Good question. Maybe some Reagan supporters can defend the arguably terrorist activities we sponsored throughout Latin America as well. I've yet to hear a good explanation for it.
Here is an op-ed on Reagan's Legacy by one of my history professors as an undegrad at UH: June 9, 2004, 9:28PM Reality behind lofty rhetoric on Reagan legacy By BOB BUZZANCO WITH the passing of Ronald Reagan we will read tributes to his legacy as the "great communicator," his political skills, his patriotic fervor. What will probably go unsaid, however, is that Reagan's policies, particular his economic views — dubbed "voodoo economics" by candidate George H.W. Bush during the 1980 election — contributed to the greatest disparity between wealth and poverty since the Depression, caused huge reductions in real wages and income for most Americans, accumulated the greatest budget deficits in U.S. history, and, in "reverse Robin Hood" fashion, redistributed wealth from working people to the rich. A critical aspect of Reagan's legacy, which has become a persistent social problem for the past generation, was class war from the top down. Reagan ran for president promising massive cuts in taxes and social services but attendant increases in military spending, hence the "voodoo" label. As president, he and his economic team were able to secure huge reductions in taxes, driving the top income tax rate down about 30 percent, from 38.5 percent to 28 percent, the lowest in the industrialized world. With this loss of revenue, and trillion-dollar Pentagon budgets, Reagan was forced to borrow to meet government financial obligations. Government debts, much of them foreign held, rose into the hundreds of billions by the mid-1980s and hit $1 trillion in the early 1990s. Personal debt, a result in cuts in social services, declining wages and a ramped up consumer culture, erupted, climbing to more than $3 trillion, while nonfinancial corporate indebtedness rose to more than $2 billion. Reagan, who ran and governed as a fiscal conservative and small-government advocate, had in fact created the greatest deficit and biggest government obligations in U.S. history. Such policies, hailed by Reagan's supporters as an economic revival in the 1980s, created great wealth for one segment of the population, the top 20-30 percent, who saw their tax burdens drop and their incomes rise. The level of tax paid by the top 1 percent decreased from 31 percent to 23 percent between 1981 and 1984, while their income share rose from 41 percent to 44 percent. Incomes of the top 5 percent rose more than 27 percent, to about $120,000, and the highest 20 percent went up about 25 percent, to around $70,000. The next 20 percent of income earners saw a nominal rise in wealth during the 1980s, while the rest, 60 percent of Americans, saw no rise at all or, in the case of the lowest two-fifths, actually saw a decline in income and savings. In fact, income inequality rose each year of the Reagan administration, while taxes were correspondingly lowered and the national debt grew. Adding to the economic burden of working Americans, public services were deeply cut at federal, state and municipal levels, and, because of the tight-money policies pursued by the administration and federal reserve system, wages remained low, if not falling. In fact, weekly per worker income dropped substantially during the Reagan years. Where the average American might take home a paycheck for $366 in 1972, she would earn $312 in 1987. Median family income, about $31,000 a year in 1973, plummeted in the early 1980s until recovering to 1973 levels in the late 1980s. After-tax median income, however, remained well below 1970s-era levels because of the redistribution of wealth caused by the tax cuts and debts regimen of the Reagan years. The data on family income is likewise striking. Only the top 20 percent of Americans saw an increase in family income between 1977 and 1988, with the top 10th gaining an increase of about $17,000, the top 5 percent seeing an extra $31,000, and the top 1 percent with a whopping $134,000 increase. Middle-class and working Americans, however, saw declines in real income from about $600 to $1,600 in the Reagan era. Real wages fell also. Where the median pay for working men in 1973 was a little over $10 an hour in 1973, it fell to $8.85 by 1987. The average worker without an advanced degree might have made about $24,000 a year in the early 1970s, but by the end of the Reagan years, that was down to around $18,000. Exacerbating such economic problems, millions of jobs were "downsized" or fled overseas, while unions, traditionally the source of better wages and working conditions, were further crushed. So, as we listen to the testimonials to Reagan, as we reflect upon his visions, presidency and goals, we must, for the sake of historical integrity and political realism, acknowledge his economic policies. "Reaganomics" took wealth and income from working people and reallocated it to the wealthy via huge tax cuts, job losses and debts. He caused a reduction in wages for the majority of Americans. He spent trillions on the Pentagon but cut services to the average American. Today, as we survey a generation of job losses, of wage cuts, of opportunities lessened, we have to make that part of the Reagan legacy as much as his lofty rhetoric and patriotic imagery. Buzzanco is associate professor of history at the University of Houston.
That's my understanding as well. Or something similar, at least. If so, Reagan couldn't have done anything about it were this the case.
All I know is Reagan bumbled the economy, Clinton got lucky that the tech boom was in full swing, and Trickle Down Economics is a joke of an idea.
He was an actor and projected well. He had a sunny personality. Reagan was much like Bush, though more likeable. Reagan did not hesitate to do impeachable crimes like lying us into war. In his case he had Iran Contra and encouraged right wing terrorism in Central America against American Law. He helped redistribute income from the poor and middle class to the upper class. He ran up a massive deficit. Unlike Bush he was not very religious though he posed as a leader of the religious right. Reagan had the good luck to have the Soviet Union have a leader like Gorbachev, who combined with economic problems, not caused by Reagan, led the Russians to decide to end the Cold War. To Reagan's credit, unlike Bush who is not as flexible, Reagan was amenable to ending the Cold War, unlike Bush who is seeking to start it up again. The country was coming out of a period of stag flation and the price of oil was coming down so people felt better. In short the best way to think of Reagan is as a more personal appealing Bush who benefited from a lot of good luck not of his doing.
what kind of drugs are you on? no way that pinko-commie obama is anything like Ronald Reagan. To clear things up a bit form all supposed know it alls Ronald Reagan was a conservative democrat and a Hollywood actor up until the mid 1960's when he got fed up with the democratic party and the blatant communists in Hollywood. Also due to the continuous slide to the far left and influx of socialist, if not communist, ideas being brought in by the radicals. He changed parties and became a republican and was voted Governor of California for two terms beginning in 1966. He won his election in a landslide by more then a million votes. In 1976 he was one of the front runners for the republican candidate for the presidency. He was nudged out by the blue bloods republicans in favor of Gerald Ford which caused the nightmare also known as the Jimmy Carter era. Thankfully he got the nod in 1980 and won in a landslide against the incumbant Jimmy Carter and again as the incumbent in 1984. He was responsible for getting the hostages back from Iran after several feeble attempts at diplomacy by his predecessor. His no-nonsense approach for dealing with totalitarian regimes was loved by most Americans, sans the far left radical democrats; they knew the approach would work and didn't want a republican getting credit where they had failed. The "trickle down economics" was one of his great legacies and part of it was his lowering the tax rates for all Americans including the 70% tax rate that Jimmy Carter had implemented on the richest class. There is a lot of other things I could pile on but I think you get the point. Do a google search or go to the heritage society and you will find plenty of good links. Here is a speech he gave back in 1977 at the great Hillsdale College titled "What ever happened to free enterprise?". Listen to it or any of his other great speeches and you will see why he was "The Great Communicator". What ever happened to free enterprise?
To put it bluntly, your comments are idiotic. He did believe in God, America, smaller government and freedom.
Interesting .. . I thought having the 'terrorist' like you was a bad thing? Isn't that one of the 'knocks' on Obama . . . .that the world 'likes' him Rocket River . . not saying you ., . just pointing it out
Interesting theory, but not true. The Algiers Accord was negotiated and signed by the Carter Administration. The release of the prisoners was finalized before Reagan entered office. Completely false. Here's the historical tax rates: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php The 70% tax rate during the Carter administration was the lowest top-tier rate since 1935. And the top rates did not change at all during the Carter administration. I think we do - you just made up stuff and hoped no one would call you on it.
I am corrected. He may very well have believed in God. He was noted to not be church going. I remember a few months into his presidency his staff had to remind him it might be good to go to church once since he had professed such loyalty to what was the just emerging the Christian Right. He did believe in smaller government wrt to social progams, so that he could give tax breaks to the wealthy, no matter how much this hurt the majority just like most conservatives. He also believed in a larger government spending on the miltary industrial complex.. As far as freedom and America, no politician in American history has been against this, though Bush for instance has decreased our freedoms here at home with illegal wiretapping etc.
right.....so the Ronald Reagan library and the public white house records are made up? not that I have to defend my facts against your negative rhetoric but give me a break. there is a reason he won his election against Carter in one of the largest landslides in American history. He also had to go up against a democratically held congress in both of his terms and WAS responsible for helping defeat communism and terroring down the Berlin wall.
I provided you facts, not rhetoric. Here's the Algiers Accord document: http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf Here's a quick Wiki Summary for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords I already provided you the documentation of tax rates. Feel free to provide anything that disputes these facts and documents. Until then, you're the one providing empty rhetoric.
So the accord was signed in 1981 and the hostages were brought home by Ronald Reagan.....thanks for making my point. And you handy table again justifies my point by verifying the tax rate under Ronald Reagan went from a 70% rate under Carter to a 38% in 1987. And regardless of the liberal belief, allowing the people to get wealthy by keeping the money they earn always does a better job of maintaining economic growth then government redistribution aka socialism.
He was mostly responsible for this: The crack epidemic refers to a six year period between 1984 and 1990 in the United States during which there was a huge surge in the use of crack cocaine in major cities, and crack-houses all over the USA. Fallout from the crack epidemic included a huge surge in addiction, homelessness, murder, theft, robbery, and long-term imprisonment. The first effects of the epidemic started in the early 1980s, but the DEA officially classifies the time of the epidemic starting in 1984 and ending in 1990, in what can be considered to be the height of the epidemic. The epidemic affected all major American cities. Among the cities most severely impacted were Chicago, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Baltimore, Detroit, New York, and Miami. According to New York Senator Charles Schumer, "Twenty years ago, crack was headed east across the United States like a Mack truck out of control, and it slammed New York hard because we just didn't see the warning signs."
Excellent read. Thanks! I certainly agree with it. At the time, I thought any sane person could see that we were headed towards the result pointed out so well in the column by Professor Buzzanco, but millions bought into the rhetoric and still do. The legacy Reagan left the country was a gigantic legacy of debt and financial chaos, which we are still coming to grips with.
In Arizona. it's written into the tax code. You get a tax deduction for up to $250.00 donated to a public school.
Your knowledge of history is lacking, and you've been corrected on this point before. Carter sent the military in after the hostages. Please stop trying to paint it as if Carter only attempted weak diplomatic resolutions to the problem. The guy sent the military in to rescue the hostages.
I didn't tout that as a success. I merely mentioned the truth and stated facts. It is a fact that Carter did indeed send the military to rescue the hostages. The fact that their choppers crashed doesn't change the fact that Carted did more than just negotiate, and did in fact enact an attempted military solution. That is not what you have been posting. Try sticking to the facts, instead of changing them in an attempt to bolster your point.
