Agreed. This country did some shameful things during those years, and millions of Americans had their lives destroyed by a corporate puppet suffering from advanced dementia.
Reagan was a criminal and a traitor [video]http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6214[/video] [video]http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6233[/video] [video]http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6197[/video] Deep-seated hate for the working man. [video]http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6227[/video]
That's right. It was a really bad recession--with worse fundamentals than this one--yet we snapped back. And that one was caused by Paul Volcker wringing inflation out of the system by restricting the money supply. So, why aren't we experiencing massive growth now? Simple: government policies. Companies won't invest because they have no idea what the regulatory landscape will look like, if there will be massive inflation, cap and trade, Obamacare, etc. Enact the same policies Reagan did, and we come back with a vengance.
I'm definitely on board with cutting top marginal tax rates from 70% to 50%, just like Reagan did. I'm also definitely on board with cutting inflation from 10% to 3%, just like Reagan did under Paul Volcker (who, incidentally, was an Evil Jimmy Carter Appointment). It seems so obvious.
And Bernanke was a Bush appointee. What's your point? There's a price to pay for both cutting taxes and for reducing inflation. It's a price that this Administration has been unwilling to pay. It should be noted the Bush Administration was also afraid to radically limit government spending, but they pale in comparison to the current Administration. The economy would have gotten worse under such a scenario, but for a shorter duration. Instead, they tried the Stimulus, which has been a trillion-dollar waste. The economic fundamentals simply don't support the thesis we were headed for a "second depression". Before the stimulus, this recession most closely modeled 1981-82. It was only after the stimulus that our economy started to look like 1932. Now, our choices are much worse. Massive inflation or living with roughly zero growth. Either one dooms our economy.
Oddly, I don't see any Reagan era policies that actually would work right now, other than cutting regulations and other costs of doing business here in the good ol' USA. However, a guy with his charm and ability to communicate across party lines and instill confidence in the people might actually make a difference.
It was a different era. Reagan played games with the USSR, and was consumed at times by defeating communism. While this ultimately led to the demise of the Easter bloc, an argument could be made that Islamists filled that power vacuum. I loved Reagan as a leader, and I was pretty young then, but while defeating one enemy to the US and our allies, another was allowed to grow roots without any interference.
That doesn't make any sense for several reasons: 1. I was born when Reagan was president, I have no perspective on Reagan other than what can be told to me. I was able to vote for Bush and watch all of his policies and see his personality. (Personally, I think W was one of our great character President's and clearly loved America) 2. A documentary, interviewing several members of his cabinet, (along with a couple specials on the History channel) can be trusted much more than listening to Denny and Maris giving their opinions. 3. Fahrenheit 911 was much more Micheal Moore's opinion than anything that could be called a documentary. Anybody who disliked W after watching Fahrenheit 911, disliked him before. I have yet had a chance to watch this documentary or the History channel episodes, but they are sitting on my DVR and I have tomorrow off.
The sheer number of people lined up along the street as his funeral procession drove by might be a clue. [video=youtube;la2xAotogIs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la2xAotogIs[/video]
Not only in California, but in D.C., too. [video=youtube;NEb6CEdJbvo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEb6CEdJbvo[/video]
That was basically my point. When people try to apply the lessons of 1983 to now the comparison falls flat. Inflation isn't rampant. Top marginal tax rates are extremely low by historical standards. I guess you could argue for more deregulation, but where? I like clean rivers and clean air and untainted meat and safe toys for my kids and prescription drugs that won't kill me. I own a small business, and I just don't see that regulation is holding me back at all. Maybe we could privatize the USPS, but I honestly doubt it'd do much to spur my own business. I suppose we could open up more areas to mining and drilling. But I've seen some of the messes industry has left in Idaho, and I watched the Gulf spill unfold. I'm not sure about that. I could get onboard pretty easily on reducing regulations for establishing nuclear plants....
104,684 people passed by his casket after waiting 3 hours. That's 5,000 per hour, 83.3 per minute, 1.4 per second. That's in D.C. In California, 108,000 people paid their respects, 2,000 per hour. Compared to ~50,000 for Gerald Ford (in D.C.)
I don't disagree with much of this, though there are regulations regarding stock ownership, bonuses, and the like that deter people from wanting to be CEO of companies, and that sort of thing. That said, there is something to the old saying "watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves. Seems like we're watching the $trillions flush down the toilet. And that is something that can be dealt with.
...and how many people lined up to mourn Michael Jackson who, by most accounts, was a pretty crazy child molester? Popularity isn't always the best judge of quality, nor does a funeral procession offer a quality sample size to judge a person's popularity. But I am sure he was popular with some people, just like any president.
Yes, we need a man who can exude charm, charisma and integrity while quietly suppressing populist uprisings in impoverished nations & at the same time supplying weapons to future enemies.
You mean Cuban funded and trained uprisings. I don't believe Reagan was always right about everything he did, but then I don't believe anyone is.
