Re: The Myths of Reaganomics

 
Here are some exerpts from another thread that I wrote several years ago, when I saw Moonbats start to try and revise history, as you have done the last two days with your "cut and paste" articles.  I suggest that you start trying to support some of these wackos' who you are quoting, and their  purported "Facts".  I think you will soon learn that you won't be able to do so.  You are posting "revisionist history".

Of course NONE of this addresses what any of the authors actually stated, but then that appears to be your standard effort.
The pieces I provided measured Reagan's TALKING against how he 'delivered' (or failed to do so) on those ideals.
Maybe I should insert "Dumbfucks" every so often?  Do you imagine that will make an effort *magically* more meaningful?

 

Reagan did so much for this Nation, at a time when most Americans felt despondent and abysmal after the Carter years; as previously stated, after being encouraged by President Carter to,  "live on less, to buckle our belts and to prepare for scarcity"....

Meaningless subjectivism

 
The truth is, that during President Reagan's tenure,  the middle class grew, under the greatest peacetime prosperity ever recorded!  By example, middle class income increased 11 percent, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created.

"Social class is a contradiction in terms. Socialists must explain why individuals, before merging into social classes, as is alleged to happen, have different interests than the future collective ones. But socialists never managed to overcome this theoretical hurdle. All they did was to further stress that individual interests exist and that they are corruptive." -- Cristian Gherasim

Government does not create jobs.  Government CAN make it difficult for jobs to be created.

Based on Census Bureau data, (I wrote this several years ago, and occasionally dig the facts out when challenged by Moonbats) the evidence is incontrovertible, and shows that the percentage of households in the low income category declined during the 1980s, while the proportion of high income households increased. Furthermore, while the middle class shrank as a share of all households, thus, the reason for this is upward, not downward, mobility.

Again with your socialist claptrap.

Regard$,
--MJ

Since World War II, and especially since the 1950s, the function of the Republican Party has been to be the "loyal, . . . . moderate," "bi-partisan," pseudo-opposition to the collectivist and leftist program of the Democratic Party. Unlike the more apocalyptic and impatient Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks (or social democrats, or corporate liberals, or "responsible" liberals, or "responsible" conservatives, or neo-conservatives -- the labels change, but the reality remains the same) try to preserve an illusion of free choice for the American public, including a two-party system, and at least marginal freedom of speech and expression.

The goal of these "responsible" or "enlightened" moderates has been to participate in the march to statism, while replacing the older American ideals of free markets, private property, and limited government with cloudy and noisy rhetoric about the glories of "democracy," as opposed to the one-party dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

 -- Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense