The real Reagan #3 "accomplishments"

[techweenie]

This really says it better than a lengthy post, plus, some of our ADD friends can follow it more easily:

[kumma]

so when do you plan to go to his grave site and take a crap on it?

[mikester]

Originally posted by kumma
so when do you plan to go to his grave site and take a crap on it?

No Further comment required.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by kumma
so when do you plan to go to his grave site and take a crap on it?

I think reagan's legacy has already done that for him.

[lendaddy]

Perhaps you are unaware that his apporval ratings both in and post office are among the highest ever. I think he's just fine with his legacy. On a related note, how you guys coming with Bill's? I understand there's alot to be done with that one.

[350HP930]

A lot of people used to love michael jackson and a lot of people still like clinton. Does that automatically keep someone from being a scumbag?

[lendaddy]

Very few actually loved Clinton. Without his luck on the economy he would not only have been removed from office, but would stand next to Jimmy C as one of the biggest do-nothing presidents we've ever had. I have NEVER heard anyone claim love for Clinton, ever. Ask people why they loved Reagan and you better find a comfy chair and a cold one, ask about Clinton, and all you get is "The economy". Which, ofcourse he had nothing to do with.

[nostatic]

Reagan was kinda like your grandpa, who would tell tall tales, and enrapture his audience, usually leaving them feeling better about themselves and the world around them.

And as usual, never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

[techweenie]

"Nothing chews up liberals more than Reagan's indisputable enormous popularity."

Nothing comforts conservatives more than their myths.

Reagan's approval and disapproval ratings were almost exactly the same as Bill Clinton's. Only about 6th out of the last 10 presidents.

[Zeke]

No one should be evaluated without considering the era and a host of other criteria. I'm not saying he should be considered for sainthood, but we love to criticize in the aftermath. That's pretty easy and safe.

I have little regard and no respect for those who were not very involved with politics and the running of the government at the time, but would otherwise criticize a past President or other person of importance.

GW Bush is fair game because this is here and now. Put your opinion on the line now and be judged along with Bush, as you are doing now with Reagan, when the time comes.

For those of you that were involved and went on record, this isn't directed at you. But, somehow I think many who enter these discussions don't know much about the time when Ron Reagan was President.

For the record, I will state that I have always said this country needs the equivalent of a king. A real and respected leader. For better or for worse, Kennedy and Reagan achieved that. We damn sure could use a little now.

In ten years, you guys will be carping about Bush, Kerry, Clinton, the works. It's how you are. Love to see anyone of you do a forth of the job.

[Moneyguy1]

It is interesting that our local rag, every Sunday, publishes the number of letters it gets and the subject matter.

25 writers said they though Reagan was a failure as a president, or at least a poor president. 23 said they thought he was a good president. Without the benefit of a recount, and taking statistical error into account, looks pretty even.

[lendaddy]

Sounds scientific enough to me, lol.

[techweenie]

Wayne: "From what I can gather, reading writings from scholars and political scientists... Reagan's presidency was seen as highly successful at the time, but now in retrospect was not as rosy as it seemed at the time..."

That seems to be the case with 'experts' while the 'man on the street' has gone the opposite way -- from giving an average 57% approval rating during his Presidency (and very poor marks on specifics) to a retrospective 61% approval rating. Similarly, Carter's retroactive public approval has gone up and Clinton's down.

[Superman]

I liked Reagan, like everyone else. I did not agree with some of his policies but he had some leadership quality, which is very unusual for a statesman. Pretty goofy, that.

At the time of his presidency, and while I liked his countenance and demeanor, I strongly disagreed with many of his policies. And even in retrospect, some of the questions about his policies' effectiveness are still unanswered. Some of my conservative friends here probably think he single-handedly ended the Cold War, revitalized the economy with his tax cuts, etc. They would probably also suggest that Bill Clinton somehow just got lucky.

My humble view is that Clinton was an excellent president, and that perhaps Mr. Reagan got lucky. Reagan served just after the worst of the energy crisis and runway inflation of those times. A nice setup. Indeed, I'd argue that Dubya has had the absolute most perfect luck any "president" could possibly have. A vital economy to start, then a terrible terrorist attack. Any problems for the next 1.5 years can be blamed on that. And then, almost no matter what you might do to screw it up, the economy is going to rebound very strongly. He's done his best to pi$$ away all that world sympathy and support, and keep the economy down by starting a new and unnecessary war, but the economy is going to rebound no matter what.

Clinton come into office when financial markets were still very very busy, but pretty volatile and with a stunning national debt (Thanks, Ronnie) to deal with. At the end of his terms the economy had been robust all along, and the national debt problem was under control finally. It is also my observation that President Clinton knew how to run government and was very vigorous about that. When I've gotten specific information about how he and his staff dealt with specific problems, it appears as though he was pretty aggressive about those matters. And there were a great many. Kind of a political genius, at least from my perspective. Sure, he was narcisistic as they all are, and that primping is detestable to me too, but that's our American political game. He seemed to be good at the primping, and also very skilled at administering a government. But then, like I've said before, the democrats like government and know how to run it. the republicans hate government and are rather clumbsy when they chair committees. It's comical really, at least in Washington State.

Yeah, I think history will report Reagan's curb appeal. His charisma. It will recall Clinton's blowjob, and perhaps his charisma. But on objective points, I think Clinton will be remembered as a skilled administrator of the office.

[lendaddy]

Sup, I don't feel any president is truely responsible for econmoic activity unless they enact a bold policy with obvious effect. The American people make the economy go or not. With Reagan, you can see that he did some VERY bold things regarding the governments influence in business and tax reduction. I give him some credit for the boom, but far from all. With regards to Clinton, he did what? NAFTA? Where are these bold moves that you can link to? In all fairness however, a President who does next to nothing during a boom is doing the right thing (Clinton) but that is FAR from making him responsible for said boom. Clinton did get lucky, very much so, I don't know how you can claim otherwise. If not for his tax increases I would give him a solid B on the economy just for staying the hell outaa the way. If I missed some bold move of his that spurred the 90's growth I welcome an education, seriously.

[techweenie]

lendaddy: "With Reagan, you can see that he did some VERY bold things regarding the governments influence in business and tax reduction."

So many myths. Tax as a percentage of GNP at the beginning of Reagan's Presidency = 18.7%. At the end, 21%.

However, when you say Clinton got lucky on the economy, I do not disagree. We had one huge (and an arguable second smaller) recession under Reagan -- something people tend to forget. And the big one came after his 'voodoo economics' had some time to work. Under Clinton, we had a tech boom that offset a huge trade imbalance. As you say, Clinton's great contribution was not to mess with it. So he was lucky to come into office with a huge projected deficit and leave with a large projected surplus.

[lendaddy]

I don't see how tax vs GNP ratio disproves what I said. The movers and shakers in this country had alot of capitol freed up under Reagan and they put it to work. True they put it to work to benefit themselves, but this does not occur in a vacuum. A rising tide, ya know.. It was his whole ecomomic theory (or the one he adopted) remove the obstacles to success, for everyone. The fact that people kept more of their cash and the government still got their share only proves that it worked. What portion of the tax collection increase was due to corporate profits.

[island911]

Originally posted by techweenie
lendaddy: "With Reagan, you can see that he did some VERY bold things regarding the governments influence in business and tax reduction."

So many myths. Tax as a percentage of GNP at the beginning of Reagan's Presidency = 18.7%. At the end, 21%.
. . .

I don't doubt those #'s are correct . . but they are very misleading. Regan cut taxes to increase the velosity of money (to spur the economy and increase the govt's take).

It work WELL. . . and the some will never forgive him for that.

Strange, lib's seem to be quick to forgive Clintonian screw-ups (oh right, he didn't screw her) . . and yet a successful Republican project; whoa. . .thats just going too far. . .. that can never be forgiven.

Clintons, "tech boom" had more to do with the baby-boomers surplus income, than anything Clinton did.

[techweenie]

Island911: "I don't doubt those #'s are correct . . but they are very misleading. Regan cut taxes to increase the velosity of money (to spur the economy and increase the govt's take)."

Well, they aren't misleading at all because they are relative, not absolute. As GDP increased, the % paid to tax would have dropped had Reagan actuallymaintained real tax cuts. But in fact he did not. He made a big cut but quickly raised taxes several times after the revenue shortfall created record deficits.

This is from a Conservative web site:

"In a recent column, I predicted that President Bush will likely be forced into a budget deal involving higher taxes some time after next year's election because of rising interest rates. Some of my friends thought I was endorsing such an action. I was not. But my experience in Washington over the last 25 years left me no choice but to come to this conclusion. The stars are aligning for a tax increase and I think being forewarned means being forearmed.

Peter Wallison, who was White House counsel to President Reagan, responded to my analysis in the New York Times on Oct. 26. He pointed to Ronald Reagan's resistance to tax increases in 1982, citing passages from Mr. Reagan's diary that were published in his autobiography, An American Life. The gist of Mr. Wallison's article is that Ronald Reagan successfully resisted efforts by his staff and many in Congress to raise taxes, thereby ensuring the victory of Reaganomics.

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Mr. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Mr. Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

The following year, Mr. Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy."