Bernie Sanders Shows How Reagan Destroyed The Middle Class

The only people trying to rewrite Reagan history is Democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

He is so unpopular around the world they have statues of Reagan in England and Poland. Poland also named a park after him .

 

Reagan's Popularity

"Ronald Reagan was the most popular president ever to leave office," explained ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas (6/6/04). "His approval ratings were higher than any other at the end of his second term." Though the claim was repeated by many news outlets, it is not true; Bill Clinton's approval ratings when he left office were actually higher than Reagan's, at 66 percent versus Reagan's 63 percent (Gallup, 1/10-14-01). Franklin Delano Roosevelt also topped Reagan with a 66 percent approval rating at the time of his death in office after three and a half terms.

http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/reagan-media-myth-and-reality/


Just three points less than Clinton and Roosevelt, not bad I would say.

 

Cool, statues huh? lol

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.


....The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan’s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong.


http://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/ronald_reagan_2/

 

How about a couple years later AFTER his policies became known? lol, BEFORE the MYTH of Reagan was created?

I guess much of America blaming Ronnie for the recession under Poppy thanks to his regulator failure with the S&L crisis didn't matter right?

 

I don't care what you put up, you said I was a liar. You put up what I lied about. Post it.

 

Go to the Dubya thread Bubba, I have about 5-6 posts in a row ripping YOU a new one, lol

 

Much of America blamed Ronnie for a lot. But there are millions of Europeans living free today because of the efforts of Reagan. That's the Reason Reagan has two statues and a park named after him. As people got smarter and understand what Reagan did, he got even more popular as the years went by.

 

You have post trying to counter mine. That doesn't make you right and me wrong. I never said a word you can prove I lied. Besides, you Liberals need to understand what the word lie really means. You guys use it soooo often when it doesn't apply.

 

Let's see you fact check Senator Sanders and prove his stats incorrect. It is not a well guarded secret that Reagan's policies were the beginning of the end of the America middle class.

 

updated 6/5/2004 7:43:38 PM ET
Print
Font:





MOSCOW — He stunned the Soviet Union with his tough rhetoric, calling it an “evil empire” whose leaders gave themselves the “right to commit any crime.”

His famed “Star Wars” program drew the Soviets into a costly arms race it couldn’t afford. His 1987 declaration to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall — “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” — was the ultimate challenge of the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan’s determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union was a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh nuclear policy toward Moscow that softened only slightly when Gorbachev came to office.

He is vividly remembered in Russia today as the force that precipitated the Soviet collapse.

“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5145921/n...helping-bring-down-soviet-union/#.VNGh2uk5A5t

 

I put up the stats of how he compared to Carter and Bush in every category and he came out on top. As a matter of fact, Blacks made out real well under Reagan. How are they doing under Obama?

 

If you want to see how wages went down, check them out since we started Free Trade and NAFTA. That has had the biggest effect of low wages and the gap between the rich and poor. That shouldn't be hard to figure out.

 

All economic indicators say that Obama pulled us out of the big dung heap Bush left behind, so I don't know what dimension you are operating from. Reagan's polices put the screws to the middle class and the GOP has continued to tighten them. If the current middle class is almost non-existent and still shrinking it is due to voodoo economics...

Over forty years of supply side voodoo economics has more than made this crystal clear. It's actually rather tedious and obtuse to debate the obvious.

 

One million American jobs lost to NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the rising trade deficit with Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect eliminated about one million net jobs in the United States by 2004.17 EPI further calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010.18 Moreover, official government data reveals that nearly five million U.S. manufacturing jobs have

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

This is just a short part, read the rest and this is just NAFTA, not China. You want to know where the good paying jobs went along with lower wages and a bigger gap between rich and poor, you have no farther to look than right here. NAFTA and Free Trade. It doesn't take a college education to figure what happened.

 

"Liberals need to understand what the word lie really means."



IT'S A LIE WHEN YOU POSIT DUBYA WANTED TO REGULATE F/F. HE STOPPED GSE REGULATIONS, TWICE!!!



The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”



TATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005



Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


THAT would be a LIE Bubba

 

Report: America Lost 2.7 Million Jobs to China in 10 Years ...
www.usnews.com/.../report-america-lost-27-...
U.S. News & World Report
Aug 24, 2012 - From 2001 to 2011, America lost millions of jobs due in part to Chinese currency manipulation.

You have business holding 2 trillion dollars in off shore banks. Where did they get all that money? How did they get so rich? Why in hell is it so hard for people to see why this economy is so bad. Instead of look what caused it, you want to blame Reagan. This doesn't include trade we have with many other countries like S. Korea, India, etc. We are losers in all of them when it comes to trade.

 

RONNIE'S NAFTA? LOL

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds

Changes in tax law that reduced the federal tax rate on capital gains income is “by far the largest contributor” to rising income inequality in the United States, according to a new paper from Thomas Hungerford, an economist at the Congressional Research Service.

Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality:

By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...r-to-growth-in-income-inequality-study-finds/

SEE THAT WOULDN'T BE A LIE ON YOUR PART, JUST WRONG BUBBA, NOW IF YOU KEEP REPEATING IT, THAT WOULD THEN TURN TO A LIE!!!!



The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.

- - - Updated - - -

Was it 8 US Prez's policy Or was iot Reagan

Is communism a failed system that wouldn't survive anyways? And about Putin/Russia? lol

- - - Updated - - -

Conservatives/Ronnie's 'free trade'? You do know 60% of Dems have voted against the 'free trade' agreements?

 

$2 trillion? Oh right AFTER Dubya gave the Corps a 5% tax 'amnesty' in 2004, the Corps decided to offshore MORE money to bring back at the next amnesty!

 

Prove it. Did you watch that video I put up where Republicans were calling for regulations on F/M and F/M Did you see all those Democrats saying nothing is wrong with them and they don't need regulations? Did you see them call regulators a liar? What the hell are you talking about he didn't want F/M regulated? What the hell is this?

Search Results

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded ...
georgewbush-whitehouse....

National Archives and Records Administration
Oct 9, 2008 - In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more ... class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, ...

Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ...
www.usnews.com/.../democrats-were-wrong-...
U.S. News & World Report
Oct 6, 2008 - The White House called for tighter regulation 17 times. ... (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

Stats? Oh right carefully selected periods to push your narrative (right wingers MYTH) that makes Ronnie 'great' lol

 

Congress put up two weak bills up to regulate them. Neither one would do the job that was needed. Finally they put one up Bush could sign, but by then it was to late. Get your facts strait. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24851

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

(House)
(Rep. Baker (R) Louisiana and 19 cosponsors)

The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However,

H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.

The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.

The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.

Budget Estimates and Enforcement

This bill would affect direct spending and receipts. To sustain the economy's expansion, it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over Federal spending. The Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go requirements and discretionary-spending caps expired on September 30, 2002. The President's FY 2006 Budget includes a proposal to extend the discretionary caps through 2010; a pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending; and a new mechanism to control the expansion of long-term unfunded obligations. OMB's cost estimate of this bill is currently under development.

 

Progressives are in denial and would blame anyone for anything.

The 80's was a major economic boom.... Money was basically water.

I will say this much tho - the way we treated this wealth was wrong and we should have been more modest, had we done that we would be better off today. Of course that's not to say Clinton would have just stole the capital gains and the wealth.

Clintons economic policies are responsible for our present economy.

 

Got it, YOU'LL CHOOSE TO BEING A LIAR, lol


So conservatives are for more regulation and Democrats are for less?

Dubya couldn't get the GOP House to pass a single bill 2001-Jan 2007 on F/F reform OTHER than HR 1461 whivc
ch he opposed REALLY? lol


He could get 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, a bill getting between a man and his wife (Schiavo) but COULDN'T get a GOP House to even pass a single GSE reform bill he wanted? lol

THAT'S YOUR POSIT?

Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again. A million quotes cant change that.

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s SEPT 2003


Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.“


THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg92231/html/CHRG-108hhrg92231.htm



June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/real_estate/lowcost_housing/


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf






Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans (2004) , $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule(2004) that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie




One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

 

The damn trouble with you Liberals, you only listen to one side and they have been lying their ass off as I showed you in those videos. You saw them and heard what they say, but you still wouldn't believe it because your so damn brain washed that nothing else gets in. You don't believe what you see hear or read unless it comes from some Liberal bias news that are constantly lying to you. Wake up and try and look at both sides.

 

TWO WEAK BILLS? PASSED BY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OUT OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE? REALLY? lol



trong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch

Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,



YOU DO REALIZE DUBYA WAS ALREADY THE REGULATOR OF F/F RIGHT? HE ALREADY HAD AUTHORITY, LOL

DUBYA WAS SOOOOOOO CONCERNED ABOUT F/F:

Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie