Venezuelan opposition march

[Kontiki]

Fez, under Pinochet or anyone else, you'd still be just a young kid. Maybe your fascist dictator of choice would have a youth brigade, but you certainly wouldn't be in any position of real authority. Speaking of which, how old were you when you proudly displayed your support for Pinochet? Let's see, his rule ended in 1989, which would have made you five at the time. Good to have your life's convictions nailed down in kindergarden.

[El León]

I'm on Fez's ignore list. But someone should tell him that this has gone too far. It's OK to have political views, and all, but this is becoming personally offensive.

There are several friends of my parents I would have liked to have met. In fact, I would have probably been born in Chile.

But in 1973, for whatever reasons, before probably anybody who is posting could spell "communism" or "capitalism," those friends of my parents were killed. And my parents had to come back to Mexico and leave Chile.

These simple facts I think transcend ideology. To say that this was a good thing is nothing but hatred. To those who died and to me personally. I don't know if this is something to report to the moderator.

EDIT - If you read the thread, i have tried to be rational, humorous, even reach out to Fez personally. It is Ok to be angry and have whatever ideas, but not to hurt other people or hate them... at least not here, I hope.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Fez, under Pinochet or anyone else, you'd still be just a young kid. Maybe your fascist dictator of choice would have a youth brigade, but you certainly wouldn't be in any position of real authority. Speaking of which, how old were you when you proudly displayed your support for Pinochet? Let's see, his rule ended in 1989, which would have made you five at the time. Good to have your life's convictions nailed down in kindergarden.

I was just speaking with hypotheticals. If I were to live in that time.

Leon:

No, I removed you off the ignore list. Not enough reason to put you on there, the only people I have on there is Boddington.

If you want to ignore the facts, like what economic progress was made in Chile, like so many other leftists here you can continue to do so.

Just leave this thread. I have little respect for a lying marxist.

EDIT - If you read the thread, i have tried to be rational, humorous, even reach out to Fez personally. It is Ok to be angry and have whatever ideas, but not to hurt other people or hate them... at least not here, I hope.

Reach out to me? I hope you stay the hell away from me. I don't want a leftist coming even close to try and change my beliefs.

[chequita guevara]

I used to volunteer at a bookstore in Chicago, New world Resource Center. One of the founders of the bookstore, Frank Turrugi, was murdered by Pinochet in 1973. If you watch the movie, Missing, when Jack Lemon's character goes to the morgue because they think they've found his son, the body he sees is actually Frank's.

Allende wasn't a communist, he was a socialist, and not a very radical one at that. He just had the misfortune of being pushed into more radical measures because he was so opposed from the outset. The general who stood in the way of a coup, Letalier, was murdered on orderes of Kissinger, and then plans for a coup went ahead.

If the US and various American corporations as well as the Chilean elite hadn't deliberately sabotaged the Chilean economy, Allende would be a minor footnote in history.

[Kontiki]

Fez, there's a huge difference between recognizing economic reforms in Chile and embracing a brutal dictator. You completely cross the line and offend the vast majority of people when you spout off crap like "Pinochet was a hero". You obviously don't have a clue what this guy or others like him were really like, which is clearly evidenced by your statement about what you would have "hypothetically" done if you lived under his regime. The truth is, as a homosexual (or bisexual, whatever) atheist, you very well could have been one of the ones imprisoned, tortured or killed. At the very least, you certainly wouldn't have confessed openly to being either one, considering how opposed Pinochet was to both. You also seem to ignore the fact that Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected government, and was soundly defeated when he again allowed elections.

[Agathon]

The reasons you get personal abuse, Fez, are: (1) Your admiration of a tyrannical murderer; and (2) Your eschewal of argument in favour of assertion.

Look, I'll believe anything you say, if only you could provide a convincing argument for it. The fact that you don't seem ever to do so tends to make me think that your beliefs are comprised of prejudices rather than reasoned opinions. This is the impression you seem to be giving to the rest of the posters here and I'm surprised no one has labelled you a troll, for that is what you seem to be.

Perhaps I should spell it out for you: your opinions matter not one jot to anyone unless you can support them with good reasons. If you can't be bothered to do so then you will be treated like the verbal diarrhetic you seem to be.

In fact from your ravings I'm not so sure you even understand your own position.

[Giancarlo]

I don't think I should say anything more. I am stunned. I am stunned AT THE TRAITORS IN THIS FORUM. THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. If somebody has to go down for the benefit of society then fine.

Idiots, like you two Kontiki, and Agathon will persist in bringing up irrelevant topics which have no bearing on the facts.

The truth is, as a homosexual (or bisexual, whatever) atheist, you very well could have been one of the ones imprisoned, tortured or killed.

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? If I was in that time, I would not be that way.

Democratically elected government? It was communist, and soviet influenced. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Actually Kontiki, you ignore the facts. Pinochet held one vote to see if he could stay in office and this one (the first one) he won decisively. It was the second one he didn't.

Agathon, I did support my opinion. It is you who is not.

[chequita guevara]

Agathon, don't try and reason with Fez. Don't try and change Fez. We love him just the way he is.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Hey Fez, learn how to analyse your data.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Yeah, all of the columns went UP on the graph. But lets take a look at the differences. Pre Reagan years, the lowest quartile had a change in real family income of -5%. The richest quartile had a change in real family income of +5%. Now thats a difference of 10%
During the Reagan years, the pooreest GAINED +5% but the richest gained +20%. The difference is +15%. The gap is widening. Just because the graphs went up doesnt mean it made people better off.

Data can be manipulated to get any result that you want.

The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause

of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war.

Wait a second! Big goernment spending. Thats not neo classissit, thats KEYNSIAN. Strike two.

Here are some more examples of deceving statements by the CATO institute.

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.

Yeah, and most of this was due to his increased military spending, NOT the tax cut.

Its amazing some of the stuff that CATO is saying which people interpret as a sideeffect of the tax cut. GDP up? Its the tax cut! Jobless down? Its the tax cut!

And check this out. Voodoo says that if you decrease the tax rate, you will stimulate growth and actually get MORE in taxes. According to CATO, this did not happen.

Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

The Real Reagan Economic Record

Table 1 contrasts side by side the economy's performance for the three periods of analysis--1974-81, 1981-89, and 1989-95--for 10 key variables. We measure the change in each economic variable from the start of the period through the end and present the annualized change. [11] On 8 of the 10 key variables, the Reagan record unambiguously outperformed the records of the pre- and post-Reagan years. The two exceptions were the savings rate, which declined in the Reagan years at a faster rate than in the pre- and post-Reagan years, and productivity, which grew faster in the pre-Reagan years but slower in the post-Reagan years. [12] The following is a summary for each of the 10 variables:

* Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

* Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

* Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

* Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

* Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

* Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

* Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

* Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

* Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

* Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.


The decline in the personal savings rate in the 1980s was disappointing, but two factors mitigate the implications of these statistics. First, the drop in the savings rate was partly a natural response to demographic changes in America--namely, the baby boomers entering their peak spending years. Second, the savings rate data fail to account for real gains in wealth, which clearly are an important form of savings. The real value of capital assets and property doubled from 1980 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly tripled from a low of 884 in 1982 to 2,509 in 1989. These increases in the value of stocks, bonds, homes, businesses, and so forth added to Americans' balance sheets hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that are not accounted for in the savings rate statistics.

The Reagan Fiscal Record

The fiscal record of the 1980s was much less impressive than the economic record. The major outcomes of Reagan's budgetary policies, as well as of the pre- and post-Reagan budgetary policies, are summarized in Table 2. Highlights are as follows:

* Budget Deficit. The budget deficit exploded in the 1980s. Figure 6 shows that in 1981, the budget deficit was $101 billion (in 1987 dollars) and 2.7 percent of GDP. In 1983 it peaked at $236 billion and 6.3 percent of GDP. By the time Reagan left office in 1989, however, it had fallen to $141 billion and 2.9 percent of GDP. These deficits were higher in real dollars than those under any other post-World War II president except for George Bush.

* National Debt. The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7. In the 1990s the debt has risen to 52 percent of GDP. The rise in the national debt in the 1980s was large and has imposed significant repayment costs on future generations.

* Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

* Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

* Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point. [21]

* Defense Spending. From 1981 to 1989, the Pentagon budget doubled from $158 billion to $304 billion. The years of the greatest spending hike in the military budget were 1978-87, when the Pentagon's expenditures rose from $180 billion to $280 billion in real 1987 dollars.[22]

* Domestic Spending. Overall domestic spending growth was relatively constrained during the Reagan presidency, particularly compared with that of other presidencies, as shown in Table 3. In fact, domestic spending grew at a slower real rate under Reagan than under all other recent presidents. Moreover, domestic outlays as a share of GDP fell from 15.3 to 12.9 percent from 1981 to 1989 (Table 2). But the reductions in domestic spending were substantially smaller than required to balance the federal budget, cut taxes, and finance a military build-up.

Sorry Fez.

[GePap]

Fez: next time you support some dictator, make sure that the board you do it on is not filled with individuals who knew or know those affacted by that dictators actions.

Interestingly enough, the wife of one of my parents best friends was a member of the Communist party politburo in Chile in 1973. She is a very nice person, and I think she would even be nice to Fez.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Ooops

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Fez
I don't think I should say anything more. If somebody has to go down for the benefit of society then fine.

Idiots, like you two Kontiki, and Agathon will persist in bringing up irrelevant topics which have no bearing on the facts.
....

Democratically elected government? It was communist, and soviet influenced. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Actually Kontiki, you ignore the facts. Pinochet held one vote to see if he could stay in office and this one (the first one) he won decisively. It was the second one he didn't.

Agathon, I did support my opinion. It is you who is not.

Wow, I think you are getting dumber by the minute. You claim that what I bring up has no relevance, but it's perfectly relevant. You love and cherish Pinochet as some sort of hero. I'm merely pointing out that your hero would most likely have treated you like a pile of sh*t because of your other beliefs. To think that because you support his economic reforms would make you immune to persecution is idiocy to the highest degree. And to say that you are only gay and atheist because it's conveniently allowed in the country in which you live is so laughable as to be absurd. Do you think your sexual orientation is something you just decide on a whim? You have fervently argued that religion is a bad thing - is that only because you can and not because you actually believe it? I said it before and I'll say it agains since it doesn't seem to be sinking in - THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUPPORTING SOME ECONOMIC POLICIES AND LOVING A RUTHLESS DICTATOR. What you are claiming is exactly like a Jew claiming to love Hitler. Grow up, Fez.

As for Allende's government, it may have been left-wing and he may have had ties to the SU, but you cannot find a source in the world that would say he was not democratically elected.

Finally, in regards to Pinochet, you're right that he held two votes. The first was a plebicite to see if he could be installed as president for life - which he lost. He then ran in the 1989 elections - and lost again. This isn't opinion, Fez, it's fact. Try to find a source that says otherwise.

[Comrade Tribune]

If Americans want to throw out a democratically elected leader, they should start with Bush.

OOOPS; I forgot Bush wasn´t democratically elected.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Fez
Leon:

{snip}

Just leave this thread. I have little respect for a lying marxist.

I thought you were leaving us forever, in that little thread of yours?

With your usual ranting, insults, and presuming now to give people orders to "leave threads" I'm going to help you live up to that other thread, for a couple of weeks, anyway.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!, since you definitely won't be back before then.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
As for Allende's government, it may have been left-wing and he may have had ties to the SU, but you cannot find a source in the world that would say he was not democratically elected.

Actually, Allende didn't have any ties to the USSR. He was more of a non-alignment kinda guy, pox on both houses. In the minds of anti-communists, however, that's the same thing as being a communist.