Did the  economic policies of Ronald Reagan condemn America to a slow decline, both economic and politically?
489634
Your argument is belied by cold, hard facts: Under Reagan's policies, the US had one of only two really decent growth periods since the mid sixties.\n\nAfter Reagan, we went into slow decline under Bush and Clinton, whose economic policies were largely the same; big, intrusive government controlling our economic choices.\n\nThen, for a short time, the Federal government was crippled by the struggle between Clinton and a Republican Congress, so that there was little new economic regulation and some very Reaganesque deregulation. This also turned out to be the only other period of significant growth. \n\nThen the second Bush took over, and our economic policies became, again, what they were under his father and under pre-Republican Clinton...and we've returned to the "slow decline".\n\nInstead of whining for MORE socialist violation of your choices, you should be arguing for an elimination of the government meddling we suffer under during EVERY period of economic decline.\n\nOh, and remember that unions ARE monopolies, and are bad for all concerned...not only for the companies, and the consumers (who are everyone), but even for workers.\n\nYour highway theory is sheer nonsense; understand that the Highway Fund, financed by the huge Federal gas tax, HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN SURPLUS. But Congress cheats, spending the "trust fund" surplus on things other than transportation. \n\nThe Reagan tax cuts...and anyone who doesn't know this reveals their ignorance of the topics at hand...actually INCREASED government revenue, by (along with deregulation) boosting economic growth, which became truly positive for the first time in nearly twenty years.\n\nNote, too, that you are apparently ignorant of how bad things were BEFORE Reagan. We were in a FAST economic decline throughout all of the seventies, and in fact most "experts" claimed the US could never recover, and was going to lose its position as the global economic power to the Soviet Union and Japan. Thanks to Reagan's reduction in government regulation and taxes, and his reduction of strife with the Soviets...allowing the inevitable failure of socialism to become the focus of the people of that evil empire...this did not happen.
614730
Argghhh!  NO!  Please!\n\nI am definitely for a laissez-faire approach to the economy.  I don't think we'll ever get that, surely not under the present administration, but if you look at the most successful economies (under Reagan and under Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin), they were MORE laissez-faire than most.\n\nThis administration looks more like a return to Keynesian Nixonomics and a controlled economy, and I think it will have bad results.  Of course, the results are always a few years down the line, which makes it hard for people to respond until it's too late. \n\nBut, if you look at the history of the economic stimulation years, either here or overseas, you always see economic breakdowns.
587098
No connections to Ronald Reagan. The first decision made by George W. Bush when he took office was the Mexico City Act. This meant that organisations outside the USA that perform abortions, work for safe and legal abortions or educate and refer women wanting abortion to appropriate clinics, will not receive any economic aid from America.
1007941
Its all economics. The US economy would flounder if it did not enter into a war or violent engagement  every decade or less. Bush (both pa and sonny boy) brings in  business for big businesses by being in the business of legally sanctioned killing and violent intervention in other countries affairs for valid or cooked up reasons (WMD in Iraq?).\nst
515025
Woodrow Wilson once said "the business of America is business."  \nOur "foreign policy" changes with every administration and as the world turns.  Why not read about it in some history books?  Pick an era and follow through to the present - say before and after WWII; 1960-1990 and the past ten years.  See the difference in intentions, if any.  But Woodrow Wilson was an intelligent man.  This is a mild answer.  There could perhaps be a more sinister intention.  Go on line and get George Galloway's recent speech - he's a member of British Parliment.
884274
I wish our economy was this bad all the time!\n\nWages - up!\nUnemployment - low!\nInflation - Low\nStock Market - up!\nHome ownership - up!\nTaxes - down!\nTax Revenue - up!\nBudget Deficit - down!\n\nPS....To g:  I'm comparing today's economy to that of a few years ago.  By the way, the stock market started tanking in March 2000, long before Bush become president.  Unemployment also started rising as he entered office, that very month.  Both due to the dot.com bubble bursting.  Are you going to blame that on Bush?  Then of course we had the economic hit of 9/11.  Also, historically 4.6% unemployment is very low, and beats much of Clinton's term. Just go to www.bls.gov and look up historical figures.\n\nTo CORiverRat - please look at census data that shows ALL income levels going up in 2005, and the poor going up in 2004, while the rich got poorer.\n\nPPS....To g:  I guess you didn't understand the concept of a "bubble" economy.  The economy grew far faster than reasonable during Clinton, and then the bubble burst in late 2000.  I'm not blaming Clinton for the bubble and the burst, merely setting the stage.  Yes Clinton inherited a poor economy from Bush 41, and he left a tanking economy for Bush 43.\n\nYou want to give Clinton credit for the great economy of the late 90's.  Fine.  Tell me what policies he enacted to cause it?  Fact is he was the beneficiary of a new industry starting (dot.com) that created lots of wealth and jobs.  He did nothing to encourage it, or cause the bubble burst.\n\nBush instead gets hit with 9/11 instead of a brand new industry that creates new wealth and jobs.  Thems the breaks.  Just look at things honestly.
1070282
Ronald Reagan, hands down. He brought back the love for America to all generations. He was a moral and compassionate man, yet a stern and strong leader. He was "The Great Communicator." Reagan was known for his ability to express ideas and emotions in an almost personal manner, even when making a formal address\n\nDuring the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988, the economy added 16,753,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 7.5% to 5.3% (although it increased at one point peaking near 10%). In addition, the poverty rate fell from 14% to 12.8%.\n\nReagan made the abolition of communism and the implementation of supply-side economics the primary focuses of his presidency, but he also took a strong stand against abortion. He published the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, which decried what Reagan saw as disrespect for life, promoted by the practice of abortion. Many conservative activists refer to Reagan as the most pro-life president in history.\n\nMy Favorite President.\nA Reagan Republican\n\nClinton: demoralized America, and opened the door to Liberalism.  Clinton taxed the small business and working class to death while handing tax supported perks out to the largest muliti National corporations, the media loves this and the working class had no voice in the matter.\nClinton was very wise at dividing us all into groups and pitting each group against each other.\n\nCLINTON ADMINISTRATION RECORDS SET\n- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance\n- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates\n- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation\n- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify\n- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly\n- First president sued for sexual harassment.\n- First president accused of rape.\n- First first lady to come under criminal investigation\n- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case\n- First president to establish a legal defense fund.\n- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions\n- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad\n\n\nThank God, President Bush has put morality back into the presidency.
262647
Bush is no conservative in the way Barry Goldwater or Eisenhower were. I did not think much of Reagan but even he was better, hell for that matter Nixon was better and never did I think I would be saying this.
975914
In my opinion the Federal Reserve monetary policy has been lagging what is going on in the economy for the past decade.  The economy has been cooling a bit over the last several months following strong growth driven by President Bush's tax cuts.  Starting early in 2004 there has been strong demand for commodity products particularly in China and India.  This has put some upward pressure on prices.  This pressure was aided by the high prices for petroleum.\n\nI think that BB is making a statement in reaction to this.  \n\nOver the past few months petroleum prices have dropped, the housing market has tanked, holiday consumer demand so far is weak, etc.  All these are deflationary.  So, once again the Fed has it backwards.\n\nThe economy will be fine so long as the Democrats don't start raising taxes.  If this happens we will rapidly move into a recession.
1082212
I think the issue is more then a depression. The United States is losing confidence throughout the world. Foreign and American investors are turning to Europe as the solidified economy. A depression indicates a periodic significant drop in the economy. I think its going to be much worse. It will be permanent. New jobs consist of unskilled and underpaid positions. When 10,000 Americans are applying for jobs that pay 8 dollars an hour, just so they can work, and basic fuel products, gasoline, natural gas, heating oil etc are skyrocketing, how are people going to afford this at 8 dollars an hour? We are watching the decline of the American dream and hence its empire. This is sadly written by someone who loves America.
1020177
Oh heck no! Our economy is doing better than it ever did under Clinton, Bush1, or Reagan. Unemployment is low, housing is up...darlin, the economy is cruising right on along. Gas prices are up and it causes some consumer goods to rise, that's all.
640087
It went through a tremendous transformation.  The lies of constant production resulting in needed constant obsolescence were largely developed then.  "A healthy economy" became defined as the rich getting richer.\n\nEngland and Europe ended owing American huge war debts and since their infrastructure was largely damaged Americans could sell almost anything they produced for several years after the war.
543017
Reagan expanded government, government spending and ruined the budget. When have social programs ended? Reagan expanded welfare for corporations, is that what you mean?
91748
I don't think he is into supply side Reaganomics, if this is what you mean?  If he takes issues with agra indutry and the fast foods adverse effects on this nation's health...he is probalby NOT a Republican.
169010
Historically a majority of American's views of government roles have fallen within a relatively small area. This is evident in the fact that the Socialist Party nor the Libertarian Party have ever become major players on a national level. \n\nOur slow progression towards socialism certainly seems to indicate that we will inevitably take on all the characteristics of a socialist country, but I believe otherwise. Social welfare programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and the like, are inevitably doomed to abuse, mismanagement and failure. This is a result of the inherent ineffectiveness of such programs as well as the self intrests of bureaucrats (see public choice theory).  We are beginning to see just how poorly Social Security and Medicare have been managed. Either we will have to fundamentally change the programs to reduce spending or the government will have to raise taxes to very high levels to keep up with the costs. Increasing tax rates to the level that would be required would devastate the economy further decreasing tax revenues, with the only option being to change the programs to prevent total disaster. While some parts of the programs will remain, they will look more like a pseudo-socialism.\n\nAnother inhibiting factor is that divided government often slows growth of government. When one party controls one branch of government and the other party a different branch there is likely to be stalemate preventing any new programs from being launched. Some of the lowest periods of growth in new spending has been while there was divided government. It seems likely that backlash at Bush may cost the Republicans at least the Presidency, but it is less likely to lose control of Congress. If this balance can be preserved for some time, we are likely to see slower growth than that of Bush's presidency, who has increased spending more than any President since LBJ (even when you set aside defense spending).
367542
While I don't particularly care for conservative ideology, this is one of the mindless criticisms that simply does not hold water. It makes no sense if you look at things realistically.\n\nThis administration, especially when the US first invaded Iraq, was top-heavy with the same people who under President Reagan had convinced us that Saddam Hussein was our best friend in the Middle East. Second, just look at what has happened with Lybia, who was already in the process of settling the monetary claims from the families of the Lockerbee mass murder. Simply by SAYING that Lybia would no longer pursue nuclear weapons, President Khadaffi has been able to have all economic sanctions lifted and US investment is now recommended.\n\nIf the spin doctors of this administration can pretend that Khadaffi (who has murdered Americans while not at war) is a good guy, they could certainly have painted Hussein (who has not murdered Americans while not at war) as the new George Washington and Daniel Boone all rolled into one. The American people would have gladly accepted the idea that Hussein had mended his ways, and that we could stop our sanctions which were hurting everyone except the Baath Party. President Bush's oil friends would have been much happier simply buying discounted oil from Hussein (who would be desperate for cash and still mad at OPEC for stabbing him in the back in 1991) and selling it to the US consumer at full price.\n\nCriticize conservatives all you want, supply side economics is turning the US into a third world country, but try to be realistic about it!
729986
Ha ha u stink, my teacher was a softy, we just finished reading of mice and men and he never gave us h.w.\nThe farm depression of the 1920s:\nGreat Depression in the United States, worst and longest economic collapse in the history of the modern industrial world, lasting from the end of 1929 until the early 1940s. Beginning in the United States, the depression spread to most of the world’s industrial countries, which in the 20th century had become economically dependent on one another. The Great Depression saw rapid declines in the production and sale of goods and a sudden, severe rise in unemployment. Businesses and banks closed their doors, people lost their jobs, homes, and savings, and many depended on charity to survive. In 1933, at the worst point in the depression, more than 15 million Americans—one-quarter of the nation’s workforce—were unemployed.\n\nThe depression was caused by a number of serious weaknesses in the economy. Although the 1920s appeared on the surface to be a prosperous time, income was unevenly distributed. The wealthy made large profits, but more and more Americans spent more than they earned, and farmers faced low prices and heavy debt. The lingering effects of World War I (1914-1918) caused economic problems in many countries, as Europe struggled to pay war debts and reparations. These problems contributed to the crisis that began the Great Depression: the disastrous U.S. stock market crash of 1929 (see Black Monday), which ruined thousands of investors and destroyed confidence in the economy. Continuing throughout the 1930s, the depression ended in the United States only when massive spending for World War II began.\n\nThe depression produced lasting effects on the United States that are still apparent more than half a century after it ended. It led to the election of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who created the programs known as the New Deal to overcome the effects of the Great Depression. These programs expanded government intervention into new areas of social and economic concerns and created social-assistance measures on the national level. The Great Depression fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and the people, who came to expect and accept a larger federal role in their lives and the economy.\n\nThe programs of the New Deal also brought together a new, liberal political alliance in the United States. Roosevelt’s policies won the support of labor unions, blacks, people who received government relief, ethnic and religious minorities, intellectuals, and some farmers, forming a coalition that would be the backbone of the Democratic Party for decades to come.\nSorry- this is the best I can find for education during the 1930s:\nEconomics dominated politics in the 1930's.  The decade began with shanty towns called Hoovervilles, \nnamed after a president who felt that relief should be left to the private sector, and ended with an alphabet soup of federal programs funded by the national government and an assortment of commissions set up to regulate Wall Street, the banking industry, and other business enterprises. The Social Security Act of 1935 set up a program to ensure an income for the elderly. The Wagner Act of 1935 gave workers the legal right to unionize.  John L. Lewis founded the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and conditions for blue-collar workers improved. Joseph P. Kennedy, a Wall Street insider, was appointed Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commissions.