Reagan- More liberal than we give him credit for?
-
/Discuss
He entered office as an ideologue who promised a conservative revolution, vowing to slash the size of government, radically scale back entitlements, and deploy the powers of the presidency in pursuit of socially and culturally conservative goals.
He failed at pretty much every one of the above
-
Conservative Revolution: No doubt he started one, and it caught some steam but has since fallen flat (one could argue a Republican revolution was started, but not a conservative one necessarily). The conservative movement to abolish abortion was never pursued, gov't grew under his watch, we negotiated with Russia to end the cold war, he signed off on saving social security, he went against conservative views that taxes should never be raised.
-
Slash the size of gov't: Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs. What's more, the number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. (By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.)
-
Entitlements: At the start of his administration, with Social Security teetering on the brink of insolvency, Reagan attempted to push through immediate draconian cuts to the program. But the Senate unanimously rebuked his plan, and the GOP lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections, largely as a result of this overreach. The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of conservative ideology. It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients.
-
Taxes: Yes, he signed one of the largest tax cuts in history, however, one year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction....essentially a $100,000,000,000 tax hike. Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business.
The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax.
- Though the current Republican party seems to be appalled at the mere mention of negotiating with Iran or N Korea, Reagan did just that with Gorbachev.
Yes, some was a copy paste...some were my own words. I came across this when I was struggling with my own internal battles of am I a Democrat or a Republican. Trying to understand the past so that I can better understand my own political future. I find myself to be fundamentally conservative but would have probably done many of the same things that Reagan did if I were in his shoes.
-
-
/stir
/stir
/stir
/stir
/stir -
Oh...and lets not forget the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) that pays farmers NOT to farm their land and also the Dairy buyout that paid dairy farmers to stop producing milk under his watch.
-
One thing Gorbachev or any major power form the Soviet Union ever did is swear to wipe out ALL Americans at whatever the cost. Which is A far cry from whom we are dealing with nowadays. It made sense for Regan to go to talks with the soviets. It actually WORKED.
-
weshole;285804 wrote:
One thing Gorbachev or any major power form the Soviet Union ever did is swear to wipe out ALL Americans at whatever the cost. Which is A far cry from whom we are dealing with nowadays. It made sense for Regan to go to talks with the soviets. It actually WORKED.Cuban nuclear missile crisis ring any bells?
-
but the threat was still there....we didn't invade Russia to make it go away, we negotiated, over many many years to get to the point we are today. Imagine if we had killed Nikita Khrushchev or invaded Russia at that time...we'd still be at war (or dead) and Russia would likely still be communist (or all dead)
-
Iran, AFAIK has threatened only to destroy Israel and our bases on what they consider to be Muslim land and that we have invaded....no direct threat to the USA as a whole as far as I can tell (I could be wrong)
Kim Jong Il on the other hand has figured out that the best way to get sanctions lifted is to make outlandish threats that he can't follow through on and then negotiate to stop doing whatever it is he has threatened if the sanctions are lifted and the aid is restored to his country.
-
Trafik Jamz;285802 wrote:
Oh...and lets not forget the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) that pays farmers NOT to farm their land and also the Dairy buyout that paid dairy farmers to stop producing milk under his watch.and what is exactly wrong with the CRP program? if its land that you cant farm anyways why not? We have a couple thousand in CRP, its almost worthless land thats near a slough. By participating the the CRP program you help protect the wildlife by giving them a place to find cover, reduce soil erosion, reduce sedimentation in rivers, streams and lakes, and also reduce on the amount of pollutants that are released into the air by the machinery that is farming the ground.
-
-
beachbum_jon;285828 wrote:
and what is exactly wrong with the CRP program? if its land that you cant farm anyways why not? We have a couple thousand in CRP, its almost worthless land thats near a slough. By participating the the CRP program you help protect the wildlife by giving them a place to find cover, reduce soil erosion, reduce sedimentation in rivers, streams and lakes, and also reduce on the amount of pollutants that are released into the air by the machinery that is farming the ground.I never said there was anything wrong with it. My parents participate as well. I just kind of find it funny that people thought it was worth buying and working (and presumably made a living on otherwise why bother..) prior to the program, but if you ask them now they tell you the land is worthless and not profitable. How is that any different than the federal gov't buying up bad assets from banks or providing money for the automakers?
Everyone is against a hand out, except when they can benefit from it.
-
Trafik Jamz;285830 wrote:
I never said there was anything wrong with it. My parents participate as well. I just kind of find it funny that people thought it was worth buying and working (and presumably made a living on otherwise why bother..) prior to the program, but if you ask them now they tell you the land is worthless and not profitable. How is that any different than the federal gov't buying up bad assets from banks or providing money for the automakers?Everyone is against a hand out, except when they can benefit from it.
you fail at stirring.... -
you fail at conservatism.
-
Reagan also ran on eliminating the department of education. That didn't happen. Today the NEA is the most powerful union in washington.
Regarding his tax cut and the cuts re-appearing: the economy was in the shitter during the carter administration. Reagan presided over the "anti stimulus" early in his administration, i.e. cutting a ton of taxes, and it took 18-24 mos of economic agony for it to kick in and work.
The result is the longest period of economic boom and real standard of life in American history.
Reagan had the right ideology, but his execution against it was spotty. I think we can thank him for a few things
- resetting the clock on the march of socialism in the US, even if only ideologically [although i'd say there was a fair bit of practical gain here as well]
- toppling the soviet empire
the Reagan plan for dealing with Russia, to paraphrase Galbraith (who is no fan of republicans) was "we'd take Gorbachev, fly him over America, and show him a swimming pool in every back yard, and that we could still outspend him militarily. Then he would understand the futility of what the USSR was doing. And as ridiculous as it sounds, it worked"
Ron Paul helped convince Reagan to run for President, actually, and later was somewhat critical of him in the sense that he wasn't able to do a lot of the things he said he would, and he also got us tangled up into some foreign misadventures.
The effectiveness of any president is of course limited by congress and public opinion. I think Reagan gets high marks for having the right ideology, even if he wasn't able to get all of it.
-
chuck, this is a good topic to me since i am currently about 1/2 way through the 700 page "The Reagan Diaries" edited by Douglas Brinkley. All i have to say is, go buy the book, almost everything you listed in the first post is basically wrong, in his diary he clearly was opposed to everything you are faulting him on, but the VERY democratic congress played alot of games with him and they did finally have to make some concessions. He also remarks on how his "tax increase" which wasnt much of a tax increase, was only a percentage of what the democrats, namely Tip O'neil were trying to pass. Im not gonna waste my time finding quotes i read 200 pages back, so i just suggest spending the $20 on it, very well worth having around
Gary -
He still signed off on every item I posted Gary, meaning that he gave it his final ok.
Just because a book states one thing doesn't change the fact that he signed every one of those things into law.
Yes, I'm sure O'neil wanted a larger tax increase, but the affect of his tax increase in 1982 was that it was a larger increase (based on GDP) than Clinton's. But, TEFRA was led by none other than Bob Dole (republican from Kansas)
SOURCE=http://www.ctj.org/html/taxvotes.htm
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981(ERTA) embodied the "supply-side" vision of the newly elected President Ronald Reagan. ERTA was designed to reduce federal tax collections by $872.6 billion over the 1981-86 period. Among the provisions of ERTA were:
* An across-the-board reduction in personal income tax rates of 25 percent, phased in over three years. * Dozens of new corporate tax breaks, led by a new system of depreciation that actually produced negative effective tax rates on the profits from new investments. * A reduction in the top estate tax rate and a phased-in increase in the exemption. * Numerous new tax breaks for individuals with savings.Many of the corporate tax breaks enacted in ERTA were ultimately repealed by loophole-closing legislation later in the 1980s. The long-term legacy of the 1981 Act including declining federal tax revenues, decreased progressivity in the federal tax system and a much higher national debt.
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982.
Soon after the enactment of the 1981 tax cuts, the economy entered a deep recession, as the Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy in response to the huge budget deficits that the tax cuts engendered. Meanwhile, stories about widespread corporate tax avoidance stemming from the 1981 corporate tax breaks were causing a public outcry. Congressional tax-policy makers, led by Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), decided that many of the 1981-enacted corporate tax loopholes would have to be scaled back to address the deficit problem and get the economy back on track. Following passage of the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, the Fed lowered interest rates and the economy began to recover from the 1981-82 recession. The bill's revenue-increasing, loophole-closing measures also helped provide a blueprint for the larger-scale loophole-closing provisions later enacted in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA)
The tax provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 represented Congress's continued efforts to stem rising federal budget deficits. The bill added $103 billion to revenues over five years, mainly by loophole-closing measures directed at corporate tax abuses.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was a monumental piece of tax reform legislation designed to close loopholes and lower income tax rates, while maintaining revenues and enhancing progressivity. The bill curbed the most egregious high-income and corporate tax shelters that had become endemic after the 1981 supply-side tax act, and turned hundreds of large, profitable corporate tax freeloaders back into corporate taxpayers again. Overall, the bill closed an estimated $500 billion in loopholes over five years, and used those revenues to reduce tax rates.
The bill reduced personal income taxes for all income groups, including a major expansion of the earned-income tax credit for low-income working families. Despite a sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate, the bill's corporate loophole-closing measures increased net corporate tax payments by enough to offset the personal tax cuts.
The key House vote on the Tax Reform Act came on December 11, 1985, when the House voted on passage of its version of the measure. Realizing that the bill represented a fundamental reversal of the loophole mentality that underlay the 1981 tax act, recalcitrant supply-siders in the House led a revolt against the bill. In fact, they succeeded in defeating the rule allowing House consideration of the measure. Only intense lobbying by the Reagan administration (which had repudiated its enthusiasm for loopholes after 1981) was able to reverse that defeat on the House floor. The bill was passed and sent to the Senate a few days later. In mid-1986, the House and Senate passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and it was signed by President Reagan.
The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1987.
This was the first House vote on taxes after passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Trying to stay true to the spirit of tax reform, the House Ways and Means Committee reported a bill to the House floor that avoided any significant changes in personal income taxes other than a measure capping mortgage interest deductions at $1 million in debt. Most of the revenues needed to meet the budget targets were raised through further corporate tax reforms, plus small increases in various federal excise taxes. As a result, the overall bill was generally progressive in its distribution, although the deficit reduction achieved by the bill was comparatively modest.
-
This post is deleted!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login