Why is Ronald Reagan such a hero to the right?

[spidey07]

LOL! Using NYtimes as a source.

To them "affluent" means people that work.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sigh…. AGAIN



You say it worked, I say the rich getting richer off the backs of those with less and running up debt is not working.

So how did it work?

Oh look - still can't read.

t got us out of the malaise and set us up for a good long run at prosperity

Now you can fight and whine about this or that in the details(which you are still trying to do) but it doesn't change what I posted. It worked - we were headed downward because of Carter and other things - Reaganomics reversed that course and put us in a position to prosper.

 

[Vette73]

Oh look - still can't read.



Now you can fight and whine about this or that in the details(which you are still trying to do) but it doesn't change what I posted. It worked - we were headed downward because of Carter and other things - Reaganomics reversed that course and put us in a position to prosper.

So in other words you can;t back it up.

I can use my Credit Card and everything would look great as bills would be "paid", I have a new car, tv, etc...
Does that mean it worked and we should all do that or would that be a failure?

 

[Vette73]

LOL! Using NYtimes as a source.

To them "affluent" means people that work.

Still waiting for you to back yours up?

And they did nto come up with the data, they just reported on it. So try again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So in other words you can;t back it up.

I can use my Credit Card and everything would look great as bills would be "paid", I have a new car, tv, etc...
Does that mean it worked and we should all do that or would that be a failure?

Again - you FAIL at reading. You should try it some time - it might help you with your affliction.

 

[Vette73]

Again - you FAIL at reading. You should try it some time - it might help you with your affliction.

So you can't back it up, thanks.


Reaganomics = Failure and not working.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So you can't back it up, thanks.


Reaganomics = Failure and not working.

lol, just because I won't take your bait and go off on some irrelevant tangent doesn't mean I can't or didn't back it up. All one has to do is read what I posted to understand that I did. It's quite simple really - Reaganomics reversed our downward spiral and set us up for years of prosperity.

"not working"? lol - Reagan hasn't been President since 1988 you twit. Sheesh - only a fool would think that Reaganomics continued on until today. Some principles - sure but Reaganomics isn't monolithic. Oh well - hope you seek the help you need.

 

[Vette73]

lol, just because I won't take your bait and go off on some irrelevant tangent doesn't mean I can't or didn't back it up. All one has to do is read what I posted to understand that I did. It's quite simple really - Reaganomics reversed our downward spiral and set us up for years of prosperity.

"not working"? lol - Reagan hasn't been President since 1988 you twit. Sheesh - only a fool would think that Reaganomics continued on until today. Some principles - sure but Reaganomics isn't monolithic. Oh well - hope you seek the help you need.

AGAIN all you can do is say it was great and thats proof enough.

Sorry but its not. I have given plenty of examples and you have not proven them false and have also not given anything to show Reaganomics was nothing more then someone going crazy with the credit card.

 

[KMFJD]

When the rich get richer the benefits trickle down. That's why the Reagan economy was so outstanding.

 

[Phokus]

I spec a lot of jobs for bid. Not on the gubment level but private, I can only assume my private experience can be taken into consideration for gubment bids. I have also been on the other end of the deal. Keep in mind that gubment bids have extremely stringent mandated rules by law but it is not unlike private industry.

This is experience talking - union is more expensive, BUT you get what you pay for. A lot of it is relationships eitherway and trust. I trust those I have done business with and union shops deliver and are worth the premium, when I find a non-union shop offers the same level of quality and meets my specs then I stick with them. You will find that union vs. non-union bids depends on the company.

"It's complicated" would be an understatement.

So true. Union labor is very much better. One just has to decide if it's worth the premium.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=295317&highlight=union

Just a reminder that spidey07 made these two posts yet washes reagan's balls at the same time. Reagan was basically hitler when it came to unions.

edit: also, to keep this in context, the 2nd spidey quote is in reply to this:

Not surprisingly, (to me) Modesto filed "Charter City" a few years ago which lets them bypass the "Little Davis-Bacon laws" and contractors are NOT required to pay prevailing wages. The union contractors still get about 80% of the bids. The union contractors do better work, do it faster, have fewer "re-dos" than the non-union contractors, and in general, far outperform their non-union competitors. About the only work the rat contractors get are small jobs that the bigger contractors don't really want. One local rat contractor has been banned from bidding on city/county jobs by several local cities and (at least) 2 counties. Shoddy work, take forever to get the job done, and they always have to re-do parts of the job.
THAT, in a nutshell, is why union companies keep winning bids on government contracts.

 

[Acanthus]

When the rich get richer the benefits trickle down. That's why the Reagan economy was so outstanding.

Epic fail.

If that were true we would be in the best economy since the ancient romans.

The delta between the rich and poor or even the rich and 4th quartile has never been larger in the history of the united states.

Why didn't we have massive economic progress when taxes were dropped >30% in some brackets (including the top) in the Vietnam era?

Read up some studies on observations about the "gini index" if you would like to know about wealth separation and the health of the economy.

 

[CallMeJoe]

When the rich get richer the benefits trickle down. That's why the Reagan economy was so outstanding.

The rich piss on everyone else, and tell them it's "wealth" trickling down...

 

[BoomerD]

The rich piss on the poor, and tell them it's "wealth" trickling down...

No one except the rich...and the Republicans believe Reaganomics was anything but a sham to put more money in the pockets of the rich at the expense of the middle-class.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I'll let David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, explain it to you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Everyone seems to have missed this op-ed.

David Stockman was a Republican Congressman from Michigan 1977–81 and served as Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981–85 - a man who was a hardline supply sider who quit in Reagan's 2nd term as he changed his mind about those policies. This after being one of the creators and lead promoter of trickle down Reaganomics.

A couple of lines from his op-ed are telling.

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

 

[Pens1566]

When the rich get richer the benefits trickle down. That's why the Reagan economy was so outstanding.

Mwahahahahaha ...

I thought your delusion couldn't get any worse. I was wrong.

 

[PrinceofWands]

when the rich get richer the benefits trickle down. That's why the reagan economy was so outstanding.

*PUKES at the ignorance*

IF trickle down were true we would HAVE to see improvement in the general population from the wealth concentration...yet all empirical data shows the opposite...the general population held or lost ground while ONLY the upper benefited. So IF trickle down works (which it absolutely doesn't in any way, shape or form and never has, nor ever can), but IF it did, where are all the studies showing wealth increases in the lower and middle class?

And don't try to point to things that I can easily dismiss with counter-arguments of increased debt to assets/income, inflation, etc. Either have a solid argument or just walk away with your tail between your legs like a good ignorant dog.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

According to a 1996 study[35] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
• The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy.

 

[Vette73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics



According to a 1996 study[35] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
• The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy.

Yea the Cato group that already had this "study" laughed at by anybody that read the full thing. They leave out lots of other stuff like only the top percent Grew well above the rate of infaltion while the rest barly held even with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/11/us/rich-got-richer-in-80-s-others-held-even.html

The wealth of affluent people grew substantially in the 1980's while the assets of other Americans barely kept pace with inflation, the Census Bureau reported today.


Here is the full "study" that has the other parts people don;t liek to highlight.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yea the Cato group that already had this "study" laughed at by anybody that read the full thing. They leave out lots of other stuff like only the top percent Grew well above the rate of infaltion while the rest barly held even with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/11/us/rich-got-richer-in-80-s-others-held-even.html

The wealth of affluent people grew substantially in the 1980's while the assets of other Americans barely kept pace with inflation, the Census Bureau reported today.

Is our current economic policy working better?

 

[Vette73]

Is our current economic policy working better?

You mean more Reaganomics from Bush?

Obama came in with a pile of his mess and has only been Prez a little over a year. Bush even admitted he wanted to run things like Reagan did and he did. Whats that let regualtions on banks dwindle down like in the 80's. And what happened, the sector dived and had to be bailed out, just like it did in the S&L of the 80's.

and on and on...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You mean more Reaganomics from Bush?

Obama came in with a pile of his mess and has only been Prez a little over a year. Bush even admitted he wanted to run things like Reagan did and he did. Whats that let regualtions on banks dwindle down like in the 80's. And what happened, the sector dived and had to be bailed out, just like it did in the S&L of the 80's.

and on and on...

Answer the question please.

 

[PrinceofWands]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

According to a 1996 study[35] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
• The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy.

First, remember that CATO is HEAVILY right-leaning.

What are the 10 points of the economy they use as a yardstick and is there any objection? I'll save you time, their points are subjective. While they support the 'right' economic philosophy, they likewise support the failure of the 'right' philosophy to those of different economic opinions.

Does their claim of median income increase control for: inflation, number of workers in the household, number of hours worked/jobs held, debt:income, differences in census bias, etc?

Lower interest paid also generally means lower interest earned. As for unemployment, lowering the percentage while simultaneously lowering wages is of no use...specifically, rate fell because more people had to work to maintain the same standard of living.

The size of the total economy in the country is a useless measure. What matters is how ALL members of the society SHARE that economy...if it's concentrated in a small percentage it does NOTHING for the rest of humanity.

The cutting of taxes (which predominately benefits ONLY the wealthy who were not suffering before the cuts) placed the nation in a downward spiral of deficit and debt which continues to plague us to this day. Specifically, all the savings of the tax cuts went to increased costs in various sectors, while the government carelessly printed money to pay for reckless buildup of military forces.


In other words, in proving your point, you also prove ours. The underlying warrants of what defines 'economic responsibility' are polar opposites.

 

[QuantumPion]

Has there even been an instance in the past where the poor and middle class got richer but the rich stayed the same or got poorer?

 

[Phokus]

Is our current economic policy working better?

What? Free trade/exporting jobs out of the country and even more tax cuts for the rich? Of course not.

We've had a long continuation of terrible rightwing economic policies (that includes clinton) ever since reagan.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

First, remember that CATO is HEAVILY right-leaning.

What are the 10 points of the economy they use as a yardstick and is there any objection? I'll save you time, their points are subjective. While they support the 'right' economic philosophy, they likewise support the failure of the 'right' philosophy to those of different economic opinions.

Does their claim of median income increase control for: inflation, number of workers in the household, number of hours worked/jobs held, debt:income, differences in census bias, etc?

Lower interest paid also generally means lower interest earned. As for unemployment, lowering the percentage while simultaneously lowering wages is of no use...specifically, rate fell because more people had to work to maintain the same standard of living.

The size of the total economy in the country is a useless measure. What matters is how ALL members of the society SHARE that economy...if it's concentrated in a small percentage it does NOTHING for the rest of humanity.

The cutting of taxes (which predominately benefits ONLY the wealthy who were not suffering before the cuts) placed the nation in a downward spiral of deficit and debt which continues to plague us to this day. Specifically, all the savings of the tax cuts went to increased costs in various sectors, while the government carelessly printed money to pay for reckless buildup of military forces.


In other words, in proving your point, you also prove ours. The underlying warrants of what defines 'economic responsibility' are polar opposites.

Please make your point with facts instead of attacking the source because it happens to have perceived bias that conflicts with your personal bias.

This trend of the rich getting richer has been going on since the 1960's. This trend escalated in the mid-1980's for the top 1% income group and has continued unabated under both Republican and Democrat presidents. There is no doubt that the very rich have gotten richer...but to lay all this on Reagan's doorstep is pure bullshit.

Why is Reaganomics widely cited as a failure by liberals? Has anything really changed?