Why Do Republicans Worship Ronald Reagan?

[WrongWay 0]

Wow, Reagan must've had supernatural powers to accomplish all that! (Your rants are getting more hilarious as they get further and further detached from reality).

It is called consensus.... He pulled the wool over enough peoples' eyes that everyone else had to go along with what he wanted. If you think I am detatched from reality, then YOU are the one detached from reality.He flooded the economy with cheap money and that casued the economy to boom, and increased tax revenue... just not as much as he spent. You say that if he had cut spending more, it would have been even better. Wrong! Take econ 101. There are 2 policies that can effect the economy. Fiscal and monitary. He opened the fiscal flood gates AND the monitary flood gates, and that is what gave us the boom and bust bubbles we have been seeing ever sense. Had it opened the fiscal flood gates and locked down the monitary flood gates, as you indicate you want, then the economy woud not have boomed the way it did.Cut tax rates and increase spending = more money in the system = booming econmy at the cost of skyrocketing deficits.Cut tax rates and cut spending = same amount of money in the system = no boom in the econmy, just more money in the hands of the rich and less in the hands of the customers that are needed to keep the rich getting richer.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

If you think I am detatched from reality, then YOU are the one detached from reality.

Shazaam?

[myenemy 0]

Didnt he do something with the Russians too? Arms race or somthing? No USSR anymore or something. Oh forget it, I dont really know.

[strategy 4]

Didnt he do something with the Russians too? Arms race or somthing? No USSR anymore or something. Oh forget it, I dont really know.

Yes, he soundly defeated an evil empire*!*Said empire would have collapsed regardless of who we had in the white house

[hblask 1]

If you think I am detatched from reality, then YOU are the one detached from reality.

ZING! PWNED!

[mtdesmoines 3]

Can someone please explain this to me? I just watched the Republican debate which I'd had on my DVR for like a week (yeah I know, I'm a slacker) and the amount of sucking up to Ronald Reagan really kinda surprised me. I was too young when Reagan was President to know what was going on, but from the bits and pieces I've picked up he doesn't seem like the God that most Republicans make him out to be. So, what is it about Ronald Reagan that was so great?

He was a "leader" and not an "administrator."

Funny I was gonna ask the same thing about dems and JFK.

JFK was so far removed from where the Democratic party is now that it's not even funny.

A. RR wasn't a wishy washy stick your finger in the air to see which way the polls are blowing so he'd know what he would think about an issue. Like him or not, you knew what RR believed and you have to respect him for being upfront about it.B. Plus when he went to work in the Oval Office he wore a suit and tie everytime, he said it helped him keep his respect for the office of the presidency, much different than others who don't see a problem with a pants optional policy of dress for work.C. It didn't hurt that he put us all back to work, cut taxes and tripled the income level of the government at the same time.

A. LeadershipB. ClassC. Impact

Didnt he do something with the Russians too? Arms race or somthing? No USSR anymore or something. Oh forget it, I dont really know.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or "star wars" was a superior tactical approach to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, or "Dr. Strangelove"). It took the nuclear arms race from the arena of production -- where we hadn't proven American superiority -- and moved it into the arena of technology, where we had clear and definitive superiority. I know some of you are too young or too idealistic to imagine or to have lived through the Cold War, but it was almost literally a cloud of despair hanging over all mankind in the 60's 70's and 80's. Reagan's adoption and investment in "star wars" more than any one action a world leader has taken before or since backed the human race down from nuclear confrontation. He didn't talk, he acted. And the Soviet strategy collapsed because they couldn't compete.Not everyone understands or cares to admit that fact. Reagan also proved that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth, which results in greater tax returns. Few of his critics will admit that "trickle down" theory worked, but every recovery since has been the result of trickle down in action, and every recession since has been the result of "reverse trickle down."Reagan was a good president for all Americans. He's easy to make fun of for a lot of reasons. But when it boils right down to it, he was the right guy in the right place at the right time.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Yes, he soundly defeated an evil empire*!*Said empire would have collapsed regardless of who we had in the white house

Profiles In Presidential Courage: "At the summit in Geneva, Reagan had greeted Gorbachev on a bitterly cold November morning wearing just his suit jacket. This was a bit of stagecraft. The 74-year-old Reagan wanted to show he could stand up to the Russian leader two decades his junior. As Gorbachev fumbled with his scarf and overcoat, a beaming, confident Reagan towered over him. Cameras flashed and the Russians knew they had lost the skirmish in the war of images."THAT'S how you win a Cold War.

[WrongWay 0]

Didnt he do something with the Russians too? Arms race or somthing? No USSR anymore or something. Oh forget it, I dont really know.

As I said, to defeat communism he funded a group of rebels in Afghanistan... At the time they were called the Mujahideen (struglers). When they drove USSR out of Afghanistan, then became know as Taliban (students (of the one true Religion, militant Islam)). They the most extreme wing of Taliban we now call Al Qaeda (the base).Good going Reagan.... you showed the militant Islamic radicals how easy it is to defeat a global super power. Just lure them into an endless occupation until you bleed them into financial bankrupcty.Simple answers to complex problems. USSR is the evil empire and must be destroyed? Oh really? Even if it feeds radical Islamic militant fascism and global terrorism?

[Balloon guy 158]

As I said, to defeat communism he funded a group of rebels in Afghanistan... At the time they were called the Mujahideen (struglers). When they drove USSR out of Afghanistan, then became know as Taliban (students (of the one true Religion, militant Islam)). They the most extreme wing of Taliban we now call Al Qaeda (the base).Good going Reagan.... you showed the militant Islamic radicals how easy it is to defeat a global super power. Just lure them into an endless occupation until you bleed them into financial bankrupcty.Simple answers to complex problems. USSR is the evil empire and must be destroyed? Oh really? Even if it feeds radical Islamic militant fascism and global terrorism?

They made a movie about it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Profiles In Presidential Courage: "At the summit in Geneva, Reagan had greeted Gorbachev on a bitterly cold November morning wearing just his suit jacket. This was a bit of stagecraft. The 74-year-old Reagan wanted to show he could stand up to the Russian leader two decades his junior. As Gorbachev fumbled with his scarf and overcoat, a beaming, confident Reagan towered over him. Cameras flashed and the Russians knew they had lost the skirmish in the war of images."THAT'S how you win a Cold War.

Little known side note, RR had a piece of luggage sent to Gorbys room with RR's name on it by 'accident'. It was unlocked and filled with clothes, but on the top was a box of extra large condoms.Gorby was defeated before he put on his jacket that day.

[WrongWay 0]

I know some of you are too young or too idealistic to imagine or to have lived through the Cold War, but it was almost literally a cloud of despair hanging over all mankind in the 60's 70's and 80's.

Today happens to be my 41st bday. Not only do I rememebr the cold war, but served in the U.S. Navy during the final few years of it. Spent many an our off the CA coast doing amphibious operation while being "survailed" by Russin spy ships.My dad designed and built satelites for the US military, first at AeroJet and later for TRW. The defeat of the Soviet Union had VERY little to do with star wars. The Russians knew it would never work. 25 years later and we still got NOTHING! The Sovient Union went bankrupt due to the basic flaws of communism (pretend to pay people and they pretend to work) and the vast expenses of thier Afghan war.

Reagan also proved that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth, which results in greater tax returns. Few of his critics will admit that "trickle down" theory worked, but every recovery since has been the result of trickle down in action, and every recession since has been the result of "reverse trickle down."Reagan was a good president for all Americans. He's easy to make fun of for a lot of reasons. But when it boils right down to it, he was the right guy in the right place at the right time.

It is mass government deficits that stimulates the economy... until the debt has to be paid back. It doesn't matter if you give tax cuts to teh rich or hand outs to the poor. If the government runs a defict and doesn't suck the money back out of the system through tightening fiscal policy, then you get a booming economy. Until it goes bust and you have to run bigger deficits to stimulate it again... until it goes bust again and you need bigger deficits to stimulate it again.Look at today. We're expected to run a $300 billion deficit, but that isn't enough. They have to throw another $180 billion at people in hopes of stimulating the economy.Reagan was short-sighted and simplistic. Bush was right. It is vodoo economics. His "trickle on" economics has lead us on the path through bubble econmics to the door of finacial ruin.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Little known side note, RR had a piece of luggage sent to Gorbys room with RR's name on it by 'accident'. It was unlocked and filled with clothes, but on the top was a box of extra large condoms.Gorby was defeated before he put on his jacket that day.

Is there anything RodReynolds can't do?

[Ouch-8s 4]

Is there anything RodReynolds can't do?

make a post so ironic that He Himself cannot smile at it?

[Balloon guy 158]

Today happens to be my 41st bday. Not only do I rememebr the cold war, but served in the U.S. Navy during the final few years of it. Spent many an our off the CA coast doing amphibious operation while being "survailed" by Russin spy ships.My dad designed and built satelites for the US military, first at AeroJet and later for TRW. The defeat of the Soviet Union had VERY little to do with star wars. The Russians knew it would never work. 25 years later and we still got NOTHING! The Sovient Union went bankrupt due to the basic flaws of communism (pretend to pay people and they pretend to work) and the vast expenses of thier Afghan war.It is mass government deficits that stimulates the economy... until the debt has to be paid back. It doesn't matter if you give tax cuts to teh rich or hand outs to the poor. If the government runs a defict and doesn't suck the money back out of the system through tightening fiscal policy, then you get a booming economy. Until it goes bust and you have to run bigger deficits to stimulate it again... until it goes bust again and you need bigger deficits to stimulate it again.Look at today. We're expected to run a $300 billion deficit, but that isn't enough. They have to throw another $180 billion at people in hopes of stimulating the economy.Reagan was short-sighted and simplistic. Bush was right. It is vodoo economics. His "trickle on" economics has lead us on the path through bubble econmics to the door of finacial ruin.

Happy Birthday!Unless that is a bad thing also...

[grbs1605 0]

Michael J Fox was very influential in the 80's.

[hblask 1]

As I said, to defeat communism he funded a group of rebels in Afghanistan... At the time they were called the Mujahideen (struglers). When they drove USSR out of Afghanistan, then became know as Taliban (students (of the one true Religion, militant Islam)). They the most extreme wing of Taliban we now call Al Qaeda (the base).

Bzzzt.... at least you continue to live up to your name. The Afghans had little to do with the defeat of Communism. Basically, it's an untenable economic system. It was teetering on the edge, and Reagan gave it a kick, as described a few posts earlier. The Afghans then had about as much power as they do now.

[hblask 1]

Today happens to be my 41st bday. Not only do I rememebr the cold war, but served in the U.S. Navy during the final few years of it. Spent many an our off the CA coast doing amphibious operation while being "survailed" by Russin spy ships.My dad designed and built satelites for the US military, first at AeroJet and later for TRW. The defeat of the Soviet Union had VERY little to do with star wars. The Russians knew it would never work. 25 years later and we still got NOTHING! The Sovient Union went bankrupt due to the basic flaws of communism (pretend to pay people and they pretend to work) and the vast expenses of thier Afghan war.It is mass government deficits that stimulates the economy... until the debt has to be paid back. It doesn't matter if you give tax cuts to teh rich or hand outs to the poor. If the government runs a defict and doesn't suck the money back out of the system through tightening fiscal policy, then you get a booming economy. Until it goes bust and you have to run bigger deficits to stimulate it again... until it goes bust again and you need bigger deficits to stimulate it again.Look at today. We're expected to run a $300 billion deficit, but that isn't enough. They have to throw another $180 billion at people in hopes of stimulating the economy.Reagan was short-sighted and simplistic. Bush was right. It is vodoo economics. His "trickle on" economics has lead us on the path through bubble econmics to the door of finacial ruin.

First off, I agree that deficit spending is a bad thing in the long run, as we are seeing. But the very act of cutting taxes stimulates the economy, as has been shown many times. Now, if you cut taxes AND cut spending by an equivalent amount, you have a recipe for long term growth. If you cut taxes and increase spending, you get short term growth and long term disaster. If you raise taxes and raise spending, you get long-term economic malaise.

[checkymcfold 0]

i sure wish wrong way wrote better, cuz he's mostly right.brief question for all you minimalist conservatives (and homo liberals, for that matter): what barometer are you using to measure "the economy" and its growth? when fiscal tards on both sides talk about "the economy," they aren't talking about anything. it's a made up word. never in the history of the US have all reasonable measures of "the economy" grown at once. are you talking about property ownership? the stock market? the government budget and whether it's in the red or the black? inflation? mean income? median income? median income of a specific socioeconomic class? unemployment rates? what? none of these things on their own means shit, fwiw.

[hblask 1]

i sure wish wrong way wrote better, cuz he's mostly right.brief question for all you minimalist conservatives (and homo liberals, for that matter): what barometer are you using to measure "the economy" and its growth? when fiscal tards on both sides talk about "the economy," they aren't talking about anything. it's a made up word. never in the history of the US have all reasonable measures of "the economy" grown at once. are you talking about property ownership? the stock market? the government budget and whether it's in the red or the black? inflation? mean income? median income? median income of a specific socioeconomic class? unemployment rates? what? none of these things on their own means shit, fwiw.

Are you claiming that there is no way to know if we are better off than, say, Somalia?There are a number of measures of economic growth. The simple ones include productivity, GDP, median income, unemployment. You can dig as deep as you want, they tend to move in tandem.

[El Guapo 8]

i sure wish wrong way wrote better, cuz he's mostly right.brief question for all you minimalist conservatives (and homo liberals, for that matter): what barometer are you using to measure "the economy" and its growth? when fiscal tards on both sides talk about "the economy," they aren't talking about anything. it's a made up word. never in the history of the US have all reasonable measures of "the economy" grown at once. are you talking about property ownership? the stock market? the government budget and whether it's in the red or the black? inflation? mean income? median income? median income of a specific socioeconomic class? unemployment rates? what? none of these things on their own means shit, fwiw.

Its a matter of balance. When things grow then other shrink, and vice versa. As henry pointed out if you decrease taxes but increase spending, you are not accomplishing anything.IMO the gov has too much control on the economies. The FED making decisions as hasty as they have latley are a product of international multimedia. Economic stability is a term that will always be in flux.

[Balloon guy 158]

i sure wish wrong way wrote better, cuz he's mostly right.brief question for all you minimalist conservatives (and homo liberals, for that matter): what barometer are you using to measure "the economy" and its growth? when fiscal tards on both sides talk about "the economy," they aren't talking about anything. it's a made up word. never in the history of the US have all reasonable measures of "the economy" grown at once. are you talking about property ownership? the stock market? the government budget and whether it's in the red or the black? inflation? mean income? median income? median income of a specific socioeconomic class? unemployment rates? what? none of these things on their own means shit, fwiw.

As you probably remember, I'm a maximus conservative, so I stopped reading right here. Did I miss anything?

[freak2304 0]

As you probably remember, I'm a maximus conservative, so I stopped reading right here. Did I miss anything?

Something about fuck them terrorists and high-dollar cigars. -shrug-

[jmkiser 0]

Thank you all for teaching a young one so much about the economy.Please... for the love of god, keep this thread going and talk less about just Reagan. Brief Synopsis of the Executive Office's Impact from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II to now./discussWhat did each president do regarding the issue of the economy and what effect did it have?

[Balloon guy 158]

Thank you all for teaching a young one so much about the economy.Please... for the love of god, keep this thread going and talk less about just Reagan. Brief Synopsis of the Executive Office's Impact from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II to now./discussWhat did each president do regarding the issue of the economy and what effect did it have?

Bush I: Put Greenspan in charge and prayed he would take care of everything.Clinton: Put Greenspan in charge and hoped he would take care of everything.Bush II: Put Greenspan in charge, THEN had to put Bernanke in charge and prayed they would take care of everything.So you can see Bush II really did the most for the economy.

[hblask 1]

Thank you all for teaching a young one so much about the economy.Please... for the love of god, keep this thread going and talk less about just Reagan. Brief Synopsis of the Executive Office's Impact from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II to now./discussWhat did each president do regarding the issue of the economy and what effect did it have?

First, I think the initial question is flawed. The federal gov't can't "help" the economy in the sense that it gives it a push. The best it can do is get out of the way so that the entrepreneurs who made this country a world leader can do their thing. In this way, cutting taxes while balancing the budget (since if the interference is the same but just paid for by later generations, that's not a good thing) allows more capital for job creation in *desired* sectors (manufacturing, service industries, etc) and less capital for unwanted sectors (interfering with economic growth, red tape, corporate welfare).So with that in mind, Bush I raised taxes. Bad.Clinton made some minor tax increases, but also balanced the budget. He also pushed through the NAFTA, which has been a huge economic benefit for this country. He also went along with Congress' welfare reform, which transformed lots of deadbeats into productive citizens. So that'd be a net positive.Bush II: Increased bureacracy in every area of our life, got us involved in an expensive quagmire in the middle east, increased spending at record rates while charging most of it to future generations. He's been an unmitigated disaster.