Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

^ that deuce GOLD ^

 

[MoreFeasts]

I would want to look at quality of life issues that go beyond dollars and cents, so therefore are not so easy to quantify by simply measuring one's income and expenses.
However, of course you would consider things like job, assets, debt, income, food, home, clothing, health care, transportation, education, social status, fun, savings, leisure time, personal rewards of work.

 

[Deleted member 365]

If the answer is so obvious, and the democrats had complete control for two years, why was nothing done?

Either your wrong, or your party is pathetic.

False.

This is more of an indictment on the GOP than it is on the Democrats.

Foxnews and AM radio won't tell you this, but the Democrats have actually moved closer to the right since the 70s, not to the left. The GOP meanwhile, has put the pedal to the metal and has gone off the cliff to the right. Seriously folks, today's Democrats represent yesterday's GOP. Whereas, today's GOP represent something very close to yesterday's Germany or Italy.

Consider Eisenhower. He'd be considered by today's GOP as a flaming liberal.
Consider Nixon and Reagan. They'd be considered RINOs.

Literally, the stances and positions that Reagan took are being vilified by today's GOP as liberal/Communist policies. From his stances on taxes (he raised them. He would be KILLED by today's GOP). He raised the debt ceiling many times (would be killed by today's GOP which would rather destroy our credit rating than raise the debt ceiling). He came up with an incomplete immigration law (which included the forbidden A-word condemned today by the GOP as Obama trying to bribe the Latino vote).

The Democrats didn't change much because they too have been infected with the failed Reaganomics disease. We have gone sooooo far off the path from the policies which made us successful through the 30s and into the late 70s that both parties have forgotten it.

The difference is, while one party is fairly moderate and conservative, the other party is unbelievably far off to the right.

Seriously folks, we have heard for 6 years now of the Bolshevik Revolution in the White House. In reality. Obama's policies are extremely Reagan-like. The Democrats are very GOP-like.

Consider how today's GOP lowered our credit rating.
Consider how it has desires for further military expansion (especially in oil rich countries).
Consider the paranoia towards homosexuals, women, and minorities.
Notice how it bashes intellectuals.
Has aspirations to deport all illegals.
Has already passed laws encouraging racial profiling.
Stances on the family and desiring to define women as the baby makers of society. As mere commodities to be used. Notice how literally every month or two we here another republican talking about women in a derogatory fashion. Usually about rape or birth control.
Views on religion, merely using it to propel their agenda (Ann Richards anyone).
Overly strong nationalism.
views on food stamps, entitlements, and health care.
Views on prosperity. If you're rich, you deserved it. More importantly, if you're poor, then you most definitely deserve it and should never receive government assistance. You are essentially, "Life Unworthy of Life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
Finally, breaking the rules of decency which have helped govern this country for centuries and abusing the filibuster to prevent governing. Threatening to shut down the government over Obamacare brings back memories of my studies prior to the Nazi takeover of Germany. Mike Lee like Hitler, "We will run this country, Democracy be damned!"

And so many more!

So while Foxnews and AM radio keeps warning us of the Communists, they turn a blind eye to themselves. We're much closer to a Fascist takeover than a Socialist one.

 

[Gameface]

I disagree. I'm tired of people with a good job, a good home, and a 3% mortgage complaining about money because the tuition for their kids private schools or whatever went up. Government has spent 10 years subsidizing their mortgages, purchases, tax bill, investments , and retirement portfolio. You say when someone is already at the bottom there is not much more to fall, but that is not true in reality. Poor people suffer more. The middle class just complain out of habit. They are actually doing very well.

I think you and One Brow agree on this issue for the most part. I think what he's saying is that during a bust the middle class experiences the brunt of the busting. The poor, who were suffering during the boom, continue to suffer during the bust. Their situation was bad and it continues to be bad.

It's the middle class worker who goes from being able to pick where they want to work, negotiate for higher pay, being highly valued by their employer who doesn't want them to leave and create a void that the company will have to fill from a small pool of applicants, etc. During the bust employers are overwhelmed with overqualified applicants who will accept any wage just to get a job, any job. The power dynamic shifts and the middle class worker is in a completely different world than they were before.

 

[MoreFeasts]

I'm saying that in general if someone has a decent job and a decent home and decent health and a decent social life, then things aren't that bad, relatively speaking. Individual circumstances will vary.

If someone loses one or more of the above 4 things, than that is suffering.
I would think that poor people have lost more of those 4 things on average than middle class people for a sustained period over the last 10 years.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I'm saying that in general if someone has a decent job and a decent home and decent health and a decent social life, then things aren't that bad, relatively speaking. Individual circumstances will vary.

But you need to look at this with a historical context. The middle-class of today has never been worse off.

 

[MoreFeasts]

I just don't see that if you are talking about purchasing power of the median income person.

One might argue that quality of life was better in simpler times of yore for other reasons.

 

[franklin]

I'm a little surprised to see certain posters using the notion of a "free market" as some sort of measuring rod against the status quo. Can't we ditch that notion for good? Capitalist States have ALWAYS been serious meddlers, and the "free market" idea has always been a sort of heaven -- a distraction for the weak from the conflictual and highly differential conditions in which value is actually created and CERTAIN methods of value creation sustained.

It's hard to see how the interests of the middle and poorer classes have been anything but placated to. To talk in heavy puffs about who suffers more is sort of embarrassing when the tippy-top of the elite have been making out soooo well.

True. Free market has been hijacked by the pro-business crowd who sell nothing better than the old British feudal system -- worship your overlord "jobs providers" with their "have you ever worked for a poor person" mental midgetry. ****, lemme leave it up to the master Milton Friedman himself:

You must separate out being “pro free-enterprise” from being “pro-business.” The two greatest enemies of the free enterprise system in my opinion have been on one hand my fellow intellectuals, and on the other hand, the big businessmen – for opposite reasons.

Almost every businessman is in favor of free enterprise for everybody else, but special privilege and special government protection for himself. As a result, they have been a major force in undermining the free enterprise system. Stop kidding yourself into thinking you can use the business community as a way to promote free enterprise. Unfortunately, most of them are not our friends in that respect.

I don't know why liberals demonize Milton Friedman. Understanding this basic tenet went along way into my deep respect for One Brow's insight. Good to have you back, too.

 

[franklin]

BTW, the response to that stupid question is "have you ever had a destitute customer?". Not like it will ring any bells...

 

[One Brow]

Sorry for splitting hairs, but I still disagree on "comparative degree". If you go from poor to losing everything, that is worse than going from middle class to middle class in a downturn.

I agree. Individual who lose everything suffer most of all (and that happens, less often, to the middle class in a serious economic downturn, particularly if you are over 40 or 45). I was thinking of the change in median income suffered by the group as a whole, but you are right that can mask individual suffering.

 

[One Brow]

I'm saying that in general if someone has a decent job and a decent home and decent health and a decent social life, then things aren't that bad, relatively speaking. Individual circumstances will vary.

If someone loses one or more of the above 4 things, than that is suffering.
I would think that poor people have lost more of those 4 things on average than middle class people for a sustained period over the last 10 years.

Depending on where you live, the poor often did not have them to begin with.

 

[Stoked]

Talking about all this suffering...someone post that youtube video about third world people complaining about first world problems.

Puts it into a nice perspective for you.