Political Crossfire Forums

[Il Principe]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Quote: What supposed freedoms do you think were really lost due to the new deal? The freedom to be poor? Freedom from industrialism?

Poverty, and the depressions that cause them, are the ultimate sacrafice of freedom in the name of a volatile economic system.

Dude, I'm sorry, but no one has a right to not be poor. Social security has failed and goes to show that it's time to get rid of it. Medicare as well, is unethical and takes freedom away from a worker's right to do what he pleases with his money. It also forces businesses to raise pay to compensate for the workers' losses.

Social security and madicare have not "failed" yet, and the reason for this can be found in government mismanagement rather than the system itself - look at the European countries for instance.

Quote: Quote: Neither Reagan or Bush sr made the necessary adjustments or funding to the US social security system, it why its failing in the USA and not in Europe, and its going to have grevious consequences down the line. There is nothing wrong with the system, social security is just Keynesian principle of marginality applied - something both the presidents mentioned and their economic advisors loathe and fail to understand - and something that the current Bush just doesent seem to understand (or care about) either, I suppose that american society just isn't conductive to a strong public sector.

Why are you excluding Clinton from that list?

Becuase Clinton was not advised by conservative economists, and thus for his part he directed and managed the social security somewhat better.

Quote: And what did he do to help the social security system? Nothing, which is what he and every President since Truman should have done. The system should have been privatized or abolished long ago.

You cannot privatize a public good or system, it simply does not work, if you want to replace something with a private system, the public system must first be closed down, and private social security systems worldwide have shown to be very unsuccessful. You simply cannot leave something like social security, welfare etc. to chance in the business cycle.

The system worked fine through FDR's presidency, and it should have been maintained, instead it was tampered with by conservatives who had very little idea in what they were doing in this reguard.

Quote: It's simply unethical. The inherent flaw with the system is that it forcibly steals worker's hard earned wages, witholds them for many years without the guarantee of getting them back.

Its does not steal wages - it makes available previously taxed income for retirement - at its basic level, its simply a tax return one gets at retirement.

Quote: That's a highway robbery and its costing businesses and workers money. You can't take money out of people's pockets and expect it to help the economy in the long run.

But it was not taken out of the poeple's pocket, it was taken out of the governments ..

[Dr. Righteous]

Il Principe wrote: Social security and madicare have not "failed" yet, and the reason for this can be found in government mismanagement rather than the system itself - look at the European countries for instance.

That is exactly the reason they have failed. If it's broken, it has failed. The system is beyond repair at this point.

Il Principe wrote: Becuase Clinton was not advised by conservative economists, and thus for his part he directed and managed the social security somewhat better.

He obviously didn't do much because the system has only gotten worse.

Il Principe wrote: You cannot privatize a public good or system, it simply does not work, if you want to replace something with a private system, the public system must first be closed down, and private social security systems worldwide have shown to be very unsuccessful. You simply cannot leave something like social security, welfare etc. to chance in the business cycle.

That's exactly the reason it shouldn't exist. If it is privatized, it is rendered worthless to bank accounts.

Il Principe wrote: The system worked fine through FDR's presidency, and it should have been maintained, instead it was tampered with by conservatives who had very little idea in what they were doing in this reguard.

Again, that's a good thing because it should be abolished.

Il Principe wrote: Its does not steal wages - it makes available previously taxed income for retirement - at its basic level, its simply a tax return one gets at retirement.

But what if I don't want that? What if I want the money to spend immediately? Why is my property the government's business? Why should they take care of me and make sure that I am secure for retirement?

Il Principe wrote: But it was not taken out of the poeple's pocket, it was taken out of the governments ..

Where do governments get money? From the people. In this case, our generation is screwed because we cannot output the money for the retiring baby boomers. It is our tax money financing this sham of a system. My hard earned wages are paying for other people's retirements? Why?

[Il Principe]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: Social security and madicare have not "failed" yet, and the reason for this can be found in government mismanagement rather than the system itself - look at the European countries for instance.

That is exactly the reason they have failed. If it's broken, it has failed. The system is beyond repair at this point.

It has not "failed" , all thats happned is that appropriate funding, adjustment and updates have been chocked from the system. The problem could be solved in a few years if you brought back the 1964 tax rates, or in a decade at the 1980 tax rates - or you dont have to touch the tax at all and modify the most wastefull spending component of the US government, military - which is laughable, what can you do with destroying the world 20 times over that you cant do destroying the world 15 times over :lol:

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Becuase Clinton was not advised by conservative economists, and thus for his part he directed and managed the social security somewhat better.

He obviously didn't do much because the system has only gotten worse.

Under Clinton the system was revived somewhat, this was done directly by rasing income taxes up to 39.6% - the recent Republican presidents - advised by people in the pockets of big business - have made social security their enemy.

Somewhat commendably, Bush jr has given up on Social Security, which probably makes him the first Republican since Nixon to not singnificantly hurt social security.


Quote: Il Principe wrote: You cannot privatize a public good or system, it simply does not work, if you want to replace something with a private system, the public system must first be closed down, and private social security systems worldwide have shown to be very unsuccessful. You simply cannot leave something like social security, welfare etc. to chance in the business cycle.

That's exactly the reason it shouldn't exist. If it is privatized, it is rendered worthless to bank accounts.

You nearly got it right, "That's exactly the reason it shouldn't exist" - as a private system.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: The system worked fine through FDR's presidency, and it should have been maintained, instead it was tampered with by conservatives who had very little idea in what they were doing in this reguard.

Again, that's a good thing because it should be abolished.

Well Eisenhower, Kennedy, L Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton certainly did not think so.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Its does not steal wages - it makes available previously taxed income for retirement - at its basic level, its simply a tax return one gets at retirement.

But what if I don't want that? What if I want the money to spend immediately? Why is my property the government's business? Why should they take care of me and make sure that I am secure for retirement?

Becuase you dont understand the system - the government isnt taking any of your untaxed dollars, they're giving you some of your taxed money for accumulation for retirement - this is far better than just paying it into a government kitty and getting it back later.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: But it was not taken out of the poeple's pocket, it was taken out of the governments ..

Where do governments get money? From the people. In this case, our generation is screwed because we cannot output the money for the retiring baby boomers. It is our tax money financing this sham of a system. My hard earned wages are paying for other people's retirements? Why?

Becuase to win elections Reagan and Bush sr lowered the taxes for his own generation, thus making sure that the burden was skewed towards our generation. And to seal the deal they actually raised milatary spending at the expense of social security, welfare and education.

It never happned here in Germany so we're fine for the forseeable future. One can certainly see why when we look at expenditure on the system (as of 2000).

* Italy 14%
* France 12%
* Germany 12%
* Sweden 9%
* Japan 8%
* USA 4%

[Dr. Righteous]

Il Principe wrote: It has not "failed" , all thats happned is that appropriate funding, adjustment and updates have been chocked from the system. The problem could be solved in a few years if you brought back the 1964 tax rates, or in a decade at the 1980 tax rates

The 1964 and 1980 tax rates are much above what we can handle as an economy. Why do you think the economy was so bad in the 60s and 70s and excellent in the 80s and 90s? Because of Reagan's tax breaks. You cannot take more money out of peoples' pockets and expect it to help the economy. You're telling us to wreck our economy to save a system that people can simply do on their own?

Il Principe wrote: or you dont have to touch the tax at all and modify the most wastefull spending component of the US government, military - which is laughable, what can you do with destroying the world 20 times over that you cant do destroying the world 15 times over :lol:

I would hardly call self-defense "wasteful spending". I would actually think it is one of the most essential functions of the government - to defend the Constitution and its citizen's rights. There is much more wasteful spending that has been incorporated into our government, because people believe the government should take care of its citizens, including but not limited to welfare, social security, medicare, environment protection, healthcare, public education, and other systems of government that have failed, showing why the government cannot handle the economy when it is involved.

Um, I think you are overestimating the power of our military. We have enough nukes to destroy the earth "15-20 times over" but certainly not otherwise. Nukes are never a practical option and are only there in case of a last resort. However, you seem to be under the impression that all of the military funding goes towards nukes. That simply is not the case. We do wish to retain our position as the most powerful military in the world because we have the strongest economy in the world, we can do that. Unlike European nations, we believe that we should be able to adequately defend our borders from any foreign coalition that may decide to attack us. Besides, you liberals are brainwashed to think that we are losing the war in Iraq. If we have a military powerful enough to destroy the world 15-20 times over, then how are we "losing" the war?

Il Principe wrote: Under Clinton the system was revived somewhat, this was done directly by rasing income taxes up to 39.6% - the recent Republican presidents - advised by people in the pockets of big business - have made social security their enemy.

Somewhat? The system is failing. If he was concerned about social security, he would have taken steps almost equivalent to what you have suggested. That would have turned the economy into a further recession than we saw in 2000. But he did not and could not do anything about it because the Republican Congress kept him in check from doing anything too liberal. We did not want to see a repeat of the 60s and 70s. I don't know why you favor government over big business, when clearly big business keeps the economy running well and government does nothing but bog it down.

Il Principe wrote: Somewhat commendably, Bush jr has given up on Social Security, which probably makes him the first Republican since Nixon to not singnificantly hurt social security.

You call him Bush Jr. as if it is an insult, and its cute but not clever. Republicans before Reagan were more moderate. Nixon was a Socialist, in fact. I'm glad they are hurting social security because I want it gone. We don't need it, it is useless government taxation.

Il Principe wrote: You nearly got it right, "That's exactly the reason it shouldn't exist" - as a private system.

Wrong, it shouldn't exist period. It doesn't need to.

Il Principe wrote: Well Eisenhower, Kennedy, L Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton certainly did not think so.

Again, all Republican Presidents before Reagan were moderate and loved government spending.

Il Principe wrote: Becuase you dont understand the system - the government isnt taking any of your untaxed dollars, they're giving you some of your taxed money for accumulation for retirement - this is far better than just paying it into a government kitty and getting it back later.

What are you talking about? Social security is a tax just as income tax, medicare tax, municipality and state taxes. Our social security taxes go straight to those who are retiring. Becuase there were a large number of baby boomer's, the current workforce is not able to finance the retirement population. You keep saying Republicans have tampered with the system and screwed. What exactly have they done, specifically, when its clear the system has screwed itself up and shown itself to be faulty? And you still haven't answered my question. Why should the government be doing this for me when I am perfectly capable of deciding what to do with my own money (property) for retirement? They are taking away our freedom by forcing us to allocate money for retirement and other peoples' retirement. Why can't we just worry about ourselves? Why can't we just get our own damn money and stop jeopardizing the working man and businessman, and stop taking our freedoms away?

Il Principe wrote: Becuase to win elections Reagan and Bush sr lowered the taxes for his own generation, thus making sure that the burden was skewed towards our generation. And to seal the deal they actually raised milatary spending at the expense of social security, welfare and education.

:lol: That's quite a conspiracy you have worked out there. The only reason they did it was to get re-elected. Actually the Democratic Congress failed to cut spending on these programs, thus driving the deficit way up and making Reagan look at fault. But that doesn't matter because deficits are imaginary numbers anyway. Raising military spending at the expense of social security, welfare, and education is a good thing, however. All of these systems have proven themselves to be inefficient and wasteful in our society. There are leeches on welfare, public education, especially in inner city schools, has failed. No Child Left Behind, a liberal economic policy fabricated by the Bush Adminsitration, has failed. They can't even fund it correctly. Your cases in point are the exact reason why the government cannot intervene in public life without screwing everything up.

Il Principe wrote: It never happned here in Germany so we're fine for the forseeable future. One can certainly see why when we look at expenditure on the system (as of 2000).

* Italy 14%
* France 12%
* Germany 12%
* Sweden 9%
* Japan 8%
* USA 4%

I'm noticing a trend. The less free the economy, the more spending on social security exists. Let's take a look at each country's respective unemployment rates:

* Italy 7.9%
* France 10.0%
* Germany 11.6%
* Sweden 6.0%
* Japan 4.3%
* USA 5.1%

I notice Germany is the highest on the list. 11.6 percent is horrendous, much worse than America was in the 70s. And thats just one aspect of the economy. Does that tell you something about why the socialist economic policies you describe are failing?

[Il Principe]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: It has not "failed" , all thats happned is that appropriate funding, adjustment and updates have been chocked from the system. The problem could be solved in a few years if you brought back the 1964 tax rates, or in a decade at the 1980 tax rates

The 1964 and 1980 tax rates are much above what we can handle as an economy. Why do you think the economy was so bad in the 60s and 70s and excellent in the 80s and 90s? Because of Reagan's tax breaks. You cannot take more money out of peoples' pockets and expect it to help the economy. You're telling us to wreck our economy to save a system that people can simply do on their own?

Your economy was not "excellent" in the 80's first of all, secondly your economy could handle those taxes then and would have no problem handling them now. All Reagans tax breaks really did was take potential federal money and give it to people whose marginal utility from every dollar earned is very minimal (aka. the rich) - in other words a waste of valuable government revenue which could be spent on the poeple. And no most people cannot do it on their own, and the government is going to have to foot the bill for the old people strung out on the street becuase their private fund crashed etc.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: or you dont have to touch the tax at all and modify the most wastefull spending component of the US government, military - which is laughable, what can you do with destroying the world 20 times over that you cant do destroying the world 15 times over :lol:

I would hardly call self-defense "wasteful spending". I would actually think it is one of the most essential functions of the government - to defend the Constitution and its citizen's rights. There is much more wasteful spending that has been incorporated into our government, because people believe the government should take care of its citizens, including but not limited to welfare, social security, medicare, environment protection, healthcare, public education, and other systems of government that have failed, showing why the government cannot handle the economy when it is involved.

Um, I think you are overestimating the power of our military. We have enough nukes to destroy the earth "15-20 times over" but certainly not otherwise. Nukes are never a practical option and are only there in case of a last resort. However, you seem to be under the impression that all of the military funding goes towards nukes. That simply is not the case. We do wish to retain our position as the most powerful military in the world because we have the strongest economy in the world, we can do that. Unlike European nations, we believe that we should be able to adequately defend our borders from any foreign coalition that may decide to attack us. Besides, you liberals are brainwashed to think that we are losing the war in Iraq. If we have a military powerful enough to destroy the world 15-20 times over, then how are we "losing" the war?

So you dont cosider having 15 times more nuclear weapons than necessary - wasteful?

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Under Clinton the system was revived somewhat, this was done directly by rasing income taxes up to 39.6% - the recent Republican presidents - advised by people in the pockets of big business - have made social security their enemy.

Somewhat? The system is failing. If he was concerned about social security, he would have taken steps almost equivalent to what you have suggested. That would have turned the economy into a further recession than we saw in 2000. But he did not and could not do anything about it because the Republican Congress kept him in check from doing anything too liberal. We did not want to see a repeat of the 60s and 70s. I don't know why you favor government over big business, when clearly big business keeps the economy running well and government does nothing but bog it down.

What recession in 2000? The downturn due to the dot com bubble burst? I was in university at that time (now I'm an economist) and let me tell you with some certainty, there was no recession :lol:

As for favoring government over big business, thats simple, government has the intrests of the people in mind, big business has a responsibility of profits to its shareholders, whereas every american is a shareholder in the US gov.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Somewhat commendably, Bush jr has given up on Social Security, which probably makes him the first Republican since Nixon to not singnificantly hurt social security.

You call him Bush Jr. as if it is an insult, and its cute but not clever. Republicans before Reagan were more moderate. Nixon was a Socialist, in fact. I'm glad they are hurting social security because I want it gone. We don't need it, it is useless government taxation.

No I call him Bush jr. becuase Bush sr. was his father :lol: Its undenyable that they've both been horrible presidents however.

Nixon wasnt a socialist, he was a Keynesian. Dont you realize that the only reason that social security is in such a decripid state is becuase of people like Reagan? If he managed the system properly we wouldnt even be arguing the subject now.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: You nearly got it right, "That's exactly the reason it shouldn't exist" - as a private system.

Wrong, it shouldn't exist period. It doesn't need to.

So what do you suggest people live off when they retire, fall into unemployment etc.

Dont get me wrong, personal responsibility is something I value greatly, but, we can let people just fall through into poverty, giving people a second chance to bounce back can prove to be very beneficial for all parties concerned.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Well Eisenhower, Kennedy, L Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton certainly did not think so.

Again, all Republican Presidents before Reagan were moderate and loved government spending.

Funnily enough it was a republican that would warn us about Reagan and the Bush's

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Becuase you dont understand the system - the government isnt taking any of your untaxed dollars, they're giving you some of your taxed money for accumulation for retirement - this is far better than just paying it into a government kitty and getting it back later.

What are you talking about? Social security is a tax just as income tax, medicare tax, municipality and state taxes. Our social security taxes go straight to those who are retiring. Becuase there were a large number of baby boomer's, the current workforce is not able to finance the retirement population. You keep saying Republicans have tampered with the system and screwed. What exactly have they done, specifically, when its clear the system has screwed itself up and shown itself to be faulty?

Chocked the system and misallocated resources, aka. the failure of "starve the beast"

Quote: And you still haven't answered my question. Why should the government be doing this for me when I am perfectly capable of deciding what to do with my own money (property) for retirement?

Becuase the government doesent want to pay for your ass if you lose any of your own money (property) and contribute to the rising 9% poverty rate.

Quote: They are taking away our freedom by forcing us to allocate money for retirement and other peoples' retirement. Why can't we just worry about ourselves? Why can't we just get our own damn money and stop jeopardizing the working man and businessman, and stop taking our freedoms away?

Becuase the government is the only reason you have your freedoms in the first place - and unlike you they have economists and other people employed who can see the big picture.



Quote: Il Principe wrote: Becuase to win elections Reagan and Bush sr lowered the taxes for his own generation, thus making sure that the burden was skewed towards our generation. And to seal the deal they actually raised milatary spending at the expense of social security, welfare and education.

:lol: That's quite a conspiracy you have worked out there.

Many politicians lower taxes before re-election, its not conspiracy, its a commonly used political tool.

Quote: Actually the Democratic Congress failed to cut spending on these programs, thus driving the deficit way up and making Reagan look at fault.

But Reagan was at fault ..

Quote: But that doesn't matter because deficits are imaginary numbers anyway. Raising military spending at the expense of social security, welfare, and education is a good thing, however. All of these systems have proven themselves to be inefficient and wasteful in our society.

So wasteful infact that since the 80's, the USA is now the stupidest, unhealthiest and unsecure nation in the western world, as opposed to those as you like to call them - "socailist countries" who actually bother to take care of their people.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: It never happned here in Germany so we're fine for the forseeable future. One can certainly see why when we look at expenditure on the system (as of 2000).

* Italy 14%
* France 12%
* Germany 12%
* Sweden 9%
* Japan 8%
* USA 4%

I'm noticing a trend. The less free the economy, the more spending on social security exists. Let's take a look at each country's respective unemployment rates:

* Italy 7.9%
* France 10.0%
* Germany 11.6%
* Sweden 6.0%
* Japan 4.3%
* USA 5.1%

I notice Germany is the highest on the list. 11.6 percent is horrendous, much worse than America was in the 70s. And thats just one aspect of the economy. Does that tell you something about why the socialist economic policies you describe are failing?

Firsly your unemployment numbers are wrong -

IMF link

* Italy 7.8%
* France 9.6%
* Germany 9.3%
* Sweden 4.9%
* Japan 4.1%
* USA 5.2%

And Germany's current economic problems are to do with the lifting of protection, not any "socialism" (btw. the correct term is Keynesianism, socialism is something very different).[/img]

[Dr. Righteous]

Il Principe wrote: It has not "failed" , all thats happned is that appropriate funding, adjustment and updates have been chocked from the system. The problem could be solved in a few years if you brought back the 1964 tax rates, or in a decade at the 1980 tax rates

The 1964 and 1980 tax rates are much above what we can handle as an economy. Why do you think the economy was so bad in the 60s and 70s and excellent in the 80s and 90s? Because of Reagan's tax breaks. You cannot take more money out of peoples' pockets and expect it to help the economy. You're telling us to wreck our economy to save a system that people can simply do on their own?[/quote]

Il Principe wrote: Your economy was not "excellent" in the 80's first of all, secondly your economy could handle those taxes then and would have no problem handling them now. All Reagans tax breaks really did was take potential federal money and give it to people whose marginal utility from every dollar earned is very minimal (aka. the rich) - in other words a waste of valuable government revenue which could be spent on the poeple. And no most people cannot do it on their own, and the government is going to have to foot the bill for the old people strung out on the street becuase their private fund crashed etc.

It was certainly more excellent than it had been in the past 30 years. Obviously the economy couldn't handle the tax rates because each year, the tax rates went up, spending went up and magically, the economy became worse and worse. It's ridiculous that you are denying even the most fundamental part of economics. You can't take money out of people's pockets to sacrifice to the state in order to expect an upturn in the economy. It makes no sense and history goes to show that it is a failed principle. The rich pay the most taxes anyway, and Reagan's tax cuts covered everybody, but mostly the rich because they deserve the biggest break. The Democrats actually want to increase taxes on the poor, which makes me sick. The government is not supposed to spend money on the people like it was because big government programs have been disastrous in this country. Why should the government take care of old people? What ever happened to private charity? Why is it my responsibility that some old person didn't save money for their retirement in a public bank?

Il Principe wrote: So you dont cosider having 15 times more nuclear weapons than necessary - wasteful?

The reason we have so many nukes is because of the stockpile build-up in the 80s, our technology keeps improving so we keep building newer and better nukes, and we do not want to pay to have the old nukes dismantled. Thus we have an arsenal built up to "15 times more than necessary". I don't know where you got that number, but I am using it for figurative purposes. If we have the upper hand on nuclear technology, that is a very strong advantage when it comes to diplomacy. It would especially be useful if we had a missile defense system, yet the American left opposes that too. I guess they want to see us get attacked!

Il Principe wrote: What recession in 2000? The downturn due to the dot com bubble burst? I was in university at that time (now I'm an economist) and let me tell you with some certainty, there was no recession :lol:

As for favoring government over big business, thats simple, government has the intrests of the people in mind, big business has a responsibility of profits to its shareholders, whereas every american is a shareholder in the US gov.

The media made fuss over the "recession" in the early 2000s largely in part of the fact that Bush won the 2000 election. However, I noticed nothing. The government only succeeds in creating unemployment, inflation, poverty, high taxes, an unfriendly environment for small business owners and stifling freedom in what would be a successful market.

Il Principe wrote: No I call him Bush jr. becuase Bush sr. was his father :lol: Its undenyable that they've both been horrible presidents however.

Right...I guess that means Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were better presidents! Just take a look at their excellent records: Kennedy with the bay of pigs and causing the Cuban missile crisis; Johnson showing typical Democrat incompetence by starting a war he didn't plan to win, and starting a worthless "war on poverty" that has done nothing but increase tax dollars and waste them to date; Carter failing to do anything about the economy and letting Iranians take hostages for over a year, failing to do anything when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, recognizing Red China and leaving Taiwan in the dust; Clinton giving military secrets to Red China, arming North Korea with nukes so they are pointing nukes at us, invading Somolia and failing to set up a stable government (one that is now under anarchy), outsourcing American jobs through NAFTA, failing to capture/kill bin Laden after he attacked us 4 times thus allowing 9/11 to occur, failing to enforce UN Resolution 687, taking credit for economic boom attributed to the Reagan/Bush economic policies and the Internet, half-lying under oath straight to the American public's face.

These people cannot be trusted with the Presidency and the American people should never allow them to get anywhere near the Oval Office again.

Il Principe wrote: Nixon wasnt a socialist, he was a Keynesian. Dont you realize that the only reason that social security is in such a decripid state is becuase of people like Reagan? If he managed the system properly we wouldnt even be arguing the subject now.

I would consider a price and wage freeze socialism.

Please tell me specifically what Reagan did to the social security system that screwed it up. Please tell me what justifies penalizing small business owners to pay 13% of their income to social security, money they are never going to see back? How would Reagan have caused a travesty that involves raising taxes on small business owners?

If social security didn't exist, America would be much better off.

Il Principe wrote: So what do you suggest people live off when they retire, fall into unemployment etc.

I would suggest either getting another job, adequately allocating funds into a bank account during your life for retirement, or turning to charity. However, I'm not going to worry about it because other peoples' problems are not my problems nor should they be the governments'/tax payers' problems. If s**t hits the fan for me, I'm not going to turn to the tax payers and expect to steal money from them to pay for my financial downturns. I will worry about it myself.

Il Principe wrote: Dont get me wrong, personal responsibility is something I value greatly, but, we can let people just fall through into poverty, giving people a second chance to bounce back can prove to be very beneficial for all parties concerned.

You are speaking in terms that sacrifice freedom for social/government responsibility. It's not worth it. Freedom is the most important thing, above all, in any case. We are breeding a society in which everyone is a follower and there are no leaders. People need to be told what to do with themselves, with their money, when to eat, when to take a s**t. We are becoming a lazy society. That was a major factor contributing to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Il Principe wrote: Funnily enough it was a republican that would warn us about Reagan and the Bush's

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

I'm not going to rag on Eisenhower becuase he was a well respected war hero. There is a difference between Conservatives and Republicans. Republicans are generally more moderate where as Conservatives are more on the extreme side. Reagan was probably the only Conservative president we've had.

Il Principe wrote: Chocked the system and misallocated resources, aka. the failure of "starve the beast"

I just wish we could choke the system out for good and have the government send everyone who has put into the system a check and be done with.

Il Principe wrote: Becuase the government doesent want to pay for your ass if you lose any of your own money (property) and contribute to the rising 9% poverty rate.

They shouldn't be ALLOWED to pay for me if I lose my own money. That's unconstitutional theft of tax payers' money.

Il Principe wrote: Becuase the government is the only reason you have your freedoms in the first place - and unlike you they have economists and other people employed who can see the big picture.

That is the sole purpose the government was originally intended to be designed for by our founding fathers - to protect the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is the only reason it should exist.

Il Principe wrote: Many politicians lower taxes before re-election, its not conspiracy, its a commonly used political tool.

It wasn't just a quick plan that he happened to pull out of thin air right before the '84 eleciton. Actually, he began pushing for his economic bill during the first year of his presidency and was one of the foundations of his campaign.

Il Principe wrote: But Reagan was at fault ..

How was it Reagan's fault that the Democrats controlling Congress failed to cut social spending despite his pleas?

Il Principe wrote: So wasteful infact that since the 80's, the USA is now the stupidest, unhealthiest and unsecure nation in the western world, as opposed to those as you like to call them - "socailist countries" who actually bother to take care of their people.

I would attribute "stupidest" to the fact that our public education system has failed and 50% of the nation voted for John Kerry in 2004. Take a look at socialized healthcare in Canada and Britain. It is a travesty that shouldn't be allowed to exist. The only thing large, fascist governments do well are exterminate their own people. The bigger the government, the more rights are violated. People don't need to be taken care of whenever they are perfectly capable of handling it themselves. And if they can't, there will always be some private entity there for them.

Il Principe wrote: Firsly your unemployment numbers are wrong -

IMF link

* Italy 7.8%
* France 9.6%
* Germany 9.3%
* Sweden 4.9%
* Japan 4.1%
* USA 5.2%

And Germany's current economic problems are to do with the lifting of protection, not any "socialism" (btw. the correct term is Keynesianism, socialism is something very different).[/img]

I was using unemployment figures from 2005, so I figured not much has changed since. Obviously I was correct.

I don't pay attention to German economics like you pay attention to American economics. Nor do I care, because it doesn't concern me. I care about what affects me and you ought to do the same.

[Il Principe]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: It has not "failed" , all thats happned is that appropriate funding, adjustment and updates have been chocked from the system. The problem could be solved in a few years if you brought back the 1964 tax rates, or in a decade at the 1980 tax rates

The 1964 and 1980 tax rates are much above what we can handle as an economy. Why do you think the economy was so bad in the 60s and 70s and excellent in the 80s and 90s? Because of Reagan's tax breaks. You cannot take more money out of peoples' pockets and expect it to help the economy. You're telling us to wreck our economy to save a system that people can simply do on their own?

Il Principe wrote: Your economy was not "excellent" in the 80's first of all, secondly your economy could handle those taxes then and would have no problem handling them now. All Reagans tax breaks really did was take potential federal money and give it to people whose marginal utility from every dollar earned is very minimal (aka. the rich) - in other words a waste of valuable government revenue which could be spent on the poeple. And no most people cannot do it on their own, and the government is going to have to foot the bill for the old people strung out on the street becuase their private fund crashed etc.

It was certainly more excellent than it had been in the past 30 years. Obviously the economy couldn't handle the tax rates because each year, the tax rates went up, spending went up and magically, the economy became worse and worse. It's ridiculous that you are denying even the most fundamental part of economics.[/quote]

This is not a fundamental part of economics, in fact raising tax rates has led to better economic conditions in the long run for many countries. This on the other hand IS an economic principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility


Quote: You can't take money out of people's pockets to sacrifice to the state in order to expect an upturn in the economy.

Yes you can

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

Quote: It makes no sense and history goes to show that it is a failed principle. The rich pay the most taxes anyway, and Reagan's tax cuts covered everybody, but mostly the rich because they deserve the biggest break.

The rich also have this nasty habit of being the tax group more than twice as likely than the next to be charged with tax fraud.

Quote: The Democrats actually want to increase taxes on the poor, which makes me sick. The government is not supposed to spend money on the people like it was because big government programs have been disastrous in this country. Why should the government take care of old people? What ever happened to private charity?

You're one of those people who argues that greed is a fundamental aspect of humanity and thats why socialism failed, and yet you ask what ever happned to private charity? :lol:

Private charity has been useful as a supplement for niche causes, a replcement for government welfare it definitely isnt, especially in the United States where the average donation rate is lower than in countries twice as poor.

Quote: Why is it my responsibility that some old person didn't save money for their retirement in a public bank?

What? So you want a public banking system? I thought you hated government owned.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: So you dont cosider having 15 times more nuclear weapons than necessary - wasteful?

The reason we have so many nukes is because of the stockpile build-up in the 80s, our technology keeps improving so we keep building newer and better nukes, and we do not want to pay to have the old nukes dismantled. Thus we have an arsenal built up to "15 times more than necessary". I don't know where you got that number, but I am using it for figurative purposes. If we have the upper hand on nuclear technology, that is a very strong advantage when it comes to diplomacy. It would especially be useful if we had a missile defense system, yet the American left opposes that too. I guess they want to see us get attacked!



And if what you say were really the case - old nukes would be dismanteled and cannibilized for new nukes because it would be much cheaper - obviously not the case.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: What recession in 2000? The downturn due to the dot com bubble burst? I was in university at that time (now I'm an economist) and let me tell you with some certainty, there was no recession :lol:

As for favoring government over big business, thats simple, government has the intrests of the people in mind, big business has a responsibility of profits to its shareholders, whereas every american is a shareholder in the US gov.

The media made fuss over the "recession" in the early 2000s largely in part of the fact that Bush won the 2000 election. However, I noticed nothing. The government only succeeds in creating unemployment, inflation, poverty, high taxes, an unfriendly environment for small business owners and stifling freedom in what would be a successful market.

The media makes alot of fuss about things that aren't true.

And the government normally doesent create any of those things, and if it does its with good reason, the market does.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: No I call him Bush jr. becuase Bush sr. was his father :lol: Its undenyable that they've both been horrible presidents however.

Right...I guess that means Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were better presidents! Just take a look at their excellent records:

Maybe for another time :wink: For the moment we are only cencerned with Reagan's destructive economic policy.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Nixon wasnt a socialist, he was a Keynesian. Dont you realize that the only reason that social security is in such a decripid state is becuase of people like Reagan? If he managed the system properly we wouldnt even be arguing the subject now.

I would consider a price and wage freeze socialism.

Its a Keynesian tool of fiscal and monetary policy.

Quote: Please tell me specifically what Reagan did to the social security system that screwed it up. Please tell me what justifies penalizing small business owners to pay 13% of their income to social security, money they are never going to see back? How would Reagan have caused a travesty that involves raising taxes on small business owners?

What Reagan specifically did to screw up social security was starve the system of funding when the system required it most.

also debt ..



Quote: If social security didn't exist, America would be much better off.

Partly true - about a tenth of American would be ALOT better off, the rest would be much worse.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: So what do you suggest people live off when they retire, fall into unemployment etc.

I would suggest either getting another job, adequately allocating funds into a bank account during your life for retirement, or turning to charity. However, I'm not going to worry about it because other peoples' problems are not my problems nor should they be the governments'/tax payers' problems. If s**t hits the fan for me, I'm not going to turn to the tax payers and expect to steal money from them to pay for my financial downturns. I will worry about it myself.

You say that now, you would be surprised how quickly people change in the face of desparition - its always the unhappiest voices that are the loudest.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Dont get me wrong, personal responsibility is something I value greatly, but, we can let people just fall through into poverty, giving people a second chance to bounce back can prove to be very beneficial for all parties concerned.

You are speaking in terms that sacrifice freedom for social/government responsibility. It's not worth it.

But creating a safety net is, taxes are always going to be there, may as well put them into something useful.

Quote: Freedom is the most important thing, above all, in any case. We are breeding a society in which everyone is a follower and there are no leaders. People need to be told what to do with themselves, with their money, when to eat, when to take a s**t. We are becoming a lazy society. That was a major factor contributing to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Freedom is something few Americans can vouch for these days.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Funnily enough it was a republican that would warn us about Reagan and the Bush's

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

I'm not going to rag on Eisenhower becuase he was a well respected war hero. There is a difference between Conservatives and Republicans. Republicans are generally more moderate where as Conservatives are more on the extreme side. Reagan was probably the only Conservative president we've had.

Well it seems that the people didnt learn their lesson with conservatism.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Chocked the system and misallocated resources, aka. the failure of "starve the beast"

I just wish we could choke the system out for good and have the government send everyone who has put into the system a check and be done with.

That would be nice, sure, but becuase of Reagan and Bush you check is going to be negative and a slip of debt to the people they borrowed funds from - aka. the ECB.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Becuase the government doesent want to pay for your ass if you lose any of your own money (property) and contribute to the rising 9% poverty rate.

They shouldn't be ALLOWED to pay for me if I lose my own money. That's unconstitutional theft of tax payers' money.

When you're in poverty, or even trouble, this kind of ideology quickly loses its meaning.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Many politicians lower taxes before re-election, its not conspiracy, its a commonly used political tool.

It wasn't just a quick plan that he happened to pull out of thin air right before the '84 eleciton. Actually, he began pushing for his economic bill during the first year of his presidency and was one of the foundations of his campaign.

Yes - at the expense of the American economy.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: But Reagan was at fault ..

How was it Reagan's fault that the Democrats controlling Congress failed to cut social spending despite his pleas?

See the above graph.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: So wasteful infact that since the 80's, the USA is now the stupidest, unhealthiest and unsecure nation in the western world, as opposed to those as you like to call them - "socailist countries" who actually bother to take care of their people.

I would attribute "stupidest" to the fact that our public education system has failed and 50% of the nation voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Actually it was 49% who voted against Bush, meaning that a little under half of america is not stupid.

Quote: Take a look at socialized healthcare in Canada and Britain. It is a travesty that shouldn't be allowed to exist. The only thing large, fascist governments do well are exterminate their own people. The bigger the government, the more rights are violated. People don't need to be taken care of whenever they are perfectly capable of handling it themselves. And if they can't, there will always be some private entity there for them.

No, nobody can take care of themselves all the time, neither is a private entity going to be there (infact there rarely is) - public healthcare has worked alot better than the second rate US system that much is certain.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Firsly your unemployment numbers are wrong -

IMF link

* Italy 7.8%
* France 9.6%
* Germany 9.3%
* Sweden 4.9%
* Japan 4.1%
* USA 5.2%

And Germany's current economic problems are to do with the lifting of protection, not any "socialism" (btw. the correct term is Keynesianism, socialism is something very different).[/img]

I was using unemployment figures from 2005, so I figured not much has changed since. Obviously I was correct.

No you werent, even the 2005 rates were different, check the link.

Quote: I don't pay attention to German economics like you pay attention to American economics. Nor do I care, because it doesn't concern me. I care about what affects me and you ought to do the same.

You would be surprised how much success or failure in the German economy can affect the US economy, and vice versa.

[Dr. Righteous]

Il Principe wrote: This is not a fundamental part of economics, in fact raising tax rates has led to better economic conditions in the long run for many countries. This on the other hand IS an economic principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

Il Principe wrote: You can't take money out of people's pockets to sacrifice to the state in order to expect an upturn in the economy.

Yes you can

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

It's clear that it hasn't worked in America. How do you explain the correlation between high taxes and a recessive economy, and the economic upswing of the 80s a year or so after the Reagan tax cuts were passed?

Il Principe wrote: The rich also have this nasty habit of being the tax group more than twice as likely than the next to be charged with tax fraud.

Okay, so what's your point? That because some, like Teresa Heinz-Kerry, are charged with tax fraud, that means they deserve to be taxed higher? That's like me saying that blacks deserve to be punished more harshly in a court of law because they are more likely to commit crimes than white people. It's ludacris.

Il Principe wrote: You're one of those people who argues that greed is a fundamental aspect of humanity and thats why socialism failed, and yet you ask what ever happned to private charity? :lol:

Private charity has been useful as a supplement for niche causes, a replcement for government welfare it definitely isnt, especially in the United States where the average donation rate is lower than in countries twice as poor.

If you replace the current tax system with the Fair Tax system, people will have much more money in their pockets and those who donate will donate much more becuase they don't have to pay taxes. Couple that with the massive slash in people on the welfare list that is desperately needed and homleess shelters, you've got yourself a system that is just as efficient, if not more efficient than the current failed government-sponsored welfare system.

Il Principe wrote: What? So you want a public banking system? I thought you hated government owned.

That's right, because in the Constitution it states that Congress provides the nation with currency. Currency is property, and the only entity that can be trusted to protect that property is the government, assuming the governmnet does not collapse, especially when you enter an agreement that your money is to be protected for as long as it's in there. Businesses cannot uphold that agreement sometimes.

Il Principe wrote: And if what you say were really the case - old nukes would be dismanteled and cannibilized for new nukes because it would be much cheaper - obviously not the case.

Obviously that's not the case because if it were cheaper to break down old nukes and use them for new nukes, it would be done. So why do YOU think we have as many nukes as we do? Just because we're dumb Americans?

Il Principe wrote: Maybe for another time :wink: For the moment we are only cencerned with Reagan's destructive economic policy.

Again, you talk talk but you aren't citing any evidence as to how Reaganomics were detrimental to the economy.

Il Principe wrote: What Reagan specifically did to screw up social security was starve the system of funding when the system required it most.

also debt ..

That is a good thing, again, becuase it needs to be abolished.

You keep blaming Reagan for the climb in debt but you fail to explain how it was not the Democratic Congress refusing to cut spending on lost social programs.

Il Principe wrote: Partly true - about a tenth of American would be ALOT better off, the rest would be much worse.

Where are you getting your figures? I doubt they are true and I doubt that anybody would be worse off.

Il Principe wrote: But creating a safety net is, taxes are always going to be there, may as well put them into something useful.

A safety net isn't necessary unless people take preventetive steps, which almost every American is clearly capable of doing.

Il Principe wrote: Freedom is something few Americans can vouch for these days.

And it can be attributed to liberal economic policies mixed with some conservative social views.

Il Principe wrote: Well it seems that the people didnt learn their lesson with conservatism.

You're right, those moderate and liberal economic policies the past five or six presidents before Reagan did wonders for the economy.

Il Principe wrote: That would be nice, sure, but becuase of Reagan and Bush you check is going to be negative and a slip of debt to the people they borrowed funds from - aka. the ECB.

I strongly doubt that. I would attribute it more to the fact that the baby boom generation is sucking all of the money from it and the fact that it ever existed in the first place.

Il Principe wrote: When you're in poverty, or even trouble, this kind of ideology quickly loses its meaning.

I doubt it.

Il Principe wrote: Yes - at the expense of the American economy.

:lol:

Il Principe wrote: See the above graph.

See above question.

Il Principe wrote: No, nobody can take care of themselves all the time, neither is a private entity going to be there (infact there rarely is) - public healthcare has worked alot better than the second rate US system that much is certain.

Here in America, when anyone needs immediate hospital treatment, they get it. Give me a call when the quality of healthcare in Canada and Britain goes up, and people aren't dying while waiting in line for an operation.

Il Principe wrote: No you werent, even the 2005 rates were different, check the link.

Sorry, I was using an official source for unemployment rates, http://www.cia.gov

[FCTE]

soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt

Reagan didn't really do much of anything. He had good charisma and that's about it.

[FCTE]

foadi wrote: since he is an anti-chinese communist i have a feeling he'll go with lincoln

Yeah I'm a huge Communist :roll:

Lincoln was an outstanding President who had to preserve the Union. If you are that ignorant of history that you cannot understand how important it was to remain as one during the 1860's you are not even worth a response.

I don't give a sh!t about China. They can't even keep Taiwan. :lol:

[Dr. Righteous]

FCTE wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt

Reagan didn't really do much of anything. He had good charisma and that's about it.

Except single-handedly annihilating the Soviet Union, causing the 1989 "year of miracles" where many countries were liberated from fascist Communist rule; turning an economy expected to take decades to recover on the upswing by cutting taxes and eliminating big government, setting the stage for the 1990s, the most prosperous economic decade in American History; and building up Star Wars and the military. But nothing major.

They ought to put him on the 5 dollar bill.

[FCTE]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Except single-handedly annihilating the Soviet Union, causing the 1989 "year of miracles" where many countries were liberated from fascist Communist rule


Not really, the Soviets bankrupted themselves out of existence.

Quote: turning an economy expected to take decades to recover on the upswing by cutting taxes and eliminating big government

He rasied many taxes including gas taxes and taxes for "deficit reduction" which eventually just went to military spending. He expanded several offices and the military quite a bit.

Quote: setting the stage for the 1990s, the most prosperous economic decade in American History

Presidents do not have anything to do with economic prosperity. Business drives our economy not government. The 90's were good economically with the rise of technological development.

Quote: building up Star Wars and the military

He bluffed Star Wars and it's production would not start until George HW Bush was in office. Scheduled completion in 2014 with God knows what kind of costs.

Quote: But nothing major.

Exactly, good charisma, decent president, but nothing outstanding.

Quote: They ought to put him on the 5 dollar bill.

Never happen, no one will ever remove Lincoln. Reagan will never be a Lincoln or even a Washington, Jefferson, or TR.

[Dr. Righteous]

FCTE wrote: Dr. Righteous wrote: Except single-handedly annihilating the Soviet Union, causing the 1989 "year of miracles" where many countries were liberated from fascist Communist rule


Not really, the Soviets bankrupted themselves out of existence.

Quote: turning an economy expected to take decades to recover on the upswing by cutting taxes and eliminating big government

He rasied many taxes including gas taxes and taxes for "deficit reduction" which eventually just went to military spending. He expanded several offices and the military quite a bit.

Quote: setting the stage for the 1990s, the most prosperous economic decade in American History

Presidents do not have anything to do with economic prosperity. Business drives our economy not government. The 90's were good economically with the rise of technological development.

Quote: building up Star Wars and the military

He bluffed Star Wars and it's production would not start until George HW Bush was in office. Scheduled completion in 2014 with God knows what kind of costs.

Quote: But nothing major.

Exactly, good charisma, decent president, but nothing outstanding.

Quote: They ought to put him on the 5 dollar bill.

Never happen, no one will ever remove Lincoln. Reagan will never be a Lincoln or even a Washington, Jefferson, or TR.

Looks like you didn't read a single bit of this thread.

[FCTE]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Looks like you didn't read a single bit of this thread.

Oh I read it and debunked it. Historical facts cannot be ignored. Reagan will never be a best president or even an outstanding president. The times simply didn't allow for him to be. He'll go down as a decent president who at best boosted morale.

[mattwa33193]

All you FDR lovers do realize that he actually quoted from the Communist Manifesto in the New Deal speech, don't you? Many of the things he did were necessary as short-term solutions, but implementing them on a permanent basis led to the creation of the entitlement class and the destruction of the middle class in this country. He introduced socialism into our government, expanded the power of the federal and reduced the power of the state to a degree never dreamed of before his presidency, and ignored the Constitution whenever it stood in his way. In spite of the good things he did, he has to be listed among our worst presidents.

[Robodoon]

No, he was for world government.

[FCTE]

Robodoon wrote: No, he was for world government.

Actually, he broke us away from UNESCO and stopped all funding. George HW Bush reestablished our alliance to them.

Reagan was not fond of the Bush's, he was practically forced to take George HW as VP by Kissinger and company.

[Norrin Radd]

mattwa33193 wrote: All you FDR lovers do realize that he actually quoted from the Communist Manifesto in the New Deal speech, don't you? Many of the things he did were necessary as short-term solutions, but implementing them on a permanent basis led to the creation of the entitlement class and the destruction of the middle class in this country. He introduced socialism into our government, expanded the power of the federal and reduced the power of the state to a degree never dreamed of before his presidency, and ignored the Constitution whenever it stood in his way. In spite of the good things he did, he has to be listed among our worst presidents.

He didn't do any good things.

I agree with most of your post, but you must realize, most of the posters here, like most AMERICANS, DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE WORLD.

These pathetic people allow others to tell them what to think, refusing to educate themselves and do a little reading.

They are too ignorant to even realize that almost all presidents are puppets.

One of the main qualities needed to be a presidential candidate is the ability ot be manipulated.

FDR was one of the easiest to manipulate and the powers that be played him like a fiddle. Too bad so few Americans are willing to actually read a book like FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law, by Curtis Dall.

Dall wrote of his father-in-law: "...Most of his thoughts, his political "ammunition,"...were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money group. Brilliantly... he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people--and thus paid off and retained his internationalist political support."

Of course the sheeple wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up and bit them on the ass, but hey, you can lead a horse to water.........

While FDR was a socialist scumbag, he was not stupid. He knew the government was controlled, as he admitted in a letter to his advisor and fellow socialist Col. House........

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
President Roosevelt, Letter to Colonel House, November 1933. [4]

WHy since the days of Andrew Jackson? Because Jackson was the last president top fight against the international bankers. A topic few Americans are willing to get off their lazy asses and read about.

While Reagan was another puppet, he was the only recent president who was not a member of the CFR, TC, or Skull and Bones. He was an outsider and as such he did occasionally tell us the truth.

One of my favorite speeches of all time is his speech at the Prelude to Independence day celebration. A speech most Americans have never heard of and one that most Americans are too ignorant to understand the importance of.

Reagan on the income tax from this speech......

"Our Federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust, and completely counterproductive. It's earned a rebellion, and it's time we rebelled."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/53085a.htm

In Reagan's first inaugural address he gave us a tiny crumb of truth about why the economy was in a recession. He said......

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Of c ourse if you go to the Yale site you will not find those last 4 words, "government is the problem" as they have been omitted from his speech. I guess Yale doesn't have a problem with censuring a presidential inagural address. Many other universtiy sites link tot he Yale site and other university sites also have censured the line of the speech. I even have a book on presidential addresses from GRAMMERCY which has censured the line.

But do the people care that Yale has ommitted a line from a presidential address? No, they don't care, as they care nothing about the truth, which is evident every time they vote for traitors from the democrat or republican party.

What do you call people who support traitors? Oh yeah, traitors.

[Robodoon]

FCTE wrote: Robodoon wrote: No, he was for world government.

Actually, he broke us away from UNESCO and stopped all funding. George HW Bush reestablished our alliance to them.

Reagan was not fond of the Bush's, he was practically forced to take George HW as VP by Kissinger and company.

UNESCO is only a piece of the Puzzle, Reagan merged our ED System with the communists, Reagan also did not stop Communism, its more powerful then ever, the whole USSR thing was a trick,
He was a World Federalist, A Grove goer and notice what Bush Sr said about him the day he died.

Video Clip on the Day Reagan Died Bush Says "A lot of things happened under his watch that were very very positive toward a new world order.,..." http://www.robodoon.com/VIDEO/Bush%20says%20Reagan.wmv

The UNESCO THING could be seen in the same light as with Bush and Kyoto, Bush didn't sign it, but its Still going active in the USA via UN agenda 21 which is putting the goals of Kyoto into action anyway. So on one hand it looks like Bush isn't supporting it, but on the other hand he is.

[psholtz]

Il Principe wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

FDR was probably the best thing to happen to US in terms of presidents, at least in the 20th century.
:shock:

Quote: Reagan may have been a good public speaker, but he was also the most detached president of them (maybe due to his alzheimer's, maybe becuase Reagan was taking drugs ever since his near miss with death back in '81).
Reagan was extremely, extremely sharp all through the 1980 Presidential race, and upon his entrance into Washington in 1981. It was only after his assassination attempt that he began to "fade" mentally..

My suspicion is that Bush & Co began poisoning Reagan soon after he was released from the hospital, following his shooting in 1981.