• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ronald Reagan.... Good or Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most of the people here bashing Reagan either weren't born or weren't old enough to understand what was going on prior to Reagan taking office. These people haven't a clue as to what it was like trying to buy a home with double digit interest rates or double digit inflation. Doesn't matter to them because it is all about the debt. I will take the Reagan debt in a heartbeat over the Obama debt he is creating. Obama will create double the debt in 2 years than Reagan created in 8 and the people aren't even getting a kiss while being screwed.

And, let's face it, of LOT of them ARE old enough to understand, but they're minds aren't able to see the truth because of the liberal mush that's been stuffed into them.

Anyone that can say the President the hastened the demise of the Evil Empire without getting the US involved in globe incinerating war can't possibly be anything but the best.

What did their "best" president do? Why, FDR got us embroiled against both Germany and Japan, AND allowed the Soviets easy access to the Manhattan Project, as well. He also imposed socialist security on an unsuspecting formerly free people. That $100 trillion unfunded mandate is going to destroy this nation's economy, and drag the global economy down with it.
 
Just about every poll ever taken puts FDR near the top!

And the point of polling ignorant people is...?

And he is the only president ever reelected 3 times.

That worked out SO well the Democrats in Congress passed out an Amendment, rapidly ratified, limiting the Executive to two terms.

So the majority of people of his own time as well as the majority since then consider him one of the best presidents.

And thus you see the benefit of being well read and self educated as compared to the ignorant masses of public school graduates who never use that meat inside their heads ever.

I guess you are the exception to the rule.


I am exceptional.
 
Iran-Contra was NOT good statemanship

Underlings, not top level policy.

Funding the forerunners of Al-Qaeda was NOT good statesmanship

But helping the Afghans destroy the Russian Army was, and the Russian army not only posted the greatest threat to the US at the time, if it hadn't been exsanguinated by Reagan, it would still be the greatest threat to US security AND...it was Carter that told the CIA to go into Afghanland.

Grenada was NOT good statesmanship

Stopping communist armed takeovers is ALWAYS good policy, so is rescuing American citizens threatened by communist thugs trying to steal another country.

A massive reduction in the median income was NOT good statesmanship

Good that didn't happen, then.

SDI was NOT good statesmanship

Oh, bull****. The threat of SDI, which we didn't even have any hardware for, was the EXACT reason Garbachev broke off relations at Reykjavik and Garby's failure there is the EXACT reason Reagan was able to force Garby to enter into the first START agreement.

Yes, being able to defend oneself from enemies is always good statesmenship. Only people that want the US to be weak, like the Messiah does, FEEL otherwise.

Nicaragua was NOT good statesmanship

You mean deposing an illegal regime and allowing the people to have a free and finally honest election is not good statesmanship? Or is it only not good statesmanship when the socialist dictator is given the heave-ho?


Attempting to pull the US out of humanitarian organisations such as UNESCO was NOT good statesmanship

PULLING the US out of socialist anti-American organizations that use taxpayer dollars to propagandize against the US certainly was.

And of course, the debt. Oh, the debt.

Oh, the DEBT....you can thank Tip O'neill for expanding socialist spending....when the economy was going explosively, for the debt. Speaking of debt, what's your position on your Messiah's foolish plan to spend ourselves into prosperity?

Hmmm?

How is that Messiah guy of yours working out for ya?
 
Go back a few more years....back when we were a creditor nation instead of a debtor nation, back when Wall Street was run by fewer crooks, and politicians weren't quite so corrupt....

Politicians have always been corrupt.

Welcome to the real world. Isn't about time you people stopped defending them just because you like their Ass?

And there's one reason, and only one reason, the nation is in debt: the unconstitutional socialist programs you people keep demanding.

Here's an idea: When you next see a poor man and want to help him, don't demand the government whip out their machine guns and steal money for him, dig into your own wallet instead. That way there won't be any debt, and for once in your life you can feel useful instead of guilty.
 
Really? How old were you when Carter was President? Think home interest rates of 20 percent shows a country in good shape and we are in worse shape now? How about your dollar being basically worthless then, oh, wait, that is happening now.

Your posts show a young individual who reads books but doesn't understand what he read. The actual facts are there for you to see and what those numbers led to. If things weren't that bad Carter would have gotten re-elected but didn't. Ask your textbooks why?

You and others are the ones emotional. You like Carter because of what you read now, Habitat for Humanity, but ignore the economic policy that created the mess that led to Reagan.

You are the one that actually ignores the Bush policies that created 5 trillion dollar GDP Growth and more tax revenue to the govt and paid for 9/11 and three major hurricanes along with fighting two wars to keep your butt safe.

You are the one that lives in another world where feelings trump facts and reality. One of these days you are going to realize how lucky you were to have Bush in the WH. Although we will never know, I do know that Reagan style economics which Bush would have implemented would have us out of this mess by nowl It took Reagan almost three years to get us out of the Carter mess and he did it by empowering people and the private sector. Three years from now we will be in a worse mess because of the massive growth of govt. and massive debt created without anything in the private sector to show for it.

I wish you and others like you would pay closer attention to what is actually going on instead of buying what you are reading from the press

Born in 1946, you do the math. So where did I say I like Carter? He had one thing right, we needed a better energy policy. Good ideas that he supported were undone by Reagan, not one of his brighter moments.
The rest of your post is insane....
I have always voted GOP, but only because the DEMS put up idiots as candidates. THe GOP finally put up an idiot of their own, GWB. The bar has been lowered, so low that Palin has a chance. Hell, even YOU have a chance...:shock:
 
Ronald Reagan was a good President, when I was 10 I had a really big crush on him as President and I wrote the White House telling him how my school class had a mock election and that I voted for him. Ronald Reagan wrote me back on white house paper and also sent me a glossy of himself. I really love Ronald Reagan no President has been as good since Ronald Reagan....although I wouldn't mind Mitt Romeny or Ron Paul for our next President. Also Ronald Reagan was a good actor too.

Mitt Romney is a Massachusett[e]s "moderate", which means he's a flaming liberal. He signed into law the Massachusett[e]s health care scam that so annoyed people that Ted Kennedy finally lost his seat to an American.

Ron Paul doesn't understand the proper purposes and uses of force in the real world.

Reagan earned his place as a B-movie star. He wasn't going any higher.
 
Politicians have always been corrupt.

Welcome to the real world. Isn't about time you people stopped defending them just because you like their Ass?

And there's one reason, and only one reason, the nation is in debt: the unconstitutional socialist programs you people keep demanding.

Here's an idea: When you next see a poor man and want to help him, don't demand the government whip out their machine guns and steal money for him, dig into your own wallet instead. That way there won't be any debt, and for once in your life you can feel useful instead of guilty.

shut up and pay your taxes, you cheapskate :)
and you blame Romney for losing Kennedy's senate seat?
Wow, just wow....:shock:
 
They have enough power to obstruct every meaningful bill that Congress and the Senate try to pass. The Dems need to stop waiting for that bi-partisan support and push bills thru. The Repukes have no intention of helping the Dems and Obama to create anything they can hold up as a trophy for the next election.

Yes, just like they did with Health Care. The Democrats had a huge majority in the House and a fillibusterproof Senate....and their attempt to destroy the nation's healthcare industry didn't make it.

YES, I agree, the House and Senate MUST continue to move as far to the left as possible to make sure their core followers and the so-called "independents" can see ALL the efforts being made on their behalf.

Seriously, you all need to keep up the good work.
 
What IS obvious is two things. 1) YOU don't know how Congress works and bills are passed. 2) You haven't been watching, or accepting, how the Repukes have been behaving for the last year.

Why don't you explain it to me since you know and I don't. How many votes did the Dems have in the Senate and the House? Tell me how many votes it takes to pass a bill and prevent a filibuster. I look forward to getting educated
 
shut up and pay your taxes, you cheapskate :)
and you blame Romney for losing Kennedy's senate seat?
Wow, just wow....:shock:

I see that you're upholding the standards the Left has for complete reading incomprehension.

You couldn't possibly get there from what I wrote.

However, yes, when little Mitt ran against Drunken Teddy he had an excellent chance to establish bona fide American credentials and most likely would have won that election in 1994....except he decided he was going to follow the socialist line just like Drunken Teddy.
 
And the point of polling ignorant people is...?

The consensus of FDR being rated higher than Reagan was the same among scholars, as the Historical Ranking showed.
 
The consensus of FDR being rated higher than Reagan was the same among scholars, as the Historical Ranking showed.

You seem to put a lot of faith in the historical ranking of Presidents. I wasn't alive during FDR days nor were you Yet he seems to be a hero of yours. He was the father of the most massive increase in govt. and entitlement programs in this history of this country.

That obviously impacted a lot of people who obviously like SS which is almost bankrupt but a non partisan objective view of his Administration shows the programs that have created most of the debt we have today. It is easy to ignore that reality but ignoring it doesn't change it.

Reagan had a different way of motivating people and quite frankly I prefer that way
 
You seem to put a lot of faith in the historical ranking of Presidents. I wasn't alive during FDR days nor were you Yet he seems to be a hero of yours. He was the father of the most massive increase in govt. and entitlement programs in this history of this country.

That obviously impacted a lot of people who obviously like SS which is almost bankrupt but a non partisan objective view of his Administration shows the programs that have created most of the debt we have today. It is easy to ignore that reality but ignoring it doesn't change it.

Reagan had a different way of motivating people and quite frankly I prefer that way

Yes, I do put a lot of faith in the facts. And the fact is the Historical Ranking of Presidents I referred to represents most of the polls on the the subject through the years by scholars and the public. FDR is consistently placed at a higher ranking than Reagan.

That is the reality, and you have provided nothing to disprove it.
 
Yes, I do put a lot of faith in the facts. And the fact is the Historical Ranking of Presidents I referred to represents most of the polls on the the subject through the years by scholars and the public. FDR is consistently placed at a higher ranking than Reagan.

That is the reality, and you have provided nothing to disprove it.

Why do I want to disprove it. I don't put the faith in rankings that you do but you do have the uncanny ability to misread even the rankings you posted. Reagan is now in the top 10 which of course you ignore.

you also ignore the BEA and BLS numbers posted and the question is why?

Here we are 20-30 years later and you are still distorting the Reagan record. The fact that you are doing that proves to me that he did a lot right. He wasn't perfect but neither was FDR.

FDR put into motion debt we are growing every year and established the entitlement mentality. Reagan reversed that to a point which apparently is what really irritates you.
 
Why do I want to disprove it. I don't put the faith in rankings that you do but you do have the uncanny ability to misread even the rankings you posted. Reagan is now in the top 10 which of course you ignore.

you also ignore the BEA and BLS numbers posted and the question is why?

Here we are 20-30 years later and you are still distorting the Reagan record. The fact that you are doing that proves to me that he did a lot right. He wasn't perfect but neither was FDR.

FDR put into motion debt we are growing every year and established the entitlement mentality. Reagan reversed that to a point which apparently is what really irritates you.



So in addition to being able to ignore all the polling that has been posted that ranks FDR higher than Reagan, which you have provided nothing to refute it, you have now it seems convinced yourself that Reagan somehow lowered the national debt, when in reality, he tripled it.
 
So in addition to being able to ignore all the polling that has been posted that ranks FDR higher than Reagan, which you have provided nothing to refute it, you have now it seems convinced yourself that Reagan somehow lowered the national debt, when in reality, he tripled it.

So what do you win with a President who you didn't know, weren't around to see, and is ranked higher than Reagan? What purpose does this whole line of thought serve?

You think taking the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion is such a disaster when we have 12.3 trillion now and that will increase 1.6 trillion this year and another 1.4 trillion next year?

Do you realize how foolish you sound. I gave you economic numbers and the sites to go to to verify those numbers but doubling the GDP, allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money, creating 20 million jobs,. and doubling govt. tax revenue is trumped by the 1.7 trillion debt? Wow, not sure what you are drinking or smoking but that has to be one of the most illogical thought processes I have ever come across.
 
So what do you win with a President who you didn't know, weren't around to see, and is ranked higher than Reagan? What purpose does this whole line of thought serve?

It serves the purpose of showing that FDR's policies are more highly regarded than Reagan's.
 
It serves the purpose of showing that FDR's policies are more highly regarded than Reagan's.

By whom? FDR was President in the 30's and early 40's, Reagan 40 years later. How many people are still alive that even remember FDR? You really seem to have a problem keeping more of your money. Do you even know the original intent of SS and most of FDR's programs? The design was to never pay them out. What is it exactly that FDR did that endears him to you? You simply cannot admit that you don't know what you are talking about. You botched the poll numbers that you posted confusing Reagan's Presidential number with his rating, then you ignored the Reagan record that is irrefutable. How does any of that give you credibility?
 
By whom?

Historians and other scholars who study history and president's effect on the present.

No question about it, much of the debt we have today is based upon FDR programs yet as concerned as you are about the debt you ignore that. You have the double standards that just show your lack of credibility.
 
By whom?

Historians and other scholars who study history and president's effect on the present.

What you don't seem to understand is both FDR and Reagan had entirely different management and govt. styles. Which one do you agree with and believe had a grasp on the original intent of our Founders?

Historians and scholars are all over the board regarding Presidential Preferences. Why do you buy what they tell you but more importantly what do you believe is the role of Govt?

Ask these scholars and you will get many different ideas and ideals. Do these people speak for you and if so why?
 
No question about it, much of the debt we have today is based upon mismanagement of FDR programs yet as concerned as you are about the debt you ignore that. You have the double standards that just show your lack of credibility.

SS and Medicare helped create the middle class. The projected insolvency problems are a function of the mismanagement of the trust funds by both parties and skyrocketing medical costs. That is why Al Gore suggested the locked box, but we decided to pick a president we would like to have a beer with instead.

Was that beer worth it?
 
SS and Medicare helped create the middle class. The projected insolvency problems are a function of the mismanagement of the trust funds by both parties and skyrocketing medical costs. That is why Al Gore suggested the locked box, but we decided to pick a president we would like to have a beer with instead.

Was that beer worth it?

You are kidding, right? You apparently know as much about SS and Medicare as you do about reading the Presidential Ranking polls.

Do you realize that you "contribute" I mean are forced to contribute to both SS and Medicare. An intellectually honest individual would take a look at how much they contributed to SS and Medicare and figure out how much of a return they are going to get vs. what they could have gotten simply putting that money into a simple savings account. If you truly want to get sick try doing what I suggested. take the money you "contributed" to SS and put that into a savings calculator or since you probably are incapable of doing that have someone else do it for you

Mismanagement of the funds is an understatement. SS and Medicare funds have been used for everything on budget including payouts as required. SS was put on budget a number of times to show a lower deficit or for use in other areas outside of its intent.

That beer certainly was worth it and I got exactly who I voted for and more. There IS NOT SS LOCKBOX, never has and never will be. Congress has too big of an appetite for spending. As for Al Gore he has made millions off the global warming hoax but doesn't seem to bother you.
 
What you don't seem to understand is both FDR and Reagan had entirely different management and govt. styles. Which one do you agree with and believe had a grasp on the original intent of our Founders?

I understand the differences perfectly. As with historians, I rank FDR higher, because like the forefathers he was concerned about what was best for our future, whereas Reagan's policies were focused on short-term profits of some.

Historians and scholars are all over the board regarding Presidential Preferences.

No they are not, as I have shown, they consistently rate FDR higher than Reagan.

Why do you buy what they tell you but more importantly what do you believe is the role of Govt?

The scholars ranking of the presidents is based on the role of government and lack of corruption. That is why the scholars and I believe FDR ranked higher than Reagan.
 
[QUOTE said:
Catawba;1058545296]I understand the differences perfectly. As with historians, I rank FDR higher, because like the forefathers he was concerned about what was best for our future, whereas Reagan's policies were focused on short-term profits of some.

Uh, no, you haven't a clue. Our Founders were scared to death of a large Central govt. and thus empowered the states and thus the people. There were the exact opposite of FDR.

No they are not, as I have shown, they consistently rate FDR higher than Reagan.

that and a buck will now get you a cup of coffee.

The scholars ranking of the presidents is based on the role of government and lack of corruption. That is why the scholars and I believe FDR ranked higher than Reagan


Un, No, get the facts behind those polls and the questions asked. You really haven't a clue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom