- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,977
- Reaction score
- 19,725
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yes. He did all he could to slow the expansion of government in the face of a hostile Congress. He cut domestic discretionary spending more than any other president, even though he only got half of the cuts that he wanted. He wasn't perfect, but he's as small-government a president we've had at least since Coolidge.
Now there is a standard of excellence.
Why do liberals have such a problem with Reagan. .
Why do conservatives have such a problem with Clinton?:2razz:
Why do liberals have such a problem with Reagan. What exactly did Reagan do to you. I know what he did to liberals, he destroyed them by taking away victims. Putting the name Reagan out there is like putting a red cape in front of a bull.
Reagan's record is complete with good and bad just like all Presidents. The difference is the good in the Reagan record far outweighs the bad and that drives liberals crazy. Is there really anyone out there that wouldn't take the Reagan economy today vs. what we have? How about the Reagan Debt in 8 years? How about the Reagan economic growth? All liberals want to talk about is the debt which Obama will create in less than 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html... He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation. ...
reagan was bat **** crazy when he finally exited the office. but no crazier than his wife, nancy, who was consulting psychics
he was a simpleton who was a pawn of the republican power brokers
it was cheaper to borrow money from the mafia than the 20% prime rate charged during his term. that wiped out those who were not wealthy and were unable to weather the economic storm ... but that elite was then able to acquire assets very cheaply in the liquidation aftermath
reagan implemented the neocon 'starve the beast' strategy to reduce programs for the social safety net by spending the money instead on unworkable crap such as his star wars effort
and he was a racist. Herbert says it best here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html
why do liberal Americans have a problem with reagan you ask; in short, reagan was a putz
Because the Reagan Record trumps the Clinton record by plenty. Put the two records side by side and get back to me. I can name the legislation that Reagan authorized and signed along with the initiatives implemented that led to the economic growth we had. With Clinton it was the Contract with American that Republicans put forth that Clinton signed after kicking and screaming. Reagan generated results whereas Clinton benefited from results.
Yes the results were so great that we turned into a debtor nation and Bush 41 had to raise taxes.
Reagan took office with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion
Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and after less than 2 years it is almost 13 trillion.
LOL, if we were a debtor nation then with a 2.6 trillion dollar debt, what are we now with a 13 trillion dollar debt which a President that added more debt in 2 years than Reagan did in 8?
Reagan took office with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion
Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and after less than 2 years it is almost 13 trillion.
WOW so Reagan more than DOUBLED the debt. No wonder Bush 41 had to raise taxes and we turned into a debtor nation.
Wow? Yes, Reagan with the "HELP" of a Democrat Controlled House doubled the debt. Obama with the "HELP" of a Democrat Controlled CONGRESS created more debt in two years than Reagan did in 8.
Seems hard for someone like you to understand. Not surprising.
EXCELLENT point
reagan tripled the size of the national debt (290%) while Obama increased it by 22% ... recognizing much of Obama's expenditure was spent stabilizing a broken exonomy left by his republican predecessor
i'm not laughing WITH you
Yeah I knew it is always some one else's (the evil democrats) fault:roll:
i laugh at anyone who posts a 290% increase in spending being better than a 22% increaseYou should be laughing at yourself, real dollars not percentage is what we pay debt service on. What was the debt service on the 2.6 trillion dollars vs. the debt service on the 13 trillion dollars. Sounds like a concept you have trouble understanding.
i remember those on your side INSISTING that the fundamentals of the economy are soundBroken economy? What exactly did the Democrat Congress do from January 2007 to the present to fix it?
and i see you have neglected to offer up an accurate prediction of the president's policies in his absence. that's right, your side prefers to monday morning quarterback. without no clue about cause and effect, you wait until you see something you hope you won't like and then grouse about itYou buy what you are told yet this President hasn't offered any accurate predictions or assessments yet. "never let a good crisis go to waste" is the motto of this President and sheep like you buy the rhetoric.
you mean that economy that was broken by the oil cartel. the one which resulted because of the reagan deal with the iranians to keep our citizens hostage to assure the outcome of the national election. you do recall they were released as soon as he was elected. read up on iran contra and see how your ronnie raygun was behind drug dealing with the money obtained by selling weapons to the iraniansThis economy wasn't broken nearly as bad as the economy when Reagan took over. we didn't have 20+% interest rates, we didn't have double digit inflation thus a terrible misery index. We also didn't have kids living in the past like we do today while always complaining about the past.
that is not my perspective. i was on the line trying to help small businesses survive the 20% prime rate during ronnie's reign of stupidity. reagan decided it was then a good time to pull the plug on direct SBA lending to the small business community ... when banks were offering floating rates of 20% prime plus 2.75%. misery index indeedWhat I find amazing is kids today that weren't old enough to know what was going on in the 80's still claim to be experts on the 80's. All to divert from what is happening right now.
they only compared in one respect. both could be eloquent on stage. but Obama is looking to fix problems. reagan could not break **** fast enough. i was there. as a liquidator of federal business loans i dealt with the results of his decisions. which is why i find your posts on this matter so cluelessPutting the records side by side, Reagan vs. Obama is there any doubt which record the majority in this country would want? Wonder why it is that the Obama polls are plumeting with those incredible results you seem to think exist today?
You don't seem to have a clue how our govt. works. Please stop embarrassing yourself. we do not elect a king. The Reagan record is absolutely incredible since it is based upon an economic record generated with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives.
Notice that you continue to ignore the factual record of Reagan shown in BEA.gov. Not surprising as you play upon the ignorance of others just like you.
justabubba;1058686824]i laugh at anyone who posts a 290% increase in spending being better than a 22% increase
must be your recollection of reaganomics speaking
i remember those on your side INSISTING that the fundamentals of the economy are sound
also recall that the republicans kept telling us that there was no "official" recession based on the data
all the while, unregulated banking was boiling the economy, and the republican solution was to bail out the very monied interests which caused the problem. your folks tranferred the taxes of the wage earner to replace the lost wealth of the rich
only fools and simpletons haven't figured that one out yet
and i see you have neglected to offer up an accurate prediction of the president's policies in his absence. that's right, your side prefers to monday morning quarterback. without no clue about cause and effect, you wait until you see something you hope you won't like and then grouse about it
'lack of substance' is the term that comes to mind when describing such pontificators
you mean that economy that was broken by the oil cartel. the one which resulted because of the reagan deal with the iranians to keep our citizens hostage to assure the outcome of the national election. you do recall they were released as soon as he was elected. read up on iran contra and see how your ronnie raygun was behind drug dealing with the money obtained by selling weapons to the iranians
and the misery index was at its apex during the reagan era. if you are going to use a term, it's a good idea to understand what it means
that is not my perspective. i was on the line trying to help small businesses survive the 20% prime rate during ronnie's reign of stupidity. reagan decided it was then a good time to pull the plug on direct SBA lending to the small business community ... when banks were offering floating rates of 20% prime plus 2.75%. misery index indeed
they only compared in one respect. both could be eloquent on stage. but Obama is looking to fix problems. reagan could not break **** fast enough. i was there. as a liquidator of federal business loans i dealt with the results of his decisions. which is why i find your posts on this matter so clueless
YAWN okay what ever you say. But now your scripted diatribes are getting way to boring. plonk
I have no idea what this chart is supposed to show. I prefer BEA.gov information that shows the doubling of GDP, doubling of Govt. revenue and almost 20 million jobs created after taking over an economy with 20 plus interest rates, double digit inflation, and rising unemployment.
no surprise there. anyone who thinks a 290% increase in debt is better than a 22% increase would certainly have a difficult time recognizing that the republican presidents in that graph are the ones who substantially spent more the government took in
no surprise there. anyone who thinks a 290% increase in debt is better than a 22% increase would certainly have a difficult time recognizing that the republican presidents in that graph are the ones who substantially spent more the government took in
Careful there bubba,you already have him yappen about Barney Franks...hard tellen what he will try as a diversionary tactic now.:rofl
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?