Say it ain't so Sarah

[Papasito]

What did Reagan do that was so great other than signing the MLK holiday into law

The economy was crap when Carter [[Reagan's predecessor) was in office. The prosperity after Reagan lasted through Bush I, through Clinton's two terms, and finally died with Bush II. Not a bad run if ya ask me

[Detroitej72]

The economy was crap when Carter [[Reagan's predecessor) was in office. The prosperity after Reagan lasted through Bush I, through Clinton's two terms, and finally died with Bush II. Not a bad run if ya ask me

Don't forget he started the conservative SOP in sending the Federal Deficit into the Stratosphere.

[oldredfordette]

The prosperity under Reagan? Are you old enough to remember the Reagan years? It was so bad that George HW Bush had to raise taxes to fix the problem. [[and seal his fate) I remember the 80's, they sucked.

[Sstashmoo]

As damaging as his policies may have been in the long term. Reagan is definitely the one that turned the economy around. Bush 1 and Clintoon simply rode that wave of recovery and did nothing to sustain it. Check the economy, latter part of Clinton's presidency, it was headed for the nearest cliff. Bush 2 was that cliff. Reagan, love him or hate him could fix what we're in right now. He was smart and forthright enough to do it. Both things our current President sorely lacks.

What saved Clinton's ass was the techboom. without it, we would have had what we have now about 10 years ago. He had zero to do with the techboom. Well, if you don't consider his sidekick Gore invented the internet..

[rb336]

As damaging as his policies may have been in the long term. Reagan is definitely the one that turned the economy around

very debatable. VERY, considering the recession started AFTER his policies went into effect - 2 years after. it ended with his huge [[for the time) borrow-and-spend spree that lasted throughout his presidency, through G1 and half of Clinton's.

[Hermod]

very debatable. VERY, considering the recession started AFTER his policies went into effect - 2 years after. it ended with his huge [[for the time) borrow-and-spend spree that lasted throughout his presidency, through G1 and half of Clinton's.

You must not remember the 1970s very well, it was one long recession.

Carter ran against Ford hammering him with a "Misery Index" which was the Sum of the interest rate, inflation rate, and unemployment rate. Four years later when Carter ran against Reagan, the "Misery Index" was higher than it had been under Ford. First two years under Reagan were spent getting the inflation rate down [[really tough medicine). After that, the economy began to improve.leading to Reagan's 1984 sweep over Mondale.

[gnome]

Yep, home mortage rates were in the 17% range ... 30 yr fixed ... in Carter's last days and didn't fall into the 9% range until early '83 or so.

PATCO, a low point in the labor movement. PATCO goes on strike and what did you hear from the Teamsters? AFofL, UAW ... nothing. Why? The old line union's considered Air Traffic a white collar profession and resented their work rules and pay scales. The unions weren't unified and their inaction to take action gave businesses a clear path to ridding themselves of union contracts.

oh yeah, one other thing, Sarah Palin is an idiot and it would be my pleasure to rip that skanky weave right off the pimply scull of hers.

[Hermod]

PATCO, a low point in the labor movement. PATCO goes on strike and what did you hear from the Teamsters? AFofL, UAW ... nothing. Why? The old line union's considered Air Traffic a white collar profession and resented their work rules and pay scales. The unions weren't unified and their inaction to take action gave businesses a clear path to ridding themselves of union contracts.

Probably because it is a federal law that fed government unions can't strike. All of the other fed government unions know this. PATCO thought they were so irreplaceable they could get away with pulling off an illegal strike and found out the hard way.

The unfair labor practice provisions of Title VII are similar to those of the NLRA; however, there are five major differences between private-sector employees under the NLRA and federal employees under the Civil Service Reform Act as follows:

1. Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.
   
2. The right of federal employees to picket is limited to informational picketing only. It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to picket a federal agency in a labor-management dispute if such picketing interferes with an agency's operations.
   
3. The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.
   
4. Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of compulsory union support are prohibited in the federal civil service.

[Diehard]

Anyone else find it ironic that Palin whines about the supposed "liberal" media picking on her, yet names her book after a term hung onto her by this media? How about anytime some reporter has a camera, or wants her on a show, she readily agrees? This is a classic case of hypocrisy, something Sara has clearly shown she suffers from.

I wonder how many of her defenders here drop what their doing to read her latest Twitter about how she's a "victim"? I thought only "liberals" played the victim card.

Yes, I think this is what bugs me the most about her. She seeks out the spotlight, then makes a fool of herself while in it, then whines that the media's being mean to her.
That's not presidential, it's petty and childish. The world stage is too big and the job is too important to give it to someone who tries to dismiss legitimate criticism with "waahh" posts on Facebook.

[gnome]

well yes, hermod, but besides that huge fact ... PATCO didn't get any cross union support. It is always a silly excercise to double-think history, but I would bet if the Teamsters, the UAW, et al had closed up shop and refused to move in support of PATCO, there might have been a different outcome.

The PATCO affair showed that unions would no longer support each other, that every man was for himself and that their interests were limited to their Local's hall.

[Hermod]

well yes, hermod, but besides that huge fact ... PATCO didn't get any cross union support. It is always a silly excercise to double-think history, but I would bet if the Teamsters, the UAW, et al had closed up shop and refused to move in support of PATCO, there might have been a different outcome.

The PATCO affair showed that unions would no longer support each other, that every man was for himself and that their interests were limited to their Local's hall.

Teamsters maybe. They could have shut down the airports. The Machinists Union [[airline mechanics and baggage smashers) could have done a better job of shutting down the airports. There was a lot of resentment between the pilots union and PATCO from the arrogance of the PATCO guys when they were making "orientation flights".

UAW [[and the auto industry) was just recovering from the unmitigated disaster of the 70s [[two major gas shortages, Japanese inroads into their market share). I can't see the UAW making a move at that time.

Remember that the Democratic party in Congress at that time had really heavy union representation. They saw it was a loser to challenge the president on this [[plus they were the guys that wrote the law). They just laid low and let Reagan take the heat for it.

[Sstashmoo]

Re: Reagan turning the economy around. Quote: "very debatable. VERY, considering the recession started AFTER his policies went into effect"

Not for me it isn't. I was around and lived through the late 70's. If anyone thinks the economy was good during the late 70's, they haven't a clue. The above quote is a bit telling in and of itself. If the economy was good, why did he implement his policies? I'm sure you can find charts to back up what you're saying, the problem is the charts don't really depict what happened. Maybe just when the Fed finally had to admit it.

[gnome]

All true Hermod, true.

I've always felt that the PATCO affair was a demarcation point in union strength and purpose. After PATCO the various unions in the country became insular in their interests. No cross support between the mineworkers, the auto unions, airline, etc. Not that there was a whole lot of cross pollination before then, but the threat of a general strike evaporated after PATCO. Right or wrong.

Fast forward to NAFTA and dispite how loud various unions howled, their collective strength was non-existent to the point that Clinton had not a single qualm when he signed it into law.

Turns out, Perot was right all along. Right about GM, right about NATFA ... makes me feel a little better I voted for that loon.

[Hermod]

Fast forward to NAFTA and dispite how loud various unions howled, their collective strength was non-existent to the point that Clinton had not a single qualm when he signed it into law.

1. The Democratic party in Congress changed from the fifties [[very high union identification in northern Democrats) to the nineties when many of the Democrats in Congress represented "new age" constituencies. The old trade and industrial unions were economically liberal and socially conservative. Socially conservative is on the outs with the now version of the Democratic Party.

2. Free Trade was always a "liberal" and "progressive" ideal. Historically, free trade was opposed by corporations not wanting competition from cheaper foreign goods. NAFTA was a perfect storm of global corporations wanting cheap labor and east and west coast liberals wanting free trade and lets all sing "Kumbaya" with the other people of the world.

3. The purpose of a union is to increase the "rental rate" for labor by creating a scarcity of labor. An unrestricted supply of labor causes the "rental rate" to drop. Success of union organizing and the growth of union power in the US began in the 1920s when tough immigration laws brought meaningful immigration to a standstill.

4. The unions had it pretty good through the 40s and 50s because there were few new entrants into the workforce [[not too many babies born in the depression. In the 60s, the baby boomers began to enter the workforce and immigration laws were liberalized. These two factors caused the national workforce to increase putting pressure on the unions' ability to restrict the supply of labor.

5. The success of foreign imports [[not just automotive) led to the corporations "exporting" work. At the same time, automation was transferring a lot of the domestic work from blue collar to skilled technical work.

How do we fix this?

1. Place "labor equalization" tarrifs on all imports.

2. Restrict immigration except for the most critical skills.

[firstandten]

Did you forget the affect that former Michigan resident David Stockman who devised the supply side economics that created the bubbles that some of you thought were so great while Reagan was in office

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

[maxx]

The economy was crap when Carter [[Reagan's predecessor) was in office. The prosperity after Reagan lasted through Bush I, through Clinton's two terms, and finally died with Bush II. Not a bad run if ya ask me

The run was only good for those at the tippy top.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1180...n_reaganomics/
"...Americans in the overall top 1 percent, the 2007 CBO data showed, did quite well in the Reagan era's first quarter-century. Their average incomes, after taking inflation into account, essentially tripled, rising 201 percent.But these top 1 percent stats, the new CBO data help us understand, hardly tell the full story. The truly stunning income increases over recent decades have gone to the tippy-top of the U.S. income distribution, not the top 1 percent, but the top tenth -- and top hundredth -- of that top 1 percent.
The higher up you go on the income ladder, in other words, the sweeter the Reagan era.
Between 1979 and 2005, the bottom half of the top 1 percent saw their average incomes only double, after inflation. These incomes increased 105 percent. The next highest four-tenths of the top 1 percent somewhat raised the income bar. Their average incomes, after inflation, rose 161 percent.
That brings us to the top 0.1 percent of Americans. Their incomes, from 1979 to 2005, rose a staggering 294 percent after taking inflation into account. Not bad at all. But the top 0.01 percent did even better. The 11,000 households in this rarified air took home an average $35.5 million in 2005, a 384 percent increase over average top 0.01 percent incomes in 1979.
Need some perspective here? Let's compare Americans at the top to Americans in the middle. Between 1979 and 2005, the average income of America’s statistical middle class -- the 20 percent of Americans in the exact middle of the U.S. income distribution -- rose, according to the CBO figures, a mere 15 percent. That's less than 1 percent a year..."

[maxx]

Yes, I think this is what bugs me the most about her. She seeks out the spotlight, then makes a fool of herself while in it, then whines that the media's being mean to her.
That's not presidential, it's petty and childish. The world stage is too big and the job is too important to give it to someone who tries to dismiss legitimate criticism with "waahh" posts on Facebook.

She's a bright and shiny object for the media. But will she still be so shiny in 3 years?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "She's a bright and shiny object for the media. But will she still be so shiny in 3 years?"

The media is all powerful, even more powerful than the government in some regards.

They can make anybody, anything they want. They came very close to getting nitwit Hillary elected President until she pandered the wrong way and they opted for a better stooge at the last minute, then turned on her. Blackballed good candidates for the office due to conflict of interests.

The press, broadband and airwaves are all-powerful and do more to shape public opinion than the Government ever could.

The printing press is considered the most important invention in the last few centuries by many.

[Sstashmoo]

People bagging on Reagan's economic recovery is preposterous/laughable. He would have been elected for a third term if it were possible. Even Democrats loved the guy.

[oladub]

firstandten, "Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut....he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt." -from your linked article.

From the 'Supply side economics' link in the article,"trickle-down economics is conservative Keynesianism associated with the Republican Party".

Not to take Stockman of the hook for paricipating in any sort of Keynesian economics but his later analysis was that the failure was caused by the failure of Republicans to reduce spending. So I guess we agree with the article that government spending causes bubbles.

[Hermod]

Not to take Stockman of the hook for paricipating in any sort of Keynesian economics but his later analysis was that the failure was caused by the failure of Republicans to reduce spending. So I guess we agree with the article that government spending causes bubbles.

Reagan was playing a massive game of "chicken" with the Democratic congress. He was putting them on the spot for the deficits by making them do the hard job of choosing which spending to cut. Every year, they would package everything up in one big ball "take it or leave it" and he would sign it after denouncing them for excessive spending and suggesting that the president needed a line item veto like most state governors have.

[firstandten]

Not to take Stockman of the hook for paricipating in any sort of Keynesian economics but his later analysis was that the failure was caused by the failure of Republicans to reduce spending. So I guess we agree with the article that government spending causes bubbles.

Reducing the top marginal tax on the top income earners, rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years without reducing government spending is more of the cause than just Gov spending. I believe that over the course of history and I will need to look this up, when there is a high marginal tax rate on the folks that make over $250,000 you eliminate the boom and bust cycles that we have been in since the Reagan administration.

[rb336]

. I believe that over the course of history and I will need to look this up, when there is a high marginal tax rate on the folks that make over $250,000 you eliminate the boom and bust cycles that we have been in since the Reagan administration.

If you examine the US economy during the High Tax Era [[which started to end with the Kennedy tax cuts) and after, you will see the fastest growth in working class and middle class wages, while high wages stayed fairly even, growing just above the rate of inflation. Starting with Kennedy, the growth in middle income starts to decline, while the pace of upper income growth accelerates. concurrently, you start to see the long slow decline of our infrastructure. all of these trends were exagerated since reagan

[Hermod]

JFK took the position that the 91% top rate was the cause of the periodic recessions into which the country passed through in the 1950s [[the 54 and 58 off-year election cycles gave the Democrats huge congressional majorities and both were at the depth of a recession). JFK cut the top rate to 70%.

Carter cut the top rate from 70% to 50% for "earned income" so that if you were a baseball player or a rock star you "earned" your income and got taxed at 50% while if you started a business and employed people, your profit was "unearned" and you were taxed at 70%.

When Reagan took office, he got the top rate cut to 50% for all income.

The 1986 tax act was in the guise of a "reform" where top rates were "traded off" for deductions and elimination of shelters. The writers supposedly assured that the whole thing was "revenue neutral" where money lost by the cutting of the top rate was recouped by the elimination of loopholes. There was a lot of bipartisan agreement on the whole package.

[gnome]

Isn't that the year they did away with deducting unsecured debt interest payments: credit cards, car notes, store accounts ...?