Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Reagan in perspective
Author Message
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #41
 
Regarding the list of Reagan's quotes up there... I'd have a tough time believing that many of those weren't said in jest (remember the ill-timed, "we will begin bombing in five minutes" quip?).

And I agree with T-Monay. I loved that quote.

Quote: Indeed, the federal debt increased 450% during his administration.

I’ll grant you that – primarily due to ballooning defense spending – the federal debt did go up. But using percentages is misleading for obvious reasons (base sizes distort the truemeaning).

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

I dislike sanctions, whether it’s against South Africa, Cuba, pre-war Iraq, or wherever. It shouldn’t be up to the federal government to decide with whom each of us, as individuals, should and should not be permitted to trade with.

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

I have yet to find one modern day president who hasn’t spent billions on the failed War on Drugs. There won’t be one Republican or Democrat that will roll the political dice on this one.

Quote: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.

Here's what I don’t understand... This may be true, but why would someone who stands firmly left-of-center list this under 'bad' accomplishments?

The one thing I really don't agree with some Republicans on is the whole "Bush is the new Reagan" nonsense.

Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush can't speak extemporaneously.

Reagan wrote all of his radio copy in the 70s and when President, he heavily edited what speeches he didn't write. Bush reads what is put in front of him, and that's about it.

Reagan, in what spare time he had as President, wrote countless letters to his pen pals/correspondents that he'd accumulated over the years - and he'd do it often in longhand. When Bush gets spare time, he sleeps.

Reagan set the bar high, talked tough and walked the walk, but at the same time engaged the US's mortal and moral enemies to try and turn them into something less inimical. Bush blusters at the world and tells them all to get in line because We're Right, You're Wrong.

Peace is a misunderstood process IMO. Too many Libertarians believe peace comes simply from pacifism. Too many neo-conservatives think peace comes from conquering other people. Both are wrong.

People have a tendency to kill each other. Any strategy of conflict is fundamentally based on reciprocity. When someone attacks, you have to respond, or else they will keep attacking till they kill you. Becoming a pacifist is a one-way ticket to the big libertopia in the sky. Conversely, when someone doesn't attack you, you leave them alone.

Often, a small token offering of cooperation can be the first step in reversing a succession of bilateral defections. Reagan avoided WWIII, not by laying down arms, but by signalling that the US was ready to reciprocate any aggression by the USSR, and also by reversing the trend of successful defections in the arms race by offering a token of cooperation first, all the while convincing his enemy that their system was broken.
06-14-2004 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #42
 
Motown Bronco Wrote:
Quote: Indeed, the federal debt increased 450% during his administration.

I’ll grant you that – primarily due to ballooning defense spending – the federal debt did go up. But using percentages is misleading for obvious reasons (base sizes distort the truemeaning).
Don't forget the big, big tax cuts for the wealthy.

I believe the base is entirely relevant. It shows Reagan took deficit spending to a whole new level.

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

I dislike sanctions, whether it’s against South Africa, Cuba, pre-war Iraq, or wherever. It shouldn’t be up to the federal government to decide with whom each of us, as individuals, should and should not be permitted to trade with.

I remain uncomfortable with Reagan's South Africa policy, even as I agree with your disdain for sanctions (in most cases -- not sure about prewar Iraq).

But I have to admit, I heard a quote on the radio last week from a South African -- either Mandela or Mbutu, I forget -- who points out that the Reagan administration was the first that moved away from the idea that the ANC was a Soviet or Cuban Communist trojan horse. That decision had huge implications for the ANC and subtly further isolated the white government -- even though Reagan did few, if any of the things liberals were calling for at the time.

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

I have yet to find one modern day president who hasn’t spent billions on the failed War on Drugs. There won’t be one Republican or Democrat that will roll the political dice on this one.

It is one thing to not have the cajones to roll back the War on Drugs.

It is another to have ramped it up.

In Reagan's defense (and I guess I'm feeling particularly charitable today), I'm not sure the War on Drugs had ever been tried in the way he tried it.

But still, that was Reagan. The war didn't work then and it isn't working now. It is fair to consider it part of his legacy.

Quote:Reagan set the bar high, talked tough and walked the walk,

Well, walking the walk goes a bit far. A sentence from a nicely-balanced Newsweek cover story on Reagan's death:

A fiece advocate of balanced budgets, he never proposed one.
06-14-2004 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:Don't forget the big, big tax cuts for the wealthy.
There you have it folks. Straight from the left. Schad, there's a reason the wealthy get tax cuts when it comes to tax decreases. Shall I tell you why? .....it MAY have something to do with the fact that they PAY most of the taxes.

Schad, gotta question for you, are you FOR higher corporate taxes? Ie. do you think corporations should pay more in taxes?
06-15-2004 03:23 AM
Quote this message in a reply
GrayBeard Offline
Whiny Troll
*

Posts: 33,012
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 880
I Root For: My Kids & ECU
Location: 523 Miles From ECU

Crappies
Post: #44
 
RebelKev Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:Don't forget the big, big tax cuts for the wealthy.
There you have it folks. Straight from the left. Schad, there's a reason the wealthy get tax cuts when it comes to tax decreases. Shall I tell you why? .....it MAY have something to do with the fact that they PAY most of the taxes.

Schad, gotta question for you, are you FOR higher corporate taxes? Ie. do you think corporations should pay more in taxes?
Here is a little chart with who paid the majority of Federal Income Taxes in 2001.

[Image: top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_in...geFile.jpg]

Darn those rich for picking up the tab for everyone else!
06-15-2004 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #45
 
RebelKev Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:Don't forget the big, big tax cuts for the wealthy.
There you have it folks. Straight from the left. Schad, there's a reason the wealthy get tax cuts when it comes to tax decreases. Shall I tell you why? .....it MAY have something to do with the fact that they PAY most of the taxes.

Schad, gotta question for you, are you FOR higher corporate taxes? Ie. do you think corporations should pay more in taxes?
Let me put it this way: I think corporations should pay *some* taxes.

Too many big corporations are exploiting loopholes and not paying their fair share.

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34787-2004May17.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May17.html</a>

As for Reagan...

Under Reagan, the top bracket -- the tax rate reserved for the nation's richest people -- fell from 70 percent to 28 percent.

No one else got a tax cut like that.
06-15-2004 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #46
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:As for Reagan...

Under Reagan, the top bracket -- the tax rate reserved for the nation's richest people -- fell from 70 percent to 28 percent.

No one else got a tax cut like that.
....and look how the economy grew. Schad, I've asked this many times, do you HONESTLY believe that corporations pay taxes? It's a simple principle, they are taxed, they incorporate it into the cost of their good and/or service therefore the consumer pays the tax. It IS as simple as that. It's the cost of operation. There is only one entity that pays taxes in the country, the individual. Taxing a corporation is only a ploy to garner votes by people that believe that "rich Amercians" are getting over on the system.
06-15-2004 07:28 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #47
 
RebelKev Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:As for Reagan...

Under Reagan, the top bracket -- the tax rate reserved for the nation's richest people -- fell from 70 percent to 28 percent.

No one else got a tax cut like that.
....and look how the economy grew.
In a previous thread (hell, maybe it was this one), you opined that neither Reagan nor Clinton had much to do with the success economy.

If that's your opinion (and it is quite reasonable), why your insistence that Reagan's tax cut (for the wealthy) sparked all that growth?

And where was the Clinton recession?

Quote: I've asked this many times, do you HONESTLY believe that corporations pay taxes?

Yep, I do.
06-15-2004 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RandyMc Offline
Reverend
*

Posts: 10,612
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 410
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Tiger Town
Post: #48
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:And where was the Clinton recession?
Do you not remember 1993? The economy was clearly out of the recession in 1992 by the time of the election (elections are lagging indicators) but then went into a funk (granted, not a recession) in 1993 (GDP-1st q-0.5%, 2nd q-2%, 3rd q-2.1%). This was due to Clinton's stated tax policy. President Clinton was even trying to argue in 1993 that the BOND rally was evidence that his policies were working. I almost drove into a tree when I heard him say that. Bonds rally when they expect little economic growth and resulting low interest rates. The GDP numbers rebounded by the end of the year because the markets realized that Congress was not going to pass his economic package intact. They took off in 1995 after the change in the Congressional leadership.
06-15-2004 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #49
 
RandyMc Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:And where was the Clinton recession?
Do you not remember 1993? The economy was clearly out of the recession in 1992 by the time of the election (elections are lagging indicators) but then went into a funk (granted, not a recession) in 1993 (GDP-1st q-0.5%, 2nd q-2%, 3rd q-2.1%). This was due to Clinton's stated tax policy. President Clinton was even trying to argue in 1993 that the BOND rally was evidence that his policies were working. I almost drove into a tree when I heard him say that. Bonds rally when they expect little economic growth and resulting low interest rates. The GDP numbers rebounded by the end of the year because the markets realized that Congress was not going to pass his economic package intact. They took off in 1995 after the change in the Congressional leadership.
:roflol:
06-16-2004 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:As for Reagan...

Under Reagan, the top bracket -- the tax rate reserved for the nation's richest people -- fell from 70 percent to 28 percent.

No one else got a tax cut like that.
....and look how the economy grew.
In a previous thread (hell, maybe it was this one), you opined that neither Reagan nor Clinton had much to do with the success economy.

If that's your opinion (and it is quite reasonable), why your insistence that Reagan's tax cut (for the wealthy) sparked all that growth?

And where was the Clinton recession?

Quote: I've asked this many times, do you HONESTLY believe that corporations pay taxes?

Yep, I do.
Here's the deal:

Tax Increases-Immediate reservation by consumers and investors


Tax Cuts-------Consumers and investors want to "feel" out the climate before they move.


Any questions? Talk to a stockbroker. Tax cuts---bad news. 9/11---Bad news. They are parallel in the way they affect stockbrokers and consumers. It's immediate. Tax cuts, well, people want to see how everything turns out. Not Economics 101, but sheer common sense.
06-18-2004 01:49 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.