Don't Republicans have better things to worry about?

[LogGrad98]

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.

Unless the goal is to jumpstart an economy, which in the end requires spending. I agree that during his presidency savings were lower than they should have been, but also consumer confidence was on the rise, which was a good sign after the disaster of the 70's.

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

Well, from my perspective you didn't win anything. I added the detail she didn't. And it kind of proves that you might be too young to really understand the context of the issues America was facing on the heels of the 70's, or at the very least didn't really do your homework.

But whatever makes you feel better I guess.

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

1. So what? Whatever your point is you'll notice that it was unnecessary for the government to ban rotary phones for innovation to replace them.
2. ...and at the same time your mom was renting her phone from the government regulated monopoly of at&t
3. "a MANDATE to break up at&t?" That a streeeeeeeeeetch! Since a mandate is a regulation, you are saying " a regulation to deregulate." Sounds pretty retarded don't it?
4. Nope, but nice try
5. It doesn't matter when AT&T's long antitrust battle started. It was finally settled in 1982 because of pressure from William Baxter, head of the antitrust division of the Justice Department under Reagan. This settlement became a model for future deregulations.
6. Competing service was the key to widespread use and the move from 2 ton bricks to little pocket sized phones.

 

[sirkickyass]

It's obvious you know not of what you speak so we'll deal with this relatively briefly and in groups.

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.

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.

1. So what? Whatever your point is you'll notice that it was unnecessary for the government to ban rotary phones for innovation to replace them.
2. ...and at the same time your mom was renting her phone from the government regulated monopoly of at&t
6. Competing service was the key to widespread use and the move from 2 ton bricks to little pocket sized phones.

Your initial argument, and you quite literally said this, was that Reagan's decision to deregulate AT&T is the reason almost everyone in the world has a cell phone. That's barely even a paraphrase.

Points 1, 2, and 6 demonstrate that the cellular phone was on its way anyway because a) ATT&T itself was already developing them, b) other countries were putting them together, and c) that it was a process that began when Reagan was still starring in Bedtime for Bonzo.

You've advanced no argument to refute any of those points. The closest you came was in saying "competing service was the key to widespread use and the move from 2 ton bricks to little pocket sized phones." However, you're missing several intermediate steps.

For example, you've failed to even advance the claim that AT&T's monopoly would have applied to cellular phone signals. In fact, based on the way that the cellular phone market actually played out we know that was almost assuredly not the case as the infrastructure advantage that AT&T enjoyed that led to its monopoly status was almost wholly irrelevant in preventing previously unknown players, such as T-Mobile, from entering the American market even though they were subject to the same structural disadvantages they would have been absent the breakup of AT&T. As a result there's every reason to believe that AT&T would have faced cell phone market competition even if it had maintained a land line monopoly.

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.

3. "a MANDATE to break up at&t?" That a streeeeeeeeeetch! Since a mandate is a regulation, you are saying " a regulation to deregulate." Sounds pretty retarded don't it?
4. Nope, but nice try

Yes, the Government mandated that AT&T be broken up. That was the result of a set of business regulations that we generally refer to as Antitrust Law that is designed to prevent companies from gaining unnatural monopolies.

The "settlement" was a binding legal obligation on AT&T that exists because of US laws. And really the settlement was a gift to AT&T, if that thing had ever gone to trial they would have ceased to exist entirely. Instead they got to keep their long-distance business.

5. It doesn't matter when AT&T's long antitrust battle started. It was finally settled in 1982 because of pressure from William Baxter, head of the antitrust division of the Justice Department under Reagan. This settlement became a model for future deregulations.

Well actually it does matter, because it means that it wasn't Reagan's idea to break up AT&T, which makes it hard to credit him with any claimed benefits of the break up. Even one as absurd as the claim that without it we'd all still be using rotary phones.

It's not like William Baxter initiated the lawsuit or that he, his superiors, or even their predecessors had the idea to break up AT&T. The basic allegations that made up the lawsuit and drove the settlement were set by the mid-1970s. In fact, the "settlement" was in many senses a post-trial settlement because AT&T had already lost its parallel private suit to MCI by 1981 and was already committed to divestiture of some of its assets. At the time the settlement with the DOJ was negotiated the parties were already in an advanced litigation stage in which AT&T had already lost its motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. That's seven years of work across three presidential administrations and its the result of governmental process. The Sainted Reagan didn't do everything on his own.

 

[The Thriller]

Game, set, match.

Gameover.

 

[The Thriller]

I seriously wonder what this new "super committee" is going to do. It will consist of 6 demos and 6 repubs. Of course, the repubs are going to jam as many tea party/oath jokes onto their side while the left will probably be far extreme as well.

They'll fight and argue and not budge...

so what will that accomplish?

I just don't understand why so many people believe that the current level of spending is unsustainable but the current level of revenue isn't.

Why can't we agree that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake and rid ourselves of them? A slight increase in taxes isn't a horrible thing. Wars, upgrading our infrastructure, and improving education isn't going to be free.

 

[bat]

See, I don't think the republicans want all that many tea partiers on the committee. They've gone beyond an energy wave and turned into althorn in the side of traditional republicans. The gang of six, which is similar to what this so committee is going to be proposed a deal that was backed by Mitch McConnell I believe that had both bigger cuts in spending, but allowed for higher taxes. The tea partiers are they reason that bill didn't get anywhere. Boehner, McConnell, and some of the other higher ranking republicans like McCain have openly attacked the tea party. The majority of republicans know you can't have a minority group holding the country hostage like the TP just did. You'll see one or two TP members on the committee, but don't be surprised to see 3-4 traditional republicans there to negotiate come thanksgiving.

The republican party does not want to see a bug cut in defense spending that would happen if the trigger cuts are activated. They don't want to end up on this fight again anymore than democrats do.

In the next 16 months the republicans have to figure out a way to unite the party that right now stands as separated as it has for quite a while. They don't want a 3 party system.

 

[The-Joker]

Well, from my perspective you didn't win anything. I added the detail she didn't. And it kind of proves that you might be too young to really understand the context of the issues America was facing on the heels of the 70's, or at the very least didn't really do your homework.

But whatever makes you feel better I guess.

Sorry, that was a dickish post...

I was just trying to say I'd use a different approach in response to Kicky then I would to Milsapper.

I understand the issues America faced during in the 70s, and after looking at the data, the pitfalls of the economy during the 70's caused more economic turmoil then during the 1980's. But the 70's were not an inferred time of economic prosperity, and the 80's were, but the 80's, despite the inferred prosperity. A trend started in the early-mid 80's that continued through to the current recession, and might continue afterwards... this trend was that even during times of American prosperity, policy decisions which promoted economic prosperity, managed to kick us in the balls down the road. And what I'm referring to, is the buying power of the dollar was growing weaker, faster, than the economy was getting stronger (not to be confused with Daft Punk), the equivalent of my consumer price index to GDP per capita ratio thing. In my eyes, this is the most important economic principal... that the amount of money I earn, is able to go just as far with GDP growth after 10 years, then it did earlier. What's the point of getting 20% growth over a decade if things cost 35% more???

In 1970, you could afford a middle class home and a middle class car and everything else needed for human sustenance on 1 middle class salary. Now I won't deny that the mid and late 70's kicked our asses economically, I don't think anyone would, and that downward trend continued into the early 80's. Where I find fault with Reagan that I don't find with Nixon, Ford, and mostly Carter, is that his policy decisions (deregulation, tax reform act of 86) and Reaganomics OVERALL is, although he strengthened the upper class, especially the upper upper class creating a period of unprecedented growth, it absolutely crippled the lower and middle class. And the only reason they were ever able to recover at all, was because they could now build up massive amounts of debt.

I'm tired...

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

Systematically went through my post? His response wasn't even topical. It was like my mention of Reagan was some kind of trigger for him to crap out the most recent load of liberal rhetoric he has heard.

 

[PearlWatson]

It's obvious you know not of what you speak so we'll deal with this relatively briefly and in groups.
Your initial argument, and you quite literally said this, was that Reagan's decision to deregulate AT&T is the reason almost everyone in the world has a cell phone. That's barely even a paraphrase.
Points 1, 2, and 6 demonstrate that the cellular phone was on its way anyway because a) ATT&T itself was already developing them, b) other countries were putting them together, and c) that it was a process that began when Reagan was still starring in Bedtime for Bonzo.
You've advanced no argument to refute any of those points. The closest you came was in saying "competing service was the key to widespread use and the move from 2 ton bricks to little pocket sized phones." However, you're missing several intermediate steps.
For example, you've failed to even advance the claim that AT&T's monopoly would have applied to cellular phone signals. In fact, based on the way that the cellular phone market actually played out we know that was almost assuredly not the case as the infrastructure advantage that AT&T enjoyed that led to its monopoly status was almost wholly irrelevant in preventing previously unknown players, such as T-Mobile, from entering the American market even though they were subject to the same structural disadvantages they would have been absent the breakup of AT&T. As a result there's every reason to believe that AT&T would have faced cell phone market competition even if it had maintained a land line monopoly.
Yes, the Government mandated that AT&T be broken up. That was the result of a set of business regulations that we generally refer to as Antitrust Law that is designed to prevent companies from gaining unnatural monopolies.
The "settlement" was a binding legal obligation on AT&T that exists because of US laws. And really the settlement was a gift to AT&T, if that thing had ever gone to trial they would have ceased to exist entirely. Instead they got to keep their long-distance business.
Well actually it does matter, because it means that it wasn't Reagan's idea to break up AT&T, which makes it hard to credit him with any claimed benefits of the break up. Even one as absurd as the claim that without it we'd all still be using rotary phones.
It's not like William Baxter initiated the lawsuit or that he, his superiors, or even their predecessors had the idea to break up AT&T. The basic allegations that made up the lawsuit and drove the settlement were set by the mid-1970s. In fact, the "settlement" was in many senses a post-trial settlement because AT&T had already lost its parallel private suit to MCI by 1981 and was already committed to divestiture of some of its assets. At the time the settlement with the DOJ was negotiated the parties were already in an advanced litigation stage in which AT&T had already lost its motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. That's seven years of work across three presidential administrations and its the result of governmental process. The Sainted Reagan didn't do everything on his own.

It ain't my fault you jumped to one of your typically absurd conclusions. My mention of widespread use the cellphones never meant that I was claiming cellphones weren't being developed yet.
I credited Reagan since his justice department determined the terms of the settlement. Perfectly legit.
Yeah, it is the proper role of the government to breakup monopolies so free market competition can work, not ban products in favor of other products...with cancer causing agents.
The ridiculous rotary phone argument was advanced by your little sheep. My post was in response to it.

 

[sirkickyass]

It ain't my fault you jumped to one of your typically absurd conclusions. My mention of widespread use the cellphones never meant that I was claiming cellphones weren't being developed yet.

You have forgotten what you wrote on the subject:

"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.

Please explain how that can be construed in any way other than "Reagan is directly responsible for the cell phone."

I credited Reagan since his justice department determined the terms of the settlement. Perfectly legit.

AT&T was going to be broken up regardless of who won the 1980 election. The process had already been running for six years. Somehow I doubt you'd be crediting Carter in a different historical timeline.

Yeah, it is the proper role of the government to breakup monopolies so free market competition can work, not ban products in favor of other products...with cancer causing agents.

So you're acknowleding here that the break-up of AT&T, which you have cited as a positive event in the market leading to innovation, was due to government mandates.

Now your previous statement in that same post was: "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."

Do you understand the conflict here? Do you understand how the AT&T breakup illustrates exactly the opposite of the point you were trying to make?

Never mind, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't understand.

 

[The-Joker]

It ain't my fault you jumped to one of your typically absurd conclusions.

I'm sure everyone really appreciates the logical and well thought out arguments that Cletus brings to this board.

 

[PearlWatson]

You have forgotten what you wrote on the subject:

"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.

Please explain how that can be construed in any way other than "Reagan is directly responsible for the cell phone."

LOL! It says Reagan broke up at&t to allow for a competitive phone market and now there is widespread use. That don't mean I was claiming Reagan created the cell phone like Algore created the internet.

AT&T was going to be broken up regardless of who won the 1980 election. The process had already been running for six years. Somehow I doubt you'd be crediting Carter in a different historical timeline.

Okay I'll give credit to Nixon whose justice department started it...still a Republican...still makes my point.

So you're acknowleding here that the break-up of AT&T, which you have cited as a positive event in the market leading to innovation, was due to government mandates.

Now your previous statement in that same post was: "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."

Do you understand the conflict here? Do you understand how the AT&T breakup illustrates exactly the opposite of the point you were trying to make?

Never mind, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't understand.

I guess if you insist that the executive branch breaking up a monopoly to allow for free market competition is the same as the legislative branch interfering in the free market by banning a product in favor of another product then you can say I acknowledged any damn thing you want.

 

[PearlWatson]

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,

LOL!

 

[sirkickyass]

LOL! It says Reagan broke up at&t to allow for a competitive phone market and now there is widespread use. That don't mean I was claiming Reagan created the cell phone like Algore created the internet.

You're backpedaling here. You wrote: "'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."

Cause: Reagan broke up the AT&T monopoly and deregulated phone service.

Effect: Nearly everyone on the planet has a cell phone.

I know you have linked these two things as cause and effect because you use the linking phrases "the reason" and "is because."

This isn't debateable. Refusing to admit that's what you said both makes you look silly and insults the intelligence of everyone else.

Okay I'll give credit to Nixon whose justice department started it...still a Republican...still makes my point.

If it is simply about Republican vs. Democrat then you're simply being overtly partisan. I have no problem crediting Nixon, who I believe was a good President that had personal demons that caused him to cheat in an election he should have won anyway. If it was a straight-up vote between Richard Nixon and Obama today I'd vote for Nixon. I don't think it's difficult to argue that Nixon actually governed to the left of Obama.

I guess if you insist that the executive branch breaking up a monopoly to allow for free market competition is the same as the legislative branch interfering in the free market by banning a product in favor of another product then you can say I acknowledged any damn thing you want.

Well actually it's a court order, which would make it a judicial function on a lawsuit initiated by the executive branch suing under a law crafted by the legislative branch (you see, that's how things work in our system), but yes that is the government "mandating" how a company should or should not do business. Completely irrelevant references to other things entirely, that is exactly the thing that you demonized in your initial post.

 

[PearlWatson]

You're backpedaling here. You wrote: "'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."

Cause: Reagan broke up the AT&T monopoly and deregulated phone service.

Effect: Nearly everyone on the planet has a cell phone.

I know you have linked these two things as cause and effect because you use the linking phrases "the reason" and "is because."

This isn't debateable. Refusing to admit that's what you said both makes you look silly and insults the intelligence of everyone else.

Oh you thought that when I said "everyone has a cellphone" that they were just holding them and not using them.

If it is simply about Republican vs. Democrat then you're simply being overtly partisan.

I was responding to your sheep who was simply being overtly partisan. So what?

 

[sirkickyass]

I'd like to know what "filtered content" it contained for future reference.

PM sent with enlarged image.

 

[The-Joker]

PM sent with enlarged image.

You would...

 

[PearlWatson]

He had to enlarge it so I would be able to see it. LOL!

 

[sirkickyass]

He had to enlarge it so I would be able to see it. LOL!

If you would like I will send you the original too. I enlarged it for your benefit.