Debunking the Reagan Myth

[Sweet Willy]

I don't agree...there will come a day when a non -petroleum fired vehicle will be invented that is superior to the internal combustion engine. It will, thru natural market pressures, supplant the gasoline engine because it it better, just as surely as gasoline engines supplanted steam engines. People will buy it because it is better, not because the government foists it on them. To force the evolution before the technology is viable is foolishness.

While I don't disagree with the premise of this, the government absolutely plays a pivotal role in directing the course of the nation.

The Government was instrumental in the development of the railroad. Private enterprise was backed by the government in order to establish this important standard of transportation.

The development of the electric grid was wholly dependant upon the government for it's implementation.

Any substantial movement towards a specific type of energy and transportation system will have to be endorsed, incentived, promoted and invested in by the Government. It is leadership in it's pure form. We can head in all kinds of directions but until the government gets behind an infrastructure plan to support a particular direction, we will have a mish mash of electrics, hybrids, fuel cells, pure hydrogen, etc. Electric has only reached it's current level because electricity is already in place, not because it is better than gasoline or diesel. Hydrogen and ethanol both can replace gasoline on the merits of performance and certainly relieve us from ME oil dependance. The problem is there is no infrastructure or united effort to get behind either. If you could buy a hydrogen vehicle today, one much better than your gasoline car, you wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to fuel it. No infrastructure to support it.

Complete reliance on private industry won't get it done. Before the government got behind power transmission lines, how many light bulbs do you think were sold? We had light bulbs. We had electricity. But no one is going to buy a light bulb if they don't have power. Private industry alone could NEVER have supplied the infrastucture to give everyone lights. Government couldn't do it alone either. It was a CO-OPERATION. It took the government to clear the way for power lines, the infrastucture. And so it will take the government to get behind whatever fuel we chose to replace gasoline. It will have to be incentived. First for suppliers and industry. Tax breaks for UPS and Fed EX to go to hydrogen or ethanol. Incentives for suppliers to invest in the infrastuctuire. The rest falls in place.

Before anyone loses their minds, I'm not endorsing hydrogen or ethanol. They may or may not be the choice. But something will be. And when it becomes a little more clear, the government should LEAD. That is their job.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Willy the primary reason we are not energy independent already is because of government planning.

We had a couple republicans and a democrat that made the issue of oil dependance a top priority in the 70's. Then came Reagan. It wasn't planning, it was a LACK of planning.

 

[garyd]

Again government planning produced this mess in the first place. The only thing the government has to do to ensure this transition will take place is stay the hell out of the way. The Government under Jimmy Carter shut down oil drilling and not just in Anwar either, and put a halt to nuclear power. Both of those guaranteed our current predicament.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Again government planning produced this mess in the first place. The only thing the government has to do to ensure this transition will take place is stay the hell out of the way. The Government under Jimmy Carter shut down oil drilling and not just in Anwar either, and put a halt to nuclear power. Both of those guaranteed our current predicament.

Yeah sure.

You sound like one of those people that should move to Somalia where the government is out of your way. Nobody has shit and they won't ever have shit.

 

[Soaring]

Again government planning produced this mess in the first place. The only thing the government has to do to ensure this transition will take place is stay the hell out of the way. The Government under Jimmy Carter shut down oil drilling and not just in Anwar either, and put a halt to nuclear power. Both of those guaranteed our current predicament.

Yeah sure.

You sound like one of those people that should move to Somalia where the government is out of your way. Nobody has shit and they won't ever have shit.

Well, the Somalian pirates have shit.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Again government planning produced this mess in the first place. The only thing the government has to do to ensure this transition will take place is stay the hell out of the way. The Government under Jimmy Carter shut down oil drilling and not just in Anwar either, and put a halt to nuclear power. Both of those guaranteed our current predicament.

Yeah sure.

You sound like one of those people that should move to Somalia where the government is out of your way. Nobody has shit and they won't ever have shit.

Well, the Somalian pirates have shit.

Well yeah, they have the guns. You'll have that when the government "gets out of the way".

 

[DiveCon]

Again government planning produced this mess in the first place. The only thing the government has to do to ensure this transition will take place is stay the hell out of the way. The Government under Jimmy Carter shut down oil drilling and not just in Anwar either, and put a halt to nuclear power. Both of those guaranteed our current predicament.

Yeah sure.

You sound like one of those people that should move to Somalia where the government is out of your way. Nobody has shit and they won't ever have shit.

yeah, cause drilling our own oil and building power plants is so shutting down government

that is just too fucking stupid, willy

 

[Missourian]

I don't agree...there will come a day when a non -petroleum fired vehicle will be invented that is superior to the internal combustion engine. It will, thru natural market pressures, supplant the gasoline engine because it it better, just as surely as gasoline engines supplanted steam engines. People will buy it because it is better, not because the government foists it on them. To force the evolution before the technology is viable is foolishness.

While I don't disagree with the premise of this, the government absolutely plays a pivotal role in directing the course of the nation.

The Government was instrumental in the development of the railroad. Private enterprise was backed by the government in order to establish this important standard of transportation.

The development of the electric grid was wholly dependant upon the government for it's implementation.

Any substantial movement towards a specific type of energy and transportation system will have to be endorsed, incentived, promoted and invested in by the Government. It is leadership in it's pure form. We can head in all kinds of directions but until the government gets behind an infrastructure plan to support a particular direction, we will have a mish mash of electrics, hybrids, fuel cells, pure hydrogen, etc. Electric has only reached it's current level because electricity is already in place, not because it is better than gasoline or diesel. Hydrogen and ethanol both can replace gasoline on the merits of performance and certainly relieve us from ME oil dependance. The problem is there is no infrastructure or united effort to get behind either. If you could buy a hydrogen vehicle today, one much better than your gasoline car, you wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to fuel it. No infrastructure to support it.

Complete reliance on private industry won't get it done. Before the government got behind power transmission lines, how many light bulbs do you think were sold? We had light bulbs. We had electricity. But no one is going to buy a light bulb if they don't have power. Private industry alone could NEVER have supplied the infrastucture to give everyone lights. Government couldn't do it alone either. It was a CO-OPERATION. It took the government to clear the way for power lines, the infrastucture. And so it will take the government to get behind whatever fuel we chose to replace gasoline. It will have to be incentived. First for suppliers and industry. Tax breaks for UPS and Fed EX to go to hydrogen or ethanol. Incentives for suppliers to invest in the infrastuctuire. The rest falls in place.

Before anyone loses their minds, I'm not endorsing hydrogen or ethanol. They may or may not be the choice. But something will be. And when it becomes a little more clear, the government should LEAD. That is their job.

I don't know much about hydrogen, but ethanol is not better than gasoline. Ethanol produces less energy per gallon than gasoline, meaning you may pay less for ethanol, but you will lose 30% of the MPG you get with gasoline. Coupling that with higher food prices reveals a net lose for the consumer overall.

As for government sponsorship, the railroads didn't require government incentives to replace steam with diesel electric, nor did the maritime industries need government intervention to upgrade ships from wind power to steam or from steam to diesel.

When a new technology is is superior to an existing technology, the incentive to upgrade is obvious...it works better, it's cheaper, it last longer, it's more dependable, etc.

When that better personal transport comes along, consumers will demand it, they will clamor for it, and investors will line up to get a piece of it.

Mark my words, until that occurs, these efforts are for naught.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed I did not cut and run I told you your argument as you stated here was stupid then and it is stupid now.

Reagan's tax cut could not possibly have impact the economy significantly before 1983. It was a rate cut not a rebate. You do Know the difference right?

You lied about the Fiscal year then and you lie about the Fiscal year now, so it is no surprise you lie now about Reagan's failed tax cuts the same as you did then.

The Fiscal year of Carter's last budget ended Sept 30 1981 and Reagan's first budget started Oct 1 1981 with his tax cuts already in place. Reagan's failed tax cuts went into effect Aug 1981. What turned the economy around starting 1983 were Reagan's tax INCREASES of 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

 

[code1211]

Ed I did not cut and run I told you your argument as you stated here was stupid then and it is stupid now.

Reagan's tax cut could not possibly have impact the economy significantly before 1983. It was a rate cut not a rebate. You do Know the difference right?

You lied about the Fiscal year then and you lie about the Fiscal year now, so it is no surprise you lie now about Reagan's failed tax cuts the same as you did then.

The Fiscal year of Carter's last budget ended Sept 30 1981 and Reagan's first budget started Oct 1 1981 with his tax cuts already in place. Reagan's failed tax cuts went into effect Aug 1981. What turned the economy around starting 1983 were Reagan's tax INCREASES of 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

I've asked you this before without a response. If tax increases are the solution to a slowing economy, why has The Enlightened one put a tax cut into effect?

 

[code1211]

Not that anyone asked but......

As far as the energy independence issue, it IS a government issue. Once you've taken on the problem yourself and discovered exactly all the things that you have taken for granted, the things that do hold you hostage to oil and the grid, you begin to see things a little differently.

We can all step back 100 years or so and restructure everything back to a local level, milk cows, chickens, eggs, butter, corn, etc....which is not a realistic option, OR

We can encourage individuals to tackle their energy problems independently, which is unattainable for the overwhelming numbers of people, no different that leaving everyone in the dark that couldn't generate their own energy from the first light bulb....OR

We can address the issue on a national level and bring the solution to the people - all of the people, through progressive changes in infrastructure that supports a new system of energy.....OR (most likely scenario)

We can continue with oil dependance until it slowly becomes out of reach from one level to the next of American economic levels, until the progressive shift in infrastructure is forced.

One way or the other, we will not be hostage to oil forever. We can free ourselves or allow the oil to have it's full punishment on us as hostages. I'm betting on the full pain and suffering as hostages.

The government's role in this if it is to be a productive one, is merely standardization. Standardize the specs of the technology so companies can sell systems to individuals that feed back into the grid when individuals produce more than they need. Not talking about standardizing the production techniques, but just the volatges, the AC/DC thingy's and the hook ups.

If every person in the USA is overproducing energy, energy prices will drop. The world is changing. Years ago, our phones were hardwired to the wall and TV's got their signals through the air. That has reversed today. Thinking upside down or inside out or whatever is going to solve this in the future.

I'm kind of excited to see what happens.

 

[Justin Case]

Whenever I read threads like this one, especially starting with an article with comments from such a marginal, far left person, it reminds me of one of my favorite of Ronald Reagan's quotes:

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.
- Ronald Reagan

 

[edthecynic]

Ed I did not cut and run I told you your argument as you stated here was stupid then and it is stupid now.

Reagan's tax cut could not possibly have impact the economy significantly before 1983. It was a rate cut not a rebate. You do Know the difference right?

You lied about the Fiscal year then and you lie about the Fiscal year now, so it is no surprise you lie now about Reagan's failed tax cuts the same as you did then.

The Fiscal year of Carter's last budget ended Sept 30 1981 and Reagan's first budget started Oct 1 1981 with his tax cuts already in place. Reagan's failed tax cuts went into effect Aug 1981. What turned the economy around starting 1983 were Reagan's tax INCREASES of 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

I've asked you this before without a response. If tax increases are the solution to a slowing economy, why has The Enlightened one put a tax cut into effect?

CON$ claim President Obama never cut taxes, now you say he did. You guys need to get your propaganda coordinated.

Obama "Tax Cut" Doesn't Exist; AP Lies About Small Business Jobs
February 27, 2009
CALLER: I wanted to share quickly what I found out when I had my taxes prepared last week. The man that prepared my taxes for me cautioned me to watch out for my tax cut. He said, and you may want to adjust your withholding to take that back away, because the tax rate tables for next year when preparing taxes are not changing. So I could possibly owe my tax cut back to the government next year.

RUSH: You gotta be kidding. Not even I was aware of this trick. Say that again. They're not changing the rates, right?

CALLER: The tax rate tables that they use when you prepare your income tax.

RUSH: Yeah, these are not tax cuts.

CALLER: Right, exactly.

RUSH: These are transfer payments. These are tax credits and all that. There's no tax cut here. I should have been able to think of this on my own here, absolutely right. You're getting income, you're going to be taxed on it next year.

 

[garyd]

Ed pull your head out. I'm not lying about anything. You simply aren't thinking logically. Fiscal year '81 October '81 to September '82 was mostly in the books by the time Reagan took office in January 1981.
The dems looking at the poll numbers knew Carter was likely to lose to reagan and hence went onto hurry up mode in an attempt to hand Reagan a fait accompli when he took office in January. They all but succeeded. The only modification of that budget was a few fairly minor increses in the Defense budget and a tax cut to begin January of '82. Please tell me how a tax cut beginnng in January 82 is going to have a significant impact prior to the end of 82 when 1982's taxes are done. Espeacially given that most Companies plans for their 82 Fiscal year were pretty much done before the Tax cut legislation came on line in August of '81.

 

[Sinatra]

Ed pull your head out. I'm not lying about anything. You simply aren't thinking logically. Fiscal year '81 October '81 to September '82 was mostly in the books by the time Reagan took office in January 1981.
The dems looking at the poll numbers knew Carter was likely to lose to reagan and hence went onto hurry up mode in an attempt to hand Reagan a fait accompli when he took office in January. They all but succeeded. The only modification of that budget was a few fairly minor increses in the Defense budget and a tax cut to begin January of '82. Please tell me how a tax cut beginnng in January 82 is going to have a significant impact prior to the end of 82 when 1982's taxes are done. Espeacially given that most Companies plans for their 82 Fiscal year were pretty much done before the Tax cut legislation came on line in August of '81.

You are correct.

Once Volker's tighter monetary policy finally began reducing interest rates, were combined with the significant Reagan tax cuts, the American economy went on a considerable period of growth that saw job creation in the millions, innovation, and an overall and all important sense that America was back and better than ever.

And on a related note - there were those within the Reagan administration who wanted Volker gone. He was a Carter holdover, and they pointed to the deep recession that continued into 1982 as a (correctly) direct result of Carter's inept fiscal approach. Reagan once again went with his instincts and allowed Volker's work to continue, knowing that once interest rates and tax rates went down, the American economy would rebound.

Reagan was right - his instincts once again winning the day.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed pull your head out. I'm not lying about anything. You simply aren't thinking logically. Fiscal year '81 October '81 to September '82 was mostly in the books by the time Reagan took office in January 1981.
The dems looking at the poll numbers knew Carter was likely to lose to reagan and hence went onto hurry up mode in an attempt to hand Reagan a fait accompli when he took office in January. They all but succeeded. The only modification of that budget was a few fairly minor increses in the Defense budget and a tax cut to begin January of '82. Please tell me how a tax cut beginnng in January 82 is going to have a significant impact prior to the end of 82 when 1982's taxes are done. Espeacially given that most Companies plans for their 82 Fiscal year were pretty much done before the Tax cut legislation came on line in August of '81.

You are a perfect example of the first quote in my sig!!!

NONE of the fiscal year Oct 1981 to Sept 1982 budget was on the books when St Ronnie took office in Jan 1981. What was on the books when Reagan took office was the fiscal year Oct 1980 to Sept 1981 budget.
And taxes are collected throughout the entire year not at the end of the year.

But keep blaming Carter for Reagan's failure, because that means that by your "logic" Bush owns the economy until 2011.

 

[Sinatra]

Ed pull your head out. I'm not lying about anything. You simply aren't thinking logically. Fiscal year '81 October '81 to September '82 was mostly in the books by the time Reagan took office in January 1981.
The dems looking at the poll numbers knew Carter was likely to lose to reagan and hence went onto hurry up mode in an attempt to hand Reagan a fait accompli when he took office in January. They all but succeeded. The only modification of that budget was a few fairly minor increses in the Defense budget and a tax cut to begin January of '82. Please tell me how a tax cut beginnng in January 82 is going to have a significant impact prior to the end of 82 when 1982's taxes are done. Espeacially given that most Companies plans for their 82 Fiscal year were pretty much done before the Tax cut legislation came on line in August of '81.

You are correct.

Once Volker's tighter monetary policy finally began reducing interest rates, were combined with the significant Reagan tax cuts, the American economy went on a considerable period of growth that saw job creation in the millions, innovation, and an overall and all important sense that America was back and better than ever.

And on a related note - there were those within the Reagan administration who wanted Volker gone. He was a Carter holdover, and they pointed to the deep recession that continued into 1982 as a (correctly) direct result of Carter's inept fiscal approach. Reagan once again went with his instincts and allowed Volker's work to continue, knowing that once interest rates and tax rates went down, the American economy would rebound.

Reagan was right - his instincts once again winning the day.

,,,

 

[Sweet Willy]

I don't agree...there will come a day when a non -petroleum fired vehicle will be invented that is superior to the internal combustion engine. It will, thru natural market pressures, supplant the gasoline engine because it it better, just as surely as gasoline engines supplanted steam engines. People will buy it because it is better, not because the government foists it on them. To force the evolution before the technology is viable is foolishness.

While I don't disagree with the premise of this, the government absolutely plays a pivotal role in directing the course of the nation.

The Government was instrumental in the development of the railroad. Private enterprise was backed by the government in order to establish this important standard of transportation.

The development of the electric grid was wholly dependant upon the government for it's implementation.

Any substantial movement towards a specific type of energy and transportation system will have to be endorsed, incentived, promoted and invested in by the Government. It is leadership in it's pure form. We can head in all kinds of directions but until the government gets behind an infrastructure plan to support a particular direction, we will have a mish mash of electrics, hybrids, fuel cells, pure hydrogen, etc. Electric has only reached it's current level because electricity is already in place, not because it is better than gasoline or diesel. Hydrogen and ethanol both can replace gasoline on the merits of performance and certainly relieve us from ME oil dependance. The problem is there is no infrastructure or united effort to get behind either. If you could buy a hydrogen vehicle today, one much better than your gasoline car, you wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to fuel it. No infrastructure to support it.

Complete reliance on private industry won't get it done. Before the government got behind power transmission lines, how many light bulbs do you think were sold? We had light bulbs. We had electricity. But no one is going to buy a light bulb if they don't have power. Private industry alone could NEVER have supplied the infrastucture to give everyone lights. Government couldn't do it alone either. It was a CO-OPERATION. It took the government to clear the way for power lines, the infrastucture. And so it will take the government to get behind whatever fuel we chose to replace gasoline. It will have to be incentived. First for suppliers and industry. Tax breaks for UPS and Fed EX to go to hydrogen or ethanol. Incentives for suppliers to invest in the infrastuctuire. The rest falls in place.

Before anyone loses their minds, I'm not endorsing hydrogen or ethanol. They may or may not be the choice. But something will be. And when it becomes a little more clear, the government should LEAD. That is their job.

I don't know much about hydrogen, but ethanol is not better than gasoline. Ethanol produces less energy per gallon than gasoline, meaning you may pay less for ethanol, but you will lose 30% of the MPG you get with gasoline. Coupling that with higher food prices reveals a net lose for the consumer overall.

As for government sponsorship, the railroads didn't require government incentives to replace steam with diesel electric, nor did the maritime industries need government intervention to upgrade ships from wind power to steam or from steam to diesel.

When a new technology is is superior to an existing technology, the incentive to upgrade is obvious...it works better, it's cheaper, it last longer, it's more dependable, etc.

When that better personal transport comes along, consumers will demand it, they will clamor for it, and investors will line up to get a piece of it.

Mark my words, until that occurs, these efforts are for naught.

You're wrong about the diesel locomotive. The government was heavily invested in the switch from steam to diesel. The War Production Board and the US Navy had everything to do with the advent of the diesel locomotive as the standard. GE recieved Federal Research Grants in order to develop and perfect the diesel locomotive. In additon, not unlike fuel mileage standards and safety standards of today, state and local governments outlawed steam locomotives in favor of electric and diesel.

As far as measuring ethanol MPG against gasoline, that's bullshit. If you could run your car on water would you decline because water got fewer MPGs? IF ethanol were treated as the diesel locomotive was by the government and an automaker was directed to perfect and produce the engines, they would only get better and better. The food price analogy is bullshit too. Use of corn for ethanol is definitely a bust. But there is much more than corn to be used. Sugar beets do the job in Brazil. Switch grass looks promising here.

Never the less, until the government gets behind one technology or the other with incentives, military grants and implementation, private industry will continue to go in different directions with no clear objective as to what form of fuel will replace petroleum.

 

[Missourian]

As far as measuring ethanol MPG against gasoline, that's bullshit.

It's a fact:

Consumer Reports may irritate a lot of hybrid SUV owners with a new report that was just released. Their study focused on the new flex fuel, 2007 Chevy Tahoe SUV. The Tahoe can either run on gasoline or e85 ethanol, which is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The report found that the Tahoe averaged 14 mpg on gasoline, and only 10 mpg on ethanol. This decrease in mpg is expected because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline.

Ethanol e85 mpg​

​

 

[Sinatra]

As far as measuring ethanol MPG against gasoline, that's bullshit.

It's a fact:

Consumer Reports may irritate a lot of hybrid SUV owners with a new report that was just released. Their study focused on the new flex fuel, 2007 Chevy Tahoe SUV. The Tahoe can either run on gasoline or e85 ethanol, which is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The report found that the Tahoe averaged 14 mpg on gasoline, and only 10 mpg on ethanol. This decrease in mpg is expected because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline.

Ethanol e85 mpg​

​

You are correct - ethanol is a joke as an alternative to oil. It is a ethanol lobby scam that actually hurts world food prices - ie., poor people the most.