Ronald Reagan's Damage

[hitman619]

How about The Reagan administration war on Drugs, that was pretty successful

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Therblig

I don't really follow the side track here. Social Security, for example, is not for "the poor." And I don't see any value in compartmenting what economic class (below "the rich") the changes affected. Whether a program is for some slice of "the poor" or not, the effects will be felt further up the chain - say, a "poor" grandmother who now has to live with her family instead of independently.

Reagan caused a lot of damage — and yes, that's the right word — to the social services infrastructure. And he did so in the false argument of "smaller government" and, as someone once pointed out, the hatred of the poor that only a poor kid got rich can have.

Hmm. I think your Reagan sources are different from mine, or at least you are not getting the full story. It's almost like....you have an agenda. Say it isn't so. It's true Reagan tightened up social security in 1981 but then signed the Social Security Disability Reform Act in 1984 "to ensure that applicants were treated fairly and humanely." The results was a dramatic growth in SSDI usage from 2 million to 4 million.

But on the smaller government factor: Reagan made the federal government smaller in order to decentralize functions that are better addressed at the state and local level so they can determine the local needs. He didn't want power concentrated in one place where it was subject to inefficiency, abuse, and misuse. Makes sense to me. It's a different philosophy that goes back to the founding fathers - states rights vs. federal rights. It has nothing to do with limiting social benefits as each state is then free to continue funding welfare programs as they see fit via it's own system of taxation and budgeting.

[Therblig]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Hmm. I think your Reagan sources are different from mine, or at least you are not getting the full story. It's almost like....you have an agenda.

And, of course, your relentless defense of the man/administration is from pure motives.

Yep, I have an agenda — which, oddly enough, is not a four-letter word — but this is History.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Therblig

And, of course, your relentless defense of the man/administration is from pure motives.

Yep, I have an agenda — which, oddly enough, is not a four-letter word — but this is History.

So why bring your agenda here then?

There was no "relentless defense" by me, actually in contrast to your approach there was a balanced view that included acknowledging for instance his tightening up of social security and then the compensating act a few years later, as well as explaining his philosophical view on decentralizing government. I have also attempted to attribute the outside influence of globalization while you continue on the political angle.

You did none of these things. You in contrast seem to have only one view. And that, sir, is not how history works.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Nearwest

Many of Ronald Reagan's policies and actions during the 1980s started the downward spiral of the American working and middles classes. Relaxing merger requirements and enforcement was one. His firing of the striking PATCO air traffic controllers started the erosion of union protection for workers.

The PATCO strike was illegal. That's why he could fire them. They knew that but they thought he was bluffing. The near-death in the 1970's of the U.S. auto industry and many other industries is what broke the unions' strangle hold on workers.

He also removed the FCC Fairness Doctrine and relaxed restrictions on media companies amassing TV, radio, and print media in local regions. This allowed the rise of conglomerates such as Fox News and Sinclair Media with their single point of view.

Why do you single out Fox New and Sinclair? CNN, MSNBC, and the 4 major networks (plus PBS/NPR) are liberal yet they enjoy the absence of the Fairness Doctrine just as much as any other broadcaster.

After using the growth of the US deficit as a point to defeat Carter in the 1980 presidential election, Reagan's increased spending and tax reduction policies lead to the start of continuing increases in the national deficit and debt.

Following the end of the Cold War we ran a federal surplus for most of the 1990's -- the Peace Dividend -- thanks to Reagan. Then what did we do? We spent the Peace Dividend and then some, on wars in the 2000's. One of those wars is still being fought and both of them are still being paid for. Reagan's fault? I think not.

[mensaguy]

Nearwest was talking about media conglomerates, not whether they are liberal or conservative. However, this thread is not going to work. It seems to be impossible to talk about History on this topic without talking about politics.