If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"Bill Turner" wrote in message
... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:38:06 +0000 (UTC), Mike Engles wrote: For whatever reason the Federal budget was in huge deficit with Reagan and Bush1,was in excellent credit with Clinton and is now in disastrous deficit again with Bush2. The deficits have been caused by unjustified tax cuts and huge defence spending. The poor get poorer and the rich.... Mike Engles __________________________________________________ _______ Quite correct. Used to be that huge deficits were a characteristic of the Demos, now they're Republicans. A pox on both of them. -- BT During the Reagan years, the percentage of low income households dropped. There was a shrinking of the middle class - they became more upwardly mobile and were pushed into the high income class. The oft-repeated drivel - an lie - that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer during the Reagan years is a tired old line. All classes got richer. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message .. .
During the Reagan years, the percentage of low income households dropped. There was a shrinking of the middle class - they became more upwardly mobile and were pushed into the high income class. The oft-repeated drivel - an lie - that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer during the Reagan years is a tired old line. All classes got richer. Unqualified bull****. During Reagan's eight years in office, incomes of the top 5% of Americans rose 27%, while the poorest 60% either had no rise or a drop in income: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30471.php Reagan funneled $3.5 TRILLION to his defense contractor buddies while declaring ketchup to be a vegetable in school lunch programs. He was an amoral monster, the likes of which this country had never seen before. Rick |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"Rick" wrote in message
... "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message .. . During the Reagan years, the percentage of low income households dropped. There was a shrinking of the middle class - they became more upwardly mobile and were pushed into the high income class. The oft-repeated drivel - an lie - that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer during the Reagan years is a tired old line. All classes got richer. Unqualified bull****. During Reagan's eight years in office, incomes of the top 5% of Americans rose 27%, while the poorest 60% either had no rise or a drop in income: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30471.php Reagan funneled $3.5 TRILLION to his defense contractor buddies while declaring ketchup to be a vegetable in school lunch programs. He was an amoral monster, the likes of which this country had never seen before. Rick Wrong again. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message ... "Rick" wrote in message ... "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message .. . During the Reagan years, the percentage of low income households dropped. There was a shrinking of the middle class - they became more upwardly mobile and were pushed into the high income class. The oft-repeated drivel - an lie - that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer during the Reagan years is a tired old line. All classes got richer. Unqualified bull****. During Reagan's eight years in office, incomes of the top 5% of Americans rose 27%, while the poorest 60% either had no rise or a drop in income: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30471.php Reagan funneled $3.5 TRILLION to his defense contractor buddies while declaring ketchup to be a vegetable in school lunch programs. He was an amoral monster, the likes of which this country had never seen before. Rick Wrong again. If he's wrong, provide some pointers _proving_ it. Just saying he's wrong doesn't help. It sure looked as though he bankrupted the country, ran his foreign policy illegally*, dropped $3.5 trillion into a defense scheme that sounds completely unworkable to this computer scientist, cancelled the alternative fuels programs started under Carter, resurrected the useless bomber projects Carter thought he had killed. *: I suspect that this is the reason Carter got hit with the oil crises and Reagan didn't: he paid off various Middle East tyrants and dictators under the table/off the record. He and Bush I kissed Hussein's ass right up to the day before he invaded Kuwait. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
... "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message ... "Rick" wrote in message ... "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message .. . During the Reagan years, the percentage of low income households dropped. There was a shrinking of the middle class - they became more upwardly mobile and were pushed into the high income class. The oft-repeated drivel - an lie - that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer during the Reagan years is a tired old line. All classes got richer. Unqualified bull****. During Reagan's eight years in office, incomes of the top 5% of Americans rose 27%, while the poorest 60% either had no rise or a drop in income: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30471.php Reagan funneled $3.5 TRILLION to his defense contractor buddies while declaring ketchup to be a vegetable in school lunch programs. He was an amoral monster, the likes of which this country had never seen before. Rick Wrong again. If he's wrong, provide some pointers _proving_ it. Just saying he's wrong doesn't help. It sure looked as though he bankrupted the country, ran his foreign policy illegally*, dropped $3.5 trillion into a defense scheme that sounds completely unworkable to this computer scientist, cancelled the alternative fuels programs started under Carter, resurrected the useless bomber projects Carter thought he had killed. *: I suspect that this is the reason Carter got hit with the oil crises and Reagan didn't: he paid off various Middle East tyrants and dictators under the table/off the record. He and Bush I kissed Hussein's ass right up to the day before he invaded Kuwait. Strange, you don't question Rick's statements when he disputes my first post. The link he provided is nothing more than the biased opinion of a liberal. Perhaps you agree with that opinion so you only question mine which you don't agree with. Consider these facts: From '82 to '89 charitable contributions by corporations grew 10%, higher than the rate of inflation. Reagan's tax cuts benefited the lower income earners: the top fifth of earners saw their taxes decrease by 9%, the middle three-fifths saw a drop of 10%, the bottom fifth a drop of 275% (many bottom earners not only had no tax liability but they received government money through earned income credits. Income levels for the poorest fifth of the population rose 10.4%, second lowest fifth saw a rise of 9.5%, the middle fifth saw an increase of 11.7%, the second wealthiest fifth saw a rise of 12.2 %, and the top fifth saw an increase of 13.6%. Poverty decreased by 1.1% From '82 to '88 there were 16.7 million new jobs created. Of those new jobs, 32% went to blacks and Hispanics even though those only comprised 19% of the workforce. In '89 the unemployment rates for blacks was 11.4%, down from 20.4% from '82. The rate for Hispanics was 8%, down from 15.3% from '82. Between '82 and '90, the unemployment rate for blacks dropped 9 percentage points, for Hispanics the drop was 7.3 percentage points, and for whites the drop was 4.5 percentage points. From '82 to '87 there was an increase in black-owned businesses of 38% while the total increase overall in the US was 14%. Their business receipts rose 105% while the rate of inflation was 4 percent. Upper-income tax payers ($40,000+) saw their overall tax burden increase by approximately 45% while those below that level saw their burden drop by an equivalent amount. The choice is yours as to what facts you want to believe. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
There was a study published in the Wall Street Journal several years ago
that disputed this myth that the "poor got poorer and the rich got richer" The answer lies in the clustering of people into income groups and comparing the average income in those clusters, which skews the results. The WSJ study was a very comprehensive study of a large number of individuals and tracked them over time (not just the Reagan years, but for much longer) They broke the population into quintiles and tracked the incomes of the individuals. What they found was that there was a tremendous amount of movement of real individuals between the quintiles, even though one of the quintiles average income may have risen or dropped, the people who were in that quintile were very different. Things like students graduating and getting job and progressing through their careers moved them up. Things like people changing careers or retiring moved them down. The surprising thing, to me at least, was that there was nearly as much mobility in/out of the top quintile as there was into/out of the bottom quintile. It was a fascinating read, unfortunately I didn't save it. All in all, the rising tide of the 80s gave a great increase to the incomes in this country. You can try to deny it but the facts don't support your claims. Dig a little deeper into the facts and you 'll see that the assertions that the claim that the "rich got richer and the poor got poorer" just doesn't fly. "David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... During the Reagan years, the percentage of low income households dropped. There was a shrinking of the middle class - they became more upwardly mobile and were pushed into the high income class. The oft-repeated drivel - an lie - that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer during the Reagan years is a tired old line. All classes got richer. Unqualified bull****. During Reagan's eight years in office, incomes of the top 5% of Americans rose 27%, while the poorest 60% either had no rise or a drop in income: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/30471.php Wrong again. If he's wrong, provide some pointers _proving_ it. Just saying he's wrong doesn't help. It sure looked as though he bankrupted the country, ran his foreign policy illegally*, dropped $3.5 trillion into a defense scheme that sounds completely unworkable to this computer scientist, cancelled the alternative fuels programs started under Carter, resurrected the useless bomber projects Carter thought he had killed. *: I suspect that this is the reason Carter got hit with the oil crises and Reagan didn't: he paid off various Middle East tyrants and dictators under the table/off the record. He and Bush I kissed Hussein's ass right up to the day before he invaded Kuwait. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
Bill Turner wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:48:42 -0700, "Rick" wrote: He was an amoral monster, the likes of which this country had never seen before. __________________________________________________ _______ Naaaaah... we've seen the like lots of times. -- BT Not to mention a first-classed Idiot. He was only a puppet. It's really funny to watch the video collages various people have put together. Things like his " Win one for the gipper...",or, " Go ahead, make my day...". The same tired cliches over and over. He was a Moron. AND, again, only a puppet. He fell asleep at CABINET meetings, FuhGawdsSake. The current guy is just the same. His strings aren't QUITE so obvious, though. Again, this has....WHAT, exactly, to do with Digital Photography? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"William Jackson" wrote in message
... There was a study published in the Wall Street Journal several years ago that disputed this myth that the "poor got poorer and the rich got richer" The answer lies in the clustering of people into income groups and comparing the average income in those clusters, which skews the results. The WSJ study was a very comprehensive study of a large number of individuals and tracked them over time (not just the Reagan years, but for much longer) They broke the population into quintiles and tracked the incomes of the individuals. What they found was that there was a tremendous amount of movement of real individuals between the quintiles, even though one of the quintiles average income may have risen or dropped, the people who were in that quintile were very different. Things like students graduating and getting job and progressing through their careers moved them up. Things like people changing careers or retiring moved them down. The surprising thing, to me at least, was that there was nearly as much mobility in/out of the top quintile as there was into/out of the bottom quintile. It was a fascinating read, unfortunately I didn't save it. All in all, the rising tide of the 80s gave a great increase to the incomes in this country. You can try to deny it but the facts don't support your claims. Dig a little deeper into the facts and you 'll see that the assertions that the claim that the "rich got richer and the poor got poorer" just doesn't fly. All the facts in the world won't change some people's minds. They can't get off the liberal mantra that the Reagan-haters still spew. They keep repeating the lies hoping someone will eventually believe it - and it works unfortunately. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
"William Jackson" wrote in message ... snipped .. They keep repeating the lies hoping someone will eventually believe it - and it works unfortunately. It certainley work for Bush II |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras at Reagan Funeral
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message ...
All the facts in the world won't change some people's minds. They can't get off the liberal mantra that the Reagan-haters still spew. They keep repeating the lies hoping someone will eventually believe it - and it works unfortunately. Liberal mantra? When Reagan took office the U.S. was the world's largest creditor nation. By the time he left office the U.S. was the world's largest debtor nation, and we remain so to this day. Ask anyone to refute this fact. Rick |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
W.A.R.N.I.N.G....Digital cameras cause cancer | Jorge Prediguez | Digital Photography | 17 | July 2nd 04 04:10 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Cameras Cameras decisions. | [email protected] | Film & Labs | 2 | January 22nd 04 07:25 PM |