U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2010, 02:59 PM
 
14,237 posts, read 5,718,313 times
Reputation: 3455

Advertisements

[CENTER]How to Survive "The Reign of the Anti-Reagan"[/CENTER]

Dear Fellow Conservative,

President Obama didn't attend the 20th Anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall last November (he had another "date night" with Michelle, I believe). But if he had attended, I think I know what he would have said.

Turning to former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev (who actually did attend), Obama would have declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, rebuild this wall!"

Indeed, I sometimes suspect that Obama's sole approach to any policy problem is to ask himself "What Would Reagan Do?" and then do the opposite -- while expecting the same results. So, for instance, Obama thinks that by raising taxes, increasing spending, and weakening the dollar he can restore prosperity just as effectively as Reagan did by cutting taxes, slashing spending, and strengthening the dollar.

Well, he'll find out soon enough that he can't. But in the meantime, what about you and me? How can we protect ourselves financially as Obama takes his wrecking ball to the entire U.S. economy?

To begin with, we have to face reality: In an age of soaring taxes, near-zero interest on savings, and the looming threat of hyperinflation, we can no longer afford to be passive with our money. We must take active measures to grow our portfolios through profitable investments and to protect it from the IRS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2010, 03:00 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,257 posts, read 4,321,445 times
Reputation: 1396
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
Huh? It was Clinton who got so many OFF welfare! For the first time in my life I'm living off unemployment - and I blame the Republicans for that. Outsourcing, deregulation, off-shoring of jobs... all this has lead to 10% unemployment. The Dems had a hand in it too, but by far it's been Reps who've caused this mess.
So you must be really p-ssed about Clinton granting China preferred trade status his last month in office.

And for the record welfare reform in the late 90s was the work of a Republican Congress. Although the EITC was created in 1993, so the Democrats get credit for that one.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 03:33 PM
 
9,844 posts, read 3,714,919 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by lymelyte View Post
I'm reading The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America by William Kleinknecht in which he points out:

"(Reagan) enacted policies that helped wipe out the high-paying jobs for the working class that were the real backbone of the country. ... His legacy - mergers, deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization, globalization - helped weaken the family and eradicate small-town life and sense of community."

and Kleinknecht also points out that Reagan policies brought about

"a reversal in the slow gains that the working class and the poor had made in the previous two decades."


That being the reality of the Reagan regime, it's pretty amazing that so many working class and middle class revere Reagan as some sort of working class hero when in fact he was the puppet spokesperson of the robber-baron mentality. The two Bushes were basically a continuation of Reagans' policies. So in effect, you have a large number of people in this country who vote against their own interests because .... well, that's the Big Question, why do people vote against their own interests?

Why?
Nice quotes. No evidence.

can you provide a policy/law and follow that thru to impact?

or is this just another liberal taking potshots at a non-liberal?

I am sure we would all be better if we turned our power over to an American Politburo.(sp)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 05:08 PM
 
3,908 posts, read 2,994,910 times
Reputation: 2081
Quote:
Originally Posted by lymelyte View Post
That being the reality of the Reagan regime, it's pretty amazing that so many working class and middle class revere Reagan as some sort of working class hero when in fact he was the puppet spokesperson of the robber-baron mentality. The two Bushes were basically a continuation of Reagans' policies. So in effect, you have a large number of people in this country who vote against their own interests because .... well, that's the Big Question, why do people vote against their own interests?
Why?
I absolutely agree. Reagan was a "hinge" president. I divide time before and after him. A similar damage was done by Margaret Tatcher in UK at the time.
Still there are a few facts to clear:
1) Reagan wasn't a puppet of a special interest group. I think he truly believed in this philosophy and policies.
2) Globalization and outsourcing didn't begin with Reagan. They preceded his presidency. Carter was already adopting globalization in his time. The difference is that Reagan embraced closely these trends and during his term America's economy and social fabric changed forever.
3) It is wrong to accuse Bush 43 of what is basically Regan's "achievement". Bush 43 was just an extension of the same world view.
4) There are many poor, (including minorities) who support and believe in Reagan's policies. The reasons are many, but I think that anger towards democrats plays a key role.

Last edited by oberon_1; 01-20-2010 at 05:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 06:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,257 posts, read 4,321,445 times
Reputation: 1396
Here is why I like Reagan:

http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy226/rfg8069rep/untitled.png (broken link)

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

The economy from 1947 to 1983 was all over the place. We had spikes in growth, followed by huge dips constantly throughout those years. We were hitting recession frequently and experienced sluggish growth at regular intervals.

Then starting in 1983 the economy final stabilized. Growth was in long, continuous bursts as opposed to constant boom and bust. As a result, the 1980s turned out to be the prosperous in modern history. As a matter of fact, 1983 sparked the beginning of a bigger economic expansion that lasted until 1999.. Since the early 80s, inflation has never been as bad as it was during the 70s.

So hate on Reagan all you want, I will always argue that the good outweighed the bad when it came to his presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,000 posts, read 8,982,843 times
Reputation: 3459
The right scared them with the word socialism.
I could really care less about what it's called. I just care about working people having a chance in this country. Too bad too many working people have their blinders on. Both parties will sell them out and we need to vote out all the b_stards who have screwed us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 07:19 PM
 
3,908 posts, read 2,994,910 times
Reputation: 2081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117 View Post
Here is why I like Reagan:



U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

The economy from 1947 to 1983 was all over the place. We had spikes in growth, followed by huge dips constantly throughout those years. We were hitting recession frequently and experienced sluggish growth at regular intervals.

Then starting in 1983 the economy final stabilized. Growth was in long, continuous bursts as opposed to constant boom and bust. As a result, the 1980s turned out to be the prosperous in modern history. As a matter of fact, 1983 sparked the beginning of a bigger economic expansion that lasted until 1999.. Since the early 80s, inflation has never been as bad as it was during the 70s.

So hate on Reagan all you want, I will always argue that the good outweighed the bad when it came to his presidency.
1) That's a great example of what's wrong with statistics. Like the man who drowned in the 2' average deep pool. The real question is if peoples lives changed following that decade. Did jobs became scarce, with total uncertainty ruling our lives? How can one plan a family if you don't know where (and if) you'll have a job tomorrow? And if you can or cannot afford the basics like education for kids and health insurance for the family...
2) Don't you think that the current recession is a direct result of that "prosperous decade in modern history"? And we'll suffer those consequences for as long as the "prosperous decade" lasted?
3) The time frame 47-83 was characterized by great social progress in the US. Those advances aren't reflected in economic statistics: women's rights, blacks and minority rights, worker rights, more and better education, etc, etc.
4) BTW, I don't refer to partisan politics. Eisenhower and Nixon were part of that time period, but neither changed as much as Reagan. Why didn't they push for outsourcing and globalization? Were they socialists and liberals?

Last edited by oberon_1; 01-20-2010 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
21,132 posts, read 9,948,507 times
Reputation: 4778
Quote:
Originally Posted by lymelyte View Post
I'm reading The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America by William Kleinknecht in which he points out:

"(Reagan) enacted policies that helped wipe out the high-paying jobs for the working class that were the real backbone of the country. ... His legacy - mergers, deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization, globalization - helped weaken the family and eradicate small-town life and sense of community."

and Kleinknecht also points out that Reagan policies brought about

"a reversal in the slow gains that the working class and the poor had made in the previous two decades."


That being the reality of the Reagan regime, it's pretty amazing that so many working class and middle class revere Reagan as some sort of working class hero when in fact he was the puppet spokesperson of the robber-baron mentality. The two Bushes were basically a continuation of Reagan's' policies. So in effect, you have a large number of people in this country who vote against their own interests because .... well, that's the Big Question, why do people vote against their own interests?

Why?


Another conservatives are too stupid to know how wonderful liberalism is thread? The people who voted Reagan in were living with a 22% misery index and a completely failed foreign policy based on appeasement and dangerous naivetť.

"The dollar was at a post-World War II low at the end of Carterís presidency. His Keynesian economists thought a weak dollar and inflation would create jobs. That didít happen. Inflation and unemployment reached a combined 20.5 percent in Carterís last year."

The American Spectator : Weak Dollars, Weak Presidents

In 1984 the US dollar reached its all time high followed by the longest peace-time expansion of the US economy in history.

FYI Clinton campaigned for and signed NAFTA. He also lobbied for making most favored nation trading status for China permanent, repealed Glass-Steigall when he signed the Financial Securities Modernization Act in 1999 and expanded the size and scope of the CRA while setting requirements for the GSEs to buy up the worthless NINJA mortgages it created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 08:43 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,257 posts, read 4,321,445 times
Reputation: 1396
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
1) That's a great example of what's wrong with statistics. Like the man who drowned in the 2' average deep pool. The real question is if peoples lives changed following that decade. Did jobs became scarce, with total uncertainty ruling our lives? How can one plan a family if you don't know where (and if) you'll have a job tomorrow? And if you can or cannot afford the basics like education for kids and health insurance for the family...
Well, manufacturing jobs lost during the 70s were replaced by higher paying fields in the newly emerging "white collar" sector. IT was big in the 80s, as were their electronics and communications counterparts. It was in the 80s that places like Silicon Valley emerged as new symbols of a higher paying, better educated workforce.

What you speak of is a general sentiment shared by families for decades and not exclusive to the 80s. As a matter of fact more Americans held an optimistic view of the future during that decade compared to those prior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
2) Don't you think that the current recession is a direct result of that "prosperous decade in modern history"? And we'll suffer those consequences for as long as the "prosperous decade" lasted?
History shows that recessions last for two-four quarters followed by periods of growth. In the past cycles were much closer together; a few periods of growth, followed by periods of stagnation or recession. Such is the nature of the economy in the past. Over the past 30 years we have seen decade long growth with recession hitting every 10 years or so (1981, 1990, 2001). However, 9/11 more than anything seems to have ruined our economic cycles by destabilizing global oil markets. The 80s and 90s were both characterized by cheap and plentiful oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
3) The time frame 47-83 was characterized by great social progress in the US. Those advances aren't reflected in economic statistics: women's rights, blacks and minority rights, worker rights, more and better education, etc, etc.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but the latter half of the 70s and the entirety of the 80s was characterized by a steady rise in employment of both women, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. I would consider that excellent progress in social equality. The poverty rate among minorities dropped off beginning in 1985 and continued all the way until 2000.

In any case, you can look here:

Table 2. Labor force participation rates by sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 1972-2008 annual averages

For the statistics and see the general rise in across the board employment of all minority groups up until the mid to late 90s where it stagnated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
4) BTW, I don't refer to partisan politics. Eisenhower and Nixon were part of that time period, but neither changed as much as Reagan. Why didn't they push for outsourcing and globalization? Were they socialists and liberals?
Here's the thing though, Reagan was completely different from the presidents before him. As Obama stated, he changed the trajectory of America from a nation circling the drain to a modernized nation ready to once again climb to the top.

Nixon, Ford, and Carter all pushed for increased relations with China in the 70s. So yes, I would blame them for starting the outsourcing trend that would pick up later in the 90s and early 00s. President H.W. Bush distanced us from China following the Tienanmen Square massacre, but his restrictions on the China trade were largely removed by Clinton. In actuality, globalization in the true modern sense of the word did not reach fruition until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. After which we saw a huge spike in multilateral trade agreements throughout the world, the most important to us being NAFTA and the Maastricht Treaty..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2010, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
21,132 posts, read 9,948,507 times
Reputation: 4778
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
Huh? It was Clinton who got so many OFF welfare! For the first time in my life I'm living off unemployment - and I blame the Republicans for that. Outsourcing, deregulation, off-shoring of jobs... all this has lead to 10% unemployment. The Dems had a hand in it too, but by far it's been Reps who've caused this mess.

Outsourcing?

Clinton signed NAFTA and gave China permanent most favored nation trading status.


Deregulation?

Clinton signed the Financial Securities Modernization Act of 1999 that repealed Glass-Steigall.


Clinton did nothing to change welfare before the Republican Revolution of 1994.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top