With it being the centenary of his birth this year, and everybody else covering it, I thought Dakka should jump on the band wagon and start its own discussion. Also, it's something we're discussing in my history class, so I apologise for using people on this site as guinea pigs, but I actually enjoy the debate on these boards.
So, on this note, let's get started.
Did Reagan really end the cold war?
Does he deserve his reputation for fiscal prudence i.e lowering taxes and reducing federal involvement in trade and commerce.
What about the time he locked up the air traffic controllers? Or the arming of various groups/interests in South America?
Don't be insane. He didn't lock up the air traffic controllers. He fired the bastards for threatening to strike. Government employess have no place being unionized. Even FDR knew that.
Frazzled wrote:Don't be insane. He didn't lock up the air traffic controllers. He fired the bastards for threatening to strike. Government employess have no place being unionized.
Where free Unions and collective bargaining are forbidden freedom is lost.
One of the most elemental rights [is] the right to join a free trade union.
See, thats why you lost the Empire. You made Vampire Queen Victoria sad. Guards...off with his head!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
Franklin Roosevelt (who kicked zombie Hitler's ass the first time with his steam powered bazooka firing wheelchair).
Notice he didn't say anything about a "right to strike" or a "right to shut down businesses."
or banana splits, or movies with monkeys or charbroiled nuns, or why bees seem so keen on jam/jelly yet they spend their time making honey, lazy good for nothing soandsos etc etc ad nauseum.
But there are advantages to being elected President. The day after I was elected, I had my high school grades classified Top Secret.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. (White House Conference on Small Business, August, 1986.)
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. (in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987)
I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.
I found myself telling every visitor there were absolutely no tape recordings being made. And if they wanted a transcript of that remark, just mention it to the potted plant on their way out. (Speech to Annual CPAC, 1982)
I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.
I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.
I hope you're all Republicans. (To surgeons as he entered the operating room, March, 1981)
I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. (When doubts were raised if we was too old for re-election)
(in the West Wing of the White House) There's the problem of leaks. Before we even announced the giveaway of surplus cheese, the warehouse mice had hired a lobbyist. (Speech to Annual CPAC, 1982)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Did Reagan really end the cold war?
No.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Does he deserve his reputation for fiscal prudence i.e lowering taxes and reducing federal involvement in trade and commerce.
Christ no. He increased the federal debt every year in office.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Or the arming of various groups/interests in South America?
To be fair, lots of American Presidents did that. Though is single-minded determination to oppose communism did make him oust the democratic Sandinistas. Well, try to.
Frazzled wrote:
Don't be insane. He didn't lock up the air traffic controllers. He fired the bastards for threatening to strike. Government employess have no place being unionized. Even FDR knew that.
Wrong. PATCO walked out, they actually went on strike, which is the only reason he could take action against them at all. This forced the FAA to hire interim controllers, most unqualified (and many who were formerly members of PATCO, despite what Reagan said regarding lifetime bans), while incurring a significant hit to available flights, only reduced by implementing much of what the Union wanted. Ultimately this lead to PATCO's reformation as an independent organization, that can still strike at will because the FAA can no longer afford to lose 50% flight coverage.
Government employees can unionize regardless of what you want, because giant chunks of the public sector walking out of work tend to put a damper on political will with regard to reigning in their demands. That's why Walker's threat of using the National Guard was such a joke. Its a damn shame employers have to listen to their workers, a damn shame.
I take back what I said about loving debate on this forum!
Kudos to Dogma, for the PATCO point. It's interesting to note that the right wing in the UK seems to have more respect for Reagan than Republicans in the USA.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I take back what I said about loving debate on this forum!
Kudos to Dogma, for the PATCO point. It's interesting to note that the right wing in the UK seems to have more respect for Reagan than Republicans in the USA.
That would probably be considered incorrect. Reagan is treated as the Second Coming in the Republican Party.
dajobe wrote:lol, yeah, republicans(myself included) love reagan.
True, though I never understood why. Well, no, I understand, he lowered taxes and made some speeches about the Soviet Union being an evil empire. But he also basically created the political culture of deficit spending that the modern GOP hates ever so much.
You would think that sort of thing would make people turn on him.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Dajobe, that is exactly the question I'm asking on this forum as it has lots of Americans in it and my class has none. Why do you guys love him?
1. That whole vision thing. For good or ill he stuck to a few important points and kept to it throughout his Presidency. Compare to the current President.
2. Charismatic. He didn't need a telepromptor to talk for two minutes. Compare to the current President.
3. He had a very strong positive view of this country. Compare to the current President.
4. He actually managed to work with the opposite. Reagan and Tip ONeill, althouh disagreeing vociferously on many many topics, actually got things done. Compare to the current President.
5. Vision to win the Cold War. Not just to hold them back, not in 100 years, not in 20 years, but now. Its easy to forget now, but before Reagan the communists were winning.
6. He didn't get us into Iraq but instead Iran vs. Iraq + = PROFIT!
7. That whole 8 million quarters of business growth after the stagflation horror of Obama, er Carter.
uuummmm, good question, if your in a household where no one ever says anything but good things about someone, your probably going to like them, but as for speceific reasons, i'd say its because he lowered taxes and has the image of destroying the Soviet Union. Now whether he actually did or not, cant really say. He was also for "less government" and cut down the funding of organizations such as EPA and medicaid which are not that popular among many republicans. But overall, i'd say its his image as the killer of the CCCP and how he lowered taxes, people tend to ignore things they dont like.
also, i like your avatar, i dont see nearly as many EPL teams logos as i thought i would originally. personally follow manchester city, saw a few games on tv, and now watch all their games online (usually not on tv), and like my carlos tevez jersey! started watching about 2 years ago, this was a good year! sorry about the off topic...
that is probably true, i find myself disagreeing with much of the current republican party because...most are...a little radical in my taste, and found it hard to vote GOP in the last midterm election and if they continue down such a radical road will find it more so. but then again, i find democrats annoying as well...quite the dilemma...i guess i will have to vote on an issue by issue basis. quite the concept for some people
alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.
That's true, a lot of his views are. Unfortunately, the way he dealt with gorbachev isn't going to work with ghaddafi.
Of course, the views of democrats and republicans is like a game of kicks and punches, each one thinks they're better, but if neither of them is doing it right, we all lose.
alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.
That's true, a lot of his views are. Unfortunately, the way he dealt with gorbachev isn't going to work with ghaddafi.
Of course, the views of democrats and republicans is like a game of kicks and punches, each one thinks they're better, but if neither of them is doing it right, we all lose.
I hear what people are saying about his charisma and vision for America, and his deadpan diary entry about being shot is funny as f***! as they say in the UK.
But there is the small matter of the Iran-Contra affair(thank you wikipedia) and Reagan before the HuAC.
So I say this to Reagan admirers: how do you react to these above issues? And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California
alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.
That's true, a lot of his views are. Unfortunately, the way he dealt with gorbachev isn't going to work with ghaddafi.
Of course, the views of democrats and republicans is like a game of kicks and punches, each one thinks they're better, but if neither of them is doing it right, we all lose.
He dealt with Khaddafy by bombing his ass.
That's the only way you can communicate with tyrants. Of course, obama doesn't realise that he's not kennedy, he's not reagan, he's not clinton, he's obama.
But there is the small matter of the Iran-Contra affair(thank you wikipedia) and Reagan before the HuAC.
***Lets see, making money on having two enemies killing each other and then using the proceeds to fight a commie guerrilla movement in central America we didn't like. Sounds positively Caesaresque to me.
So I say this to Reagan admirers: how do you react to these above issues? And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California ***
I am not a fan of Ronaldus Magnus. I think the obscene love for the man amongst older generations is because the US was never more prosperous than under his presidency. Money and jobs were easy to come by, we were at peace but we were strong, the evil empire was collapsing, etc. etc. I.E. - life was good. My generations love for him comes from them hearing their parents talk favorably about those days, but not really truly understanding what he actually did himself, etc.
I personally blame him for starting America's downward spiral into a corporate slave state, and I hold him responsible for 'setting us up the [time] bomb'.
remilia_scarlet wrote:That's the only way you can communicate with tyrants. Of course, obama doesn't realise that he's not kennedy, he's not reagan, he's not clinton, he's obama.
However, he may be Carter.
Not sure if that's better.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:But there is the small matter of the Iran-Contra affair(thank you wikipedia)
Well, first of all, there's no evidence that he was actually engaged in the Iran-Contra "scandal." Second, I fail to see how encouraging the overthrow of a military junta is a bad thing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California
I will admit that this was one of Reagan's failings. Obviously not enough hippies were beaten up at Berkley when he was Governor. Maybe if more hippies had been beaten up they would have left.
Look it up. I feel corporations have too much power these days. The amount of influence they have on the government and on policies is ridiculous. I feel sorry for you if you don't acknowledge this, as you really are blind to reality. CEO's and corporation heads have had something like a 500% increase in income over the past 20 years, while the rest of the country has seen something like a 10% increase over the same period. Corporations are regularly cutting jobs without creating new ones, but are maintaining rather constant levels of productivity and seeing greater profits than ever before, all while paying next to nothing in federal income taxes. What this basically translates to is that corporations and their CEOs/corporate heads are making more money than ever before, while us little folk are making about the same amount of money that we were in the 80s, despite an increased cost of living, inflation, etc. More importantly, it also means that the little folk are doing twice as much work as before for the same pay.
I dont know about you, but I have friends and family that break their backs working 7 days a week, gak hours and gak pay. They haven't had a day off in months. Sure, they have vacation time, but their afraid to use them. There are a lot of people out there that would love to have their jobs, and management knows this. Taking a day off to them is basically asking to be fired and replaced. When they complain about their working conditions to management, the response is 'you're lucky you have a job'.
biccat wrote: Second, I fail to see how encouraging the overthrow of a military junta is a bad thing.
So breaking the law is okay? giving money to the Iranians was okay, especially in today's climate?
How does today's international climate impact whether the decision at the time was correct or not? I would love to see the causal relationship between selling arms to Iran and their current attitude towards us.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California
I will admit that this was one of Reagan's failings. Obviously not enough hippies were beaten up at Berkley when he was Governor. Maybe if more hippies had been beaten up they would have left.
very astute of you, i think that ALL the hippies should have been beaten, mercilessly, because i think hippies suck. And a society with no hippies is a greatly improved society!
chaos0xomega wrote:Look it up. I feel corporations have too much power these days. The amount of influence they have on the government and on policies is ridiculous. I feel sorry for you if you don't acknowledge this, as you really are blind to reality. CEO's and corporation heads have had something like a 500% increase in income over the past 20 years, while the rest of the country has seen something like a 10% increase over the same period. Corporations are regularly cutting jobs without creating new ones, but are maintaining rather constant levels of productivity and seeing greater profits than ever before, all while paying next to nothing in federal income taxes. What this basically translates to is that corporations and their CEOs/corporate heads are making more money than ever before, while us little folk are making about the same amount of money that we were in the 80s, despite an increased cost of living, inflation, etc. More importantly, it also means that the little folk are doing twice as much work as before for the same pay.
I dont know about you, but I have friends and family that break their backs working 7 days a week, gak hours and gak pay. They haven't had a day off in months. Sure, they have vacation time, but their afraid to use them. There are a lot of people out there that would love to have their jobs, and management knows this. Taking a day off to them is basically asking to be fired and replaced. When they complain about their working conditions to management, the response is 'you're lucky you have a job'.
Also, i have seen what CEO's do, 99.99% of the population could not effectively do what they do, which is why they are paid so much, and deserve every penny they earn(usually). True, most people do "deserve" more money, but that is often not feasible to pay every employee the sums that they ask for.
dajobe wrote:Also, i have seen what CEO's do, 99.99% of the population could not effectively do what they do, which is why they are paid so much, and deserve every penny they earn(usually). True, most people do "deserve" more money, but that is often not feasible to pay every employee the sums that they ask for.
While I believe that not at all, there's a massive difference between that and "everyone's a slave!"
But of course this is blindingly off topic.
Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.
chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.
chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.
QFT, if you dont like capitalism(which is basically whats being said), go live somewhere else
chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.
Tenuous at best? I think you're reaching a bit in order to get the result that you want.
chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.
QFT, if you dont like capitalism(which is basically whats being said), go live somewhere else
I hear North Korea is hiring. Protip-you might eat first.
Typical. I think corporations are overstepping their bounds, so I hate capitalism, right? Go get bent.
As for 'reaching a bit' perhaps, but perhaps not. Have you ever heard of dead peasants insurance? Then there is the fact that corporations are their own separate and distinct legal entities with the same rights as an individual (thus able to own property). Then there is the fact that employers have the right to deny you vacation time based on their own criteria. Your boss decides when you get to take your lunch break, etc. etc. etc. In some instances, if its an issue of security clearances, your employer has the right to deny you travel to certain parts of the globe. Of course, this all varies from employer to employer, but some masters are kinder than others. All that is really missing is a formal declaration of ownership. If you do something wrong, they have their ways of punishing you. If you do something right, maybe they will reward you. If you 'run away' by not showing up for a couple days, they alert the authorities of your absence by filing a missing persons report. Is that really that different from a slave owner? Hell, some corporations even make housing their responsibility.
Perhaps slavery is to strong a word, maybe servitude is a better word, but whatever.
In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable. When you have the CEO/chairmans of goldman sachs serving as secretary treasury, and said company receiving billions in taxpayer dollars as part of a 'bailout', that could not be clearer. Here is a rather interesting and eyeopening article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/ pay attention to where the author is from too, its at the end, this isn't some whackjob.
chaos0xomega wrote:Typical. I think corporations are overstepping their bounds, so I hate capitalism, right? Go get bent.
As for 'reaching a bit' perhaps, but perhaps not. Have you ever heard of dead peasants insurance? Then there is the fact that corporations are their own separate and distinct legal entities with the same rights as an individual (thus able to own property). Then there is the fact that employers have the right to deny you vacation time based on their own criteria. Your boss decides when you get to take your lunch break, etc. etc. etc. In some instances, if its an issue of security clearances, your employer has the right to deny you travel to certain parts of the globe. Of course, this all varies from employer to employer, but some masters are kinder than others. All that is really missing is a formal declaration of ownership. If you do something wrong, they have their ways of punishing you. If you do something right, maybe they will reward you. If you 'run away' by not showing up for a couple days, they alert the authorities of your absence by filing a missing persons report. Is that really that different from a slave owner? Hell, some corporations even make housing their responsibility.
Perhaps slavery is to strong a word, maybe servitude is a better word, but whatever.
In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable. When you have the CEO/chairmans of goldman sachs serving as secretary treasury, and said company receiving billions in taxpayer dollars as part of a 'bailout', that could not be clearer. Here is a rather interesting and eyeopening article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/ pay attention to where the author is from too, its at the end, this isn't some whackjob.
Y'know frazzled, I generally enjoy debating with you (actually I'm usually on your side), you've always been a rather level headed poster. The least you could do is approach this discussion with an open mind and treat me with dignity and respect, as I have you.
chaos0xomega wrote:Y'know frazzled, I generally enjoy debating with you (actually I'm usually on your side), you've always been a rather level headed poster. The least you could do is approach this discussion with an open mind and treat me with dignity and respect, as I have you.
You mean other than get bent (well when you're my age, bent is a way of life). Starting off talking about corporate slavery just means know one can take you seriously on this particular thread. Further, this is a thread on Ronald Reagan not the evils of capitalism. But in the spirit of your last post lets reboot.
A negative not often remarked is, in addition to the fall of capitalism, an opening to the doorway of islamofascism via Afghanistan.
What else. SOme really real great one liners and speechmaking abilities that really makes anteceding Presidents appear as lesser men.
Never told you to get bent, I was talking to that other guy that said I hate capitalism.
How about a positive: He reinvigorated the military, and resolved the hollow force that came about with Carter in the 70s... too bad the presidents that came after him haven't been able to keep that up...
chaos0xomega wrote:Never told you to get bent, I was talking to that other guy that said I hate capitalism.
I wasn't taking it as a negative. All neaderthals are bent...AND PROUD!
How about a positive: He reinvigorated the military, and resolved the hollow force that came about with Carter in the 70s... too bad the presidents that came after him haven't been able to keep that up...
True dat. Without Reagan we wouldn't have had cool M1 tanks and stealth aircraft, the staple of anti alien goodness for decades.
Reagan reminded America that we are a great country filled with great people. Not because we are born any differently than anyone else, but that our nation is one of individual freedom and endless possibility. He also had the guts to draw a line in the sand and stand up to communism. Prior to Reagan we had 50 years of cold war. Im not sure I can count how many small 3rd world nations were hurt in the chess match. Reagan ended it through moral leadership, and frankly, simply standing up to them. But we shouldn't forget Lady Thatcher who was every bit Reagan equal. When a people are free from overbearing, overreaching, oppressive government they are free to aspire to any goal, or, if they chose, not. After the garbage of the 60's and 70's, Reagan came along and reminded us who we are, not all our failings. We need another one, quickly.
chaos0xomega wrote:Have you ever heard of dead peasants insurance?
Yes, and I don't see how it's relevant.
chaos0xomega wrote:Then there is the fact that corporations are their own separate and distinct legal entities with the same rights as an individual (thus able to own property).
And this is a bad thing? Allowing corporations to own property is pretty essential to modern business. There's nothing about property ownership that requires an actual person.
chaos0xomega wrote:Then there is the fact that employers have the right to deny you vacation time based on their own criteria.
Not exactly. You could quit and take as long a vacation as you want.
Also, most slaveholders (afaik, I'll admit to not having done a lot of research on the topic) were pretty stingy with vacation time. Probably moreso than most bosses.
chaos0xomega wrote:Your boss decides when you get to take your lunch break, etc. etc. etc.
And he tells me what to do!
chaos0xomega wrote:If you do something wrong, they have their ways of punishing you. If you do something right, maybe they will reward you. If you 'run away' by not showing up for a couple days, they alert the authorities of your absence by filing a missing persons report. Is that really that different from a slave owner? Hell, some corporations even make housing their responsibility.
But you don't get arrested if you fail to show up. And yes, you are rewarded or punished for behavior, but that isn't indicative of slavery.
chaos0xomega wrote:In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable.
No, it's not.
chaos0xomega wrote:When you have the CEO/chairmans of goldman sachs serving as secretary treasury, and said company receiving billions in taxpayer dollars as part of a 'bailout', that could not be clearer.
Assuming what you've said above is true...what's the appropriate response? Giving government more power?
Giving government more power doesn't do anything to lessen "corporate influence" over the government, it simply creates a stronger incentive for corporations to get involved with government.
Its not (a fake), do a bit of research on it, it was even featured in Michael Moores Capitalism: A Love Story. A crazy socialist pig he may be but he researches his stuff pretty thoroughly.
40kFSU wrote:Reagan reminded America that we are a great country filled with great people. Not because we are born any differently than anyone else, but that our nation is one of individual freedom and endless possibility. He also had the guts to draw a line in the sand and stand up to communism. Prior to Reagan we had 50 years of cold war. Im not sure I can count how many small 3rd world nations were hurt in the chess match. Reagan ended it through moral leadership, and frankly, simply standing up to them. But we shouldn't forget Lady Thatcher who was every bit Reagan equal. When a people are free from overbearing, overreaching, oppressive government they are free to aspire to any goal, or, if they chose, not. After the garbage of the 60's and 70's, Reagan came along and reminded us who we are, not all our failings. We need another one, quickly.
While I agree with you that he gave us back our pride, I disagree with you that he ended communism. That was a failing system, and was destined for failure well before Reagan came on the scene. Ultimately, the person, or people responsible for its end were average Soviet citizens. Once Gorbachev started loosening things up, they took the concepts of perestroika and glasnost and ran with it. He never intended for it to go as far as it did, but by the time he realized how far it had gone, it was too late to stop it, it would have been like trying to stop a freight train.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Charismatic. He didn't need a telepromptor to talk for two minutes. Compare to the current President.
Reagan used a teleprompter for every major, public speaking event, and when he didn't he made frequent mistakes.
Frazzled wrote:
3. He had a very strong positive view of this country. Compare to the current President.
One of Obama's campaign slogans was "Yes We Can!"
Frazzled wrote:
5. Vision to win the Cold War. Not just to hold them back, not in 100 years, not in 20 years, but now. Its easy to forget now, but before Reagan the communists were winning.
That's beyond an ignorant statement. You can argue that a lot of people believed they were winning, but at no point did the Soviets have a significant economic or military lead on the United States.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Charismatic. He didn't need a telepromptor to talk for two minutes. Compare to the current President.
Reagan used a teleprompter for every major, public speaking event, and when he didn't he made frequent mistakes.
Frazzled wrote:
3. He had a very strong positive view of this country. Compare to the current President.
One of Obama's campaign slogans was "Yes We Can!"
Frazzled wrote:
5. Vision to win the Cold War. Not just to hold them back, not in 100 years, not in 20 years, but now. Its easy to forget now, but before Reagan the communists were winning.
That's beyond an ignorant statement. You can argue that a lot of people believed they were winning, but at no point did the Soviets have a significant economic or military lead on the United States.
i think that your first and third points have merit to them, but believe that just because a president has a slogan that says something, doesnt necessarily mean he believes it.
chaos0xomega wrote:In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable.
The word you're looking for is plutarchy.
You could fairly easily argue that the US is a plutocracy in that the wealthy have a disproportionate influence on the political process (Nixon's campaign strategist famously did exactly that), but that argument can be made with respect to any system of government that include privately held wealth. Money and power are basically the same thing, only in very few instances can you not buy something. Hell, you can still buy people in most of the world, and not in the sense of influencing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:
i think that your first and third points have merit to them, but believe that just because a president has a slogan that says something, doesnt necessarily mean he believes it.
Of course not, but there's also no reason to believe anything Reagan said. He was a public figure for his whole life in a period of time when the appearance of patriotism was extremely lucrative.
Oh wow Dogma insulting me again, thats so original.
In the 60s: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Hungarian oppression, Czech oppression
in the 70s: Polish oppression, Nicaragua, Afghanistan.
The Reagan doctrine went from defese to offense. The west pushed back and the USSR cratered because it couldn't match the spending needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine
Comparing Obama to Reagan is like comparing, Bush to Reagan.
okay dogma, i will give you that, there is no way that we can prove how either one actually feels about the public, touche, but frazzled is correct i believe also in that reagan and obama are very different as well
I'll note the thread is also about what people thought about Reagan, not lets play semantics and attack posters.
I'd proffer Dogma doesn't have a clue as he wasn't around. This is fine. You youngins!
I'll put forth as another negative, others thought he was an idiot, prone to fall asleep, not get details, and didn't care about the working class-hence the fun about the trickle down economy. But then they ran people like Mondale and wondered why they got the hell beat out of them.
Frazzled wrote:Oh wow Dogma insulting me again, thats so original.
If you didn't say ignorant things, I wouldn't need to describe them as ignorant.
Frazzled wrote:
In the 60s: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Hungarian oppression, Czech oppression
South Vietnam was a victory of Chinese influence, which was never a part of the USSR. They're also still communist.
The Khmer Rouge had no connection to the Soviet Union, and were hated by the Chinese for their genocide of ethnic Chinese. In fact, it was the pro-Soviet Salvation Front that ended the Khmer Rouge domination of the state, where they remain a significant parliamentary force.
Laos was also a victory of Chinese influence, and is still communist.
Oppression in Eastern Europe is irrelevant, as it was essentially a change of Soviet domestic policy, not anything approaching a victory. If anything it exposed the internal divisions in Moscow, and noticeably showed that Moscow was unwilling and unable to deploy its own forces to hold the Eastern Bloc under sway.
Frazzled wrote:
in the 70s: Polish oppression, Nicaragua, Afghanistan.
The oppression of the Poles happened under Gomulka, in the 60's, not Gierek in the 70's. In the 70's the Communist Party attempted to liberalize Poland, which had been distanced from Moscow by Gomulka, and ended up essentially going broke; this lead directly the fall of the Party.
The Sandinistas weren't communists, not in the sense you're using the word.
You're really going to cite Afghanistan as an example of Soviet success? Hell, the Chinese even aided the mujahideen.
Frazzled wrote:
The Reagan doctrine went from defese to offense. The west pushed back and the USSR cratered because it couldn't match the spending needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine
You're conflating Communism with the USSR, which already tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, the Regan Doctrine only went into effect after all of these supposed Soviet success had already failed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
I'll note the thread is also about what people thought about Reagan, not lets play semantics and attack posters.
I'd proffer Dogma doesn't have a clue as he wasn't around. This is fine. You youngins!
So you want to claim that we shouldn't attack posters, and then make a statement which you would clearly interpret as an attack if I made it regarding you?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Did Reagan really end the cold war?
No. It's a bit like claiming the English won the French revolution. I mean, the US certainly benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they didn't do it.
Does he deserve his reputation for fiscal prudence i.e lowering taxes and reducing federal involvement in trade and commerce.
No, his tax cuts significantly reduced revenue from what you'd expect, meanwhile he grew spending incredibly each year in office. The deficit you guys have now has it's origins in Reagan's voodoo economics stupidity.
Or the arming of various groups/interests in South America?
I don't think Americans particularly care about the stupid, expensive and completely immoral shenanigans their government gets up to in South America. In fact, I don't think anyone other than South Americans care. Which is weird, and doesn't say much about the morality of most people, but it is what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Dajobe, that is exactly the question I'm asking on this forum as it has lots of Americans in it and my class has none. Why do you guys love him?
Reagan was lucky enough to come to the presidency during an economic upswing, driven mostly by the personal computing revolution.
Add in a lot of people trying really hard to ignore what Reagan actually did, and you pretty much have the entirety of the cause of Reagan's reputation today. Basically, read 40KSFU's answer. He's so keen to imagine Reagan killed communism that he's let himself believe that having moral leadership caused the Soviet regime to fall down. He seriously let himself believe something that ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:i can think of a place where there are no corporations, and everyone is happy, and there is still a functioning economy...its called imagination land!
I don't agree with the corporate slave state either, but you really need to consider the idea that you can reign in the excesses of corporations and make them more open to public scrutiny, and still have corporations. In fact, you might even consider that under the theories of any major economist, including darlings of the right like Adam Smith, this would produce a more productive, more efficient economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:i think that your first and third points have merit to them, but believe that just because a president has a slogan that says something, doesnt necessarily mean he believes it.
What is this thing? This idea that some presidents believe the US is super-awesome, and some believe it is horrible? How can someone actually believe that is true, or that a means one damn thing even if it were true.
Frazzled wrote:
He dealt with Khaddafy by bombing his ass.
And then Gaddafi had Pan Am 103 destroyed in mid air, along with UTA 772. Clearly the operation was ineffective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Well, first of all, there's no evidence that he was actually engaged in the Iran-Contra "scandal." Second, I fail to see how encouraging the overthrow of a military junta is a bad thing.
I see someone doesn't know anything about Nicaraguan history. The forces Reagan supported, the Contras, were the remnants of the Somoza security forces. You know, the Somoza family which headed the hereditary dictatorship of Nicaragua for 43 years. Compare this to the Sandinista junta (it wasn't a military junta), a conglomeration of rebel groups and corporate interests lead by the FSLN, who held an open election (as certified by everyone except the United States) in which they won an uncontested victory because the United States forced its client parties to abstain from participation. This, of course, occurred in 1984 before Iran-Contra ever took place.
You're right though, no evidence ever directly linked the President himself to the scandal. And it was a scandal. Even if you don't except that it countermanded a Congressional resolution (which it did), it would be scandal for no other reason than political fallout.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
How does today's international climate impact whether the decision at the time was correct or not? I would love to see the causal relationship between selling arms to Iran and their current attitude towards us.
The arms were, initially, sold to forces outside the Revolutionary Guard, which is essentially the center of Iranian military power. It isn't a particularly difficult argument to make once that is known. Though that part of the Iran-Contra affair was far less important to the Iranian opinion of the US than our support of the Shah.
The history is fairly clear on many of the matters that dogma and sebster covered. While those that were either not alive when Reagan was President or were to young to really appreciate the time will have a different view than those that lived through it we're not discussing how it felt to live during that time.
Reagan did a lot of things that at the time seemed like the right decisions. He also gets credit for a lot of things that he had nothing to do with, such as the economy. But at the same time so did Clinton. The presidents have little to no control over the economy when they are in office. Reagan also was in office when the USSR finally collapsed but it would have happened eventually regardless, Reagan did speed it up with his actions though. I think it would be very tough to argue either of those points IMO.
This is a hind sight is 20/20 discussion. Reagan did a lot of things that are screwing us now. Tax cuts with more spending but at the time I think you would have been very hard pressed to find to many people who thought it would lead to what it has. I mean really 14+ trillion dollars of debt? Even the most cynical economist would have choked if they were told that.
I think Reagan was a good President, not great just good, but he's been put on this crazy pedestal by so many people because of how things felt at the time. Which while understandable can be aggravating today since he started the current mess we're in now.
Sebster you are completely incorrect in my opinion . It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue. All you have to know is our current socialist administration fought like hell to keep Bush's tax cuts in place back in December because they knew the economy would collapse further. We have a 1.4 Trillion dolllar deficit because of the idiotic government take over of healthcare and stupid stimulus bill the administration admits failed. The economic upswing didnt start until 2 years after his policies were in place. Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets. Every other president, and pathetic other powers, just accepted them as the status quo. Frankly, the fact you know so much about Reagan is an admission of his greatness. But the fact is, your opinion on him doesn't matter. And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?
If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.
40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.
Point of order.
The government wasn't "small" before 2008. You pretty much have to go back to pre-FDR to find a "small" government in the US. Although both Clinton and GW Bush dramatically increased the size of our government.
40kFSU wrote:Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.
True.
It seems that every 4-8 years we test the limits of just how much of an expansion of government the populace will take. Or, more likely, how far they can extend deficit spending until the bubble bursts.
40kFSU wrote:Sebster you are completely incorrect in my opinion . It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue.
No, that's absolutely wrong. Even the argument from an expanded tax base turns only on the reduction of the tax rate under certain conditions, which are themselves arguably fictitious.
40kFSU wrote:
All you have to know is our current socialist administration fought like hell to keep Bush's tax cuts in place back in December because they knew the economy would collapse further.
This demonstrates a poor grasp of economics. Arguing to avoid raising taxes during an economic downturn does not indicate that lower taxes, in general, spur the economy, or even that they expand government revenue. And that's before we start considering the political significance of conceding to the demands of the opposition party in order to secure the passage of a budget.
40kFSU wrote:
We have a 1.4 Trillion dolllar deficit because of the idiotic government take over of healthcare and stupid stimulus bill the administration admits failed.
No, we have a 1.4 trillion dollard deficit because of the stimulus bill exclusively, which the administration has not called a failure.
40kFSU wrote:
Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets. Every other president, and pathetic other powers, just accepted them as the status quo.
Right, because the Cuban Missile Crisis was a tea party to which Kennedy invited Khrushchev, no US President engaged in negative diplomacy regarding Nasser, and the Nixon administration never opposed Soviet influence in Latin America. And the Korean War? That never happened either. Nor did the conflict in Vietnam (relevant because I assume you're using "Soviets" as a euphemism for "communists").
40kFSU wrote:
Frankly, the fact you know so much about Reagan is an admission of his greatness.
I'm going to bet that you know quite a bit about Jimmy Carter. Clearly was a great man, and President.
40kFSU wrote:
And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?
Deflection. Wheterh or not tax cuts cause problems is a matter of policy, not individual burdens.
cant tell if your serious about the jimmy carter bit...i hope your being sarcastic, just cant tell, because i suck at picking up sarcasm on internet...ignore this if you were being sarcastic.
40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.
During much of the height of American power, basically 1947-1995, the average tax burden was much higher than it is currently. Freedom doesn't really enter into the equation, unless you consider criminal law to be important to freedom, in which case we are freer now then we have ever been.
I have no idea why you believe the turning point was 2008, other than a dislike of Obama, because his administration hasn't been revolutionary in any way. His only significant departure from past administrations has been the healthcare legislation, which is only significant in that it actually passed given that Presidents have been trying to reform the system since Nixon.
I dont like him because he passed a bunch of anti coal laws when he first came to office...but no, his tenure in office thus far has not been revolutionary
40kFSU wrote:Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.
True.
It seems that every 4-8 years we test the limits of just how much of an expansion of government the populace will take. Or, more likely, how far they can extend deficit spending until the bubble bursts.
The populace takes a lot more than they normally would due to the simple fact that government is usually expanded during wartime. The populace writes it off as a necessity to fight the war more effectively, but the expansion is never undone following the war.
40kFSU wrote: And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?
See, that's the problem with this little smoke screen you've thrown out. i AM paying too much in taxes. the Big oil, and the billionaires aren't paying enough. the middle class (which i classify my family at) has been squeezed to the breaking point almost. i don't owe them more. a few big oil companies and Warren Buffett do.
vonjankmon wrote:Reagan did a lot of things that at the time seemed like the right decisions. He also gets credit for a lot of things that he had nothing to do with, such as the economy. But at the same time so did Clinton. The presidents have little to no control over the economy when they are in office.
Yes, definitely.
Reagan also was in office when the USSR finally collapsed but it would have happened eventually regardless, Reagan did speed it up with his actions though. I think it would be very tough to argue either of those points IMO.
People claim the Soviets collapsed because they tried to match US military spending. This is completely untrue;
Rather, the Soviet Union collapsed because an entirely state planned economy is a stupid idea, and one that didn't work. Decades of economic stagnation convinced the Soviets themselves that they had to change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:Sebster you are completely incorrect in my opinion . It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue.
No, it isn't. That statement relies entirely on the highly speculative work of Arther Laffer, who gained political favour during the Reagan administration. But Laffer's work has never been taken seriously by other economists, who have studied the issue of optimal taxation and found the rate of tax maximisation to be around 60 to 65%, and that every developed economy in the world is well and truly short of the point where a tax increase would result in reduced revenue.
So, far from being a "a proven fact", the idea that a lower tax rate grows the tax base is actually a highly speculative idea with a wealth of evidence strongly against it.
All you have to know is our current socialist administration fought like hell to keep Bush's tax cuts in place back in December because they knew the economy would collapse further.
That's plainly untrue. The current administration fought to protect the tax cuts for the middle class, and was forced to compromise with the Republicans, who wanted all tax cuts preserved. Obama did this to keep his pre-election promise, and because tax cuts, along with government spending, are good things to chase in
We have a 1.4 Trillion dolllar deficit because of the idiotic government take over of healthcare and stupid stimulus bill the administration admits failed.
That's just piffle. First up, you're in deficit because you're in the downswing of an economy, during which revenue will be down and expenditures up, simply by the nature of being in downswing. Second up, healthcare spending hasn't even taken effect yet. Thirdly, the stimulus bill didn't have as great an effect as hoped, because it needed to be bigger, but to deny that it had any effect is denying fundamental, base level economics - increasing a primary economic input increases aggregate demand.
Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets.
That's a simply dreadful understanding of history. What do you think the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis were about? Or Vietnam?
Were you aware that Carter actually ramped up military expenditure before Reagan did, for exactly the same reason.
Frankly, the fact you know so much about Reagan is an admission of his greatness.
I also know a lot about Mussolini. Someone can be very famous for being very bad, or, as in this case, very famous because some other people have made the political decision to pretend someone was a lot greater than they were.
But the fact is, your opinion on him doesn't matter.
This is first thing you've said in your post which is true.
And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?
That's a really terrible way of setting tax policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.
The US is actually middle of the road, if you look at government spending as a proportion of GDP. It's at 39%, only marginally ahead of Germany at 43%, roughly equal with Canada, and greater than Australia at 34%.
This idea that the US is somehow miles away from the rest of the developed world, and unique in having low government, is completel piffle.
40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.
Yeah, this is a piece of nonsense that really has to die.
Greece is teetering on the brink of collapse because Greece has always teetered on the brink of collapse. A look at their finances over the last 200 years has shown they've been insolvent for more than half of that time. Historically, it's a have-not country. It's also been a dictatorship in living memory, just like Portugal and Spain.
The kind of corruption inherent in dictatorships doesn't just go away when you turn on the democracy button, the power structures and personal relationships that built the powered elites remain in place. So even once you get elections, you still have these toxic relationships, you still get deals made on the sly, and you get the waste and inefficiency that comes with that.
Meanwhile, the powerhouse economies of Europe are bubbling along as well, or much better than the US. You can cheer and celebrate your self-satisfaction over your ideals of capitalism, but Germany isn't debating whether to increase the debt limit or slide into financial ruin.
What Germany and France are suffering for is attaching their own money supply to weaker European states, and therefore being forced to throw their money in to solve the problems of another country. The lesson to be learned is about not attaching your state to one that is historically shaky, even if things look like they're going alright at the moment, but any greater lesson about the apparent evils of government spending is entirely delusional.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:I lost my aunt about 3 years ago, and she used to say 'piffle' alot.
thanks for using that as much as you do!
This pretty much summarizes my feelings on America's most hilariously overrated president.
Even at age twelve I could tell that Jimmy Carter was an honest man trying to address complicated issues and Ronald Reagan was a brilcreemed salesman telling people what they wanted to hear. I secretly wept on the stairs the night he was elected President, because I understood that the kind of gaks I had to listen to in the cafeteria grew up to become voters, and won. I spent the eight years he was in office living in one of those science-fiction movies where everyone is taken over by aliens—I was appalled by how stupid and mean-spirited and repulsive the world was becoming while everyone else in America seemed to agree that things were finally exactly as they should be. The Washington Press corps was so enamored of his down-to-earth charm that they never checked his facts, but if you watched his face when it was at rest, when he wasn’t performing for anyone, you could see him for what he really was—a black-eyed, slit-mouthed, lizard-faced old son-of-a-bitch. He was a bad actor, an informer for McCarthy, and a hired front man for a gang of Texas oilmen, fundamentalist dingbats, and right-wing psychotics out of Dr. Strangelove. He put a genial face on chauvanism, callousness, and greed, and made people feel good about being bigots again. He likened Central American death squads to our founding fathers and called the Taliban “freedom fighters.” His legacy includes the dismantling of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the final dirty win of Management over Labor, the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base, the embezzlement of almost all the country's wealth by 1% of its citizens, the scapegoating of the poor and black, the War on Drugs, the eviction of schizophrenics into the streets, AIDS, acid rain, Iran-Contra, and, let’s not forget, the corpses of two hundred forty United States Marines. He moved the center of political discourse in this country to somewhere in between Richard Nixon and Augusto Pinochet. He believed in astrology and Armageddon and didn't know the difference between history and movies; his stories were lies and his jokes were scripted. He was the triumph of image over truth, paving the way for even more vapid spokesmodels like George W. Bush. He was, as everyone agrees, exactly what he appeared to be—nothing. He made me ashamed to be an American. If there was any justice in this world his Presidential Library would contain nothing but boys' adventure books and bad cowboy movies, and the only things named after him would be shopping malls and Potter's Fields. Let the earth where he is buried be seeded with salt.
the color purple wrote:He likened Central American death squads to our founding fathers and called the Taliban “freedom fighters.”
The Taliban didn't exist while Reagan was in office, or in politics. He did call the mujaheddin freedom fighters, which they were in the sense that they were fighting for freedom Soviet Occupation.
the color purple wrote:
...the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base...
That's the result of economic reality, not Reagan's policies.
the color purple wrote:
...the embezzlement of almost all the country's wealth by 1% of its citizens...
That's blatantly false. Not the bit about wealth concentration, but the bit about it being the result of embezzlement.
the color purple wrote:
...the scapegoating of the poor and black...
That kind of racism doesn't really exist anymore, not to any significant degree in terms of politics. There is still structural racism, but "blaming the blacks" is about the quickest way you can kill a political career. The issue of blaming the poor predates Reagan by a very long time, even if we're only considering the US.
the color purple wrote:
...AIDS...
Say what? Is this some argument from AIDS as a government conspiracy?
I can't help but point out that the reason China is growing so rapidly is because:
a) It started out so much more behind its competitors.
b) It has such a large population. As the Economist said, "If China can't produce more with its billion people than the US can with 300 million, it's doing something terribly wrong."
Of course, that's off topic, and I'll end my involvement with that debate here.
I will however say that I USED to be a proponent of Reaganomics, and his other policies. However, as times gone on my belief in that theories superiority has faded.
I do believe that Reagan does deserve some credit for turning around American OPINION of the Cold War, to be perfectly frank, the Soviets were never winning the Cold War. They just had some times when they were really good at making us think we were losing. I'd honestly say that the microchip and computers, and the increasing superiority of the Western economies had a far bigger impact in the final collapse of the Soviet Union than Reagan's policy's.
That said, I do still look back at him with a positive eye.
dogma wrote:That kind of racism doesn't really exist anymore, not to any significant degree in terms of politics. There is still structural racism, but "blaming the blacks" is about the quickest way you can kill a political career. The issue of blaming the poor predates Reagan by a very long time, even if we're only considering the US.
It would be more about Reagan using dog whistles on 'state's rights' and 'welfare queens'.
Say what? Is this some argument from AIDS as a government conspiracy?
There's been a lot of criticism that Reagan responded very slowly to AIDS, this is perceived by many people as being because at the time it was just perceived as a disease killing gay people, but I have no idea how true that is, like Bush and Katrina it seems far more natural to figure it was a result of not understanding the scale of a problem until too late. Besides, while Reagan did respond slowly, so did most every other national leader.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:I do believe that Reagan does deserve some credit for turning around American OPINION of the Cold War, to be perfectly frank, the Soviets were never winning the Cold War. They just had some times when they were really good at making us think we were losing. I'd honestly say that the microchip and computers, and the increasing superiority of the Western economies had a far bigger impact in the final collapse of the Soviet Union than Reagan's policy's.
Basically, what caused the communists to lose the cold war is the plain and simple fact that communism is harmful to your economy. Without private industry to innovate, you don't get new technologies developed at anything like the same rate. It's really weird that people who are so opposed to communism would spend so much time trying to ignore the singlest best piece of evidence about why communism is bad.
I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.
Ronald Reagan's biggest accomplishment in presidency was to improve the self confidence that America had by strengthening the nation's economy. He did this by reducing inflation, increasing employment and cutting taxes to nearly 25 percent. He was also instrumental in appointing the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Besides this, be started a war against the drugs
In addition he reduced not just inflation but also regulations. By the mid-1980s, the economy had recovered substantially and was growing.
his approval rating stood at 64 percent.( no easy feat)
TAKE A SEAT! all presidents, even bad ones(jimmy carter, warren harding, cough*obama*cough) have done good things
the color purple wrote:I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.
Well in light of your balanced comment I'd proffer:
*Pissing off democrats.
If you want a real conversation on the merits of the Reagan Presidency, there are a plethora of books. I suggest you consult those, not the rantings of people who have too much time and too little insight on the intrantz. Whenever you have a real question you should consult the libary to get a more balanced and nuanced view.
the color purple wrote:I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.
the color purple wrote:I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.
Resolving the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
-Providing lots of copy material for Saturday Night Live.
-Invading a perfectly good Caribbean island.
-Realizing Lebanon is a mess and getting the hell out, before compounding the error.
-Jelly beans in the White House.
-Not calling himself a jelly donut while telling the Rooskies to tear down that wall.
-Not presiding over 10% unemployment.
-Not presiding when the rating agencies threatened to take down the sovereign credit ratings of the United States.
-Not starting any wars, something none of the Presidents that followed him have done since. Yes, little Timmy there was a time when we weren't involved in four wars at the same time. There was a time when we weren't involved in any wars. I know, sounds like a fairy tale.
Frazzled wrote:
-Not starting any wars, something none of the Presidents that followed him have done since. Yes, little Timmy there was a time when we weren't involved in four wars at the same time. There was a time when we weren't involved in any wars. I know, sounds like a fairy tale.
Apparently when Reagan decides to invade another country with the express purpose of deposing the government in power it doesn't count as a war. Then there's all the various direct naval actions during the Iran-Iraq war, which were at the very least on par with the present Libyan affair. Reagan also deepened the US involvement in Nicaragua, though that was primarily covert.
So Reagan started one war, directly involved the US in another, and used the CIA to try and influence the outcome of the Nicaraguan conflict (whether or not he succeeded is open for debate). And that's before we consider all the various factions his administration overtly and covertly supported via monetary and materiel aid.
I really, really don't know why Reagan inspires so many people to forget the basic facts of his Presidency.
dajobe wrote:The forgetting happens on both sides, some people forget his negatives, some people forget his positives.
I mean, generally I understand that when a person is mythologized he is ascribed traits, both positive and negative, that he is undeserving of. Its just somewhat shocking with Reagan given that he wasn't in office all that long ago, and there are plenty of reliable sources of information regarding what he didn't do. He isn't like one of the Founders, who are sufficiently removed from current events to expect inaccuracies in the perception of their legacies.
I would rank the man as one of the best President is history (I'm not big on specific rankings), but the mythology built up around him is more deceptive than the one around FDR, or even Lincoln and Washington.
Oops, this is a Reagan thread! As Frazzed said, you want facts, go read a book or something - facts don't belong here! We're supposed to be talking about how Reagan made us feel good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
-Not starting any wars, something none of the Presidents that followed him have done since. Yes, little Timmy there was a time when we weren't involved in four wars at the same time. There was a time when we weren't involved in any wars. I know, sounds like a fairy tale
dajobe wrote:Ronald Reagan's biggest accomplishment in presidency was to improve the self confidence that America had by strengthening the nation's economy. He did this by reducing inflation, increasing employment and cutting taxes to nearly 25 percent.
But Reagan didn't reduce inflation. He happened to president while the cost of supply (read as 'oil') was reducing, bringing inflation down. His own policies, tax cuts coupled with spending increases, were inflationary.
Nor did he strengthen the economy. He happened to be President at a time when the economy was recovering from economic downturn, and being driven by new investment thanks to new technological developments. Don't thank Reagan for the recovery, thank the microchip.
Nor were the tax cuts effective in driving economic growth - they have a very poor stimulus effect. Reagan also increased taxes subsequently, as even he could admit he'd made a mistake, though every die-hard Republican since has tried to pretend he didn't.
Besides this, be started a war against the drugs
That was Nixon, and all he really did was give it a name, the trend towards increasingly strong policies against drug use is now almost a century old. Given it's pretty poor results, I'm also not sure it's anything to be proud of.
his approval rating stood at 64 percent.( no easy feat)
This is basically it, isn't it? The entire cause for people loving Reagan. Because he's the last Republican president that people liked, so they exaggerate how liked he was, and ignore all the stupid stuff he did in office. I wonder if this is why the left wing loved the gak out of Kennedy, until Clinton came along.
40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.
Point of order.
The government wasn't "small" before 2008. You pretty much have to go back to pre-TR/Wilson to find a "small" government in the US. Although both Clinton and GW Bush dramatically increased the size of our government.
Fixed!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do feel there is a bit of rose-colored-glasses with Reagan, but he was one of the few President's in US history that had extremely high approval ratings, managed to get an opposition party to cooperate multiple times and made most people feel better about their situations after Carter's abysmal 4 years. You know it's bad if the Democrat Party runs someone against you in a Primary. Especially Ted Kennedy.
Yes and no. Yes his policies helped end the cold war, but not he can not be given all the credit. His cold war anti communist policies were not really all that different from George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, or Eisenhower, and the Soviet Union pretty much had the same problems attempting to keep up with us in an arms race over a 30+ year period of time before they collapsed. That and the Soviet Union technically collapsed under HW Bush's watch.
Does he deserve his reputation for fiscal prudence i.e lowering taxes and reducing federal involvement in trade and commerce.
Yes, but the thing to keep in mind is when he took office tax rates were much higher than they are right now. The higher tax rates are the greater the + effect will be of lower taxes, and the lower tax rates are the lesser the + effect is of lowering taxes. Tax rates in 2011 are the lowest they have been since Eisenhower, so lowering tax rates now will have less of a + effect now than they did back when tax rates were much higher before Reagan went into office.
What about the time he locked up the air traffic controllers? Or the arming of various groups/interests in South America?
No sympathy for the air traffic controllers. Easily exploitable public sector workers that have few job options such as sanitation crews exc should by all means have the right to go on strike. IMO it's extremely unethical for highly payed professional public sector workers that are responsible for immediate public safety such as air traffic controllers or police to go on strike. Doing so at best hold the entire nation's economy hostage , and at worst places human lives in danger. Society can sustain a 50 day teacher's strike, but we can not sustain a 15 day police strike without descending into complete anarchy or martial law.
The Soviet union or Cuba backs 1 group of armed thugs South America + the USA backs another group of armed thugs in South America=South Americans pointlessly die as pawns. Business as usual, and pretty much the same things were going on under Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK.
Did he have an affair with our Maggie!
No they were both pretty much prudes, but nobody has dis-proven Clinton having an affair with princess Diana.
schadenfreude wrote:That and the Soviet Union technically collapsed under HW Bush's watch.
Hey, now! We all know he stood up to those godless commies and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", and sure enough, by the power of Reagan, it came down!*
*2 and a half years later, when George H.W. Bush had been in office over 11 months
schadenfreude wrote:
Yes and no. Yes his policies helped end the cold war, but not he can not be given all the credit. His cold war anti communist policies were not really all that different from George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, or Eisenhower, and the Soviet Union pretty much had the same problems attempting to keep up with us in an arms race over a 30+ year period of time before they collapsed. That and the Soviet Union technically collapsed under HW Bush's watch.
The problem is that there isn't any evidence that the Soviet Union tried to keep pace with the US in terms of defense spending, which at least suggests that the arms race had no material effect on the Soviet collapse. You could argue that there was a sort of morale effect which contributed to the dissolution of the USSR, but that ignores the role of the Brezhnev Doctrine, and the greater autonomy it granted to satellites of Moscow, which basically became a policy of non-engagement with respect to revolutions in Eastern Bloc states.
Put differently, the collapse of the USSR had very little to do with the peripheral conflicts between it and the United States, and everything to do with the abysmal Soviet economy.
schadenfreude wrote:Did Reagan really end the cold war?
Yes and no. Yes his policies helped end the cold war, but not he can not be given all the credit. His cold war anti communist policies were not really all that different from George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, or Eisenhower, and the Soviet Union pretty much had the same problems attempting to keep up with us in an arms race over a 30+ year period of time before they collapsed. That and the Soviet Union technically collapsed under HW Bush's watch.
No, seriously, this is just wrong. I've already referenced CIA studies that showed Soviet spending did not increase in response to US defence spending increases.
The Soviet Union collapsed because communism doesn't work. That's all that caused it.
Yes, but the thing to keep in mind is when he took office tax rates were much higher than they are right now. The higher tax rates are the greater the + effect will be of lower taxes, and the lower tax rates are the lesser the + effect is of lowering taxes. Tax rates in 2011 are the lowest they have been since Eisenhower, so lowering tax rates now will have less of a + effect now than they did back when tax rates were much higher before Reagan went into office.
Lowering tax rates is about the worst possible form of stimulus. If you want to credit Reagan with any element of the recovery, it would be his increased spending - but I suspect that doesn't get talked about because conservatives don't like accepting the positive effects of increased spending.
The Soviet union or Cuba backs 1 group of armed thugs South America + the USA backs another group of armed thugs in South America=South Americans pointlessly die as pawns. Business as usual, and pretty much the same things were going on under Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK.
While South America has long been a playground for US presidents, Reagan amped up the stakes, though, and backed some pretty crappy people.
sebster wrote:
While South America has long been a playground for US presidents, Reagan amped up the stakes, though, and backed some pretty crappy people.
To illustrate:
The Contras (read: Somozas: authoritarians), Noriega, Plan Mexico (which ended up funding the present cartels), Plan Colombia, Pinochet, the rest of Condor (which saw huge funding increases under Reagan), and many more.
And then there's the School of Americas which, under Reagan, saw its funding tripled.
....
