Failures of Reaganomics

[thereisnospoon]

The Left hates Reagan because he called them an Evil Empire, vowed to challenge and defeat them and caused the breakup of the USSR.

He freed hundreds of millions of people from the crushing oppression of Soviet Communism

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

It's amazing how much you don't understand about the left.

You people support....Socialism, political correctness, confiscatory taxation, ever growing government debt, central planning style government, redistribution of wealth and earnings form the producers to the non producers, free shit, unfettered access to the largess of others, the expectation that if you do something to hurt yourself there will be someone else to clean up your mess, big government, unionism, collectivism, social engineering, use of the civil courts as a personal lottery terminal, etc...

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

It's not like it was official or anything

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcI3vPnHPl0]Bush admits America is facing a 2009 Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]

Hey lefty...Bush isn't the president anymore.
What's wrong? Nothing good to say about Obama, so this is your offset?

 

[Meathead]

We need another "failure" like Reagan, otherwise the US will turn into the shit hole envisioned by Obama.

Like we need a hole in the head.

I suspect another hole in yours would not make a great deal of difference.

Maybe many Americans now want pussied leaders. I can only hope there all still those who would want someone who could stand up to the Putin's of today's world.

 

[Listening]

Reagonomics
Sound economic policies require time to take effect, there is no such thing as a magic pill that fixes the economy instatntaneously - I believe that Obamanomics have proven that - they are an obamanation.

Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics as neither President had much of an inkling as to what they were doing , in particlar the Cigar Man. At least George the First had many of Reagans People to guide him.

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev are the reason there is no longer a Soviet Union, and the Eastern Bloc nations are now free, East Germans can enjoy the prosperity of their West German countrymen etc ... - Reagans Briiliant strategic Cold War tactics, bankrupted their military establishment.

Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >>

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

As for Reagan bankrupting the Soviet military establishment ? Nah. I think it just happened out that way. The overspending the Soviets did on military, harkens back through 6 other presidents before Reagan, and it included the space program as well as the military.

good points. Voodoo economics were bad then & they're bad now.

Actually, you've been a moron since you started posting and you are still the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

 

[Listening]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

I've never seen a complete argument against Reagan. It's always in the context of something that says....he was somehow controlling everything.

Whatever else may have happened, he took a country that was reeling under the whimp leadership of Jimmy Carter and showed it where it's backbone lie.

Things got better and a lot of people were better off. There is no question that we developed some bad habbits in terms of government spending during that time....but some of it (such as bailing out Carter's 30 year fix to SS that lasted only about ten months) were not anything Reagan could do anything about.

Most people don't recall...but the press was pretty hard on the man during his time in office. Even his own party could be pretty tough. But, since his terms ended it has only become apparent he was a great leader in many ways and we, as a country, were darn lucky (and undeserving) to have him.

 

[Meathead]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

I've never seen a complete argument against Reagan. It's always in the context of something that says....he was somehow controlling everything.

Whatever else may have happened, he took a country that was reeling under the whimp leadership of Jimmy Carter and showed it where it's backbone lie.

Things got better and a lot of people were better off. There is no question that we developed some bad habbits in terms of government spending during that time....but some of it (such as bailing out Carter's 30 year fix to SS that lasted only about ten months) were not anything Reagan could do anything about.

Most people don't recall...but the press was pretty hard on the man during his time in office. Even his own party could be pretty tough. But, since his terms ended it has only become apparent he was a great leader in many ways and we, as a country, were darn lucky (and undeserving) to have him.

Well-articulated post. Thanks.

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

They got a lot of mileage out of Bush bashing but few are buying it at this point. Reagan was too long ago for most younger kids so all they know is what their socialist sociology and poly-sci teachers fed them. The crux of the matter is the age old capitalism vs. socialism argument and since they can't point to a lot of success there's little else but to try to make the other side look bad. It's what they do.

 

[Listening]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

I've never seen a complete argument against Reagan. It's always in the context of something that says....he was somehow controlling everything.

Whatever else may have happened, he took a country that was reeling under the whimp leadership of Jimmy Carter and showed it where it's backbone lie.

Things got better and a lot of people were better off. There is no question that we developed some bad habbits in terms of government spending during that time....but some of it (such as bailing out Carter's 30 year fix to SS that lasted only about ten months) were not anything Reagan could do anything about.

Most people don't recall...but the press was pretty hard on the man during his time in office. Even his own party could be pretty tough. But, since his terms ended it has only become apparent he was a great leader in many ways and we, as a country, were darn lucky (and undeserving) to have him.

Well-articulated post. Thanks.

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

Many don't recall that Reagan really did reach across the isle to work with people like Tip O'Niel. He also had many moderates on his team (James Baker being the most apparent). David Gergen was very much a fan of his and appreciated his ability to get things done.

For sure, things got away from him at the end of his 2nd term. But, he still outshines the past and present morons we've have since.

 

[protectionist]

You're a waste of time. Get back to me when you can think for yourself.

What are you talking about ? What leads you to say I'm not thinking for myself ????

You're not unique. I know a parrot when I see one.

Like a parrot who recites the FACTS.

 

[protectionist]

We need another "failure" like Reagan, otherwise the US will turn into the shit hole envisioned by Obama.

Like we need a hole in the head.

I suspect another hole in yours would not make a great deal of difference.

Maybe many Americans now want pussied leaders. I can only hope there all still those who would want someone who could stand up to the Putin's of today's world.

You can add Reagan to your list of "pussied leaders". When it came to having to duke it out (after the Marines barracks bombing in Lebanon), Reagan cut and ran like a scared rabbit. In contrast, when Hitler was bombing the world, a REAL Conservative, Eisenhower, went over there and kicked ass.

When it came to standing up to Mexico, Reagan took the easy way out and gave 3 million illegal aliens AMNESTY. In contrast, a REAL Conservative, Eisenhower, eliminated illegal immigration, with Operation Wetback in 1954.

When it came to standing up to the gay rights lobby, Reagan caved, and opposed the Briggs Initiative, that would have banned queer teachers from teaching in public schools. In contrast, queers were defined, codified and banned from public service by an executive order signed by President Dwight Eisenhower - Executive Order 10450 authorized personal investigations by the FBI and Civil Service Commission for "sexual perversion" in all branches of the federal government. According to the White House press release, in the first four months, 1,456 employees had been "separated from Federal service ... for security reasons only." Some 800 homosexuals were fired or had resigned by 1955.

As for the big war, when Eisenhower, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany en route to Berlin, and victory, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.

Like I said, we need another Reagan (AKA "pussied leader"), like we need a hole in our heads.

 

[protectionist]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

The psuedo-right , hates success, and worships failure. Thus they love Reagan, underfund and thereby hamper the war on terror, they fall for the ruse known as supply side economics (of which there is no such thing, and never has been), but hate Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state. They also hate the tax policies of Eisenhower, which if enacted today, minus loopholes, would erase debt & deficit, build prisons, hire cops, strengthen military, eliminate immigration, deport raghead traitors, repair dangerous infrastructure, and improve national security immensely.

 

[protectionist]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

I've never seen a complete argument against Reagan. It's always in the context of something that says....he was somehow controlling everything.

Whatever else may have happened, he took a country that was reeling under the whimp leadership of Jimmy Carter and showed it where it's backbone lie.

Things got better and a lot of people were better off. There is no question that we developed some bad habbits in terms of government spending during that time....but some of it (such as bailing out Carter's 30 year fix to SS that lasted only about ten months) were not anything Reagan could do anything about.

Most people don't recall...but the press was pretty hard on the man during his time in office. Even his own party could be pretty tough. But, since his terms ended it has only become apparent he was a great leader in many ways and we, as a country, were darn lucky (and undeserving) to have him.

You've heard of anti-matter ? THIS is anti-REALITY.

 

[auditor0007]

Reagan sucked as a president. Matter of fact, under his leadership, I actually feared for my life as a member of the U.S. military.

Why? Because there were more attacks on various U.S.O.'s while he was president than there were at any other time I served in the U.S. Navy.

Lots of people lionize Reagan, but he was a crappy president, and with the way the Tea Party is going, even Reagan (who they like to deify) couldn't be given the nod for president, because the far right has taken over the GOP.

Reagan wasn't as good as many choose to believe, but he also wasn't as bad as many choose to believe. Reagan was a pragmatist. Yes, he wanted smaller government but he knew he wasn't going to get that, and that was okay, because what he really wanted was government that worked. He also wanted to simplify the tax system, and he actually did a good job of that but then Congress and other conservatives fucked it all up. Reagan had the right idea. At one point, he had the maximum income tax rate down to 28%, which actually wasn't a bad thing. The thing about Reagan is that he understood that "earnings" were income no matter where they came from, therefore they should all be taxed the same, and this is why he supported having the same tax rate for capital gains as for income. And that is where we fucked it all up, because we gradually reduced the maximum capital gains rate down to 15%. Finally, it has been increased a bit, but the lost revenues are why we have such a large total debt and yearly deficits.

 

[protectionist]

The left hates success and worships failure. Thus they hate Reagan, hate the war on terror, hate supply side economics but love Barack Obama, FDR, and the welfare state.

I've never seen a complete argument against Reagan. It's always in the context of something that says....he was somehow controlling everything.

Whatever else may have happened, he took a country that was reeling under the whimp leadership of Jimmy Carter and showed it where it's backbone lie.

Things got better and a lot of people were better off. There is no question that we developed some bad habbits in terms of government spending during that time....but some of it (such as bailing out Carter's 30 year fix to SS that lasted only about ten months) were not anything Reagan could do anything about.

Most people don't recall...but the press was pretty hard on the man during his time in office. Even his own party could be pretty tough. But, since his terms ended it has only become apparent he was a great leader in many ways and we, as a country, were darn lucky (and undeserving) to have him.

Well-articulated post. Thanks.

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

"best leader" WOW. See Post # 72, 73, 74, 77, 79, 83, and especially 111.

"era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration" ? >>

1. Second Gulf of Sidra incident (1989- Libya)

2. Invasion of Panama (1989–1990)

3. Persian Gulf War (1990–1991 - Iraq)

4. Iraqi no-fly zones conflict (1991–2003) Part of the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict

5. Operation Restore Hope (1992–1994) Part of the Somali Civil War

6. Bosnian War (1993–1995) Part of the Yugoslav Wars

7. Operation Uphold Democracy(1994–1995 - Haiti)

8. Operation Infinite Reach (1998 - al Qaeda, HUM, NIF))

9. Kosovo War (1998–1999) Part of the Yugoslav Wars

10. War in Afghanistan (2001–present) Part of the War on Terror and the
Conflict in Afghanistan

11. Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (2002–present) Part of the War on Terror and the Moro insurgency in the Philippines

12. Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa (2002–present) Part of the War on Terror and the Somali Civil War

13. Second Liberian Civil War (2003)

14. Iraq War (2003–2011) Part of the War on Terror

15. War in North-West Pakistan (2004–present) Part of the War on Terror

16. War in Somalia (2006–2009) Part of the War on Terror and the
Somali Civil War

17. Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (2007–present) Part of the War on Terror and the Insurgency in the Maghreb

18. Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen (2010–present) Part of the War on Terror

19. Libyan Civil War (2011) Part of the Arab Spring

20. Operation Neptune Spear (2011) Part of the War on Terror and the Death of Osama bin Laden

21. 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan (2011) Part of the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan-United States skirmishes

22. LRA insurgency (2011–present)

And this list is just a list of wars and conflicts involving the United States, after Reagan's term in office. It doesn't include all those WHILE he was in office.

 

[protectionist]

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

They got a lot of mileage out of Bush bashing but few are buying it at this point. Reagan was too long ago for most younger kids so all they know is what their socialist sociology and poly-sci teachers fed them. The crux of the matter is the age old capitalism vs. socialism argument and since they can't point to a lot of success there's little else but to try to make the other side look bad. It's what they do.

I've pointed to a lot of success in this thread, with solid sources/facts.

 

[protectionist]

I've never seen a complete argument against Reagan. It's always in the context of something that says....he was somehow controlling everything.

Whatever else may have happened, he took a country that was reeling under the whimp leadership of Jimmy Carter and showed it where it's backbone lie.

Things got better and a lot of people were better off. There is no question that we developed some bad habbits in terms of government spending during that time....but some of it (such as bailing out Carter's 30 year fix to SS that lasted only about ten months) were not anything Reagan could do anything about.

Most people don't recall...but the press was pretty hard on the man during his time in office. Even his own party could be pretty tough. But, since his terms ended it has only become apparent he was a great leader in many ways and we, as a country, were darn lucky (and undeserving) to have him.

Well-articulated post. Thanks.

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

ars
Many don't recall that Reagan really did reach across the isle to work with people like Tip O'Niel. He also had many moderates on his team (James Baker being the most apparent). David Gergen was very much a fan of his and appreciated his ability to get things done.

For sure, things got away from him at the end of his 2nd term. But, he still outshines the past and present morons we've have since.

Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.

Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.

 

[S.J.]

What are you talking about ? What leads you to say I'm not thinking for myself ????

You're not unique. I know a parrot when I see one.

Like a parrot who recites the FACTS.

You have no facts, you have fantasies.

 

[Iceweasel]

They got a lot of mileage out of Bush bashing but few are buying it at this point. Reagan was too long ago for most younger kids so all they know is what their socialist sociology and poly-sci teachers fed them. The crux of the matter is the age old capitalism vs. socialism argument and since they can't point to a lot of success there's little else but to try to make the other side look bad. It's what they do.

I've pointed to a lot of success in this thread, with solid sources/facts.

What was your best example of a recent socialist mandate? I hope you aren't going to say the ACA.

 

[jillian]

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.)

wouldn't you have a lot less to talk about if you talked about the successes of reaganomics/voodoo economics?