Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Reagan Legacy
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 86 (114852)
06-13-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by custard
06-13-2004 9:57 AM


Re: Food for thought
Hmmmmm. I'm always one for eating humble pie when I order it, though I have yet to have it served by a side of custard pudding.
However, given your having ripped into my "partisanship", boasted your own nonpartisanship, and then to support your argument you supplied graphs from an outdated anti-Clinton report from the Cato institute, I'm thinking some custard is looking to eat his own slice of humble pie.
First of all let's get this straight. I am not a Democrat. Neither did I say anything about what the economy was like under Carter. In fact if Carter had died and someone came on saying that Carter was a great President, especially for the economy, I would dispute THAT just as much. In fact I believe I have in some earlier thread.
Second I have no position on taxes versus national economy, which was the focus of your link. I am only concerned with how actual policies (regulations and distribution of taxed monies) affect the trend of justice and living conditions for those within the nation. I don't like utopian tax schemes, but do NOT believe raising or lowering taxes has a specific affect (at least not all by itself).
There were assertions that Reagan did X, Y, and Z. I simply disputed those claims, pointing out his policies did not solve X, Y, and Z and some ended up having disastrous results despite their initial successes.
Your graphs on productivity and economic growth are not relevant to anything I said. I did agree that there was REAL growth during the early 80's, probably up till 86 when things started falling apart. I find it somewhat interesting that you and Cato still seem a bit confused as to how to distribute credit and blame, but I won't dispute that there was growth and improvement in the US from the late 1970's.
Even if I were to completely accept your median income graph as representing actual individual WAGES, I could point out it doesn't do anything but shift what I said by a couple of years. This does not remove the culpability of Reagan policies for causing this, unless you buy into the UNSUPPORTED claims of Cato, that Bush's policies reversed the economic climate of the entire nation right out of the gate (including laughably their listing of initiatives passed at least a year AFTER the downward trend had occured).
Yeah, for some reason in all of this Cato managed to miss the fact that there were many negative economic scandals toward the end of the 80's, including the S&L scandal, whose effects were felt THEN, even if they didn't get addressed by the Prez and Congress till after Bush was in office.
Then again, they also claim the energy crisis was solved by deregulation which managed to smash OPEC, when it was not OPEC who directly gouged the american public. No partisanship in this paper.
Anyway, there are some reasons to look at the median income graph with a bit of skepticism, especially as it relates to quality of life of those in the regular middle class and below.
First, you will note that it is FAMILY median income and not INDIVIDUAL median income. The graph does not take into account the number of families that had to send previously NONemployed members to work in order to keep the median household income where it was originally. If you want this graph to stick then you will need an individual median income.
Of course even income is not as accurate as hourly WAGE. The graph does not capture the fact that in some families people had to work longer hours (including taking on second jobs).
Interestingly Cato does address this, but you appear to have missed that little tidbit. Check out Table 1, which shows that compared to both the pre and post Reagan years, the individual worked more hours (in fact many more when compared to the 70's). This tends to support, when looking at the rather small increase in income, that the new jobs being created were not really better, and when you take into account that many families began to have both partners working (remember latch key kids were the new phenomena of the time) those jobs may have been nothing better than schlep jobs.
Whoops.
And then we can look at what those "higher incomes" had for the average citizen. This is something else that Cato soft-shoed, but you simply avoided (or missed).
According to the Cato report you are citing from:
The decline in the personal savings rate in the 1980s was disappointing, but two factors mitigate the implications of these statistics. First, the drop in the savings rate was partly a natural response to demographic changes in America--namely, the baby boomers entering their peak spending years. Second, the savings rate data fail to account for real gains in wealth, which clearly are an important form of savings. The real value of capital assets and property doubled from 1980 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly tripled from a low of 884 in 1982 to 2,509 in 1989. These increases in the value of stocks, bonds, homes, businesses, and so forth added to Americans' balance sheets hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that are not accounted for in the savings rate statistics.
Heheheh. Now are you really going to tell me that middle and low income citizens were holding all those "assets" which ended up increasing, and so Cato says we don't need to worry about the loss in savings?
The picture being painted ought to be pretty clear by Cato's own findings, even if one leaves out the fact that many families began adding income earners just to stay afloat. People in the middle class ended up working more for a bit more money, but in the end were unable to save as much, though those who were able to afford certain capital assets, were able to offset their loss in savings through capital gains.
In fact, Cato goes on to ADMIT that job WAGES did go down, but as usual tried to explain what that means away...
So although it is true that average real wages have been falling over the past 20 years, real compensation has been generally rising. The average real wage in 1990 dollars fell from about $11.00 an hour in 1980 to about $10.00 in 1988, a 9 percent decline. But real compensation per hour rose from $15.00 per hour in 1981 to $16.50 an hour in 1988.
What Cato is saying is that AVERAGE benefits and compensations granted to workers rose, and that offsets the real dollar drop of the average wage. Of course what they do not bother showing at all is whether those with real wages dropping are having benefits added at all, much less to help increase the total AVERAGE benefits and compensations Cato uses to say it all evens out. Most lower income and middle class nonUnion jobs do not have great benefits and compensation packages.
Whoops.
I guess the only thing which I have to agree with the Cato paper on, though you did not bring up and does not affect our dispute, is that everyone including the lowest classes did improve relatively to where they were in the 1970's. The fact that the Rich gained wealth at a much greater rate, and the middle to poor had to work even more than they had in the past, I guess can be seen as neglible by certain types... certain partisan types.
As far as inflation goes, I am a bit confused, though again it doesn't matter to anything I said. According to the Cato figure 5 inflation began going down during Carter's administration (or at least during the last portion where his policies still held sway). And while they did go down at first, they seem to follow exactly what I described as the general economic trend during RR's time in office. Everything was fine until 1986, and then it went back up.
While I get that this indicates the 80's and perhaps RR was better in general for the economy than Carter and the 70's, how does it show that RR's policies did anything other than what I said? Things started by improving and then reversed and deregulation and lack of oversight and the hope that money would trickle down came back around to bite the average guy in the ass.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 9:57 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 7:15 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 86 (114856)
06-13-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by custard
06-13-2004 12:51 PM


Dude, scroll up and take your own advice about not acting like you know more than your opponent.
Uhmmm, I didn't. You acted like you were giving me some bit of knowledge about how the government works. Oooooooo. I knew this, and apparently more than you regarding how the President and Congress are responsible for the policies which get produced.
As I have said repeatedly, both RR and the Congress get the credits and blame for things that happened during the 80's. The Congress does NOT get the credit for managing things with Gorbachev, because they were NOT involved.
I'm still unsure why my initial crediting of RR for helping end the Cold War, yet placing a cap on deity-hood for it, keeps getting thrust back at me as if I said he gets no credit.
Thankfully I did not; but I can read the paper and listen to the radio so I am not entirely ignorant.
You missed the point. This shows that a President cannot be separated from the Congress when talking about policies and budgets. You have tried to argue that some policies were Congress's and not RR's and they should get the blame. I am arguing they all take credit/blame.
Is this unreasonable?
As far as asking for evidence... I wrote my piece (and posted it) before I saw your post with evidence. Bad timing on my part. I have addressed the evidence you presented (in my previous post).
You could have worked yourself through school (like I did) or quit, get a job, save up some money and go back later.
Ahhhhhh yes, the armchair ideological general. I should have just quit school and somehow got this great paying job that could not only start paying off the initial loan I took, but also allow me to save for school later!
Too bad even your own source indicated that I could not save sufficiently. Boo hoo.
Hey, I don't blame Reagan for my entire life pal, but it was a terrible time for everyone who suddenly had their funding cut and tuitions raised. This was a result of HIS (and republican) policies, which he started in California.
Guess what? I did deal with it. That doesn't make it better, and your BS about having to win the cold war while fighting a depression is ludicrous. Even according to the stats you presented, his taxes (if he had kept them high enough to back grants and scool funding) would not have affected either.
I personally saw Kuwait city before and after the war. So I know whereof I speak;
Got it: anecdotes work for you, but not for me. Well I'll tell ya that you got me on that anecdote anyway. I was not there personally. Would friends who live in the region count? How many do I have to have before their anecdotes outweigh yours?
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.
Freedom is relative. Boy that just brings tears to my eyes.
Let me put it this way, freedom is NOT relative. You have it or you don't. They didn't have it under their original regime, then they got taken over by a worse regime, then we freed them, and then we put BACK IN PLACE the original regime. They were free when they had the ability to choose their own destiny, and we took that away.
But your quote above is really great for a guy defending RR. Can you please explain why RR was correct in backing Hussein and sending aid so that he could oppress ordinary Iraqis? Or was that freeing them relatively from Islamic Fundamentalists Iran?
Oh yeah, I got friends from there too. You got some great Saddam stories you want to share for why the Iraqis were better off from Reagan's policies?
Well I only took two years of economics..., but I hesitate to say it fixed itself.
I'm definitely NOT an expert on economics, but I do know enough that it (like most things that are active) move to equalize drastic shifts. Remember, markets go up and down up and down all on their own. Your own article blasted Bush for not doing anything right and in their eyes caused the bust, and Clinton did nothing to help. So uhmmmm... why are you ripping me if that is the same conclusion a source you cite came to?
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.
I was talking Reagan, not Bush. And if you think the S&L scandal was about poor investment strategies... sheesh. If there was proper oversight AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY the S&L fiasco would not have occured.
One could argue that there was a bit of naivete at play here. Everyone trusted the markets and growing wealth through corporate activity and so could not conceive of how something that bad could happen. I call that poor policymaking.
By the way, Bush held off dealing with the S&L problems until after the election, and those involved (including one son) were not prosecuted as they should have been. That did not send the right signals at all, which is why corporate crime continued to grow as a hot way to make money.
So budgeting billions of dollars for AIDS two years after the virus was identified is not something positive? Not in the slightest?
Oh yeah, I guess it was just gee wonderful in that sort of relative way you were talking about.
Of course it had some impact which was SLIGHT. It was not what was NEEDED, and HINDERED progress. It also took a lot of work to get that out of him.
Maybe an analogy would help. A cow tips over a lantern which starts a fire in a barn within city limits. The mayor says, serves people right for having cows in a barn, and only lets one old engine out to fight it, despite the fire chief and several firefighters screaming for more. After several blocks are gone and it looks like its about to hit a street his friends live on he sends out the bare minimum his fire chief is asking for. Then it is evident it is further out of control and he says he'll do what he can, but within limits.
Well yeah the mayor helped, but the result was a fire which took much more property and lives than it ever should have if the mayor had been diligent in his duties. It gets worse when you find out he didn't allow engines to come in from neighboring towns because it would look bad for him.
Yeah, do some research on HIV. You could start with that link to what the Surgeon General said, and he was being diplomatic!
Reagan did not 'ensure HIV became a worse threat to world health.'
When a plague starts one has to take steps immediately. I suppose it is more accurate to say his policy making on the issue endured HIV became worse, rather then RR ensured. I'm sure he wouldn't have intended to make things worse. But by his own statements at the time it was clear he was not interested in making things better, not until it was clearly an issue beyond just the gay community.
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.
Uhmmm that would be ridiculous, what's more ridiculous is your assertion that I claimed such a thing.
How many times do I have to say that he gets credit for his work with Russia to end the Cold War, and that there was an economic boom?
I'm sorry that the economic thing only worked for so long and then started to fall apart toward the end of his term. Maybe Bush made some things even worse, but the economy was starting to change and tank within Reagan's term which is seen in your own link (as I pointed out in my last post).
I suppose declining wages and unemployment may have hit the area I was living in sooner than the rest of the nation as a whole, and so I pictured it as having started a tad sooner for everyone else, but again it's like missing the fact that a plague was starting to enter the US population.
Things were starting to go bad within the US before Reagan left office... as a result of his policies, not Bush's.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 12:51 PM custard has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 86 (115282)
06-15-2004 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by custard
06-13-2004 7:06 AM


custard responds to me:
quote:
1- your definition of 'modern presidency.' From what date does this era begin? I want to know the parameters we are discussing.
The end of WWII:
Truman
Eisenhower
JFK
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Five Democrats. Five Republicans. It represents the shift out of the Industrial Revolution, through the wartime, and into the modern economy of automation and suburbanization.
quote:
quote:
Throw in Iran-Contra and you're left with the impression that he was a traitor.
Well maybe you, Michael Moore, and Al Franken might, but I certainly wouldn't.
When Congress writes a law prohibiting the Executive from selling arms and fomenting war and the Executive breaks that law, isn't that treason? Isn't getting the US involved in an international conflict against the express consent of the Congress, who has sole power to declare war, a reasonable example of treason?
quote:
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.
He signed it, didn't he?
You seem to think I am a Democrat. I blame Clinton just as much for the passage of DOMA as the Congress. The support for DOMA was overwhelming.
But let us not forget that only a single Republican voted against it. Not Jim Kolbe of Arizona nor Mark Foley of Florida who are gay, themselves. The only Republican who voted against it was Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin...who's gay. While the overwhelming majority of Democrats supported it, too, that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook.
The Democrats may be bad, but the Republicans are worse.
quote:
What else, the budget deficit? The ones the democratic congresses kept passing?
Actually, that was Reagan's fault, too. Reagan was outspending Congress. If the Congress had simply rubberstamped Reagan's budgets, the debt would have been $30 billion more than it turned out to be.
And let us not forget that for the first six years of Reagan's presidency, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans.
With the head of the Senate Finance Committee being Bob Dole.
If the budget deficit was really the fault of Tip O'Neil, why didn't Dole and Reagan shoot him down?
quote:
quote:
In some sense, yes, in that he finished what JFK started. But he did it in part by scaring the hell out the entire world. His rhetoric convinced many in the USSR that he really was going to push the button.
Because JFK didn't scare anyone during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Um, they were actually putting missiles in Cuba and claiming they weren't. You're quite right that JFK was threatening war. But it was not without provocation.
Reagan, on the other hand, with his "Evil Empire" rhetoric, made many in the Soviet government think that he didn't really need an excuse. He would do it simply to prove that the US is tougher than the USSR.
Sound like another Republican in the White House we know? Doesn't matter that there isn't any real threat...we'll claim there is, fire first, and then insist that we were "liberating" the populace.
quote:
I don't remember Reagan pulling off is shoe and slamming it on the podium shouting 'we will crush you.'
But you've got it backwards.
If JFK was right to stand up to Kruschev and his ranting of "we will crush you" (of course, it isn't like he wasn't provoked given JFK's attempt to invade Cuba), then what do you think the appropriate response from the USSR should have been with Reagan's "Evil Empire" rhetoric?
If we were worried about Kruschev thinking he could win a nuclear war given his penchant for acting like a maniac, why would they not be worried about Reagan doing the exact same thing? Didn't we learn anything from the Cuban Missile Crisis? Don't piss off the other side or they might just blink and we've got ourselves a war nobody can win.
So why did Reagan go out of his way to deliberately antagonize the USSR?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 7:06 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 7:02 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 49 of 86 (115284)
06-15-2004 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by custard
06-13-2004 7:11 AM


Re: forgot about AIDs
custard writes:
quote:
Well it certainly seems you forgot about him budgeting nearly $3 billion for AIDS research between 1984 and 1989.
And where did that money go?
Why did the Surgeon General have to fight to send out a mass mailing to every household in the US in order to describe the impending threat and honestly talk about how it could be prevented?
Just because money was budgeted doesn't mean it was doing any good.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 7:11 AM custard has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 50 of 86 (115286)
06-15-2004 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by custard
06-13-2004 9:03 AM


custard writes:
quote:
AIDS wasn't diagnosed as AIDS until what, 1982?
Because the Reagan administration refused to provide budget to investigate a burgeoning epidemic that showed up in 81. Why? Because it was happening in gay men.
In November of 1982, the entire nation was gripped by the possibility that Tylenol might have been tampered with and only seven people died.
By that time, nearly 500 people had died from AIDS and AIDS had been diagnosed in 1200. The CDC was begging for funds to investigate and had to bowdlerize their reports in order to avoid references to the fact that it was appearing in gay men.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 9:03 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 6:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 86 (115510)
06-15-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rrhain
06-15-2004 4:31 AM


Rrhain writes:
Because the Reagan administration refused to provide budget to investigate a burgeoning epidemic that showed up in 81. Why? Because it was happening in gay men.
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 Health
Now, all of that said, I still don't agree with this statement:
holmes writes:
In short, part of Reagan's legacy was ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2004 4:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 06-15-2004 6:46 PM custard has not replied
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2004 11:43 PM custard has not replied
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 06-16-2004 7:17 AM custard has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 86 (115512)
06-15-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by custard
06-15-2004 6:37 PM


It was simply not a major issue in the 1980s. At that time less than 200 cases had been recorded in the US. It was just to small to get wide attention.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 6:37 PM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 86 (115515)
06-15-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
06-15-2004 4:20 AM


Rrhain, you make good points.
Rrhain writes:
When Congress writes a law prohibiting the Executive from selling arms and fomenting war and the Executive breaks that law, isn't that treason?
Forgive my ignorance here, I'm not sure to which law you refer.
Rrhain writes:
Isn't getting the US involved in an international conflict against the express consent of the Congress, who has sole power to declare war, a reasonable example of treason?
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.
Rrhain writes:
Actually, that was Reagan's fault, too. Reagan was outspending Congress. If the Congress had simply rubberstamped Reagan's budgets, the debt would have been $30 billion more than it turned out to be.
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.
Rrhain writes:
He signed it, didn't he?
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.
So why did Reagan go out of his way to deliberately antagonize the USSR?
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 PM
This message has been edited by custard, 06-15-2004 06:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2004 4:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2004 12:04 AM custard has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 86 (115563)
06-15-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by custard
06-15-2004 6:37 PM


custard writes:
[responding to holmes]
quote:
quote:
In short, part of Reagan's legacy was ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be.
This is just an outlandish accusation that ignores the fact that AIDS was not solely a US issue
Indeed. But the US could have held a leading role in teaching the world how to respond to the crisis. We blew it.
One year, the World AIDS Conference was held in the US. Immigration policy, however, prevented people with HIV from entering the country and thus, many delegates could not attend. US policy, legacy of the Reagan administration, deliberately stood in the way of coordinating a concerted effort to respond to the problem.
To this day, we have a problem providing HIV medication to poor countries because the US refuses to allow the patents to be dissolved on the medications so that they can be produced cheaply enough to be widely distributed.
THAT is Reagan's legacy. Money is more important than people if the people aren't the right sort of people.
quote:
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 one in power. The buck stops at the person in charge. Reagan was in charge. The buck stops with him. The fact that his subordinates didn't step up to the challenge doesn't let him off the hook. It was his responsibility to make sure they do step up.
Oh, there were plenty of people that had their own parts to play in the piss poor response this country had. But they all pointed upward to the guy at the top. If Reagan had treated HIV the same way he treated Tylenol, there is no question that things would be different throughout the world.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 6:37 PM custard has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 55 of 86 (115570)
06-16-2004 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by custard
06-15-2004 7:02 PM


custard responds to me:
quote:
quote:
When Congress writes a law prohibiting the Executive from selling arms and fomenting war and the Executive breaks that law, isn't that treason?
Forgive my ignorance here, I'm not sure to which law you refer.
(*blink!*)
Did you not pay attention to the Iran-Contra hearings?
The Boland amendments specifically prohibited the DoD, the CIA, or any other government agency from providing aid to the Contras.
The Reagan administration used the NSC and then claimed that because the NSC wasn't explicitly mentioned in the Boland amendments, there was no violation.
At the time, there was a trade and arms embargo going on with Iran. McFarlane and North were involved in deals to ship arms to Iran. That money was then to be used to fund the Contras.
Ergo, Ronald Reagan violated both an act of Congress and the embargo with Iran.
What is that if not treason?
quote:
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.
This wasn't a simple question of "deficit spending." This was an absolute explosion of deficit spending. Reagan claimed that by cutting taxes, the government would get more revenues and the "tax cuts would pay for themselves."
This was a complete crock. At the time he proposed trickle-down, no more than 12 members of the 18,000 member American Economics Association said that it had any chance of succeeding. And yet, Reagan managed to push it through.
If it weren't for the interest on the Reagan/Bush debt...just the interest on just the Reagan/Bush debt...the budget would have been balanced in 1994.
quote:
however, and most important, the deficit, as I posted, had been falling rapidly
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
The deficit was sky-rocketing! Reagan/Bush tripled the deficit! Two trillion dollars more in debt by the time they were through! GDP actually shrank during the 80s (2.6) compared to the 70s (2.8).
quote:
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.
And you think that's a good thing?
I'm reminded of the Mark Russell special during Reagan's re-election campaign commenting that when Reagan was first running, he was saying that unemployment was up to 7.5% so Carter ought to go. Now in 1984, he was saying unemployment was back down to 7.5%, so he should be kept on.
quote:
quote:
So why did Reagan go out of his way to deliberately antagonize the USSR?
Because America, the people who overwhelmingly voted him into office, twice, wanted him to?
And just because people want it, that makes it a smart, intelligent, rational thing to do?
Isn't a good leader someone who can stand up to the emotional mob and refuse to be forced into making a bad decision?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 7:02 PM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 5:51 AM Rrhain has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 86 (115632)
06-16-2004 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rrhain
06-16-2004 12:04 AM


Rrhain writes:
Did you not pay attention to the Iran-Contra hearings?
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.
Rrhain writes:
This wasn't a simple question of "deficit spending." This was an absolute explosion of deficit spending. Reagan claimed that by cutting taxes, the government would get more revenues and the "tax cuts would pay for themselves."
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.
Rrhain writes:
If it weren't for the interest on the Reagan/Bush debt
(*blink!*)
Who said anything about Bush? The topic is The Reagan Legacy.
Rrhain writes:
You did not just say that, did you?
Hmmm, since you quoted me I'm gonna go with: yes?
Rrhain writes:
The deficit was sky-rocketing! Reagan/Bush tripled the deficit!
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.
Rrhain writes:
And you think that's a good thing?
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.
Rrhain writes:
GDP actually shrank during the 80s (2.6) compared to the 70s (2.8).
(*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.
Rrhain writes:
Isn't a good leader someone who can stand up to the emotional mob and refuse to be forced into making a bad decision?
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 AM
This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 07:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2004 12:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 7:42 AM custard has not replied
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 06-19-2004 11:29 PM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 86 (115640)
06-16-2004 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Silent H
06-13-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Food for thought
holmes writes:
Hmmmmm. I'm always one for eating humble pie when I order it, though I have yet to have it served by a side of custard pudding.
Interesting how nobody ever seems to think they ordered the humble pie? Funny opening though.
holmes writes:
Then again, they also claim the energy crisis was solved by deregulation which managed to smash OPEC, when it was not OPEC who directly gouged the american public.
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.
holmes writes:
First, you will note that it is FAMILY median income and not INDIVIDUAL median income. The graph does not take into account the number of families that had to send previously NONemployed members to work in order to keep the median household income where it was originally.
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.
holmes writes:
Check out Table 1, which shows that compared to both the pre and post Reagan years, the individual worked more hours (in fact many more when compared to the 70's).
.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.
holmes writes:
This tends to support, when looking at the rather small increase in income, that the new jobs being created were not really better...whoops
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.
holmes writes:
What Cato is saying is that AVERAGE benefits and compensations granted to workers rose, and that offsets the real dollar drop of the average wage.
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?
holmes writes:
Heheheh. Now are you really going to tell me that middle and low income citizens were holding all those "assets" which ended up increasing, and so Cato says we don't need to worry about the loss in savings?
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.
holmes writes:
guess the only thing which I have to agree with the Cato paper on, though you did not bring up and does not affect our dispute, is that everyone including the lowest classes did improve relatively to where they were in the 1970's.
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.
holmes writes:
The fact that the Rich gained wealth at a much greater rate, and the middle to poor had to work even more than they had in the past, I guess can be seen as neglible by certain types... certain partisan types.
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.
holmes writes:
Everything was fine until 1986, and then it went back up.
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?
While I get that this indicates the 80's and perhaps RR was better in general for the economy than Carter and the 70's, how does it show that RR's policies did anything other than what I said?
Let's review some of your claims:
1-"Stopped run away inflation..."
This he may have done, but it is hard to say at this point whether it was his policies or not. And the effects were not across the board.
He did, and it was. The data I provided supports this.
2. "Ended the energy crisis by deregulating the oil industry..."
I would love to see supporting evidence for this statement. It is pretty well documented that the energy crisis we were suffering up until he took office was MANUFACTURED.
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.
3. "Increased the number of jobs in America."
By which I take it you missed out on the depression he caused in the later years of his administration, leading into the first Bush's term. His policies may have increased the number of unskilled garbage jobs, but there was a DECREASE in the accountability of employers for employees
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 06-13-2004 3:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 06-16-2004 1:56 PM custard has not replied
 Message 72 by Rrhain, posted 06-19-2004 11:39 PM custard has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 86 (115642)
06-16-2004 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by custard
06-15-2004 6:37 PM


take a bite custard!
That slice of humble pie is sitting in front of you custard. It looks more foolish for you to pretend it doesn't exist, than to simply eat it.
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.
and
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.
"Failed to prevent a great many deaths" and "many more people died from AIDs... than might have if the RR administration had been more responsive" is different from "ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be" in what way, exactly?
If it makes you feel better I'll "change" my worded position to yours (specifically those two statements).
I really really hate semantic games.
And by the way I DO hold the rest of his administration responsible, including many DEMOCRATS that were in Congress. Your continued insistence that I pin everything on one single man is galling since I've already said otherwise.
The subject OF THIS THREAD was REAGAN. He was president at the time and so the leader... the chief executive... of this nation. This means that he takes a bit more heat for failures just as he gets more accolades (including from you) than others. And since HE and NOT OTHERS were the subject of this thread I was addressing his role in creating a legacy of a greater epidemic.
And as it is his role was large. It was his responsibility to be taking care of the nation's business, part of that responsibility was accurately assessing threats and making sure his administrators were not hindering him from getting good info to make those assessments.
It appears you still haven't read the link given to Koop's statement about RR and the administration he was running, and the damage it caused. Either that or you are going to sweep its indictment under the rug, with a very partisan "well he could have done more but how could he KNOW?" excuse.
In addition, and something I have discussed before, is his contribution to the "homophobia" issue you keep raising. Reagan contributed to that atmosphere of fear and hate by allowing his friends to openly blast gays and link them to AIDs even when the evidence was firmly against such things. He never took the role of leader to prevent those vicious attacks that made everything worse, and as Koop said, helped create the violent atmosphere we have today toward gays.
Even if Reagan wasn't certain about the amount of money to put toward the threat, it was irresponsible not to condemn the outrageous claims of his... let me repeat again... POWERFUL FRIENDS. By letting that stuff slide it gave the impression that the administration backed the accusations.
In the context of this and the other RR thread, that point becomes even more important. No one was supposed to speak ill of the dead, and people came to his defense, but where was Reagan's coming to the defense of those dying of a terrible disease when FALSE public commentary was against them?
He failed as a leader all over the place on this issue. More people died than were necessary, and it didn't take 20/20 hindsight to have done a much much better job, including defusing the rising anger against gays.
So if you want me to blast the roles of others in this, you just start any old thread you want on those others. This one is about Reagan's legacy, and if he gets the "legacy" credit for things like the Cold War and economic boom, he gets the "legacy" ball and chain of the worsened AIDs crisis, and economic crash.
By the way, the way the US treated the AIDs crisis did effect the world. It was a world crisis even before it hit the US. Its just no one knew about it until those in Europe and the US detected the incoming threat. It was at that point that any credible leader should have realized (history points to this again and again) that plagues are world issues, not state ones.
He assbacked that end of the problem as well, and it was only him that had the responsibility for handling it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 6:37 PM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 7:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 86 (115648)
06-16-2004 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by custard
06-16-2004 5:51 AM


You keep mentioning Bush. Are you rolling in his administration with Reagan's?
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that while Reagan was president, George Bush was vice president. Aka, "the Reagan/Bush administration."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 5:51 AM custard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 06-19-2004 11:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 86 (115649)
06-16-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Silent H
06-16-2004 7:17 AM


Give me something to take a bite of...
holmes writes:
Failed to prevent a great many deaths" and "many more people died from AIDs... than might have if the RR administration had been more responsive" is different from "ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be" in what way, exactly?
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.
custard writes:
At best one can claim many more people died from AIDS in the US {funny how you left that part out} than might have if the RR administration had been more responsive to the issue.
holmes writes:
ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be
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.
He was president at the time and so the leader... the chief executive... of this nation. This means that he takes a bit more heat for failures just as he gets more accolades (including from you) than others.
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.
holmes writes:
And since HE and NOT OTHERS were the subject of this thread I was addressing his role in creating a legacy of a greater epidemic.
Keep backpedaling. I love it.
It appears you still haven't read the link given to Koop's statement about RR and the administration he was running, and the damage it caused.
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.
holmes writes:
Either that or you are going to sweep its indictment under the rug, with a very partisan "well he could have done more but how could he KNOW?" excuse.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 06-16-2004 7:17 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 06-16-2004 11:31 AM custard has not replied
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 06-19-2004 11:52 PM custard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024