The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='speedracer']Seriously, there's no way your numbers are right, Knoell. There's no way the Redskins are that far down and the Bucs are that far up. I saw the google search that got you that. I'm still looking.

edit: That link is a cut paste of the USA Today salaries from 2008.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008


The reason teams rise to the top in the NFL is NOT because they can out-talent the other team, but because they can do everything else. That's the whole point man. Coaching and tactics win championships in the NFL, NOT MONEY. And with only 16 games played, the chance for a bad team to go on a good run and outperform is always there.

By contrast, baseball is 162 games per season. Talent varies incredibly. And that's why you always see the top teams, even when coaches for top teams do incredibly stupid things that statistically hurt their chances to win. Without the short season and with huge talent discrepancy (seriously, name a Pirate. Or a Blue Jay. Or a Diamondback. Or a Padre. Or an A.), they win MUCH more often.

Wanna know how many different teams have won the NFC championship in the last 10 years? 10.[/QUOTE]

You are right, those numbers are from 2008, but the pattern is still there, and there is still a 45% difference between the highest team and the lowest team. I am not sure why USA today would label their article 2010, my guess is a typo.

Also do you want to know how many different teams won the AL in the last 10 years? 7. The NL? 7. The WS? 9.

How about the NFL AFC Champs you convieniently left out? 4 teams in 10 years.

Oh and 7 different teams win the Super Bowl in 10 years. 6 if Pittsburgh wins sunday. I hope they lose, I am not a Packers fan but ever since Pittsburgh won the stanley cup and superbowl in the same year, I could never like them. Bastards. Also it'll make 3 Lombardi trophies for them, and 3 for the Patriots in ten years. That is right 6 superbowls would go to 2 teams in 10 years. Let's chalk it up to the players working real hard though, the MLB teams never work hard to win.

Do you think the Patriots would be the same team without Brady? I mean even just paying a high salary to Belichick is still hiring TALENT. As much as I don't like the guy anyway.

Let's be clear though because you are already muddying my point. My point is not that high salaries do not lure talented players to particular teams in the MLB. I fully acknowledge that. My point is that success in the MLB is not a direct result of that, but a combination of factors that Mahers little analogy failed to include.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']My point is that success in the MLB is not a direct result of that, but a combination of factors that Mahers little analogy failed to include.[/QUOTE]

Your point was that his analogy, like all analogies, is not 100% perfect? How profound.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Your point was that his analogy, like all analogies, is not 100% perfect? How profound.[/QUOTE]

Not 100% perfect? Sorry I thought you guys would be willing to determine the facts behind why things are the way they are instead of making half assed analogies to fit your ideology.

Here comes the "You are the last person who wants facts, so we don't need to discuss them" line, though.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I do see white people in mass being demonized, discriminated, and generalized. [/QUOTE]

This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard in my life. White people still have it better than anyone else in this country but they act like Muslims, blacks, black Muslims, and Messicans are taking all their jobs, money, and women.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Awesome. I haven't posted in this thread for over four days and haven't even touched upon this senseless sports/government/statistics debate when, suddenly, I've got someone attacking me on the subject. Pure awesome.

For the record, I did take an entry level statistics class in college. Even tutored a fellow classmate.[/QUOTE]

You have the elitism without the education to back it up.

If you were a doctor, you'd be a mix between the ego of Dr. House and the competence of Dr. Zoidberg. Not quite sure how you got so egotistical and useless, but congrats.
 
[quote name='Clak']Maybe you could tutor Knoell then.[/QUOTE]
iceburn.gif
 
I love sports so pardon if I unduly continue this train of thought.
[quote name='Knoell']You are right, those numbers are from 2008, but the pattern is still there, and there is still a 45% difference between the highest team and the lowest team. I am not sure why USA today would label their article 2010, my guess is a typo.[/quote]
But we're comparing. a 45% diff in the NFL vs a 588% diff in baseball.
Also do you want to know how many different teams won the AL in the last 10 years? 7. The NL? 7. The WS? 9.
Click to expand...
That's a significantly higher variation than I thought it was. I didn't leave it out intentionally. I honestly didn't know that. I'll make my homework the variation vs. team payroll. Since there's 30 teams in baseball, it wouldn't be shocking if those number are comprised primarily of top 10 salary teams, but if it's all over the place then you're correct.
How about the NFL AFC Champs you convieniently left out? 4 teams in 10 years.
Click to expand...
The Pats and Steelers have, by any measure, incredible coaching and tactics. Their talent is not significantly better than the average. Sure Brady is the man, but they've given away more defensive stars in the last 2 years than most teams will ever have. That kind of speaks to my point, if you get my meaning.
Oh and 7 different teams win the Super Bowl in 10 years. 6 if Pittsburgh wins sunday.
Click to expand...
Statistical probability gets really muddy when your sample size is 1, which is why I left it out. That's kind of the problem with projecting football in general.
Do you think the Patriots would be the same team without Brady? I mean even just paying a high salary to Belichick is still hiring TALENT. As much as I don't like the guy anyway.
Click to expand...
Matt Cassel was incredibly successful by any measure...
Let's be clear though because you are already muddying my point. My point is not that high salaries do not lure talented players to particular teams in the MLB. I fully acknowledge that. My point is that success in the MLB is not a direct result of that, but a combination of factors that Mahers little analogy failed to include.
Click to expand...
His point is that the NFL, through the use of hard caps, makes for a better league than a league that allows teams to throw as much money as possible around. I think the best way for a layperson to answer that is to look at at the start of the season for each. How many teams are out of it before the season starts? In the NFL, maybe 2? In baseball, maybe 10?
 
To play Devil's advocate, MLB has sent as many different teams to the WS as the NFL has sent to the SB. This is just for the last decade of course.
 
[quote name='speedracer']How many teams are out of it before the season starts? In the NFL, maybe 2?[/QUOTE]

grumble grumble.

don't remind me.
 
So baseball is really the one to focus on because it plays 2,430 games in a season so we have more data. The playoffs themselves even at 7 games, is far too little a sample to predict with. Luckily, someone already did the work.

AVERAGE%20PAYROLL%20AND%20WINS%2C%202006-2008%20.png


Naturally, there's some outliers (like my goddamn Dodgers), but the correlation is pretty obvious top to bottom.
 
Why wouldn't you want to take money out of the equation when sports teams are concerned? I mean doesn't that kind of throw fairness out the window when the wealthiest teams have such a monetary advantage over the poorest?

Of course not, the poorer teams should pull itself by the bootstraps and win one for the gipper.
 
[quote name='speedracer']So baseball is really the one to focus on because it plays 2,430 games in a season so we have more data. The playoffs themselves even at 7 games, is far too little a sample to predict with. Luckily, someone already did the work.

AVERAGE%20PAYROLL%20AND%20WINS%2C%202006-2008%20.png


Naturally, there's some outliers (like my goddamn Dodgers), but the correlation is pretty obvious top to bottom.[/QUOTE]

Dude, that table is sexay...scatterplot that noise.

Oh, the baseball season structure is exactly why Billy Beane's A's never did shit in the postseason when his sabremetrics-based approach was more novel (i.e., he was the only one doing it). That approach works over 162 games against many many teams far more than it would 5-or-7 against one team.

You have read Moneyball, yeah Speed? I can't imagine you haven't.
 
And yet the Cardinals, Tigers, Athletics, and Mets make past the first playoff game in 2006.

Indian, Red Sox, Diamondbacks, and Rockies make it past the first playoff game in 2007.

Rays, Phillies, Red Sox, and Dodgers make it past the first playoff game in 2008.

Seems like quite a variation of success across payroll to me. There is obviously a correlation between level of salary and winning percentage, but are you prepared to say the MLB is not competitive because of it? I disagree.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Dude, that table is sexay...scatterplot that noise.[/quote]
He already did. God bless the sabermetrics nerds.

Payroll%20Efficiency%20with%20Polynomial%20Trendline.png


Oh, the baseball season structure is exactly why Billy Beane's A's never did shit in the postseason when his sabremetrics-based approach was more novel (i.e., he was the only one doing it). That approach works over 162 games against many many teams far more than it would 5-or-7 against one team.
Click to expand...
Which is what makes football vs. baseball in the postseason so impossible. A's vs. Yanks in a 1 game series and the A's have a damned good chance. 7 games, not so much (but still possible!).
You have read Moneyball, yeah Speed? I can't imagine you haven't.
Click to expand...
I gave it to everyone I know as a Christmas gift one year. The collision of economics and baseball brought a tear to my eye.
 
[quote name='Clak']Why wouldn't you want to take money out of the equation when sports teams are concerned? I mean doesn't that kind of throw fairness out the window when the wealthiest teams have such a monetary advantage over the poorest?

Of course not, the poorer teams should pull itself by the bootstraps and win one for the gipper.[/QUOTE]

like the twins do, every single year.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And yet the Cardinals, Tigers, Athletics, and Mets make past the first playoff game in 2006.[/quote]
You gotta read Moneyball dude. The A's in 06 look like an outlier but definitely aren't. You also gotta think about the divisions. Getting out of the AL East is much more impressive than getting out of the NL Central or AL Central.
Indians, Red Sox, Diamondbacks, and Rockies make it past the first playoff game in 2007.
Click to expand...
Again, division variation. The Dbacks and Rockies got out of a HORRENDOUS NL West that year.

The surprise is that they made the playoffs at all. Past that, game theory and randomness take hold.
Rays, Phillies, Red Sox, and Dodgers make it past the first playoff game in 2008.
Click to expand...
Definitely a return to the trend.
Seems like quite a variation of success across payroll to me. There is obviously a correlation between level of salary and winning percentage, but are you prepared to say the MLB is not competitive because of it? I disagree.
Click to expand...
Yes, because middle of the pack type teams are going to capitalize on variation within divisions. If the Orioles kept popping up, I'd say yea for sure. Or the Pirates. Or the Nats. Or the Royals. The Rays are the real shockers here but even then it was just once. The Rockies used stadium variance along with division variance to sneak in, so no big shocker there. Notice as soon as the Rockies didn't have the big bats, they started humidifying the balls used.

I'm not saying you're totally off base I'm just saying in sum, when compared to the NFL, the talent levels obviously contribute to expected wins (and therefore postseason entry and the chance for success) and that's expressly because of money. If you wanted a more competitive sport, then you would equalize talent. The NFL has done that.

But like they say, there's a reason the games aren't played on paper.
[quote name='perdition(troy']like the twins do, every single year.[/QUOTE]
Soft division. Perhaps one significant challenger each year. Vs. Out of Divison Opponents. 2010, 3/4 way thru the season.

AL East 188-151, .555 winning percentage

NL West 187-169, .525

NL East 182-169, .519

AL West 149-156, .489

AL Central 171-186, .479

NL Central 155-202, .434
 
Looking at the visual of the payroll vs wins, the thing that jumps out at me are the outliers. Er, sorry, outlier. Meaning the New York Yankees, whose payroll is so absurdly above the mean that they're de facto outliers on any chart you'd use comparing MLB team salaries and (some other performance measure).

So you guys, like Knoell, were right about outliers. You were looking at the wrong end of the distribution, though. :rofl:
 
There are teams in the NFL that make it to the playoffs that don't belong as well. Seattle anyone? How many teams in the NFL have not made the playoffs in 5+ years? How many of those teams are small market teams?
 
something tells me you're going to nuts on me for this one, but that's not my goal...

[quote name='dohdough']You're absolutely right. That absolutely explains this:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html

v64n4p1c1.gif


darik.JPG
[/QUOTE]

What I glean from that:
Erase race and it's beneficial to 1.) get married 2.) have less children 3.) invest 4.) get educated
Also, if you're Hispanic, don't go overboard with higher education...

The concluding comments section sort of breaks from your "man got us down" stance and more into an honest question of "why don't minorities invest, or when they do why do they avoid high risk?" which is where I get a bit more fascinated. There's a very chicken/egg moment in this:
"A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (Mabry 1999) claims that blacks have shied away from stocks in part because they mistrust Wall Street and that investment in risky assets will rise with an inflow of black investment professionals."
So if blacks don't trust the profession because of a lack of blacks, how do you install trustworthy blacks? Following that, how do you get the word out to start investing?
I'm dangerously treading on "bootstrappin" with this next bit, but bear with me for a second; why isn't some smart entrepreneurial black person seeing this and thinking "holy shit I could make a killing!" and getting into the field post-haste?
I'm going to guess (which I know can go poorly, but I'm keeping with my standard devil's advocate theme here) that you'll come up with barrier to access in terms of higher ed to get to that point. However (outliers aside) your graph up there shows that highly educated blacks are on mostly the same footing in terms of housing equity, ergo the ability to get highly educated is there. Next will be barrier to access of employment for the black entrepreneur that wants to get into the stock advisement game. I have a problem with that, perhaps you'll agree when you see where I'm going? Why would a white person that enjoys subjugating others to his/her own benefit (the standard rich get richer at the expense of the poor) NOT want to hire a black or three to get more investment money in the form of fees and such from the black clientele that they may bring in to the fold?
 
[quote name='nasum']something tells me you're going to nuts on me for this one, but that's not my goal...



What I glean from that:
Erase race and it's beneficial to 1.) get married 2.) have less children 3.) invest 4.) get educated
Also, if you're Hispanic, don't go overboard with higher education...

The concluding comments section sort of breaks from your "man got us down" stance and more into an honest question of "why don't minorities invest, or when they do why do they avoid high risk?" which is where I get a bit more fascinated. There's a very chicken/egg moment in this:
"A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (Mabry 1999) claims that blacks have shied away from stocks in part because they mistrust Wall Street and that investment in risky assets will rise with an inflow of black investment professionals."
So if blacks don't trust the profession because of a lack of blacks, how do you install trustworthy blacks? Following that, how do you get the word out to start investing?
I'm dangerously treading on "bootstrappin" with this next bit, but bear with me for a second; why isn't some smart entrepreneurial black person seeing this and thinking "holy shit I could make a killing!" and getting into the field post-haste?
I'm going to guess (which I know can go poorly, but I'm keeping with my standard devil's advocate theme here) that you'll come up with barrier to access in terms of higher ed to get to that point. However (outliers aside) your graph up there shows that highly educated blacks are on mostly the same footing in terms of housing equity, ergo the ability to get highly educated is there. Next will be barrier to access of employment for the black entrepreneur that wants to get into the stock advisement game. I have a problem with that, perhaps you'll agree when you see where I'm going? Why would a white person that enjoys subjugating others to his/her own benefit (the standard rich get richer at the expense of the poor) NOT want to hire a black or three to get more investment money in the form of fees and such from the black clientele that they may bring in to the fold?[/QUOTE]
Here's your answer:

darik.JPG


The net worth of a white household is, on average(not user about per capita), over 8 times that of a black household. The above graph is from 2002, but it's about the same now if I remember correctly. You can't make a killing with money you don't have to begin with.

As far as getting hiring token black advisors to bring in more poor/poorer black clientele, what makes you think that hasn't happened before? And who does that really enrich? Is that not predatory? Do you remember "mud people?" Maybe that has something to do with the higher educated crowd being more risk averse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so we're back to chicken/egg, the ability to invest or the benefit in increased net worth that (per logic of the presented data) follows...
I'm a firm believer in the non-communist variety of we all do better when we all do better, and an even more firm believer in the capitalist variety of we all do worse when only a few do better.

Also, data earlier in the link shows that marriage and less kids is helpful in creating net worth. How do we encourage this?
 
When you don't have much money to begin with most poeple wouldn't want to do anything that could mean them losing some or all of it, so you invest in safe things. The more money you have the safer you feel with potentially losing some of it.
 
[quote name='nasum']so we're back to chicken/egg, the ability to invest or the benefit in increased net worth that (per logic of the presented data) follows...[/QUOTE]
How is it chicken and egg? There are other variables in play than just playing with money.

I'm a firm believer in the non-communist variety of we all do better when we all do better, and an even more firm believer in the capitalist variety of we all do worse when only a few do better.
Click to expand...
How is that non-communist and how is that capitalist? You have them mixed up using right-wing dog whistles.

fuck it. Do you even know what capitalism and communism is???

Also, data earlier in the link shows that marriage and less kids is helpful in creating net worth. How do we encourage this?
Click to expand...
So you're saying that to create more net worth for black families, we encourage them to have no/less kids? Are you fucking serious?
 
[quote name='nasum']so we're back to chicken/egg, the ability to invest or the benefit in increased net worth that (per logic of the presented data) follows...
I'm a firm believer in the non-communist variety of we all do better when we all do better, and an even more firm believer in the capitalist variety of we all do worse when only a few do better.

Also, data earlier in the link shows that marriage and less kids is helpful in creating net worth. How do we encourage this?[/QUOTE]
Well typically the better educated and wealthier couples have fewer kids so you've got a bit of a catch 22 there.
 
[quote name='nasum']we all do worse when only a few do better.[/QUOTE]

Help me understand what you're trying to say here, b/c the way you've worded it is logically impossible.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Help me understand what you're trying to say here, b/c the way you've worded it is logically impossible.[/QUOTE]
Obviously, he's saying that capitalism is fucked because it causes income/wealth disparity. Unlike *non*communism, in which everyone does better when more people do better.
 
like how Paul Wellstone said we all do better when we all do better. By non-communist I mean outside of govt controlled income, collectivism, etc... Yeah, it's a base definition but it works for the necessity of the argument at hand. But now we're dodging my point and just calling me an idiot.

myke - essentially society (we all) does worse when wealth is extremely consolidated by the few. It creates a lack of cycling of cash which doesn't help the economy.

dohdough - sure, less or no kids! You're too clever and saw through my ruse of genocide by lack of reproduction! How about encourage marriage and three or less kids which seems to do well across the board regardless of race?
I'd like to ask what other factors are involved that prevent investment, but then you and I will start our same circular discussion all over again and that's lost its charm...
 
This is how they deal with facts:

http://www.starkreports.com/2011/02/04/rush-limbaugh-chats-wme-about-ronald-reagans-legacy/

STARK: Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives? RUSH: “Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?” I don’t think you… Given what you’ve said, and I’m not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d ever understand it.
STARK: Well, he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists. Why is he a hero to conservatives? I don’t think you understand it.
RUSH: No, I do. Most assuredly I do. I just don’t think that you would understand it. Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security? What websites do you read? Where did you pick that up?
STARK: Look up the Greenspan Commission. It’s not too hard to find. I mean, it’s a matter of history.
RUSH: Where did you get it? I mean, you’re asking me questions. I’m just reversing one on you here.
STARK: I’m sorry. It’s just general knowledge. It’s something I’ve known for a long time. I can’t remember where I got it from.
RUSH: You can’t remember? You’ve never heard of a website called Media Matters which highlighted it yesterday?
STARK: (static) Oh, no. I know Media Matters very well but that’s not where I got it.
RUSH: Oh, not where you got it. It’s an amazing coincidence.
STARK: (static) I mean, I’m a liberal. Of course I know Media Matters.
RUSH: Amazing coincidence out there.
STARK: They’re a fantastic website. But why are you dodging the question? I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists guy is a hero to the conservative movement.
RUSH: Well, because you understand Reagan in a way that is flawed. You –
Your call is actually kinda interesting because you represent the impossibility of “bridging the gap.” Somebody like you just has to be defeated. There’s no crossing the aisle and finding common ground with you. You’re free to be who you are, don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to insulting. I’m just saying, you are unreachable. You don’t want to be reached. T his picture of Reagan, you’ve just described somebody you should love, and you hate him! You just described somebody you should absolutely love, all these things. He’s an anti-conservative, as you say, but you don’t love him. You’re having trouble understanding why he’s viewed as heroic to a lot of people.
I could talk to you about anti-communism. I could. You want to talk about amnesty? Yeah, that was Simpson-Mazzoli, and that was one-and-a-half, two million illegals; and he was told, “Okay, if we’re gonna do this, this is it, then. We’re gonna secure the borders and that’s it.” It’s the same thing with every tax increase he signed. It was also accompanied by promises to cut spending, and it never happened. Reagan’s not perfect. Nobody is. But I think the proof of Reagan is the fact that when your guys get in trouble, who do they seek to associate themselves with? Remember, Obama and these people are all about getting votes.
Click to expand...
 
That explained absolutely nothing, he basically said "We know he did basically everything we rally against, but gosh darn it we still love him"
 
I heard that phone call live today. I recall thinking about how amazing it was that Rush was caught off guard and was being taken to school - yet never, for a moment, insisted upon being wrong or contributing to exalting the mythology of Reagan rather than the policies of Reagan.

I'd say he was taken to school by that caller, but neither he nor his acolytes would ever see it that way - nor would their perception of the mthological Reagan ever falter, even after being confronted with facts about Reagan's policies.
 
I am having trouble figuring out if you guys are saying Reagan was far left and you disagree with his policies, or that he was mainstream and you disagree with his policies?
 
[quote name='Clak']That explained absolutely nothing, he basically said "We know he did basically everything we rally against, but gosh darn it we still love him"[/QUOTE]

Cons speak and type in what appears to be English, but it is really just Con newspeak where words and concepts mean whatever they goddamn want them to mean.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am having trouble figuring out if you guys are saying Reagan was far left and you disagree with his policies, or that he was mainstream and you disagree with his policies?[/QUOTE]

We're saying that we have no idea why cons hold him up as the ideal Republican.

I have a feeling that if a Republican wins in '12, they'll be held in the same esteem. It will only happen because they "turned this country around." They could enact every single Obama policy but right wingers will fall all over themselves because they stopped the Global Caliphate and Sharia law from taking root in 'merica.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am having trouble figuring out if you guys are saying Reagan was far left and you disagree with his policies, or that he was mainstream and you disagree with his policies?[/QUOTE]

That's because you're a dumbass. Seriously what the hell is wrong with you? Who the fuck said Reagan was far left?

The Stark dude's point (if you actually clicked the link and heard the interview) was that Reagan didn't seem to be what is considered the ideal Republican in 2011. He repeatedly raised taxes, he engorged the debt, he was in favor of amnesty for illegals. All three of these non far-left things are untenable in the GOP circa 2011.

Yet ironically, in 2011 he is still constantly referred to as the ideal Republican.

I don't know what is ideal about him. Except the fact that, like every Republican president, he railed against big gummint while simultaneously expanding gummint.
 
If you look at it as a religion it makes sense. You can bombard them with facts, but it's not facts they're basing their love on, they love the mythology of Reagen.

And Knoell, bob, you two better not try to defend the guy, he did basically everything you two fight against.
 
Right, it's the idea of Reagan they exalt, not his actual policies. When you point out that the things Reagan actually did (e.g., Iran-Contra = negotiating with terrorists, he raised taxes twice in total, he gorged gov't spending and size), they have to engage in painful, agonizing attempts to create cognitive resonance.

If you watched Bill Maher last night, you saw him hold up a "replica Constitution" as sold by the GOP website (it was a gag item). It read "WE THE PEOPLE...blah blah blah...SECOND AMENDMENT...blah blah blah... JESUS. LOVE, GEORGE WASHINGTON."

Same principle. They don't support the Constitution, they support what they think it should be (see their opinions on the 14th amendment, their treatment of the 8th Amendment w/r/t Bush's recognition of 'enhanced interrogation,' etc.). They don't support Reagan based on what he did, they support him based on what they think he should represent.

I imagine if you were to ask what made Reagan so great, you'd get a combination of the bland ideas (liberty, freedom, small government) - they'll point out the part where he cut taxes, and they'll say "tear down that wall" (with more of a John Wayne accent than a Ronald Reagan one). But they don't know fuck else. And Iran-Contra never happened.

But they're plenty good at doing just that.
 
Aside from the whole health care thing, I'm really stunned that neo-cons seem to have a dislike for President Obama. I mean really, he's not only continued the Bush wars, he's escalated one of them. He actually has lowered taxes, amidst "the greatest spending orgy ever" which isn't really the case when drill down to maybe the 2nd or 3rd layer of numbers.

But hey, Nobel Peace Prize!
 
[quote name='nasum']I'm really stunned that neo-cons seem to have a dislike for President Obama.[/QUOTE]

I loved Mark Messier when he was a NY Ranger.

I hated him when he went to Vancouver.
 
So raising taxes voids all the times he lowered taxes? Okie Dokie.

Why don't you guys take a look at the way in which he raised taxes for the most part, and tell me if you disagree with how he did it.
 
[quote name='Clak']If you look at it as a religion it makes sense. You can bombard them with facts, but it's not facts they're basing their love on, they love the mythology of Reagen.

And Knoell, bob, you two better not try to defend the guy, he did basically everything you two fight against.[/QUOTE]

I've never once attempted to defend Reagen or hold him up as some kind of demi-god-idol of what I think American Government should look like. Again, trying to drag me into a conversation I'm not a part of and have little interest in.

Republicans look at Reagan like Democrats look at Obama. They're totally awesome dudes, even though they constantly did/do things that are completely at odds with the stated goals of the party.
 
[quote name='Uncle Bob']Republicans look at Reagan like Democrats look at Obama. They're totally awesome dudes, even though they constantly did/do things that are completely at odds with the stated goals of the party.[/QUOTE]

Except there are tons of liberals more than willing to criticize Obama. We're called 'far left nutroots nutjobs', because we believe suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, torture et al. are horrible things.
 
The Reagan Myth has always been rather interesting to me. The cognitive dissonance of the collective is the most alarming part of all!

===============================================
Original article at: http://thinkprogress.org/
10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

Tomorrow will mark the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, and all week, conservatives have been trying to outdo each others’ remembrances of the great conservative icon. Senate Republicans spent much of Thursday singing Reagan’s praise from the Senate floor, while conservative publications have been running non-stop commemorations. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich are hoping to make a few bucks off the Gipper’s centennial.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

=======================================
#10 is a bit on the far-fetched side of things (ThinkProgress is pretty lefty so they have to come up with something crazy to say...) but 1, 2 and 4 are spot on. That the Reagan worshippers just decide to completely ignore them is truly bizarre.
 
#10 is not far fetched at all. We supported the Afghans extensively during their war with the Soviets. We saw Afghanistan as payback for Vietnam.
 
oh, no argument there. However, it's somewhat foolish to assert that "helping" the Afghans against the Russians is a direct correlation to the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden drinking the kill america kool-aid.
 
It's not foolish. Bin Laden wanted us to stay out of Saudi Arabia as a condition of partnering with us, and when we set up shop in Saudi Arabia to enter Iraq the first time, he flipped. It would be more fair to criticize H.W. than Reagan, methinks. Not that I'm a Reagan supporter or apologist, but you've got to think the former head of the CIA was pulling the foreign policy strings.

Kind of surprised nothing was mentioned about our involvement in the Iran-Iraq war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top