Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree2Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old September 9th, 2011, 01:51 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 92
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 4
Thanked 31 Times in 18 Posts
Default Reaganomics


keale18 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to keale18 For This Useful Post:
multanii (September 9th, 2011)
sponsored links
Old September 9th, 2011, 10:37 AM   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,716
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,255 Times in 484 Posts
Default

To be fair that was 30 years ago. How about something newer.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/cw/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Reaganomics.jpg
RiverOfIce is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2011, 07:15 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Urolagnia is not my cup of tea, but what John Boehner does with consenting adults in privacy is not my concern. I must say Mr. Boehner must have an extensive estate.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2011, 08:02 PM   #4 (permalink)
One bite at a time...
 
Martimus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 'neath a cactus
Posts: 19,513
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx HD (ICS 4.1.2), Motorola XOOM (ICS 4.1.1), HP TouchPad (CM 9), ASUS Infinity (JB 4.2
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,906
Thanked 4,023 Times in 2,408 Posts
martimus98
Default

Personally I think this one says it all...



In hindsight it seems to be the other side of the coin...
__________________
Yea though I walk through the Valley of Google I shall fear no Apple...

Advice provided comes from fellow Android enthusiasts. We're not tech support. Please do your due dilligence before implementing! And if someone helped you, please share the love with the button...
Martimus is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Martimus For This Useful Post:
Frisco (September 9th, 2011)
Old September 9th, 2011, 09:11 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martimus View Post
Personally I think this one says it all...
At least Obama has indoor plumbing.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2011, 03:51 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Columbia, SC
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,051
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, HTC One, Nexus 4, HTC One S, iToy (iPhone)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 34
Thanked 263 Times in 179 Posts
Default

Having grown up during reaganomics.... I saw things get worse, not better.

It's been established that giving rich people more money does not mean they will spend it.
What did happen was the opposite... they got more money and they saved it because they knew the next administration would take some of it back.
LoyalServant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2011, 12:20 AM   #7 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 104
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 2
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Giving money to the poor ... does that encourage them to work more? Seems like giving money to anyone is a failure. Just give it to me!
jancat is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jancat For This Useful Post:
Snow_Fox (December 2nd, 2011)
Old December 1st, 2011, 01:27 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jancat View Post
Giving money to the poor ... does that encourage them to work more? Seems like giving money to anyone is a failure. Just give it to me!
No problem, if your name is Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, etc.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 08:20 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,498
 
Device(s): Lg Optimus G HTC Flyer
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 124
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Well when you objectively look at the situation..

Giving money to anyone is really "unfair" as a whole. Your rewarding failure.

With that said, I do understand some people are in bad situations and either made mistakes.. or they just never had the opportunity that other people had.

I am not against helping out people who want to do better in life. I am against helping people who only want a free hand out.. and it isn't always so easy to tell the two apart..

The problem with all of these ideologies is that they take from tax payers who are earning money.. and they are giving the money to either

A. companies that are failing.. Which screws up our whole economy because businesses are rewarded for failing.

B. People who may or may not be trying to do something with their lives.

Also.. I believe we need to do something about our college system.. What other business is drilled into your head from age 5 in kindergarden?

I believe college is a great thing.. I've learned a lot from it.. Hell more than you can put down on a piece of paper that I may not get (degree.)

A lot of the degrees however, are out right pointless.. Sure it is nice to have the paper so a company can hire you.. but, you don't walk out any better because of it..

EX: general studies degrees..
Or my favorite.. "business management"..
__________________
Sent form my Xarmor U9BL using My Fingers!
Snow_Fox is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2011, 03:29 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

I always think that its far better provide people with free or cheap services rather then handouts of money. Healthcare, childcare, education etcetera.
Mind you I was never for foodstamps, seem kind of demeaning, but thats just me.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 23rd, 2012, 10:31 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow_Fox View Post
Well when you objectively look at the situation..

Giving money to anyone is really "unfair" as a whole. Your rewarding failure.

With that said, I do understand some people are in bad situations and either made mistakes.. or they just never had the opportunity that other people had.

I am not against helping out people who want to do better in life. I am against helping people who only want a free hand out.. and it isn't always so easy to tell the two apart..

The problem with all of these ideologies is that they take from tax payers who are earning money.. and they are giving the money to either

A. companies that are failing.. Which screws up our whole economy because businesses are rewarded for failing.

B. People who may or may not be trying to do something with their lives.

Also.. I believe we need to do something about our college system.. What other business is drilled into your head from age 5 in kindergarden?

I believe college is a great thing.. I've learned a lot from it.. Hell more than you can put down on a piece of paper that I may not get (degree.)

A lot of the degrees however, are out right pointless.. Sure it is nice to have the paper so a company can hire you.. but, you don't walk out any better because of it..

EX: general studies degrees..
Or my favorite.. "business management"..
Reward the second best, ignore the best

"New research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests reasons why the richest should pay more tax; why rewarding the top performers leads to recurrent crises and scandals; and why we should resist the temptation to learn from and imitate the most successful."
saptech likes this.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2012, 07:33 AM   #12 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Beginning over 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to go for it, to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.

Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started, a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women.

The days of everyone having a comfortable middle class life were over. America, from now on, would be run this way: The super-rich will make more, much much more, and the rest of you will scramble for the crumbs that are left.

* Everyone must work! Mom, Dad, the teenagers in the house! Dad, you work a second job! Kids, here's your latch-key! Your parents might be home in time to put you to bed.
* 50 million of you must go without health insurance! And health insurance companies: you go ahead and decide who you want to help or not.
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner.
* You want to go to college? No problem, just sign here and be in hock to a bank for the next 20 years!
* What's "a raise"? Get back to work and shut up!
OutofDate1980 likes this.
__________________
Like it is...Yusef Lateef
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2012, 09:52 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
...
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner. ...
Can't have the serfs attempting to counter crony capitalism.

Paul Abrams: Romney to Bain: Bail Me Out and Lie About It

Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars

But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.

That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms

When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.

But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."

This is the man who wrote "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."

Is this Romney's model of capitalism?

Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?

Or just himself?
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2012, 11:01 PM   #14 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Mitt Romney’s Vulture Capitalism as the New Model for US Capitalism | Robert Lindsay
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 01:48 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

The turtle vs the hare ?

Canada v the US: we're richer, but it's an empty kind of victory | Douglas Haddow | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

"Just in time for the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812, Canada is now, for the first time in history, wealthier than the United States. Over the last five years, the average Canadian's net worth has gradually overtaken that of the average American's, to the tune of an extra $40,000 dollars per household."

"Regardless of the reason, Canadians truly believe that our social democracy-lite is fundamentally better than the man-bites-dog-Superpac-devours-man market democracy of the US.

And now, it seems it's also more profitable. It wasn't too long ago that Canada was being routinely denounced by US politicos as "Soviet Canuckistan", and held up as a frightful example of what the US would look like if liberalism were allowed to run amok. We haven't heard much of that since 2008. The triumph of the Canadian system over America's spelled out in the cold truth of dollar signs picks up where the war of 1812 left off. After 200 years of graceful acrimony, the Canadian standard has at last proven to be the superior of the two systems."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Canada's veered to the right of late, their environmental policy is shameful and they are heavily lobbying authorities over here. I really doubt you could describe it as very social-democratic, but sure what harm.
Canada has the advantage of high resource prices and a strong currency too, so its not surprising. But whatever about net worth, far more importantly, the Canadians have had a better standard of living even while they were "poorer", because their economy is fairer and better managed.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Last edited by ElasticNinja; July 18th, 2012 at 04:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 05:28 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

You mean Canada is not paradise. It does appear it has a less corrupt government, so maybe different views will be considered concerning the externalities of the extraction industry.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2012, 11:24 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Can't have the serfs attempting to counter crony capitalism.

Paul Abrams: Romney to Bain: Bail Me Out and Lie About It

Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars

But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.

That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms

When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.

But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."

This is the man who wrote "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."

Is this Romney's model of capitalism?

Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?

Or just himself?
You guys should post this stuff in the Romney v Obama thread, I feel like a lot of discussion about the same central topic has spilled into a lot of different places.
__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2012, 09:24 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
... Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started, a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women. ...
It's interesting Reagan ran with the slogan, "Government is not the solution, but the problem." Our government, in theory, is a government of "We the People", so Reagan sold us that "We" are the problem. The plutocrats then took over, which led to our current state.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2012, 11:42 PM   #20 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Can't have the serfs attempting to counter crony capitalism.
DOJ Will Not Prosecute Goldman Sachs in Financial Crisis Probe. Looks like Government Sachs made good on their investment in Obama.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 10th, 2012, 12:15 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Sorry, the laws that made this activity legal was enacted way before Obama's time, like starting in the Reagan era. It was called deregulation.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 09:35 AM   #22 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Sorry, the laws that made this activity legal was enacted way before Obama's time, like starting in the Reagan era. It was called deregulation.
Deregulation didn't start in the Reagan era. Besides, the deregulation most cited for leading up to the 2008 banking crisis was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 that did away with Glass-Steagall, etc.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 12:43 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Deregulation didn't start in the Reagan era. Besides, the deregulation most cited for leading up to the 2008 banking crisis was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 that did away with Glass-Steagall, etc.
The financial deregulation by Congress started with Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. This is the time frame when the financial unregulated unfettered free markets con was bought by the country. The gamblers received the payout for their winning bets and the taxpayers paid the marker for the losses.

Here's a timeline.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 01:45 PM   #24 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
The financial deregulation by Congress started with Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. This is the time frame when the financial unregulated unfettered free markets con was bought by the country. The gamblers received the payout for their winning bets and the taxpayers paid the marker for the losses.

Here's a timeline.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
Fair enough, but it also undermines the notion of deregulation "starting in the Reagan era."
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 02:26 PM   #25 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

The Screwed Election: Wall Street Can’t Lose, and America Can’t Win - Everyone hates the big banks—except the two candidates running for president.

Quote:
Think of this: despite taking office in the midst of a massive financial meltdown, Obama’s administration has not prosecuted a single heavy-hitter among those responsible for the financial crisis. To the contrary, he’s staffed his team with big bankers and their allies. Under the Bush-Obama bailouts the big financial institutions have feasted like pigs at the trough, with the six largest banks borrowing almost a half trillion dollars from uncle Ben Bernanke’s printing press. In 2013 the top four banks controlled more than 40 percent of the credit markets in the top 10 states—up by 10 percentage points from 2009 and roughly twice their share in 2000. Meantime, small banks, usually the ones serving Main Street businesses, have taken the hit along with the rest of us with more than 300 folding since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the industry-approved bill to “reform” the industry.

Yet past the occasional election-year bout of symbolic class warfare, the oligarchs have little to fear from an Obama victory.
.
.
.
In a sane world, one would expect Republicans to run against this consolidation of power, that has taxpayers propping up banks that invest vast amounts in backing the campaigns of the lawmakers who levy those taxes. The party would appeal to grassroots capitalists, investors, small banks and their customers who feel excluded from the Washington-sanctioned insiders' game. The popular appeal is there. The Tea Party, of course, began as a response against TARP.

Instead, the party nominated a Wall Street patrician, Mitt Romney, whose idea of populism seems to be donning a well-pressed pair of jeans and a work shirt.

Romney himself is so clueless as to be touting his strong fund-raising with big finance. His top contributors list reads something like a rogue’s gallery from the 2008 crash: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citicorp, and Barclays. If Obama’s Hollywood friends wanted to find a perfect candidate to play the role of out-of-touch-Wall Street grandee, they could do worse than casting Mitt.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 03:30 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Fair enough, but it also undermines the notion of deregulation "starting in the Reagan era."
The 1980 Act allowed S&L's to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction), i.e. commercial loans, the Tax Reform Act of 1981 gave huge tax incentives for real-estate investment, thus the boom and bust with the taxpayer picking up the tab, as these riskier loan weren't segregated from FDIC insurance.

The Glass Steagall Act was gutted way before the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act .
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 03:48 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

This article highlights one of the problems of wealth concentration as the politicians must rely on a narrow group to finance elections.

Given the choice between one or the other, which party has a better chance of being forced to change this status-quo ?
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 03:55 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Fair enough, but it also undermines the notion of deregulation "starting in the Reagan era."
To be fair to out of date, his reference to deregulation seemed to be with regard to the financial system. Cutting regulation is often to be commended, I guess carter as a medium sized business owner had first hand experiences.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 04:09 PM   #29 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Given the choice between one or the other, which party has a better chance of being forced to change this status-quo ?
That's a good question. Honestly I think Romney being a wall street type guy is better positioned to be able to make a change in a Nixon goes to China sort of way. But so far I don't see any daylight between him and Obama when it comes to coddling the big banks so I wouldn't bet on it.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 04:34 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
That's a good question. Honestly I think Romney being a wall street type guy is better positioned to be able to make a change in a Nixon goes to China sort of way. But so far I don't see any daylight between him and Obama when it comes to coddling the big banks so I wouldn't bet on it.
Well the Democrats are supporting the approval of the Volcker Rule and the Republicans are attempting roll-back Dodd-Frank, so I see some daylight between the two.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 10th, 2012, 04:40 PM   #31 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Republicans are attempting roll-back Dodd-Frank
You say that like it is a bad thing. Dodd-Frank is a sop to big banks, enshrining and expanding the concept of Too-Big-To-Fail.
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 05:30 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
You say that like it is a bad thing. Dodd-Frank is a sop to big banks, enshrining and expanding the concept of Too-Big-To-Fail.
How so ?
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 08:45 PM   #33 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
How so ?
Dodd-Frank's Too-Big-to-Fail Dystopia:

Quote:
The capital markets are not populated by fools. When the council has declared that a firm is "systemically important"—that its failure poses a threat to U.S. financial stability—the U.S. government is effectively saying that it will do whatever it takes to prevent the firm from failing. This means that a loan to a "systemically important" institution is going to be safer than a loan to a smaller competitor without that designation.

This is not speculation. The banking industry is already made up of a host of smaller banks and a few huge banks that are widely considered too big to fail—and the biggest banks have a lower cost of funds than their small competitors, as Thomas Hoenig (then of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, now of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and others have shown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thanks to their government backing, also had advantageous funding, so much so that they drove even the biggest banks from much of mortgage market.

In testimony last week to a House subcommittee, MetLife executive William Wheeler put it clearly: "A SIFI designation would be the federal government's signal that we are indeed 'too big to fail,' and that if we got into financial trouble, federal funds would be used to rescue the firm. The implicit backing of the federal government could strengthen perceptions of our creditworthiness and may give us a significantly cheaper cost of funds than our peers."
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 11:23 PM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so couldn't read the full article. I take it you believe Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough, such as breaking up the big banks ?
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 10:43 AM   #35 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 292
 
Device(s): Samsung GS3
Carrier: T-Mobile (US)

Thanks: 8
Thanked 44 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Another article from yesterday on Forbes regarding Dodd-Frank and too big to fail:

Too Big To Fail Has Become a Permanent Bailout Program
cjr72 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2012, 07:01 PM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72 View Post
Another article from yesterday on Forbes regarding Dodd-Frank and too big to fail:

Too Big To Fail Has Become a Permanent Bailout Program
One way to correct TBTF is to break-up these systemically risky institutions, but don't see it happening as TBTF institutions have too much political/money clout.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2012, 06:41 AM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,365
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

My minor in economics is going insane right now.

Reaganomics actually works but it takes much longer. By stimulating the supply side (companies), by either lowering the fed rate, buying of bonds, or lowering the required ratio you allow banks to have more money to loan out. But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.

Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2012, 06:42 PM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
My minor in economics is going insane right now.

Reaganomics actually works
So does running motor vehicles on coal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
By stimulating the supply side (companies), by either lowering the fed rate, buying of bonds, or lowering the required ratio you allow banks to have more money to loan out. But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.
You can have a credit fueled boom while keeping a GINI coefficient of 25. Trickle down did little more than zero for growth while slashing future economic prospects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.

Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
Wat
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #39 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf
My minor in economics is going insane right now.

Reaganomics actually works
Yep, it worked for the rich...
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2012, 11:42 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
... But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.

Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
Yep those government surpluses and low unemployment just ruined the country, good thing the country or I mean Supreme Court put Bush in.

Don't bogart that joint.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Last edited by OutofDate1980; August 17th, 2012 at 12:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old August 16th, 2012, 11:49 PM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,365
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
Yep, it worked for the rich...
Show your work.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 12:16 AM   #42 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
Show your work.
The wealthiest individuals in the country went from paying about 70% in taxes to approximately 28% in taxes.


However tax rates for people in lower income taxes rose, suggesting that the little guy and poorer people were not benefiting from Reaganomics. With fewer government programs, fewer resources were available to the poor.

Reaganomics removed safeguards from industries which increased corporate greed.

What Was Reaganomics?
saptech is offline  
Last edited by saptech; August 17th, 2012 at 12:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 12:36 AM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CO
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,365
 
Device(s): GS3, Note 10.1
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 4
Thanked 129 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Now I understand. You have the philosophy you make more money than me so you should pay more in taxes. Quite the silly way to look at things. I looked up what tax bracket I would have been in right after the Reagan era tax cuts. Screw the poor if I have to give up half my income that I worked so hard to get. I make six figures but that was only after getting shot for five years as an infantryman, then spending the next few years in a engineering college barely getting by on my GI Bill (that I paid for to receive), and then getting sent back to the same awful countries to show them how to extract their oil. I deserve everything I get.

You may find this hard to believe but no corporation pays income tax. Yes, you will say the corporate income tax is XX% but that doesn't matter as a corporation will merely raise their prices to make up the difference.

With a third of the country on some form of welfare now I think cutting government programs might be the best idea. If people are no longer being taken care of they find other means to support themselves.
TJGoSurf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 12:46 AM   #44 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Did you volunteer for the military or were you drafted? If you volunteered, then you shouldn't be complaining.

Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits.

By the wealthy paying more in taxes was healthy for the country as a whole. It seems to have changed during the Reagan years.

Maybe we shouldn't cut programs but sort out the deadbeats from it.
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 03:32 AM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJGoSurf View Post
Now I understand. You have the philosophy you make more money than me so you should pay more in taxes. Quite the silly way to look at things. I looked up what tax bracket I would have been in right after the Reagan era tax cuts. Screw the poor if I have to give up half my income that I worked so hard to get. I make six figures but that was only after getting shot for five years as an infantryman, then spending the next few years in a engineering college barely getting by on my GI Bill (that I paid for to receive), and then getting sent back to the same awful countries to show them how to extract their oil. I deserve everything I get.

You may find this hard to believe but no corporation pays income tax. Yes, you will say the corporate income tax is XX% but that doesn't matter as a corporation will merely raise their prices to make up the difference.

With a third of the country on some form of welfare now I think cutting government programs might be the best idea. If people are no longer being taken care of they find other means to support themselves.
I served in an earlier period, pay was lower, but if you survived, benefits were better. You might want to look into price elasticity and product substitution. The last President that served in the regular military was Carter.

G.I. Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the funding levels increased, the numbers of veterans entering higher education rose correspondingly. In 1976, ten years after the first veterans became eligible, the highest number of Vietnam-era veterans were enrolled in colleges and universities. By the end of the program, proportionally more Vietnam-era veterans (6.8 million out of 10.3 million eligible) had used their benefits for higher education than any previous generation of veterans.[citation needed]

Contrary to some stereotypes of Vietnam veterans, most who served in Vietnam used their benefits to construct productive and successful lives after service.[citation needed] Education benefits during the Vietnam era did not have the same impact on higher education as the original 1944 Bill because higher education had become much more commonplace in America.[citation needed] But the G.I. Bills of this period did have a similarly positive impact on the lives of the beneficiaries.[citation needed]
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2012, 05:42 PM   #46 (permalink)
Member
 
PH8AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 327
 
Device(s): Transform Ultra rooted running Ultrarom and BobzHome oc kernal.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 100
Thanked 70 Times in 49 Posts
Default

You really should call it Republicanomics. They've been following a pretty consistent game plan since Nixon opened China. Maximize their profits by moving their companies to the 3rd world.

The result is most of us now have service jobs and vey few Americans make a product any more. Pay has hardly went up and Corporations are raking in Billions.

The banks are doing their best to unreg
++ulatedly take what little we get.

Our Olympic Athlete were wearing uniforms made in China.

Reagan personally destroyed my city. It was on his watch we lost the industrial base of our country to the Chinese.

Not to mention he personally went after hemp and was the guy behind a lot of the miss information. And now we spend Billions of $$$ every year to keep people from growing a crop with wide industrial uses. Just the Pot trade alone is a $7,000,000,000 a year industry that already exists in our country. We are getting screwed out of the Tax money from it.

Thank you Mr. Reagan. I wish I believed in hell so I could mean it when I say I hope you rot there.
PH8AL is offline  
Last edited by PH8AL; August 17th, 2012 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2012, 04:58 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PH8AL View Post
You really should call it Republicanomics. They've been following a pretty consistent game plan since Nixon opened China. Maximize their profits by moving their companies to the 3rd world.
The result is most of us now have service jobs and vey few Americans make a product any more. Pay has hardly went up and Corporations are raking in Billions.

The banks are doing their best to unreg
++ulatedly take what little we get.

Our Olympic Athlete were wearing uniforms made in China.

Reagan personally destroyed my city. It was on his watch we lost the industrial base of our country to the Chinese.

Thank you Mr. Reagan. I wish I believed in hell so I could mean it when I say I hope you rot there.
I'm sorry but none of this has anything to do with Republicans or Reagan.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2012, 05:10 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
I'm sorry but none of this has anything to do with Republicans or Reagan.
I disagree. Poster is giving views of the results of Reaganomics, even if poster prefers the term "Republicanomics", which is a valid point as the Republican party claims they adhere to this alleged "philosophy".
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2012, 06:03 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
I disagree. Poster is giving views of the results of Reaganomics, even if poster prefers the term "Republicanomics", which is a valid point as the Republican party claims they adhere to this alleged "philosophy".
Well protectionism used to be a Republican policy, although now its their opposites who are somewhat more so,, never worked too well for anyone.

Without foreign competition the quality of stuff in America would be crap. Your food doesnt seem to be effected though (corn lawl).
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2012, 06:29 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Well protectionism used to be a Republican policy, although now its their opposites who are somewhat more so,, never worked too well for anyone.

Without foreign competition the quality of stuff in America would be crap. Your food doesnt seem to be effected though (corn lawl).
Well we just modified the practice and terminology to the new and improved import quotas.

Monsanto is busy turning our food into genetic modified crap.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.