Michael Reagan: Is Obama doing to the U.S.

[MorningGlory]

I don't put any importance on anything Michael Reagan says.....he's a wanna-be that we would never have even heard of if not for his famous dad. I listen to economic experts when I want to know about our economy and, sometimes, foreign sources have a better handle on ours than their own. Especially those in Norway and the U.K. Strange.

Ah, I was wondering how you were going to criticise this message. Clever.

OK, so what do your sources tell you is happening to our economy?

MY sources? This information is available to anyone who wants to know the real deal instead of what someone WANTS them to know. From the U.K.:

http://www.agresearc...ilvarry_pdf.pdf

I don't look to political hacks for economic information (or anything else) simply because they only have one opinion and they are biased toward that opinion. Michael Reagan's agenda is Michael Reagan. He wants to sell books and receive his speaking fees and I consider him annoying at best. He isn't the only one of President Reagan's children who isn't relevant; just look at the others. And, for the record, it isn't so much the message that I'm critical of here but Michael Reagan himself. In other words.....I just plain don't like the guy (speaking of his public persona of course).

Can I ask why it is that any source in the U.K. is suddenly credible when it supports your opinion and it's not when it doesn't?

By the way sister, truth is not relative nor is it a matter of opinion.

When did I ever say that this British source was not credible? I've never mentioned this site before today, at least not here. Truth IS relative. It's what YOU, or any of us believe. Your opinion is that Michael Reagan is somehow relevant so that becomes your truth. Now the Truth is a different matter; it is not relative nor is it debatable. Are you perhaps referring to that? You'll have to accept that others may not agree with your opinions and that does not mean that they are all wrong; it also doesn't make them, or you, right. Reagan is a one note wonder; he is not analytical at all and is just another talking head.

Actually sister, you have quite the record of shooting the messenger rather than disputing the opinion or facts.

I'd hear your opinion rather than your false witness against Michael Reagan.

Do you suppose that a man who was raised by Ronald Reagan and who spent copious amounts of time around him might know him and his policies better than someone who had not? What he was saying in the article is that he see's the same thing being done to our Country from within and by it's President that Reagan, his very fleshy father, did to the Soviet Union. Which is a fact, Reagan did have a policy of forcing them to spend themselves into oblivion.

Care to comment on that or would you rather run down the man with the opinion? Do you have facts to refute his observation?

Let's discuss this rather than dismiss it because pur opinion differ's. That's part of the purpose of the forums that include the News.

peace,

Dave

I don't appreciate the 'false witness' stuff, thank you; that's way over the top. I'm referring to his politics, not his faith, and IMO....he's a hack. He's not RONALD Reagan, he's a different individual and I really don't care what he thinks or says. Facts to refute his observations? Nope, they're his opinions and he's entitled to them. I don't even think he's all that intelligent really. There are many other pundits who are more balanced in their views. As I said before, just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't make either you, or them, right. What is your problem with people who have different views than yours anyway? This IS a free country and when you try to shout down opposing views (lotsa luck with that!)......you're doing exactly what you always accuse the left of doing. A discussion is give and take, not 'hit the other guy over the head until he/she agrees.'

[Matthitjah]

I don't put any importance on anything Michael Reagan says.....he's a wanna-be that we would never have even heard of if not for his famous dad. I listen to economic experts when I want to know about our economy and, sometimes, foreign sources have a better handle on ours than their own. Especially those in Norway and the U.K. Strange.

Ah, I was wondering how you were going to criticise this message. Clever.

OK, so what do your sources tell you is happening to our economy?

MY sources? This information is available to anyone who wants to know the real deal instead of what someone WANTS them to know. From the U.K.:

http://www.agresearc...ilvarry_pdf.pdf

I don't look to political hacks for economic information (or anything else) simply because they only have one opinion and they are biased toward that opinion. Michael Reagan's agenda is Michael Reagan. He wants to sell books and receive his speaking fees and I consider him annoying at best. He isn't the only one of President Reagan's children who isn't relevant; just look at the others. And, for the record, it isn't so much the message that I'm critical of here but Michael Reagan himself. In other words.....I just plain don't like the guy (speaking of his public persona of course).

Can I ask why it is that any source in the U.K. is suddenly credible when it supports your opinion and it's not when it doesn't?

By the way sister, truth is not relative nor is it a matter of opinion.

When did I ever say that this British source was not credible? I've never mentioned this site before today, at least not here. Truth IS relative. It's what YOU, or any of us believe. Your opinion is that Michael Reagan is somehow relevant so that becomes your truth. Now the Truth is a different matter; it is not relative nor is it debatable. Are you perhaps referring to that? You'll have to accept that others may not agree with your opinions and that does not mean that they are all wrong; it also doesn't make them, or you, right. Reagan is a one note wonder; he is not analytical at all and is just another talking head.

Actually sister, you have quite the record of shooting the messenger rather than disputing the opinion or facts.

I'd hear your opinion rather than your false witness against Michael Reagan.

Do you suppose that a man who was raised by Ronald Reagan and who spent copious amounts of time around him might know him and his policies better than someone who had not? What he was saying in the article is that he see's the same thing being done to our Country from within and by it's President that Reagan, his very fleshy father, did to the Soviet Union. Which is a fact, Reagan did have a policy of forcing them to spend themselves into oblivion.

Care to comment on that or would you rather run down the man with the opinion? Do you have facts to refute his observation?

Let's discuss this rather than dismiss it because pur opinion differ's. That's part of the purpose of the forums that include the News.

peace,

Dave

I don't appreciate the 'false witness' stuff, thank you; that's way over the top. I'm referring to his politics, not his faith, and IMO....he's a hack. He's not RONALD Reagan, he's a different individual and I really don't care what he thinks or says. Facts to refute his observations? Nope, they're his opinions and he's entitled to them. I don't even think he's all that intelligent really. There are many other pundits who are more balanced in their views. As I said before, just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't make either you, or them, right. What is your problem with people who have different views than yours anyway? This IS a free country and when you try to shout down opposing views (lotsa luck with that!)......you're doing exactly what you always accuse the left of doing. A discussion is give and take, not 'hit the other guy over the head until he/she agrees.'

I haven't hit you over the head sister. I'm not attacking you either. Let's discuss the merits of what he is saying rather than take the thread off course with a rant about the individual with the opinion.

I've asked you to discuss the merits of the opinion piece rather than attack the individual with the opinion, and yes, you are bearing false witness against the man by calling him a hack. Do you know him? Have you contacted him and asked him why he's saying what he's saying or even offered him correction?

Why not just say that you strongly disagree with him? Instead you call him a hack because you don't like his opinion.

You've also stated that he's a wannabe and riding the coattails of his famous father.

I don't care if you disagree with me. I do care that we have a discussion that stays on topic and isn't derailed into an unedifying mess because we disagree with the content.. That happens all too often here and we are all the poorer for it.

peace,

Dave

[Bold Believer]

No matter who said it, it's clear to anyone with eyes that this is the result. Intended or in ignorance, this is what we're getting.

Exactly Yod. I figured it out awhile back. And as for the ridiculous notion of one-world anything Magog will certainly try but it won't work. The Chinese want the whole world for themselves. The Muslims want the whole world for THEMselves. The drug cartels want the whole world for THEMselves. The Europeans just love the Humanist Manifesto and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The United States wants to see American style freedom everywhere. You think this messed up circus of fools will ever agree on anything? Perhaps a few odd things, but nothing like what the Left Behind crowd is touting. I have just three words on the subject: AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

[Burning_Ember]

Is the debt the single biggest threat to America? In a manner of speaking, yes.

Does blaming Obama for the debt change Washington's policies for the last 30 or 40 years worth of deficits? (With a few exceptions?) No. It does a great job of scapegoating Obama and exciting people who perk up at the name Reagan, but it doesn't solve anything. What would destroy America?

Cutting taxes thereby decreasing revenue. Not making the required hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts (per area) in Military Spending, Social Security, but rather focus on symbolic things that actually contribute to the economy like spending on Unemployment spending. Corporations like Citigroup and Exxon-Mobil end up paying no corporate tax to the government, but instead get tax credits and/or refunds in the hundreds of millions, if not billion+ of dollars. Exxon might have made $45 Billion in profits, but that doesn't mean they pay corporate taxes.

Basic math of how any business would balance a budget in favour of principles of low taxes and high spending that continue down the path to an unsustainable debt and deficit. All that is required is three, two... Maybe even one incredibly poor fiscal/monetary policy decision and the American Economy would outright collapse. If Donald Trump were to get elected and puts in place a 25% tariff on all Chinese made goods like he says he would, that could easily do it.

Fun fact; If you decrease tax rates by 8%, you need a nearly 15% increase in taxable income to break even on the resulting lowered revenues, assuming there are no deductions or waste. No 8% tax break going to cause a 15% spike in GDP like that.

[MorningGlory]

Is the debt the single biggest threat to America? In a manner of speaking, yes.

Does blaming Obama for the debt change Washington's policies for the last 30 or 40 years worth of deficits? (With a few exceptions?) No. It does a great job of scapegoating Obama and exciting people who perk up at the name Reagan, but it doesn't solve anything. What would destroy America?

Cutting taxes thereby decreasing revenue. Not making the required hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts (per area) in Military Spending, Social Security, but rather focus on symbolic things that actually contribute to the economy like spending on Unemployment spending. Corporations like Citigroup and Exxon-Mobil end up paying no corporate tax to the government, but instead get tax credits and/or refunds in the hundreds of millions, if not billion+ of dollars. Exxon might have made $45 Billion in profits, but that doesn't mean they pay corporate taxes.

Basic math of how any business would balance a budget in favour of principles of low taxes and high spending that continue down the path to an unsustainable debt and deficit. All that is required is three, two... Maybe even one incredibly poor fiscal/monetary policy decision and the American Economy would outright collapse. If Donald Trump were to get elected and puts in place a 25% tariff on all Chinese made goods like he says he would, that could easily do it.

Fun fact; If you decrease tax rates by 8%, you need a nearly 15% increase in taxable income to break even on the resulting lowered revenues, assuming there are no deductions or waste. No 8% tax break going to cause a 15% spike in GDP like that.

Let me see if I can put this diplomatically, B.E.......horsefeathers! You are socialist in your thinking; you don't understand capitalism.

[Burning_Ember]

Let me see if I can put this diplomatically, B.E.......horsefeathers! You are socialist in your thinking; you don't understand capitalism.

I own a small business. I have never made more money in my business, by decreasing the amount of money my business makes.

A government is a very large scale business. A Government will never make more revenue by decreasing the amount of revenue it receives.

You can fly in the face of math all you want, but math doesn't care, and math is a universal truth.

[MorningGlory]

You can fly in the face of math all you want, but math doesn't care, and math is a universal truth.

This is true but your math is all sideways.

[Burning_Ember]

You can fly in the face of math all you want, but math doesn't care, and math is a universal truth.

This is true but your math is all sideways.

My math results in profits, so when looking from a perspective of sideways math, upright math probably looks sideways.

[MorningGlory]

Nothing like trying to deflect attention away from yourself and what you actually said and attempt to reflect it onto someone else.

Oh, you're funny....very. Like I ever cared a whit what anyone thinks of my opinions or tried to blame someone else. Get real.

Same tactics I see a couple other people on this board use repeatedly and when you call them on it they don't like it either. You got called on it, and you don't like it.

You don't know what I like or don't like and I will NOT back down from what I say.

He didn't ask you to tell us all the things that were wrong about Michael Reagan and/or his motives. He didn't ask you to catalogue Michael Reagans faults. That's basically what he got though.

Yep. So?

He asked you to address the substance of the article instead of calling Michael Reagan a 'hack' over and over again like a Mynah bird

.

I'll thank you not to call me a Mynah bird. That's just silly. Is Reagan a relative of yours or something?

Calling him a hack doesn't really address what he actually said, does it?

I was not addressing anything he wrote; I was addressing the fact that he is a hack.

I've seen you do this continuously with anything you didn't agree with.

And I've seen YOU attack anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you. You're wasting keystrokes with me......

You don't deal with what the article actually says and attempt to refute it, you dismiss the origin of the message and imply that it can't be right because of where it comes from. I've seen you say the message can't be any good just because it becomes from a certain country. Am I getting that right? I've seen you say that anything from Russia is no good and you are continually telling Burning Ember that they can't know anything about the US because they do not live here, but if something agrees with you and comes from the UK, thats fine, right?

Correct. It's called OPINION and I will not stop expressing mine because you get in a snit about it.

Ummm. . .ok. But you are un-biased.

Just as unbiased as you, Cobalt.

How about actually dealing with what Dave said and answering the question this time?

Why do you care what I post to Dave? I'll post as I see fit.

[nebula]

And, for the record, it isn't so much the message that I'm critical of here but Michael Reagan himself.

OK then - what is your opinion of what was spoken?