Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and to that I would add Reagan's mishandling of issues related to mental illness, his stubborn refusal to address or do anything about AIDS for years, the fact that as president of the Screen Actors Guild he ruined the lives of several good people by being an informant for Joe McCarthy, the fact that he had more convicted felons (138) than any American president, and that he violated the Boland Amendment to the Constitution in order to instigate the Iran Contra affair. He was just the Charlie McCarthy to Poppy Bush's Edgar Bergen...a grade-B actor with the role of a lifetime.
That myth has been addressed before (Reagan "ignoring" AIDS).
Here are the facts:
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982. By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan administration spent $5,727 billion on HIV/AIDS.
The average annual increase in HIV/AIDS funding over this period was 128.92%
This is "refusing to address or do anything about AIDS?
Also, Reagan was also Governor of the most populous state in the union for 8 years. He was much more than a "grade-B actor."
low unemployment
low debt levels
low deficit levels
dollar strong
high personal incomes
personal savings up
Obama-
high unemployment
high debt levels
high deficits levels
dollar weak
low personal incomes
personal savings down
Gee- I guess liberals love misery, as they would prefer to have the nation suffer under a democrat, rather than prosper under a republican. That is just how crazy libs are.
Low unemployment under Reagan?
Not really. He ENDED his Presidency with low unemployment, but most of his 2 terms was spent with very high unemployment. The peak unemployment rate under Reagan was HIGHER (10.4%) than the peak unemployment rate under Obama (10%). Not only that, but Reagan had 5 years and 8 months of an unemployment rate at 7% or more (including 5 years solid). The UE rate under Reagan really wasn't what could be considered "good" until the last 2 years of his 2nd term.
Low debt levels under Reagan?
Not really. They were low by TODAYS standard, but VERY HIGH by the standard of the time.
Low deficit levels under Reagan?
Not really. Again, they were low by TODAYS standard, but VERY HIGH by the standard of the time. Worst of all though, he began the trend - continued by both of the Bush Presidencies (as well as Obama) - of increasingly high deficits.
Low unemployment under Reagan?
Not really. He ENDED his Presidency with low unemployment, but most of his 2 terms was spent with very high unemployment. The peak unemployment rate under Reagan was HIGHER (10.4%) than the peak unemployment rate under Obama (10%). Not only that, but Reagan had 5 years and 8 months of an unemployment rate at 7% or more (including 5 years solid). The UE rate under Reagan really wasn't what could be considered "good" until the last 2 years of his 2nd term.
And the next two decades...
I'm not going to get in to it with you because you know damn well why that high unemployment came about. It's not like he (really Volker) was going to reign in ridiculous and persistent interest rates and inflation rates by without some consequences.
That myth has been addressed before (Reagan "ignoring" AIDS).
Here are the facts:
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982. By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan administration spent $5,727 billion on HIV/AIDS.
The average annual increase in HIV/AIDS funding over this period was 128.92%
This is "refusing to address or do anything about AIDS?
Also, Reagan was also Governor of the most populous state in the union for 8 years. He was much more than a "grade-B actor."
Oh, so democrats wanted to limit the ability of the Reagan administration to wage war against the Soviet Union and its imperialist desires... I'm shocked I tell you. Just shocked.
Now what was all that rhetoric about how today's liberals despise communism and how they'd never have gone for a totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union?
Uh huh. We didn't believe you then and we still don't believe you now.
Right...liberals are so supportive of a system that purges itself of intellectuals, academics and artists. The threat of communism in Nicaragua was as credible as Bush's claims about WMD. That "war" left the Reagan administration with 138 convicted felons, more than any other president. McCarthy and his witch hunts (aided by Reagan's informing on writers and actors) produced little to support the belief that there was a large Communist presence in America, but it certainly ruined many lives and careers. Contrary to your beliefs, liberals on the whole reject any authoritarian government, being ardent believers in the First Amendment and the freedoms entailed therein. Liberals would never support a system that bans religion, any more than they would support one which is controlled by religion. Watching our government support right-wing dictatorships and the brutalities committed by them for decades, liberals have no love for a system whose economy relies heavily on business interests in those countries (United Fruit being one), nor for a government that would teach LEOs from other countries
(School of the Americas) brutal torture and murder techniques. This liberal has no love for the soulless
oppression of Communism, so you are quite wrong in your assumptions about what I believe as a liberal. Generalizations can backfire, sometimes quite badly. Now you know what I do believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- I guess liberals love misery, as they would prefer to have the nation suffer under a democrat, rather than prosper under a republican. That is just how crazy libs are.
The threat of communism in Nicaragua was as credible as Bush's claims about WMD. That "war" left the Reagan administration with 138 convicted felons, more than any other president. McCarthy and his witch hunts (aided by Reagan's informing on writers and actors) produced little to support the belief that there was a large Communist presence in America, but it certainly ruined many lives and careers. Contrary to your beliefs, liberals on the whole reject any authoritarian government, being ardent believers in the First Amendment and the freedoms entailed therein. Liberals would never support a system that bans religion, any more than they would support one which is controlled by religion. Watching our government support right-wing dictatorships and the brutalities committed by them for decades, liberals have no love for a system whose economy relies heavily on business interests in those countries (United Fruit being one), nor for a government that would teach LEOs from other countries
