Tear Down This Myth - The Reagan Legacy Distortes Our Politics & Haunts Our Future
Immortalist
held up as heroes, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, reverence
for Reagan did not emerge organically. Rather, the GOP hatched the
Reagan myth, feeding it to the news media for purposes that were
essentially partisan in nature... pulling off a maneuver that was
unprecedented in American history. The result has been a simplified
reconstruction of Reagan, from far from universally popular president
to the man who ended the Cold War and spurred unprecedented economic
growth.
The Ronald Reagan who won the cold war, cut taxes, shrank the
government, saved the economy, and was the most beloved president
since FDR is a myth. The cold war fizzled out primarily because of
Soviet economic collapse. Reagan cut taxes just once, in 1991, and
thereafter raised them yearly. He vastly expanded the government and
burdened the economy with enormous deficits. Moreover, his approval
ratings were just average, reflecting his divisiveness as a political
figure.
http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Distorted/dp/B002PJ4GEK/
The Death of Conservatism
The contemporary Right defines itself less by what it yearns to
conserve than by what it longs to destroy
Pragmatic Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have usurped
the Republicans' once winning focus on social stability.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Conservatism-Sam-Tanenhaus/dp/1400068843/
tooly
And you are a radical socialist...right? Marxist perhaps?
Ok comrade. I'm sure you seeing things clearly. Without agenda, bias
etc.
Bret Cahill
> conserve than by what it longs to destroy
BINGO!
'nuff said.
Bret Cahill
Phlip
> On Dec 23, 9:55 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Reagan myth is dangerous because, unlike other American presidents
> > held up as heroes, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, reverence
> > for Reagan did not emerge organically. Rather, the GOP hatched the
> > Reagan myth, feeding it to the news media for purposes that were
> > essentially partisan in nature...
> And you are a radical socialist...right? Marxist perhaps?
> Ok comrade. I'm sure you seeing things clearly. Without agenda, bias
> etc.
Part of Reagan's ability to generate his myth, during his miserable
term, was exploiting rhetoric like that, even during times when
someone ranting about "commies under my bed" would have been
considered a head case, not a professional TV spokesdouche.
But now let's hear all about how Carter caused the Oil Embargo in the
early 70s, how he appeased terrorists, how he increased dependence on
foreign oil, and how Reagan won the Cold War by defeating that evil
communist, Mikhail Gorbachev...
Phlip
Bush Jr's presidency - the worst in US history - is full of reckless
decisions that made no logical sense, even as sabotage.
But all his terrible decisions can be completely understood as an
attempt to top the Reagan Myth...
Not Sure
> The Reagan myth is dangerous because, unlike other American presidents
> held up as heroes, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, reverence
> for Reagan did not emerge organically. Rather, the GOP hatched the
> Reagan myth, feeding it to the news media for purposes that were
> essentially partisan in nature... pulling off a maneuver that was
> unprecedented in American history. The result has been a simplified
> reconstruction of Reagan, from far from universally popular president
> to the man who ended the Cold War and spurred unprecedented economic
> growth.
>
> The Ronald Reagan who won the cold war, cut taxes, shrank the
> government, saved the economy, and was the most beloved president
> since FDR is a myth. The cold war fizzled out primarily because of
> Soviet economic collapse. Reagan cut taxes just once, in 1991,
How exactly did Reagan cut taxes after his term was over, dipshit? The
next time you decide to lie because you can't stand how successful
Reagan was in saving the country once the dipshit left had nearly
destroyed it in the late seventies, at least try for facts.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Reagan myth is dangerous because, unlike other American presidents
>> held up as heroes, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, reverence
>> for Reagan did not emerge organically. Rather, the GOP hatched the
>> Reagan myth, feeding it to the news media for purposes that were
>> essentially partisan in nature... pulling off a maneuver that was
>> unprecedented in American history. The result has been a simplified
>> reconstruction of Reagan, from far from universally popular president
>> to the man who ended the Cold War and spurred unprecedented economic
>> growth.
>>
>> The Ronald Reagan who won the cold war, cut taxes, shrank the
>> government, saved the economy, and was the most beloved president since
>> FDR is a myth. The cold war fizzled out primarily because of Soviet
>> economic collapse. Reagan cut taxes just once, in 1991,
>
> How exactly did Reagan cut taxes after his term was over, dipshit? The
> next time you decide to lie because you can't stand how successful
> Reagan was in saving the country once the dipshit left had nearly
> destroyed it in the late seventies, at least try for facts.
Looks like a typo to me. He -did- move to cut taxes once, in 1981, and
then raised them several times in subsequent years, including one of the
biggest single tax hikes in history once it became obvious that trickle-
down economics was an unmitigated disaster.
Monsieur Turtoni
Unless you're a fan of the government sticking their noses into
everything, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about your man Obama.
But you've chosen your side for now and will stick through it thick
and thin.
Seems odd though, that you support big government. Really odd.
Although you probably get more "action" talking the touchy feely... ;)
James A. Donald
> The Ronald Reagan who won the cold war, cut taxes,
> shrank the government, saved the economy, and was the
> most beloved president since FDR is a myth. The cold
> war fizzled out primarily because of Soviet economic
> collapse.
When Reagan was running in the primaries, he proposed to
cause a Soviet economic collapse by tying them down in
an arms race they could not afford, and more wars than
they could afford. His language as president was more
circumspect, but he proceeded to do pretty much what he
told the voters in the primaries that he was going to
do.
> Reagan cut taxes just once, in 1991, and thereafter
> raised them yearly. He vastly expanded the government
> and burdened the economy with enormous deficits.
The legislature spends money, and the Democrats created
the enormous deficits - back then in the same way as
they have been doing now, starting in 2006.
Fred Weiss
> When Reagan was running in the primaries, he proposed to
> cause a Soviet economic collapse by tying them down in
> an arms race they could not afford, and more wars than
> they could afford. His language as president was more
> circumspect, but he proceeded to do pretty much what he
> told the voters in the primaries that he was going to
> do.
It will be argued for generations how much Reagan contributed to the
collapse of communism.
I think his *moral* stance, e.g. "the evil empire" and "tear down this
Wall", was his most important contribution. It took away any remnant
of moral posturing which communism and its apologists continued to
proclaim. That and the sapping of the Soviet economy in Afghanistan.
It was their "Vietnam" with the difference that they couldn't afford
it.
Once all the pretense about communism being some kind of superior
system evaporated and the dissatisfaction of its subjects could no
longer be suppressed, it collapsed - amazingly just imploded with
hardly any resistance.
The ending of the cold war was possibly the most important Reagan
legacy and it gave a tremendous boost to Clinton, enabling him to
spend much less on defense. That and a Republican congress restraining
him (particularly the defeat of HillaryCare) was the major contributor
to the economic boom of the 90's. The tax CUTS of 1997 gave it one
last euphoric push, sending the DJIA and the NASDQ to all time new
highs.
In the meantime, Clinton could spend much of his time getting blowjobs
in the Oval Office and trying to figure out what "is" is. In
retrospect and in comparison to the goosestepping of Obama and his
Wrecking Crew it all now seems so relatively benign (if we can ignore
the relative passivity in dealing with rising Islam militancy which
would soon explode in our face).
Fred Weiss
Zerkon
> The Ronald Reagan who operated under a 'mandate'...
3877
> On Dec 24, 2:25 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> When Reagan was running in the primaries, he proposed to
>> cause a Soviet economic collapse by tying them down in
>> an arms race they could not afford, and more wars than
>> they could afford. His language as president was more
>> circumspect, but he proceeded to do pretty much what he
>> told the voters in the primaries that he was going to
>> do.
>
> It will be argued for generations how much Reagan contributed to the
> collapse of communism.
>
> I think his *moral* stance, e.g. "the evil empire" and "tear down this
> Wall", was his most important contribution. It took away any remnant
> of moral posturing which communism and its apologists continued to proclaim.
What Raygun did had absolutely no effect whatever on that, essentially
because fools like that were always ignored by fools like that.
> That and the sapping of the Soviet economy in Afghanistan.
That had nothing to do with Raygun policy wise.
> It was their "Vietnam" with the difference that they couldn't afford
> it.
That is not what brought the end of the USSR.
> Once all the pretense about communism being some kind of superior
> system evaporated
That had nothing to do with anything Raygun did.
and the dissatisfaction of its subjects could no
> longer be suppressed, it collapsed - amazingly just imploded with
> hardly any resistance.
Yes, but that had absolutely nothing to do with anything Raygun did.
What it took was someone like Gorbachev who decided that it
made absolutely no sense to send in the tanks to the GDR etc.
Even tho he could not prevent that from happening a bit with Latvia etc.
> The ending of the cold war was possibly the most important Reagan
> legacy
But it just happened while he was Prez, it would have happened regardless of who was Prez.
and it gave a tremendous boost to Clinton, enabling him to
> spend much less on defense.
Again, that would have happened even without Raygun.
That and a Republican congress restraining
> him (particularly the defeat of HillaryCare) was the major contributor
> to the economic boom of the 90's. The tax CUTS of 1997 gave it one
> last euphoric push, sending the DJIA and the NASDQ to all time new
> highs.
Again, nothing to do with Raygun.
> In the meantime, Clinton could spend much of his time getting blowjobs
> in the Oval Office and trying to figure out what "is" is. In
> retrospect and in comparison to the goosestepping of Obama and his
> Wrecking Crew it all now seems so relatively benign (if we can ignore
> the relative passivity in dealing with rising Islam militancy which
> would soon explode in our face).
It is very far from clear that he could have done anything about that.
It is completely silly to claim that any US Prez has much effect at all.
Even FDR did not, he could not even get the US to go to war, it took Pearl Harbor to do that.
> Fred Weiss
Michael Coburn
What Regan Miracle:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/
thread/3ffe81aedbc6fd6e/bd57230f2f9321fc?lnk=gst&q=reagan
+miracle#bd57230f2f9321fc
Volcker and recession, along with loans to non OPEC nations, _MADE_ the
1980's what they were. All Reagan and his tax cuts for the rich did was
to create a big pile of debt.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Michael Coburn
> On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Reagan myth is dangerous because, unlike other American presidents
>> held up as heroes, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, reverence
>> for Reagan did not emerge organically. Rather, the GOP hatched the
>> Reagan myth, feeding it to the news media for purposes that were
>> essentially partisan in nature... pulling off a maneuver that was
>> unprecedented in American history. The result has been a simplified
>> reconstruction of Reagan, from far from universally popular president
>> to the man who ended the Cold War and spurred unprecedented economic
>> growth.
>>
>> The Ronald Reagan who won the cold war, cut taxes, shrank the
>> government, saved the economy, and was the most beloved president since
>> FDR is a myth. The cold war fizzled out primarily because of Soviet
>> economic collapse. Reagan cut taxes just once, in 1991,
>
> How exactly did Reagan cut taxes after his term was over, dipshit?
An obvious typo, asshole. It was 1981.
> The
> next time you decide to lie because you can't stand how successful
> Reagan was in saving the country once the dipshit left had nearly
> destroyed it in the late seventies, at least try for facts.
This is typical rightarded debating skills.......
Try this encapsulation on for size, moron:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/
thread/3ffe81aedbc6fd6e/bd57230f2f9321fc?lnk=gst&q=reagan
+miracle#bd57230f2f9321fc
> and
>> thereafter raised them yearly. He vastly expanded the government and
>> burdened the economy with enormous deficits. Moreover, his approval
>> ratings were just average, reflecting his divisiveness as a political
>> figure.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Distorted/dp/B002PJ4GEK/
>>
>> The Death of Conservatism
>>
>> The contemporary Right defines itself less by what it yearns to
>> conserve than by what it longs to destroy
>>
>> Pragmatic Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have usurped the
>> Republicans' once winning focus on social stability.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Death-Conservatism-Sam-Tanenhaus/dp/1400068843/
Michael Coburn
Most true liberals are very supportive of Social Democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Or Democratic Capitalism with more social insurance such as the Canadian
form of Democratic Capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism
Monsieur Turtoni
"In his lectures at the Collège de France, Foucault often defines
governmentality as the "art of government" in a wide sense, i.e. with
an idea of "government" that is not limited to state politics alone,
that includes a wide range of control techniques, and that applies to
a wide variety of objects, from one's control of the self to the
"biopolitical" control of populations. In the work of Foucault, this
notion is indeed linked to other concepts such as biopolitics and
power-knowledge.
The concept of "governmentality" develops a new understanding of
power. Foucault encourages us to think of power not only in terms of
hierarchical, top-down power of the state. He widens our understanding
of power to also include the forms of social control in disciplinary
institutions (schools, hospitals, psychiatric institutions, etc.), as
well as the forms of knowledge. Power can manifest itself positively
by producing knowledge and certain discourses that get internalised by
individuals and guide the behaviour of populations. This leads to more
efficient forms of social control, as knowledge enables individuals to
govern themselves.
"Governmentality" applies to a variety of historical periods and to
different specific power regimes. However, it is often used (by other
scholars and by Foucault himself) in reference to "neoliberal
governmentality", i.e. to a type of governmentality that characterizes
advanced liberal democracies. In this case, the notion of
governmentality refers to societies where power is de-centered and its
members play an active role in their own self-government, e.g. as
posited in neoliberalism. Because of its active role, individuals need
to be regulated from 'inside'. A particular form of governmentality is
characterized by a certain form of knowledge ("savoir" in French). In
the case of neoliberal governmentality (a kind of governmentality
based on the predominance of market mechanisms and of the restriction
of the action of the state) the knowledge produced allows the
construction of auto-regulated or auto-correcting selves.
In his lecture titled Governmentality, Foucault gives us a definition
of governmentality. “1.The ensemble formed by the institutions,
procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics
that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of
power, which has as its target population, as its principal form of
knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means
apparatuses of security. 2. The tendency which, over a long period and
throughout the West, has steadily led towards the pre-eminence over
all other forms (sovereignty, discipline, etc) of this type of power
which may be termed government, resulting, on the one hand, in
formation of a whole series of specific governmental apparatuses, and,
on the other, in the development of a whole complex of savoirs. 3. The
process, or rather the result of the process, through which the state
of justice of the Middle Ages, transformed into the administrative
state during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gradually becomes
‘governmentalized’.” (Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991: 102-103)
As Foucault’s explicit definition is rather broad, perhaps further
examination of this definition would be useful.
We shall begin with a closer inspection of the first part of
Foucault’s definition of governmentality “1.The ensemble formed by the
institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations
and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit
complex form of power, which has as its target population, as its
principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential
technical means apparatuses of security.” (Burchell, Gordon and
Miller, 1991: 102)
This strand of the three-part definition states that governmentality
is, in other words, all of the components that make up a government
that has as its end the maintenance of a well ordered and happy
society (population). The government’s means to this end is its
“apparatuses of security,” that is to say, the techniques it uses to
provide this society a feeling of economic, political, and cultural
well-being. The government achieves these ends by enacting “political
economy,” and in this case, the meaning of economy is the older
definition of the term, that is to say, “economy at the level of the
entire state, which means exercising towards its inhabitants, and the
wealth and behavior of each and all, a form of surveillance and
control as attentive as that of the head of a family over his
household and his goods” (Burchell 92). Thus, we see that this first
part of the definition states that governmentality is a government
with specific ends, means to these ends, and particular practices that
should lead to these ends.
The second part of Foucault’s definition is “2. The tendency which,
over a long period and throughout the West, has steadily led towards
the pre-eminence over all other forms (sovereignty, discipline, etc)
of this type of power which may be termed government, resulting, on
the one hand, in formation of a whole series of specific governmental
apparatuses, and, on the other, in the development of a whole complex
of savoirs.” (Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991: 102-103)
This strand presents governmentality as the long, slow development of
Western governments which eventually took over from forms of
governance like sovereignty and discipline into what it is today:
bureaucracies and the typical methods by which they operate. The next
and last strand of Foucault’s definition of governmentality is “3. The
process, or rather the result of the process, through which the state
of justice of the Middle Ages, transformed into the administrative
state during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gradually becomes
‘governmentalized’.” (Burchell 103) This strand can be restated as the
evolution from the Medieval state, that maintained its territory and
an ordered society within this territory through a blunt practice of
simply imposing its laws upon its subjects, to the early renaissance
state, which became more concerned with the “disposing of
things” (Burchell 95), and so began to employ strategies and tactics
to maintain a content and thus stable society, or in other words to
“render a society governable” (Jones 174).
Thus, if one takes these three strands together, governmentality may
be defined as the process through which a form of government with
specific ends (a happy and stable society), means to these ends
(“apparatuses of security” (Burchell 102)), and with a particular type
of knowledge (“political economy” (Burchell 102)), to achieve these
ends, evolved from a medieval state of justice to a modern
administrative state with complex bureaucracies."
*Anarcissie*
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:25:45 +1000, James A. Donald
>
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >When Reagan was running in the primaries, he proposed to
> >cause a Soviet economic collapse by tying them down in
> >an arms race they could not afford, and more wars than
> >they could afford. His language as president was more
> >circumspect, but he proceeded to do pretty much what he
> >told the voters in the primaries that he was going to
> >do.
>
> Bank of Moscow_! The Russians were financially stretched at the time
> and they had to contend with _new_ challenges to protect their
> sovereignty: stealth fighters and bombers and Star Wars! They had_ no_
> defense against stealth bombers and could no longer protect their
> masses! A defensive umbrella was still 10 to 15 years away and would
> require billions and billions of dollars for research and
> implementation. And then, Star Wars! Now more billions. The result?
> Game Over! The end of the Cold War.
I don't see why. The Soviet Union didn't need primacy
in the arms race; all it needed was a credible deterrent
to an unprovoked first strike by the U.S., which it must
have had, since the U.S. did not attack it.
*Anarcissie*
What does "organically" mean? Holding up presidents as
heroes is not the result of a public-relations job, it _is_
a public relations job. In fact, just as Reagan did not win
the Cold War, neither did FDR end the Depression and
win World War 2, nor did Lincoln win the Civil War and
end slavery. Heroization is a by-product of the human
need to find big dogs, alpha male pack leaders, and
domination in general. Since we are not suited to be
dogs, it is a failing, but we seem to be stuck with it.
Milt
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:48:12 -0800, Not Sure wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> The Reagan myth is dangerous because, unlike other American presidents
> >> held up as heroes, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, reverence
> >> for Reagan did not emerge organically. Rather, the GOP hatched the
> >> Reagan myth, feeding it to the news media for purposes that were
> >> essentially partisan in nature... pulling off a maneuver that was
> >> unprecedented in American history. The result has been a simplified
> >> reconstruction of Reagan, from far from universally popular president
> >> to the man who ended the Cold War and spurred unprecedented economic
> >> growth.
>
> >> The Ronald Reagan who won the cold war, cut taxes, shrank the
> >> government, saved the economy, and was the most beloved president since
> >> FDR is a myth. The cold war fizzled out primarily because of Soviet
> >> economic collapse. Reagan cut taxes just once, in 1991,
>
> > How exactly did Reagan cut taxes after his term was over, dipshit? The
> > next time you decide to lie because you can't stand how successful
> > Reagan was in saving the country once the dipshit left had nearly
> > destroyed it in the late seventies, at least try for facts.
>
> Looks like a typo to me. He -did- move to cut taxes once, in 1981, and
> then raised them several times in subsequent years, including one of the
> biggest single tax hikes in history once it became obvious that trickle-
> down economics was an unmitigated disaster.
The net effect of the Reagan years was a substantial tax cut for the
top 10%, and an increase in taxes for the bottom 80%. Their obsession
with only seeing income taxes, and nothing else, leads them to make
some startlingly ridiculous claims. According to the CBO, in 1980, the
average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%. That's an
increase. And that doesn't include the increased cost to employers.
Not only that, but most middle class families who used to have
deductions lost most of them in favor of a "standard deduction."
I disagree that trickle down was a disaster, though. Reagan got
exactly what he wanted; the rich got to "trickle-down" all over the
poor and middle class.
Rod Speed
Yes.
> which it must have had, since the U.S. did not attack it.
That does not follow, particularly when it was clear that Raygun was
attempting to make the russian deterrence irrelevant with Star Wars,
and they might well have considered that if he could make that work,
that he might be stupid enough to try a first strike.
Rod Speed
They did not lose them, they got a standard deduction.
Milt
Which is what I just said. Are you part parrot?
They lost the deductions. The net effect for most people who
previously had deductions was an increase in income taxes.
Rod Speed
> They lost the deductions.
Another lie.
Milt
Then please explain how tax revenues increased from 17.5% to 18.1% of
GDP between 1986, even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped
from 51% to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
The middle class got hosed.
James A. Donald
> I think his *moral* stance, e.g. "the evil empire" and
> "tear down this Wall", was his most important
> contribution. It took away any remnant of moral
> posturing which communism and its apologists continued
> to proclaim. That and the sapping of the Soviet
> economy in Afghanistan.
We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
war, because they would keep that one war going at a
level they could afford until the next president showed
up, or the president after that. It was necessary to
pile one proxy war on top of another on top of an arm's
race, so that they could only economize by retreating -
and thereby losing the power to terrify the satellite
nations.
> In the meantime, Clinton could spend much of his time
> getting blowjobs in the Oval Office and trying to
> figure out what "is" is. In retrospect and in
> comparison to the goosestepping of Obama and his
> Wrecking Crew it all now seems so relatively benign
> (if we can ignore the relative passivity in dealing
> with rising Islam militancy which would soon explode
> in our face).
Republicans would have been just as passive - indeed
they HAVE been just as passive - observe Hasan being
affirmative actioned to the rank of Major for his jihadi
religion.
Hence the troothers, whose pile of lies rests upon the
grain of truth that the government did indeed let 9/11
happen.
Rod Speed
What is being discussed there is INCOME TAX.
Even someone as stupid as you can see change in INCOME TAX,
mentioned above, from 8.2% DOWN to 6.6%, so you clearly LIED.
> even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped from 51%
> to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
> The middle class got hosed.
Another lie.
Rod Speed
> Fred Weiss wrote
>> I think his *moral* stance, e.g. "the evil empire"
>> and "tear down this Wall", was his most important
>> contribution. It took away any remnant of moral
>> posturing which communism and its apologists
>> continued to proclaim. That and the sapping
>> of the Soviet economy in Afghanistan.
> We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
> war, because they would keep that one war going at a
> level they could afford until the next president showed
> up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
> one proxy war on top of another
Didnt happen. And the US did fuck all 'piling' anyway.
> on top of an arm's race, so that they could only economize by
> retreating - and thereby losing the power to terrify the satellite nations.
Mindlessly superficial.
>> In the meantime, Clinton could spend much of his time
>> getting blowjobs in the Oval Office and trying to
>> figure out what "is" is. In retrospect and in
>> comparison to the goosestepping of Obama and his
>> Wrecking Crew it all now seems so relatively benign
>> (if we can ignore the relative passivity in dealing
>> with rising Islam militancy which would soon explode
>> in our face).
> Republicans would have been just as passive - indeed
> they HAVE been just as passive - observe Hasan being
> affirmative actioned to the rank of Major for his jihadi religion.
> Hence the troothers, whose pile of lies rests upon the grain
> of truth that the government did indeed let 9/11 happen.
Like hell it did.
Milt
That's between 1980 and 1988, you fucking idiot. Meaning that number
is irrelevant to the claim you're trying to make.
>
> > even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped from 51%
> > to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
> > The middle class got hosed.
>
> Another lie.
Then you should have data proving it's a lie.
I told you; taxes went from 17.5% in 1986 to 18% in 1990. How did that
happen when the rich and corporations were seeing huge tax cuts? Do
you have any data that shows that I lied? Or is it just your Reagan-
reactionary knee jerking because you simply can't believe your hero
Reagan hosed you. By the way, did you know Social Security taxes were
increased by more than 50% for pretty much everyone except the rich?
Did you also know that, if the cap on social security taxes was lifted
completely, the tax could be cut by at least 60%, and by increasing
the cap to $500,000, it could be cut in half?
The far right takes money from the poor and working classes and gives
it to the rich. There can be no argument of that.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Star Wars was a complete and utter joke, and here we are, over 25
years on, and it's still a complete and utter joke despite all the
technological advancements since then.
>
Rod Speed
It STILL exposes your LIE, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped from 51%
>>> to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
>>> The middle class got hosed.
>> Another lie.
> Then you should have data proving it's a lie.
I JUST said that that last sentence is a lie, fuckwit.
> I told you; taxes went from 17.5% in 1986 to 18% in 1990. How did that
> happen when the rich and corporations were seeing huge tax cuts? Do
> you have any data that shows that I lied?
Didnt say THAT was a lie, fuckwit.
> Or is it just your Reagan-reactionary knee jerking
Unlikely given that I believe he was an incompetant fool, fuckwit.
> because you simply can't believe your hero Reagan
Another lie.
> hosed you. By the way, did you know Social Security taxes were
> increased by more than 50% for pretty much everyone except the rich?
Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> Did you also know that, if the cap on social security taxes
> was lifted completely, the tax could be cut by at least 60%,
> and by increasing the cap to $500,000, it could be cut in half?
Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> The far right takes money from the poor and working classes
> and gives it to the rich. There can be no argument of that.
Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote
>> Yes.
Sure, but that does not necessarily mean that the USSR had to balls to ignore it completely.
> and here we are, over 25 years on, and it's still a complete and
> utter joke despite all the technological advancements since then.
Yes, but when the US invented nukes in the first place, that completely
revolutionised what world wars were about, its hardly surprising that
the USSR never had the balls to ignore it completely.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
So payroll taxes aren't actually taxes.
Ah. I see.
Thank you for clearing that up for us.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
None the less, according to Jane's their military budget shrank in
each succeeding year after it was announced.
>
>> and here we are, over 25 years on, and it's still a complete and
>> utter joke despite all the technological advancements since then.
>
>Yes, but when the US invented nukes in the first place, that completely
>revolutionised what world wars were about, its hardly surprising that
>the USSR never had the balls to ignore it completely.
>
I'll just note that four years later, the USSR had nukes of their own.
Milt
It does not. What if middle class income taxes went from 8.2% to 5.5%
and went back up to 6.6%, while everyone else's went down. I'm not
saying they did. But the stats above don't prove my statement that the
middle class got hosed was wrong. And payroll taxes increased
significantly enough to push total federal taxes higher than they had
been in 1980 in any case.
>
> >>> even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped from 51%
> >>> to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
> >>> The middle class got hosed.
> >> Another lie.
> > Then you should have data proving it's a lie.
>
> I JUST said that that last sentence is a lie, fuckwit.
I know you just said it. But I demonstrated my point with numbers. You
just calling it a lie has no significance.
>
> > I told you; taxes went from 17.5% in 1986 to 18% in 1990. How did that
> > happen when the rich and corporations were seeing huge tax cuts? Do
> > you have any data that shows that I lied?
>
> Didnt say THAT was a lie, fuckwit.
So, an increase in taxes on the middle class, while the rich were
getting a tax break and the government was running record deficits is
NOT "getting hosed"? I happen to disagree. That doesn't make me a
liar.
>
> > Or is it just your Reagan-reactionary knee jerking
>
> Unlikely given that I believe he was an incompetant fool, fuckwit.
And yet you defend him so. How odd.
>
> > because you simply can't believe your hero Reagan
>
> Another lie.
It's not even the complete sentence.
Only right wingers think a difference of opinion can constitute a
"lie." It's unusual to find a right winger who doesn't think Reagan
was Gawd-like.
>
> > hosed you. By the way, did you know Social Security taxes were
> > increased by more than 50% for pretty much everyone except the rich?
>
> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
Not irrelevant at all. You claim the only part of my statement you
disagree with was that the middle class got hosed. A working class
family seeing their tax bill increase by about 20% at the same time
the rich and large corporations were seeing a large tax cut is a right
hosing. That you disagree doesn't make me a liar.
>
> > Did you also know that, if the cap on social security taxes
> > was lifted completely, the tax could be cut by at least 60%,
> > and by increasing the cap to $500,000, it could be cut in half?
>
> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
Not really. But then, you've demonstrated that you're pretty fucking
stupid.
>
> > The far right takes money from the poor and working classes
> > and gives it to the rich. There can be no argument of that.
>
> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
Nope.
James A. Donald
> > We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
> > war, because they would keep that one war going at a
> > level they could afford until the next president showed
> > up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
> > one proxy war on top of another
"Rod Speed"
> Didnt happen.
We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and
Angola on top of Star Wars.
Milt
Even with income taxes, I was THERE at the time. One year, I had over
$5000 in deductions; the next year, I had a standard deduction of
about $3000. I made about 5% more in income, and my income tax bill
rose more than 20%, NOT including the huge increase in Social Security
and Medicare taxes. They killed almost everything except the mortgage
deduction, and the standard deduction was no substitute. I'm glad I
bought my car in 1985, because I was able to deduct the sales taxes
and the interest on the loan. Two years later, and I would have been
screwed.
By the way, he claims he doesn't even like Reagan. Gotta love that
level of sophistry.
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see why. The Soviet Union didn't need primacy
> in the arms race; all it needed was a credible deterrent
> to an unprovoked first strike by the U.S., which it must
> have had, since the U.S. did not attack it.
The Soviet Union ruled by fear. When its satellite states
stopped fearing it, they defied it, and everything fell apart.
James A. Donald
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> Star Wars was a complete and utter joke,
Today's Russia got pissed by proposals to place star wars facilities
in Georgia - presumably believing that such facilities might restrict
its capacity to destroy Georgia.
Nobody outside the Pentagon really knows how effectual those defenses
are. They could be total fakery, or could be capable of defeating an
Iranian attack, or could be capable of something more.
Rod Speed
>>>> Milt wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Milt wrote
>>>>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Another lie.
They clearly arent INCOME TAXES, fuckwit.
AND the individual doesnt pay payroll tax ANYWAY, fuckwit.
> Ah. I see.
Another lie, you wanked yourself completely blind LONG ago.
> Thank you for clearing that up for us.
Just how many of you are there between those ears, fuckwit ?
Rod Speed
>>>> Yes.
Yes, but it was still high enough that they could not deliver living standards
anything like what the US or even the West could and that is the main reason it
ended up faced down in the mud when it could not compete on living standards.
In fact you can make a case that it was the entire cold war that produced
that result and made it so abundantly clear that communism couldnt possibly
come even close to delivering anything like the living standards that democratic
socialism could, and that was the reason its demise was always inevitable.
It was always just a matter of time.
>>> and here we are, over 25 years on, and it's still a complete and
>>> utter joke despite all the technological advancements since then.
>> Yes, but when the US invented nukes in the first place, that completely
>> revolutionised what world wars were about, its hardly surprising that
>> the USSR never had the balls to ignore it completely.
> I'll just note that four years later, the USSR had nukes of their own.
Irrelevant to what the US might be able to achieve. Only a fool would
take the chance that the combination of stealth bombers and star
wars might not give the US a real first strike capability and that
some fool like Raygun might actually be arsehole enough to use it.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed what happened
the previous time the USSR was stupid enough to take that gamble
and they they came within an ace of losing WW2 as a result. Its hardly
surprising that no one was prepared to take that gamble again.
Milt
> 5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09 wrote
NO ONE said ONLY income taxes, you fucking idiot. Go read what I wrote
again. Have mommy read it to you if you have a hard time understanding
it. I'm going to highlight a specific phrase for you....
The net effect of the Reagan years was a substantial tax cut for the
top 10%, and an increase in taxes for the bottom 80%. ******Their
obsession
with only seeing income taxes, and nothing else,******** leads them to
make
some startlingly ridiculous claims. According to the CBO, in 1980, the
average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%. That's an
increase. And that doesn't include the increased cost to employers.
Not only that, but most middle class families who used to have
deductions lost most of them in favor of a "standard deduction."
--------------------------------------
Now, you fucking brain-dead moron, what do you say about the fact that
only YOU are talking about income taxes, as if they're the only taxes
anyone pays?
>
> AND the individual doesnt pay payroll tax ANYWAY, fuckwit.
The fuck they don't. Those lines on everyone's check -- and I mean
everyone, including those who make minimum wage and only work ten
hours a week -- that say Social Security and Medicare.... those are
payroll taxes.
>
> > Ah. I see.
>
> Another lie, you wanked yourself completely blind LONG ago.
I bet he can read this and understand it:
The net effect of the Reagan years was a substantial tax cut for the
top 10%, and an increase in taxes for the bottom 80%. Their obsession
with only seeing income taxes, and nothing else, leads them to make
some startlingly ridiculous claims. According to the CBO, in 1980, the
average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%. That's an
increase. And that doesn't include the increased cost to employers.
Not only that, but most middle class families who used to have
deductions lost most of them in favor of a "standard deduction."
---------------------------------------
Middle class workers paid 17.7% of their pay in taxes in 1980, and
18.4% in 1988. That's an increase, dickwad. The poor also saw a 50%
increase in taxes because of a hike in both Social Security and
Medicare taxes, which everyone has to pay, even if they only make ten
grand a year.
Rod Speed
> It does not.
Corse it does.
> What if middle class income taxes went from 8.2% to 5.5%
> and went back up to 6.6%, while everyone else's went down.
Didnt happen, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> I'm not saying they did. But the stats above don't prove
> my statement that the middle class got hosed was wrong.
An income tax rate of single digits is nothing even remotely resembling
anything like hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> And payroll taxes increased significantly enough to push total
> federal taxes higher than they had been in 1980 in any case.
Pity the individual doesnt pay those, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>>>> even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped from 51%
>>>>> to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
>>>>> The middle class got hosed.
>>>> Another lie.
>>> Then you should have data proving it's a lie.
>> I JUST said that that last sentence is a lie, fuckwit.
> I know you just said it. But I demonstrated my point with numbers.
Which showed nothing even remotely resembling anything like hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> You just calling it a lie has no significance.
Another lie.
>>> I told you; taxes went from 17.5% in 1986 to 18% in 1990. How did
>>> that happen when the rich and corporations were seeing huge tax
>>> cuts? Do you have any data that shows that I lied?
>> Didnt say THAT was a lie, fuckwit.
> So, an increase in taxes on the middle class,
You aint established that either, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> while the rich were getting a tax break and the government
> was running record deficits is NOT "getting hosed"?
Corse it isnt, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> I happen to disagree.
Your problem, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> That doesn't make me a liar.
Corse it does, the middle class was nothing even remotely resembling
anything like hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> Or is it just your Reagan-reactionary knee jerking
>> Unlikely given that I believe he was an incompetant fool, fuckwit.
> And yet you defend him so.
Another lie. I JUST point out your lies, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> How odd.
You sig is sposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it
in front of it, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> because you simply can't believe your hero Reagan
>> Another lie.
> It's not even the complete sentence.
> Only right wingers think a difference of opinion can constitute a "lie."
Another lie. That was not a difference of opinion, it was a
bare faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> It's unusual to find a right winger who doesn't think Reagan was Gawd-like.
I'm not even a right winger, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> hosed you. By the way, did you know Social Security taxes were
>>> increased by more than 50% for pretty much everyone except the rich?
>> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> Not irrelevant at all.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> You claim the only part of my statement you
> disagree with was that the middle class got hosed.
Another lie. I clearly pointed out a number of your bare faced lies.
> A working class family
Those werent even mentioned, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> seeing their tax bill increase by about 20% at the same time the rich
> and large corporations were seeing a large tax cut is a right hosing.
Not when the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay just 3.4% of the total
income tax collected, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> That you disagree doesn't make me a liar.
But your bare faced lies do, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> Did you also know that, if the cap on social security taxes
>>> was lifted completely, the tax could be cut by at least 60%,
>>> and by increasing the cap to $500,000, it could be cut in half?
>> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> Not really.
Yes, really.
> But then, you've demonstrated that you're pretty fucking stupid.
And you have proved to the world that you are a pathological
liar, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> The far right takes money from the poor and working classes
>>> and gives it to the rich. There can be no argument of that.
>> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> Nope.
Yep, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
>>> war, because they would keep that one war going at a
>>> level they could afford until the next president showed
>>> up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
>>> one proxy war on top of another
>> Didnt happen.
> We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
*Anarcissie*
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:09:54 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> >When Reagan was running in the primaries, he proposed to
> >> >cause a Soviet economic collapse by tying them down in
> >> >an arms race they could not afford, and more wars than
> >> >they could afford. His language as president was more
> >> >circumspect, but he proceeded to do pretty much what he
> >> >told the voters in the primaries that he was going to
> >> >do.
>
> >> Yes, I think you're right James. He deserves credit for _breaking the
> >> Bank of Moscow_! The Russians were financially stretched at the time
> >> and they had to contend with _new_ challenges to protect their
> >> sovereignty: stealth fighters and bombers and Star Wars! They had_ no_
> >> defense against stealth bombers and could no longer protect their
> >> masses! A defensive umbrella was still 10 to 15 years away and would
> >> require billions and billions of dollars for research and
> >> implementation. And then, Star Wars! Now more billions. The result?
> >> Game Over! The end of the Cold War.
>
> >I don't see why. The Soviet Union didn't need primacy
> >in the arms race; all it needed was a credible deterrent
> >have had, since the U.S. did not attack it.
>
> knock-out russian missile sites before they could react.
> Consequently, their deterrence and ability to protect their people was
> greatly diminished if not completely void. And with the promise of
> Star Wars, it was absolute.
>
> Just because the US could, doesn't mean it should ....or would!
Either the United States leadership found the Soviet
Union a serious problem, or it didn't. If it didn't, then
of course the whole Cold War was a sham and if
Reagan did anything it was to let the cat out of the
bag.
But if it did find the Soviet Union a serious problem,
then obviously if it had the power to do so and get
away with it without suffering a reprisal, it would
have annihilated the Soviet Union. Since World War 2,
the U.S. government has killed millions of people not
because they were attacking the United States but
because U.S. leadership found their existence
inconvenient. (Most of them were in Vietnam and
Iraq, but the U.S. government has engaged in more
than 30 wars, raids, attacks or other hostile military
operations since World War 2, and the count does
mount up.) I am sure people who would kill a
million would not be too delicate to kill 200 or 300
million if it seemed profitable to do so,. Why not?
But the U.S. government did not attack the
Soviet Union. Therefore, the deterrent posed by
Soviet military power, although vastly inferior to
that of the United States, was sufficient to
threaten enough damage to ward off an attack
by the United States.
It is true that at some later date, the U.S.
might have created some superior defensive
weapon which could ensure that not a single
nuclear or other highly destructive device
could reach the U.S., but there was no prospect
of that in sight, except in propaganda.
Again, the Cold War may have been a sham,
like the threat posed by Iran or Iraq's WMD.
But if so it was very well maintained, and I
think the U.S. leadership really did believe
that the Soviet Union, while it could not win
a war with the U.S., could create enough
damage to make the war too costly. I
think that is proven by events.
Rod Speed
>>> Milt wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Milt wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Milt wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Another lie.
>> Ah. I see.
Dont need to be there to check the numbers,
you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> One year, I had over $5000 in deductions; the next year, I
> had a standard deduction of about $3000. I made about 5%
> more in income, and my income tax bill rose more than 20%,
And the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid just 3.4% of total income tax collected.
> NOT including the huge increase in Social Security and Medicare
> taxes. They killed almost everything except the mortgage
> deduction, and the standard deduction was no substitute.
And the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid just 3.4% of total income tax collected.
> I'm glad I bought my car in 1985, because I was able
> to deduct the sales taxes and the interest on the loan.
> Two years later, and I would have been screwed.
And the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid just 3.4% of total income tax collected.
> By the way, he claims he doesn't even like Reagan.
Taint just a claim, fuckwit. Even someone as stupid as you can check that
anytime using groups.google, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> Gotta love that level of sophistry.
Taint just a claim, fuckwit. Even someone as stupid as you can check that
anytime using groups.google, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
Milt
Since you're obviously a troll this will be my last response.
>
> > I happen to disagree.
>
> Your problem, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>
> > That doesn't make me a liar.
>
> Corse it does, the middle class was nothing even remotely resembling
> anything like hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
Really?
According to the CBO, in 1980, the
average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%.
That's an increase, from 17.7% to 18.4% even as the rich were seeing a
significant DECREASE in taxes. Even as corporations were seeing a
DECREASE in taxes.
>
> >>> Or is it just your Reagan-reactionary knee jerking
> >> Unlikely given that I believe he was an incompetant fool, fuckwit.
> > And yet you defend him so.
>
> Another lie. I JUST point out your lies, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
No, you haven't. You keep on bringing up apples to counter my oranges.
For instance, you keep claiming that taxpayers don't pay payroll
taxes, which is insane.
>
> > How odd.
>
> You sig is sposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it
> in front of it, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
I don't have a sig. I can also write in English.
>
> >>> because you simply can't believe your hero Reagan
> >> Another lie.
> > It's not even the complete sentence.
> > Only right wingers think a difference of opinion can constitute a "lie."
>
> Another lie. That was not a difference of opinion, it was a
> bare faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>
> > It's unusual to find a right winger who doesn't think Reagan was Gawd-like.
>
> I'm not even a right winger, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
Sure you are. It's simply not possible for anyone with a brain to
claim that the middle class didn't get screwed under Reagan, when
compared to everyone else. The rich had their taxes cut in half, and
the poor saw an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. The middle class
just saw an increase.
>
> >>> hosed you. By the way, did you know Social Security taxes were
> >>> increased by more than 50% for pretty much everyone except the rich?
> >> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
> > Not irrelevant at all.
>
> Completely and utterly irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
>
> > You claim the only part of my statement you
> > disagree with was that the middle class got hosed.
>
> Another lie. I clearly pointed out a number of your bare faced lies.
Troll.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I don't see why. The Soviet Union didn't need primacy
>> in the arms race; all it needed was a credible deterrent
>> to an unprovoked first strike by the U.S., which it must
>> have had, since the U.S. did not attack it.
> The Soviet Union ruled by fear. When its
> satellite states stopped fearing it, they defied it,
Try telling that to Eric Hoenicker. Dont be TOO surprised
when he just laughs in your stupid pig ignorant little face.
> and everything fell apart.
It was in fact MUCH more complicated than that.
Rod Speed
> 5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09 <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote
>> Star Wars was a complete and utter joke,
> Today's Russia got pissed by proposals to place star wars facilities
> in Georgia - presumably believing that such facilities might restrict
> its capacity to destroy Georgia.
Have fun explaining why they got even more pissed by an agreement to base them in Poland.
> Nobody outside the Pentagon really knows how effectual those
> defenses are. They could be total fakery, or could be capable of
> defeating an Iranian attack, or could be capable of something more.
Utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> They lost the deductions.
>>>>>> Another lie.
Thats the only tax that the individual pays, fuckwit.
> Go read what I wrote again.
No point, it stays a lie no matter how often its read, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
> I'm going to highlight a specific phrase for you....
> The net effect of the Reagan years was a substantial tax cut for the
> top 10%, and an increase in taxes for the bottom 80%. ******Their
> obsession
> with only seeing income taxes, and nothing else,******** leads them to
> make
> some startlingly ridiculous claims. According to the CBO, in 1980, the
> average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
> income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
> was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%. That's an
> increase. And that doesn't include the increased cost to employers.
> Not only that, but most middle class families who used to have
> deductions lost most of them in favor of a "standard deduction."
>
> --------------------------------------
> Now, you fucking brain-dead moron, what do you say about
> the fact that only YOU are talking about income taxes,
Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare
faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> as if they're the only taxes anyone pays?
Payroll taxes are not paid by the individual, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>> AND the individual doesnt pay payroll tax ANYWAY, fuckwit.
> The fuck they don't. Those lines on everyone's check -- and I mean
> everyone, including those who make minimum wage and only work ten
> hours a week -- that say Social Security and Medicare.... those are
> payroll taxes.
Like hell they are. They aint taxes that you lose forever, they are
JUST a prepayment of what income tax you are likely to owe at
the end of the year, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> Ah. I see.
>> Another lie, you wanked yourself completely blind LONG ago.
> I bet he can read this and understand it:
Only because he uses a voice synthesiser, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> The net effect of the Reagan years was a substantial tax cut for the
> top 10%, and an increase in taxes for the bottom 80%. Their obsession
> with only seeing income taxes, and nothing else, leads them to make
> some startlingly ridiculous claims. According to the CBO, in 1980, the
> average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
> income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
> was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%. That's an
> increase. And that doesn't include the increased cost to employers.
> Not only that, but most middle class families who used to have
> deductions lost most of them in favor of a "standard deduction."
> ---------------------------------------
> Middle class workers paid 17.7% of their pay in taxes
> in 1980, and 18.4% in 1988. That's an increase,
And the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay just 3.4% of total
income tax, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> The poor also saw a 50% increase in taxes because
> of a hike in both Social Security and Medicare taxes,
The real poor, those whose entire income is from the
govt, didnt, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> which everyone has to pay,
Another bare faced lie, most obviously with those whose entire
income is govt welfare, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> even if they only make ten grand a year.
Another bare faced lie, most obviously with those whose entire
income is govt welfare, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
James A. Donald
> >>> We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
> >>> war, because they would keep that one war going at a
> >>> level they could afford until the next president showed
> >>> up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
> >>> one proxy war on top of another
"Rod Speed"
> >> Didnt happen.
James A. Donald:
> > We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
"Rod Speed"
> Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
That is why they called them PROXY wars. The USSR supplied advisers,
weapons, and economic support in all of these wars - which is exactly
what the US was doing, except that the US could afford to do so, and
the USSR could not.
Rod Speed
> rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote
Its never that black and white. In spades with fools like Raygun
that howled about purported cuts in 'defence' spending.
> If it didn't, then of course the whole Cold War was a sham
Taint a sham if they wanted to avoid a purported expansion of the USSR.
> and if Reagan did anything it was to let the cat out of the bag.
Like hell he ever did on that.
> But if it did find the Soviet Union a serious problem,
> then obviously if it had the power to do so and get
> away with it without suffering a reprisal, it would
> have annihilated the Soviet Union.
Have fun explaining why it did not when it had that capability.
That might just be because it decided that that was morally unacceptable, stupid.
> Since World War 2, the U.S. government has killed
> millions of people not because they were attacking
> the United States but because U.S. leadership
> found their existence inconvenient.
Because they were too stupid to work out what Vietnam was really about, actually.
> (Most of them were in Vietnam and Iraq,
Fuck all were deliberately killed in Iraq.
> but the U.S. government has engaged in more than 30
> wars, raids, attacks or other hostile military operations
> since World War 2, and the count does mount up.)
It cant go down, stupid.
> I am sure people who would kill a million would not be too delicate
> to kill 200 or 300 million if it seemed profitable to do so,.
Your surety is completely irrelevant.
> Why not?
There might just be a small moral problem with that, stupid.
> But the U.S. government did not attack the Soviet Union.
> Therefore, the deterrent posed by Soviet military power,
> although vastly inferior to that of the United States, was
> sufficient to threaten enough damage to ward off an
> attack by the United States.
Or anyone with a clue had noticed that the cost in lives and material wasnt justified.
> It is true that at some later date, the U.S.
> might have created some superior defensive
> weapon which could ensure that not a single
> nuclear or other highly destructive device
> could reach the U.S., but there was no prospect
> of that in sight, except in propaganda.
Only a fool would have ignored the possibility that
the country that had not only invented nukes, but
which ended up completely dominating the entire
world militarily might be able to achieve that tho.
> Again, the Cold War may have been a sham,
> like the threat posed by Iran or Iraq's WMD.
Nope, it was obvious what the soviets did in the places they occupied after WW2.
> But if so it was very well maintained, and I
> think the U.S. leadership really did believe
> that the Soviet Union, while it could not win
> a war with the U.S., could create enough
> damage to make the war too costly. I
> think that is proven by events.
There is also a fair amount of evidence that the leadership
was too stupid to be able to grasp that all the soviets were
really attempting to do was ensure that they couldnt again
end up in the same situation they got into at the start of WW2.
Just like they always were too stupid to work out what Vietnam was about in spades.
Rod Speed
Great, there is only so much pathological lying anyone should have to put up with.
>>> I happen to disagree.
>> Your problem, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> That doesn't make me a liar.
>> Corse it does, the middle class was nothing even remotely resembling
>> anything like hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> Really?
Yes, really.
> According to the CBO, in 1980, the
> average middle class family of four paid 8.2% of their income in
> income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988, the income tax rate
> was down to 6.6%, but the payroll taxes were up to 11.8%.
Nothing even remotely resembling anything like
hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
In spades when the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay
just 3.4% of total income tax and payroll tax collected.
> That's an increase, from 17.7% to 18.4%
So sweet fuck all, and nothing even remotely resembling anything
like hosed, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
In spades when the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay
just 3.4% of total income tax and payroll tax collected.
> even as the rich were seeing a significant DECREASE in taxes.
And the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay just 3.4% of total income tax and payroll tax collected.
> Even as corporations were seeing a DECREASE in taxes.
And the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay just 3.4% of total income tax and payroll tax collected.
>>>>> Or is it just your Reagan-reactionary knee jerking
>>>> Unlikely given that I believe he was an incompetant fool, fuckwit.
>>> And yet you defend him so.
>> Another lie. I JUST point out your lies, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> No, you haven't.
Everyone can see for themselves that I have never ever defended that fool
Raygun on any matter what so ever, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> You keep on bringing up apples to counter my oranges.
Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare
faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> For instance, you keep claiming that taxpayers don't pay payroll taxes,
That isnt comparing a damned thing, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> How odd.
>> You sig is sposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it
>> in front of it, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> I don't have a sig.
Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare
faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> I can also write in English.
Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare
faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>>>> because you simply can't believe your hero Reagan
>>>> Another lie.
>>> It's not even the complete sentence.
>>> Only right wingers think a difference of opinion can constitute a "lie."
>> Another lie. That was not a difference of opinion, it was a
>> bare faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> It's unusual to find a right winger who doesn't think Reagan was Gawd-like.
>> I'm not even a right winger, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> Sure you are.
Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare
faced lie, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> It's simply not possible for anyone with a brain to claim
> that the middle class didn't get screwed under Reagan,
That doesnt make me a right winger, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> when compared to everyone else. The rich had their taxes cut in
> half, and the poor saw an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.
> The middle class just saw an increase.
Doesnt make them HOSED, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
JUST means they didnt do as well as those other groups
did, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>>>> hosed you. By the way, did you know Social Security taxes were
>>>>> increased by more than 50% for pretty much everyone except the rich?
>>>> Irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
>>> Not irrelevant at all.
>> Completely and utterly irrelevant to your bare faced lies above, fuckwit.
>>> You claim the only part of my statement you
>>> disagree with was that the middle class got hosed.
>> Another lie. I clearly pointed out a number of your bare faced lies.
> Troll.
Pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
Fred Weiss
> Then please explain how tax revenues increased from 17.5% to 18.1% of
> GDP between 1986, even though the top tax rate for individuals dropped
> from 51% to 28% and the corporate tax rate dropped from 51% to 35%?
> The middle class got hosed.
The same thing happened under Bush, after his tax cuts.
But if you look at the numbers, those increased revenues came
predominantly from the rich and corporations - as did the overall
percentage of the total income tax they paid.
It's counter-intuitive but a fact that lowering tax rates actually
increases overall revenues. It may work most forcefully with the rich
and corporations because they will use the extra income to invest
(producing gains) and also because they then have less of a need for
tax shelters.
Fred Weiss
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
>>>>> war, because they would keep that one war going at a
>>>>> level they could afford until the next president showed
>>>>> up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
>>>>> one proxy war on top of another
>>>> Didnt happen.
>>> We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
>> Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
> That is why they called them PROXY wars.
They werent that either.
> The USSR supplied advisers, weapons, and economic support in all of these wars
Like hell they did.
> - which is exactly what the US was doing,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
The US wasnt even involved at all in Mozambique or Angola.
> except that the US could afford to do so, and the USSR could not.
Corse they could afford those pathetic little fiascos with the exception of Afghanistan.
They had absolutely NO effect on the demise of the Soviets.
Even Afghanistan was a fart in the bath compared with the cold war.
Fred Weiss
> James A. Donald wrote
> > We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
>
> Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
But that may have been enough. It must have been very expensive for
them - and very demoralizing in somewhat the same way Vietnam was for
us.
That too will be argued for generations whether our aiding the
mujaheddin was a net plus for us. It certainly helped defeat the
Soviets. But then it put the Taliban in power.
Fred Weiss
Rod Speed
>>> We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
>> Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
> But that may have been enough.
Nope, it was actually the cold war that sank the USSR.
Their fucked economic system could not deliver both that and decent
modern living standards for everyone and that is basically what sank it.
Very graphic when comparing West Germany and the GDR which
didnt even have any war in afghanistan. The GDR couldnt even manage
to deliver viable cars, just shit like the Trabant and Wartburg etc,
compared with VWs, Mercs, BMWs, Audis etc etc etc with West Germany.
> It must have been very expensive for them
The cold war cost left that for dead. The main problem for the soviets
wasnt so much the expense, it was the fact that the polulace couldnt
see the point in their kids getting killed there, just like with Vietnam.
> - and very demoralizing in somewhat the same way Vietnam was for us.
Yes, but it was much more the failure to deliver on decent
modern living standards that brought the USSR undone.
Thats why eventually even someone like Gorbachev realised it
was never going to fly, even when they had got out of Afghanistan.
> That too will be argued for generations whether our aiding
> the mujaheddin was a net plus for us. It certainly helped
> defeat the Soviets. But then it put the Taliban in power.
It wasnt what got the Talibums into power. What did that was the stupid
Afghans furiously ripping each other throats out once they got rid of the soviets.
That would have happened eventually, even if the US had stayed right out of it.
No one has ever been able to apply the jackboot to Afghanistan for too long.
Even the british got fucked over very comprehensively indeed every time they tried it.
Gunna be interesting to watch how long it takes to give up on those clowns again.
(David P.)
> Fred Weiss wrote
>
> >That too will be argued for generations whether our aiding
> > the mujaheddin was a net plus for us. It certainly helped
> > defeat the Soviets. But then it put the Taliban in power.
>
> It wasnt what got the Talibums into power. What did that was the
> had stayed right out of it. No one has ever been able to apply the
> very comprehensively indeed every time they tried it. Gunna be
> interesting to watch how long it takes to give up on those clowns again.
Legalizing marijuana, heroin, cocaine & methamphetamines
will help fix the Afghan problem.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
Nope, nothing with fix those fools.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Why it was so complicated that a moronic Hollywood actor playing
President was able to launch a 30 year plan in just six years to destroy
the Soviet Union.
Yeah, we'll buy that for a quarter, cupcakes.
*Anarcissie*
Well, Stalin famously said, "If you kill one man, it's
murder. If you kill a million men, it's a statistic."
However, I think there is a moral similarity between
killing one man and killing a million, or a hundred
million, and that people who are willing to do one
are willing to do the other, provided of course that
they can get away with it. We know that the U.S.
government was capable of killing two or three
million people unnecessarily, for profit or abstract
political reasons, because they did so. I don't
see why you think there is some kind of moral
line between killing two million and killing two
hundred million -- maybe you can explain it.
The difference I see is that from 1947 on, the
Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, and
though their military forces were inferior in
many respects to those of the West, the cost
they could have exacted for an attack was
too high for the expected payoff.
Thus, I don't believe the story about how U.S.
military expenditures drove the Soviet Union
into bankruptcy. I rather think U.S military
expenditures have driven the U.S. into
bankruptcy, but belief dies hard, and
Ozymandias has not quite fallen over yet.
> ...
Rod Speed
Doesnt matter a damn what some psychopath said, its still murder.
> However, I think there is a moral similarity between
> killing one man and killing a million, or a hundred million,
Corse there is.
> and that people who are willing to do one are willing to do the other,
There is one hell of a difference between killing someone like stalin to
prevent him from killing milliions and killing the millions yourself deliberately.
> provided of course that they can get away with it.
> We know that the U.S. government was capable
> of killing two or three million people unnecessarily,
No we dont with that last.
> for profit
We dont know that.
> or abstract political reasons,
Or that either.
> because they did so.
Like hell they did.
> I don't see why you think there is some kind
> of moral line between killing two million and killing
> two hundred million -- maybe you can explain it.
I never ever said that there was.
> The difference I see is that from 1947 on,
> the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, and
> though their military forces were inferior in
> many respects to those of the West,
And in some respects superior too.
> the cost they could have exacted for an
> attack was too high for the expected payoff.
Doesnt mean that that was the reason they werent
nuked before they had nukes themselves.
> Thus, I don't believe the story about how U.S. military
> expenditures drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.
It wasnt bankruptcy so much as not being able to simultaneously
do that and also deliver the same living standards that the west
achieved. It was that last that saw some like Gorbachev and
Dung Shoa Ping eventually realise that communism just doesnt
work as well as the alternative.
> I rather think U.S military expenditures have driven the U.S. into bankruptcy,
Thats is completely silly. It is nothing even remotely resembling anything like bankruptcy.
And certainly wasnt anything like that when it had just spend
vastly more on its military in WW2 and not only wasnt anything
like bankrupt as a result, it still had the financial strength to
do the Marshall Plan that combined with nukes ensured
that we wouldnt see another world war a generation later.
> but belief dies hard, and Ozymandias has not quite fallen over yet.
It aint gunna fall over. Fools ran the same line in the great depression and the US
went on to completely dominate the entire world economically and technologically.
James A. Donald
> > The USSR supplied advisers, weapons, and economic
> > support in all of these wars
"Rod Speed"
> Like hell they did.
The USSR paid several hundred million dollars a year to
sustain the Sandinistas, and had several thousand soviet
troops in Nicaragua, who took significant casualties.
The casualties were not enough to significantly impact
Soviet power, but the arms and money, in combination with the
money it spent on all the other wars, did significantly
impact Soviet power, enough that it could not credibly
threaten to escalate.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>>>> We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
>>>>>>> war, because they would keep that one war going at a
>>>>>>> level they could afford until the next president showed
>>>>>>> up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
>>>>>>> one proxy war on top of another
>>>>>> Didnt happen.
>>>>> We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
>>>> Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
>>> That is why they called them PROXY wars.
>> They werent that either.
>>> The USSR supplied advisers, weapons, and economic support in all of these wars
>> Like hell they did.
> The USSR paid several hundred million dollars a year to
> sustain the Sandinistas, and had several thousand soviet
> troops in Nicaragua,
Like hell they did.
> who took significant casualties.
Another lie.
> The casualties were not enough to significantly impact
> Soviet power, but the arms and money, in combination
> with the money it spent on all the other wars, did
> significantly impact Soviet power,
Like hell it did. And the cost of the cold war left it for dead.
> enough that it could not credibly threaten to escalate.
Pity about all the other countrys in your silly little list.
James A. Donald
> > > > > > We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia,
> > > > > > Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
"Rod Speed"
> > > > > Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
James A. Donald:
> > The USSR paid several hundred million dollars a year
> > to sustain the Sandinistas, and had several thousand
> > soviet troops in Nicaragua,
"Rod Speed"
> Like hell they did.
<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA353629&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf>
Page 43
: : the EPS lieutenants denounced the presence of
: : Cuban and Soviet troops in Nicaragua,
: : characterizing them as virtual dictators in
: : the army. The officers said that no order is
: : given without the supervision of the
: : so-called Cuban military advisers
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>>>>>> We could never defeat the Soviets with only one proxy
>>>>>>>>> war, because they would keep that one war going at a
>>>>>>>>> level they could afford until the next president showed
>>>>>>>>> up, or the president after that. It was necessary to pile
>>>>>>>>> one proxy war on top of another
>>>>>>>> Didnt happen.
>>>>>>>>> We piled Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia,
>>>>>>>>> Mozambique, and Angola on top of Star Wars.
>>>>>> Only Afghanistan even involved the USSR.
And neither Mozambique nor Angola was 'piled' by the US.
>>> The USSR paid several hundred million dollars a year to sustain the
>>> Sandinistas, and had several thousand soviet troops in Nicaragua,
>> Like hell they did.
> <http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA353629&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf>
> Page 43
>>> the EPS lieutenants denounced the presence
>>> of Cuban and Soviet troops in Nicaragua,
Doesnt mean it actually happened with soviet troops.
>>> characterizing them as virtual dictators in
>>> the army. The officers said that no order
>>> is given without the supervision of the
>>> so-called Cuban military advisers
Its completely silly to claim that soviet troops ever operated like that there.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Nicaragua+%22soviet+troops%22
Turns up NOTHING.