Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ronald Reagan: Good, Bad Or Illusion?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ronald Reagan: Good, Bad Or Illusion?

    Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:

    Reagan "brought the American Economy back" from the mess it had been in the Carter years, when unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits.

    However, Reagan did it with deficit spending, running up bills he had no intention of paying. Reagan was also the first president to propose a three trillion dollar budget, financed mostly through deficit spending. Now those Reagan-era bills are coming due.

    Further, Reagan's example made it "okay" for the Bush administrations (father and son) to run up huge bills on the national credit card and leave them for "some Democrat" to worry about. We're still paying for those messes, too; or we would be if the Republicans in Congress would get off their well-financed posteriors and work on the budget problem.

    Reagan's way of "balancing the budget" included increasing the FICA ("Social Security") tax while at the same time cutting benefits. Does this sound familiar? By the way, the "savings" from those moves were raided by Congress to pay for other things.

    And if that wasn't enough, Reagan also invented "trickle-down economics" -- otherwise known as tax breaks for the rich -- on the theory that more money in the hands of "job creators" would mean more jobs. This ignored the fact that many of those "job creators" spent their tax break money on themselves and/or sending what used to be American jobs to third-world countries. And China. This is yet another thing that George Bush The Younger learned from his political idol. We're still paying for that mess, too.

    Reagan got America involved directly in Grenada. He also financed the anti-communist wars in Nicaragua and El Salvadore, among other places. In the process, Reagan financed real-life death squads and violations of just about every human right imaginable, then looked the other way. Why? Because "Contras are our friends." More to the point, they were "not commies," which was his prime worry.

    And just for funsies, Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Bengazzi in Libya as tit-for-tat revenge for the bombing of a night club in Germany, even though there was not sufficient proof that Libya was behind that attack.

    In order to do that, Reagan financed his secret proxy wars with money he got from secretly trading arms with Iran -- our sworn enemy -- even though it was illegal. Then he hung Oliver North out to take the blame.

    Speaking of funding terrorists, Reagan also funded the mujahideen -- including a young Usama bin Laden -- in Afghanistan because they were "fighting communists." He also financed Sadam Husseine, the dictator of Iraq, in his war with Iran because Iraq was "not Iranian." Guess who sponsored terrorism against the Untied Skates, and who oppressed his people so badly that George Bush The Younger went to war with him. Or did "The Shrub" fight Husseine becuse his daddy (Bush the Elder) went to war with Iraq to "liberate Kuwait" (whose royal family had oil-money ties to the Bush family), and because "Sadam tried to kill my father at one time."

    Reagan's administration was involved in scandals that included:

     

     

    And a whole bunch of other things which, if Obama had done them, would have the resident "conservatives" around here demanding his removal from office.

    A lot of people have forgotten about, Reagan is viewed as a "conservative hero" by some people. That's why they want him back in office, and "that [racial epithet deleted] out. But given the above, is Reagan really the great saint and saviour of the Republic people claim? Or was he even worse than Obama? And the mentor/role model for the Republican politicians and Republican presidents who followed him?

    There are the facts and here is the web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration

    What say you to this?

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
    How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

    Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

    Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

    And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

  • #2

    Reagan was a clusterphuck for America. He was loved because he had a great personality but we're still paying the bill for his reign.

    "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4715

    Comment


  • #3
    Bad
    I'm not a gynecologist, but I'll be glad to take a look

    Float like a butterfly, sting like VD

    What happens up north, stays up north

    Comment


    • #4

      The Badger wrote:

      Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:

      Reagan "brought the American Economy back" from the mess it had been in the Carter years, when unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits.

      However, Reagan did it with deficit spending, running up bills he had no intention of paying. Reagan was also the first president to propose a three trillion dollar budget, financed mostly through deficit spending. Now those Reagan-era bills are coming due.

      Further, Reagan's example made it "okay" for the Bush administrations (father and son) to run up huge bills on the national credit card and leave them for "some Democrat" to worry about. We're still paying for those messes, too; or we would be if the Republicans in Congress would get off their well-financed posteriors and work on the budget problem.

      Reagan's way of "balancing the budget" included increasing the FICA ("Social Security") tax while at the same time cutting benefits. Does this sound familiar? By the way, the "savings" from those moves were raided by Congress to pay for other things.

      And if that wasn't enough, Reagan also invented "trickle-down economics" -- otherwise known as tax breaks for the rich -- on the theory that more money in the hands of "job creators" would mean more jobs. This ignored the fact that many of those "job creators" spent their tax break money on themselves and/or sending what used to be American jobs to third-world countries. And China. This is yet another thing that George Bush The Younger learned from his political idol. We're still paying for that mess, too.

      Reagan got America involved directly in Grenada. He also financed the anti-communist wars in Nicaragua and El Salvadore, among other places. In the process, Reagan financed real-life death squads and violations of just about every human right imaginable, then looked the other way. Why? Because "Contras are our friends." More to the point, they were "not commies," which was his prime worry.

      And just for funsies, Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Bengazzi in Libya as tit-for-tat revenge for the bombing of a night club in Germany, even though there was not sufficient proof that Libya was behind that attack.

      In order to do that, Reagan financed his secret proxy wars with money he got from secretly trading arms with Iran -- our sworn enemy -- even though it was illegal. Then he hung Oliver North out to take the blame.

      Speaking of funding terrorists, Reagan also funded the mujahideen -- including a young Usama bin Laden -- in Afghanistan because they were "fighting communists." He also financed Sadam Husseine, the dictator of Iraq, in his war with Iran because Iraq was "not Iranian." Guess who sponsored terrorism against the Untied Skates, and who oppressed his people so badly that George Bush The Younger went to war with him. Or did "The Shrub" fight Husseine becuse his daddy (Bush the Elder) went to war with Iraq to "liberate Kuwait" (whose royal family had oil-money ties to the Bush family), and because "Sadam tried to kill my father at one time."

      Reagan's administration was involved in scandals that included:

       

       

      And a whole bunch of other things which, if Obama had done them, would have the resident "conservatives" around here demanding his removal from office.

      A lot of people have forgotten about, Reagan is viewed as a "conservative hero" by some people. That's why they want him back in office, and "that [racial epithet deleted] out. But given the above, is Reagan really the great saint and saviour of the Republic people claim? Or was he even worse than Obama? And the mentor/role model for the Republican politicians and Republican presidents who followed him?

      There are the facts and here is the web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration

      What say you to this?


      I say you quoted a liberal source that is about as dependable as a perforated condom. I would tear this completely apart but it is not worth the time and it won't change your mind so who really gives a **************** what you think. It is beyond me why you ****************************s continue to bring this up. Fact: Ronald Reagan carried 49 of 50 states in 1984. He only lost Mondale's home state by 3500 votes. Now who do you think I'm gonna believe? You or 100 million Americans? Give it up but feel free to pick on either Bush all you want. They both sucked.

      Help me understand...we need to attack Syria because Syria attacked Syria?

      Comment


      • The Badger
        The Badger commented
        Editing a comment

        Jack Walker wrote:

        The Badger wrote:

        Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:

        Reagan "brought the American Economy back" from the mess it had been in the Carter years, when unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits.

        However, Reagan did it with deficit spending, running up bills he had no intention of paying. Reagan was also the first president to propose a three trillion dollar budget, financed mostly through deficit spending. Now those Reagan-era bills are coming due.

        Further, Reagan's example made it "okay" for the Bush administrations (father and son) to run up huge bills on the national credit card and leave them for "some Democrat" to worry about. We're still paying for those messes, too; or we would be if the Republicans in Congress would get off their well-financed posteriors and work on the budget problem.

        Reagan's way of "balancing the budget" included increasing the FICA ("Social Security") tax while at the same time cutting benefits. Does this sound familiar? By the way, the "savings" from those moves were raided by Congress to pay for other things.

        And if that wasn't enough, Reagan also invented "trickle-down economics" -- otherwise known as tax breaks for the rich -- on the theory that more money in the hands of "job creators" would mean more jobs. This ignored the fact that many of those "job creators" spent their tax break money on themselves and/or sending what used to be American jobs to third-world countries. And China. This is yet another thing that George Bush The Younger learned from his political idol. We're still paying for that mess, too.

        Reagan got America involved directly in Grenada. He also financed the anti-communist wars in Nicaragua and El Salvadore, among other places. In the process, Reagan financed real-life death squads and violations of just about every human right imaginable, then looked the other way. Why? Because "Contras are our friends." More to the point, they were "not commies," which was his prime worry.

        And just for funsies, Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Bengazzi in Libya as tit-for-tat revenge for the bombing of a night club in Germany, even though there was not sufficient proof that Libya was behind that attack.

        In order to do that, Reagan financed his secret proxy wars with money he got from secretly trading arms with Iran -- our sworn enemy -- even though it was illegal. Then he hung Oliver North out to take the blame.

        Speaking of funding terrorists, Reagan also funded the mujahideen -- including a young Osama bin Laden -- in Afghanistan because they were "fighting communists." He also financed Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, in his war with Iran because Iraq was "not Iranian." Guess who sponsored terrorism against the Untied Skates, and who oppressed his people so badly that George Bush The Younger went to war with him. Or did "The Shrub" fight Hussein because his daddy (Bush the Elder) went to war with Iraq to "liberate Kuwait" (whose royal family had oil-money ties to the Bush family), and because "Saddam tried to kill my father at one time."

        Reagan's administration was involved in scandals that included:

         

         

        And a whole bunch of other things which, if Obama had done them, would have the resident "conservatives" around here demanding his removal from office.

        A lot of people have forgotten about, Reagan is viewed as a "conservative hero" by some people. That's why they want him back in office, and "that [racial epithet deleted] out. But given the above, is Reagan really the great saint and saviour of the Republic people claim? Or was he even worse than Obama? And the mentor/role model for the Republican politicians and Republican presidents who followed him?

        There are the facts and here is the web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration

        What say you to this?


        I say you quoted a liberal source that is about as dependable as a perforated condom. I would tear this completely apart but it is not worth the time and it won't change your mind so who really gives a **************** what you think. It is beyond me why you ****************************s continue to bring this up. Fact: Ronald Reagan carried 49 of 50 states in 1984. He only lost Mondale's home state by 3500 votes. Now who do you think I'm gonna believe? You or 100 million Americans? Give it up but feel free to pick on either Bush all you want. They both sucked.


        You can say what ever you want, Jack, and you can attack my source all you wish. However, attacking a source by calling it names is a logical fallacy -- or rather, you have committed two logical fallacies in one: Argumentum ad Hominem, in this case, attacking the source of the information, rather than the quality and veracity of the information itself. Further, you have also Poisoned The Well by calling Wikipedia a "Liberal" web site; as if "liberalness" infers inaccuracy, or possibly outright falsehood.

        Next, you slide sideways out from under discussing the veracity of the information I got from Wikipedia by dragging a Red Herring through the discussion, in this case, the number of people who voted for Reagan. Your obvious aim was to lead people away from any and all discussions of what Ronald Reagan did by bringing up something totally irrelevant -- in this case, the number of people who voted for him. That involved several other logical fallacies: Ex Post Facto Statistics (using statistics to "prove" something unrelated to the actual statistics), Argumentum Ad Populum (appealing to popular opinion, rather than facts: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it must be true) and of course, the ever-popular use of Loaded Words. In this case, you throw "Liberal" around like a profanity in the hope that it will mislead people into thinking Wikipedia is somehow "bad" or "untrustworthy.

        All of this ignores the fact that you have not addressed the information, itself. You just dragged out the standard condemnations and ignored the history. Worse still, the Wiki articles I referred to had source lists showing where the author(s) got their information. If you don't agree with Wiki, itself, you could always go check those sources.

        If you really want to debate or dispute anything I said, try looking up the history yourself, and posting your sources. Maybe Wikipedia is the lazy way of doing this, but when you combine the articles themselves with the source lists, you can get an idea of the facts. Blithering about how many people voted for Reagan does not counter any of what I said, nor will it change history.

        For your information I did, indeed, vote for Reagan on both occasions. I did this partly becausae my father was a devout Republican who influenced my thinking. The other reason is that I thought Reagan was the better of two poor alternatives: Carter was a nice man who had no idea what he was doing in the White House, and Walter Mondale looked to have all the intellectual excellence of a loaf of bread.

        Who are you going to believe? You're going to believe yourself, your prejudices and what/whoever supports them, of course. To do anything else would require the kind of introspection you refuse to do, and the risk of realizing that reality is not what you wish it was.

        By the way, if you think your retort has "[tore] this completely apart," forget it.You have committed half a dozen logical fallacies in the space of five-and-a-half lines, which means you've proved less than nothing. Other than the fact that you are an ass, of course.


      • GTRMAN
        GTRMAN commented
        Editing a comment

        An "appeal to popularity" is a logical fallacy. All the things cited about Ronnie Ray-gun were true.


        Jack Walker wrote:

        The Badger wrote:

        Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:

        Reagan "brought the American Economy back" from the mess it had been in the Carter years, when unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits.

        However, Reagan did it with deficit spending, running up bills he had no intention of paying. Reagan was also the first president to propose a three trillion dollar budget, financed mostly through deficit spending. Now those Reagan-era bills are coming due.

        Further, Reagan's example made it "okay" for the Bush administrations (father and son) to run up huge bills on the national credit card and leave them for "some Democrat" to worry about. We're still paying for those messes, too; or we would be if the Republicans in Congress would get off their well-financed posteriors and work on the budget problem.

        Reagan's way of "balancing the budget" included increasing the FICA ("Social Security") tax while at the same time cutting benefits. Does this sound familiar? By the way, the "savings" from those moves were raided by Congress to pay for other things.

        And if that wasn't enough, Reagan also invented "trickle-down economics" -- otherwise known as tax breaks for the rich -- on the theory that more money in the hands of "job creators" would mean more jobs. This ignored the fact that many of those "job creators" spent their tax break money on themselves and/or sending what used to be American jobs to third-world countries. And China. This is yet another thing that George Bush The Younger learned from his political idol. We're still paying for that mess, too.

        Reagan got America involved directly in Grenada. He also financed the anti-communist wars in Nicaragua and El Salvadore, among other places. In the process, Reagan financed real-life death squads and violations of just about every human right imaginable, then looked the other way. Why? Because "Contras are our friends." More to the point, they were "not commies," which was his prime worry.

        And just for funsies, Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Bengazzi in Libya as tit-for-tat revenge for the bombing of a night club in Germany, even though there was not sufficient proof that Libya was behind that attack.

        In order to do that, Reagan financed his secret proxy wars with money he got from secretly trading arms with Iran -- our sworn enemy -- even though it was illegal. Then he hung Oliver North out to take the blame.

        Speaking of funding terrorists, Reagan also funded the mujahideen -- including a young Usama bin Laden -- in Afghanistan because they were "fighting communists." He also financed Sadam Husseine, the dictator of Iraq, in his war with Iran because Iraq was "not Iranian." Guess who sponsored terrorism against the Untied Skates, and who oppressed his people so badly that George Bush The Younger went to war with him. Or did "The Shrub" fight Husseine becuse his daddy (Bush the Elder) went to war with Iraq to "liberate Kuwait" (whose royal family had oil-money ties to the Bush family), and because "Sadam tried to kill my father at one time."

        Reagan's administration was involved in scandals that included:

         

         

        And a whole bunch of other things which, if Obama had done them, would have the resident "conservatives" around here demanding his removal from office.

        A lot of people have forgotten about, Reagan is viewed as a "conservative hero" by some people. That's why they want him back in office, and "that [racial epithet deleted] out. But given the above, is Reagan really the great saint and saviour of the Republic people claim? Or was he even worse than Obama? And the mentor/role model for the Republican politicians and Republican presidents who followed him?

        There are the facts and here is the web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration

        What say you to this?


        I say you quoted a liberal source that is about as dependable as a perforated condom. I would tear this completely apart but it is not worth the time and it won't change your mind so who really gives a **************** what you think. It is beyond me why you ****************************s continue to bring this up. Fact: Ronald Reagan carried 49 of 50 states in 1984. He only lost Mondale's home state by 3500 votes. Now who do you think I'm gonna believe? You or 100 million Americans? Give it up but feel free to pick on either Bush all you want. They both sucked.





    • #5

      The Badger wrote:

      Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:...


      I was there, young fella.  I got my first professional job under Carter, got my first mortgage under Carter.  I also got my first money market account, I admit that getting double digit interest with no risk was kind of fun.

      But then we got Reagan.  He wasn't even in office before Iran released the hostages.  And I watched the economy change dramatically over the next few years.  I learned a new word "Head Hunters" - it was an employees dream world as employers got on their knees to beg you to come work for them.  The Berlin Wall came down and a generation watched an existential threat evaporate.

      No, you can like Obama if you want, but you shouldn't be delusional - our economy COULD be fixed by somebody who knew what they were doing.  Our place in the globe could be strengthened, instead of standing by helplessly as Americans are killed.  Sorry, reality is not going to submit to Obama the way the weak minded do.

       

      Comment


      • TubeAddict
        TubeAddict commented
        Editing a comment

        Used2BMarkoh wrote:

        The Badger wrote:

        Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:...


        I was there, young fella.  I got my first professional job under Carter, got my first mortgage under Carter.  I also got my first money market account, I admit that getting double digit interest with no risk was kind of fun.

        But then we got Reagan.  He wasn't even in office before Iran released the hostages.  And I watched the economy change dramatically over the next few years.  I learned a new word "Head Hunters" - it was an employees dream world as employers got on their knees to beg you to come work for them.  The Berlin Wall came down and a generation watched an existential threat evaporate.

        No, you can like Obama if you want, but you shouldn't be delusional - our economy COULD be fixed by somebody who knew what they were doing.  Our place in the globe could be strengthened, instead of standing by helplessly as Americans are killed.  Sorry, reality is not going to submit to Obama the way the weak minded do.

         


        If you understood cause and effect, you wouldn't believe the Earth was 5,000 years old.


      • Bowe
        Bowe commented
        Editing a comment

        Used2BMarkoh wrote:

        I was there, young fella.  I got my first professional job under Carter, got my first mortgage under Carter.  I also got my first money market account, I admit that getting double digit interest with no risk was kind of fun.

        But then we got Reagan.  He wasn't even in office before Iran released the hostages.  And I watched the economy change dramatically over the next few years.  I learned a new word "Head Hunters" - it was an employees dream world as employers got on their knees to beg you to come work for them.  The Berlin Wall came down and a generation watched an existential threat evaporate.

        No, you can like Obama if you want, but you shouldn't be delusional - our economy COULD be fixed by somebody who knew what they were doing.  Our place in the globe could be strengthened, instead of standing by helplessly as Americans are killed.  Sorry, reality is not going to submit to Obama the way the weak minded do. 


        under Reagan, didn't unemployment rise from 7.4% when he took office, upto 10.8% after the first year, and then back down to 7.5% by the end of his first term?

        not too dissimilar to Obama's record of 8.3% when he took office 10% less than a year later, and then 7.9% by the end of his first term


      • The Badger
        The Badger commented
        Editing a comment

        Used2BMarkoh wrote:

        The Badger wrote:

        Ever since Barack Obama got elected four years ago, some people have been wishing they had Ronald Reagan back in the White House. They claim he "knew what to do" to "fix the economy"...and everything else. However, looking back on history, I have my doubts. Consider the following:...


        I was there, young fella.  I got my first professional job under Carter, got my first mortgage under Carter.  I also got my first money market account, I admit that getting double digit interest with no risk was kind of fun.

        But then we got Reagan.  He wasn't even in office before Iran released the hostages.  And I watched the economy change dramatically over the next few years.  I learned a new word "Head Hunters" - it was an employees dream world as employers got on their knees to beg you to come work for them.  The Berlin Wall came down and a generation watched an existential threat evaporate.

        No, you can like Obama if you want, but you shouldn't be delusional - our economy COULD be fixed by somebody who knew what they were doing.  Our place in the globe could be strengthened, instead of standing by helplessly as Americans are killed.  Sorry, reality is not going to submit to Obama the way the weak minded do.

        I was there, too, Markoh. I bought into Reagan's "prosperity through borrowing" program because it worked at the time. If his "you have to spend money to make money" programs were limited and came to an end when they were no longer needed, America would have been okay.

        The problem is, Reagan's successors thought that they could live on credit, too, to wage wars, fund pet projects and buy votes. Nobody asked what all this borrowing cost, or what they'd do when the bills came due. Now we as a nation are so deep in debt that we're borrowing money from one place to pay off bills in another.

        That's the situation Obama finds himself in, and Congress won't let him out in either direction: He can't cut unnecessary programs because Congress needs that spending to "help their districts" -- and buy votes with boondoggles. He can't raise taxes, either, because the Republicans still cling to the "trickle-down economics" theory because if they did, "job creators" wouldn't have money to spend creating new American jobs. The irony here is that they have all the money they need to "create jobs" in third-world countries that have no minimum wage, no healthcare or other benefits, no worker safety laws and no environmental protection laws.



    Working...
    X