Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy

Aestu · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:01 pm

Usdk wrote:

a few dozen? really?

do what we did in pakistan? ok, lets train a seal team for 8 months to hit one target, for each of the hundreds or thousands of targets in the al qaeda organization.

What evidence do you have of this?

Usdk wrote:

bin laden isn't the only member of al qaeda. By that i mean that killing him, while important, would not have ended the conflict, nor the organization's movement. if killing him would have solved everything, our troops would have already been on the way home.

Since the Iraq and Afghan wars are not causally related to what al Qaeda did or is doing, what is our basis for assuming that there is any connection between their deployment and the health of the organization?

Usdk wrote:

WHAT we spent 14 trillion on is immaterial. what we're spending money on, whether defense, health care, or just digging a big hole in the ground doesn't matter. we're spending more than we make, and that is unsustainable. the fact that we had ~8 trillion(i forget how much) before bush took office just proves that we've been spending more than we make for longer than the bush/obama years. fairly certain we've been in debt our entire existance, regardless of any years with a surplus.

Ok, so what's your fix?

Usdk · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:23 pm

Quote:

SEAL Team Six – known among operators as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU – drilled for the bin Laden mission for months

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0503/In-SEAL-Team-Six-success-lessons-from-horrible-night-in-Iran-30-years-ago

You must have been under a rock. What this means is that bin laden was in that compound for that long. Chances are, most of the rest of AQ don't sit around as much, so what was good for osama isn't good for the next durka.

you're assuming iraq and afganistan aren't related to what al qaeda did or is doing. either way, i imagine its fairly safe to assume that if you go over to say, the pittsburgh steelers place, start killing a bunch of them, the health of that organization will plummet.

I don't know aestu. I don't have to be a doctor to know that I'm sick. why don't you spew some diarreah about what you'd do? you know you want to.

Aestu · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:27 pm

I mean how do you know that al Qaeda number in the "thousands"?

And yes they trained for months. Or so they claim. So what? You really think that's more of a deal than sending tens of thousands of troops there for a decade?

Usdk · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:35 pm

I'm saying you can't go after every AQ member like we did Osama. as i mentioned in my previous post, half of which you apparently missed.

I'm assuming they're in the thousands, unless you think we're just driving around shooting random people in the street, we've killed in the multiple thousands of operatives or insurgents or whatever you want to call them.

Aestu · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:41 pm

Whatever those shooting them want to call them, lol.

Like Dvergar pointed out, in the thousands, okay. Where's the mass terror? 9/11 was about two dozen Saudi losers with two weeks of training. Show me the evidence there's "thousands".

Usdk · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:46 pm

Quote:

This clearly does not explain why the same group conducted attacks in Bali (twice), London, Madrid, Bombay, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, and dozens of attacks in Iraq and Israel. They also have massacred schoolchildren in Russia, Indonesia, and Thailand. How are each of these attacks against unrelated victims due to America, rather than the logical conclusion that this group seems to have a problem with anyone who does not subscribe to their ideology?

http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/08/ten-myths-in-america.html

Aestu · **Posted:** Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:32 pm

Russia - Chechens blow up Russian targets because the Russians have been hostile occupiers in their land. The Chechens just happen to be Muslim.

Madrid - The Basque aren't even Muslim at all, but same as the Chechens they're angry about Spanish oppression.

Bombay - India and Pakistan have been enemies for decades. They got their own thing going.

Iraq/Israel - angry over occupation of their territory (funny considering your survivalist/resistance wannabe remarks)

Indonesia/Thailand - have been snake pits for decades, again not related...

You need to read about the world at large instead of getting your views by Googling or reading opinion pieces that stitch together a lot of unrelated items out of any sort of context.

What's your evidence that all those terror attacks are connected?

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:20 am

Aestu wrote:

zzz

Quote:

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth.

The article talks up SOARING GROWTH but those numbers are typical for the entire postwar period. Do we say Clinton is an economic genius because he saw higher growth?

Post-what war? If you're talking about WWII, then they were obviously not typical for the years preceding Reagan's election.

Aestu wrote:

So...where's the evidence Reagan is causally responsible for any improvement in the economy?

The article discussed that. It was, in fact, the point of the article, which was comparing the application of more standard economic principles under Reagan to the application of Keynesian economic principles under Obama. I would think someone who has spent his entire life in an educational setting would have developed at least some basic reading comprehension. Given the questions you ask sometimes, you'd have thought what you read was written in Japanese, transliterated into Sanskrit, turned into a word puzzle, then run through Google Translate.

Aestu wrote:

GDP doesn't tell the whole story either. Does the rich getting richer mean life gets better for anyone else? Idk, go ask Marie Antoinette. Most Americans continued to see their lives get worse during the 80s.

"Most" Americans didn't think that was the case in the 80s. I know, I was there. Despite your revisionist history, the 80s kicked ass...which is why so many people old enough to remember Reagan's presidency still think he was pretty swell.

Aestu wrote:

Quote:

In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap.

Did he inherit a war on two fronts? Or the kind of serious imbalance there is between China and the US?

You probably don't remember this, but the COLD WAR was a pretty big deal, and the COLD WAR military was fairly expensive. I also seem to remember a lot of bleating back then about how Japan was going to end up owning everything in America. So yeah, a 'war' on multiple fronts and a 'serious imbalance' with an Asian country? CHECK.

Aestu wrote:

Quote:

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War.

LOOK OUT GUYS ITS A COLD WAR ZOMBIE
OMFG WTB SILVER BULLETS

Soviet Union collapsed from within. Even arguing that the US directly caused the fall of the Soviets - which it didn't - are we better off - or spending less on the military now - with the Soviets gone?

Communism wasn't sustainable, but Reagan's policies ratcheted up the pressure that brought down the house of cards. The military spending the Soviets engaged in to "keep up with the Jones" put pressure on their social infrastructure, which led to the upheavals that brought about Glasnost and the eventual break-up of the USSR.

Are we better off without a major nuclear power funneling money to countries to support communist revolutions (especially in this hemispere)? Are we better off with the former USSR and its satellites as countries that share common cause in many areas? Are we better off without a(nother) dictatorial country looking to spread its influence globally? Without the USSR as a military opponent? Duh, gee, I dunno, George.

Aestu wrote:

This is really what this whole article is about. A bunch of unsourced "quotations" and Mark Twain statistics from a propaganda-spewing Reagan zombie. And as we see, it works on people who think they're really clever and on the inside track even though the hard facts and data show clearly it's all a lot of bull.

Reagan didn't end the national depression. The Information Revolution did, and only temporarily. Presidents have very little power over the economy other than not fucking it up (which Reagan definitely did by running up huge debts).

You wouldn't know hard data from your asshole, but that's mostly because that's where most of your "facts" appear to originate, which is probably why you have to remind us that "this isn't a court of law" when we challenge your half-baked assertions.

The fact remains that our "recovery" wasn't much of a recovery, and that the policies advocated by the current administration aren't working. The policies instituted in the early 80s did...which isn't surprising since they were modeled on policies that had previously worked during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. What worked under Reagan wasn't unique to Reagan, or republicans, or conservatives.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Mns · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:33 am

I always really like it when Bill Maher starts splitting the differences between Reagan and Obama. From what I've heard, Reagan is farther to the left than Obama is.

PS: Working on my friend who does almost nothing on facebook to admit that he can't stand Obama because he's black. Will return soon with more data.

Usdk · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:38 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

I specifically said that the terrorist attacks weren't due to america's foreign policy. There's a list of AQ attacks. i'd say close to half of them, discounting the war zones in iraq and afganistan(their own back yard) were against non-US targets.

they're connected because its by the same group doing them. So chances are, instead of america being the bad guy, maybe they just have a problem with anyone who's different from them.

or maybe i'm completely off base because hard core religious folk are so well known for embracing people of all other races religions genders etc etc etc.

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:07 am

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

The article talks up SOARING GROWTH but those numbers are typical for the entire postwar period. Do we say Clinton is an economic genius because he saw higher growth?

Post-what war? If you're talking about WWII, then they were obviously not typical for the years preceding Reagan's election.

Obviously. Because we were in a depression. Was Reagan causally responsible for breaking it or did it self-correct?

Correlation =/= causation.
Especially since Clinton did the opposite.

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

So...where's the evidence Reagan is causally responsible for any improvement in the economy?

The article discussed that. It was, in fact, the point of the article, which was comparing the application of more standard economic principles under Reagan to the application of Keynesian economic principles under Obama. I would think someone who has spent his entire life in an educational setting would have developed at least some basic reading comprehension. Given the questions you ask sometimes, you'd have thought what you read was written in Japanese, transliterated into Sanskrit, turned into a word puzzle, then run through Google Translate.

Point =/= evidence

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

GDP doesn't tell the whole story either. Does the rich getting richer mean life gets better for anyone else? Idk, go ask Marie Antoinette. Most Americans continued to see their lives get worse during the 80s.

"Most" Americans didn't think that was the case in the 80s. I know, I was there. Despite your revisionist history, the 80s kicked ass...which is why so many people old enough to remember Reagan's presidency still think he was pretty swell.

Neither of us is old enough to remember the 80s clearly. Elementary school is not an 80s experience.

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

Quote:

In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap.

Did he inherit a war on two fronts? Or the kind of serious imbalance there is between China and the US?

You probably don't remember this, but the COLD WAR was a pretty big deal, and the COLD WAR military was fairly expensive. I also seem to remember a lot of bleating back then about how Japan was going to end up owning everything in America. So yeah, a 'war' on multiple fronts and a 'serious imbalance' with an Asian country? CHECK.

Cold War =/= Hot War

Especially since we are still paying almost all the upkeep costs from the Cold War.

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

Quote:

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War.

LOOK OUT GUYS ITS A COLD WAR ZOMBIE
OMFG WTB SILVER BULLETS

Soviet Union collapsed from within. Even arguing that the US directly caused the fall of the Soviets - which it didn't - are we better off - or spending less on the military now - with the Soviets gone?

Communism wasn't sustainable, but Reagan's policies ratcheted up the pressure that brought down the house of cards. The military spending the Soviets engaged in to "keep up with the Jones" put pressure on their social infrastructure, which led to the upheavals that brought about Glasnost and the eventual break-up of the USSR.

The proof that this is false is that:
- China didn't need external pressure to give up planned economics.
- Cuba, Iran, Syria, Burma and North Korea have been under intense pressure and spending most of their GDP on the military for decades. No change.
- A lot of Communist regimes that weren't spending most of their dough on defense, and were in better shape than the Russian SSR, also fell.
- The Berlin Wall fell before the Kremlin did, despite East Germany being relatively well-off by Warsaw Pact standards and better off than many non-Communist nations.

Jubbergun wrote:

Are we better off without a major nuclear power funneling money to countries to support communist revolutions (especially in this hemispere)? Are we better off with the former USSR and its satellites as countries that share common cause in many areas? Are we better off without a(nother) dictatorial country looking to spread its influence globally? Without the USSR as a military opponent? Duh, gee, I dunno, George.

Arguable. If nothing else, the Soviets brought stability. Where do you think Iraq, Iran, China, and pretty much every other rogue state gets their weaponry?

The USSR was never a military opponent any more than the EU. It was a conflict of choice stoked by opportunistic politicians.

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

This is really what this whole article is about. A bunch of unsourced "quotations" and Mark Twain statistics from a propaganda-spewing Reagan zombie. And as we see, it works on people who think they're really clever and on the inside track even though the hard facts and data show clearly it's all a lot of bull.

Reagan didn't end the national depression. The Information Revolution did, and only temporarily. Presidents have very little power over the economy other than not fucking it up (which Reagan definitely did by running up huge debts).

You wouldn't know hard data from your asshole, but that's mostly because that's where most of your "facts" appear to originate, which is probably why you have to remind us that "this isn't a court of law" when we challenge your half-baked assertions.

So, what, you think the prosperity of the 90s was driven by...industrial growth?

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ssme/refer ... ssme07.pdf

Quote:

Apte and Nath [4] establish that the US in 1997 was already an information economy, with over 60% of GNP attributable to primary and secondary information sectors.

Jubbergun wrote:

The fact remains that our "recovery" wasn't much of a recovery, and that the policies advocated by the current administration aren't working. The policies instituted in the early 80s did...which isn't surprising since they were modeled on policies that had previously worked during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. What worked under Reagan wasn't unique to Reagan, or republicans, or conservatives.

JFK was president for three years (not eight), and inherited (and left behind) a prosperous country with unchallenged economic dominance.

You're right, it wasn't.

W Bush did the same thing Reagan did, and he didn't get results. I don't see you blaming him or his approach. Conversely, Clinton and FDR did something else.

Again, you simply have no evidence that Reagan's policies were causally effective, or that there is anything the president (of any political stripe) can really do about the economy.

Your entire argument is based on a single correlation between Reagan and the 80s, in a vacuum, ignoring many contrary trends and the absence of actual evidence proving the correlation is causal.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:37 am

The article considered several other points of similarity, so if you don't want to believe it, that's your call, but let's not start discussing correlation and causation and a 'lack of evidence,' because we all know that this "isn't a court of law."

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:42 am

Jubbergun wrote:

The article considered several other points of similarity

What points of similarity did it consider?

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:56 am

...really? English isn't hard, stop trying to make it look that way.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Fantastique · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:23 pm

All I read is yet another biased article comparing Obama and Reagan. That was pretty much it. Even if Obama did everything that Reagan did the economy of today would still be in shambles. Why? Times have changed. Nowadays, tax cuts don't mean more jobs, they mean more hoarding. Nowadays, deregulation doesn't mean more jobs, it means taking shortcuts to pocket more dough.

This is clearly evidenced by the fact that FDR did nothing but spend and make programs and that got us out of the Great Depression. Similarly, Clinton did pretty much the opposite of what Reagan did and our economy was great. We had a SURPLUS ffs. The big question when Bush came into office was what the fuck are we gonna do with all this money? Then Bush decided to give unpaid tax cuts to the rich, started two wars, and now we're here.

We aren't denying Reagan's successes by any stretch of the imagination. HOWEVER - in all honesty, were Reagan to run today, he would ABSOLUTELY NOT win a republican nomination.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy

Who is online