Palin: America out of step with Reagan's values

don't consider restoring confidence in America after it was lost not a tangible accomplishment he cited?

Anyone who lost confidence in America prior to Reagan was likely a conservative who needed the snake-oil that Reagan was peddling. They should be able to sympathize with Michelle Obama when she said she could feel proud about America again.

Volcker is a master in the area that he knows best: monetary policy. His assessment of Reagan outside his area of expertise is something I don't put a lot of stock in.

Note carefully that the essence of Volcker's remarks emphasize feelings rather than tangible accomplishments. As the song says: "Feelings....nothing more than feelings..."

He did it in a way that helped restore the confidence of America in America, which had been lost, or at least greatly eroded, during the 1970s.

You don't consider restoring confidence in America after it was lost not a tangible accomplishment he cited? Just "Feelings"......Never consider Paul Volcker a touchy feely type of guy myself but if that what you think of the guy, well it is your opinion after all.

Good to see him admire Reagan though.

Seems he had some mighty fine things to say about the man after all.

But nothing regarding monetary and fiscal policy. LOL! I'll give credit to Volcker for his diplomatic skills and finding something nice to say about someone whose policies (nearly) tripled the national debt in just 8 years and converted the US from the world's leading creditor nation to its number one debtor nation.

Note carefully that the essence of Volcker's remarks emphasize feelings rather than tangible accomplishments. As the song says: "Feelings....nothing more than feelings..."

Volcker would never, ever say that about President Reagan.

Agreed, he said this instead during an interview on PBS conducted 09/26/00.

INTERVIEWER: In the late years, was there a Reagan revolution?

PAUL VOLCKER: I think there was a Reagan revolution in terms of the cutting edge of this moving back from this feeling that [if] you've got a problem, the government would answer it. Here's a big brother here to help you, as Mr. Reagan used to mock, but if it's true that we needed some cutting back in this exuberant view of government, which I happened to share, he certainly did it with some vigor. He did it in a way that helped restore the confidence of America in America, which had been lost, or at least greatly eroded, during the 1970s.

Seems he had some mighty fine things to say about the man after all.

The show was titled Commanding Heights: Paul Volcker PBS

Reagan's values, which Palin asserts that America is out of step with, have to be contrasted with other values -- so why not his predecessor's?

I am convinced [Reagan's predecessor] wasn't half as bad as we are led to believe.

And there's little doubt that Reagan himself wasn't nearly as good as Palin and today's Obama-hating Republicans would lead us to believe.

What we've got is a constant, continual effort to mislead. Misleading others appears to be a core value of Reagan's followers and I hope to the Almighty that America would, in fact, be out of step with it.

re: David Rockefeller and Clausen: When tapped for their thoughts on taking on the job of Fed Chairman, both refused specifically because they admitted they weren't nearly as strong on monetary policy as conditions required. The person they recommended: Paul Volcker. So here we've got a decent president who listened and weighed advice and came up with a genius of an appointment -- as the results showed.

"I am satisfied on the basis of my conversations with the President that he has a good understanding of the problems," Volcker said later.

Volcker would never, ever say that about President Reagan.

The more I read about carter the more I am convinced he wasn't half as bad as we are led to believe. One has to wonder how he'll be evaluated in a hundred years.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

Ummm Yabits,

Carter offered the job to three others first who turned him down before he finally went to Volcker against the advice of his staff. I'll change my post from he reluctantly hired him to he got desperate for someone to hire an actually take the job instead.

At least three people turned down the top Fed job: David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, A.W. Clausen of Bank of America and Robert Roosa of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. investment bankers. The final choice came down to Volcker and Bruce MacLaury, president of Brookings. When Carter phoned Volcker last Tuesday, the banker's main concern was to make sure that he and the President agreed on the independent role of the Federal Reserve. "I am satisfied on the basis of my conversations with the President that he has a good understanding of the problems," Volcker said later.

Information is from a Time Magazine article from 1979.

and then reluctantly decided

Carter weighed the advice of some on his staff with that of others who highly recommended Volcker, met with the man, and hired him the next morning without a trace of reluctance.

By that standard, Palin must have been added to the Republican ticket with extreme reluctance.

I'm sure that Carter wanted to win re-election and with interest rates going to where Volcker wanted to send them, it would represent a tremendous obstacle.

So he paused, weighed the decisions of staff who were telling him not to appoint him and then reluctantly decided that he was best after all, right Yabits?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Carter "reluctantly" appointed anyone.

Turning to the source, Paul Volcker: The Making of a Financial Legend by Joseph Treaster, we learn that Carter had not even heard of Volcker until a couple of weeks before he selected him as his nominee for Fed Chairman.

Many on Carter's staff, however, warned Carter not to appoint him. They told him he would be mortgaging the 1980 election to high interest rates that Volcker insisted were key to breaking the back of high inflation. Summoned to the White House for their first meeting on July 25, Volcker recounts telling the president this. Leaving the meeting, Volcker thought, there's no way he's going to appoint me. But the fact is that, according to Volcker, that Carter called him the very next morning to ask him to take the job.

What this does is not only put the lie to the statement that Carter was in any way reluctant to appoint Volcker, it shines a light on some of the warped values of the Reagan era. I'm sure that Carter wanted to win re-election and with interest rates going to where Volcker wanted to send them, it would represent a tremendous obstacle.

The Republicans, for their part, made political hay with Volcker's appointment -- even though they privately respected it -- coining the "misery index" to describe the combined rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Even though the most astute among them knew full well that high interest rates were needed to break the terrible cycle of inflation. But admitting the truth is not often to be found in their playbooks.

Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979.

the adverb "reluctantly" makes a lie out of an otherwise true statement. There is no evidence whatsoever that Carter "reluctantly" appointed anyone. But this is how conservatives spin it because they are pathologically unable to give Carter even the slightest amount of credit for making a very tough political decision.

Reagan's values, like Nixon's values, seemed to involve a lot of rank dishonesty.

Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon.

Nixon did hire some good Democrats. After all of Volcker's great work, Reagan fired him in '87 for not being in tune with the deregulatory spirit of his administration. Those folks wanted to dismantle Glass-Steagall and whole host of other banking regulations. (Moves that Volcker thought were contrary to the best interests of most Americans. He was right, but policies contrary to the interests of most Americans are a Republican specialty.)

We all saw how deregulation affected the savings and loan industry in the early 90s. And now final dismantling of Glass-Steagall nearly collapsed the entire financial structure of the country.

Increased taxes were supposed to come when the Bush tax cuts expired. As you know, President Obama was in favor of letting them expire for the wealthiest Americans, and it would have meant around 600 billion in additional revenue to cover a good deal of the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republicans didn't want those tax cuts to expire.

Subject is about Reagan and his legacy economic policies not Bush or Obama's.

Having been raised in the 50s and 60s, I certainly lived through that time. It wasn't anything like today. And the interest rates were put into place by Carter's Fed appointee, Paul Volker. Political suicide, they broke the back of the inflation that Carter inherited for over a generation. Reagan, by the way, KEPT Volker and the high interest rates.

Yabits, What do you think about Carter's first appointed Chairman of the Fed....G. William Miller? You know the guy that Carter had to finally fire and replace with...gasp

Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon.

Your thoughts?

of the Enron corruption also took place during the Clinton administration

You have this knack for looking to blame Congress when a Republican president is at the helm, and the Congress happens to be one led by Democrats. Well, during most of Clinton's time, the Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

The root cause of the corruption that took down companies like Enron and Worldcom came about as a result of corrupt accounting firms -- like Arthur Andersen -- who, instead of conducting independent audits and making the financial house of cards known to the public, provided "consulting services" which showed the companies how to hide their mess.

Democrats proposed laws which, among other things, would have made it illegal for accounting firms to provide consulting services to those firms which they were supposed to be auditing -- but the Republicans (who were on the take thru political donations from those firms) were nearly unanimous in their opposition to such measures. Until after the collapse, of course. Then, they operate with 20/20 hindsight.

I agree that Bush II ran up some serious debt. That is why I am no longer a Republican - just a plain old conservative.

This is laughable. Just a plain old conservative who votes Republican.

So whose is responsible for the debt then? Congress of course. They have the power of the purse.

Really? Reagan didnn't submit the budget to them? You're actually claiming that Reagan didn't have the power to veto budget legislation? If Reagan had genuinely wanted budgets that didn't triple the national debt, he would have fought for them. As it turned out, he submitted budgets that would have increased the debt MORE than what Congress eventually passed into law.

And so you mean that President Obama has raised taxes to cover his spending?

Increased taxes were supposed to come when the Bush tax cuts expired. As you know, President Obama was in favor of letting them expire for the wealthiest Americans, and it would have meant around 600 billion in additional revenue to cover a good deal of the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republicans didn't want those tax cuts to expire.

What happened to Paygo?

The Bush tax cuts completely killed it. (Thank you, Republicans.) Keep in mind that projected deficit spending resumed as soon as the first round of Bush tax cuts were enacted in the months prior to 9/11.

Reagan was handed a horrible economy as well - you know, the worst since the Great Depression kind of economy. Ever heard of stagflation and 16% interest rates, high energy prices, and malaise?

Having been raised in the 50s and 60s, I certainly lived through that time. It wasn't anything like today. And the interest rates were put into place by Carter's Fed appointee, Paul Volker. Political suicide, they broke the back of the inflation that Carter inherited for over a generation. Reagan, by the way, KEPT Volker and the high interest rates.

Carter inherited the problem of inflation from his predecessors -- just in case anyone has forgotten Nixon's enacting wage and price controls, and Jerry Ford's "WIN" buttons. (Which stood for "Whip Inflation Now." Very effective plan.) It was only through the poison pill of high interest rates that inflation could finally be tamed.

People who understand economics know that you derive real interest rates from a ratio of the Fed rate to the rate of inflation. After Volker retired, Reagan replaced him with Alan Greenspan -- who kept real interest rates very high until the economy hit the skids again during Bush 41's term.

As for high energy prices, I also well recall the first of a series of gas shortages and price spikes during the early 1970s, long before Carter came on the scene. The US, prior to Carter, never even had an energy policy.

Carter, and the Democratic congress, did several things. Chief among them was passing laws to deregulate oil and gas prices. This had the effect of breaking the back of OPEC, though it took a few years for the impact to be felt. The other thing they did was enact extremely generous tax credits for things like getting Americans to insulate their homes better. That had the effect, along with the high prices, of helping Americans cut their demand for energy.

yabits: Not really. If there is spending to be undertaken -- say, as in starting a war -- liberals will favor increased taxes to pay for it. When you raise revenues along with spending, deficits tend to be less. Reagan and W. spent, spent, spent, but never wanted to raise taxes to pay for the spending.

And so you mean that President Obama has raised taxes to cover his spending? That's funny, he had the House and Senate with a fillabuster majority and he still didn't "pay" for his porkulous spending spree. What happened to Paygo? Well, that was just a gimmick.

But both presidents were handed an economy that was driven into a deep abyss by their predecessors.

Reagan was handed a horrible economy as well - you know, the worst since the Great Depression kind of economy. Ever heard of stagflation and 16% interest rates, high energy prices, and malaise? So your argument is that it's okay for a Democrat to run up huge debts in a bad economy but it's not okay for a Republican to run up a relatively much smaller debt during a economic crisis. At least Reagan got the end of the Cold War as a result of increased defense spending; which led to the so called "peace dividend" under Clinton. President Obama just got us in hoc to the Communist's in Beijing.

Oh, no complaint here. As a conservative, you simply fail to understand how we laugh when your leaders attempt to present themselves as somehow better able to manage the economy or the budget -- and then end up with the numbers that Reagan and W. did.

Yet Obama will have accomplished deficits in the trillions for every year of his first (and hopefully last) term. I agree that Bush II ran up some serious debt. That is why I am no longer a Republican - just a plain old conservative. Reagan's debt is peanuts compared to Bush and Obama. Liberals are still worse in economics because they view business as nothing more than a funding source for social programs. They think every American's money is theirs first and that they shall decide how much each person can keep of what they earn.

Yes they did. And for seven out of eight years under Reagan, the Congress passed budgets that contained less deficit spending than the budgets that were submitted to them from the White House.

So whose is responsible for the debt then? Congress of course. They have the power of the purse.

Why is it that you have this innate need to blame things on Democrats when it is so clear that the Republicans are every bit as horrible.

I agree that Republicans have been horrible with spending during the Bush years. How on earth could a huge social program like prescription drug benefits get passed under a president whom Liberals actually believe was a conservative? Compassionate conservativism was nothing less than Liberal light. Sure, Bush got 9/11 and the tech bubble that he inherited from the Clinton years. All of the Enron corruption also took place during the Clinton administration - she he inherited that as well.

I think that the excess of the Obama administration is proof that Liberals are much worse when it comes to economics. They have an internalized hatred of business and refuse to see people as individuals with individual rights. No one could ever imagine yearly budget deficits in the trillions year after year until Obama became president. Both parties have serious problems with money management. However, at least conservatives - and I mean actual conservatives - are trying to do something about it. Liberals seem to believe that the huge deficit is no big deal. It's just insane. There is a tipping point when it comes to deficits where it will be all the country can do to just keep up with the interest. Well, we are getting awfully close to it.

America's on right path under Obama administration. Public loans and lack of jobs,is only pull down factor. Hope more jobs,can be created,that is at least half of pull down solved.

Palin Ray Gun,taking her shots at Dems,let her ,she is opposition. It's her job.

Palin is really the perfect politician right now with the high energy prices and these current middle east "issues."

Alaska has enough oil for the whole US for 200+ years (I revise my previous estimate). And with the pipeline never/ever running at 100% capacity and all the natural gas being pumped back into the ground -I feel the American populace has a need to be asking some questions.

Or are you arguing that W wasn't even a president worthy of criticism?

You didn't ask me. But I think W wasn't worthy of criticism because he doesn't seem to learn despite all the criticism. Nonetheless I welcome his reappearance on the stage. What would the world be without a clown ?

Moderator: Stay on topic please. The subject is Palin's comments.

GJDailleult, Thanks for the great suggestion to watch "The Centure of the Self".

Just saw the first quarter. This first one hour part has been an real eyeopener in many aspects.

Hehehohohaha, I think you are arguing about a very GREY area. At the moment of the handover the economic collapse just took place. Remember autumn 2008 ?

But of course this is all George W. Bush's fault, lol.

OK, so are you arguing that W had no impact or legacy that can be praised or criticized when talking about the national debt? Or are you arguing that W wasn't even a president worthy of criticism?

America had a surplus when W took office who then handed Obama an economy in the tank and was/is expected to pull the proverbial bunny out of the hat. Bush had no such expectations on him, as Sarge's quip affirms.

Americans think their country is sinking into the ocean and the Japanese think their country is sinking into the ocean. Both views are preposterous.

Donkusai - An interesting thing about the graph I was looking at, debt was falling consistently from the end of world war 2 to 1980.

Very interesting data. For those who have seen the documentary Money Masters I'm sure you will agree that it makes sense America had to be driven into huge deficits.

I wonder what percentage of the deficit is owed to the federal reserve system.

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan did spend big (unless you want to rewrite history).

If you want to be objective about spending during the Reagan years, you are correct he did spend big. He spent big on rebuilding the Military that was pretty much in decline and neglected after the Vietnam war. He also spent big on the military as part of his goal to keep the pressure on the Soviet economy as they tried to match us in technology and advanced weapons systems. We all know how that turned out for them. What doesn't factor in all this talk about how he was a spendthrift that blew a hole in the deficit is the payoff we had in the long run. Clinton benefited mightily after the Soviet Union disintegrated without a shot fired. It enabled him not to have huge Military budgets and enjoy the "peace dividend" that was provided as far as Federal spending. That peace dividend was a direct result of Reagan's spending policies and there can be no doubt that the payback in the end more than offset the deficits that he ran building back our military strength.

For somebody who grew up in the cold war era it is nothing short of remarkable that the bell was never rung and a full out shooting war between us never occurred. Reagan and his spending priorities was a big part of making that remarkable achievement happen.

and remake Reagan as the president who spent like Obama does

No remaking needed. The facts speak for themselves. Reagan did spend big (unless you want to rewrite history). Obama is well on his way down the same road. I would not raise the name of either president if asked to cite an example of an economically competent president. And here lies the absurdity of Palin's comments.

GJDailleult: anybody wanting to really understand the Reagan phenomenon should check out the documentary "Century of the Self" by Adam Curtis.

I've seen this documentary and recommend it to anyone interested in seeing how advertising and political spin developed and became so intrusive in the world we live in today.

"Debt seems to be Reagan's biggest legacy"

Har! When Reagan left office the national debt was around $2.8 trillion. It's now around $14 trillion. But of course this is all George W. Bush's fault, lol.

I do not want to be rude, but I think her brain, Mrs.Palin, must still be a bit frozen from living up in cold Alaska for way too long and coming down to sunny Santa Barbara may help her thaw it out a bit, but not too sure what the bid deal is about the USA not being in step with old Ronny, he helped the USA win the Cold War, thanks and get the American hostages out of the Teheran embassy, thanks then screwed all of the hard working folk in the USA with the BS TRICKLE DOWN THEORY of economics, because we all now what will trickle down from the filthy rich to us mere mortals working for a living, right?

Palin is remarkably similar to Reagan, and that's the problem.

"Debt seems to be Reagan's biggest legacy."

I like how Obama fans try to cast Obama as the new Reagan when he gives a mediocre SOTU speech and remake Reagan as the president who spent like Obama does.

She blamed Washington leaders—an apparent reference to the Obama administration—for doing “everything in their power to stymie responsible domestic drilling.”

Simple solutions for complicated problems, just what the USA and the world need more of. From what I have heard, the oil reserves in question are the equivalent to 4 months of US oil consumption. I am doing that from memory, apologies if I have it wrong. But if it is correct then what we have here is some good politics, a chance for some people to make big money, but nothing that anybody takes seriously as a long term solution.

As for the debt under Reagan, I'm a believer in the nightmare scenario, that the USA (and other rich countries too) has intentionally increased the debt and the money supply to cover up the decline in its real economy since the oil price rises of the 70's. It has nothing to do with any fake left-right politics. This is how Reagan created "prosperity" and avoided ending up the same as Carter. This continued on to 2007/08 when the system started to collapse under its own weight.

By the way, anybody wanting to really understand the Reagan phenomenon should check out the documentary "Century of the Self" by Adam Curtis. The Republicans starting with the Reagan era, along with the Conservatives and Thatcher in the UK, were the first parties to use the marketing and advertising techniques described in the movie in politics. The "left-wing" playing catch-up is what later brought Clinton and Blair to power. Amazing stuff in the movie, and don't waste my time trying to label it "left-wing" or "liberal" either.

She is as entertaining as Obama is disappointing.

This whole issue certainly got me interested in looking up a few things about the debt.

Prior to Nixon, presidents from both sides managed to reduce debt (% of GDP). Under Nixon (R): Down about 4% when viewed as a percentage of GDP. Under Ford (R): Up about 2%. Under Carter (D): Down about 5%. Under Reagan (R): Up abut 20%. Under Bush Snr (R): Up about 15%. Under Clinton (D): Down about 11%. Under Bush Jnr (R): Up about 25%. Under Obama (D): Up about 10% (so far).

From the figures above, it seems that if you want to reduce debt, then you should be traditionally supporting the Democrats. Obama is the odd one out, though. The debt under him is rising at exactly the same level set by Bush Jnr. in the last few years of his presidency, so we can safely say that Obama is equally as bad as Bush Jnr. at reducing debt under the continuing circumstances. So is Obama ineffective? Quite possibly so.

An interesting thing about the graph I was looking at, debt was falling consistently from the end of world war 2 to 1980. As soon as Reagan took control, it immediately started climbing sharply and successive both Bushs have continued the trend. I think Palin is a bit mixed up. Debt seems to be Reagan's biggest legacy.

Palin is plain stupid or she has a weird sense of humor. Or she is out of convenience completely ignoring the Reagan legacy. Somehow I remember what Margaret Thatcher said about him: "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." Could we say the same about Palin?

It's even worse than that, America is out of step with America's values.

Not only that, but America's values are out of step with America's values! A fine mess we've made for ourselves.

Palin is wrong about America being on the road to ruin. President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate are definitely taking the country in the right direction. These record deficits and stubbornly high unemployment are the fault of the previous administration.

So Liberals don't support huge spending and deficits?

Not really. If there is spending to be undertaken -- say, as in starting a war -- liberals will favor increased taxes to pay for it. When you raise revenues along with spending, deficits tend to be less. Reagan and W. spent, spent, spent, but never wanted to raise taxes to pay for the spending.

America will have a $1.5 trillion deficit under Obama just this coming fiscal year alone

Well, deficit spending as a percentage of GDP was historically high under FDR. It's high under President Obama too. But both presidents were handed an economy that was driven into a deep abyss by their predecessors.

I roll my eyes every time a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist complains about the deficit during Reagan's time

Oh, no complaint here. As a conservative, you simply fail to understand how we laugh when your leaders attempt to present themselves as somehow better able to manage the economy or the budget -- and then end up with the numbers that Reagan and W. did.

Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neal went along with every one of Reagan's budgets. Democrats had a share of power during all of Reagan's presidency.

Yes they did. And for seven out of eight years under Reagan, the Congress passed budgets that contained less deficit spending than the budgets that were submitted to them from the White House.

Why is it that you have this innate need to blame things on Democrats when it is so clear that the Republicans are every bit as horrible. No, even more horrible because, like Palin, they totally delude themselves in thinking they are fiscally conservative.

Did Reagan's 1964 speech help Goldwater at all? I thought Barry lost in a landslide that year.

Quitting as governor, trying to trademark your name and your daughters name, having your candidate lose to a write in nominee for the first time in state history--just gotta be entertained by politics in Alaska. I guess I better kick Sarah Palin's name around a few more times before I have to pay royalties.

Palin: America out of step with Reagan's values

It's even worse than that, America is out of step with America's values.

yabits: That explains a lot. Especially why Palin foolishly believes that the era of Reagan and his tripling of government debt is something worth returning to.

So Liberals don't support huge spending and deficits? Then President Obama's huge deficits are sure to lead to a revolt and a primary challenge in 2012? Well, no. Because Liberals don't have a problem with deficits and debt or else they wouldn't be demanding more spending now. America will have a $1.5 trillion deficit under Obama just this coming fiscal year alone. I doubt Reagan totaled that much in two full terms.

I roll my eyes every time a Liberal/Progressive/Socialist complains about the deficit during Reagan's time as president. Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neal went along with every one of Reagan's budgets. Democrats had a share of power during all of Reagan's presidency.

I hope she's right for once. Reagan's values almost bankrupted the U.S. It took many years for Clinton to improve the economy enough to balance the federal budget. Now America is paying a terrible price for George W. Bush's values.

Palin was a teenager when Reagan took office in 1981 and like many young people “their lives and philosophy and political fortunes were shaped by the Reagan era,”

In other words, their lives and philosophy were shaped by gross distortions.

That explains a lot. Especially why Palin foolishly believes that the era of Reagan and his tripling of government debt is something worth returning to.

But public debt roughly tripled during Reagan’s two terms in office...

Did you understand that, Palin? He nearly tripled the US national debt!

Palin is out of step with reality -- as is any conservative who has bought into the fairy tales about the Reagan presidency.

My fellow Americans: Tear down this MYTH.

“Sarah Palin is a soap opera, basically. She’s doing mostly what she does to make money and keep her name in the news,” Ron Reagan said.

“She is not a serious candidate for president and never has been,” said Reagan, a political independent whose politics lean left.

This is so true. She has no ethos, no knowledge, and no skills in politics.