Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: The New Party of Reagan? :)

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like

    The New Party of Reagan? :)

    How to give Sackdance an ulcer.... :)

    [B]The new party of Reagan[/B]

    [B]By [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/dana-milbank/2011/02/24/ABhhJwI_page.html"]Dana Milbank[/URL], Published: July 19[/B]

    After he switched to the Republican Party in 1962, Ronald Reagan famously quipped: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
    Now, the Republican Party is doing the same thing to him — and Democrats are happy to take Reagan back.
    At Tuesday morning’s meeting of the House Democrats, caucus chairman John Larson rallied his colleagues for the day’s debt-limit debate by playing an audio recording of the 40th President.
    “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”
    “Kind of sums things up,” Larson said, playing the same clip again at a news conference.
    Nobody knows what Reagan, who [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/04/04/LI2006040400955.html"]died in 2004[/URL], would make of the current fight over the debt limit. But 100 years after Reagan’s birth, it’s clear that the Tea Party Republicans have little regard for the policies of the president they claim to venerate.
    Tea Party Republicans call a vote to raise the debt ceiling a threat to their very existence; [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/"]Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling[/URL] during his presidency.
    Tea Party Republicans say they would sooner default on the national debt than raise taxes; [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html"]Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times[/URL].
    Tea Party Republicans, in “cut, cap and balance” legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product; under Reagan, spending was as high as 23.5 percent and never below 21.3 percent of GDP.
    That same legislation would take federal spending down to a level last seen in 1966, before Medicare was fully up and running; Reagan in 1988 signed a major expansion of Medicare.
    Under the Tea Party Republicans’ spending cap, Reagan’s military buildup, often credited with winning the Cold War, would have been impossible.
    No wonder Democrats on Tuesday were claiming the Republican icon as one of their own. After the caucus meeting with the Reagan clip, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) began the day’s debate by reading from a [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/14/National-Politics/Graphics/reagan_letter_0514.pdf"]1983 Reagan letter[/URL] to Congress warning that “the full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.”
    “In the year of his 100th birthday, the Great Communicator might be amazed at how far his own image has shifted from the original,” Quigley charged. “He’d see his most dedicated followers using his name as justification for saying no to honoring our debts. He’d see his legacy used to play chicken with the world’s greatest economic engine.”
    Republicans have continued their ritual praise of Reagan during the debt-limit fight. Rep. [URL="http://222.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=600269509"]Trent Franks (Ariz.) claimed[/URL] that the budget caps would allow America to be “that great city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of.” [URL="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Marsha_Blackburn"]Marsha Blackburn[/URL] (Tenn.) invoked Reagan’s belief that “the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal government program.”[URL="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Kevin_Brady"]Kevin Brady[/URL] (Tex.) cited Reagan’s line that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ” Both Steve King (Iowa) and Bobby Schilling (Ill.) informed the body that they had granddaughters named Reagan.
    But while Reagan nostalgia endures, a number of Republicans have begun to admit the obvious: The Gipper would no longer be welcome on the GOP team. Most recently, Rep. [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/05/260973/hunter-reagan-communists/"]Duncan Hunter Jr. (Calif.) called Reagan[/URL] a “moderate former liberal . . . who would never be elected today in my opinion.” This spring, [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/06/164108/huckabee-reagan-would-not-get-nominated/"]Mike Huckabee judged[/URL] that “Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.”
    During the debt-limit debate, a procession of Democrats — Vermont’s Peter Welch, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, New York’s Paul Tonko, Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green — claimed Reagan’s support for their position. Reagan is “revered by many Democrats,” said Welch, who praised Reagan for fighting “the absurd notion that America had an option when it came to paying our bills.”
    Half a century after he left the party, the Gipper is winning one for the Democrats.
    [B][EMAIL="danamilbank@washpost.com"][I]danamilbank@washpost.com[/I] [/EMAIL][/B]
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 07-20-2011 at 06:28 AM.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of the more ridiculous articles I've read. The Party of Pelosi and Obama is not even the Democrats of old. It is a union run travesty. They were dragged kicking and screaming to the debt debate. Without the Tea Party this never would have been on the agenda. Just two months ago Obama was talking about "investing" more in BS government programs. The man actually put up a budget that added 11 trillion over 10 years to the already out of control 14Trillion scheduled for the next 10 years. It is laughable. There are some reasonable folks in the Senate but that's where it ends.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4064390]One of the more ridiculous articles I've read. [B]The Party of Pelosi and Obama is not even the Democrats of old. It is a union run travesty[/B]. They were dragged kicking and screaming to the debt debate. Without the Tea Party this never would have been on the agenda. Just two months ago Obama was talking about "investing" more in BS government programs. The man actually put up a budget that added 11 trillion over 10 years to the already out of control 14Trillion scheduled for the next 10 years. It is laughable. There are some reasonable folks in the Senate but that's where it ends.[/QUOTE]




    Your argument is that the current Democratic Party is more Union than the New Deal Democratic Party?

    Really?


    The economic fact is someone has to spend for the economy to grow like it did in the 1990’s. Consumers are scared to and businesses seem to only spend overseas. Therefore that leaves the government. You may not like that and it is political suicide to take that position but it appears to me to be our only way out.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064403]Your argument is that the current Democratic Party is more Union than the New Deal Democratic Party?

    Really?


    The economic fact is someone has to spend for the economy to grow like it did in the 1990’s. Consumers are scared to and businesses seem to only spend overseas. Therefore that leaves the government. You may not like that and it is political suicide to take that position but it appears to me to be our only way out.[/QUOTE]

    So your belief is that the way out of our problems is for government to spend more money? This is everything I needed to know. You should read up on "businesses" and why they aren't spending. Steve Wynn had some comments in his company conference call yesterday that you should read.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064403]The economic fact is someone has to spend for the economy to grow like it did in the 1990’s.

    Consumers are scared to and businesses seem to only spend overseas. Therefore that leaves the government. You may not like that and it is political suicide to take that position but it appears to me to be our only way out.[/QUOTE]
    You're getting there. Consumers are not the only ones afraid.

    Oh and AND IT'S THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT'S CREATED THE FEAR.

    [url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578866/201107191850/Wynns-Rant-One-Among-Many.htm[/url]

    "...appears to me to be our only way out." :rolleyes:

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4064405]So your belief is that the way out of our problems is for government to spend more money? This is everything I needed to know. You should read up on "businesses" and why they aren't spending. Steve Wynn had some comments in his company conference call yesterday that you should read.[/QUOTE]




    Steve Wynn the guy who moved his headquaters to Macau, China?

    That guy?

    Tell me what is Benedict Arnolds view on this subject?



    Businesses don’t spend more money because they have more money to spend. They spend money because demand for their products or services outstrips their ability to satisfy those demands. So they hire more people or buy new equipment.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4064281]How to give Sackdance an ulcer.... :)

    [B]The new party of Reagan[/B]

    [B]By [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/dana-milbank/2011/02/24/ABhhJwI_page.html"]Dana Milbank[/URL], Published: July 19[/B]

    After he switched to the Republican Party in 1962, Ronald Reagan famously quipped: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
    Now, the Republican Party is doing the same thing to him — and Democrats are happy to take Reagan back.
    At Tuesday morning’s meeting of the House Democrats, caucus chairman John Larson rallied his colleagues for the day’s debt-limit debate by playing an audio recording of the 40th President.
    “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”
    “Kind of sums things up,” Larson said, playing the same clip again at a news conference.
    Nobody knows what Reagan, who [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/04/04/LI2006040400955.html"]died in 2004[/URL], would make of the current fight over the debt limit. But 100 years after Reagan’s birth, it’s clear that the Tea Party Republicans have little regard for the policies of the president they claim to venerate.
    Tea Party Republicans call a vote to raise the debt ceiling a threat to their very existence; [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/"]Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling[/URL] during his presidency.
    Tea Party Republicans say they would sooner default on the national debt than raise taxes; [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html"]Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times[/URL].
    Tea Party Republicans, in “cut, cap and balance” legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product; under Reagan, spending was as high as 23.5 percent and never below 21.3 percent of GDP.
    That same legislation would take federal spending down to a level last seen in 1966, before Medicare was fully up and running; Reagan in 1988 signed a major expansion of Medicare.
    Under the Tea Party Republicans’ spending cap, Reagan’s military buildup, often credited with winning the Cold War, would have been impossible.
    No wonder Democrats on Tuesday were claiming the Republican icon as one of their own. After the caucus meeting with the Reagan clip, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) began the day’s debate by reading from a [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/14/National-Politics/Graphics/reagan_letter_0514.pdf"]1983 Reagan letter[/URL] to Congress warning that “the full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.”
    “In the year of his 100th birthday, the Great Communicator might be amazed at how far his own image has shifted from the original,” Quigley charged. “He’d see his most dedicated followers using his name as justification for saying no to honoring our debts. He’d see his legacy used to play chicken with the world’s greatest economic engine.”
    Republicans have continued their ritual praise of Reagan during the debt-limit fight. Rep. [URL="http://222.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=600269509"]Trent Franks (Ariz.) claimed[/URL] that the budget caps would allow America to be “that great city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of.” [URL="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Marsha_Blackburn"]Marsha Blackburn[/URL] (Tenn.) invoked Reagan’s belief that “the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal government program.”[URL="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Kevin_Brady"]Kevin Brady[/URL] (Tex.) cited Reagan’s line that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ” Both Steve King (Iowa) and Bobby Schilling (Ill.) informed the body that they had granddaughters named Reagan.
    But while Reagan nostalgia endures, a number of Republicans have begun to admit the obvious: The Gipper would no longer be welcome on the GOP team. Most recently, Rep. [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/05/260973/hunter-reagan-communists/"]Duncan Hunter Jr. (Calif.) called Reagan[/URL] a “moderate former liberal . . . who would never be elected today in my opinion.” This spring, [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/06/164108/huckabee-reagan-would-not-get-nominated/"]Mike Huckabee judged[/URL] that “Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.”
    During the debt-limit debate, a procession of Democrats — Vermont’s Peter Welch, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, New York’s Paul Tonko, Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green — claimed Reagan’s support for their position. Reagan is “revered by many Democrats,” said Welch, who praised Reagan for fighting “the absurd notion that America had an option when it came to paying our bills.”
    Half a century after he left the party, the Gipper is winning one for the Democrats.
    [B][EMAIL="danamilbank@washpost.com"][I]danamilbank@washpost.com[/I] [/EMAIL][/B][/QUOTE]

    And Kennedy was a tax cutting conservative.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE][B][SIZE="5"]Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling

    Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]

    This is the guy Republicans masturbate to?

    The guy was a RINO for sure.

    He raised taxes more than Obama and Clinton combined. What an a**hole :nono:

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064403]Your argument is that the current Democratic Party is more Union than the New Deal Democratic Party?

    Really?


    The economic fact is someone has to spend for the economy to grow like it did in the 1990’s. Consumers are scared to and businesses seem to only spend overseas. Therefore that leaves the government. You may not like that and it is political suicide to take that position but it appears to me to be our only way out.[/QUOTE]

    How is destroying the US dollar which is making consumers poorer going to increase consumer demand?

    It may increase demand overseas for US products but since a small portion of our economy is manufacturing it's highly unlikely that's going to create the kind of jobs needed to fuel strong growth. Since our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world it's hard to see those overseas profits coming back to the US.

    The government is locked into a high spend this year, tax cuts and extended unemployment benifits. We need to show people who buy our debt that we have a sustainable plan to cut government spending. Everyone knows we can't cut today this is about the long term.

    The Democrats blew their wad when they ran the government. Unfortunately with very little to show for it.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-20-2011 at 11:15 AM.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064443]This is the guy Republicans masturbate to?

    The guy was a RINO for sure.

    He raised taxes more than Obama and Clinton combined. What an a**hole :nono:[/QUOTE]

    Do you believe this crap or do you just post it as a "Zinger". Like Gotcha Reagan Raised taxes 18 times. ZING! Earlier this month, I made one, yes one substantial deposit into my checking account, and since then I have withdrawn money more than 18 times. Yet I still have a lot of money remaining in my account!? How is this possible?
    Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from ~85% to 28%, and then as the economy began to blossom, taxes were raised here and there in small ways without too much harm to the burgeoning prosperity. This is responsible government in my view. This is certainly NOT how Obama and Nancy Pelosi would have done it, much to the demise of the economy.
    I'm sure glad Obama and Nancy were not in charge back then, for they would surely have screwed things up much worse with more and more taxes levied to further their socialist goals.
    It's too bad we don't have a Reagan right now to take over and get us out of all this mess like he got us out of the Carter recession of 1980.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064413]Steve Wynn the guy who moved his headquaters to Macau, China?

    That guy?

    Tell me what is Benedict Arnolds view on this subject?



    Businesses don’t spend more money because they have more money to spend. They spend money because demand for their products or services outstrips their ability to satisfy those demands. So they hire more people or buy new equipment.[/QUOTE]

    So you consider business that look for ways to make money Benedict Arnolds? Businessed have one goal. To make money. They look at risk reward scenarios to make decisions on how to invest and where. If the reward is reduced by high taxation and risk in increased by predatory government regulation they will take the logical step of not investing. It is that simple. People in the business world understand this. It is not a crime for a business to open overseas. It is not a crime for business to work within the tax code and leave foreign profits overseas to avoid taxation. The crime would be is a corporation did not take advantage of every possible tact available to them to increase shareholder value. That would be a Benedict Arnold Corporation. This alongside your belief that Government spending is the only way to get us out of an economic hole is very telling. Again the concepts are both so absurd and the antithesis of logic and reason.

    I have another one for you. Do you believe that teachers unions are good for our kids and schools?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4064448]How is destroying the US dollar which is making consumers poorer going to increase consumer demand?

    It may increase demand overseas for US products but since a small portion of our economy is manufacturing it's highly unlikely that's going to create the kind of jobs needed to fuel strong growth. Since our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world it's hard to see those overseas profits coming back to the US.

    The government is locked into a high spend this year, tax cuts and extended unemployment benifits. We need to show people who buy our debt that we have a sustainable plan to cut government spending. Everyone knows we can't cut today this is about the long term.

    The Democrats blew their wad when they ran the government. Unfortunately with very little to show for it.[/QUOTE]

    Nicely said.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4064448]How is destroying the US dollar which is making consumers poorer going to increase consumer demand?
    [/QUOTE]


    WB you always rail on about the destruction of the dollar

    it never actually happens

    the dollar is the world's currency and nothing will replace it in the near term. Not the Euro, not the Yuan. Heck there aren't nearly enough 500 Euro bills in the world to be used like people use 100 dollar bills. they price gold in dollars. they price oil in dollars. the Dollar is not going to be destroyed because they print a little more of it.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4064413]Steve Wynn the guy who moved his headquaters to Macau, China?

    That guy?

    Tell me what is Benedict Arnolds view on this subject?



    Businesses don’t spend more money because they have more money to spend. They spend money because demand for their products or services outstrips their ability to satisfy those demands. So they hire more people or buy new equipment.[/QUOTE]
    1. Attack the messenger, not the message.
    2. Assert bizarre liberal logic that has never worked in the real world.
    3. Suffer.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4064532]1. Attack the messenger, not the message.
    [/QUOTE]

    steve wynn's company just reported record earnings, something like double in Q2 as they were in Q1. the message that Obama is hurting his business isn't backed up by facts.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4064458]Do you believe this crap or do you just post it as a "Zinger". Like Gotcha Reagan Raised taxes 18 times. ZING! Earlier this month, I made one, yes one substantial deposit into my checking account, and since then I have withdrawn money more than 18 times. Yet I still have a lot of money remaining in my account!? How is this possible?[/QUOTE]


    Spin it any way you want...dude still raised taxes.

    Sure...he cut them way down when he came into office...but then had to raise them because there wasn't enough revenue. Period. So he did what he had to do and raised taxes. We are facing a strikingly similar situation now.


    And your analogy doesn't jive. Should be like this:

    Earlier this month, I decreased the amount of my direct deposit by 80%....but still withdrew the same amount every month. In order to avoid overdraft fees, I had to cut back my spending AND increase my weekly direct deposit to cover checks I had already written before cutting my spending back.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064538]Spin it any way you want...dude still raised taxes.

    Sure...he cut them way down when he came into office...but then had to raise them because there wasn't enough revenue. Period. So he did what he had to do and raised taxes. We are facing a strikingly similar situation now.


    And your analogy doesn't jive. Should be like this:

    Earlier this month, I decreased the amount of my direct deposit by 80%....but still withdrew the same amount every month. In order to avoid overdraft fees, I had to cut back my spending AND increase my weekly direct deposit to cover checks I had already written before cutting my spending back.[/QUOTE]

    So your claim is that we have a revenue problem not a spending problem? OK I'll bite. We have always measured revenue and spending as percentage of GDP. Would you be happy with Revenues in line with the average of the past 70 year as a % of GDP alongside spending that is in line with the average %of GDP for the same period as a baseline? As a liberal would you be happy with those numbers?

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4064552]So your claim is that we have a revenue problem not a spending problem? [/QUOTE]

    Not at all. It's a bit of both. I'd say 80% spending, 20% revenue.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4064458]Do you believe this crap or do you just post it as a "Zinger". Like Gotcha Reagan Raised taxes 18 times. ZING! Earlier this month, I made one, yes one substantial deposit into my checking account, and since then I have withdrawn money more than 18 times. Yet I still have a lot of money remaining in my account!? How is this possible?
    Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from ~85% to 28%, and then as the economy began to blossom, taxes were raised here and there in small ways without too much harm to the burgeoning prosperity. This is responsible government in my view. This is certainly NOT how Obama and Nancy Pelosi would have done it, much to the demise of the economy.
    I'm sure glad Obama and Nancy were not in charge back then, for they would surely have screwed things up much worse with more and more taxes levied to further their socialist goals.
    It's too bad we don't have a Reagan right now to take over and get us out of all this mess like he got us out of the Carter recession of 1980.[/QUOTE]

    Wait a minute... do you know anything at all about Reagan? This Reagan?

    From the von Mises Institute (hardly a liberal bastion):

    The Mises Institute monthly

    [B]Volume VI, No. 10,
    October 1988[/B]

    [B][B]The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan[/B]


    [/B]by Sheldon L. Richman

    On August 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had changed his mind about the pro-union plant-closing bill. He had vetoed it three months earlier, but now let it become law without his signature after intense pressure from presidential nominee George Bush and former Treasury Secretary James Baker, now Bush's campaign chairman. Reagan claimed that only this action would enable him to sign a Congressional trade bill almost unequaled in its anti-consumer protectionism.
    Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."
    Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. [B]In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over.[/B]
    Let's look at the record:
    [B]Spending[/B]
    In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? [B]At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."[/B]
    [B]Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government.[/B] Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." [B]And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.[/B]
    The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
    Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
    [B]His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."[/B]
    [B]The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.[/B] Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
    [B]Taxes[/B]
    Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.
    [B]If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.[/B]
    Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. [B]TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.[/B]
    [B]But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.[/B]
    [B]Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.[/B]
    According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. [B]Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.[/B]
    [B]Regulation[/B]
    For all the administration's talk about deregulation (for example, from the know-nothing commission which George Bush headed), it has done little. Much of what has been done began under Carter, such as abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board and deregulation of oil prices. Carter created the momentum and Reagan halted it. [B]In fact, the economic costs of regulation have grown under Reagan.[/B]
    Some deregulation has occurred for banks, intercity buses, ocean shipping, and energy. But nothing good has happened in health, safety, and environmental regulations, which cost Americans billions of dollars, ignore property rights, and are based on the spurious notion of "freedom from risk." But the Reagan administration has supported state seat-belt and federal air-bag requirements. This concern for safety, however, was never extended to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules, which, by imposing fuel-efficiency standards, promote the production of small cars. The shift to small cars will cause an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 highway deaths over the next ten years.
    [B]Bureaucracy[/B]
    [B]By now it should not be surprising that the size of the bureaucracy has also grown. Today, there are 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million. Reagan even promoted the creation of a new federal Department of Veterans' Affairs to join the Departments of Education and Energy, which his administration was supposed to eliminate.[/B]
    [B]Trade[/B]
    [B]The Reagan administration has been the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover's.[/B] The portion of imports under restriction has doubled since 1980. Quotas and so-called voluntary restraints have been imposed on a host of products, from computer chips to automobiles. Ominously, Reagan has adopted the bogus fair-trade/free-trade dichotomy, and he was eager to sign the big trade bill, which tilts the trade laws even further toward protectionism.
    [B]Results[/B]
    Reagan's fans argue that he has changed the terms of public-policy debate, that no one today dares propose big spending programs. I contend that the alleged spending-shyness of politicians is not the result of an ideological sea-change, but rather of their constituents' fiscal fright brought about by $250 billion Reagan budget deficits. If the deficit ever shrinks, the demand for spending will resume.
    [B]This is the Reagan legacy. He was to be the man who would turn things around. But he didn't even try.[/B] As he so dramatically illustrated when he accepted the plant-closing bill, there has been no sea-change in thinking about the role of government.
    -------
    Sheldon Richman is now editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education. [EMAIL="sheldon@sheldonrichman.com"]Send him mail or comments[/EMAIL]

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,573
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4064535]steve wynn's company just reported record earnings, something like double in Q2 as they were in Q1. the message that Obama is hurting his business isn't backed up by facts.[/QUOTE]


    Read what he said specifically. Wynn is a Democrat that voted for Obama. See below:

    I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.
    And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.
    You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.
    The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.


    Read more: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7#ixzz1SfQy9Ry7[/url]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us