The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

I found this article doing research on American conservatism over the years today. It's 20 years old, but goes to show just how blind some people have become. Some people STILL, 20 years later, think Ronald Reagan was a conservative, when in fact he increased the size of the Federal government and Federal spending more than the Carter administration or the Clinton administration.

The source is a libertarian study institute that champions Austrian economics and small government, so don't even think about calling it "liberal propaganda" or anything like that.

Excerpt:

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Read it here:
The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

I'll call crap, crap; and liberal propaganda, crap also.

Reagan had to build up many of the agencies and programs that Ford and Carter had gutted from the 70's. This is why these Presidents are held in such high regard.

Reagan saved the USA by rebuilding the departments and agencies to functional levels. Our military, today, has many of the battle systems and technology started by the Reagan terms.

Social Security numbers are deliberately skewed as to not show how many people fell under the new guidelines of legibility that the demoncrats passed during Reagan's term. Surprisingly, the hundreds of thousands of Cubans that made their way to our shores and became "citizens" were not listed; nor was the first amnesty program for all illegals within the country who also became "citizens" of our great land. All these people became instant eligible for social security payments.

Another thing not mentioned within this article, but was common during the 70's, 80's, and 90's, thank you Jimmy; immigrants that were considered political in nature, didn't have to pay federal taxes the first 5 years while applying for citizenship. This applies to the Cubans as they are automatically granted political asylum and fell under this law. Other countries were on a case by case bases.

The article is skewed with a liberal slant and to make Michael Dukakis look like a more progressive candidate than the liberal he was; while tying Bush (the elder) in with Reagan. Notice the date of the article. Presidential election was when???

Reagan was a conservative for his time. He will be remember, by history, as a great president of our country. I believe this is a good thing.

Revenue to the government quadrupled during Reagan's time.

All of Reagans Budgets during that time were declared "DOA" (Dead on Arrival) by these same people.

All spending starts in Congress. Reagan lowered taxes which resulted in more revenue, and Congress greedily took it, and went for even more.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by RRconservative]

reply to post by evanmontegarde


Yes you are right Reagan's promises as with any other presidential candidate got lost.

I lived through the Regan years as a young mother and a Marine wife, education, Aids and the economy feared a lot worst.

One of the promises that he did kept was to cut federal spending and tax cuts but that was at the cost of many federal programs.

To help compensate for the tax cut, his first budget called for slashing $41.4 billion from 83 federal programs, only the first round in a planned series of cuts. And Reagan himself made known his desire to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, and to scale back what his first budget director David Stockman called the "closet socialism" of Social Security and Medicaid.

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

Then after the failure to push the beginnings of the social security privatization and been stopped by congress he came around with $165 billion bailout of Social security and increased taxes plus the taxation of social security benefits started.

By standards he was more of a liberal than he was conservative when it came to government spending and taxing.

Education was also one of the casualties of Reagan but until this day hasn't recuperated yet.

He open the door to what is now the take over of the American government by private agendas.

reply to post by RRconservative


The only death on arrival was actually the Social security bill.

Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

Originally posted by RRconservative
Reagan lowered taxes which resulted in more revenue, and Congress greedily took it, and went for even more.

You ever notice that when you approach a conservative with the simple economic fact that if you stop revenue influx in one place, you're usually just getting it from somewhere else, there's rarely a compelling answer as to how this is improves our economic position?

The fact is the economic philosophy of the Reagan years is the same in principle as the ones that have placed us in the mess we are in now.

Smoke and Mirrors...

The old Razzle Dazzle...

A reduction in taxes to businesses and the wealthy in hopes that they in turn create jobs...

Unfortunately, all we are ever left with is a large debt.

"Hey, I was able to save $12,000 in my savings account. Oh yeah, but I did it by racheting up a $15,000 debt on my credit card." That's Reagan. That's Bush. That's the Republican Party.

That's the myth of Trickle Down Economics, or Reaganomics, whose major flaw is in the belief that additional money to large companies leads to more jobs. It does not, my friends. All it's ever led to are larger executive bonuses, golden parachutes, and now, a 1 trillion dollar bailout of our banking system.

Under Reagan, his Supply-Side policies led to a large recession and, subsequently, a large debt. There's his legacy.

Under Bush Senior, his predecessor's Supply-Side policies led to a large recession and, subsequently, a.... Hey Wait a Minute! This Sounds Awfully Familiar!

Under Bush Jr., his Supply-Side policies led to a large recession and, subsequently, a.... OK, I think I see a pattern here...

In the spirit of objectivity and friendly discourse, I challenge conservatives on this thread to qualify how Reagan's (and now Bush's) economic methodology has benefited the United States, by challenging the merits of the posted article's points.

I think one would be hard-pressed to justify how claiming victory on supposed economic stability by using the same principles that qualifies an individual for Spenders Anonymous is "Good Economic Policy." The measure of a strong US economy is whether the average everyday citizens have savings, can spend, and can afford health care, not whether Blue Chip stocks are soaring, or whether Exxon breaks quarterly earnings records. Let's admit, for once, that Reaganomics is aimed at making the rich richer through a bait and switch. It's that simple.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by tommy_boy]

reply to post by tommy_boy


Didn't you just start another thread with this exact same post?

Did you just copy this from another website or something?



Seriously.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by tommy_boy

 

Didn't you just start another thread with this exact same post?

Did you just copy this from another website or something?

Seriously.

Haha! Nope, all my own work, but thank you! Seemed like a good separate thread. Felt there was a broader question to be asked here.

It's not so much the Reagan legacy, but the Republican economic legacy that historians will look at and question hundreds of years from now. Even back in the 1800's when Supply-Side Economics was known as the Horse-and-Sparrow Theory, which stated that If you feed a horse oats, some will pass through its system onto the road and will then feed the sparrows. This style of financial voodoo has been wreaking havoc all the way back to the panic of 1896.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by evanmontegarde

 

Yes you are right Reagan's promises as with any other presidential candidate got lost.

I lived through the Regan years as a young mother and a Marine wife, education, Aids and the economy feared a lot worst.

One of the promises that he did kept was to cut federal spending and tax cuts but that was at the cost of many federal programs.

To help compensate for the tax cut, his first budget called for slashing $41.4 billion from 83 federal programs, only the first round in a planned series of cuts. And Reagan himself made known his desire to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, and to scale back what his first budget director David Stockman called the "closet socialism" of Social Security and Medicaid.

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

Then after the failure to push the beginnings of the social security privatization and been stopped by congress he came around with $165 billion bailout of Social security and increased taxes plus the taxation of social security benefits started.

By standards he was more of a liberal than he was conservative when it came to government spending and taxing.

Education was also one of the casualties of Reagan but until this day hasn't recuperated yet.

He open the door to what is now the take over of the American government by private agendas.

America would be a better place had Medicare, Social Security, Welfare and the Dept. of (non) education been dismantled. Yep, old Stockman called it exactly what it was, and is. Socialism gave us the economic crisis we have now. It started in 1977 with Carter with the CRA, then Clinton put it on steroids in 1995. People still don't get it; Socialism and Marxism just----never---- work.

From below "The measure of a strong US economy is whether the average everyday citizens have savings, can spend, and can afford health care....."

Tommy-boy, you must have went to a public school. The government has nothing to do as to wether or not the "average citizen" has savings or health care. Money, jobs, a house, a car, health insurance, an education..... there is no "right" to those things, 'nor is it governments job to supply then to you. There is no "right" that places a burden on another person.

You were brainwashed well. Write to your old teachers (or college professors) and thank them.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by RRconservative

 

The only death on arrival was actually the Social security bill.

Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

Sorry...... the largest tax increase in American history was from Clinton, and it was on Social Security recipients.