Don't Republicans have better things to worry about?

[TroutBum]

I guess us peasanties should be jumping for joy that some busybody millionaire libtards are allowing us to buy quality lightbulbs for $5 a piece more.

I'm only responding to you, Hopper, because I know that there really are people out there that think this way. That being said, I hate you.

I can't wait until it's not possible to buy outdated technology, except at the D.I. (record players, 8-tracks, rotary phones). I'm a nostalgic kind of guy, but I am also a big fan of progress. If it were up to the Republican party, there would be no cell phones, no color TV's, no central air, and no gay people. Thank the Gods for the Democratic party!

 

[Scat]

I love that you ask how old I'm that is really mature. YOu should change your sig to "It's no coincidence that government ignorance is at an all-time high while the viewership of Fox News Channel is at an all time high." KOC Begone

So you're saying that elected officials are ignorant because they watch Fox News?

 

[PearlWatson]

I'm only responding to you, Hopper, because I know that there really are people out there that think this way. That being said, I hate you.

I can't wait until it's not possible to buy outdated technology, except at the D.I. (record players, 8-tracks, rotary phones). I'm a nostalgic kind of guy, but I am also a big fan of progress. If it were up to the Republican party, there would be no cell phones, no color TV's, no central air, and no gay people. Thank the Gods for the Democratic party!

What is this absurdity you are spewing KOC BEGONE?

Just because I don't like millionair imposed MANDATES doesn't mean I want to get rid of homosexuals.

Technological innovations come about because of free market competition not government imposed mandates. The market may come up with awesome things to work around the mandates...like the SUV...but otherwise government is a barrier to innovation.
"In point of fact" the reason nearly everyone on the planet has a cellphone is because Reagan broke up the AT&T monopoly, and deregulated phone service. This produced a competitive phone market and the rest is history.
The Democrat Party is pretty much filled with crazy or retarded people. We could do without it.

 

[One Brow]

Technological innovations come about because of free market competition not government imposed mandates. The market may come up with awesome things to work around the mandates...like the SUV...but otherwise government is a barrier to innovation.

Government bad, private corporations good.

"In point of fact" the reason nearly everyone on the planet has a cellphone is because Reagan broke up the AT&T monopoly, and deregulated phone service. This produced a competitive phone market and the rest is history.

Government good, private corporation bad.

The Democrat Party is pretty much filled with crazy or retarded people. We could do without it.

Given your above logic, this statement must mean you strongly support the Democratic party.

 

[Gameface]

AT&T did not create the telephone monopoly, The government did. So they were hardly evil for being a monopoly. The government fixing a problem they created hardly makes them good in regard to business and innovation.

 

[The-Joker]

What is this absurdity you are spewing KOC BEGONE?

Just because I don't like millionair imposed MANDATES doesn't mean I want to get rid of homosexuals.

Technological innovations come about because of free market competition not government imposed mandates. The market may come up with awesome things to work around the mandates...like the SUV...but otherwise government is a barrier to innovation.
"In point of fact" the reason nearly everyone on the planet has a cellphone is because Reagan broke up the AT&T monopoly, and deregulated phone service. This produced a competitive phone market and the rest is history.
The Democrat Party is pretty much filled with crazy or retarded people. We could do without it.

Reagan actually royally screwed the economy, and we still feel the effects today and the current amplitude of the recession today could be attributed to a lot of Reagan policies.

GDP per capita from 1980 to 1989 rose 20%.

Consumer price index from 1980 to 1989 rose 36%

Do you understand what that means?

Of course you don't, because you're an ignorant moron, and even if you knew what CPI was, all these FACTS that contribute to the idea that certain Republican ICONS are in fact royal rape monsters who've molested and pillaged every American institution, you would just block out, because the Republicans hate gays, hate evolution and hate abortions... and so do you... and that's really the basis for all your ignorant beliefs.

But anyway what that means is that in the year prior to Reagan's inauguration until Bush I's inauguration, if you had a job consistent with inflation and GDP you would have received a 20% raise over that 10 year span... "woo hoo" yeah I know. But the problem is that even considering your 20% raise, things you buy are 35% more expensive then they were 10 years before... which means that extra 15% is coming out of your pocket, even though it looks like Reagan did you a huge favor with that 20% raise.

 

[One Brow]

AT&T did not create the telephone monopoly, The government did.

Over what period of time do you think that took place? Do you mean that the government forced AT&T to but companies, or companies to sell into AT&T? Or, do you eman that AT&T was treated as a utility?

 

[sirkickyass]

"In point of fact" the reason nearly everyone on the planet has a cellphone is because Reagan broke up the AT&T monopoly, and deregulated phone service. This produced a competitive phone market and the rest is history.

What huh? There are so many things wrong with this that it's difficult to even catalogue them all. Let's try anyway:

1. The first steps in the R&D for cellular phone service goes back to the 1940s and 1950s. It didn't happen all at once in the 1980s.

2. The first Japanese cellular service was launched in the late 1970s. America wasn't even the leader on that one.

3. Oh wait, did you seriously just attribute government action, a mandate to break up AT&T, to the creation of cell phones in the same post where you said government mandates always stifles creativity? Oh my god you did.

4. No seriously, you did.

5. Reagan broke up AT&T? Silly me, I thought the antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department, United States v. AT&T, that led to the divestiture was initiated in 1974. That would make the push to break the company up attributable to either Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford. Of course, since Reagan is an infallible saint I'm sure he somehow immaculately conceived the entire Department of Justice and independantly wrote the antitrust laws so this was really his victory even though he was Governor of California at the time.

6. AT&T developed a mobile telephone service as part of a car phone program in the 1940s. So it couldn't possibly be the case that AT&T had to be broken up to get to the mobile phone.

I'm sure there's more, but the staggering ignorance of that post was truly astonishing.

AT&T did not create the telephone monopoly, The government did. So they were hardly evil for being a monopoly. The government fixing a problem they created hardly makes them good in regard to business and innovation.

Seriously? I mean, I could have sworn AT&T was buying all those companies up regardless of whether or not the Government wanted them to.

 

[TroutBum]

^ That's how you play the mother F'ing game.

 

[Gameface]

AT&T did not create the telephone monopoly, The government did. So they were hardly evil for being a monopoly. The government fixing a problem they created hardly makes them good in regard to business and innovation.

let's chalk this up to me talking out my ***...

 

[PearlWatson]

Reagan actually royally screwed the economy, and we still feel the effects today and the current amplitude of the recession today could be attributed to a lot of Reagan policies.

GDP per capita from 1980 to 1989 rose 20%.

Consumer price index from 1980 to 1989 rose 36%

Do you understand what that means?

Of course you don't, because you're an ignorant moron, and even if you knew what CPI was, all these FACTS that contribute to the idea that certain Republican ICONS are in fact royal rape monsters who've molested and pillaged every American institution, you would just block out, because the Republicans hate gays, hate evolution and hate abortions... and so do you... and that's really the basis for all your ignorant beliefs.

But anyway what that means is that in the year prior to Reagan's inauguration until Bush I's inauguration, if you had a job consistent with inflation and GDP you would have received a 20% raise over that 10 year span... "woo hoo" yeah I know. But the problem is that even considering your 20% raise, things you buy are 35% more expensive then they were 10 years before... which means that extra 15% is coming out of your pocket, even though it looks like Reagan did you a huge favor with that 20% raise.

LOL! It is impossible to take the teenage version of Keith Oldermann seriously. I mean you weren't even alive when he was president yet you feel the need to lay the economic evils of the world at his feet. That's pretty funny.

 

[The-Joker]

LOL! It is impossible to take the teenage version of Keith Oldermann seriously. I mean you weren't even alive when he was president yet you feel the need to lay the economic evils of the world at his feet. That's pretty funny.

That's the best retort I've ever head.

Show me I'm wrong... do it

 

[bat]

So even though he systematically went through your post and provided facts that counter your opinion, your only come back is to call him Keith and tell him since he wasn't alive he can't know anything about it.

That argument is almost as sounds as your original reagan invented the cell phone argument. You're on fire.

 

[The-Joker]

LOL! It is impossible to take the teenage version of Keith Oldermann seriously. I mean you weren't even alive when he was president yet you feel the need to lay the economic evils of the world at his feet. That's pretty funny.

And who do you think gets richer in a system where people think they have more money, but in actuality they are paying more for products then they were before?

 

[bat]

It really was about a 10% pay decrease for the average American, not to mention the sky rocketing national debt. But like joker is saying, it was a good time to be a seller, not so great as a buyer.

 

[LogGrad98]

Reagan actually royally screwed the economy, and we still feel the effects today and the current amplitude of the recession today could be attributed to a lot of Reagan policies.

GDP per capita from 1980 to 1989 rose 20%.

Consumer price index from 1980 to 1989 rose 36%

Do you understand what that means?

Of course you don't, because you're an ignorant moron, and even if you knew what CPI was, all these FACTS that contribute to the idea that certain Republican ICONS are in fact royal rape monsters who've molested and pillaged every American institution, you would just block out, because the Republicans hate gays, hate evolution and hate abortions... and so do you... and that's really the basis for all your ignorant beliefs.

But anyway what that means is that in the year prior to Reagan's inauguration until Bush I's inauguration, if you had a job consistent with inflation and GDP you would have received a 20% raise over that 10 year span... "woo hoo" yeah I know. But the problem is that even considering your 20% raise, things you buy are 35% more expensive then they were 10 years before... which means that extra 15% is coming out of your pocket, even though it looks like Reagan did you a huge favor with that 20% raise.

So can you put numbers to the same data for the 1970's to show the state of utopia the economy was in during that decade that proves that the numbers from the 80's were so much horribly worse?

Also, have you ever heard of the "misery index"? You might want to check that out.

 

[The-Joker]

So can you put numbers to the same data for the 1970's to show the state of utopia the economy was in during that decade that proves that the numbers from the 80's were so much horribly worse?

The 70's weren't particularly impressive because of OPEC and such...

But it's not like you can trace Nixon, Ford, and Carter to significant future foot shooting economic policies.

 

[LogGrad98]

The 70's weren't particularly impressive because of OPEC and such...

Well the 80's came on the heels of the 70's, so to take the 80's in a vaccuum certainly does not say much for the numbers. You can take any time period as a single data point and it won't tell you much. What was happening at the end of the 70's and into the beginning of the 80's? Did things get better or worse, comparatively speaking, over the next decade? Believe it or not every presidency is forced to deal with the fallout of the previous administrations policies. They do not change in the blink of an eye. It took a few years to claw out of the depths of the 70's. So to summarily dismiss the 70's (mostly because it doesn't support your argument that Reagan did nothing but bad for the economy) pretty much nullifies your argument.

I can show from the past 3 years that Obama has been far worse for our debt than Bush II ever was. That is, if I take it all in a vaccuum. Considering the policies he had to contend with initially, I expected pretty much what we got for the past 3 years. None of these things stop and start the instant the presidency changes hands. It is a great rolling stone that keeps moving of it's own accord. It takes a while for the next guy to nudge it in a different direction.

Also, to your point, outside forces have an impact on our national economics. Do you think the dissolution of the eastern block had any impact on global economics? That is one for you to look up.

It is easy to throw numbers around without context. It doesn't make them, or the conclusions, right, but it is easy.

 

[The-Joker]

Well the 80's came on the heels of the 70's, so to take the 80's in a vaccuum certainly does not say much for the numbers. You can take any time period as a single data point and it won't tell you much. What was happening at the end of the 70's and into the beginning of the 80's? Did things get better or worse, comparatively speaking, over the next decade? Believe it or not every presidency is forced to deal with the fallout of the previous administrations policies. They do not change in the blink of an eye. It took a few years to claw out of the depths of the 70's. So to summarily dismiss the 70's (mostly because it doesn't support your argument that Reagan did nothing but bad for the economy) pretty much nullifies your argument.

I can show from the past 3 years that Obama has been far worse for our debt than Bush II ever was. That is, if I take it all in a vaccuum. Considering the policies he had to contend with initially, I expected pretty much what we got for the past 3 years. None of these things stop and start the instant the presidency changes hands. It is a great rolling stone that keeps moving of it's own accord. It takes a while for the next guy to nudge it in a different direction.

Also, to your point, outside forces have an impact on our national economics. Do you think the dissolution of the eastern block had any impact on global economics? That is one for you to look up.

It is easy to throw numbers around without context. It doesn't make them, or the conclusions, right, but it is easy.

Thanks Professor...

I'm not gonna throw down a senior thesis to try and beat Mislapper in an argument. Because I don't need to... if you didn't notice I won, she retorted my remark with "well you're too young to actually know anything". I just gave her some cold hard facts to humble her a little bit, if I feel it's necessary to get out the MLA format guidelines, I will do so.

 

[bat]

One stat that you can look at as pretty telling about the Reagan administration is that in both the periods before he was president, and immediately following, people were saving more money than they were while he was in office. Ats not a good statistic.