The Nation: Reagan's Real Legacy

[Bleyseng]

Considering a lot of the people running the GOP controlled government thru the Bush years started in Reagan's terms, yes, I blame Reagan and Reaganomics. Reagan started this de-regulation BS and anti- big-government talk. Yes, as long as it wasn't good for the GOP and the Rich its Big Government and got to go.....
Clinton worked with a GOP controlled House and Senate, remember starting in 94...and they passed a lot of nice GOP bills....
Its just that a lot of shit that was started in Reagan terms and finally hit the fan. Deregulation, huge Military expenses, lower tax rates for Corps and rich etc.....tax credits for shipping job overseas!

Face it, Reagan sucked.

[JLT]

So it's all Reagan's fault the economy is below normal now?

Don't misrepresent me. I didn't say Reagan caused it, only that he presided over it. What caused it was the dismantling of regulatory safeguards in the banking industry that had been in place since the Great Depression, coupled with manufacturing jobs going overseas and the weakening of the middle class. And while much of the blame can be laid to Democrats of the Clinton era (who themselves were moving to the right to offset the influences of a Republican resurgence), it was the Republicans who where the driving forces for these changes, because one of their core principles has been that where there's money to be made, the government works best when it lets you make it, even at the expense of those who aren't making the money, and it works even better if it lets you keep more of that money.

Over the last twenty years, we've had our share of bad decisions from both sides of the aisle. But I think that you can say that our the rules of our economic engine changed most profoundly during the Reagan years, as a result of policies that he promoted.

As for your other points:

Clinton inherited a peace dividend.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "peace dividend." We'd just finished fighting a war, resulting in an economy that was sputtering badly (Clinton's informal campaign slogan was "It's the economy, stupid!" as you might remember). The Balkans were heating up, and the insurrections in South America that were fed by Reagan's arms deals were still going strong. That's peace?

The economy started tanking in 1999 remember? Then 9-11 in 2001 drove the recession deeper.

I just looked at the curves for the GNP and the Dow-Jones for that time period, and don't see any evidence of the economy "tanking." The DJ flattened then, due to the "dot.com" bubble bursting (which was another case of overspeculation coming back to bite our collective ass). The unemployment rate in the late '90s was lower than it had been since the fifties, and it didn't start going up again until 2001. Perhaps you could direct me to your source of information, or tell my how this defines a "tanking economy"?

[turk]

The peace dividend is what the country could direct attention to after the collapse of Leninist Communism, and that's just what Clinton embarked on. And yes, the economy sputtered out and began going south in the fall of 1999. So, what I'm saying is, it ain't all Reagan's fault. There's enough blame to go around. But that is not the thru-line here obviously. Knock yerselves out. Ya' need the release, what with all the strife in the country now with our current leadership.

[ruckman101]

The strife in our country comes from those who's sole purpose is to defeat Obama, even if it means destroying our nation in the process.


neal

[Manfred]

So it's all Reagan's fault the economy is below normal now? Is this the thru-line of the thread? Reagan left office over two decades ago. Clinton inherited a peace dividend. The economy started tanking in 1999 remember? Then 9-11 in 2001 drove the recession deeper. Then massive government stimulus and tax cuts buoyed it for about 7 years. This is only some of the various factors. Consider all the fraud and waste in the home loan bubble. But it's always convenient to have a counter-ideology to scapegoat, and Reagan is easy to target, having been dead for 6 years and out of office 23.

The undeserved saint-hood of Reagan is the point of the thread. Even from the left. They had Obama on the cover of Time posing with Regan.

I don't think Colin wants us to get social amnesia.

Case and point, Micheal Jackson.

My 2 cents: Reagan was a man. He did good. He did bad. What human has not? He was our President. I don't think anyone of us could have done better no matter how highly we regard ourselves. However, learning from mistakes is very essential to good government. If we think Reagan was all good, then we are going backwards as a nation.

[turk]

Right well, all I remember is a kind of boring Super Bowl dominating last week's media. I might have heard once about Reagan. He's a lightning rod for both sides. They hate 'em as much as they love 'em. Personally, I grew up not liking him, or Nancy. But in retrospect, I agree with the more balanced view. He did what he thought was the right thing and I respect his conviction and resolve.

[ruckman101]

Personally, I don't care how much resolve and conviction Reagan had. I have no respect for war criminals.

Did ya hear? The shrub canceled his planned trip to Switzerland over fears he would be arrested over charges he ordered torture be used on folks.


neal

[glasseye]

He did what he thought was the right thing and I respect his conviction and resolve.

What neal said

The same words could be applied to Fucktard, and I respect neither his conviction nor his resolve. He is a war criminal.

Reagan was just an actor.

[hambone]

It would be interesting if our presidents were youngsters instead of coots. Of course all the backdoor dealings really run the country anyway.

[turk]

Obama is just an actor. He is now trying to fill Reagan's shoes. And getting help from useful idiots who simply forget what the actor said : "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president".

[RussellK]

Obama is just an actor. He is now trying to fill Reagan's shoes.

Do you write this kind of stuff just for an effect?

[turk]

No. It's a fact. Obama is trying to triangulate. Obama made a point to let people see he was "reading" an biography of Reagan over the holiday recess. Obama recently referred to himself as the Gipper. Obama has made recent comments praising Reagan. Obama is an actor.

[ruckman101]

Sinister.


neal

[turk]

No, I wouldn't call it sinister. I'd call it human nature. But the fact is now he can't hide who he really is. He has a few years of policy and "achievement" with his democrat majority, under his belt, to define who he is, no matter how he tries now to repackage it to appeal to some other constituency. If you will remember, that was one of his high-minded campaign principals:

"I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
"my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete."

From "The Audacity of Hope"

I remember him saying that in the campaign and at the big Grant Park celebration too. So, he's just a wishy-washy actor, trying to please anyone who will keep him in the office. Meaning the voters. That's the best case scenario. The worst case is he actually is "sinister".

[Velokid1]

Obama is just an actor. He is now trying to fill Reagan's shoes.

Do you write this kind of stuff just for an effect?

Hell yes. He is an actor trying to fill Travis Bickle's shoes.