# Reflecting on Reagan



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

Now that the period of mourning is over, it is now appropriate to reflect on the Reagan presidency.

From a personal perspective, I can say without a doubt that his administration rejuvenated the military following the Vietnam war.  In many ways I think the country healed from that debacle under his leadership.  He was a likeable and funny man.

That said, there were problems.

The size of the government increased on Reagan's watch...inspite of his open admonitions against big government.  Sixty percent of government growth since 1980 has occured under the administrations of Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43.  Government is bigger, inspite of the fact that Republican presidents have reigned for 16 of the last 24 years.

Deficit spending, and the national debt, have traditionally gone up under Republican presidents.  This has led many to question the reputed "fiscal responsibility" of the GOP, including Senator John McCain.  Reference this link to see the up and down nature of expenditures under Republicans and Democrats.  Deficit spending and national debt always go up under the Republicans, down with the Democrats.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

I can not verify all of the followingbut what Ive found so far is below, and throw it out for debate.  

Things that happened under Reagan:

THE ECONOMY.

On his watch, our national debt increased faster than growth of national income and GDP in eight years. The deficit doubled and our national debt almost tripled.

Spending increased by almost 80 percent.  More money was spent by the government during his eight years in office than was spent by the government in the prior fifty years.

Interest rates shot through the roof.  Real interest rates stood at 8%, and prime interest rates reached 20%.  Home loan interest rates got as high as 16%.  (I remember these rates...I financed my first car at this time)

On his watch, unemployment hit a whopping 10.8%...the highest since the Depression.

Under Reagan, there were more farm foreclosures, bank failures, Savings and Loan failures, and personal bankruptcies than under any other President.

During his administration the largest one day percentage decline in DOW history took place, October 19 of 1987.  I remember this clearly, too, as I was sitting in my brokers office at the time.  This was an interesting place to be given this historic event.

As California Governor on a conservative platform he increased spending by 112%. He increased personal income taxes by 60%, a tax increase on cigarettes by 200%, state tax collections by 152%.  He gutted Californias mental health programs, thereby placing thousands of people with mental health problems on the street.

SCANDALS.

Because of the Iran/Contra scandal, more members of his administration (over 100) were charged with crimes than the sum total of all other members of all other presidents in the 20th century.  An assistant Secretary of State was indicted, and an assistant Secretary of Defense was sent to prison.

During the Iran/Contra investigations he testified under oath 130 times, "I don't remember."  This may or may not be significant as a sign of his approaching Alzheimers disease, as retired Admiral John Poindexter made the same claim 128 times under oath.

Medal of Honor winner Charlie Liteky, a former Army chaplain who saved 20 soldiers in Viet Nam, returned his medal in open protest after hearing Reagan state I am a Contra too.  The Contras, a Nicaraguan rebel group, were among a number of U.S. supported Central American right wing organizations that have reportedly killed thousands of men, women and children.   

FOREIGN POLICY

Under Reagan arms were sold to both Iran and Iraq.  We openly traded to Iraq, secretly to Iran.

Reagan supported the Apartheid government of South Africa, and labeled Nelson Mandelas ANC a terrorist organization.  When Congress voted to level sanctions against South Africa's regime, Reagan vetoed the bill.

MENTAL COMPETENCY.

Once his wife sat nearby and whispered answers to questions.  This was, unfortunately, picked up by the microphone.  This I can verify.  Ive seen the clip.

He fell asleep while the Pope spoke.  He also invited the Pope to visit the White House and told him to Bring the wife and kids.   While this may reflect the Presidents sense of humor, rather than a mental decline, it is at the very least in poor taste if this was an attempt at a joke.

Once his press secretary removed him from the microphone because he could not answer questions. Then, as the reporter yelled out  answer my question he replied  My handlers won't let me speak.  He'd keep a staff member nearby to tell the press what "he really meant".

He never had a press conference where he didn't make at least one incorrect statement.  He made more recorded misstatements than any other President to date.

A Special Assistant said on national TV  sometimes you had to hit him on the head with a 2 x 4 to get his attention 

His official biographer state on national TV  After he was shot in 1981 he got slower and slower each year. His speech got slower.  He deliberated more and he hesitated more when he spoke. He lost his physical quickness and would not make decisions on the spot. It was a very, very slow and steady mental and physical decline. 

Those of us who remember his service can recall a distinct decline in his performance during his second term versus his first.  When his Alzheimers diagnosis was released, many of us were not surprised.

GAFFES

His administration tried to classify ketchup and relish as vegetables for school lunch programs.

Reagan stated that trees were the number one polluter of the environment.


TRADITIONAL VALUES.

He was the first president to have been divorced, and was openly alienated from his children.  His second wife, Nancy, was pregnant with their daughter Patti when he married her.

He was a "shill" in Las Vegas many years ago.  If you don't know what a "shill" is, Google it.

Though he promoted his religious faith, he never had an active church membership during his tenure.  He used an astrologer while in office, however.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 14, 2004)

Thank you Hardhead for that recap and analysis. 

Reagan was a human being and President of the US.  He had people who loved him, and he died of a terrible disease.  For that, we should feel for him.  But he was a bad President, and we should not let the memorial events of the past week allow us to lose our sense of history.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 14, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Thank you Hardhead for that recap and analysis.
> 
> Reagan was a human being and President of the US. He had people who loved him, and he died of a terrible disease. For that, we should feel for him. But he was a bad President, and we should not let the memorial events of the past week allow us to lose our sense of history.


Yeah, ending the cold war with diplomacy instead of blood shed was the worst.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 14, 2004)

Wow. They're getting better.

Let just blame him for "That increased our arrogance and insularity, left us in charge of the world and to blame for everything, paving the road to 9/11."

..as that clown Ted Rall just did.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 14, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Thank you Hardhead for that recap and analysis.
> 
> Reagan was a human being and President of the US.  He had people who loved him, and he died of a terrible disease.  For that, we should feel for him.  But he was a bad President, and we should not let the memorial events of the past week allow us to lose our sense of history.



There is a sure fire cure for that, pervert poffers die.


----------



## Ender (Jun 14, 2004)

well let's set the record straight before we go into these wild Reagan Bashing posts.

BEFORE Reagan got into office:

 In 1980, Inflation was around 18%. Interest rates were about 21%, and the unemployment rate was at 12%. There were 11 dictators in central america. The savings and loans were at the brink of bankruptcy, there were about 25,000 Soviet Nuclear warheads aimed at us to  be launched at any given time, and AIDS was just starting out.

When Reagan left office inflation fell to 9%, Interest rates had come down to about 12% and the Unemployment rate was at 5.6% (5% in considered full employment). Coincindently, 5.6% was the same unemployment rate for the economy in 1995 when Clinton was running on a robust economy. Finally, today there is only 1 dictator in central america because of the continued policy left over from the Reagan Administration.

Because if the high inflation, Savings and Loan were hurting in a big way. People were no longer saving because the banks could only pay 4-6% interest on passbook accounts (under federal law) while Certificates of Deposits (the first CD's) were paying up to around 16%. Who would put money into savings accounts then? The other problem is that S&L loans account for approximately 30-40% of all home loans. Without them, homeownership would be greatly reduced, especially at the lower economic end of the spectrum. Rich people would still be able to afford homes even if they had to pay higher rates.The Administration had to take action or face a huge problem later on. The strategy was two fold: 1, allow S&L's to pay out greater dividends to replenish and encourage savings so they could continue to loan out money for home loans, and 2, allow the S&L's to invest in the stock market. This strategy proved to be a success except for a few who misused the new privileges and caused several S&L failures. the actual number was .1% of all S&L's were involved in the scandal.

The deficits were caused by 3 reasons. 1. The government lost revenues because of lower inflation rates. Taxes are based on percentages and with wages and earnings not rising as fast as they once did, there would be a smaller amount flowing into the government coffers. 2. The defense spending increase and 3. the refusal of congress to cut spending on social programs 
The tax cuts are usually blamed for the deficits by most liberals, but the fact is, tax revenues INCREASE money going into the government. We can go into that discussion later. Tax cuts are now standard economic practices and are taught in just about every economics class. Reagan presided over the largest economic expansion in history. this expansion included MANUFACTURING, and not the speculative expansion that Clinton presided over. This is a HUGE difference, and one of the reasons Reagan won 49 states in his re-election.

Aids was discovered in 1984 by Dr. Robert Gallo as head of a team of doctors for the National Cancer Institute. The Reagan Administration budgeted $6 millions dollars to keep the research going. When He left office, the Administration spent $8 BILLION on Aids research that produced the first treatments to fight this disease. So the notion thet He didn't do anything to fight aids is just simply wrong.

The last thing I want to point out is the fall of the Soviet Empire. We were primarly in a pissing contest with the Soviets. They had steadily increased military spending while we we cutting back. Reagan upped the ante by increasing defense spending, knowing the Soviets would be hard pressed to keep up. He then did basically what Bill Gates did. He sold the Soviets on the Star Wars (SDI) bluff, when he had nothing. There was no technology at that time that he could point to and say, this is our new weapon. (I did work on two different SDI prototype versions, and BTW, we do have the technolgy now). But he followed up with projects to develop this weapon and that was the breaking point of the Soviets. Their economy was at a 35% efficiency rate and there was no way they would be able to spend the money to develop their own version. Gorbachav knew this and tried to open up the Soviet economy to to a more capitalistic approach, but it got away from him. Freedom has a tendency to do that. So basically, we outspent them into their collapse. The threat of nuclear annihilation has subsided to maybe 100 nukes pointed at us instead of 25,000. Couple that with maybe 1-2 nuclear threat from a terrorists, we can see we are much safer now. Although we still have to be vigilante.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

Good riposte, Ender.

For the deficit you list the second causal reason as being increased defense spending...and later point out we outspent the Soviets.  This was Reagan's doing, yet some argue that the "Evil Empire" would have collapsed of its own weight and that such spending was not needed.  On the other hand, I can state with confidence that when he entered office our military was unprepared to go toe to toe in a conventional war with the Soviet Union.  His efforts, as I aknowledged earlier, changed that.  I served back then, and our gear and training was crap.  Within ten years it was first rate.

Insofar as Congress refusing to cut social programs...can we blame them, given the unemployment rate at the time?  I doubt too many Republican congressmen were keen on doing that given the needs of their constituents.  When Newt Gingrich called for military cutbacks and base closings and cuts in social programs a large number of Republicans told him to shove it.   It sounds great to do all of those things until you realize that cutting services gets you thrown out of office.    For an excellent analysis of the complexity of this political process, you might check the book "Tell Newt To Shut Up" by David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf.

Insofar as AIDS, Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon says that Reagan's response was halting and ineffective.  Reagan never even mentioned it in a speech until 1987.  Here is a somewhat damning expose that takes the wind out of the sails of your argument that the administration did anything meaningful insofar as this disease.

http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

Here's yet another one:

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Jan2004/bronski0104.html

The above article has a wealth of information concerning Reagan's negligence and includes this horrific story:

_The most memorable Reagan AIDS moment was at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty. The Reagan&#8217;s were there sitting next to the French Prime Minister and his wife, Francois and Danielle Mitterrand. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners, Hope quipped, &#8220;I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn&#8217;t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.&#8221; As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterrands looked appalled. The Reagans were laughing. By the end of 1989, 115,786 women and men had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States&#8212;more then 70,000 of them had died._ 


As far as Jeff Beish's comments, I'll let them slide.  He can ignore the children worldwide that have contracted this disease through no fault of their own...I elect not to.  Two of the five people I know who have HIV are children and hardly perverts.  Of the remaining three, all adult and all dead, two were Gay and the other was a heterosexual. 

This latter man's child and her mother both contracted the disease from him.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 14, 2004)

I have to laugh when I hear that the economy now is the worst since the Great depression.  Because I grew up at the tail end of that period and forward I can say without qualification that the worst economy, and general moral of our country, was the one that Ronald Reagan took over as President.  But there must be those here who were born yesterday and did not live through that ridiculous 1976  1980 period.  Yeah, I was also in SAC.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

Jeff, I don't believe anybody here stated that this economy is the worst since the Depression.  I certainly don't think so.  Further, the thread is about Reagan and his tenure, not the current economy.  If you want to start a thread on the current economy, do so.  I'll jump in.

You are correct that the morale of the country was low from 1976-1980.  It was probably lower in the late sixties and early seventies...but you're on the mark.  

It was a bad time back then.  We had just ousted President Nixon following the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War.  Our embassy to Iran had been taken over and Americans were taken hostage.  A botched raid failed to rescue them and this embarrassed us badly and further shook our confidence in our military. The economy sucked.  Crime rates were high. We had a growing drug problem.  We had gas shortages.  Songs like "Muskrat Love" and "Billy Don't Be a Hero" made the charts and lingered there like a broccoli fart in an elevator.  People wore lime green polyester leisure suits and flared pants.  Elvis was fat.

Back to Reagan, then?

Reagan stated this during his first Inaugural address:

"It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people."

It didn't happen.

Let me contrast some figures from Reaganomics and good old Big Government Bill Clinton's stats as President.

The Federal workforce _increased_ from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan.  Contrast this to Clinton, who shrank it from 2.9 million to 2.68 million.

Federal spending, as a share of GDP, shrank under Reagan a whopping one percent from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent.  Under Clinton it shrank from 21.4 percent to 18.3 percent.

Some Reagan apologists would point out that marginal tax rates went down under his tenure.   Yet those marginal rate reductions that took place in 1986 were spearheaded by Senator Bill Bradley (D) in a response to public outrage that Reagan's earlier tax cuts had left wealthier Americans and profitable corporations paying little or no taxes at all.

Another Reagan quote from his first inauguration speech:

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. 

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"

The hypocrisy here is noteworthy, given the massive increase in deficit spending on his watch.  We were able to recover from it, as our "Baby Boomers" were in their peak earning years and able to help the nation get out of debt.  They are aging and retiring, however, and not in a position to do that again should the need arise.  

To quote Dick Cheney, "Reagan taught us that deficts don't matter."  But that refers to our present crisis, which I promised not to do in this thread.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 14, 2004)

Can you say "Iran-Contra"?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Can you say "Iran-Contra"?




I referenced indirectly in the first post.  Who wants to run with that one?

Permit me this observation on White House scandals.

I find it interesting...and infuritating... that Nixon wasn't tried for his role in Watergate (in fact was "pardoned" by Ford before he was tried). Reagan didn't get impeached for Iran-Contra.  Bush the elder didn't get impeached for his role in Iran-Contra, either.  Both Watergate and Iran-Contra are perfect examples of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Yet we spend millions of dollars in order to impeach a President for saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."   We get totally wrapped around the flywheel about oral sex with an intern.*  At the time Ken Starr openly indicated that he had no impeachable material with which to indict the Clinton regarding the Whitewater investigation.  So he went after the sex issue.

No pun intended, but that just blows me away.




Regards,


Steve

*Subsequent investigations find no fault on the part of Hillary or Bill Clinton nor any wrongdoing on their part in the Whitewater investigation...and it makes page six of the paper.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 14, 2004)

"'My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific.'

George W. Bush, who apparently forgot about a little something called World War II, Tokyo, Feb. 18, 2002"

Sorry Hard One:  The current administration deserves a whole new thread to itself!!!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

Phoenix, that is my signature.  I put it at the bottom of all my posts and many of my e-mails.  It is one of the many idiotic "Bushisms" I make every effort to draw the public's attention to...but it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I'd be more than happy to start a thread on "Dubya".  But here we're talking about Reagan.  

Who wants to start on Iran-Contra?  Anyone?  Anyone?  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 15, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Phoenix, that is my signature. I put it at the bottom of all my posts and many of my e-mails.


I know.  I love it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2004)

Ah, I see.  Glad you liked it, Phoenix.

Is there no one to open up on Iran-Contra when reflecting on Reagan and his qualities as President?

I'll start...and give a little background.  Researching this was enlightening.

-----

Reagan's administration illegally funded the Nicaraguan resistance movement by selling arms to Iran.  The United States Congress had previously prohibited the sale of arms to Iran.  Funding the Contras and selling arms to Iran was also in violation of UN sanctions.  

At the time Iran was (and still is) supporting terrorism targeting the West.  The sale was seen as a means of appeasement of a country that had earlier  stormed the U.S. embassy and taken Americans hostage for 444 days.  They had financed a 1983 suicide bombing that killed 241 Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

In June of 1985 Reagan said "Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists -- ".  Iran had been labled by Reagan in July of 1985 as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" that had committed acts of war on the United States.  He declared Iran to be an enemy of the U.S.  

39 days later his aides were illegally selling arms to Iran.

The Contras were a right wing resistance movement pledged to overthrow the Sandanista government, the latter a democratically elected leftist government in Nicaragua.  Independent Western observers determined that the elections putting the Sandanistas in power had been fair and free, with six opposing parties winning over a third of the seats in the legislature.  Reagan's administration determined, however, that the Sandanistas were puppets of Cuba and the Soviet Union.

The Contras trafficked in drugs and arms in order to fund their efforts against the Sandanistas.  The drug trafficking was known to Lt. Colonel Oliver North, who was implicated in the scandal.  North did not make this information available to the DEA.  There is some evidence that the CIA might have been directly involved in this drug trafficking.

The Reagan government, in direct violation of the 1982-83 Boland Amendment, ferried funds and weaponry to the Contras that were gleaned from the illegal sale of TOW missles to Iran.  The CIA provided training to the Contras as well.

Reagan's personal diary stated "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran," in a January 1, 1986 entry.  He later claimed he had not been informed of the operation.

On November 18, 1987, Congress issued a report stating that President Reagan bore ultimate responsibility for the actions of the aides that carried out the arms sale, and that his administration exhibited "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law."

The International Court of Justice (the World Court) found the U.S. culpable in the affair and demanded that we pay restitution.  We refused and subsequently vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all countries to observe international law.  The United Nations General Assembly pressured the U.S. to pay by passing a resolution...Israel and El Salvador were the only two countries to side with the U.S. against the resolution.

The fine has yet to be paid.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/




Regards,


Steve


----------



## qizmoduis (Jun 15, 2004)

Why are you blaming Reagan for all this?  Shouldn't the focus of your attention be on the true architect of Reagan's presidential policies: his and Nancy's astrologer?


----------



## Ender (Jun 15, 2004)

HHJH

I'm impressed...someone I can finally have a decent discussion with and who uses SOME logic...*L

Anyway, Reagan did run on a platform of less government with the intention of dismantling the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy. I would agree with both of these moves. As our educational system has moved towards greater federal control, it has increasingly failed. Our schools were better when they were under the local control of their municipalities. And what does the Dept of Energy really do?  Farm subsidies should be abolished too now that we have become more globalized. I think any farmer can now sell their crops on the global market without the need of protection from the government. Reagan did intend to reduce the size of the government but he did SLOW DOWN the rate of growth even though he couldn't reverse the tend. Clinton HAD to reduce the size of the government because of the deficits. Many say this was a smart strategy on the part of Bush to dump it on Clinton. This way there would be no increases on pork barrel and domestic spending.

As far as Iran-contra goes, I think the intent was noble to help the contras overthrown the dictators down in Central America. Many were claiming that he was carrying on a secret war. but in reality these things happen all the time under every president. Clinton was fighting a secret war in Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru in the fight against drugs. Nixon got into Laos, I don't see much diference. Carter essentially traded "Arms for Peace" when he gave Israel and Egypt Tanks, Planes and munitions. Basically he said "play nice with each other and we will give you weapons". So no president will ever be impeached for these activities because they relate to national security.

And the real story behind Iran-contra was we had been sending arms to Iran for quite some time. But the problem was when they wanted the high speed surface to air missles (Sparrow misslies I beleive) and we sent them low speed air to ground missiles (Penguin missiles). Either someone messed up the order, or they intentionally tried to rip off the Ayatollah. Either way he got pissed and broke the story public.

Reagan was never an Aids activst and really, we were still trying to get a handle on the problem and the disease. All he really could do was allocate more money for research. Which is what he did. As far as the joke was concerned, thats just really reaching, hearing a joke, laughing and trying to tie it to 70,000 people dying is just ludicrous, if not just tacky.

And personally I voted for Jimmy Carter. I think he was an honest, caring, compassionate individual and probably the smartest president we ever had (he was a nuclear engineer). But he was not a leader, and he got too deep into the details of things. Someone at that level, be it a corporation,a country or any large organization, cannot know all the details going on at any given time, and he tried to. And I agreed with his policy of the price freeze on oil during the embargo, he wanted to make sure the poor would still have access to gasoline and heating oil. But it was the wrong move. Price controls and freezes only drive up demand because people then fear the better get all they can while the price is low. Nixon and Ford tried the same thing but with no success. I know the standard line from the left is that we had inflation because of shock to the economy from oil prices. But really Carter blew it. Japan and Germany, at that time, imported 95-99% of their oil from the middle east. They let the market dictate the price of the oil and it went up to $4/litre. But their inflation rates stayed at 7 and 9% respectively, while ours soraed to 18%. So in a nutshell, this is what made Reagan's approach so different. It was a pardigm shift for the US. Keep the goverment out of the market as much as possible. Put the money in the hands of the people.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

You might want to look at Lawrence Walsh's--the Special Prosecutor--final report. It is at:

http.//fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh

Here's a lovely tidbit:

"The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities."

Just incidentally, the Nicaraguan government (those racist bastards, by the way) was democratically elected. But then so was Allende's Chilean government, and we conspired to overthrow that, too.

Good thing we impeached Bill Clinton, ain't it.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 15, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> And personally I voted for Jimmy Carter. I think he was an honest, caring, compassionate individual and probably the smartest president we ever had (he was a nuclear engineer). But he was not a leader, and he got too deep into the details of things. Someone at that level, be it a corporation,a country or any large organization, cannot know all the details going on at any given time, and he tried to. And I agreed with his policy of the price freeze on oil during the embargo, he wanted to make sure the poor would still have access to gasoline and heating oil. But it was the wrong move. Price controls and freezes only drive up demand because people then fear the better get all they can while the price is low. Nixon and Ford tried the same thing but with no success. I know the standard line from the left is that we had inflation because of shock to the economy from oil prices. But really Carter blew it. Japan and Germany, at that time, imported 95-99% of their oil from the middle east. They let the market dictate the price of the oil and it went up to $4/litre. But their inflation rates stayed at 7 and 9% respectively, while ours soraed to 18%. So in a nutshell, this is what made Reagan's approach so different. It was a pardigm shift for the US. Keep the goverment out of the market as much as possible. Put the money in the hands of the people.


Thanks for bringing this point up.  I thought Reagan was a good president, I think Carter is a VERY decent and moral man with more character than most Presidents we have had.  I mourned Reagan, I will mourn Carter when he passes.  His post Presidency work is a testimony to why and how he made decisions while in the office...


----------



## Ender (Jun 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Thanks for bringing this point up.  I thought Reagan was a good president, I think Carter is a VERY decent and moral man with more character than most Presidents we have had.  I mourned Reagan, I will mourn Carter when he passes.  His post Presidency work is a testimony to why and how he made decisions while in the office...



Carter's post presidency work is admirable as long as he stays out of politics. He tends to muck things up there. He's the one that brokered the deal in which we send North Korea technology to build a nuclear reactor on the promise they would not build weapons. He sold Clinton on the idea that they needed the technology to feed their population. Again, good intentions by the man, but not a real good solution to the problem. He needs to stay focused on issues that can be less damaging if they go wrong.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> As far as Iran-contra goes, I think the intent was noble to help the contras overthrown the dictators down in Central America. Many were claiming that he was carrying on a secret war. but in reality these things happen all the time under every president. <snip>
> 
> And the real story behind Iran-contra was we had been sending arms to Iran for quite some time. But the problem was when they wanted the high speed surface to air missles (Sparrow misslies I beleive) and we sent them low speed air to ground missiles (Penguin missiles). <snip>



Ender,

I agree with your attitudes towards farm subsidies.

Insofar as the Iran-Contra scandal, however, I have to disagree strongly.

*1.*    The Sandanista government wasn't a dictatorship as you claim.  As I pointed out it was a democratically elected government.  The Sandanistas (FSLN) overthrew the Somoza dictatorship (and this WAS a dictatorship) in July of 1979.  They immediately instituted a policy of mass immunizations and education aimed at reversing the high illiteracy rates.

A legitimate general election held in 1984 confirmed their rule, with the FSLN capturing 67 percent of the vote.  As noted earlier, six other parties ran for office and captured over a third of the seats in the legislature.  Given this fact and that western observers noted this was a fairly run election, it is doubtful the FSLN was a "dictatorship."  Since then Daniel Ortega, head of the FSLN has run twice for office and been defeated.  Dictators don't get defeated in elections...they seize and maintain power through force.

Following the election the U.S. instituted a trade embargo that put a stranglehold on the country for five years.  According to the International Court of Justice, the U.S. mined Nicaragua's harbors at this time as well.

*2.*  The U.S. had sold arms to Iran when they were under the thumb of the Shah Reza Pahlavi.  Our previous legal and above board sale of arms to them in no way validates the Reagan administration's highly illegal sale of arms to the Islamic revolutionaries who ousted the Shah.  This act violated the Boland amendment which was passed by Congress in 1983 and signed by Ronald Reagan himself.

*3.*    The missles in question were TOW anti-tank missiles.  18 Hawk surface to air missles were brokered by Israel as part of the deal.  No Penguin missiles or Sparrows were involved.

*4.*    That Presidents carry on "secret wars" and have for some time also does not validate the actions of the Reagan administration, which were in direct violation of an act passed by Congress (as I've indicated).  

*5.*   In addition to being a crime, the act was grossly hypocritical given Reagan's flag-waving condemnation of the Iranians for their murder of 241 American Marines in Beirut...and then he illegally sells weapons to them just over a month later.  

This act betrayed those Marines and their families, and danged if it didn't give aid and comfort to the enemy.


There is a word for this:  Treason.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Jun 15, 2004)

HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE? I mean, COME ON. If I said I set fire to a building in a journal entry, _one of the most personal forms of expression_, and that text was found by the police, but I then said I didn't do it, I'd be a convicted felon. Why was it any different for the President? It's the same as under the current admin.


Cheers,
Patrick
:idunno: 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 15, 2004)

I was a kid when Reagan was President.  I remember the Iran-Contra hearings.  I had to learn most of the facts of the matter later, as I all I saw on the news was the President saying over and over, in his totally sincere, Holloywood manner, "I don't recall."

For some it may be Nixon, but for me and my cohort it was seeing the President lie about, as I found out later, helping to destroy an elected government and install a dictator, that made me think all politicians lie.  And of course they do.  But I was far more horrified about that kind of lie than Clinton lying about screwing around with Lewinsky.  I felt badly for his wife to find out about it on TV, but hey, it's their business.

It seems that Reagan was genuinely loved by his wife (very much), and his close friends.  But I remember the President who said ridiculous things about trees polluting (as I was learning about photosynthesis in school), and who's concept of economics seemed ridiculous to me.  "Trickle down economics, my ***."  (There's a double entendre in there somewhere!)

Of course we should show former Presidents respect when they pass away.  But I am growing increasingly tired and frustruated with attempts to virtually cannonize the man.  Present government aside, I found little to like about his terms in office.


----------



## Ender (Jun 15, 2004)

The Sandanista government was only a democratically elected government in name only. No one could actually believe there were true democratic principles in any way, shape or form. It was election held at gunpoint, that hardly qualifies.

Actually there were Penquin and Sparrow misslies involved. You have to read the trade papers of that time and piece it together to get the real story. But Iran perceived it as a double cross and went public. I remember reading the article in Janes and them showing the differences between the two weapons, and the huge deployment differences. I was on the B-2 project at the time and there were some concerns about the electronic warfare defenses being able to cope with the latest surface to air weaponry. But thats all I can say right now. The stories in the papers hardly revealed the whole truth about what was going on.

And no, treason is when terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, The first WTC Attack and the attack on the US Embassies in Africa go unanswered. When President Clinton peddles influence to the Chinese government in exchange for contributions to the Democratic party. When President Clinton uses FBI files against citizens of the US to seek revenge on them. When he peddles the Lincoln Bedroom for financial gain. When he gains financially from insider information in the stock market....THAT is treason.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

Ah. So Lawrence Walsh and the special prosecutor's office report had it totally wrong. They said 1000 TOW missiles, and that the Iranians returned the 17 HAWKs, though, not the assorted other spare parts. 

I'm just curious exactly how it is that you justify having the President and a group of clowns like Ollie North break the law, violate the express intents of the Congress of the United States of America (sorry, but we're a representative democracy...aren't we supposed to...you know...follow the law?), sell arms to an avowed enemy of this country, use the proceeds to finance death squads, and then lie about it to save their asses?

As for the elections in Nicaragua during the 1970s, glad to see the same old same old argument. 

"1984: Sandinistas claim election victory
Nicaragua's ruling Sandinista Front (FSLN) has claimed a decisive victory in the country's first elections since the revolution five years ago. 

Within hours of the count beginning, the leader of the country's left-wing junta, Daniel Ortega, said he had gained nearly 70% of the vote in the presidential election. 

Mr Ortega said his party won a similar share of the vote in the parliamentary election. 

Mr Ortega said: "We can already say that the FSLN is the clear winner of these elections by an ample majority." 

The Sandinistas' nearest rivals have so far polled just 11% of the vote but Nicaragua's leading right-wing parties boycotted the ballots. 

Turnout was high with an estimated 83% of the country's 1.5 million-strong electorate casting a vote. 

Foreign observers 

The Sandinistas have been at pains to convince the outside world, especially the US, that the elections were free and fair. 

Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings. 

The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair. 

In 1979 the Sandinistas - named after an assassinated former leader of Nicaragua - ousted long-time dictator Anastasio Somoza. 

The Sandinistas have been at odds with the US ever since, especially since the superpower began assisting the party's main opponents, the Contras. 

The Contras, based in neighbouring Honduras, are engaged in a guerrilla war aimed at ousting the Sandinista Front."

This is from the BBC, which goes on to note that the Sandinista government lost in the 1990 elections to the Chamorro government, which had very different politics--some Commie dictatorship. 

I see that you didn't want to mention the Allende government, nor the US-backed coup. Or the Mossadegh government, and the US-backed coup.

Well, I wouldn't either. 

Again, let me recommed Twain: "To the People Sitting In Darkness."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

Ah. Bill Clinton, Satan Incarnate.

Treason's a mighty big word. 

Would it apply to speaking in support of Hitler? Charles Lindbergh did that.

How 'bout selling secret technology to Russia and Japan? US corporations have done that, repeatedly.

Oh wait--knowingly and deliberately lying to Congress...Curtis leMay, and the Gulf of Tonkin boys did that.

Oh, I know. Having another political party's headquarters burglarized...creating an "enemies list...." the Christmas bombing....invading Cambodia and lying about it...Dick Nixon did that.

Or wait, wait, don't tell me...selling arms to murderers, against the will of the Congress, and using the money to finance more murderers...does that count? Reagan did that.

Or lying about WMDs...ducking out on dealing with North Korea...hm. Who's that, now?

But by all means. Bill Clinton, evil incarnate.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 16, 2004)

There are quite a few statements in Ender's post that require some attention, however, I will limit myself to just this one.



			
				Ender said:
			
		

> treason is when terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, The first WTC Attack and the attack on the US Embassies in Africa go unanswered.


The first WTC attack was answered in a court of law. Most of the perpetrators are sitting an American prison cells right now.

The attacks on the US Embassies in Africa were responded to with Cruise missle attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan.

The USS Cole was not responded to during Clinton's last 4 months in office because the intelligence community would not assign blame to any entity. The CIA could not state with an appropriate amount of certainty who the perpetrators were from September 2000 to January 2001. I believe, they CIA did finally ascribe the attack on the Cole to al-Qaeda in May of 2001, at which time, the Bush adminstration did .... NOTHING.

Thanks - Mike

Oh, what the hell ... one more ... 



			
				Ender said:
			
		

> When (the) President ... (takes actions) ... against citizens of the US to seek revenge on them.


.

Do the words ... 

Joseph Wilson - Valerie Plame

mean anything to you .... Jiminy Crickets.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

The essential problem this reflects--and why it ties to reflecting on Reagan--is this: when it suits their ideology, people will pretty much throw reality right out whatever window is closest. They will also give reason the old heave-ho.

Yes, of course, liberals and lefties and commies (and all three groups are different, by the way, though collapsing them together is a good sign of what I'm talking about) can do the same thing. Sure; obviously true. 

However, the facts are that in this case, it ain't the liberals and lefties and commies who've been shooting the facts and rationality right in the head. In this case, we have a sitting President--Ronald Reagan--who issued directives that clearly violated the express will of Congress and this little thing called the law. And he did it--check the Walsh final report!--in order to send arms to a group of radical religious loons in Iran, and then had some of the proceeds used to support a group of murdering right-wing bastards with direct ties to the drug trade in Latin America. I'm so very proud.

And please realpolitik me no realpolitik. I understand--and so does everybody else above the age of twelve--that at times, politicians get their hands very, very dirty. I understand--and so does everybody above the age of twelve--that they do these things in our name. But in this case, screwing around with Iran has directly contributed to the ongoing mess in the Middle East. Supporting Hussein in Iraq--which we were doing way back then, a long twenty years ago--contributed directly to another current mess you may  have heard of. And in Latin America, about the only country that HAS had honest elections (note to Ender: see, your average corrupt commie dictatorship DOESN'T LET ITSELF GET VOTED OUT OF POWER the way Ortega et al did) is Nicaragua. 

We screwed around with  Cuba: how'd that work out for everybody? With Panama: how'd that go? With Colombia: now THERE'S a stable, happy country. With Haiti--anybody besides me see a pattern here?

When ya lets the Prez get away with waving the flag and thumping the Bible, while his wife's setting up the White House appointments calendar according to her astrologer's insights, you are screwing around with reality. 

Some folks REALLY aren't going to like this, but a big chunk of the reason Reagan looks good is that this country is incredibly wealthy, incredibly  powerful, and--historically speaking--lucky as all hell. If we continue this crap, sooner or later the luck is going to run out. 

Oh, and incidentally--the 9/11 Comission is reporting that Hussein had nothoing to do with 9/11.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 16, 2004)

> The first WTC attack was answered in a court of law.
> 
> Most of the perpetrators are sitting an American prison cells right now.



I don't think those are answers. More like short-term solutions/distractions. Take your pick.

An answer, or solution is when you find the root of the trouble and cut it's head off.

Oh and I love how our politicians get the blame for 9/11 and Saddam's innocence is proclaimed. (Even though he had contacts in Sudan and Afghanistan.) Probably just plaing cards or something. I guess OJ in "reality" was innocent too.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 16, 2004)

Oh. So first, Clinton didn't do anything at all. Now he did, but it wasn't enough for you. Next, it'll be that the republicans fixed everything anyway.

May I also ask who precisely it was who claimed that Hussein was innocent? I seem to've read that the claim was he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, partly because he was afraid to. 

And just incidentally, you might keep it in mind that WE trained a lot of the Taliban, and supplied them with arms too...didn't you see Rambo like, IV?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 16, 2004)

Real quick...and no I haven't carefully read all responses yet, but lets talk about Reagan and the economy.

The economy started to turn around in 1982; yes coincidentally this was Regean was in office. However the market cycle/ economic cycle over a period of the last 200 years go through an average of 14 year bull markets, and 14 year bear markets and stagnant markets/economy. This is part of the natural cycle. At around 1968 or so (I'd have to look at my big chart to get the exact date) we hit a bear, and all through the 70's was a stagnant marketplace. A 1982 upturn in the economy until the technology bust in 2001 was all part of the natural market cycle. I am not convinced that Reagon did anything to "help" the economy any more then G.W. Bush helped our recovery, or then Clinton helped our prosperiety. The economy has a lot more to do with who is in office, although that is a factor.

I guess I am saying that I am not convinced that Reagon did ANYTHING to help the economy in 1982 and during his presidency, as the upturn was part of a natural cycle. If any of you have any information to prove what I say to be different, by all means have at it.

 :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh. So first, Clinton didn't do anything at all. Now he did, but it wasn't enough for you. Next, it'll be that the republicans fixed everything anyway.
> 
> May I also ask who precisely it was who claimed that Hussein was innocent? I seem to've read that the claim was he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, partly because he was afraid to.
> 
> And just incidentally, you might keep it in mind that WE trained a lot of the Taliban, and supplied them with arms too...didn't you see Rambo like, IV?



Yeah, thats like Rambo III where he puts the gunpowder in the shrapnal wound and ignites it to cauterize it.    

Interesting how people can go from freedom fighters one minute, to religious fanatics the next.  I wonder how many of those rpgs that are killing our soldiers in Iraq are leftovers from those days... :idunno:


----------



## Ender (Jun 16, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Real quick...and no I haven't carefully read all responses yet, but lets talk about Reagan and the economy.
> 
> The economy started to turn around in 1982; yes coincidentally this was Regean was in office. However the market cycle/ economic cycle over a period of the last 200 years go through an average of 14 year bull markets, and 14 year bear markets and stagnant markets/economy. This is part of the natural cycle. At around 1968 or so (I'd have to look at my big chart to get the exact date) we hit a bear, and all through the 70's was a stagnant marketplace. A 1982 upturn in the economy until the technology bust in 2001 was all part of the natural market cycle. I am not convinced that Reagon did anything to "help" the economy any more then G.W. Bush helped our recovery, or then Clinton helped our prosperiety. The economy has a lot more to do with who is in office, although that is a factor.
> 
> ...




Well actually what Reagan did to the economy was revolutionary.  Prior to that time the government was heavily involved in too many avenues of the economy. I.E. Price controls, Wage/price freezes, over regulation.  Conventional wisdom was that the federal government would control the economy, but as Carter proved, that was the wrong solution. Reagan came in and had the politcal muscle to implement the tax cuts and put the money back in the hands of the consumers and business. Kennedy tried to do the same thing in the 60's but was a bit distracted with that whole Cuban missile thing. It's also interesting to note that Kennedy wanted to do away dividend and inheritance taxes. Anyway, the tax cuts allow consumers and business to invest, save, or spend their money at 95% efficiency rate, compared to a 65% efficiency rate of the government. 

Generally speaking, when you have high inflation rates you'll have low unemployment rate, Or when you have high interest rates you'll have low inflation. You raise or lower one to affect the other. You'll hear nowadays how inflation may be increasing so the Fed will raise the prime rate to stem the tide. High inflation means consumers are affluent enough to chase after too few prodcuts, causing the prices to rise: "too many dollars chasing to few goods". Affluent consumers generally means high employment to allow consumers to purchase said goods. But what we had was the "triple whammy" or a high misery index. Interest rates were too high for business to borrow capital to increase manufacturing capacity. Inflation would have made these loans inadequate because they would lose value before they could become invested. Consumers couldn't borrow money also because of high interest, but included in that was the high unemployment rate .A new weapon or tool was needed to deal with these issues.

That new tool was tax cuts. The tax cuts would offset the inflation rate and business could invest more to increase capacity, and the result would be that business would hire more people to produce the new capacity. More people hired for jobs means the consumer can purchase or borrow , because of increased confidence, on long term investments or big ticket items like housing. As the inflation rate dropped and unemployment decreasing, the interest rates would drop making loans even more affordable. The tax cuts left the Federal government with less control over the economy. The big bonus to this was that tax revenues were greatly increased! Now tax cuts are used primarily to put money into consumers hand and not necesarily in business'.

This is what Reagan did.


And as far as the Sandinistas are concerned, I don't think anyone here would want to live under a Sandinista "Democracy" or "Republic". *smirk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

That wasn't the first time I've heard that Reagan and Kennedy were about dead even when it came to policy.  I have a friend who happens to be one of the only conservative college professors I know and he is always saying that.  Any truth to this claim?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 16, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I don't think those are answers. More like short-term solutions/distractions. Take your pick.
> 
> An answer, or solution is when you find the root of the trouble and cut it's head off.


You mean kinda like Zarquari did with Nicolas Berg?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 16, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> The Sandanista government was only a democratically elected government in name only. No one could actually believe there were true democratic principles in any way, shape or form. It was election held at gunpoint, that hardly qualifies.



No.  It wasn't.  I've provided information to indicate that it was a fairly elected government.  You have yet to provide any data contradicting it.  Robert and I both have pointed out that dictatorships don't get elected out of office.  The "dictator" Ortega has lost in elections at least three times.  Guys who seize power at gunpoint don't lose elections, Ender.

Are you reading these posts?  You ought to.  You're getting hammered pretty badly here.




			
				Ender said:
			
		

> Actually there were Penquin and Sparrow misslies involved. <snip>The stories in the papers hardly revealed the whole truth about what was going on.



As in the issue with the "dictatorship", you have not provided a lick of data here.  Its a small point, but I bring it up to point out that your background information entering into this debate is suspect.  Provide us with your sources...some links would be nice...and then we can verify what seems to be so far spurious information.



			
				Ender said:
			
		

> And no, treason is when terrorist attacks <snip>When he gains financially from insider information in the stock market....THAT is treason.



Here we have an attempt to derail the course of the argument by bringing up a totally unrelated issue.  THIS THREAD IS ON REAGAN.  When confronted with an undeniable truth that you find distasteful, you deflect attention away from it.  Rather than address a statement, you attempt to switch gears with a form of "tu quoque" argument.  Mistermike did this too with his "O.J." reference.  He does it quite often.

If you want a Clinton thread, start a Clinton thread...but stay on track with this one.  Attempting to derail the argument like this is a woeful display of impotence in the art of debate.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 16, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> The tax cuts left the Federal government with less control over the economy. The big bonus to this was that tax revenues were greatly increased!


Once again ... what we have here is a failure to understand the facts.

The 'Big Bonus' were the *largest federal deficits in the history of the country* (up until W. got reigns of power).

You know ... that year when I made $35,000.00 and put another $40,000.00 on my credit cards, I lived pretty good for a while (70 grand in spending on 35 grand in income - woo woo). But sooner or later ... somebody is going to come looking for the money. 

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

Judging by a couple of the last posts, Reagan's single most astonishing achievement was to get working class people to rewrite basic economics, common sense, and history in ways diametrically opposed to their own best interests. 

And by the way, tax cuts are hardly revolutionary. Dick Nixon instituted price controls. Carter started the military  buildup that Reagan took credit for. Actual wages have been dropping for the last few years. The workweek is climbing. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Global warming is real. 

But hey, all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 17, 2004)

Reagan and his Republican successors have managed, as you suggest, to sell the public an optimism not warranted by the situation.  Wave the flag, sing the anthem, recite the pledge...and put down anybody and anything that you deem "un-'merican".  Demonize the left and give yourself the mantle of "Holy Moral Crusader."   Whip out pithy aphorisms and give jingoistic speeches.  Talk about Freedom while working behind the scenes to restrict the freedom of your adversaries.

The notion of the "liberal media" not cracking on Reagan inspite of his transgressions because he was justified in carrying them out is misleading.  They did indeed fail to go after him, and showed him undue reverence given his crimes.  Why?  He made good copy, perhaps.  Maybe Watergate had oversensitized the press.  Perhaps they felt that another Republican President ousted in scandal was too much for the public to handle.  Maybe the thought our National morale was at stake.  I honestly don't know, and am conjecturing here.  

Reagan was truly the "Teflon President".  Nobody attempted to make anything stick to him...deserve it though he did.  With Clinton they were vitriolic...going after him with a rabid intensity for more than eight years.  With Bush II they once again seem cowed.  Even Tim Russert fails to ask the obvious follow up questions.

Mr. Mike and others, perhaps, will say this is due to the media's recognition of the vast disparities in character between the two Republican Presidents and Clinton.  Yesterday we maligned the "lib'ral media" for their bias to the left, today we praise them for their enlightenment.

What I find disturbing is our people's inability to seek substance in their politics.  We are a nation of sheep, easily herded by warm and fuzzy Republican rhetoric.  We glory that we are "a shining city upon a hill", held up as example to all people everywhere.  We then shame ourselves with acts so egregious in their criminality and arrogance that the world stands appalled. 

We then point the finger at others, pointing out how their actions were similar, but much worse.  

Leaders...true leaders...never use "tu quoque" arguments.  Regardless, there is no excuse, for as occupants of a Shining City, there should be none for the taking.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 17, 2004)

> We are a nation of sheep, easily herded by warm and fuzzy Republican rhetoric. We glory that we are "a shining city upon a hill", held up as example to all people everywhere. We then shame ourselves with acts so egregious in their criminality and arrogance that the world stands appalled.
> 
> We then point the finger at others, pointing out how their actions were similar, but much worse.


 Sad but true.  Seductive, easy-sounding rhetoric is often used....and then the topic is changed if and when pressed on the details.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 17, 2004)

> Well actually what Reagan did to the economy was revolutionary.



I respect your colorful explaination, and your zeal in your support for Reagans economic policies. Unfortunatily, very little of what you say in regards to Reagan uplifting the american economy is true.

The bull market from 1982 to 2000 (I correct myself from my last post because the economic bubble tappered off in 2000, even though the true bear didn't hit til 2001) was all part of the economic cycle that the economy has followed for the past 200 years. This is regardless of tax cuts, republicans, democrates, or size of economy and businesses, or the size of my wiener. The public is generally reactionary when it comes to the economy, which is why the average investor fails to outperform the indecies. Reaganomics had little to do with the 1982 upturn of the economy anymore then Clintonomics had to do with the prosperiety during his administration, anymore then Bushinomics had to do with the downturn that occured during recent years.

Now, when there is a reversal, how the government reacts can make a huge difference. Government may only be a small factor in the cycle, but it is a huge factor in how citizens handle the cycles, whether boom or bust. The G.W. Bush administration was trying to follow the Reagan model in regards to tax cuts to try to force a speedy recovery, which was a big mistake. Reagan's term was at the end of a cyclical stagnant market and the beginning of a bull; "tax cuts" did little to help or hurt that. Tax cuts in the beginning of an economic bear, however, hurts in this case, because the government spends more during the bear (while people are supposed to spend less) to help cushion the blow. This president spent more, told us to spend more, and taxed less. What does this equal? An extremely high defecit, that's what! It would be like lossing your job, spending more money because of it, except charging everything on a high interest credit card. Not too intelligent. An individual would bankrupt, as will our country if we aren't careful.

Understanding the deficit and how it relates to us is like trying to understand how inflation works, because both are barely tangable concepts. If the inflation rate is 3% a year, that means if you put a 100 dollar bill under your bed for a year, the purchasing power of that dollar would be worth 97 dollars from the previous year. The value of that 100 would continue to decrease at the rate of inflation in subsequent years. Why? Because inflation describes "purchasing power," not the value of the dollar itself. In other words, as inflation goes up, you can buy less crap with the dollar you have in your pocket. The deficit is a similar thing to understand. It was estimated that by 2010, for the average family, 8 to 10 K a year will go towards the deficit created during this administration. People generally don't understand this, because it's not like you write a check for the deficit every year any more then your dollar turns to 97 cents magically before your eyes at a 3% inflation rate. You pay the deficit through the increase of consumer goods and through tax dollars.

So, in the long run, the Bushenomics Tax cuts not only did nothing to stimulate the economy, and did nothing to create jobs, but it screwed the poor, and the working lower to upper middle class in the long run. That few hundred bucks extra will have to be paid back by the thousands in years to come.

Sorry to go on a diatribe on the Bush mistake, but this relates to Reagan as well. I don't know if during his administration, a tax cut was needed or not, but I do know that the timing for it was a hell of a lot better then our recent cuts. Simply put, if the people are overtaxed, then a cut is needed. If the government is underfunded, then an increase is needed (conservatives often fail to recognize the second part). It is greatly counter-productive, however, when these cuts create a deficit. Surely, it would help if the government wouldn't waste money on corporate welfare and projects that are only designed to employ companies who can afford expensive lobbiests; then we could have the best of both worlds...lower taxes with a properly funded socially conscience government. Ah....only in a perfect world. 

Now, Regean gleefully spent money on unnessicary crap; but he wasn't as bad as George W.. Whether his tax cuts were justifiable...I honestly don't know enough on that history to answer yes or no.

However, One thing I do know is this: the idea that reaganomics pulled us out of an economic slump is absurd, and in violation of many basic economic principles, including (but not limited too) the "effecient market theory" that conservatives enthusiastically believe.

Anyhoo, disagree if you'd like, but you'll have to provide a serious source to make me even consider a different viewpoint on this one.

Sorry for the economics 200 lesson...

PAUL


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 18, 2004)

It isn't a digression to compare the current deficit with that of Reagan's.  Earlier I quoted Cheney as saying that Reagan taught us deficit's don't matter.

The difference in deficit spending twenty years ago versus now is the demographics of the nation.  Back then the "Baby Boomers" were at their peak earning potential age...and I'm sure this is one reason for the subsequent economic boom.  

Now, however, those "Boomers" are aging (I'm one of the young ones at 47) and will not have the economic clout to pay off the nation's debt.  Those that will have to do that will be our children...who will not have the numbers or the clout we had back in 1984.

Cheney was wrong...deficits DO matter.  They matter a great deal to a growing number of Republicans who are increasingly disenchanted with this administration's fiscal irresponsibility.

Interesting post, Paul.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 18, 2004)

Thanks Steve! How's the ACL?

Cheney was right for about 1% of the worlds population; deficits matter very little to the very Rich. Multi-millionaires are not going to be affected by an increase in consumer goods, like food, gas, utilities, clothing, materials, and so forth. If their spending on consumer goods raise a few thousand bucks, this won't even dent their budgets. The family of 4 on 40 or 50 or even 70 thousand a year will feel a few thousand bucks tremendously. This is especially if that few thousand bucks is to the tune of 8 to 10 thousand by 2010. WORKING america, everyone from your mechanic and teacher to your small business owner, will feel it. Yet, they won't even know it, because most don't understand it. It's just like the 70 year old who keeps his money in coffee cans at the house thinking that their money is safer that way, not realizing that the purchasing power of that money is less every year, and not realizing that at the bank in CD's, your money isn't subject to fire or theft. Yet, you can tell em and tell em, yet they still keep their life savings in coffee cans. Like that 70 year old, republicans and small business owners will wave their "Go (Fill in republican canidate here)!" FLAGS, and will continue to pretend that deficit spending doesn't matter ('cause Reagan said so), as they kiss that extra 2 or 3 hundred bucks they get back from tax cuts, all the while more and more of their own income and savings erodes away every year, paying a deficit that they cannot see. I don't expect them to ever change, or understand.

The sad thing about it all is that those big spenders and high rolers who support the idea that deficit's don't matter are violating their capitalist consumerist ideal that they so heavily support. Because it doesn't effect their check books, they don't think that it effects their bottom line. If consumers are able to filter less money into the economy because of a deficit, then this effects the economy, and effects their bottom line, even if they can't see it right away. The very Rich seem to forget that no one exists in a bubble or a vaccum, no matter how far they try to seperate themselves from the poor and the destitude.

Anyways, off to a meeting. I wonder if anyone knows their economic history enough to answer why inflation was so high before Reagan in the first place? I'll shut up now and see if anyone here can get it right.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 18, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Thanks Steve! How's the ACL?



Doing a lot better...thanks.  I think I'm over the "hump".  I just did some physical therapy, and this time it didn't feel as if someone were trying to amputate my leg.  Last night and this morning my mood was somewhat dark, to put it mildly.  I think I could have eaten a kitten last night.

I had one of the world's best surgeons (actually no exaggeration...he's recognized as such), and he's quite optimistic that I'll have a healthy knee inside of a year.  Then, the world will tremble at my approach.



Insofar as your observations on taxes, I'm "feeling" it now.  I pay an obscene amount.  Then I read in the NY Times this morning about hundreds of billions of corporate tax breaks in the offing.  And THAT makes my mood dark, as well.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 19, 2004)

I have to tell you ... I have been getting more and more angry as I drive by American flags flying at half staff for Reagan. It just seemed to be going on forever. And as I recall, after September 11, 2001, we flew the flags at half staff for 9 days. Those two items just seemed to bug me a bit.

Anyhow; apparently, in 1976, the congress passed a law stating that upon the death of a president, the flag will be flown at half-staff for 30 days (VP - 10 days). And, it ended up that on September 11, President Bush ordered flags flown at half staff for 5 days (til the evening of 9/16).

Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit weird?

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 20, 2004)

I think it's a demonstration of an Administration's weird priorities - we should show more respect for one former President than for 3,000+ bombing victims.  

Interesting.  And wierd.


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Jun 24, 2004)

Yes!


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think it's a demonstration of an Administration's weird priorities - we should show more respect for one former President than for 3,000+ bombing victims.
> 
> Interesting. And wierd.


As I mentioned, I too thought it was weird. However, the law passed about honoring the death of a president was passed in the 1970's. I think it is quite possible that President Bush, when he ordered the flags to half-staff for 6 or 7 days after 9/11, that he had no idea of the law requiring 30 days for a President. The last time this law was used was Nixon's death, which was before Bush was elected Govenor of Texas.

I think, in hindsight, the congress of 1976 went too far.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As I mentioned, I too thought it was weird. However, the law passed about honoring the death of a president was passed in the 1970's. I think it is quite possible that President Bush, when he ordered the flags to half-staff for 6 or 7 days after 9/11, that he had no idea of the law requiring 30 days for a President. The last time this law was used was Nixon's death, which was before Bush was elected Govenor of Texas.
> 
> I think, in hindsight, the congress of 1976 went too far.
> 
> Mike



Ah...mike, good research. That makes sense...(I was wondering about this lately and didn't have an answer).

Yours,
Mikey Savage


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 5, 2004)

I was away for the holiday weekend. But one thing occured to me as I was driving out of computer / cell phone range; boy, it sure is going to be strange to see all the flags at half-staff on the 4th of July. But ... gee, the 1976 law says we will honor a President's passing by flying the flag for 30 days at half-staff. 

On Saturday (July 3rd), I heard a radio report that President Bush had announced the end of the period of mourning for President Regan's passing and that all flags should again be flown at full-staff.

Now ... did I imagine this? I am going to look for reports. But, it seems to me that President Bush is violating the law by prematurely announcing the end of the period of mourning. Some who passed that law are still sitting in Congress, I wonder how they feel about such a usurping of authority. I also wonder if President Bush is aware of the law (although ignorance of the law is not a defense).

Hmm ... More research to be done on this one. 

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 9, 2004)

The thread has died...but I just found this on another forum and thought I'd share it.  It is emotionally charged, and possibly open to attack for some of its allegations.  Some, however, might find it worth reading.

If others have posted it, I apologize for missing it.

Regards,

Steve


Planet Reagan

By William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 07 June 2004

Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is being nice to him. In every aspect, this is appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a beloved member of a family, and he will be missed by those he was close to. His death was long, slow and agonizing because of the Alzheimer's Disease which ruined him, one drop of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died ten years ago almost to the day because of this disease, and this disease took ten years to do its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her.

The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell letter to the American people was as magnificent a departure from public life as any that has been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of his illness was that he lived on, and on, and on. His family and friends watched as he faded from the world of the real, as the simple dignity afforded to all life collapsed like loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. Only those who have seen Alzheimer's Disease invade a mind can know the truth of this. It is a cursed way to die.

In this mourning space, however, there must be room made for the truth. Writer Edward Abbey once said, "The sneakiest form of literary subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth. The critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you; your fellow writers will shake their heads."

The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies and people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring apocalypse in the eye.

How can this be? The television says Ronald Reagan was one of the most beloved Presidents of the 20th century. He won two national elections, the second by a margin so overwhelming that all future landslides will be judged by the high-water mark he achieved against Walter Mondale. How can a man so universally respected have played a hand in the evils which corrupt our days?

The answer lies in the reality of the corrupt society Abbey spoke of. Our corruption is the absolute triumph of image over reality, of flash over substance, of the pervasive need within most Americans to believe in a happy-face version of the nation they call home, and to spurn the reality of our estate as unpatriotic. Ronald Reagan was, and will always be, the undisputed heavyweight champion of salesmen in this regard.

Reagan was able, by virtue of his towering talents in this arena, to sell to the American people a flood of poisonous policies. He made Americans feel good about acting against their own best interests. He sold the American people a lemon, and they drive it to this day as if it was a Cadillac. It isn't the lies that kill us, but the myths, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest myth-maker we are ever likely to see.

Mainstream media journalism today is a shameful joke because of Reagan's deregulation policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that the information we receive - information vital to the ability of the people to govern in the manner intended - came from a wide variety of sources and perspectives. Reagan's policies annihilated the Fairness Doctrine, opening the door for a few mega-corporations to gather journalism unto themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at General Electric own three of the most-watched news channels. This company profits from every war we fight, but somehow is trusted to tell the truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us.

The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan did not just deliver journalism to these massive corporations, but handed virtually every facet of our lives into the hands of this privileged few. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are all tainted because Reagan battered down every environmental regulation he came across so corporations could improve their bottom line. Our leaders are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations that were made all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze. The Savings and Loan scandal of Reagan's time, which cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars, is but one example of Reagan's decision that the foxes would be fine guards in the henhouse.

Ronald Reagan believed in small government, despite the fact that he grew government massively during his time. Social programs which protected the weakest of our citizens were gutted by Reagan's policies, delivering millions into despair. Reagan was able to do this by caricaturing the "welfare queen," who punched out babies by the barnload, who drove the flashy car bought with your tax dollars, who refused to work because she didn't have to. This was a vicious, racist lie, one result of which was the decimation of a generation by crack cocaine. The urban poor were left to rot because Ronald Reagan believed in 'self-sufficiency.'

Because Ronald Reagan could not be bothered to fund research into 'gay cancer,' the AIDS virus was allowed to carve out a comfortable home in America. The aftershocks from this callous disregard for people whose homosexuality was deemed evil by religious conservatives cannot be overstated. Beyond the graves of those who died from a disease which was allowed to burn unchecked, there are generations of Americans today living with the subconscious idea that sex equals death.

The veneer of honor and respect painted across the legacy of Ronald Reagan is itself a myth of biblical proportions. The coverage proffered today of the Reagan legacy seldom mentions impropriety until the Iran/Contra scandal appears on the administration timeline. This sin of omission is vast. By the end of his term in office, some 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, indicted or investigated for misconduct and/or criminal activities.

Some of the names on this disgraceful roll-call: Oliver North, John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D. Fiers, Clair George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh Burford, Rita Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida, Edwin Gray, Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur Hayes, J. Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro, Thomas C. Reed, Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names are lost to history, but more than a few of them are still with us today, 'rehabilitated' by the administration of George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever to walk the earth. Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and Duvalier reek of blood and corruption, yet were embraced by the Reagan administration with passionate intensity. The ground of many nations is salted with the bones of those murdered by brutal rulers who called Reagan a friend. Who can forget his support of those in South Africa who believed apartheid was the proper way to run a civilized society?

One dictator in particular looms large across our landscape. Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...020920_3025.htm

sent to Iraq during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.

The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite public American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret and in violation of scores of laws.

Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is that of Osama bin Laden. The Reagan administration believed it a bully idea to organize an army of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Bin Laden became the spiritual leader of this action. Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded and trained by the United States. Reagan helped teach Osama bin Laden the lesson he lives by today, that it is possible to bring a superpower to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he has done it once before, thanks to the dedicated help of Ronald Reagan.

In 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by Osama bin Laden, who used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan administration to do the job. In 2001, Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger into the heart of the United States, using men who became skilled at the art of terrorism with the help of Ronald Reagan. Today, there are 827 American soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that came to be because Reagan helped manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man in charge, the man who defeated Soviet communism, the man whose vision and charisma made Americans feel good about themselves after Vietnam and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who despise Reagan see him as nothing more than a pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who smiled vapidly while allowing his officials to run the government for him.

In the final analysis, however, the legacy of Ronald Reagan - whether he had an active hand in its formulation, or was merely along for the ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that matters, and be damned to the truth.

William Rivers Pitt <mailto:william.pitt@mail.truthout.org> is the senior editor and lead writer for t r u t h o u t. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know
__________________


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 9, 2004)

Wow.  Don't forget diabetes and poor posture.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 9, 2004)

Wow.  Thanks for the post, HHJH.  It's not too common to read something like that.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 9, 2004)

Personally, I think its a flawed piece, though written very well.

On the web site I got it off of, though, there was a post by a young man who stated that Reagan was "tough on terrorism" and that the eighties didn't have as much terrorism as we have today

While the latter is arguable...there was plenty of terrorism back on Reagan's watch...he was not tough on terrorism.  As I've indicated elsewhere I'm not too keen on Shia extremists killing 241 Marines with a truck bomb only to have our Commander In Chief sell weapons to Iran, the benefactor of the terrorists in question...and illegally to boot.

No, twistoffat, Reagan isn't responsible for diabetes and poor posture.  That is Nixon's fault.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 9, 2004)

I thought Nixon owed me...been bent over for years!  Good post Steve - WHile I disagree - It's good to see some brain power.


Semper Fidelis - Glenn.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 10, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> I thought Nixon owed me...been bent over for years!  Good post Steve - WHile I disagree - It's good to see some brain power.
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis - Glenn.





Thanks, Glenn...that's the most polite disagreement I've gotten here in weeks.


Semper Fi right back.


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 2, 2004)

The thread is dead, but I just found this quote and had to share it, it was so funny:

_I admit that the tumultuous sexual activities of the Clinton years made me occasionally nostalgic for the Reagan era, when sleeping with the President meant attending a Cabinet meeting. _ 

--Saul Landau



Zaniest President in US History
Bush Surpasses Reagan
By SAUL LANDAU

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau07232004.html


----------

