CEO Salary Limit

[damyanti]

Friendly Disclaimer: I am a Conservative, so don't bother trying to win an argument with me by suggesting I was fed "liberal dogma", LOL.

I don't know what kind of dogma are those who whenever lost for argument, get that Bush's "I nailed it" look on their face and throw out Reagan as the greatest president of our lifetime card, are fed but it is complete slosh. That is not to say that there are not some good, relatively honest politicians among Republicans, it has just become like looking a needle in the haystack. And Democrats are certainly not infallible or angels or void of errors or even corruption, but compared to Republicans they are baby league. The ideal of truly "free market" economy is a grand Utopian ideal to strive for, but not yet within our grasp in a practical sense to achieve at this time, .

It puzzles me how Reagan inherited such a legacy with the group. More than a patron saint, he is a national icon to the faithful following. The irony of the argument is that much greater because the last election resembled nothing so much as the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan — with Obama as Reagan!

And unlike most Conservatives who are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal, Obama praised Ronald Reagan. In fact its what I disagree with him on, I think Clinton said it more politely than I would, " The Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect".

To suggest that Reagan bailed us out when Carter screwed up (by failing to clean up mess left by Nixon to Ford and him) is revisionist History. Fact: Reaganomics failed.

Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

Reagan’s first term was dominated by efforts to carry out his economic program-dubbed “Reaganomics” by the media-which consisted in part of large budget reductions in domestic programs and substantial tax cuts for individuals and businesses. The theory of supply-side economics-generating growth by stimulating a greater supply of goods and services, thereby increasing jobs-was a mainstay of the Reagan approach. Central to the administration’s efforts to combat inflation was rigorous control over government spending deficits. Early budget cuts of $39 billion were followed by the passage of a 25% tax cut for individual taxpayers and faster tax write-offs for business.

Result: unemployment rose to a level of 10.6% by the end of 1982 but declined to around 5.5% late in 1988. Inflation, which had peaked at 13.5% in the 1970s, gradually fell to about 4%-6%. Massive federal deficits piled up, however...a reflection of tax cutting and greater defense spending.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that ensured Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Sound familiar?

If we don't learn from it, History repeats itself.

So, I’m not sure what they mean by their Reagan argument but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995 (two years after Clinton took office).

If they mean a sense of entrepreneurship and having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s. American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why Republicans want to rewrite history and claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. But why do it now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again? Stupidity or death wish?

Carter is an easy scapegoat, and his economic ideas were a bit too socialists. I’m sure he meant well though - liberals usually do (unlike Reagan and both of the Bushes who are only interested in lining their pockets and pockets of their friends). The truth is Democrats should have had Muskie run in 1972 (they didn't thanks to Republican dirty tricks). Dont you just love History, ? However Carter was a progressive president on the matters of global importance (let us not forget he won Nobel Peace Prize) and he was a true social conservative by religious right standards. Unlike Reagan.

The fact is Reagan never attended church nor gave much money to Christian causes. Nancy was pregnant when they married. For both, it was not the first marriage. Nancy was notorious for her occult visits and mediums who came to the White House. The Reagan children do not regard Ronald as "Father of the Century". He failed to recognize one of them at the son's own graduation, introducing himself to his own son. Reagan's ties with Hollywood witch hunts during McCarthism do not defer the followers who uphold his ethical values.

In contrast to Reagan, Carter has taken his years since the White House to work for Habitat for Humanity and settle international disputes peacefully, he did not sit back in his rocking chair and make a fabulous income on memoirs. Carter, who brought the concept of "born again" into the vocabulary of the national media, still teaches a Sunday School class and is active in church. Reagan claimed he did not attend church for fear of someone being hurt from him being in the congregation. Jerry Falwell must know that if he had a church full of members like Reagan he wouldn't be much of a national figure.

And yet if Carter's name were ever brought up in these circles, it was only to ridicule. Reagan's following is almost like a cult following. His followers excuse his imperfections refusing to accept any discounting of his accomplishments. Perhaps the Religious Right approach towards the two can best be explained by Old South Dixiecrat attitudes. It certainly portrays a puzzling liaison between Christians and politics.

But to get back to Reagan as a "savior of economy" argument, . From "Dutch", by Edmund Morris, 1987: "The stock market crashes today, but Reagan strides in beaming like a boy. His bubbling joie de vivre affects gloom in room. His only comment on Wall Street’s nervousness, “Maybe they should change their symbol from a bear to a chicken noodle.”

Chairman of the CEA (Council of Economic Advisors) tries to make him understand the seriousness of the situation. “Mr. President, this is not just a little wiggle in the market we can ignore. This is a very serious condition.“ Reagan tries to look solemn, but this is difficult to do when one’s mouth is full of jelly beans. He takes refuge in genial reminiscence, ”Didn’t we do better before there was a Federal Reserve?"

I rest my case, LOL.