If I hear one more person romanticize the Reagan era …

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

During the first two years, Reagan tried to do it right. After Stockman lost favor, it got worse.

So maybe we should be asking: which candidate will be our Bronco

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I think I’m going to puke!

How quickly we forget that the last half or more of his second term he was essential senile and that George Bush senior along with the cabinet essentially ran the country –I guess Bush senior was the executive for two terms. And let’s not forget the gem that was trickle down economics, as well as immigration amnesty etc ...

LOL...joke of the year!

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is that article your proof text? Not very persuasive.

Yeah executive pay is disparate, and I agree paying these guys for failure makes no sense, but for all you naysayers, the economy has strengths and weaknesses, highpoints and lulls.

It is inaccurate to say the economy is weak or strong. Sectors are experiencing corrections or downturns which impact other sectors. However, after corrections which now last longer than before but which should not last too long if money supply is accounted for, if we continue to develop capital and skill sets and look at troubled sectors then our economy will succeed.

Liberal naysayers are about control. They believe in centralized control even though wherever it has been fully implemented it has completely failed. China, Russia and to a lesser degree France. Whenever capital and investment is encouraged and sector and money supply analysis is employed, economies flourish.

I just don't buy this bullshit. "Our economy, [which is actually cobbled together set of mini and overlapping economies and sectors and industries] is horrible and can only be fixed by eliminating huge executive compensation, taxing everybody above 200K into oblivion, and controlling all sectors by those infinitely wise but unelected career bureaucrats, a la Chino, Obama, Hillary and Edwards. Your models don't work.

Why in the Hell do you wish to exercise so much f...ing control over other people, goddammit?

Leave everybody alone.

The reason I referenced the article is because it cited data that refuted your claim that middle class stagnation and growing inequality is due to people with skills getting ahead.

The examples you cite are irrelevant; no one is arguing for communism.
Who the hades wants central planning? All we want is growth that reaches as much of the population as possible. We want to make work pay so it'll be attractive to come off welfare, so everyone is producing. A 5-% point increase on the top income bracket in order to reduce the deficit has been shown not to change behavior much at all.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

The reason I referenced the article is because it cited data that refuted your claim that middle class stagnation and growing inequality is due to people with skills getting ahead.

The examples you cite are irrelevant; no one is arguing for communism.
Who the hades wants central planning? All we want is growth that reaches as much of the population as possible. We want to make work pay so it'll be attractive to come off welfare, so everyone is producing. A 5-% point increase on the top income bracket in order to reduce the deficit has been shown not to change behavior much at all.

I don't agree with the solutions of the left but the right for purposes of survival needs to address the high executive compensation; I'm also not sold on the author's correlative or causal inferences.

Executive compensation should be tied to performance and shouldn't rob the companies as they tend to do. However, I believe his comparisons of dociles is unpersuasive.

[YOhio]

Speaking of Ronald Reagan: