PDA

View Full Version : If something doesn't stir inside you...


mikey23545
04-13-2008, 12:51 AM
as you watch this, you are a liberal.

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=9pumpzidgk

Reaper16
04-13-2008, 10:35 AM
It may be a good speech, but the context of his awful presidency kind of softens the impact.

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 11:10 AM
It may be a good speech, but the context of his awful presidency kind of softens the impact.

I'm curious. Why do you think he was an awful President?

Ronald Reagan succeeded one of the most ineffective Presidents in history. Jimmy Carter's legacy was one of military impotence, high inflation, high interest rates, high tax rates, and lowered expectations.

Who can forget the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981, when the Iranians seized 52 American diplomats and held them hostage? For over a year, Jimmy Carter's response was to wring his hands and do NOTHING.

Who can forget when Jimmy Carter coined the term "misery index" when he originally ran for President? The misery index is simply a number you arrive at by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. Under Carter, that misery index rose to nearly 21%, the highest in over 50 years. Reagan cut the number in half.

Reagan completely turned things around economically and breathed new life into the American dream. When he was running for President he promised to get the government off the backs of the American people. And he delivered on that promise by drastically cutting the marginal tax rates on income. The result was (1) an INCREASE in tax revenue, (2) a stimulus to the economy that lifted it out of the stagflation of the Carter years, and (3) believe it or not, a slight shifting of the tax burden to the top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income groups. The people with higher incomes wound up paying a LARGER share of total income taxes after the Reagan tax cuts were enacted.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1.gif

Reagan also greatly increased defense spending, which led to large federal deficits. However, on his watch the Soviet Union collapsed and became a non-threat to our security. Doesn't seem like too high a price to pay.

Reagan was an incredibly successful President. He obviously wasn't perfect, and there were things that happened in his second term that were huge mistakes (the whole Iran-contra affair comes to mind).

However, when you look at his body of work, it sure seems to me that his presidency could hardly be described as "awful".

Adept Havelock
04-13-2008, 11:29 AM
I'm curious. Why do you think he was an awful President?

Ronald Reagan succeeded one of the most ineffective Presidents in history. Jimmy Carter's legacy was one of military impotence, high inflation, high interest rates, high tax rates, and lowered expectations.

Who can forget the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981, when the Iranians seized 52 American diplomats and held them hostage? For over a year, Jimmy Carter's response was to wring his hands and do NOTHING.

Who can forget when Jimmy Carter coined the term "misery index" when he originally ran for President? The misery index is simply a number you arrive at by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. Under Carter, that misery index rose to nearly 21%, the highest in over 50 years. Reagan cut the number in half.

Reagan completely turned things around economically and breathed new life into the American dream. When he was running for President he promised to get the government off the backs of the American people. And he delivered on that promise by drastically cutting the marginal tax rates on income. The result was (1) an INCREASE in tax revenue, (2) a stimulus to the economy that lifted it out of the stagflation of the Carter years, and (3) believe it or not, a shifting of the tax burden so that the top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income groups. The people with higher incomes wound up paying a LARGER share of total income taxes after the Reagan tax cuts were enacted.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1.gif

Reagan also greatly increased defense spending, which led to large federal deficits. However, on his watch the Soviet Union collapsed and became a non-threat to our security. Doesn't seem like too high a price to pay.

Reagan was an incredibly successful President. He obviously wasn't perfect, and there were things that happened in his second term that were huge mistakes (the whole Iran-contra affair comes to mind).

However, when you look at his body of work, it sure seems to me that his presidency could hardly be described as "awful".

He was smart enough to get the hell out of Dodge after the Beruit barracks bombing. :thumb:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-13-2008, 11:45 AM
I really love his fiscal policy, which was emulated, to even more success, by GW.

I mean, he only quadrupled 200 years of national debt in 8.

I also really liked the fact that he sold arms to Iran to arm Central American death squads who killed American citizens, then said he didn't when there were notes in his own personal diary showing he did so.

I love the fact that he never said the word "AIDS" in a public speech until 1987, and steadfastly refused to fund early epidemiology that could have curtailed the spread of that malady.

Lest we forget the training of Mujahadeen/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Of course, the cult of Reagan Youth would have you believe far different but it's hard to see the truth when your vista is your ass.

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 12:27 PM
I really love his fiscal policy, which was emulated, to even more success, by GW.

I mean, he only quadrupled 200 years of national debt in 8.

I also really liked the fact that he sold arms to Iran to arm Central American death squads who killed American citizens, then said he didn't when there were notes in his own personal diary showing he did so.

I love the fact that he never said the word "AIDS" in a public speech until 1987, and steadfastly refused to fund early epidemiology that could have curtailed the spread of that malady.

Lest we forget the training of Mujahadeen/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Of course, the cult of Reagan Youth would have you believe far different but it's hard to see the truth when your vista is your ass.
So your beef with Reagan is that he increased the national debt, sold arms to Iran, and didn't do enough to stop AIDS, yet you completely ignore all of the good things he did.

I already conceded that the Reagan presidency wasn't perfect. However, the top tax rates were INSANE before Reagan fixed that problem. The top tax rate before the Reagan tax cuts was 70%. It's no wonder the economy was going down the toilet. Seventy freaking percent! That was a tremendous dis-incentive to earn and perform, and the government was squarely ON the backs of the American people. That simply had to change, and Reagan was the guy who changed it. If that was the only thing he accomplished (which it wasn't), he would have been a success for that reason alone.

alanm
04-13-2008, 12:31 PM
So your beef with Reagan is that he increased the national debt, sold arms to Iran, and didn't do enough to stop AIDS, yet you completely ignore all of the good things he did.

I already conceded that the Reagan presidency wasn't perfect. However, the top tax rates were INSANE before Reagan fixed that problem. The top tax rate before the Reagan tax cuts was 70%. It's no wonder the economy was going down the toilet. Seventy freaking percent! That was a tremendous dis-incentive to earn and perform, and the government was squarely ON the backs of the American people. That simply had to change, and Reagan was the guy who changed it. If that was the only thing he accomplished (which it wasn't), he would have been a success for that reason alone.
You ain't seen nothing yet.

HolmeZz
04-13-2008, 12:40 PM
I already conceded that the Reagan presidency wasn't perfect.

That was very big of you, MurphDog3.

Adept Havelock
04-13-2008, 12:43 PM
sold arms to Iran

You may consider selling arms to a known terrorist sponsoring state in order to fund another terrorist group (when Congress had passed legislation expressly prohibiting it, and that had been signed into law) as a minor thing.

I don't share your blithe attitude towards it now, nor did I then. Especially considering what had happened only a few years before with the Embassy hostages.

At least he was smart enough to get the hell out of Lebanon in '83. :clap:

HolmeZz
04-13-2008, 12:45 PM
At least he was smart enough to get the hell out of Lebanon in '83.

That cut-and-run surrenderist.

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 12:46 PM
That was very big of you, MurphDog3.
Sorry, I don't understand the reference.

Adept Havelock
04-13-2008, 12:50 PM
That cut-and-run surrenderist.

I suppose he made up for that by invading Grenada, against the wishes of (and without notifying) PM Margaret Thatcher. Ignoring the fact that Grenada was under UK authority, and usurping our closest allies authority was another bit of brilliant foreign policy. Some like to pretend we had to go in because the UK couldn't, but the way Thatcher handled the Falklands crisis argues strongly against that POV.

Did the man do some good? Absolutely. Does he deserve political "canonization", as some try to portray him?

IMO, Hell no.

However, I will also give him major kudos for not overreacting when the KGB's Project Ryan misinterpreted the NATO "Able Archer" exercise in late '83 as preparations for a first strike. While the USSR went to their equivalent of Defcon 2 for the first time since the October crisis of '62, Reagan ignored Al Haig and his band of ijit's.

Instead, he finally acknowledged talking to the Soviets was equally as important as the arms buildup/force modernization he had been pushing. That defused the most dangerous international crisis since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

bango
04-13-2008, 03:31 PM
I am not saying that Carter was a good President, he was not. Neither was Ronny. I do agree with most of the negative that has been said about both. I would like to know if there are answers to what he should have done militarily with the likes of The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and The Hostage Situation in Iran?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-13-2008, 03:42 PM
I am not saying that Carter was a good President, he was not. Neither was Ronny. I do agree with most of the negative that has been said about both. I would like to know if there are answers to what he should have done militarily with the likes of The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and The Hostage Situation in Iran?

I am personally of the belief, as are others, that the Iranians purposely withheld the hostages until after the election as an extra FU to Carter (and perhaps due to GHW traveling to Paris to urge such a timetable)...:shrug:

bango
04-13-2008, 03:55 PM
I believe so also. There was that rescue attempt that went haywire. I mean what more could he have done besides an invasion. We have seen how well invasions work in the Middle East and South Asia. Not having the secret mission maybe would have been better politically for him. He really took a dive after it was made public and it was a failure.

banyon
04-13-2008, 04:00 PM
So your beef with Reagan is that he increased the national debt, sold arms to Iran, and didn't do enough to stop AIDS, yet you completely ignore all of the good things he did.

I already conceded that the Reagan presidency wasn't perfect. However, the top tax rates were INSANE before Reagan fixed that problem. The top tax rate before the Reagan tax cuts was 70%. It's no wonder the economy was going down the toilet. Seventy freaking percent! That was a tremendous dis-incentive to earn and perform, and the government was squarely ON the backs of the American people. That simply had to change, and Reagan was the guy who changed it. If that was the only thing he accomplished (which it wasn't), he would have been a success for that reason alone.
Top tax rate was 90% in the 50's and we had our biggest period of economic expansion in the century. The downturn of the 70's was more about oil/inflation problems than taxation (much like now).

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 05:47 PM
Top tax rate was 90% in the 50's and we had our biggest period of economic expansion in the century. The downturn of the 70's was more about oil/inflation problems than taxation (much like now).
The price of oil didn't go down when Reagan took office. He correctly concluded that a tax cut was needed to stimulate the economy. The fact that the economy grew sharply after the tax cuts took effect would seem to bear that out.

That's not to say that all tax cuts are good all of the time. But it was the appropriate fiscal policy to use in the early 1980s.

Inflation declined in the 1980s because of the fiscal policies of Paul Volker, who was Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volker was appointed by Carter shortly before Carter left office, and Reagan was perceptive enough to leave Volker in office and allow him to do his job. Most politicians today would have fired him and replaced him with their own guy in order to reward political patronage.

banyon
04-13-2008, 05:53 PM
The price of oil didn't go down when Reagan took office. He correctly concluded that a tax cut was needed to stimulate the economy. The fact that the economy grew sharply after the tax cuts took effect would seem to bear that out.

That's not to say that all tax cuts are good all of the time. But it was the appropriate fiscal policy to use in the early 1980s.

:spock:

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.jpg

Inflation declined in the 1980s because of the fiscal policies of Paul Volker, who was Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volker was appointed by Carter shortly before Carter left office, and Reagan was perceptive enough to leave Volker in office and allow him to do his job. Most politicians today would have fired him and replaced him with their own guy in order to reward political patronage.


I agree with all of this. Of course, it's not unrealated to the above oil data. Nonetheless, it's yet another variable to assess besides the change in top marginal rates. I also not you choose to ignore the inconvenient point I made about 1950's tax rates, since I guess it doesn't fit your point about the top rates.

whoman69
04-13-2008, 06:14 PM
Reagan talks about big government, but in many ways he made the government even larger. He began the system of corporate welfare. And for those who want to give him total credit for turning around inflation and unemployment, both dropped more than 5% in his first month in office which leads me to believe that business kept these factors high in order to get Reagan elected. He paid them in the end. The worst parts of his foreign policy have been copied by Dubyah including Star Wars and acting as though the executive office is above the law. Does anyone really believe that a major in the military could have been the leader behind Iran contra?

NewChief
04-13-2008, 07:55 PM
Reagan talks about big government, but in many ways he made the government even larger. He began the system of corporate welfare. And for those who want to give him total credit for turning around inflation and unemployment, both dropped more than 5% in his first month in office which leads me to believe that business kept these factors high in order to get Reagan elected. He paid them in the end. The worst parts of his foreign policy have been copied by Dubyah including Star Wars and acting as though the executive office is above the law. Does anyone really believe that a major in the military could have been the leader behind Iran contra?

The same people that want to credit Reagan with his economy will be just as quick to discredit any contribution that Bill Clinton made to his economy. Clearly Reagan singlehandedly turned things around. Clinton, on the other hand, inherited a great roster from Bush I.

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 08:08 PM
That's one way to tell if a person bases his positions on the actual results achieved by a President, or if he spins his arguments to support whatever party he ALWAYS supports.

In my mind two of the most successful Presidents were Reagan (a Republican) and Clinton (a Democrat). And two of the worst Presidents were Carter (a Democrat) and Bush (a Republican).

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 08:13 PM
:spock:

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.jpg

Dang it. When I was creating that post I wondered if I should take the time to verify that statement or if I should just spout it off without checking. I chose to spout it off, and you nailed me. Well done.



I agree with all of this. Of course, it's not unrealated to the above oil data. Nonetheless, it's yet another variable to assess besides the change in top marginal rates. I also not you choose to ignore the inconvenient point I made about 1950's tax rates, since I guess it doesn't fit your point about the top rates.
I was hoping nobody would catch that. You're right. It didn't really fit my point, so I chose to ignore it.

banyon
04-13-2008, 08:16 PM
Dang it. When I was creating that post I wondered if I should take the time to verify that statement or if I should just spout it off without checking. I chose to spout it off, and you nailed me. Well done.



I was hoping nobody would catch that. You're right. It didn't really fit my point, so I chose to ignore it.

This is refreshing.

Am I on "Candid Chiefsplanet DC Camera"?

Logical
04-13-2008, 08:21 PM
It moves me, but no more than this video moves me and should move you, whether conservative or liberal.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHEO_fG3mm4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHEO_fG3mm4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 08:24 PM
This is refreshing.

Am I on "Candid Chiefsplanet DC Camera"?
I get annoyed by posters on other forums who absolutely refuse to admit they got something wrong, even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

I still think I'm right in my overall assessment of the Reagan presidency, but I'll admit it when I get something wrong.

banyon
04-13-2008, 08:26 PM
I get annoyed by posters on other forums who absolutely refuse to admit they got something wrong, even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

Well that's something we can agree on 100%. :toast:

Lex Luthor
04-13-2008, 08:28 PM
It moves me, but no more than this video moves me and should move you, whether conservative or liberal.


Actually, that video bothers me a little. It reinforces the argument that Obama's only real qualification to be President is that he is an inspirational speaker.

The Obama video that I find to be much more compelling is the one that shows him condemning the invasion of Iraq long before it became fashionable to do so.

Ultra Peanut
04-13-2008, 08:47 PM
But I can't wait to bomb dodongos.

Logical
04-13-2008, 08:55 PM
I get annoyed by posters on other forums who absolutely refuse to admit they got something wrong, even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

I still think I'm right in my overall assessment of the Reagan presidency, but I'll admit it when I get something wrong.

Nice, you will be a welcome addition to this forum.

Logical
04-13-2008, 09:00 PM
Actually, that video bothers me a little. It reinforces the argument that Obama's only real qualification to be President is that he is an inspirational speaker.

The Obama video that I find to be much more compelling is the one that shows him condemning the invasion of Iraq long before it became fashionable to do so.

If you mean this video then we agree, I believe you get credit for finding it, and putting it in my prescience thread. Well done.:clap:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EhpKmQCCwB8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EhpKmQCCwB8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-13-2008, 10:14 PM
Dang it. When I was creating that post I wondered if I should take the time to verify that statement or if I should just spout it off without checking. I chose to spout it off, and you nailed me. Well done.



I was hoping nobody would catch that. You're right. It didn't really fit my point, so I chose to ignore it.

Obviously this guy never went to the Taco John school of argumentation.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-13-2008, 10:18 PM
So your beef with Reagan is that he increased the national debt, sold arms to Iran, and didn't do enough to stop AIDS, yet you completely ignore all of the good things he did.

He didn't do anything to stop AIDS.
He raised payroll taxes while cutting income taxes for the richest Americans, which is an effective tax increase for 80% of the population.

Although, at the very least, he was (an) inspiration for this book:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0679735771.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Saggysack
04-14-2008, 02:32 AM
"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

the sky is the limit from here on out...

BucEyedPea
04-14-2008, 11:42 AM
I am not saying that Carter was a good President, he was not. Neither was Ronny. I do agree with most of the negative that has been said about both. I would like to know if there are answers to what he should have done militarily with the likes of The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and The Hostage Situation in Iran?

That's a matter of opinion. I think lefties didn't like Reagan the most.
Carter may have been one of the most ineffective presidents, but he still did some good things....like begin the movement to de-regulation by taking a middle-of-the-road approach to it which cured the energy crisis. These things sorta get lost when we have things like a hostage crisis...since bad news is the news. But he's one of the best ex-presidents that ever existed imo. Blessed are the peacemakers. Shame on Israel for denying him security on his current mission...it's as if they want him assassinated.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2008, 11:50 AM
Reagan talks about big government, but in many ways he made the government even larger. He began the system of corporate welfare.
He did not begin that system. The roots of that started under Lincoln and it culminated in progressive era legislation. RR did make govt larger though. This is true.

And for those who want to give him total credit for turning around inflation and unemployment, both dropped more than 5% in his first month in office which leads me to believe that business kept these factors high in order to get Reagan elected.
Inflation had to do with Volkerónot RR!

He paid them in the end.

How?

The worst parts of his foreign policy have been copied by Dubyah including Star Wars and acting as though the executive office is above the law.
Dubya is not following the "Reagan Doctrine." The "Bush Doctrine" of aggressive, offensive and pre-emptive war is far more belligerent and bellicose, creating enemies in order to start wars. Reagan did not do that. The Soviet Union was already our enemy since WWII which began under FDR who loving referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe."

Does anyone really believe that a major in the military could have been the leader behind Iran contra?
Those were the NeoCons behind Iran Contra. Reagan had a mix of traditional conservatives ( Paleo-Cons) and Neo Cons ( New Conservatives who aren't real conservative) in his administration. I wouldn't say Reagan was a NC exactly. It's just at that time, in the Cold War, both factions were allied on fighting communism. Oh, and no govt money was used in Iran Contra....ftr.