Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

So all this CPAC did was ramp the stupid up to 15, right?

 

[Armoured Priest]

He's one of the greatest surgeons of our lifetime, and an inspiring story. However his political views are quite ridiculous.

On one hand I want to believe he's too smart for this: it's just a cynical ploy for attention, money, etc. but he already has all the money he could want. He's not like many other cynical conservative personalities who basically troll for money because that's how they feed their family.

But on the other hand I'm familiar with Baltimore enough to know he has clashed with local politicians for over a decade. Naturally people want to give him various awards, have him speak at events, etc; he has turned some down due to not being able to express his political beliefs, and has also pissed (mainly black) politicians off by attacking their views.

Yet all that stuff was local or behind the scenes. I guess now the whole country gets to hear his views. Now, does he want to run for office? He was born in Michigan, there are plenty right wing districts he could move to and run in if he wanted. Or will he run for president as the ultimate Washington outsider? Or is this just a Palin-esque troll job for money, including flirting with running but never doing it.

I'm not upset he's conservative. I'm disappointed he is another far right black conservative who capitalizes off Obama hatred by being as extreme as possible. If Hillary wins in 2016 just watch how many far right agitators arise to say things a man couldn't get away with.

He is probably one of the greatest representations of the "Argue from authority" fallacy you could ask for. I get chain e-mails from some of my family members with his comments and get asked "Look what Ben Carson said. What do you think of Obama now?" I generally don't bother replying because I know its a waste of my time to bang my head against that brick wall.

His contribution to neuroscience is extraordinary...that doesn't automatically make him an authority concerning matters of political-science.

 

[Zabka]

Got admit that is pretty hilarious.

Obamabot
Hillarybot
Palinbot

And I like how google chrome doesn't show "Obamabot" as misspelled.

:lol

Palindrone just rolls right off the tongue

 

[Tamanon]

So all this CPAC did was ramp the stupid up to 15, right?

That's kinda what it's there for. Mission accomplished!

 

[theprodigy]

Palindrone just rolls right off the tongue

that's because it's so similar to a real word
10/10

 

[Trouble]

Hey, now. They're not extra rights. Us straight people will be able forced to get gay married, too.

Equality forever, man.

Fixed.

Edit:
I know we're just being sassy, but I really hate the right-wing argument that gay people already have equal rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like a straight person. It's such a disingenuous argument.

 

[gcubed]

On mobile but just read this. Godspeed New Hampshire

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/28806...ake-a-small-n-h-town-even-smaller?ft=1&f=1001

 

[smokeandmirrors]

On mobile but just read this. Godspeed New Hampshire

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/28806...ake-a-small-n-h-town-even-smaller?ft=1&f=1001

So Libertarians do ruin everything. I knew it.

Lol "UN-Free Zone"

 

[WayneMorse]

On mobile but just read this. Godspeed New Hampshire

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/28806...ake-a-small-n-h-town-even-smaller?ft=1&f=1001

That's it: abolish homeschooling, confiscate all guns, abolish private property, transfer sovereignty to the UN.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

On one hand I want to believe he's too smart for this: it's just a cynical ploy for attention, money, etc. but he already has all the money he could want.

How do you know what he wants? He has all the money anyone could ever need, but rich conservatives are intersectional with people who want more money. All the social bullshit they engage in is a sideshow to get to that point where they don't have to pay taxes and can have more money.

 

[speculawyer]

So Libertarians do ruin everything. I knew it.

Lol "UN-Free Zone"

WTF is the UN-Free Zone stuff? Isn't that more far-Christian-right dogma because the anti-Christ will lead a world government?

 

[Oblivion]

Ben Carson is an elite level medical practitioner who doesn't believe in evolution.

Seriously, how the fuck does that even work?

It makes them feel manly and a bad ass, and takes them back to the time of Reagan where he 'stood up' to them and they 'flinched'. They care more about that than doing something that might do something about that clusterfuck

I've always found it amusing how Reagan "defeated" communism by relying on socialism.

So all this CPAC did was ramp the stupid up to 15, right?

That's what it always does, though.

 

[Metaphoreus]

WTF is the UN-Free Zone stuff? Isn't that more far-Christian-right dogma because the anti-Christ will lead a world government?

Apparently this.

 

[Aaron Strife]

On mobile but just read this. Godspeed New Hampshire

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/28806...ake-a-small-n-h-town-even-smaller?ft=1&f=1001

Let's move to a town with an existing culture and ideas and cram our ideology down their throats! What could possibly go wrong?

 

[FyreWulff]

So wait, Libertarians want to ban the UN from their area because.. the UN is supposedly going to abolish nationalism?

*brain short circuit*

 

[Joe Molotov]

So wait, Libertarians want to ban the UN from their area because.. the UN is supposedly going to abolish nationalism?

*brain short circuit*

Yeah man, the UN has been so effective in conquering sovereign countries so far, it's only a matter of time before they get us too.

 

[Oblivion]

I've always found it amusing how Reagan "defeated" communism by relying on socialism.

Speaking of which, there is one thing that bothered me about the Bush admin's 8 year reign. We were fighting TWO wars during that time. Why didn't the increased spending stimulate the economy like it did all the other times we went to war?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Speaking of which, there is one thing that bothered me about the Bush admin's 8 year reign. We were fighting TWO wars during that time. Why didn't the increased spending stimulate the economy like it did all the other times we went to war?

Probably because the number of people required to get a war machine started and maintained is considerably less than it was before? Not entirely sure.

 

[Piecake]

Speaking of which, there is one thing that bothered me about the Bush admin's 8 year reign. We were fighting TWO wars during that time. Why didn't the increased spending stimulate the economy like it did all the other times we went to war?

Because FDR and congress jacked up taxes on the rich because they began to realize that the war was benefiting the rich greatly while it was not benefiting the working class at all. Bush II did not do that. He gave massive tax cuts to the rich and increased inequality. We didnt see a economic boost because the middle class did not see a boost from the increased spending.

Plus, WWII military spending was on a whole other level than Bush II military spending.

 

[WayneMorse]

Poll on Drudge has Ted Cruz and Rand Paul neck and neck. A Cruz v. Paul primary is possible.

 

[Oblivion]

Because FDR and congress jacked up taxes on the rich because they began to realize that the war was benefiting the rich greatly while it was not benefiting the working class at all. Bush II did not do that. He gave massive tax cuts to the rich and increased inequality. We didnt see a economic boost because the middle class did not see a boost from the increased spending.

Plus, WWII military spending was on a whole other level than Bush II military spending.

What about with Reagan, though? He didn't raise taxes either (well, he did but after he substantially lowered them and most of his were regressive).

 

[Piecake]

What about with Reagan, though? He didn't raise taxes either (well, he did but after he substantially lowered them and most of his were regressive).

You are assuming that Reagan's increase in budget boosted the economy significantly. His increase in military spending was not all that significant. I think it is far more reasonable to assume that the economy grew thanks to other factors rather than increased spending and that the growth in economy did not result in a benefit for the average person because income remained largely remained the same while inequality grew

Its pretty obvious from this graph that we got out of the great depression because of militarized Keynesianism and a dramatic shift in the redistribution of wealth. You really can't say that for any other period.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Poll on Drudge has Ted Cruz and Rand Paul neck and neck. A Cruz v. Paul primary is possible.

Cruz will have money and grass roots support but I'd expect Paul to blow the other tea party candidates out the water with his machine and online presence. And I really believe someone on the right is going to dump a Cruz oppo research file on a journalist's desk sometime in early 2016.

Ultimately I think Scott Walker or Jeb Bush will win the nomination.

 

[Wilsongt]

Cruz will have money and grass roots support but I'd expect Paul to blow the other tea party candidates out the water with his machine and online presence. And I really believe someone on the right is going to dump a Cruz oppo research file on a journalist's desk sometime in early 2016.

Ultimately I think Scott Walker or Jeb Bush will win the nomination.

If that's all the gop can muster I laugh at their misfortune.

 

[zero_suit]

Ultimately I think Scott Walker or Jeb Bush will win the nomination.

2016 is looking really good for the Dems then...

 

[Oblivion]

You are assuming that Reagan's increase in budget boosted the economy significantly. His increase in military spending was not all that significant. I think it is far more reasonable to assume that the economy grew thanks to other factors rather than increased spending and that the growth in economy did not result in a benefit for the average person because income remained largely remained the same while inequality grew

Well I don't want to attribute all the growth under Reagan to the increase defense spending, but I thought that helped quite a bit. What would you attribute to the growth during that time? Reaganomics? D:

 

[Piecake]

Well I don't want to attribute all the growth under Reagan to the increase defense spending, but I thought that helped quite a bit. What would you attribute to the growth during that time? Reaganomics? D:

A good business cycle? Increased credit and the growth of the stock market? Good international conditions? Depressed spending finally untapped thanks to the recession in the 70s?

Those sorts of government policies really don't have a huge impact on the short term growth of the economy. They definitely have an impact on inequality, quality of life, etc, but not the overall economy. Of course, The massive spending increase thanks to WWII is the exception since that was spending on a scale pretty much unseen in the US

 

[Aaron Strife]

Eh, I think Walker could win over most non-Clinton Dems.

But Hildawg is basically unbeatable.

Judging from all the stuff that's come out from Walker's private emails, I wouldn't be surprised if he was another Christie in the sense that he seems like a good candidate on paper but with numerous skeletons in his closet.

His governorship in Wisconsin hasn't been very impressive either, in spite of PD's spin and denial.

Speaking of spin and denial, Rick Scott is in deep shit.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Eh, I think Walker could win over most non-Clinton Dems.

Define "non-Clinton Dems".

 

[Aaron Strife]

Define "non-Clinton Dems".

Cuomo, O'Malley, and Biden seem to be the most talked about.

I think if Hillary opted out though Klobuchar would have an excellent opportunity.

 

[WayneMorse]

If that's all the gop can muster I laugh at their misfortune.

Like I said yesterday, Mitt Romney was the candidate and campaign from hell and still got 47.2% of the vote.

If someone like Walker or Jeb could run a good campaign while still playing the faux moderate like Romney did, they would be a formidable adversary to Clinton.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Like I said yesterday, Mitt Romney was the candidate and campaign from hell and still got 47.2% of the vote.

If someone like Walker or Jeb could run a good campaign while still playing the faux moderate like Romney did, they would be a formidable adversary to Clinton.

This number doesn't really matter, though. Romney would have had to flip Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and another state to just eek out a win.

 

[Snake]

Like I said yesterday, Mitt Romney was the candidate and campaign from hell and still got 47.2% of the vote.

If someone like Walker or Jeb could run a good campaign while still playing the faux moderate like Romney did, they would be a formidable adversary to Clinton.

Mitt's loss in 2012 was not narrow. A 4-point win in a US Presidential election is a solid victory, especially in our increasingly polarized electorate. Republicans haven't done as well or better than that in over a quarter of a century. And that's with the incumbent presiding over persistent high unemployment.

I agree, however, that a theoretical Clinton candidacy will still have to run an aggressive campaign and not take the election for granted.

 

[Lucky Forward]

So all this CPAC did was ramp the stupid up to 15, right?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

Many CPAC Attendees Say Marijuana Should Be Legalized

One respondent even argued that if Pop-Tarts, which contain carcinogenic preservatives, are legal, then why not marijuana? Another was much more brief in his reasoning, saying that he supported legalization "because freedom."

 

[WayneMorse]

I agree, however, that a theoretical Clinton candidacy will still have to run an aggressive campaign and not take the election for granted.

I just can't see Hillary do all that well against Rand Paul either, he can tap into a lot of populist anger over that past few years especially on issues like surveillance, drug reform and foreign policy. He also isn't a zealous as other Tea Partiers when it comes to gay rights and abortion so that'll help to.

I don't know what America will look like in 2016 but i can see their being enough anger at the status quo that independents and moderates can go to the populist right if Rand presents himself as the candidate of change.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I just can't see Hillary do all that well against Rand Paul either, he can tap into a lot of populist anger over that past few years especially on issues like surveillance, drug reform and foreign policy. He also isn't a zealous as other Tea Partiers when it comes to gay rights and abortion so that'll help to.

I don't know what America will look like in 2016 but i can see their being enough anger at the status quo that independents and moderates can go to the populist right if Rand presents himself as the candidate of change.

Rand is just like Ron without any of the old guy charm that comes with him and he's too thin-skinned to last long.

 

[thepotatoman]

Well I don't want to attribute all the growth under Reagan to the increase defense spending, but I thought that helped quite a bit. What would you attribute to the growth during that time? Reaganomics? D:

It was probably the birth of a US dominated computer industry and the end of a decade long oil crisis.

Seriously Defense Spending is the worst form of stimulus imaginable. At best you're stimulating very concentrated parts of the economy and getting an occasional technology that can be used outside of war. At worst you're throwing most of that money at another country rather than our own.

Granted in WW2 military personnel jumped from 300,000 serving all the way to 12 million serving. That is obviously a significant amount of jobs added at a time when people needed jobs badly, and those jobs were filled by people from every city in the country. But when Reagan increased spending, the number of military personal stayed flat at 2 million, and when we invaded Iraq, military personal stayed at 1.5 million.

Hell, if that money is going to projects that waste precious, limited resources like oil and taking engineers out of the market to work on non-useful research, then you're looking full on at a broken window fallacy, where the economy is actually hurt by this spending.

 

[theprodigy]

I just can't see Hillary do all that well against Rand Paul either, he can tap into a lot of populist anger over that past few years especially on issues like surveillance, drug reform and foreign policy. He also isn't a zealous as other Tea Partiers when it comes to gay rights and abortion so that'll help to.

I don't know what America will look like in 2016 but i can see their being enough anger at the status quo that independents and moderates can go to the populist right if Rand presents himself as the candidate of change.

you should probably stop using internet libertarians and applying your results there to the general population

 

[speculawyer]

Rand is just like Ron without any of the old guy charm that comes with him and he's too thin-skinned to last long.

I don't think Rand is as smart as Ron. And I don't think Ron was all that smart.

 

[speculawyer]

Well I don't want to attribute all the growth under Reagan to the increase defense spending, but I thought that helped quite a bit. What would you attribute to the growth during that time? Reaganomics? D:

The economic recovery under Reagan has cemented in some of the dumbest fucking thinking on economics ever. People think that because Reagan cut taxes and the economy got better then all you have to is cut taxes and the economy improves.

That is complete bullshit.

Cutting taxes does help at times in Keynesian manner. But Reagan had other things that helped. Besides the tax cuts he had:
1) He ran up more debt THAN EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM . . . COMBINED! Again, that is more Keynesian Stimulus.
2) The oil crisis from the Iranian revolution eased up due to massive amounts of other oil hitting the markets in the mid-80s. The Alaska North slope, the Mexican Cantarell oil, and the European North Sea oil. Those 3 all hit the market and price of oil plummeted. The economy of Texas crashed but the rest of the economy did GREAT.

Why do Republicans only remember the tax cuts but conveniently forget Reagan's massive deficit spending and the luck of a massive oil price drop? Because they just want to cut their own fucking taxes because they are greedy and they "want to believe" in magic.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't think Rand is as smart as Ron. And I don't think Ron was all that smart.

He's nowhere near as smart. Also he'll sink the second anyone takes a serious look at him. This is a guy who held four completely contradictory opinions on one topic in a single week. He's a joke that's only relevant because of who he happens to be related to.

 

[speculawyer]

Apparently this.

What the fuck?

Are you concerned that...
"That the UN wants you to give up your national independence and become a Global Citizen?" (Ref: United Nation New Centre - Sept. 12, 2003
The UN has targeted the local church for eradication by regulating it out of business. (Ref: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, May 31-June 11, 1976, Agenda Item 10).
UN plans call for replacing all Christian based religions with a one world religion based on the Gaia hypothesis, the paganistic worship of "mother earth" having its origin and roots in The Temple of Understanding. (Ref: UN Millennium Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, Aug. 28-31, 2000, New York)
UN plans to nationalize ALL private property, particularly privately owned land. (Ref: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, the Preamble of which states "Land... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals ---."
UN plans to confiscate ALL profit realized from the sale of private land. (Ref: UN Conference on Human Settlements, Recommendation D.3 which reads in part --- "(b) The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values --- must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.")
UN plans call for absolute control over where "YOU" will be allowed to live and work. (Ref: UN Agenda 21, and the UN Conference on Human Settlements, Recommendation A.1 which reads in part as follows; "(b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the redistribution of population...over the national territory.")
UN plans absolute control over WHAT you use your own private land for. (Ref: UN Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Agenda 21 and UN Deseretfication Treaty).
The UN plans absolute control over how many businesses of any particular type (ie. autobody shops) will be allowed within any given area and where they will be allowed to locate within any given community. (Ref: UN Agenda 21).
The UN has already assumed "total and absolute" control of over 70 percent of all the worlds land mass? (Ref: UN Deseretfication Treaty).
Did you know that several U.N. Treaties and Conventions require that over 45 percent of the total land mass within the United States be cleansed of all human activity? (Ref: UN Convention on Biological Diversity, The Wildlands Project, UN and US Man and Biosphere Program, and various UN, US Heritage Programs and NAFTA)

Libertarians generally have a colorable sane argument. But what is that? That is paranoid conspiracy theory Bircher type stuff.

 

[speculawyer]

Like I said yesterday, Mitt Romney was the candidate and campaign from hell and still got 47.2% of the vote.

I disagree with you on this. He was in theory a decent candidate. He wasn't closely tied to the Bush insanity. He wasn't a war-mongerer (although the informed people realized he did take up much of the Bush foreign policy team).

And it was a time of economic trouble and the "Elect the smart CEO guy and he'll help restore the USA economy like he helped businesses.". I think that was a very powerful selling point.

But it fell apart due to the 47% comments and the last two debates. He had a chance although the chance he had was limited because of the hard-right push he had to do in order to win the nomination.


I'm glad he lost because of the social policy bullshit and I don't think he had any magic to fix the economy.

 

[B-Dubs]

I disagree with you on this. He was in theory a decent candidate. He wasn't closely tied to the Bush insanity. He wasn't a war-mongerer (although the informed people realized he did take up much of the Bush foreign policy team).

And it was a time of economic trouble and the "Elect the smart CEO guy and he'll help restore the USA economy like he helped businesses.". I think that was a very powerful selling point.

But it fell apart due to the 47% comments and the last two debates. He had a chance although the chance he had was limited because of the hard-right push he had to do in order to win the nomination.


I'm glad he lost because of the social policy bullshit and I don't think he had any magic to fix the economy.

That's the difference between theory and practice. On paper he looked good, in reality he never stood a chance. Even when polling at his best, he still couldn't have beaten Obama.

A lot of these GOP candidates look good on paper, but if you've seen them up close you know they're train wrecks waiting to happen. Rubio, Cruz, Christie (I totally called Christie mucking it all up when you all were ballwashing him btw) all looked good on paper but a closer look revealed how garbage they really were.

Walker is going to turn out exactly the same. The media is focused on him because he's all that's left, but they've been looking at him from afar. Once they move a bit closer, I guarantee you he will fall apart. Walker's cut from the same cloth as Christie. Even if he somehow makes it to the general, he will cause some scandal--either by saying something horrible to someone, or doing something worse--and flame out in hilarious fashion.

If these are the best guys the GOP has right now, then even the worst Democratic contenders could win with a decent margin.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HClEOrbwVHM

Good to hear some socialist rhetoric from Bernie. Hope he runs in 2016!

 

[Metaphoreus]

What the fuck?

Libertarians generally have a colorable sane argument. But what is that? That is paranoid conspiracy theory Bircher type stuff.

Yeah, looking it over actually reminded me of another topic that recently caught my attention (as a result of this blog post): tax-protestor theories.

I mean, just look at these comments on a negative review of a tax protestor book on Amazon.

Fortunately, all my searching led me to a law professor who might just be the most patient individual to have ever written anything online, Jon Siegel (the names for the correspondent are mine, not Siegel's):

Are you really a law professor or an ex-IRS person. Your fraudulent website is so full of holes you can drive a semi through it. no wonder I can beat your lawschool buddies in court. they were probably trained by you. I would stick to ambulance chasing. That is why you are called an attorney instead of a lawyer and I will bet you do not even know what I am talking about.

Let me just say this without wasting more of my valuble time. 26 U.S.C IS NOT LAW but simply code which congress can pass into law given the passing of statutes. Secondarily, most of 26 U.S.C. is found in 27 CFR section 70 et. seq. I f you do not know what I am saying CFR statnds for Code of Federal Regulations and the 27 part, that is for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as Federal Employees and non-resident aliens. You should read the code and do some research before making the same assertions the IRS uses in their propaganda before some Lawschool 101 freshman knows more than you do. Another thing you may want to go and look up in the Federal Register and see if Congress has enacted the IRS as a government agency, and also research the IRM Internal Revenue Manual and look under OMB numbers, thets Office of Management and Budget and see what is says about a 1040, which TD 2313 in the Brushaber Supreme Court case stated it was for non-resident aliens. Get into politics or be a DOJ patsy, because you do not know what you are talking about. Put this on your website.

Thanks for your message. I really am a law professor and I never worked for the I.R.S., although I did work at the U.S. Department of Justice before I went into teaching.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code is law. The U.S. Code is a compilation of statutes passed by the United States Congress. Every section in Title 26 was passed by Congress as law.

Guess what you are not up to date the 1986 code was not passed into law and I know that what I told you about the CFR's are true as I have the regulations from the law. I noticed that you do what you do because of your background which explains why it is a copy of the IRS flyer that they send out to con people into paying that which Article I section 8 says has to be done first in order to tax our earnings. If they want us to follow the law they first must first follow it. That is why people keep asking for the law, there isn't one and again research the Supreme Court caselaw that is what you should be telling your students, not perforce giving them your biased opinion like a lot of the judges do today. Look it up we have. The Constitution is the law for us not what the government thinks.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 became law on October 22, 1986, by Congress's passage of Public Law 99-514. Some more information is available here.

The code has been amended many times since then, each time by law passed by Congress.

So the code really is law.

Read what Jeff said. it is not law without the statutes at large. You are arguing for something that does not exist and is verified by several Supreme Court cases from 1895 to the present. You cannot tax private citizens on their earnings period. I have studying this long and hard for 13 years and have every pertinent case on this. That is why the IRS just lost another case. They are being caught up with with their lies and fraud. If you pay me enough I will teach your class on the real tax law.

But it's in the Statutes at Large. Volume 100, starting at page 2085. I'm looking at it right now. Public Law 99-514, "An Act To reform the internal revenue laws of the United States." Check it out for yourself.

Look, I'm sorry, but Congress really did pass this and it really is law. Why don't you try a different argument? There's no point arguing that Congress didn't pass something when it obviously did, as anyone can check by looking it up in the books.

This is my last comment on this. I am too busy suing the IRS. 80,000,000 non payers cannot be wrong and Federal Workers who owe $2,799,950,195 are wrong. Go to: [URL removed]. Stop defending these crooks You do not even know where this stolen money goes.

 

[Oblivion]

A good business cycle? Increased credit and the growth of the stock market? Good international conditions? Depressed spending finally untapped thanks to the recession in the 70s?

Those sorts of government policies really don't have a huge impact on the short term growth of the economy. They definitely have an impact on inequality, quality of life, etc, but not the overall economy. Of course, The massive spending increase thanks to WWII is the exception since that was spending on a scale pretty much unseen in the US

It was probably the birth of a US dominated computer industry and the end of a decade long oil crisis.

Seriously Defense Spending is the worst form of stimulus imaginable. At best you're stimulating very concentrated parts of the economy and getting an occasional technology that can be used outside of war. At worst you're throwing most of that money at another country rather than our own.

Granted in WW2 military personnel jumped from 300,000 serving all the way to 12 million serving. That is obviously a significant amount of jobs added at a time when people needed jobs badly, and those jobs were filled by people from every city in the country. But when Reagan increased spending, the number of military personal stayed flat at 2 million, and when we invaded Iraq, military personal stayed at 1.5 million.

Hell, if that money is going to projects that waste precious, limited resources like oil and taking engineers out of the market to work on non-useful research, then you're looking full on at a broken window fallacy, where the economy is actually hurt by this spending.

The economic recovery under Reagan has cemented in some of the dumbest fucking thinking on economics ever. People think that because Reagan cut taxes and the economy got better then all you have to is cut taxes and the economy improves.

That is complete bullshit.

Cutting taxes does help at times in Keynesian manner. But Reagan had other things that helped. Besides the tax cuts he had:
1) He ran up more debt THAN EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM . . . COMBINED! Again, that is more Keynesian Stimulus.
2) The oil crisis from the Iranian revolution eased up due to massive amounts of other oil hitting the markets in the mid-80s. The Alaska North slope, the Mexican Cantarell oil, and the European North Sea oil. Those 3 all hit the market and price of oil plummeted. The economy of Texas crashed but the rest of the economy did GREAT.

Why do Republicans only remember the tax cuts but conveniently forget Reagan's massive deficit spending and the luck of a massive oil price drop? Because they just want to cut their own fucking taxes because they are greedy and they "want to believe" in magic.

Cool beans.

I've heard conservatives try and talk about how Reagan's policies helped oil prices come down, but that always seemed like one of those things that was just lucky enough to happen on his watch.

 

[Drakeon]

Cool beans.

I've heard conservatives try and talk about how Reagan's policies helped oil prices come down, but that always seemed like one of those things that was just lucky enough to happen on his watch.

If I'm not mistaken, the government, specifically the president, has very very little power over oil prices.

 

[thepotatoman]

He had one job at CPAC and still apparently blew it. McConnell can't seem to do anything right this campaign.

 

[benjipwns]

I think he kept running for the same reason that Bernie Sanders is talking about running, not to win but to push his agenda on the biggest political platform available to him, and that's something I think he ended up being pretty successful with. I can only hope Bernie Sanders garners the same type of following among the youth of the party that Ron Paul did.

And to get Paul people into various positions within state and local GOP's.

Cool beans.

I've heard conservatives try and talk about how Reagan's policies helped oil prices come down, but that always seemed like one of those things that was just lucky enough to happen on his watch.

If someone wants to tie that to Reagan, I would think his support of Volcker busting inflation would be about the only real path to do it. Even the price controls he just moved forward nine months, Carter had initiated the removal of those.