The Deification of Reagan
 

Is it valid? Is it helpful (to the GOP)?

I think those that deify him in the GOP (anyone running for anything, Fox/talk radio), have conveniently glossed over a lot of things about him that would render him unelectable in the modern GOP. Hell, today he might even be considered a mainstream Democrat.:eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

As fallacious/revisionist as this modern day deification appears to be, why does the GOP continue doing it or refuse to discuss his legacy in real terms? Are they handcuffing themselves or helping themselves?

Not too dissimilar to the deification of JFK by the left. Interesting how Reagan's and Kennedy's policies on taxation and government regulation were similar, which is something that the Left often glosses over.

Because they have no viable "Superman/Woman" to run at present?
All of their current offerings are either loons, hipocrites or dullards, so they must offer up the ghost of Ronnie?

This is mostly true. However, on social issues, they were quite different.
I believe Finn is correct, though. Only I would add that if either man were running today he would be rejected by his own party. It just goes to demonstrate the extreme ideologies present in todays politics.

Dave

I'm not sure that Reagan's actions with regard to taxation/government were consistent with his rhetoric. He raised taxes numerous times and didn't cut government spending. The Hannity/Palins of the world would have you think otherwise. Plus he introduced the notion of fees instead of taxes for a variety of things (e.g., national park admission).

I think Reagan's biggest legacy is supply-side (aka Voodoo) economics. Somehow he has convinced the GOP faithful that cutting taxes is the answer to all ills and that increased deficits/spending don't matter (or that they can be reduced by more tax cutting).:confused: We're in the pickle we're in for exactly this reason.

With regard to the notion that his military buildup helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, it's partially true, but only if you accept the fact that he did the same thing to us (only on a delayed basis).

Reagan is the best the Pubbies can do.

After all, they don't have the likes of a Carter.

Chas

There was a rather educational documentary on Reagan on the BBC a few days ago. I doubt you guys will be able to watch it on BBCiPlayer but you probably know all about him already anyway.

If you want to watch the documentary try these links (in order), although I doubt either will work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...n_Idol_Reagan/

http://3.hidemyass.com/ip-1/encoded/...8%3D&f=norefer

Your not attempting to make comparisons in deficit spending from the Reagan era to what we are seeing today, really... are you? From a spending stand point, you could easily label Bush as a big spending dem also could you not?

Comparing some of our most recent presidents, it appears that Clinton held our countries fiscal situation in pretty good form but some of that was smoke and mirrors also attributed to a slight swing to the center and spending being held in check by congress.

Argue the merits of Reagan's policies all you want but I personally don't see the comparison an honest and accurate one. We're definitely in a nasty pickle but thats a bit of a stretch I think.

If a persons weight could be viewed as deficit spending, it would be the equivalent of comparing the health ramifications of a 175 lb healthy guy to a 1800 lb dude with diabetes and heart disease eating the same triple cheese burger.

Reagan was a gunius at getting elected. He knew what to say. A generation later, the people who believed his line are now in power, only they didn't know it was a sales pitch. They really bought it. Economy in the toilet? Shoot, we must not have cut taxes enough! Cut them some more! We need to get some money in here!

Reagan's people know it:

http://www.buysellshort.net/reagan-i...august-10-2010

I'm basically saying what David Stockman recently said in the piece that Eddie linked to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...tonwoodssystem

Today's GOP continues to insist upon the virtues of Reagonomics. Dubya was the first President to launch a war (two actually) without a plan to pay for it. Correction - his plan to pay for it cut taxes. We're living the legacy of Reagan's ridiculous economic policy.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Nixon eliminated Bretton Woods in an effort to pay for the Vietnam war and to fund the Great Society. Now who do we have to thank for both of those?

Since, the Keynesians have been running amuck. As a rule, the Republicans want to lower taxes while the Democrats want to spend ourselves rich...although it's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Stockman is correct in criticising the Republicans, which appears to me to be the point of his article.

Chas

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

So you can't pay off your pile of maxed out credit cards by taking a lower paying job and cutting your income?

That's crazy talk, Finn. Where is your mind? Thought bubble--(Must be a communist...)

Dave

That's because everyone wants a tax cut, Finn. Just another way of buying votes is all it is. Reagan knew it, but his fans are a little slow to catch on.

Dave

The egg came first.

I think that's a gross oversimplification/mis-characterization of the Reagan's actions in the political landscape of the time. But there has been an on-going effort to re-write this part of our history, so the comments shouldn't surprise.

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

In theory, reducing taxes and leaving more money in the hands of consumers and business to spend and invest will grow the economy and create a larger tax base, and therefore expand the public coffers...a smaller slice of a much larger pie. The basics of Reaganomics.

And a small part of the overall economic equation.

Actually, Reaganomics and Keynesian economics have become meaningless terms. Where the problem lies is with the fact that we can no longer raise taxes enough to pay for the spending which we can no longer afford.

Unless we cut spending, there is no way to balance the budget, no matter how high we raise taxes. Other than inflation, which is what we are in the process of doing, and have been doing, for a long time.

Chas

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

I wanted to make sure you understood it. :D

BTW, David Stockman has been saying much the same thing for 30 years.

In 1985, he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt. He had tried to make this point within the Reagan adminstration for 4 years.

Even before that, Bush the Elder criticized Reaganomics as Voodoo Economics. Sorry, no revisionism here - just reminding you of the stuff that those who worship at the altar of Reagan have chosen to gloss over. What's that called? Oh, yeh. Revisionism.

I understand that Greenspan was an advocate of a strong dollar...until he became chairman of the Fed Reserve.

Chas

Chas, I agree with almost everything you say here. Only lost me at the end. I do think we could pay for the programs we demand. We just chose not to. But for the most part, I'm totally with you. I'm curious, though, where you would look to cut- if you could just make the call an not have to worry about being elected.

I think it pissed him off.

Yes it is helpful to the GOP. The Regan legacy is nothing more than a marketing campaign that he anchors just as Phil Knight used Jordan to sell his brand.
As it is a contrived image that they are selling it is by design beneficial to their agenda.

And I guess it works because it's uncool to criticize a dead man, particularly if he was President.

There is an ongoing effort to rewrite all of history. And the Bible as well, in case you hadn't noticed. It would seem that anyone who finds history to be inconvenient to their cause tries to "tweak" it a bit, don't they? And it's not just the left, now is it?:rolleyes:

Dave

Hmmm...did I say the left did this? Don't think I did. But glad you confirmed it. :p

I'm not defending Reaganomics here, but I do stand by my notions that to compare our fiscal wellness between then and now is a little unfair to say the least.

I think that we have now marched well beyond taxing being able to offset our reckless spending. This has come about in many ways but it all comes down to our ever expanding government that has resulted in over spending on both Fed and State levels. This has little to do with Reagan policies IMO.

As it has been pointed out, Bush Jr's 2 term spending spree along with Obama's (less than one term) absolute hammering of the deficit make it apparent that spending ourselves into wealth and prosperity isn't working out so hot.

My post wasn't intended to compare our financial wellness then and now, but to point out that the economic philosophy that started the whole ball rolling was Reaganomics (an assertion also made back then and recently by Reagan's budget director).

Due to the deification of Reagan, it has become impossible for the GOP (and even the Dem's to a lesser extent) to shed itself of his (failed) Supply-Side philosophy because of their fealty to all things Reagan.

It's a no-brainer that the government can spur economic growth by cutting taxes while increasing spending. Reagan proved it and now Obama is doing exactly the same thing. At some point, however, the bills must be paid.

I would not say that, corporations are doing just fine, sitting on over $2 trillion in cash.:rolleyes:

...and not loaning it to small business. :(

Just take the no interest treasury loan and buy US debt bonds with it. Hard not to make a profit and you just need a 50 million dollar a year CEO to figure it out. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/ima...s/thumbsup.gif


Carl

Marketing works, it's nothing more than mass psychology.

for the hundredth time, when folks are out of work you increase benefits to those people and increase the tax on those that are working to pay for it.

Everything stays balanced and economies left un-manipulatory auto restore.

They are indeed. One side seemingly defending it and the other side while publicly pointing fingers, doing nothing but supporting it financially and by policy also.

On a side note, Our new U of M president, Eric Kaler, signed on to replace outgoing president Bob Bruininks. He is being paid $ 610,000/yr (base salary) for his efforts. This is around $ 350,000 more than his current salary as provost at Stony Brook University and $150,000 more than outgoing president Bruininks. Not a big deal you say... Well it is a big deal when you consider how they keep raising tuition and fees at double digit rates yearly for students because the school is in reportedly such financial straits. They keep spending, building stadiums and whatnot while at the same time fee jacking students at a ridiculous pace because they are "going broke".

Its a small potato's deal dollar wise compared to some corporate muckety mucks compensation but it's all the same deal and these are the folks supposedly watching out for the future of our children. I guess burdening our young people with a unmanageable mountain of debt upon graduation is just tough love of sorts :rolleyes:


Thats probably going to be one of our next big "Bail outs" a few years down the road if we make it that far.

It's all good in their eyes. After all and even though they are public education, they are really just another corporate entity. Teach them to despise corporate america and at the same time, rob them blind in the same manner. Touch'e state college's. Nicely played!


The question has been posed as to who is playing who? The game players include all as far as I'm concerned.


RC

I thought they took it X10 and then loaned it back to the treasury. Welfare for the international bankers. More fiat currency for the politicians to buy votes with.

Chas

Yeah, but what about Little Johnny?

How do you place a monetary value on insuring that he doesn't grow up stupid?

Chas

Little Johnny need to find a job in the public sector while the gettin's good or until the well runs dry which could be very soon.

They say they don't exist, but it's purported by many to be the only "functioning" and growing perpetual motion machine in existence, right?

I hear the IRS is hiring at a very rapid rate. Hmm, I wonder what those folks are going to be busying themselves with ???


RC

Proctology

I'm sure that with a BA in Sociology Little Johnny will find a fine job in the public sector and do quite well...provided he knows which banana to put in his mouth.

And as far as the new IRS agents, I read that they're being hired to "explain" the new health care provisions to folks such as you and I.

Chas

I guess thats a nice way of putting it :D

I'm sure that's it, exactly ;)

You're probably right. It is a shame we cannot let our government do what private industry will not. I don't care for massive government but I certainly believe in what is necessary. I was reading some of the cuts they want to do and I saw no fluff, there just will be a very real loss of quality of life for all.


Carl

Looks like they are following the University of California system's lead. No shame in their greed at all.



Carl