Was Ronald Reagon that bad of a president?

[Sava]

The CATO information that Fez always posts supports my statement. The rich got richer... and benefitted above and beyond everyone else. And the CATO institute is so blatantly right-wing it makes Newt G. look like Jesse Jackson.

If I were to believe the CATO information, there would be no poverty in America.

BTW, I posted info in another thread as well, I see no reason to post the same info in both threads. And nobody has posted anything to contradict anything I've said.

With the "poor getting worse" you are taking my statement out of the context of income tax. If all you can do is take my statements out of context... then there's little hope for your case.

Anyways, I'm done with this thread until you can present fact and not argument fallacies (ad hom's, red herrings, etc.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

The CATO information that Fez always posts supports my statement. The rich got richer... and benefitted above and beyond everyone else.

Which I never said was wrong. The false part is that the poor were worse off because of Reagan, because real income rates for the lowest quintile rose during the 80s! What else can demonstrate how well off someone is if not their real income?

I'm done with this thread until you can present fact and not argument fallacies (ad hom's, red herrings, etc.)

You mean someone finally called your bluff and you can't handle it?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Saras


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

How 19th century!
Anyway, if this can be contracted then how come only the emergence of regulations (including OSHA) lead to the significantly safer workplaces we enjoy today? Historical fact runs against your supposition.

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.

Yep, that would be one form of government regulation. Because if the government doesn't back those permits, by stopping overpolluters, those permits won't be worth the paper they are printed on. It's kind of like if you have a property deed and the government chooses not to recognize it.

[Giancarlo]

Sava, at least I posted information from a credible organization. You have not.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Fez
Sava, at least I posted information from a credible organization. You have not.

Sava was saying that Cato isn't credible.

The CATO information that Fez always posts supports my statement. The rich got richer... and benefitted above and beyond everyone else. And the CATO institute is so blatantly right-wing it makes Newt G. look like Jesse Jackson.

There you go, Fez, Cato's info isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

Templar has hit the mark on why Libertarians need to get real.

[Giancarlo]

Well I am sorry Odin, but CATO is credible. And it is highly prestigious with a lot of backing.

It is you communists that need to get real. If you don't see the light you will be living for the wrong reasons. Besides, communism doesn't work. That's a fact.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Fez
Well I am sorry Odin, but CATO is credible. And it is highly prestigious with a lot of backing.

The backing of the right-wingers, of course.

It is you communists that need to get real. If you don't see the light you will be living for the wrong reasons. Besides, communism doesn't work. That's a fact.

Quit talking like a broken record, Fezzie. We have seen the light. All you righties have seen is the green light of $$$.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Odin


The backing of the right-wingers, of course.

And an organization with the backing of left-wingers is more crediblei in what way?

Quit talking like a broken record, Fezzie. We have seen the light. All you righties have seen is the green light of $$$.

Sometimes money is good but you need a piece of mind in this world to live happily. Something you commies lack.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Templar


Ned

You miss my point, the Ayatollah's popularity was a direct consequence of the Shah. We supported the Shah, so the people of Iran didn't much like us either. We created the Ayatollah.

Oh, and Carter launched a military operation to save the hostages. The military promptly ****ed it up. What did Reagan do? Oh yeah, he cut a deal - what a toughie. You see Carter knew when to be tough and when to negotiate.

Also, Japan was heavily unionized and was kicking our asses.

Now I will admit that Reagan did alot to inspire confidence. Then again, i think anyone who wasn't Carter or Ford could have done that job.

The Templar, the Shah was extremely unpopular among the religious extremists in Iran because of his introduction of liberal culture into a very conservative society. He was trying to make Iran more like the United States. It was natural that the religious extremists blamed the introduction of liberal cultural on America. Across the world of extreme Islam, America is the great Satan not because of our military power but because of our "decadent" culture.

Of course none of this at anything to do with a particular president, whether the Nixon, Ford or Carter. But I recall at the time that when the Shah was ousted in favor of a moderate democratic successor government, the Ayatollah was not satisfied and wanted direct religious control, Carter did nothing to support that régime against the Ayatollah Khomeini. Whether the régime could have withstood the Ayatollah if we would have supported it is an interesting question itself. But we did nothing.

Certainly this weakness in supporting allies began with our failure to support Vietnam in 1975. I recall at the time that Kissinger is very bitter about our failure to act in support of the democratic régime in Iran. As a result, we were losing allies across the globe. We lost Vietnam. We lost Iran. America's enemies were on the march.

Ronald Reagan reversed all that. He also reversed the decline in the economy and brought inflation under control. He began the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history.

As to reversing the New Deal, what are you talking about? The New Deal was about Social Security and regulation of the banking and securities industries. Reagan did nothing about Social Security. Surely you are not complaining about removing some of the unnecessary regulation of the savings-and-loan and banking industries? This de-regulation has been part and parcel of our economic growth the past 20 years.

As to Reagan cutting a deal to get the hostages back where Carter could not, what deal you talking about? I believe the Ayatollah released hostages as a gesture of goodwill to a new US President. But his particular intent was to further humiliate Carter.

As of this moment, I do not recall what Reagan had to say about the hostages during election campaign. Does anyone here know what Reagan's position was on Iran and the hostages?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Sava
under Clinton, things got better,

Wasn't it because Republicans had the majority in the congress and controlled him?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by OliverFA


Wasn't it because Republicans had the majority in the congress and controlled him?

I do agree with this statement, but the Clinton years was full of bickering between the Congress and Executive branches of government.

[RGBVideo]

America's enemies were on the march.

Ronald Reagan reversed all that

By strongly supporting such friends of USA as Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

By creating such friends of America to control nations as Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

I don't mean to be a nit picker.. but since when was Usama bin Laden a nation?

[RGBVideo]

I edited my post, will you now edit yours?

(For the record, I already had edited it once before Fez saw it, then edited it again -- problems with the translation, as usual)

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Odin


THAT IS A LIE!!! At least my experience shows the Libertarian idea "hard work equals success is CRAP!

Of course! It's better to just give the lazy people the same money and recognition that the ones who work hard. I am not surprised that the lazy people agree with that police, but at the end that destroys the system. You have two very good samples in the two Germany states and the two Koreas. But as someone said, there are not enough reasons to convince the one that doesn't want to be convinced.