-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:44:54 PM
What is it about the most overrated POTUS of the 20th century that engenders such "lobotomized" idolization from P&R board conservatives ? The guy racked up huge deficits, turned tail in Lebanon when almost 400 Marines died, & in the later Alzheimer's stages of his Presidency, became embroiled in the Iran-Contra affair.
But, yet,"righties" on this board think of him as the second coming of Jesus Christ----or, better yet, Elvis--------
-- Modified on 7/17/2010 10:12:36 PM
-- Modified on 7/17/2010 10:38:23 PM
-- Modified on 7/17/2010 10:38:50 PM
Ronald Reagan's policies led to ultimate victory in the Cold War, and the ever present threat of nuclear war that existed then. Also, the USA was mired in the stagflationary malaise of the utterly disastrous Carter presidency when he took office...Reagan cut taxes, brought inflation under control, and set the stage for the rebirth of sustained economic growth.
As for deficits, your boy currently in office is unparalleled at that. As for Lebanon, would you have supported an invasion, or turning the dogs of war loose on Syria and Iran? I know I would have loved to have seen both of those shit stain countries left in flaming ruins after that, courtesy of the USAF and Navy. As for Iran-contra, it did ultimately lead to Daniel Ortega having call to for free elections, and his ouster as premier of Nicaragua. Also, I regard Oliver North as a true patriot, who took the heat for the whole affair, shielding his president from much of the political firestorm.
Compared to our current President, I would prefer Reagan any day...
Reich wing talking points have given Reagan the victory in the cold war. I wonder if that ever pissed George Bush Sr. off, since he was actually the guy in office when the Soviet Union collapsed. The guy you should give credit to is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
I think it's funny that you give Reagan credit for ending stagflation and lowering interest rates. Those high interest rates is what ended the stagflation caused not by Carter, but by Nixon (war spending in Vietnam). Give Paul Volcker the credit he deserves. HE solved that problem.
Reagan tripled the national debt. Not only did he triple it, but it created the circumstances which made the future national debt possible.
Of course, it's all moot until everyone accepts that to solve our debt problem we have to cut spending AND raise taxes.
From God. Amen!
First, let's don't use the word "triple" when talking about the deficit. Let's put it in dollars. Reagan added about $2T in today's dollars. Obama in 2 years has added $3.1T to the deficit. Which is worse? What's the deficit projection if Obama lasts until 2016? $6T, $8T, $10T? Question is, what are we getting for that deficit?
Reagan had to clean up Carter's mess, and Obama has to clean up Bush's mess. Reagan started with 21% interest rates, 12% inflation, 8% unemployment. Obama has basically 0% interest rates, 2% inflation, and 7.7% unemployment when he assumed office. So far interest rates and inflation rates are still low, but unemployment is roughly 10%. Probably more like 12% when you factor in the folks who have quit looking.
Since the stock market is the best barometer on how the economy is and will do, let's use a simple measure...the S&P 500, a nice broad index. The S&P increased 120% in Reagan's 8 years. Now see Obama to match Reagan, the S&P has to reach 1848 by 2016. Think that's going to happen?
I'll let somebody discuss the Cold War, Iran Contra affair, and stuff like that.
I corrected some typos---as one with a "pedantic" reputation, didn't wanna get "nailed".
That's the truth------like RR, a "man of my word".
but NOT this time-------
there have been many not much different from your OP here. Why bring it up again? The result will always be the same. There is a name for that behavior.
...under Reagan the national debt TRIPLED. Before Reagan came around we were the world's leading creditor nation. He left office as the US being the world's leading debtor nation.
To boot, under his administration unemployment reached double digit levels, the first time it had done so since the Great Depression.
His policies also led to the stock market crash of 1987. If it hadn't been for Allen Greenspan saving Reagan's ass, it would have marked the beginning of a massive recession, possibly a new depression.
To top that off, Reagan prolonged the Cold War by ratcheting up the arms race, which gave the Soviet economy a boost when it really needed it. Had he followed the advice from the Carter administration and covertly bled them dry in Afghanistan, the Soviets could have been gone years before hand.
On top of all this, Reagan oversaw the whole sale dismantling of American industry, turning Michigan into the rust belt, and allowing Japan to become a major economic power over us by letting them have their way the chip cartels. American electronics manufacturing has never been the same since.
On top of that, he let neoconservative lunatics take over in the White House, who were so delusional that they said that the Soviets were behind every major terrorist organization in the world. It's no surprise that's gone down the memory hole.
And speaking of terrorists, under Reagan he allowed the CIA to give vital needed training to Osama bin Laden and his merry band of jackasses. That turned out well, didn't it?
Of course, the jackass never would have gotten into office if he hadn't struck a deal with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election was over, and on top of that give arms to the terrorist Contras in violation of the law. Support that led to scores of attrocities from death squads, including the rape and murder of 4 American nuns.
On top of that he made a deal with Greenspan to cut taxes on the filthy rich by 50% so he could double FICA taxes on working people, and then use that money to fund the federal budget, all the while putting Social Security at risk of finanical solvancy, a program that keeps half of this country's elderly out of poverty.
An administration that was so corrupt and criminal that 225 officials had to resign, and 138 getting convicted, the most in US history.
Not to mention the savings and loan scandal, and rigging HUD low price housing grants to Republican contributors. Similar scandals happened over at the EPA by using Superfund grants to help the election prospects of the Republican party.
Reagan was a grade A piece of shit, and quite possibly the worse President in US history.
Got only only comment willy....you're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey!
If you read this book, you will see that at that time, everyone accepted the existence of the USSR as a given, with that assumption that it was just an alternate type of system. We had ours and they had theirs and who was to say which was "better."
Indeed, Arthure Schleninger was once asked if he could say whether the U.S. was a better system, and he could not. (Sorry,I don't remember the exact words,but that was the gist.)
I was a Soviet Studies major in those days and never met anyone at university who had a different view.
This is in spite of the fact that the USSR killed its own citizens in times of peace in numbers that exceeded anything the US did in times of war.
These three people recognized the evils of the USSR and would not accept it. Once Reagan was asked how the cold war would end. He said, "We win. They lose."
"Accepting" the USSR would be like saying, "Well, Nazi Germany voted in Hitler. Who are we to say he is running a bad system."
The book goes on to explain the pressure that these three exerted in ways no prior forces had done.
That is reason enough.
Finally, concur in statements re deficit. For Dems to bad mouth RR for his deficit is beyond silly.
The system was aberrant & unsustainable; differing viewpoints give the majority of the evil empire's collapse to Gorbachev.
As for the Pope, thought he was too preoccupied with choir boys to give a shit about the Cold War.
There is no reason to believe that is true. China has persisted.
Aberrant systems survive for a long time.
Gorby could not hold the system together. he didn't lead to its collapse.
Finally, the gratiutous slur on the Pople is cute, but ignores the facts. Even if the was boinking every boy under 10 years old,that doesn't mean he can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
You also make up a pure falsehood when you say he didn't give a shit about the Cold War. There is a huge amount of evidence that he was active in the resistence to the USSR from his early days as a priest. But what the heck. Make up anything.
Ironically, you poo-poo his impact, but when he was elevated, the KGB in Moscow wired the branch in Rome furious that they would allow the Polish guy to get the job. But you must know more than the KGB.
If you look at his actions in building the church under Polish restrictions, you can see how dangerous he was. When a third of the country showed up at his visit, the system started to implode.
when Reagan defeated Carter. Eight years later we were well on the road to decades of prosperity. Not to mention our elavated stature internationally, Carter made us an international joke and paper tiger. Reagan made the world believe that we had the political will to back up our "promises", Just ask Quadaffi. lol
It will take another leader with the strength of Reagan to undo all the damage Obama/Pelosi/Reid are doing to this country. Unfortunately I don't believe there is one like him in sight.
as for RR's legacy leaving us better of when he departed office,there are differing schools on that. I say he left us worse off, for reasons enumerated here previously.
"Bonzo" bombed Qaddafi's tent, killing the dictator's adopted son---------BFD. RR always went after easy targets ( Grenada was another one ). He SHOULD how gone after Iran, but was too cowardly to do so--instead the Alzheimer-riddled imbecile traded arms for hostages with that repressive regime.
In 1980, during the election, the country was given the unenviable choice of Carter or Reagan----------I couldn't bring myself to vote for either idiot,so I voted for John Anderson ( remember him ? ) a symbolic but futile gesture.
'84 was a worse choice : RR Vs Mondale ( the biggest mangina candidate ever ) I opted not to vote for EITHER POTUS choice.
GaG, the reason you & other board conservatives like RR, was, because,to you guys,he was an "effective cheerleader."
What I suggest to board conservatives, if you want a good "cheerleader", hire a good provider---------unlike RR, she'll get your rocks off & won't run up your deficit ( unless she's too expensive----LOL ! )
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:38:50 AM
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:43:13 AM
King of fools indeed-------LOL !
Where did you get hold of my wedding pictures? LMAO
I see his post was taken down--------maybe I should take down the Quasimodo pic--------NOT !------------LMFAO !
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:50:00 AM
And don't forget those SCOTUS appts...He nominated Scalia, thankfully Bork was defeated...Can you imagine some of the decisions that would have been rendered since 1987 if you replaced Anthony Kennedy w/Bork...Republicans love to blame Arlen Specter for helping defeat Bork, but 5 other Republican senators voted no on his confirmation...
Also under RR, the taxpayer travesty that was the Meese Commission occured...
The religous right/moral majority was thrust into power during his administration...
although much of it has been undone, the tax reform act of 1984 was the best piece of tax leglislation in history. Idiots like WW claim it was a tax cut for the rich, but it closed so many loopholes, and at least temporarily simplified the code to where a lay person could almost understand it.
Prior to 1984 the tax code was so complicated and so full of holes any one with half a brain and plenty of money could avoid paying taxes altogether. So much time and money was spent sheltering income, legitimate deals couldn't compete.
Little pea brains like Willy will never understand this, but let me give you the short version. In the "good old days" of 70%-90% marginal tax rates, blatant tax shelters were also legal. A typical mining or oil tax shelter would go something like this:
An high income investor would sign a contract with a promoter to invest lets say a million dollar in a tax shelter, He would put up $100K in cash and sign a "non recourse" note for the other $900K, the venture would generate about an $800K tax write off for the tax year in which the investment was made creating a $720K tax savings on a total cash outlay of only $100K, the deals were invariably bogus and no gold was ever mined or oil ever produced, but no one gave a fuck. The $900K was non recourse, meaning it never had to be paid back so the end result is the investor ended up $620K to the good, the promoter pocketed the entire $100K down payment, and the only loser was the US Treasury which of course had to make up that revenue somehow.
None of this was rocket science, as a kid in my early twenties I was making mid six digits as a simple salesman. My point is the tax reform act of 1984 made the system more fair than ever before or since. It was a great accomplishment, but just one of many that Reagan made. Liberals have a completely different spin on this, but the facts speak for themselves. Before Reagan, only stupid millionaires paid any taxes. Most rich people still manipulate the system, but not to the extent they did before 1984.
No one emerged since the super hero rode off to the sunset. Next cowboy didn't do well even though the cow boy was in charge for 8 years.
While the lefties discount him as senile, etc. Gorby took him very seriously.
Gorby wrote that when RR fired the air controlers and stood by his guns, Gorby knew this was a man who needed to be recond with.
Thereafter, Gorby had real respect for him.
Let's contrast him to someone in charge now. President Obama is trying to convince Iran he is a serious player. However, when Obama made demands of piss-poor, little Honduras, the Hondorans stood up and said, "Who the hell are you to tell us what to do? You can't tell us what to do."
When Honduras defied Obama, it sure made Iran realize this is not a man that can follow through.
delete.
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:44:15 PM
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:44:54 PM
He gave them arms for hostages. We know how well that went. Iran was also responible for '83 Beirut Barracks bombing. Reagan didn't strike against them.
Tough guy.
priapus, one reason for the 'huge' deficits was the money Reagan needed to rebuild the military after Carter decimated it. Had we been invaded by Panama, we would have lost that battle. It was that bad. There were many B-52's loaded with fake nukes that were not able to fly. Put up for show for the Soviet satellites. Ammunition was in short supply, as were operable tanks, APC's, fighter jets, etc....For fuck's sake, when Carter was POTUS, we used to paint silouettes of F-4 Phantom jets on the tarmac to fool the Soviets into thinking we had more planes combat ready, and not stacked up in the maintenance hangars, which they were. Pull your blinders off man.
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 8:34:19 PM
Reminds me of that ultra paranoid movie "Red Dawn" which depicted Soviet invasion of U.S. Guess our nuke arsenal didn't deter them back then, right Jersey ? Why didn't they strike when Carter was POTUS ? All they did was invade Afghanistan, which was a disaster for them.
Pull off your paranoid blinders, man.
The soviets were led to believe by our deceptions into thinking we were stronger than we actually were. If they only knew.
Oh, right, you compare that situation to some fucking movie I never heard of. Smart, real smart.
A lot you haven't heard of, eh, Jersey ?----------
-- Modified on 7/18/2010 9:12:20 PM
Wasn't much operational to speak of, when Carter was in the Oval office.
Very much like saying my dick is bigger than yours.
Imperialism eventually fails. What is this fantasy of ruling over every one else? Never works and never will.
Reagan was smart and sold BS to Americans and some of them bought it. Everything he did, we are paying for it now. As far as Republicans are concerned, they don't have anyone they can sell to the public so, they find fault anything and everything.
Before you start criticizing someone’s assertions, it’s best to know their sources. Jerseyflyer has shared enough of his history that his assessments of past military operations should be given wide berth.
And just what is your definition of imperialism? What does the imperial United States have to show for all its conquests? Guam? Puerto Rico? We took the Philippines off that long list during the reign of GHWB in the early 90’s because the Philippine government asked us to do so. The real credit for leaving actually belongs to none other than Carter. Given the finishing touches applied by Mt. Pinatubo it turned out to be a pretty good deal. Or maybe your imperialist evidence dates back to our conquest of Texas and the American southwest?
If we were imperialists, the Star Spangled Banner would be flying over places like the Eiffel Tower but instead all we asked for were a few acres in Normandy to bury our dead.
There were indeed times during the Cold War (WWIII more correctly) that we meddled in the affairs of other countries, several times covertly propping up regimes friendly to us. But it wasn’t done to conquer these nations. It was done to keep the Soviet Union from having their way with them. So call the United States a self serving bully from time to time but don’t misuse the word imperialist.
knows a lot more about strategic military operations than I do and certainly anything that has to do with flying. His assessment of past military operations should be given respect.
There is real WW II history and there is the American Version. There were many people who fought valiantly in WW II. I am going to stop at that and not willing to get into the BS.
I can only assume you misinterpreted something I wrote.
Or let's put it another way, how is the "American" version of the history of WWII wrong? And why are you afraid to share it with us?
Carter did down size the Military, but at the time we still had the most powerful military in the world. We had a bigger military in 1979 than we have today.
As for an invasion from Panama. They only had a National Guard (that was both a National Defense Force and National Police). Not to mention several thousand US Military stationed in Panama.
Your post is complete BS and you can't back it up with any facts!
that? If you meant to say bull shit, go ahead and say it. Don't try to be cute. Bovine is the female gender, and excremate is not in my Funk and Wagnel, doesn't exist. You probably meant to say excrement, huh? I prefer using equine excrement when I'm trying to make a slanderous point, you know, horse shit.
Btw, this is not intended as a spelling, or english language lesson. It is meant to help me from getting very pissed off at your comments. In 1979, we made have had a bigger military than today, but it was not nearly as effective as the present day military. If you think it was the most powerful, you have been mislead by someone, or read an inaccurate news articles. But we sure pulled a snow job on the Soviets. Bigger doesn't always mean the best, especially when a goodly portion of the equipment is inoperative due to lack of funding. Post Vietnam era, most in DC government just wanted the military to go away. The democrats are working on that continually. When Clinton wanted Gore to reinvent, and 'downsize' the federal government, he did so by telling 350,000 active duty troops to bounce on out. Obama is doing the same. Even with two wars in progress, the active duty manpower strength is being reduced. The USAF alone is programed to lose 35,000-40,000 over the next year. Why the hell do you think the National Guard and Reservists are being called up routinely? Facts? You want facts? I'm one of the fucking facts.....first hand.
If willy had his way, the military would be completely eliminated by cutting the DOD budget. Then, the civil servants in DC would have to learn how to use an M-16, or M-69, or SAW weapon. That would be a hoot. Oh sorry, that's right. He wouldn't pass the fucking drug test, toker that he is.
strongest and most respected leader this country has ever had.
He won two elections by landslide margins, so obviously he was liked by a strong majority of Americans and not just the right-wing types.