Why does everyone love Reagan so much?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's something I wrote in 2011 near Reagan's 100th birthday. It's still true now.

As we get closer to Reagan's 100th Birthday, we are going to get treated to the mythological Reagan who was a paragon of conservative virtue, ignoring the guy who actually was president from 1981 to 1989.

To quickly recap- The Real Ronald Reagan:

Tripled the National Debt.
Engaged in huge public spending programs.
Negotiated with Terrorists and traded arms for hostages.
Raised Taxes after cutting them.
Gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens.
Compromised with the Democratic Majority to expand social security.
Reached agreements with America's adversaries.

Appointed moderates to the Supreme Court

Rarely went to church and believed in Astrology

That was the REAL Ronald Reagan, and he was a good president because he was a PRAGMATIST, not a ideologue. An ideologue was George W. Bush, who kept to his policies even when they FAILED.

Sadly, what we are going to get from now until Feb 11 is replays of his best speeches, and no real discussion of what the implication of his policies were, such as the undermining of the middle class through free trade and deunionization of the private sector.

Raised Taxes after cutting them.

Which taxes did he raise? Any specifics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

weapons for sale


of course the right loves him.

he should have been impeached.


then of course the right wanted to Impeach bill for getting some on the side.


they hate anyone who is not them.

then of course the right wanted to Impeach bill for getting some on the side.

That's what the Articles of Impeachment said? Idiot.

 

[Stephanie]

weapons for sale


of course the right loves him.

he should have been impeached.


then of course the right wanted to Impeach bill for getting some on the side.


they hate anyone who is not them.

then of course the right wanted to Impeach bill for getting some on the side.

That's what the Articles of Impeachment said? Idiot.

man they are shameless how they lie about things
but they are well trained by their elected commies today in the Democrat party. Billy boy lied right to their face while looking in the camera and claimed: I didn't have sex with THAT WOMAN you know what's her name, oh hell it's slipped it mind. but anyway, I didn't have sex with IT.
Obama lied right in face. Hillary Lies to them. but this is what I mean when said, back in the day of Reagan. the people cared and was more INVOLVED

 

[gipper]

I'm a leftist, and I don't know any leftists who think that. Not saying they don't exist, but....

Reagan blew up the debt in a time when that stimulated the economy, so all that deficit spending on a shiny new high tech military spurred the economy.

Obama is blowing up the debt with the same intent, as well as just trying to keep the wheels turning with the economy. But the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world. Foreign economic competition is infinitely more potent, and expecting government spending to stimulate an exhausted economy just won't work like it did for Reagan

I can tell you there are leftists on this forum who believe it. They think BO's massive deficit spending was necessary to keep the economy going. BO spent exponentially more than Reagan, but Reagan's economy boomed for over two decades...we are still waiting for BO's economy to boom. Yet many libs condemn Reagan for deficit spending while commending BO. Makes no sense.

Could you reference a link showing proof that American workers are the least cost effective? This is news to me.

In order to avoid dissimilar starting points, I think we would need to agree on comparisons between the economy Carter left Reagan, and the economy Bush left Obama.

Furthermore it sounds like you're crediting the prosperity during the Clinton administration to Reagan...so we have to agree on who gets the credit, and the blame, for overlapping trends.

Moreover, most economists that provide analyses outside of political context, will tell you a President only has a maximum effect of 10% + or - on the economy, depending on how smart, stupid, lucky, or unlucky, they are.

A lot to unwind right, and you don't seem like someone interested in a pissing contest, like myself.

As far as providing a link for my opinion that the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world...isn't that somewhat self evident based on the increase in outsourcing of American jobs?

There is considerable disagreement about the state of the economy when Reagan and BO took charge. Many can cite stats showing Reagan had it much worse, while others claim BO did. Reagan did not bail out the .1%. BO did.

I am of the opinion that presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy. I think the American economy is an engine that just needs very slight monitoring for it to hum. Reagan got the government out of the way and it boomed. BO did the opposite and we can see the results with nearly 100 million working age Americans not working.

Regarding cost effectiveness of the American worker, the off shoring of jobs is not a good indicator. It may be for certain industries that need lots of unskilled labor, but not so for those needing skilled labor. Much of the American work force is working more productively and for more hours than in years past.

My feeling is that the POTUS and Congress can only make recoveries worse, not much better. The best thing to do, in most cases, is to do nothing except provide help to those who are truly suffering.

Interesting, and I agree up to the point that the POTUS and Congress can't help the economy be better, some...

So do you think that Reagan didn't have much of a part in that recovery?

I will say I think people like the Koch Brothers ad Bill Gates are the people that make recoveries better

What Reagan did was attack big government in his speeches. He was seen as a advocate for business and that was seen by the private sector as very good news, but the Volcker Fed raising interest rates to heights never seen before hurt the economy temporarily. This reduced inflation and turned the economy around. This action probably had more to do with the decades of growth that followed.

The problem with people like Gates and Koch Bros is they greatly influence elections with their money. Many of these billionaires are fools who think because they make big money in business, they should be running the country...and they are running the country. Bernie speaks often of the billionaire class, which is likely why he will be marginalized and prevented from winning the D nomination.

 

[Bfgrn]

That growth happened because we were fighting a world war, Damn, you libs are stupid.

Actually "that growth" began before WWII...

The greatest yearly increase in GDP occurred during the New Deal, AND, the LARGEST DROP IN UNEPLOYMENT in America history occurred during the New Deal...


Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

The Forgotten Math: Pre-WWII New Deal Saw Biggest Drop In Unemployment Rate in American History

 

[Bfgrn]

Here's something I wrote in 2011 near Reagan's 100th birthday. It's still true now.

As we get closer to Reagan's 100th Birthday, we are going to get treated to the mythological Reagan who was a paragon of conservative virtue, ignoring the guy who actually was president from 1981 to 1989.

To quickly recap- The Real Ronald Reagan:

Tripled the National Debt.
Engaged in huge public spending programs.
Negotiated with Terrorists and traded arms for hostages.
Raised Taxes after cutting them.
Gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens.
Compromised with the Democratic Majority to expand social security.
Reached agreements with America's adversaries.

Appointed moderates to the Supreme Court

Rarely went to church and believed in Astrology

That was the REAL Ronald Reagan, and he was a good president because he was a PRAGMATIST, not a ideologue. An ideologue was George W. Bush, who kept to his policies even when they FAILED.

Sadly, what we are going to get from now until Feb 11 is replays of his best speeches, and no real discussion of what the implication of his policies were, such as the undermining of the middle class through free trade and deunionization of the private sector.

Raised Taxes after cutting them.

Which taxes did he raise? Any specifics?

 

[toxicmedia]

It is always amazing to watch the Libtard trolls come out of the woodwork with their lies, diversions, and generally scripted trash.

Wow, look at the post right before yours.

#69

Doesn't that sound like a garden variety talking point, a diversion? Not so much on thoughtful? and Trollish

Actually the part about FDR knowing about and ignoring the pending attack on Pearl Harbor is far more true than liberal historians care to accept. He wanted us to enter the war in Europe and also expand the economy by massive infusion of $$$ into industry.

In order to validate the idea that all the historians who wrote about FDR in 1941 were liberal, you must evaluate the bias possible amongst revisionist historians who say FDR used the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to sacrifice Americans frivolously.

Part of my understanding is shaped by claims that FDR and George Marshall knew the war in the Pacific was inevitable, and they decided that preserving the secret that they had broken the Japanese codes, justified the military losses resulting from keeping the Japanese fooled. It's obtuse, but mathematically logical if that's all true.

Claims about FDR and his knowledge of the attacks were going to be part of Thomas Dewey's Presidential campaign against FDR, but Marshall talked him out of it for national security reasons.

I'm not sure who to believe, but the idea that FDR made a decision to allow 3000 Americans to die, just to start a war, doesn't really make sense, on it's own. Because the war was going to start someday anyway

 

[toxicmedia]

I can tell you there are leftists on this forum who believe it. They think BO's massive deficit spending was necessary to keep the economy going. BO spent exponentially more than Reagan, but Reagan's economy boomed for over two decades...we are still waiting for BO's economy to boom. Yet many libs condemn Reagan for deficit spending while commending BO. Makes no sense.

Could you reference a link showing proof that American workers are the least cost effective? This is news to me.

In order to avoid dissimilar starting points, I think we would need to agree on comparisons between the economy Carter left Reagan, and the economy Bush left Obama.

Furthermore it sounds like you're crediting the prosperity during the Clinton administration to Reagan...so we have to agree on who gets the credit, and the blame, for overlapping trends.

Moreover, most economists that provide analyses outside of political context, will tell you a President only has a maximum effect of 10% + or - on the economy, depending on how smart, stupid, lucky, or unlucky, they are.

A lot to unwind right, and you don't seem like someone interested in a pissing contest, like myself.

As far as providing a link for my opinion that the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world...isn't that somewhat self evident based on the increase in outsourcing of American jobs?

There is considerable disagreement about the state of the economy when Reagan and BO took charge. Many can cite stats showing Reagan had it much worse, while others claim BO did. Reagan did not bail out the .1%. BO did.

I am of the opinion that presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy. I think the American economy is an engine that just needs very slight monitoring for it to hum. Reagan got the government out of the way and it boomed. BO did the opposite and we can see the results with nearly 100 million working age Americans not working.

Regarding cost effectiveness of the American worker, the off shoring of jobs is not a good indicator. It may be for certain industries that need lots of unskilled labor, but not so for those needing skilled labor. Much of the American work force is working more productively and for more hours than in years past.

My feeling is that the POTUS and Congress can only make recoveries worse, not much better. The best thing to do, in most cases, is to do nothing except provide help to those who are truly suffering.

Interesting, and I agree up to the point that the POTUS and Congress can't help the economy be better, some...

So do you think that Reagan didn't have much of a part in that recovery?

I will say I think people like the Koch Brothers ad Bill Gates are the people that make recoveries better

What Reagan did was attack big government in his speeches. He was seen as a advocate for business and that was seen by the private sector as very good news, but the Volcker Fed raising interest rates to heights never seen before hurt the economy temporarily. This reduced inflation and turned the economy around. This action probably had more to do with the decades of growth that followed.

The problem with people like Gates and Koch Bros is they greatly influence elections with their money. Many of these billionaires are fools who think because they make big money in business, they should be running the country...and they are running the country. Bernie speaks often of the billionaire class, which is likely why he will be marginalized and prevented from winning the D nomination.

Honestly...who else should run the country except special interests that take the time to get involved?

The ordinary citizen does not have the time to sift through legislation, and base their voting decisions on all of it.

So if citizens are not getting involved, and they've relaxed in the inspirational rhetoric some politician presented them with, hoping if elected, will represent them as a leader...why are we surprised that special interest and politicians adapt their games to getting votes, and the money for campaigns?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progs HATE Reagan because he beat their home team

 

[Stephanie]

Progs HATE Reagan because he beat their home team

not just beat them. WHIPPED em so bad they never got over it.

that's why I like Walker. He took them on with their Union backing them and kicked their asses and all that money they put out to recall him...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Stupid ass kiddie liberals, don't understand the Reagan legacy, we had up to him so many hell hole years, the guy brought the country up. All Obama did is drag us down

Good thing we have great governors like Nikki and Scott otherwise this country would suck.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually the part about FDR knowing about and ignoring the pending attack on Pearl Harbor is far more true than liberal historians care to accept. He wanted us to enter the war in Europe and also expand the economy by massive infusion of $$$ into industry.

Except nothing was ignored. All US Possessions in the Pacific, including Pearl Harbor, were already on alert for a possible Japanese attack.

What wasn't expected was what the Japanese actually did, because it was thought Pearl Harbor was impregnable.

In fact, the Commander at Ford's Field lined up the aircraft in a row so they'd be easier to guard from sabotuers, which is what they thought they were in for.

 

[JoeB131]

Stupid ass kiddie liberals, don't understand the Reagan legacy, we had up to him so many hell hole years, the guy brought the country up. All Obama did is drag us down

Good thing we have great governors like Nikki and Scott otherwise this country would suck.

The 1980s sucked just as much as the 1970's did, on balance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stupid ass kiddie liberals, don't understand the Reagan legacy, we had up to him so many hell hole years, the guy brought the country up. All Obama did is drag us down

Good thing we have great governors like Nikki and Scott otherwise this country would suck.

The 1980s sucked just as much as the 1970's did, on balance.

We love Reagan because he the most conservative president and so the most like our Founders.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Stupid ass kiddie liberals, don't understand the Reagan legacy, we had up to him so many hell hole years, the guy brought the country up. All Obama did is drag us down

Good thing we have great governors like Nikki and Scott otherwise this country would suck.

The 1980s sucked just as much as the 1970's did, on balance.

that was your world pal, for the rest of us he gave us FREEDOM and had our back.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nothing compares to the 80's

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing compares to the 80's

A statue to former US president Ronald Reagan, who is highly respected in Poland for having helped hasten the fall of the Iron Curtain, was unveiled by Communist-era opposition icon Lech Walesa in Warsaw yesterday.




"Let us bow before Ronald Reagan for the fact that our generation was able to bring an end to the great divisions and conflicts of the world," Mr Walesa said in a ceremony in the heart of the Polish capital Warsaw.

"What happened seemed impossible or unthinkable. The older generations still remember," the Nobel Peace laureate said.

A handsome, stylized 'park bench' monument dedicated to Cold War victor Ronald Reagan was unveiled in the former Soviet republic of Georgia yesterday. The country's pro-Western, American-educated president Mikhail Saakashvili proclaimed that the work 'deserves a place in the heart of Tblisi' as he and his countrymen seek to honor Reaganfor 'destroying the Soviet empire'. He also took the opportunity to lament what he sees as Vladimir Putin's attempts torestore that lost empire.



Reagan ended the cold war and very possibly saved humanity from nuclear annihilation; 2 billion live under freedom today, who would be starving to death under the communism that Reagan understood and hated so much! The Democrats spied for Communism and wanted peaceful coexistence or detente because they lacked the IQ to understand what it really was! Without Reagan, Gorbechev would not have known what the alternative was! Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall" HIs moral clarity, the Stinger missiles that he personally gave to Afghanistan, and Star Wars (the ABM system we still desperately need today) inspired the death of the USSR !!

On the domestic front Reagan also had moral clarity! He said, "isn't welfare a form of slavery" Then "welfare as we know it" was ended. Moreover, he and Newt got 34 States to sign a Balanced Budget Amendment that would have prevented all the domestic problems we face today because of Democratic fiscal irresponsibility. Moreover, if the Balanced Budget had been passed we would no longer be plagued by the Democratic Party as we know it! IF the Democrats could no longer subvert our democracy by buying votes with promises of ever expanding welfare programs they would instantly disappear!! Further: Reagan slashed taxes from a 70% top bracket in 1981 to 28% in 1986. That resulted in 20 million jobs being created between 1983 - 1989, a doubling of the amount of revenue going into government coffers, and a wave of prosperity that America rode from 1983 until 2001 with only a small pause at the end of the George Bush Sr.'s term.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

-- Ronald Reagan

 

[Moonglow]

Stupid ass kiddie liberals, don't understand the Reagan legacy, we had up to him so many hell hole years, the guy brought the country up. All Obama did is drag us down

Good thing we have great governors like Nikki and Scott otherwise this country would suck.

The 1980s sucked just as much as the 1970's did, on balance.

We love Reagan because he the most conservative president and so the most like our Founders.

The founders were not friendly to corporations...

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan did not write all his speeches...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Reagan did not write all his speeches...

you have a link?