Biden White House: Year 4

[begooode]

16 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

My entire argument is that most of what Reagan got credit for likely would have been accomplished had Carter been re-elected. The Tax cuts didn’t drive the economy, the Fed bringing back normal interest rates post-stagflation and the oil crisis ending did most of the work. And Carter had already push along plenty of deregulation to have made a difference without crushing unions. The economy would have rebounded regardless. And we wouldn’t be in such a shitty economic situation today.
 

And the USSR would have likely collapsed under Carter as well simply due to Gorbachev's reforms. 

so a feckless Carter who was overwhelmed and rendered reactionary by domestic economic problems would have suddenly projected US power and lead us to prosperity? He would have injected confidence into our consumer spending dependent economy while dealing with 20% interest rates and the terrible 1982 recession.  I’m very skeptical.

 

Gorbachev’s reforms came later in the 80s were needed because Russia’s military spending was no longer sustainable and no longer desirable from its people. Reagan forced his hand, period.  Europe was freed decades before some organic implosion would have happened.  Thanks Reagan.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by begooode

[Starkiller]

1 minute ago, begooode said:

so a feckless Carter who was overwhelmed and rendered reactionary by domestic economic problems would have suddenly projected US power and lead us to prosperity? He would have injected confidence into our consumer spending dependent economy while dealing with 20% interest rates and the terrible 1982 recession.  I’m very skeptical.

Carter wasn’t “overwhelmed” by our economic problems, they were simply out of his control, just as they would have been out of the control of Reagan had he been president from 1977-1980. 
 

As for “injecting confidence”, the economic recovery of the 80's was overwhelmingly about pent up demand and the ending of stagflation. Reagan had nothing to do with either. There is a natural cycle of economic booms and busts. If Carter had been re-elected we still would have had an economic boom.

[begooode]

2 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Carter wasn’t “overwhelmed” by our economic problems, they were simply out of his control, just as they would have been out of the control of Reagan had he been president from 1977-1980. 
 

As for “injecting confidence”, the economic recovery of the 80's was overwhelmingly about pent up demand and the ending of stagflation. Reagan had nothing to do with either. There is a natural cycle of economic booms and busts. If Carter had been re-elected we still would have had an economic boom.

The “pent up demand” argument completely misses the impact of the boomers coming online, imo. Also, the high earning tax rates were a mess prior to the epic (and bipartisan) tax reform act in 1986 — between the +70% nominal rates and IRS tax shelter games, determining the effective rates was difficult and individually specific. Yes, history has showed the widening of the wealth gap during Reagan’s time, with tax cuts being part of that. What it also shows is that America led the world in design and innovation during that period, along with capital market efficiencies waking up and ensuring the flow of capital to good ideas in the marketplace and/or to shareholders (mostly American investors at the time, including pension funds).
 

Also, recall that Reagan was pro growth including reasonable and robust immigration and America was (and remains) the destination of choice for skilled as well as unskilled talent despite the widening wealth disparity. That immigration was net positive for labor, innovation, entrepreneurship, and cultural diversity.

 

Domestically Reagan was too favorable to business, certainly.  Big business overreached, unions lost their way and the government conceded too often. Agreed on all points. Internationally, Reagan was not perfect, but was pretty much unmatched on the world stage, imo.
 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

Edited November 30, 2023 by begooode

[Starkiller]

7 hours ago, begooode said:

The “pent up demand” argument completely misses the impact of the boomers coming online, imo. 

Again, didn’t matter who was president here. Reagan benefits from something not of his doing by your own argument. 

 

7 hours ago, begooode said:

Also, the high earning tax rates were a mess prior to the epic (and bipartisan) tax reform act in 1986 — between the +70% nominal rates and IRS tax shelter games, determining the effective rates was difficult and individually specific. Yes, history has showed the widening of the wealth gap during Reagan’s time, with tax cuts being part of that. What it also shows is that America led the world in design and innovation during that period, along with capital market efficiencies waking up and ensuring the flow of capital to good ideas in the marketplace and/or to shareholders (mostly American investors at the time, including pension funds).

America had led the world economically since WW2 up until stagflation and the oil crisis. Reagan didn’t suddenly turn America into an economic superpower, it already was one. As I said, it was just going through a natural nadir in the boom-bust cycle, largely influenced by Nixon economic policy. It would have recovered had Carter won re-election. 

 

 

7 hours ago, begooode said:

Also, recall that Reagan was pro growth including reasonable and robust immigration and America was (and remains) the destination of choice for skilled as well as unskilled talent despite the widening wealth disparity. That immigration was net positive for labor, innovation, entrepreneurship, and cultural diversity.

Again, I didn’t say Reagan was evil or all bad. Only that he was given far too much credit.

 

7 hours ago, begooode said:

Domestically Reagan was too favorable to business, certainly.  Big business overreached, unions lost their way and the government conceded too often. Agreed on all points. Internationally, Reagan was not perfect, but was pretty much unmatched on the world stage, imo.
 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

I’m not sure what makes Reagan “unmatched on the world stage”. He was popular and was an excellent speaker certainly. Again it’s part of the myth that was Reagan that says he caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was certainly influential as the president of the US, as all presidents have been over the last century, but in many ways his fixation on Communism was harmful globally as much as it was beneficial.
 

I credit him for some things, like the nuclear treaty with the Soviets, but I really don’t see why Reagan is so deified in this regard. He got Iran to hold onto our hostages for political gain, he was involved in the Iran-Contra deal, we invaded Grenada, funded violent insurgents, and propped up dictators. But he gave a few good speeches so I guess the public loved him. 

[Starkiller]

Which of those facts did you find to be so funny @begooode?

[begooode]

1 hour ago, Starkiller said:

Which of those facts did you find to be so funny @begooode?

 

I apologize for being an ahole, man.  It's just that you have your perspective , and many of your points are built around supporting your perspective; and I have mine. That said, it's a joke how much you want to diminish Reagan's impact to the collapse of the USSR, how much you want to diminish his impact to an overall net favorable 80s economy that included unprecedented interest rates and corporate restructuring. How much you want to negate that, warts and all, Reagan led this country from the nasty post-Vietnam / post-Watergate era of anxiety/doubt. 

 

Jimmy Carter is an honorable man, diligent and smart.  His  post-presidency impact on international peace affairs and personal legacy of giving should be held in the highest regard.  That said, he was just not the guy who inspired confidence to lead the country through those terrible times. Reagan's favorability is attested to far beyond my cheerleading, but as you condescendingly noted 'he gave a few speeches and I guess people loved him'.  Just a bunch of idiots and hayseeds who can't pretend to understand ex-post 'it was just stagflation, and Russia was going to bust anyway because of', okay thx for the invite to the player haters ball, LOFL.

Edited November 30, 2023 by begooode

[begooode]

More good news on the economy:

 

The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation fell to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years, taking more pressure off the central bank to make another quarter-point rate hike before the year is out. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index held steady on the month and fell to a 3-percent annual increase in October, down from 3.4-percent increases in the previous three months. That’s the lowest number since March 2021.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/4335349-key-inflation-measure-drops-ahead-of-feds-last-meeting-of-the-year/

 

 

Mortgage rates continued to drop this week. It’s the fifth straight week rates have moved lower. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage fell to an average of 7.22% in the week ending November 30, down from 7.29% the week before, according to data from Freddie Mac released Thursday. A year ago, the average 30-year fixed-rate was 6.49%. “Market sentiment has significantly shifted over the last month, leading to a continued decline in mortgage rates,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/homes/mortgage-rates-drop/index.html

[tgo]

 

[Starkiller]

4 hours ago, begooode said:

 

I apologize for being an ahole, man.  It's just that you have your perspective , and many of your points are built around supporting your perspective; and I have mine. That said, it's a joke how much you want to diminish Reagan's impact to the collapse of the USSR, how much you want to diminish his impact to an overall net favorable 80s economy that included unprecedented interest rates and corporate restructuring. How much you want to negate that, warts and all, Reagan led this country from the nasty post-Vietnam / post-Watergate era of anxiety/doubt. 

it’s not a joke at all, it’s just a fact. I gave Reagan credit for causing the Soviets to fail in Afghanistan and to spend more than the Soviets could afford to match on the military. But the Soviet military spending was always incredibly high, even before Reagan. Where they got into trouble was when oil prices collapsed in the 80's, not because Reagan forced them to increase military spending. The Soviet collapse was because Gorbachev pulled back on Moscow's iron grip on the territories and the independence movements grew. The Berlin Wall fell because the Communist Party let it. Stalin would have had them all killed but Gorbachev's more open policies let it happen. That wasn’t because of Reagan.
 

As for his impact on the economy, again his policies weren’t the driving force over the economy. History shows that there is no correlation to tax rates and economic growth. The correlation is with the ease of borrowing money. When the Fed lowered rates after stagnation had ended then the economy took off. Borrowing was cheap, oil was cheap again, and pent up demand was already there to drive another boom. It really didn’t matter who was president.

 

4 hours ago, begooode said:

Jimmy Carter is an honorable man, diligent and smart.  His  post-presidency impact on international peace affairs and personal legacy of giving should be held in the highest regard.  That said, he was just not the guy who inspired confidence to lead the country through those terrible times. Reagan's favorability is attested to far beyond my cheerleading, but as you condescendingly noted 'he gave a few speeches and I guess people loved him'.  Just a bunch of idiots and hayseeds who can't pretend to understand ex-post 'it was just stagflation, and Russia was going to bust anyway because of', okay thx for the invite to the player haters ball, LOFL.

Reagan was not popular early on even after cutting taxes as the recession continued. His popularity didn’t come until the Fed lowered interest rates a year later and the economy took off. Like I said, he gets credit for an economic turnaround that he didn’t really have much real impact on. Anyone who had been in office in the early 80's would have been popular simply because the economy rebounded.

[begooode]

5 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Which of those facts did you find to be so funny @begooode?

 

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter

 

This is an overly rosy Carter piece, imo, but based on the facts presented I'll concede the topic and take an L, that with the benefit of hindsight Reagan was likely overrated / Carter underrated. That said, perception often fuels reality when it comes to leadership and Carter's inability to project confidence in spite of the messy environment of 1979-80 was a reasonable assessment by the electorate, and got him voted out. Yes, Ted Koppel on every night to tell us about the Iran hostages certainly didn't help, nor did Carter's failed military rescue attempt that resulted in downed choppers and dead troops.

 

sidebar -- I'm not seeing a significantly better world leader from the 80s, but I'm biased.

sidebar2 -- the parallels for the ex post assessments for Reagan and Thatcher are essentially mirror images.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-world-leaders-in-positions-of-power/#google_vignette

[Starkiller]

26 minutes ago, begooode said:

 

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter

 

This is an overly rosy Carter piece, imo, but based on the facts presented I'll concede the topic and take an L, that with the benefit of hindsight Reagan was likely overrated / Carter underrated. That said, perception often fuels reality when it comes to leadership and Carter's inability to project confidence in spite of the messy environment of 1979-80 was a reasonable assessment by the electorate, and got him voted out. Yes, Ted Koppel on every night to tell us about the Iran hostages certainly didn't help, nor did Carter's failed military rescue attempt that resulted in downed choppers and dead troops.

 

sidebar -- I'm not seeing a significantly better world leader from the 80s, but I'm biased.

sidebar2 -- the parallels for the ex post assessments for Reagan and Thatcher are essentially mirror images.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-world-leaders-in-positions-of-power/#google_vignette

Reagan and Thatcher will go down as arguably each of their countries most divisive leaders through history (pre-Trump at least). Conservatives deify them, liberals vilify them. Both were incredibly influential but no one will ever agree whether it was to the good or ill.

[Little Earl]

33 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Reagan and Thatcher will go down as arguably each of their countries most divisive leaders through history (pre-Trump at least). Conservatives deify them, liberals vilify them. Both were incredibly influential but no one will ever agree whether it was to the good or ill.

 

On the contrary, only die hard libtards vilify Reagan, everybody else thought he was great.......and rightly so.

[Strunk'sDessert]

I know I tend to acquiesce a bit on this forum. I just don't currently have the time or energy at this point in time to start and finish fights. Nor do I think I'm an expert at anything and everything, like most of you shit cans. 

 

But I do appreciate this discourse about Reagan in this thread. He was before my time, so I've just heard "City on a Hill" or his screw ups in various contexts. 

 

Trickle down economics is still fucking over Americans as a whole, but I think he'd be surprised and ashamed at the lengths it has gone to. 

 

Anyway, good viewpoints @begooode

Edited December 1, 2023 by Strunk'sDessert

[Strunk'sDessert]

@Little Earl Your savior still hates you. You derive your scripture and beliefs from your politics. The definition of a modern pharisee. 

 

Just have to remind you occasionally. 

[IrishTitansFan]

10 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Reagan and Thatcher will go down as arguably each of their countries most divisive leaders through history (pre-Trump at least). Conservatives deify them, liberals vilify them. Both were incredibly influential but no one will ever agree whether it was to the good or ill.

The best thing about Thatcher is that she is dead