Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree she was very good at standing her ground. But I, too, stand my ground when I say she (and Ronald Reagan) did more harm than good. Decisions made by British, American and certain other European leaders do, in fact, negatively impact many of us (who are not of the wealth class)---all over the globe. You'd have to be living under a rock not to see that. Yes, she saved the UK's economy---by gutting it. Many believe she damaged whole communities and industries (e.g. privatizing utilities). She granted tax cuts for the wealthy (sound familiar?) by squandering North Sea oil riches. She waged an unnecessary war with Argentina (again, sound familiar?)---and thousands of people died so she could remain in power. Plus, she was in cahoots with dictators (Pinochet of Chile). She divided the UK and many believe it has never been whole since. Neither she or Ronny understood the economic theories they espoused. They championed "greed is good" in both the UK and the US---and that, my friend, is not a good thing and the fallout is still felt today. Utilities are sky-high in the UK, young people cannot afford to buy homes, and immigration is out of control. Great leaders make decisions that benefit society as a whole, not just the privileged few. Being stubborn and standing your ground can be admirable traits in certain circumstances, but Margaret Thatcher exhibited these qualities as a matter of conservative ideology. The same can be said for her counterparts/ideologues here in the US. Tenacious--yes. Good leaders, no.
I would be interested in any direct parallels that you could point to that exist in modern day Britain that are a result Thatcherian policies. The unnecessary war in the Falklands was a direct result of Argentina's attempts to annex them. Would you be okay if your neighbor just decided to annex your home one day? How do you link the reduction of tax burden on the wealthy in the UK to the squandering of North Sea oil revenues? Utilities are not sky high in the UK. We had natural gas to run the boilers to operate the heating system, and once you adjust for the Pound/Dollar exchange rate at the time (hovered around 2:1), it was a wash. A fellow American living just up the road had heating oil to run boilers and his was about even with U.S. prices at the time (last 5-8 years). Young people not being able to afford houses is not a result of the policies of Thatcher or Reagan. They are a direct result of the mortgage market collapse in 2008. The market collapse was a direct result of the push started by Clinton to pressure banks to issue loans to higher risk applicants. This created the sub-prime mortgage market. You want to talk about being unfair to 99%, this would be a good place to start. The sub-prime market used the Variable Rate Mortgage to keep initial payments low on the premise that a given applicant would see increasing income over a period of years. This was doomed to failure from the start. Despite the carping and pointing at Bush, much of blame for the crisis lays squarely at the feet of Liberals here in the U.S. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd repeatedly assured Congress that all was well with the two major Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile, on Wall Street people came up with new and inventive ways to limit exposure to known bad debt instruments created by the sub-prime market. Wall Street is all about the bottom line, and exposure to bad debt is a liability. In this case I will gladly cede the point that the banks and investment houses share a high degree of complicity for the collapse. Back to Barney and Chris, they fiddled as the market neared the brink, and then left wing blogosphere erupted in a firestorm to do anything to blame the crisis on Bush based solely on the fact that he held office when it occurred, when in fact this was a looming crisis a long time in the making.
I would be interested in any direct parallels that you could point to that exist in modern day Britain that are a result Thatcherian policies. The unnecessary war in the Falklands was a direct result of Argentina's attempts to annex them. Would you be okay if your neighbor just decided to annex your home one day? How do you link the reduction of tax burden on the wealthy in the UK to the squandering of North Sea oil revenues? Utilities are not sky high in the UK. We had natural gas to run the boilers to operate the heating system, and once you adjust for the Pound/Dollar exchange rate at the time (hovered around 2:1), it was a wash. A fellow American living just up the road had heating oil to run boilers and his was about even with U.S. prices at the time (last 5-8 years). Young people not being able to afford houses is not a result of the policies of Thatcher or Reagan. They are a direct result of the mortgage market collapse in 2008. The market collapse was a direct result of the push started by Clinton to pressure banks to issue loans to higher risk applicants. This created the sub-prime mortgage market. You want to talk about being unfair to 99%, this would be a good place to start. The sub-prime market used the Variable Rate Mortgage to keep initial payments low on the premise that a given applicant would see increasing income over a period of years. This was doomed to failure from the start. Despite the carping and pointing at Bush, much of blame for the crisis lays squarely at the feet of Liberals here in the U.S. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd repeatedly assured Congress that all was well with the two major Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile, on Wall Street people came up with new and inventive ways to limit exposure to known bad debt instruments created by the sub-prime market. Wall Street is all about the bottom line, and exposure to bad debt is a liability. In this case I will gladly cede the point that the banks and investment houses share a high degree of complicity for the collapse. Back to Barney and Chris, they fiddled as the market neared the brink, and then left wing blogosphere erupted in a firestorm to do anything to blame the crisis on Bush based solely on the fact that he held office when it occurred, when in fact this was a looming crisis a long time in the making.
Margaret Thatcher was a god-send to the very rich. Just like Ronald Reagan was in the U.S. No matter what, the poor get screwed under "leaders" like her and her counterparts in other countries. When will first world countries EVER have leaders that are for ALL the people---not just big business and the uber-wealthy? She's really no different than most conservative/capitialism loving politicians. She was divisive, not a consensus builder. She crushed unions, privatized public utilities and gutted safety nets and pushed "free-market" policies that led to the deregulatory nightmares of today (how about that for a direct parallel?). She buddied up to Ronald Reagan to support torture and human rights abusers around the globe, as long as those being tortured hated the Russians. She even went so far as to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist and refused to join a worldwide campaign to rid South Africa of their racist apartheid regime. Many believe the Falklands war was an orchestrated stunt, not one of necessity. She even cut the milk program for young school-aged kids prior to becoming PM (when she was education secretary).
From an article I read earlier this morning: "...Her economic policies were harsh. She pushed the so-called poll tax—a tax to fund local government—that resulted in shifting the tax burden from the well-to-do toward lower-income Brits. This tax provoked riots—literally—and was so unpopular that her successor, John Major, replaced it. And as Bruce Bartlett, an economist who served in the Reagan administration noted two years ago, Thatcher shifted the overall tax burden from top to bottom. She cut the top personal income tax rate from 83 percent to 60 percent, but raised the lowest rate from 25 percent to 30 percent."
I maintain she was a historic leader, but not a great leader for society as a WHOLE. Perhaps some karmic balance will follow her to the afterlife---as she did see global warming as a serious threat, she supported HIV/AIDS research, and she banished corporal punishment (but only after taking away the kids' milk first).
Margaret Thatcher was a god-send to the very rich. Just like Ronald Reagan was in the U.S. No matter what, the poor get screwed under "leaders" like her and her counterparts in other countries. When will first world countries EVER have leaders that are for ALL the people---not just big business and the uber-wealthy? She's really no different than most conservative/capitialism loving politicians. She was divisive, not a consensus builder. She crushed unions, privatized public utilities and gutted safety nets and pushed "free-market" policies that led to the deregulatory nightmares of today (how about that for a direct parallel?). She buddied up to Ronald Reagan to support torture and human rights abusers around the globe, as long as those being tortured hated the Russians. She even went so far as to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist and refused to join a worldwide campaign to rid South Africa of their racist apartheid regime. Many believe the Falklands war was an orchestrated stunt, not one of necessity. She even cut the milk program for young school-aged kids prior to becoming PM (when she was education secretary).
From an article I read earlier this morning: "...Her economic policies were harsh. She pushed the so-called poll tax—a tax to fund local government—that resulted in shifting the tax burden from the well-to-do toward lower-income Brits. This tax provoked riots—literally—and was so unpopular that her successor, John Major, replaced it. And as Bruce Bartlett, an economist who served in the Reagan administration noted two years ago, Thatcher shifted the overall tax burden from top to bottom. She cut the top personal income tax rate from 83 percent to 60 percent, but raised the lowest rate from 25 percent to 30 percent."
I maintain she was a historic leader, but not a great leader for society as a WHOLE. Perhaps some karmic balance will follow her to the afterlife---as she did see global warming as a serious threat, she supported HIV/AIDS research, and she banished corporal punishment (but only after taking away the kids' milk first).
So, in other words, no, you cannot cite specific examples of your claim that her policies have impacted Britain to this day. Just a recap of the past venting.
Some glaring issues with your snippets from the article you read. You said Thatcher shifted the tax burden from top to bottom by lowering tax rates from 83% to 60% for the wealthy, but raising the lowest rate from 25% to 30%. How, by any stretch of the imagination is that reversing anything? An 83% income tax rate is the very definition of confiscatory....
Imagine this, Tony Blair has retired from public life and now makes money as a consultant and guest speaker. For the sake of argument, we'll say Mr. Blair earns £1,000,000 per year. At the lowered, 60% rate, he would keep only £400,000. Now, say his administrative assistant makes £50,000 per year. On the 30% rate, this would mean he is only paying in £15,000, and keeping £35,000. How does Blair kicking in £600,000 a year and his assistant kicking £15,000 represent anything resembling a shift in tax burden? Additionally, you must know that in Britain, there are many that pay little to no national income tax at all. Essentially, their tax system, while much higher than ours, has the same disproportionate construct. The top 10% pay over 90% of the national tax burden. The bottom 50% pay nothing or almost nothing. While it makes sense from a statistical standpoint, it hardly indicates the "reversal of tax rates" you read about...
So, in other words, no, you cannot cite specific examples of your claim that her policies have impacted Britain to this day. Just a recap of the past venting.
You don't see how the deregulation orgy of her (and Ronny's) era negatively affects western society as a whole today? Of course deregulation is great for corporations and wealthy investors. But it is disastrous for society as a whole. Her policies of the 80s and the current gyrations of them continue to run amuck today: unrestricted credit, deregulation and casino-like financial speculation by banks/investment houses--to name a few. Furthermore, no successive leader (here in the US or there) since then dared reverse those disastrous decisions. I cannot make it any clearer to you, TXStrat.
You don't see how the deregulation orgy of her (and Ronny's) era negatively affects western society as a whole today? Of course deregulation is great for corporations and wealthy investors. But it is disastrous for society as a whole. Her policies of the 80s and the current gyrations of them continue to run amuck today: unrestricted credit, deregulation and casino-like financial speculation by banks/investment houses--to name a few. Furthermore, no successive leader (here in the US or there) since then dared reverse those disastrous decisions. I cannot make it any clearer to you, TXStrat.
It is her legacy, but a curse we all now share.
Again, as stated in earlier posts, she shares no more responsibility for deregulation and the subsequent impact on the lives of private citizens than those (Dems) that pushed for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco here in the U.S. It is quite curious how people can whinge and moan about one form of deregulation but be perfectly fine with, and quite ready to defend the other side of the same coin. Using the death of a political figure is a pretty macabre method to advance a political ideology...
Great Britain had two great leaders/PM's in the 20th century Thatcher and Churchill. The rest do not even warrant a mention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
