Ronald Reagan: Worst president ever?

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Bah... no one reads my posts anyway.

I do. I listen to you and al p and slow99 and all the rest of you smart guys so I can haz moneyz.

I'll give you the other arguments, but I don't get thinking it's right to overtax the middle class in order to help the rich. Not talking about the making 200,000 rich. I'm talking the insanely rich who already circumvent the tax system as it is. These people didn't get that way by hard work and sacrifice. You've got to be greedy and malicious in order to obtain that kind of wealth. If I have to pay 30% of my paycheck to taxes then they should as well, period. Not asking for a free ride. Just think it should be fair across the board. And then to have a president that changes the system to further increase the separation between the working and middle class from the insanely rich is a bad thing IMO.

I try not to judge anyone here until I know a little more about them from their posts. But this really, really sounds like typical leftist hypocrisy to me. You act in the very way that you would condemn. You are exactly the same as any racist who would hang a black person for the fact that they're black. Tell me, how do you know that those "rich people" got to where they are because they're greedy and malicious? What if I'm a pretty good guy, but I inherited wealth? What if I'm filthy rich but I donate to charities and try to help the less fortunate because its the right thing to do? According to your kind, such a person is automatically labeled as evil just because they have wealth. Just as the racist labels a different skin colored person evil, just because they are a different color. Can't you see the error in that?

For you to label any group that way is wrong. Another thing you need to learn is that business is business. Take bill gates for example. Everyone knows about him. He started something up, and he wasn't rich like he is today. He deserves everything he has cause he built it. Did he use cutthroat business tactics to help him on his way? Sure. That's the way it goes. If I were building an empire like that you bet your ass I'd try to one up the competition in any way possible. All that doesn't make him an "evil rich person" dude. Nor anyone else just like him. It makes him a good business man. This is what you lefties don't understand cause you live in your little fantasy world that does not, and could never exist.

[The King]

I think it's funny when someone goes back in time and blasts leader(s) for decisions that were made in times of crisis.

I promise you have NO CLUE what decisions were made back when the threat of war with Soviet Russia was real and palpable. Reagan had the responsibility of keeping us SAFE. Negotiations, policies, and spending were all directed towards ensuring that Americans did not come out on the losing end of hostilities.

You should thank Reagan for providing an existence that allows you to show your ass online. A very real alternative is that the US could have been involved in a nuclear conflict with Russia and you would have never been born, or sent overseas to die. Think about that.

I happen to like the rich getting richer. Do you know what poor people do with money? They piss it away. Do you know what rich people do with money? They create new opportunities for everyone, especially themselves. It's called Capitalism and it is the only self-sustaining, incentive-driven form of economy. I prefer it to any alternative, I guess you don't?

The 1986 amnesty was intended to be a one-time solution to resolve the illegal immigration issue for good. I have less of a problem with it than the way the issue has been handled by administrations since then.

The War on Drugs has been a disaster. The problem is that people will use drugs no matter what obstacles you put in their way. So by fighting drug use, the government has only served to increase the stakes in both money and lives. Either leave drug abusers alone, or kill them after a third offense. As my dad would say, "Shit or get off the pot."

As for the trees comment, well, that was a dumb thing to say.

Good post.

I agree completely about someone (i.e. the O.P.) having no clue of what the real world was like when Reagan was in office when they weren't there. Relying on internet blogs to get "facts" is ludicrous, but what more should we expect from a typical shallow-minded liberal to whom facts are like some foreign language they can never hope to or even try to understand.

[46Tbird]

I think it's funny when someone goes back in time and blasts leader(s) for decisions that were made in times of crisis.

I promise you have NO CLUE what decisions were made back when the threat of war with Soviet Russia was real and palpable. Reagan had the responsibility of keeping us SAFE. Negotiations, policies, and spending were all directed towards ensuring that Americans did not come out on the losing end of hostilities.

You should thank Reagan for providing an existence that allows you to show your ass online. A very real alternative is that the US could have been involved in a nuclear conflict with Russia and you would have never been born, or sent overseas to die. Think about that.

I happen to like the rich getting richer. Do you know what poor people do with money? They piss it away. Do you know what rich people do with money? They create new opportunities for everyone, especially themselves. It's called Capitalism and it is the only self-sustaining, incentive-driven form of economy. I prefer it to any alternative, I guess you don't?

The 1986 amnesty was intended to be a one-time solution to resolve the illegal immigration issue for good. I have less of a problem with it than the way the issue has been handled by administrations since then.

The War on Drugs has been a disaster. The problem is that people will use drugs no matter what obstacles you put in their way. So by fighting drug use, the government has only served to increase the stakes in both money and lives. Either leave drug abusers alone, or kill them after a third offense. As my dad would say, "Shit or get off the pot."

As for the trees comment, well, that was a dumb thing to say.

[Avery'sDad]

Reagan fucked up and trusted the congressional democrats. They had a deal that if he would grant amnesty they would pass legislation to secure the border( something that was very close to him). Guess what happened? They lied and left him holding his dick. Now all of the bleeding hearts use it as a counter argument to today attempts at amnesty. " Well Reagan did it why can't PBO"?

I find that very believable especially after seeing them do what amounts to treason by standing up and applauding the pres...hypocrite of Mexico for blasting Arizona for trying to enforce the law.

[Venom]

After reading other post, I'm inclined to say you pretty much nailed it on both paragraphs.




Pretty much down to one point except for the amnesty thing. I started this thread to get more information and another point of view. I know there are 2 sides to every story. I try to be logical and get a better understanding. Which is why I put the question mark in the title. Good article BTW.

Reagan fucked up and trusted the congressional democrats. They had a deal that if he would grant amnesty they would pass legislation to secure the border( something that was very close to him). Guess what happened? They lied and left him holding his dick. Now all of the bleeding hearts use it as a counter argument to today attempts at amnesty. " Well Reagan did it why can't PBO"?

[Avery'sDad]

I am more than familiar with the circumstances surrounding the 1986 FOPA. That being said, it is impossible to criticize Reagan without all of the yellow dog repubs coming out of the woodwork and drawing a line in the sand.

I think he was a good president, but I do not agree with some of the things he did, and as such am not afraid to point out his flaws and misdeeds. He is not the best president we have ever had (Andrew Jackson or Washington IMO), but he is far from the worst.

After reading other post, I'm inclined to say you pretty much nailed it on both paragraphs.

Flat tax.... most conservatives support it... try selling it to a Democrat...

So now you are arguably down to one very debatable point: Taxes....
While people were generally making coin hand over fist in all sectors....

and you still say he was a BAD president?

Here's an even handed link going over the pros and cons of Reaganomics and its actual effects:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

Pretty much down to one point except for the amnesty thing. I started this thread to get more information and another point of view. I know there are 2 sides to every story. I try to be logical and get a better understanding. Which is why I put the question mark in the title. Good article BTW.

[Broncojohnny]

I'll give you the other arguments, but I don't get thinking it's right to overtax the middle class in order to help the rich. Not talking about the making 200,000 rich. I'm talking the insanely rich who already circumvent the tax system as it is. These people didn't get that way by hard work and sacrifice. You've got to be greedy and malicious in order to obtain that kind of wealth. If I have to pay 30% of my paycheck to taxes then they should as well, period. Not asking for a free ride. Just think it should be fair across the board. And then to have a president that changes the system to further increase the separation between the working and middle class from the insanely rich is a bad thing IMO.

Oh, I see you are a socialist after all. Those evil rich people should have their money taken away and it should be given to you and yours, right? Why am I not suprised?

Go over to the IRS website and research who pays the majority of taxes in this country before you try to have this discussion. You may be suprised to find out that you are talking out of your fucking ass...

[bcoop]

L o l.

[Venom]

Good show

One thing that I didn't know about Reagan was that early in his life he wa a very staunch Democrat. When he became the head of the Screen Actors Guild and started making decisions that the rest of the guild didn't agree with they accused him of being a communist. He saw the light and realized that all of the things he thought he believed in were fundamentally wrong and switched parties and this is when his hatred for all things communist began.

[ceyko]

The history Channel just had a 2 hours special about Reagan. It gave some very good insight as to how and why he made some of the decisions that he did.

That's the key - insight into their decisions. i.e. I try not to be judgmental of even Obama, even though I did not like him for his promises I knew were lies when he was campaigning.

Once in office - I want to support the man in that position. However, it's hard to when you don't agree with a single damned thing he is doing. I have a feeling that even when I have time to catch up with any/all details I can obtain for his various decisions - I'll still feel he's not cut out to be POTUS.

POTUS though is the most sought after job for these politicians. First and foremost I think it is our job as Americans to think if this person can even handle it. To me it is probably one of the worst jobs to have if you're not mentally able to handle it. I personally can't even fathom the stress of that job. i.e. What Bush dealt with and so on.

[JimD]

The history Channel just had a 2 hours special about Reagan. It gave some very good insight as to how and why he made some of the decisions that he did.

Good show

[Venom]

The history Channel just had a 2 hours special about Reagan. It gave some very good insight as to how and why he made some of the decisions that he did.

[The King]

Reagan pretty much dealt the death blow to communism worldwide, so naturally the liberals hate his guts. Just about anywhere you go you can see some liberal fairy hating on reagan.

These same liberal fairies generally only bitch and moan but offer up no workable alternative of their own. To be fair though they did follow each other like sheep and offer us Obama, and that's really worked out great LOL.

[Denny]

You best watch out using common sense when discussing politics and taxes.

Bah... no one reads my posts anyway.

[ceyko]

The best way to approach it in the fairest of manners is to get an honest median of the nation's incomes and base it off of that. If it works out to the total taxed income being less than what we currently bring in, then we adjust our government's operation to fit what the people give, not vice versa.

You best watch out using common sense when discussing politics and taxes.