Ghost of Reagan Appears; Apologizes for Trickle Down Economics

It is said that Ronald Reagan haunts the White House, and a visitor to the stately home has come forward to bring a message from Reagan beyond the grave.

“He says he’s sorry for advocating trickle-down economics, and if he was President today, he would never have let his wealthy friends convince him of such a stupid policy in the first place,” says Lucy Landers, a 7th grade Social Studies teacher from Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Landers was taking part in a White House tour with her 7th graders when she felt an icy spirit haunted by his own policies approach her.

“I felt as if I was transported back in time to the 80s; the 1980s to be exact. I knew I was face-to-face with the Gipper, because he kept expecting me to recognize his characters from movies, but I’ve never seen anything he was in.

“He told me the message he’d tried desperately to get through to our side since his death,” said the teacher.

“Of course, I immediately asked him, ‘why now?’ and he said the gatekeepers up there won’t let him pass into higher realms until he fixes what he messed up. Says he keeps trying to fix it, but all they ever do down here is misquote him and blame him for stuff he didn’t do. He said it is driving him nuts. And eternity is a long time to be driven nuts.”

Independent reports confirm multiple sightings of the deceased President since his 2004 demise, but witnesses chalked it up to an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, or a crumb of cheese. Others described it as having taken place following “a night out with lobbyists, so [he] was still pretty high at the time.”

When asked if she could state verbatim what the ghost of Reagan said, she gave us this:

“He said, ‘I really let the American people down. My economic plan was written by and for the wealthy, and haunting America’s wasteland today, I can see how wrong it was, and I’m sorry for that.”

Miss Landers then said Reagan’s message got a bit garbled.

” He said something about garbanzo beans and monkeys, blah, blah, blah, ‘did it for all the wrong reasons,’ blah, blah, blah…is the best I can remember of what he said,” claims Landers.

As the story broke, MSNBC News commentator, Chris Matthews was quick to call it a lie.

“I’ve met with the ghost of Reagan many times at the White House, and, contrary to popular belief, especially the belief of many of my book critics, [Matthews had a new book out this past Christmas entitled Tip and the Gipper], all he ever told me was..wait I’ve got it right here in my notes, hang on a sec…here it is and Reagan said…’quit following me around you little O’Neill stoolie, or I’ll punch you right in the…’, wait, wait,” said Matthews, “that’s not what he said, I swear.”

Written with much input from our esteemed editor, Brian K. White

Author: P. Beckert

P. Beckert's is one voice vying for frequency room at the top of the opinion dial. Angered and bewildered by many of today’s events, P. Beckert uses humor as a tool to fight against an onslaught of stupidity and ignorance that seems to permeate the airwaves and pollute the sensitivities of a once brilliant nation. You can find more at

16 thoughts on “Ghost of Reagan Appears; Apologizes for Trickle Down Economics

  1. Ah, but Brian, you have to give it to Reagan for fostering the illusion of polical competency when he wasn’t even that way mentally. Even in the naïve 80’s political arena. Like any con, it’s only dexterity that matters in a shell game.

  2. I just love how conservatives trot out the ghost of Reagan to support any wild idea they have, while never acknowledging that he'd never even make it past the primaries in today's fringe hyper-conservative GOP. The actual Reagan would look like today's Democrat, and today's GOP would look very, very strange to him… see? I can channel his ghost to my own ends too!

  3. I do tend to be a more literal thinker. If I go too far below the surface, all hell could break loose. But it’s just that. No clarification necessary. We can’t find out about our fellow writers without some sort of back and forth. Being the only woman in the group right now is a bit tough. But trust me, I’m doing my level best just to keep up. Glossy has evolved nicely into a higher realm of writing lately and I’m enjoying it immensely.

    P.S. I was going for subversive.

  4. Understood, Patti. And to clarify, I hope you know I’m just fooling around with these comments. No offense is intended in any of them. It’s tough to know who’s being serious and when in these mini comments, without putting smiley faces around them.

    Because I’m into philosophy, though, sometimes I like to dig a little to try to get at an underlying truth. And as I see satire, this sort of comedy can be light and silly, but it can also be subversive and highly critical. So satire can be both humorous and serious, and that sometimes prompts me to try to figure out the more serious point made by a satirical piece.

  5. Not that I feel I have to “justify” myself to you Benjamin, but really…I am not “always on.” Ask anyone who knows me. I have a serious side. I just try to keep it light for the locals.

  6. The ghost of Reagan appeared more mentally cognizant than he was in his second term so I suggest we put him on the ticket in 2016.
    Else we run Bush the First…who first called it all “VooDoo economics”.

  7. I’ve come across different ideas of satire, though. Is satire just supposed to make you laugh or can it also make you angry? There’s lots of satire out there that riles me up without making me laugh (including The Daily Show) and I consider that to be a job well done. So satire can have a serious purpose too. In which case my mind-numbing philosophical reflections aren’t entirely irrelevant here.

  8. This is quite the liberal’s fantasy, but I’m confident that conservatives tend not to have guilty consciences about their policies. As I show on my blog, American conservative policies are based not on religion but on philosophical naturalism (specifically, social Darwinism). For the so-called conservative, it’s kill or be killed. Regulations are just tools to be exploited by those with the means to do so. Ironically, it’s liberal egalitarianism that depends more on theistic assumptions.

Comments are closed.