The Reagan Counterrevolution

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ps104_33, Dec 6, 2008.

  1. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    In 1980, when the U.S. economy was last in serious trouble, Ronald Reagan offered the correct diagnoses that government was the problem and not the solution. His message resonated with voters, propelling him into the White House to implement an agenda of lowering marginal tax rates, reducing government spending and business regulations, restoring sound money, abolishing entire government departments, and basically allowing free market vibrancy to unshackle an economy burdened by big government. Though in practice much of the Reagan revolution never materialized, at least in theory his basic premise was sound.

    In contrast, the country has now hitched its wagon to the views of Barack Obama. We don’t know much about what he truly believes about economics, but the little that we do know is not encouraging. Obama has repeatedly heaped the blame for the current crisis on the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the greed of the wealthy. For him, the free market is the problem and government is the solution.


    http://europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=14566


     
  2. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    The great deregulator....

    The new regulator...

    I notice you didn't say this part about Obama, "His message resonated with voters, propelling him into the White House to implement an agenda"
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,302
    Likes Received:
    784
    For good reason. He was voted in because of his skin color and not much more.
     
  4. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, what a poor view of the 66,882,230 people who voted for Obama. All those American's voted for Obama exclusively because of the color of his skin???

    What if we said the 58,343,671 only voted against him because of the color of his skin?
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,302
    Likes Received:
    784

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s
     
  6. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps Sarah should have answered to the 12 questions to see if their hypothesis was correct... We don't know if she would have done better or not.

    Didn't see 66,882,230 say they voted for Obama exclusively because he was Black.

    I am one who voted for him, he didn't get my vote because he was black so that destroys your ALL theory...
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,302
    Likes Received:
    784
    Not at all.
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    That makes for a good image of Reagan but u8nfortunately it isn't consistent with the facts either for Reagan specifically or for the Republican party.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing

    http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm


    If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].

    Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

    Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reagan Reduced Big Government??

    The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

    Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million.

    http://slate.msn.com/id/100474/
     
  9. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know whats funny, it's an atrocity when Obama wants to raise the deficit but no one ask how we'll pay off our debts when GOP POTUS want to cut taxes. Sure, Reagan gave huge tax cuts but the deficit want from $700 Billion to $3 Trillion and he cut every social program under the sun.

    Don't forget, Reagan gave us the Iran contra scandal, he contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis and under his watch we had the stock market crash of 1987.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,302
    Likes Received:
    784
    If he wants to raise taxes and stop any new spending whatsoever until the debt is paid off in full then he will have some credibility. Until that time he is just bloviating.
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not what Reagan did, why is Obama presented a different standard?

    Reagan raised the deficit from $700 Billion to $3 Trillion so it would seem fair if Obama is allowed to raise the deficit $2.3 Trillion.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    No president at all, ever, has had a budgetary deficit of over a $trillion.

    Obama most likely will have.
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Economists widely believe both were the doings of Volcker and spillover from the Carter admin. Left wing hacks don't mind stepping around whatever they need to to blame Reagan for whatever they choose.
     
  14. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's not forget brother Neil Bush's role in the S&L meltdown, with his involvement at Silverado.
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go read the response in the other thread from Ken you said he couldn't produce. Bush sure managed to prove you wrong. He managed to raise it over $1 Trillion and he's a GOP by the way. The numbers I quoted for Reagan were for his 8 years in office... It is hard to cut taxes like he did and not raise the deficit but it's funny how so many people are worried about the deficit now... Why didn't they worry about the deficit when Reagan was cutting taxes?

     

Share This Page

Loading...