Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2011

[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.resour...ourceID=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/bu...ardt.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/fea...301.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.