How Liberals Created Ronald Reagan

[there4eyeM]

Wouldn't the US consider the same actions carried out in America by another country as intolerable interference?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wouldn't the US consider the same actions carried out in America by another country as intolerable interference?

Have you ever heard the old saying....

"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan raisd taxes 11 times to cover his 4 fold increase in the military and to pay for his tax cuts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan raisd taxes 11 times to cover his 4 fold increase in the military and to pay for his tax cuts.

What a bargain!!!


His brilliant strategy defeated the Evil Empire without firing a shot!


"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_3/?tag=content;col1



"...to cover his 4 fold increase in the military..."

"I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."


our freedom and our future.....priceless.


OK, drop-draws, now say "thank you, President Reagan!"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Horseshit

 

[there4eyeM]

Wouldn't the US consider the same actions carried out in America by another country as intolerable interference?

Have you ever heard the old saying....

"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."

The answer I was looking for. It is at least good to see the hypocrisy and contradiction of various US administrations, Republican and Democrat.

And the only thing to thank Reagan for is that he was not even more of a catastrophe.

 

[Friends]

Reagan was a bad actor and a bad president.

And that's no one's fault but his own.

Ronald Reagan played the role of a hard working, deeply religious family man, none of which he was. Jimmy Carter was all of that.

 

[Friends]

Wouldn't the US consider the same actions carried out in America by another country as intolerable interference?

Have you ever heard the old saying....

"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."

The answer I was looking for. It is at least good to see the hypocrisy and contradiction of various US administrations, Republican and Democrat.

And the only thing to thank Reagan for is that he was not even more of a catastrophe.

He could have bungled his way to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. If instead of Mikhail Gorbachev the Soviet Union had been ruled by a neo Stalinist as reckless as Reagan that is what might have happened.

 

[Friends]

Reagan raisd taxes 11 times to cover his 4 fold increase in the military and to pay for his tax cuts.

What a bargain!!!

His brilliant strategy defeated the Evil Empire without firing a shot!

"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

"...to cover his 4 fold increase in the military..."

"I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."

our freedom and our future.....priceless.

OK, drop-draws, now say "thank you, President Reagan!"

Because the Soviet Union was nearing collapse Reagan's defense budget, which bankrupted the Treasury, was unnecessary. Moreover, because of that imminent collapse, provoking an arms race with the Soviets was catastrophically dangerous.

 

[Friends]

Reagan raisd taxes 11 times to cover his 4 fold increase in the military and to pay for his tax cuts.

His tax cuts for the rich, you mean. Under Ronald Blithering Reagan the top tax rate declined from 70 to 28 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

Real after tax income for 80 percent of the country declined.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

 

[Friends]

Reagan was a bad actor and a bad president.

And that's no one's fault but his own.

Can't always believe everything you hear.

1. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981.
Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury


2. The benefits from Reaganomics:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)

b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)

c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)

d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)

e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)
FDsys - Browse ERP

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

So...how does that compare to "The One"?

Care to alter your post?

Go back and read my posts. Fewer jobs were created per year than under Jimmy Carter. Unemployment was higher. Real after tax income for 80 percent of the country declined. The national debt doubled. The only people who benefited from Reagan's policies were rich people, and the rather small number who got rich.

 

[Friends]

Welcome to the board, Friend....

Enough chit-chat:

"Nevertheless, Carter was a better president."

No doubt you teach geopolitical history at one of our noteworthy universities....

You won't like this:

Carter’s brilliant strategic ploy of abandoning the shah of Iran, an important American ally, soon led to soaring oil prices and, of course, Islamic lunatics holding fifty-two Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office by the American people. (Carter’s abandonment of the shah also gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today.)

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------

Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was a popular, and democratically elected leader. He was a moderate Muslim, a moderate socialist, and considerably more decent than any ruler Iran has had since.

Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was never a popular dictator. In 1979 the only way President Carter could have kept him in power would have been by a military occupation of Iran. I am glad Carter did not order that, and sorry that President Eisenhower did order the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran.

1. Your post could hardly be topped as proof of what the Great Man posited:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."


And...again, enough chit-chat....let's get down to disemboweling....


Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.
[The Shah] - C-SPAN Video Library



2. Prior to 1951, Britain controlled Iran’s oil industry. The US foresaw how the one-sided dominance would result in a nationalist uprising, and warned Britain, but they refused to alter the agreements, claiming that they knew how to deal with the ‘natives.’

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.


3. When the communists attacked Mossadeq, the nationalists, the middle class, the merchants and even a broad swath of clerics—Islamists such as Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—had initially supported Mossadegh.

4. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. The US began to agree with overthrowing the Prime Minister.

a. The power of the communists was increasing in Iran…and the economy suffered a downturn. Both factors caused a loss of popular support for Mossadeq- but due to the loss of support, he felt the need to gravitate toward the communists. This scared off the clergy.

b. Brits and the US began to send in agents provocateurs to act as communists to further cause rifts between the clergy and Mossadeq.

c. As compensation for his support, Ayatollah Kashani began to demand veto rights on legislation, and Islamic laws, and laws against Baha’is. Mossadeq refused, and lost the cleric’s support.



5. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq and replace him with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf The Shah fled to Rome.


6. By August 19th, crowds filled the streets, attacked Mossadeq’s home, and took over the radio station. The question is whether these crowds were simply concerned Iranians, nationalists, communists, as the Shah’s supporters claimed, or paid CIA operatives, and the CIA claims.


a. Professor Milani, using the latest declassified archival documents, suggests two things:

a) the crowds were combinations of both, and

b) “Although declassified CIA documents confirmed many details of his account, which Roosevelt told with the relish of a John le Carré thriller, his version was exceptionally self-serving. For instance, despite knowing little about Iranian society and speaking no Persian, Roosevelt launched by his own description an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Dwight Eisenhower, president during the 1953 coup, was to characterize Roosevelt’s report as seeming “more like a dime novel.” The CIA claimed more power that it actually had.
The



There is nothing the Left likes better than putting together scenarios which paint the United States as evil....

...and I'm certain you'll get props for advancing same....as in: "Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States..."



Again, for the hard-of-thinking...."Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq and replaced him with General Fazollah Zehedi.


You see, the Shah had appointed Mossadegh....and legally removed him.

Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.


"Mossadegh was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison. Following his release he remained under house arrest until his death in 1967. The new government under the Shah in August 1954 reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to "restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities"...In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadegh, and describes him as impractical and naive, though stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup."
Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.


The version you believe is the Kermit Roosevelt version....no longer given credence.


Tough luck, huh?


Relying on you for knowledge of history would be like rushing to England for dental care.

Before the CIA coup Iran had a democratic government. Afterwards it did not. When the Shah was finally overthrown he had little support in Iran. It would have taken an American occupation to keep him in power.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------

Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was a popular, and democratically elected leader. He was a moderate Muslim, a moderate socialist, and considerably more decent than any ruler Iran has had since.

Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was never a popular dictator. In 1979 the only way President Carter could have kept him in power would have been by a military occupation of Iran. I am glad Carter did not order that, and sorry that President Eisenhower did order the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran.

1. Your post could hardly be topped as proof of what the Great Man posited:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."


And...again, enough chit-chat....let's get down to disemboweling....


Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.
[The Shah] - C-SPAN Video Library



2. Prior to 1951, Britain controlled Iran’s oil industry. The US foresaw how the one-sided dominance would result in a nationalist uprising, and warned Britain, but they refused to alter the agreements, claiming that they knew how to deal with the ‘natives.’

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.


3. When the communists attacked Mossadeq, the nationalists, the middle class, the merchants and even a broad swath of clerics—Islamists such as Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—had initially supported Mossadegh.

4. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. The US began to agree with overthrowing the Prime Minister.

a. The power of the communists was increasing in Iran…and the economy suffered a downturn. Both factors caused a loss of popular support for Mossadeq- but due to the loss of support, he felt the need to gravitate toward the communists. This scared off the clergy.

b. Brits and the US began to send in agents provocateurs to act as communists to further cause rifts between the clergy and Mossadeq.

c. As compensation for his support, Ayatollah Kashani began to demand veto rights on legislation, and Islamic laws, and laws against Baha’is. Mossadeq refused, and lost the cleric’s support.



5. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq and replace him with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf The Shah fled to Rome.


6. By August 19th, crowds filled the streets, attacked Mossadeq’s home, and took over the radio station. The question is whether these crowds were simply concerned Iranians, nationalists, communists, as the Shah’s supporters claimed, or paid CIA operatives, and the CIA claims.


a. Professor Milani, using the latest declassified archival documents, suggests two things:

a) the crowds were combinations of both, and

b) “Although declassified CIA documents confirmed many details of his account, which Roosevelt told with the relish of a John le Carré thriller, his version was exceptionally self-serving. For instance, despite knowing little about Iranian society and speaking no Persian, Roosevelt launched by his own description an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Dwight Eisenhower, president during the 1953 coup, was to characterize Roosevelt’s report as seeming “more like a dime novel.” The CIA claimed more power that it actually had.
The



There is nothing the Left likes better than putting together scenarios which paint the United States as evil....

...and I'm certain you'll get props for advancing same....as in: "Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States..."



Again, for the hard-of-thinking...."Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq and replaced him with General Fazollah Zehedi.


You see, the Shah had appointed Mossadegh....and legally removed him.

Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.


"Mossadegh was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison. Following his release he remained under house arrest until his death in 1967. The new government under the Shah in August 1954 reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to "restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities"...In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadegh, and describes him as impractical and naive, though stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup."
Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.


The version you believe is the Kermit Roosevelt version....no longer given credence.


Tough luck, huh?


Relying on you for knowledge of history would be like rushing to England for dental care.

Before the CIA coup Iran had a democratic government. Afterwards it did not. When the Shah was finally overthrown he had little support in Iran. It would have taken an American occupation to keep him in power.

I notice you haven't commented on how I buried your foolishness about Mossedegh.....

Straightened you out, huh?


Now...for your double foolishness of support for the peanut President, you know, the one who practically destroyed the economy?

Lucky you belong to the pro-Carter cartel.....membership, what...one?


You care to comment on his support or terrorists, or how easily he is bought for petrobucks?


"Last month, Carter penned a remarkable op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled "America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace." In it, he let it all hang out as an apologist for Arafat and a bulldog against Sharon. Before getting to that piece, however, we should be clear about just how attached to Arafat and his cause the ex-president is. As Brinkley writes in his book The Unfinished Presidency — about Carter's celebrated post-White House years — "there was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasir Arafat." The former president "felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition...."
http://old.nationalreview.com/20may02/nordlinger052002.asp


"...Carter actually acted as PR adviser and speechwriter to Arafat." Ibid.



'While in North Korea, Carter lauded Kim Il Sung, one of the most complete and destructive dictators in history. Said Carter, "I find him to be vigorous, intelligent,...and in charge of the decisions about this country" (well, he was absolute ruler). He said, "I don't see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation." Pyongyang, he observed, was a "bustling city," where shoppers "pack the department stores," reminding him of the "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia."' Ibid.


What a guy....

 

[there4eyeM]

OK, but you do like peanuts, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK, but you do like peanuts, right?

Your affinity to nuts is understandable.

 

[there4eyeM]

That would be, 'affinity for', not 'to'.
And it was a question for you, not a statement about me.

Just because I am nuts would not necessarily imply that I like the dehiscent fruits, though technically peanuts are a legume.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would be, 'affinity for', not 'to'.
And it was a question for you, not a statement about me.

Just because I am nuts would not necessarily imply that I like the dehiscent fruits, though technically peanuts are a legume.

Knowledge is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting in your fruit salad.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wisdom is probably not posting on USMB, but it is a diversion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wisdom is probably not posting on USMB, but it is a diversion.

Speaking for yourself, it appears.

Don't look now...but a throng of USMBers are approaching your habitat with torches and pitchforks....

 

[there4eyeM]

No. It is an absolute of the universe, existing before time began, the very will and word of God.

Seriously, Chic (I like the French pronunciation and meaning), would I dare to speak for you? I meant I and others.