Thread: Reganomics

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Here are some good ones..................

The ketchup as a vegetable controversy or ketchupgate refers to a proposed United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration directive, early in the administration of Ronald Reagan, that would have reclassified ketchup and pickle relish from condiments to a vegetable, allowing public schools to cut out a serving of cooked or fresh vegetable from hot lunch program child-nutrition requirements. The White House Office of Management and Budget estimated a potential US $1 billion annual savings in the cost of subsidized meals for low-income students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable

I could not agree more. I think Regan is one of the most over appreciated presidents in history. Not to mention the fact that he pulled a couple of fast moves that people don't remember. Air traffic controller strike? He fired half if not more of ALL air traffic controllers that went on strike. Admittedly, they were not allowed to strike as they were government employees, however, they had no outlet to voice their grievances. He froze ALL promotions in federal government. There were NO promotions, what so ever in federal agencies for 2 years. How do I know this? My dad got screwed out of a well needed and deserved promotion during this time. Oh, Regan also forced government employees to pay into social security but denied them the use of the benefits. That went on for a year before the Supreme Court had to finally put the cabash on it. If I remember correctly, he also screwed over the postal workers some how, but I dont remember. Regan = a piece of shit as a president.

I remember when reagan fired those air traffic controls. It wasn't like he just said ok your all fired. They threatened to go on strike. They were told they can't and after debating it for a while they went on strike. Even then they were given an oportunity to go back to there jobs without losing them and those chose not to. Then reagan chose not to let them have a job.

Did you ever try to figure out why he froze all promotions on government jobs? Not that i can speak for the man but i would of at the time and still do think he was trying to limit spending to help out but i'm sure there are many other ideas as to why he did it.

He did indeed give them a choice. I am not denying it. But my point is that even had they gone back to work, the status quo would not have changed. They had grievances about working conditions, stress and compensation. Their grievances were not addressed until the FAA had to scramble to find replacements for a large number of air traffic controllers. My point with that is, Regan refused to listen to the controllers' side of the story. Go back to a high stress level job with crap pay, or get fired. Sounds like a choice between two piles of shit to me.

I would agree that his decision to put a hiring/promotion freeze for two years was a decision to curb spending. But why promotions and why for 2 full years? Under the Pendleton Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1973, it established a system of promotion and advancement based on merit. Regan's decision to freeze promotions violated these two laws. Admittedly, working life is hardly fair, but to deny thousands of people promotions they deserved...? Thats just down right inconsiderate and a slap in the face of the merit system. What possible defense of Regan is there that would justify forcing federal workers to pay into social security and medicare (whether or not you agree with the programs) and then deny these people paying into the system the benefits? I would LOVE to know. The way I see it, its stealing.

Reganomics works? I beg to differ. If Reaganomics works, then how do you explain the bubble bursts/recession of 1988/1989 and of 1991/1992? Regan ends his presidency in 1988 and George H.W. Bush, not George W. Bush comes in as president, continuing the practice of Reaganomics. Reaganomics then caused not one, but two recessions. So how exactly does Reaganomics succeed again?

Reagan wanted to cut spending? No. He wanted to reduce taxes but not spending.
from the CATO Institute:

Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.

So tell me again....why is Reagan the president that all Republicans wish to compare themselves to? When looking at the facts, he was a dismal failure. I would argue that Reagan is more similar to Obama than other Republicans. Both had tremendous charisma and both had little experience as politicians. Remember, Reagan was an actor for a very long time. In 20 years history is going to be a lot more harsh on Reagan once his policies are picked apart and the effects analyzed.

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

So who is the guy in the middle of the cartoon?

Bill Clinton, a democrat who ironically was the one who spurred the huge economic expansion in the 90's. The guy to his left is George H.W. Bush being depicted as being constantly nauseated because there was a very famous incident when he had food poisoning and vomited on the PM of Japan during a state dinner of some sort.

Keep in mind Reagan was also a very popular Governor in California for 8 years. Hardly lacked experience.

Originally Posted by SlytherN

Keep in mind Reagan was also a very popular Governor in California for 8 years. Hardly lacked experience.

OK....conceded. Obama had 1 year as a senator in Illinois plus a variety of positions that required quite a thorough knowledge and application of politics and politicking. Why then, was Obama lambasted for his "inexperience"? I dislike both Obama and Reagan tremendously. My point here, is be careful of who you support because many parallels can be drawn between Reagan, a very popular president to Republicans, and Obama, a very unpopular president with Republicans.

From my view a presidents success has more to do with the era than the work. Most presidents are puppets. Their legacy is determined by the events of the world during their term. Clinton was the lucky recipeint of the .com explosion which primarily gave the US the biggest economic expansion ever. As we all know now this expansion was built on false footing and not sound financial principals. Unfortunately in our generation the economy will always be compared to the Clinton era. I don't see anything in the future that will provide that type of expansion.

If Reaganomics is
"Tricle down economics"
Then Obaminomics is
"Trickle up poverty"