So far I have quoted authoratitive sources and in many cases, the people who themselves set up the programs that you assert worked and they themselves assert failed.

David Stockman, the man who set up Reagans entire economic plan, openly stated he was wrong and the economic ideas were a failure just as Alan Greenspan did. Unfortunately they said sorry too late.

Reagan, by 1983, was fairly unpopular as a president. In order to win in 1984, he gave a huge increase in Social Security benefits to the retired. In fact Reagan was really so badly remembered, that in 1998, the neo conservatives formed the “Reagan Legacy Project” which basically rewwrote the history of the Reagan Administration, which left office with the same rates of unemployment that it entered office and which averaged 7 percent for the entire eight years. The economy was a mess, where David Stockman and Reagan kept looking for some sort of increase in government revenues and improved economy from their supply side economics, but didnt find it. My extremely minority source for this is Stockman’s own book on those years. Stockman, Reagans fiscal advisor finally repudiated those ideas as failures. Stockman resigned as Reagans budget director because he lost all faith in Reaganomics:

David Stockman said that he resigned as Budget Director because of the hugh deficits and he felt that the budget was getting out of control. He had lost faith in Reaganomics. I admired him and felt that President Reagan should have listened to Stockman more. Stockman said in his book that Reagan’s mind was like a “trench, very deep but narrow”.

Stockman was the architect of Reaganomics. However he beleived that all government agencies that were not funded by payroll taxes should see steep budget cuts and the largest was defense. All the supply siders saw defense as a bottomless pit that was sacred and that no one should examine for waste and outright fraud.

by 1993 most magazines and newspapers summed up the Reagan Era this way:

************************************************************
‘Overturning The Reagan Era’. And for all its compromises, the budget plan the US adopted this month is the first real rejection of Reaganomics, the curiously irresponsible combination of tax cuts and spending rises that very nearly left the US Treasury issuing junk bonds of its own by the end of the 1980s.

After a decade of ‘voodoo economics’, wasteful military spending and the savings and loan bail-out, it has fallen to the next generation of taxpayers to restore the ‘full faith and credit’ of the US, and to Mr Clinton to distribute the pain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-price-of-reaganomics-1464121.html

***************************************************************

What are we seeing here in the summation of the Reagan years is something in which we could remove the word “Reagan” and insert the work Bush and it would be a complete reflection of the last eight years right up to and including the necessity for a bailout, in the late 90’s of the Savings and Loans, and today with the bailout of investment banks and insurance companies.

Both Reagan and Bush created conditions in which during their last days in office, they created conditions in which the average working American would have to give huge sums of money to the wealthiest businesses in the nation and those who ran them or face a very great possiblity that they would lose their own meagerly rewarded jobs.

This is no accident and even the lastest fiscal crisis has been another method by which wealth is transfered from the bottom up to the top.

If you examine the recent economic crisis that started with the subprime mortgage failures, no money has been lost, but both liquid wealth as well as hard capital has been transfered from the hands of average Americans to banks, bankers and insurance companies.

What happens when a person who has been paying mortgage payments for five or ten or in some cases even 20 years walks away from their home.

They have given tens of thousands, even hundred of thousands of dollars to those who wrote the mortgages, to the investors in Mortgage backed securities, and left without equity or even a portion of the value of the home they were paying for. That is to say, the industry walked away with the mortgage payments and still own the homes. They collected close to a trillion dollars in mortgage payments and then took possession of a trillion dollars of housing. That is to say, the people who walked out of the mortgages had already paid the market values of the housing, and then the banks and other investors took possession of those houses when the owners walked out from the debt.

A very clever method by which the investors get the money and keep the property as well. They cry crocodile tears about not wanting the homes, but they now own them as well as all the dollars paid for them.

All I can say is…hmmmmmm.

When you hear conservatives today arguing that America is a “conservative nation” that party is pretty much lost.

Over 80 percent of Republicans oppose Obama, but that Party has shrunk to the lowest percentage in its history, 21 percent of voters now self idenfity as Republicans. 35 self identify as Democrats and over 90 percent of those support Obama fully. The largest sector now, independents at 38 percent still support Obama by a considerable majority, 56 percent. America, it seems is anything but a conservative nation.

Far from being facts spewed by a minority of idiots, facts are facts. You cannot deny hard data. Next, you cannot deny poll after poll, those taken by George Gallop, an evangelical Christian, and the Pew Center all affirm the facts I have given.

As usual conservatives spew their own beliefs, but give little or nothing to back up those beleifs.

It has been well pointed out in the news today that while there was a Democractic House during the Reagan years, Reagan had a Republican Senate to support his policies, and to block the Democratic policies. Bush had an almost totally Republican controlled Congress during his first six years in which he never vetoed a single Republican spending bill nor the huge amounts of pork that was primarily put into those spending bills by those who shouted the loudest about government spending. The Reddest States in the Union had thousands of little exemptions to government spending to send back to their own states, and they blocked all efforts of the blue states to at least get a fair share of the huge amounts of money those states sent to the federal government. When conservatives RAIL about the lower income workers who pay no taxes, they are largely railing against the workers in their own states, who on average have a lower than the national median income and so pay no taxes, yet their states get back far more than they pay out to the federal government.

States like New York or California or Massachussetts where the average income is higher than the median, see a far greater percentage of their citizens paying income taxes than a state like Georgia, where the median income is LOWER than the national average and a very large percentage of the population sees an annual income that falls below the level where they have to pay income taxes.

Like I said, these guys make their assertions, but so far they have offered ZERO in hard facts or data to back them up.

All they have is the assertions of a political party that now represents about one fifth of the electorate where one fifth of their own membership supports the current presidents economic and foreign policy. That means the hard core that opposes the new president makes up about 15 percent of the electorate.