Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Camp]

Why DO today's conservatives love Reagan?

Clearly it is because they don't know much about his policies in fact.

The man was a STATIST without doubt.

Still the people3 who claim to hate statists love Reagan.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose

The showing his ignorance about Reagan and his policies is you

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

Reagan was evil. He was a hypocrite. He bargained with terrorist which strenthened them. He took the funds from the terrorist and financed an illiegal war. Illegal because congress had forbidden it. He financed death squads and gangs of thugs. He turned all of Central America into a war zone. He allowed an open season on Americans. Planes were hijacked, Americans were picked out, killed and thrown onto the tarmac. Embassys were bombed, military personel were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Fuck his pretty speechs. What I just listed is reality.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Why DO today's conservatives love Reagan?

Clearly it is because they don't know much about his policies in fact.

The man was a STATIST without doubt.

Still the people3 who claim to hate statists love Reagan.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose

The showing his ignorance about Reagan and his policies is you

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

Reagan was evil. He was a hypocrite. He bargained with terrorist which strenthened them. He took the funds from the terrorist and financed an illiegal war. Illegal because congress had forbidden it. He financed death squads and gangs of thugs. He turned all of Central America into a war zone. He allowed an open season on Americans. Planes were hijacked, Americans were picked out, killed and thrown onto the tarmac. Embassys were bombed, military personel were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Fuck his pretty speechs. What I just listed is reality.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.

Oh yea,thats right,I forgot all about that one.

Like you said,the shooting down of that airliner by the soviets proved that there was no lack of fear from them towards the grade B actor.


No more than anyone else. We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery.

But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil.

Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner.
__________________
excellent point.

Our corrupt school system never talks about the atrocities the white man here in america commited against humankind.sure they'll mention slavery but they leave out the brutal atrocities they committed for 400 years that rival Stalins.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.

good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?

Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.

You know what the DIA did every year for us. They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space). And they published a new version of this book every year.

All the way up until 1991.

Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers. Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall. The USSR was still the big threat. Until it wasn't.

The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise. We never saw it coming.

amen to that,great job of taking him to school.stands up and gives standing ovation.

 

[Camp]

Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.

Oh yea,thats right,I forgot all about that one.

Like you said,the shooting down of that airliner by the soviets proved that there was no lack of fear from them towards the grade B actor.


No more than anyone else. We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery.

But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil.

Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner.
__________________
excellent point.

Our corrupt school system never talks about the atrocities the white man here in america commited against humankind.sure they'll mention slavery but they leave out the brutal atrocities they committed for 400 years that rival Stalins.

Every empire is evil by definition. It is rare that the leader of an empire is not evil or at least does't allow evil to exist to maintain the empire.

 

[bendog]

You've bought into the Reagan Legacy myth, but it's underdstandable. It has been the current narrative for a few decades.

Reagan was like the psychic who makes so many predictions for so long a time one of them is bound to bear fruit.

Reagan was initially reactionary and tough with the Soviets and while that sped up the decay of the Soviet Empire, it neither initiated it or caused tbe fall of the Berlin Wall.

The Soviet system was resistent to change, but with the coming of the 20th century tgere were lots of sources at play that spelled trouble...internal as well as external.

The Berlin Wall? It fell not because Gorby agreed to tear it down. It fell because of internal forces within East Germany and because of the liberal policies of Gorby and others...liberal policies made more viable by Reagan later softening his stance and policues toward the Eastern Bloc and particularily the Soviets

Like Obama, Reagan disappointed his most ardent and earliest supporters. With Obama, we have yet to see how his terms in office end and how his legacy gets 'invented'

you misunderstood, I think, to read my post as saying Reagan won the Cold War. That was his goal, and one that people like Will and Safire didn't grasp. Reagan didn't want approachment or accord; he wanted it DEAD. Nixon too found this overly simplistic. As did the opponents of arms control. My point is simply that Reagan, the simpleton, was vindicated by history.

I don't think Reagan foresaw the impact of the technical revolution, which was the real Soviet killer.

The space program, govt sponsored research and defense all spurred the tech revolution ... but it was IBM, Apple and Msft, and private industry incorporating communication and tech applications. Unlike the TPM, Reagan had no issue with govt involment in supporting markets.

The central planning of the Soviet economy wasn't amenable to managing markets like that. It did well with building hydroelectric power ... and not so well with nuclear plants ... but they actually had higher gnp increases late in the industrial revolution. "Liberal" economists in the 60s and 70s predicted the soviets' market theory inevitably doomed them, and coincidentally that was my education. Reagan either never bought that or he simply didn't care. He was going to build a conventional force to meet them, and outspend them on nuclear offense/defense.

But, I do think Reagan has to get some credit for buying into neoliberalism, Thatcherism, and the Kemp Roth tax cuts. The problem for me was simply that he didn't PAY FOR THE TAX CUTS. In short, he failed his own vision to make govt smaller. That' s his central ideological inconsistency: his small govt belief inherently conflicted with miltary confrontion with the Godless Bolsheviks.

Every American President wanted the Soviet system dead. The battles were all about how to bring that about.

Reagan had a tough line approach and it hardened the internal forces in the Soviet Union that favored an approach that could have had them look like China pre-Nixon and North Korea today. - isolated, paranoid and dangerously militaristic.

Only when Reagan softened his stance did events allow Gorby and other forces to guide a failing Empire forward.

Your comnents are as simplistic as the Reagan Legacy Project would have it dictated and as simplistic ss the man himself. At one point Reagan was underrated, now people lije you grossly overrate the man's contributions.

In the end, when all alive during the 1980s pass on, a new look will judge Reagan without the stench of a needed myth

And you are hardly the arbitrar of truth or impartiality. Personally, my view of reagan is something I haven't posted because I try to avoid posters like you projecting your views onto my posts.

Reagan's greatness is largely personality. But, then up until 1940, so was FDRs You are correct that history will judge decades on, but you project your own prejudices to think I have judged Reagan's legacy.

His achievments were largely on the policies of others. And that's not a diss. Luck is something that happens. He was elected as an unlikely result of Nixon and Ford falling to Carter, a decent man and policy wonk. Reagan's personality of optimism and cheer was a contrast. The soviets were doomed. The information revolution was a done deal. Reagan adopted neoliberalism more or less inherently as it shared commonality with the GE education, but then again, the Chinese didn't get on board while communism was working for them. In short, it wasn't much of a choice.

And as to his intelligence ... having few thoughts is not the same as stupid.

 

[bendog]

Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.

Oh yea,thats right,I forgot all about that one.

Like you said,the shooting down of that airliner by the soviets proved that there was no lack of fear from them towards the grade B actor.


No more than anyone else. We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery.

But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil.

Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner.
__________________
excellent point.

Our corrupt school system never talks about the atrocities the white man here in america commited against humankind.sure they'll mention slavery but they leave out the brutal atrocities they committed for 400 years that rival Stalins.

Every empire is evil by definition. It is rare that the leader of an empire is not evil or at least does't allow evil to exist to maintain the empire.

Aside, Reagan was criticized for not doing more about the SK airliner and he responed more or less by saying "what do you wnat me to do, declare war?" LOL

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Here is the REAL Reaganomics that the Reaganut worshipers worship saying he created 20 million jobs,blah blah blah blah exposed for the lies they are.The reaganuts of course wont watch this video so before they go and say Rachel Maddows has no credibility,problem is,its not JUST Rachel Madows saying it.

This video exposes and proves what i was saying earlier that actual sources from back then in the 80's exposed the myth of reagan.

As you'll see in thei video,actual mainstream newscasts from back then like MSNBC and The washington post as well prove that reagan betrayed the middle class.that his trickle down economics only enriched the top 1% and betrayed everyone else.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjlvRoPvWI4]Rachel Maddow GOP tax bonus for rich ignores failure of Reaganomics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[antique4xpu]

i seem to remember when reagan shot down a civilian airliner full of iranian passengers

america finally paid millions to the victims families , but never apologized

i wonder why iran is so suspicious of us

 

[Toro]

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time. He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's because Reagan actually had some experience. We elected someone who was a noob...because he gave wonderful speeches reading from a teleprompter...someone who's whole adult life has been given things like Nobel Peace Prizes simply for showing up and now doesn't have a clue how to deal with complex political problems.

I get the sense that Barry spends most of his time sitting across the desk from people wondering how dare they disagree with him because he's Barack Obama...the first black President of the Harvard Law Review! Let's be honest here...that's what got him his six figure book deal right out of law school (Gee, wonder why it took so long for him to pay off his student loans?)...got him his teaching position at the University of Chicago...and his job at the prestigious Chicago law firm...his Illinois State Senator's gig...his US Senator's gig...and the nomination as President. We've got a "leader" who's never REALLY accomplished anything in his entire adult life, running our country at a time of crisis and we're shocked that it's not going well. It can't be Barry's fault though...he's a freakin' genius! Just ask him. He doesn't quite get economics of course...and can't be bothered to do the hard work of building political consensus. He's never had to do hard work before...why should he now? He's the first black President of the Harvard Law Review!!! There are OTHER people to do hard work...he's just there to give a speech every now and then and look good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time. He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.

Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!

 

[Jroc]

Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.

Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot

Who said it was Reagans fault? Did I say it was Reagans fault? No, you said it. Thats because you are the real idiot. I'll bet you don't even know that speech or what it meant at the time it was made. It was Reagans protrayal of a tough guy. Remember, he was not a great actor, he was a class B actor. He was scolding the USSR. He mocked them and demeaned them. The enemies of the USA knew it was an act and Reagan was full of crap. The terrorist attacts began a month later with the bombing of the Beirut Embassy bombing. The communist decided to give full support to communist revolution in Central America which would make Reagan the ruler of an evil empire with Iran/Contra and his support of an illegal war. The Evil Empire speech was a bluff and none of our enemys fell for the bluff. The shoot down of KAL 007 showed the lack of fear or concern about the tough talking actor President.

You have Reagan derangement syndrome like most liberals Reagan Belived what he spoke, he He knew America could do what it set it's mind to do...So did the Soviets

 

[Toro]

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time. He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.

Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!

Good times. Good times.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Here is the REAL Reaganomics that the Reaganut worshipers worship saying he created 20 million jobs,blah blah blah blah exposed for the lies they are.The reaganuts of course wont watch this video so before they go and say Rachel Maddows has no credibility,problem is,its not JUST Rachel Madows saying it.

This video exposes and proves what i was saying earlier that actual sources from back then in the 80's exposed the myth of reagan.

As you'll see in thei video,actual mainstream newscasts from back then like MSNBC and The washington post as well prove that reagan betrayed the middle class.that his trickle down economics only enriched the top 1% and betrayed everyone else.

Rachel Maddow GOP tax bonus for rich ignores failure of Reaganomics - YouTube

true to form the reaganut worshippers prove they afriad of the truth refusing to listen to actual newsources back from the 1980's in their original broadcasts broadcast the truth that he betrayed the middle class.so predicatable are the reaganuts.

Its not ME saying it,its actual media sources from the 80's reporting it. as they would find out if they would take their hands away from their ears and away from their eyes.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Libs, you lost your media monopoly, you look like idiots trying to rewrite the Reagan years

During Jimmy Carter's presidency an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The highest unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8 percent. The highest under Reagan was 10.8 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Jimmy Carter paid down the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. Reagan nearly tripled it.

File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Debt Graph by President

The ugly, sordid reality of the Reagan years is obvious to everyone but an ideological fool.

so very true well said.anytime you confront them with pesky facts liek that,all they come back with is juvenile one liners.

this is also a fact that reinforces what you say,that proves that under reagan,his first term in office,we were no better off than him than under carter and that unemployment was higher his first term in office than under carter just as my video I posted a few posts back"that they wont watch since the truth hurts" proves our links to be correct.

Here is what I posted earlier that reinforces what you posted that they also ignored.

MYTH.

Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it


Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.



Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.



Argument

In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in peacetime history."

Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

Year Inflation Unemployment (1)
-------------------------------
1961 1.0% 6.7%
1962 1.0 5.6
1963 1.3 5.6
1964 1.3 5.2
1965 1.6 4.5 < Vietnam war spending increases
1966 2.9 3.8
1967 3.1 3.8
1968 4.2 3.5
1969 5.5 3.5
1970 5.7 5.0
1971 4.4 6.0
1972 3.2 5.6
1973 6.2 4.9
1974 11.0 5.6 < First oil crisis
1975 9.1 8.5
1976 5.8 7.7
1977 6.5 7.1
1978 7.6 6.1
1979 11.3 5.9 < Second oil crisis
1980 13.5 7.2
1981 10.3 7.6
1982 6.2 9.7
1983 3.2 9.6
1984 4.3 7.5
In 1965, President Johnson started increasing deficit spending to fund the Vietnam war. This fiscal policy (as predicted by Keynesian theory) increased inflation and reduced unemployment.

Unfortunately, inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If business owners expect it, and raise their prices by the anticipated amount to compensate for it, then they have created the very inflation they fear. This process forms a vicious circle -- inflationary expectations and price increases feed off each other, with the potential of creating hyper-inflation. Unfortunately, economic theory at the time was such that economists didn't know how to stop it, at least safely.

Growing inflation in the 70s received two huge boosts: the first comprised the late-1973 and 1979 oil shocks from OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Soaring oil prices compelled most American businesses to raise their prices as well, with inflationary results. The second boost to inflation came in the form of food harvest failures around the world, which created soaring prices on the world food market. Again, U.S. companies that imported food responded with an inflationary rise in their prices.

All this was accompanied by a growing crisis in monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Traditionally, the Fed has fought inflation by contracting the money supply, and fought unemployment by expanding it. In the 60s, the Fed conducted an expansionary policy, accepting higher inflation in return for lower unemployment. It soon became clear, however, that this strategy was flawed. Expanding the money supply created jobs because it put more money in the hands of employers and consumers, who spent it. But eventually businesses learned to expect these monetary increases, and they simply raised their prices by the anticipated amount (instead of hiring more workers). The result was that the Fed gradually lost its ability to keep down unemployment; the more money it pumped into the economy, the more businesses raised their prices. As a result, both inflation and unemployment started growing together, forming a twin monster that economist Paul Samuelson dubbed "stagflation."

Stagflation happened to reach its peak on Carter's watch, spurred on by the 1979 oil shock. How Carter can be blamed for a trend that began a decade and a half earlier is a mystery -- and a testimony as to how presidential candidates often exploit the public's economic ignorance for their own political gain.

However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system.

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him.

In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years. Because the recession had been so deep, and the number of available workers so large (with not only laid-off workers waiting to return to work, but also a record number of women seeking to join the workforce), the recovery was guaranteed to be long and healthy.

Interestingly, Volcker was transformed from villain to hero after the victory over inflation. His reputation and integrity were so unquestioned that when his term as Chairman came up for renewal, Reagan renominated him with overwhelming popular approval. Another interesting tidbit is that although Volcker's intentional recession was a classically Keynesian approach to combating inflation, he did so under the name of "monetarism". (The policies recommended by the two theories converged at this point.) Milton Friedman, the creator of monetarist theory, and other conservatives were pleased that the Fed had finally converted to monetarism. However, they were outraged in late 1982 when Volcker threw off the cloak of monetarism and openly returned to Keynesian policies for expanding the economy. Most economists now accept that the Fed was not monetarist at all during this period, and that the label was merely political cover for drastic but necessary action.

Of course, conservatives have a far different interpretation of these events. Let's review their arguments:

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW

According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.

There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product:

Federal tax receipts and spending (percent of GDP) (2)

Year Receipts Spending
-------------------------
Carter
1978 18.5% 21.3%
1979 19.1 20.7
1980 19.6 22.3
1981 20.2 22.9
Reagan
1982 19.8 23.9
1983 18.1 24.4
1984 18.0 23.1
1985 18.5 23.9
1986 18.2 23.5
1987 19.2 22.5
1988 18.9 22.1
1989 19.2 22.1
To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead.

But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours:

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%) (3)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990
------------------------------------------------
United States 100% 100 100 100 100
Canada 77.1 80.1 84.2 92.8 95.5
Italy 30.8 43.9 66.4 80.9 85.5
France 36.8 46.0 61.7 80.1 85.3
Germany 32.4 49.1 61.8 77.4 81.1
United Kingdom 53.9 54.3 58.0 65.9 71.9
Japan 15.2 23.2 45.7 62.6 70.7
Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods).

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.

Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:

Private investment (4)

1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4
So there is no evidence that the conservative revisionism is true.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Inflation: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U (1982-84=100), not seasonally adjusted, table CUUR0000SA0. Unemployment: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID : lfs21000000.

2. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Table 1.2

3. Where We Stand, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, eds., and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), p. 143.

4. Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton &

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time. He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.

Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!

56 states? Is this some kind of joke?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time. He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.

Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!

56 states? Is this some kind of joke?

The joke is in the White House who claims there are 57 states. Reagan only missed 1 in 1984, you do the math.

 

[JoeB131]

Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!

56 states? Is this some kind of joke?

The joke is in the White House who claims there are 57 states. Reagan only missed 1 in 1984, you do the math.

Oh, was this your way of being clever, Obama misspoke once.

Of course, the problem with Romney is he really meant the things he said... you know, like he liked to fire people and half the country are leeches.

WHich is why he lost.

 

[Jroc]

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time. He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.

Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!

56 states? Is this some kind of joke?

No telepromter sucks, He actually didn't include Alaska and Hawaii in the "57"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws]Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States - YouTube[/ame]