Ronald Reagan was a great man

[Socrtease]

Nope....Star Wars was and is a fucking joke....it hasn't worked right since it's inception, and was a moot point since the cruise missle could carry nukes. What all the money went to is a mystery that even the GAO has yet to reveal. And Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviets, not Reagan rhetoric.

Reagan rhetoric didn't do crap for military enrollment...you can thank a fucked up economy that did that. For every volunteer based on pure patriotism, you had about 10 who needed a steady paycheck and a shot at higher education. Hell, I remember articles in Newsweek, the Village Voice, and the NY Times on how the military was complaining about the number of functional illiterates and poorly educated folks signing up, and the time and resources they had to devote to bringing them up to speed.

Yeah, I'm glad you pointed out his record on South America, Iran/Iraq....there was also Grenada, Libya, Noriega, his nod to the evangelical fringe, "trickle-down" economics, his "welfare queen" BS. Sorry to inform you brother, but once you open the window ALL the way, Reagan was nothing more than a feel good movie....and the real world outside the theatre suffered.

Star Wars didn't have to work, the soviets thought it might and were spending in ways to combat it if it did. Sgt York gun didn't work either. The barrels warp from heat and the unit became worthless. But the SOviets had to spend money on forward looking radars to find the Sgt York to protect its planes from them just in case they worked. By the time I joined the Army in 1987 there was no fucked up economy. The Military has always been a place where people went when they could not find a job or get into school, that doesn't mean that the men and women that make a carreer out of it are the FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES. See once again, someone on the left that has to do whatever they can to demean military service. Our invasion of Grenada, while probably not earth changing in a geo-political sense was still a good thing. Cuba would have fucked up that little island the same way the communists fucked up Cuba itself. IF the world was suffering so much after Reagan's terms, why was his VP elected? Usually when you suffer you get rid of the cause of the suffering. Bush was Reagan 3: The Journey Continues. You may not have liked Reagan's politics, but to use a Reagan quote; Were we better off in 1988 than we were in 1980? The answer to that question to all but the most partisan of hacks is YES.

 

[Damocles]

Star Wars didn't have to work, the soviets thought it might and were spending in ways to combat it if it did. Sgt York gun didn't work either. The barrels warp from heat and the unit became worthless. But the SOviets had to spend money on forward looking radars to find the Sgt York to protect its planes from them just in case they worked. By the time I joined the Army in 1987 there was no fucked up economy. The Military has always been a place where people went when they could not find a job or get into school, that doesn't mean that the men and women that make a carreer out of it are the FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES. See once again, someone on the left that has to do whatever they can to demean military service. Our invasion of Grenada, while probably not earth changing in a geo-political sense was still a good thing. Cuba would have fucked up that little island the same way the communists fucked up Cuba itself. IF the world was suffering so much after Reagan's terms, why was his VP elected? Usually when you suffer you get rid of the cause of the suffering. Bush was Reagan 3: The Journey Continues. You may not have liked Reagan's politics, but to use a Reagan quote; Were we better off in 1988 than we were in 1980? The answer to that question to all but the most partisan of hacks is YES.

The problem was that Bush was much, much different than Reagan, pushed policies different than his, and increased taxes after a promise never to do so. Echoes of "read my lips" still repeat through the White House...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Star Wars didn't have to work, the soviets thought it might and were spending in ways to combat it if it did. Sgt York gun didn't work either. The barrels warp from heat and the unit became worthless. But the SOviets had to spend money on forward looking radars to find the Sgt York to protect its planes from them just in case they worked. By the time I joined the Army in 1987 there was no fucked up economy. The Military has always been a place where people went when they could not find a job or get into school, that doesn't mean that the men and women that make a carreer out of it are the FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES. See once again, someone on the left that has to do whatever they can to demean military service. Our invasion of Grenada, while probably not earth changing in a geo-political sense was still a good thing. Cuba would have fucked up that little island the same way the communists fucked up Cuba itself. IF the world was suffering so much after Reagan's terms, why was his VP elected? Usually when you suffer you get rid of the cause of the suffering. Bush was Reagan 3: The Journey Continues. You may not have liked Reagan's politics, but to use a Reagan quote; Were we better off in 1988 than we were in 1980? The answer to that question to all but the most partisan of hacks is YES.

You have to keep in mind that the far left wingnuts are never going to admit Reagan was good for this country. They will always highlight the bad and gloss over the good as much as they can. It irks them that he is seen as one of the better Presidents in the history of this country, so they must do all they can to tarnish him (at least in their eyes). As you stated, there were indeed many negatives to his Presidency, but that is all they will see. Tachi and Cypress are complete partisan hacks. They cannot help themselves when it comes to Reagan.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You have to keep in mind that the far left wingnuts are never going to admit Reagan was good for this country. They will always highlight the bad and gloss over the good as much as they can. It irks them that he is seen as one of the better Presidents in the history of this country, so they must do all they can to tarnish him (at least in their eyes). As you stated, there were indeed many negatives to his Presidency, but that is all they will see. Tachi and Cypress are complete partisan hacks. They cannot help themselves when it comes to Reagan.

Reagan's legacy is still in doubt. Mainly over debt. If the US should default on it's debt, not something any sane person wants to consider, then Reagans legacy will take a huge hit.

For me, what's so difficult in evaluating Reagan, is that he's so damned likable. That would explain why I voted for him twice. His "likability" can cloud your judgement about the man and make it difficult to be objective about his Presidency and his legacy.

For example. I remember the Reagan/Carter debates. The impression left in most people who watched it live in 1980 was that Reagan CRUSHED Carter and it was a fatal blow to Carters re-election campaign. I pretty much have to agree that is what most people felt at the time.

But then I watched a video of their debate again on Youtube having now nearly 30 years of hindsight and I was quite surprized at how on policy issues Carter was correct far more often than Reagan was. Though why that should surprize me I dont' know? Reagan was no policy wonk.

So though there was much I liked about Reagan let's not confuse his popularity with his accomplishments or get carried away with the cult of personality surrounding his legacy. Reagan was in no way shape or form a great president, nor do I think he was a bad one.

However, I qualify that, if we should default on our debt and the economic consequences that implies, Reagan will not be viewed nearly as favorably as he is now.

 

[Damocles]

However, I qualify that, if we should default on our debt and the economic consequences that implies, Reagan will not be viewed nearly as favorably as he is now.

Nor would Kennedy who was President at the beginning of our overspending spree...

 

[tinfoil]

Some rich people dont become corrupt.

the one who do become corrupt will usually become Rs because they can make more money as Rs.

Holy jesus, that's all kinds of stupid wrapped up into a little turd.
You are mutherfucking crazy, you know that?

I don't suppose you could lay out your glorius logic for this most dubious assertion?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nor would Kennedy who was President at the beginning of our overspending spree...

Ehhh maybe, I seriously doubt that historians will attribute run away deficit spending in the last half of the 20th century with Kennedy. Mostly they will blame Reagan and Bush II, and correctly so, for the deficit situation.

 

[Damocles]

Ehhh maybe, I seriously doubt that historians will attribute run away deficit spending in the last half of the 20th century with Kennedy. Mostly they will blame Reagan and Bush II, and correctly so, for the deficit situation.

I seriously doubt that. You start at the beginning. The list of Presidents who have gotten us here are:

Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.

You may like to pretend that none but two count, but you would be wrong. Honest historians will also attribute the total elimination of any SS "account" was begun in the early 70s and ended during Clinton's reign with bad accounting tricks to pretend a "surplus" while still borrowing money to pay the interest on debt.

The reality is we've spent 60 years building this up, you want to blame it on only twelve of those, and that is simply ridiculous. It is like attributing the whole collapse of the USSR to Reagan alone.

This isn't even Keynesian, Keynes said to pay down the debt in good times and overspend into recession, not overspend and then overspend in good times and overspend still more during recession.

And truly honest historians will reflect back to Bush 43 trying to save SS, and actually admit that he was right, it was in danger...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Reagan's legacy is still in doubt. Mainly over debt. If the US should default on it's debt, not something any sane person wants to consider, then Reagans legacy will take a huge hit.

For me, what's so difficult in evaluating Reagan, is that he's so damned likable. That would explain why I voted for him twice. His "likability" can cloud your judgement about the man and make it difficult to be objective about his Presidency and his legacy.

For example. I remember the Reagan/Carter debates. The impression left in most people who watched it live in 1980 was that Reagan CRUSHED Carter and it was a fatal blow to Carters re-election campaign. I pretty much have to agree that is what most people felt at the time.

But then I watched a video of their debate again on Youtube having now nearly 30 years of hindsight and I was quite surprized at how on policy issues Carter was correct far more often than Reagan was. Though why that should surprize me I dont' know? Reagan was no policy wonk.

So though there was much I liked about Reagan let's not confuse his popularity with his accomplishments or get carried away with the cult of personality surrounding his legacy. Reagan was in no way shape or form a great president, nor do I think he was a bad one.

However, I qualify that, if we should default on our debt and the economic consequences that implies, Reagan will not be viewed nearly as favorably as he is now.

While I agree that his likability certainly plays a role in how people view his Presidency, I would disagree on your assessment on the debt. I don't see him taking a huge hit from that. The debt run up is a bipartisan issue. The massive spending under Bush (and now Obama) is the cause of a potential debt crisis. They have taken spending to a whole new level.

The debt increase under Reagan was $1.6 trillion.
The debt increase under Bush Sr was $1.2 trillion (in four years)
The debt increase under Clinton was $1.6 trillion
The debt increase under Bush Jr. was $4.3 trillion
The debt increase under Obama is roughly $1.4 trillion (one year)

While the large deficits did start under Reagan, we have to keep in mind the circumstances that each of the Presidents faced. As Soc pointed out, Reagan used defense spending to rebuild the military and on projects like Star Wars that forced the Soviets to try to match.

Bush Sr was horrid, as was his son.

Clinton slashed the military, was essentially a peace time President, inherited a booming tech/internet/telecom revolution.... and STILL raised the national debt by $1.6 trillion along with the Rep led Congress.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I seriously doubt that. You start at the beginning. The list of Presidents who have gotten us here are:

Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.

You may like to pretend that none but two count, but you would be wrong. Honest historians will also attribute the total elimination of any SS "account" was begun in the early 70s and ended during Clinton's reign with bad accounting tricks to pretend a "surplus" while still borrowing money to pay the interest on debt.

The reality is we've spent 60 years building this up, you want to blame it on only twelve of those, and that is simply ridiculous. It is like attributing the whole collapse of the USSR to Reagan alone.

This isn't even Keynesian, Keynes said to pay down the debt in good times and overspend into recession, not overspend and then overspend in good times and overspend still more during recession.

And truly honest historians will reflect back to Bush trying to save SS, and actually admit that he was right, it was in danger...

I'd like to see the data that you base that argument on. All the data I've seen shows no significant rise in post WWII public debt until 1980. In fact, most data shows that public debt steadily declined after WWII and did not begin to rise until, again, 1980.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

While I agree that his likability certainly plays a role in how people view his Presidency, I would disagree on your assessment on the debt. I don't see him taking a huge hit from that. The debt run up is a bipartisan issue. The massive spending under Bush (and now Obama) is the cause of a potential debt crisis. They have taken spending to a whole new level.

The debt increase under Reagan was $1.6 trillion.
The debt increase under Bush Sr was $1.2 trillion (in four years)
The debt increase under Clinton was $1.6 trillion
The debt increase under Bush Jr. was $4.3 trillion
The debt increase under Obama is roughly $1.4 trillion (one year)

While the large deficits did start under Reagan, we have to keep in mind the circumstances that each of the Presidents faced. As Soc pointed out, Reagan used defense spending to rebuild the military and on projects like Star Wars that forced the Soviets to try to match.

Bush Sr was horrid, as was his son.

Clinton slashed the military, was essentially a peace time President, inherited a booming tech/internet/telecom revolution.... and STILL raised the national debt by $1.6 trillion along with the Rep led Congress.

Well were predicating this debate on a big if. That is IF we default on our debt. Our debt, as a percentage of GDP is high but not at record highs or anything even approaching the level of debt that occured during WWII. So I doubt that we will default on debt in the foreseable future.

Though I do agree with your assesment that there's plenty of blame to go around for our debt mess Reagan will be viewed as the gate keeper that opened pandoras box and that's why his reputation would suffer the most.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'd like to see the data that you base that argument on. All the data I've seen shows no significant rise in post WWII public debt until 1980. In fact, most data shows that public debt steadily declined after WWII and did not begin to rise until, again, 1980.

That is not correct. Ike was the last President to preside over a decrease in our national debt.... 1957 was the last year it declined. Though to his credit, Clinton did come close in 2000 as he was only off by $20b or so.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well were predicating this debate on a big if. That is IF we default on our debt. Our debt, as a percentage of GDP is high but not at record highs or anything even approaching the level of debt that occured during WWII. So I doubt that we will default on debt in the foreseable future.

Though I do agree with your assesment that there's plenty of blame to go around for our debt mess Reagan will be viewed as the gate keeper that opened pandoras box and that's why his reputation would suffer the most.

I disagree, both Bush's and Clinton were worse... by far. Just looking at 'when it started' without looking at WHY it occurred or the fact that it was bi-partisan is disingenuous. Only the Reagan haters would try to put it on Reagan.

 

[Damocles]

I'd like to see the data that you base that argument on. All the data I've seen shows no significant rise in post WWII public debt until 1980. In fact, most data shows that public debt steadily declined after WWII and did not begin to rise until, again, 1980.

The debt has not declined since Eisenhower. I think you are making the mistake of deficit and debt or are using charts that do not state that the debt rose, but its percentage of the GDP in many years dropped. The actual debt has risen every single year since Kennedy took office.

 

[Damocles]

That is not correct. Ike was the last President to preside over a decrease in our national debt.... 1957 was the last year it declined. Though to his credit, Clinton did come close in 2000 as he was only off by $20b or so.

Yes, Clinton with the R congress... We may get this again in 2010, an R congress with a (supposedly, we have no evidence of it yet) fiscally responsible D President.

 

[Damocles]

Well were predicating this debate on a big if. That is IF we default on our debt. Our debt, as a percentage of GDP is high but not at record highs or anything even approaching the level of debt that occured during WWII. So I doubt that we will default on debt in the foreseable future.

Though I do agree with your assesment that there's plenty of blame to go around for our debt mess Reagan will be viewed as the gate keeper that opened pandoras box and that's why his reputation would suffer the most.

Our debt as a portion of GDP is smaller than any of the European countries and minuscule compared to some.

 

[Bonestorm]

I seriously doubt that. You start at the beginning. The list of Presidents who have gotten us here are:

Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.

You may like to pretend that none but two count, but you would be wrong. Honest historians will also attribute the total elimination of any SS "account" was begun in the early 70s and ended during Clinton's reign with bad accounting tricks to pretend a "surplus" while still borrowing money to pay the interest on debt.

The reality is we've spent 60 years building this up, you want to blame it on only twelve of those, and that is simply ridiculous. It is like attributing the whole collapse of the USSR to Reagan alone.

This isn't even Keynesian, Keynes said to pay down the debt in good times and overspend into recession, not overspend and then overspend in good times and overspend still more during recession.

And truly honest historians will reflect back to Bush 43 trying to save SS, and actually admit that he was right, it was in danger...

How you could write the two sentences in bold is mind-blowing. I don't think for a minute that you actually believe it.

And the reality is that deficit spending exploded under Reagan, nearly tripling. Reagan added twice as much to the debt as every prior president combined. The debt is his legacy.

 

[Damocles]

How you could write the two sentences in bold is mind-blowing. I don't think for a minute that you actually believe it.

And the reality is that deficit spending exploded under Reagan, nearly tripling. Reagan added twice as much to the debt as every prior president combined. The debt is his legacy.

The last two sentences are true. I know such truth is "mind-blowing" to people who are desperately trying to attribute 60 years of accumulated debt (exactly the same amount by Reagan and Clinton...) to one person, but it is reality.

Seriously, if something isn't done about SS historians will be talking about the "timely" intervention against SS reform during the Bush Administration....

 

[Bonestorm]

The last two sentences are true. I know such truth is "mind-blowing" to people who are desperately trying to attribute 60 years of accumulated debt (exactly the same amount by Reagan and Clinton...) to one person, but it is reality.

Seriously, if something isn't done about SS historians will be talking about the "timely" intervention against SS reform during the Bush Administration....

Whatever, we can agree to disagree about Bush and SS.

On Reagan and Clinton you're just plain wrong and it isn't even debatable. Seriously. Check out the historical budget data linked below. Under Reagan budgets, the debt exploded from $789 billion in 1981 to $2.1 trillion in 1989, an increase of roughly $1.3 trillion. Under Clinton, we went from $3.248 trillion in 1993 to 3.319 trillion in 2001, an increase of roughly $71 billion.

In what world are $1.3 trillion and $71 billion "exactly the same?"


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/March2009_HistoricalTables.pdf

 

[Bonestorm]

I disagree, both Bush's and Clinton were worse... by far. Just looking at 'when it started' without looking at WHY it occurred or the fact that it was bi-partisan is disingenuous. Only the Reagan haters would try to put it on Reagan.

This is precisely why I think your purported deficit-hawk stuff is ridiculous. The above is just plain absurd. Bush 43 wasn't much worse than Reagan if at all and the debt increased a very modest amount over Clinton's 8 years as compared to Regan, Bush I or Bush II.