Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2011

[Jake'sDad]

Happy Birthday, Mr. President.

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Mysterious_Ways/Images/Ronald_Wilson_Reagan_Cowboy_Poet.gif

[Cagemonkey]

Thanks for posting. I just watched the special on Fox news. Really made you miss him. This country sure could use another like him. Happy 100th Mr. President.

[Jake'sDad]

If the black female Marine Honor Guard with tears on her face during the salute didn't get to you......... not much would.....

[The_Biased_Observer]

If the black female Marine Honor Guard with tears on her face during the salute didn't get to you......... not much would.....

Got a link to the video?

[Jake'sDad]

Got a link to the video?

Watched it live on Fox. Not sure if they'll repeat it or have it online.

[Jake'sDad]

Got a link to the video?

Here you go.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/president-reagan-tribute/

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/reagan-ranch-e1297022802121.jpg

[GermanSynergy]

We miss you, Mr.President. :(

The German people owe you a debt of gratitude as well, even though most of them will never admit it.

[variablebinary]

Truly a great man.

I feel a genuine affection for Reagan. If I were in his honor guard I would be choked up as well

[Jake'sDad]

Truly a great man.

I feel a genuine affection for Reagan. If I were in his honor guard I would be choked up as well

10-4 on that. I still can't look at that picture without misting up.

Quite an honor for those Pendleton Marines too.

[VooDoo6Actual]

talk about living a full life...

What a PAT

[Submariner]

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

[montanadave]

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

Heavens to Bonzo! Even I have to admit this assessment might be a tad harsh on the ol' Gipper.

[chadbag]

Ronald Reagan was a great man.

I was in High School during his first administration. (Class of 1984). I remember when he was shot.

He was a great President.

Was he perfect? Heck no. Did he have faults? Of course. Did every decision he or his administration make work out? Or was right? No.

What made him great was his belief in his fellow man and in America and its greatness and goodness. He did not look down on others nor strive to any sort of political correctness. He bid you follow him.

If he had a fault, it was in being trusting too much in others. He surrounded himself with people, some of which used his name to do dumb things or to convince him to do dumb things.

When he died, I was very emotional in gratitude for this great man.

RIP Ronnie

[Jake'sDad]

Heavens to Bonzo! Even I have to admit this assessment might be a tad harsh on the ol' Gipper.

Ya think?

[SteyrAUG]

Ronald Reagan was a great man.

I was in High School during his first administration. (Class of 1984). I remember when he was shot.

He was a great President.

Was he perfect? Heck no. Did he have faults? Of course. Did every decision he or his administration make work out? Or was right? No.

What made him great was his belief in his fellow man and in America and its greatness and goodness. He did not look down on others nor strive to any sort of political correctness. He bid you follow him.

If he had a fault, it was in being trusting too much in others. He surrounded himself with people, some of which used his name to do dumb things or to convince him to do dumb things.

When he died, I was very emotional in gratitude for this great man.

RIP Ronnie

Right there with ya.

Yes he gave us an amnesty, but he didn't have benefit of previous examples it wouldn't work. I do still disagree with his decision regardless.

And yeah we got a MG ban, but it was part of FOPA 86 and he didn't have a line item veto. Without FOPA the country could be a very scary place these days, although ATF is taking baby steps to undo much of FOPA.

But in the larger sense, I think he always tried to do what was "best for the country and the people" and not what was best for the government. I consider him the last "real" President we've had.

[chadbag]

And yeah we got a MG ban, but it was part of FOPA 86 and he didn't have a line item veto. Without FOPA the country could be a very scary place these days, although ATF is taking baby steps to undo much of FOPA.


I read somewhere but don't know if it was true, that he wanted to veto the whole FOPA because of the MG Ban but was prevailed upon to sign it because the trade-offs were worth the net gains.

[SteyrAUG]

I read somewhere but don't know if it was true, that he wanted to veto the whole FOPA because of the MG Ban but was prevailed upon to sign it because the trade-offs were worth the net gains.

He didn't know what to do but basically the gun community and the NRA told him to sign it. Back then NFA owners were a fringe element of the gun community that got little or no consideration.

The average gun owners was far more concerned with reigning in ATF abuses (which ironically was the reason most were too afraid to own NFA weapons), being able to direct order ammunition (prior to FOPA it had to go through a dealer and was logged in a bound book like firearms) and being able to import cheap surplus firearms like SKS rifles.

There were also many who believed that FOPA "as written" wouldn't actually ban the registration of new MGs and that if it tried to it would be struck down by the judicial branch.

More importantly, the domestic ban was probably an inevitability. If not passed in 86 it would have certainly been part of the 89 import ban or 94 domestic ban. That is assuming it wasn't simply passed as a stand alone bill and every successive President would have signed it. The recent video showing the circumstances of how it was added to FOPA shows the lengths members of Congress were willing to go in order to ban machine guns.

But the same cannot be said for FOPA, ever since the passage of the 86 GCA legislation similar to FOPA had been attempted. 1986 was the first time it actually got to the Presidents desk and there is no reason to believe any President since Reagan would have signed it even IF they managed to get it to the desk of the President a second time.

The reality is, were it not for Reagan, we could have just as easily ended up with a 1988 or 1992 domestic machine gun ban WITHOUT the protections of FOPA.

That means nobody would be able to mail order ammo directly to their home, there would be no cheap $100 surplus guns, people would get arrested while traveling through "ban states" with their firearms and private individuals selling their personal guns would still be getting arrested at gun shows in "sting operations" for dealing firearms without a license.

[rickrock305]

I find it strange that Reagan gets the love he does from conservatives being that he went against pretty much everything they stand for.

[John_Wayne777]

I find it strange that Reagan gets the love he does from conservatives being that he went against pretty much everything they stand for.

He didn't.

Reagan had a set of ideals he was an expert at communicating and an overall philosophy that most Americans shared. Implementing those ideals into policy was not an easy task for him. I hear people complain that Reagan didn't "fix" social security. I respond that he also did not raise the dead to life again or turn water into wine, and then I ask if these are really legitimate criticisms. Reagan faced stiff opposition in Congress and from the left on practically every measure he proposed. Getting legislation through a hostile Congress is not an easy task.

Reagan's important contributions mattered in the long run. A revitalized military (badly in need of rebuilding after Vietnam), a lower tax burden, the idea living among the people that Washington is an absurd place with absurd ideas and absurd results, and appointments to the Supreme Court that revived the idea that the Constitution places meaningful limits on the power of the federal government.

Reagan's accomplishments are not insignificant. Those who like to bash the man because he didn't completely overhaul Washington all by himself have an unsophisticated understanding of politics and reality.

[rickrock305]

First, his initial tax cut cause unemployment to soar to almost 11%

http://reagan.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003988



Then, Reagan raised taxes 11 times.


Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming): Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration. I was here. I was here. I knew him. Better than anybody in this room. He was a dear friend and a total realist as to politics.




Reagan tripled the budget deficit.



He started the trends that caused income inequality to explode. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html?_r=1



Reagan grew the federal government tremendously.



He gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.



Then there was Iran Contra.



And he helped create the uprising of Islamic extremism we are battling today.




A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.

After his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In fact, the budget grew significantly under Reagan. All he managed to do was moderately slow its rate of growth. What's more, the number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. (By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.)
At the start of his administration, with Social Security teetering on the brink of insolvency, Reagan attempted to push through immediate draconian cuts to the program. But the Senate unanimously rebuked his plan, and the GOP lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections, largely as a result of this overreach.

The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of conservative ideology. It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. (As an added affront to conservatives, the tax wasn't indexed to inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it over time.)

One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html



I just find it ironic that we have people like Palin invoking Reagan's name, when most of what he accomplished flies in the face of their small government rhetoric.

[GermanSynergy]

Reagan is remembered as one of the greatest American presidents. No matter how you spin it, he's still 1000 times the man and President than your pal.


First, his initial tax cut cause unemployment to soar to almost 11%

http://reagan.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003988



Then, Reagan raised taxes 11 times.






Reagan tripled the budget deficit.



He started the trends that caused income inequality to explode. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html?_r=1



Reagan grew the federal government tremendously.



He gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.



Then there was Iran Contra.



And he helped create the uprising of Islamic extremism we are battling today.





http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html



I just find it ironic that we have people like Palin invoking Reagan's name, when most of what he accomplished flies in the face of their small government rhetoric.

[SteyrAUG]

And he helped create the uprising of Islamic extremism we are battling today.



Hardly.

He did support the Mujahadeen (which did become the Taliban) in their efforts to undermine the USSR to achieve a cold war victory. But to say he created the problem is like saying FDR created the USSR by helping Stalin defeat Hitler. It ain't exactly the case and there was a much worse alternative.

Furthermore, unless we were willing to leave the USSR in place (which post 9-11 might not seem like a bad idea) that area of Afghanistan was going to be a radical Islamic hotbed REGARDLESS of what Reagan did or did not do. To suggest he helped it become "Islamic" or "radical" is like blaming Chamberlain for Germany becoming "militaristic" or "anti semetic."

[Army Chief]

Rickrock, there may be some truth in your words, though I detect a bit of axe-grinding going on here, too. Most of this is probably outside of the scope of the present discourse anyway, as our purpose was simply to honor the memory of a remarkable man who earned the respect of both sides of the political fence.

Strip away the rhetoric and the partisan overtones, and what you're left with is a far simpler truth: the America that Mr. Reagan's administration inherited was a nation burdened by a deep sense of malaise. The 1960s brought divisions over Civil Rights, a wave of assassinations, a counter-culture movement and Viet Nam. The 1970s brought more of the same, along with a presidential resignation, skyrocketing inflation, and a dangerously-weak national posture.

You can debate the budgets, the policies and the controversies all you like, but there is no escaping the conclusion that Reagan restored real hope, confidence and strength to the nation at a time when it was needed most. Even if you attempt to dismiss these contributions as largely symbolic, the truth is that history will be kind to Reagan, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

AC

[rickrock305]

Hardly.

He did support the Mujahadeen (which did become the Taliban) in their efforts to undermine the USSR to achieve a cold war victory. But to say he created the problem is like saying FDR created the USSR by helping Stalin defeat Hitler. It ain't exactly the case and there was a much worse alternative.

Furthermore, unless we were willing to leave the USSR in place (which post 9-11 might not seem like a bad idea) that area of Afghanistan was going to be a radical Islamic hotbed REGARDLESS of what Reagan did or did not do. To suggest he helped it become "Islamic" or "radical" is like blaming Chamberlain for Germany becoming "militaristic" or "anti semetic."


I'm not saying Reagan created the problem. I'm saying his policies helped create the anti west extremism we are currently dealing with. Not just supporting Osama Bin Laden and what would become the Taliban. We also have to look at the Reagan administration's support of Saddam Hussein and Iraq while he was gassing Iranians and the Kurds. There's also the Iran Contra affair with the shipments of arms to Iran. And also our involvement in Lebanon. Its a pattern of behavior that directly led to the anti west extremism we see today from that region.

[rickrock305]

Rickrock, there may be some truth in your words, though I detect a bit of axe-grinding going on here, too. Most of this is probably outside of the scope of the present discourse anyway, as our purpose was simply to honor the memory of a remarkable man who earned the respect of both sides of the political fence.

Strip away the rhetoric and the partisan overtones, and what you're left with is a far simpler truth: the America that Mr. Reagan's administration inherited was a nation burdened by a deep sense of malaise. The 1960s brought divisions over Civil Rights, a wave of assassinations, a counter-culture movement and Viet Nam. The 1970s brought more of the same, along with a presidential resignation, skyrocketing inflation, and a dangerously-weak national posture.

You can debate the budgets, the policies and the controversies all you like, but there is no escaping the conclusion that Reagan restored real hope, confidence and strength to the nation at a time when it was needed most. Even if you attempt to dismiss these contributions as largely symbolic, the truth is that history will be kind to Reagan, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

AC


I completely agree with you here. When it comes down to actual policies there are many things I disagree with. But I do agree that overall he is one of the better presidents we've had in modern times for exactly the reasons you listed. (unfortunately that ain't saying much!)

My only intention was to point out the irony of people like Palin invoking Reagan's name while at the same time railing against policies Reagan would have supported.

[SteyrAUG]

I'm not saying Reagan created the problem. I'm saying his policies helped create the anti west extremism we are currently dealing with.

Completely ridiculous. We have always been The Great Satan and we always will be. If anything Reagan bitchslapping Khadaffi bought us a few years of fear and respect from the Muslim world. But they hated us long before that.



Not just supporting Osama Bin Laden and what would become the Taliban. We also have to look at the Reagan administration's support of Saddam Hussein and Iraq while he was gassing Iranians and the Kurds. There's also the Iran Contra affair with the shipments of arms to Iran. And also our involvement in Lebanon. Its a pattern of behavior that directly led to the anti west extremism we see today from that region.

How young are you? We supported Saddam and Iraq because they were at war with our enemy, Iran. Again, hardly any different from buddying up with Uncle Joe to fight Hitler.

And let's look at what we had in Iraq. We were allied with a SECULAR, oil producing Middle Eastern country. Do you understand how rare that is? It was a place the US could operate in the area safely. Sure Saddam was a brutal shitbag, but show me one Middle Eastern leader who isn't.

And things were just fine until Bush Sr. decided to **** it all up with his failed diplomacy when Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. And you are a fool if you believe we haven't been hated since we began supporting Israel and that goes back to recognition of Israel under Truman and the beginning of aid and support under Eisenhower.

And yeah, Reagan sold arms to Iran to fund the Contras. Sure it was not a good thing to sell weapons to Iran, but what is the cost of keeping communism out of the Western Hemisphere during the Cold War? I swear if Reagan pushed a girl out of the way to keep her from being shot by a lunatic on a shooting rampage there would be a dozen guys talking about the time Reagan pushed around a girl scout with no comprehension of appreciation of "why" it was done.

You don't like Reagan, that is fine. Currently you are still free to do that because of men like him, our successive Presidents are not as tolerant of dissent. But the fact remains, that nearly everything Reagan did, he did with the belief that it was the best decision to make for the country at the time.

[rickrock305]

How young are you? We supported Saddam and Iraq because they were at war with our enemy, Iran. Again, hardly any different from buddying up with Uncle Joe to fight Hitler.

And let's look at what we had in Iraq. We were allied with a SECULAR, oil producing Middle Eastern country. Do you understand how rare that is? It was a place the US could operate in the area safely. Sure Saddam was a brutal shitbag, but show me one Middle Eastern leader who isn't.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This approach to foreign policy has bitten us in the ass so many times. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Sure, we were allied with a secular, oil producing country, and also a brutal dictator that committed mass murder and torture of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. And lets not forget, Saddam chose to invade Iran, not the other way around. And why we were supporting him, he was busy using chemical weapons on people, weapons that we likely supplied him the materials to manufacture and also the helicopters he used to drop it.

So to use your Hitler reference, this would be more like if we had buddied up on the side of Hitler.



And you are a fool if you believe we haven't been hated since we began supporting Israel and that goes back to recognition of Israel under Truman and the beginning of aid and support under Eisenhower.

Sure, thats a part of it. But thats only part of the bigger picture, which is our meddling in the Middle East's affairs. Things like selling weapons to Iraq and Iran, propping up governments and dictators when they suit our cause at the time, etc. Our foreign policy towards the region is the direct cause of terrorism against us. Israel is but a small part of that.



And yeah, Reagan sold arms to Iran to fund the Contras. Sure it was not a good thing to sell weapons to Iran, but what is the cost of keeping communism out of the Western Hemisphere during the Cold War?

Yea, the old communism boogeyman huh? The cost has been far too great IMO. Its indirectly led us to the current problems we face today with Muslim extremists, terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.



You don't like Reagan, that is fine. Currently you are still free to do that because of men like him, our successive Presidents are not as tolerant of dissent. But the fact remains, that nearly everything Reagan did, he did with the belief that it was the best decision to make for the country at the time.

Where did I ever say such a thing? Did you miss this right above your post?


But I do agree that overall he is one of the better presidents we've had in modern times

I don't dislike Reagan any more than any other president that came before or after him. Every president acts with the belief that their policies are the best moves for the country at the time. Problem is, they're quite often wrong. We can argue the individual points until we're blue in the face, its not going to change anyone's mind and will only devolve into petty personal attacks. I know one can't possibly criticize Reagan without it.

My entire point was simply to mention the irony of people like Palin and the tea party invoking Reagan's name when they rail against a lot of the very policies he put in place.

[SteyrAUG]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This approach to foreign policy has bitten us in the ass so many times. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Sure has. But would you prefer we didn't help Stalin and Hitler successfully defeated him? The result would have been England being forced to come to terms with Hitler and us losing a staging area for invasion, not to mention us having to come to terms with Hitler as well as the Italian front probably wouldn't have been doable alone and the A bomb simply wouldn't be ready in time.

So as much as I personally despise FDR and think Stalin was a brutal, murdering shitbag, we did the right thing. There simply was no easy and obvious "right answer" and that is usually the way things are in life. Assuming you are lucky enough to be the one who can decide, rather than just being a victim of circumstance, you usually have about six really crappy options from which to choose.


Sure, we were allied with a secular, oil producing country, and also a brutal dictator that committed mass murder and torture of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. And lets not forget, Saddam chose to invade Iran, not the other way around. And why we were supporting him, he was busy using chemical weapons on people, weapons that we likely supplied him the materials to manufacture and also the helicopters he used to drop it.

He sure did, nobody is saying Saddam was a nice guy. But in the Middle East you get your choice of an Ayatollah or an Assahola. Reagan decided we could accomplish more working with the Assahola, especially since the Ayatollah was already hostile towards us. After what Iran did to us, we could give a damn who declared war first, we were happy to support Iraq against our enemies. And it gave us another source of oil besides our other supposed "ally" Saudi.



So to use your Hitler reference, this would be more like if we had buddied up on the side of Hitler.

Not at all. Just as Hitler declared war on us, Iran was already hostile to us. We partnered with Stalin and Iraq as a result of existing hostilities. Like Saddam, Stalin also started wars of invasion, just ask Poland.



Sure, thats a part of it. But thats only part of the bigger picture, which is our meddling in the Middle East's affairs. Things like selling weapons to Iraq and Iran, propping up governments and dictators when they suit our cause at the time, etc. Our foreign policy towards the region is the direct cause of terrorism against us. Israel is but a small part of that.

You are still kidding yourself. We have been hated since the beginning of Islam and the Crusades didn't make things any better. There is NOTHING we could have done in the 20th century to not be hated short of converting to Islam.

That is like saying the Warsaw uprising really made the Nazis hate the Jews and was the actual cause of Jewish deaths that followed.



Yea, the old communism boogeyman huh? The cost has been far too great IMO. Its indirectly led us to the current problems we face today with Muslim extremists, terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

If only you had grown up behind the wall you might understand how offensive what you just said is. A lot of Americans died fighting that "boogeyman." For decades we lived under the threat of nuclear war because of that "boogeyman." Do you not understand how many millions of people died under Stalin and Mao?

And it didn't indirectly lead us to the current problems with terrorism. Oil revenue and the ability to fund and extend Islamic hatred to our shores are the cause of our current problems. In 1925 they were just some assholes who lived in the desert who hated us, kinda like Africans there wasn't too much they could do about it no matter how much they hated us.




Where did I ever say such a thing? Did you miss this right above your post?

Given the way you choose to interpret events, I don't believe you like him.




I don't dislike Reagan any more than any other president that came before or after him. Every president acts with the belief that their policies are the best moves for the country at the time. Problem is, they're quite often wrong. We can argue the individual points until we're blue in the face, its not going to change anyone's mind and will only devolve into petty personal attacks. I know one can't possibly criticize Reagan without it.

My entire point was simply to mention the irony of people like Palin and the tea party invoking Reagan's name when they rail against a lot of the very policies he put in place.

Again, I gotta believe you are simply young and believe in idealistic scenarios. When there is an obvious right or wrong choice, leadership is easy. But rarely does that scenario actually occur. And without that understanding it is easy to criticize.

We blame the US for allying with a butcher like Stalin without any comprehension or appreciation for what would have happened if we didn't.

We blame subsequent Presidents for their actions during the Cold War without any realization of the other possible outcomes. It's easy to criticize Truman for throwing the brakes on MacArthur, but imagine if the Korean War extended into China and became WW III. It would have undoubtedly gone nuclear and every person to a man would ponder why Truman didn't stop it when he could. Kennedy receives similar criticism for his restraint in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It's easy to not consider other outcomes that didn't happen, but you need to remember they didn't happen because of what did happen. It's a lot like a "I can rescue one family member at the cost of another" scenario. You will always focus on the one you lost.

[chadbag]

Most politicians have to come to terms with reality. You have to make decisions when there are no good choices. You have to work with the opposition to get things done.

Reagan lived with a Democrat controlled Congress most of his 2 terms. I believe that only 2 years did he have a friendly GOP controlled Senate. The House was never GOP controlled during his time.

During the Cold War decisions had to be made that were not easy ones but that needed to be made to avert bigger problems. Such as supporting dictators in 3rd world countries to stop communism from spreading, or Iraq versus Iran. There were no good choices. Playing purely to idealism would get you no where good.

Reality sucks.

Reagan did what he thought was best for the country at the time, within the realm of what was possible.

Today, politicians (of both parties) make decisions based on what is best for them and their parties, not the best for the country. That is one of the major differences.

[Skyyr]

The answer is simple: go back to isolationism, leave other countries alone and let them blow each other to bits, while we focus on fixing our own problems. If anyone attacks us, we nuke their country and everyone next to them.

[GermanSynergy]

Sounds great in theory, but in application it won't work. If we don't project our power and influence, others will fill the void in our absence(Iran, Russia, China).


The answer is simple: go back to isolationism, leave other countries alone and let them blow each other to bits, while we focus on fixing our own problems. If anyone attacks us, we nuke their country and everyone next to them.

[SteyrAUG]

Today, politicians (of both parties) make decisions based on what is best for them and their parties, not the best for the country. That is one of the major differences.

Exactly. Reagan was the last President who IMO tried to do what was best for ALL Americans and the country.

[mattjmcd]

I'm not saying Reagan created the problem. I'm saying his policies helped create the anti west extremism we are currently dealing with.

This is what is commonly referred to as a distinction without a difference.

Supporting Hussein was classic realpolitik and was probably the smart move. At the time. BTW I am not convinced the the US supported Saddam's actions at Halabja and elsewhere. WRT Iran Contra, I think that the general public will never know the true nature of the transactions. It might not have been the best move, but it was highly defensible given the circumstances.

[mattjmcd]

Rickrock- you mention 11 tax increases.

What was the top marginal rate in Jan 1980? And in Dec 1988?

[SteyrAUG]

This is what is commonly referred to as a distinction without a difference.

Supporting Hussein was classic realpolitik and was probably the smart move. At the time. BTW I am not convinced the the US supported Saddam's actions at Halabja and elsewhere. WRT Iran Contra, I think that the general public will never know the true nature of the transactions. It might not have been the best move, but it was highly defensible given the circumstances.


There is an excellent documentary about Reagan on HBO this month. Pretty much the good and the bad, and very in depth. I think Reagans motivation to secure the release of US hostages in Lebanon was his primary goal in the entire Iran-Contra affair.