Ronald Reagan was right!

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Reagan played the part of president well... and thats it. He was an actor. The man began the financial slide we see today.

Nevertheless republicans feel a need for their own kennedy so if you folks wish to idolize him thats all dandy. I do admire him somewhat but he did the economy bad.




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   


Note how I purposely said "from LBJ" on. Yes, "the Camelot years" brought hope too. But what happens with a president the NWO doesn't want? I'm sure you know your history by now.[edit on 12-11-2008 by manticore]

Are you perhaps referring to Clinton, the only President in recent memory to balance the budget?

Yeah, that NWO has their priorities screwed on straight alright....



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 

While this comment is not directed specifically to you, your post reminded me of something that had been on my mind for quite some time. I hear a lot of people complaining about the difficulties they have 'making ends meet' because the government didn't do its job...then I see the ends they are trying to make meet which includes: the latest trendy cell phones, expensive clothes, premium cable/satellite television package, dining out with regularity, big-ass flat panel television set, over-sized homes, etc. I have seen all too many people like this, my sister is one of them. Just get what you actually NEED, not what you want to be like the proverbial 'Jones' family. Most families I have seen do not need a 4000 square foot house, most families I have seen do not need luxury automobiles, most families I know do not need hundreds and hundreds of channels for their over-sized tv, most families do not need to eat out (especially in America with the obesity epidemic).
I can truly feel sympathy though for the families that are genuinely having a difficult time financially; after all, I am not in the best of positions, but I try...and I avoid all the excesses that I see so many frivolously call 'necessities'. I hope to someday be in a position to help many, although I see that as far off.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Reaganomics were bad.... Just like Bushanomics were worse and Clintonomics just piled on the dog [snip]! And Bushanomics the second coming once again proved to screw everyone! Obamanomics will turn them just as tight as the other. When will you people wake up and see that our government is designed to filter your tax dollars out the wealthy in the means of ear marks and bail outs. Have any of you been looking at what has been happening? Do you see trends that follow every REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT that has been in power? Is it even funny to any of you that we have NEVER elected anyone who isn't tied to the republican or democratic party? Does it even make you wonder why the every day person can't get elected into a high office with out having a serious bank roll?
Do any of you even wonder why Obama is starting to recycle Clintonits from the 90's back into office? Just like Bush recycled his fathers clones back into office when he was elected....? Man...I find it just a slap on the knee that the core group who work in D.C. manage to always get shuffled around from cabnet position to lobby advisory positions? I live in D.C. the local papers here have been printing out positions being filled by the new administration. 80% of them are from former administrations...Now you'll just blindly say.."Well we need seasoned administration staff to run the government".
I say [snip]! Cause these idiots that everyone in here will be so quick to defend have put us in the mess were in.! NOW I want one person to tell me that the Republicans and Democrats are not at the fault this country is in. I BLAME YOU for this mess if you voted for these two parties in the presidential election. You want change? Then lets vote every career politician out and make changes with NEW people not recycles from past failed policy makers!



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 13-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   



I disagree.

Trickle down economics does work and most of the population of this country is an example of it. When my company does well, I do well. It's that simple.

Oh and have plenty of economics classes under my belt.


Oh, and Clinton did NOT balance the budget. It was corrected BEFORE he went into office (by the previous REPUBLICAN president who need not be named) and he rode the wave. A common misconception.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bkcrt]


B.S. Wrong on ALL counts. consider this:


conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.

Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 -- a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.

More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax -- something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.

Although much of the budgetary savings came from lower defense spending and reduced interest on the debt, entitlement spending also fell to 10.6 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 11.5 percent in 1992. Mr. Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, the only time in American history when an entitlement program was abolished. By virtually all accounts, welfare reform has been a success.

Mr. Clinton was also steadfast in his support for free trade. It is doubtful that anyone else could have persuaded Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement. On monetary policy, he reappointed Alan Greenspan, a Republican, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, thereby helping to bring inflation down to its lowest sustained level in a generation.

By contrast, Mr. Clinton's Republican successor has caused the surplus to evaporate, raised total federal spending by 1.6 percent of G.D.P., established a new entitlement program for prescription drugs and adopted the most protectionist trade policy since Herbert Hoover. While President Bush has done other things that conservatives view more favorably, like cutting taxes, there is no getting around the reality that Mr. Clinton was better in many respects.

source: Those were the days



[edit on 11/13/08 by irishgrl]

[edit on 11/13/08 by irishgrl]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Wow, what a speech that was, sounds like it could of been said today too, timeless, i suppose.

Never knew ronny was that good at talking, and he sounded like a man on a mission, we could imagine today ron paul talking like that.

this is what the reps missed as they had no one to energise the party against obama, who was set upto for an easy win.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


You say its the 'CONSERVATIVES' that are saying the constitution is outmodded??? you sure as hell have the bit if history rewritten. Its the liberal Democrats that keep telling us that its a 'LIVING DOCUMENT' meant to be revised at the whim of how peoples 'FEELINGS' are at the time. The last thing a constitutional Conservative wants is anyone messing with the constitution!!

Zindo



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Some of you will scoff, but if you read the many posts here about the NWO and the take over of our country by special interests...maybe you will take the time to listen to this 1964 speech Reagan made on the very problems we here everyday complain about. The names have changed and the numbers have gotten worse, but this one speech actualy predicts our situation today!


Zindo


Zindo...thank you. I always loved Reagan, though because of the current administration I had grown very sickened by the party I used to be proud of. Having grown up a little, I wish all parties would walk off a cliff. I don't know the answers to today's problems, but man Ronnie was good. When he spoke, you didn't even question what he was saying because he was such a great speaker.

I'm glad you made me remember why I loved him as I was ready to flush him down with the rest of them, but he was different, maybe not in the end so much, but a true leader.

Peace



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishgrl



I disagree.

Trickle down economics does work and most of the population of this country is an example of it. When my company does well, I do well. It's that simple.

Oh and have plenty of economics classes under my belt.


Oh, and Clinton did NOT balance the budget. It was corrected BEFORE he went into office (by the previous REPUBLICAN president who need not be named) and he rode the wave. A common misconception.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bkcrt]


B.S. Wrong on ALL counts. consider this:


conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.

Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 -- a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.

More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax -- something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.

Although much of the budgetary savings came from lower defense spending and reduced interest on the debt, entitlement spending also fell to 10.6 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 11.5 percent in 1992. Mr. Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, the only time in American history when an entitlement program was abolished. By virtually all accounts, welfare reform has been a success.

Mr. Clinton was also steadfast in his support for free trade. It is doubtful that anyone else could have persuaded Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement. On monetary policy, he reappointed Alan Greenspan, a Republican, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, thereby helping to bring inflation down to its lowest sustained level in a generation.

By contrast, Mr. Clinton's Republican successor has caused the surplus to evaporate, raised total federal spending by 1.6 percent of G.D.P., established a new entitlement program for prescription drugs and adopted the most protectionist trade policy since Herbert Hoover. While President Bush has done other things that conservatives view more favorably, like cutting taxes, there is no getting around the reality that Mr. Clinton was better in many respects.

source: Those were the days

[edit on 11/13/08 by irishgrl]

[edit on 11/13/08 by irishgrl]


That's a lot of positive propaganda for Clinton. Very nice. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.






posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Some of you will scoff, but if you read the many posts here about the NWO and the take over of our country by special interests...maybe you will take the time to listen to this 1964 speech Reagan made on the very problems we here everyday complain about. The names have changed and the numbers have gotten worse, but this one speech actualy predicts our situation today!
Zindo




Reagan was just as dirty as any other president in the last 50 years. He may have championed fiscal conservatism, but he was directly responsible for the largest budget deficit in history -- a record that stood until the new millennium. He was also directly responsible for uncounted crimes. He was nicknamed the "teflon" president because revelations of his behaviors never resulted in suitable punitative actions.

When I think of Reagan, I think of the rape and murder of nuns, castration, kidnapping, torture and a general campaign of terror. I think of an administration having 138 officials convicted, indicted, or under official investigation. I think of massive government coc aine smuggling and the resulting utter destruction of our inner cities.

Reagan may have been a good actor and orator, but the reality of his presidency is far different. Our country has been run by thugs and criminals for more than a generation:

www.highstrangeness.tv...



















[edit on 11/13/2008 by anonymousATS]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Incredible.

All I can think of is how far the government's influence reaches. They even used Reagan's righteous moral standards and ethics to control him while in office.


The "War on Drugs".



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bkcrt
I disagree.

Trickle down economics does work and most of the population of this country is an example of it. When my company does well, I do well. It's that simple.

Oh and have plenty of economics classes under my belt.


Oh, and Clinton did NOT balance the budget. It was corrected BEFORE he went into office (by the previous REPUBLICAN president who need not be named) and he rode the wave. A common misconception.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bkcrt]


Who was that president who balanced the budget for Clinton? No offense I dont care how many economics classes you have under your belt trickle down does not work period. If it worked you wouldnt have seen the executive pay go from 50x to 500x their average employee. You wouldnt see mass jobs shipped over seas because the wealth would trickle down which would create more jobs and higher pay. You would see higher pay which we have not seen in fact pay hasnt even kept up with inflation. Last but not least if trickle down worked you wouldnt have this


www.lafn.org...


So what say you?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by bkcrt
I disagree.

Trickle down economics does work and most of the population of this country is an example of it. When my company does well, I do well. It's that simple.

Oh and have plenty of economics classes under my belt.


Oh, and Clinton did NOT balance the budget. It was corrected BEFORE he went into office (by the previous REPUBLICAN president who need not be named) and he rode the wave. A common misconception.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bkcrt]


Who was that president who balanced the budget for Clinton? No offense I dont care how many economics classes you have under your belt trickle down does not work period. If it worked you wouldnt have seen the executive pay go from 50x to 500x their average employee. You wouldnt see mass jobs shipped over seas because the wealth would trickle down which would create more jobs and higher pay. You would see higher pay which we have not seen in fact pay hasnt even kept up with inflation. Last but not least if trickle down worked you wouldnt have this


www.lafn.org...


So what say you?


Unit is it as hard to watch people tool around over sides in here as I find it? Cause you are one of the few I have watched post that seems to have some un-binding blinders on as to what is going on with common sense.... I feel like 80% of the people in here sit in front of a T.V. and wait with ever eager fingers to type the next breaking story from their political view points.... How many people out there have to sit and touch a red hot stove eye over,and over,and over before they figure out A: It burns..and B: If I keep doing this I'm going to get the same results..... Now having said that very easy example of the most common form of "stupid" please apply that to your self if you vote Republican and Democrat on a regular basis.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan


Unit is it as hard to watch people tool around over sides in here as I find it? Cause you are one of the few I have watched post that seems to have some un-binding blinders on as to what is going on with common sense.... I feel like 80% of the people in here sit in front of a T.V. and wait with ever eager fingers to type the next breaking story from their political view points.... How many people out there have to sit and touch a red hot stove eye over,and over,and over before they figure out A: It burns..and B: If I keep doing this I'm going to get the same results..... Now having said that very easy example of the most common form of "stupid" please apply that to your self if you vote Republican and Democrat on a regular basis.


Its annoying is what it is. You can show as much evidence as you want and people wont look at it. I used to be one of these Republican tools who thought Republicans including Reagan was for small government and balanced budgets. Then I started doing research and finding this was not the case. Some people just want to have their heads in the sand and Ill be honest with you I dont blame them. Knowing what I know now is a big burden on my shoulders because I really dont have a choice when I vote. Either way I get big government and big spending. The only difference is the Democrats raise taxes to pay for it and the Republicans put it on the charge card.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Not a big fan of Reagan, because unfortunately, as mybigunit noted, people change once they are elected. If they don't, they get assassinated.

Having said that, though, this is probably the greatest speech I have ever heard. Now if someone would act on the words rather than just speaking them, perhaps we can fix the many problems we are facing and are going to face.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I see this as the historic moment Ronald Reagan decided to sell out and get rich. Before that I think he was a decent guy.

I believe Goldwater was an authentic small government fiscal conservative but everyone knows those guys can't get elected! Current example Ron Paul. Republicans think Ron Paul is crazy!



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Current example Ron Paul. Republicans think Ron Paul is crazy!


Yep its amazing, thats the first time i saw that vid today, and he spoke like ron paul speaks today. What a true conservative should speak like. But of course we all know he was shot when he got in, and bush senior probably ran everything after for the most part.

But red ronny sure did a great piece of acting in that speech, lol, and it was a fine speech, that like i said earlier is timeless, as people could use those words today and still seem like being relevent.

Shame when they get elected, the secret government does not let them do anything, so we will never know, if he meant those words, or he was just a closest liberal playing the conservative, lol.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Reagan spoke out against the powers that be right up until he won the nomination in 1980... then they found a way to shut him up. That's right; before he even got to the white house, Reagan was a lame duck. His cabinet was stocked with secret society members and he went along with whatever they wanted. There WAS an assassination attempt against him, so maybe he tried to stray from their ways at some point and was corrected.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Reagan was a man of ideas and he was a great orator, but his ideas were not always good. For example, "trickle-down economics" (which was a concept that had been around before Reagan) and so-called "supply-side economics" or "Reaganomics," which George H.W. Bush once called "voodoo economics." Almost any responsible economist would tell you they don't work. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't pay for themselves, they only add to the country's debt, which Reagan ran up astronomically.

Reagan could talk wonderfully and was an inspiration to many people, but under his watch only the rich got richer, the middle class was losing ground rapidly, and the poor got poorer. His policies mainly benefitted the top 1% of the population. The wealth never trickled down. Republicans always claim to be the party of the average American, but they aren't. It's just that almost every middle-class guy thinks he or she is going to be rich someday so they like to identify with the rich. They don't imagine they themselves will be left out of the loop until they are.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Yes Reagan racked up a lot of debt but you have to remember he was fighting and ultimately won the cold war against the USSR. He defeated them without having to drop the bomb. He out spent them on defense. Money well spent. I remember being a kid during the cold war with the constant fear of the Russians dropping the bomb on us. I am glad my child does not have to grow up with that fear thanks to Ronald Reagan.


Yup but he started a fad now. That fad is have all the big government you want, lower taxes, and rack up huge debt. He should of made the people pay for that big government so the huge debt wasnt added on. Look at the chart I provided above. This is what is bankrupting our country.

As far as social issues Regan talked a big game but what did he actually do? Did he fix immigration? Did he ban the evil gay marriage? Did he find a way to overturn Roe v Wade? Did he find a way to lower divorces? Premarital sex? Another Republican talking point is the social issues but nothing ever gets done and once again Regan played a part in this game.


And what would you raise our taxes to? Right now, the total spending budgets of Fed, state, local, and county governments in the US equal 75% of the GNP. Pretty much all Fed tax is paid by the middle class alone. So what do you want to raise my taxes to? 90%? 100%? Why should I not do the Soviet tactic of lying and concealing my income, so I have some to live on? I have a suggestion, why not take the 60% of the Federal budget that is 'black', totally unaccounted for, and possibly, probably, rife with improprieties, like million dollar toilet seats sold by friends and relatives, and have it audited by an independent body? A body composed of unidentified individuals, so that they are not bribed by the benefactors of these trillions in fraudulent income. Bribed or assasinated.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join