Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
A Call of Duty game depicts Reagan as the Second Coming of Jesus? I am shocked. Truly, genuinely shocked. This is my shocked face.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.So can someone explain what the problem with Raeganomics was?
Like, I always hear about how Raegan's policies created a sort of boom period in the 80s. Did that not happen? Or did it happen but there was some kind of long term cost that took a few years to kick in?
Edited by GNinja on Nov 20th 2020 at 4:02:30 PM
Kaze ni Nare!three words
Trickle-down economics, essentially cutting taxes for the wealthy and big business so they are kickstarted with 'growth' which is supposed to benefit society somehow in the 'long term'
(summary is based off a quick Google search)
Truth is, it's just an excuse to avoid heavy taxation
Edited by Ultimatum on Nov 20th 2020 at 4:09:05 PM
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverI mean, I think we all agree with that much. There's no such thing as eradicating all crime and evil forever definitively. It's just a matter of what you want to do about it: nothing (or actively contributing to make the problem worse, as conservatives often do), or try to minimize it as much as possible.
Or try to hammer in that those actions and acts are wrong in every sense of the word and teach people how severe the punishment will be for committing those acts at all.
Teach people of the moral compass and drain the weed that's evil from the waters its festering on, hoping it will wither and die out in the future through active pruning.
To explain "Reaganomics" in less than an essay-length post is difficult without overly simplifying concepts but fundamentally he espoused standard conservative economic ideology: that we should interfere with capitalism as little as possible. We should reduce taxes, eliminate regulations, and let the free market do as it will. This isn't a new thing: FDR's opponents were arguing it during the Great Depression and bitterly inveigling against the New Deal as an unwarranted interference in the marketplace.
In office, he liked to talk about "trickle down" theory, which is that if you let rich people be rich, the things they buy and the money they invest will cascade through the branches of the economy like rain drops in a forest, eventually reaching the middle and lower classes and giving them all the things they need, although not necessarily everything they want. If they want more, the idea goes, they should better themselves to ascend the economic ladder.
The less we interfere in this process with governance, the more efficiently it can do its job of setting prices for things. This goes all the way back to the disciples of Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say
and is the backbone of neoclassical economic doctrine.
Of course, most of that is bollocks. There are just enough kernels of truth to keep it from foundering completely on its own contradictions. Wealth doesn't trickle down from on high; it gets hoarded, leaving less and less for those less fortunate. "Hard work" doesn't get you wealthy; it gets you an early grave. Most opportunity comes from privilege, not merit. Republicans want a dog-eat-dog world where only the most deserving (rich white men) have any economic or political power.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 20th 2020 at 11:24:41 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Like, I always hear about how Raegan's policies created a sort of boom period in the 80s. Did that not happen? Or did it happen but there was some kind of long term cost that took a few years to kick in?
Reaganomics were very good for wealthy business owners but also had a devastating impact on the national debt as well as income inequality.
The basic idea of trickle-down policies is that if you give five million dollars to the poor, the poor will immediately spend it because poor people are wasteful and stupid. But if you give five million dollars to the rich, they'll be five million dollars richer. This is very good for our economy according to people who have no idea how the economy works.
A lot of people in this country don't really get economics beyond the premise, "Rich people having wealth is how Walmart happens. You like having Walmart, right?" People tend to think of big-picture economics as identical to balancing a household budget. If poor people get money, they'll just blow it on iPhones and shirts with ironic logos on them, and that's why they're poor. You can't run an economy on poor people wasting money, right?
But actually, and this is the fundamental flaw in trickle-down policies, the health of an economy is not determined by how wealthy its richest citizen is. It's determined by how much of its money is circulating through it, changing hands from person to person. Poor people "wasting money" by buying food to live and paying utility bills and, sure, picking up an iPhone because their twelve-year-old phone finally crapped out? That's what makes the economy function.
If you take five million from the poor and give it to the rich, the rich will put it in their Scrooge McDuck money bin. And that actually hurts the economy. Wealth "saved" deducts from the spending cash circulating through the country. But if you take five million from the rich and give it to the poor, the poor will spend it. You have returned five million from someone's savings account to the economy. And that's good for everybody.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I should point out that Reagan's rhetoric about this also had a strong implication of racial bias as well. "Strapping young bucks" and all that.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 20th 2020 at 1:32:34 PM
There's a very meritocratic condescension to this ideology as well. If you're poor, it's not because of your circumstances, it's because you are less deserving than other people. You made bad choices, failed to improve yourself, didn't work as hard as you could have. As certain wags like Paul Krugman put it, you are guilty of the sin of being born to the wrong parents. Should've chosen better.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 20th 2020 at 11:44:25 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ Conservative Worldview on last page: So, conservatives are a bunch of Black Mages?
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.![]()
![]()
Not necessarily.
First, employers tend to hire from candidates with employment history and education, which means jobs go to educated, middle-class people before they go to poor people. Ever been on unemployment for more than six months? Good luck finding another job.
Second, employers don't add positions just because they have a lot of money. They hire because they grudgingly have to in order to meet demand for their products. If they have extra money because their taxes were cut, they keep it for themselves.
Third, the key is demand. To drive consumption, people need money to spend. This means they need jobs to earn that money (or get it through some other means). So the way to stimulate employment is to (gasp) give people money to spend.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 20th 2020 at 11:57:52 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The best analogy for reagonomics I've seen was I believe from Mo Udall. Anyway he said:
Reaganomics is the theory that the poor and rich get their ice blocks delivered to them but the poor get theirs in the winter.
Edited by jjjj2 on Nov 20th 2020 at 12:15:09 PM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midSIMPLIFYING ECONOMICS TO LAYMEN'S TERMS:
While not entirely accurate, the reason Reaganomics fails is its principle is that the rich will spend so much money that it causes the poor to receive the benefits of such. The idea of wealth generation will be a rising tide that lifts all boats. Instead, history has proven that the rich do not spend their fortunes but instead sit on them like dragons on hordes making them like dams that starve out all the water that once went to the public.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 20th 2020 at 9:13:51 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Kotaku puts out an article reminding people how much of an asshole Reagan was after Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War puts him on a pedestal like the right does.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."