Debunking the Reagan Myth

[oreo]

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

Unfortunately--that's how Obama won the election. On the basis of "trickle up" economics--a policy that could never possibly work--"playing on the fears" of American citizens who have absolutely no clue as to how private sector jobs are created. The "rich versus the poor"campaign rhetoric. Always a democrat strategy. It's unfortunate but we in younger generation in the 1970's with Carter in office--needed to experience this kind of policy before we got smart. Reagan came in 4 years later & won in a 49 state landslide!

Maybe this new generation of voters will finally come around too?

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

 

[Sinatra]

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

I assume you to mean Obama needs to be voted out, yes?

On that I would agree completely.

 

[oreo]

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

I assume you to mean Obama needs to be voted out, yes?

On that I would agree completely.

I really don't think he'll make it into a second term. Primarily because I don't believe this 787 billion dollar stimulus bill will work. I think we will get a pop in our employment--but it will be short-lived--because I think we will see hyper-inflation with all this government spending around the corner, taking us right back down. Not to mention that gasoline prices are going up already--taking more money out of consumer pockets.

Right now we are borrowing .50 cents on every dollar the government is spending. That is unsustainable. Government is expanding in leaps & bounds while the private sector is still hemorraging jobs. The stats out today stated 350K jobs lost last month & the media is actually stating: Look we may be nearing a bottom. They forget to mention--that we have just experienced the 1st round of mortgage foreclosures--the 2nd wave hasn't hit yet. (Recent laid-off will be loosing their homes also.)

Stats say that 2200 homes per day are being foreclosed upon. Thanks to our incompetent Federal Government--we the taxpayer are on the hook for 50% of the mortgages in this country!

As far as Obama's budget that just passed: Estimates are that a college student just heading into the work force will be paying $119,000.00 in INTEREST alone, & a 40 year old will be paying approximately $138,000.00 in INTEREST though-out their working years. (This does not include the cost of health care, all these bail-outs, etc.) This is just his budget.

Eventually these kind of numbers would make a flaming liberal turn conservative.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

" 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.

Good assessment if one looks at it from a personal standpoint (and having lived through both Carter and Reagan my experience was much the same as yours), however I tend to disagree in that I don't give President Reagan himself the lions share of the credit for it. He enjoyed the advantage of having an exceedingly conservative Fed Chairman during his first term, an easing of global tensions and the benefit of coming into office on the rebound side of the artificial boom-bust cycle. I'll give credit where it's due though President Reagan was a good President (although IMHO not a GREAT one) and he had a lot of the right ideas and the ability to articulate them effectively, he was however largely a failure at implementing any lasting postive change with respect to our central economic planning tendancies and nanny state policies.

Personally I'd have rather have had Barry in 1964 than Ronald in 1980 though.

 

[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.

Good assessment if one looks at it from a personal standpoint (and having lived through both Carter and Reagan my experience was much the same as yours), however I tend to disagree in that I don't give President Reagan himself the lions share of the credit for it. He enjoyed the advantage of having an exceedingly conservative Fed Chairman during his first term, an easing of global tensions and the benefit of coming into office on the rebound side of the artificial boom-bust cycle. I'll give credit where it's due though President Reagan was a good President (although IMHO not a GREAT one) and he had a lot of the right ideas and the ability to articulate them effectively, he was however largely a failure at implementing any lasting postive change with respect to our central economic planning tendancies and nanny state policies.

Personally I'd have rather have had Barry in 1964 than Ronald in 1980 though.

Well--again I have to reflect back to Fannie/Freddie which was started during the Carter administration. What probably started out as a good program--to give lower incomes the opportunity to get into "Lower income housing" turned into a massive government run program. This in which people were buying vacation homes--& others buying expensive homes they didn't have a shot of keeping--& speculators on the "fix & flippers." This was the big expansive government that Ronald Reagan was against.

The only disagreement I had with Ronald Reagan was legitimizing all the illegals in this country without securing the borders. As we see we have 12 million more here that are bleeding the taxpayers of this country. This is the number 1 reason California is in the mess it's in.

What's on the agenda next? Health care--& like we have seen with Fannie/Freddie--it won't be too long before we have politicians out there promising their constituents free lyposuction & cosmetic surgery to get votes.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Well--again I have to reflect back to Fannie/Freddie which was started during the Carter administration. What probably started out as a good program--to give lower incomes the opportunity to get into "Lower income housing"

don't kid yourself it was a bad idea from the start, any scheme cooked up by central planners to artifically manipulate the market generally is.

Because it generally turns out like this ....

turned into a massive government run program. This in which people were buying vacation homes--& others buying expensive homes they didn't have a shot of keeping--& speculators on the "fix & flippers."

 

[garyd]

Sorry no Obama didn't win on the basis of economic anything. McCain lost by buying into the TARP baloney and essentially equating himself with failed Bush spending policy. It is interesting and instructive to note that all the spending Bush did on Social programs from No child left behind (more appropriately no education bureaucrat left behind) to the medicare Drug program is straight out of the Democrat playbook (except of course that Bush didn't slam the pharmaceuticals industries nearly as hard as the Dems wanted him too) and the leftist bitched carped and nagged about his spending no end while citing the War in Iraq as the thing causing the deficit while in reality the two aforemention programs cost more between them per annum than the war in Iraq has cost in any 3 years.

And now their guys at the helm and the spending is going to quintuple to even less purpose, if that's possible, all Bush needed was a D after his name and the idiots would have been cheering him too.

 

[oreo]

Sorry no Obama didn't win on the basis of economic anything. McCain lost by buying into the TARP baloney and essentially equating himself with failed Bush spending policy. It is interesting and instructive to note that all the spending Bush did on Social programs from No child left behind (more appropriately no education bureaucrat left behind) to the medicare Drug program is straight out of the Democrat playbook (except of course that Bush didn't slam the pharmaceuticals industries nearly as hard as the Dems wanted him too) and the leftist bitched carped and nagged about his spending no end while citing the War in Iraq as the thing causing the deficit while in reality the two aforemention programs cost more between them per annum than the war in Iraq has cost in any 3 years.

And now their guys at the helm and the spending is going to quintuple to even less purpose, if that's possible, all Bush needed was a D after his name and the idiots would have been cheering him too.

I agree with that. What does "too big to fail" mean? Now we own the mortgage industry, the banks, & now General motors. Unbelievable. And not one of these political idiots have ever run a successful business in their lives.

 

[garyd]

It means the same thing as never let an opportunity get buy. It means that while most of Europe is busy selling off state owned enterprises were buying privet industry and placing it under state control.

It is also quite interesting that Obama is maintaining the myth that the government is going to let other NG folks run the businesses in question as if the feds looking over their shoulders isn't going to seriously impact their decision making. Not mind you that it didn't already which is largely why they're in this mess to begin with.

 

[supplyside101]

Hi all, this is my first post. I would just like to add some information to this thread. The so called middle and lower class that was supposedly devastated by Reagen actually thrived under Reagan. Those peoples incomes actually grew by 6% under Reagan and that includes the Carter caused recession of the early 1980's. Please click the attachment for proof.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Hi all, this is my first post. I would just like to add some information to this thread. The so called middle and lower class that was supposedly devastated by Reagen actually thrived under Reagan. Those peoples incomes actually grew by 6% under Reagan and that includes the Carter caused recession of the early 1980's. Please click the attachment for proof.

Well that's nice 'cept for the fact that Jimmy Carter didn't "cause" any "recession of the 1980's" (since he left office in Jan. 1981), Jimmy inherited a whole slew of economic problems from his predecessors (chiefly Tricky Dick and LBJ). Reagan on the other hand inherited the upside of the Interventionalist induced boom-bust cycle so essentially no matter what his administration did the economy had no place else to go but up.

That's not to say that Jimmy Carter wasn't a completely inept politician (he was but on the other hand he's also a brilliant man) and that Ronald Reagan wasn't a brilliant politician (he was but on the other hand he wasn't very bright intellectually), I'm just pointing out that your chart doesn't convey the facts on the ground in any meaningful way.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

and you dont think Clinton was THERE AT THE RIGHT TIME when the DOT.COM. boom hit?.....made him look good for something he had very little to do with...

 

[Sinatra]

Hi all, this is my first post. I would just like to add some information to this thread. The so called middle and lower class that was supposedly devastated by Reagen actually thrived under Reagan. Those peoples incomes actually grew by 6% under Reagan and that includes the Carter caused recession of the early 1980's. Please click the attachment for proof.

Well that's nice 'cept for the fact that Jimmy Carter didn't "cause" any "recession of the 1980's" (since he left office in Jan. 1981), Jimmy inherited a whole slew of economic problems from his predecessors (chiefly Tricky Dick and LBJ). Reagan on the other hand inherited the upside of the Interventionalist induced boom-bust cycle so essentially no matter what his administration did the economy had no place else to go but up.

That's not to say that Jimmy Carter wasn't a completely inept politician (he was but on the other hand he's also a brilliant man) and that Ronald Reagan wasn't a brilliant politician (he was but on the other hand he wasn't very bright intellectually), I'm just pointing out that your chart doesn't convey the facts on the ground in any meaningful way.

Rubbish.

Reagan's own words reflect a mind able to grasp the complexities of the socio-political environment of his day - and combined with his common sense, wit, dispositon, and core principles, made him the most effective politician of his era. You would do well to actually study the Reagan record - your post reflects the watered down left-leaning version of recent history.

Carter was not "brilliant" in any sense of leadership, and it is leadership that matters most to a president and their nation, yes? History has recorded a common Carter-induced misrepresentation - that he was a nuclear physicist. When this title was called into question, Carter himself changed it to nuclear scientist (a far broader term) The actual truth was Carter had little to no formal training in that field. He took a one credit course at Union College that approaced the subject, according to the professor, "at a very elementary level." That is not to say Carter did not have experience working around nuclear technology - he did, but in no way did this experience make him either a physicist no a scientist. This is but one of many examples of personal exaggeration Carter routinely participated in.

To say Carter did not contribute directly to the near-critical collapse of the economy during his four years is apologist revisionism at its worst.

The Carter economic record is relatively well known for its double-digit inflation, interest rates, and general malaise. American's personal wealth was cut in half during Carter's four years in office. A president must inspire confidence, particularly as it relates to the American economy, and in this regard, Carter proved to be a presidential disaster. Carter did manage one show of wisdom though, and that was the appointment of Paul Volker to the Fed Chairmanship, for it would be Volker's restrictive monetary policies, that combined with the historic Reagan tax cuts, deregulations, tax code simplification, and overall tone of optimism, ushered in the remarkable era of economic prosperity that lasted far beyond the Reagan years.

Carter's uncertainty extended beyond the economy and entered into his foreign policy as well. His shortsighted (and ultimitely asinine) assist to the rise of the Mullah fury in Iran, as well as assisting in the destabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan.


No president since Reagan has lived up to the example he set as the American president in the modern era, and it appears unlikely this current president will either.

That is unfortunate.

Hopefully, this current president will not descend into the depths of Carter's ineptitude.

That would be most unfortunate - for all Americans.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Rubbish.

Reagan's own words reflect a mind able to grasp the complexities of the socio-political environment of his day - and combined with his common sense, wit, dispositon, and core principles, made him the most effective politician of his era. You would do well to actually study the Reagan record - your post reflects the watered down left-leaning version of recent history.

So you say but having experienced the reality personally and studied the history after the fact, I'll exercise my right not to take your word for it (Although I do find your "left-leaning version of recent history" comment a bit humorous, since I'm the most anti-left person you're ever likely to meet ANYWHERE).

Carter was not "brilliant" in any sense of leadership, and it is leadership that matters most to a president and their nation, yes?

If you'll take the time to actually read what I wrote you'll find that I never ascribed the attribute of "brilliant leadership" to Jimmy Carter, what I actually said was that he was brilliant man, after all he has a PHD in Nuclear Physics...any casual observer would admit he is very intelligent, anybody that takes the time to study the guy in a bit more detail would admit that WOW this dude is freaking SMART (whether you agree with his political philosphy or not).

The Carter economic record is relatively well known for its double-digit inflation, interest rates, and general malaise. American's personal wealth was cut in half during Carter's four years in office.

Anybody that takes the time to crack open a book written by an objective historian or was actually around at the time will time will tell you that Carter inherited a mess to begin with, so what's your point? that he didn't single handledly solve the economic funk the nation was in from 76 to 80, you're right, but Reagan couldn't have done it either ( that's not a knock on Reagan but having lived through that time I don't think anyone could have).

No president since Reagan has lived up to the example he set as the American president in the modern era,

I have nothing against Ronald Reagans demeanor as President nor did I indicate any such thing in my post which begs the question, why bring it up? the only thing I would comment on regarding this is that Ronald Reagan was no Barry Goldwater either in principle nor in posture.

and it appears unlikely this current president will either.

That is unfortunate.

American citizens got what they deserved in their new President, now they have to the ride the horse that brung 'em to the dance and dance with 'em 'til the music stops, screw 'em.

Hopefully, this current president will not descend into the depths of Carter's ineptitude.

I disagree, it would be a good thing if this current president could live up to Carter's integrity but it's already apparent he either can't or is unwilling to. Americans can survive an honest President that does what he thinks is right for the future of the nation (Carter), what we may not be able to survive is this idealogue in the White House that does what he thinks is "best for us" regardless of the long term consequences and the lies to us with a big shit eating grin on his face (Obama).

 

[garyd]

I was alive then Liberty and while LBJ and Nixon laid the ground work for the Disaster that was to be, it was Jimmy Carter and his Democratic Congress, mostly the latter, as always, that laid in place the capstone on said disaster. Reagan took office in 1981 most of the Budget for the fiscal year beginning October of 1981 had already been put in place by the time he took office on January 20th, of 81. The only thing he got added to that Budget was a fairly mild decrease in tax rates which couldn't possibly have its full impact until tax time 1983 when 1982 taxes are paid. The best thing he did which has had a major impact ever since is to tie the tax code to the Cost of living index. Which meant that people who were staying even with inflation weren't getting killed by being perpetually pushed into a higher tax bracket.

As I have said many time here before:

There is a reason most president early in their 1st term start looking over seas to build a legacy. Simply put when it comes to the Domestic side of things Congress hold all the cards. And for all but 10 years in the last 78 One or both houses of congress have been held by the Democrats.

 

[Sinatra]

Rubbish.

Reagan's own words reflect a mind able to grasp the complexities of the socio-political environment of his day - and combined with his common sense, wit, dispositon, and core principles, made him the most effective politician of his era. You would do well to actually study the Reagan record - your post reflects the watered down left-leaning version of recent history.

So you say but having experienced the reality personally and studied the history after the fact, I'll exercise my right not to take your word for it (Although I do find your "left-leaning version of recent history" comment a bit humorous, since I'm the most anti-left person you're ever likely to meet ANYWHERE).

Carter was not "brilliant" in any sense of leadership, and it is leadership that matters most to a president and their nation, yes?

If you'll take the time to actually read what I wrote you'll find that I never ascribed the attribute of "brilliant leadership" to Jimmy Carter, what I actually said was that he was brilliant man, after all he has a PHD in Nuclear Physics...any casual observer would admit he is very intelligent, anybody that takes the time to study the guy in a bit more detail would admit that WOW this dude is freaking SMART (whether you agree with his political philosphy or not).



Anybody that takes the time to crack open a book written by an objective historian or was actually around at the time will time will tell you that Carter inherited a mess to begin with, so what's your point? that he didn't single handledly solve the economic funk the nation was in from 76 to 80, you're right, but Reagan couldn't have done it either ( that's not a knock on Reagan but having lived through that time I don't think anyone could have).



I have nothing against Ronald Reagans demeanor as President nor did I indicate any such thing in my post which begs the question, why bring it up? the only thing I would comment on regarding this is that Ronald Reagan was no Barry Goldwater either in principle nor in posture.

and it appears unlikely this current president will either.

That is unfortunate.

American citizens got what they deserved in their new President, now they have to the ride the horse that brung 'em to the dance and dance with 'em 'til the music stops, screw 'em.

Hopefully, this current president will not descend into the depths of Carter's ineptitude.

I disagree, it would be a good thing if this current president could live up to Carter's integrity but it's already apparent he either can't or is unwilling to. Americans can survive an honest President that does what he thinks is right for the future of the nation (Carter), what we may not be able to survive is this idealogue in the White House that does what he thinks is "best for us" regardless of the long term consequences and the lies to us with a big shit eating grin on his face (Obama).

For God's sake, Carter never earned a PhD!!!!! He has collected a few honorary doctorates here and there, but that is it. I believe is graduate studies amounted to a single credit.

It would appear you are but another in a long line of forum participants who know far too little of their own nation's history - even the history they profess to have lived through.

As to Reagan not being Barry Goldwater, you are correct - Reagan was a far more successful and influential political figure.

Now I urge you to please review the Carter legacy prior to posting anything about him. Your lack of knowledge and propensity to create fact from utter fiction greatly lessens your standing.

Thank you!

 

[Sinatra]

I was alive then Liberty and while LBJ and Nixon laid the ground work for the Disaster that was to be, it was Jimmy Carter and his Democratic Congress, mostly the latter, as always, that laid in place the capstone on said disaster. Reagan took office in 1981 most of the Budget for the fiscal year beginning October of 1981 had already been put in place by the time he took office on January 20th, of 81. The only thing he got added to that Budget was a fairly mild decrease in tax rates which couldn't possibly have its full impact until tax time 1983 when 1982 taxes are paid. The best thing he did which has had a major impact ever since is to tie the tax code to the Cost of living index. Which meant that people who were staying even with inflation weren't getting killed by being perpetually pushed into a higher tax bracket.

As I have said many time here before:

There is a reason most president early in their 1st term start looking over seas to build a legacy. Simply put when it comes to the Domestic side of things Congress hold all the cards. And for all but 10 years in the last 78 One or both houses of congress have been held by the Democrats.

Absolutely - and those Democrat Congresses have done more harm to America than all others in the last half-century to be sure - and that harm has been greatly accelerated these past few months.

 

[Soaring]

Take the ability to tax the American public into obscurity away from the Congress and the current president, and we will get back to more like what our forefathers thought our nation should look like. Our government is a liberal run-away train with spending money that we don't have. It is frustrating to live in this country anymore. Our freedoms have been shattered, and our voice has been shut down by the liberal congress that the sheeple voted into office.

 

[editec]

The FED was wringing out the inflation that was still a problem much thanks to LBJ's bread and guns economic system.

You folks don't remember when the interest rates were 21%?

That happened while Carter was in office, but of course CARTER had nothing to do with it.

By the time Reagan came into office inflation was crushed, which set the stage for the recovery which naturally happened when the cost of borrowing finally came back down to earth.

 

[Agnapostate]

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 really, considering the influence of Military Keynesianism on Reagan's neoliberal agenda.