NationStates Jolt Archive

What made Ronald Reagan stand out as one of the most influential (and effective) leaders of the twentieth century?
Probably his nickname of the "Great Communicator" explains a great deal of his success in the political arena. From dealing with the press quite adeptly and portraying a leadership role to the American people that was better than any of his B movie screen depictions, Reagan was the ultimate political achiever.
He managed to boil down issues to the basics ... U.S. was good ... USSR was evil. Big government was bad and less government interference was good.
A great deal of what made Reagan effective would appear to be the time in history during which his tenure as President spanned ...
As a nation we were pretty well beaten down and demoralized by Vietnam, Watergate, the economy and the Iranian hostage situation -- the situation looked mighty bleak at the time.

So, here's the question ... if Reagan were in office today, with the current world and domestic situation, what policies do you think he would pursue.
Would he be as successful in today's political and media climate?

I think it would be very hard for him to pursue any policies, because hes dead. They might have to tie him to the chair so he doesn't flop around.
But then again isn't that what they do with Bush?

I think it would be very hard for him to pursue any policies, because hes dead. They might have to tie him to the chair so he doesn't flop around.
But then again isn't that what they do with Bush?

Today's prize for best smart-a$$ reply! :lol:

I think it would be very hard for him to pursue any policies, because hes dead. They might have to tie him to the chair so he doesn't flop around.
But then again isn't that what they do with Bush?

Actually today's premiere flip-flopper, John Kerry, would benefit most from the chair tying exercise :D

I think it would be very hard for him to pursue any policies, because hes dead. They might have to tie him to the chair so he doesn't flop around.
But then again isn't that what they do with Bush?

Today's prize for best smart-a$$ reply! :lol:

The today's still young ... lots of opportunity for smart-a$$ replies :D

So, here's the question ... if Reagan were in office today, with the current world and domestic situation, what policies do you think he would pursue.
Would he be as successful in today's political and media climate?

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed. It was ultimately bad policy. However, I will say one thing that I think Reagan would of been wonderful at, which he was wonderful at, diplomacy, which is lacking in such a huge way in American politics in the last 3+ years. No way in hell would Reagan have went into Iraq. Most pundits and experts agree, that I have heard since he passed away. This very same question you have asked has been asked on many of the networks over the week-end. Reagan also wasn't big on facts. Which in this age probably would of hurt him. Reagan would get his facts wrong and be told by his own staff they were wrong and he'd still use them in speeches.. gotta love that.

Reagan had moxy, I'll give him that. Charming beyond belief.. I recall watching him on TV when he was President. But was often factually wrong. But boy could he talk huh.. One for the Gipper ;)

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed.


Steph, on what basis are you citing the historic fact that Reaganomics failed?
The economic success that the Clinton administration enjoyed had Reagan's policies at their foundation.
At the time of Reagan's election in 1980, our nation's economic future was looking mighty grim and Reaganomics got the economy rolling again.
We experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history as a result of Reagan's policies.

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed.


Steph, on what basis are you citing the historic fact that Reaganomics failed?
The economic success that the Clinton administration enjoyed had Reagan's policies at their foundation.
At the time of Reagan's election in 1980, our nation's economic future was looking mighty grim and Reaganomics got the economy rolling again.
We experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history as a result of Reagan's policies.

Reagan moved away from balanced budgets and moved more towards tax cuts (Which was only a bandaid for the real problem and thus failed). Clinton actually did the complete opposite. Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan almost bankrupted the United States, lets not forget that. Bush Sr had to handle the fall out of Reagan's economic policy and thus didn't win a second term. Reagan did a lot of great things as a statesmen for America and in many respects the world. While he can't be totally credited with the fall of the USSR, he certainly had a small but loud voice in it. He was full of hope and thus connected with people, which was his greatest asset really. However, few could argue when it came to policy he was less successful then some presidents before him and I dare say, one after him (Clinton) Reagan was the president at an important time.. The USSR was going to fall.. and Reagan grabbed the reign and probably speeded it up slightly.. for that he shaped a new direction. There is much reason to celebrate Ronald Reagan, but his presidency wasn't without some major mistakes. The Economy only being one example.. (Iran/Contra - Central America - etc)

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed.


Steph, on what basis are you citing the historic fact that Reaganomics failed?
The economic success that the Clinton administration enjoyed had Reagan's policies at their foundation.
At the time of Reagan's election in 1980, our nation's economic future was looking mighty grim and Reaganomics got the economy rolling again.
We experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history as a result of Reagan's policies.

Reagan moved away from balanced budgets and moved more towards tax cuts (Which was only a bandaid for the real problem and thus failed). Clinton actually did the complete opposite. Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan almost bankrupted the United States, lets not forget that. Bush Sr had to handle the fall out of Reagan's economic policy and thus didn't win a second term. Reagan did a lot of great things as a statesmen for America and in many respects the world. While he can't be totally credited with the fall of the USSR, he certainly had a small but loud voice in it. He was full of hope and thus connected with people, which was his greatest asset really. However, few could argue when it came to policy he was less successful then some presidents before him and I dare say, one after him (Clinton) Reagan was the president at an important time.. The USSR was going to fall.. and Reagan grabbed the reign and probably speeded it up slightly.. for that he shaped a new direction. There is much reason to celebrate Ronald Reagan, but his presidency wasn't without some major mistakes. The Economy only being one example.. (Iran/Contra - Central America - etc)

An important consideration though in viewing Reagan's economic policies was his push for reducing the size of the federal government.
Without Reagan's administration reigning in spending and attempting to more effectively utilize federal $$ through redirecting administration of non-military programs away from the federal level, our economy would most assuredly be mired in the economic messes of the mid to late 70s.

Privitization and deregulation were (and continue to be) necessary policies to pursue in attaining better results from revenue requirements.
If we want more bang for our buck, non-military program administration and funding needs to be handled outside the scope of the federal government.

I wonder who really ran America during Reagan era. Reagan or his wife's astrologer?

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed. It was ultimately bad policy. However, I will say one thing that I think Reagan would of been wonderful at, which he was wonderful at, diplomacy, which is lacking in such a huge way in American politics in the last 3+ years. No way in hell would Reagan have went into Iraq. Most pundits and experts agree, that I have heard since he passed away. This very same question you have asked has been asked on many of the networks over the week-end. Reagan also wasn't big on facts. Which in this age probably would of hurt him. Reagan would get his facts wrong and be told by his own staff they were wrong and he'd still use them in speeches.. gotta love that. Actually most conservative economists have reported that, after stagflation, Reaganonmics was the only policy that could have pulled us out that mess. His policies succeeded because he didn't take any guff from the other nations. If you look at his politics, it is VERY hard to say we wouldn't be in Iraq. He had the plans in place to storm Iran during the hostage crisis. However, he seldom had to use force just because everyone knew that he had no issues with using it if there were no other alternatives. He was one of the top 2 most effective presidents of the 20th century (Truman being the other), and easily one of the most liked.

ahh the Gipper. calling him "the Great Communicator" was a nice way for us to say "Holy crap, you mean we hired an actor as President?!"

i think the Gip's greatest acheivement was the whole Iran Contra dealie. a bigger scandal than Watergate, and people were actually killed in droves do to his wheelings and dealings, yep he came out smelling like roses. this crazy country of mine...

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed. It was ultimately bad policy. However, I will say one thing that I think Reagan would of been wonderful at, which he was wonderful at, diplomacy, which is lacking in such a huge way in American politics in the last 3+ years. No way in hell would Reagan have went into Iraq. Most pundits and experts agree, that I have heard since he passed away. This very same question you have asked has been asked on many of the networks over the week-end. Reagan also wasn't big on facts. Which in this age probably would of hurt him. Reagan would get his facts wrong and be told by his own staff they were wrong and he'd still use them in speeches.. gotta love that. Actually most conservative economists have reported that, after stagflation, Reaganonmics was the only policy that could have pulled us out that mess. His policies succeeded because he didn't take any guff from the other nations. If you look at his politics, it is VERY hard to say we wouldn't be in Iraq. He had the plans in place to storm Iran during the hostage crisis. However, he seldom had to use force just because everyone knew that he had no issues with using it if there were no other alternatives. He was one of the top 2 most effective presidents of the 20th century (Truman being the other), and easily one of the most liked.

sadly, 5 Nobel winners in economics concluded Reaganomics was a fiasco of gigantic proportions. i'll try to find the article for you, it was a real hoot reading their gasps of pain as they went through the "economic theory" of Reagan's plan.

if you ever have to specify that only economists on one side of the partisan line approved something then that should be warning bells for you. granted, the political leaning of an economist will determine whether they like certain outcomes or not, but the soundness of a plan or its ability to stimulate economic growth are determined mathematically (not emotionally). if only the conservative economists (or only the liberal ones) can see the benefits of a plan then that's not a plan that will hold water.

I don't like him but I do respect him.

Now Bush on the other hand. I don't like or respect him.

I wonder who really ran America during Reagan era. Reagan or his wife's astrologer?

I read a fascinating Biography a few years ago, which was an unautorised biography of Nancy Reagan, and it seems that she was pretty much wearing the trousers in that relationship, especially towards the end, with astrologers the least of the eyebrow raising behaviour at the white house...

I wonder how much influence all the other first ladies (Especially pre-suffragette days) have had through history? Behind every great man an all that...

Well, we know from historic fact that Reaganonmics failed.


Steph, on what basis are you citing the historic fact that Reaganomics failed?
The economic success that the Clinton administration enjoyed had Reagan's policies at their foundation.
At the time of Reagan's election in 1980, our nation's economic future was looking mighty grim and Reaganomics got the economy rolling again.
We experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history as a result of Reagan's policies.

Reagan moved away from balanced budgets and moved more towards tax cuts (Which was only a bandaid for the real problem and thus failed). Clinton actually did the complete opposite. Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan almost bankrupted the United States, lets not forget that. Bush Sr had to handle the fall out of Reagan's economic policy and thus didn't win a second term. Reagan did a lot of great things as a statesmen for America and in many respects the world. While he can't be totally credited with the fall of the USSR, he certainly had a small but loud voice in it. He was full of hope and thus connected with people, which was his greatest asset really. However, few could argue when it came to policy he was less successful then some presidents before him and I dare say, one after him (Clinton) Reagan was the president at an important time.. The USSR was going to fall.. and Reagan grabbed the reign and probably speeded it up slightly.. for that he shaped a new direction. There is much reason to celebrate Ronald Reagan, but his presidency wasn't without some major mistakes. The Economy only being one example.. (Iran/Contra - Central America - etc)

An important consideration though in viewing Reagan's economic policies was his push for reducing the size of the federal government.

I agree with this 100%.. It was a Reagan idea after all :)

One of his quotes ... so true

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Ronald Reagan

Reaganonmics was the only policy that could have pulled us out that mess. His policies succeeded because he didn't take any guff from the other nations. If you look at his politics, it is VERY hard to say we wouldn't be in Iraq. He had the plans in place to storm Iran during the hostage crisis. However, he seldom had to use force just because everyone knew that he had no issues with using it if there were no other alternatives. He was one of the top 2 most effective presidents of the 20th century (Truman being the other), and easily one of the most liked.

1st, Reaganomics worked at the time, yes, but as stated as an over all policy it was doomed. It was only a Band-Aid.

As for Whether you believe Reagan would of lied his ass off for a war in Iraq.. This is actually one of the low points for Reagan's presidency.. He was the president who gave America the "cut and run" image. He did it in Beirut, again in Afghanistan... etc..etc.. Reagan never would of went into Iraq.. not a chance.

However, Reagan was indeed liked and will go down in history I believe in a positive way, despite his real lack of effective policy. He was just a likeable person.

sadly, 5 Nobel winners in economics concluded Reaganomics was a fiasco of gigantic proportions. i'll try to find the article for you, it was a real hoot reading their gasps of pain as they went through the "economic theory" of Reagan's plan.
if you ever have to specify that only economists on one side of the partisan line approved something then that should be warning bells for you. granted, the political leaning of an economist will determine whether they like certain outcomes or not, but the soundness of a plan or its ability to stimulate economic growth are determined mathematically (not emotionally). if only the conservative economists (or only the liberal ones) can see the benefits of a plan then that's not a plan that will hold water.That is the problem - in economics, Noble prizes are usually political in nature. Tell me they are Noble prize winners and I have a 2/3rd chance of telling you their politics. I subscribe to various economic publications from both sides of the ring, and they never agree. Noble prizes have generally gone to the economic theories that will help under- developed countries and have little impact for strong economies. So, yeah you're right, the political leanings determine who considers an economic theory useful.

ahh the Gipper. calling him "the Great Communicator" was a nice way for us to say "Holy crap, you mean we hired an actor as President?!"

i think the Gip's greatest acheivement was the whole Iran Contra dealie. a bigger scandal than Watergate, and people were actually killed in droves do to his wheelings and dealings, yep he came out smelling like roses. this crazy country of mine...

Take a look at how adeptly Reagan handled the media and built coalitions within and across party lines. The term "Great Communicator" accurately describes Reagan's gift of engaging the public in a manner that promoted interest and involvement.

All the world's a stage and there's merit to a world leader possessing the skill sets of an actor in order to set forth and pursue the global achievements that were a part of the Reagan era.

Greg Palast wrote a good article about Reagan and his misdeeds if you care to read it:

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336&row=0

some snippets:


Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.

...

In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.

People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.

...

And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog … then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.

...

The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million.

...

1st, Reaganomics worked at the time, yes, but as stated as an over all policy it was doomed. It was only a Band-Aid.With gas prices and the job situation at the time, that was all he was looking for.
As for Whether you believe Reagan would of lied his ass off for a war in Iraq.. This is actually one of the low points for Reagan's presidency.. He was the president who gave America the "cut and run" image. He did it in Beirut, again in Afghanistan... etc..etc.. Reagan never would of went into Iraq.. not a chance.
However, Reagan was indeed liked and will go down in history I believe in a positive way, despite his real lack of effective policy. He was just a likeable person.We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe there was any lie involved in Iraq. As far as a "cut and run" image, I would also disagree. He never stuck in a place that had no exit strategy in place. Usually, he moved in when the International/external community asked for aid and moved out when nothing of real value could accomplished if troops continued to be there. As far as lack of effective policy, I don't know of a single foreign leader who has ever called him ineffective at the changes he implemented that ultimately led to the end of the Cold War or any of his other policies.

Take a look at how adeptly Reagan handled the media and built coalitions within and across party lines. The term "Great Communicator" accurately describes Reagan's gift of engaging the public in a manner that promoted interest and involvement.

Ah, this is a common myth.. while Reagan was indeed liked , he didn't always get the support of the "other" side. In fact most of the "other" side disagreed with much of his policy. Felt he was too bold. Careless even. I disagree actually with that description, however that was how they felt at the time. I don't actually believe Reagan was overly careless. In fact, I think he cared a lot and was perhaps at times over zealous in his words, but not in his actions.

As for how he handled the media.. it was a good relationship, however, I would expect nothing less from an actor with 40 movies under his belt.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe there was any lie involved in Iraq. As far as a "cut and run" image, I would also disagree. He never stuck in a place that had no exit strategy in place. Usually, he moved in when the International/external community asked for aid and moved out when nothing of real value could accomplished if troops continued to be there. As far as lack of effective policy, I don't know of a single foreign leader who has ever called him ineffective at the changes he implemented that ultimately led to the end of the Cold War or any of his other policies.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.. however, I thought you at one time told me you were a poli-sci major? This stuff is some what common knowledge..

I agree, as I have stated, while he can't be credited for the fall of the USSR, he was a small but loud voice who probably speeded it up slightly.. It was going to happen anyway... he just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

I am a little surprised at your comments though on the rest if you're who told me you were a poli-sci major. You should have studied this and know better.

1st, Reaganomics worked at the time, yes, but as stated as an over all policy it was doomed. It was only a Band-Aid.

Effective economic policy must be dynamic, so to say it worked at the time, but for an overall policy was doomed just doesn't make sense.
It was the right policy for the time - end of discussion.

When you're evaluating economic policies in the context that you seem to be taking in your argument, picking and choosing aspects of the respective policies without consideration of the entire economic environment (capitalist vs. socialist) doesn't present an accurate picture of the level of effectiveness.

1st, Reaganomics worked at the time, yes, but as stated as an over all policy it was doomed. It was only a Band-Aid.

Effective economic policy must be dynamic, so to say it worked at the time, but for an overall policy was doomed just doesn't make sense.
It was the right policy for the time - end of discussion.

When you're evaluating economic policies in the context that you seem to be taking in your argument, picking and choosing aspects of the respective policies without consideration of the entire economic environment (capitalist vs. socialist) doesn't present an accurate picture of the level of effectiveness.

Nothing changes the fact that Reagan's economic polices hurt the USA in the end.. it was a short term solution for a long term problem.. which it would appear no one except Clinton has got since.. (you don't have to like Clinton cause he got a blowjob and maybe you didn't..lol) but no one can argue the effectiveness of his economic policy.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.. however, I thought you at one time told me you were a poli-sci major? This stuff is some what common knowledge..Common knowledge to whom? Mostly, we are just talking about points of view, especially when you talk about Communications, Political Science or Economic Theory. I am also a Communications major and I see, from a PR standpoint, much of what he was aiming for. It was also strange, but I had several papers that I had to review on Ronald Reagan specifically concerning what he proposed versus what actually happened and it showed a high effectiveness rating, but it's been years and I can't remember the Communication magazines that I was referencing.

I agree, as I have stated, while he can't be credited for the fall of the USSR, he was a small but loud voice who probably speeded it up slightly.. It was going to happen anyway... he just happen to be in the right place at the right time.There was absolutely no way that it was just "going to happen anyway". Between the economic DoD spending war in technological advancement and the Pope's continued political pressure, USSR didn't have a chance. Without the combination of the two, I don't think it would have fallen in our life times.

I am a little surprised at your comments though on the rest if you're who told me you were a poli-sci major. You should have studied this and know better.I also think that the cultural differences between where we live has a huge difference on what you studied and what I studied. The North has always had a very different point of view from other areas of the continent. That should be expected, though.

Personality wise :
Without Reagan we would have never
enjoyed the hyped 'Short Circuit', 'Daryl','Spies like Us'
and all those other movies that involved CIA and military technology.

Appart from that, the big difference (besides communication and leadership) is the fact that Reagan DID play a cowboy, whilst
of Bush who's more the stable-boy being promoted
cause he's the son of the ranch-owner.

Politics
El Salvador , Chilli, Afghanistan...
thanks dude , really, you ensured international mayhem for
the next comming decenia !
good thing stopping the cold war. but who was actually first
to propose it ? Gorby or Reagan ?

-a 2cent opinion-

Ah, this is a common myth.. while Reagan was indeed liked , he didn't always get the support of the "other" side. In fact most of the "other" side disagreed with much of his policy. Felt he was too bold. Careless even. I disagree actually with that description, however that was how they felt at the time. I don't actually believe Reagan was overly careless. In fact, I think he cared a lot and was perhaps at times over zealous in his words, but not in his actions.

As for how he handled the media.. it was a good relationship, however, I would expect nothing less from an actor with 40 movies under his belt.

Two landslide victories demonstrate the public was on the same page with Reagan as a result of his abilties to effectively lead and communicate.
Common myth? Huh?! Since when has any politician always received the support of the "other side?" The question isn't about perfection, but rather level of adeptness and Reagan had it in droves.

Without having a Republican majority in Congress, Reagan still managed to get legislation passed through as a result of his communication skills.
He possessed conviction and persuasiveness, coupled with tangible results ... tearing down the Berlin Wall, etc. that earned him the distinction of Great Communicator.

Politics [/u]
El Salvador , Chilli, Afghanistan...
thanks dude , really, you ensured international mayhem for
the next comming decenia !
good thing stopping the cold war. but who was actually first
to propose it ? Gorby or Reagan ?
-a 2cent opinion-The list is exactly what was happening throughout the Cold War. Thirty years of mayhem can't be stopped in a single presidency, no matter how nice of a leader you are. I am not sure if you remember the "Tear down this wall" speech, or any of his other speeches, but one thing that Reagan did immediately after taking office was to hand write a letter to the USSR leadership, basically saying "isn't there a way we can get past the Cold War politics and tackle these issues man-to-man." Gorbachev had said on a Donohue interview that that single instance of reaching over the Iron Curtain enabled him to see the bigger picture for his country's continued survival.

Nothing changes the fact that Reagan's economic polices hurt the USA in the end.. it was a short term solution for a long term problem.. which it would appear no one except Clinton has got since.. (you don't have to like Clinton cause he got a blowjob and maybe you didn't..lol) but no one can argue the effectiveness of his economic policy.

How exactly did Reagan's policies hurt the USA ... you acknowledged in a previous post that it pulled the country out of stagflation.
Clinton's success was a direct result of Reagan's policies ... any student of economics knows that, given the complexity of the economy, the impact of an given administration's policies are felt well into subsequent years/administration.
Any claim to Clinton's economic policies must be weighed against what he had going into office which was a robust economy, compliments of the Reagan years, which was just starting to gain steam and momentum.

How exactly did Reagan's policies hurt the USA ... you acknowledged in a previous post that it pulled the country out of stagflation.
Clinton's success was a direct result of Reagan's policies ... any student of economics knows that, given the complexity of the economy, the impact of an given administration's policies are felt well into subsequent years/administration.
Any claim to Clinton's economic policies must be weighed against what he had going into office which was a robust economy, compliments of the Reagan years, which was just starting to gain steam and momentum.And going a step further, any current slow down in the economy actually began in the last few quarters of the Clinton administration, and many will say it was a direct result of his "wonderful" economic policies.

Delusional Conservatives..

Umm, they also skipped a president.. Yes, Bush Sr. was re-elected because of Reagan's fabulous economic policy.. Or no, wait.. right, he wasn't.

Have a nice day :)

Delusional Conservatives..
Umm, they also skipped a president.. Yes, Bush Sr. was re-elected because of Reagan's fabulous economic policy.. Or no, wait.. right, he wasn't.
Have a nice day :)Most economic cycles last quote a bit more than 4 years, unless if the administration is "actively" trying to change it. So, yes, there are implications for other administrations.

Greg Palast wrote a good article about Reagan and his misdeeds if you care to read it:

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336&row=0

some snippets:
People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.

That's some pretty serious spinning you've posted ...
Could it be there was a halt to sending medicine because it was not being effectively distributed rather than the weak reason mentioned?

...

And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog … then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.

A great oversimplification of the situation at the time.
No matter what approach is employed ... direct confrontation or backing off a confrontation ... the response is spun out of context and deried as being the "US at its powerful worst!"
...

The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million.

Which is the greater sin?
Forcing people to be responsible for themselves (development, training, etc.) or enabling them to remain "helpless" and not a contributor to society?
The "New Meanness" you mention was actually the tough love needed for a nation that was in great danger of being overwhelmed by an entitlement mentality.
We need more of the focus on initiative and hard work being rewarded rather than continuing to support and encourage lackadaisical behavior through the entitlement program approach.
Reagan's social policies were about making people accountable for themselves and thus able to realize more of their potential as well as of our nation.
...

Delusional Conservatives..

Umm, they also skipped a president.. Yes, Bush Sr. was re-elected because of Reagan's fabulous economic policy.. Or no, wait.. right, he wasn't.

Have a nice day :)

Keep in mind, the Bush Sr. administration had to deal with the short-term economic effects of the Gulf War at the time of the election. Ironically the economy started to be positively impacted by the war by the following quarter ... another boon for the incoming Clinton administration on top of the foundation of Reagan's policies.

Reagan's presidency unleashed the "decade of greed." Of course, not all benefited. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. His tax cuts saddled the country with massive debt. It took Clinton to change that. Now Bush is following in the spend and thrash attitude that has become known for modern day "conservatism".. give me a break. You'd think I was one of these 15 year old kids on the forum.. I'm not.

We had some excess spending during the 80's. Essentially we took out a loan to pay off the Cold War. The Soviets couldn't keep up with our military buildup, and they teetered on complete bankrupcy & collapse when they tried.

It was a brilliant strategy...and it worked! Soviet communism had always been build on an economic lie, and eventually the brutal power of the state couldn't hold that lie together. Their failed competition with the West finally came to an end, thanks to this 40th President of the U.S.

We owe him a debt of gratitude.

Nothing changes the fact that Reagan's economic polices hurt the USA in the end.. it was a short term solution for a long term problem.. which it would appear no one except Clinton has got since.. (you don't have to like Clinton cause he got a blowjob and maybe you didn't..lol) but no one can argue the effectiveness of his economic policy.

How exactly did Reagan's policies hurt the USA ... you acknowledged in a previous post that it pulled the country out of stagflation.
Clinton's success was a direct result of Reagan's policies ... any student of economics knows that, given the complexity of the economy, the impact of an given administration's policies are felt well into subsequent years/administration.
Any claim to Clinton's economic policies must be weighed against what he had going into office which was a robust economy, compliments of the Reagan years, which was just starting to gain steam and momentum.According to more than one economist, what Reagan tried at the beginning was a good short term strategy--run deficits, spend government money and give tax cuts to the investor class to jump start a flagging economy. Short term strategy, though.

To try that long term is economic suicide. Reagan tried it long time and wound up damaging the economy again--Bush I paid the price because in order to fix the damage, he had to raise taxes and go against his most important campaign pledge. You're right when you say that Clinton built off his predecessor's economy--you've just got the wrong predecessor.

That's not to say that Bush would have taken the next necessary step--another tax increase on the top wage earners and a move toward fiscal discipline--but he did halt the slide that Reagan began in 87-88.

One more thing to remember about Reagan's legacy. For all his talk about wanting to reduce the size of government and cut taxes, he only got half of it done. He cut taxes twice, and even though he raised them 6 other times, the net effect was still a cut. But government got bigger during his terms as President, and it's no small irony in my mind that the largest government building in DC, housing the largest number of federal workers, is named after him. He talked a good game as a small government advocate, but as in most cases, he didn't come through.

PS--want to guess who the last President was who actually reduced the federal payroll? That tax and spend, big government liberal, William Jefferson Clinton. That's got to sting a little.

Actually most conservative economists have reported that, after stagflation, Reaganonmics was the only policy that could have pulled us out that mess. His policies succeeded because he didn't take any guff from the other nations. If you look at his politics, it is VERY hard to say we wouldn't be in Iraq. He had the plans in place to storm Iran during the hostage crisis. However, he seldom had to use force just because everyone knew that he had no issues with using it if there were no other alternatives. He was one of the top 2 most effective presidents of the 20th century (Truman being the other), and easily one of the most liked.

Well, psh, yeah. You think any conservative economist is going to say that clinton drug us out of the hole that Stagflation put us in. Thats like saying that most liberal economists have reported that Clinton pulled us out. I don't know, I want an unbiased source

PS--want to guess who the last President was who actually reduced the federal payroll? That tax and spend, big government liberal, William Jefferson Clinton. That's got to sting a little.

Clinton cut the size of the military, and severely curtailed intelligence.
It was good that he cut back, but we learned a hard lesson about cutting back in the wrong areas. It actually stung a lot!

Right Idea - Wrong Exectuion, Bill!

PS--want to guess who the last President was who actually reduced the federal payroll? That tax and spend, big government liberal, William Jefferson Clinton. That's got to sting a little.

Clinton cut the size of the military, and severely curtailed intelligence.
It was good that he cut back, but we learned a hard lesson about cutting back in the wrong areas. It actually stung a lot!

Right Idea - Wrong Exectuion, Bill!

Yeah well, perhaps if the Republicans had not gone on their witch hunt because the guy got a freaking blowjob from a consenting adult.. Clinton could of done his job, but nooooooooo, the Republicans wouldn't hear of that... apparently a blowjob was more important then letting the President of the United States do his job.. look in the mirror conservative.. Every time you say "he lied" you're talking about his blowjob, that probably did hurt the way this man could of and would of run the country. He already had his eye on the ball.. (OBL) but the Republicans called it a "stunt" to take attention away from his blowjob.. So the next time you want to bitch about Clinton.. lets not forget who started the witch hunt to begin with.

Nuff said!

PS--want to guess who the last President was who actually reduced the federal payroll? That tax and spend, big government liberal, William Jefferson Clinton. That's got to sting a little.

Clinton cut the size of the military, and severely curtailed intelligence.
It was good that he cut back, but we learned a hard lesson about cutting back in the wrong areas. It actually stung a lot!

Right Idea - Wrong Exectuion, Bill!

Yeah well, perhaps if the Republicans had not gone on their witch hunt because the guy got a freaking blowjob from a consenting adult.. Clinton could of done his job, but nooooooooo, the Republicans wouldn't hear of that... apparently a blowjob was more important then letting the President of the United States do his job.. look in the mirror conservative.. Every time you say "he lied" you're talking about his blowjob, that probably did hurt the way this man could of and would of run the country. He already had his eye on the ball.. (OBL) but the Republicans called it a "stunt" to take attention away from his blowjob.. So the next time you want to bitch about Clinton.. lets not forget who started the witch hunt to begin with.

Nuff said!

I'm sorry, Steph. You've obviously confused me with someone else.
I've never complained about his extra-curricular activities. If he want's
screw around with some intern, more power to him. What does that
have to do with this argurment, though? Incertonia said that Clinton cut back on the size of government, which has always been the claimed goal of
the Republicans. I've conceded in the past that the Republican's have
not done a good job of following through on that promise. I was just
challenging the fact that Clinton cut back in the WRONG areas, and poor intel led, in part, to 9/11.

Well, psh, yeah. You think any conservative economist is going to say that clinton drug us out of the hole that Stagflation put us in. Thats like saying that most liberal economists have reported that Clinton pulled us out. I don't know, I want an unbiased sourceHeh, heh - unbiased sources in economics and political science are usually the idiots on MTV who have no experience of what the real world is all about. If you know anything at all about either of these topics, you must, by definition, have a biased viewpoint. :lol: (And Stagflation isn't related to the Clinton era - another decade entirely...)

PS--want to guess who the last President was who actually reduced the federal payroll? That tax and spend, big government liberal, William Jefferson Clinton. That's got to sting a little.

Clinton cut the size of the military, and severely curtailed intelligence.
It was good that he cut back, but we learned a hard lesson about cutting back in the wrong areas. It actually stung a lot!

Right Idea - Wrong Exectuion, Bill!

Yeah well, perhaps if the Republicans had not gone on their witch hunt because the guy got a freaking blowjob from a consenting adult.. Clinton could of done his job, but nooooooooo, the Republicans wouldn't hear of that... apparently a blowjob was more important then letting the President of the United States do his job.. look in the mirror conservative.. Every time you say "he lied" you're talking about his blowjob, that probably did hurt the way this man could of and would of run the country. He already had his eye on the ball.. (OBL) but the Republicans called it a "stunt" to take attention away from his blowjob.. So the next time you want to bitch about Clinton.. lets not forget who started the witch hunt to begin with.

Nuff said!

I was just challenging the fact that Clinton cut back in the WRONG areas, and poor intel led, in part, to 9/11.

Yes, because he couldn't do his job.. I don't know if you're married Redneck, but if you are, imagine a witch hunt from some one you work with that exposed to the world you had cheated on your wife.. you don't think that might affect the way you do your job? Or perhaps even have your mind else-where. ? It's a legit question.

Clinton knew that OBL was a threat.. and we all remember too well how the Republicans said he was trying to distract the public from his own problems.. I still recall it like it was yesterday.

As an International observer who could care a less who runs your country as long as it doesn't hurt the world.. I have to tell you, from an International view.. the Republicans are the most vile creatures I think I have ever seen.. and I started feeling that way when I seen what they did to Bill Clinton, probably one of the best presidents you've ever had.. but he probably won't go down in American history that way.. all because he got a blowjob.. To most of us who live outside of the USA, it's un-believable.

Yes, because he couldn't do his job.. I don't know if you're married Redneck, but if you are, imagine a witch hunt from some one you work with that exposed to the world you had cheated on your wife.. you don't think that might affect the way you do your job? Or perhaps even have your mind else-where. ? It's a legit question.

Clinton knew that OBL was a threat.. and we all remember too well how the Republicans said he was trying to distract the public from his own problems.. I still recall it like it was yesterday.

As an International observer who could care a less who runs your country as long as it doesn't hurt the world.. I have to tell you, from an International view.. the Republicans are the most vile creatures I think I have ever seen.. and I started feeling that way when I seen what they did to Bill Clinton, probably one of the best presidents you've ever had.. but he probably won't go down in American history that way.. all because he got a blowjob.. To most of us who live outside of the USA, it's un-believable.

Steph, you seem very emotional about this particular aspect of the Clinton years... first and foremost we need to stay on track in this discussion which was a reply regarding context of $$ cuts by the Clinton administration.

A few other points for you to consider ...

1). Presidents have been having affairs since the time of Jefferson ... that's Thomas Jefferson, not William Jefferson Clinton. FDR (who had more to contend with than Clinton!) Eisenhower, and Kennedy all had extra-marital relationships, but this did not impact on their ability to govern effectively. By mentioning this fact, I am not condoning the action, I'm merely putting your conclusion to the test.

2). Clinton was a charismatic figure and the issue of his indiscretions did not turn public opinion against him as one would have thought at the time. Truly public opinion was such that was done in his personal life should stay in his personal life and it really did not have the impact that you are attributing in your replies today.

3). The reaction of other countries was basically "So, what?" and Clinton's public opinion numbers didn't take a nosedive, so as to his being distracted by the situation - sorry that excuse doesn't hold up.

4). Clinton's fellow Democrats were very quick to distance themselves from him and served some volleys of their own on his actions. You really shouldn't villify a whole party (Republican) without looking at the members of the club that was in office.

5). Any president's actions are done within the scope of an administration ... no mention has ever been made by members of Clinton's cabinet that he was distracted or, in their opinion, made bad decisions in creating and implementing policy in the context of the scandal or related Republican pressure. These were more liberal policies, so I won't debate their validity (that would be for another thread!) other than to say that there is a difference between political philosophy and not doing one's job.
Believe me if there would have been any distraction, we would have heard about it.

6). Truly if you're going to blame a group within the US for running with the ball in the Clinton scandal then it should be The 4th Estate ... the media is the one that went on the feeding frenzy that you saw from the International distance.

DP

I have to tell you, from an International view.. the Republicans are the most vile creatures I think I have ever seen..

Steph, all Republicans?!
What about John McCain? Is he a vile creature? :D

I have to tell you, from an International view.. the Republicans are the most vile creatures I think I have ever seen..

Steph, all Republicans?!
What about John McCain? Is he a vile creature? :D

Haha ok, some :P

Clinton had the good intel!

Bush regime refused to look at it. They wanted conenctions to Iraq so bad that they practically asked for bad intel.

I have to tell you, from an International view.. the Republicans are the most vile creatures I think I have ever seen..

Steph, all Republicans?!
What about John McCain? Is he a vile creature? :D

Haha ok, some :P

Ok, now you're being somewhat reasonable :)

Clinton had the good intel!

Bush regime refused to look at it. They wanted conenctions to Iraq so bad that they practically asked for bad intel.

GB, you're certainly entitled to your opinion (personally I disagree with your statement :) ), but this thread is about Reagan's policies and what he would do (if he were alive and in office) in the context of today's global dynamics...
So any opinions about that?

I was replying to something Redneck Geeks said but it took forever to get it posted.


As for Reagan dealing with todays world situation? I agree with Steph. More faulty economic policy and prolly wouldnt be in Iraq. Although Reagan was just a puppet like all the others are so maybe we would be. Its not like reagan ever made a decision on his own. Was just a figure head.

I was replying to something Redneck Geeks said but it took forever to get it posted.


As for Reagan dealing with todays world situation? I agree with Steph. More faulty economic policy and prolly wouldnt be in Iraq. Although Reagan was just a puppet like all the others are so maybe we would be. Its not like reagan ever made a decision on his own. Was just a figure head.

I know ... the cuts in intel and military support was my response to a clain that government had grown under Reagan, but had decreased in the federal payroll under Clinton.
I recognized we had gotten off track, so I was trying to bring us back to the original topic.

Have to disagree with you on Reagan being a puppet.
He most assuredly was a man of conviction who had realized that his original political party affiliation (Democrat) had proceeded down a distorted path and strove to get the country back on the path that our founding fathers had intended ... one of protection of freedoms - one of those freedoms is that of freedom from Big Government.

Well, psh, yeah. You think any conservative economist is going to say that clinton drug us out of the hole that Stagflation put us in. Thats like saying that most liberal economists have reported that Clinton pulled us out. I don't know, I want an unbiased sourceHeh, heh - unbiased sources in economics and political science are usually the idiots on MTV who have no experience of what the real world is all about. If you know anything at all about either of these topics, you must, by definition, have a biased viewpoint. :lol: (And Stagflation isn't related to the Clinton era - another decade entirely...)

That was my point, That would not stop them from claiming clinton was responsible for it. On the flip side, ConEconomists would say that clinton went into fort knox with a crane, loaded all the gold into a rocket, and sent it to communist russia, twenty years in the past.

What made Reagan different than all the other Presidents?

Simple, he was human - a good man throughout - regardless of what he was politically.

come on... he was the only human president? there had to be at least one more.

What made Reagan different than all the other Presidents?

Simple, he was human - a good man throughout - regardless of what he was politically.he was a loveable fool at a time when america needed something to believe in--Reagan slept thru 95% of his acting job as President