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

[sangha]

You are transparent in your hatred, Steph: takes no crystal ball.

I'm surprised she didn't claim that she doesn't care what you think, as she obsessively responds to every post you make.

It looks like calling others a "hater" is the only defense Staph has. She's done it more than once in this thread alone, and this thread is just starting

waaa, you're dismissed, bye

Now she's trying to pretend that she can "dismiss" other posters. It won't be long before she's declaring that she doesn't care what I think (while responding to every post I make about her)

 

[RadiomanATL]

Okay, so it was a speech, a minor detail. But a speech that left out major details.

Actually, the fact that it was a speech and who it was a speech by, is a major detail.

Political speeches are, by their very nature, one sided and are meant to elevate that which you advocate and denigrate that which you oppose.

Political speeches don't make very good policy nails in which to hang you hat on. Thats the criticism of Stephanie's post.

 

[B. Kidd]

Okay, so it was a speech, a minor detail. But a speech that left out major details.

Actually, the fact that it was a speech and who it was a speech by, is a major detail.

Political speeches are, by their very nature, one sided and are meant to elevate that which you advocate and denigrate that which you oppose.

Political speeches don't make very good policy nails in which to hang you hat on. Thats the criticism of Stephanie's post.

Political speeches involving omission serve the same purpose as many USMB posts, political posturing.
In spite of this, the actual record still begs to be set straight.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Okay, so it was a speech, a minor detail. But a speech that left out major details.

Actually, the fact that it was a speech and who it was a speech by, is a major detail.

Political speeches are, by their very nature, one sided and are meant to elevate that which you advocate and denigrate that which you oppose.

Political speeches don't make very good policy nails in which to hang you hat on. Thats the criticism of Stephanie's post.

Political speeches involving omission serve the same purpose as many USMB posts, political posturing.

Thats what I said.

 

[Ava]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR1wYHcJgCo

3:08

"This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

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.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."



What a great man!

A snip from an article on Ronald Reagan, by Steve Forbes:

The Great Depression still occupies an enormous place in America's folk memory. But astonishingly the miserable decade of the 1970s has largely gone down the memory hole. Even those who lived through that deeply disappointing decade have forgotten how desperate our country’s plight was when Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980: Inflation seemed incurable; countless pundits pontificated that this disease was the ghastly inevitability of a democracy; and mortgage rates were 18 percent, short-term rates, 21 percent. That era was pockmarked by three recessions, each more serious than its predecessor. By the time the last of those slumps hit bottom in 1982, unemployment was at a higher level than it is today. The stock market, in real terms, was some 60 percent lower than it had been at its peak in the mid-1960s. The long-term bond market, outside of Treasuries, had virtually ceased to exist. The Soviet Union seemed to be in ascendancy, having seized Afghanistan and with Communist insurgents set to take over Central America. The U.S.’ defense posture had become a global joke.

Yet four short years later Reagan won a landslide re-election victory, carrying every state but one in the Union, with the theme that it was morning again in America. The inflation fever had been decisively broken; millions of new jobs were being created; America's once-anemic financial markets were robust; and the country had become a dynamic, global high-tech leader.

How did he do it??? Answer below:

Much more: STEVE FORBES: What Reagan Taught Us and Obama Needs to Learn - FoxNews.com

 

[Gunny]

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...

**** you,l pissant,.

 

[Ava]

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...

**** you,l pissant,.

Nice. You sound like so many others here.

 

[bodecea]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR1wYHcJgCo

3:08

"This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

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.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."



What a great man!

Cult of Personality.

 

[HUGGY]

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...

Ronald "Nancy's boy" Reagan was too scared to take on the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been in Egypt since 1928.

Reagan was a wimp who was scared of Muslims, which is why he cut and run from Lebanon when they killed more than 200+ Marines.

Truly one of our WORST hours as Americans. Reagan's failure to honor those Marines with a pound of flesh was reprehensible. His cowardice in the face of that attack laid the groundwork for all aspiring terrorists against America that came after it.

 

[georgephillip]

"For example, the average federal tax rate (which includes individual, corporate, payroll and estate taxes) remained virtually unchanged for the bottom 95% of households over the entire decade of the 1980s.

"Only the wealthiest 5% witnessed their total federal tax rates reduced.

"The very wealthiest households’ federal tax rate declined from 59.3% to 35.4%.

"The total federal tax rate for U.S. population as a whole fell by less than 0.8% over the decade.

"In other words, the top 1% households effectively received virtually all the total federal tax rate deduction."

If all governments exist to socialize cost while privatizing profits, no US president did it any better than Reagan.

ZCommunications

 

[Samson]

Thats the criticism of Stephanie's post.

Thats what I said.

"That's"

Sir, I find your omission of the apostrophe offensive.

***sniff***

 

[Foxfyre]

"For example, the average federal tax rate (which includes individual, corporate, payroll and estate taxes) remained virtually unchanged for the bottom 95% of households over the entire decade of the 1980s.

"Only the wealthiest 5% witnessed their total federal tax rates reduced.

"The very wealthiest households’ federal tax rate declined from 59.3% to 35.4%.

"The total federal tax rate for U.S. population as a whole fell by less than 0.8% over the decade.

"In other words, the top 1% households effectively received virtually all the total federal tax rate deduction."

If all governments exist to socialize cost while privatizing profits, no US president did it any better than Reagan.

ZCommunications

You really do need a new source of information so that you won't post something as wrong as what you posted here. Technically your information may or may not be correct. The purpose of tax policy is to a) increase economic growth and b) increase revenues to the National Treasury. Reagan's tax policy accomplished both without placing additional hardship on anybody.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

 

[georgephillip]

"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

 

[RadiomanATL]

Thats the criticism of Stephanie's post.

Thats what I said.

"That's"

Sir, I find your omission of the apostrophe offensive.

***sniff***

I'm an offensive type of guy.

 

[The T]

Iran Contra

*Never Convicted* Nice dodge. Nice obfuscation attempt deany-bub.

 

[HUGGY]

Iran Contra

*Never Convicted* Nice dodge. Nice obfuscation attempt deany-bub.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

"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?

 

[The T]

"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.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Trolls must eat I guess.... personally, I wish they'd jump in a lake.

 

[HUGGY]

"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.

Of course by "people" you mean the backs of the board members of the biggest multinational corporations. Those long suffering "people" have been mighty grateful to Ronnie.