Republicans Confused Over Which Of Reagan’s Legacies To Embrace (and which to avoid)

Lets clear up another myth that it was Reagan who had a war against unions. As I told you before, Carter's deregulation hurt three types of businesses badly. But Carter also put the stop on Federal Workers bargaining rights which Reagan used when the Traffic Controller's union went on strike against Federal Law. Reagan warned them several times. The government gave them several offers which the Traffic Controllers turned down figuring they had the government over a barrow and couldn't be replaced.

Why did Democrats and Jimmy Carter remove "collective bargaining" from federal workers in 1978?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...QR2dGlkA1ZJUDI4Ml8x?qid=20110301173444AAvik3l


Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_Reform_Act_of_1978 Cached
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, (October 13, 1978, , 92 Stat.) (CSRA), reformed the civil service of the United States federal government, partly in response to ...

 

Did I not just say Reagan favored it and was wrong to do so?

I have no illusions about Ron Reagan.

 

I liked "Mike's" answer from your source:

Unions were originally created for workers to share in the profits of businesses that they help create. Feeling that it was an unfair situation that blue collar workers are the value creators of a business and the "fat cat" managers take all the profits, unions were formed to use collective bargaining to share more of the profits with the owners and managers of a company. These original union founders thought that it was not right for government employees to use collective bargaining as a tool because there are no profits to be made in government. They are basically holding the taxpayer hostage to get higher wages. The end result is everyone loses except for the government employee. Restricting collective bargaining in government is fundamentally good for taxpayers, as long as there is a mechanism to ensure employees are fairly paid relative to the private sector (which Carter did with this bill).

So while democrats do support private sector unions, they have traditionally rejected the thought of government collective bargaining because it's basically robbing the taxpayer.

Makes sense to me.

 

Overall he was a decent president. They will always hold him dear in Europe because he was president when the USSR and the berlin wall collapsed. His contribution to that collapse was significant but of course not even remotely the sole reason.

His economic policies were mediocre at best and ineffective at worst. Trickle down has lost all credibility. His recession fighting was okay but he only had to combat inflation, a much easier task than Obama's. His military record was all over the map from running away from lebannon to invading the mighty nation of Granada.

So he wasn't an ogre but he sure as hell didn't earn the pedastal that the republicans have elevated him to.

Oh by the way, what presidents acted for their own personal gain? I can't think of one unless you consider retaining power as personal gain, in which case he was a guilty as them all.

 

Postive;
1. Reagon boomed the economy
2. He stood against gay rights
3. He was anti-gun control
4. Stood against the Soviet Union

Negative;
1. "Just say no drugs" policy
2. Uppered minimum drinking age to 21

 

Was the prime rate up to 21% when Reagan went into office or not? Did it fall to 10% when he left or not? Was their not almost 20 million jobs created under Reagan or not? Did unemployment fall when Reagan left office or not?

Total nonfarm jobs increased by 17.8 million during his term. Of those, 1.4 million were new government jobs.

Do you expect wealth distribution to go up after deregulation and putting the clamps on government wages? All that took effect under Carter and was taking effect under Reagan. I bet no one on the Left ever pointed these facts out to you did they?

Cutting taxes what is what helped create nearly 20 million jobs.

Conservatives don't worry about debt. They know they are never going to have to pay it. Just their Children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

"

Reagan's debt came about with trying to help bankrupt the Soviet Union and bring it to an end, which he helped do and which I explained earlier.

 

I didn't deny it; just pointed out it was Volcker, not Reagan, who was responsible for breaking the inflation cycle.

Don't understand your question.

What "facts"? Are you trying to argue that Reagan was only continuing Carter's policies so Carter should get the credit for the 1980s boom?

Interesting theory.

RW nonsense.

Conservatives don't worry about debt. They know they are never going to have to pay it. Just their Children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

 

The Left has always blamed Reagan on being anti union and clamping down on wages. That was all started under Carter with deregulation and his The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. But you'll never hear a Liberal talk about it or admit it. They have even blamed Reagan for starting deregulation.

 

This was the start of the recovery which Reagan started.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981



phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced windfall profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

The accelerated depreciation changes were repealed by Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 and the 15% interest exclusion repealed before it took effect by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984.
Effect and controversies

The most lasting impact and significant change of the Act was the indexing of the tax code parameters for inflation. Of the nine federal tax laws between 1968 and this Act, six were tax cuts compensating for inflation driven bracket creep.[2] Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October of the same year. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[3]

As a result of ERTA and other tax acts in the 1980s, the top 10% were paying 57.2% of total income taxes by 1988—up from 48% in 1981—while the bottom 50% of earners share dropped from 7.5% to 5.7% in the same period.[3] The total share borne by middle income earners of the 50th to 95th percentile decreased from 57.5% to 48.7% between 1981 and 1988.[4] Much of the increase can be attributed to the decrease in capital gains taxes, while the ongoing recession and subsequently high unemployment contributed to stagnation among other income groups until the mid-1980s.[5] Another explanation is any such across the board tax cut removes some from the tax rolls. Those remaining pay a higher percentage of a now smaller tax pie even though they pay less in absolute taxes.

In addition to changes in marginal tax rates, the capital gains tax was reduced from 28% to 20% under ERTA. Afterwards revenue from the capital gains tax increased 50% by 1983 from $12.5 billion in 1980 to over $18 billion in 1983.[3] In 1986, revenue from the capital gains tax rose to over $80 billion; following restoration of the rate to 28% from 20% effective 1987, capital gains revenues declined through 1991.[3]

Critics claim the tax cuts worsened the deficits in the budget of the United States government. Reagan supporters credit them with helping the 1980s economic expansion[6] that eventually lowered the deficits. After peaking in 1986 at $221 billion the deficit fell to $152 billion by 1989.[7] Supporters of the tax cuts also argue, using the Laffer curve, tax cuts increased economic growth and government revenue. This is hotly disputed—critics contend that, although government income tax receipts did rise, it was due to economic growth, not tax cuts, and would have risen more if the tax cuts had not occurred; the Office of Tax Analysis estimates that the act lowered federal income tax revenue by 13% relative to where it would have been in the bill's absence.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981

Notice critics don't give Reagan one bit of credit for economic growth, coming from those tax cuts.

 

Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

I agree the economy would be better off if we did it more like when Reagan was president. Set the top tax rate to 50%, increase government employment, and spend more.

Instead we've done austerity.

 

Reagans spending increase was due to trying to bankrupt the Soviet Union and trying to bring it down, along with many other things he did to hurt the Soviets financially. I have explained that many times already.

the spokesmen of the old Soviet Union himself

It's you Liberals that are ignoring the facts. Granted the Soviets were hurting. Reagan knew that. He also knew if he hurt them bad, the Soviet Union would fall. He worked to that end to do just that. First by building up our forces. SDI and threatening to put missiles in Europe. Then he went after the Soviets main means of cash, their oil and gas. He made a deal with Saudi Arabia to sell them AWACS planes in return of dropping the price of oil to less than $15.00 a barrel, so low the Soviets didn't want to sell it. Then he sold the Soviets technology that sabotaged their gas pipeline that blew it up. He armed the Afghans with weapons like our shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles that knocked well over 100 Soviet aircraft out of the skies. Aircraft that was expensive to replace. He bled the Soviets every place he could and the Soviets themselves admitted it.
MOSCOW — He stunned the Soviet Union with his tough rhetoric, calling it an “evil empire” whose leaders gave themselves the “right to commit any crime.”

His famed “Star Wars” program drew the Soviets into a costly arms race it couldn’t afford. His 1987 declaration to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall — “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” — was the ultimate challenge of the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan’s determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union was a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh nuclear policy toward Moscow that softened only slightly when Gorbachev came to office.

He is vividly remembered in Russia today as the force that precipitated the Soviet collapse.“Reagan bolstered the U.S. Military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s.


Much of those government jobs came from his increasing weapons production and sStar Wars.

 

I wonder if the GOP is going to embrace Reagan's legacy of giving things to terrorists in exchange for hostages?

 

Good for you. So what?

I completely agree that spending more money increases jobs. Isn't it evident when spending increased 40% when Reagan was president and it has decreased for Obama?

That's the point. Reagan increased spending massively. Government jobs increased by over 600,000. That was a big reason why the economy was stronger.

Which is why the Republicans have been trying so nightly to cut spending. That and keep the taxes low for their 1% patrons.

- - - Updated - - -

Or giving dictators like Saddam Hussein the green light to acquire "dual use" chemicals to make weapons?

 

You mean like Obama just did, along with releasing over 40,000 illegal criminals on society, some of who are murders?

 

You do know most of those dual use chemical went to mostly Iraqi universities for research don't you? Did you also know many countries gave chemical weapons directly to the Iraqi military, Germany giving the biggest percentage than anyone.

 

I support that or Obama? Thank you for informing me of what I apparently believe.

However, Reagan did trade arms for hostages with terrorists. And for some reason he is worshipped by the GOP.

 

Proof please. Or was it that Hussein took the "dual use" chemicals the Reagan administration cleared him to get and gave them to his university so they could make them into chemical weapons of mass destruction?

 

Let's not forget that Reagan ignored the aids epidemic, had more scandals than any other administration and had two "super Benghazis" in the same year. Oh, and amnesty for illegals that the right currently has their panties in a wad about.

 

Obama Education funding jobs bill

ten billion spent, 257 jobs saved.

http://www.recovery.gov/ejf/Pages/home.aspx

 

Yeah, education funding is to help kids go to college.

Tea Party austerity: Government shut down, 80,000 jobs lost.

Federal Government Sheds Almost 80,000 Jobs in 2013
http://www.faama.org/2014/01/14/federal-government-sheds-almost-80000-jobs-in-2013/

 

Yes, he had plenty of scandals. Many of them for good reason. Aids, I have no knowledge of. As for amnesty, it was for only about two million which the Democratic Congress promised that they would secure the border, write a law punishing employers for hiring known illegals and never ask for another amnesty again. All lies. .

 

On August 10, 2010, President Obama signed the Education Jobs Fund into law. The program provides $10 billion to states to pay salaries and benefits, and rehire, retain, or hire employees for the 2010-2011 school year. These funds may not be used for administrative expenses, overhead, or other support services.

That's 10 billion for just 257 jobs.

 

Right. Reagan traded some arms to Iran to get the release of 7 American hostages. Obama gave back 5 top ranked terrorists that the Taliban asked for by name, to get back what looks like one American deserter who is a terrorist sympathizer. Which one looks like it's a better deal?

 

When Reagan took office, inheriting a very modest deficit, the total national debt was only $1 trillion dollars. By the time he left office, the debt had almost tripled. By the time his protege left office, it had quadrupled to $4 billion dollars. As a percentage of GDP, the debt doubled from 32% to 64%.

Irresponsibly running up debt when the economy was good was what got us into this mess. To be continued when the second Bush took office.

 

How many times do you need to be told for the reason for the debt?