Finally, I am seeing a couple of accounts that put Reagan into more perspective.

The New York Times had such an article today. But this, from Salon, might be even better.

Human instinct is to speak well of the dead. But this is a crucial moment. History is at stake -- and it is my belief men and women of good conscience need to stand up to the Grover Norquists of the world.

I'm glad to see people are finally doing so, and tastefully.

<a href='http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/07/reagan/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/...agan/index.html</a>

If you are talking about Sids piece, that is anything but tasteful. You might not agree with Regans economic policy, but this country sure had a damn good run after he enacted them.

From the mouth of Ronald Reagan:

"Ketchup is a vegetable"

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

"The Russian language has no word for 'freedom'." (Actually the word is "svoboda")

"Facts are stupid things"

"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting."

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."

"I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."
(Well, he's definitely not a scientist. Mt. St. Helens released about 2,000 tons of sulfer dioxide per day. Cars in the United States release about 81,000 tons per day).

"Well, I learned a lot....I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries"

"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."

"The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity."

"We are trying to get unemployment to go up, and I think we're going to succeed."

"How are you, Mr. Mayor? I'm glad to meet you. How are things in your city?" – greeting Samual Pierce, his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, during a White House reception for mayors

"If you've seen one Redwood tree, you've seen them all"

One thing that seems recurrent in leftist thought here is the notion that libs or leftists are more intelligent than concervatives. This list of errors, said to be errors, and malaprops is an example of that.

One gets the image of some little apple polishing pedant when such things get posted. An image of a truly annoying kid in class, the one always sucking up to teacher, some little snit. Anyway, sure, Reagan (as well as all other presidents) said things that were factually wrong, said things that, taken out of context, sounded stupid, and sometimes tripped over his words (e.g. Facts are "stupid" things rather than "stubborn things).

I think it is pathetic and pedantic to point out each and every flaw and mistake, regardless of how insignificant they might be. Instead of trying to make the case that Reagan was "dumb" (Horrors, could anything WORSE be said about someone?), why don't you instead attempt to attack that dumb***' accomplishments (The end of New Deal nonsense, a great economic rebirth, the fall of Communism, a restored confidence in the country).

Somehow, I don't think you will do that. No, let's just remember that Reagan was dumb because he got his facts wrong sometimes. Bad, dumb Reagan. We should be glad the country can be saved from dumbasses like Reagan by such brilliant people as The Prince of Ketchup, the Prince of Chappaquidick (sp), and, of course, Billy Clinnon. They never get their facts wrong, right? Pity they never get the truth right, or even know what truth might be.

· "We can´t be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." Bill Clinton· "The last time I checked, the Constitution said, ´of the people, by the people and for the people.´ That´s what the Declaration of Independence says." President Bill Clinton, campaigning in CA in the fall of 1996Gee, Mr. Clinton, that statement is in NEITHER - that phrase was in the Gettysburg Address!!· "It has not worked. No one can say it has worked, so I decided we´re either going to do what we said we´re going to do with the U.N., or we´re going to do something else." A Bill Clinton quote in Washington Post on the U.N. operation in Bosnia.· "I am curbing the influence of money in our political system" Bill ClintonPretty Funny, Huh????· As a candidate in 1992, Bill Clinton blasted Bush administration standards of behavior and pledged to conduct "the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." Still Laughing.· "Character doesn´t matter." Bill ClintonYES, It does!!!!!!· "I have a brother who´s a drug adddict, I´m very proud of him" Bill Clinton· "Looking Back, I should have inhaled" Bill Clinton, on an MTV interview, talking to the young adults of AmericaWay to go Bill, ´Just Say Yes´

OK. Let's focus on Reagan's accomplishments (sic). In his two terms he managed to:

1. Run up more debt than every other administration in the history of the United States combined. Indeed, the federal debt increased 450% during his administration. OTOH, given the fact that Republicans hate children and demonstrate it by passing on their excesses to their children, that's probably not surprising.

2. Taught terrorists all over the world that all they have to do is kill a few Americans and we'll tuck tail and run with the disaster in Lebanon.

3. Sell dual use chemicals to Sadaam Hussein.

4. Give top of the line anti-tank missiles to Iran (now there's a progressive country) and thereby taught terrorists all over the world that all they have to do is take some American hostages and we'll give them what they want.

5. Cause untold suffering in Nicaragua (sp?) by illegally transferring weapons to the "contras." Of course, I'm sure you've been on a mission ot Nicaragua to tell some little girl that got her legs blown off by a contra planted land mine that Reagan's support for those land mines was really in her best interests. :rolleyes:

6. Oppose economic sanctions against South Africa because there was one country who knew how to keep the darkies in they place.

7. Substantially weaken environmental protection laws. Then again, when you're so stupid that you really do believe that trees cause pollution, what do you expect?

8. Spend billions and billions of your children's dollars on a failed war on drugs.

9. Increase the size of the federal government more than any other president in U.S. history unless you count the size of the military during WWII. Even Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society programs didn't increase the size of the federal government as much as Reagan.

Some list of accomplishments there.

Quote:Republicans hate children

Well, I read all I need to read when I stopped there.... :snore:

1. Right. Because the President is solely in charge of country's finances. Let's not forget what party held the majority in Congress. And how did you know that child hating is a plank?! That was supposed to be a secret!

2. I see, we shoulda nuked 'em.

3. We supported Saddam in his war against Iran. When he used chemical weapons, we withdrew our support.

4. We didn't give them away. We sold them. And then used the money to aid the Contras. Best idea? No. But last I checked there were several functioning Democracies in Central America.

5. See 4.

6. Sheesh.

7. I don't know enough to comment. But last I checked, we still had clean water, breathable air and plenty of trees.

8. Of course he spent our children's money. He hated them, remember? And I don't think the idea of ridding the country of drugs started under Reagan.

9. See 1.

Mako you must not have been around in the late 70's or else you would have seen inflation, high interest, a military in decline, and a lack of confidence in recent national leadership including 2 republicans. That was all reversed under Reagan. Yes the debt went up however budgets must be approved by congress so to place the blame solely on Reagan would be incorrect. Even so an increase in debt in order to strengthen our military was better for our children than to weaken to the point that we could not deter Soviet expansion in Europe. Spending money is far better than spending lives and if you don't think the Soviets would have taken advantage of a weakened USA then you are sadly mistaken.

The "run up the budget" thing is a fallacy. People cited that for years but then a funny thing happened:

The US GDP skyrocketed, and the deficit didn't seem so imposing anymore.

Kind of like this: when I was in college, making about 5K/year, spending $5 once a week to split a pizza was extravagant. Now that I make more than $5K/year, I spend more than that for lunch at the vegan place...and I don't even flinch!

Then another funny thing happened. All that technology that was developed as drivers for military systems; technology that includes computers and other semiconductor devices, lasers, optics and fiberoptics and other telecom related devices...those started an unprecedented economic BOOM. Sure it happened a few years after Reagan left office. Technology takes a while to develop, become reliable, and infiltrate the popular markets. But, suddenly the US had *surpluses* with which to pay down that deficit!

Kind of like going to college and taking out student loans to do it. If you major in the right things and obtain marketable skills...you can pay back that debt and increase your earnings.

Folks who criticize the economy under Reagan either: don't remember what was happening in the late 1970's or don't like that Reagan's policy was "work for it, but you aren't entitled to it."

Schadenfreude Wrote:Finally, I am seeing a couple of accounts that put Reagan into more perspective.

The New York Times had such an article today. But this, from Salon, might be even better.

Wow. This is the sort of writing that I wouldn't think could earn a passing grade in HS...let alone get published.

There must be a big difference between technical writing and journalism.

Funny note...when Nixon's recordings were released last year, he made comments about Gov. Reagan:

"He's an unpleasant fellow. He's unpleasant to be around."

But, here's another perspective from a guy who spent alot of time in the White House

<a href='http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Commentaries1&CONTENTID=12615&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm' target='_blank'>Breakpoint commentary</a>

The Republican "cut taxes" mantra is based on the premise that, if you cut taxes, the economy will grow and actually generate more money for the federal government. Following that argument to it's logical conclusion (and logic ain't something Republicans are well known for) means that you'd have infinite revenue if you had zero taxes.

But, let's stop the argument before it reaches the infinities - a sure sign that there is a fatal flaw in the reasoning. Let's set the tax rate at 1%. Any of you economic gurus out there want to tell me how much our G.D.P. would have to be to generate the over $2 trillion our government spends each year?

MAKO Wrote:The Republican "cut taxes" mantra is based on the premise that, if you cut taxes, the economy will grow and actually generate more money for the federal government.  Following that argument to it's logical conclusion (and logic ain't something Republicans are well known for) means that you'd have infinite revenue if you had zero taxes.

But, let's stop the argument before it reaches the infinities - a sure sign that there is a fatal flaw in the reasoning.  Let's set the tax rate at 1%.  Any of you economic gurus out there want to tell me how much our G.D.P. would have to be to generate the over $2 trillion our government spends each year?

Uh...no. That's not logic. That's silliness.

Ever heard of the <a href='http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp' target='_blank'>"Laffer Curve"</a>? It's basically the essence of Republican tax theory. And the name is not based on what people think of it, but who created it, so don't even.

<a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22laffer+curve%22' target='_blank'>Google is your friend</a>

I'm still waiting for my tax return... :wave:

DukeofDrums Wrote:I'm still waiting for my tax return... :wave:

I hope you filed for an extension, or the IRS may come a nockin!

Unless you meant to say tax refund.....

Now that we have heard the green party spin on reagan, heres another perspective. First let me take you back to the 70s (Because I bet most of the Reagan dissenters our too young to even remember them.) Inflation was at 13%, the mortgage rate was at 20%, The unemployment rate was at 10%. There was a gas shortage due to an opec oil embargo. The economy was stagnent, due to high taxes, repressive goverment regulations, The lack of attention by congress and the last four Presidents. So Reagan cuts the tax rate from 70% to 28% and gets rid of alot of goverment regulations. You talk about Reagan running up a 2 trillion dollar deficit, but you fail to add that 8 trillion dollars of new wealth that was created at the same time, also the fact that the dow was at 800 in 1982 and rose for 18 straight years to reach 10,000. The greatist economic growth since world war two. Just an interesting side, that the Reagan plan was a revamp of a plan President Kennedy put in place in the early 60s with similar results. Most people dont know that and if they do, they tend to leave it out. As for the downfall of the USSR, Reagans stratagy was twofold. First there were two exports that the soviet union had to support its economy, gold and oil. Reagan got the opec countries to raise oil production dropping oil prices and also reliveing the oil shortage in the USA. Then he got the South Africans to increase their production of gold to drop the world gold prices. I know this is where you go, see Reagan helped oppress black people, but at the time communisim was the greatist evil in the world, oppressing and killing more people than the South Africans ever did and it had to be taken care of first. Second he increased military spending until the USSR had to bankrupt there economy to keep up, thus speeding up the end.

Quote:7. Substantially weaken environmental protection laws. Then again, when you're so stupid that you really do believe that trees cause pollution, what do you expect?

And just to show who the real idiot is trees do cause pollution
:D

<a href='http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s804613.htm' target='_blank'>http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s804613.htm</a>

I've seen the Laffer Curve and that's exactly what it is - a Laugher. Why doesn't someone stick real numbers in it? Any idiot can draw up a curve sans data and try to argue it proves something.

MAKO Wrote:I've seen the Laffer Curve and that's exactly what it is - a Laugher. Why doesn't someone stick real numbers in it? Any idiot can draw up a curve sans data and try to argue it proves something.

I doubt Skipuno even knows what you are talking about.

MAKO Wrote:I've seen the Laffer Curve and that's exactly what it is - a Laugher.&nbsp; Why doesn't someone stick real numbers in it?&nbsp; Any idiot can draw up a curve sans data and try to argue it proves something.

why don't you do it then?

MAKO Wrote:I've seen the Laffer Curve and that's exactly what it is - a Laugher.&nbsp; Why doesn't someone stick real numbers in it?&nbsp; Any idiot can draw up a curve sans data and try to argue it proves something.

How can you stick numbers in a dynamic model? The theory holds when viewed in retrospective. Tax rates went down, federal revenues raised in taxes went up in the 1980s.

<a href='http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif' target='_blank'>Total Revenues 1980-1990</a>

The Laffer Curve (Supply Side Economics) has stood the test of time. It is very simliar to the Efficient Frontier model used in personal finance every day by financial counselors and you cnnot put "real numbers" into that. It is a picture used to represent a concept.