An Intellectuals appraisal of Reagans legacy

Yeah, well, I don't buy that BS about them being so far to the right. I think they are about as far right as CNN is far left.

And neither of them are so far off the truth that it matters much. I think they both come about as close to being objective as any U.S. media can.

I too have studied this period of history at length.

You keep saying that Reagan carried 49 out of 50 states... but that really isn't relevant; his popularity at the time of his election and his job performance before and afterwards are disparate. Unless you want to argue that the vast majority of people are political scholars, it merely supports my point - he was voted into office for the second term based on his acting ability.

Without going into specifics (I don't want to argue points against a recently dead guy, gimme a few weeks and I'll post a much more complete topic dedicated to it) I don't think you can call a president who had a major scandal involving illegal arms deals and left the country in horrible financial shape one of the world's 'greats.'

Like I said before. He ACTED like a president, so the people loved him. Did he do some good for America? Yes, of course. But he did a whole ton of bad things too, most importantly, furthered the gap in between the rich and the poor tremendously. And the real key is, either he was an idiot and didn't recognize that fact, or he wasn't, and didn't care. You pick.

Cycloptichorn

I will respectfully disagree Cyclop. Later on I'll go toe to toe with you on the history of the Reagan administration. For now I am joining with a mostly grateful nation to remember an amazing man and what he meant to us.

Too bad he had alzheimer's for the past 20+ years.

Agreed. It's a terrible thing to see anyone go through, especially a respected public leader.

What with the focus on Reagan's life, I wonder if we will see a change in the admin's stance on stem cell research, seeing as it is the major source of hope for many Alzheimer's patients.

Cycloptichorn

I wonder if the gap between rich and poor was widening before Reagan. I would be willing to bet a buck that it was, and the worst you can say is that he didn't do anything to stop it . . . just like every other president in the past thirty years. Of course, I can't find any statistics on this from that far back, so I could be wrong.

Is there something wrong with a gap between the rich and the poor? Isn't that a middle class?

See, some people have opportunities, others make their own, then they go on and work to make the best of those opportunities and are rewarded for it. You will notice that there are very few wealthy crack addicts and most rich people have 2 kids and rarely 3. Rich people tend to be college educated and hold steady jobs.

Of course there are those that are just born into a rich family, but at somepoint, that family worked for their money. In america, everyone has the opportunity to do well in school, stay celebate, go to college, get a job and become wealthy. simply because not everyone chooses to take that opportunity, they doesn't mean that they are entitled to anything.

I heard something about this. Didn't many U.S. senators petition Bush to do exactly that with stem cell research, a few days ago?

The gap between the rich and the poor is a big problem.

It's not that people shouldn't be allowed to be rich; I don't mean that at all. People can even get REALLY rich as far as I'm concerned.

But there comes a point when people are super rich, and thus control an unfair amount of resources. With a limited amount of resources available for society, an overly large concentration of those resources at the top leads to an unstable social situation - crime, poverty, social problems all increase.

A good example of this inequity is a CEO of a major company. Did he work hard to get where he is? Of course. Does he have skills that set him above his fellow workers? He never would have got there without them (unless he happens to be a Bush, but that's neither here nor there). BUT, does he deserve to make more in one week than some of his employees will make in their entire lifetime? No way.

Those at the highest levels of our society are only allowed to be there because of the support of many, many people who are not as rich as they are. I'm okay with that setup, as long as it remains a realistic one. Where we're at today, though, is way out in crazyland when you compare the wage inequities between executives and employees. It can lead to an extremely elitist society, which is not good for social stability - the Big Boot of Democracy can't hold the poor down forever.

Cycloptichorn

My best friends dad started a business working out of his garage when we were kids. They do $15 Million+ in sales a year. Who is to tell my friends dad that he can't have whatever salary he wants to earn? Even if it 100 times more than what he pays someone to solder parts? If people do not want to work for him, no one is forcing them too, but he pays a fair wage and it's not exactly a job that requires a degree.

It was once said that if you confiscated all wealth - real estate, cash, etc. etc. - of all Americans and redistributed them evenly so that every person had exactly the same, within twenty years the distribution of that wealth would be the same that it is now. The form of government that dictates how much a person should be allowed to earn is called Communism. It has been tried. It hasn't worked well at all.

It won't be long before some smart cookie has a notion of greater productivity, lower prices, and a better product to gain bigger market share and that might include readjusting how people in an organization are paid. And when that company rises to the top, others will emulate it. And the problem will resolve itself.

Any attempt by the government to bring that about will be a certain recipe for unintended bad consequences.

The form of government that dictates how much a person should be allowed to earn is called Communism when evenly divided. The form of government that dictates how much a person should be allowed to earn is called Fascism the wealth is unevenly divided to the "haves".

Trouble with the communist is the politicos took all the wealth - we are witnessing what happens when the fascist rule...... :sad:

Do you have a quote, or evidence for that statement foxfire? Because I find that extremely hard to believe.

Don't get me wrong here, lads - I'm no communist. More of a Capitalist with socialist leanings. I don't think it's wrong that people get rich. I think that $15 million McG described isn't even close to the level I am talking about - Some CEO's of companies make not 100 times more than employees, or 1000, but hundreds of thousands more. That's too much.

Cycloptichorn

No one has a problem with fairness, the greed in America will be its downfall.......... It will take a few more years than I will be around - and, for you neocons; it is inherent and runnuing rampant in the entire two party system.

I don't remember the source Cyclop - it's one of many many quotes inspired by some professor or intellectual guru over the years. I didn't ask you to believe it, though I do. I just quoted it because it was pertinent.

Here is a piece written by Tammy Bruce, head of the L.A. chapter of NOW in the 1990's, and her recollection of Ronald Reagan:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13678

Even more than her excellent writing, there is much to learn here about tolerance and a heartfelt belief that any of us can disagree on something and neither of us be evil or even necessarily wrong.

To paraphrase your hero.....there you go again Foxfyre.

Unbridled capitalism also is a failure. Somewhere betweenst the extremes is what works and the US has been a shining example. The sign of a healthy economy is a healthy middle class. As wealth begins to be concentrated in a small upper class you begin to resemble the economy of Mexico. Ask the Mexicans how well trickle down works

Like I said foxfrye you are hard to deal with. We can move on.

Actually mesquite, trickle down helped the Mexicans more than the American lower class. There was vast amounts of Industry taking the Reagan tax cuts and running to Mexico......

But Mesquite, where is this missing middle class? I can look out from my office window and see block after block of quite nice but not ostentacious middle class home. I can look across the river and see mile after square mile of nice but not ostentacious middle class homes.

The areas of town with the really impressive estate-type homes are fairly small and there aren't all that many of them.

I would guess that the large majority of families in our metro area are squarely middle class. You talk as if we all don't exist.

I think any of you can drive through most American cities and see the same evidence even without benefit of somebody's statistics.