It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Lies of the Ronald Reagan Legacy

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by 46ACE

Then you shouldn't have responded to my post with such nonsense.

Then you start talking tough, on the internet, what a punk.

Most real men work hard physical jobs and support the unions, and Reagan was a union buster. The typical Reagan luvin pudgy day trader would keep his mouth shut about politics in a bar full of construction workers.

Repubs wrote the legislation that destroyed our economy, under Gingrich's contract on America, quickly followed by wide spread fraud throughout the finance sector.

The alternate is to return to what the constitution establishes, regulation of interstate commerce, conducting of treaties, protecting our borders, NOT international businesses over seas investments that ship our jobs away.

And looking after the general welfare of the people.

If our fed gov was doing its job, most of these wall street fat cats would now be in jail, and the vast amounts of money they stole through fraudulent business practices would be confiscated, and applied to our national debt, and our economy could be humming along just fine.

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by WTFover

Inflation rates in the U.S. started climbing in 73, and hit double digits in 74, mainly due to OPECs manipulation of oil prices. The seventies is the decade when U.S. oil reserves were depleted. If the U.S. government is at fault for the economic problems developed in the seventies, it would be their failure to produce a more efficient transportation infrastructure.

Reagan succeeded in blaming the fed gov for all the problems, and then proceeded to turn the power in our country over to the Fed Reserve through his pro-investment economic policies, under the theory of trickle down. You don't have to be an economist to see how things have gone since then. He called it Free Market economics, and the suckers lapped it up.

The article you linked to doesn't give your flowering description of the 86 tax overhaul, just states that it could be a model.

You conveniently forget the stock market collapse in 87, and the looting of the S&Ls. I was a young man in those times, and Reagan did everything he could to pull the carpet out from under us. The only time we saw any prosperity was after Clinton was elected, and we saw a rise in our incomes for the first time in over twenty years. Then repubs took control of congress, and wrecked the whole thing, and it has been one crook cheating an other since then.

GDP was weak under Reagan, especially when looking at the 60ties, 70ties, and 90ties.

And this is with the huge tax increase, and huge increase in government debt under Reagan. It is not a good record, but a poor record.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Janky Red
Well Reagan raised the debt ceiling 150% during his presidency... He created more debt than ALL the presidents previous. It is often overlooked but a good deal of the Trillions owed today are actually a result of the interest accrued from his presidency and then compounded.

Every Administration and Congress, before and after Reagan, spent more than their predecessors. I know there are several threads, here on ATS, lambasting Obama for doing the same

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Following the 1986 tax reform bill, inflation dropped from 6% the previous year to 1.9% but then rose back towards 4.8% by the end of Mr Reagan’s term and 5.6% into Bush seniors first term but I guess you forgot to add that part in.

No I didn't. Go back and read my statement, which you quoted in your reply.

You know the Bush tax cuts? It's little to no different to Reagan’s tax system. how is that going?

Minus, of course, the closing of enormous loopholes.

Overall, Aside from minor rises in taxes from Clinton and Obama, the vast majority of policies on taxes have remained in the same as Reagans for the last 30 years. Taxes have continued to remain well below the 40% mark, and what has this done for us exactly?

Again, you ignore the closing of corporate loopholes by Reagan, and the reinstatement of nearly every single one, in the subsequent years. The 1986 tax code, following the "Reagan reforms", consisted of nearly 32,000 pages. As of 2010, it exceeds 70,000. Why? Though I won't be taking on the reading of such a pile of ridiculousness, I fully suspect it is intended to conceal ever increasing loopholes, understood by and known only to those who have written them, and of course their "friends" and benefactors.

Under Kennedy the tax rate averaged around 50% however debt was decreased and inflation averaged no more than 1.4%. Clinton’s average inflation rate was far lower than Reagan’s as well despite him actually raising taxes from 31% to 34% (inflation rate was 2.7% against Reagans 4.0% average), and Clinton created more jobs and barely raised any debt (many economists actually argue that he lowered it).

So, you believe it's only Republican Presidents whose policies can have negative effects of future generations? Okay, got it. You won't acknowledge and give credit to Reagan for bringing inflation down from over 13% to under 2%, but laud Kennedy and Clinton for maintaining inflation rates that were already low, when they took office.

Well you know what a drug addict goes through right? A short period of fantasy before dropping face flat back to reality and debt.

But what is the "drug", in this example? Spending, spending, spending! Washington's addiction to spending is what has, and continues to, destroy our country's economy. We can't cut taxes, without also cutting spending. And we can't increase taxes, only to redouble the spending beyond the amout of the increases. To cut the deficits requires cutting spending. But, I've gone off topic.

What I read, from conservative and liberal summaries of the Reagan tax reforms, is that he simplified the tax code and narrowed and decreased the tax rates. But, at the same time, Reagan closed many corporate tax loopholes, which, in effect, increased corporate taxes, while eliminating all tax liability for many low wage earners.

The problems arose, in later years, due to these tax "breaks" and loopholes being re-instituted. Where would we be now, if they had remained intact? Theoretically, our country would be in better condition. However, the spending of both Dems and Reps would have just burned through any excess revenue, proven by their penchants for spending money they don't even have to spend and fictitious "debt ceilings".

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast...

The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993.

Reagan's Liberal Legacy

So, those who would continue to ridicule Reagan's presidency as a complete failure and financial boondoggle, must be advocating higher tax rates for everyone, creating more corporate tax breaks and "loopholes" and taxing every wage earner, regardless of level.

Aside from the financial arguments, the above article includes this important statement

After a defense buildup that pushed the Soviets to the verge of economic collapse, this shift, augmented by a reduction in U.S. military spending in the latter years of his presidency, strengthened Gorbachev's ability to proceed with reform in the Soviet Union, and set the stage for George H.W. Bush to oversee a peaceful end to the Cold War.

And closes with

But, as Reagan himself liked to cite from John Adams, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that Reagan, whether out of wisdom or because he was forced, made significant compromises with the left. Had he not saved Social Security, relented on his tax cut, and negotiated with the Soviets, he'd have been a less popular, and lesser, president. An honest portrait of Reagan's presidency would not diminish his memory, but enlarge it.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Janky Red
Some of Reagan's folk/corruption

It's always exceptionally enjoyable for me to engage in debate with those I consider ATS friends, due to their demonstration of civility in our disagreements. Thanks for continuing in that vein, here.

Now, (and you already knew there was a "but" coming here, didn't you) I must call into question your inclusion of the Wiki list of "Reagan Administration scandals". As I'm certain there are in each of that site's lists, for each administration, some are fraudulently included to disparage the administration, when in fact, they only arose during the term and had no connection to the administration.

The first on the list, Robert Anderson, was not a member of Reagan's Administration. His Federal public service ended in 1961, as Security of the Treasury under Eisenhower. His legal problems were a result of his illegal activities in the private sector.

The second, Raymond Donovan, acquitted, along with 6 co-defendants. So, why would he be included in the list?

The third, Samuel Pierce, if the summary Wiki has of his investigation is accurate, should have been charged.

The fourth, James Watt, was Secretary of the Interior from 1981 to 1983. His legal problems did not arise until 1995, which were a result of his activities as a lobbyist, after leaving his cabinet office.

Are we to hold every President accountable for what their associates do after leaving their appointed positions? If so, shouldn't we also hold accountable each and every Senator who confirmed the nomination?

I won't continue down the list, but of the first four 75% should not be attributed to Reagan's Presidency. I will cede there is a history of corruption, which derives from Washington's connections, and some do have the direct accountability of Presidents. But, ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.

Was Reagan an angel? No, but he was not what a lot of liberals of today portray him to have been. Every President has had good points and bad. Every one has made good decisions and bad. Every one has received good counsel and bad. Reagan was no different.

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:10 PM
Reagan was a cesspool of ignorance and willing to do anything for a rich and connected American even at the expense of the American people.

All you who support this man are deceived and voting against your own interest unless you are rich, a millionaire or a billionaire.

If you are not and still go for Reagan’s and other conservative poison then something is awry in your logic.

WHY would you support something that works to destroy you?
That only aids those who are millionaires or billionars.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by WTFover
No I didn't. Go back and read my statement,

I full well what you intended in that statement. You stated that Reagan was responsible for lowering the inflation rate to 1.9% and kept it below 5% during the rest of his term. You left out the fact that inflation increased from 1.9% to 4.8% and then continued into Bush's term. You see that word? "increased" You seem to have left that out for Reagan following 1986. A lovely mince of words over there. But hey, maybe you'd argue that inflation below 5% is good in anycase, and I agree with you, only, compared the more "socialist" periods of Kennedy and Clinton, that percentage average is high. Your argument here was that Reagan's administration was a success because of his top down economic policies, but there is no evidence to support that his administration faired better than other administrations where taxes were higher.

I cannot understand how you continue to play down the record debt hikes and government deficits under Reagan. You wish to give him complete credit for the fact inflation was brought down from 13% to 1.9% in 86% but you wish to ignore the debt and deficits during that time as well. How does that work? Now I disagree with this notion that Reagan was responsible for the inflation rates being lowered from 13% to 1.9%:

Stagflation happened to reach its peak on Carter's watch, spurred on by the 1979 oil shock. How Carter can be blamed for a trend that began a decade and a half earlier is a mystery -- and a testimony as to how presidential candidates often exploit the public's economic ignorance for their own political gain.

However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system.

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him.

In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years.

Many conservatives or Reaganites would argue that Reagans expansive tax cuts at the beginning of his administration started off the decrease in inflation, but when we look at the facts, they do not seem to add up:

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.

Now, I will agree that Reagan's historic 20% tax decrease in 86' influenced the inflation drop to 1.9%, but this does not mean that it was economically good because it did little to nothing for the economy in the long run. If we were to drop another 20% in taxes, of course the market would react and rally positively, but in the long run it would not benefit us because the economy if far more complex than just cutting taxes and regulations. As I explained with the drug addict, they go through a temporary high to escape their issues but they drop right back down to reality after a short period of time. This high does not solve their issues in the long run. Reaganomics is much the same.

Corporate and general taxes have been cut dramatically since 81' when Reagan took office, and the comparison of our livelyhoods in general for the last 30 years in comparison to the years prior indicates that we are worse off in recent times. Cutting record taxes and regulations have proven themselves not to be solid economic solutions, and yet people continue to insist?

Minus, of course, the closing of enormous loopholes.

Maybe you could elaborate on this more? The Bush tax cuts were top down, they were catered more to the wealth, no differently from Reagan, so maybe you can further explain your point above.

I fully suspect it is intended to conceal ever increasing loopholes, understood by and known only to those who have written them, and of course their "friends" and benefactors.

You suspect? So you are to argue that the Bush tax cuts were not actual tax cuts for the wealthy?

So, you believe it's only Republican Presidents whose policies can have negative effects of future generations?

I believe that Republican economic policies have been tested time and time again and have proven themselves unsuccessful, atleast compared to their more "socialist" counterparts. You are to argue that Reagans administration was successful because he helped lower inflation to 1.9% following the 86' tax cuts and so forth, but when we go back to the years of Kennedy and Clinton when taxes were increased or significantly higher, where socialist policies were strengthened to a degree, we saw decreases in debt and government deficits and lower inflation rates. Your argument for Republican or rightwing economics does not add up when stacked against more "socialist" economic periods. All you have is the fact that inflation rates were lower during Reagans administration and even with that you cannot account for Reagan being fully responsible for this let alone him maintaining a consistent economic output years after the implementation of his economic policies.

You won't acknowledge and give credit to Reagan for bringing inflation down from over 13% to under 2%, but laud Kennedy and Clinton for maintaining inflation rates that were already low, when they took office.

Inflation rates were slightly lower under Clinton than Bush senior previously, and Clinton actually raised income taxes for the first time in decades along with with his constant blocking of the Republican controlled congress to get anything signicantly through. The Republican congress did get through a top down $170 billion tax cut package.... in 1997.... about the only significant achievement if any achievement at all from Republican politicians during the 90's.... how did that go exactly? Well nobody exactly remembers that multi-billion dollar tax cut package because it did little to nothing for the economy to be remembered for.

As for Kennedy? Well I do not believe he was fully responsible for the inflation rate during that time (by the same logic you used for Reagan he would be) but that still does not change the fact the tax rate was above 50% during that period, even during Republican Eisenhower. Medicare, socialist healthcare for the elderly, was introduced during the Johnson administration, Kennedy's former vice president, and even with this couple with the 50% tax, inflation rates faired better than the time under Reagan.

So, those who would continue to ridicule Reagan's presidency as a complete failure and financial boondoggle, must be advocating higher tax rates for everyone,

I think tax cuts are great, I like my tax cuts and I work hard for them. I just don't believe the rightwing idea of trickle down economics is a workable theory, and it has proven so time and time again in our history. Also, Reagan's economic policies were a mess. He created more debt than all the other presidents prior to him and created record breaking deficits, but this does not seem to bother people like you... maybe because as the other member states in this thread, he made you feel good about yourself and that was enough.

And as for the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, Reagan had little to nothing to do with this. Reagan played the part of the american president and that is really all you can point to him doing. The Soviet Union collapsed because it's economic and government structure was unsustainable. It was doomed to collapse sooner or later. Communism is an unworkable system, it fails after time, and Reagan has nothing to do with this fact.

And yes, for the sake of consistency don't complain about the deficits under this current government, because clearly you do not see this as an issue during the times under Reagan.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in