The Ronald Reagan On Everything Thread

[Busyman]

Reagan's stance on such issues gives him absolutely no such credit.

You are free to assign such credit.

No one else will back you up on that.

Why do you think it had to go to the Supreme Court Kev?

Moving on.........

3. Reagan vetoed a bill to extend the reach of federal civil rights laws.

[vidcc]

Reagan created boom for some but the tax payer paid the price. there is no such thing as a free meal. While the stock markets rose he failed to balance the books in house. Spending on his pet projects ment cuts elsewhere.he cut tax at a time when he needed the money. We were in bad shape when he came to power but instead of tightening our belts to balance the books he loosened them and the national debt rose. I was not against the tax cuts but there needed to be a delay. He borrowed from the welfare funds...why cut taxes then be forced to borrow and create a need for more tax to pay back?.
His own advisors and party members eventually begged him to re-think as there were no more cut backs in public programs left. Unemployment was rising and there was little money for welfare.
Had there not been the historic breakthrough in arms reduction we would not have been financially able to continue the arms race so it wasn't just a great humanitarian event, it was a financial blessing.

In answer to the terrorist accusations, yes during his term the USA did fund terrorist actions, we could go around in circles again about American foriegn policy but that wouldn't cure anything. However comparing Reagan to any terrorist won't solve anything either. dependent on how far one goes back historically one will find guilt in all nations.
In the same arena, Reagan despite his flaws was loved....he returned patriotism to the USA and Oliver North kind of took a fall for him (willingly or not). Even if reagan knew nothing of the Iran contra affair (or just forgot) he is still ultimately responsible... he was the chief after all.

Remember that the measure of any political leader is what he does for your own personal benefit. Human nature has a way of being selfish and one could ignore many bad things that affect others for just one good thing that benefits you. This goes for all leaders, not just reagan. So to those who criticise the likes of reagan and bush, myself included, remember that their supporters may be doing very well out of their policies so to them they are good leaders and they have every justification to sing their praises.

[j2k4]

Quick question, vid-

Who spends the money in the U.S.?

One-word answer, please.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 June 2004 - 13:47
Quick question, vid-

Who spends the money in the U.S.?

One-word answer, please.

give me a one word question and i will give you a one word answer.
We all spend money.

What is your question related to ? government spending of public money or private spending?

I can give a sensible reply only when i know what area you are specifically asking about.

[j2k4]

Quite right, and fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase:

Who, in the whole American government, directs the spending of tax revenues?

One-word answer, please.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 June 2004 - 17:18
Quite right, and fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase:

Who, in the whole American government, directs the spending of tax revenues?

One-word answer, please.

well you can't be looking for the Secretary of the Treasury as that's 4 words.
perhaps you are looking for congress.




As you just want a one word answer i will not debate where i think you may be trying to go with this but it will be interesting to hear what your overal point is so i can

[j2k4]

You are correct; more accurately (sorry to mislead), the House of Representatives.

They, as the People's People, so to speak, bear the greater responsibility for overspending.

Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a rough doubling of revenue to the treasury; there is no doubt whatsoever that his tax cuts were a huge boon-they worked as advertised.

Congress refused to act responsibly, however, and blew through the windfall as if it weren't there; didn't even slow down, and never looked back.

Re-elections loom, see?

Pork, and all it's by-products, are the pols favorite food; doesn't matter whether they're Republican or Democrat-the Dems held sway, for the most part, and could and would spend in order to get re-elected; the Republicans followed suit to keep pace with the Dems at the voting booth.

Vicious circle, eh?

Anyway, Reagan kinda had to allow it to go on, 'cuz he had defense to worry about, and he wanted to bury the Russians and Communism.

That's it, in a nutshell.

And you know what?

It's the bloody truth, too.

[Rat Faced]

I thought the President and his staff created the Budget, and Congress ratified it or challenged it?


Not arguing, I dont know anything on the subject, merely asking for clarification.

[vidcc]

Ok J2 but if you read my post you will see that i wasn't against the tax cuts...... i was against the timing. i feel that a more prudent policy would have been to delay them. He cut back on governmental spending to save money but he had to make harsher cuts than need be and ended up needing to borrow from the welfare fund.

Anyway, Reagan kinda had to allow it to go on, 'cuz he had defense to worry about,

this is an interesting statement and to me it says that you felt that Reagan was unable to multi-task. Never should it happen that something is "allowed to go on" because of other things. Perhaps that's one of the problems we are seeing now.

and he wanted to bury the Russians and Communism.

what does that say about our foriegn policy?. If we don't agree with another nations politics, fine, that's called freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that we have the right to make political policy for those countries and it definately doesn't mean that our pesident can put home issues aside to concentrate on interferance with other nations domestic politics.

P.S. it was the soviets and communism, Russia was just a small part of the union where the leaders just happened to be

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 June 2004 - 19:24
I thought the President and his staff created the Budget, and Congress ratified it or challenged it?


Not arguing, I dont know anything on the subject, merely asking for clarification.

That is more-or-less correct, Rat.

The difficulties crop up when the House starts pinning the pork onto what is a bare-bones proposition.

Then, the President gets to decide if his mandate is worth the trouble; if he wants what he wants badly enough, he bites the bullet and signs on.

His only option is to throw the baby out with the bath-water and start from scratch-he vetoes the budget.

This is not often a favored move, because it leads to the government running out of money (shut-down), and the President gets the ass from the opposing party and the media.

Not too pleasant.

I assume you are familiar with the line-item veto?

Clinton had it and used it sparingly.

Our left-leaning Supreme Court, in 1998, declared it unconstitutional, for reasons beyond my ken.

So, Bush doesn't have it, and Reagan and Bush, Sr. didn't have it, either.

That's how spending overcame revenues and created the 2-trillion dollar deficit, which Reagan knew the economy could withstand; the need to defeat Communism won out.

Again, in a nutshell.