Ronald Reagan....Liberal???

[PoliticalChic]

Like I said....Reagan talked a lot.

But when push came to shove, he didn't shove.

He shoved the Soviets enough to make them FAIL.

And wasn't that his goal?

Ummm, yeah, if you believe in magical history.

The Soviets failed for the same reason the British empire failed. Because 140 million Russians ruling over 300 million non-Russians wasn't an arrangement anyone wanted to work with any more.

Had very little to do with Reagan, and the CIA completely missed the breakup of the USSR until it actually occurred. They were still publishing intelligence estimates calling them an imminent threat all the way up to 1988.

Heck, the breakup didn't even happen on Reagan's watch, it happened on Bush-41's.

The "ummmm" thing's not working....it's so valley-girl.

Amazing how you lower-level Leftists refuse to give President Reagan the credit he deserves.

The amusing part is how you are always just a little behind the Leftist elites who give you your talking points.


Watch your back: they're hanging you out to dry! The Leftist elites are beginning to admit to Reagan's accomplishments!

Better take a look at item #5 in the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not surprising, Obama would be reading a biography of Reagan. Obama is clearly an avid reader and literature has had a massively influenced on his politics. He talks about books at the drop of a hat and is frequently seen with a book in his hand.

That's great!

In November he can be a librarian.

 

[The T]

It's not surprising, Obama would be reading a biography of Reagan. Obama is clearly an avid reader and literature has had a massively influenced on his politics. He talks about books at the drop of a hat and is frequently seen with a book in his hand.

That's great!

In November he can be a librarian.

Or go back to the SouthSide of Chicago and deal with the unrest he so loves?

 

[Oddball]

Like I said....Reagan talked a lot.

But when push came to shove, he didn't shove.

He shoved the Soviets enough to make them FAIL.

And wasn't that his goal?

One win.....So many losses and retreats.

Soviet communism was doomed to fail anyways.

 

[Flopper]

It's not surprising, Obama would be reading a biography of Reagan. Obama is clearly an avid reader and literature has had a massively influenced on his politics. He talks about books at the drop of a hat and is frequently seen with a book in his hand.

That's great!

In November he can be a librarian.

or start his new book on his 8 years in the whitehouse

 

[The T]

Like I said....Reagan talked a lot.

But when push came to shove, he didn't shove.

He shoved the Soviets enough to make them FAIL.

And wasn't that his goal?

One win.....So many losses and retreats.

Soviet communism was doomed to fail anyways.

True. But it came about sooner under Reagan than anyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Like I said....Reagan talked a lot.

But when push came to shove, he didn't shove.

He shoved the Soviets enough to make them FAIL.

And wasn't that his goal?

One win.....So many losses and retreats.

Soviet communism was doomed to fail anyways.

Didn't look that way in the '80's....


"The 1980s were a dangerous time for the world. The Soviet Union stood at the peak of its military and political power, its nuclear forces ranged from pole to pole. The globe stood at the brink of World War III, with a final countdown of 25 minutes from launch to total thermonuclear combat.

The Soviet Union led the world with an extraordinary increase in nuclear and conventional arms. The Soviet Union had 4.9 million active soldiers, 42,000 tanks, 2,200 warships, 15,000 combat planes, 1,500 long-range nuclear-tipped missiles, 1,000 short-range nuclear missiles and 900 sub-based nuclear missiles.

Soviet bombers equipped with nuclear weapons frequently flew off the U.S. coast. Soviet submarines armed with nuclear-tipped missiles prowled off both U.S. coastlines, within 100 miles of the most populated coastal American cities.

In Europe, the Soviets had 10 tank divisions in East Germany alone, backed by another 20 tank divisions poised across the border in Poland and Russia. Thousands of armored vehicles were ready to pour across the Fulda Gap and flow into West Germany.

During one Soviet armored exercise in East Germany, an Army general once commented to me that he could walk from the East German border to Poland on Soviet tanks, never touching the earth beneath them.

All evidence pointed to the Soviet intent to achieve total world domination in every dimension of military power."
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace

 

[The T]

If anything? Reaganwas a far sight Better than what we have NOW.

GOD rest his Patriotic Soul...

 

[Oddball]

If anything? Reaganwas a far sight Better than what we have NOW.

GOD rest his Patriotic Soul...

Like the fit and athletic winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics.

 

[The T]

If anything? Reaganwas a far sight Better than what we have NOW.

GOD rest his Patriotic Soul...

Like the fit and athletic winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics.

As you wish.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ronald Reagan....Liberal???

Compared to the radical right of today and for the last 20 years, very much so.

There were some extremists in that administration, obviously, but none of the irrational hostility to ‘big government,’ and a more pragmatic approach with regard to government policies, in that it wasn’t just about ‘cutting’ but more efficient spending – very similar to what liberals advocate today.

He also appointed O'Connor and Kennedy, who were moderate justices.

So two moderates vs. a conservative appointment and conservative promotion, that indicates the man was a lot more moderate than the GOP would ever allow today.

O’Connor and Kennedy are conservatives but not extreme ideologues, as are Scalia and Thomas. And as non-ideologues, O’Connor and Kennedy were consistent in their support of individual liberty, unlike the radical right of today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ronald Reagan....Liberal???

Compared to the radical right of today and for the last 20 years, very much so.

There were some extremists in that administration, obviously, but none of the irrational hostility to ‘big government,’ and a more pragmatic approach with regard to government policies, in that it wasn’t just about ‘cutting’ but more efficient spending – very similar to what liberals advocate today.

Compared to you, the radical left is right wing and 3 year olds are legal experts.

He also appointed O'Connor and Kennedy, who were moderate justices.

So two moderates vs. a conservative appointment and conservative promotion, that indicates the man was a lot more moderate than the GOP would ever allow today.

O’Connor and Kennedy are conservatives but not extreme ideologues, as are Scalia and Thomas. And as non-ideologues, O’Connor and Kennedy were consistent in their support of individual liberty, unlike the radical right of today.

The GOP today nominated Romney, a man that is responsible for Obamacare. Tell me how that makes them radical right wing fanatics again.

 

[JoeB131]

He shoved the Soviets enough to make them FAIL.

And wasn't that his goal?

Ummm, yeah, if you believe in magical history.

The Soviets failed for the same reason the British empire failed. Because 140 million Russians ruling over 300 million non-Russians wasn't an arrangement anyone wanted to work with any more.

Had very little to do with Reagan, and the CIA completely missed the breakup of the USSR until it actually occurred. They were still publishing intelligence estimates calling them an imminent threat all the way up to 1988.

Heck, the breakup didn't even happen on Reagan's watch, it happened on Bush-41's.

ASSHOLE...*I* Lived it. He was my CiNC...I was sent to many places under him and WE got the job DONE.

Bugwit, I spent most of the Reagan years in the military as well, either active or reserve.

Reagan had nothing to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Not. A. Fucking. Thing.

The USSR Fell because the Khazaks and Ukranians and Uzbeks and Latvians didn't want the Russians around any more, and the Russians themselves didn't want to be bothered.

 

[JoeB131]

He shoved the Soviets enough to make them FAIL.

And wasn't that his goal?

Ummm, yeah, if you believe in magical history.

The Soviets failed for the same reason the British empire failed. Because 140 million Russians ruling over 300 million non-Russians wasn't an arrangement anyone wanted to work with any more.

Had very little to do with Reagan, and the CIA completely missed the breakup of the USSR until it actually occurred. They were still publishing intelligence estimates calling them an imminent threat all the way up to 1988.

Heck, the breakup didn't even happen on Reagan's watch, it happened on Bush-41's.

The "ummmm" thing's not working....it's so valley-girl.

Amazing how you lower-level Leftists refuse to give President Reagan the credit he deserves.

The amusing part is how you are always just a little behind the Leftist elites who give you your talking points.

Watch your back: they're hanging you out to dry! The Leftist elites are beginning to admit to Reagan's accomplishments!

Better take a look at item #5 in the OP.

Yawn... Actually, voted for Reagan both times and I respect him.

But I don't give him credit for the fall of the USSR (which, again, didn't even happen on his term) than I give Clinton credit for the prosperity that occurred on his watch. I look for cause and effect.

The USSR fell because it, like almost every other empire, overextended itself. The 90's prosperity happened because of the Tech Boom. Reagan and Clinton just happened to be around when these things happened, they didn't cause them.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I don't think Reagan was a liberal, but he sure as hell was a military Keynesian. And his willingness to work with the other party probably would have made him persona non grata in (what is passing for) today's GOP. So ironic and weird that he's still being held out as a party icon.

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

I don't think Reagan was a liberal, but he sure as hell was a military Keynesian. And his willingness to work with the other party probably would have made him persona non grata in (what is passing for) today's GOP. So ironic and weird that he's still being held out as a party icon.

.

a very good point. The problem with Reagan and to a lesser degree Bush-43 was that they were Supply-siders on taxes but Keynesians on spending on military and public works projects.

The Austerity crowd got its way on this recession, and they've probably prolonged it.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I would never describe President Reagan as a "liberal", but compared to today's GOP, he's freaking Dennis Kucinich.

Reagan certainly would have never signed Grover Norquist's "pledge".

 

[JoeB131]

No, I would never describe President Reagan as a "liberal", but compared to today's GOP, he's freaking Dennis Kucinich.

Reagan certainly would have never signed Grover Norquist's "pledge".

And this is kind of where the GOP has painted itself into a corner.

Ronald Reagan cut taxes from 1981-83. But he also spent on the military and public works projects, which ran up what were at the time huge deficits. His taxation was supply side, but his spending was Keynesian. After he was re-elected, he agreed to major reforms of social security (raising taxes) and closing a lot of loopholes, as well as spending cuts like Grahmn Rudman.

Well, a few Republicans felt a bit betrayed by that, forcing Bush-41 into the dreaded "Read my lips" pledge. It was one he immediately had to break when the S&L Crisis hit. Conservatives felt really betrayed, and the Democrats were happy to put the screws to him for it.

And then Clinton passed another tax increase, which really upset the Grovers of the world. Any GOP politician who supports tax increases is pretty much signing his suicide note at this point.

Now here's my big problem with tax cuts in general. They create more of a demand for government, not less of one. Because when you cut taxes without cutting benefits, you tell people that, "Hey there's all this good stuff, and you don't have to pay for it."

If "Conservatives" were serious about cutting the size of government, they'd support two things.

More wage equity for working folks, so they have skin in the game.

Higher taxes before borrowing, so people know what all these government goodies actually cost.

 

[Douger]

Came within one vote of a balanced budget amendment.

Perhaps you should lay the blame at the feet of Republican Senators. As Reagan
said, "We had rabbits when we needed tigers.”

A miss is as good as a mile.

In the meantime, he didn't cut spending or bureaucracy, waved the white flag on Bork, refused to make the arms-for-cocaine-for-hostages crooks take the blame for their criminal activities (indeed, he campaigned for and endorsed Bush41), on and on and on.

Talking a good game doesn't count.

We're speaking of a former President, not a messiah.
One part of a three-part government.

"...he didn't cut spending..."
But, he made quite a purchase with his spending:

a. His greatest achievement was winning the Cold War with the Soviets- “without firing a shot,” as Prime Minister Thatcher said.

No shots fired. He hired Osama and stink for that.
It backfired and now you're going down just like they did.
I'm sure the real president of the time ( his psychic) is appalled !