And for another look at Reagan's economy, here are some results from a study by the Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
* The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagans years.

But i guess he was a failure because he didn't take the evil bad rich man's money and give it to the poor.

Okay, this is off-topic, but, stangmar... what in blazes is that in your signature?

I've wondered and wondered too! It makes me giggle everytime I see it though!

Noola! Get back to work on your Nanoing!

The idea of a "Reaganesque" government/economy horrifies me for a number of reasons.

My Predictions for the next four years
- The Rapture will not take place.
- Barack Obama will turn out to be a mortal, as opposed to the anti-Christ.
- The country will not crumble into oblivion with the constitution being rewritten, replacing every mention of "God" with "Allah."
- Likewise, the country will not be destroyed by terrorists.
- The middle class might get some more spending money.
- The middle class might get some baseline universal health-care. Sweet, even more spending money.
- The country may withdraw from Iraq, saving billions of dollars per month.
- Likewise, this will free up plenty of media coverage for celebrities so we can stop neglecting their personal lives.
- Everyone who is so distraught about the '08 election will realize that Obama will have higher than a 27% approval rating.
- People who think the world is over because Obama is elected will remember that they supported Bush in '04 and '00.
- Likewise, some people won't realize the irony in that.

As an addition, I predict that Barack will not kill any babies.

Um.. we aren't a country of individuals, and it's moronic to try and argue that we are or should be.

First off, we are not a pure Democracy, we are closer to a Republic, which means we elect a smaller group of people to actually do the voting for in most cases. That is not a nation of individuals.

We have public schooling and taxes and social security and a police force and unions and the internet. That is not a nation of individuals.

We are a country born from brotherhood and banding together. We are a country made up of people who identify with political parties, religions, and states. That is not a nation of individuals.

And finally, and most importantly, we live in a world where we can't survive as a nation of individuals. It is the very idea of being a nation of individuals that has gotten us where we are in terms of this Economic crisis. "Well, I'm an individual, so screw everyone else, I'm taking that Golden Parachute and screwing our employees, thankyouverymuch." Furthermore, it simply isn't right to even try to be a nation of individuals, as it isn't right to let other people drown for your success.

You want to argue that you deserve what you get? Alright then, tough guy, let's see you walk into Harlem, or Compton, and tell some gang members exactly what you think of them and their families who are broke and struggling. Oh, did I forget to mention that, since you are an individual, you don't get protected by laws, and, unless you happen to own a gunsmithy and know how to actually manufacture a gun, you're probably missing one of those too. Have fun with that, you brave, noble individual, you.

We are not a nation of individuals, we are a nation. Period.

Being a nation of individuals does not mean that you say "screw everyone else."

I really just don't know how to respond to such garbage. It blows my mind away.

Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights?

Do you suddenly believe that we no longer have a right to privacy?
Are names like Thomas Jefferson, Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Eli Whitney, etc now something to be ashamed of?... America has and always will praise and acknolwedge the achievements of great INDIVIDUALS.
This article here says it better than me:

http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--338-Commu...ividualism.aspx

American is a nation of Individuals, united together to form a greater good. That is why we have individual states, and counties, and cities and don't have the federal government making every single choice for us.

Obama is one step away from calling for each according to their needs, each according to their abilities.

I'm sorry, but I demand my right to live my life as an individual, and not to feel guilty for having my priorities being different from your priorities.

If Bush ever said things like this, you would be hearing shouts and cries and legitimate fears of a Theocracy.

umm, how about reading the link I provided....
We pay taxes, nobody is saying that we shouldn't have to pay taxes.

But the opposite of being a nation of Individuals, is being a nation of collectivists. another way to word it, would be a nation of Communes.

I never even mentioned taxes, and if you think that's what I'm talking about, you totally miss the point. When I say give something back, I'm not talking about money. Not even remotely.

"Do you expect a business to pay you if you're not working for them? No, of course not. Then how can you expect this nation to give you those advantages you require to live that individual life of yours without giving something back to it?"

Holy crap... this is so backwards!!!!

The Nation/Government Works for the people. The people do not work for the government!!!

Do you even realize what you are saying?

I pay the government to work for me, I expect them to do a good job of the work they do.

to compare a us citizen of the us goverment, to a worker to their boss, is SCARY. I really hope you are missunderstanding the "party line" on this one.

ndividualism versus Unity
For some, this individualism has been an infuriating obstacle to their vision of what our society and state should be. Religious traditionalists, like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, would like to see the entire nation adopt their creed and morality. But they have been hampered by the country's multitude of philosophies and life-styles.

Similarly, there are those, like Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and Tikkun magazine editor Rabbi Michael Lerner, who would like to see society and government loom larger in people's lives. But they have been frustrated by Americans' self-reliance and independence.

To people of this mind-set, expressions of national unity seem to offer a vindication of their views and an opportunity to attack individualism. Thus, Professor Putnam was quoted (New York Times, 9/23/01) as saying that "we could use this moment to reclaim a sense of national unity and connectedness, a genuine sense that we actually feel responsible for each other." Similarly, Rabbi Lerner, in an article on Tikkun magazine's Web site, wrote that people's response to the World Trade Center attack was "an outpouring of loving energy and generosity" and that this showed "the capacity and desire we all have to care about each other." Lerner directly attacks individualism because it has "narrowed our own attention to 'getting through' or 'doing well' in our own personal lives" instead of focusing on all the problems of the rest of the world.

For collectivists like Falwell, Robertson, Putnam, and Lerner, individualism is breaking down any unity we have, so individualism must be kept to a minimum for a truly good society. At the core of their thought is the idea that unity and individualism are some how incompatible.

True Individualism and Unity
Fortunately, the collectivists are wrong to think that today's post-attack unity is contrary to American individualism and that it can be used to beat back that philosophy. The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.

But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.

Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right.

Unity and individualism are not mutually exclusive. We can be united as individuals without losing our individuality or our love for individual liberty. This unified action to protect our country—to keep it safe and secure—arises out of individualism, not in contradistinction to it.

Unified Individualism as our Strength
Consequently, unity exists in an individualist society even during times of peace. For example, an individualist feels solidarity with his trading partners—buyers or sellers; teachers or students; friends or lovers: the people from whom he is constantly gaining values. An individualist also feels solidarity with his fellow citizens: those who he joins in supporting common institutions, such as the government that protects everyone's individual liberties.

Inevitably, though, our sense of unity is heightened when the very structures through which we cooperate are threatened, and this is what we are seeing today. We are all involved in trade everyday, but when the World Trade Center is attacked and destroyed we feel immediately how interrelated our productive lives are. We generally feel pride in our support for the armed forces that defend us against foreign aggressors, but when the Pentagon is attacked, we realize how important this common institution is to our freedom.

It should be of no surprise that when these institutions that provide for our security and prosperity are threatened that individuals come together to protect them, and that they do it well. Because of their abilities in their private lives—for example, their abundant self-responsibility and their initiative—these individuals have a great capacity to rise to the occasion and defend what is of great importance and value to them.

Those who see this as a pretext to seek unity on various political or social issues will find themselves disappointed. They will lash out once again at the individualistic culture. They will say that Americans should sacrifice for each other and feel more responsibility for each other. And they will be wrong. They will find that American unity is built on the individual's pursuit of values. A nation of individuals does not sacrifice for each other; individuals trade with each other in mutually beneficial ways. A nation of individuals does not seek to make every one responsible for each other; individuals are only responsible for themselves. And this is what makes us strong, and this is what makes us powerful, and this is what will make us victorious against an enemy that seeks the destruction of our way of life.