Alot of people vote with their pocketbooks. "It's the economy, stupid!". There's a reason that was the catchphrase of the '92 campaign. Look I don't know how old you were then and don't care but I do know for a fact everybody I know had more money left in their pocket after the Reagan tax cuts. I also know it wasn't hard to find a job. There is no freakin way Reagan would have won by such a huge landslide idf people didn't agree with his policies and people wouldn't agree if they were out of work and still faced with 18% interest rates. Common sense will tell you some things young man.
Huge tax cuts didn't feed back into the economy the way the Reagan administration had hoped.
Huge tax cuts found their way to my pocket and alot of others. During the 80's factories were opening up, not shutting down and moving offshore. you can say "trickle down" didn't work all you want but people who had jobs and raising families back then know better. 49 out of 50 states went to Reagan, Jared. Get over it.
I know that Reagan won the election in 1984. And the economy was better in 1984 than 1980 (though remember...there was a big recession in 1982). But just because he won the election doesn't mean his trickle-down policies worked. Especially since the big tax cuts he initiated in 1981 were followed up by huge tax increases. These increases were because trickle-down didn't work. Again:
In September 1982, in its first effort to repair the damage, the Reagan administration followed the "largest tax cut in history" with the "largest tax increase in history." But there was no catching up. By the end of Reagan's first term, the supply-side logic was discredited in the eyes of many, and the inability to bring taxes and spending down together stood in marked contrast to Volcker's victory over inflation. David Stockman, Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the administration dejected, disillusioned with supply-side economics, and chastened by the realities of the political process.
Reagan did good in curbing inflation. But trickle-down didn't work. But it really doesn't make sense for me to present arguments and articles and facts that support the position to you, because your only argument is "49 out of 50 states". You don't address anything else. Nixon won 49 out of 50 states in 1972. Does that mean his policies were good for the country?
And what is up with "my leftist friends"? What do you know about my friends, or my beliefs for that matter? Schlessinger said that because he thinks it. But from the evidence I presented, it doesn't seem like it's true.
Let's see.......Jared fawns over gorby, thinks the contras are the devil, but thinks it was okay for the Shah to disposeof his enemies (so do I), thinks Reagan had little to do with ending the Cold War, thinks his tax cuts were not effective, thinks he knows more than 49 out of the 50 states who voted for his re-election. Now that hardly makes you right of center.
The point wasn't that my positions on some things aren't on "the left". The point is I try to think independently and weight the evidence on all issues. I don't fawn over Gorbachev, but I do have respect for him since he saw that continuing the Cold War and hard line communism was a bad thing. He opened up the Soviet Union. Am I supposed to hate him for it?
As for the Shah, he committed far fewer crimes than Somoza. And was much better than the dictators Reagan supported in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Afghanistan (as Reagan supported what would become the Taliban). Supporting the Shah wasn't the best thing for Carter...but I think it pales in comparison to Reagan's support of dictators.
The majority of the press? You say that from linking to one Newsmax article.
Put down the video game controller, Jared. Howard Kurtz is a journalist at the Washington Post. Arthur Sclessinger's quote can easily be verified (ever heard of Nexus?). And if you bother to pick up a paper and actually read it you'll see there's alot of libs giving Reagan his due. Wake up, kid!
First, you omit the part of my quote where I say "And in that article, only one person (A.S.) actually says that Reagan's increase in arms expenditures caused the collapse of the Soviet Union." My point wasn't that lots of people aren't saying that Reagan didn't do good things. My point is that lots of people aren't saying that Reagan's defense expenditure increases brought the fall of the USSR.
I've made lots of points giving Reagan credit. He was an excellent orator and the "Great Communicator" was an apt term for him. His hardline against the Soviet Union was smart (though the proxy wars in Central America and increase in expenditures wasn't). He helped bring down inflation after Carter, and made some good moves in bringing taxes down. And he was very popular, as attested by the 1984 election.
I didn't come into this to bash Reagan. I came to address things that people are repeating that many don't believe are true, and to bring a more balanced view of his administration (basically, there were negatives and positives to his administration).
Too many things that people are saying about Reagan are either not true, or VERY open to debate. Like some of the numbers you put out earlier regarding the Reagan legacy, and how Reagan was the most popular president ever at the end of his term (he wasn't), and that trickle-down economics definitely worked (very much up for debate), and that the increase in defense expenditures by Reagan led to the fall of the USSR (no evidence for it that you've presented in this thread, and none that I've found).
The Shah's enemies were Islamic fundamentalists. Carter didn't want Iran to be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists. The Shah used his police force to stop Islamic fundamentalists. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Hypocrisy is thy name, Jared. It's okay to use force to keep islamics away but bad to use force to keep communists away. You castigate reagan for giving aid to the Contras and give excuses for Carter ROTFLMAO
Because they're different situations. If the Shah had killed tens of thousands and turned his people against him, then I'd say Carter shouldn't support him either. And maybe he did....if so, then Carter shouldn't have supported him. I don't see how this is hypocritical.
I'm not against tax cuts. I'm against disproportionate tax cuts for the rich, as they don't do a good job of stimulating the economy.
Class envy. I remember a 'luxury tax" put on yachts a few years ago. What happened is rich people stopped buying them and the workers who built the freakin' things were in the unemployment line rather quickly. Well at least they stuck it to those rich guys though
Hey don't see nobody on the left willing to give their money back. And they shouldn't. they earned it.
You've got stories about luxury taxes on yachts. But do you have any numbers behind this? How many jobs were lost? How many people were hurt by this?
Also, how many people are employed in building luxury yachts? Now how many are employed building things like cars, which the lower and middle class are more likely to buy? A lot more. Give a tax cut to the middle and lower class, and they're going to put money in bigger industries and they'll hire more people.
First, you need to NOT take my words out of context. This is what I said:
Quote:
While we're at it, his support of far-right thugs in Central America cost these nations hundreds of thousands of lives.
what's the freakin' difference? "right wing thug", "far right thug", you still stereotyping and bawling about stereotyping at the same time! lol
That wasn't the point. The point is that murderous dictators are "right wing thugs" or "far right thugs" or anything like that. Are you saying that they weren't on the right? Are you saying that they weren't thugs? If you lead death squads, you're a thug in my book.
The point is the majority of the press, while liberal are singing a different tune about Reagan than your "experts", "pie charts", and "links".
I'm not saying Reagan didn't have some good policies. I'm taking issue on specific things.
The majority of the press? You say that from linking to one Newsmax article. And in that article, only one person (A.S.) actually says that Reagan's increase in arms expenditures caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
You know I would think Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post would know a little more about this than Comrade Jared! as for the quotes in the newsmax article they can easily be verified. Nexus. Look into it. the LA Times quotes are in their freakin paper.
read Jared!
First, I'm not saying the quotes aren't legit. I'm saying that only one addresses the issue of increased defense expenditures and how they led to the fall of the USSR. Show me two that say that.
Also, did Kurtz say that Reagan's increase in arms expenditures caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Find it in the article that you linked. It's not there. Actually, here's a quote from that article...doesn't sound like fawning:
He took a pounding in the press after his first tax cut when a deep recession pushed unemployment to 10 percent and drowned the budget in red ink.
He was widely portrayed as uninformed and uninterested in details, the man who said trees cause pollution and once failed to recognize his own housing secretary.
He was often described as lazy, "just an actor," a man who'd rather be clearing brush at his California ranch and loved a good midday nap.
His 1983 invasion of Grenada was not universally applauded -- especially after his spokesman told the press the day before that the idea was "preposterous" -- and his withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon after 241 were killed in a bombing brought blistering editorials.
He was often depicted as a rich man's president with little feeling for the poor, as symbolized by the administration's "ketchup is a vegetable" school lunch debacle. Detractors said he was presiding over the "greed decade."
During the 1984 campaign, Reagan stood in front of a senior citizens' project built under a program he tried to kill -- but his aides didn't care, concluding that the pictures were more important than the reporters' contrary words.
Journalists had a field day digging into administration corruption. Senior officials in the Environmental Protection Agency and Housing and Urban Development Department, along with ex-White House aide Michael Deaver and national security adviser Robert McFarlane, were convicted of various offenses. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted but later pardoned by the first President Bush.
Reagan's siding with the Nicaraguan rebels was enormously divisive, and negative coverage of the Iran-contra scandal devoured much of his second term. "Crisis Blemishing President's Hands-Off Style," said a 1986 Washington Post article by Lou Cannon, Reagan's biographer.
Now I don't know much about the Iranian revolution. IF the reason the Islamic fundamentalists revolted against the Shah was because of his iron rule, then we probably shouldn't support him (or just say we won't support them unless they change those tactics....strong arm tactics by a government almost always turn the people against it). IF they revolted for other reasons, then we should have supported the Shah
You mean this whole time you've been discussing stuff you were too young to know about? Well at least you have Gorby's wisdom and those vaunted pie charts!
Actually, I bothered to learn the history about this stuff and think about it. If I can't find information on something, I admit it.
But to sum up:
Reagan was a popular president. Reagan did some good things. However, there are some points that people bring up that are either up for debate or not true. I tried to address these here with facts that can be discussed. But instead, I got suckered in by a troll that's not willing to address actual points that I bring up (mocking "pie charts" and "experts" doesn't count), and takes some of the points I do make out of context. I'm more than willing to have an intelligent discussion about Reagan (thanks Leebo), because things like trickle-down economics and Reagan's involvement in Central America and other Reagan policies should be discussed intelligently.
Unfortunately, this isn't it. So I'll let blue get the last word in, and then I'm locking the post. If someone wants to have an intelligent discussion of these things, feel free to start another post. (And if someone disagrees with me for locking this post or thinks that blue hasn't been a troll, then post here, in another thread, or e-mail me...I'm more than happy to consider other opinions on this.)
