The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

[bripat9643]

Your chart is utter horseshit. Tip O'Neil declared Every budget Reagan submitted "dead on arrival" because it didn't include enough spending on social programs.

Everything Liberals say is a god damned lie.

 

[Sallow]

This never gets old.

******* treason. And a conservative god. Gotta love it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZfnOJd_FmA]‪Reagan Breaks Laws then Lies About It‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Antiderivative]

Your chart is utter horseshit. Tip O'Neil declared Every budget Reagan submitted "dead on arrival" because it didn't include enough spending on social programs.

Everything Liberals say is a god damned lie.

I know it is horseshit, just like its horseshit when I say that the President doesn't have a red pen.

It is also horseshit when I say that Reagan tripled our debt.

 

[ShackledNation]

Reagans policies and leadership.

So I guess it had nothing to do with the fact that Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker completely reversed the inflationary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve and actually destroyed rather than created money, thus bringing interest rates more in line with savings?

Reagan's policies did not grow the economy. His policies, Congresses policies--whoever was at fault for enacting them--were tax, spend, and expand government. Those policies have failed throughout history. The one thing different under Reagan was what the Federal Reserve did, and his rhetoric.

You ever ask yourself why the Fed is so apparently ineffectual today?

Yes. It does exactly the opposite today as it did under Reagan. Plus, its a central economic planning institution. By raising interest rates in the 80s, Volcker brought the interest rate closer to the market price.

 

[ShackledNation]

The "sad legacy" is the sad legacy of leftwing historical revisionism about Reagan. No matter how many times it's repeated that Reagan cut tax rates tremendously in 1981, and agreed to an increase based on democrats (unkept) promise of 2 for 1 spending cuts in 1982, and that Reagan was forced to tremendously ramp up the military with its attendant costs because of the aggressive forces loosed in the world because of Carter's appeasement policies, they still want to warp history by portraying Reagan as a spendthrift. This is leftwing strategy right out of the Alinsky manual - when you can't defeat an opponent's issues or reputation, go after him with defamation.

It's not about portraying Reagan as a spendrift. It is about portraying what actually happened during the Reagan years with regards to the economy, whether he wanted it or not. And the result was not lower taxes, less spending, lower deficits, and everything that actually grows an economy. Under Reagan spending (domestic included, not just military) increased, deficits soared, and taxes stayed the same or may have even risen.

I wish Reagan really did succeed in reducing government influence, but he did not. The sad legacy is confusing conservative intentions that sadly never came to fruition with what actually happened.

 

[Patrick2]

The "sad legacy" is the sad legacy of leftwing historical revisionism about Reagan. No matter how many times it's repeated that Reagan cut tax rates tremendously in 1981, and agreed to an increase based on democrats (unkept) promise of 2 for 1 spending cuts in 1982, and that Reagan was forced to tremendously ramp up the military with its attendant costs because of the aggressive forces loosed in the world because of Carter's appeasement policies, they still want to warp history by portraying Reagan as a spendthrift. This is leftwing strategy right out of the Alinsky manual - when you can't defeat an opponent's issues or reputation, go after him with defamation.

It's not about portraying Reagan as a spendrift. It is about portraying what actually happened during the Reagan years with regards to the economy, whether he wanted it or not. And the result was not lower taxes, less spending, lower deficits, and everything that actually grows an economy. Under Reagan spending (domestic included, not just military) increased, deficits soared, and taxes stayed the same or may have even risen.

I wish Reagan really did succeed in reducing government influence, but he did not. The sad legacy is confusing conservative intentions that sadly never came to fruition with what actually happened.

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

 

[Antiderivative]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

He tripled our debt. Now put that in context of fiscal conservatism....sparky.

 

[ShackledNation]

The "sad legacy" is the sad legacy of leftwing historical revisionism about Reagan. No matter how many times it's repeated that Reagan cut tax rates tremendously in 1981, and agreed to an increase based on democrats (unkept) promise of 2 for 1 spending cuts in 1982, and that Reagan was forced to tremendously ramp up the military with its attendant costs because of the aggressive forces loosed in the world because of Carter's appeasement policies, they still want to warp history by portraying Reagan as a spendthrift. This is leftwing strategy right out of the Alinsky manual - when you can't defeat an opponent's issues or reputation, go after him with defamation.

It's not about portraying Reagan as a spendrift. It is about portraying what actually happened during the Reagan years with regards to the economy, whether he wanted it or not. And the result was not lower taxes, less spending, lower deficits, and everything that actually grows an economy. Under Reagan spending (domestic included, not just military) increased, deficits soared, and taxes stayed the same or may have even risen.

I wish Reagan really did succeed in reducing government influence, but he did not. The sad legacy is confusing conservative intentions that sadly never came to fruition with what actually happened.

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

I'm not anti-Reagan, nor am I trying to defame him. Reading my post, you should have noticed that I said I wished Reagan had succeeded in reducing government. So please, if you do decide to respond to my posts, read them first rather than fabricate a strawman to attack.

As for context, I already gave plenty of context earlier in this topic. I suggest reading the previous discussions.

 

[Patrick2]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

He tripled our debt. Now put that in context of fiscal conservatism....sparky.

I've explained that to you, but you ignore it for obvious reasons. To ignore what Reagan was presented with when he took office is just to make completely meaningless statements about him. You think he could wave a magic wand and - SHAZZAAAM! - big democrat created entitlements would just disappear? Becoming president is like being given the helm of a supertanker that is already underway at 30 knots. Your position is then like "OK Reagan - stop right here!" or worse "OK Reagan - turn on a dime right here!"

 

[Antiderivative]

I've explained that to you, but you ignore it for obvious reasons. To ignore what Reagan was presented with when he took office is just to make completely meaningless statements about him. You think he could wave a magic wand and - SHAZZAAAM! - big democrat created entitlements would just disappear? Becoming president is like being given the helm of a supertanker that is already underway at 30 knots. Your position is then like "OK Reagan - stop right here!" or worse "OK Reagan - turn on a dime right here!"

I love how fiscal conservatives defend the tripling of our debt. We need to put it "in context".

Sorry kook, but no context will justify Reagan's explosion of our Twin Deficits.

 

[ShackledNation]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

He tripled our debt. Now put that in context of fiscal conservatism....sparky.

I've explained that to you, but you ignore it for obvious reasons. To ignore what Reagan was presented with when he took office is just to make completely meaningless statements about him. You think he could wave a magic wand and - SHAZZAAAM! - big democrat created entitlements would just disappear? Becoming president is like being given the helm of a supertanker that is already underway at 30 knots. Your position is then like "OK Reagan - stop right here!" or worse "OK Reagan - turn on a dime right here!"

No, he couldn't wave a magic wand; my point exactly. Yet some conservatives idolize Reagan as if he did and the spell was successfully cast.

 

[Patrick2]

I've explained that to you, but you ignore it for obvious reasons. To ignore what Reagan was presented with when he took office is just to make completely meaningless statements about him. You think he could wave a magic wand and - SHAZZAAAM! - big democrat created entitlements would just disappear? Becoming president is like being given the helm of a supertanker that is already underway at 30 knots. Your position is then like "OK Reagan - stop right here!" or worse "OK Reagan - turn on a dime right here!"

I love how fiscal conservatives defend the tripling of our debt. We need to put it "in context".

Sorry kook, but no context will justify Reagan's explosion of our Twin Deficits.

You won't debate the issue because you know you'll lose - simple as that.

 

[Antiderivative]

You won't debate the issue because you know you'll lose - simple as that.

What is the issue? That unions are responsible for our economic decline or is it something else?

Please describe the issue and I will be more than happy to put you in your place.

 

[Toronado3800]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

He tripled our debt. Now put that in context of fiscal conservatism....sparky.

I've explained that to you, but you ignore it for obvious reasons. To ignore what Reagan was presented with when he took office is just to make completely meaningless statements about him. You think he could wave a magic wand and - SHAZZAAAM! - big democrat created entitlements would just disappear? Becoming president is like being given the helm of a supertanker that is already underway at 30 knots. Your position is then like "OK Reagan - stop right here!" or worse "OK Reagan - turn on a dime right here!"

In some ways I agree, but he had two terms and his VP got another four years.

Just funny all the complaining about the deficit and the praising of the great communicator that goes on.

 

[Antiderivative]

In some ways I agree, but he had two terms and his VP got another four years.

Just funny all the complaining about the deficit and the praising of the great communicator that goes on.

It baffles me that fiscal cons defend the explosion of our debt....

 

[Toronado3800]

In some ways I agree, but he had two terms and his VP got another four years.

Just funny all the complaining about the deficit and the praising of the great communicator that goes on.

It baffles me that fiscal cons defend the explosion of our debt....

I can stand up and say "Roosevelt was great...except for x, y and z". Why can folks who support Reagan not say that.

The man did have some good points but he did not have Papal Infalability lil.

Oh, and I really dislike labeling folks as conservative or liberal. The tags just do not fit comfortably and polarize.

 

[Antiderivative]

I can stand up and say "Roosevelt was great...except for x, y and z". Why can folks who support Reagan not say that.

Both were disasters in my opinion, but had their shining moments.

Oh, and I really dislike labeling folks as conservative or liberal. The tags just do not fit comfortably and polarize.

It is time to abolish political parties and let people run on merit. This is long overdue.

 

[Toronado3800]

I can stand up and say "Roosevelt was great...except for x, y and z". Why can folks who support Reagan not say that.

Both were disasters in my opinion, but had their shining moments.

Oh, and I really dislike labeling folks as conservative or liberal. The tags just do not fit comfortably and polarize.

It is time to abolish political parties and let people run on merit. This is long overdue.

Amen.

This thread is proof political parties, or the desire to have a political sorority where others confirm the intelligence of "your" opinions forces people into simple lock step.

If I was liberal enough to find anything in the Constitution which would allow me to ban political parties I would.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan was great except he never had a Conservative Congress to work with.

There, I said it

 

[Sallow]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.