Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??

A myopic view of events perhaps?

Nothing myopic but your post.

After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.

Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.

Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.

I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.

 

[Meathead]

So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??

A myopic view of events perhaps?

It was a "shellacking" in the words of The One.

 

[Oldstyle]

So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??

A myopic view of events perhaps?

Nothing myopic but your post.

After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.

Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.

Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.

I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dante but didn't Barack Obama run on a theme of a balanced approach to fixing the deficit...a combination of tax increases and spending cuts?

So the GOP caved and gave him the tax increases he wanted...

The balls now in his court as we await the spending cuts to "balance" things out.

 

[Oldstyle]

Only after four years of progressive "leadership" it's obvious that Barack Obama is incapable of making spending cuts to government. So who's in trouble going forward?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do Conservatives believe that Eastern Europe is better off free from the crushing oppression of Soviet Communism?

Why don't we realize that what we viewed as "Crushing oppression" is how Democrats view true love from Government?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives​

This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
George Will

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.

Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]

Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan

So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA

Public perception of Reagan and Clinton beggar reason.

Reagan was a New Dealer selling neocon dogma to halfwits as he expanded social programs and tripled the debt, while Clinton was a real ReagaNUT selling human potential horseshit to losers as he unleashed the dogs of avarice on the US working class.

Noir humor at its bleakest.

 

[Meathead]

Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??

A myopic view of events perhaps?

Nothing myopic but your post.

After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.

Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.

Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.

I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dante but didn't Barack Obama run on a theme of a balanced approach to fixing the deficit...a combination of tax increases and spending cuts?

So the GOP caved and gave him the tax increases he wanted...

The balls now in his court as we await the spending cuts to "balance" things out.

Let the GOP propose what it is THEY want to cut and the President and Democrats will compromise.

The President and Democrats laid out what taxes they wanted raised. GOP's turn to step up to the plate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why do Conservatives believe that Eastern Europe is better off free from the crushing oppression of Soviet Communism?

Why don't we realize that what we viewed as "Crushing oppression" is how Democrats view true love from Government?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives​

This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
George Will

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.

Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]

Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan

So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA

Public perception of Reagan and Clinton beggar reason.

Reagan was a New Dealer selling neocon dogma to halfwits as he expanded social programs and tripled the debt, while Clinton was a real ReagaNUT selling human potential horseshit to losers as he unleashed the dogs of avarice on the US working class.

Noir humor at its bleakest.

The Clinton attack sounds like a progressive left criticism. Yet people like Robert Reich liked Clinton with exceptions...how welfare reform was accomplished.

 

[Toronado3800]

Geez. what a crock of crap.

try to be specific...what exactly do you dare dispute?

Reagan brought the US from the brink of ruin under liberal progressive Jimmy Carter and his alcoholic brother and put pride back in the US. Reagan policies made sure that we became the last super power in the world. If you wanted to examine the eight years of any administration you could find some bills that don't quite measure up to modern scrutiny and you can cherry pick junk and spin it anyway you want to but Reagan had to deal with a radical left wing congress and he did it with style. Reagan had to compromise with the radical left and deal with an obscure amendment to a Military appropriations bill sponsored by a left wing congressman named Boland that all but guaranteed Communist infiltration to Central America and true to form the left wing media blew it up into Iran/Contra. Reagan still triumphed on that issue.

Drop the ideological names and pay attention to the actions.

Reagan's economy benefited from ridiculous defecit spending.
Reagan bailout out the uninsured savings and loans.
Reagan used tariff threats to get Japanese cars built in the south.

Not very Conservative things I think but still what he did.

Ridiculous on that savings and loan thing also but hey, conservative or liberal I dunno. It just "made it go away" for a future generation to pay off.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.

step up your game above the 7th grade level and maybe you'll get a response that will make you look better...or not.

It costs nothing to overlook most of your inane posts

 

[Oldstyle]

Nothing myopic but your post.

After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.

Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.

Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.

I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dante but didn't Barack Obama run on a theme of a balanced approach to fixing the deficit...a combination of tax increases and spending cuts?

So the GOP caved and gave him the tax increases he wanted...

The balls now in his court as we await the spending cuts to "balance" things out.

Let the GOP propose what it is THEY want to cut and the President and Democrats will compromise.

The President and Democrats laid out what taxes they wanted raised. GOP's turn to step up to the plate.

Now THAT is some amusing stuff! The GOP proposed spending cuts in the deal to avert the fiscal cliff and got $1 in cuts from Obama and the Democrats for every $43 dollars that Barry, Harry and Nancy got in tax increases. That was what "compromise" means to Barack Obama! $1 vs. $43...that's what progressives view as "balance".

So how about the Democrats step up to the plate...actually pass a budget and then show us where they are willing to make REAL cuts to government? They got their tax increases. Now let's see where they are willing to make spending cuts.

The ball is in Barack Obama's court...
He's the one who ran on a "balanced" approach to correcting the deficit. Now let's see the balance...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.

They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?

 

[Meathead]

Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.

step up your game above the 7th grade level and maybe you'll get a response that will make you look better...or not.

It costs nothing to overlook most of your inane posts

You do understand why I responded the way I did then. Good!

 

[Oldstyle]

Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.

They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?

They want to cut entitlements, Dante. If we don't the whole house of cards falls down. The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.

The cuts have to be made...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it. Instead he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements to what we already can't afford. Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.

They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?

They want to cut entitlements, Dante. If we don't the whole house of cards falls down. The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.

The cuts have to be made...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it. Instead he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements to what we already can't afford. Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.

One wonders if Reagan had the "backbone do it"?
To quote Adams correctly, facts are stubborn things...

Reagan's promises
1. Reduce federal spending
2. Reduce income taxes
3. Reduce regulation
4. Reduce inflation

Reagan's actual performance as rated when he left office (some records have been broken)

1. Promise to reduce federal spending

a. Tripled national debt from $900kk to $2.8kkk in eight years, raising it from 26%GDP to 41%GDP; before Reagan the fastest tripling of peacetime national debt took 31 years
b. Doubled foreign aid $10kk to $22kk
c. 53% increase in on budget federal spending; 60% gross increase in federal spending
d. 230,000 more CIVILIAn federal employees
e. Doubled subsidies to defense firms lobbying congress
f. More than doubled farm subsidies
g. Doubled subsidies to educational unions
h. Signed pay parity bills
​

2. Reduce income taxes create prosperity

a. Largest across the board tax increase in US history (TERFA) 1982
b. Largest middle class tax increase in US history (TRA) 1986
c. Unemployment AVERAGED 7.5%, the highest ever eight year average
d. Real rate of GDP growth 2.8% vs 3.4% under Carter
e. Productivity growth 1.4% vs 1.9% under Carter
​

3. Reduce regulation

a. First federal bailout of private banks (S&Ls)
b. First federal bailouts of Wall Street (FED buying private sector securities)
​

4. Reduce inflation

a. Borrowed money to hide the inflationary effects of changing economy toward asset base
b. Changed character of US job base from industrial to retail (MLM type instead of production)
c. Changed statistical bases for recording official numbers
​

Summary on Reagan

Reagan delivered higher taxes to working class Americans, lower taxes on people and corporations exploiting American workers, and he did it with a smile, hitting every mark on his stage. In sum Reagan was a shallow thinking gladhanding corporate shill; Otis Chandler hired him to beat Pat Brown in California, then handed his boy off to Don Regan. Reagan's stage managers kept him center stage shadow boxing a bankrupt and tottering empire to the applause of halfwit America, while they worked behind the scenes with corrupt congresses to loot the federal treasury. By the time he left office WF Buckley and Barry Goldwater had come to regret ever supporting Reagan. All that kept them silient in public was their own complicity in electing someone that stupid and weak.

Exective abstract: During Reagan's terms clowns entertained cheering fools while knaves looted the bank.

A footnote: Reagan's acting chops were not recognized in life; in real time he fooled that segment who could be fooled. That was then. An important measure of the worth of a person is whether they continue to buy the Legend of Ronald Reagan or not.

 

[Meathead]

When you find yourself in the position of trying proving someone was not a great president, you've pretty much already lost the game. It's a bitch, idn't it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow

Many of us were there, sport.

Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 1988 your boy Reagan was the biggest peacetime spender in US history (and through 2001, as a pct of GDP, the second biggest spender overall - after his personal hero, FDR).

Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.

In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.


With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.