Debunking the Reagan Myth

[rayboyusmc]

One caller on the Ed show today called up and was so incensed he waited an hour to tell the host that he was demonizing Reagan while deifying Obama.

The right has been so successful in the revisonist efforts on Ronny, they they actually believe he stopped the cold war and all other evils. Bullcrap. He was there at the right time and spoke well for an actor.

With his obscene I Am The Rich Trickle Down Theory, he began the war on destroying the middle class. I am still amazed by those in the current weakened and smaller middle class that still smile as he shoves his trickle down up your anal opening.

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

Reactions From Around the WebAnd it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

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.

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

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Oh come now, you're not seriously going to attempt to pass off Mr. Neokeynsian Paul Krugman as an unbiased source when it comes to President Reagan are you ? That's sort of like asking a sheep to comment on what he thinks about wolves don't you think?

Mr. Krugman would be perfectly qualified to debunk all the myths regarding FDR's economic policies if he could ever pull his head out of the keynesian clouds he exists in most of the time and take a whiff of the real world.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Ed who?

 

[Maple]

Were you alive when Reagan was President????? You obviously don't beleive that he brought an end to the cold war, he did. We outspent the Russians and they went bankrupt and folded. As far as the trickle down theory, it works, the more people have of their own money to spend, save and invest, the more employment and opportunities available. It creates growth. ECON 101, maybe you should take the class. The more the government takes from the tax-payer, be they rich, middle class or somewhere else, the less the people have to spend, save and invest. Therefore, this creates the lack of jobs and opportunities. The government produces and sells NOTHING, they are virtually parasitic by nature.

You will realize this when Obama's 4 years are up, that trickle UP theory does not work.

I KNOW OF NO-ONE THAT WAS EVER HIRED BY A POOR PERSON. Do you?????

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

If stimulus is the anti-trickle down, is it working?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The guy invaded Grenada, for chrissakes.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Great, Krugman is biasssed, but you aren't? Win any major prizes for economics lately.


Yes, I was alive and still in the military. I voted for him the first time. As an actor, he spoke well and impressed US. After I saw what he was about: the rich, I didn't vote a second time for him. Deleted interest as a tax write off. Guess the rich don't need credit cards like we did then.

You will realize this when Obama's 4 years are up, that trickle UP theory does not work.

Yes it does. If the middle class is working and paid an honest wage, it will make the economy work. The rich will get richer and the middle class will also get richer. The rich are about 5 percent, the middle class is about 80%: they are the economy that makes the rich man's train run.

The rich don't trickle down, that's no more accurate than when it was called the sparrow and the oats back in the 1800s. If the horse eats enough oats, some will pass through for the sparrow to eat. Same theory, but more accurately descriptive. If you're happy to eat the oats, be my guest. Might be smarter thought to just grow more oats for everyone not just the rich horse.

I KNOW OF NO-ONE THAT WAS EVER HIRED BY A POOR PERSON. Do you?????

And I know of no rich person who was successful without labor to hire. Do you? It's just easier to dictate when there is one of you with money and a thousand without. That's why we had to have unions.

It's a two way street. The working class make the rich richer and honest not soley self centered rich understand this relationship and help make the working class richer also.

The current right powers don't get this. They think only one class can win. Fuck them and this belief.

There are some rich people who actually work to improve the overall common lot. There are others who simply want to die with all the marlbes and screw you and me.

 

[rayboyusmc]

"Ronald Reagan must be the nicest president who ever destroyed a union, tried to cut school lunch milk rations from six to four ounces, and compelled families in need of public help to first dispose of household goods in excess of $1,000...1f there is an authoritarian regime in the American future, Ronald Reagan is tailored to the image of a friendly fascist." - Robert Lekachman

REAGAN GAVE BIRTH TO TODAY'S FISCAL CRISES

Robert Brent Toplin, History News Network - Ronald Reagan promised to take government off the backs of enterprising Americans. He told voters that government was not the solution to the nation's problems; it was the problem. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language," said Reagan, are, " 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " His speeches contained numerous warnings about the chilling effects of bureaucratic regulation. Government leaders think, he said, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.". . .
The main problem with Reagan's outlook was a failure to recognize that government regulation can serve business interests quite effectively. Many of the regulatory programs started by Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s aimed to promote fairness in economic competition. That legislation required greater transparency so that investors could more intelligently judge the value of securities in the stock market. The reforms mandated a separation of commercial and investment bank activities, since speculative investments by commercial banks had been one of the principal causes of the financial crash. Roosevelt's New Deal also created a bank insurance program, the FDIC, which brought stability to a finance industry that had been on the verge of collapse.
These and other improvements of the 1930s worked splendidly. For the next half century American markets operated with impressive stability. There were periods of boom and recession, but the country's financial system did not suffer from the kinds of shocks that have upset the American economy in recent years.
The turn away from rules that promote fair business practices fostered dangerous risk-taking. An early sign of the troubles occurred on Reagan's watch. When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. Yet blame for that crisis did not stick to the Teflon President.
Recent troubles in the American economy can be attributed to a weakening of business regulation in the public interest, which is, in large part, a consequence of Reagan's anti-government preaching. In the absence of oversight, lending became a wildcat enterprise. Mortgage brokers easily deceived home buyers by promoting sub-prime loans, and then they passed on bundled documents to unwary investors. Executives at Fannie Mae packaged both conventional and sub-prime loans, and they too, operated almost free of serious oversight. Fannie's leaders spent lavishly to hire sixty Washington lobbyists who showered congressmen with campaign funds. Executives at Fannie were generous to the politicians because they wanted to ward off regulation. Meanwhile, on Wall Street, brokerage firms became deeply committed to risky mortgage investments and did not make their customers fully aware of the risks. The nation's leading credit rating agencies, in turn, were not under much pressure to question claims about mortgage-based instruments that were marketed as blue chip quality. Government watchdogs were not active during those times to serve the interests of the public and the investors. . . Reagan's views of the relationship between government and business helped to put the nation and the world into a good deal of trouble. It is time to recognize that the former president's understanding of economics was not as sophisticated as his enthusiastic supporters often claimed.


GREAT THOUGHTS OF RONALD REAGAN
"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan (Governor of California), quoted in the Sacramento Bee, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park, March 3, 1966

"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." --Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980

"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." --Ronald Reagan (candidate for Governor of California), interviewed in the Fresno Bee, October 10, 1965

"...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers." --President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." --Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

"...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts." --Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Description of Medicaid recipients.)

"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders." --California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966

"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet." --Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964

THE RONALD REAGAN MYTH . . . The Progressive Review

 

[oreo]

One caller on the Ed show today called up and was so incensed he waited an hour to tell the host that he was demonizing Reagan while deifying Obama.

The right has been so successful in the revisonist efforts on Ronny, they they actually believe he stopped the cold war and all other evils. Bullcrap. He was there at the right time and spoke well for an actor.

With his obscene I Am The Rich Trickle Down Theory, he began the war on destroying the middle class. I am still amazed by those in the current weakened and smaller middle class that still smile as he shoves his trickle down up your anal opening.

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

Reactions From Around the WebAnd it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

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.

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

Now if YOU can only come up with one single POOR person that has employed another POOR person--you may have a point--LOL Because of this there is NO SUCH thing as "trickle UP" economics. It's a fallacy--used by politicians to get the peasant vote--in their effort to create the war between the poor versus the "evil" rich.

Ronald Reagan did in fact stop the Cold War in it's tracks & he is the reason why there is no more an E. Germany/W. Germany.

Reagan also started the largest private sector job growth expansion that lead though-out the 80's--90's & 2000 by his belief that the "people" know how to spend their money better than the government.

And one of his most infamous quotes--still holds the TRUTH.

"Government is not the solution, it's the Problem" Ronald Reagan

Our federal government created the financial collapse we are currently in with their incompetent mismangement of Fannie/Freddie which in fact, is GROUND ZERO for this mess. 50% of the mortgages in this country were or are guaranteed by the American taxpayer. AIG--Fannie-Freddie were all deregulated in the 1990's.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Social security/Medicare will be the next government programs that will be the next economic crisis. "All government run programs."

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Great, Krugman is biasssed, but you aren't? Win any major prizes for economics lately.
.

Yes I hate to burst your bubble when it comes to the subject of President Reagan, Paul Krugman is FAR more biased than I am and economics prizes are completely irrelevant to the question, that's like me saying since I have more patents registered in my name than Krugman does I'm a more objective source on the subject.

Krugman's bias against Reaganomics is well known and perfectly natural since he is a neo-dare I say-HYPER keynesian after all. Hell I'll admit to being biased against Reagan myself since he's certainly no hero to the Austrian School either.

Try citing some objective sources on the subject, like say a credible presidential historian and at least a somewhat objective journalist (if you can find one, good luck with that) and maybe you'll be on to something, however offering up Krugman as such just makes what you have to say on the subject pure, unadulterated biased nonsense.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh come now, you're not seriously going to attempt to pass off Mr. Neokeynsian Paul Krugman as an unbiased source when it comes to President Reagan are you ? That's sort of like asking a sheep to comment on what he thinks about wolves don't you think?

Mr. Krugman would be perfectly qualified to debunk all the myths regarding FDR's economic policies if he could ever pull his head out of the keynesian clouds he exists in most of the time and take a whiff of the real world.

First you mentioned neo-Keynesianism. Then you mentioned Keynesianism. Are you aware of the significant divergences between the two? Are you aware of the fact that the New Deal was not Keynesian?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

THE RONALD REAGAN MYTH . . . The Progressive Review

ROFLMAO ! are you for real ? what's next in the line up of completely biased opinion "THE HOLOCAUST MYTH.... The American Nazi Review" ?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Are you aware of the significant divergences between the two?

If I wasn't I wouldn't have bothered to make the distinction in the first place.

 

[Agnapostate]

If I wasn't I wouldn't have bothered to make the distinction in the first place.

I didn't see you making a distinction. I saw you describing Krugman as both a "Keynesian" and a "neo-Keynesian."

Are you a supporter of the Austrian school?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

If I wasn't I wouldn't have bothered to make the distinction in the first place.

I didn't see you making a distinction. I saw you describing Krugman as both a "Keynesian" and a "neo-Keynesian."

Are you a capitalist?

Maybe you should read the post again since I specifically described him a NEOKeynesian with his head in keynesian clouds.... since one school is derived from the other I think it's not to much to ask to allow some poetic license on the hyperbole portion of the post.

 

[oreo]

" 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."

I totally disagree with the above comment. I as an electrical contractor survived the Carter administration--& remember both Presidents very well. Reagan economics--or trickle down economics WORKS. It works for everyone. Reagan believed that the people can spend their money much more effectively than the federal government.

Not only were private sector jobs created, wages went up for EVERYONE during the Reagan years. We started hiring electricians again--& their wages went up. In fact their wages continued to go up through-out the 80's-90's & all through-out the Bush years. The only drop we have seen in wages is recently--because of this severe recession.

Now if this author can give me the name of one single poor person that has employed another poor person--then maybe he can prove that "trickle up" economics works. The point is--trickle up economics--is only used by politicians to create the war between the so-called evil rich versus the poor. It is the wealthy in this country that invests in business & gets the private sector job creation moving along. POOR PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT.

 

[Sinatra]

" 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."

I totally disagree with the above comment. I as an electrical contractor survived the Carter administration--& remember both Presidents very well. Reagan economics--or trickle down economics WORKS. It works for everyone. Reagan believed that the people can spend their money much more effectively than the federal government.

Not only were private sector jobs created, wages went up for EVERYONE during the Reagan years. We started hiring electricians again--& their wages went up. In fact their wages continued to go up through-out the 80's-90's & all through-out the Bush years. The only drop we have seen in wages is recently--because of this severe recession.

Now if this author can give me the name of one single poor person that has employed another poor person--then maybe he can prove that "trickle up" economics works. The point is--trickle up economics--is only used by politicians to create the war between the so-called evil rich versus the poor. It is the wealthy in this country that invests in business & gets the private sector job creation moving along. POOR PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT.

Thank you Oreo for adding some much needed clarity to this thread originator's immature and historically innacurate rant.

Reagan was a great American president. Not perfect mind you - such an example has never existed.

America yearns for another Reagan example. Obama has the charisma, but lacks the substance - the defining basic principles of any great leader.

God Bless Ronald Reagan.

 

[Soaring]

" 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."

I totally disagree with the above comment. I as an electrical contractor survived the Carter administration--& remember both Presidents very well. Reagan economics--or trickle down economics WORKS. It works for everyone. Reagan believed that the people can spend their money much more effectively than the federal government.

Not only were private sector jobs created, wages went up for EVERYONE during the Reagan years. We started hiring electricians again--& their wages went up. In fact their wages continued to go up through-out the 80's-90's & all through-out the Bush years. The only drop we have seen in wages is recently--because of this severe recession.

Now if this author can give me the name of one single poor person that has employed another poor person--then maybe he can prove that "trickle up" economics works. The point is--trickle up economics--is only used by politicians to create the war between the so-called evil rich versus the poor. It is the wealthy in this country that invests in business & gets the private sector job creation moving along. POOR PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT.

Thank you Oreo for adding some much needed clarity to this thread originator's immature and historically innacurate rant.

Reagan was a great American president. Not perfect mind you - such an example has never existed.

America yearns for another Reagan example. Obama has the charisma, but lacks the substance - the defining basic principles of any great leader.

God Bless Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had not only the charisma, he had the forethought to lead our great American conservative country with the leadership that kept us a conservative country. Obama has not either the charisma nor the conservative forethought to run a country of Americans who have a small percent of their brains inserted to see what this mad man is interjecting into the American economy and the political machine. The American public needs to wake up to the reality that Obama is leading us into a desperate situation, and that means a Communist nation.

 

[oreo]

" 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."

I totally disagree with the above comment. I as an electrical contractor survived the Carter administration--& remember both Presidents very well. Reagan economics--or trickle down economics WORKS. It works for everyone. Reagan believed that the people can spend their money much more effectively than the federal government.

Not only were private sector jobs created, wages went up for EVERYONE during the Reagan years. We started hiring electricians again--& their wages went up. In fact their wages continued to go up through-out the 80's-90's & all through-out the Bush years. The only drop we have seen in wages is recently--because of this severe recession.

Now if this author can give me the name of one single poor person that has employed another poor person--then maybe he can prove that "trickle up" economics works. The point is--trickle up economics--is only used by politicians to create the war between the so-called evil rich versus the poor. It is the wealthy in this country that invests in business & gets the private sector job creation moving along. POOR PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT.

Thank you Oreo for adding some much needed clarity to this thread originator's immature and historically innacurate rant.

Reagan was a great American president. Not perfect mind you - such an example has never existed.

America yearns for another Reagan example. Obama has the charisma, but lacks the substance - the defining basic principles of any great leader.

God Bless Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had not only the charisma, he had the forethought to lead our great American conservative country with the leadership that kept us a conservative country. Obama has not either the charisma nor the conservative forethought to run a country of Americans who have a small percent of their brains inserted to see what this mad man is interjecting into the American economy and the political machine. The American public needs to wake up to the reality that Obama is leading us into a desperate situation, and that means a Communist nation.

These two men are completely different in economic-ideology. One is wrong--the other was right. Obama believes that government is the solution--Reagan believed just the opposite.

Obama believes & has preached "trickle up" economics--based on huge government (tax payer) spending. What the followers don't understand is that the majority of these government jobs that are being created are "temporary jobs." Once these road & bridge projects are completed there go the jobs. Reagan created the longest--sustained private sector growth of any President that ran all through-out the mid 80's, 90's & up until recently.

All of this government spending will result in higher taxes for EVERYONE. No one is going to escape higher taxes. This only results in less private sector spending & investment, which always results in less private sector job growth, & a reduction in wages for private sector employees.

It's very simple: THE GOVERNMENT TAKES MORE--YOU HAVE LESS.

 

[Soaring]

I'm afraid you are right Oreo. Now, obviously Obama needs to be taken out because he is not going to change his politics.