Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (
More info?)
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 04:59:19 GMT, Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
>Gunner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:12:01 -0700, domanova
>> <domanova@domanova.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <michelle-48011E.09483706092004@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
>>>Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>None of my Macs were built by awesome people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't you Kerry supporters keep your politics to yourself?
>>>>
>>>>He sounds more like a Bush supporter to me.
>>>
>>>Definitely a red state Bushie. And you can be fairly certain that he
>>>is:
>>>
>>>1) a "he"
>>>2) white
>>>3) working class earning less than $20,000/year
>>>4) uneducated past high school
>>>5) fundamentally unhappy
>>>6) looking for someone whom he can blame for item 5
>>>7) vulnerable to the kind of flag-waving and hate mongering upon which
>>>the Republican Party has built its electoral successes for the past 40
>>>years.
>>
>> Oddly enough..as an ex police officer..the list above looks more like
>> the Democrats Ive encountered in the line of duty, than anything else.
>> And what electorial successes in the last 40 yrs are you referring to?
>> Its only been since 1994 that the Right has had any significant input
>> to the process, 104th Congress as I recall. So that would clearly
>> indicate that the prior 30 yrs of malfeasance in office was a Democrat
>> thing, no?
>
>HUH! What about Ronnie Raygun? Bush41? IIRC, RWR had some Repug
>majorities in one of both houses of the Congress. 1994 is when the US
>went over a cliff and its fortunes declined precipitously (as in
>straight down).
The Republicans took control in 1994, during the 104th Congress. Now
about the 30 yrs before that....???
Now again you display your political ignorance like a proud banner
lifted high in a breeze. Didnt you ever learn anything in school?
Hummm NEA runs the schools....never mind....
When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. We
have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but
it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word
"stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic
stagnation combined with runaway inflation. The automotive industry
was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese
competition and an oil crisis. The American way of life itself seemed
to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was
as close as we've come to it since.
The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in
half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that
the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing
them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly
after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an
unprecedented period of peacetime growth. The misery index plummeted
as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped,
leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed
"the decade of greed."
Eight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails
and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge,
Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the
Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. Not
surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing
like the recession of a decade earlier. Unemployment was well below
what it had been under Carter, and inflation was completely under
control. Nevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the
"worst economic period of the last fifty years."
The media hype succeeded at getting their man, Bill Clinton, elected.
Although barely reported, the Bush recession had actually ended before
Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in
the last quarter of Bush's administration. In other words, the second
phase of the great Reagan economic boom had already begun before
Clinton even moved to Washington. But of course that didn't stop the
liberal media from giving Clinton credit for it and dubbing it the
"decade of prosperity."
How can we be sure the economic boom presided over by Clinton was
actually due to Reagan? It's simple. Even though Clinton increased tax
rates, the top rate after his tax hikes was still less than 40%, down
a full 30% from the 70% rate before Reagan's tax cuts. In terms of the
money left after taxes, that's a huge jump from (100-70=) 30% to
(100-40=) 60% -- a doubling of the amount of money that continues,
year after year, to go into the private economy rather than the
federal budget. It hardly takes an economist to understand the huge
effect on economic growth of doubling after-tax income.
Clinton also got credit for eliminating the federal deficit, of
course. It is no coincidence, however, that the deficit didn't start
coming down until the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. As
for the touted "Reagan deficits," the indisputable fact is that
revenues grew tremendously during Reagan's two terms -- but spending
by the Democratically controlled Congress grew even faster, at an
astronomical rate. And contrary to the liberal media spin, the lion's
share of the growth of the federal budget under Reagan was not on
defense, but rather on social entitlement programs such as social
security and Medicare.
Contrary to Democratic demogoguery about "tax cuts for the rich,"
incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax
cuts. How could that be? Simple. Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan
also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the
rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other
boondoggles blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts
that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted
their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private
economy and causing the information technology boom.
There's more to the story, of course, but everything else is really
secondary. In fairness, Clinton actually did a few things himself to
help the economy, such as opening up free trade and keeping the
Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. On the other hand,
if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans, who took
control of Congress in the middle of his first term, he would have
raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have
nationalized the health care industry.
When Clinton was impeached, his party argued that he should be given a
pass because he was doing a good job managing the economy. Without the
huge economic boost from Reagan's tax cuts, Clinton might well have
been removed from office, or might have failed to win re-election.
Gore would have suffered a humiliating defeat in the election to
succeed him, or might have failed to even win the nomination. But
don't hold your breath waiting for the liberal media to start
reporting the truth. If America wants the Reagan economic boom to
continue, they need to figure out for themselves what caused it in the
first place.
Now about Reagan again? What were you spewing..er saying?
Gunner Asch
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram