Yes, morons, Ronald Reagan did have a stimulus package.
All in all Ronald Reagan sent 1.5 trillion dollars to the Pentagon who then distributed it amongst the aerospace, steel, information technology, and all of their inter-related industries. Basically, Reagan created what’s called an artificial demand. And he didn’t stop there. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the most protectionist president of all time. During the 1980′s he:
- Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports;
- Tightened considerably the quotas on imported sugar;
- Negotiated to increase the restrictiveness of the Multifiber Arrangement governing trade in textiles and apparel;
- Required 18 countries, including Brazil, Spain, South
- Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, Australia, and the European Community, to accept “voluntary restraint agreements” that reduce their steel imports to the United States;
- Imposed a 45% duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson, which admitted that superior
- Japanese management was the cause of its problems;
- Raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles;
- Forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of computer memory chips;
- Removed third-world countries on several occasions from the duty-free import program for developing nations;
- Pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American-made parts;
- Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools;
- Accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings on grounds that the price did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen;
- Accused the Japanese of dumping forklift trucks and color picture tubes;
- Extended quotas on imported clothes pins;
- Failed to ask Congress to end the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and timber cut from federal lands;
- Redefined dumping so domestic firms can more easily charge foreign competitors with unfair trade practices;
- Beefed-up the Export-Import Bank, an institution dedicated to distorting the American economy at the expense of the American people in order to artificially promote exports of eight large corporations.
- Nationalized Continental Illinois and Penn State bank because they were “too big to fail”
And I have yet to see one of these Republicans pony up any evidence that tax cuts do anything to create jobs nor have they been challenged by the “liberal media” to do so. The Librul Media ™ also refuses to ask any of these mouth-breathers what the country can point to that was a result of the Bush tax cuts. Reagan slashed taxes the moment he entered into office and the result was predictable; ballooning deficits, a worsening recession, and finally, significant ground lost in the mid-term elections.
Two things brought us out of the Reagan Recession; deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates. In fact, in 1982 Reagan hiked corporate income taxes by 100 billion dollars. Within two years inflation was in the single digits again and corporate earnings were up by 29%.
Cutting taxes is not an economic policy, it is a slogan.
-mg
February 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
The “Party of Reagan” isn’t, though they do find those facts to be very stupid things.
They are the Party of Limbaugh/Cheney. Reagan is just the image. Bush was an image. The true minds of the GOP are hated and reviled by the public.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
absolutely epic post.
February 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Mr Ganzeveld wrote, in boldfaced type:
Really? Allow me to post for you what the man for whom you voted, the man who is now President of the United States, said on his campaign website:
Now, while that’s still available, you have to know where to look, because the site barackobama.com has taken down the issues links. But it seems as though President Obama disagrees with you. Of course, there is his now-hilarious claim:
still hanging around the ether. As I look at the Porkulus Plan y’all are championing, it’s somewhat difficult to reconcile with his pledge to “cut unnecessary spending.”
February 7th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
[...] Thanks to our good friend Michael Ganzeveld, I was, once again, led to check out the campaign promises of the 44th President of the United States. His campaign website is still up and running, though the homepage links to some of his promises seem to have disappeared; I’m sure it was just an oversight. [...]
February 8th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Yeah, so? What’s your point? Cutting taxes is a slogan when it comes out of your mouth because it’s your only answer to any dilemma. Worst of all, it’s just plain old cynical obstructionism by a bunch of fringe malcontents praying for a disaster that might yield some political gain. In the Obama case it’s part of an overall solution. Not a crack-pot panacea sold as a remedy to cure all ills.
Or maybe I’m reading too much into this and this is merely just one of your wingnut, recycled Limbaugh “Librulz are hippocriites!!!!!” exercises?
February 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Imposed a 45% duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson, which admitted that superior
Japanese management was the cause of its problems;
Back in the 80′s Harley-Davidson was on the verge of bankruptcy. They were the last American motorcycle standing, sitting, or leaning. This was of interest to me since there is a large plant in York, PA just up the road from here. H-D made a crappy bike then. Management and labor basically existed on the earth and the moon for as close as they could stand each other. For every two bikes that went out, one came back. So, it was do something drastic or die.
What finally happened was labor and management finally figured out they had to work together, not at each other’s throats. They finally came up with the idea of a joint labor management council at the plant to work out problems. With the 45% tarriff, they got the breathing room they needed and started working on what ailed H-D. Well, a lot did. But throught hard work, both sides found each other as partners in this adventure, not adversaries. After a few years, quality and productivity soared. Defects were drastically reduced. A Sporter line was added, and another production line for the hogs was added. Essentially from the 80′s to the 90′s the plant doubled and a half.
Now one mile to the east was Caterpillar who did not learn the lessons of H-D. Strikes were called, and Cat took the highest paying bluecollar jobs south. With the economic downturn, H-D is still thriving but with a small layoff. They still employ more now, than they did in the 80′s and this is what the 45% tarriff did.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Say what you want, Mike, Dana’s just gonna keep saying “Porkulus” and burn some incense in front of his framed picture of Rush Limbaugh.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
[...] it takes to convince an uncritical mind. In the case of Reagan he was certainly an evangelist but hardly a practitioner. In fact, he was one of the most protectionist presidents the country has ever seen. As for Clinton [...]
February 26th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
While I don’t know of any clear proof that taxes help create jobs, isn’t that just common sense? What else would competitive capitolists spend the extra money on, if not expanding and improving their business, either by purchasing improvements that directly fund other companies, or by increasing their staff? Granted, I’m sure some part goes into lining their pockets, but only as much as allows them to remain competitive. I think that, sooner or later, unscrupulous CEO’s go out of business, either by being fired, or taking their company down with them–the problem, I think, fixes itself.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
I might also point out, that it seems that many of Regan’s stimulus was directed to encouraging the private sector directly, rather than things like ATV trails, community-activism groups, the NEA, funding free-lunches at schools (not that I’m opposed to the last two, but what do they do for the financially essential portions of the private sector?), or things that will become a long-term commitment, such as the various construction projects that will require mainetenance. On the other hand, Reagan’s package seem a bit more single use.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
What else would competitive capitolists spend the extra money on, if not expanding and improving their business, either by purchasing improvements that directly fund other companies, or by increasing their staff?
The essential question here is how these companies got the money, not what they do with it.
Rationalizing how they would use it doesn’t change the fact that Lockheed Martin gets tens of billions of dollars a year through wealth reallocation schemes vis a vis the Pentagon, a state institution, so “competitiveness” doesn’t enter into the equation because the “demand” is artificial.
As far as what you deem “financially essential” you’re allowing the state to make that decision which is hardly in accordance with free market principles.
Anyways, the point of the article was that Ronald Reagan was hardly the free-market fanatic his devoted followers make him out to be.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
[...] right. They must be insane. How else would you explain their complete historical ignorance? Reagan ramped up spending astronomically and was one of the most protectionist presidents in the his…. Republicans have been repeating their mythology about Reagan and tax cuts for so long that, much [...]