I learned about Reagonomics and the Laffer Curve (unfortunate name) in Economics last year. I really don't see why it can't work. When Americans have extra money on their hands, they spend it (thanks to the advertising industry). And when they do, businesses have more money, then there are fewer lay-offs and more people with jobs, who in turn pay taxes. Bringing in Christianity is probably stretching it to manipulate religious politics (what a combination). I don't think the government would get less revenue under Reagonomics, but if they do, so what? They need to spend less on the military anyway.

------------------
"See, for a Republican, a heart is like an appendix. It's nice to have it, but you don't really need it."

Of course I understand economic lag. The economy didn't start getting REALLY good until around '84 or so.

And I would point out that damage can be done a lot faster than a few years. Nixon imposed wage controls, and almost immediately, the entire economy was screwed for the rest of the decade. So I wouldn't say that the prosperity of the 80's was caused by the seventies.

The lag isn't nearly as bad as a decade. I'd say a year. Two, at the outside. And that's for improvements. Recessions come far quicker after tax increases.

Tora:

Whether the Reps were there or not is irrelevant. The Democrats had a majority. And yes, I am aware that the Reps controlled the senate in the early eighties for a couple years, but spending bills originate in the house, AIRC.

And it was proven that the government would get more money under Reganomics. Revenues doubled after a massive tax cut during the eighties.

"They need to spend less on the military anyway."

Do you realize how little is spent on the military already? The military was decimated under Carter. Regan used a VERY small portion of the increased revenue to rebuild it. I'm not sure about what Bush did, but since we fought and defeated what I seem to recall as being the fourth largest military power in the world with minimal causalties, I'd say that the military probably didn't suffer too much. But with Clinton, it's the only area of the government who's budget has been cut in the past seven years. All other departments have been growing. All this supposed downsized government is in the military. I seriously doubt that we could fight a war with, say, China effectively. Our military is in shambles. It needs to be rebuilt. Now.

As of 1996, the U.S. spent 265.6 billion dollars on defense. Comparible to spending during the Ford administration, I believe. Curiously, defense spending began to drop towards pre-Reagan levels while Bush was in office. (Figures from the Center for Defense Information.)

Just for kicks, let's compare with some other nations. China for instance, spends an estimated 12.6 billion on defense. (With the understanding that the real figure is probably several times higher than that. But 21 times?)

U.K.: 36.7 billion dollars. 2.6% of their GDP.

France: 39.8 billion. 2.5%

Other NATO members have comparible budgets.

India and Pakistan, two nations you might expect to be spending like gangbusters, spend 10 billion and 2.48 billion, respectively. Israel, of all places, only spends 8.7 billion. (Though that does account for 9.5% of their GDP, one of the highest percentages I could find.)

So I am exceedingly curious to know, who exactly are we supposed to be outspended by? The Lemurians?

Are we not purchasing F-22's at a fast enough rate to satisfy you? Does the carrier fleet lack sufficient oomph?

Now then, if you want to address a real issue, like the distressingly paltry sums we pay our soldiers, you might have a leg to stand on. But spending overall? Please.

An article I read two years ago said it went up to 300 billion. AND I believe I mentioned a while ago that the US can destroy the world about 16 times over (probably more now).

------------------
"See, for a Republican, a heart is like an appendix. It's nice to have it, but you don't really need it."

--Jay Leno

**

The purpose of the military is to destroy the enemy and come home alive. I forget who said that.

We spend a great deal of money for many reasons:

Because, unfortunately, our best companies seem to keep merging. Prices go up. Forget Microsoft, what about McDonnell-Douglas?

Because we're R&D'ing products that will be state-of-the art for the next 20 years (Hey, we started work on the SR-71 around the time that U-2 got shot down.)

Because we continue to fulfil our role as the 'world's policeman,' while being caught in the paradox of dealing with people who hate us when we're around, but want us there immediately when they're in trouble.

Because our Army is full-time and volunteer, and because we promise college tuition to our recruits.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Someone also said that the army's job is, quite simply, to kill people and break things.

And wasn't the F-16 outperformed by the Russian Mig-29? Although that was back when they still has a military...

For those who don't know, Day is proposing a flat tax of 17% across the board. Only the lower class pays this kind of tax. Now, he was once asked if the Tax incentives for the upper class would be maintained. Day replied "Yes they would". Economists calculated that with these tax incentive discounts, the upper class would pay only 12% in income tax while the lower class would pay 17%. So essentially, the Lower class is paying more to finance a tax boon for the upper class. Who thinks this is fair? (I certainly don't. This is the opposite of the Robin Hood Mentality).

As for giving money for well researched Charities, this is essentially a gamble. Tell me how many people who would actually give their extra money to Charity without a second thought? Well, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Even if they did get some money, would they be able to finance the health/education/housing of the lower class? If they did, it would most likely be "substandard". This is called two-tier politics. Substandard health/education/housing funded by government and charities for the lower class, and the elite and top quality health/education/housing for the upper class. After all, the Upper class can afford it.

As Goar said, a rising tide does not lift all boats. A rising tide is also accompanied by a depression in the water height. So while the upper class boats are being lifted to new heights, the lower class boats are basically sinking.

Tahna - well said.

And Day is a bigot, an idiot and an all 'round negative guy. He makes Manning look like Marx, and probably would make Falwell blush on an issue or two. *sighs* The problem with democracy is that we can't stop assholes like him from running.

Are we the only country with really boring leaders? You may disagree with Balir, but I don't recall him ever being called a mad, power-crazed, sexually repressed racist nazy supporting bigot.

He's got a silly smile. And Hauge's got a silly forehead (just to be equal).