posted 03-05- 12:29 PM            

Your own memory is shorter than your...

Read some history.

posted 03-05- 03:39 PM            

I need to find a new Pin Head.

posted 03-05- 04:27 PM            

Ronald Reagan:

1. Initiated tax cuts and spending programs
which led to the deficits we have today.

2. Hated working people even though they
had a big part in electing him. Fired the
air traffic controlers and started the
union busting trend that's been prevelant
in this country for the past 20 years.

3. Illegally sold weapons to Iran and used
the money to finance the contra rebels. He
should have gone to jail for this.

4. His entire two terms were marred with
economic troubles, job shortages and
layoffs.

5. Although not his fault, his allshiemers
was showing toward the end of his second
term.

He doesn't deserve to have a row boat named
after him.

posted 03-05- 05:13 PM               

Tax revenues doubled in the 8 years he was in office, but the Democrates outspent even this.

His tax cuts were negotiated with the Democrats who insisted on spending increases to go along with the tax cuts. This is what caused the deficit.

When he took over from a Democrat (Carter) the economy was the worse it has ever been. Inflation was 13% and interest rates were also double digit. His economic policy got the economy on a stable foundation.

Debt is caused by spending more than your income. Guess which Party is know as the big spenders? Hint: it's not Reagan's party.

He rebuilt the military after Carter tore it down. His rebuild forced the collapse of the Soviet Union trying to keep up. It also put us in a position to win the Gulf War just a few years after he left office.

Ronald Reagan never hated anyone. Nicest person in the world.

posted 03-05- 05:52 PM               

Maybe you should do a little more research. Reagan took over an economy left in shambles by the Carter administration (forgot that didn't you).

Quote about reagan's economic policies:
"Since President Reagan's economic programs were first enacted in late 1981 we've had less than two years of recession (including the recession those programs brought us out of) and 18 years of expansion!"

Second, the tax cuts were supposed to include cut backs in spending, but the Democratic controlled congress INCREASED spending in areas they were supposed to decrease after the cut was in place.

Reagan also made a conscious decision to increase military spending even though he knew this would increase the deficit. His purpose was two- fold.

1. To restore the military after Carter had run it into the ground (same as Clinton has).

2. To force the Soviet Union into an arms race their economy couldn't support and thereby bring down the Communist regime.

He was successful on both accounts. I was IN the military at that time, and the difference in the publics attitude towards us shifted dramatically after Reagan took office. When Carter was in most people were ashamed to admit they were in the military.

Soviet officials admit this policy of Reagens broke their back and caused the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Don't forget Carter had also negotiated us into a position of weakness because he didn't have the backbone to stand up to the Soviets.

Reagen stood his ground and refused to talk to the Soviets until they met him on his terms, even when the leader of every NATO nation was trying to get him to back down. In the end, it was the Soviets that backed down. Again this has all been publicized through the documentaries by interviews with those that were in power on both sides at the time. The Nato leaders all admit he was right and they were wrong in this situation.

Liberals whine about the lack of control over nukes in the fragments of the old USSR, but they've forgotten what it was like to live under the threat of annihilation.

Documentaries on the USSR, after it fell, point out the Politburo and Soviet military considered the eventual use of nukes a certainty, not a possibility, and they concentrated on building a first strike capable force.

These FACTS on Reagen have been covered in documntaries done by the press, through interviews conducted with those who both agreed and disagreed with Reagens policies.

You could have seen them on both 60 minutes and the history channel. Also keep in mind the current surplus was put in place by a Republican held Congress and Senate that had to fight to get their reforms past Clinton. (who then took out short term loans to increase the apparent surplus and make things look better than they really are). Of course now that he's left office he's taking credit for all of this.

I've heard all of the crap being said about Reagan now, if you want some facts, go here: http://reagen.webteamone.com

Anyone in the military that wasn't on a desk job or stationed in non-threatened areas will tell you the Soviets weren't fooling around and we would still be dealing with them if it hadn't been for Reagen's policies.

So next time, learn the whole story.

------------------
"Where'd he GO!?!?"
thunk-thunk-thunk-zing-OUCH
That answered my question

posted 03-05- 06:08 PM               

A nice comparison is the measure of the debt and deficit against our GNP, widely regarded as the best measure of our indebtedness. Because our revenues are tied to GNP (Note: we now use GDP, a slightly different measure) our relative indebtedness can be determined as a percentage of that figure.

As can be seen, the deficit spiked early, then declined sharply in the second term of Reagan's presidency. Our debt increased by about 20% (GDP) and 50% relative to the previous level, a far cry from the doubling, tripling, or quadrupling that some claim.

Note that since spending (in nominal dollars) has increased faster under Bush and Clinton than Reagan, liberals are falling back to the proper measure of indebtedness (as a % GDP) while trying to continue to attack Reagan solely on nominal dollar increases.

posted 03-05- 06:21 PM               

Here are some hilights from the article that appears with the table, written by John C. Weicher of the Hudson
Institute.

...the distrubtion of wealth was about the same after all the policy changes as it was before. It's true that the
rich got richer, but so did the middle class and the poor, to about the same extent--and different people
were rich at the end of the decade than at the beginning.

This supports our observations from other parts of the Home Page. Mobility among income quintiles
is high, and gains in income and net wealth occured across the board.

The surveys [infrequent surveys on ndividual wealth, two of which were taken in the 1980s, one in 1983 and one in 1989] show, first of all, a huge increase in the total real wealth of American households--to
$16.8 trillion in 1989 from $12.7 trillion in 1983. The wealth of the average household rose by about 20%, to $181,000 from $151,000. (These are net-worth figures, after debts are subtracted from assets....)

As shown in our page on incomes and wealth, gains in net
wealth were real and obtained with substantial assets. Not the house of credit cards that liberals claim.

.... In 1983, the richest 1% of U.S. households owned about 39% of the wealth in the country. In 1989
they owned about 36%.

posted 03-05- 07:01 PM               

And from 1984 to 1989 I was out of the military and worked as a member of the Utility Workers Uniion. Membership in the Union grew, our wages increased by an average of 5% a year. Once Clinton got in office the membership shrank by almost 20% and annual raises decreased to 2%.

We both can post isolated cases because they vary from industry to industry depending on the trends at that time. The overall numbers that span all segments of the economy are the ones that are most revealing.

Oil and Gas took a major dump in the 80's while high tech industries took off.

Hmmm, I see you sidestepped the issue of the disastrous economy under Carter.

Why don't we take this to the Flame Wars section where everyone that has a say can post?

posted 03-05- 07:18 PM            

Werner

posted 03-05- 09:02 PM               

I'm not sure exactly why Democrats are always depicted as being one step away from a communist, ready to weaken the country so it can be brought to it's knees at the drop of a hat.

I seem to remember some weapons that the Reagan-era military was pretty hot on, and that didn't turn out to be all that they thought they'd be.

I don't think the B-1 was ever as popular as it was supposed to be, I remember a thing called the York Gun, and we can start a whole new cans of worms opening by mentioning the words "Star Wars."

Lately, what I've seen, and whether it was started before the Clinton administration or not, certainly didn't seem to be too hampered by it, was the further sophistication of the Apache, wonderful modifications to F-16's, F-15's, and F-18's, continued work on the F-22, and continuing developement of the Joint Strike Fighter. Oh, and I think there's a new mini-carrier called the "Ronald Reagan" now too.

The Osprey seems to need a little work, but that's another story.

I've seen a military force that flew 31,000 sorties in Bosnia, and didn't lose a man.

I think the military, and the citizens of the United States have a lot to be proud of. I think the main problem with the military right now is low morale. And I think the Republicans have had a lot to do with lowering morale in the country for the last 8 years.

If you keep screaming loudly and long enough that the sky is falling, after a while, some folks will actually start to feel it hitting their head. But I digress.

The main thing right now is to raise morale in the military, get pay scales in line, and make service in the military more attractive to young people.

I guess for some reason now that a Republican is president, the morale thing might take care of itself, we'll just have to work on the pay scales and benefits to make them as attractive as possible.

Ah well, not trying to start a big fight here. Just wanted to mention that it didn't see like we've been doing too bad in combat situations lately, and that the continuing developement of incredible new technologically advanced weapons systems doesn't see to have been completely stymied.

posted 03-05- 10:56 PM               

Ask about the spare parts issue, emergency fuel storage issue, retention rate, and accident rate due to the lack of experienced personnel and you'll get a different view.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be proud of them. Considering all the other problems, they are doing one bang up job! BTW, the republican dominated senate arms committee had a lot to do with the weapons advances being pushed trough.

When I bad mouth what Carter did to the military, it was from being there at the time. Iwas in while both Carter and Reagen were president.

Smokey,
ROFLMAO- do I detect resentment because I am in the top 5%? Do you know the top five percent is anyone making over $52,000 a year? I live in an area where the average home price is $225,000 for a 3 bedroom 2000 sq ft home. Oh yeah, I'm soooo rich. My house payment and utilities take up 60% of my wages. With what's left over I think I'll go trade in my Ford Aspire for a Lamborghini.

Cripes, I was in the top 5% when I worked as a Union member, "brother". But maybe you missed the part that I was part of a union, guess that means there are rich unions that don't care about the worker too (Snicker). I am soooo sick of the US vs them BS. I no longer work in a union and life is so much better. Although I only listed 84 to 89 as those were the Reagen years, I was in the Union until 1996. That's how I know things got worse for our union after Clinton took office.

You just proved my whole point, thank you- I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time.

Guess I'll hope on my Lear jet and spend the next week in the Bahama's . Maybe I should drop by Paris for some crepes for breakfast.

Argon, for your info, the difference between the top 5% and the top 2% is OVER $100,000 a year. That was my point in your post.

------------------
"Where'd he GO!?!?"
thunk-thunk-thunk-zing-OUCH
That answered my question

posted 03-05- 11:46 PM               

Canada had this whole VTOL thing down decades ago.

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~rapickler/vstol.html

Da Jug head

"Liberals whine about the lack of control over nukes in the fragments of the old USSR, but they've forgotten what it was like to live under the threat of annihilation."

I would trust the USSR as a country more then I trust unknown factions controling some nukes now. So arn't we still under the threat of annihilation?

Not that I want them to be the same old USSR again, I just would rather those nukes were not out of control.

posted 03-05- 11:48 PM               

AND if NONE of the above is enough to convince you there should be a ship named after him, I will give you the statement he made that sticks most in my mind during his presidency...
"... Mr. Gorbachev(sp?), TEAR THIS WALL DOWN!..."

You know what? they did. (Just in case you slept through it... )

posted 03-06- 12:06 AM               

Spanky, no- the threat isn't the same, not even remotely so. They are more likely to use them on each other than the U.S.

from earlier post:
"Documentaries on the USSR, after it fell, point out the Politburo and Soviet military considered the eventual use of nukes a CERTAINTY, not a possibility, and they concentrated on building a first strike capable force." That alone should make anyone shudder. I watched an interview with a ex-Soviet general that had been part of their missle command. He stated the whole regime was so paranoid about the U.S., that the above statement was totally true.

Many of their nukes have been decommissioned, and it is eatimated that between 1/3 to 1/2 of those in existence can't fly because of maintenace / spare parts problems. The old USSR would never have let things slip so badly.

Terrorist nukes are a bigger worry now and you can thank N. Korea, China, and Sadam for that problem. But the damage they can inflict is much less than what the USSR was capable of and limited geographically as well as numerically.

------------------
"Where'd he GO!?!?"
thunk-thunk-thunk-zing-OUCH
That answered my question