If LBJ wasn't such a liar, would he be rated one of the best presidents ever?

[Cancel7]

I wish I could find the one about his lies.

There was this one where he quoted the Pope as agreeing with him on something and the next day the Pope came out and said he never talked to him or said what Reagan had quoted him as saying.

It was a blatent LIE!

He had a real problem separating fantasy from reality. It's quite frightening when you think about it.

He probably believed he really had this conversation with the Pope.

 

[Cypress]

Sean Wilentz has a piece on the editorial page of the NY Times today, about Iran-Contra and Dick Cheney. I did not know this before today, but he is working on a book about the Reagan Presidency and its aftermath. I cannot wait for that to come out.

Wow, that sounds cool.

By any measure, it was a very criminal adminstration. I mean, Iran Contra alone was a direct subversion of the constitution.

Beyond the criminality, I think the other important legacy is the economy - as it relates to the middle class. Obivously, for the middle class, things have been fairly stagnant since 1980, and unions and collective bargaining have been emasculated. And I think this so-called "free" trade crap, really got started under reagan. At least, that was the ideology behind it.

 

[cawacko]

"Give me a well educated thinking person instead of a pretend cowboy."

by the way retard.... Reagan had degrees in economics and sociology. Which is obviously far more of an education than you ever had.

Reagan was a very smart man. He has left many works of his own writing that show this. Those that oppose him and his policies will forever claim he was unintelligent and a puppet. That's the nature of partisan political debate.

 

[doniston]

I agree with the above 100%. LBJ was a strong willed individual. After the way Kennedy essentially neutered LBJ as VP... if anything he would have been inclined to do little to continue Kennedy's plans. Unless of course they were plans that LBJ also truly believed in.

LBJ was a hen-pecked baby. Lady-bird was both the family and the political powerhouse.

 

[cawacko]

Wow, that sounds cool.

By any measure, it was a very criminal adminstration. I mean, Iran Contra alone was a direct subversion of the constitution.

Beyond the criminality, I think the other important legacy is the economy - as it relates to the middle class. Obivously, for the middle class, things have been fairly stagnant since 1980, and unions and collective bargaining have been emasculated. And I think this so-called "free" trade crap, really got started under reagan. At least, that was the ideology behind it.

If the middle class has been stagnant since 1980 where did all the wealth come from in the last 25 years? Were the wealthy people today all poor people prior to 1980 and skipped middle class hood straight to wealthy?

 

[Cancel7]

LBJ was a hen-pecked baby. Lady-bird was both the family and the political powerhouse.

Wow. You know nothing about the dynamics of that relationship.

Where do you people get this shit from?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LBJ was a hen-pecked baby. Lady-bird was both the family and the political powerhouse.

To be fair, I was not around during his Presidency. So all I "know" about him is from reading and watching old clips of him. So I will defer to an extent to your first hand viewing of his Presidency. I "know" from the readings that she was certainly a strong influence on many issues, but was it not more the case of the two being an original power couple rather than her dominating him?

please note, I am just asking as I am indeed curious. Because I have not heard your assessment before with regards to his Presidency as a whole.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If the middle class has been stagnant since 1980 where did all the wealth come from in the last 25 years? Were the wealthy people today all poor people prior to 1980 and skipped middle class hood straight to wealthy?

It was a Christmas day miracle in 1993. They all just awoke one morning to find their bank accounts stuffed with ooodles and ooodles of cash.

 

[cawacko]

Wow, that sounds cool.

By any measure, it was a very criminal adminstration. I mean, Iran Contra alone was a direct subversion of the constitution.

Beyond the criminality, I think the other important legacy is the economy - as it relates to the middle class. Obivously, for the middle class, things have been fairly stagnant since 1980, and unions and collective bargaining have been emasculated. And I think this so-called "free" trade crap, really got started under reagan. At least, that was the ideology behind it.

Look at what happened in the Silicon Valley and the tech boom we have experienced. Is all that discounted because it was created by entrepreneurs and not government and union work?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Look at what happened in the Silicon Valley and the tech boom we have experienced. Is all that discounted because it was created by entrepreneurs and not government and union work?

Since you were addressing Cypress, I will assume this was rhetorical.

Of COURSE it is discounted because only the government or unionized labor can create a good economy. There is no such thing as an entrepreneur.

 

[Cancel7]

To be fair, I was not around during his Presidency. So all I "know" about him is from reading and watching old clips of him. So I will defer to an extent to your first hand viewing of his Presidency. I "know" from the readings that she was certainly a strong influence on many issues, but was it not more the case of the two being an original power couple rather than her dominating him?

please note, I am just asking as I am indeed curious. Because I have not heard your assessment before with regards to his Presidency as a whole.

She did not dominate him in any part of their life. He was not a fabulous husband. She took orders from him, including when and what to cook for the last minute guests he would have over when he was rising in politics. He had many affairs, and she was well aware of them, and dared not peep a word.

He was a hugely dominating figure in both his personal and public life.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Wow. You know nothing about the dynamics of that relationship.

Where do you people get this shit from?

This thread is very amusing... some people agree on certain points but are adamantly opposed on others. Other individuals post random crap that comes out of their ass (desh). Then you have our resident senility squad... and ya just never know what they are going to come up with. Finally we have Cypress... poor guy... socialism in this country will never be taken far enough for him.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

She did not dominate him in any part of their life. He was not a fabulous husband. She took orders from him, including when and what to cook for the last minute guests he would have over when he was rising in politics. He had many affairs, and she was well aware of them, and dared not peep a word.

He was a hugely dominating figure in both his personal and public life.

Now, while I certainly heard more about that part of the relationship than what doniston is talking about, I think she did have a bit more influence than you are giving her credit for. I think her efforts on the environmental front should receive their just due.

 

[Cancel7]

Now, while I certainly heard more about that part of the relationship than what doniston is talking about, I think she did have a bit more influence than you are giving her credit for. I think her efforts on the environmental front should receive their just due.

She was very smart. And she had smart ideas, which he sometimes took. But, he was the dominating force in the relationship. This is well-documented, including many first person accounts of how he spoke to her, and the effect it had on her.

I am not, in any way demeaning her.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

She was very smart. And she had smart ideas, which he sometimes took. But, he was the dominating force in the relationship. This is well-documented, including many first person accounts of how he spoke to her, and the effect it had on her.

I am not, in any way demeaning her.

Which was my impression as well. Which I was hesitant to go with donistons viewpoint. I just have a hard time imagining LBJ as a pushover. I mean after all... he did have a President and a Presidential candidate murdered.

 

[Cypress]

If the middle class has been stagnant since 1980 where did all the wealth come from in the last 25 years? Were the wealthy people today all poor people prior to 1980 and skipped middle class hood straight to wealthy?

cawacko, this isn't rocket science. Anybody who pays the least bit of attention to business and economic news knows the answer to this.

A lot of wealth HAS been created since 1980. Overwhelmingly, it is the affluent and rich, that have seen their wealth increase exponentially.

The middle class in contrast, has been relatively stagnant since 1980.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

cawacko, this isn't rocket science. Anybody who pays the least bit of attention to business and economic news knows the answer to this.

A lot of wealth HAS been created since 1980. Overwhelmingly, it is the affluent and rich, that have seen their wealth increase exponentially.

The middle class in contrast, has been relatively stagnant since 1980.

Then just how is it that we have so many more millionaires today than we did in 1980?

How is it that home ownership steadily increased since 1980?

How is it that investment participation broadened so much since 1980?

 

[cawacko]

cawacko, this isn't rocket science. Anybody who pays the least bit of attention to business and economic news knows the answer to this.

A lot of wealth HAS been created since 1980. Overwhelmingly, it is the affluent and rich, that have seen their wealth increase exponentially.

The middle class in contrast, has been relatively stagnant since 1980.

The middle class is not a static group. Many people who were in the middle class in 1980 have advanced to the upper-middle class today. For instance, any homeowner from the '80's who held their homes until now are sitting on a windfall. One did not have to be rich to purchase a home in 1980.

As long as we have immigrants, especially ones from poor countries, coming to America to follow their dream there will always be poorer people. The beauty of our country is that our economic situation is fluid and one has the opportunity to move up to middle class or beyond.

 

[evince]

Then just how is it that we have so many more millionaires today than we did in 1980?

How is it that home ownership steadily increased since 1980?

How is it that investment participation broadened so much since 1980?

Go trace home prices and you will understand

 

[Damocles]

cawacko, this isn't rocket science. Anybody who pays the least bit of attention to business and economic news knows the answer to this.

A lot of wealth HAS been created since 1980. Overwhelmingly, it is the affluent and rich, that have seen their wealth increase exponentially.

The middle class in contrast, has been relatively stagnant since 1980.

There has been a ton of new wealth. It is preposterous to ignore the upwardly mobile just because it is convenient to your political view.

Since 1980, the Fortune 500 has lost 5 Million jobs, however a total of 34 million were created. They didn't magically appear they were created by entreprenuers (fast-growth companies) who were not part of that super-rich that you seem to think "just got richer" and that same groups somehow comprised most of the increase in wealth? Rubbish. It was those same entreprenuers that created all those jobs that created the new wealth of the nation.