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.
1) YES the tax increases from TEFRA eliminated many of the tax cuts from the early initiatives of Reaganomics (ERTA tax cuts, less spending that took effect in 1981). But the tax increases went much farther than just that it increased taxes to higher levels than any point in American History (37 billion dollars a year). Also the fact that he had to RAISE taxes to get out of the RECESSION that was created from his earlier policies. Shows that his early policy of tax cuts failed.
Still does not make much sense; raising taxes causing growth. It worked in the 60s and somewhat in the early 00s. Personally, I believe tax cuts or hikes are ineffective at changing the economic climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
Because now the Government was hugely in debt, which raised inflation, causing job loses with began the Recession of 1982.
But again he did have to raise taxes and increase spending to fix the Recession.
Inflation went down in the 80s, not up. And because of Reagan and Volcker, inflation has never been a significant issue like it was in the 70s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
2) I don't now much about WHY the railroad industry failed (I thought because of the Oil Crisis during the late 1970s, but I could be wrong).
Actually the oil crisis helped the railroads. Simply put, the railroads were failing because of the trucking industry, especially in the Northeast and Midwest where Interstates linked all important industry centers, as opposed to the South where highway networks were sparse and industry was spread out considerably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
But again the Government still had to take over the Railroad (similar to how Obama had to takeover GM). So they would not fail (and the Government to this day is successfully running this railroad industry called Amtrak).
Amtrak was formed to preserve passenger rail service in the early 70s. By that time, over 80% of travelers were on airplanes. Railroads were dropping passenger service at a rapid rate, which caused alarm in cities without reliable airline connection. Ironically, it was a Republican (Nixon) who eventually signed off on forming Amtrak and a Democrat (Carter) who axed half the system in the late 70s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
Second again the reason WHY Chrysler needed bailing out is not my point. My point is Reagan's admin paid some of the loan that bailed out Chrysler and bailed out the Banks in mid-1980s.
Similar to how Obama bank bailouts, etc....
But again it falls back on that currently Obama is hated on for doing much of what Reagan did....
Reagan caught a fair amount of criticism over all of the bailouts and bank takeovers, his approval rating reflected it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
3) BY the way Reagan admitted to funding Contras (before it was outlawed by Congress after Nicaragua vs the United States court case) and during the Iran/Contra Scandal Reagan admitted to providing Arms to Iran in his Presidential Address after the scandal was discovered.
He denied all knowledge of the whole thing until evidence surfaced convicting individuals in his administration. He never admitted to involvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
So to answer your question he would not be impeached or charged because he did nothing illegal, but again he still did those things (funding and provided arms to our enemies).
If Obama was to do the same to N. Korea and Iran now how would he be treated by Conservatives?[/quote]
Curiously the Contra issue was a cover. Allegedly the CIA was involved in cocaine sales to fund black ops, keeping the Sandinistas and Contras fighting kept prices (and profits) high. (By the way, you did not hear this from me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
4) In regards to the Immigration no if I'm not mistaken Ted Kennedy had nothing to with this bill. It was a bipartisan bill that Reagan agreed with and signed. But again what would happen to Obama if he did the same thing today?
The bill also made it illegal to hire illegal immigrants, and required employers to verify residency status. Seems like a win to me, except for the whole amnesty thing.. And yes, Obama would certainly catch a lot of flak for it, just like Reagan did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
Lastly I do appreciate your answers that you'd warm up to Obama if success was to come out of this (which most conservatives will not say or comprehend)
I appreciate that, at least you do not have the smug attitude of some other individuals on this forum. In any case as a part-time political statistician I would be thrilled to see the results of Obama's economic policy and see what effects certain legislation had on overall recovery.
Still does not make much sense; raising taxes causing growth. It worked in the 60s and somewhat in the early 00s. Personally, I believe tax cuts or hikes are ineffective at changing the economic climate.
Inflation went down in the 80s, not up. And because of Reagan and Volcker, inflation has never been a significant issue like it was in the 70s.
Actually the oil crisis helped the railroads. Simply put, the railroads were failing because of the trucking industry, especially in the Northeast and Midwest where Interstates linked all important industry centers, as opposed to the South where highway networks were sparse and industry was spread out considerably.
Amtrak was formed to preserve passenger rail service in the early 70s. By that time, over 80% of travelers were on airplanes. Railroads were dropping passenger service at a rapid rate, which caused alarm in cities without reliable airline connection. Ironically, it was a Republican (Nixon) who eventually signed off on forming Amtrak and a Democrat (Carter) who axed half the system in the late 70s.
Reagan caught a fair amount of criticism over all of the bailouts and bank takeovers, his approval rating reflected it.
He denied all knowledge of the whole thing until evidence surfaced convicting individuals in his administration. He never admitted to involvement.
If Obama was to do the same to N. Korea and Iran now how would he be treated by Conservatives?
More great points Frankie! you're obviously well intelligent and informed....
1) I think that is a very fair point you make, maybe we are just in different times. And maybe that is the answer to my original question. I'll analyze that more if more conservatives echo that point....
2) Also I wasn't speaking of inflation, unemployment or interest rates throughout the 1980s (we all know they recovered greatly which Reagan is credited for). But I was speaking of when Tax cuts, Reagan polices, etc... first kicked in all those factors increased significantly which caused the 1982 recession.
And I reference that to point that Obama did not cause a recession like Reagan did but still get much more criticism (at this same point in their collective first terms)
3) You also make a great point IF Reagan did catch alot of flack for the bailouts, takeovers, etc... (his approval rating was as low as Nixon's and Carter's during his 1st term). But still my point is if Reagan can use it to recover America's economy, why cant Obama?
4) IN regards to the Iran/Contra affair I believe you are incorrect, Reagan only denied using the funds from the Arms sales to fund the Contras (which was illegal due to Congressional amendment) (it was found to be the workings of Oliver North & National Security Adviser Poindexter).
That was the ONLY part of the Iran/Contra affair Reagan denied.
HE admitted approving the plan to provide arms to Iran AND he admitted providing funds to the Contras (a part of the Reagan Doctrine) in the early 1980s (before it was outlawed by congress).
So again Reagan never denied earlier (before it was outlawed) providing funds to Contra and also devising the plan to provide arms to Iran!
****I would like to read more about that contra cocaine stuff you brought up lol....thats seems very interesting****
Again though with all we are discussing (records debts, deficit/stimulus spending, giving arms and aid to our enemies) I would really like to know Conservatives responses to Obama if he did the same thing THEIR IDOL REAGAN DID throughout his presidency!
I voted for President Reagan both times. I recall that the nation's recovery from the Carter doldrums was a little slow, but Reagan enjoyed good public support.
The rabid right's psychotic yammering over Obama's attempts at recovery are unlike anything I've ever seen before.
1) acted like Reagan, the conservatives would still hate him.
2) ended all of world hunger, the conservatives would still hate him.
3) found a cure for cancer, the conservatives would still hate him.
4) found a cure for AIDS, the conservatives would still hate him.
5) found a way to end the genocide in Africa, the conservatives would still hate him.
6) became "prolife", the conservatives would still hate him.
7) gave everyone great taxcuts, the conservatives would still hate him.
8) saved the world from destruction, the conservatives would still hate him.
9) found a way to provide for every needy child in this country (or world), the conservatives would still hate him.
10) found a way to prove Gods existance, the conservatives would still hate him.
Racist that is what Im getting at. You got it, the hate that is directed at him is deeply rooted in racism say what you want it shows everyday. I dont understand why the right just does not admit it, everyone else knows it anyway, would it not be less pressure if instead of calling Obama "socialist" they call (or you call if lean that way) call him what you really want to no one except maybe M. Steele would object maybe he would
To the hate filled "you lie" crowd stop being cowards put your lips together and all at once, "I hate that N&^^#$ Barack Hussien Obama"
Racist that is what Im getting at. You got it, the hate that is directed at him is deeply rooted in racism say what you want it shows everyday. I dont understand why the right just does not admit it, everyone else knows it anyway, would it not be less pressure if instead of calling Obama "socialist" they call (or you call if lean that way) call him what you really want to no one except maybe M. Steele would object maybe he would
To the hate filled "you lie" crowd stop being cowards put your lips together and all at once, "I hate that N&^^#$ Barack Hussien Obama"
Now doesnt that feel better
Obviously it feels better for you to say it and show YOUR side of racism to the rest of us.
People like yourself will never be happy knowing that a lot of people are not happy with his background, affiliations or his agenda......so it MUST be the color of his skin, right?
Of course there are racists in the world who may dislike him for that reason alone.....but, the vast majority who OPPOSE (not hate).....his ideology and his near-communist agenda.....do so...because he is so far left and alien of what many Americans have ever before, seen in America and so too....the Democratic Party thesedays.
Go on believing its ALL about his skin color though.
Makes you look like the typical, narrowminded Lib. you probably are.
Obama is more like giving Carter a second ( or more accurately a third) term than being like Ronald Reagan.
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.
