Mr Eye, I am not responding other than to say those are some low comments and also some othe stuff that just ain't so according to everybody, and lots of people have very different memories of those things than the things you cited.

 

There is nothing else that I can say that is helpful now and I prefer to have you as a friend so I'll catch you later and talk some baseball.

 

Nuke, you are as insulting a poster as we have, tossing all the things you say. You know what? I won't return the insults. I think you are totally absoultely wrong and we haven't begun on the run away response to terrorism when the barracks were blown up in Lebanon and killed 250+ of our best enlisted folk. You think I am am totally wrong and you will have some rejoinder for that included me being full of s***, a leftist, whatever. You know what? No one f***ing cares. I was being charitable to Reagan when I called his administration lousy. Go ahead, explode, and swear at me some more. It won't make a damn bit of difference. Different people will always see things different ways and that is all ok. What you believe is fine. So is what I believe. The world is more interesting when people have different perspectives. You are a good guy. Take care.

Lousy president. 

 

BULLs***!!

 

Since you are so wise why dont you tell me what the inflation rate was in 1980 and then 1989?

 

Why dont you tell me what the unemployment rate or interest rates looked like in 1980 and then 1989?

 

It was pretty tough to get a tank of gas in 1979-1980 wasn't it?

 

How many millions of jobs were created on Reagans Watch?  .................Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Reagan's "voodoo" ( I never accused George Bush Sr. of being terribly smart ) economic policies in addition to touching off a hitherto unprecedent economic expansion also started what would become the greatest bull market in history.

 

President Reagan dealt the mortal wound to the Soviet bear ( still smarting over that one aren't you??? ) and it is no longer a threat to us and for that we are all in his eternal debt.

 

Exploded the National Debt?? Let me deconstruct that one for you. .......

 

 

During the 1980's the debt wasn't the only thing that exploded,  so were tax reciepts taken in by the Federal Government.  That's how supply side economics works.  Tax cuts stimulate the economy, people go back to work, people start investing again and the amount of tax money collected increased.  To say his tax cuts caused the debt to go up like that is pure bulls***. 

 

Military Spending?  That's certainly part of it but that same defense buildup was what pushed the Soviet Union over the cliff and down into that famous ash heap of history.  Dont even try to tell me otherwise either because Gorby himself along with countless other top Soviet officials said as much.  Worth the cost?  Absolutely!

 

Now a couple of questions.

 

Who writes spending bills in our government?

 

( Jeopardy Theme )

 

If you said the House of Representatives then you are right.

 

Question 2.  Who controlled the House of Representatives during the 1980's and every year before that since 1954?

 

( Jeopardy Theme )

 

That's right.  The Democrats.

 

 

The Democrats gave Reagan his military buildup but not only refused to cut spending like Reagan wanted but let it increase big time in the process.

 

 

 

To the uninformed your petty arguments seem reasonable.  To anyone who knows better you are just another mouthpiece for tired old leftist cliches.

Reagan's election in 1980 is what freed the hostages from Iran. So a vote for Reagan was really playing into the terrorist's hands, right?

 

The disinflation in 1981-1982 was engineered by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Volcker. If you look at history, you'd see he was a Carter appointee.

 

The average rate of unemployment under Reagan was higher than the average rate of unemployment under Clinton. Both started with unemployment rates around 7.5%.

 

The Greatest Bull Market in history started in 1994 actually. Came crashing down quite recently.

 

Reagan's economic growth during his Presidency was slower than Truman, Kennedy/Johnson, and Clinton. It was however at 32% total economic growth, higher than Nixon/Ford or Eisenhower. So I guess that would make him the best of the Republicans.

 

Reagan deserves a lot of credit for his squeeze on the Soviet Union, hastening its eventual collapse. However at the same time, Reagan negotiated with Iran, arming them. Reagan was friends with Saddam Hussein. Reagan did embargo everything to Nicaragua, including Humanitarian items like medicine and meddled in Central American civil wars. Reagan also ran scared from the Beirut embassy bombing. A move which Bin Laden cites as a reason why terror against the US can be effective. Let's not look at things with rose colored glasses. Like all presidents, Reagan did quite a bit right, but we was no perfect president. In some cases his policies sewed the seeds for the battles we're fighting no less astutely today.

Mr Eye, I am not responding other than to say those are some low comments and also some othe stuff that just ain't so according to everybody, and lots of people have very different memories of those things than the things you cited.

You make unfounded accusations about a dead man without any evidence and I'm "low"???

 

Nuke,

 

Why not have the governmemt go into debt every year?

 

Eventually we have to pay the debt, with interest, from our taxes. To say that public spending is somehow worse than private just does not make sense. Whether the government spends it or a private individual, it works in the economy.

 

If my company receives a check from the US Government or Joe Blow Wholesale, it all works the same. The Governement takes in a dollar and spends it, a private individual may stash it under his mattress.

 

As was mentioned earlier, Reagan kept spending, agreeing to Democrates demands for their programs if Reagan was to get his military spending. Then the economy boomed. Notice that government spending was not cut?

 

If you take your government paycheck and cash it and buy a shirt it has the same impact if I cash my private company pay check and buy a shirt.

 

Explain why the government should run up huge debts to fund a hoped for future growth. Why not run debts every year?

 

And finally debt destroyed the USSR. Do you really want to risk the US? I was a Rep when they demanded a balanced budget. Using a Visa to pay your monthly bills doesn't cut it for a family nor a nation.

Nuke,

 

Why not have the governmemt go into debt every year?

 

Eventually we have to pay the debt, with interest, from our taxes. To say that public spending is somehow worse than private just does not make sense. Whether the government spends it or a private individual, it works in the economy.

 

If my company receives a check from the US Government or Joe Blow Wholesale, it all works the same.  The Governement takes in a dollar and spends it, a private individual may stash it under his mattress.

 

As was mentioned earlier, Reagan kept spending, agreeing to Democrates demands for their programs if Reagan was to get his military spending. Then the economy boomed.  Notice that government spending was not cut?

 

If you take your government paycheck and cash it and buy a shirt it has the same impact if I cash my private company pay check and buy a shirt.

 

Explain why the government should run up huge debts to fund a hoped for future growth. Why not run debts every year?

 

And finally debt destroyed the USSR. Do you really want to risk the US? I was a Rep when they demanded a balanced budget. Using a Visa to pay your monthly bills doesn't cut it for a family nor a nation.

Nothing you said in your post is anything I didn't already know. Reagan tried to cut spending enough to offset the cost of his military buildup and was denied by Congress ( Dont forget that federal tax reciepts increased substantially while he in office ) who, in fact continued to increase spending.

 

 

I never said that debt destroyed the USSR, the military buildup did. Debt was an unfortunate byproduct of it and you can thank a free spending Congress for that.

Mr Eye, I am not responding other than to say those are some low comments and also some othe stuff that just ain't so according to everybody, and lots of people have very different memories of those things than the things you cited.

 

There is nothing else that I can say that is helpful now and I prefer to have you as a friend so I'll catch you later and talk some baseball.

 

Nuke, you are as insulting a poster as we have, tossing all the things you say.  You know what?  I won't return the insults.  I think you are totally absoultely wrong and we haven't begun on the run away response to terrorism when the barracks were blown up in Lebanon and killed 250+ of our best enlisted folk. You think I am am totally wrong and you will have some rejoinder for that included me being full of s***, a leftist, whatever.  You know what?  No one f***ing cares.  I was being charitable to Reagan when I called his administration lousy.  Go ahead, explode, and swear at me some more.  It won't make a damn bit of difference.  Different people will always see things different ways and that is all ok.  What you believe is fine.  So is what I believe. The world is more interesting when people have different perspectives.  You are a good guy.  Take care.

Reagans popularity speaks for itself. As great a guy as he might have been he wouldn't have the stature he had if his policies so utterly failed as you assert they did. You made an assertion that his presidency was a failure and I slam dunked it for you. Your arguments, which are shaky at best, are the same nonsense that the far left has been saying for years. You said he was morally unsound and Mreye slam dunked that for you.

 

I think it's really messed up how in one sentence you talk about what a great guy he was and then without breaking stride start talking about what a bad president he was and making up stuff about him ( the whole infidelity thing ).

 

Fortunately people who think like you are in the minority and getting smaller. Most folks see what was accomplished on his watch and appreciate him for it & that's why he was so popular and forever will be.

 

 

And you know something else, swearing at you wont make anymore difference because you are still going to trash the man's record no matter how many millions he put to work or how many millions dont have to live under the thumb of communists anymore because of him.

 

Reagans actions speak a lot louder than any of your words ever will.

The disinflation in 1981-1982 was engineered by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Volcker. If you look at history, you'd see he was a Carter appointee.

 

The Greatest Bull Market in history started in 1994 actually. Came crashing down quite recently.

The bull market that you claim started in 1994 is actually a continuation of the long bull market that began with the stock market bottom made during the recession of 1982. SS2K4 can back me up on that one.

 

As for disinflation you cant normally have that without raising interest rates. Rates were very high to begin with but due to Reagans economic policies they were able to be cut interest rates and see inflation come down to manageable levels at the same time.

 

Additionally, we can thank Reagan for appointing Alan Greenspan to chair the Federal Reserve and I think Greenspan deserves a good deal of credit for ensuring that the inflation problem doesn't rear its head again.

Nothing you said in your post is anything I didn't already know.  Reagan tried to cut spending enough to offset the cost of his military buildup and was denied by Congress ( Dont forget that federal tax reciepts increased substantially while he in office ) who, in fact continued to increase spending.

 

 

I never said that debt destroyed the USSR, the military buildup did.  Debt was an unfortunate byproduct of it and you can thank a free spending Congress for that.

How do we know the debt didn't spark the economic tournaround during Reagans tenure? We had the government spending, we had individuals spending,. credit card debt and National debt went through the roof.

 

How can you split out Reagan's and congress' spending?

 

If federal tax receipts go up that means people are paying more, not less taxes. And remember Reagan did ok a tax increase.

 

But debt did destroy the USSR. They could not keep spending to increase their military as well as we could. Basically we played chicken with them and won.

 

You just said debt is an unfortunate by product, I agree that it is. How would you balance the federal budget to fund this war?

I think it's really messed up how in one sentence you talk about what a great guy he was and then without breaking stride start talking about what a bad president he was

Just to comment on one small corner of this. For example, I think you (Nuke) are a great guy, decent, patriotic, principled, a lot of things I admire in a person. As you might have surmised, I do not agree with some of your political ideology. I appreciate that usually at least the facts are straight.

 

If you were running for Senator from Texas, I would probably vote for you. If you were running for Congress or President, I wouldn't. I love to see a 50/50 split in the Senate. I think a free flow of ideas, from all corners of the political spectrum is what keeps this country great. The Senate is the best forum for that.

I don't mean to start stuff with this necessarily, but the word "hate" is used pretty freely in this, and this is exactly what I was alluding to earlier in this thread. I just came across this 5 minutes ago and it makes my point for me.

 

Link to OpEd Below

 

 

REAGAN'S SHAMEFUL LEGACY

 

Tue Jun 8,11:19 AM ET 

 

 

By Ted Rall

 

Mourn for Us, Not the Proto-Bush

 

 

NEW YORK--For a few weeks, it became routine. I heard them dragging luggage down the hall. They paused in a little lounge near the dormitory elevator to bid farewell to people they'd met during their single semester. Those I knew knocked on my door. "What are you going to do?" I asked. "Where are you going to go?" A shrug. They were eighteen years old and their bright futures had evaporated. They had worked hard in junior and senior high school, harder than most, but none of that mattered now. President Reagan, explained the form letters from the Office of Financial Aid, had slashed the federal education budget. Which is why the same grim tableau of shattered hopes and dreams was playing itself out across the country. Colleges and universities were evicting their best and brightest, straight A students, stripping them of scholarships. Some transferred to less-expensive community colleges; others dropped into the low-wage workforce. Now, nearly a quarter century later, they are still less financially secure and less educated than they should have been. Our nation is poorer for having denied them their potential.

 

 

They were by no means the hardest-hit victims of Reaganism. Reagan's quack economists trashed scholarships and turned welfare recipients into homeless people and refused to do anything about the AIDS (news - web sites) epidemic, all so they could fund extravagant tax cuts for a tiny sliver of the ultra rich. Their supply-side sales pitch, that the rich would buy so much stuff from everybody else that the economy would boom and government coffers would fill up, never panned out. The Reagan boom lasted just three years and created only low-wage jobs. When the '80s were over, we were buried in the depths of recession and a trillion bucks in debt. Poverty grew, cities decayed, crime rose. It took over a decade to dig out.

 

 

Reagan's defenders, people who don't know the facts or choose to ignore them, claim that "everybody" admired Reagan's ebullient personality even if some disagreed with his politics. That, like the Gipper's tall tales about welfare queens and "homeless by choice" urban campers, is a lie. Millions of Americans cringed at Reagan's simplistic rhetoric, were terrified that his anti-Soviet "evil empire" posturing would provoke World War III, and thought that his appeal to selfishness and greed--a bastardized blend of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand--brought out the worst in us. We rolled our eyes when Reagan quipped "There you go again"; what the hell did that mean? Given that he made flying a living hell (by firing the air traffic controllers and regulating the airlines), I'm not the only one who refuses to call Washington National Airport by its new name. His clown-like dyed hair and rouged cheeks disgusted us. We hated him during the dark days he made so hideous, and, with all due respect, we hate him still.

 

 

Not everybody buys the myth that Reagan won the Cold War by demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this [berlin] wall" or bankrupting the Soviet Union via the arms race--Zbigniew Brezinski's plot to "draw the Russians into the Afghan trap" by funding the mujahedeen, Chernobyl and covert U.S. schemes to destabilize the ruble had more to do with the end of the USSR. Gangsterism replaced the ossified cult of the state, millions of Russians were reduced to paupers, revived radical Islamism in Central Asia and eliminated our sole major ideological and military rival. That increased our arrogance and insularity, left us in charge of the world and to blame for everything, paving the road to 9/11. (Reagan even armed the attacks' future perpetrators.) Anyway, the Cold War isn't over. In which direction do you think those old ICBMs point today?

 

 

The lionizers are correct about one thing: Reagan was one of our most influential presidents since FDR, whose New Deal safety net he carefully disassembled. He pioneered policies now being implemented by George W. Bush: trickle down economics, corporate deregulation, radicalizing the courts, slithering around inconvenient laws and international treaties. On the domestic front, he unraveled America's century-old social contract. What the poor needed was a kick in the ass, not a handout, said a president whose wealthy patrons bought him a house and put clothes on his wife Nancy. National parks were to be exploited for timber and oil, not protected. The federal tax code, originally conceived to redistribute wealth from top to bottom, was "reformed" to eradicate social justice.

 

 

Bush also models his approach to foreign policy on that of the original Teflon President. Reagan elevated unjustifiable military action to an art. In 1983, anxious to look tough after cutting and running from Lebanon, Reagan sent marines to topple the Marxist government of Grenada. His pretext for invading this Caribbean island was the urgent plight of 500 medical students supposedly besieged by rampaging mobs. But when they arrived at the airport in the United States, the quizzical young men and women told reporters they were confused, never having felt endangered or seen any unrest.

 

 

In a bizarre 1985 effort to free a few American hostages being held in Lebanon, Reagan authorized the sale of 107 tons of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, at the time one of our staunchest enemies, with the proceeds to be used to fund rightist death squads in Nicaragua--something Congress had expressly forbidden him to do. Evidence strongly suggests that Iran-Contra was at least his second dirty deal with Islamic Iran, the first being the October Surprise, which delayed the release of the Iranian embassy hostages until after the 1980 election was over. Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) eventually admitted to "trading arms for hostages," yet avoided prosecution for treason and the death penalty.

 

 

Reagan, like Bush 43, technically served in the military yet studiously avoided combat. Both men were physically robust, intellectually inadequate, poorly traveled former governors renowned for stabbing friends on the back--Reagan when he named names during McCarthyism. Both appointed former generals as secretaries of state and enemies of the environment to head the Department of the Interior. Both refused to read detailed briefings, worked short hours, behaved erratically in public appearances, ducked questions about sordid pasts, and relied on Christianist (the radical right equivalent of Islamist) depictions of foes as "evil" and America, invariably as embodied by himself and the Republicans, as "good." Based on intelligence as phony as that floated to justify the war against Iraq (news - web sites), Reagan bombed Muslim Libya.

this whole thing sent my day to hell, we had to call all the lenders and see if they would be open so that sent us into a panic, 2 hours later we find out we didnt have to do it (even though we already did more than half of them)

How do we know the debt didn't spark the economic tournaround during Reagans tenure? We had the government spending, we had individuals spending,. credit card debt and National debt went through the roof.

 

How can you split out Reagan's and congress' spending?

 

If federal tax receipts go up that means people are paying more, not less taxes. And remember Reagan did ok a tax increase.

 

But debt did destroy the USSR. They could not keep spending to increase their military as well as we could. Basically we played chicken with them and won.

 

You just said debt is an unfortunate by product, I agree that it is. How would you balance the federal budget to fund this war?

Also the biggest policy change that no one ever mentions but was the biggest detriment to the Soviet Union was the US building tons of infrastructure in the middle east to enable to oil industry to pump like never before. Under Reagans watch the price of crude oil plummetted, making the Soviets single biggest export worth about 30% of what it was from the time period when Ronnie was inagurated to when he left office. That never gets mentioned, and it was a huge, huge push by the Reagan White House.

 

They also took the steps of selling surplus US wheat and grains to the Soviets, which was huge to the US for a couple of reasons. #1 the increased demand gave US farmers higher prices and a brand new market, and it also interdepended the USSR economy on the US. When you depend on someone for food, it is only a matter of time before your economy becomes dependant on someone completely.

Ted Rall is a douchebag.

 

He's the left's answer to Ann Coulter but without the following or the nice rack.

You made an assertion that his presidency was a failure and I slam dunked it for you.

I'm going to make a comment that I rarely make.

 

You are especially ignorant of most of the things that you post about.

 

Congratulate yourself on a slam dunk. You knowledge of facts is so slim that if you told me the US flag that 13 stripes I'd count them. If you ever faced facts you'd shoot them and think you had done something good.

 

And before the usual suspects jump on me for being mean, f*** it. You throw insult after insult and that is ok and someone responds and you scream more insults. And you toss those insults after compliments have been posted about you. You are not only uninformed on virtually every issue of the day, you have no class either.

 

Slam dunk: you used to have in your signature the age of the Army. You were even wrong on that. I had to PM with with the actual number. That could happen to anyone but it is so totally typical of your never letting a fact stand in the way of your saying something.

 

I normally celebrate the greatness of differing opinions but you attack anyone with a different opinion than yours. That is arrogant and as self righteous as it gets. I commented earlier on how wonderful it is that people can have different opinions and you attack. Typical. And tiresome.

I'm going to make a comment that I rarely make.

 

You are especially ignorant of most of the things that you post about.

 

Congratulate yourself on a slam dunk.  You knowledge of facts is so slim that if you told me the US flag that 13 stripes I'd count them.  If you ever faced facts you'd shoot them and think you had done something good.

 

And before the usual suspects jump on me for being mean, f*** it.  You throw insult after insult and that is ok and someone responds and you scream more insults.  And you toss those insults after compliments have been posted about you.  You are not only uninformed on virtually every issue of the day, you have no class either.

 

Slam dunk: you used to have in your signature the age of the Army.  You were even wrong on that.  I had to PM with with the actual number.  That could happen to anyone but it is so totally typical of your never letting a fact stand in the way of your saying something.

And rarely do I say this but

 

 

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN

I'm going to make a comment that I rarely make.

 

You are especially ignorant of most of the things that you post about.

 

And before the usual suspects jump on me for being mean, f*** it.  You throw insult after insult and that is ok and someone responds and you scream more insults.  And you toss those insults after compliments have been posted about you.  You are not only uninformed on virtually every issue of the day, you have no class either.

 

Slam dunk: you used to have in your signature the age of the Army.  You were even wrong on that.  I had to PM with with the actual number.  That could happen to anyone but it is so totally typical of your never letting a fact stand in the way of your saying something.

 

I normally celebrate the greatness of differing opinions but you attack anyone with a different opinion than yours.  That is arrogant and as self righteous as it gets.  I commented earlier on how wonderful it is that people can have different opinions and you attack.  Typical.  And tiresome.

A comment that you rarely make? You cant type one sentence that isint full of s*** can you? You make comments like that about people all the time its just that only one or two of us ever call you out on it. You say my facts are slim but offer nothing to back up yourself. The only slim thing around here, hang on, let me use a better word, NARROW thing around here is your mind.

 

If all you can do is point out a damn typo that I didnt catch in a sig I wrote months ago then I'm feeling pretty good about myself.

 

I presented facts about the Reagan administration that you STILL haven't refuted and you wont be able to either and you sit there and call me ignorant. Fine. Labeling people as ignorant when they dare to disagree with CWSOX the pious one seems to be your modus operandi anyway. Go right on ahead and call me ignorant then cause nothing that comes out of your mouth is worth more than a hair in the crack of my asshole.

 

People on this board see you for exactly what you are. You say I have no class? HAH!! You are a holier than thou, condescending asshole. You have a massive superiority complex and dont have a leg to stand on to support it. People must really push you around in your daily life because you're the only one here who tries to post like you're god.

Just to comment on one small corner of this. For example, I think you (Nuke) are a great guy, decent, patriotic, principled, a lot of things I admire in a person. As you might have surmised, I do not agree with some of your political ideology. I appreciate that usually at least the facts are straight.

 

If you were running for Senator from Texas, I would probably vote for you. If you were running for Congress or President, I wouldn't. I love to see a 50/50 split in the Senate. I think a free flow of ideas, from all corners of the political spectrum is what keeps this country great. The Senate is the best forum for that.

Both sides usually get their chance to rule once folks get tired of the other being in power.

 

I dont agree with a lot of your ideology but it's really nice to have a spirited debate with someone and still be buds at the end.

 

Both sides usually get their chance to rule once folks get tired of the other being in power. 

 

I dont agree with a lot of your ideology but it's really nice to have a spirited debate with someone and still be buds at the end.

 

Thank you

 

I do not think it is getting tired of one party, I think it reflects the reality of political thought by most Americans. In a Coke vs. Pepsi world, the soft drink guys see it as an all or nothing battle for supremacy, while most Americans have a "if you are out of one, give me the other approach".

 

In politics we have shown over and over again what we want is both parties in balance. We're back to the old check and balances. If one has the White House (I typed Sox first ) the other gets Congress. Balance 'em out and it wil be OK.

 

I am leaniong more Democrat today based on three campaigns the GOP has embarked on that I think erodes our rights and protections to further their aims. I don't like self serving politicians and parties. What is nice is everytime I listen to Rush, he explains how liberals think and believe and I realize I'm not even close to being a liberal, I don't think and believe anything close to those things. In fact, I don't know anyone I would have called liberal that does.