Reflecting on Reagan

[Cruentus]

Well actually what Reagan did to the economy was revolutionary.

I respect your colorful explaination, and your zeal in your support for Reagans economic policies. Unfortunatily, very little of what you say in regards to Reagan uplifting the american economy is true.

The bull market from 1982 to 2000 (I correct myself from my last post because the economic bubble tappered off in 2000, even though the true bear didn't hit til 2001) was all part of the economic cycle that the economy has followed for the past 200 years. This is regardless of tax cuts, republicans, democrates, or size of economy and businesses, or the size of my wiener. The public is generally reactionary when it comes to the economy, which is why the average investor fails to outperform the indecies. Reaganomics had little to do with the 1982 upturn of the economy anymore then Clintonomics had to do with the prosperiety during his administration, anymore then Bushinomics had to do with the downturn that occured during recent years.

Now, when there is a reversal, how the government reacts can make a huge difference. Government may only be a small factor in the cycle, but it is a huge factor in how citizens handle the cycles, whether boom or bust. The G.W. Bush administration was trying to follow the Reagan model in regards to tax cuts to try to force a speedy recovery, which was a big mistake. Reagan's term was at the end of a cyclical stagnant market and the beginning of a bull; "tax cuts" did little to help or hurt that. Tax cuts in the beginning of an economic bear, however, hurts in this case, because the government spends more during the bear (while people are supposed to spend less) to help cushion the blow. This president spent more, told us to spend more, and taxed less. What does this equal? An extremely high defecit, that's what! It would be like lossing your job, spending more money because of it, except charging everything on a high interest credit card. Not too intelligent. An individual would bankrupt, as will our country if we aren't careful.

Understanding the deficit and how it relates to us is like trying to understand how inflation works, because both are barely tangable concepts. If the inflation rate is 3% a year, that means if you put a 100 dollar bill under your bed for a year, the purchasing power of that dollar would be worth 97 dollars from the previous year. The value of that 100 would continue to decrease at the rate of inflation in subsequent years. Why? Because inflation describes "purchasing power," not the value of the dollar itself. In other words, as inflation goes up, you can buy less crap with the dollar you have in your pocket. The deficit is a similar thing to understand. It was estimated that by 2010, for the average family, 8 to 10 K a year will go towards the deficit created during this administration. People generally don't understand this, because it's not like you write a check for the deficit every year any more then your dollar turns to 97 cents magically before your eyes at a 3% inflation rate. You pay the deficit through the increase of consumer goods and through tax dollars.

So, in the long run, the Bushenomics Tax cuts not only did nothing to stimulate the economy, and did nothing to create jobs, but it screwed the poor, and the working lower to upper middle class in the long run. That few hundred bucks extra will have to be paid back by the thousands in years to come.

Sorry to go on a diatribe on the Bush mistake, but this relates to Reagan as well. I don't know if during his administration, a tax cut was needed or not, but I do know that the timing for it was a hell of a lot better then our recent cuts. Simply put, if the people are overtaxed, then a cut is needed. If the government is underfunded, then an increase is needed (conservatives often fail to recognize the second part). It is greatly counter-productive, however, when these cuts create a deficit. Surely, it would help if the government wouldn't waste money on corporate welfare and projects that are only designed to employ companies who can afford expensive lobbiests; then we could have the best of both worlds...lower taxes with a properly funded socially conscience government. Ah....only in a perfect world.

Now, Regean gleefully spent money on unnessicary crap; but he wasn't as bad as George W.. Whether his tax cuts were justifiable...I honestly don't know enough on that history to answer yes or no.

However, One thing I do know is this: the idea that reaganomics pulled us out of an economic slump is absurd, and in violation of many basic economic principles, including (but not limited too) the "effecient market theory" that conservatives enthusiastically believe.

Anyhoo, disagree if you'd like, but you'll have to provide a serious source to make me even consider a different viewpoint on this one.

Sorry for the economics 200 lesson...

PAUL

 

[hardheadjarhead]

It isn't a digression to compare the current deficit with that of Reagan's. Earlier I quoted Cheney as saying that Reagan taught us deficit's don't matter.

The difference in deficit spending twenty years ago versus now is the demographics of the nation. Back then the "Baby Boomers" were at their peak earning potential age...and I'm sure this is one reason for the subsequent economic boom.

Now, however, those "Boomers" are aging (I'm one of the young ones at 47) and will not have the economic clout to pay off the nation's debt. Those that will have to do that will be our children...who will not have the numbers or the clout we had back in 1984.

Cheney was wrong...deficits DO matter. They matter a great deal to a growing number of Republicans who are increasingly disenchanted with this administration's fiscal irresponsibility.

Interesting post, Paul.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Cruentus]

Thanks Steve! How's the ACL?

Cheney was right for about 1% of the worlds population; deficits matter very little to the very Rich. Multi-millionaires are not going to be affected by an increase in consumer goods, like food, gas, utilities, clothing, materials, and so forth. If their spending on consumer goods raise a few thousand bucks, this won't even dent their budgets. The family of 4 on 40 or 50 or even 70 thousand a year will feel a few thousand bucks tremendously. This is especially if that few thousand bucks is to the tune of 8 to 10 thousand by 2010. WORKING america, everyone from your mechanic and teacher to your small business owner, will feel it. Yet, they won't even know it, because most don't understand it. It's just like the 70 year old who keeps his money in coffee cans at the house thinking that their money is safer that way, not realizing that the purchasing power of that money is less every year, and not realizing that at the bank in CD's, your money isn't subject to fire or theft. Yet, you can tell em and tell em, yet they still keep their life savings in coffee cans. Like that 70 year old, republicans and small business owners will wave their "Go (Fill in republican canidate here)!" FLAGS, and will continue to pretend that deficit spending doesn't matter ('cause Reagan said so), as they kiss that extra 2 or 3 hundred bucks they get back from tax cuts, all the while more and more of their own income and savings erodes away every year, paying a deficit that they cannot see. I don't expect them to ever change, or understand.

The sad thing about it all is that those big spenders and high rolers who support the idea that deficit's don't matter are violating their capitalist consumerist ideal that they so heavily support. Because it doesn't effect their check books, they don't think that it effects their bottom line. If consumers are able to filter less money into the economy because of a deficit, then this effects the economy, and effects their bottom line, even if they can't see it right away. The very Rich seem to forget that no one exists in a bubble or a vaccum, no matter how far they try to seperate themselves from the poor and the destitude.

Anyways, off to a meeting. I wonder if anyone knows their economic history enough to answer why inflation was so high before Reagan in the first place? I'll shut up now and see if anyone here can get it right.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks Steve! How's the ACL?

Doing a lot better...thanks. I think I'm over the "hump". I just did some physical therapy, and this time it didn't feel as if someone were trying to amputate my leg. Last night and this morning my mood was somewhat dark, to put it mildly. I think I could have eaten a kitten last night.

I had one of the world's best surgeons (actually no exaggeration...he's recognized as such), and he's quite optimistic that I'll have a healthy knee inside of a year. Then, the world will tremble at my approach.



Insofar as your observations on taxes, I'm "feeling" it now. I pay an obscene amount. Then I read in the NY Times this morning about hundreds of billions of corporate tax breaks in the offing. And THAT makes my mood dark, as well.




Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I have to tell you ... I have been getting more and more angry as I drive by American flags flying at half staff for Reagan. It just seemed to be going on forever. And as I recall, after September 11, 2001, we flew the flags at half staff for 9 days. Those two items just seemed to bug me a bit.

Anyhow; apparently, in 1976, the congress passed a law stating that upon the death of a president, the flag will be flown at half-staff for 30 days (VP - 10 days). And, it ended up that on September 11, President Bush ordered flags flown at half staff for 5 days (til the evening of 9/16).

Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit weird?

Mike

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think it's a demonstration of an Administration's weird priorities - we should show more respect for one former President than for 3,000+ bombing victims.

Interesting. And wierd.

 

[MartialArtist68]

Yes!

 

[michaeledward]

I think it's a demonstration of an Administration's weird priorities - we should show more respect for one former President than for 3,000+ bombing victims.

Interesting. And wierd.

As I mentioned, I too thought it was weird. However, the law passed about honoring the death of a president was passed in the 1970's. I think it is quite possible that President Bush, when he ordered the flags to half-staff for 6 or 7 days after 9/11, that he had no idea of the law requiring 30 days for a President. The last time this law was used was Nixon's death, which was before Bush was elected Govenor of Texas.

I think, in hindsight, the congress of 1976 went too far.

Mike

 

[Cruentus]

As I mentioned, I too thought it was weird. However, the law passed about honoring the death of a president was passed in the 1970's. I think it is quite possible that President Bush, when he ordered the flags to half-staff for 6 or 7 days after 9/11, that he had no idea of the law requiring 30 days for a President. The last time this law was used was Nixon's death, which was before Bush was elected Govenor of Texas.

I think, in hindsight, the congress of 1976 went too far.

Mike

Ah...mike, good research. That makes sense...(I was wondering about this lately and didn't have an answer).

Yours,
Mikey Savage

 

[michaeledward]

I was away for the holiday weekend. But one thing occured to me as I was driving out of computer / cell phone range; boy, it sure is going to be strange to see all the flags at half-staff on the 4th of July. But ... gee, the 1976 law says we will honor a President's passing by flying the flag for 30 days at half-staff.

On Saturday (July 3rd), I heard a radio report that President Bush had announced the end of the period of mourning for President Regan's passing and that all flags should again be flown at full-staff.

Now ... did I imagine this? I am going to look for reports. But, it seems to me that President Bush is violating the law by prematurely announcing the end of the period of mourning. Some who passed that law are still sitting in Congress, I wonder how they feel about such a usurping of authority. I also wonder if President Bush is aware of the law (although ignorance of the law is not a defense).

Hmm ... More research to be done on this one.

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The thread has died...but I just found this on another forum and thought I'd share it. It is emotionally charged, and possibly open to attack for some of its allegations. Some, however, might find it worth reading.

If others have posted it, I apologize for missing it.

Regards,

Steve


Planet Reagan

By William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 07 June 2004

Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is being nice to him. In every aspect, this is appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a beloved member of a family, and he will be missed by those he was close to. His death was long, slow and agonizing because of the Alzheimer's Disease which ruined him, one drop of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died ten years ago almost to the day because of this disease, and this disease took ten years to do its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her.

The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell letter to the American people was as magnificent a departure from public life as any that has been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of his illness was that he lived on, and on, and on. His family and friends watched as he faded from the world of the real, as the simple dignity afforded to all life collapsed like loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. Only those who have seen Alzheimer's Disease invade a mind can know the truth of this. It is a cursed way to die.

In this mourning space, however, there must be room made for the truth. Writer Edward Abbey once said, "The sneakiest form of literary subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth. The critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you; your fellow writers will shake their heads."

The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies and people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring apocalypse in the eye.

How can this be? The television says Ronald Reagan was one of the most beloved Presidents of the 20th century. He won two national elections, the second by a margin so overwhelming that all future landslides will be judged by the high-water mark he achieved against Walter Mondale. How can a man so universally respected have played a hand in the evils which corrupt our days?

The answer lies in the reality of the corrupt society Abbey spoke of. Our corruption is the absolute triumph of image over reality, of flash over substance, of the pervasive need within most Americans to believe in a happy-face version of the nation they call home, and to spurn the reality of our estate as unpatriotic. Ronald Reagan was, and will always be, the undisputed heavyweight champion of salesmen in this regard.

Reagan was able, by virtue of his towering talents in this arena, to sell to the American people a flood of poisonous policies. He made Americans feel good about acting against their own best interests. He sold the American people a lemon, and they drive it to this day as if it was a Cadillac. It isn't the lies that kill us, but the myths, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest myth-maker we are ever likely to see.

Mainstream media journalism today is a shameful joke because of Reagan's deregulation policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that the information we receive - information vital to the ability of the people to govern in the manner intended - came from a wide variety of sources and perspectives. Reagan's policies annihilated the Fairness Doctrine, opening the door for a few mega-corporations to gather journalism unto themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at General Electric own three of the most-watched news channels. This company profits from every war we fight, but somehow is trusted to tell the truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us.

The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan did not just deliver journalism to these massive corporations, but handed virtually every facet of our lives into the hands of this privileged few. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are all tainted because Reagan battered down every environmental regulation he came across so corporations could improve their bottom line. Our leaders are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations that were made all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze. The Savings and Loan scandal of Reagan's time, which cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars, is but one example of Reagan's decision that the foxes would be fine guards in the henhouse.

Ronald Reagan believed in small government, despite the fact that he grew government massively during his time. Social programs which protected the weakest of our citizens were gutted by Reagan's policies, delivering millions into despair. Reagan was able to do this by caricaturing the "welfare queen," who punched out babies by the barnload, who drove the flashy car bought with your tax dollars, who refused to work because she didn't have to. This was a vicious, racist lie, one result of which was the decimation of a generation by crack cocaine. The urban poor were left to rot because Ronald Reagan believed in 'self-sufficiency.'

Because Ronald Reagan could not be bothered to fund research into 'gay cancer,' the AIDS virus was allowed to carve out a comfortable home in America. The aftershocks from this callous disregard for people whose homosexuality was deemed evil by religious conservatives cannot be overstated. Beyond the graves of those who died from a disease which was allowed to burn unchecked, there are generations of Americans today living with the subconscious idea that sex equals death.

The veneer of honor and respect painted across the legacy of Ronald Reagan is itself a myth of biblical proportions. The coverage proffered today of the Reagan legacy seldom mentions impropriety until the Iran/Contra scandal appears on the administration timeline. This sin of omission is vast. By the end of his term in office, some 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, indicted or investigated for misconduct and/or criminal activities.

Some of the names on this disgraceful roll-call: Oliver North, John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D. Fiers, Clair George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh Burford, Rita Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida, Edwin Gray, Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur Hayes, J. Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro, Thomas C. Reed, Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names are lost to history, but more than a few of them are still with us today, 'rehabilitated' by the administration of George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever to walk the earth. Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and Duvalier reek of blood and corruption, yet were embraced by the Reagan administration with passionate intensity. The ground of many nations is salted with the bones of those murdered by brutal rulers who called Reagan a friend. Who can forget his support of those in South Africa who believed apartheid was the proper way to run a civilized society?

One dictator in particular looms large across our landscape. Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...020920_3025.htm

sent to Iraq during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.

The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite public American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret and in violation of scores of laws.

Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is that of Osama bin Laden. The Reagan administration believed it a bully idea to organize an army of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Bin Laden became the spiritual leader of this action. Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded and trained by the United States. Reagan helped teach Osama bin Laden the lesson he lives by today, that it is possible to bring a superpower to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he has done it once before, thanks to the dedicated help of Ronald Reagan.

In 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by Osama bin Laden, who used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan administration to do the job. In 2001, Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger into the heart of the United States, using men who became skilled at the art of terrorism with the help of Ronald Reagan. Today, there are 827 American soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that came to be because Reagan helped manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man in charge, the man who defeated Soviet communism, the man whose vision and charisma made Americans feel good about themselves after Vietnam and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who despise Reagan see him as nothing more than a pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who smiled vapidly while allowing his officials to run the government for him.

In the final analysis, however, the legacy of Ronald Reagan - whether he had an active hand in its formulation, or was merely along for the ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that matters, and be damned to the truth.

William Rivers Pitt <mailto:[email protected]> is the senior editor and lead writer for t r u t h o u t. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know
__________________

 

[TwistofFat]

Wow. Don't forget diabetes and poor posture.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Wow. Thanks for the post, HHJH. It's not too common to read something like that.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Personally, I think its a flawed piece, though written very well.

On the web site I got it off of, though, there was a post by a young man who stated that Reagan was "tough on terrorism" and that the eighties didn't have as much terrorism as we have today

While the latter is arguable...there was plenty of terrorism back on Reagan's watch...he was not tough on terrorism. As I've indicated elsewhere I'm not too keen on Shia extremists killing 241 Marines with a truck bomb only to have our Commander In Chief sell weapons to Iran, the benefactor of the terrorists in question...and illegally to boot.

No, twistoffat, Reagan isn't responsible for diabetes and poor posture. That is Nixon's fault.


Regards,


Steve

 

[TwistofFat]

I thought Nixon owed me...been bent over for years! Good post Steve - WHile I disagree - It's good to see some brain power.


Semper Fidelis - Glenn.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I thought Nixon owed me...been bent over for years! Good post Steve - WHile I disagree - It's good to see some brain power.


Semper Fidelis - Glenn.

Thanks, Glenn...that's the most polite disagreement I've gotten here in weeks.


Semper Fi right back.


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The thread is dead, but I just found this quote and had to share it, it was so funny:

I admit that the tumultuous sexual activities of the Clinton years made me occasionally nostalgic for the Reagan era, when sleeping with the President meant attending a Cabinet meeting.

--Saul Landau



Zaniest President in US History
Bush Surpasses Reagan
By SAUL LANDAU

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau07232004.html