Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

[Ten oz]

On 11/27/2017 at 6:08 PM, Ten oz said:

 How are you quantifying prosperity: GDP, unemployment, inflation, average wage, or what? This is the 3rd time I am asking.

 

On 11/27/2017 at 8:01 PM, Ten oz said:

Okay, which agencies official numbers shall we use?

 

10 hours ago, Outrider said:

Overall yes but Reagan's administration had the biggest positive change. He inherited the biggest mess but stiil managed to get it almost as low as the two you mentioned. 

Above are questions I previously asked waitforufo. If were are going to discuss how good or bad the economy was under different Presidents we need to identify the goal posts. A lot of different numbers get used to make a lot of different arguments. 

You say Reagan inherited the "biggest mess". What specifically made it the "biggest"?  When Reagan came into office the federal debt to GDP ratio was at 33% which was the lost it had been since 1932 (it is currently over 100%). Both Clinton and Obama came into office during a time when unemployment was  rising rapidly. Obama in particular inherited worse unemployment numbers than  than Reagan. Not only did Obama inherit a collapsed economy (worse since the great depression) but the country was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

When you say Reagan had the "biggest positive change" I assume you are referencing the misery index? That is an accurate statement. One I personally would take with a grain of salt though. Currently if we look at the global misery index countries like Malaysia, Vietnam,and China are better than the U.S.. The Philippines better than Australia & Canada, Pakistan is better than Russia and India. The misery index is merely the sum of inflation and unemployment. It doesn't speak to quality of life, global economic power, or the stability of institutions. I personally feel the Reagan set this country on the wrong track. National debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen during every administration FDR - Carter but has grown during every administration Reagan - Trump. Reagan was a turning point I don't feel has been for the best as it relies of unsustainable rates of growth. The tax cut pass by the senate yesterday is a percent example. Debt is at 110% of GDP currently and the Senate is cutting taxes?

 

[Ten oz]

On 11/19/2017 at 9:23 AM, tar said:

Ten Oz,

If you have not noticed, there is a deep state operating in the U.S. where political power is wielded inappropriately by federal employees even after the power has officially switched into other hands.  The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our democracy.   Yet the people elected to govern us, are acting like the current president is illegitimate and are marking time, until his removal from power.  This is bu(*cr(*.   He is our president.  Senators should govern and make the laws that will serve us all.

 

"On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times."

"The Trump transition team ignored a pointed request from the Obama administration to avoid sending conflicting signals to foreign officials before the inauguration and to include State Department personnel when contacting them. Besides the Russian ambassador, Mr. Flynn, at the request of the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, contacted several other foreign officials to urge them to delay or block a United Nations resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html?referer=http://www.google.com/

 

Is this deep state tar? Seems to me Trump's Transition team was area Russia had meddled and sought to repay them for their meddling with favorable foriegn policy. Deeply unpatriotic!!!

[Outrider]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

How are you quantifying prosperity: GDP, unemployment, inflation, average wage, or what?

I wasn't quantifying prosperity. I would think those are all important metrics plus many more. Also context is always important. 

In the future if you have any questions for me, please, ask me. I am not Waitforufo and I have no association with him other than being fellow mb members. 

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Okay, which agencies official numbers shall we use?

Well I'm not going to engage to the level you wish but for my small participation lets use U.S. News.

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Above are questions I previously asked waitforufo. If were are going to discuss how good or bad the economy was under different Presidents we need to identify the goal posts. A lot of different numbers get used to make a lot of different arguments. 

These arguments rarely win over any hearts so no I'm not going to pick the best economy ever. I don't have the knowledge to do so and when I turn to the experts they are often divided. 

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You say Reagan inherited the "biggest mess". What specifically made it the "biggest"? 

The misery index. I did post a chart.

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

When you say Reagan had the "biggest positive change" I assume you are referencing the misery index?

Yep thats why I posted the chart.

I will look into  your claim "doesn't speak to quality of life" I really thought that was the whole point. 

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I personally feel the Reagan set this country on the wrong track. National debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen during every administration FDR - Carter but has grown during every administration Reagan - Trump. Reagan was a turning point I don't feel has been for the best as it relies of unsustainable rates of growth. The tax cut pass by the senate yesterday is a percent example.

I personally feel that Reagan did a good job with what he had as did Clinton. Obama didn't do a bad job but I will always hold the stimulus against him and Bush II.

From your first link I see where debt as a percentage of GDP did go down during Clinton's administration despite your claim to the contrary. The country was in bad shape when Reagan took over and decisions had to be made. He did implement policy that allowed Clinton to have success reducing the debt. They both deserve credit for their accomplishments. 

It should be fairly obvious from the chart  below

who started the explosion of dept. It certainly was not Ronald Reagan.

Please persue the article Ten oz it has all the metrics you asked for and more.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/28/which-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy

 

Quote

 

Shapiro notes that the levels of public investment in "education, infrastructure and basic non-military research" under the Clinton and Reagan administrations are head and shoulders above such investments made by Bush II and Obama. Such investments can help bolster labor force skills and worker productivity and ultimately help drive both economic growth and wage gains.

 

 

---

Andrew Soergel for USN≀ Source: Government Printing Office

 

---

Quote

"Another difference is Reagan stabilized the deficit and Clinton eliminated it, and then it exploded under Bush [II] and has remained relatively high under Obama. Obama has a better record there than Bush, but that's a distinction between this presidency and those ones."

I have tried to answer all your questions. I know it wasn't a stellar effort but will you please answer the one I asked you.

Oh I missed the rhetorical one.

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Debt is at 110% of GDP currently and the Senate is cutting taxes?

Yes?

 

14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's not a matter of "claiming them"; that's silly.

Yep it is silly but what else do you call it when someone throws out a list of republicans  and says they are democrats by todays standard?

14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a matter of pointing out that politics in the US (and elsewhere) has been drifting to the Right since (at a guess) WWII.

Depends on how you define right I guess. And calling Obama communist is silly as well.

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

Yep it is silly but what else do you call it when someone throws out a list of republicans  and says they are democrats by todays standard?

I call it what I called it.

Did you somehow miss this bit?

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a matter of pointing out that politics in the US (and elsewhere) has been drifting to the Right since (at a guess) WWII. You may remember that the Right wing were calling Obama a communist, even though he was probably to the Right of plenty of former Republican presidents.

The calling him a communist in either absolute or historically relative terms is one of the lies that the Right are famed for.

That seems particularly ironic in a post where you berate someone else thus

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

Yep thats why I posted the chart.

 

[Ten oz]

@ Outrider, lets agree on a couple things upfront. President doesn't start with a clean slate. They don't walk in to office and everything resets to zero. Federal agencies already have their own budgets which include multi year contracts to build equipment, facilities, provided entitlements to their employees, and etc in place as law through Congress. Looking at the state of affairs when a Presidents starts vs ends paints a clearer picture that just charts showing bulk numbers.

When Reagan came into Office Carters final Budget had the annual national debt at 79 billion a year. That is where Reagan started. Reagan's final budget had the annual national debt at 153 billion. Reagan basically double the the annual national deficit. Bush 41's budget deficits soared up to 255 billion for his final budget. That is where Clinton started. Clinton ended with a 126 billion dollar surplus. Bush 43 started with that surplus and ended with a final budget deficit of 1.4 trillion. It is also important to note that Bush 43's annual deficits are actually worse that they appear because he didn't add the cost of the wars to them but instead had Congress pass separate spending resolutions. Obama included the war costs to his budgets. That 1.4 trillion is where Obama began and he ended at 585 billion per year or 666 billion per year depending on the way you view the continued budget resolutions. So while Reagan double the annual deficit Obama cut it in half and Clinton eliminated it completely. 

You insist Reagan inherited a mess but have yet to quantify what that mess was. Reagan inherited 79 billion dollar annual deficit. Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  When Obama came into office this was happening: "A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September. The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended." It was worse than what Reagan experienced. Additionally the U.S. was engaged in 2 wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). When Reagan came into office there were no wars. 

 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Outrider said:

 These arguments rarely win over any hearts so no I'm not going to pick the best economy ever. I don't have the knowledge to do so and when I turn to the experts they are often divided. 

No, but then, that's not the goal here. This is a science site. One is supposed to value the exchange of factual information.

The original claim under discussion is that if you want to improve the economy, you should vote for republicans. (and then a Reagan v Obama comparison was offered.) This is more of "name your metric, and then back up why that's a valid metric"

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, but then, that's not the goal here. This is a science site. One is supposed to value the exchange of factual information.

The original claim under discussion is that if you want to improve the economy, you should vote for republicans. (and then a Reagan v Obama comparison was offered.) This is more of "name your metric, and then back up why that's a valid metric"

I think we're seeing the effects of extremist capitalism. By that metric, those with money can determine the value of virtually everything. Work is valuable when it's a extremist doing it, but not so much if it's Middle Class Joe, or Poor Mary. An extremist's land and health and property is very valuable, but yours is probably not. Hard goods they make are valuable after we've made them with cheap materials and our cheap labor. Our laws are even cheap now, and we often have no idea what's being subsidized by tax dollars to make it more attractive to extremist capitalists. 

I can't get the image of ticks sucking the blood from an unsuspecting creature out of my head. And how can we trust truth when it's warped and used against us so persuasively? The solutions I see are mostly based in taking public control back where it makes the most sense, and that's exactly what these capital terrorists don't want. We seem to have let an inordinate amount of them into our decision making processes and information organizations, and they've got the population half full of fake news gas and are spinning them around blindfolded, handing EVERYONE a stick and making up pinata stories.

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I can't get the image of ticks sucking the blood from an unsuspecting creature out of my head. And how can we trust truth when it's warped and used against us so persuasively? The solutions I see are mostly based in taking public control back where it makes the most sense, and that's exactly what these capital terrorists don't want. We seem to have let an inordinate amount of them into our decision making processes and information organizations, and they've got the population half full of fake news gas and are spinning them around blindfolded, handing EVERYONE a stick and making up pinata stories.

1

It doesn't matter how powerful we think we are, there's always a tick that sucks it away...

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I think we're seeing the effects of extremist capitalism. By that metric, those with money can determine the value of virtually everything. Work is valuable when it's a extremist doing it, but not so much if it's Middle Class Joe, or Poor Mary. An extremist's land and health and property is very valuable, but yours is probably not. Hard goods they make are valuable after we've made them with cheap materials and our cheap labor. Our laws are even cheap now, and we often have no idea what's being subsidized by tax dollars to make it more attractive to extremist capitalists. 

 

It is a boom and bust economy that by design must always be in a state of peril. From the federal deficit to student loans, 401K's, mortgages, and etc enormous amount of money are tided in debt or institutions which own debt. Reagan started an economic system where growth was borrowing increasing amounts of money which would be circulated into the economy and paid for by other rounds of borrowing in the future. It works provided interest rates can be adjusted low enough so that what one can borrow always exceeds what one owes in total interest. If the total economy owe 100 trillion  towards debt a year and can access 200 trillion in credit it is good. The following year so long as it can access more again it will be good again, and so on. Only once what it owe exceeds what it can access will it be in trouble. At that point a recession begins. New money isn't entering the economy and what money there is pays debt. What is the solution.....cut interest rates! Debt gets refinanced which allows for greater levels of borrowing and we are back off to the races. The problem with this is a recession is interest rates can't continuously fall forever. If the govt were to do things which might permanently stabilize the economy like fix soc. sec., medicare for all, and etc interest rates would rise.  

[Outrider]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I call it what I called it.

Did you somehow miss this bit?

I have no problem with how you stated it I might even agree depending on how you define "the right." I hope its not liars.

 

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That seems particularly ironic in a post where you berate someone else thus

Well it was a gentle berating. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@ Outrider, lets agree on a couple things upfront. President doesn't start with a clean slate. They don't walk in to office and everything resets to zero. Federal agencies already have their own budgets which include multi year contracts to build equipment, facilities, provided entitlements to their employees, and etc in place as law through Congress. Looking at the state of affairs when a Presidents starts vs ends paints a clearer picture that just charts showing bulk numbers.

 

I agree and I think its well nigh impossible to paint a very clear picture at all. If this is about Obama vs Reagan I can cite you any number of articles. Just let me know which side to support. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

When Reagan came into Office Carters final Budget had the annual national debt at 79 billion a year. That is where Reagan started. Reagan's final budget had the annual national debt at 153 billion. Reagan basically double the the annual national deficit. Bush 41's budget deficits soared up to 255 billion for his final budget. That is where Clinton started. Clinton ended with a 126 billion dollar surplus. Bush 43 started with that surplus and ended with a final budget deficit of 1.4 trillion. It is also important to note that Bush 43's annual deficits are actually worse that they appear because he didn't add the cost of the wars to them but instead had Congress pass separate spending resolutions. Obama included the war costs to his budgets. That 1.4 trillion is where Obama began and he ended at 585 billion per year or 666 billion per year depending on the way you view the continued budget resolutions. So while Reagan double the annual deficit Obama cut it in half and Clinton eliminated it completely

I didn't choose a metric so you chose one for me. Ok you win.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You insist Reagan inherited a mess but have yet to quantify what that mess was.

I said before high inflation and high unemployment (more on the misery index soon) is that not a big enough mess? What if we throw in an oil crisis and a cold war?

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Reagan inherited 79 billion dollar annual deficit. Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  When Obama came into office this was happening: "A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September. The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended." It was worse than what Reagan experienced.

I have not said that Obama had it worse than Reagan. Here is you a nice middle of the road article that agrees with you on that one point. But it also makes my point as well. There is not much to be gained comparing Obama and Reagan. They both inherited messes and they both did their part to work them out.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/09/18/the-obama-economy-vs-the-reagan-economy-its-literally-no-contest/

Quote

 

As a result, there seems little value—beyond the usual ideological rhetoric that is so popular in our society today—in attempting to compare the economic situation of the recession and the resulting rebound that took place during the Reagan term and the recession that Obama walked into when he took the keys to the White House.

While there is no question that Reagan’s economy rebounded with a greater fury and in a far shorter time frame than what Obama has been able to accomplish, the circumstances of Reagan’s recession were such that such a rebound was possible  while all signs would indicate that such a result was not truly available to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Thus, to seek to draw conclusions as to which president had the better idea is a failed enterprise given the extreme differences in their relative circumstances.

 

 

I still haven't looked into your claim that Vietnam has a lower misery index than the U.S. but I will. I did find some evidence that it is a usefull number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
 

Quote

 

The misery index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun. The index helps determine how the average citizen is doing economically and it is calculated by adding the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate to the annual inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflationcreate economic and social costs for a country.^[1]

Some economists posit that the components of the Misery Index drive the crime rate to a degree. Using data from 1960 to 2005, they have found that the Misery Index and the crime rate correlate strongly and that the Misery Index seems to lead the crime rate by a year or so.^[9] In fact, the correlation is so strong that the two can be said to be cointegrated, and stronger than correlation with either the unemployment rate or inflation rate alone.^{[citation needed]}

 

 

The page had a criticism as well.

Quote

A 2001 paper looking at large-scale surveys in Europe and the United States concluded that unemployment more heavily influences unhappiness than inflation. This implies that the basic misery index underweights the unhappiness attributable to the unemployment rate: "the estimates suggest that people would trade off a 1-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate for a 1.7-percentage-point increase in the inflation rate."[8]

My criticism of the criticism is surveys are not really reliable. 

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think we're seeing the effects of extremist capitalism. By that metric, those with money can determine the value of virtually everything. Work is valuable when it's a extremist doing it, but not so much if it's Middle Class Joe, or Poor Mary. An extremist's land and health and property is very valuable, but yours is probably not. Hard goods they make are valuable after we've made them with cheap materials and our cheap labor. Our laws are even cheap now, and we often have no idea what's being subsidized by tax dollars to make it more attractive to extremist capitalists. 

I wholeheartedly agree and now for the hard part. How do we change it?

I have seen you say that, politically most of us are not very far apart. I think I am a moderate conservative (don't call me Republican) and I think you are a moderate liberal. But when you post on the political forum I almost always agree. So how to get where we all agree on the common sense things and argue about policy. I wish I knew but here is one suggestion.

Conservatives quit parading RR around like he invented the dollar bill and liberals quit blaming him for everything from the debt to the common cold. The man is dead it is time to let him rest. Its all very counterproductive. 

 

[Ten oz]

On 12/1/2017 at 8:30 PM, Outrider said:

Overall yes but Reagan's administration had the biggest positive change. He inherited the biggest mess but stiil managed to get it almost as low as the two you mentioned. 

 

20 hours ago, Outrider said:

I personally feel that Reagan did a good job with what he had as did Clinton. Obama didn't do a bad job but I will always hold the stimulus against him and Bush II.

 

14 minutes ago, Outrider said:

If this is about Obama vs Reagan I can cite you any number of articles. Just let me know which side to support. 

This is not Reagan vs Obama for me. It is you who has  asserted that Reagan inherited a terrible situation. In context I am merely asking you to quantify those assertions and am using other Presidents as a comparison; as are you. You list a chart showing total debt added by President and I added context. Reagan basically doubled the amount of deficit spending by year during his tenure while Obama cut it in half. Yet you hold the "stimulus against him and Bush II"? I don't understand what you metric truly is. You seem to be implying deficit spending is bad and using the total number to grade Obama down despite that fact he reduced deficits yet are giving Reagan a pass for doubling deficits

 

24 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Here is you a nice middle of the road article that agrees with you on that one point.

Let's leave punditry out of this as it is just a giant rabbit whole to nowhere. We both can link op-eds for the rest of the week were people argue that either Reagan or Obama were Jesus in the flesh or the the Devil incarnate. It is useless.

29 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I still haven't looked into your claim that Vietnam has a lower misery index than the U.S. but I will. I did find some evidence that it is a usefull number.

Thailand, Austria, China, South Korea, Germany and many others are ahead of the U.S. There is a list of the very link you provided:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

 

[Outrider]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This is not Reagan vs Obama for me.

Thats my fault.

 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

The original claim under discussion is that if you want to improve the economy, you should vote for republicans. (and then a Reagan v Obama comparison was offered.) This is more of "name your metric, and then back up why that's a valid metric"

I took this to mean Ten oz has offered up the R vs O comparison. 

My original comment about Reagan was when he was accused of high unemployment. The statement wasn't factually false  but it did leave out some important detail.

That was my only purpose.

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is you who has  asserted that Reagan inherited a terrible situation

It was pretty bad I can still remember the gas lines. 

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

. You list a chart showing total debt added by President and I added context. Reagan basically doubled the amount of deficit spending by year during his tenure while Obama cut it in half. Yet you hold the "stimulus against him and Bush II"? I don't understand what you metric truly is. You seem to be implying deficit spending is bad and using the total number to grade Obama down despite that fact he reduced deficits yet are giving Reagan a pass for doubling deficits

I posted the chart to show that Obama's  debt wasn't Reagan's fault. In fact a lot of it was Bush ll. I thought that was obvious from the chart.

I also agreed with you Obama was better than Reagan on debt that was the you win part.

The only place we really disagree is where you try to pin problems on nearly 30 year old policy. For me it is almost as ridiculous as blaming the democrats for civil war era policy. The republican party is very different from what it was 10 years ago even more so 30.

You don't think Reagan inherited a mess?

BTW the two quotes about Reagan and Clinton doing better were blanket quotes about the economy.

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Thailand, Austria, China, South Korea, Germany and many others are ahead of the U.S. There is a list of the very link you provided:

I was more interested in why that is.

This is all I found.

https://www.cato.org/blog/worlds-most-least-miserable-countries-2016

Quote

Also of note on this list is the United States. In President Obama’s final year in office, the United States ranked lower than Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, China, and even Vietnam. 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

 I took this to mean Ten oz has offered up the R vs O comparison. 

No, it was waitforufo who compared the best performance by a republican against the worst by a democrat as evidence for his claim.

[John Cuthber]

If  you ever agree on a metric, (And, I'm not holding my breath) then you need to decide how to play the game. Are you going to choose a best and worst president or are you going to calculate some average over time ? A trend would be interesting too.

[Ten oz]

13 hours ago, Outrider said:

The only place we really disagree is where you try to pin problems on nearly 30 year old policy. For me it is almost as ridiculous as blaming the democrats for civil war era policy. The republican party is very different from what it was 10 years ago even more so 30.

Mitch McConnell who is currently the Senate Majority leader and who was previous the Senate Minority leader and who has also been the Whip and sat on numerous chairs won his seat in the Senate during the Reagan revolution in 1984; McConnell is a Reagan Republican. Cochran, Hatch, Grassley, McCain, and other prominent Republican senators have also been around since Reagan. Comparing the Reagan admin's impact on the current Republican to Civil Ware era politics to the Democratic Party is silly. Some of the  same people are still in office from the Reagan days where as everyone from the Civil War is dead and gone. You say Bush II was terrible yet his cabinet was a who's who of Reagan cabinet members: Powell was Reagan's National Security Adviser, Rice worked on Reagan's council of foreign affairs, Gates was Reagan's deputy Directory of the CIA, Bolton was Reagan's  assistant Attorney General, and etc, etc, etc, etc. You reference 30yrs like it is an enormous period of time yet there are relevant Republicans around in every branch of govt and lobbying govt from the Reagan admin. People like Newt Gingrich who is still trotted out on the cable news circuit regularly, worked for Trump's campaign, and his wife was given the Ambassadorship to the Holy See by Trump. 

Anyway, I am not pinning this on all on Reagan.  I called Reagan a turning point; didn't say it is all his fault. I think the numbers support saying it was a turning point. Both debt and interest rates made huge shifts starting with Reagan and neither has recovered. 

  

On 12/1/2017 at 8:08 PM, Outrider said:

John you are a smart man and I have a lot of respect for you but unemployment peaked the year Reagan took office and was back down to 5.1 when he left. In fact if you add unemployment to inflation you get what is called the misery index. Using that metric Reagan out performed all recent presidents. Inasmuch as we can give him credit for these things. 

 

14 hours ago, Outrider said:

I was more interested in why that is.

This is all I found.

I am not sure what your point is. You introduced the Misery index as anecdotal evidence that Reagan had been successful yet haven't explained why that is the standard we should be looking at rather than other any other number of statistics which speak to unemployment, housing, education, annual salary, upward mobility, debt, mortality, etc, etc. 

In my opinion interest rates are a major issue because cheap money has over inflated other markets to a point where a normalizing of rates would collapse the system. For example look at the charts below and explain how it makes sense that starting during Reagan's admin home values skyrocketed despite no increase in salary's (adjusted for inflation). It is not sustainable.

  

[Outrider]

On 12/4/2017 at 12:37 AM, John Cuthber said:

If  you ever agree on a metric, (And, I'm not holding my breath) then you need to decide how to play the game.

I said earlier I wouldn't and provided some reasons as to why I wouldn't. I haven't changed my mind.

I am going to try to answer to some of Ten oz's points and then try to head back to the original topic of this thread. 

Sorry bout the late reply.

On 12/4/2017 at 7:06 AM, Ten oz said:

Mitch McConnell who is currently the Senate Majority leader and who was previous the Senate Minority leader and who has also been the Whip and sat on numerous chairs won his seat in the Senate during the Reagan revolution in 1984; McConnell is a Reagan Republican. Cochran, Hatch, Grassley, McCain, and other prominent Republican senators have also been around since Reagan.

Ok but they are not acting like Reagan in any way with the exception of McCain perhaps. For example the republican tax plan of today looks nothing like the one passed in 1986.

Reagan introduced the idea in 1984 and  worked closely with House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, to iron out specific legislation that both sides could support. Ten months later, the Treasury Department unveiled its recommendations in a 262-page document. Over the course of the next two years there were extensive hearings and debate on the House and Senate floor. The republicans of today have instead crafted their bill in private and obviously plan to pass it with no bipartisan support at all.

On 12/4/2017 at 7:06 AM, Ten oz said:

Anyway, I am not pinning this on all on Reagan.  I called Reagan a turning point; didn't say it is all his fault. I think the numbers support saying it was a turning point. Both debt and interest rates made huge shifts starting with Reagan and neither has recovered.

According to your first chart debt as a percentage of GDP did recover under Clinton.  So what? Reagan put us on this path and Clinton took us off and then Reagan put us back on? The chart plainly shows the most recent upswing starting under Bush II and continuing under Obama. I really don't understand the need to make it any more complicated than that.

On 12/4/2017 at 7:06 AM, Ten oz said:

In my opinion interest rates are a major issue because cheap money has over inflated other markets to a point where a normalizing of rates would collapse the system. For example look at the charts below and explain how it makes sense that starting during Reagan's admin home values skyrocketed despite no increase in salary's (adjusted for inflation). It is not sustainable.

Both charts show those trends starting in 1973. That would be Nixon not Reagan.

I really don't see a lot of value in continuing down this road. Here in a while (I hope) I will post a question more revelant to your OP.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Outrider

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Ok but they are not acting like Reagan in any way with the exception of McCain perhaps.

Per your expert opinion?

 

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

According to your first chart debt as a percentage of GDP did recover under Clinton.  So what? Reagan put us on this path and Clinton took us off and then Reagan put us back on?

Recovered for 2 of Clinton's eight years. Who followed Clinton? I already listened many people In the Bush admin that had been in Reagan's admin. The number of people in the Senate and House who had helped shape and vote on Reagan's cuts did the same for Bush 43's cut. You are totally ignoring the advocated positions of the 2 major parties here. 

 

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

I really don't see a lot of value in continuing down this road.

You claimed Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since, and have yet to substantiate the claim. Rather you just keep referencing the misery index without explaining why that should be the standard we use.  

[Outrider]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Per your expert opinion?

 

Per my example.

Here is a little more. While Reagan's plan did lower taxes on the rich overall it also expanded the personal exemption and the earned income tax credit. This was a big help to the middle class. Reagan also eliminated corporate tax breaks and raised the tax on capital gains.

Do you see any of this in Trump's proposal?

I don't. 

I see Trump lowering the the top tax bracket so thats similar to Reagan but it ends there.

I see a repeal on the estate tax and I see a new loophole created by reducing the rate on pass-through entities, allowing law firms and hedge fund managers to avoid higher tax rates. I also see that the Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 1% will enjoy 80% of the benefits from Trump’s plan and that a third of all middle-class taxpayers will be paying more in taxes by 2027.

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Recovered for 2 of Clinton's eight years. Who followed Clinton? I already listened many people In the Bush admin that had been in Reagan's admin. The number of people in the Senate and House who had helped shape and vote on Reagan's cuts did the same for Bush 43's cut. 

Why compare one past administration to another past administration? Why not compare to the current one?

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You are totally ignoring the advocated positions of the 2 major parties here. 

No I am pointing out that they are different than they were in 1980.

Reagan had plans to tear down a wall. Trump has plans to build one.

Reagan presided over the end of a cold war. Trump seems dead set on starting a hot one.

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You claimed Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since, and have yet to substantiate the claim.

No I have never claimed that. I did claim it would be impossible to defend such an absurd position.

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Rather you just keep referencing the misery index without explaining why that should be the standard we use.

Thats not true either. I have already told you why I referenced it and it had nothing to do with claiming  "Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since"

[rangerx]

56 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Reagan had plans to tear down a wall. Trump has plans to build one.

Reagan presided over the end of a cold war. Trump seems dead set on starting a hot one.

Reagan funded a secret war in Central America by illegally selling guns to Iran.

Funny how most conservatives seem to overlook that fact. (Definitely not directing this at you)

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

I did claim it would be impossible to defend such an absurd position.

You did, to your credit. + 1 for objectivity.

[Outrider]

21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Reagan funded a secret war in Central America by illegally selling guns to Iran.

Funny how most conservatives seem to overlook that fact. (Definitely not directing this at you)

True. Its hard (but not impossible) to find a POTUS without scandal in recent memory. Obama seems to stand alone.

24 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You did, to your credit. + 1 for objectivity.

Thank you. Seems we found some middle ground after all . It only took 13 pages, not bad.

Looking back at Iran-Contra years after the events took place is part of what made me realize what a partisan hack I had become and how I was letting my emotions make my decisions. 

It is my opinion that we need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards and when they cross a line, integrity wise, just dont vote for them ever again. I am ok with our lines being in different places but not ok with people not having any line at all.

Also not directed at you. 

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Outrider said:

Seems we found some middle ground after all .

The lunatic fringe is too disruptive of the middle ground discussions, nowadays. Trump demonizes his own party as lunatic fringe when they don't goose step.
Remember the moral majority thing? There are moral conservatives, several quite outspoken. Some not so much. Too many not at all. (To speak out against Trump)
 

28 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Please do not let this devolve into a debate over HRC's guilt or innocence. If you want to do that one of us can open a thread.

Please just answer honestly and if enough people genuinely think she is innocent I will probably open that thread.

Truth is, Hillary served long and hard as representative of the USA and FLOTUS, I could go on for days about the good things she did, but Republicans demonize her in every low brow way possible and then some. At the cost of the truth or the worth of service.

Truth is, an specious affront to a person where there was no "there there" reflected shamefully on America, long before a guy who paints his face orange entered the picture.

Truth is, NOTHING rises above the hot water Trump and his cronies are in, at THIS TIME.

 

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

Ok but they are not acting like Reagan in any way with the exception of McCain perhaps.

Yeah, somehow I don't think Ronnie would collude with Russia, no less to lift sanctions or hide and retain financial ties.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

All of the stuff about HRC that wasn't supposed to derail this but went on for more than a page has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112221-hrc-guilt-and-innocence-split-from-why-doesnt-truth-matter-middle-ground/ 

 

 

[npts2020]

Thanks to everyone involved for this discussion. It demonstrates very clearly how even smart people will disagree on what "truth" is, even after facts are presented, in order to maintain a certain narrative. I wish I knew the solution to this but, sadly, do not. So far as finding middle ground with people who see a completely different reality from yourself goes, one may as well ask what is the middle ground between zero and infinity?