The Greatest President in 100 Years

[Wicked Jester]

The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.

Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.

They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan

Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.

 

[Meathead]

It truly is simple, Reagan is in the running as one of the "greats". Thus far, Obama is relatively a pipsqueak. Much remains to be seen, but then even if Obama's socialist program works out, he will still be a pipsqueak.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.

February 6, 1911

1. "In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, ...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.

It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
Ronald Reagan, 1978
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue



2. "The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.

Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace




3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.

Ronald Reagan.

More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.

Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO. By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.

Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?


If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got.

Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'

He ran away and hid.


My, oh, my....frightened away! What a delicate child you are, Synthy....

….you must wash in Woolite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.

Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.

They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan

Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.

I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....

...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:

He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It truly is simple, Reagan is in the running as one of the "greats". Thus far, Obama is relatively a pipsqueak. Much remains to be seen, but then even if Obama's socialist program works out, he will still be a pipsqueak.

If only Gutzon Borglum was still around, maybe he would have put Ron on the Rock, where he belongs.


That's Mt. Rushmore.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgEwJmA7Ac8]Revising Mt. Rushmore: Which Face Should Be Added ....Obama, Kennedy, Reagan? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rozman]

I just can't anyone seriously when they put Obama on this list...

 

[Synthaholic]

Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.

February 6, 1911

1. "In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, ...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.

It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
Ronald Reagan, 1978
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue



2. "The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.

Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace




3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.

Ronald Reagan.

More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.

Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO. By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.

Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?


If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got.

I didn't call you a bad thinker. I called you a non-thinker, since all you do is copy & paste other peoples' thoughts.

 

[Rozman]

How can anyone put Obama on this list when he is barely into his second term....
Can't we at least wait until he is done being President before we elect him the best President ever.

The ass kissing here is beyond belief.

 

[Rozman]

To say Obama has a cult like following just doesn't do it justice.
Cult just isn't a strong enough word.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.

Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO. By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.

Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?


If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got.

I didn't call you a bad thinker. I called you a non-thinker, since all you do is copy & paste other peoples' thoughts.

You doing a post on who is a 'thinker' of any variety is like Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.



I challenged you to critique the OP, and you can't...'cause you're a dim-wit.
True?

Here's the post:

"Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?

If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got."



Nowhere in the post does it say you called me a 'bad thinker."

So....why the obfuscation? To avoid actually thinking?


But...I challenged you, do so again: try to debate the OP.


Otherwise your post is simply an elementary school 'I hate you, I hate you' note.
And even you can see how that crushes me.....


See....I think you're a dunce. You've been trained by your handlers to react to Ronald Reagan in the way you have....so when I produce a well-constructed tribute to him....you try to find a way to inject negativity.

But, with no ability ......all you can do is 'I hate you.'

Compared to you, it seems, I am a deep thinker. So is Forrest Gump.


Try again?
Debate the OP.


Otherwise, you're....what's the word?...oh, yes....'worthless.'

 

[rightwinger]

How can anyone put Obama on this list when he is barely into his second term....
Can't we at least wait until he is done being President before we elect him the best President ever.

The ass kissing here is beyond belief.

Right now, Obama is ranked 13-14 on the all time list. That is only after a first term. Two term presidents tend to rank higher than one term presidents (except for Bush).

We are talking the last 100 years, Obama is currently top 5 of the last 100 years. You are free to discuss who should be ranked ahead of him and why

 

[Toronado3800]

Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.

February 6, 1911

1. "In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, ...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.

It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
Ronald Reagan, 1978
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue



2. "The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.

Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace




3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.

Ronald Reagan.

LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.

So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)

That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was mesurement. Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.

Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years? Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.

Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin

And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God

What are you talking about Frank? They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy... If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh Frank, June 1945. Do you send Patton east?

Be proud and answer. If I was President in 1870 I don't know if I would have stopped manifest destiny from destroying the natives.

In June of 45 I would have been militarily leery of a war with Russia. You? What eould you have done?

 

[Toronado3800]

They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan

Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.

I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....

...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:

He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.

I can more or less agree with your last statement! FDR may have saved America but did it a little shady like.

Heck, I say he created our America but still your point is valid the Cobstitution needs Ammendments more often. (like with the healthcare bill!)

 

[Liability]

reagan ballooned the deficit.

But when The ONE does far worse damage, TderpM is staunchly mute.

Fucking stupid transparent dumb-ass hypocritical pos that she is.

 

[Bfgrn]

Last 100 years

1. FDR
2. Ike
3. Wilson
4. Truman
5. Obama
6. Reagan

Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?

Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:




'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the 20th century’s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9





RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.


It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

 

[PoliticalChic]

Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.

I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....

...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:

He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.

I can more or less agree with your last statement! FDR may have saved America but did it a little shady like.

Heck, I say he created our America but still your point is valid the Cobstitution needs Ammendments more often. (like with the healthcare bill!)

No.

My prediction all along was that the Court would find it constitutional.

Your point?

 

[Oddball]

Oh Frank, June 1945. Do you send Patton east?

In 1944, were I Ike, I'd tell Monty to jam it up his ass for trying to undermine my broad front Overlord plan and give the job to Patton.

In June of 45 I would have been militarily leery of a war with Russia. You? What eould you have done?

What's to be leery of?

America had air supremacy over all of Europe and could've established it in mere weeks over Russia...The Germans would've given over everything to the allies (what remained of industrial capacity, weapons systems, intelligence, military structure) to drive back and defeat the commies.

The Reds would've been crushed, quite probably before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?

Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:




'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the 20th century’s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9





RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.


It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.

Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.

When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?

Ever?


Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
Any?


None?

Now, think about what that means.

 

[Bfgrn]

Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:




'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the 20th century’s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9





RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.


It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.

Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.

When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?

Ever?


Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
Any?


None?

Now, think about what that means.

Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.

PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.

You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...

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."

Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.

The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem—a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.

Let's run down the other important areas:

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