Feb 27 2009

Is The Left Trying To Kill Reaganism?

Published by at 9:37 am under All General Discussions

I don’t recall Obama nor the democrats running on a platform to kill Reaganism? Reagan is one of this nation’s most beloved and respected Presidents. He made us feel good about ourselves and broke us out from the darkness of  government dependency and brought us into the light of self responsibility and achievement. He reminded us that We The People are the core of this nation, not the silly bureaucrats in DC with their wild and impotent ideas (national school uniforms? CO2 cap and trade? Bridges to nowhere?).

Yet, many liberal democrats are now assuming they have a mandate to undo Reagan’s great work, an idea they did not pass by We The People during the last election cycle:

The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas ofRonald Reagan and his supporters.

The Obama budget — a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables — would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.

Emphasis mine. I have been hearing a lot about rolling back Reaganism since Obama has taken office. Personally I think it is a really dumb idea which will backfire all over the Democrats. People have tasted the fruits of individual responsibility for too long to want to move into a dependency mode where we wait on the bureaucrat gods to hand out our rewards for living.

Reagan touched something inherent in America, he did not befuddle or fool America with misleading sound bites. He tapped into our spirits and reminded us we can get through tough times. There is no undoing that, nor the policies that line up with that kind of thinking.

It is strangely ironic that this story is sitting on the Memeorandum website, right below the alert for this new poll out from Rasmussen:

In early October, as the meltdown of the financial industry gained momentum following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of U.S. voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Since then, the stock market has fallen roughly 3,000 points, millions of jobs have been lost, nearly a trillion dollars has been spent so far to bail out the financial industry, an additional $787-billion government stimulus package has been approved, and a new president has taken office who has proposed spending billions and billions more.

Despite all that, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that the basic views of the American people have not change: 59% of voters still agree with Reagan’s inaugural address statement. Only 28% disagree, and 14% are not sure.

America is not ready to go where President Obama and the Democrats are planning to take us. The wrong track/right track numbers are still heavily negative, there is still miniscule support for Congress and Obama’s numbers have been steadily declining with the stock markets.  This frustration with DC may have ebbed slightly since the elections, but it really has not changed.

As we see months go by with no economic upturn in site the Democrats are going to find that promising the Moon and not delivering makes Americans find new leaders. We don’t applaud or reward failures.

Update: Again, it seems there is a strange synergy with news articles today. When people become dependent on government, and government fails, people do get very upset (government took their hard earned money and squandered it after all). And it seems in those countries which are very socialistic (the people are very dependent on government) the backlash has begun:

As people lose confidence in the ability of markets and governments to solve the global crisis, they are likely to erupt into violent protests or to assault others they deem responsible for their plight, including government officials, plant managers, landlords, immigrants and ethnic minorities. (The list could, in the future, prove long and unnerving.) If the present economic disaster turns into what President Obama has referred to as a “lost decade,” the result could be a global landscape filled with economically fueled upheavals.

Indeed, if you want to be grimly impressed, hang a world map on your wall and start inserting red pins where violent episodes have already occurred. Athens (Greece), Longnan (China), Port-au-Prince (Haiti), Riga (Latvia), Santa Cruz (Bolivia), Sofia (Bulgaria), Vilnius (Lithuania) and Vladivostok (Russia) would be a start. Many other cities from Reykjavik, Paris, Rome and Zaragoza to Moscow and Dublin have witnessed huge protests over rising unemployment and falling wages that remained orderly thanks in part to the presence of vast numbers of riot police. If you inserted orange pins at these locations — none as yet in the United States — your map would already look aflame with activity. And if you’re a gambling man or woman, it’s a safe bet that this map will soon be far better populated with red and orange pins.

For the most part, such upheavals, even when violent, are likely to remain localized in nature, and disorganized enough that government forces will be able to bring them under control within days or weeks, even if — as with Athens for six days last December — urban paralysis sets in due to rioting, tear gas and police cordons. That, at least, has been the case so far. It is entirely possible, however, that, as the economic crisis worsens, some of these incidents will metastasize into far more intense and long-lasting events: armed rebellions, military takeovers, civil conflicts, even economically fueled wars between states.

Yes there could be bloodshed, thanks to the over promising and exaggerating that many politicians dabble in. That and stealing the income of people and blowing it on idiotic schemes which line the pockets of a select few. I can see why people get upset.

I can’t help thinking about that lame weekly radio address Obama gave when the spendulus bill passed, and how crazy it was to make the bill out to be the be all, end all to our problems (and then on day later turn around and start crying ‘crisis’ again):

“Earlier this week, I signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history. Because of this plan, three and a half million Americans will now go to work doing the work that America needs done.

Because of what we did together, there will now be shovels in the ground, cranes in the air, and workers rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and repairing our faulty levees and dams. 

Because of what we did, companies – large and small – that produce renewable energy can now apply for loan guarantees and tax credits and find ways to grow, instead of laying people off; and families can lower their energy bills by weatherizing their homes. 

Because of what we did, our children can now graduate from 21st century schools and millions more can do what was unaffordable just last week – and get their college degree. 

Because of what we did, lives will be saved and health costs will be cut with new computerized medical records. 

This is still an amazing pile of soppy dribble. All of this is “now” going to happen. Unless it doesn’t, and then there will be a backlash.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Is The Left Trying To Kill Reaganism?”

  1. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    I also desperately hope for a “backlash” against this obvious attempt to impose a Marxist dictatorship on the American public. But given the laziness, ignorance, stupidity and outright uncaring nature of so much of the population, I don’t hold out much hope that it will take place any time soon. Too many have been purchased by our nanny state, too many dependents have been created over the past 50 years or so and too many are unable–that is unwilling–to take even one day out of their “busy schedules” for the purpose of protecting what remains of their liberty. It will require the theft of something far more important than money to put what’s left of American patriotism in motion. Don’t look for a second revolution until the radical left finally ascends to its holy grail of dictatorial overreach…the overturning of the 2nd amendment. Whether by direct of indirect action, these people cannot help themselves. One day it’ll happen and millions will take up arms and finally do away with the left and its Marxist minions. And if not, the US will have ceased to exist.

  2. crosspatch says:

    The volcanic activity could account for one interesting phenomenon that scientists have discovered. At somewhat regular intervals, it appears that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) seems to collapse and slide into the sea. Some now believe that geothermal heat can, during times of increased activity, melt the ice at the surface interface and create a layer of water that acts as a lubricant. As this water increases, the ice becomes more buoyant (well, the buoyancy of the ice stays the same, but it begins to remove weight on the surface interface that holds it in place) and eventually slides downhill into the ocean in a major, catastrophic event.

    Also, water circulating though a geothermal system can get quite acidic and salty and this would act to melt more ice … sort of like adding salt to ice on the sidewalk.

    I believe I read that this seems to happen at roughly 100K year intervals as determined from samples of sediment deposits.

  3. Frogg says:

    The Dems have been trying to kill Reaganism for a couple years now, the media joined in with this chant when McCain was nominated in the primary (crediting the end to both Bush/McCain, etc), and sadly…some liberal Repubs have bragged that the era of Reaganism is finally dead (and, hope it is).

    It isn’t. And, I believe it may return if full fury in a few more years. But, yes, there have been many who have tried to kill it.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    I am going to a tea party tomorrow. I am interested in what the turnout would be and how people there are feeling.

    Can’t believe what Mara said last night about why Bush sought a ten year plan for his tax cuts.

  5. marksbbr says:

    Shocking enough, this afternoon, Fox News began bestowing the mantle of Reagan on Obama. I changed the channel before I could really understand why. All I know it had something to do with economic policy.

  6. crosspatch says:

    oops, wrong thread for my above comment

  7. sjreidhead says:

    I think the (Far) Right really doesn’t need any help “killing” Reaganism. They’re doing a wonderful job on their own.

    The Pink Flamingo

  8. momdear1 says:

    All this “socialistic” spending is not meant to help the poor or anyone else except the bureaucrats who will collect millions in salaries, bonuses and graft form these programs. In short, This would be African Messiah is nothing more than another self serviing African Dictator (not yet, but it is coming) who is in the process of looting our treasury and country just like all his breathern in Africa have done. Call me a racist if you will but look at the record. For two generations blacks in this country have been entitled to everything everyone else has without charge to them. The schools were given funds to pay for Blacks to take part in everything white students parents had to pay extra for. They have been recruited, given special treatment and funds to attend colleges while everyone else had to struggle to pay their own way. Affirmative action pushed them to t he front of the line in just about every aspect of life. Bus loads of Black children were hauled to baseball games and other entertainment where they were give free admission. The attitude that they are entitled without paying their own way has been ingrained in two generations. Community organizers roamed thier areas advising them that it was their right to everything everyone else had because this country is rich and can afford it.. Obama has been a participator in this entitlement world and thinks it is the norm. When announcing that he plans to spend a trillion dollars to bring Africa out of poverty he said “We can afford it because we are the richest country on earth.” Those who have never had to pay for what they got thinks everything is free. Obama has no idea of the value of anything. Like the Africans in Zimbabwe who thought the white farmers were rich becuase they owned the land” yet when the white farmers were murdered and their land redistributed to them, they sat there humped up in squalor, with nothing to eat, and can’t understand why they are not rich like the white farmers were. Once Obama has redistributed everything in this country to his minions, and they are all sitting in squalor starving, five will get you ten that Whites will be blamed because they somehow managed to take the wealth with them.

    Our first experience with Socialism was written into the Mayflower Compact. After about a year of everybody sitting back and waiting for the other fellow to do the work, it was replaced with “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”

  9. crosspatch says:

    Obama has intentionally looted the treasury and is blowing it on stuff that he knows will not stimulate the economy one iota. He is doing this to cause a crisis that, he believes, will allow him radically change this country.

    Mark my words, once this “stimulus” money is spent, we won’t get a second chance at it. The cupboard is going to be bare. Obama and Pelosi have managed to do in one month what the Russians and Chinese couldn’t do in 50 years.

  10. jwhit says:

    “People have tasted the fruits of individual responsibility for too long to want to move into a dependency mode where we wait on the bureaucrat gods to hand out our rewards for living.”

    Ranting about how the fear of government regulation and intervention in the “free” markets is what’s keeping private capital from coming into the market could not be further from the truth. It is fear of the unknown, crooks, cheats and financial firms taking ridiculous risks with our money that has private money on the sidelines. Since the average investor has no way to understand what is really being done with our money, trust and wealth have been destroyed. Case in point – ratings agencies who are paid by the firms they are rating has clearly established a biased and self-serving system where the real costs and risks are not accounted for or disclosed. But that certainly helps the “financial gods” advance the illusion that they have our interests at heart. The point is not that we want “the government gods to hand out our rewards”. The point is we need someone to ensure that the “free market” is not being managed by crooks. By the time the supposedly “free market” has really figured out what’s going on and the “creative destruction” begins, we’re broke and the crooks have moved our money offshore into their accounts – Madoff and Stanford are perfect examples. So we either need to create some real objective and independent method for getting information out about the risks the “financial gods” are taking, or the government has to step in and try to restore some confidence and trust. We may and probably should be skeptical about the ability of the government to regulate markets. But we have to acknowledge the current approach is not transparent and does not protect the interests of the people who’s money is actually being put at risk – either as an investor or a taxpayer. If the FDIC didn’t ensure deposits – does anyone believe there would be $1 in any US bank today?

  11. Rick C says:

    jwhit would do well to actually understand his claims. The three ratings agencies are creation of the SEC (yes, the regulators). They are the only ratings agencies allowed by mandate of the SEC.

    jwhit looks at the problem of capital coming into the market and then claims that it is not fear of government regulation, but rather the fear of the “unknown”. Yet, what does he think the fear of government regulation is? It is the fear that government regulation will change the rules.

    Here is an example. When WaMu failed, the equity holders were wiped out. That usually happens in a bankruptcy. But, rather than trying to return something to the bondholders, the government changed the rules, in flight, and decided to save the depositors, no matter how much above the $100k limit they were. So, the bondholders were wiped out. Now, genius jwhit, tell me how likely a bank is not going to be able to float new bonds to raise capital. The answer is that it will be quite difficult and, if even possible, quite expensive. Why? The government changed the rules on the bond holders.

    Now, take that further. How is the mortgage market going to work in the future when the government allows bankruptcy judges to reduce the debt? The answer is “not well” because contracts are no longer contracts.

    What we are seeing is government rewriting the rules to address a temporary problem at the cost of long term solutions.

    jwhit also talks about deposit insurance. But, he does not even think about the problem of deposit insurance. That problem is how much additional risk will banks take (and charge to the tax payers) because there is federal deposit insurance? The answer is “a lot”. Before deposit insurance, banks leveraged about 1:1. After deposit insurance, it is 10:1 or 30:1 for the investment banks. No one looks into the quality of their bank since they have deposit insurance. Without that insurance, there would be a lot more rating of the soundness of a bank. So, we fix one problem and create another long term problem that we now see as a disaster in our financial system.

    Pleas think these things through jwhit. Don’t just push leftist talking points. Newtonian mechanics works in finance too. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. All too often, the leftists ignore the reaction and then wonder why their plans fail.