Tear down this myth!

reply to post by mental modulator


"The facts are REAGAN and BUSHII created a new benchmark in debt accumulation"

Reagan's big spending had much to to with making the Dems happy so he could get his business taken care of. He was not only the great communicator but a great deal maker with the left as afar as giving them big dollar deals in exchange for defense spending for example. So don't even dream about it being a one way street pal.


This tread looks to me like some Dem/Obama damage control thread.
Theses socialist idealist are about to go stupid and thats no myth. Whatever anyone has done in the past they are certainly going for a grand slam! WOW bring some KY friend and watch the real money boys at work!!!!

Originally posted by Razimus
reply to post by southern_Guardian

 

Alls I knows is Reagan was a fan of the movie 'Back to the Future', which is why his face was a re-occuring character in BTTF2, he started Starwars, my dad worked on it and when it was mentioned on the x-files that it never was fully developed my dad disagreed heheh, anyway what myth do you want dispelled, that he was a good guy? that's no myth.

Sure, he was a good guy. If you read the OP and those others who have replied here, this goes beyond his "character". To me, what makes a great president goes beyond "character". It seems that with Reagans "character" admiration among many, there seems to be this fabricated dream administration during the 80s and Im here to show how inaccurate that is.

The is used as an example, is countlessly referenced as being a true "success" in the name of conservatism and Im here to prove otherwise.

Whats beyond me even more is that the exact same folks who go on about this mans "character" despite the realities of his administration are accusing folks such as myself for worshipping Obama and making assumptions because of his character. Theres an element of hypocrisy here and I think if you are to part with partisan bias we should hold all politicians to the same level... this seems to be lacking from many.

reply to post by mental modulator


that is the case

and they don't even gloss it up or put lipstick on it

and now they're obstructing the new economic package with the same old argument


which is working ,on the same entrenched NeoCon koolaide drinkers it always has ,the GOOD OLD BOYS are very entrenched ,it's going to take a very targeted very slick very brutal program to get rid of theses guys

if sheeple would actually listen to them they would hear what I hear when they speak

I call it Hooray for me and Fk You ,economics!

Trickle Down is Old School

reply to post by desert

The business of anti-union consultants and union busting began in earnest in those years, to wear down the American worker and let corporations wrest power from the worker, so the corporation could do what it wanted in the name of maximum profit.

Actually this was more during Bush 41 and Clinton, rather than Reagan. As a former UAW member (15+ years), nothing pi**ed me off more than to hear my "brothers" whine about Reagan firing the air traffic controllers and how that allowed corporations to screw the unions. It was nothing of the sort, but it makes for a great excuse for the unions and the crappy way they conduct business

But when it comes to Obama, this man is only two weeks into his presidency following one of the worst presidents in history, his inherited the biggest debt since WW2, has a $200 million a day war that has to end, and was a popular charismatic individual to many americans, yet by the same folks who worship Reagan with no end, Obama is somehow guilty of things his yet to do?

In regards to Obama, if you think the debt under Bush 43 was bad....well...you aint seen nothing yet. Wait to see what happens with this "stimulus".

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, actually when Clinton became President, the Federal Debt was around 4 trillion dollars, when he left office it was around 6 trillion dollars. The debt never once decreased during his 8 years in office.

Fact: For the first time since the 70s debt actually began to decrease towards the end of Clintons administration.

Fact: Reagan started the skyrocketing debt cycle when he tripled the debt left by Carter and his successor Bush snr began to follow.

upload.wikimedia.org...

The Budget Deficit however, did decrease during his terms, largely in part to the reforms shoved through Congress by the GOP during 1995-1998. However, the last three budget years for Reagan had these deficits:
1987-- 149,730,000,000
1988-- 155,178,000,000
1989-- 152,639,000,000

It be great to get a reference on those numbers. Fact, there was an economic expansion with jobs, but with that came a skyrocketing debt, far beyond those Carters,

And by the way, fact was inflation was going down during Reagans era but it was before Reagan even started his administration, in 1979. You can thank Paul Volcker, the Fed chairman during the late 70s, for starting that decrease.

It was only under Clintons administration that real economic prosperity began to take shape with rapid growth, low unemployment and quiescent inflation, Ph.D and noble economic prize winner Paul Krugman even states this as fact.

query.nytimes.com...

And I think its here Paul Krugman said it best:

let's honor Mr. Reagan for his real achievements, not dishonor him -- and mislead the nation -- with false claims about his economic record.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Thats the thing buddy, we are yet to see Obamas administration, Iv seen the Reagan administration and the fact he started the skyrocketing debt of ours, and yet its his "character" rightwingers claim as some success.

Hypocrisy swampfox.

reply to post by southern_Guardian


" Clinton created 22 millions jobs, decreased debt for the first time in decades and left $559 billion in surplus. Reagan created 22 million jobs in turn to triple our debt left from the Carter administration and only eventually increase other taxes besides income taxes. In addition those 22 million jobs were lower wage jobs, like you know McDonalds. Great."

Clintons surplus was due to the new design of our currency.There were billions of dollars being counterfited,pouring into our economy.Clinton was also the President who took the regulations off Carters ,"Community Reconstruction Act" We all know where that little blunder has led the country.
Unlike a lot of people on this forum I was working at the time Carter was in office.Times were indeed dismal.Gas shortage,21%+ intrest rates.The housing industry was at a near standstill.Just getting started on my own,I nearly starved,because of Carters policies.
When Regan took office,shortly there after things got a whole lot better for me.There was available fuel,intrest rates went down below double digits.I was able to build my first home.Life was good in America.Ask people who lived through those years.Which administration did the best for them.Carter or Regan.I lived it,I know the answer.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

The firing of the air traffic controllers was a shot across the bow. RR's appointment of anti-union Donald Dotson to the Nation Labor Relations Board was a broadside. And I had a brother-in-law around that time who worked for Frito-Lay as a "union consultant" (i.e. union buster).
My father never worked a day in his life in a union job, but always thanked unions, because he said his company would not have had health insurance or a pension plan, nor would he have had an 8 hour work day and vacation time to enjoy with his children.

Another symbolic act I remember from that time was RR's taking down of the WH solar panels put up there under Carter. The symbolism being that the US was ready to jump back onto the oil cartel's bandwagon...or really, to start sucking up more from the cartel's tanker.


[edit on 7-2-2009 by desert]

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by mental modulator

 

"The facts are REAGAN and BUSHII created a new benchmark in debt accumulation"

Reagan's big spending had much to to with making the Dems happy so he could get his business taken care of. He was not only the great communicator but a great deal maker with the left as afar as giving them big dollar deals in exchange for defense spending for example. So don't even dream about it being a one way street pal.


This tread looks to me like some Dem/Obama damage control thread.

Theses socialist idealist are about to go stupid and thats no myth. Whatever anyone has done in the past they are certainly going for a grand slam! WOW bring some KY friend and watch the real money boys at work!!!!

Socialist ideas!!!

You guys are so tired - no wonder you lost

You have been throwing that word around three or more decades.

AND BTW RR debt had a whole lot to do with NOT being fiscally CONSERVATIVE.


CLINTON walked the walk and didn't have to speak a word on the matter.


Your fascist ideas are in the toilet - spinning -

Originally posted by invisiblewoman
reply to post by mental modulator

 

that is the case

and they don't even gloss it up or put lipstick on it

and now they're obstructing the new economic package with the same old argument

which is working ,on the same entrenched NeoCon koolaide drinkers it always has ,the GOOD OLD BOYS are very entrenched ,it's going to take a very targeted very slick very brutal program to get rid of theses guys

if sheeple would actually listen to them they would hear what I hear when they speak

I call it Hooray for me and F

k You ,economics!

Trickle Down is Old School

GOOD GOD its like the FLAT EARTH theory that won't flush.

Progressives and Libs need to get brutal- this is way past ridiculous.

Notice the CAN who wrote above - Blamed RR debt it on the DEMS

Now the GOP is trying to blame the current mess on the DEMS

" BUSH tried to regulate but the DEMS stopped him...


Oh my gosh - SO BUSH lifted standards and regulation across the board

EXCEPT in the housing and financial sector?!!!

Originally posted by mental modulator
[

Socialist ideas!!!

You guys are so tired - no wonder you lost

You have been throwing that word around three or more decades.

AND BTW RR debt had a whole lot to do with NOT being fiscally CONSERVATIVE.


CLINTON walked the walk and didn't have to speak a word on the matter.


Your fascist ideas are in the toilet - spinning -

Yes and its never been more true....than it is right now.

If the turd gets flushed we are all going with it like a bunch of ants on the Bama A train.

OK I’ve read the entire thread and if everybody can stop falling all over yourselves to pat eachother on the back for a few minutes.

Yes if you’re looking just at the budget then yes Reagan created large dept.

But…

For those of us who actually lived through those times and I agree those were odd times, will know him in another light. You have to remember the US was in a recession and also the American people were going through a crisis of sorts. We still had not come to grips with the fact that we had lost a war for the first time in our history Vietnam and our self confidence was pretty much shot not only that we had been going through the Iran Hostage situation. The Carter administration seemed to be a lame duck from word go! Everybody wanted a change and Reagan was it good, bad, or indifferent!

The Country politically was in the dumps. And on top of all that we were still in the grips of the cold war with the threat of Global Thermal Nuclear war. I’m not going to get on a soap box and defend Reagan suffice it to say history will do that just fine.

He made people feel good and he helped rebuild American confidence. So if we just judge his Presidential legacy on the deficit then your right but as far as what he did for the country in other ways that cannot be figured in equations or charts it’s something you must have lived through to understand!

Obama will be for some their Reagan so to speak he makes people feel good about a change and just watch the budget spending it takes a good speaker and spending money to get this country going, So I predict in 30 years some people will be pulling out a chart and explain how Obama was the worst President in History Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah

reply to post by SLAYER69

Indeed!! Living through the times. Putting context round facts. And different people can have different experiences.

My remembrances, for example, of President Carter's times were not that bad. Sure there was great inflation, but Grandma and Grandpa were living off of only their interest in their savings accounts, not even touching the principal. My brother-in-law was making $10/hr, with $30/hr triple time, in a store. I easily took public transit to work, avoiding the gas lines. My friends I hung out with had been in VietNam, but had afterward gone to Iran (returning right before the hostage situation) to get paid boocoo bucks to service the Shah's aircraft and train pilots, and they were not hurting for money. The failed rescue attempt had major flaws, adding to the symbolism of American failure, but to me it paled in comparison to the later Beirut barracks bombing.

Life sure is interesting. Live long and prosper.

reply to post by SLAYER69

He made people feel good and he helped rebuild American confidence. So if we just judge his Presidential legacy on the deficit then your right but as far as what he did for the country in other ways that cannot be figured in equations or charts it’s something you must have lived through to understand!

Thank you for that absolutely dead-on assessment. He did make Americans feel good about themselves and the country, and I agree that was his greatest contribution, although I also believe that he had a huge hand in helping to bring down the USSR.

Yes he made plenty of people, the vast majority of them conservatives, feel good about the country. What about Obama? What if he, let say through his term, made people feel good, made the majority of the people feel good about the nation, took diplomacy with Iran and Pakistan and the conerstone of fighting terrorism, would you hold in the same regards as mr Reagan?

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Yes he made plenty of people, the vast majority of them conservatives, feel good about the country. What about Obama? What if he,

Vast majority
Keep in mind that 49% didn’t vote for Obama.
Reagan on the other hand won by landslides you seem pretty smart look up the figures!
There were all those Reagan Democrats most non conservative

Obama has yet to write his history I for one didn’t vote for him but I like him and will support him. Just like all those democrats liked and supported Reagan. Not everything is black and white in politics.



[edit on 8-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
rightwingers claim as some success.

Hypocrisy swampfox.

You mean including some of those Reagan Democrats right

Link

Obama Republicans?
By Salena Zito

ST. LOUIS - Barack Obama speaks in a clear style that almost always leaves his audience with a sense that he stands for something - which explains those comparisons with the last "Great Communicator," Ronald Reagan.

Some of the comparisons have been used in opposition research against Obama, though largely in vain. Nothing detrimental stuck because Reagan successfully bridged the divide between Republicans and Democrats by building a remarkable coalition known as Reagan Democrats.

If one great communicator -- the eloquent Ronald Reagan -- could build a coalition of disaffected Democrats that swung both of his presidential elections his way, can an almost-great communicator -- the fiery Barack Obama -- build a coalition of disaffected Republicans to swing the Democrat primary election his way?

Excuse me, while I color another gray hair (actually I don't ) OK, more remembrances.

By the time of RR's campaign, the Republican party had become very adept at using images (the Goldwater campaign had been stung by that one mushroom cloud image).
This use of images (and RR was one of those images) combined with the RP taking up evangelical, fundamentalist, conservative religion, with its images of moral authority and religious certainty, presented to a nation, coming through times of changing attitudes (war, women, race, etc) and inflation, an anchor amidst a roiling sea.

Did RR tell Americans exactly how his party would take care of the nation financially? No, and for good reason. If the middle class voters knew that they would be losing jobs and wages, who would have voted for that? Similarities to GB selling the Iraq War; if he had leveled with Americans the real geostrategic reason for invading Iraq, they would not have been so taken with the idea of another "domino effect" war sacrificing their soldiers.

I remember listening to a conservative radio talk show in 1980, listening to an older Rep woman and saying to myself, "Right on, sister!", as she was espousing her conservative views. She then said sadly that she and her kind of ideas were not even being listened to at the 1980 convention. Reps like her had to bite their tongue for decades on the national stage, not wanting to be labeled godless, unpatriotic, communists (now socialists).

The reasons Americans wanted to feel good again in 1980 are not the same reasons they want to feel good again in 2008. There is more than just malaise.
The political moral compass has swung wildly towards greed with attendant corruption; RR's image of the cowboy running free and wild on the range, saving towns and women from the bad guys, had morphed into a compassionless attitude in a nation of trigger happy leaders (who couldn't shoot straight).

This time Reps like the elderly woman in 1980 combined with the Rep intellectuals who just couldn't take it anymore (the last straw being McCain's choice of Palin) to cast votes for Obama.
Reagan had national inflation to defeat and a Cold War to contend with (the communist hoards massing at the border was another image of their own making). Obama has deflation nationally as well as internationally, and two battlegrounds.
With Reagan, Americans had their old jobs at the outset (unless you were in the pack of the unemployed continually needed to keep capitalism working for the corporation), while Obama must build jobs for Americans back up again.

Hopefully, we'll become a wiser nation again, enough of sadness.

reply to post by southern_Guardian


Another one confused between the Budget Deficit and the Federal Debt.

Budget deficits...
www.census.gov...

Federal Debt
www.census.gov...

Under Clinton..

Budget year
1994 4.6 trillion
1995 4.9 trillion
1996 5.1 trillion
1997 5.3 trillion
1998 5.4 trillion
1999 5.605 trillion
2000 5.628 trillion
2001 5.7 trillion

Whoever posted that wikimedia chart lied their ass off. Each and every year of Clinton's eight years the federal debt went up. And before you say "Well, George Bush became President in 2001" The federal budget for 2001 was decided in the summer/fall of 2000.

You can also look the numbers up at the White House web site and several other places. The idea that the debt went down under Clinton is laughable.