What a great man.... HAPPY 100th Ronald Reagan, you are truly missed.

Thanks Ron!

During the postwar, the government ensured middle class solvency through tax, regulatory, and social policy. Consequently, America grew the strongest middle class in history (unlike the 3rd world where labor is crushed and workers lack upward mobility).

The Middle Class solvency created by postwar Keynesianism translated into massive demand, i.e., more Americans had money to spend. In order to capture this demand, the capitalist had to innovate and add jobs. This formula created the strongest consumption economy on earth. [This is quite unlike 3rd world nations where the workers are not paid well enough to drive consumption]

Starting in the late 70s, Keynesianism, which focused on middle class demand, was replaced by supply side economics, which removed the tax and regulatory burden on the wealthy based on a promise that the increased wealth on top would translate into investment, innovation, jobs, and cheap prices.

Despite the creative revisionism of rightwing data crunchers, investment and jobs didn't go as promised. Starting in the 80's, capital was increasingly invested not in the real economy, e.g., new energy solutions, but in Washington for the purpose of forming and protecting monopolies, e.g., crushing the first electric car movement, hiding the military costs of oil extraction - this making alternative energy seem expensive by comparison, eliminating foreign and generic drug competition, concentrating ownership of media and health insurance into a handful of unaccountable corporations, which corporations would use their wealth not to create American jobs but to fund elections so they could receive subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts while shipping jobs over seas, and moving their own HQ to the Caribbean, where they could receive American services for free.

Reaganomics, by bestowing historically unprecedented wealth and political power on the suppliers, made it possible for a small group of interests to take over government and media. They changed the regulations and laws in order to replace representative Democracy with the lobbying industrial complex -- which allowed them to create conditions for casino capitalism ... so they could take unprecedented risks with the house's money.

We all know how that ended.
 
Neither Reagan nor North were ever convicted of anything re Iran Contra. Even the Democrats' special counsel, after years and mega millions of dollars of investigation, reported that though there were some minor laws broken, none carried any penalty. And that closed the books on Iran Contra. There were some minor players in that who were convicted but not for anything the Democrats wanted Reagan and North to be charged with.

North was convicted for falsifying evidence on a security fence around his home that he received after receiving death threats. (This wouldn't have been a problem except that he changed the date on a receipt.) And obstruction of justice--lying and withholding evidence from Congress. It was a conviction that he never would have received had he not been given immunity so that he could tell all to Congress. Evenso he received a very light sentence--some fines; some community service. The appellate court saw that he has been convicted after receiving immunity which put him in the constitutionally unacceptable position of incriminating himself and they threw it all out. As they should.

Nigga please! I do know a little bit about drug smuggling and Barry Seals would have had plenty to talk about if he had lived. North was as dirty as they come. I'm not going to be swayed by some cover up/white wash. That episode was a vulgar display of hubris, arrogance and multi-national illegality. Sell the soft soap to the naive..inexperienced sheep. Ronnie didn't apologize about it for no reason.

Too bad you weren't on the Special Prosecutor's staff, Huggy. He could have used somebody as smart as you because apparently he and his staff weren't smart enough to figure out what you have figured out all by yourself. North wasn't even charged with drug smuggling, much less convicted. Reagan did throw him under the bus--one of my few quarrels with President Reagan--but I think Ollie was probably a whole lot better person than you give him credit for. There was far more at stake in the Iran Contra affair than the more sinister looking factors those on the Left love to hold up and shake as 'evidence' of how evil President Reagan and Oliver North were.

Evenso, we have never elected a saint to office yet, and I doubt we ever will. If you want to look for only the bad in somebody, you can surely always find it.

Ya right...The great ol U S A is going to cop to drug smuggling!:cuckoo: Note: I haven't said anything about the fundamental facts surrounding the Iran Contra affair as far as the political and military objectives. What I do dispute are the methods on how this clandestine operation was carried out. Congress was specific on it's directive. North and co decided that they were above the law and the war making branch of the U S government. I'll take my personal experience in the region over some steaming crap ladled to the masses out of D C..thank you. North was not and is not any kind of hero. But then again if drug smuggling has been elevated to that status perhaps I should put in for MY congressional medal of honor!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
*Never Convicted* Nice dodge. Nice obfuscation attempt deany-bub.

Pardoned..big difference. Never convicted was Simpson's legacy...until that little incident in Nevada.

Neither Reagan nor North were ever convicted of anything re Iran Contra. Even the Democrats' special counsel, after years and mega millions of dollars of investigation, reported that though there were some minor laws broken, none carried any penalty. And that closed the books on Iran Contra. There were some minor players in that who were convicted but not for anything the Democrats wanted Reagan and North to be charged with.

North was convicted for falsifying evidence on a security fence around his home that he received after receiving death threats. (This wouldn't have been a problem except that he changed the date on a receipt.) And obstruction of justice--lying and withholding evidence from Congress. It was a conviction that he never would have received had he not been given immunity so that he could tell all to Congress. Evenso he received a very light sentence--some fines; some community service. The appellate court saw that he has been convicted after receiving immunity which put him in the constitutionally unacceptable position of incriminating himself and they threw it all out. As they should.

Yep. Thanks.
 
Reagan: Putting business in charge of government.

Reagan said he wanted to replace meddling Ph.d scientists with business people. He declared that corporations should regulate themselves because they knew better. And so he created the conditions for regulatory capture, and then business proceeded to increase its risk levels until it produced a meltdown from which the nation will not recover. But, because business owns government, they gave themselves a bailout and foreclosed on the middle class.

How did the Reagan Revolution get the voter to go along? Easy. Mass media is owned by the same bundle of corporations which owns government. They simply used media to wageda never ending war against the tax and regulatory policies which gave America the strongest middle class in history. They called everything that didn't benefit the wealthy socialism (while, ironically, subsidizing and bailing out the wealthy until they bankrupted the country, starving the beast once and for all).

But, how specifically did the media do it?

Answer: Culture wars. Patriotism. Terrorism.

(Borders, Language, Culture)

They used social issues, nationalism, and fear to trick uneducated voters into voting against their economic interests. [This is is why Reagan, a man who never went to church, got in bed with Pat Robertson and the moral majority. The Right needed the south and heartland to win elections. Psst: I'm talking about the same Reagan who singlehandedly passed the nation's most liberal abortion policy as governor of California]. The rightwing media convinced naive Americans that they were voting against socialism. These poor innocent "homelanders" thought they were voting against abortion and gay marriage and hollywood vulgarity and Commie Pinkos. They thought they were voting for the sacred, exceptional, uniqueness of American history and tradition. [They thought they were voting for John Wayne not Michael Milken] Who knew that they were voting to concentrate political power in the hands of a few corporations (who would eventually bankrupt the country)? Who knew these innocent voters were merely concentrating all the nation's wealth in the pockets of a small group of people?
 
Last edited:
Neither Reagan nor North were ever convicted of anything re Iran Contra. Even the Democrats' special counsel, after years and mega millions of dollars of investigation, reported that though there were some minor laws broken, none carried any penalty. And that closed the books on Iran Contra. There were some minor players in that who were convicted but not for anything the Democrats wanted Reagan and North to be charged with.

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[3][4][8] In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[14] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the George H. W. Bush presidency; Bush had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[15]

Fourteen administration officials were indicted, eleven were convicted.

Caspar Weinberger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though he claims to have been opposed to the sale on principle, Weinberger participated in the transfer of United States TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran during the Iran–Contra affair. By 1987, the disclosure of the Iran-Contra Affair and increasing difficulties with Defense budgets weighed on Weinberger. Weinberger resigned on November 23, 1987, citing his wife's declining health. He specifically denied that he was opposed to the INF Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Washington in December 1987. In fact, he took credit for proposing the substance of the treaty early in his term at the Pentagon.

Following his resignation as Secretary of Defense, legal proceedings against Weinberger were brought by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. A federal grand jury indicted Weinberger on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992 [1]. He was defended by defense attorney Carl Rauh. Weinberger received a Presidential pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992.[6]

Secretary of Defense is a minor player?

Then again, I can imagine what the reaction would be by those defending Reagan if it was discovered that President Obama had made an arms deal with the Iranian Government in 2011, with eleven officials in his administration convicted along with Robert Gates being put on trial for perjury. Then, of course, the next Democratic Administration pardoning Gates and pardoning others too.
 
Last edited:
They just HATE to admit that Reagan was and is still admired even now in his death.

Did anyone see the people stopping their cars on the highways and overpasses to salute him when his casket passed by? They lined the roads to where he was being buried. I remember it like it was yesterday.

It was wonderful to see there are still lots of good decent people who don't dance on the grave of others.

so I will say, Happy 100 Birthday President Reagan, you are still missed.

We salute you.:clap2:
 
Last edited:
Yes, you were a great man and a great president, Mr. Reagan. In fact if you were in office now, the Middle East would not be revolting. They KNOW you would not want OR tolerate a Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt. You were no wimp and you were no Muslim sympathizer...
Don't forget about his affinity for genocide!!

"Reagan portrayed the bloody conflicts as a necessary front in the Cold War, but the Central American violence was always more about entrenched ruling elites determined to retain their privileges against impoverished peasants, including descendants of the region’s Maya Indians, seeking social, political and economic reforms.""


 
You lefties can't let one damn thread go without coming in and spewing all your hate all over it.

It was a thread saying HAPPY BIRTHDAY for crying out loud.


Happy Birthday, President Ronald Wilson Reagan!


neonbirthday.gif



party2.gif
party2.gif
party2.gif
party2.gif
party2.gif
party2.gif
 
"The wealthiest 0.1% households did even better. After remaining between 1.7% to 2.0% share of income for more than twenty years, from 1960 to 1980, their income share tripled under Reagan from less than 2% in 1980 to more than 6% by 1988.

"In contrast to these very wealthiest, for the poorest working class households there were no adjustments to the minimum wage over the Reagan period, as Reagan made clear he would veto any such adjustment. Consequently, the minimum wage declined from $6.55 an hour to $4.80 an hour in real terms between 1980-89—or 27%.

"Not surprisingly, the poverty rate rose from 8.9% to 10.9% between 1980-86 largely as a result, and two paycheck families rose from 42% to 49% of all households between 1980-87 to accommodate stagnant working class earnings growth over the period."

No hardships on anybody who wasn't rich

ZCommunication

In his 1984 campaign, Reagan asked us: Are you better off than you were before? He won 49 of 50 states and almost got Mondale's Minnesota too.

The Political Class Statists will do what you do--picking minutaea out of the big picture and holding it up as 'evidence' of Reagan's assault on the poor or however you wish to frame it.

But mainstream America--that's the rest of us who tilt right of center and we profoundly outnumber you--see that picture. An America in which the people govern themselves more, feel more positive, feel more hopeful, and do for themselves rather than sit back and hope the government will do for them.

What's better? Raising the minimum wage so that those receive it are slightly less under the poverty line than before? Or inspiring an economy in which pretty much anybody who doesn't want to be below the poverty line doesn't have to be there because they can work and aspire to their own hopes and goals?
When the real terms purchasing power of a minimum wage job decreases by 27% as it did between 1980-89, those on the left and right consider it a big part of the big picture. And those with full time jobs are the fortunate ones:

"It was also on Reagan’s watch that a massive shift to part time and temp work began, a condition that has continued ever since and has been eating away at the standard of living of tens of millions today, and in turn playing a major role in preventing a sustained economic recovery from the current recession.

"It was under Reagan’s first term alone that involuntary part time work force grew from 3.4 million to 6 million. Over half the jobs added from 1980 to 1983 were involuntary part time.

"That’s 2.7 of the 5.8 million jobs added in that period. Temp jobs also rose fourfold during the Reagan years, to more than 1.5 million.

"It should be noted these jobs paid only 60%-75% of wages of full time workers on average, and benefits of only 10%-20% on average."

Ronald Reagan was handpicked by corporate America to roll back as much of the New Deal as possible, thereby concentrating wealth and political power in the hands of Wall Street.

90% of today's Americans are still paying that off.

ZCommunications
 
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
:clap2:

What a great man!
:salute:
Looks like ol' BONER'S goin' BOTH directions!!!!!

blog1735nal.jpg

"Apparently, just like Superman, Boehner will only date women with the double-L initials. Lucy Liu and Loni Love, you'd better watch out."
 
"The wealthiest 0.1% households did even better. After remaining between 1.7% to 2.0% share of income for more than twenty years, from 1960 to 1980, their income share tripled under Reagan from less than 2% in 1980 to more than 6% by 1988.

"In contrast to these very wealthiest, for the poorest working class households there were no adjustments to the minimum wage over the Reagan period, as Reagan made clear he would veto any such adjustment. Consequently, the minimum wage declined from $6.55 an hour to $4.80 an hour in real terms between 1980-89—or 27%.

"Not surprisingly, the poverty rate rose from 8.9% to 10.9% between 1980-86 largely as a result, and two paycheck families rose from 42% to 49% of all households between 1980-87 to accommodate stagnant working class earnings growth over the period."

No hardships on anybody who wasn't rich

ZCommunication

In his 1984 campaign, Reagan asked us: Are you better off than you were before? He won 49 of 50 states and almost got Mondale's Minnesota too.

The Political Class Statists will do what you do--picking minutaea out of the big picture and holding it up as 'evidence' of Reagan's assault on the poor or however you wish to frame it.

But mainstream America--that's the rest of us who tilt right of center and we profoundly outnumber you--see that picture. An America in which the people govern themselves more, feel more positive, feel more hopeful, and do for themselves rather than sit back and hope the government will do for them.

What's better? Raising the minimum wage so that those receive it are slightly less under the poverty line than before? Or inspiring an economy in which pretty much anybody who doesn't want to be below the poverty line doesn't have to be there because they can work and aspire to their own hopes and goals?

Well stated...and that's whom Reagan was. He belived in this 'Experiment' of freedom, and bolstered it by action. More importantly he belived in the people...and did everything in his power to get government off their backs.
How did Reagan enhance this "Experiment of Freedom" or get government off the peoples' back by tripling the national debt?

"The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion.

'That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years.

"In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion."

Reagan tripled that debt bankrupting the Soviet Union.

Did that enhance your freedom or remove government from your back?

Ronald Reagan
 

Forum List

Back
Top