Reagan's Big Spending = Big Bull in 1980s
- Thread starter richrf
- Start date
lol. Yep, the whole Eisenhower national highway network was a waste of time. Done all wrong. We should have allowed the free market to do it. Then we would have had thousands of miles of dirt roads and a lot of rich scammers. I always wondered where all of the Dittoheads hung out. I guess I found them.
Megadittos.
Rich, V.I. Lenin had a name for guys like you - "Useful Idiot".
It's sad because you don't seem like a bad guy. Cluelessness does not make you a bad person. But, you are incredibly naive, ill informed and ignorant of both history and basic economics - and very much a true believer.
If you think any politician on either side really gives a crap about you versus himself, you are truly delusional.
Like I sad, you seem like a really nice person, but I shake my head whenever I read your delusional drivel.
"If you have a hero- think again. You've diminished your self in some way." Eric Hoffer
And BTW: Angrycat is 1000% correct on all Reagan related arguments....
And BTW: Angrycat is 1000% correct on all Reagan related arguments....
I am a really nice guy and I bet you are a really nice guy, when you don't get to involved with ideology and consider each situation as something new and distinct in history.
I would just like you to consider that I may have a considerable amount of experience and knowledge when it comes to human character and wealth building. I may be wrong, but why don't we keep this thread going for a while and we shall see how things work out. Maybe I will learn something new or maybe you will. You can never tell.
Cya.
Rich, I'm a gal and I'm really not that nice. I'll bet you're nicer. I just get straight to the point because I can't be bothered with the niceties.
I don't know how considerable or valuable your knowledge of human character - whatever that means - is. However, you have definitely demonstrated an extreme deficiency in economics and history. You also tend to use aggressive assertion instead of real arguments because it is you who is bound by ideology. If you weren't bound by ideology, you would not be so damned partisan in all of your posts. You would also present better arguments.
For example: Obama, like FDR after Hoover, is simply building on Bush's meddling in the economy. Since Bush's meddling didn't achieve its intended objective, you will have to lay out a case with supporting research for why you think Obama's meddling will magically produce a vastly different result. You need to lay out a logical argument at least and produce research to back your arguments when you can. Aggressive assertion is not an argument. Partisan fluff pieces which also use aggressive assertion in place of arguments is also not convincing.
You blindly believe that government creates more wealth than private enterprise - despite all evidence to the contrary.
In a few short years, we will see whether commonsense (Obama) does a better job the naive, totally discredited, free market ideology (Bush). I have time and patience. Look, after Bush, it doesn't take much to do better, unless the Republicans have their way and lead us into another Great Depression, using EXACTLY the same totally silly ideas in the early 30s.
We shall see. But if I am right, then we will all be long gone before we see another Republican (and their tricky friends) in the White House.