Was Ronald Reagon that bad of a president?

[Sava]

You speak as if that was a bad thing.

It is if you are anyone BUT a super-rich corporation/individual.

[Imran Siddiqui]

DD is neither.

[Saras]

Saras

The people like to breath clean air, drink clean water, and have cancer free kids. I would even go so far as to say that people value these things over having a job. Go ahead ask anyone whether they would trade their kid's health for a better job.

From the 30s on, there was a strong puysh for greater government regulation in terms of on-the-job safety, and later for the health of the environment. Industry ain't going to stop polluting on its own (this is essentially the colective action problem - no one is going to pay the cost of cleaning up unless everyone is forced to do likewise).

So yeah, I want the will of the people regulating job safety and environmental impacts.

On the job safety can be agreed via negotiations, by either individual or union, no need for the Govt. to enforce.

Pollution, OTOH, may be regulated, but is best (theoretically) addressed via trading pollution permits, i.e., internalizing the pollution externality. I admit there are implementation issues, but that's another topic.

[Sava]

DD is neither.

I can't comment on DD since I don't know him personally, but there are a great many people who mistakenly think the Republican party represents their interests.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny how people who claim to speak for the 'peoples interest' believe they are all 'mistaken' when they choose another party .

[Sava]

Funny how people who claim to speak for the 'peoples interest' believe they are all 'mistaken' when they choose another party

If you are refering to me, you're making the mistake of assuming I'm a Democrat. I have no party affiliation. I vote for the person that will do the least amount of damage.

I suspect your support of Reagan's policies has more to do with your own families' success during that period... and that's fine. Most people don't think outside the box, they look at their own world and make generalized conclusions, extrapolating their experiences to the rest of the country. My family had success during the 80's, but when I form opinions on what policies work and what don't, I look at the collective state of things for ALL Americans. There are outliers that will always contradict conclusions that encompass large groups. It's important to look at ALL the evidence, not just your own experiences.

edit: oh yeah, are you going to dispute the evidence I presented? or shall I claim victory once again?

[gopher]

2. Iran-Contra cannot be forgiven. Where was the impeachment there? I guess getting a hummer in the oval office is worse than letting a lt. colonel create foreign policy by selling arms to the country that just kidnapped US citizens, and giving the money to those wonderful chaps in Nicaragua!

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: DD

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You enjoy PM's that openly violate your Constitution.

It's not a violation till the SC says it's one.

Doesn't the Canadian constitution allow the PM to do whatever he wants anyway?

Yes, but AFAIK no federal government has ever invoked the notwithstanding clause.

The only ones to do so till now have been Quebec wrt language laws and Saskatchewan wrt labour laws.

[KrazyHorse]

Alberta might do so wrt same-sex marriage.

[Sava]

Wow, it's interesting DD is complaining about a Canadian PM violating the Constitution... I wonder if he feels that same about BOOOSH..

[KrazyHorse]

Whoosh.

You missed that one entirely, didn't you...

He was complaining that FDR violated your Constitution in response to my assertion that FDR was an enourmous positive influence on your recovery from the Depression.

[Sava]

Whoosh.

You missed that one entirely, didn't you...

He was complaining that FDR violated your Constitution in response to my assertion that FDR was an enourmous positive influence on your recovery from the Depression.

nah, I didn't bother to read the earlier posts between you two...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suspect your support of Reagan's policies has more to do with your own families' success during that period

No it has to do with economic facts of GDP growth, inflation rates, unemployment, and median incomes. I look at the facts and evidence and see how they affect the country as a whole.

You just think Reagan was evil because the rich and middle class benefited more than the poor .

oh yeah, are you going to dispute the evidence I presented? or shall I claim victory once again?

You can claim victory all you want, it doesn't matter when you are arguing from a position of defeat .

Which 'evidence', btw? You've provided little, if any, in this thread. And Fez has pretty much dug up some very good stats to disprove most of your outlandish statements.

If you are refering to me, you're making the mistake of assuming I'm a Democrat. I have no party affiliation. I vote for the person that will do the least amount of damage.

It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or not. It applies most of all to you .

[Sava]

You just think Reagan was evil because the rich and middle class benefited more than the poor

no... because the super rich benefitted a lot... the middle class stayed the same, and the poor got worse... and the gap between all three grew enormously.

And Fez has pretty much dug up some very good stats to disprove most of your outlandish statements.

And now I know you are on drugs. Let's see... official government documents, info from non-partisan credible economic organizations... or info from right-wing think-tanks...

Imran, if you want to continue this debate... provide something. It's hard to argue with someone when one person (me) provides tons of information... and another (you) provides nothing, and uses Fez as a source.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You keep saying you provided tons of information, but I've been through every page of this discussion, and there is hardly anything there... except mostly opinion.

Why shouldn't I point to Fez's links? I'd have linked to them myself. The Cato Institute is a well respected think-tank, while liberal like to disparage because it's stats are correct (taken from government sources) and back right wing policies . Lefties have to try to attack the source, since the numbers go against them.

For example, REAL family income rose in ALL Quintiles during the 1980s.

The 'poor got worse' argument is a total bunch of BS. Yes the gap between poor and rich rose, but because the rich benefited greatly, and the poor not so much, but they STILL benefited.