Ronald Reagan - Prophet

[Cecilie1200]

Research the relationship between the Reagan administration and Iran before the 1980 election.

I hate to interrupt your regularly-scheduled delusional, schizophrenic conspiracy theory, but Reagan didn't take office until 1981, so there WAS no "Reagan administration" in 1980; there was only a Reagan campaign staff.

 

[regent]

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.

You obviously weren't around or you would know how stupid that statement is. Tip O'neil opposed everything Reagan tried to do. The Democrats like to call him a bi-partisan because they want to share in Reagan's accomplishments but O'neil was an obstructionist. He had a temper tantrum on the House floor when Reagan got his tax cuts passed. He supported every Soviet position on arms control talks and his word wasn't worth shit (nor was he).

Tip O'Neil and Reagan worked well together and one their accomplishments was stabilizing Social Security in 1983. Of course they took political swipes at each other that was expected, but it was their Irish blarney that did it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan is simply one of the most over-rated Presidents ever.

One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.

History will tell.

Any list of Presidents that contains Barack Obama could not POSSIBLY have another contender for the title of "Most Overrated".

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder if Bripat realizes that 'Everyone deserves what YOU worked hard for' is actually a slam on Obama?

Uhmmmmm, yes I do.

Why are you under the impression that I admire Obama?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is genuinely fascinating how Mr. Reagan, using only common sense and logic (one presumes, at least, that he was not a prophet in the true sense, and delivering directives straight from the Almighty, although I could be wrong about that), so accurately predicted what came to pass in our country.

Reagan, the guy who predicted that if Medicare passed the government would tell doctors which city they had to live in? Prophetic! And mildly insane.

Leftists today are so busy framing the arguments as though the current state of things has ALWAYS pertained that most people forget that there was once an argument about implementing the programs the left takes for granted now as the basis for the NEW programs they want.

There you go again! Reagan himself maintained that in the early 1960s he was "not opposing the principle of providing care for [senior citizens]" but rather preferred the design of Kerr-Mills to Forand. Either way he supported a program of federal financing of care for the elderly; or so he claimed later.

So in fact there was, in Reagan's telling, a wide consensus in the early 1960s that the federal government needed to step in and help out in getting care to the elderly. The argument was about the program's design, not whether or not there should be a program.

“Traditionally, one of the easiest first steps in imposing socialism on a people has been government-paid medicine. It is the easiest to present as a humanitarian project. No one wants to oppose care for the sick.”

You know Reagan's administration is the one that decided Medicare would no longer pay what providers billed but would in fact become a price-setter and tell providers how much services were going to be worth, right?

“Why? Well, ex-Congressman (Aime) Forand provides the answer. He says, ‘If we can only break through and get our foot in the door, then we can expand the program after that.’”

As we know now, that's exactly what happened.

That happened? When was Medicare expanded?

Sometimes, it's really hard to tell when leftists are being deliberately obtuse to annoy us, and when they really are that damned oblivious.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Greenbeard]

It is genuinely fascinating how Mr. Reagan, using only common sense and logic (one presumes, at least, that he was not a prophet in the true sense, and delivering directives straight from the Almighty, although I could be wrong about that), so accurately predicted what came to pass in our country.

Reagan, the guy who predicted that if Medicare passed the government would tell doctors which city they had to live in? Prophetic! And mildly insane.



There you go again! Reagan himself maintained that in the early 1960s he was "not opposing the principle of providing care for [senior citizens]" but rather preferred the design of Kerr-Mills to Forand. Either way he supported a program of federal financing of care for the elderly; or so he claimed later.

So in fact there was, in Reagan's telling, a wide consensus in the early 1960s that the federal government needed to step in and help out in getting care to the elderly. The argument was about the program's design, not whether or not there should be a program.



You know Reagan's administration is the one that decided Medicare would no longer pay what providers billed but would in fact become a price-setter and tell providers how much services were going to be worth, right?

“Why? Well, ex-Congressman (Aime) Forand provides the answer. He says, ‘If we can only break through and get our foot in the door, then we can expand the program after that.’”

As we know now, that's exactly what happened.

That happened? When was Medicare expanded?

Sometimes, it's really hard to tell when leftists are being deliberately obtuse to annoy us, and when they really are that damned oblivious.

Let me recap for you:

1) Reagan's shrill warnings in the 1960s were wrong and, in some instances, borderline insane.

2) When Medicare proved overwhelmingly popular and Reagan decided he wanted a future in politics, he backtracked in the late 1970s. He was always for Medicare, there was never any debate about whether it should exist, just a nitpick here and there about program design. It'll be interesting in a decade or so to see how his intellectual descendants try to manage this sleight of hand with Obamacare.

3) To Reagan's credit, his administration improved Medicare's hospital payment system drastically in the early 1980s by "Sovietizing" its design, which for obvious reasons is amusing and ironic.

He's an interesting character, I'll give you that. Prophet? Not even close.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You obviously weren't around or you would know how stupid that statement is. Tip O'neil opposed everything Reagan tried to do. The Democrats like to call him a bi-partisan because they want to share in Reagan's accomplishments but O'neil was an obstructionist. He had a temper tantrum on the House floor when Reagan got his tax cuts passed. He supported every Soviet position on arms control talks and his word wasn't worth shit (nor was he).

And he excused his untrustworthiness by dismissing it as "just politics". He's famous for having told Reagan, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog". In other words, it's your own fault for not EXPECTING me to stab you in the back.

 

[regent]

Reagan is simply one of the most over-rated Presidents ever.

One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.

History will tell.

Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.

 

[bodecea]

i knew he had alzheimer's, but i didn't realize it was early onset.

sad

A lot earlier than most in the American public realize.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"I skipped every single topic point and academic discussion, but I posted a cartoon!"

 

[bodecea]

"I skipped every single topic point and academic discussion, but I posted a cartoon!"

A very valid and pointed cartoon, nonetheless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan, the guy who predicted that if Medicare passed the government would tell doctors which city they had to live in? Prophetic! And mildly insane.



There you go again! Reagan himself maintained that in the early 1960s he was "not opposing the principle of providing care for [senior citizens]" but rather preferred the design of Kerr-Mills to Forand. Either way he supported a program of federal financing of care for the elderly; or so he claimed later.

So in fact there was, in Reagan's telling, a wide consensus in the early 1960s that the federal government needed to step in and help out in getting care to the elderly. The argument was about the program's design, not whether or not there should be a program.



You know Reagan's administration is the one that decided Medicare would no longer pay what providers billed but would in fact become a price-setter and tell providers how much services were going to be worth, right?



That happened? When was Medicare expanded?

Sometimes, it's really hard to tell when leftists are being deliberately obtuse to annoy us, and when they really are that damned oblivious.

Let me recap for you:

1) Reagan's shrill warnings in the 1960s were wrong and, in some instances, borderline insane.

2) When Medicare proved overwhelmingly popular and Reagan decided he wanted a future in politics, he backtracked in the late 1970s. He was always for Medicare, there was never any debate about whether it should exist, just a nitpick here and there about program design. It'll be interesting in a decade or so to see how his intellectual descendants try to manage this sleight of hand with Obamacare.

3) To Reagan's credit, his administration improved Medicare's hospital payment system drastically in the early 1980s by "Sovietizing" its design, which for obvious reasons is amusing and ironic.

He's an interesting character, I'll give you that. Prophet? Not even close.

Let me recap for you.

1) Your opinion, asserted with no substantiation. Ooh, yes, let me get RIGHT on ignoring everything I posted to believe YOU!

Why do you dipshits bother earnestly telling me what you think and nothing else in every single post, when you know perfectly well that I don't even agree that you DO think at all?

2) Ditto.

3) Wow, three-for-three. Outstanding.

You're not even an interesting character. Call me when you can address the OP topic, rather than mistaking this for a "PLEASE give me your uninformed and utterly boring opinion of Ronald Reagan."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan is simply one of the most over-rated Presidents ever.

One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.

History will tell.

Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.

"Blah-blah-blah-number of historians have said THIS. Yak-yak-yak-number of historians said THAT. Which historians? Where did I get this information from? Why would you want to know THAT? I said it, so you just take it as gospel, right?"

Call me when your post contains the words of someone intelligent, believable, and interesting . . . in other words, someone besides you.

 

[jillian]

that's funny... cesspit ranting and raving and complaining that history isn't revisionist the way she wants it to be.

 

[jillian]

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.

You obviously weren't around or you would know how stupid that statement is. Tip O'neil opposed everything Reagan tried to do. The Democrats like to call him a bi-partisan because they want to share in Reagan's accomplishments but O'neil was an obstructionist. He had a temper tantrum on the House floor when Reagan got his tax cuts passed. He supported every Soviet position on arms control talks and his word wasn't worth shit (nor was he).

i was around.. young... but politically aware. that's why i know you're deluded. reagan raised taxes 7 times. do you think he did that on his own?

do you think anything happened without him working with the house and speaker o'neil?

jeeze. you wingnuts are morons

 

[regent]

One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.

History will tell.

Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.

"Blah-blah-blah-number of historians have said THIS. Yak-yak-yak-number of historians said THAT. Which historians? Where did I get this information from? Why would you want to know THAT? I said it, so you just take it as gospel, right?"

Call me when your post contains the words of someone intelligent, believable, and interesting . . . in other words, someone besides you.

What should I call you? Actually I don't do that name calling bit, I rely more on history and historians.
These historians were polled by the Siena Reseach Institute. But there have been a number of other polling of historians to rate the presidents. The first was the Schlesinger poll in 1948. This last poll used twenty criteria of presidential characteristics and rated the presidents on each.
What hurt the most, the Obama rating or the Reagan rating?

 

[Greenbeard]

Your opinion, asserted with no substantiation. Ooh, yes, let me get RIGHT on ignoring everything I posted to believe YOU!

I realize it was a jump to expect a Reagan booster to know Reagan's positions and history on an issue as unimportant as Medicare. Let me help you out.

1) Just one of the many stupid anti-Medicare arguments he was paid to make by the AMA in 1961:

But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

Wow, prophetic!


2) Him covering his ass in the 1980 presidential debate and reminding us once and for all that no one ever opposed federal intervention to finance medical care for the elderly:

MR. REAGAN: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another.

Future GOP candidates for president should get used to explaining how of course they supported the principles of Obamacare, there just must've been some other concurrent legislation they liked even better. Take a page from Reagan's book.

3) And yes, Reagan supported the transition away from Medicare paying what providers billed it to setting the prices it would pay itself. It was his administration's own proposal:

LAWMAKERS CHALLENGE PLANNED MEDICARE SHIFT
By ROBERT PEAR, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 23, 1982

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22— Members of Congress made it clear today that they wanted to make substantial changes in the Reagan Administration's proposal to pay hospitals a set fee for treating all Medicare patients who have the same ailment.

The lawmakers, members of the health subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, praised the Administration for its step toward controlling hospital costs, but criticized the proposal as inflexible and perhaps inequitable. The proposal received public scrutiny for the first time at a hearing of the committee.

Carolyne K. Davis, head of the Federal Health Care Financing Administration [Reagan's Medicare chief], said the Government was justified in setting Medicare payment levels because it wanted to be a ''prudent buyer'' and had a legal responsibility for the hospital insurance trust fund, from which Medicare pays hospitals. She said there was no such justification for the Federal Government to audit and regulate spending by private insurers at this time.

Under the Administration proposal, hospitals could not bill patients for the difference between their normal charges and the standard Medicare payments. Jack Owen, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, said hospitals should have ''the option'' to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

that's funny... cesspit ranting and raving and complaining that history isn't revisionist the way she wants it to be.

That's funny. Jillian sniping and calling names and avoiding the actual discussion.

Oh, wait, it's not the least bit funny. Just a sad, pathetic waste of space.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.

"Blah-blah-blah-number of historians have said THIS. Yak-yak-yak-number of historians said THAT. Which historians? Where did I get this information from? Why would you want to know THAT? I said it, so you just take it as gospel, right?"

Call me when your post contains the words of someone intelligent, believable, and interesting . . . in other words, someone besides you.

What should I call you? Actually I don't do that name calling bit, I rely more on history and historians.
These historians were polled by the Siena Reseach Institute. But there have been a number of other polling of historians to rate the presidents. The first was the Schlesinger poll in 1948. This last poll used twenty criteria of presidential characteristics and rated the presidents on each.
What hurt the most, the Obama rating or the Reagan rating?

And still I see no link to a site, or even a more old-fashioned footnote notation, allowing one to actually verify the source and the citation. Hmmm.

Survey says . . . BULLSHIT!

What hurt most, that your citation wasn't impressive or that YOU aren't?