The only thing Regan did that mattered, and it was the game changer, was DEREGULATION! The biggie was Transportation, the Railroads, Airlines and Trucking. Also Telecom, he broke up the Bell’s. You couldn’t even own the phone in your house back then, thanks to regulation. Do you like your Smart Phone, I-pad, Internet? Well you can thank Ronald Regan. The move from Rotary to Touchtone was the only advance in 30 years thanks to regulation. We now have the most draconian regulatory government of all time. How’s that working out for ya? Individual Free Will is the anti-venom.

Pole-Cat on December 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Regulations increased under Reagan. He was a regulator, not a deregulator.

Deregulation. Another crucial aspect of freeing the market and getting government off our backs is deregulation, and the administration and its Reaganomists have been very proud of its deregulation record. However, a look at the record reveals a very different picture. In the first place, the most conspicuous examples of deregulation; the ending of oil and gasoline price controls and rationing, the deregulation of trucks and airlines, were all launched by the Carter administration, and completed just in time for the Reagan administration to claim the credit. Meanwhile, there were other promised deregulations that never took place; for example, abolition of natural gas controls and of the Department of Energy.

Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation. Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan’s Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that “the President has not mounted a broad offensive against regulation. There hasn’t been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened.”

In particular, there has been a fervent drive, especially in the past year; to intensify regulation of Wall Street. A savage and almost hysterical attack was launched late last year by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by the Department of Justice on the high crime of “insider trading.” Distinguished investment bankers were literally hauled out of their offices in manacles, and the most conspicuous inside trader received as a punishment (1) a fine of $100 million; (2) a lifetime ban on any further security trading, and (3) a jail term of one year, suspended for community service. And this is the light sentence, in return for allowing himself to be wired and turn informer on his insider trading colleagues. [Editor's note: Ivan Boesky was sentenced to three years in prison.]

All this was part of a drive by the administration to protect inefficient corporate managers from the dread threat of takeover bids, by which means stockholders are able to dispose easily of ineffective management and turn to new managers. Can we really say that this frenzied assault on Wall Street by the Reagan administration had no impact on the stock market crash [October 1987]?

And yet the Reagan administration has reacted to the crash not by letting up, but by intensifying, regulation of the stock market. The head of the SEC strongly considered closing down the market on October 19, and some markets were temporarily shut down—a case, once again, of solving problems by shooting the market—the messenger of bad news. October 20, the Reagan administration collaborated in announcing early closing of the market for the next several days. The SEC has already moved, in conjunction with the New York Stock Exchange, to close down computer program trading on the market, a trade related to stock index futures. But blaming computer program trading for the crash is a Luddite reaction; trying to solve problems by taking a crowbar and wrecking machines. There were no computers, after all, in 1929. Once again, the instincts of the administration, particularly in relation to Wall Street, is to regulate. Regulate, and inflate, seem to be the Reaganite answers to our economic ills.

Agricultural policy, for its part, has been a total disaster. Instead of ending farm price supports and controls and returning to a free market in agriculture, the administration has greatly increased price supports, controls and subsidies. Furthermore, it has brought a calamitous innovation to the farm program; the PIK program ["Payments In Kind"] in which the government gets the farmers to agree to drastic cuts in acreage, in return for which the government pays back the wheat or cotton surpluses previously held off the market. The result of all this has been to push farm prices far higher than the world market, depress farm exports, and throw many farmers into bankruptcy. All the administration can offer, however, is more of the same disastrous policy.

Ya I did. 2 articles from one source. One person’s opinion of what happened – a person who clearly does/did not like Reagan.

dentarthurdent on December 7, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Actually, no. They are two articles written during Reagan’s presidency by two different people. Both article happen to be hosted on the web by the same institution.

If you had read the articles, you would have noticed this immediately.

You obviously didn’t look at the dates those articles were written, and you obviously didn’t read them.

Dante on December 7, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Ya I did. 2 articles from one source. One person’s opinion of what happened – a person who clearly does/did not like Reagan.

I saw for myself on a daily basis what was going on, and overall MY opinion is Reagan did some pretty good things.

Nobody is perfect. If you expect perfection in ANY politician according to your wants, needs, and opinions, I guarantee you will always be disappointed and always hate everyone.
In comparison to most other Presidents, and given the circumstancess, conditions, limitations, and Dem controlled Congress he had to deal with, I think Reagan did a pretty darn good job.
And most historians seem to agree with me – excepting for your favored historians of course.

dentarthurdent on December 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You obviously didn’t look at the dates those articles were written, and you obviously didn’t read them.

Dante on December 7, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Dante on December 7, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Ya – we understand – you’re an anarchist and you hate everyone. We get it.
Unlike you, I’m not just reading someone else’s reinterpretation of what happened – I was actually there – in the military, in the work force, buying my first car, buying my first house, getting married, etc when Reagan was President. I saw it firsthand. He did a pretty good job – especially compared to the idiot he took over from and the mess he inherited. And unlike Obumble, Reagan didn’t spend his entire term blaming Carter for everything – he took the reins and did his best (with a Dem controlled Congress) to fix everything. And he did a darn good job of it.
Go look up the factual record. During Reagan’s terms the economy grew, wages went up, inflation came down, interest rates came down (mortgage interest rates were in the high teens under Carter), and we won the Cold War.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 7, 2012 at 1:43 AM
Ya – exactly. The point I was trying to get to about the house value is that a $250K value house is not a mansion owned by a Warren Buffet type – although I’ve heard he actually lives in a fairly cheap old house. Someone making well below $100K a year can afford a $250K house – especially with interest rates where they are.
If we want to make a point with the wealthy libtards like Buffet, eliminate the mortgage deduction, and property tax deduction, above $1 Million home value. Or somehow index the threshold to average home value in your area.

I actually meant that I like the idea of Rush as Republican spokesmodel.

I like the idea of a realistic tax rates, too. Unlike the Republican strategy of starting wars and handing out drugs to old people while cutting taxes.

This posture of fiscal responsibility by people like Paul Ryan is laughable.

urban elitist on December 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM

I’d agree with the Medicare D.

But the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue (government revenue increased from the time they were enacted until the housing bubble burst).

If Paul Ryan is just posturing on fiscal responsibility then what do you call the Democrat posture? Insanity or do they really want to bankrupt the country and destroy the economy?

Let there be no doubt, Ronald Reagan deserves to be lionized.

itsspideyman on December 7, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Hardly. Unless you like putting hypocrites on pedestals.

I’ll never understand the desire to worship men.

Unlike the Republican strategy of starting wars

urban elitist on December 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Feel free to list wars started by democrats and compare that to Republicans.

Obama has also had four years to end any wars. Instead he just keeps them going and starts new ones … like Libya.

I think many tend to lionize Ronald Reagan, and ignore his shortcomings. Can’t say I don’t get it…after two Bush’s, Clinton, and Obama it’s no wonder we remember Reagan as if he were Abraham Lincoln reincarnated.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 6, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Abraham Lincoln is no hero. He was a mass-murdering tyrant who ignored the Constitution at every turn and destroyed the Republic.

Well, I’m not so sure I’d say that ‘Reagan grew government’….
I’d put it more like:
“Reagan failed to stop Congress from growing government”.

LegendHasIt on December 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Why? Because you refuse to entertain that the “conservative hero” was anything but, so you want to shift blame to someone else? That’s intellecutally dishonest.

The Myth of Reganomics

The Reagan Myth

I like the idea of a realistic tax rates, too.

urban elitist on December 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Ok, what’s realistic? 2013 federal spending is 3.8 trillion and the projected tax haul is 2.9 trillion. We’re 900 billion short for 2013.

65% across the board?

After all, liberals say it part of the problem is it costs to give tax cuts … so by that logic the higher the taxes the less it costs, right? In theory a 100% tax rate costs nothing.

Me too. We need to tax everyone at whatever rate is necessary to cover spending … and since the government provides virtually all we need anyway who needs extra cash?

darwin on December 7, 2012 at 7:26 AM

I actually meant that I like the idea of Rush as Republican spokesmodel.

I like the idea of a realistic tax rates, too. Unlike the Republican strategy of starting wars and handing out drugs to old people while cutting taxes.

This posture of fiscal responsibility by people like Paul Ryan is laughable.

Reagan might as well be an alien as far as most voters are concerned.

Not gonna win elections by merely invoking this historical figure’s name….

Limbaugh has lost much of the impact that he once had. The positions he takes on the issues matter little. Actually the same is true of most righ-of-center talk. Laura Ingraham was smart to exit the scene. Personally I can’t stand to listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck anymore. They’ve wandered so far off course.

Darvin Dowdy on December 7, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Off course? The basic message is “leave us the hell alone”. The pace that the government is taking over our lives is incredible. What course would you like them to take?

I like this idea.

urban elitist on December 7, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Me too. We need to tax everyone at whatever rate is necessary to cover spending … and since the government provides virtually all we need anyway who needs extra cash?