Reagan exuded optimism

[Bfgrn]

The fact that liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny" (see above) 24 years since he left office is as incontestable as is his enduring legacy of success which was to their demise. It even led them to rename themselves progressives. Another way of looking at it is that the former proves the latter.

Yea, old Ronny's enduring legacy is still with us...

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

An excellent example of left wing whining! Thank you.

Anyway, isn't that more of a graph depicting the rise of debt by following presidents since Reagan's last full year in office was 1988?

Anyway, we really don't need additional proof of the liberal pathology regarding Reagan. Thanks again anyway.

An excellent example of right wing denial. What part of "it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt" don't you comprehend?

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact that liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny" (see above) 24 years since he left office is as incontestable as is his enduring legacy of success which was to their demise. It even led them to rename themselves progressives. Another way of looking at it is that the former proves the latter.

Meathead: "liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

I do have to give you credit for honesty, your screen name could not be anymore honest!

 

[Meathead]

The fact that liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny" (see above) 24 years since he left office is as incontestable as is his enduring legacy of success which was to their demise. It even led them to rename themselves progressives. Another way of looking at it is that the former proves the latter.

Meathead: "liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

I do have to give you credit for honesty, your screen name could not be anymore honest!

Obviously, I've touched a nerve. What you don't seem to understand is that feeble attempts to undermine Reagan's legacy by liberals turned progressives badgrin only serves to enhance it. Every time I see the embittered mention St. Ronny or post articles like the above, I cannot help but feel that the man's historical legacy grows even greater. It is akin to the some I have known complain about Reagan in the context of the fall of communism. I live in Prague, Czech Republic and there are still older ex-communists embittered in very much the same way you are. My now-deceased Czech father-in-law for example.

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact that liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny" (see above) 24 years since he left office is as incontestable as is his enduring legacy of success which was to their demise. It even led them to rename themselves progressives. Another way of looking at it is that the former proves the latter.

Meathead: "liberals are still whining about "St. Ronny"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

I do have to give you credit for honesty, your screen name could not be anymore honest!

Obviously, I've touched a nerve. What you don't seem to understand is that feeble attempts to undermine Reagan's legacy by liberals turned progressives badgrin only serves to enhance it. Every time I see the embittered mention St. Ronny or post articles like the above, I cannot help but feel that the man's historical legacy grows even greater. It is akin to the some I have known complain about Reagan in the context of the fall of communism. I live in Prague, Czech Republic and there are still older ex-communists embittered in very much the same way you are. My now-deceased Czech father-in-law for example.

Here is your 1st problem...Murray N. Rothbard was not a liberal, or a progressive.

Here is your 2nd problem...liberals did not rename themselves progressives. You say you live in Prague, but you parrot Glenn Beck ignorance.

Here is your 3rd problem...I have to recant my complement about your honesty.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reagan was illusion, a puppet run by masters who sought and still seek only the best for their interests. Those are not our interests.

Yes, his "kitchen cabinet" picked him and told him what to say, and when to say it.

Absolutely TRUE!

Thank You Mr. President - 49 second video

Reagan and the press...

When President Reagan first took over the oval office, we would throw questions at President Reagan, and he would answer them.

Well, his three top aides were apoplectic. They didn’t know what was coming out of his mouth. They taught the president to say “this is not a press conference”, and they had him quite trained on that.

And one day we asked him what was happening, and he said to us: “I can’t answer that”. We said ‘why’?

“Because they won’t let me”, he pointed to Baker, Meese and Deaver standing behind, very grim.

“They won’t let me”…I said, ‘but you’re the President’…

 

[swizzlee]

Watching Obama out and about giving speeches It doesn't feel like
it was given by the President of the United States...
Feels more like it was given by a stand up comic.

You've put into words what I've been thinking every time I hear him on the campaign.

He treats it all as a joke when he doesn't seem to realize the serious trouble this country is in. I've also noted that the response is more muted and sounds unsure about whether they should be laughing or not.

 

[there4eyeM]

America needs a choice, but not between bad and worse. Something that could at least be different would be preferable.
Vote out the DemReps.

Vote other!