It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rewriting Ronald Reagan

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Janky Red

You are still not contemplating the costs of the government.

Management has ALWAYS been the highest cost of any system.

Hmmm, I think we should have MORE management. That would MAKE things better. /s

Anyway janky, we are close but their is ONE thing that we will always be different from.

Just to break it down, if it takes millions of dollars to save a life, how do you decide who's life to save?

This is the ultimate question and the ultimate endeavor. I myself will just die, I do not FEAR death. That is the problem, IMO. You cannot mandate morality and you never will. Who is to be the arbiter?

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:02 AM
Reagan spent two terms in office to which he nearly tripled the debt left on by Carter, but I'm sure you are already well aware of this. Towards the end of his administration the number of welfare recipients grew, the gap between the wealth and poor grew significantly as well, lower wages continued to actually decrease:

Average hourly earnings, total private industry (1982 dollars)4

1973 $8.55
1980 7.78
1985 7.77
1990 7.52
1993 7.39

Average income level?
Well in from 1977 - 1990 the average income level for the lower 50% of the population decreased, it went by -6% of growth through the period of 13 years, the vast majority of this decrease under the reagan era. What about the wealthy? The average wage for the top 5% grew by 35%.

And what about those pesky lobbyists you always whine about in DC?

The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, 2,500 did. The number of corporate [political action committees] increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980. […] The Chamber [of Commerce] doubled in membership between 1974 and 1980. Its budget tripled. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) doubled its membership between 1970 and 1979.

Reagan actually raised taxes towards the end of his administration as well:

Horney notes that that's slightly smaller than the tax effect in the fifth years of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (a tax increase signed by President George H.W. Bush) and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (a tax increase signed by President Bill Clinton), as a percentage of the GDP at the time. And it's less than half of the tax increase (again as a percentage of GDP) from the Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act signed by President Ronald Reagan.

"CBO says the net effect on revenues is that it is an increase," Horney said. "It's not insignificant. But it is far from being the largest tax increase in recent history."

William Ahern with the Tax Foundation, a business-backed tax policy group, said total new revenues of $525 billion over 10 years isn't close to the size of the Clinton tax hike in 1993 or the Reagan tax hike in 1982. However, he said, a rigorous comparison can't be made because in 1982 and 1993, the Joint Committee on Taxation only did five-year estimates.

So is it, in light of all these facts, many of which you blame this president for, do you continue to praise Reagan? Well my guess is that Reagan was a good actor, and that is good enough for you.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Remember, Reagan did all of his work during the era where there was no Talk Radio. Where the left wing media pretty much controlled the narrative.

Where was the proof that the media was "liberal" at that time? Reagan essentially had DC and the population eating out of hands. Reagan won all the states aside from Minnisota and DC in the 1984 elections, he won the popular vote by far. In 1980 Reagan came out with nearly 90% of the electorate, he won all but 6 states. Reagan had half the Democratic party and voters in his hands, hense the term "Reagan Democrats" so don't talk about the "liberal media" because there is absolutely no evidence that any media outlet was catering against the views of their audiences at the time.

So yes, the Reagan presidency was a complete flop and history shows this. If you want to talk about this president and debt I suggest you remain consistent in your criticism.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Well SG, I am going to have to spend like two days to go over your numbers, did you USE ANY NUMBERS from the linked source?

Or are you just here to plug you numbers? Question, since the MSM compared Obama to Reagan, are you going to say that Obama is just like Reagan now?

By the way, what is it you are trying to say? Do you think that Reagan was bad for the US or was he good for the US?

I will address everything you stated if you address my simple components. Yes, Reagan was wrong on several situations, but I remember the era. We actually made a living back then.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Reagan was a BAD president. YOU were able to make a living, millions more were scraping by. Even when presented with facts you doubt them without even looking at the source ("Did you get those numbers from the source or are you just plugging them?" READ THE SOURCE!) What did Reagan do personally for you? How did his policies enable you to make a living? Just curious. I'm sure the social programs he cut and his trying to remove disabled people from social security enabled them to make a living.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:17 PM
Reagan was a spokes-model for the globalist agenda, a proponent of "free" (lopsided Anti-US trade imbalance) trade, and the point man for the so called "war on drugs," which is probably his most miserable failing. His presidency was co-opted early by corporate mercantilists who now write legislation directly for their puppets in congress, allowing them to subvert and undermine capitalism (and eliminate their own competition) by the stroke of legislative pen.

His treatment of south America was corporatist imperialism, and under his administration, our own government bought and sold drugs to finance secret weapons deals with the same middle eastern terrorists we are all encouraged to fear and hate in 2011.

Just say no to Ronnie Raygun, and the kult of personality created to service his agenda.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:06 PM
The legacy of Reagan is fallen standards of living for most Americans, a tangled mess of foreign entanglements, and crushing debt.

Here is what really happened. By the Carter administration it was clear that our overwhelming post-WWII economic power was over, and that as a country we had to begin to choose our priorities carefully to avoid eventual moral and financial collapse. Carter understood this, thus the "malaise" speech. Reagan (or his handlers), seizing the opportunity, spent the presidential campaign telling the American people that the COULD have everything, and they bought it. Since then top politicians have realized that you can not tell Americans the truth, and they have been complicit in a scheme to borrow endlessly to keep the bread and circuses plentiful. Now, we are nearly at the inevitable point of collapse, and yes, it is the fault of the Reagan administration.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in