42 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackbacks off |
I love Ronald Reagan. But… there are two really bad things that happened on his watch, and he approved them: 1. reducing regulation of Savings and Loans (S&L’s) allowed corruption which brought on the S&L fiasco which cost taxpayers hundreds of billions. 2. Amnesty for illegal immigrants. People forget that we had amnesty for illegals before, in the 1980′s under Reagan’s watch. The direct result: MORE illegal immigration. People seem to forget: if you REWARD something, you get MORE of it. This fact has been totally absent from the recent public discourse about amnesty. It seems after 20 years, people forget things. Like the Keating 5. |
Happy Birthday also to other notables on this day, namely Eva Braun, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Rip Torn, Tom Brokaw, Sarah Brady, Bob Marley, Natalie Cole, and Axel Rose. |
Reagan wasn’t perfect? Good thing we have Mitt then. He’ll be perfect. |
Bookslinger, If you are looking for the origins of the Savings and Loan crisis, you need to go back a lot further than the 1980s – all the way back to the National Housing Act of 1934, which created the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which got the government into the business of insuring deposits in these institutions. The problem is that savings and loans only paid attractive rates of interest because they invested depositor’s money in real estate loans, indirectly in real estate itself. Real estate, like all investments, is fundamentally risky. There is a risk – reward tradeoff for all investments, except of course those insured by the federal government. So you had depositors chasing the most risky S&Ls with the highest rates, sleeping safely with the knowledge that the government would bail them out. Essentially, the S&L crisis was a government subsidized car wreck. S&Ls were in trouble long before the Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982. Garn-St. Germain was a bipartisan attempt to save the industry (The vote in the House was 272-91). It was clearly inadequate in some respects, but I don’t think you can place all the blame on Reagan’s shoulders. The New Dealers created the moral hazard that led to the S&L crisis in the first place. |
Ronaldus Magnus. For me, nothing tops the moment when he walked away from the summit in ReykjavÃk. |
May he rest in peace. |
Ah, the most blatant violator of the Constitution, well, that is until Bush jr. came to power… |
Name a few, Dan. I just love to hear Democrats talk about how sacred the constitution is. Constitutional issues for Democrats have the same ontological status as “black issues,” “hispanic issues,” and “women’s issues.” They’re the same slate of Democratic hogwash dressed up a new name for propaganda purposes. |
Finally an articulation of why Ronald Reagan was such a terrific President for those who love him. Liberal Democrats might hold their noses at the name, but they don’t realize if it wasn’t for him they wouldn’t have Billy Clinton who tried to stylistically follow him. Reagan was great and will always be great no matter how much those who don’t like him cuss and scream. It was because of him that as a young boy I realized I was a Republican. |
Ronald Reagan was a truly great and visionary President. Thanks for this tribute. |
Mark, your synopsis ignored the two proximate causes that precipated the S&L crisis. S&L’s were doing just fine up until the 1980′s. The first proximate cause was a degree of deregulation that reduced the oversight, and literally reduced the number of regulatory auditors to a level much lower than what was in the banking industry. That allowed the foxes to guard the hen-houses. The second proximate cause was a federal law change that allowed the S&L’s to invest in _commercial_ real estate instead of limiting their real estate investments to _residential_ real estate. Also, the rate of return for deposits in the S&L’s was generally 1/4 percentage point higher than banks. If you got a 5% return in a bank, you got a 5.25% return on an equivalent deposit or instrument in an S&L. So it was not like it was some sort of wildly speculative investment. Also involved in the heart of this issue was John McCain, in the Keating 5. He was the lone republican among the 4 democrat senators who were involved. So I wonder if the dems will bring it up and how they will spin it in the general elecetion. It’s a big thing, and it was not definitively laid to rest. I think part of the reason for his McCain-Feingold campaign-finance anti-1st-amendment bill/law was to redeem himself for his involvement in the Keating 5 debacle. He’ll play that card if the dems bring up his involvement in the Keating affair. Back on topic, RR was probably the best president of the 20th century, in spite of the two issues I’ve mentioned. |
Actually, the proximate cause for the S&L crisis was the tax bill of 1987, which disallowed tax-deductions for mortgage interest on more than one home. A real estate bubble had been building during the 1980s, leading many S&L’s to become overextended with aggressive mortgages. The fact that multiple homes no longer afforded tax shelter led to a selling off of high-end homes, contributing to the bursting of the real estate bubble of the 1980s. This, in turn, left the S&L’s with a large number of properties mortgaged for more than they were worth. With no foreign capital to bail them out (as we’ve recently seen with banks suffering the same problem due to the bursting of the current real estate bubble), they went belly up, causing a banking crisis. Though many overly aggressive loans were exposed when people started looking for someone to blame, it’s important to note that banking crises have been the rule and not the exception throughout American history, occurring quite regularly every 20 to 50 years since George Washington’s administration interpreted the US Constitution to give the Federal Government oversight on banking issues. That said, you’re correct that Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. |
Bookslinger, I will let others address the S&L issue. However, on Amnesty, is it bad to be guided by the principle of forgiveness? Have you read that book that you are slinging? As for President Reagan, RIP. |
@ Bookslinger Illegal immigrants are a blessing since they work for low wages and reduce the cost of living. |
Is that the sum of what the blessing of their lives amounts to, CC? |
DKL, #8 I only need to name one. It is a doozy of course. The Iran-Contra affair. I should add that I think Reagan was a fairly good president, who did a lot of good for the country. I think his lowering of the high income taxes was a good thing, and he did a lot to try and get Democrats and Republicans to work together. That said, the Iran-Contra affair was absolutely terrible. I also shouldn’t mention Beirut either. But there it is. In regards to the Soviet Union, I applaud him for taking strong positions vis a vis the Soviet Union, and also doing much to talk to them and really use diplomacy for all its worth. But when it comes to the Middle East, his policies were terrible. |
As a Canadian, all I can say is that during the Reagan years, Canadian-American relations were quite close. He must have done something right |
I’m surprised to see so many Democrats voice their displeasure with Reagan. I think history looks back on him quite favorably. He pulled this country together after on of the worst stretches of Presidential lineage: LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter Democrats invoke JFK and Republicans usually don’t respond. Republicans do the same with Reagan, and the Dems get all worked up. One of the reasons I like Obama, maybe even enough to vote for him, was because he was honest about Reagan’s impact. |
Tim, I think the reason why Democrats voice their displeasure with Reagan is because of the way Republicans are nearly deifying the man. He was a good president, but jeez, most of the time the guy was dealing with Alzheimer’s disease and losing his mind! He messed up the Middle East really badly and we’re paying for a lot of his mistakes (the worst mistake of the Middle East pre-Bush was of course Eisenhower’s Operation Ajax). |
Chris, I think you’re confused as to what amnesty was/is in regards to illegal immigrants. And maybe you’re redefining forgiveness too. To forgive someone is not to condone what they did and then encourage more of it. What our country did in the 1980′s in regards to illegals, “amnesty”, went way beyond forgiveness, it condoned massive illegal and uncontrolled immigration, and in fact, encouraged more of it by holding out a big carrot to entice more of them to come. Forgiveness would have meant not throwing them in jail. Forgiveness would have meant not forcing them back to their home country. Wait, by that definition, we’ve essentially been forgiving 99.5% of the illegals anyway. Amnesty is not forgiveness. Amnesty, along with “a path to citizenship” is a REWARD, it’s a pat on the back and a hearty congratulations for what they did. |
I heart Ronald Reagan. He was great. |
DKL, thanks for bringing up another point in the S&L history. We have three proximate causes so far: 1. deregulation and reduction of auditors allowed crooks to make bad investments and to “loot” the S&L’s for personal gain. The last point is also what may be the predominant situation in the current sub-prime market and ARM foreclosure debacle. According to a report I’ve read, the majority of the foreclosures are on 2nd homes and investment properties (due to the ARM rates rising), and not on primary residences. In other words, it doesn’t really deserve a bail-out. Let the lenders take the hit due to their own risk-taking. Another point to forestall losses by the lenders is to just let the home-owners keep the lower rate for a while longer. I think it’s stupid for so many of the lenders to raise rates on the ARMs then to foreclose and lose money. Isn’t it better for the lender to make a little money on a low rate than to lose money by having to foreclose and sell the property for a loss? I think it stupid to count the 10′s or hundreds of billions of dollars as losses when the properties just don’t disappear into thin air. That paper loss is going somewhere on the other side of someone’s ledger. I wish I had some liquid assets to use to go around buying some of those properties at bargain prices. |
CC: if reduced wages are such a blessing, then why has congress been increasing the minimum wage all these years? If we restricted or at least slowed down the currently uncontrolled massive immigration from south of the border, then the law of supply-and-demand would naturally regulate wages. ——————— C Condor and Chris: Some unspoken points hinted at in your posts do point to Book of Mormon prophecies. The currently uncontrolled massive immigration from south of the border may indeed be part of, or at least setting the stage for, the fulfillment of the promises made to the descendents of the Lamanites, which are to be fulfulled in the latter days. I just finished reading 2nd Nephi. The “gathering of Israel from the four quarters of the earth” is indeed happening. The gathering places are currently: a) the stakes of Zion all over the world, and Immigrants are indeed gathering to the United States, more than any other country, from around the world, including from those countries to our south. I’m sure many of those immigrants are of the House of Israel, descendents of those Israelites who were scattered among the Gentile nations. |
Reagan hated freedom and loved terrorism. Isn’t that what Republicans would say if I sold weapons to Iran? He’s a politician, not a deity, and this worship makes me as sick as the Democrats worship of JFK. |
@Bookslinger The minimum wage is bad. Congress should eliminate it. By restricting the border, you are hampering the labor market and keeping it from providing the optimal solution. |
But when it comes to the Middle East, his policies were terrible. Understatement of the last two century’s. Face it DKL, Reagan created Osama bin Laden, supported him in the war with the Soviets and then left him and his buddy’s for dead. Think that had anything to do with their war against the US? It’s kind of poetic how its come full circle – Reagan gives weapons to our eventual enemies – they attack us – Bush Jr. uses that attack to propel us into a war costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. You can’t write this stuff… |
well said CJ. Imagine George Bush selling weapons to Ahmadinejad. That’s basically what Reagan did. And he is the Republican demigod. |
“By restricting the border, you are hampering the labor market and keeping it from providing the optimal solution.” Borders, by definition, are or should be restricted. Open borders are nonsense. Are you aware that there already is a legal way for Mexicans and others to come to the US and enter our labor market? It’s called a VISA. And there already exist procedures to legally get one, and to legally come into our country and work. A certain number each year can also come and stay permanently and become citizens. If our labor market really needed the laborers, and if it was politically acceptable, then all Congress would have to do is change the quotas/limits on the number of visas and green-cards that are issued annually for each country of origin. There are many, perhaps millions (yes, millions after we gave so many citizenship via “amnesty” back in the 80′s) of US citizens and visa-holding foreign citizens in our country working here legally. They prove that we can let in people in a _controlled_ manner and we can all be happy. It’s the _uncontrolled_ situation we currently have with an open and uncontrolled border that is creating problems with an uncontrollable excess of illegals, who include the welfare parasites, the drug dealers, pimps, violent criminals, and TB-carriers. I’ve never advocated closing the border permanently and disallowing all immigration. But, “let all things be done in order.” |
CJ, Dan, and jjohnson, that’s just plain stupid. It’s like saying that FDR loved communism and hated capitalism due to the lend/lease program with the Soviets. Go learn something about foreign policy — or history, even — and then we’ll talk. |
DKL, huh, so I’m guessing your telling us that you are most willing to converse and even make deals with Ahmadinejad. Am I correct? I’m just trying to make sure I understand Republican foreign policy correctly here. On the one hand, we don’t dare speak to evil dastardly Iranians, but on the other hand, secretly selling them weapons to use against their arch enemy, who we also armed, is perfectly okay by Republican standards. I’m just trying to make sure I understand you correctly. Because your buddies at like the Corner, sure don’t seem to like the idea of dealing with Ahmadinejad. But you are saying, by your accounts of history, that it is perfectly reasonable to do just that. So which is it, DKL? |
Dan the arms for hostages deal was not about arming Iran. It was about arming the contras get it right… ;o) Dems are just as bad diefying JFK who basically got the USA into Vietnam, set up the CIA to assasinate Castro. At the end of the day every President has their dirty little secret. However, that does not necessarily make them bad people over all or even bad Presidents. Iran in the late 1980s was not the Iran of the early 1980s or the current generation. As it moderated in the late 80s and early 90s it was worth talking to. In the Cold War as the Dems and Republican Presidents generally favoured the “our Bastard” principle, as LBJ said, and so a lot of the mess in the Carribean and other places around the world can be blamed on the USA. The middle east was a mess LONG before Reagan. Terrorism was a mess LONG before Reagan. What became in vogue after the end of the cold war was that instead of semi-secular terrorists and terrorist states we got religious ones. Most of which came from Iran as a reflection of Soviet funding not US. When the Soviets dried up the Saudis and others became major players in funding the PLO, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. My basic point is that historically all sides contributed to the mess in the middle east and most of it began because the Islam state of the Ottoman Turks started to fall into decay in the 19th century. |
Dan, your last message is utterly incomprehensible. It sounds like the sort of thing people who are suffering terribly would volunteer to a torturer in order to appease her. Yet, at the same time, it has a vaguely self-satisfied ring to it. Double up and try to actually spell out an argument, please. |
Bookslinger, A fourth proximate cause of the S&L crisis was major changes in depreciation rules in the 1980s that made many previously sound real estate investments unsound. Previous construction should have been grandfathered. I do not see anything inherently wrong with investing 10% of deposits in commercial real estate. However, I agree that actuarial neglect of institutions the government is insuring is insane. As far as the current real estate crisis is concerned, I have a hard time envisioning anything of the kind if we were on a properly managed gold standard (provided taxes remained stable). ARMs are bad news – an artifact of government manipulation of the currency. If we returned to the gold standard, they would quickly become a historical aberration. |
Jon,
Wait. Let me understand you correctly. You are saying that Iran in the 1980s was far worse than it is today. The Iran of the current generation is more moderate and “worth talking to.” Yet, Republicans are talking about war with this generation of Iranians and were willing to sell arms to the “far worse” generation of Iranians. Is that correct? |
DKL, Stop hiding behind veiled attacks and answer the question. Are you willing to deal with Ahmadinejad? Your party calls him the devil incarnate and says we should “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.” I say your party’s policy is inconsistent as they sold weaponry to Iran in the 1980s but says we can’t be dealing with them. You say, “hey FDR dealt with the Soviets and that was okay.” So my question to you is, are you willing to deal with Ahmadinejad? Or you can continue with childish snidish comments. |
My party says none of that. Secretary of state Rice says, “The United States has no permanent enemies.” Your contribution to this exchange is too bizarre to describe. It’s like when you were arguing with me about Dan Quayle’s speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club without ever having read it. I’ve never met anyone who argues so frequently from ignorance — even among the Democrats I know. I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you learn what the Bush administration party really says about its policies, and then we can discuss it. |
DKL, Clearly you’re not taking my bait. I’m going to stop trying. Your party does indeed say that we shouldn’t be talking to Iran. Heck, for any official communiques with Iran we go through the Swiss embassy. I mean how childish is that!?! Bush makes every effort to NOT be in the same building with Ahmadinejad when the Iranian president visits the UN. Rice has a silly double standard for her diplomatic core towards Iran. Meanwhile, Iran was quite willing to talk to us back in 2003, but the Bush administration ignored them, and began ratcheting up the bellicose schoolyard silliness. It’s painfully funny really. Just a few years after the Iranian Revolution and the installation of the Grand Ayatollah, Ronald Reagan secretly sells them weaponry, arming them, increasing their ability to do damage to their neighbors. Heck, Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter’s attempts to free the hostages by secretly talking with the Iranians to hold the hostages through the elections! DKL, I’m all about communicating with the rest of the world, including our enemies. The more we can communicate with them the more we avoid serious mistakes and war. Iran is not our enemy. If Ronald Reagan can talk to them while they hold our citizens hostages, if Ronald Reagan can sell them weaponry, then why can’t George Bush? |
Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter’s attempts to free the hostages by secretly talking with the Iranians to hold the hostages through the elections! Sick (that’s the guy’s name, not his mental state) claimed that it was Casey, acting without Reagan’s knowledge, who contacted the Iranians. Of course, it is only speculation on his part, since he offers no evidence. It is a lie to start with, and now you have taken that lie and expanded upon it by claiming it was RR himself. You really don’t have a helluva lot to be proud of there, Dan. By the way, have you heard that GWB was behind 9/11? Just don’t let that tin foil hat slip down over your eyes when you’re looking for black helicopters. |
Mark, Eh, this is one that just smells of a secret deal. Why would the hostages be released mere minutes after Ronald Reagan was made president? I’ll hedge my words and just say that it is speculated and leave it at that. |
The idea that a regime in the habit of referring to the U.S. as the “Great Satan” isn’t one of our enemies is preposterous. |
Mark, Please, we’re weaker than I thought if we’re going to let provocative language be the reason we’re enemies with someone. |
Dan, it’s kind of strange that you’re still responding. You seem to see things through such a thoroughly biased eye that you fail to notice when you argument us utterly lost. Your argument is stranger than anything we could have staged at Banner of Heaven. Bringing up Condoleeza Rica has to do with Ronald Reagan is like talking about Warren Christopher when you’re evaluating FDR. Resurrecting tired conspiracy theories about Iran is bad enough, but then trying to prop them up with shallow innuendo is almost comical — the last resort of those who are too feeble to come to grips with the full extant of the moral failings of J. Earl Carter and the wreckage that it made of US foreign policy during his administration. The bottom line is that you haven’t succeeded in laying a finger on Ronald Reagan. The funny thing is that I could write at length about problems that I had with his presidency. You’re a member of the party that opposed him. One might have expected you to make a better showing. |