The Reagan Legacy

Where to begin. Well, I'll look up some numbers, since you conveniently provide none, regarding the job creation etc.A couple of quick questions for you: 1- your definition of 'modern presidency.' From what date does this era begin? I want to know the parameters we are discussing. Well maybe you, Michael Moore, and Al Franken might, but I certainly wouldn't. You mean the bill sponsored by Patrick Moynahan (DEM NY) that required all individuals must be released from asylums who could not be demonstrated as a danger to themselves or others? That bill? The one for which Moynahan went on 60 minutes ten years later and took responsibility? The one Moynahan admitted was a good idea but had disastrous consequences?Yeah that was the President's fault.What else, the budget deficit? The ones the democratic congresses kept passing? That's the argument I love the most. Blame the Chief Executive for federal spending. Sorry, the power of the purse belongs to the legislative branch alone. The President can propose all the budgets he wants, but Congress actually has to pass them in order to spend the money. Because JFK didn't scare anyone during the Cuban Missile Crisis? And the USSR weren't acting like over-posturing maniacs? I don't remember Reagan pulling off is shoe and slamming it on the podium shouting 'we will crush you.' I think that was Nikita Kruschev. Small wonder that the American Chief Executive had to show some backbone.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 06:14 AM

Well it certainly seems you forgot about him budgeting nearly $3 billion for AIDS research between 1984 and 1989. I daresay that may have contributed to the fight against AIDS.

Ahh the simplicity of hate. This is almost as laughable as when my parents spent eight years demonizing Clinton over every perceived mistep the government made.Here's a two-bit lesson in US government:1-No President is 100% reponsible for the actions of the US government and economy that occur during his time in office.2-There is a little branch called the legislative branch (Congress) which holds the sole power of the purse. In fact, no law can be passed without the cooperation of said branch.3-There is another branch called the judicial branch (supreme court). These folks also influence how laws are interpreted (Roe v Wade) and they are people who hold their positions for LIFE. So the ramifications of these appointments aren't usually felt until subsequent presidencies. Well boo hoo. Guess you should have gone to a cheaper school. How the amount of debt you were willing to incur have anything to do with the President? Sorry, it has none. More importantly, businesses and home buyers, two key drivers for the US economy, felt a great deal of relief from the decrease in run away inflation - as did most consumers who held jobs and saw their hard earned cash being devalued at an alarming rate in the seventies.Uh, whether the crises began as a result of OPEC, US oil interests, or the international jewish conspiracy it doesn't matter. The point is that it ended on Reagan's watch. If you contend his policies had nothing to do with it, fine, show me the money (or in this case, data). The ole 'yeah there were lots of jobs, but they were all at MacDonalds' hue and cry, eh? That's almost as tiresome as the 'but how can you explain the complexity of the eye!' argument we read here daily. So if all of these jobs were 'garbage' jobs, how did the US get to be number one in the world (at the time) in high-skilled high tech industries such as avionautics, aero-space, chemicals, computer manufacture and design, software design, etc. etc? Show me the money Holmes. What decrease in accountability? The one where Nike, Microsoft, IBM, Intel employees became paper millionares? Even the secretaries? And don't you think that the massive numbers of people who went to college on the GI Bill after vietnam MIGHT have contributed to the number of workers with college degrees competing for jobs? Actually life has become better for most people - especially the middle class. Is it all because of Reagan? Of course not; but we are one of the richest countries in the world. Even at our lowest levels people have bedrooms, bathrooms, cable TV, access to all and any kind of food they will ever need, some of the best health care available for emergency services (and if you think you need insurance to get emergency services, in many states you don't if you go to the emergency room), computers, VCRs, DVD players, stereos, cars, jewelry, you name it.In addition to that, you are as upwardly mobile as you choose to be -within reason, you may want to be the next Bill Gates, but that is so much more than desire and dedication. That is conjecture. Besides, since we seem to pin on all the US victories and defeats on the incumbent President, then since he was in office for a critical portion of the cold war, he should get credit for it; otherwise, using this logic, we should strip the economic recovery from Clinton since we were already recovering during the last two quarters under Bush I.I love how some people can only begrudgingly give credit to Reagan for this; as though it kills them to think the Reagan presidency could have done anything right at all in eight years. If that isn't irrational bias, I don't know what is. Gee, actually I would interpret that the other way. It sort of undercuts anyone saying RR doesn't deserve most of the credit. Partisan politics is absolutely amazing. Can't you see this is as silly as adhering blindly to a particular religion? Bush I did NOTHING right during his four years? Then why did we begin our economic recovery during the last year of his presidency? Did Clinton's mere nomination cure all of our economic ills? Please.And what about Kuwait? Say what you will about oil interests and not finishing the war the first time, but he did lead an international coalition to liberate a sovereign nation from a tyrannical, torturous dictator. Or does the freedom of the Kuwaitis not really mean anything? They're just a bunch of rich Arabs after all. This claim has always confused me. In what way was Reagan the President 'terrible' for education? Isn't most highschool and below education paid for by the state and county taxpayers? How is the federal govt at all to blame for a state's money problems in this regard? Show me the money!I'm not a die-hard republican shill, and RR was no saint, but he did some good things, he was our leader when our nation faced serious internal and external threats (cold war, Iran hostage, inflation, recession), and most people in the country,at the time, trusted him. When have we had a president like that? Not Bush, certainly not Clinton, and half the country still whines with Al Gore and Michael Moore that GWB isn't the legitimate president.Here's something else to reflect upon. Despite our massive military build up during the eighties, how many armed conflicts involving US combatants actually occurred during the RR era? Grenada? Now how about Bush? How about Clinton?It's a bit much to canonize the man, but this demonization of him is absolutely ludicrous.This message has been edited by custard to change 'health care' to 'emergency services.', 06-13-2004 07:25 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 12:39 PM

Are we going to start playing this game again? Are you really incapable understanding the point? If so, I will reiterate for you (and any others who refuse to see the forest for the trees).1- Congress has the power of the purse.
2- Presidents submit proposed budgets to congress.
3- RR was accused of 'ignoring' the AIDS problem.
4- If RR was ignoring the AIDS problem, then why did he budget $2.79 billion for AIDS research during the years of 1984 and 1989?Number four indicates that RR did NOT 'ignore' AIDS. And yes, since congress did vote to spend money (number 1) on AIDS both RR AND congress should get credit for this. Him for proposing to spend money on it, and congress for agreeing to spend money on it. Pretty cool how that works, eh?However, if this explanation doesn't help, I can recommend some great US govt classes at Michigan. It's in your neck of the woods and Ann Arbor is a fun little college town. Ask for professor Raymond Tanter. He's a pretty bright guy, although >GASP< he did serve as one of Reagan's advisers.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 07:23 AM

Oh, I thought it was the game where you make a glib, one liner remark and then come back and act like that wasn't a loaded question from the get go.Tell you what, from now on, I'll treat your questions as though they are aboveboard interrogatives without laced sarcasm or hostility and just straight up answer them. In this case you wrote:

quote:

---

I thought congress had the power of the purse?

---

My answer to that question is:Yes, they do. In general, yes I agree. And depending on the Congress-Prez relationship (e.g. Clinton-Gingrich), and who is sponsoring what, both branches share a varying degree of fiscal responsibility. No, I do agree. No, the President is responsible for bad budgeting decisions, AND the congress shares responsibility for passing bad budget decision. The reverse also holds true. Ultimately one could argue that all good and bad budget decisions are due to congress, but that is too simplistic. In general, the branches work together to reach a compromise. No. I'll dare to borrow from the Rrhain repetoire: doubtful. No. I merely point out that the accusation that Reagan 'ignored' AIDS during his presidency was false. Yes it was. Go back and read the post. Holmes claimed:

quote:

---

In short, part of Reagan's legacy was ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be.

---

AIDS wasn't diagnosed as AIDS until what, 1982? So is it a surprise that people weren't clamoring for federal funding right away? Was RR or Congress supposed to be clairovoyant? Should they have funded research before 1984? Sure, hindsight being what it was. That is a different argument. I'm going out on a limb here, but I ASSUME that the federal money used for research during the eighties actually helped make some headway with the diagnosis and treatment of the disease - which gets back to my first point that RR was not ignoring the issue.If you want to argue the horse was already out of the barn by 1984 and that the money spent on research after 1983 was wasted or useless, I couldn't say; however, I would be surprised if the medical community thought that money spent on AIDS research after 1983 was wasted. Maybe you could look into that.

Um, no. North Ironwood, MI is only 112 miles from Duluth, MN. When you practically border a state, that counts as being in your neck of the woods.Vancouver is about 950 miles and two states away from SF, so I would say that is NOT in my neck of the woods. I don't think you are dumb. I think you need to brush up on your geography. This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 09:09 AM

Here is some food for thought regarding the economy under Reagan compared to other presidents (from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html):

quote:

---

1- Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

​

2- Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

​

3- Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

​

4-The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

---

Is it any surprise the first part of the 70's was booming? There was a war on. But what makes RR look so good is that most people are comparing him to Carter and not Carter's predecessors, which as Rrhain points out, gets glossed by Reaganophiles. Look at the economic growth though. Reagan's tenure beats the Nixon/Ford/Carter years and the Bush/Clinton (to 1994)years. And for Holmes's claim that the middle class got hosed and only the upper middle class made out. This shows the median, not mean, for wages increased during RR. Look at the unemployment and interest rates. Are they better under other presidents? Yes, but again RR looks so good because things were so awful at the end of the Carter administration - and that is what RR's administration should be credited for: the economic turn around.http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig05.gifhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig03.gifFinally, although Rrhain does not mention this, many people complain about the HUGE budget deficit Reagan ran up. Well the defecit had reached it's peak by 1987 and had already come down considerably by 1989. In fact, if you look at the deficit in terms of a percentage of GDP, which really makes more sense, the deficit was almost the same (3%) in 1989 as it was when Reagan took office in 1980.So Rrhain makes a good point that RR's presidency was not the ultimate economic miracle, but it wasn't peanuts (sorry Jimmy) either. His administration deserves credit where credit is due: the economy was in shambles and things were getting worse, and then things turned around dramatically.Was he a saint? I don't think so; but he was a good president and say what you will about Iran-Contra (which I really could care less about frankly) he wasn't an arrogant, silver spoon sucking golfer(Bush) or a lying satyr (Clinton) and I wasn't embarassed when he was in the public eye.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 08:58 AM

SHHH!Lady, you are totally undermining my argument. Sure everyone in the Midwest knows that just because the UP is near Minnesota doesn't mean he's close to AA, but all the other posters don't know that!SHEESH!!! Thanks alot!

Dude, scroll up and take your own advice about not acting like you know more than your opponent.That you worked in the US government means absolutely nothing to me. In fact, having worked for the US govt myself and having worked with other govt employees it doesn't really help make your case that you know what you are talking about. In any case, it is moot: I don't care if your real name is Bill Clinton, I am responding to your accusations, not your previous work experience. Amazing. You see what you want to see (as is evidenced by your interpretation of the eighties). I don't know how I could have made myself any clearer. Oh well, I won't go over it a third time. No, not all the reps. You are generalizing. That would be like me saying all democrats are ignorant liberal idiots. And we were talking about Reagan, not Bush. Thankfully I did not; but I can read the paper and listen to the radio so I am not entirely ignorant. What are you talking about? Half the time Reagan had a Republican majority, and half the time he was able to build a consensus with the dems (remember the 'Reagan Democrats?'). You claimed he did not, not me. I called bullshit on your claim. You have the burden of proof, do your own footwork. As you can see by my previous posts, I've provided plenty of data supporting my position. I confess that I don't really know the impact that Reagan had on school funding. But as I stated, I don't care. The nation has no obligation to provide cheap loans or free education. You could have worked yourself through school (like I did) or quit, get a job, save up some money and go back later.We were in a COLD WAR and we were trying to get out of a DEPRESSION. The prez and congress chose to make cuts - you can blame it all on big bad Ronnie, but since you know the govt system so well you know that dumping it all on him is bogus.Is that what all your vitriol towards RR is about? Your subsidy got cut? That's pretty weak if that's the case. My age is irrelevant. What is relevant is the data, not emotional memories, but actual data regarding the time and topic in question. Yes I lived and worked through the eighties and nineties, but how I feel about them is irrelevant. My individual experience is nothing to base national statistics on. Neither is yours.I suggest your memories of that time are not doing you justice and you should refresh them with the data I have provided. For instance, you will see that despite your claim that the economy started tanking around 1986...

quote:

---

As it stands I said there was a boom through the early portion of the 80's, perhaps even up till 1986. Past that it was a decline into a pretty massive Recession.

---

... the recession really didn't hit nationally until around 1991. Yes I'm for real. Facts, numbers, cite sources. Your memories mean nothing to me. Of course we all saw the layoffs and stuff on TV. But I'm not going to argue speculative numbers with you. You made a claim, I questioned your claim, back it up. Don't just keep telling me how bad you remembered it to be. Yeah, that's a solid foundation for an argument: a New Jersey poseur in a jean jacket. Holmes, people aren't share croppers anymore. Most po' folks don't live in shanties. They live in trailers and rent-subsidized apartments. They have many amenities half the world would kill for. But I admit that for this claim I have no statistics in hand to back them up. Only personal experience and that, I realize, is not a valid sample size from which to draw conclusions. I'll table this part of the discussion if you want. So what? I didn't compare the US to those countries for precisely that reason. We are not a socialist country. That is straying from my point. I agree, no demi-god status for Reagan. And no I don't think he ended the cold war by himself at all. I wrote this: Obviously some of his policies helped facilitate this. At least I that is what I have read and I have yet to see any compelling data otherwise. People forget that Reagan didn't fight the cold war by himself, there were other countries - like Great Britain, other branches of govt, and other key players like Jim Baker, etc. He certainly wasn't alone.But if people are going to dump all of the bad stuff that happens during an administration on the chief exec, then they better pony up and give him some props for the good things that occur as well. To do otherwise is inconsistent and demonstrates irrational bias. You've busted me there. I misquoted what you said and I did not see the interview. And that's all I said. Well I could go into a six month long story about how I personally sat in the sand with both Kuwaitis who were fighting to get their country back AND Saudis who were terrified their country would get invaded. I know that Kuwait (and many of the Arab emirates) is not what most US citizens would call a 'free' country, but what autonomy they had was a damn sight better than being ruled by a foreign dictator named Saddam. Or would you disagree?I personally saw Kuwait city before and after the war. So I know whereof I speak; but don't take my word for it, use your own reasoning. Kuwaitis used to have a council and a elect leaders to represent them and had many rights Iraqis did not have (e.g. you didn't get tortured if your country's national soccer team lost). After they were invaded by Iraq, what rights did they have? Did they get to spend their oil money, or did Saddam? Do you honestly think they would have preferred life under Saddam? Then why were they so desperate to pay to get their country back?Freedom is relative. Compared to what the Kuwaitis experienced under Saddam, their old government was free. Ergo it is not out of place to say we freed the Kuwaitis. Well I only took two years of economics so I'm not much of an expert about WHY the economy improved, but I hesitate to say it fixed itself. I would have to review the policies and laws passed during the latter half of the Bush administration and first part of the Clinton presidency(during which I was inebriated).But I never claimed Clinton did anything, except maybe not screw up the recovery - which, in itself, is no small feat. Yeah it was all Bush's fault. He passed the laws to free up the restrictions on the SNLs and he personally made them speculate their investor's money. It's all so clear to me now. So let me get this straight, because I want to be sure I understand you clearly. So budgeting billions of dollars for AIDS two years after the virus was identified is not something positive? Not in the slightest?Because you said this:

quote:

---

In short, part of Reagan's legacy was ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be.

---

So how did budgeting AIDS dollars ensure that HIV became a worse threat? You ask me to do some research, and I will because until this thread I knew very little about the AIDS topic except there was a lot of ridiculous hyperbole, such as your statement, flying around. So I'll check your thread and get back to you on this one. Because I'm pretty confident, although I may be wrong, that Reagan did not 'ensure HIV became a worse threat to world health.' I did not read the initial thread as a canonization so much as a query. But since I don't watch television, I don't subject myself to the hours of RR tribute the must be flooding the airwaves and so I didn't have a knee jerk reaction to the initial thread.I did have a reaction to your absolute hatred and demonization of a person based on nothing but your personal experiences (which is fine for you I suppose, but worthless when trying to convince people who didn't live through a Japanese take over or a cut student loan).Your ridiculous claims that this President was responsible for every negative thing that happened during his and his successor's administrations, but not at all responsible for any positive things was truly appalling.I understand better, now , why you are unable to be objective about this person. Even your reply has nothing more to offer but your feelings, personal memories, and accusations that my position is weak because you don't know if "I was there" when it all happened; but you provide no actual evidence or data for anything really.You made claims that seemed specious to me, I called you to the floor on them, but you do not provide anything of substance to back them up. I, on the other hand, have provided data to support my position yet you ignore this and speak in anecdotes. I'll be happy to continue discussing this with you, but I can't debate your feelings and memories.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 11:58 AM

OK, in my haste I threw in the word 'health care' when I should have said 'emergency services.' I am in no way referring to a health plan of any kind, although the truly poor do, in fact, have plans that vary from state to state - which while nothing I would want, still beats anything in Africa and South America.And no, I'm not comparing US poverty to EU poverty, any of us with any knowledge realizes that these are entirely different political systems. I'm comparing being poor in the US to being poor in just about any non-first world country. And there is absolutely no comparison between the standards of living. That's why we have immigrants migrate to first world countries. I never said 'great medical care.' And I certainly do know that if a homeless, jobless person shows up at a hospital in an immediate life threatening condition, then he/she will receive treatment. Yes that would be a deluded statement; however, I did not say everyone in the country can afford a computer and you darn well know it. And anyone who can't get their hands on a cheap computer can easily access one at - taadaaa- the local library. Straying off topic, but I'll bite:1- What does the length of a line have to do with availability of food? I could counter and say that, if anything, it shows there is plenty of food because the lines are longer than ever. Both conclusions would be specious.2- Because their parents send them to school hungry. If they would cut back on the beer and cigarettes, kids would have plenty to eat. I do the shopping in this household, I know how much food costs. Welfare, foodstamps, and SSI combined with assisted living and about a million job programs are more than enough to get an egg and a piece of toast in a kid's stomach before he runs to school. Unless the Pall Malls are your first option.And who told them to have kids anyway? Just because you have unprotected sex and spawn a few brats the state has the responsibility to raise, clothe, feed, bathe, and keep them happy? Sorry, that's called SOCIALISM and that is about as far from the type of ruthless capitalism we practice in this country. Are you kidding? Who said being poor was fun? Not me. I said that compared to truly poor people in this world, in general our poor have it pretty darn good. Do you for one second think our poor have it worse than India, most of Africa, East Asia, South America? You must be absolutely ignorant to the state of the world outside the ivory towers of our country. No. Yes and it was charming. My uncle lives in one and I didn't see a single Hatfield, McCoy, or Nell anywhere. I don't know where 60 Minutes finds these people, but I saw roads and houses and electricity pretty much everywhere I went. Most? Well I may not be from 8 mile, but I did live in Michigan for several years and I have visited Detroit several times. What is your point? That poor people live there? Guess what, they live everywhere.You know how many dead bodies I saw floating by in the Detroit river every time I went? None. Zero. None on the streets either. Somehow all those poor, destitute, starving people weren't dropping dead all over the place. I wonder why not?Now how many dead people do you think I would I see floating in the Ganges if I went to India? How about the Nile? Any idea? More than zero.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 12:31 PM

Yeah, I can't find any good evidence to the contrary. They were still calling it GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) or "gay cancer"
until the CDC changed it to AIDS around September 1982.I concur that the RR adminstration record regarding AIDS was pretty sad and, in retrospect, probably failed to prevent a great many deaths due to wishful thinking or turning a blind eye toward the issue.To put things in context, I think the US was a pretty homophobic place in the early eighties - certainly more than today; and it's not surprising that politicians, especialy those raised in much more conservative times, basically ignored the issue; however, that certainly doesn't make their inaction (or willfull inaction) right.Here is an interesting link that sums up the AIDS timeline in the US:
Page not found - APLA HealthNow, all of that said, I still don't agree with this statement: This is just an outlandish accusation that ignores the fact that AIDS was not solely a US issue; and it ignores the health care responsibilities of every other first world country.Claiming RR is responsible for the state of AIDS in the world is as illegitimate as claiming Geatan Dugas (a French flight attendant supposedly identified as "patient zero" responsible for introducing the epidemic to the U.S.) was responsible for every US death from AIDS. At best one can claim many more people died from AIDS in the US than might have if the RR administration had been more responsive to the issue.But even that is a bit hard for me to swallow, since I don't know how anyone can say that administration would have made the same decisions if they had the luxury of our hindsight.I still think a large part of the RR administration's failure to address the issue in the manner we (of 2004) would have liked to see it addressed had to do with how the majority of our country (RR's constituents) saw, judged, and dealt with homosexuality.Obviously people weren't outraged enough by RR's inertia on the AIDS issue in 1984 to present a challenge to his re-election. I don't recall AIDS being a big part of the Mondale-Ferraro platform, but memory is faulty and I can't find any good info on this. Perhaps someone can provide, exactly, where AIDS ranked on the 1984 democratic presidential agenda? I did find this link with the transcript of the vice-presidential debate between Ferraro and Bush.I could not find a SINGLE question or reference to AIDS. Why is that? Perhaps because as a nation this wasn't considered to be an issue important enough to determine the outcome of the presidential election? If this is true, where do we get off singling RR out as the person responsible for the US's refusal to address AIDS in the early eighties they way we would have liked to have seen it addressed, now, in 2004? Because he was the president? Isn't he supposed to be representative of the public as a whole?I submit that his actions (and inactions) were representative of the nation at large regarding AIDS, and that his landslide victory in 1984 confirms this. This in no way exonerates his administration, but to blame one person, RR, for the attitude of an entire nation seems a bit over the top to me.

Rrhain, you make good points. Forgive my ignorance here, I'm not sure to which law you refer. No, or, depending on your interpretation of the War Powers Act, not really (how's that for equivocating?). This question has been asked and answered many times since Jefferson, and ultimately the War Powers Act has stood the test of time granting the President the authority to deploy troops and engage in armed conflict for a period of up to (sheesh can't remember, like 90 days?) without a declaration of war by congress. I agree - sort of. I will continue to contend that at the very least Congress and the Executive branch hold joint responsibility for the budget. So in that regard, yes Reagan was responsible for deficit spending. But big deal? Why?Two reasons:1- It is not uncommon for the govt to engage in deficit spending to try to refuel the economy, so the concept of deficit spending is not an 'evil' in itself. It's been done time and time again when needed. One may argue that the US did not need the military expenditures of the RR era, one might be correct;2- however, and most important, the deficit, as I posted, had been falling rapidly, and, as measured as a percentage of GDP, was almost down to the same level when Reagan left office, as it had been when Reagan took office. It was the Bush administration where the deficit started taking off again. Yes, and I do not object in the slightest that he be held accountable for signing it. What I object to is the one sided blame of every negative thing that occurred during the Reagan administration. To say that Reagan was responsible for passing that bill without mentioning the author (a prominent DEM) is to imply that he was solely responsible which is overly simplistic and inaccurate. Maybe that was not your intention, but I see people do this all the time with regard to politics and religion. Because America, the people who overwhelmingly voted him into office, twice, wanted him to?This message has been edited by custard, 06-15-2004 06:54 PMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-15-2004 06:55 PM

No. At the time I was far more concerned with trying to score alcohol and get laid than what a bunch of politicians were arguing about on capitol hill. When I was older, the fact that I never, ever in four years of studying politics at a fairly liberal institution heard anyone claim Reagan was treasonous is probably the reason I never gave that particular subject much thought.You pique my curiosity, but, noting your previous misinterpretation of the War Powers Act, I'm not sure how accurate your interpretation of this alleged transgression is. Really? Says who? Certainly not the White House budget plan of 1981:

quote:

---

The Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. In fact, "America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery," the White House budget plan released on February 18, 1981, included a table entitled "Direct Revenue Effects of Proposed Tax Reductions." [24] That table predicted a huge $700 billion revenue loss from the tax cuts through 1986, as shown in Table 4.

​

Table 4
Reagan Administration's Scoring of the 1981 Tax Cut--Revenue Impact, in Billions of Dollars
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1981-86
-8.8 -53.9 -100.0 -148.1 -185.7 -221.7 -718.2

​

Source: Office of the President, "America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery," February 18, 1981, p. 16.

---

But if you had read the link I posted you would have seen that. (*blink!*)Who said anything about Bush? The topic is The Reagan Legacy. Hmmm, since you quoted me I'm gonna go with: yes? You keep mentioning Bush. Are you rolling in his administration with Reagan's? If so, that's not germain to this discussion.Please show me on the graph of the deficit below exactly where the deficit was skyrocketing. To me, it appears that despite your disbelief and problems with dry eyes, the deficit was falling and was only around 3% of the GDP at the end of the Reagan administration.Please show me on the graph where the deficit tripled. At the end of the Reagan administration the deficit appears to be $150 billion. That's only $50 billion more than what Reagan inherited from Carter. Did I say it was a good thing? Where did I say that Rrhain? I pointed out that, if anything, it was no worse than when Reagan first took office. Subtle difference, but it countered the argument to which I was responding: that we inherited a huge deficit solely because of Reagan. (*blink!*)Really? Well you are the math expert, but from the GDP data below I have a hard time understanding how a number that is getting larger is actually shrinking.

quote:

---

Real GDP
(billions of 2000 dollars)
1976 $4,540
1977 $4,750
1978 $5,015
1979 $5,173
1980 $5,161
1981 $5,291
1982 $5,189
1983 $5,423
1984 $5,813
1985 $6,053
1986 $6,263
1987 $6,475
1988 $6,742
1989 $6,981

---

Unless you refer to the average annual change in the GDP: But it looks like the blue bar above 'Reagan' is actually higher than the blue bars above 'Carter' and 'Nixon/Ford.' Ohhhh I see, you are including that huge Kennedy/Johnson spike. So the 'eighties' did not outperform the 'seventies,' so what? Clearly Reagan outperformed the two preceding administrations, and that is what he was elected to do. Is his adminstration to be considered a failure because it didn't outperform every other administration since FDR? Come on. Defeating the Soviets was a bad decision? Wow, that's a new one.This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 05:11 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 07:18 AM

Interesting how nobody ever seems to think they ordered the humble pie? Funny opening though. Actually, that wasn't all they claimed:

quote:

---

Reagan's first official act as president was, by executive order, to immediately terminate oil price controls, a policy that instantly reenergized America's domestic production and exploration of oil.

​

Moreover, the energy crisis in the 1970s was not purely a result of external factors beyond the control of politicians. With respect to dealing with OPEC, virtually every government energy policy in the 1970s--those under Nixon, Ford, and Carter-- exacerbated the energy crisis, from the windfall profits tax to energy price controls. Reagan hastened the end of the energy crisis by repealing all of these misguided policies.

---

You make a good point here. I noticed that as well; but you will have to show at least a modicum of evidence to convince me that the Reagan administration was solely responsible (if at all responsible) for the necessity of families to work more hours to obtain the same income. Perhaps you could find a graph or data set you find more appropriate to help prove your point. .5% is 'many more' hours than the 70's? After four years of .5% increase in work hours a full-time employee goes from 40 hrs/week to 41 hrs/week. Not a dramatic increase from my perspective. Does it? Because the real median family income increased at a rate greater than the number of hours worked (.8% vs .5%). Perhaps another explanation is that since the unemployment was lower, and there were more jobs, people chose to work more hours because they could. Perhaps part-time jobs became full-time jobs. With the data available, that is just as likely an interpretation; however, I certainly welcome any data you have that contradicts this. Yeah that seems pretty clear to me, and, in fact, it does offset the dollar drop. You have to look at total compensation. Wages+health benefits+401K+stock options = total comp. Don't you do this when you consider a new job? Yes. Much like total comp, you have to look at total assets. If people choose to spend more of their money on things like cars, houses, stocks, bonds, etc. rather than stick it in the bank that's their prerogative. It doesn't mean they don't have the money to spend - which seems to be what you are implying. As for how many low income people who did this, I'm sure I have no idea; but the middle classed is the largest population and their consumption/savings habits could certainly have such an effect.But, once again, I'm happy to review any data you have supporting your position. Re-he-he-heally! Let's see, you wrote:

quote:

---

4. "Supply side or not, he did vastly improve the way of life for most middle class Americans."
This is if you define middle class as those who were upper middle class and not the rest who down shifted into lower class. How convenient such lines are. I was part of the group that went down. They simply redrew the line and then claimed life got better for most middle class people.

---

This is exactly one of the points I challenged you on. The Cato paper does address this, and you conclude a position that is contrary to your original claim. So what if the Rich gained the most in relation to the other classes if ALL the boats were floated up? This isn't socialism, and even you must agree that it is easier for rich folks to make money than poor folks (takes money to make money). All the Reagan administration tried to do was create an environment where people had more opportunity to make money. You just agree that everyone did. So what if the percentages weren't equal? Tax rates aren't equal either. That's not what I'm seeing from the data. It looks like things were doing quite well until around 1991. Sure things started tanking again during the recession under Bush, but I'm not sure how that was the Reagan administration's fault. Maybe you have some data? Let's review some of your claims: He did, and it was. The data I provided supports this. I gave you supporting evidence, but you choose to ignore or discount it. You provided ZERO evidence to support your claim. Until you do, I'm not sure how you can claim to have won this point. We see that median income went up and so did hours worked (although it was not a 1:1 relationship). You have not been able to demonstrate that the jobs were 'garbage jobs' or that families had to work versus choosing to work or being able to work.There was no depression during the Reagan administration. The data bears this out. The 'recession' (and there is a big difference) began under Bush. You agreed that

quote:

---

...everyone including the lowest classes did improve relatively to where they were in the 1970's.

---

So I think I have demonstrated that your original claims are erroneous or unsubstantiated. You even agree and change your position on the last one.Finally, let me say I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read through the data I presented. I'm absolutely serious. I thought you did a good job reviewing it and using it to try to bolster your position.If you have additional data that you want to introduce, I will certainly give you the same courtesy and peruse it thoroughly. I apologize if I got a bit ascerbic, I don't have anything against you personally, but I may have allowed some of my dissatisfaction with the way these kinds of arguments are casually tossed about (regurgitated might be more accurate)without being challenged or really supported.Thanks.

So you've lowered yourself to quote mining? You wouldn't be a Young Earther would you?Well, since you persist in this farce, here is the difference between my actual quote and what you wrote. See that? WORLD HEALTH vs. US. I know we Americans are pretty egocentric, but even you must admit there is a significant difference between the 280 million people in the US and the - oh - 6 billion other people in the world. N'est pas?There is nothing semantic about it, unless you wrote something other than you meant. If you want to rescind that claim, I'm fine with that.I also like how you conveniently edited my next sentence where I said:

quote:

---

But even that is a bit hard for me to swallow, since I don't know how anyone can say that administration would have made the same decisions if they had the luxury of our hindsight.

---

Pretty important ommission on your part since your quote mining makes me look like I agree with you. 1- I agree with you. That is what I said from the beginning. That was not your position in your first post. Glad you came around.2- If I seem to be heaping the successes which occurred during the Reagan administration solely on RR himself, it is only because you choose to see it that way. I have stated three times, quite clearly, that the Chief Executive is not 100% responsible for every single success/failure that occurs while he is in office.
I challenged you heaping the failures that occurred under his watch - his 'legacy' - solely upon him. Keep backpedaling. I love it. If you think I'm going to read all fifty-two pages of that transcript, you've been taking too many trips to Amsterdam. Why don't you, for once, provide the relevant data - cut and paste or point out the relevant pages- so I know what you are talking about and I don't have to guess?I've only asked your for data to substantiate your claims in every single post, yet all you provide is opinion, denial, conjecture, and criticism of the data I provide. The last is perfectly valid, but for you to effectively make your points, you need to actually put up or shut up. I'm not going to argue opinions with you. It's utterly pointless. Partisan my dear aunt Sally. Of course you have to look at world events in context. Of course you have to take into account all of the social and political factors for decisions made in the past - things are never black and white. To make them black and white is childish and accomplishes nothing.You show me some data that indicates the Reagan administration had any idea of how bad the AIDS epidemic was going to get, (heck if it's in Koop's transcript, just tell me the page) and you might be able to make your point. Looking back from 2004 and saying "man Reagan really effed up - look how many people died" just doesn't cut it.This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 07:14 AM