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.
The Raygun Revolution and its descendants have done exactly what they were supposed to do. They have increased our military involvements and spending many fold, made a speculative free for all out of our housing market, quadrupled our food costs by turning corn into fuel, and, above all financialized our economy to expedite the transfer of wealth from the people that create it to the people that own it. We have created more billionaires than ever before as well as millions more destitute.
the country started going downhill with wilson,and really took a big dive towards socialism when fdr took over. after that it was just a continuation of more and more intrusiveness by the feds and less freedom for its citizens.
The Raygun Revolution and its descendants have done exactly what they were supposed to do. They have increased our military involvements and spending many fold, made a speculative free for all out of our housing market, quadrupled our food costs by turning corn into fuel, and, above all financialized our economy to expedite the transfer of wealth from the people that create it to the people that own it. We have created more billionaires than ever before as well as millions more destitute.
Yes, indeed: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
What "transfer of wealth?"
The wealthy did better under Reagan, but so did the middle class.
Also, the wealthy were paying more in taxes, by percent, by the end of the Reagan era than they were during the end of the Carter era.
And, the poverty level was lower by the end of the Reagan era (12.8% VS 12.0%).
The wealthy did better under Reagan, but so did the middle class.
Also, the wealthy were paying more in taxes, by percent, by the end of the Reagan era than they were during the end of the Carter era.
.
All Reagan did was offer tax cuts to the wealthy, he worked to destroy the middle class and was responsible for the real attack on labor unions by using his position to single handedly take one down himself, forever endearing himself to the corporatists who benefited so much under Bush.
Corporate populism, spend yourself reckless, make wild profits (not regulated by the Federal govt. ) and you got it made, until the bubble you created bursts.
Then ask the necons for a bailout. You'll get it. And now the corporatists are forever enamored with neoconservative Repugs.
All Reagan did was offer tax cuts to the wealthy, he worked to destroy the middle class and was responsible for the real attack on labor unions by using his position to single handedly take one down himself, forever endearing himself to the corporatists who benefited so much under Bush.
Corporate populism, spend yourself reckless, make wild profits (not regulated by the Federal govt. ) and you got it made, until the bubble you created bursts.
Then ask the necons for a bailout. You'll get it. And now the corporatists are forever enamored with neoconservative Repugs.
It would be nice if you posted facts, not untruths.
It was an across the board tax cut... for everyone who paid taxes, not just the "wealthy."
And it worked. The 1980s ended up being the most prosperous decade in 40 years. Instead of "working to destroy the middle class" (extremely inaccurate, btw), under Reaganomics middle class did very well, overall.
Regarding the bailout, that does not involve Reagan and is a different subject.
It would be nice if you posted facts, not untruths.
It was an across the board tax cut... for everyone who paid taxes, not just the "wealthy."
And it worked. The 1980s ended up being the most prosperous decade in 40 years. Instead of "working to destroy the middle class" (extremely inaccurate, btw), under Reaganomics middle class did very well, overall.
Regarding the bailout, that does not involve Reagan and is a different subject.
As one who was there for the Reagan years, I can say with certainty that Reaganomics were not designed to assist the middle class in any way. The "tax cuts" in no way made up for other things that were taken away, such as interest deductions that encourafed borrowing and kept money flowing thrugh the economy. George W. Bush took Reagan's ideas to their logical conclusion and all but bankrupted America for the benefit of the wealthy.
The GOP has been going downhill since Teddy Roosevelt. I would vote reuplican if they could field such a candidate.
The democratic party that failed in the 70's recession under Carter repeating the same under Obama is what I see.We will need another Reagan to get thngs under control just like after Carter.
Reagan was an short-sighted idiot. Most of the problems and complaints right now are due to his policies. Overspending on military, giving Saddam power and weapons, too many tax cuts and escalating our debt, while bridges and dams crumble right before our eyes. Selling our production ability off to China, Mexico and anywhere else in the world. Those are the policies Reagan promoted and encouraged.
It would be nice if you posted facts, not untruths.
It was an across the board tax cut... for everyone who paid taxes, not just the "wealthy."
And it worked. The 1980s ended up being the most prosperous decade in 40 years. Instead of "working to destroy the middle class" (extremely inaccurate, btw), under Reaganomics middle class did very well, overall.
Well, I liked Reagan - and voted for him (and did very well personally) but the fact is, folks on the Right proudly point to Reagan's tax cuts as the reason for the economic rebound that occured during his Presidency - BUT completely IGNORE the fact that Reagan ALSO practiced DEFICIT SPENDING to boost government outlay and thus grow the economy. It wasn't just those tax cuts that grew the economy folks, it was also all that massive government spending (notably on the military build-up) that created all those jobs (including mine at the time).
But, that doesn't line up with the Rights' favorite economic theory so they simply ignore that fact.
The fact is, Reagan's approach isn't all that different from Obama's in that regard - cut taxes (for most of the population anyway) and boost government spending. That approach worked back then, and it will work now.
Reagan was an short-sighted idiot. Most of the problems and complaints right now are due to his policies. Overspending on military, giving Saddam power and weapons, too many tax cuts and escalating our debt, while bridges and dams crumble right before our eyes. Selling our production ability off to China, Mexico and anywhere else in the world. Those are the policies Reagan promoted and encouraged.
Interesting you should mention those things, considering that Reagan was a large proponent of two federal programs - the Interstate highway system and NASA. The tax cut myth is just that - a myth. The infamous ERTA tax cuts were, for the most part, reversed less than a year after they came into effect. As a matter of fact, Reagan sponsored increasing the corporate tax rates in compromise for wanting across the board tax income tax cuts.
Outsourcing of jobs occured in the late 70s, not in the 80s. The largest period of outsourcing occured in the 90s, but was largely disguised by the Dot Com bubble. I can personally attest to this, as I watched entire industries, mainly related to furniture, paper, and textiles - skip town bound for China or Mexico. The Chinese government even funded part of Clinton's (D) campaign in 1996 to encourage him to turn a blind eye to outsourcing, and so the Chinese could build their own ICBMs with American W88s.
And for the record, Saddam lost most of the remaining weapons we sold him in the Gulf War. It was part of the reason he hated the US, seeing as we cut him off in the middle of his war against Iran. What is much worse is the fact that Bill Clinton directly funded the Taliban so they could consolidate power in Afghanistan. Furthermore, he lied claiming he did not sign off on the funds, yet the Taliban suddenly gained rediculous amounts of money and new weapons, and took control of the Afghan government with little resistance within a year after Clinton claimed not to have signed off on money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Well, I liked Reagan - and voted for him (and did very well personally) but the fact is, folks on the Right proudly point to Reagan's tax cuts as the reason for the economic rebound that occured during his Presidency - BUT completely IGNORE the fact that Reagan ALSO practiced DEFICIT SPENDING to boost government outlay and thus grow the economy. It wasn't just those tax cuts that grew the economy folks, it was also all that massive government spending (notably on the military build-up) that created all those jobs (including mine at the time).
If you examine the military budget for the 80s, you will see that the majority of the spending spikes in the defense budget were directly coorelated to large orders of new equipment - F16s, M1A1s, Bradley APCs, Blackbirds, B2 Spirits, etc. There is no way that such individualized spending could possibly have affected the entire economy. That is like saying if the government put $20 billion into the toliet paper industry, the entire economy would reach enormous growth rates.
Military spending did however give us a sort of 'tech bubble' starting in the mid-80s, which did in fact trickle down to the civilan sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
The fact is, Reagan's approach isn't all that different from Obama's in that regard - cut taxes (for most of the population anyway) and boost government spending. That approach worked back then, and it will work now.
No, as the problems faced in the early 80s are completely different from those experienced in late '08-early '09. Cutting taxes and increasing government spending made the economy much worse, and arguably prolonged the recession in the 80s. The reason being that the early 80s recession was caused by money being removed from the market by the Fed, which differs greatly from the current situation.
The democratic party that failed in the 70's recession under Carter repeating the same under Obama is what I see.We will need another Reagan to get thngs under control just like after Carter.
Amen !
Most posters are probably too young to remember the late 60's or early 70's.
Too young to remember the news shows having panelists debate whether the Democrat party was dead for good and debating whether it could ever come back.
After the horrendus beating George McGovern took in 72, it did appear the Democrat party was a thing of the past.
We are a country that believes the way to correct things are wide swings of the pendelum.
Thus, we will always have points in time when it appears one party is dead. That party comes back to life when we are not satisfied with the big swing of the pendlum and are ready to swing it the other direction.
People who have lived thru history ( or studied history) are aware of that.
Those who have done neither are clueless and will ask if either political party is dead or irrelevant.
Yup,---------clueless !
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.
