Nah, you’re a moron. Keep banging your head against the wall, the fact remains that in these here States Reagan is known as the father of what is now called the neo-conservatism and no amount of bullshitting or incorrect spelling of the word “center” )) is going to change that. A word of advice: if they ever let you into this country, make sure you don’t call Reagan a Socialist as they’ll first laugh their asses off and then send you back to Tasmania for fear of spreading Mad Cow Disease
Reagan was a neo-con. Much like Obama. You're onto something there.
BTW, 'centre' is the British way of spelling the word Americans spell as 'center'. Christ you're fucking dumb. Even the very smallest things you want to turn into an insult end up blowing up in your face. I guess you just like things blowing up in your face.
Nah, I’m good. But, yeah, having hissy fits about Reagan being a Socialist doesn’t humiliate your ass. LOL!
It's like you. You can call yourself an intellectual as much as you want, the reality is you're a moron who gets kicks out of embarrassing himself on an online form. Fiction, reality, get it? Good.
Your ass is so stupid that you don’t even follow your own advice. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Supply Side Economics. Open your eyes, shut your well-worn mouth, and learn:
“Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s, in the wake of the oil crisis in 1973. It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Chicago School and Neo-Classical School. An advocate of supply-side economics traced the school of thought's intellectual descent from the philosophers Ibn Khaldun and David Hume, satirist Jonathan Swift, political economist Adam Smith, and even Founding Father Alexander Hamilton.”
“Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s, in the wake of the oil crisis in 1973. It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Chicago School and Neo-Classical School. An advocate of supply-side economics traced the school of thought's intellectual descent from the philosophers Ibn Khaldun and David Hume, satirist Jonathan Swift, political economist Adam Smith, and even Founding Father Alexander Hamilton.”
It's funny, you give me 10 scattered responses which don't make sense because you don't know anything about economics; yet the answer is still the same. Get a clue for your own sake. No wonder he fooled people into believing he was a conservative economically, he just termed "supply-side economics" and mental midgets like yourself think it's something new. Per your own Wiki research, "supply-side economics" involves a reduction in taxes. Let me get back to my previous excerpt to educate you:
Taxes
Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.
If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.
If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
Bingo! The stupid child finally sees the light, even if yelling, scratching, and screaming the whole way!
The point, shmuck, is this: the US political discourse has been dragged to the right for over three decades now. Reagan started it all and now it’s so bad that Obama passes as a “leftist,” where in reality he’d be, at best, considered center right anywhere else.
Even though it's already been established that you're dense in the head, do you get it now dummy?
The point, shmuck, is this: the US political discourse has been dragged to the right for over three decades now. Reagan started it all and now it’s so bad that Obama passes as a “leftist,” where in reality he’d be, at best, considered center right anywhere else.
Even though it's already been established that you're dense in the head, do you get it now dummy?
How do we know the same conceptions existed then and hadn't changed? Because the articles I cited, from a notable Austrian economist to boot, at the time was saying Reagan was not being conservative. So it wasn't some revisionist consideration; people even then were calling Reagan out because of it.
Moreover, you're too stupid to see you can't have it both ways. It doesn't actually matter if you consider it right or left. If you want to crap on Reaganomics, then you have to essentially say that Obama's economics and the economics of the left - what is considered left right now, to clarify for your dumbass - are crap too. You can't escape shitting on yourself it seems.
Even more humilating, you said Reaganomics is "Friedmanian" haha. I gotta whip out my favourite video again. It's some retard trying to change the discussion by talking about something completely irrelevant to try to pull the wool over other peoples' eyes. You're the retard, btw.
[video=vimeo;4525136]http://vimeo.com/4525136[/video]
LOL! You just got your ass handed to you more than once in this very post and you’re still barking. If nothing else, you’re tenacious.
From trying to change my argument to something else, to seeking help from bullshit books, to asking for aid from your patron saint of hypocrisy, all your attempts at trying to sound intelligent have failed. Then again, your credibility on this board always was a big fat zero. Do some more weekend-cramming before trying to take me on kiddo. Remember what I told you about punks like you and mincemeat!
From trying to change my argument to something else, to seeking help from bullshit books, to asking for aid from your patron saint of hypocrisy, all your attempts at trying to sound intelligent have failed. Then again, your credibility on this board always was a big fat zero. Do some more weekend-cramming before trying to take me on kiddo. Remember what I told you about punks like you and mincemeat!
Punks and mincemeat, I love it...you really are a caricature. If you're Googling your insults too you need to get new sources. If you're like 50 years old and this dense then I just feel a bit sad for you :-ohno:
As your own stupid ass suggested, go read what Wikipedia says about Supply-side economics and quit humiliating yourself.
Mroron, Obama is hardly my hero, but he is the only adult in the room. Obama’s attempt to be more like Clinton in his centered-ness may have been his undoing, but that doesn’t make Reagan a Socialist (LOL! I’m still laughing!)
More like Crap-on-your-face
Mroron, Obama is hardly my hero, but he is the only adult in the room. Obama’s attempt to be more like Clinton in his centered-ness may have been his undoing, but that doesn’t make Reagan a Socialist (LOL! I’m still laughing!)
More like Crap-on-your-face
Last edited: