Your feelings on Reaganomics

Ahadi

Ahadi

CAGiversary!
Feedback
42 (100%)
Hey, this is my first time posting in this part of CAG and I figured this is the place to turn as opposed to the general off topic section. I have a research paper on Reaganomics and I am looking to get peoples opinions of Reagan and his policy of "Reaganomics". I've done some substantial research as it is, but I want to get "first person" persepective of what the time was actually like.

I've discussed with my boss(she's in her 40's) about her opinion of Reagan and of what she thought of Reaganomics and what she told me was that at that time she was in her 20's, about 25 she told me, and said that her and her husband had been in and out of jobs and once they finally got good jobs and the rates were low enough, they were able to buy their first house. She went on with more detail that might bore you guys, but in essence she was biased towards Reagan and his politics.

Now, I'm looking to get more opinions from people, generally in their 20's and 30's, as well as other's who are older and/or younger that might have a different opinion or something that stands out as interesting. Because from what I understand each generation has a different look at how Reaganomics affected them.

So thanks with any/all help I'm going to get with this. I'm sorry if this looks like I'm trying to get the "easy way out" on this project(if this even looks like the easy way out) but I just want to hear more first person accounts of the time period, seeing as how I was born in 1989 and was not cogniciant of the time period. Thanks again.

*Edit* Also, please feel free to be as brutal in your opinions as you want to be. I'm looking to present this paper with a huge amount of sarcastic humor. The thesis for this project is "Reaganomics Scored One for the Gipper".
 
That's a great thesis. But if your boss is referring to the economic boom of the 80's and 90's, wouldn't it be more attributable to the increased production capacity brought on by new technologies?
 
[quote name='Quillion']That's a great thesis. But if your boss is referring to the economic boom of the 80's and 90's, wouldn't it be more attributable to the increased production capacity brought on by new technologies?[/QUOTE]

Well she explained it to me like this: Reagan pulled the government out of the economy and made it more open for private enterprise to pick up the slack and put more money back into the economy. So that the people are controlling the economy not the government.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Im glad she was able to buy a home. However you, I and out entire generation will be paying off the increase of the deficit/national debt from the Reagan years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics[/QUOTE]

Can you elaborate more on how we will be paying off the increase? I guess I just don't see how we will be(I'm clearly missing a bit point....)
 
Reaganomics was a great idea for a very short period in time. It was wonderful at helping to bankrupt the USSR, but you can only have your cake and eat it to for so long.
 
Question: Who controls spending for the United States Federal gov't?

Answer: Congress.

Question: Which party had the majority in both houses of Congress during the 1980s?

Answer: Democrats.


Don't blame Reagonomics for the ballooning federal deficit.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']Can you elaborate more on how we will be paying off the increase? I guess I just don't see how we will be(I'm clearly missing a bit point....)[/QUOTE]

Well, truth be told we're still creating largesse at the expense of whatever poor future generation decides (or is decided to) begin paying off our national debt.

Reaganomics emphasized tax breaks towards the wealthy - businesses, investors, and the like. The idea behind that is simply that they would be able to use that money to expand their business, to hire more people, and thus improve the conditions of life for all. It's based, more or less, on a metaphor he used often: "A rising tide raises all ships."

Now, if you believe in reducing taxes, then in order to avoid debt, you want to reduce spending sufficient to eliminate any overrun that would occur. Those spending reductions did not happen, and never did happen. Instead, some supply-side theorists began to speculate that their system would increase GDP sufficient to increase tax revenue (in essence, cutting taxes would boost the economy to the point that economic growth would lead to a larger tax revenue). This growth never did occur, which is why we have raised our national debt cap three times in the past five years.

My feelings on Reaganomics is that it is an idea grounded in philosophy and devoid of reality. Our national debt is $9 trillion at the moment, spurned by a combination of gross government overspending, as well as reduced taxation. The "increased taxes from cutting taxes" theory of supply-siders has been proven deleteriously false. The economic growth of the late 1990s also shows that tax cuts are not the only motivating force behind business growth.

Now, if you want me to get into an explanation as to why supply-side economics was bad for blue-collar workers, and how Reagan broke his own philosophy of nonintrustion by the government when it came to shows of solidarity by workers against their ownership, then I'll gladly do so.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Question: Who controls spending for the United States Federal gov't?

Answer: Congress.

Question: Which party had the majority in both houses of Congress during the 1980s?

Answer: Democrats.


Don't blame Reagonomics for the ballooning federal deficit.[/QUOTE]

Because the deficit was just *SOOOO* bad when Clinton was in power and the Republicans ran Congress, and we're running surpluses now that Bush has been in power for five years. :roll: Dude, Bush has outspent eight years of Reagan in under five years. Let me repeat that slowly, and, if you're old enough, recall the furor towards the national debt in the 1980's.

Bush
has
outspent
eight
years
of
Reagan
in
under
five
years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, if you want me to get into an explanation as to why supply-side economics was bad for blue-collar workers, and how Reagan broke his own philosophy of nonintrustion by the government when it came to shows of solidarity by workers against their ownership, then I'll gladly do so.[/QUOTE]

I would like very much if it is not too much trouble.

And thanks to everyone who has posted so far, I'm loving how I'm getting both sides of the spectrum here. Thanks!
 
First and foremost, despite what msut posted, NEVER EVER cite Wikipedia in a serious paper. In fact, it's pretty dumb even to cite it anywhere, but make sure you don't use that in your paper because there is no guarantee it's accurate.

Reaganomics was good and bad. The good was lower taxes and the benefits of that on the economy. The bad you might argue wasn't all Reagan's fault, and that was that instead of cutting spending like you should do when you cut tax rates, spending drastically increased, leading to a large government deficit. Personally I also think his tax changes were a little bit too regressive and should have hit the rich a little more and the poor a little less comparatively. Of course, I also think our tax rates are insanely high in any case.

To sum up, low taxes good, low spending good, but low taxes + low spending = deficits = not so good, but at least we had the lower taxes. The sad thing is that the current administration and Congress seems to have forgotten the '80s and forged ahead on the same path to an even greater degree, meaning even greater spending increases.
 
"reaganomics" was the result of the weathly successfully lobbying to lower thier taxes and that's who reaped the rewards.

America got a measly yearly growth rate of 2.5%...whoopee.

FYI..over his eight years. Reagan asked for more money in the budget than congress allocated.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, if you believe in reducing taxes, then in order to avoid debt, you want to reduce spending sufficient to eliminate any overrun that would occur. Those spending reductions did not happen, and never did happen. Instead, some supply-side theorists began to speculate that their system would increase GDP sufficient to increase tax revenue (in essence, cutting taxes would boost the economy to the point that economic growth would lead to a larger tax revenue). This growth never did occur, which is why we have raised our national debt cap three times in the past five years.[/quote]

The growth is occurring. The spending reductions, or even slowed growth of spending has not occurred. It didn't happen under Reagan with the democratic congress, or currently under the republican congress. The revenue increases, however, did happen.

My feelings on Reaganomics is that it is an idea grounded in philosophy and devoid of reality. Our national debt is $9 trillion at the moment, spurned by a combination of gross government overspending, as well as reduced taxation. The "increased taxes from cutting taxes" theory of supply-siders has been proven deleteriously false. The economic growth of the late 1990s also shows that tax cuts are not the only motivating force behind business growth.
Click to expand...

Deleteriously false? Where the heck is your "data" for this one ? Tax cuts aren't the only motivating factor, but it automatically improves the bottom line of a company, even assuming 0% growth in gross income. That's called "profit", myke, I know you can't stand that word so we'll whisper it. Profit is good, it goes to stockholders, wage earners, new hires, corporate expansion, and pads retirement funds of all those old folks who've invested in the mutual funds that hold the company stock. Jesus, you don't understand square one of the real business world, do you? You just sit in your ivory tower and think things that don't happen by government direction must have been a random coincidence. It's a good thing your check depends on someone else's guaranteed government grant money.

Now, if you want me to get into an explanation as to why supply-side economics was bad for blue-collar workers, and how Reagan broke his own philosophy of nonintrustion by the government when it came to shows of solidarity by workers against their ownership, then I'll gladly do so.
Click to expand...


By all means, profess how Reagan borke his promises as if that invalidates reaganomics as an idea......
 
In the most basic way imaginable, Reaganomics, or supply-side economics, refers to easing the tax burden on the private sector to encourage economic growth. Instead of trying to squeeze more money out of people, they squeeze money out of more people, you understand? By cutting the taxes that businesses incurred, the business would have more money to invest toward expansion. When a business expands they spend money on new offices, new technology, new equipment, or what have you, which effectively leads to the business hiring more workers to fulfill the goals of the expanded business. When businesses hire more workers, more workers pay taxes, you see? Instead of increasing the tax rate, supply-side economics actually increases employment and therefore increases the amount of people paying taxes.

Some facts for you to check out:

From 1982 to 1990, economic expansion lasted ninety-six consecutive months.

Eighteen million jobs were created by the time former President Reagan left office.

In 1983, twenty trilion dollars in goods and services were produced by the American economy, a 65% increase from 1981.

In 1983, the number of millionares in the country climbed to 34,944 after having only 4,414 in 1980.

In 1982, the Federal government took in 618 billion in taxes. In 1986 they were just shy of 1 trillion.

In 1981, inflation had hit 13.5%, in 1983 it hit 3.2%.

Use those facts and come up with your own conclusion. Don't take it from me or anyone else, take all of our comments with a grain of salt. Look everything up before you use it on your paper, but I think if you do an honest assessment of the unabashed economic prosperity of the 1980's, you'll find that Reaganomics worked wonders for this country.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Some facts for you to check out:

From 1982 to 1990, economic expansion lasted ninety-six consecutive months.

Eighteen million jobs were created by the time former President Reagan left office.

In 1983, twenty trilion dollars in goods and services were produced by the American economy, a 65% increase from 1981.

In 1983, the number of millionares in the country climbed to 34,944 after having only 4,414 in 1980.

In 1982, the Federal government took in 618 billion in taxes. In 1986 they were just shy of 1 trillion.

In 1981, inflation had hit 13.5%, in 1983 it hit 3.2%.

Use those facts and come up with your own conclusion. Don't take it from me or anyone else, take all of our comments with a grain of salt. Look everything up before you use it on your paper, but I think if you do an honest assessment of the unabashed economic prosperity of the 1980's, you'll find that Reaganomics worked wonders for this country.[/QUOTE]

Where did you get that $1 Trillion in tax revenue figure? It's not correct. The congressional budget office (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf) shows only $770 Billion in revenue. While it is an increase of roughly $250 Billion, or 44%, of tax revenue, take a look at any five year period, and you'll find a similar increase. Tax revenues increased from $207B in 1972 to $298, an increase of 44%. Tax revenue increased from 99.7B in 1962 to 130.8 in 1968, an increase of 31%. This isn't remarkable; it's par for the course.

Though, on a philosophical point, supply-side economics was often defended by those who argued that its vision was "long term," so the claim that almost immediate results occurred (immediate in the sense of a 2-3 year timeframe) seems to stand in the face of the notion that, in a tax-cut fueled economy, the real returns/benefits take quite some time to develop. Just thought I'd mention that dual defense of it. I'm certain that anything negative that happened economically prior to 1984 was just Carter's legacy. ;)

At any rate, that's one point of data I can argue against. If your 1986 tax revenue is taken from a site that's willing to exaggerate at best, lie at worst, about our increased take from Reaganomics, then you'll understand if I'm skeptical of the other data claims you make in that post.

I also wonder what our "goods and services production" number looks like over the long run. And if we can isolate the manufacturing amount, just to remind the good blue collar folks what happens when corporations have enough money to reinvest in their corporations: NAFTA.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Where did you get that $1 Trillion in tax revenue figure? It's not correct.[/quote]
According to Dr. Martin Anderson, author of Revolution, and Dr. Adriana Bosch, author of PBS's The American Experience: Reagan.

At any rate, that's one point of data I can argue against. If your 1986 tax revenue is taken from a site that's willing to exaggerate at best, lie at worst, about our increased take from Reaganomics, then you'll understand if I'm skeptical of the other data claims you make in that post.
Click to expand...
It's not taken from a site at all, but rather a couple of scholars and professors who have written biographies on him and his administration. Rest assured, however, that unless someone can argue, my points remain as valid as unchallenged facts are in a debate, despite any partisan skepticism you would voice. I'm confident that Supaman is above any similar assumptions, and will come up with his own conclusions in an unbiased consideration of our history. http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/member.php?u=20746
 
Wait wait wait....did myke just use cold, hard, facts to blow out what AOW posted, and then AOW didn't really address anything he said and offered no proof of why his facts were actually right?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']According to Dr. Martin Anderson, author of Revolution, and Dr. Adriana Bosch, author of PBS's The American Experience: Reagan.


It's not taken from a site at all, but rather a couple of scholars and professors who have written biographies on him and his administration. Rest assured, however, that unless someone can argue, my points remain as valid as unchallenged facts are in a debate, despite any partisan skepticism you would voice. I'm confident that Supaman is above any similar assumptions, and will come up with his own conclusions in an unbiased consideration of our history. [/quote]

Actually, if someone challenges your source, it's normally your job to defend it, or at least argue why that accusation is baseless. Saying "you" have faith in them is meaningless, especially when someone presents counter evidence. Just because a guy with a PHD says something doesn't make it right.

Though, to back up myke's source, there was $769,215,000,000 in tax revenue in 1986. You don't hit a trillion until 1990, and revenues increase yearly. The difference is very substantial under Clinton's watch, as the total increase between 1995 and 2000 almost equals the total tax revenue of 1986. Revenues, for the first time since 1983 (and only the second time since 1960), decrease under bush's watch. And this time it's 3 years in a row. The chart stops at 2004 though.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Rest assured, however, that unless someone can argue, my points remain as valid as unchallenged facts are in a debate[/QUOTE]

My source is the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET fuckING OFFICE.

I didn't stutter.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']Can you elaborate more on how we will be paying off the increase? I guess I just don't see how we will be(I'm clearly missing a bit point....)[/QUOTE]

It has to be paid off and wont be gone for a very long time, we should be so lucky as to live long enough to see the national debt accrued during the Reagan years.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']First and foremost, despite what msut posted, NEVER EVER cite Wikipedia in a serious paper. In fact, it's pretty dumb even to cite it anywhere, but make sure you don't use that in your paper because there is no guarantee it's accurate.[/QUOTE]

Many Wikipedia articles have a ton of links so you usually dont have to cite them.

It is a pretty useful tool.
 
Wikipedia is useful and, in all honesty, I've yet to find any glaring error in it. I use it frequently to increase my personal knowledge, though I do check other sources whenever that really adds to or changes my view.

The errors in wikipedia usually are more errors of degree. For example, they'll call something highly debatable when it's really a settled issue, or they argue that something is caused by X when, in reality, experts in that field debate the cause and wikipedia failed to mention the other perspectives.

Though I agree you shouldn't cite it in academic work. But it does provide a good way to figure out where to look. Just make sure you find other evidence to verify it. For example, if you have to write a paper about a topic you know nothing about, wikipedia can give you an outline of the subject and advice you on various paths you should take.

In terms of online debates I don't think there's much of an issue, as long as you are prepared to defend it's validity. But, especially when you know certain info to be true, it's much easier and faster to use once source to back up your argument than to spend half an hour gathering multiple sources that say the same exact thing.
 
I knew a guy back in high school who absolutely hated Reagan, but thanks to the power of history class was able to properly shift his hate to Carter. :lol:
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I knew a guy back in high school who absolutely hated Reagan, but thanks to the power of history class was able to properly shift his hate to Carter. :lol:[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Homer Simpson']Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster![/QUOTE]

:)
 
Marge Simpson did vote for Carter. Twice.

But I thank all you guys for all your help so far. You guys have any funny rumors/things said about Reagan that I can use a fire for jokes during my presentation?
 
IIRC, he was the first president to start the tradition of ending his SOTU speeches with "God Bless America." I could be wrong on that, though.
 
[quote name='evanft']Wait wait wait....did myke just use cold, hard, facts to blow out what AOW posted, and then AOW didn't really address anything he said and offered no proof of why his facts were actually right?[/quote]

Wait wait wait, did myke just throw up some Congressional website as an alternative source to statistics I pulled out of three separate scholarly biographical sources that I cited without hesistation despite your obligatory, false demagoguery? It's called fucking books people, they're at the places called libraries.

Actually, if someone challenges your source, it's normally your job to defend it
Click to expand...

Actually, if you spent the few seconds reading my reply I put my sources up for everyone to check.

[quote name='Me']According to Dr. Martin Anderson, author of Revolution, and Dr. Adriana Bosch, author of PBS's The American Experience: Reagan.[/quote]

Partially taken from some of Lou Cannon's work as well. Anderson and Cannon are consider among the foremost biographers of former President Reagan. Nevertheless, his "challenge" was he assumes I'm wrong because he assumed I picked them up from some website in a two second search. I have no problem with his source, and never claimed too, but leave it to your and evan here to jump up an pant the second you thought otherwise.

[quote name='mykevermin']My source is the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET fuckING OFFICE.

I didn't stutter.[/quote]

No shit. Unlike your trained puppies here, I can read. Not that I questioned it, but the context was meant to show I resent the fact that you assume and imply my facts are wrong without looking them up for yourself.

I should hope Supaman is better than that in his research and takes my points as a building block rather than assuming they are true or false. But to assume shit is invalid just because you disagree with someone is a bad practice.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']Marge Simpson did vote for Carter. Twice.

But I thank all you guys for all your help so far. You guys have any funny rumors/things said about Reagan that I can use a fire for jokes during my presentation?[/quote]

Well, he was accused of raping Selene Walters in the 50's. That may lend itself to a rather tasteless joke.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']No shit. Unlike your trained puppies here, I can read. Not that I questioned it, but the context was meant to show I resent the fact that you assume and imply my facts are wrong without looking them up for yourself.[/QUOTE]

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

I did not imply your facts were wrong. I told you they were wrong. I did not assume your facts were wrong. I went to a reliable source of data and found that you were wrong. And, for future reference, "Captain Underpants" is a published book, too, so please be a bit omre specific than citing an objects' status as a book in order to give it factual credibility.

Let me ask you a question: what is it, in your opinion, that the Congressional Budget Office handles?

(Here's a hint: It's not judicial nominees)
 
Ronald Reagan was a complete joke if you were not wealthy.

Crime,Drugs,Police Corruption,etc... were at a alltime high when he was in office.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I did not imply your facts were wrong. I told you they were wrong. I did not assume your facts were wrong. I went to a reliable source of data and found that you were wrong. And, for future reference, "Captain Underpants" is a published book, too, so please be a bit omre specific than citing an objects' status as a book in order to give it factual credibility.

Let me ask you a question: what is it, in your opinion, that the Congressional Budget Office handles?[/quote]
FACTS. FACTS.

You can't even remember what you said two posts ago. I'll dissect it for you since you're having so much trouble here.

At any rate, that's one point of data I can argue against.
Click to expand...
For that one point, you found a good source. I didn't say otherwise. Hence the phrase: No shit.

If your 1986 tax revenue is taken from a site that's willing to exaggerate at best
Click to expand...
Assumption one.

I'm skeptical of the other data claims you make in that post.
Click to expand...
Assumption two.

In fact, you have no idea about any of them because you didn't take the time to research the history, you just made an assumption that they can't be right because of how much you dislike a certain economic policy. Since you admitted you cannot argue against the rest of my points, then were in an agreement of their validity. It's debating 101. The only point that you had a problem with was that 1986 revenue figure, everything else is correct because you agreed with it through your admitted inability to challenge it.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']In the most basic way imaginable, Reaganomics, or supply-side economics, refers to easing the tax burden on the private sector to encourage economic growth. Instead of trying to squeeze more money out of people, they squeeze money out of more people, you understand? By cutting the taxes that businesses incurred, the business would have more money to invest toward expansion. When a business expands they spend money on new offices, new technology, new equipment, or what have you, which effectively leads to the business hiring more workers to fulfill the goals of the expanded business. When businesses hire more workers, more workers pay taxes, you see? Instead of increasing the tax rate, supply-side economics actually increases employment and therefore increases the amount of people paying taxes.

Some facts for you to check out:

From 1982 to 1990, economic expansion lasted ninety-six consecutive months.

Eighteen million jobs were created by the time former President Reagan left office.

In 1983, twenty trilion dollars in goods and services were produced by the American economy, a 65% increase from 1981.

In 1983, the number of millionares in the country climbed to 34,944 after having only 4,414 in 1980.

In 1982, the Federal government took in 618 billion in taxes. In 1986 they were just shy of 1 trillion.

In 1981, inflation had hit 13.5%, in 1983 it hit 3.2%.

Use those facts and come up with your own conclusion. Don't take it from me or anyone else, take all of our comments with a grain of salt. Look everything up before you use it on your paper, but I think if you do an honest assessment of the unabashed economic prosperity of the 1980's, you'll find that Reaganomics worked wonders for this country.[/QUOTE]

you pulled those 'facts' out of your ass

that's a 'fact'
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Wait wait wait, did myke just throw up some Congressional website as an alternative source to statistics I pulled out of three separate scholarly biographical sources that I cited without hesistation despite your obligatory, false demagoguery? It's called fucking books people, they're at the places called libraries.



Actually, if you spent the few seconds reading my reply I put my sources up for everyone to check.



Partially taken from some of Lou Cannon's work as well. Anderson and Cannon are consider among the foremost biographers of former President Reagan. Nevertheless, his "challenge" was he assumes I'm wrong because he assumed I picked them up from some website in a two second search. I have no problem with his source, and never claimed too, but leave it to your and evan here to jump up an pant the second you thought otherwise.



No shit. Unlike your trained puppies here, I can read. Not that I questioned it, but the context was meant to show I resent the fact that you assume and imply my facts are wrong without looking them up for yourself.

I should hope Supaman is better than that in his research and takes my points as a building block rather than assuming they are true or false. But to assume shit is invalid just because you disagree with someone is a bad practice.[/QUOTE]

fuck a fucking book

back your shit up with links to sources or your OPINION = ZERO

here's a fact for you:

Everything you've ever said is wrong.

I got that from your foremost biographer. Disagree with me? Go look it up.

jackass
 
I read a book once that said Ace is a lying dumbass and that he should go back to the sewer from whence he came.
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']fuck a fucking book

back your shit up with links to sources or your OPINION = ZERO

here's a fact for you:

Everything you've ever said is wrong.

I got that from your foremost biographer. Disagree with me? Go look it up.

jackass[/quote]

"I'm not a fan of facts. You see, facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are."

Sure Ace didn't say that, but that's only because someone else beat him to it.
 
Sorry to interrupt the debate(no sarcasm intended) but I printed what we had so far and showed my teacher. Let me just say, that when she saw the large "Cheap Ass Gamer" on the top left of the paper, she was not pleased at all. She was like "I don't think I'm going to accept this, that is very inappropriate." Well, I'm still using this a resource for information, I just thought I'd share that tid bit with you guys. Now back to the regularly scheduled programing....
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You tried to use a message board as a source?[/QUOTE]

Not so much the message board but this particular topic. I figured I could use this like you could use a blog, she said we could use blogs and I figure this is pretty close to a blog. The whole purpose of this topic was to gather info on Reaganomics and so far it has been pretty successful. Granted, not the smartest of ideas but I figured another source is another source.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']Sorry to interrupt the debate(no sarcasm intended) but I printed what we had so far and showed my teacher. Let me just say, that when she saw the large "Cheap Ass Gamer" on the top left of the paper, she was not pleased at all. She was like "I don't think I'm going to accept this, that is very inappropriate." [/b ]Well, I'm still using this a resource for information, I just thought I'd share that tid bit with you guys. Now back to the regularly scheduled programing....[/QUOTE]


that made me laugh out loud

:lol:

if i was your teacher you would get extra credit for using CAG as a source

besides if you think about it, the whole concept of Cheap Ass Gaming ties in directly with Reaganomics

supply creates it's own demand, yes? one must sell before one can afford to buy.

dovetails nicely, imo.

take that Economics Teacher!!!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']"I'm not a fan of facts. You see, facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are."

Sure Ace didn't say that, but that's only because someone else beat him to it.[/QUOTE]


truthiness > the truth

it's not false!!

:)
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']fuck a fucking book

back your shit up with links to sources or your OPINION = ZERO

here's a fact for you:

Everything you've ever said is wrong.

I got that from your foremost biographer. Disagree with me? Go look it up.

jackass[/quote]

I like this guy, where did you guys get him?

"durrr if it aint on teh intrenets... ITS RONG!!!1"

I feel for your illiteracy, I really do. But it isn't my responsibility to drive your ass to a library, you choose to be ignorant.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Sure Ace didn't say that, but that's only because someone else beat him to it.[/quote]

In other words, if someone doesn't get their information from the Daily Kos, it's automatically wrong. :roll:
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
In other words, if someone doesn't get their information from the Daily Kos, it's automatically wrong. :roll:[/quote]

I'd like you to back up that accusation. Find one instance where I ever based any claim on such a source.

You'll have a much easier time finding examples of me dismissing such sources as no more than entertainment.

Besides, you're relying on a guy with a PHD over government statistics. Guess what, guys with PHD's get their info from the same place everyone else does, and they can be just as wrong.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I like this guy, where did you guys get him?

"durrr if it aint on teh intrenets... ITS RONG!!!1"

I feel for your illiteracy, I really do. But it isn't my responsibility to drive your ass to a library, you choose to be ignorant.



In other words, if someone doesn't get their information from the Daily Kos, it's automatically wrong. :roll:[/QUOTE]


Ah... sorry. I didn't realize that it was your first day on the internet. How is your new computer working out?

Very VERY easy to back up any claim you make THAT'S TRUE by providing a source for it. That's not being ignorant.... that's called BEING INFORMED. hahaha... damn you sure do have it twisted there, genius.

http://www.google.com/

Go buck wild, skippy!! hahaha...

and.. why oh WHY would anyone on EARTH take YOUR word for it?

you're obviously a spectacular ignoramus

facts are facts, and bullshit is bullshit

you keep bullshitting, i'll stick with facts I can back up with proof

oh, and.... the LIBRARY????? are you fucking for real, dude?

wwwwwwwwwwwwwow.

I think I'll just let that speak for itself. Fabulous... really.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'd like you to back up that accusation. Find one instance where I ever based any claim on such a source.

You'll have a much easier time finding examples of me dismissing such sources as no more than entertainment.

Besides, you're relying on a guy with a PHD over government statistics. Guess what, guys with PHD's get their info from the same place everyone else does, and they can be just as wrong.[/QUOTE]


he's clearly flailing, in place of actually coming up with any kind of real response.

too funny that he just brings up Kos out of nowhere, as some kind of dig.

makes zero sense.

but i find his desparation to be pretty amusing.

..............

ok, now i'm over it
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'd like you to back up that accusation. Find one instance where I ever based any claim on such a source. [/quote]
I'd like you to stop being a prick. Find one instance where I ever didn't back up anything I said. If you can't then there is no reason for you to insist otherwise. I mean, I didn't think I was writing an essay, but I guess alonzo can't figure out what a source is unless the internet tells him it's true. You know civilization existed before the internet was ever invented, don't you?

Revolution: The Reagan Legacy, Martin Anderson, pg. 176.

Reagan: An American Story, Adriana Bosch, pg. 271.

President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, Lou Cannon, pg. 24.
[quote name='PKRipp3r'] oh, and.... the LIBRARY????? are you fucking for real, dude?[/quote]
Pretty arrogant for someone who spells their name with numb3rs. Yes, dude I am for real. I went there. Totally.

Libraries are wonderful places that offer infinite information on various subjects, but just for you I provided you with links to Amazon.com so you don't ever have to set foot in one. This way if you actually cared about knowing the truth, you could order one and read these strange and wonderful mediums they call books. I even put the specific page numbers so you can go straight to my "bullshit" and slap yourself across the face for ever doubting me.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I'd like you to stop being a prick. Find one instance where I ever didn't back up anything I said. [/quote]

Right here, right now, where you said that I didn't accept a source unless it favored my view.

If you can't then there is no reason for you to insist otherwise. I mean, I didn't think I was writing an essay, but I guess alonzo can't figure out what a source is unless the internet tells him it's true. You know civilization existed before the internet was ever invented, don't you?
Click to expand...

Ace, you were shown government statistics, telling how much in tax revenue the government made. Why these people know more about government tax revenue than the government?

Why is someone credible just because they wrote a book? Especially when, in the end, they must rely on the same statistics as everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top