Why is Ronald Reagan such a hero to the right?

[PrinceofWands]

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?

I devoted one sentence to mentioning that CATO is a heavily biased source. I then went point by point for 11 sentences. Please explain how a 1:11 footnote in ANY way detracts from the overall argumentation.

I agree that Dems have become just as backwards and corrupted as Reagan was with regard to economic policy. He wasn't alone, but he was the open floodgate through which it has all spilled over into our current time. The biggest reason I point to Reagan is that previous to him the Rep's really were MUCH more fiscally responsible. Reagan essentially destroyed the traditional conservative movement and allowed it to be taken over wholesale by economic pirates (ie free marketeers), and religious zealots.

He reversed EVERYTHING positive (regulation, taxes, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, smaller military, etc) and fostered the worst aspects of mankind (religion, ignorance, greed, secrecy, etc). Except for his nuclear work, I can't think of a single thing he did I agree with.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

What 'terrible rightwing economic policies' are you talking about? NAFTA? Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

I assume that you are aware that Dems have controlled the Legislative and Executive branches for quite some time now...I don't recall seeing their proposals to revise or eliminate NAFTA or repeal the Bush tax cuts for that matter. You know...at some point you just got to get to work and get something done instead of blaming Reagan, Bush and all the evil Republicans. Bitch, bitch, bitch...it's getting old, really old.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

*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.

Yep, I too puke at the ignorance - yours.

Who says trickledown has to show "improvement in the general population from the wealth concentration". The purpose of Reaganomics/trickledown is to get and keep the money moving(along with other things) - not to address some twisted leftist whining about wealth concentration.

 

[jackace]

Who says trickledown has to show "improvement in the general population from the wealth concentration".

Funny because that is exactly how it's been sold to the American people.

Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing across the board tax cuts or benefits to businesses, such as tax breaks, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny because that is exactly how it's been sold to the American people.

...and the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8.5 percent. Nothing really changes.

 

[Zebo]

Don't forget the part about making the rich richer. Reagonomics worked great for the only people Republicans care about.

Actually it's the only people Dems care about too you just have not figured it out yet. Soaring deficits in Cintons and Obama's term from personal to governmental hurts the middle and poor most. Dems trade tax increases for debt to keep middle's heads above water. Who owns the debt? Rich. Who owns profits for union busting and jobs sent offshore. The rich. The rich are also getting richer under Obama. Much richer. More billionaires made in Obama's short term than any other term. It has to be this way since Democrats cannot be an opposition party, because Democrats are just as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups and the rich for campaign funding.

Would take some massive education and voting poor and corporate media marginalized third party candidates in to change it.

 

[jackace]

...and the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8.5 percent. Nothing really changes.

Not saying the stimulus was much better, but we have only tried the stimulus for a couple years. We have ~30 years of trickle down propaganda with little or no results.

 

[daishi5]

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.

Most of the arguments I have heard for the "trickle down" type effects merely state that everyone is better off, but don't make any statement about the scale of the effect on different income levels. I have also heard that it is supposed to be a more efficient method of helping the poor.

You seem to be setting up a straw man, he claimed everyone became wealthier, and you merely stated that the gap became bigger, both statements can be true at the same time. I think we are in the best economy since the ancient romans. Reagonomics might provide benefit, but I don't think anyone believes it would shrink the income gap. Unless I missed something, I thought the idea was that the rich would try to become even richer and thus "raise all boats" as they worked and invested to make more money.

I think it is obvious that tax cuts for the rich can make poor people better off through some form of trickle down, but it all depends on how it is done, and how much is gained. If you just make tax cuts without spending cuts, you are merely borrowing to achieve any benefit, and it is questionable if the benefits are higher than the cost of borrowing. If you cut spending, you have to determine how much the spending cuts hurt the lower income citizens compared to how much benefit they receive. In some cases you could find some net benefit, in others you would hurt them. It also depends on what the taxes were before and after the tax cuts, if you cut the taxes of the rich from 99% to 80%, there will be a difference between cutting their taxes from 15% to 5%. Just saying that cutting taxes for the rich would never help is just as silly as saying cutting taxes for the rich is always the answer.

And all of this avoids the more important question of whether tax cuts for the rich are better than stimulus spending, tax cuts all around, or some other form of stimulus. Just because "trickle down" provides some benefit does not imply it is the best policy, or that it is even an effective tool.

 

[Craig234]

Not saying the stimulus was much better, but we have only tried the stimulus for a couple years. We have ~30 years of trickle down propaganda with little or no results.

There are huge trickle-down results.

 

[Craig234]

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?

Relatively liberal era beginning with FDR.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Yep, I too puke at the ignorance - yours.

Who says trickledown has to show "improvement in the general population from the wealth concentration". The purpose of Reaganomics/trickledown is to get and keep the money moving(along with other things) - not to address some twisted leftist whining about wealth concentration.

The purpose (and result) of Reaganomics is to get wealth moving from the masses to the top 5%. It succeeds admirably in this. Sadly, it destroys society, culture, individuals, peace, progress, etc by doing so.

And actually, by its DEFINITION (of the words, if not the concept) 'trickle-down' was sold as 'helping everyone by accumulating the money at the top and then letting it 'trickle-down' (hence the name). Now you're arguing that only the first half of that definition exists. By your vision of the theory it would have to be called 'trickle-up'.

 

[Zebo]

Relatively liberal era beginning with FDR.

This - I'd say the amazing prosperity from the late forties into the early seventies – was the most "working" time of the United States. We were largest creditor not largest debtor. Low unemployment and anyone with a job could support a family and mom stay at home if she chose. Opportunity abounded because there was a large middle to sell to - Garage to HPs were formed all the time. The nations GDP was shared more instead of top getting most. Unions and progressive taxation and financial regulation did this all hated by Reagan and neo-liberals called Democrats. Today , everything is reversed. Little guy is taxed more than ever to make up for rich tax cuts. Unions are all but gone everywhere except public sector, a place they probably should not be so much except maybe cops. And there are no financial regulations instead Feds protect firms from felonious law breaking and shield them from FISA requests from shareholders.

 

[PrinceofWands]

This - I'd say the amazing prosperity from the late forties into the early seventies – was the most "working" time of the United States. We were largest creditor not largest debtor. Low unemployment and anyone with a job could support a family and mom stay at home if she chose. Opportunity abounded because there was a large middle to sell to - Garage to HPs were formed all the time. The nations GDP was shared more instead of top getting most. Unions and progressive taxation and financial regulation did this all hated by Reagan and neo-liberals called Democrats. Today , everything is reversed. Little guy is taxed more than ever to make up for rich tax cuts. Unions are all but gone everywhere except public sector, a place they probably should not be so much except maybe cops. And there are no financial regulations instead Feds protect firms from felonious law breaking and shield them from FISA requests from shareholders.

This.

Exactly as I said, everything happens from the bottom up in life. Make a strong lower and middle class, and watch the upper class flourish. Make a strong upper class, watch the lower two wither and die.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yep, I too puke at the ignorance - yours.

Who says trickledown has to show "improvement in the general population from the wealth concentration". The purpose of Reaganomics/trickledown is to get and keep the money moving(along with other things) - not to address some twisted leftist whining about wealth concentration.

Heh. Money moves to the top and stays there under Reaganomics. Well, the part of it that doesn't move offshore. That's obvious. I've posted the charts and figures many times, but I can't account for willful blindness... for belief structures based on lies and denial...

 

[Carmen813]

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

Well its 30 years later and wealth has accumulated at an increasing rate in the uber upper class. Meanwhile, middle class wages have been utterly stagnant (when factoring in inflation and women entering the workplace).

So my question is simple: when does the trickle down begin?

The biggest failure of Reaganomics was forgetting to install gutters on the borders.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reaganomics was pure deception from the beginning. In that context, it hasn't been a failure at all, but rather a fabulous success for the perps, the financial elite. Benefit to the True Bush Constituency has been enormous and ongoing. It's so effective that it's still happening today because a sufficient number of fools still believe it's actually raining when somebody like Reagan pisses down their leg and tells 'em so...

Witness several of our most vociferous contributors...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The purpose (and result) of Reaganomics is to get wealth moving from the masses to the top 5%. It succeeds admirably in this. Sadly, it destroys society, culture, individuals, peace, progress, etc by doing so.

And actually, by its DEFINITION (of the words, if not the concept) 'trickle-down' was sold as 'helping everyone by accumulating the money at the top and then letting it 'trickle-down' (hence the name). Now you're arguing that only the first half of that definition exists. By your vision of the theory it would have to be called 'trickle-up'.

Yeah, I suppose in the backwards world of a liberal's mind that's what it was about but reality doesn't play it out. Do the rich make more money when the economy is strong? Hells yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the economy(money) moving - which is what Reaganomics did. But I suppose high interest rates and investment killing taxes is what your ilk would like to see...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Relatively liberal era beginning with FDR.

Yeah, and with that came unsustainable big gov't. We wouldn't be in this position today if FDR didn't push through the unconstitutional BS he did. He is who historians will point to as the origin of the downfall of the US as we know it today.

 

[sportage]

I always find it interesting, why is "the left" always more fixated on Reagan than is "the right"?

Cause the right nutjobs still hope to put his frickin face on a mountain and currency.

 

[colonel]

I think he made peace between American and Vietnam American soldiers "babies killers" the right will say,he cleaned the Carter mess but he made El Salvador a living hell supporting right militias

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, and with that came unsustainable big gov't. We wouldn't be in this position today if FDR didn't push through the unconstitutional BS he did. He is who historians will point to as the origin of the downfall of the US as we know it today.

If you actually believed that, you'd be delusional.

The New Deal led to the greatest period of broad based prosperity in this nation's history after WW2 because it imposed some stability on the boom and bust nature of capitalism. It was only the methodical dismantling of those constraints that allowed the current situation to develop, and anybody with a lick of sense realizes that.

 

[sandorski]

...and the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8.5 percent. Nothing really changes.

It was to stop the Increase in % of Unemployment. When stated that figure was thought to be 8.5%. Due to later revisions the real number of 10% was the actual figure.

 

[Craig234]

By the way, the answer to the OP's question is, the reason Reagan is such a hero to the right is very simple, it was his role in getting them power.

Nevermind that their agenda was terrible and harmful and that was a bad thing - people like when their side gets more power.

After 50 years post FDR, after a more liberal period whichever party was in office, Reagan was able to win over many in the country, and be an effective ideologue.

He was someone the right could cheer for, and he was able to 'beat' the liberal approach on a variety of issues, gaining the largest electoral win in history.

He was able to demonize the liberals - nevermind that it was they we needed for good policy. His turning the country in the wrong direction, their direction, is the reason.

They're cheering all the way to the third world. Our guy won! Our guy won! Part of the far right has always had a fixation on a 'strong leader', and Reagan was their guy to worship.

The right was really sick and tired of being an ignored minority who could do little more than subxcribe to National Review, and Reagan finally put them in power.

That's why they fixate on him.

They just want the 'getting power' thing constantly. They've never really take on any of their own no matter how bad who can get power, not even Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Nixon, et al.

Imagine if Obama had taken his oath of office secretly at midnight at the instruction of the astrologer his wife used, as Reagan did as Governor. When would we hear the end of it?

Not all the far right was like this, but even those who weren't went along for the ride.

There's a high correlation between the type of people who warship the 'strong man' in any society, and the 'fundamentalist' type, our far right type.

It's why they'd just eat up when Bush would disrespect some liberal, dismiss them and anger them, or when he'd be sort of arrogant about Republicans winning. 'Rah Rah Rah!!!'

Nevermind the harm of the policies of the strong man.

 

[Acanthus]

Most of the arguments I have heard for the "trickle down" type effects merely state that everyone is better off, but don't make any statement about the scale of the effect on different income levels. I have also heard that it is supposed to be a more efficient method of helping the poor.

You seem to be setting up a straw man, he claimed everyone became wealthier, and you merely stated that the gap became bigger, both statements can be true at the same time. I think we are in the best economy since the ancient romans. Reagonomics might provide benefit, but I don't think anyone believes it would shrink the income gap. Unless I missed something, I thought the idea was that the rich would try to become even richer and thus "raise all boats" as they worked and invested to make more money.

I think it is obvious that tax cuts for the rich can make poor people better off through some form of trickle down, but it all depends on how it is done, and how much is gained. If you just make tax cuts without spending cuts, you are merely borrowing to achieve any benefit, and it is questionable if the benefits are higher than the cost of borrowing. If you cut spending, you have to determine how much the spending cuts hurt the lower income citizens compared to how much benefit they receive. In some cases you could find some net benefit, in others you would hurt them. It also depends on what the taxes were before and after the tax cuts, if you cut the taxes of the rich from 99% to 80%, there will be a difference between cutting their taxes from 15% to 5%. Just saying that cutting taxes for the rich would never help is just as silly as saying cutting taxes for the rich is always the answer.

And all of this avoids the more important question of whether tax cuts for the rich are better than stimulus spending, tax cuts all around, or some other form of stimulus. Just because "trickle down" provides some benefit does not imply it is the best policy, or that it is even an effective tool.

Look at the median income for the bottom 3 quartiles. It hasn't changed relative to inflation for a very very long time. Then look at the top quartile. The gap is widening at the top.

This is not a strawman argument, its proof that it helps one cross section of the population, and not the entire population.

Furthermore, there is no proof, anywhere, ever, that cutting income taxes for the rich influences job creation based on history.

Can you think of a society that functions well with massive poverty? Throwing more money to the people at the top only skews averages.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was to stop the Increase in % of Unemployment. When stated that figure was thought to be 8.5%. Due to later revisions the real number of 10% was the actual figure.

Yeah...they royally screwed up. Your point?