I filled up the van in Palo Alto and paid $3.81 a gallon, a new personal record. I felt so proud, doing my bit to get American kids killed in Iraq and start a nuclear war with Iran. In reality, of course, I support $10-a-gallon gasoline, so long as the obscene profits go to light rail and renewable energy instead of the oily companies and Bush’s fatcat pals.
It’s intriguing, comparing the psychology at the pump today with the Arab oil embargo back when. The issue then wasn’t price but supply. Americans were outraged when they could not actually mosey on down to the gas station and fill ‘er up any time they felt like it. They kicked Carter out of office for it. So as long as there’s plenty of gas, it seems, folks are not going to get unruly, no matter what it costs. But here’s a safe bet: If a Dem gets elected President, we’ll be back to gas rationing before you can say Homeland Security. And it’ll all be the Democrats’ fault.
And the price will go up to keep the profits rolling in.
Why didn’t you take the bus?
More American “kids” get killed every year by drunk drivers than fighting wars to keep Commie vermin safe to blog about how bad they have it…
Carter was booted because his policy as President was “surrender”. Consequently, the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates spelled his doom. Thankfully, Reagan saved us from certain death by liberalism.
Odd how Carter is now travelling around the world celebrating dictatorships and totalitarianism. Okay, not odd.
At $10 a gallon, surely you can spare a buck or two for a capitalist bunny’s shareholder profits???
@2
Carter was booted because his policy as President was “surrender”. Consequently, the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates spelled his doom. Thankfully, Reagan saved us from certain death by liberalism.
Haha, that’s funny.
Wait a second, was that supposed to be satire? Or are there still people on this planet still stupid enough to believe that?
@2 “More American ‘kids’ get killed every year by drunk drivers than fighting wars to keep Commie vermin safe to blog about how bad they have it…”
Of all the noxious apologiae WingNuts (TM) spew to justify their bloody warmongering this is easily the most offensive. You are a blockhead with dry rot in your wooden brain. Go enlist, you troop-hating anti-American creep.
I’m not against light rail. I’m not even against paying for light rail with a sales tax — a sales tax on gasoline, that is. However, the surest way to get light rail is for its supporters to pay for it themselves. That’s what car drivers do. Highways are paid for entirely by taxes on driving.
@5
It’s unbelieveable Roger. But as the myths of the Reagan era evaporate, it will be entertaining to hear the crazy shit that idiots like “cmiklich” come up with as their entire worldview continues to be exposed as a fraud.
Actually, Paul, the likelihood is that crude prices will crash, resulting in a dramatic fall in the price of gasoline, which of course will encourage driving, big cars, and knock the pins out from under any public push for mass transit. Most Wall Street analysts believe speculators have bid crude futures beyond a sustainable price. In addition, it now seems more likely than not that the U.S. will fall into recession within the next year or two, possibly dragging the global economy down with it. Given the desperate financial situations in some oil producing countries, any falloff in demand could also provoke quota-cheating and sanctions against OPEC members, leading to further price declines. I really can’t tell you where the floor is, my best guess is somewhere around $50 a barrel, but while I think you might briefly see $4 gas this winter or next spring, over the longer pull I think $2 gas is as likely as $4 gas. So, don’t count on high gas prices to create popular impetus for light rail; that’s a political strategy with its legs in quicksand, you need a better political strategy than that if you hope to succeed.
@7 The irony, of course, is that neocons are really neocommies. (Trotsky -} Leo Strauss -} neo”conservative”) And, of course, a very large number of them are former hippies and leftists who now profess to despise the very thing they once were– could some self-hate be going on here? But some of them are merely craven opportunists who needed 30 years to figure out fascism pays better than communism.
There’s a letter to the editor in today’s fishwrapper that my fellow liberals should read and ponder.
” … My wife and I are childless … and, in our mid-50s …. As ardent progressives, we have always supported public education and gladly pay nearly 50 percent of our property taxes for that support.
“However, we are also now disabled and on fixed incomes and are getting fearful for our future as we see that tax rising steadily every year.
“We worked very hard to own our … house …. The solution is not in raising property taxes even higher and with even greater ease than at present. …
“As distasteful as I and probably most Washingtonians find it, an increase in the sales tax or a state income tax seem to be the only choices left. It’s either that or my wife and I and many others on fixed incomes will be losing our homes and all that we worked so very hard for. …
“— Donald Mack, rural Shelton”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ets11.html
While I don’t agree with everything in Mr. Mack’s letter (for example, he claims most schoolchildren’s parents are renters, and renters pay no property taxes — neither of those things is true), Democrats and progressives would be fools to ignore the concerns of people like Mr. Mack. For one thing, we’ll drive them into the arms of the anti-taxers. For another thing, they are the people who will support tax reform.
I know many people like Mr. Mack. They worked hard all their lives, are now too old to work, have modest incomes that don’t stretch far enough (especially for health care), and own modest homes — and are scared to death of property taxes, because they have no way of paying ever-rising taxes. If we’re so dumb as to call such people selfish or demand they pay up, we’ll drive them straight into the arms of the Tim Eymans of the world. That’s not a practical solution to THEIR problems, and they won’t vote for our candidates unless we DO offer practical solutions to their problems.
A state income tax is absolutely the way to go. There is no other way to meet our state’s needs. What Tuesday’s election proved beyond any doubt is that the lower income groups who bear the brunt of the tax burden under our regressive tax system have reached the saturation point and can’t pay high taxes, period.
An income tax is fair, because it is based on ability to pay, and never overruns a person’s ability to pay, as other taxes can (and sometimes do). You probably won’t like it when you’re doing well and what seems like a lot of income taxes. But if you lose your job, become disabled, or simply grow too old to work or get hired anymore, and your income plunges, your tax burden plunges, too.
We all come into this world naked, and will all leave it naked; for part of our lives, we may earn a lot of money and chafe under the income taxes that earning a lot of money entails, but — trust me on this — for most of you, high earnings won’t last. Once you hit age 50 or so, you become very expendable in most companies and organizations, and when you find yourself over 50 and jobless, your chances of getting hired again are close to zilch. It’s at times like that you understand and appreciate the inherent fairness of an income tax. You pay taxes during your productive years, when you have the ability to pay them, and you get tax relief after your income takes a hit and you can’t afford to pay as much anymore.
This is something for anyone, at any stage of life, to think about before they respond to the idea of a state income tax with a knee-jerk “no.”
erratum
can’t pay higher taxes
roger
You make sense…..Try getting any Politico to try this, and it is considered suicide
Excellent reading for those who weren’t yet living during the LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter (Keynesian) economies:
http://www.conservativebookser.....d_cd=c6982
And for those who were: WTF? It’s amazing the prosperity we have in America today. I remember those times quite well. Sorry, but so-called “trickle-down” economics is all that has ever worked. (Actually, it’s called “capitalism”.)
You can’t just give everybody a handout and expect them to suddenly be fulfilled. That comes from w/in. Either produce more and be rewarded for your efforts or lower your standards. Carter, et al, still think Gov’t “creates” jobs.
Just for the fun of it, why don’t one of you HA hooligans post how much the oil companies profit form a gallon of gas and how much the government (local, state, federal) profits.
Naw, never mind, you’d rather blame bush. It uses less brain synapses.
Why not consider the high cost of gas a Sin Tax on your participation in the destroying of the planet.
#4 Lee says:
Under carter was there double digit inflation? Yes
Under carter was there double digit unemployment? Yes
Under carter was there double digit interest rates? Yes
What’s so funny? And that doesn’t even mention how piss poor he handled the iran hostage crisis, the energy crisis, etc. etc.
I honestly can’t wait for gas to shoot past $4/gallon around here. Just another form of congestion pricing!
@6…Highways are paid for entirely by taxes on driving.
What we are discussing now is how to increase capacity, and light rail wins that battle hands down. But since you bought it up…
Road costs not covered by user fees –
Initial building of residential streets;
Treatment of surface runoff (water);
Property taxes lost (and economic lost) from land cleared for roads;
Parking – free or cheaper parking is paid for with other taxes, or more expensive goods or services;
Sprawl – amount of land required for roads, driveways, and parking;
Pollution.
–
There will NEVER be a state income tax in this state, regardless of the merits. Nobody trusts the idiot politicians in this state to do away with the sales tax in the process. Instead of the sales tax being repealed like they would promise, it would go down to maybe 5-6%, AND we would have an income tax. The sales tax would then be incrementally increased a % at a time, with each increase being argued as “what the hell, its only a penny on every dollar”, and in a few years it would be back to where it is now. Only we would also be saddled with an income tax. NO THANKS!!!
@4…Lee…
Again you show a talent for not understanding history.
The reputation of Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus continues to grow, both in the minds of the American people and among scholars of American history and the presidency.
At the same time, Jimmy Carter’s presidential reputation is cemented near the bottom of the heap.
You need to get out more and have a wider reading list; the Daily Kos and MoveOn need to be supplemented by, to start, the following:
http://www.claremont.org/publi.....detail.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Jun11.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections.....40607.html
http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....i_n8863811
You have significant gaps in your education, and, while I’m happy to oblige in filling some of them, you need to own up to the gaps, which are quite substantial. For example, as we’ve seen in the past, your knowledge of Con Law is abysmal. And your understanding of early American history and the nature and purpose of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the men we regard as the Founders and Framers is weak.
While we haven’t discussed the Civil War at length, my guess is that you’ve got holes there, too. For example, what unanticipated role did the Fugitive Slave Act play in the growth of the abolitionist movement? What factors contributed to the morphing of Lincoln’s earliest purpose in the War (keep the Union intact), to, by 1864, encompass the emancipation of Southern (not border state) slaves?
What role did R.E. Lee play in staving off Jefferson Davis’ plans and desire to wage a Southern guerilla war of insurgency post-Appomatox Court House? From a long term perspective, was Sherman’s March to the Sea counter-productive?
Who was the biggest loser at Gettysburg? Hint: he wore blue and was often characterized as looking like an old snapping turtle.
What was Lincoln’s real genius?
You can’t just make stuff up as you go along or shape opinions based upon your feelings or so-called “logic.” Try an in-depth study of American history, law, and culture.
And always remember…Reagan grows as Carter slows…
The Piper
Re@2- What we got from Reagan (my “we” is “working class”) was: our SS taxes nearly doubled (which helped pay for weapons, etc that weren’t needed- but then had to be used up to be “replaced”- & “hello Gulf War”); lawless support for dictators all over Latin America; and alQuaida, as a DIRECT result of the support for an anti-commie insurrection of Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan. The removal of solar panels from the White House epitomized Reagan- the victory of (outdated) Style over (innovative) Substance. A pretty Irish mug, with an astrologer in the closet, deciding things… sweet. I remember Reagan’s patriotic diatribes in the newsletter published for the Hanford workers (when Richland was a GE “company town”)… priceless literature, that.
@ 14- ..”You can’t just give everybody a handout and expect them to suddenly be fulfilled. That comes from w/in. Either produce more and be rewarded for your efforts or lower your standards..”-
No… not “everybody”- just the Big-$$$ jackals. Where do you think the timber companies came from? Why has mining been so profitable? Who built the Interstate (making every trucker his own “RR Engineer”- with a one-car train) and let the rails move to a “freight-first” paradigm? Who brought in the cavalry, to keep the hostile indigenous (that hadn’t died of smallpox) out of the way for the wealth-extractors & other “pioneers”? Did fishermen invent Salmon? Where was the logic of an “oil-depletion allowance”? Why is the tax code bigger than the Encyclopedia Americana? It ain’t to give working class people a break- believe me, I’ve read enough of it to know what doesn’t apply to me… and people like me.
I’m for some “lowered standards”- like maybe the V-8 engine should be outlawed as “too illegally grand for popular consumption” in passenger cars.
We’re at war (Thanks, Ron Reagan- and your political spawn)… so why not Act like it? Where are the Victory Gardens? Why are there still Lawns in America? Where is the gas-rationing? Let’s get Real. Is the outlook for the future pretty rosy with 6 billion+ human beings, and more, bigger, human-replacing machinery to do work that people once did? Is it exacerbated by the billions whose religious leaders tell them that they Can’t put a rubber on their Pecker because it’s the property of the Pope (et alia)? Triumphalist hooting and self-aggrandizing BS can get you anywhere, these days… if you speak fair english, and are white, and know who to suck up to… ^..^
Re @20- ..”What role did R.E. Lee play in staving off Jefferson Davis’ plans and desire to wage a Southern guerilla war of insurgency post-Appomatox Court House? From a long term perspective, was Sherman’s March to the Sea counter-productive?..-
But Lee didn’t play much of a part in Davis’ early beliefs and outlook… or Did he? Jeff Davis was no 2-dimensional character- but certainly can be spun like one. Let’s ask “What part did “West Point culture” play in affecting the outlook & perspective of Robert E. Lee, with regards to..” whatever.
Now, let me ask a more relevant question: How did the expansion of Northern industrialists (check out the ads in ’50s National Geographic magazines) ultimately lead to the “white flight” of the Dixiecrats to the Republican Party, to the extent that the racists now hold the reins of the “Party of Lincoln”?
How did the encouragement of racism in the American Union (primarily the AFofL) Movement ultimately lead to the sorry state of unions, today? (and a related question) Why did the union top brass feel the need to embrace anti-communism, and socialism, generally (a broad brush tars all “isms”) when socialism was a vital root of the union movement? Did the McCarthy witch-hunts have that much to do with it?
Any examination of history is good… and it will always be spun to serve… whoever has an agenda. But that’s OK- as long as the picture is drawn large enough to examine, and weigh, its various components… ^..^
@14 “Sorry, but so-called “trickle-down” economics is all that has ever worked.”
It worked so well the guy who invented it, David Stockman, wrote a book saying it doesn’t work; it worked so well that Reagan and Bush41 raised taxes 5 times; it worked so well that ALL of the economy’s growth in the last 30 years has gone to the richest 1% of the population; it worked so well that GOP popularity has never been lower and Democrats are poised to win the 2008 election on the scale of 1932.
@15 The oil companies are doing quite well, thank you, but they’re also reinvesting some of those profits in finding and developing new sources of oil. Since 90% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by governments, it’s the producer countries that are making the biggest killing.
Ah, yes…”trickle-down” economics. A rising tide lifts all yachts.
@16 “Under carter was there double digit inflation? Yes
Under carter was there double digit unemployment? Yes
Under carter was there double digit interest rates? Yes”
Carter inherited all of this from Nixon and Ford. Also, it was Nixon — a rightwing Republican — who came up with the cockamamie idea of price controls. Remember the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Only under a Republican administration is something like that possible. The cause of all the late-70s misery was putting a major war on a credit card — exactly what Bush is doing now, and we’re going to get exactly the same result. Prepare to re-live the 1970s, thanks to WingNuts (TM) Inc. (SM).
@19 That’s exactly the kind of comment we expect from someone whose ideology and understanding of economics and society is stuck in the 19th century.
We’ll get an income tax for the same reason 45 other states have an income tax.
They don’t trust their politicians anymore than we trust ours, but they know an unfair tax system when it bites them in the ass, and that’s why our unfair tax system is going to be reformed. It’s not a question of whether, only when.
@25…RR…
Whatever he inherited that was bad, Carter had a positive genius for making worse.
Just how bad was he whipped in 1980? Try this:
Nominee Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter
Party Republican Democratic
Home State California Georgia
Running mate George H. W. Bush Walter Mondale
Electoral Vote 489 49
States Carried 44 6+DC
Popular Vote 43,903,230 35,480,115
Percentage 50.7% 41.0%
Then in 1984, Carter’s Veep, Walter Mondale had his shot, and here’s how he did:
Nominee Ronald Reagan Walter Mondale
Party Republican Democratic
Home State California Minnesota
Running mate George H. W. Bush Geraldine Ferraro
Electoral Vote 525 13
States Carried 49 1+DC
Popular Vote 54,455,472 37,577,352
Percentage 58.8% 40.6%
You can rewrite history all you want – and you sure seem to want to – but the numbers speak for themselves.
The Piper
@14 “You can’t just give everybody a handout and expect them to suddenly be fulfilled.”
What sniveling hypocrisy. Show me a Republican business owner and I’ll show you someone demanding a handout. Nowadays, they even want taxpayers to pay their workers’ wages. Show me a Republican farmer and I’ll show you someone who spends more time cashing government subsidy checks than growing crops. Show me a Republican sports team owner and I’ll show you someone who wants the public to give him a half billion dollars. We taxpayers give 5 times as much money to corporations and rich bastards as we do to poor people. All this rightwing crap about “self reliance” and “supporting yourself” is bullshit because rich rightwingers are the biggest pigs of all. Go fuck yourself.
Paul, your time line’s a little off. The Big Oil Crunch happened on Nixon’s watch, and probably had more to do with Carter winning. Mind you the peanut farmer didn’t exactly endear himself to anybody by continuing the double-nickel speed limit, but whatever else happened in his administration, the Iran hostage fiasco (and the Reagan gang’s probable rigging of the outcome) assured him of being a one-term president.
Comparing that time with the present, it would appear that Americans are still so grafted to their automobiles that we feel pretty much OK as long as we can keep on driving, no matter if the cost becomes so high we have to sell our children into prostitution in order to pay for it.
25 “Prepare to re-live the 1970s”
Roger, I wish I could share your optimism. It looks more and more like we’re in for something that’s going to make the early 30’s look like an ice cream social.
#25 Roger Rabbit says:
So the next president will be a democrat, go down in modern history as one of the worst, after which a republican president the next 20 of 28 years?
While I don’t agree with everything in Mr. Mack’s letter (for example, he claims most schoolchildren’s parents are renters, and renters pay no property taxes — neither of those things is true), Democrats and progressives would be fools to ignore the concerns of people like Mr. Mack. For one thing, we’ll drive them into the arms of the anti-taxers. For another thing, they are the people who will support tax reform.
I know many people like Mr. Mack. They worked hard all their lives, are now too old to work, have modest incomes that don’t stretch far enough (especially for health care), and own modest homes — and are scared to death of property taxes, because they have no way of paying ever-rising taxes. If we’re so dumb as to call such people selfish or demand they pay up, we’ll drive them straight into the arms of the Tim Eymans of the world. That’s not a practical solution to THEIR problems, and they won’t vote for our candidates unless we DO offer practical solutions to their problems.
Funny Bunny why don’t we do away with all taxes and start a new flat state tax. Yes, Roger then you can pay your share of taxes for a change. For all those old folks sixtyfive years and over no property taxes at all except those goverment workers who didn’t pay into SSI. You know Roger those folks that belive in socialism and excempt themselves from paying taxes because they were better than us successfull folks. Tax the rich and give to the dead beat bunnies. Your style Rogger!!!!!!!
ArtFart says:
Paul, your time line’s a little off. The Big Oil Crunch happened on Nixon’s watch, and probably had more to do with Carter winning. Mind you the peanut farmer didn’t exactly endear himself to anybody by continuing the double-nickel speed limit, but whatever else happened in his administration, the Iran hostage fiasco (and the Reagan gang’s probable rigging of the outcome) assured him of being a one-term president.
Carter gave use the 3 quart crapper that requires three flushs to clear the bowl to save water. The military had bake sells to buy fuel for their equipment. Hell the radios for them to communicate with didn’t operate on the same frequencies causing them to fail on a mission in Iran. Carter couldn’t compete with the abscess mole on Bill Cliton ass. Maybe the one on Rogers Ass but not Bill’s.
@30 Carter was a decent man who loved peace and tried to make the world better.
@30 Carter was a decent man who loved peace and tried to make the world better.
And Saint Ronnie? He cut deals with hostage-takers. He invested public money in weapons. He armed Central American nun-killers. He pampered the rich and scorned the poor and working class. He was a union buster. He spent the country deeply into debt. Piss on Saint Ronnie! He’s not fit to kiss Carter’s shoelaces.
@38…RR…
Jimmy Carter did more across the board damage to the U.S. than perhaps any President in the second half of the 20th-Century. And in his infamous “malaise” speech, he had the temerity to blame his failures on the American people…a typical pass the buck blue nose attitude.
Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus restored America’s sense of itself, had the guts to stare down the Soviet Union and make it blink, insisted that air traffic controllers follow the law, broke the back of Carteresque stagflation, ushered in a new era of opportunity and prospertiy, and restored America’s place in the world.
Trust me…in 50-years, The Great Communicator’s stock will rise, while Carter’s will continue to plummet.
When you mention The Gipper’s name to people they smile and remember with tremendous fondness. When you mention Carter’s name, they grimace just as anyone would at the mention of the sanctimonious kid you knew in school who always told people what to do and then ratted you out to the teacher for doing what he told you.
Your description of Jimmy Carter isn’t good enough; we elect Presidents to lead and inspire, not get whupped by Leonid Brehznev and tell us our only hope is to turn down our thermostats.
Ask Bill Clinton whose presidency he studied in order to be successful? Sure wasn’t Carter’s.
The Piper
Piper-
I am amazed at the tenacity with which you post. Awesome job on all fronts.
Although I still harbor some suspicions for the real reasons for Reagan’s ascendancy (I’m no crazy Al Sharpton worshipper but I think a backlash against the civil rights movement/affirmative action may have had something to do with it), he did cut taxes and beat back the Soviets. Overall, net positive.
Now if only we had truly visionary leaders around here able to understand a basic cost-benefit analysis…
Hey Pelletizer (TM) : You old revisionist.
Yes, Carter did receive a country under inflation. But like most liberals, he tried to increase government spending on public works to provide jobs. Guess what Pelletizer (TM) — inflation soared.
Hey Pelletizer (TM): Remember it was Jimmy Carter who deregulated the railroads, trucking, and airlines. What a libtard (r)
Pelletizer (TM): Under Carter the federal prime rate in December 1980 hit 21.5%.
Yeah baby!
And how is it that the dollar is at a low 26 years after Reaganomics? 4 years of “read my lips”? 6 years of BushV.2 .. What is Bushler doing, printing more paper? Canadians are now shopping here LOL. At least Carter served his country, Reagan? Making B propaganda films, Bush jr, protecting TX from the dark forces of communism and drinking Molotov cocktails…
Puddybuddy – I love what a complete ass you make of yourself. You cite one stupid statistic and think you re brilliant. You must be a legend in your own mind.
bottom line: Reagan cut taxes for the rich and the deficit went up to record highs with Reagan and with Bush.
Clinton went from record deficits to a suplus.
Bush came in with a surplus and has created new record deficits with a repub. president and a (mostly) republican congress.
bottom line – we won’t balance the budget until we stop wasting money in Iraq. In the meantime our military is so overwhelmed we can’t fight anywhere else – so we are less secure. Not that we should go anywhere else – we could never get a coalition after the way we screwed up about going to war in Iraq and lied about the intelligence – no other country in their right mind will listen to us until bush is gone. We are a complete embarassment in the world and have no respect. bush and cheney are a joke worlwide – but then you would actaully have to talk to people in other countries to hear that…
@39 “Jimmy Carter did more across the board damage to the U.S. than perhaps any President in the second half of the 20th-Century.”
Bullshit. You’ve just wiped out what little remaining credibility you had on this board.
Wingnut liar @39 “Carteresque stagflation”
Excuse me? Everyone (but you, apparently) knows that Carter inherited the stagflation from Ford, who inherited it from Nixon, who put four years of Vietnam war on a credit card.
Trying to blame stagflation on Jimmy Carter is like Ted Bundy trying to blame his murder spree on the police.
@48…RR…
Who won the 1980 presidential election again? And whose veep was thrashed by that winner in 1984? And what one-term-wonder is generally regarded as a failed president?
You cannot escape the historic fact that Reagan whipped Carter because the American people thought Carter was incompetent and had failed as president.
I remember watching election returns back then…Hearing it over and over, “Ronald Reagan will win a substantial victory this evening,” “This is a repudiation of historic proportion against a sitting president,” “Not since the defeat of Herbert Hoover has America sent a sitting president packing as soundly as they are doing it this evening.”
Reagan won that election by asking the people the simple question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago,” and the American people with a unified voice said, “NO!”
They then proceeded to repudiate Carter, establish a Republican majority in the Senate, and ol’ Jimmy back to Plains and peanuts.
Jimmy Carter was elected promising the American people that he would solve inflation and energy issues, and all he did was make them worse…plus fubar any number of other things he got involved in…such as sending mixed signals to Leonid Brezhnev such that ol’ Leonid thought he had Carter’s OK to invade Afghanistan (Carter’s “Inordinate fear of communism” speech).
As president, Carter was an abject failure…No historian claims otherwise.
As president, Reagan was a stunning success…And historians regard more highly with the passage of time.
The Piper
Reagan WAS a stunning success- at “Running for Office”- and that’s as far as it went. To examine his appeal to the working class people of his day (& i was one, then, too) is to examine “Life along de Nile”… all those frightened, brainwashed suckers, still smarting from the VietNam debacle, looking to feel Good about something, not wanting to buy into “it might be OUR Fault” (that we use a quarter of the world’s output- at 6% of the population; that we’ve been a surrogate for European post-colonialism in SE Asia, etc)-NOOOOO!!! give us a MOVIE STAR with a BIG CHIN & a nice smile- full of BS or not- and let us feel Good about ourselves.” He had good, honest people cowed, to the point that when he started in cutting their throats, they’d remove their shirts to make it easier. And old Ron would smile, & keep cutting…
When people watch this on archival footage in 50 years, and read what really happened, they’ll scratch their heads, all right… & sigh, and say to one another “PT Barnum was still right, even beyond the 1980s”… ^..^
@41 “Yes, Carter did receive a country under inflation. But like most liberals, he tried to increase government spending on public works to provide jobs. Guess what Pelletizer ™ — inflation soared.”
Really? Let’s look at the historical data. Nixon, upon assuming office in Jan. 1969, inherited a 4.4% inflation rate and a 3.4% unemployment rate. When Nixon left office in Aug. 1974, inflation was 10.9% and unemployment was 5.4%.
During Ford’s presidency, inflation stayed above 12% for the remainder of 1974, was still 9.7% by mid-1975 and nearly 7% at the end of 1975, and declined gradually in 1976, falling below 5% for only his last 2 months in office. Meanwhile, unemployment rocketed upward from 5.5% in Aug. 1974 to over 8% by Jan. 1975 and remained near 8% for the rest of Ford’s incumbency.
During Carter’s first 1 1/2 years, inflation held steady in the mid-6% range, but unemployment declined from 7.6% to 5.9% during this period. During the remainder of Carter’s presidency, inflation climbed back into double digits but unemployment generally stayed under 6% until mid-1980.
Now let’s look at Reagan. In Jan. 1981, he inherited an 11.8% inflation rate and a 7.5% unemployment rate from Carter. Inflation stayed above 9% for all but the last few days of that year, while unemployment rose to 8.5%. What happened next was the Reagan Depression, the second worst economic depression of the preceding 100 years. For the next two years, unemployment rose until it peaked at 10.8% in late 1982, then began a gradual descent not reaching 7.5% again until mid-1984, and generally staying above 7% for another two years after that. Unemployment never fell below 5.3% in Reagan’s presidency, and reached that level only in his last two months in office. Under Bush43, it promptly rose again to the 6%-to-high-7% range.
The brutal Reagan depression did wring the Nixon-Ford inflation out of the economy. Inflation fell below 4% by trhe end of 1983, although it rose again in 1984 and was above 4.6% when Reagan left office in Jan. 1989. From there, under Bush Sr., inflation rose above 6% by the fall of 1990.
Now let’s look at how many new jobs were created under these presidencies, as a percentage of the overall workforce.
Nixon – 2.2%
Ford – 1.1%
Carter – 3.1%
Reagan – 2.1%
When viewing the historical record as a whole, it’s clear that Carter inherited an economic mess from 8 years of Republican mismanagement under Nixon and Ford. To be fair, LBJ initiated the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and also financed it with borrowing, which contributed to the problem, but the country’s economic woes really took off under Nixon. At least LBJ produced jobs — at a 3.8% rate, the 2nd highest of any president since World War 1, behind only FDR.
And, of course, as everyone knows, Clinton defeated Bush Sr. in 1992 by campaigning on economic issues, and the 8-year Clinton presidency was a period of strong economic growth, strong job growth, low inflation, a booming stock market, and a balanced budget. Under his successor, a recession began within 2 months (March 2001), and the country experienced its worst job growth since Hoover, plus gargantuan deficits to finance an unnecessary, made-up war that spun out of control and is still pushing up oil prices and dragging down the economy.
The pattern here is pretty clear: Republicans don’t know how to manage the economy, and all but the very rich are always worse off under a GOP administration, by almost every measure of economic well-being: Jobs, inflation, economic growth, unemployment, wage growth.
Even Republican candidates don’t attempt to argue anymore that their party is better on economic issues. They know they aren’t, and more importantly, they know that voters know they aren’t. Instead, they try to sell themselves as better on national security. But, as voters are finding out, they’re not better than Democrats on national security, either. It was Nixon, a conservative Republican, who lost Vietnam; and it is Bush43, another conservative Republican, who is getting his ass handed to him in Iraq. Meanwhile, Clinton stopped a genocide in the Balkans without a single American combat death.
@42 “Hey Pelletizer ™: Remember it was Jimmy Carter who deregulated the railroads, trucking, and airlines. What a libtard (r)”
Yep, and guess what: Consumers got cheap airfares, and freight rates fell, because of a thing called COMPETITION.
klake at 35:
How stupid can one moron be? ALL government employees –municipal, state, federal– pay SSA taxes. Except maybe in klake’s fantasy world.
@51, Thank you for debunking some of the Saint Reagan myths. He was the president with double-digit unemployment, not Carter. Reagan began the process of dismantling the middle class — lowering the top income tax rates disportionately, breaking up unions, cutting back on college grants. Now his spawn wants to end the estate tax and destroy Social Security. All of this might increase the nation’s average income, but not the median income. All of the gains go to the rich. The middle class gets screwed.
As for the poster who said that oil companies are reinvesting profits…well, then they would not be profits but expenses! Actually the rate of investment is declining as there are no major oil wells to find anymore. The oil companies are basically liquidating, and the record high profits are the first sign of that.
**Ah, yes…”trickle-down” economics. A rising tide lifts all yachts.**
And everybody who doesn’t own a yacht, drowns.
Serious dope smoking there @51.
Clinton balanced the budget on the backs of the military, invited Al Qaeda to attack us everywhere, including NYC, and they did.
Oh, and the CLINTON RECESSION started a YEAR before Bush 43 took office. Check the #’s. Hell, even the Dems #’s show Clinton was just the beneficiary of a strong Republican congress but tried like hell to F*** things up himself.
One more time for the learning impaired: Government CANNOT, DOES NOT, IS INCAPABLE OF creating jobs. All they do is take tax $$ from one source and piss it away giving it to somebody else, usually w/ little benefit to America.
“Government CANNOT, DOES NOT, IS INCAPABLE OF creating jobs.” Tell that to the old folks who lived through the Hoover Depression and were grateful for the jobs CREATED by the CCC, TVA, et al. And they voted for Roosevelt three more times. So, he must have done something right. The Republicans made their peace with the New Deal after Dewey’s defeat in 1948. Eisenhower was bsically a New Dealer, and America prospered. In particular, the middle class prospered. But beginning with Reagan, the movement conservatives have been chipping away at the New Deal. And it is killing the middle class.
Rob –
Your posts continually prove that you lack a fundamental understanding of economics. A few books that I think you should take a look at –
Milton Friedman – Capitalism And Freedom
Alan Blinder – Equity & Efficiency
The Worldly Philosophers (Forget the author’s name)