PDA

View Full Version : Ronald Reagan on Socialized medicine.


ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 10:43 PM
This speech from 1961 deserves it's own thread. Reagan was not only a great leader of men but he was a visionary. Listen to this speech it's fantastic.

<div><embed src="http://www.livevideo.com/flvplayer/embed/415EE6E634A14E2F828ED104CE605929" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" WIDTH="445" HEIGHT="369" wmode="transparent"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/415EE6E634A14E2F828ED104CE605929/262316/ronald-reagan-speaks-out-again.aspx">Ronald Reagan Speaks out against Socialized Medicine</a></div>

ClevelandBronco
08-01-2007, 11:14 PM
I miss that man. Great find, ChiefaRoo.

jAZ
08-01-2007, 11:23 PM
I miss that man. Great find, ChiefaRoo.
ChiefaRoo didn't "find" anything. It's being widely distributed by the conservative media outlets.

jAZ
08-01-2007, 11:25 PM
The most comical part is the argument that the government is going to force you (a doctor) to live and work in xyz location.

Bwaahhaaah!

I guess the politics of fear started for the GOP a long time ago.

ClevelandBronco
08-01-2007, 11:26 PM
ChiefaRoo didn't "find" anything. It's being widely distributed by the conservative media outlets.

Great redistribution, ChiefaRoo.

ClevelandBronco
08-01-2007, 11:31 PM
The most comical part is the argument that the government is going to force you (a doctor) to live and work in xyz location.

Bwaahhaaah!

I guess the politics of fear started for the GOP a long time ago.

I do fear creeping Socialism. Additionally, I fear that it's already got a stranglehold on us, and that we'll never be able to get back to where we were.

Fear is a good thing in some cases jAZ. It kicks us into "fight or flight" mode.

I wish you a pleasant flight on European Socialism Airways.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 11:47 PM
Great redistribution, ChiefaRoo.

Thanks CB. Jaz can eat all the government cheese he wants but I'm not going there and I doubt the American people will either.

jAZ
08-01-2007, 11:52 PM
I do fear creeping Socialism. Additionally, I fear that it's already got a stranglehold on us, and that we'll never be able to get back to where we were.

Fear is a good thing in some cases jAZ. It kicks us into "fight or flight" mode.

I wish you a pleasant flight on European Socialism Airways.
The other great part was his stat that 20% of our economy was made up of "government run companies" (/paraphrase)...

ROFL

Great time capsule of that post-communism fear mongering. It really puts in context how far really, really far away from socialism we are today.

jAZ
08-01-2007, 11:55 PM
Thanks CB. Jaz can eat all the government cheese he wants but I'm not going there and I doubt the American people will either.
It really is a great sound clip though... It puts into context how out of touch the people are who claim we are far more "liberal" today than we've ever been. ROFL

It's an anti-communism time capsule that shows how truely stuck in the 60's many of the current fear-the-liberal-socialists-democrats fear-mongering really is.

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 12:09 AM
It really is a great sound clip though... It puts into context how out of touch the people are who claim we are far more "liberal" today than we've ever been. ROFL

It's an anti-communism time capsule that shows how truely stuck in the 60's many of the current fear-the-liberal-socialists-democrats fear-mongering really is.

Jiz, you really are a monumental fool of the first order. I've said it before, guys like you don't deserve to be free. You're pathetic.

jAZ
08-02-2007, 12:33 AM
Jiz, you really are a monumental fool of the first order. I've said it before, guys like you don't deserve to be free. You're pathetic.
ROFL

Gotta love it when a blind radical conservative runs out of things to say. The spitting and hatred pours out of you at that point... huh?

You and rexcjake both do a great job demonstrating the rationality of your position on the issues. Or something.

ROFL

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 12:47 AM
ROFL

Gotta love it when a blind radical conservative runs out of things to say. The spitting and hatred pours out of you at that point... huh?

You and rexcjake both do a great job demonstrating the rationality of your position on the issues. Or something.

ROFL


First of all you are not worthy of my hate. I could care less about you or your opinion. What I don't like is how you make snarky little comments about a man (Ronald Reagan) who was a masterful leader whose values and political outlook have been fully vindicated by history. His words from 1961 are more relavant today than anything that is being said by any of the potential candidates for the Presidency now regardless of party.

ClevelandBronco
08-02-2007, 02:18 AM
It really puts in context how far really, really far away from socialism we are today.

We may be "really, really far away from socialism" from your perspective, but we're really, really too damn near it from mine.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 06:59 AM
We may be "really, really far away from socialism" from your perspective, but we're really, really too damn near it from mine.
We're already half socialized.

Just because the form we have ( like Sweden's) is a welfare-state, transfer-of- wealth does not mean we aren't partially socialized. We have least 5 planks, some say 6, of the Communist (aka socialist) Manifesto right now operating. It's just most can't recognize it under it's many different guises. It's not just an economic system either. It's also a social system.

Whoever would have thought we'd be paying 50% of what we make to the govt. That right there is a real eye-opener.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 07:11 AM
Oh! FTR, the Pubs are just as socialistic as the Dems.
Don't forget they have us the graduated income tax making it all possible.
That said, if you look up Carter's record compared to Bush, even Clinton's, they ran smaller govts than "Dubbia The Younger."

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2007, 07:36 AM
RONALD REAGAN

Cochise
08-02-2007, 09:14 AM
It's too bad there was only one of him.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 09:17 AM
It's too bad there was only one of him.
Ahem! There are more,but the GOP leadership cans 'em if they won't play ball.
BTW one is running right now. Only he's more of the real thing in actual practice.

NewChief
08-02-2007, 09:19 AM
Time for another round of Ronald Reagan beatification, I guess. Is it voting time for the politician hall of fame or something?

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 09:22 AM
Time for another round of Ronald Reagan beatification, I guess. Is it voting time for the politician hall of fame or something?
Nah! They're just pining away for a real conservative, since there aren't any running for office. They're all fine on bilge floating from the GOP-interm.

jAZ
08-02-2007, 10:36 AM
It's too bad there was only one of him.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html

Ronald Reaganís Good Rhetoric, Bad Policies, and Vile Followers
by Anthony Gregory

Ronald Reaganís recent passing has brought on a barrage of praise, both selective and exaggerated, from people across the political spectrum.

Conservatives, liberals, neo-cons and libertarians have shared their thoughts on the trumpeted legacy of Americaís Great Communicator.

Most of the honest praise has focused on his rhetoric, much of which, I admit, was very appealing, and certainly more eloquent than what weíd expect to hear from the White House these days.

Reagan talked a good talk about shrinking the government, cutting taxes and spending. He gave sermons against Communism. He spoke well of liberty, individualism, and limited state power.

He condemned conscription. He brandished the Constitution. He espoused capitalism.

But what did he do?

As governor of California and president of the United States, he enacted policies that, in the main, greatly expanded the role and size of government.

As governor, he oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office.

As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%.

Ah, but this was for defense, one might protest. And defense spending, according to the conventional wisdom, doesnít count for some reason. In fact, defense spending is good for a "capitalist" economy, even though it was supposedly defense spending that brought down the Soviet economy. (I wonder if Reaganís increases in Californiaís spending when he was governor can be attributed to a good-faith effort on his part to beat Oregon and Nevada in an arms race.)

All in all, Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode, causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress. Reaganís tax cuts notwithstanding (some of which he reversed), the state grew fat and its growth will inevitably be financed through inflation or tax increases (unless the state defaults).

Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people.

That he did all these things in the name of "freedom," "capitalism," "small government," and "liberty" renders his legacy, in my opinion, all the more insidious. If bad Reaganesque policies continue to have a pass because of their superficial rhetorical selling points, American liberty will have suffered, not strengthened, because of him.

Many Americans say Reagan was a man of principle, regardless of what else we might think of him. And yet Iíve heard few examples of how he acted on his principles. More often, I hear excuses that he had a principled ideology but failed to follow through.

Still, his rhetoric probably did bring a fair number of people around to adopting some good values. And even some of his policies Ė such as pulling out of Lebanon after terrorists bombed the Marine base in Beirut, lifting oil price controls, continuing Carterís deregulation Ė were quite admirable, especially by todayís standards.

By and large, however, Reaganís words are used to advance the power of the state. Many in todayís War Party, previously critical of Reaganís relative restraint, claim that Reagan would have approved of their pet war in Iraq, when we do not know one way or the other if that is true.

They say Reagan made them revere liberty, and that their reverence towards liberty leads them to revere war.

They say that his words about the Soviet Union are applicable today, and that what we face now is Cold War II.

They say that Clinton and even Bush the Second havenít sufficiently followed Reaganís policy of bloated military spending and foreign bellicosity.

They have in the past compared him to Thomas Jefferson, when all the two presidents had in common was that their words were better than their presidencies. (Even this is a weak comparison, seeing as how President Jefferson actually shrank the government.)

Todayís champions of neo-Reaganism invoke the legacy of a man who practiced libertarian rhetoric and carried out a predominately statist agenda, and they do it to advance an agenda even more statist than Reaganís.

As much as I think certain misanthropes distort and twist Reaganism to their devious purposes, it is no surprise that the Gipper would have such a vile following. No symbol is more useful in the advocacy of empire than a respected leader who glorified freedom even as he trampled it.

I canít speak of Reagan the man, whom I never knew. It seems clear, however, that freedom lovers who mourn his passing should likewise mourn his legacy, which, as it stands, is hardly a cause for celebration.


June 10, 2004

Cochise
08-02-2007, 10:47 AM
Sorry, I don't have enough self-loathe today to read a Rockwell column. I appreciate your attempting to reeducate me, however.

Ultra Peanut
08-02-2007, 11:10 AM
You know who reminds me of Ronald Reagan? That fine young man they call "W."

Messier
08-02-2007, 11:15 AM
That clip is in the movie Sicko to make the opposite point. I guess it all depends (as with everything) on you're point of view.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 11:34 AM
Sorry, I don't have enough self-loathe today to read a Rockwell column. I appreciate your attempting to reeducate me, however.
Gotta keep in mind Lew's perspective. This is a man who wants to bring back the Articles of Confederation. I love Lew, but his brand of libertarianism is the
pure kind which is to say anarchist. Even Paul is not in that camp. At least Lew credited RR in that op-ed on some conservative things....can't even say that for "W" who had a Pub congress. RR at least continued Carter's de-regulation, although it was very minimal. Bush has added a load of new business regs. RR also had a Dem congress and RR's foreign policy was NOT the "Bush Doctrine" by any means. Lastly, RR was a cheerful upbeat positive man. He helped America feel good about itself again.

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 11:58 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html

Ronald Reaganís Good Rhetoric, Bad Policies, and Vile Followers
by Anthony Gregory



Ronald Reaganís recent passing has brought on a barrage of praise, both selective and exaggerated, from people across the political spectrum.

Conservatives, liberals, neo-cons and libertarians have shared their thoughts on the trumpeted legacy of Americaís Great Communicator.

Most of the honest praise has focused on his rhetoric, much of which, I admit, was very appealing, and certainly more eloquent than what weíd expect to hear from the White House these days.

Reagan talked a good talk about shrinking the government, cutting taxes and spending. He gave sermons against Communism. He spoke well of liberty, individualism, and limited state power.

He condemned conscription. He brandished the Constitution. He espoused capitalism.

But what did he do?

As governor of California and president of the United States, he enacted policies that, in the main, greatly expanded the role and size of government.

As governor, he oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office.

As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%.

Ah, but this was for defense, one might protest. And defense spending, according to the conventional wisdom, doesnít count for some reason. In fact, defense spending is good for a "capitalist" economy, even though it was supposedly defense spending that brought down the Soviet economy. (I wonder if Reaganís increases in Californiaís spending when he was governor can be attributed to a good-faith effort on his part to beat Oregon and Nevada in an arms race.)

All in all, Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode, causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress. Reaganís tax cuts notwithstanding (some of which he reversed), the state grew fat and its growth will inevitably be financed through inflation or tax increases (unless the state defaults).

Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people.

That he did all these things in the name of "freedom," "capitalism," "small government," and "liberty" renders his legacy, in my opinion, all the more insidious. If bad Reaganesque policies continue to have a pass because of their superficial rhetorical selling points, American liberty will have suffered, not strengthened, because of him.

Many Americans say Reagan was a man of principle, regardless of what else we might think of him. And yet Iíve heard few examples of how he acted on his principles. More often, I hear excuses that he had a principled ideology but failed to follow through.

Still, his rhetoric probably did bring a fair number of people around to adopting some good values. And even some of his policies Ė such as pulling out of Lebanon after terrorists bombed the Marine base in Beirut, lifting oil price controls, continuing Carterís deregulation Ė were quite admirable, especially by todayís standards.

By and large, however, Reaganís words are used to advance the power of the state. Many in todayís War Party, previously critical of Reaganís relative restraint, claim that Reagan would have approved of their pet war in Iraq, when we do not know one way or the other if that is true.

They say Reagan made them revere liberty, and that their reverence towards liberty leads them to revere war.

They say that his words about the Soviet Union are applicable today, and that what we face now is Cold War II.

They say that Clinton and even Bush the Second havenít sufficiently followed Reaganís policy of bloated military spending and foreign bellicosity.

They have in the past compared him to Thomas Jefferson, when all the two presidents had in common was that their words were better than their presidencies. (Even this is a weak comparison, seeing as how President Jefferson actually shrank the government.)

Todayís champions of neo-Reaganism invoke the legacy of a man who practiced libertarian rhetoric and carried out a predominately statist agenda, and they do it to advance an agenda even more statist than Reaganís.

As much as I think certain misanthropes distort and twist Reaganism to their devious purposes, it is no surprise that the Gipper would have such a vile following. No symbol is more useful in the advocacy of empire than a respected leader who glorified freedom even as he trampled it.

I canít speak of Reagan the man, whom I never knew. It seems clear, however, that freedom lovers who mourn his passing should likewise mourn his legacy, which, as it stands, is hardly a cause for celebration.


June 10, 2004

Who the Fu*k is Anthony Gregory? Oh wait, he's a radical lefty who lives in Berkeley. Just some nobody hack from the land moonbats and old hippies riding their ten speeds around. Having Anthony Gregory and Jiz judge Ronald Reagan is like having an ant judge the Empire State Building.

banyon
08-03-2007, 11:38 AM
People do realize that Reagan was being paid by the health care industry to make these ads, right?

banyon
08-03-2007, 11:40 AM
We're already half socialized.

Just because the form we have ( like Sweden's) is a welfare-state, transfer-of- wealth does not mean we aren't partially socialized. We have least 5 planks, some say 6, of the Communist (aka socialist) Manifesto right now operating. It's just most can't recognize it under it's many different guises. It's not just an economic system either. It's also a social system.

Whoever would have thought we'd be paying 50% of what we make to the govt. That right there is a real eye-opener.

Have you even read the Manifesto? There are 10 planks in section 2 if that's what you are referring to.

BIG_DADDY
08-03-2007, 11:50 AM
With the ageing baby boomer generation socialized medicine is inevitable. If it doesn't happen in the next administration it will in the one after IMO. I know our polititians are complete whores but is is one issue that is not going to go away. Over 50% of the bankruptcy's in the state of California are due to medical issues.

Adept Havelock
08-03-2007, 12:01 PM
Who the Fu*k is Anthony Gregory? Oh wait, he's a radical lefty who lives in Berkeley. Just some nobody hack from the land moonbats and old hippies riding their ten speeds around. Having Anthony Gregory and Jiz judge Ronald Reagan is like having an ant judge the Empire State Building.


Yep, their inherent prejudices render them unable to independently judge Ronnie, as does your clearly stated status as a Reagan devotee.

Reagan was a very Solid closer for the Cold War, and helped the US recover after the Nixon/Ford/Carter years. Not bad at all for a guy who didn't come into the game until late in the 8th inning. ;)

banyon
08-03-2007, 12:18 PM
With the ageing baby boomer generation socialized medicine is inevitable. If it doesn't happen in the next administration it will in the one after IMO. I know our polititians are complete whores but is is one issue that is not going to go away. Over 50% of the bankruptcy's in the state of California are due to medical issues.

That's the #1 reason people give me also when they say they want to file.

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 02:23 PM
Babyboomers don't want to be told they have to wait in line for a doc. or that they can't have an operation for six months because they have to wait in line. High quality universal healthcare in a nation of over 300 million would be a myth.

Baby Lee
08-03-2007, 02:40 PM
With the ageing baby boomer generation socialized medicine is inevitable. If it doesn't happen in the next administration it will in the one after IMO. I know our polititians are complete whores but is is one issue that is not going to go away. Over 50% of the bankruptcy's in the state of California are due to medical issues.
You have a source. Not holding your feet to the fire, but I've read that a lot of those studies include gambling, alcohol abuse and the like as diseases, and those 'medical issues' comprise a large portion of the demographic.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2007, 03:16 PM
I would think the Boomers would have the most to lose under socialized healthcare/insurance. They'll be the ones to bankrupt the system or get the longest waits. It's in those ages people use most of their healthcare, not when young. The govt is not going to write benefits forever when there is a time to die. The govt will allow them to die and/or Euthanasia/mercy killings may be more common under such a system. It's already happening now to some degree under managed care. They just push the elderly through and don't give them all the proper tests. Happened to my Mom who's had the best health insurance because my Dad worked for the govt for 30 years. She was covered for anything and everything.

There was a cut off age under Hillarycare. I believe there's a cut-off in England. The difference was in England one could pay for supplementary healthcare. Under Hillarycare, she made this illegal. The woman is a Nazi.

Dave Lane
08-03-2007, 03:49 PM
This speech from 1961 deserves it's own thread. Reagan was not only a great leader of men but he was a visionary. Listen to this speech it's fantastic.

<div><embed src="http://www.livevideo.com/flvplayer/embed/415EE6E634A14E2F828ED104CE605929" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" WIDTH="445" HEIGHT="369" wmode="transparent"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/415EE6E634A14E2F828ED104CE605929/262316/ronald-reagan-speaks-out-again.aspx">Ronald Reagan Speaks out against Socialized Medicine</a></div>


Reagan was SO overrated..

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 04:05 PM
Reagan was SO overrated..

Yeah, he was just a dumb actor who was fed talking points by his staff in the 80's. Heck he obviously never had any core beliefs or values. He was just a pretty face. Peyton Manning is overrated too.

listopencil
08-03-2007, 04:57 PM
I'll say it again. I'd rather vote for the corpse of Ronald Reagan than any of these dumb-asses running right now.

Adept Havelock
08-03-2007, 05:23 PM
I'll say it again. I'd rather vote for the corpse of Ronald Reagan than any of these dumb-asses running right now.


Then you've got an easy decision in Nov. '08. Just write him in.

listopencil
08-03-2007, 05:36 PM
Then you've got an easy decision in Nov. '08. Just write him in.

I'm going to.

They need to update this: http://www.zombiereagan.com/

listopencil
08-03-2007, 05:41 PM
http://www.zombiereagan.com/street/brains.jpg


Answer the damned question!

listopencil
08-03-2007, 05:45 PM
It might be NSFW. I don't know. I don't have a work E-Mail address. But it's both hideous and hilarious. Shocking and sublime. It's Zombie Reagan and I'm voting for him in '08.

http://www.zombiereagan.com/street/20040609125333.html

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 06:47 PM
Anyone equating Reagan with Dubya seriously needs to do some research and simultaneously have their head checked.

kc hopeful
08-04-2007, 06:45 PM
Heard the speech on the Mark Levin Show--Great stuff!