Failures of Reaganomics

[Indeependent]

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Facts are facts. Reagan cut human needs programs, military benefits, yet, the debt skyrocketed. I found it hard to believe at first, he wasn't Bush II's father, the two seem so much alike. Uninsterested in learning, always ready for the cameras with idiot grins.

Reagan's guy, Haig, on three American nuns and one Catholic layworker, sexually battered and brutally murdered in El Salvador:

"They weren't JUST nuns"

No thought of any action against the regime, Reagan's slime aways groveled to fascist dictators.

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Don't you know that telling half a truth is worse than a lie?

Who was in charge of Congress under Reagan?

What happened to the Conservative "Leader" drone?
Was not Reagan the ultimate "Leader" who always got what he wanted?

 

[Dad2three]

Those who praise Ronald Reagan as a good president rarely, if ever mention his numerous (and very serious) failures. Rarely do we hear from them any mention of immigration AMNESTY, Briggs Inititative, Iran-Contra, the Lebanon Marine barracks fiasco, or the worst job growth and GDP growths since 1950.

To boot, the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending 91981-1988) resulted in large budget deficits, an expansion in the U.S. trade deficit, as well as the stock market crash of 1987, while also contributing to the Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the Savings and Loan crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government. John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."

In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

FDIC: The S&L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment. (Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html

Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum: Lou Cannon: 9781891620843: Amazon.com: Books (see page 128)

No doubt about it. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie ever told. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. In fact, twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

Bush actually LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (not counting the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to his policies)...

Where there has been 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Dubya's bottom, March 2010, net of 5.5+ million under Obama


Employment Situation Summary

 

[Kosh]

Facts are facts. Reagan cut human needs programs, military benefits, yet, the debt skyrocketed. I found it hard to believe at first, he wasn't Bush II's father, the two seem so much alike. Uninsterested in learning, always ready for the cameras with idiot grins.

Reagan's guy, Haig, on three American nuns and one Catholic layworker, sexually battered and brutally murdered in El Salvador:

"They weren't JUST nuns"

No thought of any action against the regime, Reagan's slime aways groveled to fascist dictators.

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Don't you know that telling half a truth is worse than a lie?

Who was in charge of Congress under Reagan?

What happened to the Conservative "Leader" drone?
Was not Reagan the ultimate "Leader" who always got what he wanted?

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Reagan often had to compromise with the far left in Congress, the Reagan/Tip O'Neil battles are still legendary.

If Reagan got everything he wanted SS would not be in the mess it is now..

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan was a giant in an age of midgets who ushered in an age of peace and prosperity unseen since Eisenhower. For many, he cannot be forgiven for his accomplishments. The British left has the same problem with Thatcher, both who have been out of office for well over two decades.

That is proof of tremendous legacies of success. Whining will make not a whit of difference.

The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.



Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

 

[Dad2three]

Links? Hell, I was there. I watched the Soviet Union unravel. I saw the economy expand. I saw him stand up to domestic blackmailers like PATCO and international thugs like Qadaffi. I saw a revitalized America on the heels of Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter. In short, I saw America succeed while those who opposed it failed.

Now, if it was a link about the feeble whining of his hapless detractors you wanted, here you go:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/349937-failures-of-reaganomics.html

The Soviet Union was still standing when Reagan left office. It didn't collapse until three years after he left office. And Qadaffi kicked his ass. So did Hezbolla. Reagan made the USA look like push over punks. There was no peace during the Reagan era. American's were constantly being kidnapped, murdered and blown up by terrorist while at the same time he conducted a secret illegal war in Central America.

I am quite sure you're getting the hapless Carter mixed up with Reagan when it comes to impotency.

It is actually a bit ironic that some want to blame Reagan's policies for a economic collapse 20 years after he left office, but are pained to give him credit for the Soviet collaspe 3 years after his administration.

This bird has flown Camp, and we have had our chat about feeble whining, right?

WHO in their right mind blames Reagan for Dubya';s subprime debacle? Ronnie has his own S&L crisis where his administration ignored regulator warnings that started in 1984...Like Bush did 20 years later!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Good Times on Wall Street

It was that explosive growth in the stock market that drove the overall prosperity of the Reagan years. The great bull market of the 1980s came fast on the heels of one of the bleakest periods in the history of Wall Street; between 1967 and 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined by some 23%

Factoring in the high inflation of the period, that represented a real decline in value of nearly 70%

Not-Quite-So-Good Times Off Wall Street

But the expansion of stockownership to nearly 30% of American households still left more than two-thirds of the country shut out of direct benefits from the great bull market of the Age of Reagan. For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy was not quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values. Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well.

In short, the economic outlook for middle- and working-class families who depended on wages for their incomes was somewhat better than it had been during the bleak 1970s, but still significantly worse than it had been during the 1950s and '60s.


The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy


Economy in The Reagan Era


The Myths of Reaganomics


Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.




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

 

[Dad2three]

No doubt about it. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie ever told. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. In fact, twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

It's amazing how liberals claim that "trickle down" is a "lie". It's literally like saying that the sun is a "lie". Or the world being round is a "lie". There has never been an economic system in world history (and there never will be) that doesn't operate off money at the top "trickling down".

Under communism, the elite (Castro, Stalin, etc.) feast in tremendous wealth and allow some to "trickle down" to the masses.

The difference with capitalism is that is creates a much larger elite and forces them to "trickle" wealth "down" as they need the human capital for their operations. Stalin and Castro forced people at the barrel of a gun, so they could decide to shut that "trickle" off at any moment they wanted.

It's a simple fact that in the history of the world, a person in poverty has never hired anyone. They never created a single job. They've never signed a single check.

I would challenge people like [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION] to show a single system in world history in which wealth did not "trickle" down from the top. Hell, I would challenge people like Billy000 here to even MAKE UP a system in their typical liberal-unicorn fairytale world where wealth does not "trickle" down. They can't do it. All they can do is piss and moan about the monumental success of the Reagan policies out of fear that someday the American people might wake up and stop letting these parasites mooch off of them.

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'Free trade', etc) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite


80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...

 

[Dad2three]

Those who praise Ronald Reagan as a good president rarely, if ever mention his numerous (and very serious) failures. Rarely do we hear from them any mention of immigration AMNESTY, Briggs Inititative, Iran-Contra, the Lebanon Marine barracks fiasco, or the worst job growth and GDP growths since 1950.

To boot, the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending 91981-1988) resulted in large budget deficits, an expansion in the U.S. trade deficit, as well as the stock market crash of 1987, while also contributing to the Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the Savings and Loan crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government. John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."

In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

FDIC: The S&L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment. (Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html

Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum: Lou Cannon: 9781891620843: Amazon.com: Books (see page 128)

No doubt about it. Trickle down economics is the biggest political lie ever told. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for. In fact, twice as many private jobs were created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

That would explain why there are 1 million fewer people working today than when the lying cocksucker in chief took office.

dimocraps lie. And you're a lying bitch

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) Home Page

Weird, Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (not counting the 4+ million in 2009)

Jan 2001 111,859,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Jan 2009 111,397,000


Under Obama, there have been more than 5.5+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED


Jan 2009 111,397, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

June 2014 116,872,000


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


WHO LIES?

 

[Dad2three]

History speaks for itself. Reagan was the best president of the 20th century, maybe beyond. And he's better than anyone we've had since, especially that muslim piece of shit we have now.

 

[Dad2three]

Look at the situation today, Russia is a small fraction of what the USSR was and thanks to our feckless leadership, they are causing trouble and using military might to take back what they lost thanks to Reagan.

Strong leader in the USA and the Soviet Leader reformed itself into nonexistence

Feckless leader in the USA and the Russia is reforging its old Empire

Reagan was the difference

FALSE! Reagan had little or nothing to do with the demise of the Soviet Union. It died out from decades of overspending on military ans space. Reagan just conveniently happened to be around when it happened, and his followers heaped the praise on him, and you fall for it.

WRONG! You need to learn how to give credit when credit is due. The Soviet Empire didn't fall, it was pushed.

Either Communism is a failed system or not which? Decide!

 

[Dad2three]

Nobody in the free world, not to mention the Reagan administration ever thought that the democrat party would conspire to undermine the US economy but it seems that's what they did. Democrat congressperson Barney Frank was chairperson of the powerful "House Banking Committee" which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae during president Bush's 2nd term and he told Americans on at least one occasion that "Fannie was doing fine" while it was on the verge of collapse. What happened? The democrat majority never asked and the liberal media didn't care.

Not that nonsense from you again. SERIOUSLY? LOL

PLEASE tell me what super powers Barney had in the GOP MAJORITY HOUSE WHERE SIMPLE MAJORITY RULED 1995- JAN 2007?


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."



June 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.


(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

Nobody in the free world, not to mention the Reagan administration ever thought that the democrat party would conspire to undermine the US economy but it seems that's what they did. Democrat congressperson Barney Frank was chairperson of the powerful "House Banking Committee" which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae during president Bush's 2nd term and he told Americans on at least one occasion that "Fannie was doing fine" while it was on the verge of collapse. What happened? The democrat majority never asked and the liberal media didn't care.

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


Testimony from Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s

Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

Yep, he said "far from it" If you read the testimony, you'd see he reiterated that position. And then you'd see one of the reasons Snow said why they would like the regulation would be to better enforce the housing goals



We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals,
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/stock-info/series_T_05152008.pdf



"(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.




Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame Bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Bigger Obama Fails, the More the progs rail against Reagan

 

[Indeependent]

The Bigger Obama Fails, the More the progs rail against Reagan

Are facts that painful to you?

 

[Kosh]

The Bigger Obama Fails, the More the progs rail against Reagan

And still blame Booooooooooooooooossssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Indeependent]

The Bigger Obama Fails, the More the progs rail against Reagan

And still blame Booooooooooooooooossssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The extremes of both parties fail.

 

[Dad2three]

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Facts are facts. Reagan cut human needs programs, military benefits, yet, the debt skyrocketed. I found it hard to believe at first, he wasn't Bush II's father, the two seem so much alike. Uninsterested in learning, always ready for the cameras with idiot grins.

Reagan's guy, Haig, on three American nuns and one Catholic layworker, sexually battered and brutally murdered in El Salvador:

"They weren't JUST nuns"

No thought of any action against the regime, Reagan's slime aways groveled to fascist dictators.

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Don't you know that telling half a truth is worse than a lie?

Who was in charge of Congress under Reagan?

Congress is in charge of Foreign policy?

But GOP Senate for 6 years

 

[Kosh]

The Bigger Obama Fails, the More the progs rail against Reagan

And still blame Booooooooooooooooossssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The extremes of both parties fail.

Then why do you support the far left Taliban without question or hesitation?

 

[Indeependent]

And still blame Booooooooooooooooossssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The extremes of both parties fail.

Then why do you support the far left Taliban without question or hesitation?

Quote a post or apologize.

 

[Kosh]

Facts are facts. Reagan cut human needs programs, military benefits, yet, the debt skyrocketed. I found it hard to believe at first, he wasn't Bush II's father, the two seem so much alike. Uninsterested in learning, always ready for the cameras with idiot grins.

Reagan's guy, Haig, on three American nuns and one Catholic layworker, sexually battered and brutally murdered in El Salvador:

"They weren't JUST nuns"

No thought of any action against the regime, Reagan's slime aways groveled to fascist dictators.

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..

Don't you know that telling half a truth is worse than a lie?

Who was in charge of Congress under Reagan?

Congress is in charge of Foreign policy?

But GOP Senate for 6 years

As I have already pointed out: Revisionist history based on hyper partisan (far left) politics is always a bad idea..