Does reality have a liberal bias?

[David_N]

So you used a liberal fact checker to defend the words of a liberal comedian. Cool.

LOL. Liberal fake checker???
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...n-colbert-brings-ronald-reagans-tax-raising-/
Refute this:

1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)

This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.

Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.

1983: A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.

1984: The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.

Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions).

 

[Henrin]

LOL. Liberal fake checker???
Stephen Colbert brings up Ronald Reagan's tax-raising record in Ted Cruz interview | PunditFact
Refute this:

I'm not going to bother refuting a biased so called fact checker. All I would be doing by paying it any mind is giving it creditably when it doesn't deserve any.

 

[David_N]

Hmmm... So, let's see. :roll:

Left Wing economics: Post-WW2 boom for a couple of decades fueled primarily by the Marshall Plan in Europe and the Baby Boom, followed by stagnation and decay resulting from too much central planning, too much regulation, too much unionization, and too high taxes, which ultimately proved unsustainable and resulted in the Stagflation and "rust belt" crisises of the 1970s, and Reagan having to do an almost complete 180 on government policy in order to salvage things.

Left Wing interpretation:

Neo-Liberal Revolution: Post reform boom largely fueled by post-Cold War globalization and optimism, which brought the US economy to some of the highest levels of growth and living standards it has ever seen. Ultimately may have resulted in a bit of an "over-heating" effect which may or may not be unsustainable. Also harmed by government meddling in the form of deficit spending and high-risk gambling on regulatory policy and interest rates.

Left Wing interpretation: FAILURE!!!

Am I seeing something of a double standard here? :roll:

LOL. So you want to focus on Carter and claim Reagan saved us when he was FORCED to raise taxes, here, you know what?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
The "neo-liberal" revolution was hardly a "revolution."

which brought the US economy to some of the highest levels of growth and living standards it has ever seen.

Was happening either way.

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You took the first sentence in the way you perceived it, without following the context of the rest of the post.

I stand by all my posts. What do you disagree with in my posts?

 

[David_N]

I'm not going to bother refuting a biased so called fact checker.

Politifact is hardly "left wing."
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

 

[Lord of Planar]

This isn't even necessarily true.

Unions have been a sacred cow of the Left for more than a century. Now, they're basically irrelevant in most industries.

We've actually won that dispute in the longrun, simply because of the detrimental effect over-unionization tends to have on the economy.

What isn't said, is that liberals often push too far. When they finally get their wins, it is generally because they retracted their initial stance some.

Their claims of women's rights, and so many others, are not because they pushed for them. They like to lie about their accomplishments. The Civil Rights Act for example had 80+% of the republicans of both houses voting yes, and only in the 60's % of democrats.

They love to lie about achievement.

 

[Gathomas88]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

Dude, Clinton made use of most of the same Neo-Liberal policies Reagan did, and so did Bush.

They just stepped up Government intervention. Considering that same intervention was a big part of what ultimately resulted in the 2008 crash, that's hardly a mark against Neo-Liberalism.

It's a mark against Government meddling.

 

[DaveFagan]

LOL...

What they don't get is that conservatives like to consider the side effects of changes, rather than jumping in blind.

Yesterday I linked to the Moron Group Appreciation Society and they were giving themselves group hugs, you know, like a mutual admiration society. They felt these were positive side effects, don't ya' know? I don't consider "gummin' up the works" to be the same as considering side effects, eh? Nothing I dislike more than the enemy within masquerading as the norm, eh?

 

[David_N]

Dude, Clinton made use of most of the same Neo-Liberal policies Reagan did, and so did Bush.

They just stepped up Government intervention. Considering that same intervention was a big part of what ultimately resulted in the 2008 crash, that's hardly a mark against Neo-Liberalism.

It's a mark against Government meddling.

Considering that same intervention was a big part of what ultimately resulted in the 2008 crash

:lol:

that's hardly a mark against Neo-Liberalism.

Clinton made use of most of the same Neo-Liberal policies Reagan did

:lol:

 

[David_N]

Dude, Clinton made use of most of the same Neo-Liberal policies Reagan did, and so did Bush.

They just stepped up Government intervention. Considering that same intervention was a big part of what ultimately resulted in the 2008 crash, that's hardly a mark against Neo-Liberalism.

It's a mark against Government meddling.

So you're saying clinton and reagan are the same... when clinton knew that revenues would reduce the deficit. You're telling me the right wing at the time supported that?

 

[David_N]

What isn't said, is that liberals often push too far. When they finally get their wins, it is generally because they retracted their initial stance some.

Their claims of women's rights, and so many others, are not because they pushed for them. They like to lie about their accomplishments. The Civil Rights Act for example had 80+% of the republicans of both houses voting yes, and only in the 60's % of democrats.

They love to lie about achievement.

Their claims of women's rights, and so many others, are not because they pushed for them.

Oh great, here we have another who completely ignores the party shift.

 

[Gathomas88]

LOL. So you want to focus on Carter and claim Reagan saved us when he was FORCED to raise taxes, here, you know what?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
The "neo-liberal" revolution was hardly a "revolution."

Was happening either way.

And now you're quoting freaking Paul Krugman, a well known partisan shill who's been all but disowned even by economists on his own side of the aisle. :lamo

Look, dude. You can blow whatever propagandistic smoke you want. The simple fact of the matter is that the hyper-unionized and hyper-regulated economies of the 1950s and 1960s ultimately failed. In point of fact, they were probably only sustainable in the first place because of the fall out of WW2.

It took massive deregulation and de-unionization to turn that state of affairs around. Those measures worked for several decades. In point of fact, even today, it is industries with high rates of unionization which suffer most in our economy.

The historical record speaks for itself here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Reality is subjective to all.

 

[Gathomas88]

So you're saying clinton and reagan are the same... when clinton knew that revenues would reduce the deficit. You're telling me the right wing at the time supported that?

They all followed Monetarist policies, pushing free markets, lower taxes, and lesser regulation, did they not? :roll:

 

[David_N]

And now you're quoting freaking Paul Krugman, a well known partisan shill who's been all but disowned even by economists on his own side of the aisle. :lamo

Look, dude. You can blow whatever propagandistic smoke you want. The simple fact of the matter is that the hyper-unionized and hyper-regulated economies of the 1950s and 1960s ultimately failed. In point of fact, they were probably only sustainable in the first place because of the fall out of WW2.

It took massive deregulation and de-unionization to turn that state of affairs around. Those measures worked for several decades. In point of fact, even today, it is industries with high rates of unionization which suffer most in our economy.

The historical record speaks for itself here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

a well known partisan shill who's been all but disowned even by economists on his own side of the aisle.

That's your opinion. Notice how you fail to refute anything in the article. Telling.

hyper-unionized and hyper-regulated economies of the 1950s and 1960s ultimately failed. In point of fact, they were probably only sustainable in the first place because of the fall out of WW2.

Whatever you say.
You talk about the 70's as if Reagan saved us, when many things were happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

It took massive deregulation and de-unionization to turn that state of affairs around. Those measures worked for several decades. In point of fact, even today, it is industries with high rates of unionization which suffer most in our economy.

LOL. You mean short term deregulation that ultimately failed and was reverted in many ways, with de-unionization that killed the middle class?
Worked for several decades? :lamo

The historical record speaks for itself here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The record shows the failure of neo-liberalism and the reversion.

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

 

[David_N]

They all followed Monetarist policies, pushing free markets, lower taxes, and lesser regulation, did they not? :roll:

Reagan had to raise taxes because the idea that cutting a crap ton of taxes would somehow work was a complete and utter failure.
Liberals support a free market.
Clinton raised taxes on the top earners.
You're honestly telling me republicans supported the idea that increasing revenues through taxes reduces the deficit and were on board with this?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Silly talking point. Conservatives fought tooth and nail against SSM, you know, people being able to control their own lives.

Only because they still wanted to call it "marriage." There was little resistance to civil unions. Some things are sacred to people.

 

[Gathomas88]

That's your opinion. Notice how you fail to refute anything in the article. Telling.

No, it's not an "opinion." It's the historical record. Where Keynesianist Centralization failed, Neo-Liberal policy succeeded.

It did so for a reason, and the Left spent basically the entire 1980s and 1990s fuming over that fact.

Spamming a bunch of articles you don't even understand from a bunch of token Left Wing "talking heads" isn't going to change any of that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I stand by all my posts. What do you disagree with in my posts?

That this thread isn't about the literal definition.

 

[David_N]

No, it's not an "opinion." It's the historical record. Where Keynesianist Centralization failed, Neo-Liberal policy succeeded.

It did so for a reason, and the Left spent basically the entire 1980s and 1990s fuming over that fact.

Spamming a bunch of articles you don't even understand from a bunch of token Left Wing "talking heads" isn't going to change any of that.

Neo-Liberal policy succeeded.

You keep saying this, when talking about America, "neo liberal" policy lasted for a short time and ultimately failed. We went right back to interventionism.

Left spent basically the entire 1980s and 1990s fuming over that fact.

The left noticed the growing inequality, when middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and a risen poverty rate.

Spamming a bunch of articles you don't even understand

Getting a little upset? :lol:

 

[Gathomas88]

Reagan had to raise taxes because the idea that cutting a crap ton of taxes would somehow work was a complete and utter failure.
Liberals support a free market.
Clinton raised taxes on the top earners.
You're honestly telling me republicans supported the idea that increasing revenues through taxes reduces the deficit and were on board with this?

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1986. Clinton cut them in 1995 and 1997. Bush cut them pretty substantially himself.

Under all of them, in point of fact, taxes and regulation were at substantially lower levels than anything which existed in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. The economy boomed because of it.

That is reality. Deal with it as you will.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh great, here we have another who completely ignores the party shift.

What do liberals say when it is reveiled that a republican, Aaron Augustus Sargent, in 1878, introduced the 19th amendment?

True, affiliations and definitions change over the years, but liberals today are nothing but authoritarian tyrants. they no longeer stand for liberty like they claim.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

That this thread isn't about the literal definition.

The question was

Yes, "Reality has a liberal bias" has been a meme that's been around for many years. But is it true? Please explain your answer.

I did. There is a literal interpretation to the question as I already explained.

 

[David_N]

What do liberals say when it is reveiled that a republican, Aaron Augustus Sargent, in 1878, introduced the 19th amendment?

Do you understand what the republicans of the 1800's represented? :lol:

 

[Ganesh]

:lamo

It saved the freaking economy, you loon! [emoji38]

It also lead to an economic boom that lasted almost thirty years, and pushed the material wealth of the average citizen to absolutely unprecedented levels.

Frankly, whether or not we should even give a damn about "equality" is completely subjective anyway.

Edit:

Did you seriously just cite Stephen Colbert as a source? Lol

I can hear the call of a loon in this thread, but it is emanating from far off to the right. The Reagan administration represented a backlash from the far right, then angry the relatively egalitarian society then in progress did not deliver enough profit for them. Reagan ramped up spending, creating a huge deficit, redistributed wealth upwards towards the already rich through regressive taxes, assaulted organized labour and the working class, leading to huge wealth disparity, deregulated industry, setting the stage for the savings and loans fiasco which left taxpayers on the hook for over $100B, and perhaps worst of all freely gave out the impression that greed was good, and it is every man for himself, sentiments that have carried on to this day among a certain segment of the population.

The "material wealth" of the average citizen was not pushed anywhere. It stagnated. The increases in national wealth went largely upwards- to the affluent and politically connected. And wealth increased, not because of any looney-tune righist policies, but because of the vast increases in productivity offered by the digital revolution. It was also increased due to masses of women entering the workforce, and doing paid work instead of sitting at home, and also by increases in trade with newly emerging third world countries.

And no matter your moral inclinations, there is an economic component to "equality". You would have to read up on some basic economics though to get into that discussion...........is that a possibility?