Death Penalty Week
Supposedly it's some kind of Death Penalty Week. I read about it in my Cornell Catholic Bulletin. That's why there were all the liberal hippies passing out fliers in Ho Plaza this week. The liberal activists up here are starting to get on my nerves. First, I was in the grocery store and this family behind me in line was talking about when they
( Read more... )
However, during the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988, the economy added 16,753,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 7.5% to 5.3%. In addition, the poverty rate fell from 14% to 12.8%. Real economic growth averaged 3.2% during Reagan years versus 2.8% during Ford-Carter years and 2.1% during Bush-Clinton years. The real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing an average of no growth pre-Reagan years, and it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 on average in post-Reagan years. In conclusion, with that much economic growth, addition of jobs, etc., obviously the “underprivileged and poor... the staple of the economy” was not too bad off.
I am not even going to go into foreign policy. Reagan’s priority was getting us out of the Cold War. He made the best decisions he could, and he succeeded in ending the arms race with the Soviet Union.
Also, I apologize for using an out-of-date Wall Street Ranking. The one that ranked him “8th” was from 2000. The up-to-date Wall Street Ranking from 2005 ranks him “6th.”
Finally, I’m going to end with a quote from Professor Bert Rockman from the University of Pittsburgh. In this quote he explains how Presidential rankings are decided:
“1) The impact of a president's policies, institutionally or through ideas, over a longer period of time… FDR, Wilson, Reagan are all especially important in this respect.
2) Policy innovation--Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson and to some degree, Carter, are given insufficient attention in this regard.
3) Avoiding political disaster or illegitimacy--Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Clinton, all do less well here. ”
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And, as any math major can tell you, the percentage of overrated votes he receives far outweighs that of underrated.
But even still; All of this cancels itself out. The glowing message on returns? Mediocrity... at best. For every good thing he did for our country, two negatives came of it. He helped correct a significant economic downturn, but at a direct cost of our long-term economic future while also piling up massive debt. Say what you want about Clinton... but he left a budget *surplus*. Not deficit. And the years under his terms were, as I'm sure you remember, were stout. Certainly part of this is due to circumstance, but just as much is due to his informed economic plan... whereas Reagan's negative impact can be felt to this day. Terrorism? He *created* it. Iran Contra. Afghanistan. His unholy alliance with the Bushes has made politics hell for America for at least the rest of this century. And that's a conservative guess. They three fucked us. So bad.
Reply
Reply
Economically Reagan set the nation up to fall apart. The national debt sky rocketted and he payed no attention to the economic law that large tax cuts now lead to high inflation tomorrow. Under Reagan, crime sky rocketed; quite simply because people who had been in the lower middle class became part of the lower lowest classes, and suddenly an entire urban population is in desperate poverty because their taxes went up. Meanwhile the richest of the rich are making so much money that they dont know how to spend it.
He increased military spending on things that we didn't need. The Soviet Empire was known to have been in decline since the 70's, highlighted by the failed invasion of Afghanistan, and yet Reagan increases developement in tanks, missles, planes, and space based weapons, with evidence everywhere that the future of wars wouldn't be fought in the massive tank battles of World War 2, or the dog fights of Korea. Reagan completely failed to recognize the evolution of warfare for post Cold War world despite the signs it would be coming quickly w/ Gorbachev's allowance of new freedoms and the uprisings in the eastern block.
As for economically... does everyone forget the Stock Market crash of 87 and the ensuing 6 year recession that wasn't solved until Clinton came to office. Or how about the fact that inflation is a rough estimate... and so while housing costs went down (due to the fact that people were living in 2 room apartments w/ no air conditioning, no cable, dirty water and shotty electricity) basic food costs went up like milk and food, so there's a distorted look at the actual affect on prices that Reaganomics had.
Also shown by the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan didn't know what the fuck was going on in his own government. People in his government, cabinet members, were selling weapons to Iran and taking that money to fun the Contras in Nicaragua, all illegally naturally... Did Reagan have a clue? Negative... not the slightest.
Oh yeah... he nearly caused Nuclear war twice. The first time, on air he said "I've just declared the Soviet Union illegal, we start bombing in 5 minutes." The Soviets didn't find it too funny. As smithwick already mentioned, Star Wars... let's examine this from the Soviet stance. They have to steal the plans like they did for all other technology, and spend an incredible amount of money in spying and developement, money they dont have. So... what's going to happen if we get it working is that we'll be impervious to their nukes, and they will be completely vulnerable. So, the soviets can wait till then, or take the best odds and let the nukes go before we're immune to them. If the Soviet Empire wasn't already about to fall apart, I have no doubt that they would have launched those nukes, it would have been the end of the world.
In Iraq, Reagan sold Hussien the chemical weapons he used to invade Kuwait and gas hundreds of thousands of his own
Now for the good he did... well he made people laugh... he uh.... .... well that's it.
Reply
First, let’s take a look at economics under Reagan. Yes, Reagan did cut taxes on the highest income bracket, which if you look at the numbers lowered inflation drastically by almost 10%. Also, Reagan expanded the “earned income tax credit (EITC)” in 1986 which actually exempted most of the poor from the individual income tax. Democrats love the EITC. Clinton also expanded it during his term in 1993. It now lifts 4.3 million people out of poverty each year. But guess who got it rolling-Reagan. A quote from economist Al Hunt states, “Reagan’s decision to expand it was the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade.”
Also in terms of economics, Reagan closed about $300 billion worth of corporate tax loopholes, so I imagine that helped the economy a tad. I mean, it seems reasonable to me that instead of charging the people who were not lazy in high school and went to decent colleges, they should tighten the regulations on corporate taxes so that companies don’t scam the IRS. I would think that democrats would like that.
In response to the “crash of 1987,” the effects of it were no where as devastating as expected as we had a strong leader as President. No depression, big or small resulted from it, and, in retrospect, it is actually seen as a “marvelous buying opportunity.” In the following decade, interest rates declined, and investors displayed a renewed trust in the market. (The Economist, pg 13). Investors returned to the market as it made a comeback and began to rise. (http://www.detnew.com...). And whose legacy is this comeback? Why, Reagan’s! Also, has everyone forgotten about the stock market crash in 2000, which was Clinton’s fault as he caused the technology stocks to sky-rocket until the “tech bubble” burst?
As for the Soviet Union already in the decline... that makes it just a ticking time bomb. Reagan did the right thing. The Cold War was still very much alive during his term, and the arms race was a very ingenious method of ending it. It was definitely worth the cost. And it wasn’t about fighting in future wars, it was about scaring them. Reagan didn’t want to get into a massive tank battle with the Soviet Union… or a “dog fight.” Oh, and I could point out that according to top strategic analysts, the Soviet answer to slowly falling apart involves tanks rolling over the German border (Jane's Defense Weekly)…
plus a couple of 4 and 5 star generals and admirals.
Finally, I just want to throw in there that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and to preserve justice. The basic rights of the people are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness. The government is not there to make the people happy; they have to do that on their own. That’s the problem with American society. Everyone wants immediate results. Everyone wants to do whatever makes them feel good. Are your rights preserved? Yes. You should be overjoyed that you are lucky enough to be free unlike so many other people in the world.
Reply
More exactly to respond to each of your paragraphs in order:
The key is in 1986 he exempted poor families from taxes, the social and economic damage had already been done for the last 5 years. The seperation between rich and poor grew, rather than shrink, as it had under each president since McKinley and the closing of the Guilded Age of Robber Barons. 4.3 Million families were exempt from taxes... under Reagan though, the number of people living below the poverty line in 1986 was 32.4 million according to a 1986 US Census Bureau and US department of Commerce joint report (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/prevcps/p60-160.pdf page1, bottom of the 1st column) as apposed to 31.8 million (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/prevcps/p60-138.pdf page 1 under "Highlights")when Reagan took office at the end of a recession... explain to me how Reagan can improve the economy and have the number of people in poverty increase. I'll explain it to you. The division between rich and poor grew. The rich grew super rich, while the poor grew super poor. So the stock market goes up, the upper class is making more money; it looks like everything is better for everyone, when in reality for the vast majority of Americans, things are just as bad or worse than in 1981.
Reagan may have closed loopholes, but do you honestly think it made that big a difference since he made it easier for companies to just get laborers in other countries? Sure the companies are making more money, but the majority of Americans aren't.
~So far you've just re-established what I had been saying, what Reagan did was great for people who already had money; he did nothing for the people who needed the money~
The Soviet decline. Why would making a dangerous situation more dangerous be a good thing? The Soviet Union knows it's collapsing, and it's plan for collapse is a massive trans-Euro tank rush. Here's a bright idea, "Let's make them feel even more backed into a corner, because we all know that when a person is backed into a corner, they never lash out." Like... I dunno... Hilter? As for your quote "... the arms race was a very ingenious method of ending it." It truly shows how very little you know about the world you live in. First, Reagan didn't come up with the idea of an arms race. The US had an arms race with Japan after World War I... that turned out well (Pearl Harbor... just think of Pearl Harbor with NUKES). The arms race with Russia had been going on since 1947 when the Russians detonated their first nuke, then we both had hydrogen bombs, then came the ICBM race. The Cold War was one huge arms race that had went on for nearly 50 years, Reagan didn't think of anything new there. The only change in the Reagan administration was to invent something that could stop Soviet nukes. We didn't need to have it, we could just make them think we did. That placed the Soviets in a position: Nuke the US before they get it, or be at the mercy of the US. Again, he's begging for the Soviets to lash out and start the war.
Reply
Are our rights perserved? No. We don't have the ability to pursue happiness, most of our property doesnt belong to us, it belongs to the bank, our life is controlled by a social cattle mass in one direction, our liberties are being invaded.
Reply
Leave a comment