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.
Liberals don't fear Reagan, they are just amazed that Conservatives idolize him.
This was my reaction, as well. In 1980 I was 23, and had seen a few presidents since school days. It was the first time I'd seen adults treating an election as though it were a sporting event. I thought it to be very odd.
I'll never forget a co-worker, Richard, sitting at the bar, holding up a beer, chanting, "Budweiser, Ford, and Reagan!" Ronald Reagan was a brand to him, not a person. Very, very strange.
Conservatives, would you vote for someone today who:
Raised taxes eleven times in his eight years in office, including four times in just two years?
Nearly tripled the federal budget deficit?
Raised the debt ceiling 18 times?
Tremendously grew the size of the federal government?
Gave amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants?
Secretly and illegally sold weapons to Iran?
Allowed his wife to dictate his schedule after consulting with her astrologer?
I find it amusing to watch Conservatives deify President Reagan when in reality, no real Conservative would ever vote for the man today. That first stat alone should have every Tea Partier denigrating rather than celebrating his presidency. The real Ronald Reagan was actually the antithesis of everything Conservatives stand for. He was a centrist old school Republican who would be labeled a RINO by today's Conservatives.
The fabled St. Ronnie, tax-cutting champion of Conservative values, is a myth.
Lefties stupidly believe that they can rely on the passage of 25 years time to allow them to spread lies. It's stupid, because we have this thing called the internet, not to mention these things called history books.
I'll address just one of the OP's lies. Others can address the others.
Is it true that Reagan "grew the size of the federal government?" It turns out that the question itself is an example of the false dilemma fallacy. A simple yes/no answer yields a misleading picture. Lefties as always, love them some logical fallacies. Hmmm..wonder why that is....????
Reagan did not increase the size of government overall; he increased military spending. Because of that, he achieved victory in the Cold War. Economist Steve Slivinski calculated federal spending growth by prez using CBO and OMB numbers. Even here, Reagan ranks 3rd from bottom.
Real annual growth rate of total federal spending:
LBJ...............5.7%
W. Bush........4.9%
Carter...........4.1%
Nixon/Ford....3.0%
Reagan..........2.6%
HW Bush........1.9
Clinton...........1.5%
But Slivinski calculated a 2nd set of numbers--spending growth minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements. Entitlements are essentially 'auto pilot' spending over which a president has limited control. Defense and homeland security are arguably basic and vital functions of the federal government.
Real annual growth rate of federal spending, minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements:
Nixon/Ford....6.4%
W. Bush.........4.5%
LBJ................4.1%
HW Bush.........3.8%
Clinton............2.1%
Carter.............1.6%
Reagan..........-1.4%
Yes that is a minus sign in front of Reagan's growth rate, the only prez in the group to sport one. While these numbers do dispel the notion that D's are profligate and R's are prudent, THESE NUMBERS ALSO OBLITERATE OP'S FALSE MEME.
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story
"Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)"
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
What is it liberals fear about Reagan;IMO his success compared to what we see now.
Who says he's feared?
What he is is regarded by many as the most over-rated POTUS of the 20th century as well as a prime example of conservative hypocrisy. i.e. He GREW the government he alleged was THE problem as well as spent like a drunken sailor on things that suited his agenda despite the claimed conservative opposition to government spending.
Reagan was inspirational no matter which side of the aisle you were on. That was his primary asset. There is lot of things he wanted to do and couldn't get done because of a variety of reasons including 8 years of a Democratically controlled house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
Gave amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants?
The support for this was because it was supposed to include increased border and illegal immigration enforcement. As we know that never materialized. These are the very same promises we are hearing now. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Quote:
Secretly and illegally sold weapons to Iran?
There is no evidence he knew what happened, despite that he took responsibility. When can we expect Obama to step up and take responsibility for the actions of those in his administration?
If you want to see how a leader leads here you go:
Lefties stupidly believe that they can rely on the passage of 25 years time to allow them to spread lies. It's stupid, because we have this thing called the internet, not to mention these things called history books.
I'll address just one of the OP's lies. Others can address the others.
Is it true that Reagan "grew the size of the federal government?" It turns out that the question itself is an example of the false dilemma fallacy. A simple yes/no answer yields a misleading picture. Lefties as always, love them some logical fallacies. Hmmm..wonder why that is....????
Reagan did not increase the size of government overall; he increased military spending. Because of that, he achieved victory in the Cold War. Economist Steve Slivinski calculated federal spending growth by prez using CBO and OMB numbers. Even here, Reagan ranks 3rd from bottom.
Real annual growth rate of total federal spending:
LBJ...............5.7%
W. Bush........4.9%
Carter...........4.1%
Nixon/Ford....3.0%
Reagan..........2.6%
HW Bush........1.9
Clinton...........1.5%
But Slivinski calculated a 2nd set of numbers--spending growth minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements. Entitlements are essentially 'auto pilot' spending over which a president has limited control. Defense and homeland security are arguably basic and vital functions of the federal government.
Real annual growth rate of federal spending, minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements:
Nixon/Ford....6.4%
W. Bush.........4.5%
LBJ................4.1%
HW Bush.........3.8%
Clinton............2.1%
Carter.............1.6%
Reagan..........-1.4%
Yes that is a minus sign in front of Reagan's growth rate, the only prez in the group to sport one. While these numbers do dispel the notion that D's are profligate and R's are prudent, THESE NUMBERS ALSO OBLITERATE OP'S FALSE MEME.
You're dealing with liberals...facts have no power here.
You're dealing with liberals...facts have no power here.
Point taken. I don't expect that OP will be back to address the numbers I posted. As someone posted recently on another thread, that style of posting really just amounts to trolling. OTOH, it does provide a big fat high softball that a conservative can whack out of the park.
What he is is regarded by many as the most over-rated POTUS of the 20th century as well as a prime example of conservative hypocrisy. i.e. He GREW the government he alleged was THE problem as well as spent like a drunken sailor on things that suited his agenda despite the claimed conservative opposition to government spending.
You won't respond to post #16 either, will you. It is not strictly true that Reagan "GREW the government." He did increase military spending, and as a result won the Cold War, freeing millions from enslavement behind the Iron Curtain. Would you prefer to go back to having Poland as a vassal state under the thumb of Moscow?
Anyway, thank you in advance for illustrating the truth of toyman's point.
If you weren't an adult during the time it is hard to understand. When he became president the economy was horrible, there had been threats of gas rationing, the interest rate was so high people couldn't borrow money for homes or businesses, there was runaway inflation, and some small backwards country was holding Americans hostage thumbing their noses at us while the rest of the world laughed. Carter was considered ineffectual and weak on both domestic and foreign policy. We had an unelected president before that, and of course, Watergate. The bar for Reagan to be seen as a savior was not high.
Yes, and I well remember having to get in line at the gas station by 5:30 AM in order to get gas before they ran out (or shut it off for the day). Then, you'd have to sit in line for what seemed like an eternity. All this before going to work. It wasn't fun.
Our current President is far worse than Carter. He makes Carter seem like a Saint.
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.
