Not everyone liked Reagan

What anti-liberal posts? I am pro-conservative, not anti-liberal. I prefer to be for something, not against something. And I prefer to look for the best solution to a problem instead of looking for somebody to hang because we have one.

Gene Autry was president? When did that happen?

!
He may have given the USSR a nudge but certainly didn't bring that confederation down. Their own leaders were responsible for the demise.

Here are a few reason many loathed Reagan's policies.

Fiscal irresponsibility. Ran MASSIVE deficits his entire term. We still pay interest on the bonds the government sold to borrow the money. Reagan claimed the tax cuts would generate more income to cover the deficits. It never happened--and is another Repug lie. We'll be paying interest on the $2 trillion of new debt Reagan added forever.

Tax burden shifted from wealthy to middle and poorer classes. Reagan cut the rates for the very highest paid, but increased the rates for those at the bottom. Contrary to Repug propaganda, Reagan signed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in history into law. It boosted the payroll tax significantly on the lower income group.

Environmental setbacks. We went from progress in all areas of the environment to a standstill or worse everywhere. We still haven't gotten back on track and Bush* has made the trend very negative.

Social safety net for poor gutted. Reagan used the racist "welfare queen" propaganda to get even supposed Democrats to support him on this.

Accelerated the collapse of the union movement. Hiring scabs became the norm.

Supported many unsavory dictators and thugs. Got caught breaking the law illegally supporting the "Contras" in Nicaragua. The Contras were right wing goons opposed to the Socialist government.

Average Americans saw their standard of living decline during Reagan's two terms--in spite of economic growth. Trickle down was a miserable failure then, just like it is today.

Our mainstream media journalism is a joke because of Reagan dereguation.

Our social programs were savaged because of Reagan.

Our environmental regulations, once something to be proud of, were eviscerated by Reagan.

The manifest power of corporations over virtually every facet of our lives came because of the massive deregulations put forth by Reagan.

The AIDS virus found a long, comfortable home in America because Reagan couldn't be bothered with funding research into 'gay cancer.'

Crack owned the urban world, wracked by the aforementioned social evisceration, for years because Reagan couldn't be bothered. Whole generations of Americans died in misery because he couldn't have gven a damn about their problems.

Saddam Hussein was a creation, in huge part, of Reagan.

Same goes for Osama bin Laden, who along with al Qaeda and the Taliban went from being a side project under Carter to a front-and-center priority that led directly to the attacks of September 11, not to mention the African embassy bombings. Those two embassies were destroyed with Semtex sold to Afghan mujeheddin (nee Taliban and al Qaeda) by the Reagan administration.

* At a rally for Harry Truman someone shouted out: "Give 'em Hell Harry." Truman replied: "I won't give 'em Hell but I will tell the truth and they will think it's Hell."

The Right Wingers always say that the Left is speaking hate when the Left speaks Truth. What those Right wingers really mean is that they hate to hear the Truth.

I'll second that!

Doglover
You forgot some

:wink:

Oh, come on
Radikal, at least be historically accurate. Yes, we funded Bin Laden - Ever heard "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."??? At the time, the USSR (remember, our main enemy at the time?) was making tremendous inroads into the area and Bin Laden was fighting them. In order to further our interests, we supported Bin Laden, AND it was a good move at the time. You have the benefit now of looking back with your 20/20 hindsight, but what would you have done at the time? Different story.

Tax CUTS - gave us the most impressive economic growth ever (except for the dot com boom). You do realize that those tax cuts on the "rich" (i.e. anyone who makes over $200K) resulting in increased tax revenue for the federal government?

The rest is just silliness. In the 60's Reagan would have been called a Democrat - remember JFK and his tax cuts and message of hope and personal resonsibility - he's probably rolling over in his grave now.

Actually radikal got it all exactly right.

Not silliness at all. It was clear that Mr. Reagan's focus was on his wealthy cohorts and all that that implies. The fact that he served a second term was just as absurd as Bush and Co. being re-elected in November.

He carried 49 of 50 states his second term. He must have had millions and millions and millions of wealthy peers - or - millions and millions and millions of us thought his focus was exactly where it should have been.

I guess you all thought his focus was exactly where it should have been. Along with his foot. On the necks of the middle and lower class.

Sorry. I didn't even qualify for the low end of middle class when Reagan took office. Nobody I associated with did. But he had such a spirit of can do and a vision of possibilities he made us all believe again. And we prospered. If you look at all income groups that benefitted during the Reagan administration it was the middle class that most prospered. Yes the rich got richer. But they funneled jobs to the rest of us and so everybody else willing to work got richer too.

We can't rewrite history. At least, not outside of Hollywood.

That's true. But the left keeps trying to rewrite Reagan's history.

He carried 49 of 50 states his second term.

And while I know the liberals, most particularly the liberal media, hated him with obsessive hate, enough of us loved him that he carried 49 of 50 states in his second term of office.

Reagan carried 49 of 50 states when he ran for the second term.

I want a president of conviction and principle of the likes of Ronald Reagan who carried 49 of 50 states when he was elected president the second time.

Enough already, foxfyre! You've convinced me. I now firmly believe that Ronald Reagan carried 49 of 50 states when he was re-elected.

Of course, so did Richard Nixon.

Or do they try and "Right" it?

As in paint the true picture.

Have you looked at Perfectly Legal yet?

Yes, Nixon also carried 49 of 50 state in his second term of office too which should suggest that he wasn't as terrible a president as history paints him. Nixon's sin was corruption of the powers of the presidency and it was proper that he was called on that.

I will stand on my conviction that Reagan was one of the great presidents and I think now is the time that the country should be allowed to mourn his death and celebrate his contributions to the country and the world. There will be time enough to write his sins into the historical record.

Having a good campaign team is not always the same as being a good leader.

Re: Oh, come on

Yes, heard of it and think its an extremely bad, misguided idea. Not every enemy of your enemy is your friend - that should be a commonsensical commonplace, not something to be reminded of. Supporting somebody just because he shares an opponent, no matter how bad his own track record or goals, is just putting yourself into harm's way.



No it wasnt. What was worse - Soviet control over a remote Central-Asian mountain state, or a collapse into warlord anarchy? Najibullah was an evil dictator, but the warlords that made up most of the Mujahedeen were just as violent and tyrannical. Their rule caused the Afghan citizens just as much grief as Najibullah's, plus it provided a safe haven for the people who were to bomb the heart of your cities once they got the chance.



<shrugs> There were those who warned back then, too. You may have disagreed with them, but thats something else.

What would I have done? Support Najibullah's opponents - but only where they met some very basic standards. No use to get one enemy out just by putting another one in.

Like my signature says:

Re: Oh, come on


So tell us O' great Oracle of hindsight... who should we not be supporting right now? Who, in 20 years, will we regret helping right now?