Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[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

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 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - 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.

Congress controls spending.

Reagan was not a dictator.

He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave

 

[editec]

Reagan's 50% tax INCREASE saved social security.

For that every citizen ought to be grateful.

 

[Meathead]

We can all copy and paste. If you are interested in Reagan, his administration and his legacy, follow the link. Cherry-picking and whining about some aspects of an era of success in US and world history does little to blemish the achievements of a great president:

Ronald Reagan won the U.S. presidency in 1980, at the end of a decade of humiliation and frustration for the American people. Using his affable personality as a potent political weapon, Reagan helped to restore confidence in the country's future and went on to convert millions of Americans to his conservative political ideology. During the 1980s, Reagan oversaw a sustained economic recovery, driven primarily by one of the great bull markets of all time on Wall Street. Soaring profits in the stock market minted millionaires by the thousands, lending the Reagan era a certain gold-rush aura as more people attained spectacular wealth than ever before in American history. Looking beyond America's borders, the 1980s brought first heightened tension and then unexpected victory in the decades-old Cold War with the Soviet Union; the peaceful collapse of the global Communist bloc Reagan once denounced as an "Evil Empire" stood as a monumental triumph in American foreign policy.

Economic and diplomatic successes notwithstanding, Reagan's presidency still had its flaws—a widening gulf between the rich and ordinary working Americans, some serious foreign-policy blunders, and worsening race relations. Despite these limitations, Reagan left office with high approval ratings and today many Americans rank him among the greatest presidents ever. Perhaps most importantly, Reagan's powerful ideology continues to shape the contours of American politics to the present day. There is a strong case to be made that we're all still living in the Age of Reagan today.

Why Should I Care?

Ronald Reagan was the most important and influential president of the last sixty years… at least. Beloved by Republicans, loathed by liberals, Ronald Reagan turned half a century of political and economic orthodoxy on its head, converting millions of Americans from Roosevelt Democrats into Reagan conservatives. More than any other single individual, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the conservative ascendancy in American politics that has continued to this day.

Whether you love Reagan or you hate him, you are living in the world that Ronald Reagan built.

Read on to learn how he built it. And why.

The Reagan Era

 

[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 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - 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.

Congress controls spending.

Reagan was not a dictator.

He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave

You may well be that uninformed about Reagan's off stage friendships with Tip O'Neill and Walter Mondale given the failure of public education in America since Reagan traded well paying blue collar jobs for military toys, doubled subsidies to educational unions, and so on, so there is no need to dwell on what you don't know.

You appear to have some understanding that congress is involved in budgets, so let's go there...

Why didn't Republicans gain in congress and take the senate in 2012?

The message here, sport, is you can't have it both ways. Reagan was a filthy god damned big spending scum, that is a fact; and so was his political heir, Bill Clinton. It is probably asking too much for halfwit America to understand that Clinton and Reagan were political twins; so again, we don't need to dwell on that.

Still it seems fair to ask why Republicans can't make the sale to voters on reigning big spending lying assholes like Reagan and Clinton or the Bush League - or their political successor, Obama?

In other words we all know what these people are. Why can't nutballs make the sale to voters on getting tight fisted people into congress, where as you suggest, spending ought to be controlled.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The only true phrase in your post and your cite is "We are all living in the world".

Reagan built nothing. He destroyed some of the economic safeguards instilled after 1929 and Clinton destroyed the rest. The Bush League pissed what was left down the drain and Obama appears to be finishing the job on the middle class, burning taxpayer cash in numbnut ways that Reagan and Clinton could only dream about.

One wishes one had sufficient command of the English language to convey the degree of sadness reading bullshit like "Reagan built... [something good]" instills in the rational mind.

On the other hand, if everyone understood reality competition for top private sector jobs would be even more brutal, so in the end these things work out for the best.

=============================================

On edit: to jroc's blizzard of momentary statistics: see my post on the summary results of the presidency of the filthy god damned scum, Reagan. Here is how it works, chief: presidents cut 1% while halfwit America is watching, then behind the scenes add more than 1% back in. For those with rudimentary math skills, that is a spending increase.

Here is an example everyone should be able to capiche: Reagan blabbermouthed against ethanol subsidies, then signed an increase that would have embarrassed Dick Cheney who in his time blew every CEO of the seven sisters.

And the sum of the EVIDENCE PROVES that the bobble headed gladhanding New Dealer Reagan did as a matter of fact increase peacetime spending more than any president in United State history, fantasies and delusions of halfwit America notwithstanding.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Reagan's cuts..

President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).

President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Transportation. He cut it by 10.5 percent during his first term and by 7.5 percent during his second term.

During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent, while President Nixon increased it (that is the education part of what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) by 19.1 percent. That budget increased by 22.2 percent under Bush 41 and by 38.5 percent under Carter. Our current president has increased it by a whooping 67.6 percent.
Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent in constant dollars during his first term and by 3 percent during his second one. President Clinton by contrast increased the department’s budget by 24 percent in his first term and then by 96.7 percent in his second term.

President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24 percent during his second term in office.
President Reagan never cut the budgets of the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State.

Change in Real Spending for Each Presidential Term since LBJ

Table 2: How Many Departments' and Agencies' Budgets Have They Cut?

Table 3: Change in Real Spending for Selected Departments and Agencies in Each Presidential Term since LBJ

President Reagan, Champion Budget-Cutter - Economics - AEI

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - 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.

Congress controls spending.

Reagan was not a dictator.

He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave

You may well be that uninformed about Reagan's off stage friendships with Tip O'Neill and Walter Mondale given the failure of public education in America since Reagan traded well paying blue collar jobs for military toys, doubled subsidies to educational unions, and so on, so there is no need to dwell on what you don't know.

You appear to have some understanding that congress is involved in budgets, so let's go there...

Why didn't Republicans gain in congress and take the senate in 2012?

The message here, sport, is you can't have it both ways. Reagan was a filthy god damned big spending scum, that is a fact; and so was his political heir, Bill Clinton. It is probably asking too much for halfwit America to understand that Clinton and Reagan were political twins; so again, we don't need to dwell on that.

Still it seems fair to ask why Republicans can't make the sale to voters on reigning big spending lying assholes like Reagan and Clinton or the Bush League - or their political successor, Obama?

In other words we all know what these people are. Why can't nutballs make the sale to voters on getting tight fisted people into congress, where as you suggest, spending ought to be controlled.

What happened to talking about Reagan? Yes Tom Delay sucked and Dubya would be in Dante's 9th Circle, that's not the point. I'm thinking Newt's Congress and Reagan Presidency might have been a dream team, but we'll never know

Reagan build up on some of the military innovation started by Carter

Reagan controlled only one branch of government and was an experienced negotiator. His 2 main goals were: Revitalize US economy and defeat USSR, he got them both. He asked for more but had to settle for being one of the greatest presidents in this nations history especially considering the times and the people he had to contend with

 

[Jroc]

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.

When President Reagan came to Washington in 1981, the top 1% of income earners paid 17.6% of all income taxes. By 2007, after a quarter century of tax rate cuts under Reaganomics, the top 1% paid 40.4% of all income taxes, close to twice their share of income.

In part, that was because at the lower tax rates the higher income earners took so much more of their incomes in more flexible taxable income rather than in tax exempt forms. That has been erroneously disparaged as the rich getting richer under Reaganomics, when it was just the same income in different forms. At the lower rates, upper income earners did invest and otherwise work to earn more, which of course is exactly the desired effect of the rate cuts, and so paid higher taxes on the resulting incomes. This is why Jack Kemp always used to say if you want to soak the rich, cut their tax rates.

Indeed, by 2007 that 40.4% of income taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners was more than the income taxes paid by the bottom 95% combined. That is because Reagan and his Republicans cut taxes sharply for those lower income earners as well.

The origins of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people, can be found in Ronald Reagan’s famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare. As President, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets.

In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for middle and moderate income earners all the way down to 15%. That act also doubled the personal exemption, which benefitted the more moderate income workers the most.

Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Of course, as explained above, those credits did not involve pro-growth incentives. But they did reduce taxes for more moderate income workers. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%. By contrast, he cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%.

The end result of these Reagan Republican tax policies is that federal income taxes were abolished for the poor and working class, and almost abolished for the middle class. Many conservatives do not think it was a good idea to exempt so many from paying any income taxes at all. Nevertheless, the point is that the charge that the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich is factually groundless.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Fallacies Offered By The Left - Forbes

 

[Stephanie]

Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.

yep, isn't is sweet

 

[Jroc]

A cautionary tale

Leading the nation through hard times wasn't easy. We'd like to suggest that President Obama take a closer look at how President Reagan dealt with that "economic hardship," and how he steered the nation toward what would turn into its longest peacetime economic expansion. It's a cautionary tale — one that involves the greatest domestic error of his administration.

In 1981, President Reagan's plan for revitalizing the economy was a four-fold one:

1) Reduce tax rates across the board.

2) Decrease unnecessary regulations.

3) Work with the Federal Reserve to maintain stable monetary policy.

4) Slow the growth of federal spending.

President Reagan got his tax-rate cuts through Congress later that year. But because they were being phased in gradually, the economic pain they were designed to alleviate lingered well into 1982. High deficits persisted, and he faced enormous pressure to raise taxes.

The president had no interest in increasing taxes, but he agreed to consider some kind of compromise with Congress. His representatives began meeting with members of House Speaker Tip O'Neill's team to find some way to hammer out a deficit-reduction pact. So began what, in our opinion, became the "Debacle of 1982."

From the outset, the basic idea of the GOP participants was to trade some kind of concessions on the tax front for a Democratic agreement on spending cutbacks. The negotiators knew that Ronald Reagan would be hard to sell on any tax hikes. So they included a ploy they felt might overcome his resistance: a large reduction in federal spending in return for a modest rise in business (but not individual) taxes.

The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president's colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.
The cuts never came


You don't have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.

In fact, spending for fiscal year 1983 was some $48 billion higher than the budget targets, and no progress was made in lowering the deficit. Even tax receipts for that year went down — a lingering effect of the recession, which the additional business taxes did nothing to redress.

Fortunately, the individual income tax-rate reductions that had been passed the year before remained intact. And as they took effect, the economy began its remarkable turnaround. The recovery of 1983-84 was strong enough that it paved the way for President Reagan's landslide election to a second term.

Column: Will Obama ever learn economics from Reagan? - USATODAY.com

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine. Bullshit artists like Peg Noonan and Josh Gilder will be surprised to learn that Reagan took credit for the speeches they wrote, for example. The man lived in a fantasy world.

In homes unaffected by divorce a man's children tell us a lot about the man. Reagan was a terrible parent according to the children he did not abandon. There is no evidence anywhere of Reagan having a warm personal relationship with anyone. Nancy was basically a support person after she stopped fucking Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis hoping for movie parts.

As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense.

Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama will never be a Reagan..

Reagan cared about people and the country and that was a man who could speak, wrote his own speeches..

Obama reads scripted sermons written for him and hates everything about us or he wouldn't see a need, to transform us with his ugly "visions"

 

[Toronado3800]

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?

Positives and negatives.

Facts vs spin.

Seems Reagans accomplishments in the economic world are largely based on his New Deal upbringings and anyone who supports the Reagan revival should also have an FDR bumper sticker.

Maybe Reagan was a social conservative.....his people did give lip service to abortion and I remember some PMRC stuff.

Still the more I review Reagan the more interesting he was.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine.

As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense.

Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.

Reagan was a New Dealer like Jake Starkey is a Republican

 

[Jroc]

That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine. Bullshit artists like Peg Noonan and Josh Gilder will be surprised to learn that Reagan took credit for the speeches they wrote, for example. The man lived in a fantasy world.

In homes unaffected by divorce a man's children tell us a lot about the man. Reagan was a terrible parent according to the children he did not abandon. There is no evidence anywhere of Reagan having a warm personal relationship with anyone. Nancy was basically a support person after she stopped fucking Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis hoping for movie parts.

As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense.

Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.

it seems we get new nutjobs every day on this board

 

[Toronado3800]

Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.

yep, isn't is sweet

Hello Stephanie.

Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?

His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)

Did he outlaw abortion?

Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.

See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?

 

[Toronado3800]

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

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

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

Wait! If Congress was all powerful then:

Reagan was not the great communicator

Congress gets the credit for the economic revival

Congress gets the credit for the end.of the Cold War




Hey, how about that decision to undermine the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Well, they weren't communists we were supporting lol.

 

[Jroc]

Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.

yep, isn't is sweet

Hello Stephanie.

Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?

His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)

Did he outlaw abortion?

Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.

See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?

Reagans policies helped create 7 trillion dollars in new wealth in this country...the president can't outlaw abortion what are you talking about?

 

[Meathead]

We can all copy and paste. If you are interested in Reagan, his administration and his legacy, follow the link. Cherry-picking and whining about some aspects of an era of success in US and world history does little to blemish the achievements of a great president:

Ronald Reagan won the U.S. presidency in 1980, at the end of a decade of humiliation and frustration for the American people. Using his affable personality as a potent political weapon, Reagan helped to restore confidence in the country's future and went on to convert millions of Americans to his conservative political ideology. During the 1980s, Reagan oversaw a sustained economic recovery, driven primarily by one of the great bull markets of all time on Wall Street. Soaring profits in the stock market minted millionaires by the thousands, lending the Reagan era a certain gold-rush aura as more people attained spectacular wealth than ever before in American history. Looking beyond America's borders, the 1980s brought first heightened tension and then unexpected victory in the decades-old Cold War with the Soviet Union; the peaceful collapse of the global Communist bloc Reagan once denounced as an "Evil Empire" stood as a monumental triumph in American foreign policy.

Economic and diplomatic successes notwithstanding, Reagan's presidency still had its flaws—a widening gulf between the rich and ordinary working Americans, some serious foreign-policy blunders, and worsening race relations. Despite these limitations, Reagan left office with high approval ratings and today many Americans rank him among the greatest presidents ever. Perhaps most importantly, Reagan's powerful ideology continues to shape the contours of American politics to the present day. There is a strong case to be made that we're all still living in the Age of Reagan today.

Why Should I Care?

Ronald Reagan was the most important and influential president of the last sixty years… at least. Beloved by Republicans, loathed by liberals, Ronald Reagan turned half a century of political and economic orthodoxy on its head, converting millions of Americans from Roosevelt Democrats into Reagan conservatives. More than any other single individual, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the conservative ascendancy in American politics that has continued to this day.

Whether you love Reagan or you hate him, you are living in the world that Ronald Reagan built.

Read on to learn how he built it. And why.

The Reagan Era

Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.

yep, isn't is sweet

Hello Stephanie.

Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?

His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)

Did he outlaw abortion?

Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.

See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?

Knock yourself out. Become informed instead of cherry-picking hackneyed left-wing talking points on the man and the legend.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

When people like me are described as nutjobs, people like you should probably be nervous for the nation.

To recap the presidency of Ronald Reagan:

Promise: cut government
Reality: hired 230,000 ADDITIONAL civilian government workers

Promise: control govamet spending
Reality: tripled the national debt in PEACETIME, something nutballs can't get their minds around

Promise: deregulation
Reality: increased corporate welfare more than any president before Junebug Bush

Promise: less government interference
Reality: first two finance bailouts; Wall Street 1987, S&Ls 1988

Promise: lower taxes
Reality: the largest tax increases in history on the middle class (1982, 1988)

And on and on; more false promises than Clinton, another pathological fake. Among the highest compliments in America today is having a nutball call one a "nutjob"; the only higher compliment is having a fake liberal meritocrat call one a teabagger. In other words when the clueless won't associate with one, one's world is self cleansing.

That doesn't fix anything, but it does clear the path.