Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Meathead]

Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.

"Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office"

Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.

 

[Camp]

Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.

"Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office"

Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.

Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.

 

[Oldstyle]

Gotta love Synth...he gives me a neg rep for the post I made to someone pointing out that even taking all of the wealth of the rich still wouldn't pay for the entitlements we've obligated ourselves to and what does he put down for his obligatory "reason" for the neg rep?

This... ( . ) A period. That's his reasoned and well thought out rebuttal. A period. Which is why he IS the partisan hack that he is. Get back to me when you've actually got a response that's intelligent enough to be posted, Synth because right now you're coming across as an internet blowhard.

 

[Meathead]

Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.

"Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office"

Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.

Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.

You're all over the place here Camp. Do you have any idea what it is you are trying to explain?

You argue that presidents do not get remembered when people debate their presidency. Did you notice the title and subject of this thread? The man left office 25 years ago and some are still so upset at his successes they feel compelled to feebily attack his legacy.

Sure Camp, Reagan is long forgotten.

 

[Camp]

"Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office"

Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.

Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.

You're all over the place here Camp. Do you have any idea what it is you are trying to explain?

You argue that presidents do not get remembered when people debate their presidency. Did you notice the title and subject of this thread? The man left office 25 years ago and some are still so upset at his successes they feel compelled to feebily attack his legacy.

Sure Camp, Reagan is long forgotten.

Reagan is not forgotten. 25 years is just a blink of the eye in history. Every poster on this thread has an emotional connection to the Reagan era. His ideas and policie still resonate. It is far to soon to predict how that legacy will eventually be remembered. The history will be written by objective writers without the emotional or political achors and influences. Perhaps the positive aspects of his administration will overide the negative ones. Nobody can predict that. All we can do is speculate at this point.

 

[bendog]

Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.

You're all over the place here Camp. Do you have any idea what it is you are trying to explain?

You argue that presidents do not get remembered when people debate their presidency. Did you notice the title and subject of this thread? The man left office 25 years ago and some are still so upset at his successes they feel compelled to feebily attack his legacy.

Sure Camp, Reagan is long forgotten.

Reagan is not forgotten. 25 years is just a blink of the eye in history. Every poster on this thread has an emotional connection to the Reagan era. His ideas and policie still resonate. It is far to soon to predict how that legacy will eventually be remembered. The history will be written by objective writers without the emotional or political achors and influences. Perhaps the positive aspects of his administration will overide the negative ones. Nobody can predict that. All we can do is speculate at this point.

He looked so good sitting on a horse though. Not since Teddy Roosevelt ..... (-:

 

[JoeB131]

[

Your ignorance is typical, Joe. Yeah, go ahead and tax the wealthy and see how quickly we're "done". What naive liberals like yourself never seem to grasp is that the wealthy are very good at protecting capital. It's why they have it in the first place! They aren't stationary targets that will cheerfully sign over what they have. That money will be going into tax shelters or out of the country just as soon as your proposed tax on the rich winds it's way through Congress.

You see wealth being "held" by the rich which you'd seize to pay for our out of control government spending. So your "plan" is to siphon off this wealth from the Private Sector and use that to prop up the Public Sector...and yet you expect this to have no effect on the economy?

Here's a hint, Sparky...you can't punish the wealthy for having money and expect them to invest their money. They won't. They'll take that wealth and they will invest it in an economy that isn't punishing them for making a profit. Look at New Jersey and what happened to them when they tried passing a "millionaires tax" because it's a microcosm of what would happen to the US if they did the same thing.

Our government at the moment resembles a large bucket riddled with holes that water is pouring out of. Rather than fix the holes...your solution is to pour more water into the bucket.

Guy, one more time.

If the whole country taxes the Douchebags at an appropriate rate, where the fuck are they going to go live? France? I hear they are trying to tax the rich at 75% there.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

Your ignorance is typical, Joe. Yeah, go ahead and tax the wealthy and see how quickly we're "done". What naive liberals like yourself never seem to grasp is that the wealthy are very good at protecting capital. It's why they have it in the first place! They aren't stationary targets that will cheerfully sign over what they have. That money will be going into tax shelters or out of the country just as soon as your proposed tax on the rich winds it's way through Congress.

You see wealth being "held" by the rich which you'd seize to pay for our out of control government spending. So your "plan" is to siphon off this wealth from the Private Sector and use that to prop up the Public Sector...and yet you expect this to have no effect on the economy?

Here's a hint, Sparky...you can't punish the wealthy for having money and expect them to invest their money. They won't. They'll take that wealth and they will invest it in an economy that isn't punishing them for making a profit. Look at New Jersey and what happened to them when they tried passing a "millionaires tax" because it's a microcosm of what would happen to the US if they did the same thing.

Our government at the moment resembles a large bucket riddled with holes that water is pouring out of. Rather than fix the holes...your solution is to pour more water into the bucket.

Guy, one more time.

If the whole country taxes the Douchebags at an appropriate rate, where the fuck are they going to go live? France? I hear they are trying to tax the rich at 75% there.

Yes, Joe...if the entire country goes after their capital then the "Douchebags" will go live elsewhere. Great Britain tried to do what you espouse recently and it was a disaster. Some 16,000 people had declared incomes of a million pounds per year or more before a new tax on the super wealthy was put into play...a year later that number declined to 6,000. That means over 50% of the super wealthy either moved their principle residence out of Great Britain or took steps to change their taxable income. That new tax actually COST Great Britain revenue.

You have no clue what you're talking about when you babble on about taxing the rich at an "appropriate" rate, Joe! If you REALLY looked at what happens when you go that route you'd realize that it was a foolish economic tact to take. But you can't SEE that because you're caught up in the "fairness" debate.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, Joe...if the entire country goes after their capital then the "Douchebags" will go live elsewhere. Great Britain tried to do what you espouse recently and it was a disaster. Some 16,000 people had declared incomes of a million pounds per year or more before a new tax on the super wealthy was put into play...a year later that number declined to 6,000. That means over 50% of the super wealthy either moved their principle residence out of Great Britain or took steps to change their taxable income. That new tax actually COST Great Britain revenue.

You have no clue what you're talking about when you babble on about taxing the rich at an "appropriate" rate, Joe! If you REALLY looked at what happens when you go that route you'd realize that it was a foolish economic tact to take. But you can't SEE that because you're caught up in the "fairness" debate.

That just tells me that their version of the IRS isn't aggressive enough. Let our rich try to pull that shit, the IRS pulls them in for a nice talk. Maybe toss a couple of them in big-boy jail for tax evasion.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, Joe...if the entire country goes after their capital then the "Douchebags" will go live elsewhere. Great Britain tried to do what you espouse recently and it was a disaster. Some 16,000 people had declared incomes of a million pounds per year or more before a new tax on the super wealthy was put into play...a year later that number declined to 6,000. That means over 50% of the super wealthy either moved their principle residence out of Great Britain or took steps to change their taxable income. That new tax actually COST Great Britain revenue.

You have no clue what you're talking about when you babble on about taxing the rich at an "appropriate" rate, Joe! If you REALLY looked at what happens when you go that route you'd realize that it was a foolish economic tact to take. But you can't SEE that because you're caught up in the "fairness" debate.

That just tells me that their version of the IRS isn't aggressive enough. Let our rich try to pull that shit, the IRS pulls them in for a nice talk. Maybe toss a couple of them in big-boy jail for tax evasion.

Ah, yes...IRS jackboots ringing in the streets! Forget the "law"...you're going to take the money whether it's by the rules or not, right Joe! Gee, that will have investors flocking to the US to set up their businesses and hire Americans! Oh wait...why wouldn't they just choose to invest their money outside of the US where it isn't taxed at a draconian rate? Why would anyone be stupid enough to start up the next Microsoft, Apple or General Motors in a place where profits were seized by the Federal Government like it was some two bit Banana Republic? You'd have to be a moron to not start up your business in a country that wouldn't be waiting around like vultures on a tree for any potential profits.

 

[bendog]

It does make me wonder why we allow tax havens for guys like Mitt, and don't attach tax to profits kept over seas by corps (though I'm not much in favor of corp taxes, and prefer taxing passive income individually) Not that 'soaking the rich' is a valid reason to tax anyone, but getting needed revenue is.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Joeys lying up a storm again!!
Though his valid point, you can't spend more than you have...............

Isn't that a tea party talking point?

Yet the fanatics rile against the tea party with the most vicious hate and vitriol!!
Didn't all the support their hero who has been instigating the mass murder of children of suspected tea party members!

THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.

Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.

So borrowing from China we go.

The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for. .

You're talking about tax on their incomes. The rulers let slip in print that the 1% has $73 trillion in assets. Your second delusion is that the GUBMINT! takes tax revenue and lets it all rot in some landfill. The truth is that they circulate a cash flow with more current to it than the private market of hoarders ever can achieve.

 

[PrometheusBound]

THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.

Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.

So borrowing from China we go.

What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind. Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people. The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for. It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy. But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.

They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.

There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country. The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year. The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth. The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.

Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy. Done.

Not that I want the rich to get off the hook, but pragmatically speaking, we can avoid default just by all the tax revenue that would come in through legalization of marijuana.

 

[PrometheusBound]

What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind. Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people. The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for. It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy. But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.

They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.

There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country. The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year. The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth. The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.

Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy. Done.

So a 75% tax rate ?

So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.

What effect will that have, idiot?

Again you Pinocchios want us to believe that the Gubmint takes the tax revenue and hides it in a locked warehouse. The rich parasites will siphon all their tax money back through increased economic activity created by government spending, idiot.

 

[PrometheusBound]

So a 75% tax rate ?

So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.

What effect will that have, idiot?

A pretty fucking awesome one, actually.

Under Ike, the top marginal tax rate was 93% if you made $400,000 in 1951 dollars. (That would be about 3.6 million today.)

And with that, we built an interstate highway system that made us the most competitive country in the world, we invested in first rate schools and universities, we poured billions into research and development that brought advances in technology.

Certainly a lot more than if the rich assholes were just allowed to invest in Dressage Horses and swimming pools.

Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.

Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.

Despite plutocratic parasites taking credit for everything good that happens and having the propaganda machine to make their insulting claims stick, it was inventors who created material progress, not investors. Investment is static, invention is dynamic. The grand larceny of corporate patents demoralizes inventors, who are treated like Cash Cows.

 

[PrometheusBound]

[Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.

Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.

Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here.

But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are. They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.

Only the severely mentally impaired believe that owners are earners. We are not allowed to hear the heresy of Necessary But Not Valuable. Without a key, we can't drive a $50,000 car. But the key is worth only $5.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here.

But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are. They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.

You live in Chicago ffs!

Unfortunately, parasites are people like you on the public dole who are too lazy or too incompetent to hold a job. The rich have to bail your sorry asses out in the name of humanity.

The rich have no humanity... that's the problem.

More like Jabba the Hutt as Forbes Magazine's Man of the Year every year.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Explains a lot that Blow job Joe gets his political point of views from B Sci-Fi movies.

That's because the fantasies the rich create about their value to society are so unrealistic that even Hollywood rejects those scripts.

 

[thanatos144]

Explains a lot that Blow job Joe gets his political point of views from B Sci-Fi movies.

That's because the fantasies the rich create about their value to society are so unrealistic that even Hollywood rejects those scripts.

Which rich are we talking about? The ones who own businesses and employe people like your stupid ass or the Hollywood elite rich who do nothing but stroke their own perverted ego? You know the evil rich Hollywood portray as uncaring and ruthless is true.... It just happens to be them.

 

[Toro]

rich people > bigots

I think we can all agree on that.