Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave.

[Freewill]

 

[Indeependent]

Bubbles produce goods.
Crashes produce lack of ownership of those goods; of course, that only applies to those who can't contribute to politicians.

 

[Londoner]

Reagan would have chewed up Mrs Tuluza Clinton and spit her out. Just like he did to Carter and Mondale, it almost hurt to watch.

Reagan would not have entered into one Republican attacking another.

Reagan wasn't debating fellow Republicans who had already ruined the US via Reagan's Policies.

Reagan started the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in history. He restored the US Presidency that Carter almost destroyed. Clinton road the Reagan wave and with a Republican Congress the budget appeared to be balanced. Then Clinton did the middle class in by pushing for NAFTA harder then he pushed for anything else during his two terms. The results were predicted, there is no denying. What is happening was predicted by Perot and it all lies with the man who signed NAFTA, William Jefferson Clinton.

We now face the cross roads, finally end the Clinton families meddling in US politics or take the road of the status quo, which has not worked out well.

Horseshit...Oct 17, 1987.
How quickly we forget what Bubbles produce.

I am going to cut you some slack here and just assume you are too young to remember Nixon, Carter, Reagan.

The stock market? Really, you use that as a measure of economic expansion? Really? Legalized gambling?

The Reagan Boom - Greatest Ever

The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let's look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan's new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years.

Creation of wealth.

The amount of wealth produced during this seven year period was stupendous - some $30 trillion worth of goods and services. Again, it was a world record. Never before had so much wealth been produced during a comparable period. According to a recent study, net asset values - including stocks, bonds and real estate - went up by more than $5 trillion between 1982 and 1989, an increase of roughly 50 percent.

There are other important measures. Steady economic growth. As we begin the decade of the 1990's, we are in our 86th straight month of economic growth - a new record for peacetime, five months longer than the wartime growth of World War II and only 23 months short of the wartime record set during the Vietnam War in the 1960's. Most experts now predict that it will last right through 1990, and perhaps beyond.

Reagan tripled Carter's debt, and lorded over the greatest expansion of middle class borrowing in history. He handed future presidents a middle class consumer destoyed by debt. We know Democrats like to spend - they admit it. But nobody spent like Reagan.

Reagan Mythology is Leading US Off a Cliff

"The idea that Reagan produced a uniquely booming economy is false

First, Reagan's record on the economy was not just exaggerated by his boosters, it's almost exactly the opposite of what they claim. It was a fairly ordinary time by the most common measurements of economic growth, looking good only in comparison with a selective time-slice of the 1970s. But once you start looking beneath the surface even the tiniest bit, the picture turns very dark indeed.

In terms of the most basic measure of economic growth - increase in gross domestic product (GDP) - the vaunted "Reagan boom" was an unremarkable period of time. If we look at Reagan's eight years, and compare them with Clinton's and JFK/LBJ's, Reagan comes in dead last, with 31.7 per cent compared with Clinton's 33.1 per cent and JFK/LBJ's 47.1 per cent. Only Nixon/Ford's eight years make Reagan look good, with a mere 26.2 per cent growth.

The idea that Reagan brought prosperity is true only for those at the top, notfor average American workers

If we examine incomes, we discover that Reagan's eight years marked a real take-off for inequality, while average incomes stagnated. The income growth of the top once per cent was ten times that of everyone else during his term: 61.5 per cent versus 6.15 per cent. Under JFK/LBJ, the bottom 99 per cent actually did better: gaining 30.9 per cent compared with 26.9 per cent for the top once per cent. And while inequality continued to rise under Clinton, the bottom 99 per cent did more than twice as well as they did under Reagan, gaining 16.7 per cent compared with 56.6 per cent for the wealthiest one per cent.

The idea that Reagan was good for the American economy in general is false

Reagan was a disaster for the American economy in at least four fundamental ways:

Debtor Nation Status: Under Ronald Reagan, the US went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years - and we have remained the largest debtor nation ever since. In 1981, Reagan's first year in office, the US was a net creditor to the tune of $140.9bn. By 1984, that had shrunk to just $3.3bn - and the next year, the US shifted from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation for the first time in almost 70 years. By 1987, the US was a net debtor by $378.3bn - the largest debtor nation in the world. The figure rose to $532.5bn by the end of 1988, when Reagan left office.

De-Industrialization: While the percentage of industrial jobs in the economy had been declining since the 1950s, with the growth of the service sector, the raw number of industrial jobs continued to increase right up through 1979, just before the 1980/1982 double-dip recession. From that year onward, the number of industrial jobs began declining, with a smattering of years when the number would increase. In addition to the raw number of jobs declining, the number of unionized jobs and the number of jobs with American companies declined even further.

Personal indebtedness: The income stagnation that began under Reagan has had a devastating impact on personal savings. While it fluctuated considerably, the personal savings rate had more than doubled between 1949 and 1982, from 5.0 per cent up to 11.2 per cent. Ironically, one of the main stated purposes of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, the basis for Reagan's 1981 tax cut bill, was to boost personal savings. Instead, they plunged precipitously, falling all the way down into negative territory by 2006.

Government Indebtedness: The idea that Reagan was "fiscally conservative" is false. The story of government indebtedness was even more bleak. Before Reagan, debt really wasn't a problem for America. From World War II to 1981, every president had reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP, except for the divided term of Nixon-Ford, which saw a tiny 0.2 per cent increase.

The debt-to-GDP ratio is much more significant than the debt alone, since the GDP represents the nation's total capacity to pay off the debt. And from WWII to 1981, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell from almost 120 per cent down to just down to just 32.5 per cent. The sharpest drop came early on, but even during the supposed "big government" heyday of the Kennedy/Johnson years, the ratio fell by over 16 per cent in eight years. Conservatives then might have complained about the debt - and they certainly did - but no one knowledgeable about economics took them seriously, because the debt grew significantly slower than our ability to repay it.

During Reagan's term, this changed dramatically. The ratio rose by over 20 per cent, and it rose another 13 per cent under his successor, George Bush Sr. It took a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to get the ratio headed down again - by almost 10 per cent during his two terms, before Bush Jr sent it skyrocketing again - by almost 28 per cent. It's rising fast under Obama as well - but that's to be expected as a result of the worst recession since the 1930s."

 

[Missourian]

So I ask you: how did we get from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump? When did the Republican Party become the party of know-nothing blow hards?

Is Reagan turning over in his grave?

And when Reagan ran, they had their talking points against him...a old doddering fool.

Look how that turned out.

​

 

[Missourian]

Why are these threads all started by leftists?

 

[Indeependent]

So I ask you: how did we get from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump? When did the Republican Party become the party of know-nothing blow hards?

Is Reagan turning over in his grave?

And when Reagan ran, they had their talking points against him...a old doddering fool.

Look how that turned out.

​

I'm looking...A vote for Trump is a vote against Reagan.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Back is Reagan's era television news was far less about entertainment and more about information. Fox News, CNN, and the rest of the media are making big bucks out of turning the campaign into the WWE.

In Reagan's era they started off the process of deregulating everything and here we are. The fairness doctrine for example. Now it is a free for all of misinformation and bullshit. Enjoy!

 

[Londoner]

...a old doddering fool.

​

Like Trump Reagan was a Democrat. Even after becoming a Republican, as governor of California, he passed the most liberal abortion policy in the nation. As a child his family accepted loads of assistance from the New Deal.

Reagan lavished praise on FDR in his first biography "Where's the Rest of Me". He campaigned for Truman. He and his family were net takers.

Truth is, FDR had faith in the American people. He invested in the American People. He gave the Reagan's a "leg up" when they were down. Some say that our investment in the Reagan's was worh it.

Reagan's total lack of policy sophistication made him open to compromise (IMHO). He spent way more money stimulating the economy than Carter. Yes, he was an Apparatchik for big oil and toxic to the middle class, who had to borrow record amounts to make up for the failure of Supply Side Economics to create quality jobs for the lower classes BUT ... he saved Social Security and added more government jobs than Carter, Clinton and Obama combined (mostly in defense). He was far more moderate at the policy level than your party has told you - and his support of the Brady Bill was the most sensible gun legislation in the last 1/2 century. He was far to the left of your current party.

Reagan was a million times better than Bush 43, and Trump will be a million times better than Cruz or Rubio.

The fact that they're both doddering fools doesn't matter when you consider what the other options were/are....

 

[Claudette]

Reagan never lost his cool in a debate. He never lost his professionalism.

Cruz, Rubio and Trump sound like weak-minded petty unstable morons on a high school playground.

Cruz and Rubio are creepy talking-point-machines. Cruz keeps regurgitating canned speeches about the failure of the Left, but it sounds so over-prepared and fake. He never retreats from talking points to substance. Rubio comes off like a greasy used-car salesman.

The Republican outreach program to uneducated, low-information voters (mostly through talk radio) has finally come home to roost. These candidates were not spawned in a vacuum, they were chosen by the voters and they reflect the death of Ronald Reagan's party.

God help us because one of them is going to be president.

So I ask you: how did we get from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump? When did the Republican Party become the party of know-nothing blow hards?

Is Reagan turning over in his grave?

Don't know about Reagan but I'm sure the FF are all turning over in theirs.

 

[Mac1958]

Reagan never lost his cool in a debate. He never lost his professionalism.

Cruz, Rubio and Trump sound like weak-minded petty unstable morons on a high school playground.

Cruz and Rubio are creepy talking-point-machines. Cruz keeps regurgitating canned speeches about the failure of the Left, but it sounds so over-prepared and fake. He never retreats from talking points to substance. Rubio comes off like a greasy used-car salesman.

The Republican outreach program to uneducated, low-information voters (mostly through talk radio) has finally come home to roost. These candidates were not spawned in a vacuum, they were chosen by the voters and they reflect the death of Ronald Reagan's party.

God help us because one of them is going to be president.

So I ask you: how did we get from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump? When did the Republican Party become the party of know-nothing blow hards?

Is Reagan turning over in his grave?

They're trying/hoping desperately to find a modern-day Reagan, and there just isn't one out there.

So they keep lowering their standards as Reagan's mythology grows with time, making it even tougher.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

Remember when Trump said "Lying Ted" and "Little Marco".

Remember when Trump revered to his big hands and defended the size of his genitals.

This is the leading Republican Candidate for President.

God Help us.

Trump lacks substance. He is all bluster. He doesn't know any policy specifics, and he appeals to like-minded voters who have very little post high-school education.

God help us.

(Say what you want about Reagan, but he never descended to this level. Yes, he decimated the middle class, but these candidates are obscenely under-prepared to lead this country. They are unstable and unprepared to lead this nation. i have never seen anything like this)

You are overlooking one minor detail. Anyone that can drive liberals to such distraction that even Ronald Reagan takes a back seat is doing something right.

I am voting for who ever pisses liberals off the most.

 

[Iceweasel]

I hope Reagan is burning in Hell.

He's sitting next to God for defeating communism. Sorry if it still burns your butt.

 

[FJO]

If Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave it is because the current Republican contenders are so callously, flagrantly, morbidly and childishly ignore his 11th Commandment.