Ronald Reagan- Why was he so special??

davidtrios

I just read he raised taxes 11 times. Seems like a shitty President based on that fact alone.

mickeyrat

Davidtrios wrote:

I just read he raised taxes 11 times. Seems like a shitty President based on that fact alone.

exactly. still waiting on the money to trickle down.



Oh wait hes teflon, he brought down the big bad commies. Bankrupted them actually. and us to boot.

Go Beavers

The revisionist history that's happened since he's died makes me urp in my mouth.

polaris_x

oh oh ... here we go ...

paging Cincybearcat ...

cincybearcat

I'm going to sit this one out. I read it...thought about it...and then decided to drive my car off a bridge and kill a girl instead.

Good news for everyone, I had Michael Moore film my adventures so you can catch it on You tube, of course I hardly appear in it and it looks like a Michael Moore infomercial like all his other "movies" but whatcha going to do.

There I worked in my 3 favorite topics.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm going to sit this one out. I read it...thought about it...and then decided to drive my car off a bridge and kill a girl instead.

Good news for everyone, I had Michael Moore film my adventures so you can catch it on You tube, of course I hardly appear in it and it looks like a Michael Moore infomercial like all his other "movies" but whatcha going to do.

There I worked in my 3 favorite topics.

lukin2006

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm going to sit this one out. I read it...thought about it...and then decided to drive my car off a bridge and kill a girl instead.

Good news for everyone, I had Michael Moore film my adventures so you can catch it on You tube, of course I hardly appear in it and it looks like a Michael Moore infomercial like all his other "movies" but whatcha going to do.

There I worked in my 3 favorite topics.

Did you report it right away .

cincybearcat

lukin2006 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm going to sit this one out. I read it...thought about it...and then decided to drive my car off a bridge and kill a girl instead.

Good news for everyone, I had Michael Moore film my adventures so you can catch it on You tube, of course I hardly appear in it and it looks like a Michael Moore infomercial like all his other "movies" but whatcha going to do.

There I worked in my 3 favorite topics.

Did you report it right away .

Of course not, I was kinda tired and need to catch some Z's first. Maybe tomorrow. Man, I hope she can swim.

lukin2006

cincybearcat wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm going to sit this one out. I read it...thought about it...and then decided to drive my car off a bridge and kill a girl instead.

Good news for everyone, I had Michael Moore film my adventures so you can catch it on You tube, of course I hardly appear in it and it looks like a Michael Moore infomercial like all his other "movies" but whatcha going to do.

There I worked in my 3 favorite topics.

Did you report it right away .

Of course not, I was kinda tired and need to catch some Z's first. Maybe tomorrow. Man, I hope she can swim.

This could get you a nice cozy job somewhere...like the senate.

jjbehren

One of my favorite Onion stories ever.

Cosmo

Well, like most leaders... there are Pros and Cons. With the result of some of the Pros, becoming Con of the future... and vice versa. But, you have to look through the eyes of the times. It is easy to judge past actions... but, it has to be judged based upon the circumstances that existed at that time. No one can tell the future... we can predict probable outcomes and work out risk scenarios... but, no one knows.
Example: We needed a strong leader to face off with the Soviets of the time. This was a volatile time in our nation's history. We were locked in a Cold War of ideologies, backed up by threats of nuclear holocaust.
To combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we enlisted the aid of Arabic 'Freedom Fighters'... taught them how to organize into a command network, instead of a centralized command so the operations would continue, even with heavy losses to their commanders. We taught them the 'Hit And Run' tactics to disrupt Soviet armored divisions and the notion that they do not have to 'Win'... all they have to do is survive because the occupiers will eventually wear down and go home.
It worked. The Soviet people grew tired of the long, protracted occupation and the stories carried home by the casualties of that action. The stories of what was really going on in Kabul, told by the returning troops did not coincide with the Soviet, State run press was broadcasting. The Soviets were left with no other option... they had to withdraw.
Reagan's strategy and tactics helped to bring about the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan... without sending in our troops (only military advisors and CIA tactical strategists). We all know the the downside of that decision and those actions have lead to.
The Total Cost in lives and dollars is yet to be tallied.

polaris_x

jjbehren wrote:

One of my favorite Onion stories ever.

klusterfuk

because of his acting abilities

davidtrios

Cosmo wrote:

Well, like most leaders... there are Pros and Cons. With the result of some of the Pros, becoming Con of the future... and vice versa. But, you have to look through the eyes of the times. It is easy to judge past actions... but, it has to be judged based upon the circumstances that existed at that time. No one can tell the future... we can predict probable outcomes and work out risk scenarios... but, no one knows.
Example: We needed a strong leader to face off with the Soviets of the time. This was a volatile time in our nation's history. We were locked in a Cold War of ideologies, backed up by threats of nuclear holocaust.
To combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we enlisted the aid of Arabic 'Freedom Fighters'... taught them how to organize into a command network, instead of a centralized command so the operations would continue, even with heavy losses to their commanders. We taught them the 'Hit And Run' tactics to disrupt Soviet armored divisions and the notion that they do not have to 'Win'... all they have to do is survive because the occupiers will eventually wear down and go home.
It worked. The Soviet people grew tired of the long, protracted occupation and the stories carried home by the casualties of that action. The stories of what was really going on in Kabul, told by the returning troops did not coincide with the Soviet, State run press was broadcasting. The Soviets were left with no other option... they had to withdraw.
Reagan's strategy and tactics helped to bring about the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan... without sending in our troops (only military advisors and CIA tactical strategists). We all know the the downside of that decision and those actions have lead to.
The Total Cost in lives and dollars is yet to be tallied.

so we supplied aid to...afganistan? in doing so, did reagan help support al-queda?

lando

I think it is because he gave American’s a new sense of optimism and hope after Watergate and the dismal administrations of Ford and Carter. He brought the prestige of the presidency back into the spotlight that developed over his two terms into almost mythical and intrinsic appeal across both political spectrums

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

The revisionist history that's happened since he's died makes me urp in my mouth.

:? Are you talking about Kennedy and Carter?

If anything, he's been criticized more after his death than he ever was before. When he left office, he was considered one of the greatest of all time, founders and Abe Lincoln aside. Were you alive then? The revisionist history is happening NOW when Obama wants to blame everyone except himself.

EdsonNascimento

Davidtrios wrote:

I just read he raised taxes 11 times. Seems like a shitty President based on that fact alone.

This is what's so funny. Liberals think Conservatives are against taxes. Conservatives are against Big Gov't. Taxes does not equate to size of gov't. It's also all relative.

Because we want taxes stabilized now and SPENDING cut does not mean we are totally against taxes.

Taxing 1 segment of the population is never a good idea. While 99% might think that's a good idea now, we might not think so when the entire 1% moves to Monaco and we become the 1%.

maj4e

I attribute it to the heaviness that was the cold war (real or imagined) and his optimistic demeanor.

Politically he was just another guy. Make some happy, piss off others just like them all.

PJ51390

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

The revisionist history that's happened since he's died makes me urp in my mouth.

:? Are you talking about Kennedy and Carter?

If anything, he's been criticized more after his death than he ever was before. When he left office, he was considered one of the greatest of all time, founders and Abe Lincoln aside. Were you alive then? The revisionist history is happening NOW when Obama wants to blame everyone except himself.

Could not have said it any better.

EdsonNascimento

PJ51390 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

The revisionist history that's happened since he's died makes me urp in my mouth.

:? Are you talking about Kennedy and Carter?

If anything, he's been criticized more after his death than he ever was before. When he left office, he was considered one of the greatest of all time, founders and Abe Lincoln aside. Were you alive then? The revisionist history is happening NOW when Obama wants to blame everyone except himself.

Could not have said it any better.

And if even he wasn't alive then, it's very easy to see that the country basically mandated a 12 year term for him (Bush I's election was a clear mandate on Reagan).

We should stop looking for culprits and denigrating one of the truly great adminstrations of our time. Yes, he made mistakes. It's tough to be the President and not. But, I'm sorry - this liberal backlash against the 80's is sickening. I'd like any of you to remember 1979 and how terrible we all felt at the end of the worst President's admistration (though the current one is trying - and that's the rub - if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it).

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Davidtrios wrote:

I just read he raised taxes 11 times. Seems like a shitty President based on that fact alone.

This is what's so funny. Liberals think Conservatives are against taxes. Conservatives are against Big Gov't. Taxes does not equate to size of gov't. It's also all relative.

Because we want taxes stabilized now and SPENDING cut does not mean we are totally against taxes.

Taxing 1 segment of the population is never a good idea. While 99% might think that's a good idea now, we might not think so when the entire 1% moves to Monaco and we become the 1%.

i'm sorry but you are wrong. grover norquist is against taxes. period. and he has had every repulican but one in the house or senate (forgot which one) vow and sign some pledge to never ever vote to raise a single tax.

the man is anti-tax, and he has pulled the republican leadership to his anti-tax extreme.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i'm sorry but you are wrong. grover norquist is against taxes. period. and he has had every repulican but one in the house or senate (forgot which one) vow and sign some pledge to never ever vote to raise a single tax.

the man is anti-tax, and he has pulled the republican leadership to his anti-tax extreme.

100%. The current Republican thinking is no tax increase. But, I bet if we reduced spending to a reasonable level (which is a Herculean task with the spending gone amok), this would be amended. But, right now they are digging their heals in on this one. And apparently, Obama agrees since he continues to sign off on continuing the Obama tax rates (formerly knows as the Bush tax cuts).

However, the general conservative tenents do not include absolutely no taxes. Are there people that believe in that? Sure. But, there's also a time and place for everything. Policy changes based on the circumstances. If Obama cut some of the entitlement programs, maybe tax revision would be palatable to some. It's called compromise. Reid knows it. He's the one that bloced the vote on Obama's jobs bill to begin with. Republicans were ready to vote on it.

jimc3

I think overall this is pretty fair:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/ec ... /index.htm

F Me In The Brain

The same reason everyone nuts on themselves over Bill Clinton.

As a country we prospered while he was on watch.

People mocked Ronnie when he was in office. People mocked Slick Willie when he was in office.
After the fact everyone goes gaga over them both. They ignore the bad things they did or the fucked up policies they put in place that caused issues later and just remembers having a pocket full of money.

EdsonNascimento

F Me In The Brain wrote:

The same reason everyone nuts on themselves over Bill Clinton.

As a country we prospered while he was on watch.

People mocked Ronnie when he was in office. People mocked Slick Willie when he was in office.
After the fact everyone goes gaga over them both. They ignore the bad things they did or the fucked up policies they put in place that caused issues later and just remembers having a pocket full of money.

Who ignored the fact that Clinton was actually going to punish banks for not lending to folks that couldn't afford them? Fannie, Sallie, Freddie - all Clinton's buddies. That's what started all this stuff tumbling. Then, the dominoes continue to fall. I remember that being a constant refrain while he was in office that this was coming. But, the borrowers just didn't care. Then the lenders forgot what the hell they were doing (so there is blame there, also). He just got out while the gettin's good.

I don't recall the same thing with Reagan. It took 5 years for us to start seeing the housing bubble Clinton's lending policy created. Yet, somehow it's taken 30 to see Reagan's "missteps" come home to roost. Interesting.

cincybearcat

Since we are now talking Clinton too... this is a pretty good read, no matter what you think of the guy.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/ ... interview/

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Since we are now talking Clinton too... this is a pretty good read, no matter what you think of the guy.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/ ... interview/

green jobs ... global warming ... i think some will tune this out ...

jimc3

cincybearcat wrote:

Since we are now talking Clinton too... this is a pretty good read, no matter what you think of the guy.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/ ... interview/

"The only fair thing to do is a version of what we did with individual tax reform back in the '80s. We need to broaden the tax base by cutting down on deductions and credits and lower rates."

F Me In The Brain

EdsonNascimento wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

The same reason everyone nuts on themselves over Bill Clinton.

As a country we prospered while he was on watch.

People mocked Ronnie when he was in office. People mocked Slick Willie when he was in office.
After the fact everyone goes gaga over them both. They ignore the bad things they did or the fucked up policies they put in place that caused issues later and just remembers having a pocket full of money.

Who ignored the fact that Clinton was actually going to punish banks for not lending to folks that couldn't afford them? Fannie, Sallie, Freddie - all Clinton's buddies. That's what started all this stuff tumbling. Then, the dominoes continue to fall. I remember that being a constant refrain while he was in office that this was coming. But, the borrowers just didn't care. Then the lenders forgot what the hell they were doing (so there is blame there, also). He just got out while the gettin's good.

I don't recall the same thing with Reagan. It took 5 years for us to start seeing the housing bubble Clinton's lending policy created. Yet, somehow it's taken 30 to see Reagan's "missteps" come home to roost. Interesting.

I made a generalization (woops) and painted with a broad stroke as to why I think this is the case and the fact that both Presidents have such strong support after the fact. I wont get into the back and forth on each guy and their dirty laundry (I am a conservative person by nature, I just cannot stand all politicians - bunch of fucking creeps and crooks) but I stand by my point. There were many things (umm, Iran Contra ring a bell?) that Ronnie took shit for while in office as well. I agree that it was on Clinton's watch that this housing/lending mess started, although I personally believe in responsibility being on the individual as well.
With my income and no debt I could have got a fat loan that put me in a tight spot (like many co-workers did) but I am not foolish enough to do that. I take responsibility for my actions - can only blame the govt so much - some of the blame needs to go on the people who took out these loans.
Just because you can do something doesnt make it a good idea.
We seem to have lost touch with that as a country.

I liked Ronnie.

EdsonNascimento

F Me In The Brain wrote:

I personally believe in responsibility being on the individual as well.
With my income and no debt I could have got a fat loan that put me in a tight spot (like many co-workers did) but I am not foolish enough to do that. I take responsibility for my actions - can only blame the govt so much - some of the blame needs to go on the people who took out these loans.
Just because you can do something doesnt make it a good idea.
We seem to have lost touch with that as a country.

And to link this to another thread - those are the people in the park. They should be embarassed rather than being emboldened.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Since we are now talking Clinton too... this is a pretty good read, no matter what you think of the guy.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/ ... interview/

green jobs ... global warming ... i think some will tune this out ...

Man you really tuned into the minor portion of the article, huh?