Doer
Well-Known Member
The usual false trade off of politics. Somehow now, Reagan was for gay rights? Or do you tribute Reagan for all that came after him?
That's OK. Clinton does that. Obama will. Just Politics.
Obamas Approval Rating Hits New Low, 41%, in Poll
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
That's OK. Clinton does that. Obama will. Just Politics.
Doer
Well-Known Member
This is not the same economy. That's politics. That is static supply side, trickle down, or worse Kenysian (govt saves???? for a rainy day...but no saving...just DEBT)
So, the fake of this world is we tell the children the lie that this is still the village life of 10,000 years. It is not. Village life means the problems of every generation are simple and more or less the same, as the 100s of years roll by.
Now with Cell Phones, there is almost no one in this world in the ancient, changeless way of Village Life. Somewhat suddenly for the first time in History, Parents are far, far behind the children, in every way. We have kids born in 2000, who parents are helpless in terms of preparing them. The world is that different now, and moving more swifty.
So, in real Economics, Nash rules. And Nash proved, it is about growth. And in growth along with Tech, things are different.
Now, Buck. I know it was your nap time.
But, under Carter, our economy tanked. You didn't know this? The Great Society and the Moral Majority, sacked the old economy.
Home loans were 22% if you get it. Inflation was double digit. The world compared us to Argentina. The milk toast, un-emplyment rate was over 10%.
So when did you fall on your head, to think the economy was better before Reagan ?
Carter killed the economy that had been suffering since the Welfare State was created under Johnson.
It took Reagan and then Clinton, to pull us out of the madness carried forward from the one term of FDR. From FDR as the craze rolled forward, one result 10% or our parking is Handicap. And they are EMPTY!
Another result is the constant jacking of health care. Not FDRs fault. It is just the unintended consequences of those that would be President.
The old economy before Reagan was bad. Reagan pull the interest rates down, the employment rate way up, much better than Obama has. He leaned so hard on the Soviet, it collapsed. (Putin does not forgive us for that)
But, Reagan allowed some deep set barbs to stay from the DEMs (as did Bush), and tripled down on the War of Drugs. And that wreaked the new economy.
Buck....don't be so wrong. I want you to look better than that.
A real, and growing economy with real and growing automation is a new economy every few years. It is a bigger pie and new divisions, per Nashian Theory.
Politics is always just politics.
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
Yep, before all you Liberal pukes started your progressive nonsense and half of Mexico/Central and South america starting polluting the US.
Doer
Well-Known Member
2 fold increase in Debt
“Since George Washington, presidents have embraced public debt as an investment in America's future.”
Ronald Reagan:
Start of presidency 1981: US National Debt $997.8 billion
End of presidency 1989: US National Debt $2.1 trillion
Ten fold increase in Debt.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Start of presidency 1933: US National Debt $22.5 billion
End of presidency 1945: US National Debt $258.5 billion
“Since George Washington, presidents have embraced public debt as an investment in America's future.”
Ronald Reagan:
Start of presidency 1981: US National Debt $997.8 billion
End of presidency 1989: US National Debt $2.1 trillion
Ten fold increase in Debt.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Start of presidency 1933: US National Debt $22.5 billion
End of presidency 1945: US National Debt $258.5 billion
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wow doer, that's some deep shit.
who would have thought that the president who led us through WWmotherfuckingII would have increased the debt more than old ronnie?
and from what i understand from your posts, he did it all in TWO terms.
i don't think any of us would expect debt to go up by any significant amount during a war, whether it be the civil war, WWI, WWII, or other.
you truly are a goddamn visionary, bro.
who would have thought that the president who led us through WWmotherfuckingII would have increased the debt more than old ronnie?
and from what i understand from your posts, he did it all in TWO terms.
i don't think any of us would expect debt to go up by any significant amount during a war, whether it be the civil war, WWI, WWII, or other.
you truly are a goddamn visionary, bro.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Are you serious with that pollution bit? Anyone who comes here and works is good people, to work for the better is very, dare I say it, American.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
“Since George Washington, presidents have embraced public debt as an investment in America's future.”wow doer, that's some deep shit.
who would have thought that the president who led us through WWmotherfuckingII would have increased the debt more than old ronnie?
and from what i understand from your posts, he did it all in TWO terms.
i don't think any of us would expect debt to go up by any significant amount during a war, whether it be the civil war, WWI, WWII, or other.
you truly are a goddamn visionary, bro.
Why ignore my lead in quote, bro? I look at it like these two got shit done. You can only pretend I take sides.
The others on the list, only did some percent increase.
Remember, (and I know you cannot possible read all my drivel and I applaud you for trying,) I have said time and again we owe most of our debt to ourselves. So, a President either guides big initiative like war and vast social change or they were not so lucky, to spend big money.
Truman increased the debt somewhat investing in Japan, good job. Eisenhower.....what did he do? And the debt barely increased.
It has never stopped, this lending to ourselves. Why should it. The opportunities change is all. But, I look at it this way.
As Nashian Theory predicts, the world pie is getting bigger and bigger. But the rate of that change is not consistent. And it is a fractal, in that it reflects all the way do through the various hierarchy into the family.
Spotty pie growing indeed.
Some do better than other, some excel, others sicken in many ways.It is a fractal of make bigger, make more from the wide to narrow. That is because there is no world. Only families and generations and various forms of rule.Debt to ourselves is investing in the future.
But, it has been used as a club by both parties to fool some of the people all of the time.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
My point was better or worse, our actions have consequences. I bet we really piss off many of those arab countries for not treating them like they would. Or how Japan's parliament disrespects Obama for his skin color alone. But that's ok, we need to trade with them, and that gives them a pass. So they're allowed to be sexist or racist. While Russia is our fellow comrads in sexism and racism, where they need to atone for their sins.
Doer
Well-Known Member
So, no one can disallow the other country, anything very easy. And each country has significance, but not hardly, are all the same.
Kuwait vs Crimea
Korea vs Viet Nam
Same move, different outcome.
All the foreign players are in our politics. We want them to spend money arming up, spend money disarming, lose money in dsarray at every turn. They want that for us. Nashian Theory warfare. It is natual and happens by itself.
We seems so weak on the outside....ask Haark.
But, what we are, is summed up by Sun Tsu. Marshy Ground. We can't be understood, we have no leaders but crazy old us. No family dynasty to study, always new, and confusing. They only think we are weak.Marshy Ground - Lure him on and tire him out. Sun Tsu