.Posted by: ∇•B=0 Goddamn Silly Ratfaced Git ∇•D=ρ at June 3, 2009 2:34 PMI love this shit. Every time a nut discusses the ’80s the “I lived through it” bit INEVITABLY comes up like they were Sri Lankan refugees who were fleeing a genocide.Give me a fucking break.

I also lived through the Reagan snow job as a well paid professional and watched my total tax burden increase every year for eight straight years.Posted by: ∇•B=0 Goddamn Silly Ratfaced Git ∇•D=ρ at June 3, 2009 2:34 PMI love this shit. Every time a nut discusses the ’80s the “I lived through it” bit INEVITABLY comes up like they were Sri Lankan refugees who were fleeing a genocide.Give me a fucking break.

Funding and equipping “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan.Posted by: brutlyhonest at June 3, 2009 5:37 PM…which started very earnestly under Carter.You know that…. right?”Funding and equipping a chap named Hussein (He was a good dictator then).”a chap named Hussein who was fighting a tyrant who made bin Laden look like Saint AugustusThe battle lines were different then.Speaking of “the MSM continues to perpetuate the manufactured history” you should know by now that the myth of Saddam Hussein was biggest scam/fraud that was perpetrated on this country in many decades.

Funding and equipping “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan.Posted by: brutlyhonest at June 3, 2009 5:37 PM…which started very earnestly under Carter.You know that…. right?”Funding and equipping a chap named Hussein (He was a good dictator then).”a chap named Hussein who was fighting a tyrant who made bin Laden look like Saint AugustusThe battle lines were different then.Speaking of “the MSM continues to perpetuate the manufactured history” you should know by now that the myth of Saddam Hussein was biggest scam/fraud that was perpetrated on this country in many decades.

The fact yoiu guys are ignoring is that the $4,000 per year increase was tax and inflation adjusted…it’s disposable income.Further, Clinton’s plans dropped that income $1,500 per year.Git, I already read that article, and told you my thoughts about it.GO HERE FOR A NON-PARTISAN DEBATE ABOUT REAGANOMICS, and lose the rhetoric:http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/REAGANOMICS.HTMBut before you do, what part of “if you tax the rich, they’ll pass the cost of it on to the poor” do you not understand? Why is that such a hard concept for liberals to grasp?Raising taxes on corporations raises prices at the stores. Do you not get that? Raising taxes on oil companies shows up at the pump, out of your wallet. That $4,000 per year increase was disposable income, not some magic number that was instantly reduced because taxes were left out of the equation. Stop using tired rhetoric and start using facts.

vicious monopolists like Bill Gates

You mean the one who is trying his best to give almost all of his money away in charity before he dies? That vicious Bill Gates? Yes, he’s a real vicious asshole, giving all of his money away like that, and making liberals look like cheap, selfish bastards. Doesn’t he know that we have government programs for that? What’s he trying to do, anyway, monopolize the charitable giving sector of the economy? We should just hang that money-giving bastard at once, and make an example of him.The vicious bastard! How dare he!I think we need to write Keith Olbermann, so pious Pope Keith can do a special commentary on how much of a nazi asshole Bill Gates is for giving his money away.”Did you think we wouldn’t notice, sir! That you were giving money to charity, sir! You, sir! Are an asshole! and so marks the two thousand, six hundred and fifty-third day since Bill Gates starting giving his money away. May he BURN in hell with the penis of Dick Cheney slowly disintegrating inside of his large, hairy, no-longer-rich-enough-for-a-bidet-ass!”

The fact yoiu guys are ignoring is that the $4,000 per year increase was tax and inflation adjusted…it’s disposable income.Further, Clinton’s plans dropped that income $1,500 per year.Git, I already read that article, and told you my thoughts about it.GO HERE FOR A NON-PARTISAN DEBATE ABOUT REAGANOMICS, and lose the rhetoric:http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/REAGANOMICS.HTMBut before you do, what part of “if you tax the rich, they’ll pass the cost of it on to the poor” do you not understand? Why is that such a hard concept for liberals to grasp?Raising taxes on corporations raises prices at the stores. Do you not get that? Raising taxes on oil companies shows up at the pump, out of your wallet. That $4,000 per year increase was disposable income, not some magic number that was instantly reduced because taxes were left out of the equation. Stop using tired rhetoric and start using facts.

vicious monopolists like Bill Gates

You mean the one who is trying his best to give almost all of his money away in charity before he dies? That vicious Bill Gates? Yes, he’s a real vicious asshole, giving all of his money away like that, and making liberals look like cheap, selfish bastards. Doesn’t he know that we have government programs for that? What’s he trying to do, anyway, monopolize the charitable giving sector of the economy? We should just hang that money-giving bastard at once, and make an example of him.The vicious bastard! How dare he!I think we need to write Keith Olbermann, so pious Pope Keith can do a special commentary on how much of a nazi asshole Bill Gates is for giving his money away.”Did you think we wouldn’t notice, sir! That you were giving money to charity, sir! You, sir! Are an asshole! and so marks the two thousand, six hundred and fifty-third day since Bill Gates starting giving his money away. May he BURN in hell with the penis of Dick Cheney slowly disintegrating inside of his large, hairy, no-longer-rich-enough-for-a-bidet-ass!”

Of course I know the support for the Governments of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) started under Carter – and it was a bad idea. The programs were vastly expanded – to include direct support of what is now AQ and the Taliban – under Reagan. What kind of moron gives the most advanced handheld SAM to that kind of people? At least we finally got some of the stingers back in 2001.

“The battle lines were different then.”? What a crock. It has always been about oil and nothing else. We continued to support Uncle Saddam for a long time – even when he used the CW we helped him obtain on his own people (remember that reason for needing to remove him?). Had he simply kicked Iran’s ass as he was paid to do, he probably could have kept Kuwait and his life.

How does the MSM helping perpetuate the myth of Saddam as threat counter the perpetuation of ronnie as saint?

No comment on helping make Iran more of a threat or stomping on South America? But man we kicked the shit out of Grenada and Panama (another dictator who was no longer useful).

Oh yeah, I forgot this part of “teh legacy:™: Cutting and running from Lebanon after getting 241 Americans killed.

Of course I know the support for the Governments of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) started under Carter – and it was a bad idea. The programs were vastly expanded – to include direct support of what is now AQ and the Taliban – under Reagan. What kind of moron gives the most advanced handheld SAM to that kind of people? At least we finally got some of the stingers back in 2001.

“The battle lines were different then.”? What a crock. It has always been about oil and nothing else. We continued to support Uncle Saddam for a long time – even when he used the CW we helped him obtain on his own people (remember that reason for needing to remove him?). Had he simply kicked Iran’s ass as he was paid to do, he probably could have kept Kuwait and his life.

How does the MSM helping perpetuate the myth of Saddam as threat counter the perpetuation of ronnie as saint?

No comment on helping make Iran more of a threat or stomping on South America? But man we kicked the shit out of Grenada and Panama (another dictator who was no longer useful).

Oh yeah, I forgot this part of “teh legacy:™: Cutting and running from Lebanon after getting 241 Americans killed.