Was Reagan the worst President for the middle class or has he been out done by?

Question

George W.Bush?

Amidst the continued outpouring of praise for Ronald Reagan, let's not forget that he was one of the most anti-labor presidents in U.S. history, a role model for the virulently anti-labor George W. Bush.
Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."

http://www.dickmeister.com/id89.html

Answer 1

The only thing that tops the odasity of these two is the blind obiedience they get from those that have been hoodwinked into the belief that thier party holds the moral high ground

They are two peas in a pod. The destruction done by both of these two to our the economy will be the hardest hurdle we as Americans have ever climbed.
Their inability to balance a budget and their willingness to hide the losses in our Social Security program, has rendered that plan doomed, which has been a goal of republicans ever since its creation. They can not stand it when the people have a good thing especially if it was created by the Democratic party.


What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 2

Reagan had the guts to point out what and obstacle to growth the unions were.

I was in several unions.

I remember a time when the Union was there to make the employer live up to his promise.

I remember as time when the Union protected the industry that employed it.

I remember a time when the Union managed the pension and welfare fund.

I remember a time when the Union managed the employees health care and some of them actually owned their own medical facilities.

I remember a time when the Union was in a partnership with the employers to expand the industry.

I remember a time when Unions offered non-competitive scholarships to employees' children.

What does a union do now? They do none of the above.
What do they do with the dues?

What protections are there for employees with a union that are not already built into the Department of Labor, OSHA and the National Safety Council?

Why are collective bargaining agreements written with the performance of the worst member in mind?

Why can't good union employee's with higher education and skill sets bargain on their own behalf for higher wages or more hours?

Why do unions use pay for time not worked as bargaining points rather than higher base salaries?

Why does the UAW insist on production wages and continue to manufacture goods not being sold there-by devaluing the company that pays them?

Unions have been reduced to not much more than the most expensive news-letter you will ever read.

Ronald Reagan is not responsible for that. They did that to themselves.

Answer 3

It's questions like this one... and answers like that of Don C... that show just how totally out of touch with reality the left has become!

You're going to sit there and call the 1980s, a period widely regarded as prosperous, BAD for the middle class?
I mean, I expect the moronic attacks on George W Bush. They are par for the course amongst the Bush-Derangement Syndrome crowd. Now you're going to attack Reagan?

And using the unions as an example?
As it has already been put forth here (good job, Jimsock)... the Unions started out as a GOOD idea (like the ACLU) and did a lot of good for a lot of people back then (like the ACLU) but have since gone corrupt and haywire and have outlived their purpose (like the ACLU),
Is it any surprise the U in ACLU is for Union?

Sad and pathetic.
If you'd like to see something bad for the middle class... look at Hillary's Socialist healthcare plan.
THAT will utterly DESTROY the middle class.
Ridiculous how you can't see the truth but can buy into the extremely radical propaganda...


(by the way... it's 'audacity' ... which you Liberals seem to have a LOT of)

Answer 4

Ronald Reagan was a literal nightmare for Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Illinois. These states are the mainstays for unionizing, along with West Virginia's coal miners' union halls. My husband is a Union man & if he weren't, it would be harder than it already is. At least the contract gives us rights, leverage tools, covers health & safety concerns, etc. This is a bipartisan issue, it's an American Issue. I personally believe every American worker ought to have the opportunity to join a union if they so choose. And the members should be Americans. Sorry, got carried away there. The next runner-up to Reagan was Andrew Jackson, duh.

Answer 5

I don't think Reagan was bad for the middle class, in fact, I saw alot of prosperity during the 80's across lots of social and economic areas.

Bush, on the other hand, with his intimate ties with big business, the rich, and military contractors is terrible for the middle and lower class. The poorer people in the US are the primary suppliers of bodies to fight in his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ..who knows where next. And the middle class gets no improvements on economic matters, not to mention the poor economy and huge debt that we have.

Bottom line, Bush sucks on all fronts. Shame on the voters who were fooled twice.

Answer 6

being 'trickled down' on by the rich is a clever idea, give tax breaks to the wealthiest and once the get enough money, they will get bored with it and start paying better wages and hiring more people. Well now we see, rich people don't get bored with their money and have found a way to eliminate good paying jobs and rehire people at minimum wage. I don't see how firing a 40,000 a year employee and hiring 2 employees at 20,000 a year is good for the American people. It does make it sound like you are creating new jobs, so it gives Faux News something to talk about.

Answer 7

Answer: JFK did the modern tax cuts for the middle class...Reagan followed suit, as did G.W.
Now lying Lib,,,Er Progressives "hate" taxing the poor while forcing the corporations to raise and collect tax on those self same poor.
If the Leftists/Progressives want to view Wanton Low-Life Criminals...
All they need do is...Buy A Mirror!

Answer 8

You forgot to point that his first new child with Nancy Reagan became into born 5 months after their marriage, and he or she wasn't born untimely, and so if my math is physically powerful, it could look that, between different reasons, he married Nancy because of the fact he had knocked her up already. plenty for the GOP and "family contributors values." nonetheless, Newt Gingrich became into having his 2d affair (dishonest on his 2d spouse, who he cheated with at the same time as married to his first spouse, together with his destiny-0.33-spouse) on the comparable time he became into pushing impeachment expenditures for the period of the residing house against Clinton. And yet those are the comparable politicos who've the gall to lecture others approximately "family contributors values." of direction, marital infidelity isn't even interior the comparable league as investment terrorist communities. What rather supplies value, although, to this Yahoo question is rather the stupidity of Reaganites and dittoheads, who can constantly count upon to offer bare assertions and falsehoods guised as "opinion," on each and every occasion rather anyone dares to talk ill against stunning Lea....I mean President....Reagan.

Answer 9

My answer would be...Jimmy Carter was the Worst president in American History, Intentionally burdening the middle class with double digit...Inflation, Unemployment, and consumer Interest Rates! His foreign policy consisted paying third world despots to steal American investment abroad while he would ki$$ their dictator...Assperations!

Answer 10

Your opinion of Reagan comes from the fringes of American. The American people have already voted Reagan as the greatest president ever in the history of the US. JFK and Lincoln were runners up. This comes from a USA Today/Gallup poll taken in Feb 2001. Your argument is empty.