Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
Re: Re: Reagan's Legacy
I don't blame Reagan for the existence of radical Islamist terrorists. That would be ridiculous.
I only blame Reagan for the strength of Iran, Iraq, the Taliban, and Al Quaeda. He was warned, and failed to heed the warnings, and he created several monsters that we will continue to try to control. Just like the Reagan Debt, this part of his legacy will live on.
posted by
mousehop
on August 26, 2008 at 9:15 AM
| link to this | reply
cantey
Maybe not fully on Regan, but he was part of it. And the modern radical Muslims movement is very much due to the Cold War itself and the way both sides used those people. Regan is far from being innocent in his involvement with that.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 24, 2008 at 4:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Reagan's Legacy
Al Quaeda (He financed and trained them), the Taliban (another faction of the mujahadeen Reagan financed and trained).
Reagan was also fighting the Soviets, who were our primary enemy and threat during his administration and that era. His efforts at fighting the enemies of America during his administration may or may not have contributed to the radical Islamic aggression we have in the world today, but to place the blame (which is how your statement appears) for the existence of Islamic terrorism on Reagan is ridicules.
posted by
calmcantey75
on August 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM
| link to this | reply
RSM, mousehop said it all
I really can't out do him in this, so I'll just go and let his words show you how mistaken you are.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Reagan's Legacy
I have to agree with RedStatesMan that Reagan's work has lasted over twenty years, though my view of that work, and its effects is somewhat different. Reagan and his followers owe this country well over $5 trillion dollars and counting. Service of Reagan's debt costs over $200 billion a year, money that could be spent on something better than paying interest to bond holders. And Reagan also oversaw a huge increase in the size of the federal government, as measured in spending, just like George II. It was not Reagan's tax cuts that boosted economic growth, but his Keynesian spending. And Reagan's re-election benefited from Carter's policies, which tamed inflation, but not fast enough for Carter himself to gain from it. The growth under the Clinton administration was from a combination of effects, including the advent of the Internet, but also Clinton's tax policies, which spread the benefit wider, and put money in the hands of the working class, who spent it, driving economic growth more quickly than the rich making investments.
And there's Reagan's other legacies: Iraq (he gave Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons, along with all the conventional weapons), Iran (he sold them weapons in a failed attempt at "diplomacy" to get hostages back), Al Quaeda (He financed and trained them), the Taliban (another faction of the mujahadeen Reagan financed and trained).
Reagan was not the worst president we've ever had. That's probably Buchanan. But George II and Reagan fit in the bottom five rather nicely. We'll be cleaning up Reagan's messes for many more years, and Bush's messes . . . . He's damaged our country in ways we may never recover from. And I'm not referring to his $4 trillion dollars (and counting) of debt.
posted by
mousehop
on August 24, 2008 at 8:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: I agree w/ Corbin --
First thing, kooka's cartoon is completely wrong. I think it is obvious that Reagan's work has lasted about 20 years and slick willie simply benefitted from it.
Second thing- Bush's expansion of government was one thing that I always disagreed with him about - in that case he acted as a liberal would.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on August 23, 2008 at 7:21 PM
| link to this | reply
mousehop
The end all and be all of the issue is being responsible for the actions. When you have a balance of taxes and spending you will see the best growth. Our best growth has been when the executive branch is of one party and the legislative is the other because then they have to work together and make compromises in order to get things done, which is why I feel the Clinton years were so full of growth. One of our greatest problem with the Bush administration is that congress was already of his party and there was no real checks and balances between them. Even the present congress does not have enough of a democratic majority to do what it needs to be doing in keeping the President in check.
That being said, McCain scares me to no end. This guy seems to be a little lost as to what is important to the country, outright saying he is clueless about economic issues and that he doesn't care about social issues. He also seems determined to keep the war going as long as possible and get us in more wars, as well as keeping us on this present track that is not doing anything help repair the real problems we are seeing here. And with Joe Biden as the VP, I really think Obama has found someone who will help to create a balance that will create growth for this nation.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 23, 2008 at 4:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
Read the article I linked to for Corbin in my last comment. Tax cuts are actually very irresponsible because it only takes the real problem and makes it so it will have to be dealt with later, and most likely it will be worse by then.
You see I have no problem with the idea of tax cuts as long as they are done responsibly, which is NOT what Bush did. You don't give them out and then create a greater debt than you are getting in, because after that initial increase in revenue hits it is then followed by reality catching up with everyone. If you wish to spend more money, you have to make sure you are getting more money from some where. It is like the whining about the gas taxes, which if we did not have them we would not have roads worth driving on. It really at times seems like the conservatives are wanting to have a whole bunch of things given to them without having to pay for them. Roads and wars cost money and if you want roads and wars, then you need to be willing to pay for them. I don't want the war and I am not willing to pay for it myself, but there are other things my tax money goes for that I have no problem with. If you are a backer of the war with Iraq, then you should be responsible and actually be for higher taxes to pay for that war. Now that is not as directed as you as it is at the Conservatives who are big time Bush backers and are claiming the war is righteous and all that, but don't want to have to pay higher taxes in order to keep the war form destroying our economy.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 23, 2008 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, you really just spit out the BS you are fed
Read this article here that talks about how yes in the SHORT term there is higher revenue, but in the long term there is going to be a huge bill to pay. I know conservative thinking seems to say 'create all the debt you want to now and don't worry about the future' but that is why we are in such bad shape right now. in the short term we saw growth, and already we are seeing that growth vanish because there was no real long term plan, which us more or less how Bush is running thing. Short term gain without worrying about the realist long term instability it is creating. I would rather see stability where people are working and are making fair wages regularly than a huge short term increase followed by great debt and a failing economy.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 23, 2008 at 4:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Janes, I've heard that myself
I think it's a bit generous to say tax cuts 'always' result in increased revenues. Not all tax cuts are created equal (i.e. they don't all the equal stimulating effects on the economy), but general do stimulate growth. But growth generally occurs anyway, and teasing out the effects of one change versus another is tricky.
But the political calculus of tax cuts doesn't change much. If you cut taxes, opponents of the cut (i.e. Democrats, whose constituency benefits more from government programs) argue that there is obviously enough money to go around, and demand spending increases. Even when Democrats cut taxes, they increase spending. The opposite is also largely true. So Clinton increased taxes, cut spending (or slowed increases), and still saw economic growth. Fiscal responsibility demands that government recognize this, and deal with it appropriately. Reagan and Bush II didn't. McCain doesn't plan to. Republican in congress also didn't once they got power. Will Democrats, with a Democrat in the Whitehouse? Doubtful. Unless Senate Republican dig in and demand responsibility, little progress toward rational fiscal policy will be made. The best bet might actually be a McCain Whitehouse and Democratic Congress, but I have serious doubts about that. That's why I voted for Ron Paul.
posted by
mousehop
on August 23, 2008 at 10:02 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree w/ Corbin --
Tax cuts are a good thing. They DO increase revenue! But tax cuts PLUS a protracted war PLUS Medicare D was likely NOT a good combination. Bush's expansion of gov was way too excessive for JanesO fiscal conservative tastes.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 23, 2008 at 7:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Janes, I've heard that myself
Each time we have had tax cuts we have had huge increases in revenue to the Federal government......with the two Bushs two wars had a major impact.....I would have favored a way to pay for the wars, bonds sales, and taxes......... but tax cuts alone alway....note the word "always", increases the revenue because of the stimulated growth that occurs....
It's the problem with the gluttonous spending that is occurring as a result of both parties gorging themselves out of the revenue trough.....
It' s hard for socialists to understand the system, but tax cuts increase growth, which increases revenue...........
A solution would be to constitutionally mandate spending limits on Congress....with exceptions in times of national emergency....it's the only way when you have the addicts running the pharmacy......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 23, 2008 at 5:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes, I've heard that myself
But here are a few things to think about. If that is true, then Bush Sr.’s time in office should have reflected the results of the Regan years. So what you are saying is that Bush Sr. was actually a much better President in his four years than Regan was in his eight…
Of course you do not seem to be denying that Bush Jr. Pretty much was his own train wreck here. After all it has been his tax cuts and his war with Iraq that has caused the record deficit. After all if you are going to be spending billions of dollars on a war, you don’t cut back on taxes at that point. You gotta wonder how good Bush would have looked to the conservatives if he said ‘Well, we are going to war and to pay for it we gotta raise taxes’ which is the responsible way to have done it. I have a feeling then, if Bush actually showed he had some level of business sense and raised the taxes to pay for his war he would not have had the support he wanted, so instead he got reckless and screwed us over.
Also going off of the idea that he administration before yours is the one that somehow sets how well things go during yours, I would think the time frame would have some. Not Bush Sr. only had a four year term, so most likely his impact would have been minimal, while Regan’s impact in his eight years should have been larger, and so would have been more reflected in the following term. And so by the end of eight years in office, it could be said that you should have been able to move on and the final impact would be more related to that administration’s influence. We can see such being there in terms of unemployment, where at the start of Clintons time in office it was very high, coming out of 12 years of the Republicans being in power and so by then there should be no doubt that it was created by the Regan administration. Coming out of the Clinton years, we saw record lows in unemployment, which were after his first term in office, which would seem to be a indication of the impact of his first term. So Bush goes into such a great system with low unemployment and a surplus, and all goes down him around the end of his first term in office, which is when more or less the impact of the preceding administration should be wearing off.
I just find it so interesting that a conservative openly points out how bad of a president Regan really was. I guess it was really his fault that Bush Sr. didn’t get reelected.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 22, 2008 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting -- and I dig the art work
I recently read a great article that talked about this very subject, albeit in a little more depth. The gist of it was that it's generally the administration which follows that benefits (or is adversely affected) from the decisions of the previous administration. For example, the article points out that Hoover's admin started some major infrastructure building that eventually lead to Roosevelt's New Deal. Roosevelt received the credit, but it was actually Hoover's policies that jump started things. Hoover Dam was originally named Boulder Dam, but the name was later changed to honor Pres Hoover and all that his administration actually accomplished -- much of it to pave the way for Roosevelt.
A number of examples were provided, but I think it is fair to say (and many economists concur) that Clinton benefited from decisions made by previous administrations. That said, I would add that I do not agree with all the deficit spending of Pres Bush. Nor did I agree w/ his decision to go to war. . . .
Nor can I support a man who appears to support infanticide.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 22, 2008 at 6:00 PM
| link to this | reply
interesting aint it
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM
| link to this | reply