Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Paul Krugman is FAR more biased than I am
Eisenhower started the arms race which eventually bled the Russians economically dry.
Paul Krugman is FAR more biased than I am
In your opinion, not in mine by what you are writing.
It must really piss some righties off to see anyone challenge the deity myth of the Actor Who Would Become President.
Fresh Air from WHYY, February 5, 2009 · Journalist Will Bunch says that the legacy of Ronald Reagan, which is claimed by the right and was so often referred to by Republican presidential candidates in the 2008 election, is not an accurate depiction of Reagan's presidency.
In his new book, Tear Down This Myth, Bunch argues that the Reagan legacy was created largely by Washington conservatives in the 1990s, who wanted a hero who they could associate with the conservative agenda.
"It's been very hard for the modern generation of Republicans to develop a leader ... who has the kind of charisma that Ronald Reagan has had," Bunch tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. In the absence of that charisma, Bunch says, the next generation decided to "borrow it" from the past.
The Reagan legacy credits America's 40th president with winning the Cold War and turning the American economy around in the 1980s. But the truth, says Bunch, is that Reagan was a divisive president with only average approval ratings and "virtually zero support from African Americans." Furthermore, he says, Reagan's trickle-down theory of economics didn't save the American economy, nor was the president responsible for "winning" the Cold War.
Despite his criticisms of Reagan's presidency, Bunch is not without some kind words for the late president: "Ronald Reagan was very successful in connecting with the American people because of his optimism. ... He clearly had a strong belief in himself and a belief in America."
Hopefully, this current president will not descend into the depths of Carter's ineptitude.
Trickle down never worked and it has nothing to do with the people spending their own money.
It is all about the rich getting richer and giving US their crumbs.
Trickle up is what most of the posters on these threads are doing. You are middle class workers who's work makes the goverment run.
The remark about a poor man never hiring anyone is total divergent bullshit.
It has nothing to do with the real argument about trickle down or the sparrow and oats.
Amazing how many working people fall for this crap.
Reaganomics was a failure. That the wingnuts today still worship a nice, but senile man who didn't know if he were governing or acting is just too much, but like 'trickle down' aka free market, and other myths they believe, the fact is he failed the nation and particularly the middle class - the foundation of any country. S&L, Enron, and the recent financial collapse can all be traced directly to him. I save my links on him as the right wing wacko conservatives continue an adoration of failure and pretend it was success.
CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End
I realize Reagan is a hero for most republicans, face it who else is there? Lincoln? But we have to be honest and for those of us who lived through Reagan, and saw the impact of his policies, it just wasn't good. Firing the air traffic controllers started business on the path to 'screw the employee only money matters' philosophy. Lowering taxes made us a debtor nation, and created the economic condition that caused Bush Sr to lose after one term. The changes in employee rights and deregulation lead us to today's mess. There is no way Reagan can be considered anything more than a actor who became president but continued to believe in make believe. Ironically those who praise him today suffer the same make believe.
The Potomac - Mike Z
Ronald Reagan page
Redirect
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
The Reagan Legacy
The Reagan legacy - Salon.com
Economic Policy - The Reagan Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
Principles in Collission, The right to strike v. the right to stay in business ( IUSLabor - UPF )
Reagan: Media Myth and Reality
FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Reagan and the Courts
Amazon.com: The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980): Dean Baker: Books
""Reagan was coming from this very simple proposition: If you lower the tax rate, then more people will work, there will be more income in the economy and everyone's lives would be better. Despite a 25 percent income tax cut, by 1982 Reagan faced a deepening recession, mounting unemployment and homelessness.""
Ken Duberstein, Reagan Chief of Staff
Ronald Reagan(The Mis-Comunicator)
graphs
Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster
Firedoglake » Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)
Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or is it don't know what they know, or know what they don't no, or no what they know they want to know.Below is the definition of Stagflation which was thought to be a desciption of an impossible condition. Reagan corrected this.
I suggest you read a bit of history, stagflation started during Nixon/Ford. Carter just didn't spend money as Reagan did, Reagan engaged in Keynesian economics, similar to Bush JR. But Reagan lowered taxes too far and the base collapsed, very similar to Bush junior with all the added economic gyrations. In the end I give Reagan some credit as he raised taxes like hell after he realized the disaster he was creating, trouble was, he simultaneously ruined the middle class with his idiotic lack of support for American worker rights.
CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End
Using the "misery index" improvement criteria, Mr. Reagan was clearly No. 1, followed by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Carter by far performed worse than any of the last nine presidents.
The rate of economic growth is often considered a measure of a president's success. However, this measure must be used with care, given it normally takes at least a year after a new president takes office before he can get his initial tax and spending program enacted by Congress. Thus, it is appropriate to lag this measure by one year so a new president is not saddled with the sins or virtues of his predecessor.
John Kennedy is the clear winner in the growth criteria. He had the advantage of taking office during the middle of an economic recovery, and the wisdom to enact major tax cuts, both of which resulted in very high growth rates during and immediately after his administration.
Ronald Reagan comes in next in the growth race, even though the economy suffered from stagnation and double-digit inflation and interest rates when he took office. Also, his major tax cuts were not fully effective until two years into his administration. Mr. Clinton comes in third, having inherited a growing economy, but his policies left the nation in a recession.
Mr. Reagan and Mr. Clinton come in No. 1 and No. 1, respectively, in the jobs' creation race. About 17 million jobs were created during each of their times in office, but Mr. Reagan did it with a labor force about 18 percent smaller than the one when Mr. Clinton took office. In addition, employment lags economic growth, so when an appropriate one-year lag is used to adjust the figures, Mr. Reagan also obtains a substantial absolute advantage in numbers of new jobs created.
Both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reagan cut taxes for all income levels. Mr. Kennedy reduced the maximum rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, and Mr. Reagan from 70 percent to 28 percent. In both cases, the economy boomed and federal government tax revenues actually increased. Under Mr. Reagan, federal tax revenues rose from $599 billion in 1981 to $991 billion in 1989. despite the tax rate cuts.
Opponents of Mr. Reagan charge his deficits "left future generations saddled with debt." Mr. Reagan did use debt to partially fund his increase in military spending to win the Cold War, just as Franklin Roosevelt used debt to win World War II. At the end of the Roosevelt administration, the national debt held by the public was more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). At the end of the Reagan administration, it was only 41 percent of GDP. (Mr. Kennedy left us with debt equal to 42 percent of GDP; in 1996 at the end of the first Clinton administration, debt was 48 percent of GDP; and it is about 37 percent today.)
As a rough rule of thumb, if the economy grows 6 percent (4 percent real and 2 percent inflation), a deficit of 2 percent to 3 percent yearly can be sustained forever without increasing the national debt burden. (If your personal income grows faster than the amount it costs you to service your debts, you can keep acquiring debt and yet the burden will grow lighter rather than heavier.) During the last three years of both the Reagan and the Kennedy administrations, GDP was growing faster than the debt burden.
By any reasonable criteria, Presidents Reagan and Kennedy were far and away the most economically successful presidents in the past half-century. They both left the economy stronger and freer than they found it. And most Americans, regardless of income level, were clearly better off. Mr. Reagan faced a far tougher challenge than did Mr. Kennedy, whose term was also too short to be definitive.
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. Thats 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 its also why the furor over Barack Obamas 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. Obamas 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 Reagans 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
Stupid bastards, still trying to take down Ronnie.
You never will simps, he was a great president, the only one respected in many of our lifetimes, and all your bullshit will never change that.
Stupid bastards, still trying to take down Ronnie.
You never will simps, he was a great president, the only one respected in many of our lifetimes, and all your bullshit will never change that.
he sure brought back a little respectability internationally after we became wimps under Carter.....
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.
This guy actually uses facts as opposed to Krugman's incessant ranting about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics.
Using the "misery index" improvement criteria, Mr. Reagan was clearly No. 1, followed by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Carter by far performed worse than any of the last nine presidents.
The rate of economic growth is often considered a measure of a president's success. However, this measure must be used with care, given it normally takes at least a year after a new president takes office before he can get his initial tax and spending program enacted by Congress. Thus, it is appropriate to lag this measure by one year so a new president is not saddled with the sins or virtues of his predecessor.
John Kennedy is the clear winner in the growth criteria. He had the advantage of taking office during the middle of an economic recovery, and the wisdom to enact major tax cuts, both of which resulted in very high growth rates during and immediately after his administration.
Ronald Reagan comes in next in the growth race, even though the economy suffered from stagnation and double-digit inflation and interest rates when he took office. Also, his major tax cuts were not fully effective until two years into his administration. Mr. Clinton comes in third, having inherited a growing economy, but his policies left the nation in a recession.
Mr. Reagan and Mr. Clinton come in No. 1 and No. 1, respectively, in the jobs' creation race. About 17 million jobs were created during each of their times in office, but Mr. Reagan did it with a labor force about 18 percent smaller than the one when Mr. Clinton took office. In addition, employment lags economic growth, so when an appropriate one-year lag is used to adjust the figures, Mr. Reagan also obtains a substantial absolute advantage in numbers of new jobs created.
Both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reagan cut taxes for all income levels. Mr. Kennedy reduced the maximum rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, and Mr. Reagan from 70 percent to 28 percent. In both cases, the economy boomed and federal government tax revenues actually increased. Under Mr. Reagan, federal tax revenues rose from $599 billion in 1981 to $991 billion in 1989. despite the tax rate cuts.
Opponents of Mr. Reagan charge his deficits "left future generations saddled with debt." Mr. Reagan did use debt to partially fund his increase in military spending to win the Cold War, just as Franklin Roosevelt used debt to win World War II. At the end of the Roosevelt administration, the national debt held by the public was more than 100 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). At the end of the Reagan administration, it was only 41 percent of GDP. (Mr. Kennedy left us with debt equal to 42 percent of GDP; in 1996 at the end of the first Clinton administration, debt was 48 percent of GDP; and it is about 37 percent today.)
As a rough rule of thumb, if the economy grows 6 percent (4 percent real and 2 percent inflation), a deficit of 2 percent to 3 percent yearly can be sustained forever without increasing the national debt burden. (If your personal income grows faster than the amount it costs you to service your debts, you can keep acquiring debt and yet the burden will grow lighter rather than heavier.) During the last three years of both the Reagan and the Kennedy administrations, GDP was growing faster than the debt burden.
By any reasonable criteria, Presidents Reagan and Kennedy were far and away the most economically successful presidents in the past half-century. They both left the economy stronger and freer than they found it. And most Americans, regardless of income level, were clearly better off. Mr. Reagan faced a far tougher challenge than did Mr. Kennedy, whose term was also too short to be definitive.
Tallying Presidential Economic Success | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
