Is Reaganomics Dead or Just In A Bad Place Right Now?

dead. Reagan firmly believed that the markets are always right. we know better now. Reagan also failed to appreciate the downside of human greed. OOPS

hawkeye10 I guess that means you do not believe in the trickle down theory either?

I believe that left to their own devices the rich hog the levers of power and make themselves richer and the poor poorer. It has always been thus, and thus it will always be. This is part of why we have government, to keep upper classes in line. America has failed miserably, but then we also believe that we don't have classes, the markets always work, and I suspect in the Easter bunny as well.

I am really a nervous wreck over all of this and have to say I do not fully understand it all but I hope that real people will finally get a break.

Deficit spending only works for so long and is only something you should do when you need stimulus. It's like morphine: it stops the pain, but you can become addicted. I wonder if Reagan would have approved of Bush's tax cuts. We didn't need the stimulus and taxes were already at levels he would have approved of. My guess is he wouldn't.

Ronald Reagan is the second worse president of the U.S.

See my topic posted: Excerpt from The Wrecking Crew re how Republicans destroyed the US economy & how their plan goofed

Posted September 29, 2008
Does McCain Still Agree with Reagan that Government is the Problem?
by Arianna Huffington

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, famously declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Twenty-seven years later, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and seven-plus years into the reign of Bush and Cheney, Reagan's anti-government battle cry should be on trial. But, stunningly, it is not.

This needs to change. The presidential candidates' view of the role of government should be one of the central questions of the last 36 days of the campaign. And it should definitely be a question they are asked at their next debate:

"Sen. McCain, given the part deregulation played in the current economic crisis and your support of a massive government bailout of the financial industry, are you now ready to break with Ronald Reagan's assessment?"

And, to be even handed: "Sen. Obama, in 1996, Bill Clinton cheerfully announced that 'the era of big government is over.' As the Dow plummets and Wall Street and Main Street turn to Washington for big government bailouts, are you now ready to break with President Clinton's assessment?"

The shift in my own thinking on the role of government was what led to my disillusionment with the Republican Party, and the transformation in my political views. I've always been progressive on social issues: pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights -- even when I was a Republican. The big difference is that I once believed the private sector would address America's social problems. But the hope that people would roll up their sleeves and solve this country's social ills without the help of government was never fully realized. There were never enough volunteers or donations -- and the problems were just too massive and intractable to tackle without the raw power of appropriations that only government can provide.

Our economy is not the only thing that is crumbling. So is the philosophical foundation of the modern Republican Party -- also known as the Leave Us Alone Coalition, led by its spiritual guru, Grover Norquist. His dream of making government so small "we can drown it in a bathtub" has been embraced by the GOP mainstream.

Indeed, during his 2003 inauguration, Jeb Bush stood in front of Florida's capitol building and said: "there would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we can make these buildings around us empty of workers; silent monuments to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill."

I sadly suspect that Jeb and Grover and their Republican compatriots have not yet updated their views of government -- they have not yet made the connection between demonizing government and looking to it to save the day.

The financial meltdown has put the Grand Old Party's schizophrenia on full display. But why are so many in the media, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign averting their eyes from the spectacle of a party that wants to drown government until they need it to bail out Wall Street or AIG -- that wants to vanquish government workers, unless they are listening in on our phone conversations or working hard rolling back government regulations?

It's like the story, probably apocryphal, of the agitated -- and obviously confused -- senior citizen imploring a GOP politician not to "let the government get its hands on Medicare."

With the madness of this contradictory mindset exposed, voters will have a chance to decide if they agree with Norquist and Jeb and W and Cheney and the Republican Messiah himself, Ronald Reagan and, yes, with John McCain. And even Cindy McCain who, in her otherwise bland convention speech, called for "the Federal government" to "get itself under control and out of our way."

A staggering 83 percent of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. And, I'm sorry, Sen. McCain, I don't think it's because of too many earmarks or because $3 million was spent in 2003 to study bear DNA in Montana.

Size matters in some things, but when it comes to government, it's not the size of the government, it's the way it is utilized.

"Big government" didn't get us into Iraq. It didn't spy on Americans or open black op rendition facilities all over the world. "Big government" didn't create Guantanamo or okay the use of torture. "Big government" didn't leave the residents of New Orleans to suffer in the wake of Katrina. "Big government" didn't cause the financial industry to run off the rails. Indeed, the free market is what created all the new, risky ways for banks to game the system and, eventually, implode -- then come calling on "big government" to ride to the rescue.

So let's hear what McCain and Obama think the fundamental role of government should be. I can think of no better way to underline the massive gulf between the two candidates -- and the two parties they represent -- at the very moment when McCain is so desperately trying to blur the differences (see his recent shopping spree at the second-hand populism store: "Big discounts on 'fat cats' and 'Wall Street greed'!")

Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig says that if Americans recognize that the financial crisis -- and the need for a government bailout -- is due to "policies McCain still promotes... this could well be the event that effected a generational shift in governmental attitudes. Think Hoover vs. (the eventual) FDR."

But if we want to make sure that Americans make that connection, we need to put the question of the role of government front and center in the campaign. Economic policy and foreign policy and domestic policy are all important areas of debate. But before we continue looking at the (falling) trees, let's take a step back and consider the forest.

Reagan would have approved Bush' tax cuts. He actually was part of
deregulating financial institutions which Bush sen. followed through.
Back then we had the "savings & loan crisis" remember? It cost the tax
payer more than a trillion to bail out the S & L banks. Now, history repeats
itself!

The notion that that D grade movie actor understood much more than how to tie his shoelaces is a joke, a monstrous joke.

I always silently think "Trickle on theory" whenever I hear that phrase.

Joe that sounds more likely than not.

If, what you say is so obvious, why are there 50% of Americans still believers of Reagonomics? LOL

My vision is just fine, thank you!

I would like to see a nationwide vote on the issue of weather reganinomics really worked or not. I think that after Nixon they, the republicans, were desparate to have a hero. Any kind of hero.

From georgetown university:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/viksning/papers/Reaganomics.html

From the Cato Institute:

I have no idea if 50% believe in Reagonomics, but if they do it is because individuals always believe that they will be one of the winners. If you present Americans with a game where 4 out of the five that play will lose money and one will gain a lot most will play, because they think that they will be the one. Problem is that most will lose. What matters is that income inequality has been growing worse since the late seventies. We are now above the worst the preceded the Great Depression. The effects on society are not a mystery


http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3344/1/180?TopicID=1

People loved Reagan because he oversaw the beginning of the great ginning up of the winner take all wealth sweepstakes, and we Americans love cowboys and gambling.

McCain is doesn't lead by example if he believes that government IS the problem as he spent his entire life IN the government as a pilot with US Navy and as a Senator for the US Senate.

I agree talk72000. McCain has never held an executive position or been an officer of the line in command of a squadron or ship. He spent the war in a prison camp not in battle. The fact that he never had to account for budgetary expenses, plan spending for a group larger than his office staff means something.

I think he just signed on the Regan eocnomic plan and de-regulation plus lower taxes until now that is. Some how he seen to have become well lets say a little more interested in regulating some instituions but does not say which, keep the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, and close as many federal agencies as he can