Ronald Reagan - Prophet

[Lakhota]

 

[jgarden]

"Not since the days of the Roman emperors—and never in the history of the United States Presidency—has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
- Joan Quigley, astrologer to the Reagans

Joan Quigley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In For the Record Regan extracts his revenge. In the opening scene a stammering Nancy calls Regan to report that doctors had found a dangerous-looking lesion in her husband's intestine, but that surgery might be delayed, apparently until her astrologer could determine a propitious date.
- Don Regan, Chief of Staff in the Reagan White House

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099010,00.html

Although Speakes had spent nearly six years enhancing the President's image, his own unhedged assessment of the First Couple undid much of that work. Reagan, he writes, was an "inexperienced and sometimes downright disinterested President." Nancy was a back stabber, obsessed to the point of absurdity with guarding her husband's reputation.
- Larry Spreakes, White House Press Secretary for Reagan

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099010,00.html

- never in the history of the United States Presidency—has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
- a stammering Nancy calls Regan to report that doctors had found a dangerous-looking lesion in her husband's intestine, but that surgery might be delayed, apparently until her astrologer could determine a propitious date
- Reagan, he writes, was an "inexperienced and sometimes downright disinterested President." Nancy was a back stabber, obsessed to the point of absurdity with guarding her husband's reputation

Ronald Reagan - Prophet - Many of those who served in the White House during the Reagan Administration don't agree!

 

[Meathead]

"Not since the days of the Roman emperors—and never in the history of the United States Presidency—has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
- Joan Quigley, astrologer to the Reagans

Joan Quigley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds like Obama really needs an astrologer.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

"Not since the days of the Roman emperors—and never in the history of the United States Presidency—has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
- Joan Quigley, astrologer to the Reagans

Joan Quigley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In For the Record Regan extracts his revenge. In the opening scene a stammering Nancy calls Regan to report that doctors had found a dangerous-looking lesion in her husband's intestine, but that surgery might be delayed, apparently until her astrologer could determine a propitious date.
- Don Regan, Chief of Staff in the Reagan White House

So, curious, how did that turn out? Did the astrologer determine a propitious date and, was he right and everything turned out a-okay?

 

[jgarden]

- "I refer to it as the world's worst-kept secret that President Reagan relies on astrology." Astrologer Sydney Omarr 1988

- The Philadelphia Inquirer, for example, insisted that "the signing of the U.S. Soviet treaty eliminating medium-range nuclear missiles" had been signed at 1:30 p.m. on December 8, 1987 based on advise from an astrologer. In addition, many papers reported the story that Ronald Reagan had postponed his inauguration 9 minutes as governor of California till 12:10 a.m. on January 2, 1967 based on astrology calculations.

- Reagan became noted as being one of the few governors to actually sign astrology legislation when on August 30, 1974, as Governor of California, he signed legislation which became Chapter 583, and added Section 50027 to the government Code, relating to astrology. The legislation removed Sacramento licensed astrologers from the category of fortune tellers, thus allowing them to practice their trade for compensation.

- According to Reagan's former Chief of Staff Donald Regan, the prime source of astrological direction inside the Reagan White House was being provided by San Francisco star gazer Joan Quigley. In his book "For the Record" Regan stated that Nancy Reagan planned almost all presidential travel, press conferences, and even the president's cancer surgery based on information she was receiving from Quigley.

- Most importantly, Joyce Jillson claimed she had originally been employed by Reagan insiders, and paid $1200, to help pick Reagan's Vice President from a list of seven candidates. The Jillson claim actually backed up the same Bush-astrology allegation that had been made five years earlier by Democratic Rep. Larry McDonald.

- "One of my jobs," wrote Jillson, "was to review the charts of all Vice Presidential candidates. I told Reagan that George Bush was the only choice. The rest is history." The basic astrological sign involved in the decision was that "George Bush, a Gemini, was the most compatible with Reagan, an Aquarian."

http://www.presidentialufo.com/old_site/sydney_omarr,_reagan,_and_astrology.htm

Given Ronald Reagan's elevation to "prophet" by American conservatives, perhaps the federal government should consider "downsizing" and hand the job of running the country over to the "astrologers."

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

- "I refer to it as the world's worst-kept secret that President Reagan relies on astrology." Astrologer Sydney Omarr 1988

- The Philadelphia Inquirer, for example, insisted that "the signing of the U.S. Soviet treaty eliminating medium-range nuclear missiles" had been signed at 1:30 p.m. on December 8, 1987 based on advise from an astrologer. In addition, many papers reported the story that Ronald Reagan had postponed his inauguration 9 minutes as governor of California till 12:10 a.m. on January 2, 1967 based on astrology calculations.

- Reagan became noted as being one of the few governors to actually sign astrology legislation when on August 30, 1974, as Governor of California, he signed legislation which became Chapter 583, and added Section 50027 to the government Code, relating to astrology. The legislation removed Sacramento licensed astrologers from the category of fortune tellers, thus allowing them to practice their trade for compensation.

- According to Reagan's former Chief of Staff Donald Regan, the prime source of astrological direction inside the Reagan White House was being provided by San Francisco star gazer Joan Quigley. In his book "For the Record" Regan stated that Nancy Reagan planned almost all presidential travel, press conferences, and even the president's cancer surgery based on information she was receiving from Quigley.

- Most importantly, Joyce Jillson claimed she had originally been employed by Reagan insiders, and paid $1200, to help pick Reagan's Vice President from a list of seven candidates. The Jillson claim actually backed up the same Bush-astrology allegation that had been made five years earlier by Democratic Rep. Larry McDonald.

- "One of my jobs," wrote Jillson, "was to review the charts of all Vice Presidential candidates. I told Reagan that George Bush was the only choice. The rest is history." The basic astrological sign involved in the decision was that "George Bush, a Gemini, was the most compatible with Reagan, an Aquarian."

Sydney Omarr, Reagan, and Astrology

Given Ronald Reagan's elevation to "prophet" by American conservatives, perhaps the federal government should consider "downsizing" and hand the job of running the country over to the "astrologers."

Given Clinton's elevation to "prophet" by American leftists, perhaps the federal government should consider "downsizing" and hand the job of running the country over to apparitions of "Eleanor Roosevelt".

 

[S.J.]

The only thing liberals can do about Reagan's legacy is sling mud because they can't get around the fact that he was the most effective President of the 20th century. His leadership gave us prosperity and inspired patriotism after the miserable failure of Jimmy Carter (the worst president in history until now). The deficit belonged to Tip O'neil and George Mitchell. They made a deal to cut spending in exchange for a tax increase, then welched on the deal. Typical.
But the funniest part is listening to liberal idiots talking about the Reagan deficit when our current president holds the title for deficit spending. He added 3 times as much debt in 4 years as Reagan added in 8 and we have nothing to show for it. The annual deficit under Reagan was $150 billion his last year. Obama's deficits have not been BELOW $1 trillion since he was (s)elected. Talk about hypocrisy!

 

[Bfgrn]

Nice try, pissbrain, but no dice.

1) Distrusting government does NOT mean thinking there should be no government at all, or that there are not specific and proper purviews for government, no matter how often you disingenuous liberal hacks want to try to force this "all-or-nothing" canard onto us.

2) National security is one of the federal government's proper areas of interest; social programs are not. Thus, we did indeed not mind at all taking money away from useless welfare giveaways to put into defense spending and win the Cold War, and if you're looking for us to apologize for it because it doesn't meet with the approval of a vacuum-skull like you, I'd like to politely request that you PLEASE hold your breath while you wait for that to happen.

3) The Strategic Defense Initiative, which you leftist twerps insist on misnaming "Star Wars" (like being nicknamed after a cool movie is some sort of INSULT; you guys really suck at insulting, has anyone ever told you that?), was never a hoax, nor even a failure. History Resources

4) The President does not legally control federal spending, and never has. Congress does. Some Presidents have been very successful at getting Congress to rubberstamp their budget plans - or in Obama's case, just spend money like water without ever having a budget at all. Reagan was not one of those Presidents. Every single budget proposal he ever sent to Congress was proudly pronounced DOA by the Democrats.

5) If you ever feel the need to actually address the points in the OP, rather than just ranting on about how much you hate Ronald Reagan, DO let me know, won't you?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Seriously Cecilie, you are ignoring the facts. The chart clearly shows the spending Reagan and Bush proposed in their budgets and how Congress responded to their spending proposals.

And this is not a liberal calling out Reagan.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Normally, I more-or-less ignore your posts, but I appreciate how much effort you must have gone to to find someone who cherrypicked the questions and tailored his answers so carefully to conform to what you wanted, and who I wouldn't laugh at derisively for being a blogger. Also, after Del, it's refreshing to talk to someone who's not fapping while he types. So I'm going to answer you this time.

First of all, please note that the your bolded part craftily switches halfway through from talking about "budget cuts" to cuts in TOTAL budget". I'm used to people constantly trying to redefine the topic mid-conversation, but redefining it mid-sentence is pretty ballsy.

Also, your bolded part is the ONLY place where your source really talks about REAGAN'S proposals, and then just makes a vague assertion that he doesn't follow-up. Everything else is about what actually got SPENT, and proving that Reagan was responsible for the spending, not Congress, by telling me blank total dollar amounts that were spent is . . . well, NOT proving anything.

Sorry, but again, you haven't disproven my statement. Reagan sent Congress budget proposals. The Democrats proudly pronounced them Dead On Arrival, and then wrote up their own budget bills. If you want to dispute that, you're going to have to show me a Reagan budget that Congress actually passed. Anything else is just diversion.

But again, thank you for at least trying to substantively address the topic.

I didn't just 'find someone' who cuts down Reagan. I found someone who SHOULD 'conform to what you want'...praise of your deity Ronny.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right.

But the dogma and doctrinaire driven right wing mind cannot be approached with facts or common sense, no matter WHO says it...

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again I remind you, this is a Republic, not a dictatorship. Reagan needed to have a Congress that would go along with him, he didn't

 

[Meathead]

The only thing liberals can do about Reagan's legacy is sling mud because they can't get around the fact that he was the most effective President of the 20th century. His leadership gave us prosperity and inspired patriotism after the miserable failure of Jimmy Carter (the worst president in history until now). The deficit belonged to Tip O'neil and George Mitchell. They made a deal to cut spending in exchange for a tax increase, then welched on the deal. Typical.
But the funniest part is listening to liberal idiots talking about the Reagan deficit when our current president holds the title for deficit spending. He added 3 times as much debt in 4 years as Reagan added in 8 and we have nothing to show for it. The annual deficit under Reagan was $150 billion his last year. Obama's deficits have not been BELOW $1 trillion since he was (s)elected. Talk about hypocrisy!

Very true. It is a testament to the man's greatness that 24 years on left wingers are still whining about him. It matters little. Reagan's legacy as probably the greatest president of the 20th century is and will remain intact.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again I remind you, this is a Republic, not a dictatorship. Reagan needed to have a Congress that would go along with him, he didn't

Reagan got what HE wanted...

Conservatives are embarrassed by the way Reagan and the Bushes ran the debt up and out of control. So they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. I have run into this lie dozens of times. So, I dug deep to set the record straight.

As the figure shows, Reagan and Bush senior got almost exactly the budgets they requested in each of their 12 budget years.

Reagan:

• The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats.

* This increased the debt by $144 Billion.​

• The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.

• The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress

* Totaled slightly less than Reagan requested.​

G. H. W. Bush:

• Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.

• These four Democratic budgets totaled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.

G. W. Bush:

• The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.

* Bipartisan and totaled $20 Billion less than Bush requested.​

* The biggest cause of deficits was Bush's enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.​

• The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.

• The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed modest Democratic attempts at spending.

In summary: Democrats controlled Congress during 8 out the 20 years. During 4 of those years, Democrats decreased the budgets proposed by the Republican presidents. Their total effect during those 8 years was to reduce Republican budgets by $17 Billion (which is only 0.2%).

more

 

[jillian]

He still holds the record for electoral landslides. Kind of hard to explain that away, huh libs?

I guess you've never heard of Richard Nixon

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan's two main goals were: revitalize the US economy and defeat Soviet Communism.

He did both and changed the course of history.

He freed tens of millions from Soviet Oppression, and for that the "American" Left despises him. Notice they never have a good thing to say about that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again I remind you, this is a Republic, not a dictatorship. Reagan needed to have a Congress that would go along with him, he didn't

Reagan got what HE wanted...

Conservatives are embarrassed by the way Reagan and the Bushes ran the debt up and out of control. So they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. I have run into this lie dozens of times. So, I dug deep to set the record straight.

As the figure shows, Reagan and Bush senior got almost exactly the budgets they requested in each of their 12 budget years.

Reagan:

• The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats.

* This increased the debt by $144 Billion.​

• The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.

• The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress

* Totaled slightly less than Reagan requested.​

G. H. W. Bush:

• Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.

• These four Democratic budgets totaled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.

G. W. Bush:

• The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.

* Bipartisan and totaled $20 Billion less than Bush requested.​

* The biggest cause of deficits was Bush's enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.​

• The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.

• The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed modest Democratic attempts at spending.

In summary: Democrats controlled Congress during 8 out the 20 years. During 4 of those years, Democrats decreased the budgets proposed by the Republican presidents. Their total effect during those 8 years was to reduce Republican budgets by $17 Billion (which is only 0.2%).

more

One Obama deficit > all 8 of Reagan's

Reagan was not going to be able to reform entitlements with a Democrat Congress.

He asked for reducing spending, cut taxes and crush the USSR; 2 out of three ain't bad

 

[jillian]

yes, Ronny Raygun did it all by himself.

Actually, he DID do it all by himself. I don't know if you were around then, or paying attention if you were, but the Democrats fought Reagan at every turn. His popularity and effectiveness made the liberals crazy, and their efforts to make him fail drove them to do some very unpatriotic things (like side with the Soviets in arms negotiations). I love how the Dems now try to claim that the defeat of the Soviet empire was a bi-partisan effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, that's a lie. Tip O'Neil and Reagan worked together because they weren't obstructive imbeciles and cared about the country.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again I remind you, this is a Republic, not a dictatorship. Reagan needed to have a Congress that would go along with him, he didn't

Reagan got what HE wanted...

Conservatives are embarrassed by the way Reagan and the Bushes ran the debt up and out of control. So they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. I have run into this lie dozens of times. So, I dug deep to set the record straight.

As the figure shows, Reagan and Bush senior got almost exactly the budgets they requested in each of their 12 budget years.

Reagan:

• The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats.

* This increased the debt by $144 Billion.​

• The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.

• The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress

* Totaled slightly less than Reagan requested.​

G. H. W. Bush:

• Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.

• These four Democratic budgets totaled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.

G. W. Bush:

• The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.

* Bipartisan and totaled $20 Billion less than Bush requested.​

* The biggest cause of deficits was Bush's enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.​

• The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.

• The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed modest Democratic attempts at spending.

In summary: Democrats controlled Congress during 8 out the 20 years. During 4 of those years, Democrats decreased the budgets proposed by the Republican presidents. Their total effect during those 8 years was to reduce Republican budgets by $17 Billion (which is only 0.2%).

more

One Obama deficit > all 8 of Reagan's

Reagan was not going to be able to reform entitlements with a Democrat Congress.

He asked for reducing spending, cut taxes and crush the USSR; 2 out of three ain't bad

President Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years.

Here is the Federal surplus or deficit in dollars...

And Obama is not growing government...that was Bush.

 

[regent]

Historians and presidential experts usually rate Reagan as average, or at best, just above average, but then we know historians are communists.

 

[FJO]

yes, Ronny Raygun did it all by himself.

Actually, he DID do it all by himself. I don't know if you were around then, or paying attention if you were, but the Democrats fought Reagan at every turn. His popularity and effectiveness made the liberals crazy, and their efforts to make him fail drove them to do some very unpatriotic things (like side with the Soviets in arms negotiations). I love how the Dems now try to claim that the defeat of the Soviet empire was a bi-partisan effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The roles of Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in bringing down the Evil Empire must not be overlooked.

 

[Bfgrn]

yes, Ronny Raygun did it all by himself.

Actually, he DID do it all by himself. I don't know if you were around then, or paying attention if you were, but the Democrats fought Reagan at every turn. His popularity and effectiveness made the liberals crazy, and their efforts to make him fail drove them to do some very unpatriotic things (like side with the Soviets in arms negotiations). I love how the Dems now try to claim that the defeat of the Soviet empire was a bi-partisan effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The roles of Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in bringing down the Evil Empire must not be overlooked.

Or Lech Walesa and the Solidarity trade-union movement

Lech Walesa and Poland's Battle to Bring Down the Iron Curtain
(The Soviet Union Collapses)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have you read one good word from the Left about Reagan freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism?