Romney's Latest Lies

[_Kevin Graham]

This is from the CBO report in August 1983, titled "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update":

The Economy At Mid-1983
Recovery started in December 1982 from the deepest postwar recession, the second of two since 1980. Both recessions were brought on by monetary restriction aimed at bringing inflation under control. Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin. Real GNP grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter and at an 8.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 1983 ... A dramatic decline in inflation, a fall in interest rates from levels that were extraordinarily high to levels that are merely high, and the stock market boom have contributed to the improvement in economic conditions.

Even Ronald Reagan's economic advisor, Michael Mussa, wrote in 1995 that the Fed's decision to dramatically cut interest rates, "signal[ed] the beginning of what would become a four-and-a-half-year period of quite rapid monetary expansion. During this period, interest rates, both short and long term, would be driven significantly lower, and the U.S. economy would substantially recover from the devastation of both inflation and recession."

You see this myth about Reaganomics using tax cuts to save the economy was developed quite recently. Even Reagan's own economists wouldn't argue such nonsense. But nonsense is precisely what Right Wingers love to swallow, and nonsense is precisely the thing FOX News and the Right Wing media (talk radio) loves to shove down the throats of the ignorant. Hence, Drropy's allergic reaction to truthful facts and his nability to support his own idiocy with evidence.

Bruce Bartlett, is another former adviser to Reagan and he was also the Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush. He argued that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year."

Of course, what do these men know. They were only economists working for Republican Presidents. I'm sure we're all eager to accept the premise that some self-educated (fancy way of saying uneducated) guy from Kershaw S. Carolina knows more than they do.

The fact is Droopy provides no evidence to support his assertions which have been exposed as myth by a number of economists, including those who hail from the Right.

Here is another interesting article written by someone who decided to check the numbers for himself (you see Droopy merely accepts uncritically whatever it is the folks at Mises tell him to believe - he never does any fact-checking on his own).

http://paladin.hubpages.com/hub/Tax-Myth-Number-One

What I discovered was that, except for a brief six-year period in the late 1980s to early 1990s when the two rates mostly moved up and down together, the unemployment rate and highest tax rate usually moved in OPPOSITE directions. When the tax rate remained steady, the unemployment rates usually fluctuated, with two notable exceptions:

The first was from 1982 to 1986 (50%), where unemployment declined from 9.7% to 7.0%. The second was from 1993 to 2000 (39.6%), where unemployment declined from 6.9% to 4.0%. The first occured after the tax rate has been lowered (by less than 1%), the second after it had been raised (by more than 8%). It's impossible to draw a direct correlation from one without negating it with the example of the other.

In the data offered below, the first number is the year, the second is the top marginal income tax rate and the third is the annual unemployment rate.

First, from 1948 to 1952, the top tax rate grew from 82.12% to 92%, yet from 1949 to 1953 the unemployment rate declined from 5.9% to 2.9%:

1948_____82.13_____3.8
1949_____82.13_____5.9
1950_____91.00_____5.3
1951_____91.00_____3.3
1952_____92.00_____3.0
1953_____92.00_____2.9

The next year, the upper tax rate dropped a percentage point, and the unemployment rate nearly doubled, to 5.5%. Then, as the tax rate remained steady for ten years, the unemployment rate went up and down, ranging from 4.1% to 6.7%:

1954_____91.00_____5.5
1955_____91.00_____4.4
1956_____91.00_____4.1
1957_____91.00_____4.3
1958_____91.00_____6.8
1959_____91.00_____5.5
1960_____91.00_____5.5
1961_____91.00_____6.7
1962_____91.00_____5.5
1963_____91.00_____5.7

Then, in 1964 the top tax rate dropped dramatically, from 91% to 77%. Yet, the unemployment rate dipped only one half of a percent, from 5.7% to 5.2%:

1964_____77.00_____5.2

For the next 15 years, with the exception of a brief three year bubble, the top tax rate remained at 70%, while the unemployment rate fluctuated up and down. Of the entire 15 years, the middle of that bubble, 1969, recorded the highest tax rate at 77%. It also recorded the lowest rate of unemployment at 3.5%:

1965_____70.00_____4.5
1966_____70.00_____3.8
1967_____70.00_____3.8
1968_____75.25_____3.6
1969_____77.00_____3.5
1970_____71.75_____4.9
1971_____70.00_____5.9
1972_____70.00_____5.6
1973_____70.00_____4.9
1974_____70.00_____5.6
1975_____70.00_____8.5
1976_____70.00_____7.7
1977_____70.00_____7.1
1978_____70.00_____6.1
1979_____70.00_____5.8
1980_____70.00_____7.1

Next, in 1982 the tax rates began to drop dramatically, from 69.13% to 50%, and the unemployment rate immediately peaked to 9.7%, then steadily dropped as the tax rate remained steady:

1981_____69.13_____7.6
1982_____50.00_____9.7
1983_____50.00_____9.6
1984_____50.00_____7.5
1985_____50.00_____7.2
1986_____50.00_____7.0

The only time period when unemployment rates and the upper tax rates were largely in synch was from 1987 until 1992, where both fell, then rose together:

1987_____38.50_____6.2
1988_____28.00_____5.5
1989_____28.00_____5.3
1990_____31.00_____5.6
1991_____31.00_____6.8
1992_____31.00_____7.5

In 1993 the upper tax rate again rose to 39.6%, and the unemployment rate immediately dropped to 6.9%. Then, as the tax rate remained steady until 2000, the unemployment rate declined steadily to a low of 4.0%:

1993_____39.60_____6.9
1994_____39.60_____6.1
1995_____39.60_____5.6
1996_____39.60_____5.4
1997_____39.60_____4.9
1998_____39.60_____4.5
1999_____39.60_____4.2
2000_____39.60_____4.0

The next year, the tax rate dropped a percentage point to 38.6%. The unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, continuing to rise to a peak of 6% in 2003:

2001_____38.60_____4.7
2002_____38.60_____5.8

Since then the top tax rate has remained at 35% and, after dipping at 4.6% in 2006 the unemployment rate has once again climbed, to 9.3% in 2009.

2003_____35.00_____6.0
2004_____35.00_____5.5
2005_____35.00_____5.1
2006_____35.00_____4.6
2007_____35.00_____4.6
2008_____35.00_____5.8
2009_____35.00_____9.3

In the end, I must state for the record that I'm not claiming a direct cause-and-affect historical correlation between the top tax rates and unemployment rates. I fully realize there were myriad other economic factors affecting the rate of employment. Still, the next time someone tries to tell you that lower income taxes on the rich mean lower unemployment, you can demonstrate to them that the historical data actually suggests the opposite!

[_Bond James Bond]

Droopy's Facebook:
http://www.Facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003321147224

Droopy's wife's Facebook:
http://www.Facebook.com/deborah.blood.7

According to Facebook Droopy by his own admission is unemployed while his wife is a CNA (certified nursing assistant). Both pages are a wasteland of far-right links and conspiracy theory articles. If Droopy's wife is terminal then I guess she's recovered since she's currently working for a home health care company (likely a senior citizen group supported in part by Medicare ).

[Guest]

Droopy's Facebook:
http://www.Facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003321147224

Droopy's wife's Facebook:
http://www.Facebook.com/deborah.blood.7

According to Facebook Droopy by his own admission is unemployed while his wife is a CNA (certified nursing assistant). Both pages are a wasteland of far-right links and conspiracy theory articles. If Droopy's wife is terminal then I guess she's recovered since she's currently working for a home health care company (likely a senior citizen group supported in part by Medicare ).

James Bond, the anonymous liar, well poisoner, character assassin, intellectual and moral insect, and well practiced if superficial demagogue, finally shows his true colors in the Cesspool.

Just too precious.

My wife, due to numerous (and mostly potentially life threatening medical conditions) has not worked in any capacity since 2004. I quite working in 2005, following the death of my father and receipt of an inheritance, to take care of her (becoming, in essence, a househusband and nurse to the nurse) for her first few years of her recovery from terminal cancer (piled upon her other medical issues) and also used that time and money to return to school full time. I also used it to get out of debt. I have no house payment, I own all of my land and my home, and have no car payments or outstanding debt of any kind.

I do not now, nor have I ever engaged in conspiracy theory. I leave that, where it has traditionally festered and grown, with the Left and the extreme populist libertarian, Paulbot Right.

Little neo-commie ideological pimps like Bond and Graham have nowhere to go and nowhere to run, at the end of the day, but ad hominem spew.

Behold the typical leftist, and his typical tactics. Behold, as well, Mormondiscussions.com

[Guest]

I have never (and never will, nor many in my generation, nor their children), receive Social Security.

What the hell are you talking about, you will never get SS? Are you saying you don't plan to claim any SS retirement benefits? Why not? Out of some kind of principle?


Edit: fixed typo

[_Droopy]

This is from the CBO report in August 1983, titled "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update":

The Economy At Mid-1983
Recovery started in December 1982 from the deepest postwar recession, the second of two since 1980. Both recessions were brought on by monetary restriction aimed at bringing inflation under control. Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin. Real GNP grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter and at an 8.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 1983 ... A dramatic decline in inflation, a fall in interest rates from levels that were extraordinarily high to levels that are merely high, and the stock market boom have contributed to the improvement in economic conditions.

Even Ronald Reagan's economic advisor, Michael Mussa, wrote in 1995 that the Fed's decision to dramatically cut interest rates, "signal[ed] the beginning of what would become a four-and-a-half-year period of quite rapid monetary expansion. During this period, interest rates, both short and long term, would be driven significantly lower, and the U.S. economy would substantially recover from the devastation of both inflation and recession."

You see this myth about Reaganomics using tax cuts to save the economy was developed quite recently. Even Reagan's own economists wouldn't argue such nonsense. But nonsense is precisely what Right Wingers love to swallow, and nonsense is precisely the thing FOX News and the Right Wing media (talk radio) loves to shove down the throats of the ignorant. Hence, Drropy's allergic reaction to truthful facts and his nability to support his own idiocy with evidence.

Bruce Bartlett, is another former adviser to Reagan and he was also the Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush. He argued that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year."

Of course, what do these men know. They were only economists working for Republican Presidents. I'm sure we're all eager to accept the premise that some self-educated (fancy way of saying uneducated) guy from Kershaw S. Carolina knows more than they do.

The fact is Droopy provides no evidence to support his assertions which have been exposed as myth by a number of economists, including those who hail from the Right.

Here is another interesting article written by someone who decided to check the numbers for himself (you see Droopy merely accepts uncritically whatever it is the folks at Mises tell him to believe - he never does any fact-checking on his own).

http://paladin.hubpages.com/hub/Tax-Myth-Number-One

What I discovered was that, except for a brief six-year period in the late 1980s to early 1990s when the two rates mostly moved up and down together, the unemployment rate and highest tax rate usually moved in OPPOSITE directions. When the tax rate remained steady, the unemployment rates usually fluctuated, with two notable exceptions:

The first was from 1982 to 1986 (50%), where unemployment declined from 9.7% to 7.0%. The second was from 1993 to 2000 (39.6%), where unemployment declined from 6.9% to 4.0%. The first occured after the tax rate has been lowered (by less than 1%), the second after it had been raised (by more than 8%). It's impossible to draw a direct correlation from one without negating it with the example of the other.

In the data offered below, the first number is the year, the second is the top marginal income tax rate and the third is the annual unemployment rate.

First, from 1948 to 1952, the top tax rate grew from 82.12% to 92%, yet from 1949 to 1953 the unemployment rate declined from 5.9% to 2.9%:

1948_____82.13_____3.8
1949_____82.13_____5.9
1950_____91.00_____5.3
1951_____91.00_____3.3
1952_____92.00_____3.0
1953_____92.00_____2.9

The next year, the upper tax rate dropped a percentage point, and the unemployment rate nearly doubled, to 5.5%. Then, as the tax rate remained steady for ten years, the unemployment rate went up and down, ranging from 4.1% to 6.7%:

1954_____91.00_____5.5
1955_____91.00_____4.4
1956_____91.00_____4.1
1957_____91.00_____4.3
1958_____91.00_____6.8
1959_____91.00_____5.5
1960_____91.00_____5.5
1961_____91.00_____6.7
1962_____91.00_____5.5
1963_____91.00_____5.7

Then, in 1964 the top tax rate dropped dramatically, from 91% to 77%. Yet, the unemployment rate dipped only one half of a percent, from 5.7% to 5.2%:

1964_____77.00_____5.2

For the next 15 years, with the exception of a brief three year bubble, the top tax rate remained at 70%, while the unemployment rate fluctuated up and down. Of the entire 15 years, the middle of that bubble, 1969, recorded the highest tax rate at 77%. It also recorded the lowest rate of unemployment at 3.5%:

1965_____70.00_____4.5
1966_____70.00_____3.8
1967_____70.00_____3.8
1968_____75.25_____3.6
1969_____77.00_____3.5
1970_____71.75_____4.9
1971_____70.00_____5.9
1972_____70.00_____5.6
1973_____70.00_____4.9
1974_____70.00_____5.6
1975_____70.00_____8.5
1976_____70.00_____7.7
1977_____70.00_____7.1
1978_____70.00_____6.1
1979_____70.00_____5.8
1980_____70.00_____7.1

Next, in 1982 the tax rates began to drop dramatically, from 69.13% to 50%, and the unemployment rate immediately peaked to 9.7%, then steadily dropped as the tax rate remained steady:

1981_____69.13_____7.6
1982_____50.00_____9.7
1983_____50.00_____9.6
1984_____50.00_____7.5
1985_____50.00_____7.2
1986_____50.00_____7.0

The only time period when unemployment rates and the upper tax rates were largely in synch was from 1987 until 1992, where both fell, then rose together:

1987_____38.50_____6.2
1988_____28.00_____5.5
1989_____28.00_____5.3
1990_____31.00_____5.6
1991_____31.00_____6.8
1992_____31.00_____7.5

In 1993 the upper tax rate again rose to 39.6%, and the unemployment rate immediately dropped to 6.9%. Then, as the tax rate remained steady until 2000, the unemployment rate declined steadily to a low of 4.0%:

1993_____39.60_____6.9
1994_____39.60_____6.1
1995_____39.60_____5.6
1996_____39.60_____5.4
1997_____39.60_____4.9
1998_____39.60_____4.5
1999_____39.60_____4.2
2000_____39.60_____4.0

The next year, the tax rate dropped a percentage point to 38.6%. The unemployment rate rose to 4.7%, continuing to rise to a peak of 6% in 2003:

2001_____38.60_____4.7
2002_____38.60_____5.8

Since then the top tax rate has remained at 35% and, after dipping at 4.6% in 2006 the unemployment rate has once again climbed, to 9.3% in 2009.

2003_____35.00_____6.0
2004_____35.00_____5.5
2005_____35.00_____5.1
2006_____35.00_____4.6
2007_____35.00_____4.6
2008_____35.00_____5.8
2009_____35.00_____9.3

In the end, I must state for the record that I'm not claiming a direct cause-and-affect historical correlation between the top tax rates and unemployment rates. I fully realize there were myriad other economic factors affecting the rate of employment. Still, the next time someone tries to tell you that lower income taxes on the rich mean lower unemployment, you can demonstrate to them that the historical data actually suggests the opposite!

I may or may not deconstruct this tendentious drivel at some future point. Graham's utter lack of economic knowledge and his reliance on carefully cherry picked analysis (while equally carefully rendering invisible scholarly/intellectual opinion and facts that would tend to weaken his arguments) and his traditional wild "everyone agrees with me" and "all economists/all smart people agree" bluster are well settled polemical tactics that he's long used to diffuse his continual beatings at the hands of Will, Wade, Gee etc. over the KEP issue.

As the stomach churns...

[_Droopy]

This will be the first and last I will speak to anyone here. As Loran's wife, I want to say first off that the reason Loran has been out of work is that seven years ago, I was diagnosed forth stage ovarian cancer. This was my second time. It's been a long, hard recovery, and Loran has been there, by my side, the whole time, doing everyday tasks (including taking out the cat litter).

We do things together now, because of the way he's stood beside me, I've now been able to do things I haven't been able to do for a long time. I no longer work as a CNA, which I had done for 25 years taking care of the elderly in nursing homes. I love this work and I miss it very much, and I'm now unable to do it because of osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, which developed because of the chemo. There are many other medical problems as well.

Loran is still there beside me, and any recovery I've had has been because of the blessings of Heavenly Father.


Deborah.

[_Droopy]

I have never (and never will, nor many in my generation, nor their children), receive Social Security.

What the hell are you talking about, you will never get SS? Are you saying you don't plan to claim any SS retirement benefits? Why not? Out of some kind of principal?

SS began spending in benefits more that it was taking in in taxes in 2009. The present unfunded liability of the SS system is at present 11.3 trillion, which will grow to some 21 trillion

The future unfunded liabilities of Medicare alone, out to mid-century and past, are in the range of 89 trillion dollars. The combined Medicare and SS unfunded liability is now at 107 trillion dollars as the 21st century moves to its middle and later phases.

SS goes bankrupt around 2033 - 2037, period, without economy crushing taxes or severe cuts in benefits (or substantial privatization, which would save the system but is ideologically unpalatable to the class warriors who are its primary supporters).

[_Buffalo]

[_Kevin Graham]

Droopy's Facebook:
http://www.Facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003321147224

Droopy's wife's Facebook:
http://www.Facebook.com/deborah.blood.7

According to Facebook Droopy by his own admission is unemployed while his wife is a CNA (certified nursing assistant). Both pages are a wasteland of far-right links and conspiracy theory articles. If Droopy's wife is terminal then I guess she's recovered since she's currently working for a home health care company (likely a senior citizen group supported in part by Medicare ).

James Bond, the anonymous liar, well poisoner, character assassin, intellectual and moral insect, and well practiced if superficial demagogue, finally shows his true colors in the Cesspool.

Just too precious.

My wife, due to numerous (and mostly potentially life threatening medical conditions) has not worked in any capacity since 2004. I quite working in 2005, following the death of my father and receipt of an inheritance, to take care of her (becoming, in essence, a househusband and nurse to the nurse) for her first few years of her recovery from terminal cancer (piled upon her other medical issues) and also used that time and money to return to school full time. I also used it to get out of debt. I have no house payment, I own all of my land and my home, and have no car payments or outstanding debt of any kind.

I do not now, nor have I ever engaged in conspiracy theory. I leave that, where it has traditionally festered and grown, with the Left and the extreme populist libertarian, Paulbot Right.

Little neo-commie ideological pimps like Bond and Graham have nowhere to go and nowhere to run, at the end of the day, but ad hominem spew.

Behold the typical leftist, and his typical tactics. Behold, as well, Mormondiscussions.com

The fact is you are, by your own admission, living off of the hard work of someone else. That makes you an absolute hypocrite, period. There is essentially no difference between someone having to rely on government aid due to their own personal tragedies, deficiencies, etc. and you living a life of full financial freedom with no worries, because you were lucky enough to have a Dad give you everything he worked for. By your own admission, the life you worked for resulted in a life of debt and alcoholism. And here you are criticizing the Left for wanting to help those who are in need due to no fault of their own. Many of them have stories just as tragic as your own, but you would have them all thrown out on the streets to fend for themselves because you're against government aid of any kind. You think it makes them weak and dependent, just as you are dependent on daddy's inheritance. That makes you a pathetic hypocrite. The fact is most people cannot rely on daddy to take care of them from the grave.

And no, we don't expect you to refute the data we've presented. There is no "maybe" about it. You're greatest quality is your willingness to humiliate yourself with vapid lectures that never cite a single authority. You asked for references to economists and I provided those who worked for your conservative icons. You have nowhere to run Loran. No wonder you have so much time on your hands to post so much useless drivel. But the point here is you're a hypocrite. I know a lot of ignorant hicks who live their own life and don't bother others with their ignorant opinions. Most of them work hard for what they have though. You can't even say that much. But you have FOX News and the propaganda from your favorite "Think Tanks" to convince you you're a winner, just so long as you keep singing their tune. Defending greedy billionaires makes you feel like one of them, huh.

[_Droopy]

The fact is you are, by your own admission, living off of the hard work of someone else.

I have been living on the inheritance given to me by a loving father, which came at a very auspicious time.

That makes you an absolute hypocrite, period. There is essentially no difference between someone having to rely on government aid due to their own personal tragedies, deficiencies, etc. and you living a life of full financial freedom with no worries, because you were lucky enough to have a Dad give you everything he worked for.

I really don't expect a little annelid, worm-like bigot and demagogue like yourself to give me any quarter, respect, or conduct yourself with even simply human decency. I long ago gave up on that wise. There is a massive difference between living from an inheritance created by a lifetime of productive work from within the confines of one's own family, and living off the forced taxation and confiscated time, labor, and productivity of others, who never consented to my preemptive claim on their time, talent, and labor, nor to the corrupt vote buying political infrastructure that lies at the heart of government "welfare."

Oh, and by the way, Graham, I've worked almost all of my adult life (save for periods of unemployment). I had my first job at 16. In point of fact, had that money not come at the time it did, we would have had to hire a home nurse to take care of my wife, which would have been a financial impossibility. As it was, I was able to take on that role and go to school at the same time. A good bargain, all the way around, I'd say.

By your own admission, the life you worked for resulted in a life of debt and alcoholism.

Are you still sane, Graham? What in the name of all hell are you babbling about?

And here you are criticizing the Left for wanting to help those who are in need due to no fault of their own.

Babbling, formatted ideological passing gas. Move along...

Many of them have stories just as tragic as your own, but you would have them all thrown out on the streets to fend for themselves because you're against government aid of any kind.

Oh please...spare us...

You think it makes them weak and dependent, just as you are dependent on daddy's inheritance. That makes you a pathetic hypocrite. The fact is most people cannot rely on daddy to take care of them from the grave.

Seven years? Out of my entire life of struggling to make ends meet?

And no, we don't expect you to refute the data we've presented. There is no "maybe" about it. You're greatest quality is your willingness to humiliate yourself with vapid lectures that never cite a single authority.

I've cited far more than my share of intellectually competent authorities for my economic views, among others. You have cited a few of your own, while concentrating primarily on the most tendentious Democratic spin websites, government insiders in control of the very institutions, programs, and bureaucracies in question, and parasitic activist organizations you can find, and calling this "citing sources." As you wish.

You asked for references to economists and I provided those who worked for your conservative icons. You have nowhere to run Loran.

David Stockman also worked for those "conservative icons," and jumped ship and ran screaming to the pop intellectual Left anyway. Some of the stuff you quoted is easily refuted and/or understood if taken in context and set against the background of the broader market based initiatives Reagan brought forward, but again, your careful cherry-picking combined with - and this is key - utter lack of substantive understanding of economics and free market economic dynamics - makes you stone blind, deaf, and dumb to even the clearest, simplest economic principles.

For example, lowering interest rates - to zero, in fact, from 2007 onward after the housing market crash - does produce economic activity, as I said, but not "real" economic activity, in many cases, where "real" means economic activity grounded in the actual market price of venture capital as determined by real catallactic conditions - not by government fiat in pursuit of economic damage control in the name of protecting and administration in power. The result of artificially low interest rates is always malinvestment and a general recklessness and unsound risk taking that would not occur under a regime of tighter money representing its actual market price.

I don't doubt that some aspect of the initial economic recovery under Reagan had something to do with this lowering of interest rates, but there is a big problem here with your use of your sources as the basis of your argument, because Paul Volcker, Secretary of the Fed under Cater, desired the implementation of a tighter money policy to control inflation as early as 1979, but was not allowed to do so under those political conditions. After the election of Reagan, Volcker broght the hammer down of fiat money creation, which began the death spiral of the wild inflation of the Nixon and Carter years.

In fact, interest rates may have been lowered, but money was tighter, and what you have to understand is that general price inflation is a creation of government monetary policy, and its origin is in the creation of new money out of this air and its pumping into the economy without a corresponding rise in the presence of goods and commodities (wealth).

I can agree that lowering interest rates from their all time highs helped the economy to recover, but claiming that they were at the very center of the longest, largest peacetime economic expansion in history is simply silly. The only way that could have been generated is by the long term incentivization of productive economic activity - work savings, investment, and willingness to take economic risk - and making it a stable feature of economic life. Lowering interest rates is fine, but your argument does not take into account the fact that interest rates, coming out of the Carter years, were fantastically inflated due to other policies that had been doggedly followed up to that point, and lowering them was a good idea, provided money became much tighter. So interest rates were lower, but the money supply was substantially contracted to more closely equal economic reality.

Inflation begin falling dramatically as a result.
I know a lot of ignorant hicks who live their own life and don't bother others with their ignorant opinions.

Let's leave your family out of this, Graham. There's no need to involve others here.

Most of them work hard for what they have though. You can't even say that much.

You don't know me, anything about me, or what I've worked for or how hard. What I do know is that even as a pathetic excuse for a human being, you don't pass the smell test.

Defending greedy billionaires makes you feel like one of them, huh.

Forward Comrade! Forward, Red Kevin, into the glorious revolutionary future. Onward to the new man and new woman of the "better world."

How many graves must be dug, one wonders...