salemfootball 10 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Spending increased during the Reagan years , he also tried to bust federal spending and the middle class . The current blueprint of the Republican establishment today came from the Reagan years . His philosophy was to cut domestic spending on the people and give the Pentagon a blank check , while cutting taxes on the ultra rich , the so-called trickle down effect . Let the poor get a trickle and we will take the rest . If you do not take care of the people they will revolt . The fact of the matter is while I do not agree with all of the spending by the Obama administration , the economy was destroyed by the rich bankers and people on wall street and now we have to cut to pay for it . This occurred during the Greenspan years . He thought the market could cure every ill . The 3 big spending areas are social security , healthcare and the military . The healthcare part was before the Obama administration . My way would be to cut social security . In some how, some way , there should be an education system put in effect to show people how to take care of themselves in this respect . The Military should not also be given a blank check . We should force Europe and Japan to take care of themselves by removing our bases . There should be an education class in the school systems that teaches young people about how to save for retirement . And then slowly take people off of social security . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Spending increased during the Reagan years , he also tried to bust federal spending and the middle class . The current blueprint of the Republican establishment today came from the Reagan years . His philosophy was to cut domestic spending on the people and give the Pentagon a blank check , while cutting taxes on the ultra rich , the so-called trickle down effect . Let the poor get a trickle and we will take the rest . If you do not take care of the people they will revolt . The fact of the matter is while I do not agree with all of the spending by the Obama administration , the economy was destroyed by the rich bankers and people on wall street and now we have to cut to pay for it . This occurred during the Greenspan years . He thought the market could cure every ill . The 3 big spending areas are social security , healthcare and the military . The healthcare part was before the Obama administration . My way would be to cut social security . In some how, some way , there should be an education system put in effect to show people how to take care of themselves in this respect . The Military should not also be given a blank check . We should force Europe and Japan to take care of themselves by removing our bases . There should be an education class in the school systems that teaches young people about how to save for retirement . And then slowly take people off of social security . You bring up some good points. I despise Reaganomics. The system didn't work then, and set the blueprint for the unsustainable spending and deficits that we see today. Plus, Reagan's foreign policy decisions were retrospectively abominable. He's pretty much the reason we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today. He sold each of them arms under the playground principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". There's a reason childish logic stays with children. Once each of those nations were victorious, they just turned the weapons on the U.S. (Afghanistan-post 9/11) and its allies (Iraq-Kuwait). And don't even get me started about Central America. The arms Reagan provided there pretty much fortified the drug cartels for the last 25 years. Then there's Ollie North, Reagan's right-hand man, who pulled one of the worst displays of leadership since George Armstrong Custer. The only gold star in his profile is equally contrived. The Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. Communism was crumbling under itself, trying to keep up with policies enacted with Kennedy and Johnson in the '60s. Gorbachev pretty much sealed its fate with glasnost and perestroika. Once communism fell in the Czech Republic and Germany, the writing was on the wall. Long story short, Reagan was just coincidentally there: ANY president's term would have coincided with the downfall of the USSR. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Reagan gets heaped with praise. He's one of the bottom 3 presidents of the 20th century, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Thank you both for showing just how ignorant you are!!! I applaud you loudly!!! Reagan was heads & shoulders the best President the US has had since WWII. You have to admit, there have been plenty of stinkers since...Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter were easily worse than Reagan. Bush I rode Reagan's coattails. And Clinton, well, there's your reason why most of the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico...thank you, Mr. NAFTA. Reagan became President during the worst times in America since the Depression...unemployment was double-digits, fuel prices were astronomical, and our foreign affairs had become a world-wide joke thanks to that peanut farmer from Plains, GA. Reagan brought America out of all that and brought it back to world wide prominence both economically and militarily. Its been down hill ever since... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasDenton 79 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Spending increased during the Reagan years , he also tried to bust federal spending and the middle class . The current blueprint of the Republican establishment today came from the Reagan years . His philosophy was to cut domestic spending on the people and give the Pentagon a blank check , while cutting taxes on the ultra rich , the so-called trickle down effect . Let the poor get a trickle and we will take the rest . If you do not take care of the people they will revolt . The fact of the matter is while I do not agree with all of the spending by the Obama administration , the economy was destroyed by the rich bankers and people on wall street and now we have to cut to pay for it . This occurred during the Greenspan years . He thought the market could cure every ill . The 3 big spending areas are social security , healthcare and the military . The healthcare part was before the Obama administration . My way would be to cut social security . In some how, some way , there should be an education system put in effect to show people how to take care of themselves in this respect . The Military should not also be given a blank check . We should force Europe and Japan to take care of themselves by removing our bases . There should be an education class in the school systems that teaches young people about how to save for retirement . And then slowly take people off of social security . There are classes in school that teach about financial responsibility AND health responsibility....it's call Home Economics (or Teen Living for the Middle Schools). Unfortunately, most schools are cutting those classes out. I know Battle did when I was an underclassman there. Luckily I had Teen Living class while in Middle School, so I didn't totally miss out. I feel for the kids that don't have these classes now because they teach you a lot about how to take care of yourself, your finances, and your home....things that a lot of parents actually don't teach their kids (or at least don't teach them right). Just throwing my 2 cents in, sorry if I'm getting off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Thank you both for showing just how ignorant you are!!! I applaud you loudly!!! Reagan was heads & shoulders the best President the US has had since WWII. You have to admit, there have been plenty of stinkers since...Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter were easily worse than Reagan. Bush I rode Reagan's coattails. And Clinton, well, there's your reason why most of the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico...thank you, Mr. NAFTA. Reagan became President during the worst times in America since the Depression...unemployment was double-digits, fuel prices were astronomical, and our foreign affairs had become a world-wide joke thanks to that peanut farmer from Plains, GA. Reagan brought America out of all that and brought it back to world wide prominence both economically and militarily. Its been down hill ever since... to be fair, Clinton can't be given credit or blamed for NAFTA...that was put in motion during the Bush Sr. years and one of Reagans last public appearances...as ALL of the living Presidents showed up in support of the signing of NAFTA...that was something that BOTH parties supported for some strange reason...one of the worst things to ever be signed in to law in this country in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 NAFTA was Clinton's baby... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vthokies4life 10 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Thank you both for showing just how ignorant you are!!! I applaud you loudly!!! I'm still kind of shocked someone would consider Observer ignorant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thank you both for showing just how ignorant you are!!! I applaud you loudly!!! Reagan was heads & shoulders the best President the US has had since WWII. You have to admit, there have been plenty of stinkers since...Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter were easily worse than Reagan. Bush I rode Reagan's coattails. And Clinton, well, there's your reason why most of the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico...thank you, Mr. NAFTA. Reagan became President during the worst times in America since the Depression...unemployment was double-digits, fuel prices were astronomical, and our foreign affairs had become a world-wide joke thanks to that peanut farmer from Plains, GA. Reagan brought America out of all that and brought it back to world wide prominence both economically and militarily. Its been down hill ever since... [_] Good logic. [X] Flawed logic. Your entire argument that Reagan was a good president comes from the premise that he fixed all those problems that you listed. My argument is that ANY president with a heartbeat would have "fixed" those problems. As I said with the collapse of the USSR, ANY president would get the credit for being at the head of the ship. Those fuel prices weren't going to stay that high forever. The unemployment wasn't going to stay that high forever. Reagan was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Nothing more, nothing less. And I've made the argument (which you failed to rebuke, BTW) that Reagan made foreign affairs historically worse. I'm waiting for a response from you on that point. I've just showed FOUR instances of Reagan's asinine foreign policy. So Iran released the hostages. Good. I don't see Iran using American-sold arms against us in Kandahar, either... You're the one pleading with us in the Greenberg thread to look at the big picture. Follow your own wisdom here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 to be fair, Clinton can't be given credit or blamed for NAFTA...that was put in motion during the Bush Sr. years and one of Reagans last public appearances...as ALL of the living Presidents showed up in support of the signing of NAFTA...that was something that BOTH parties supported for some strange reason...one of the worst things to ever be signed in to law in this country in my opinion. Good point. Just like the captain is praised when things go well, the captain can be criticized when things go awry. NAFTA, as you said, was Reagan's and Bush the Elder's baby. Clinton was just all too giddy to get it signed early in his first term. I think Clinton deserves the most blame for signing that travesty, but Reagan and Bush I aren't free from blame here, either. Clinton would've been a great president if he could've kept NAFTA off and his pants on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Daddy Bush signed the treaty, Congress ratified in 1993 with a bi-partisan vote. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994. Being old gives me an edge on stuff like this. I beleive that Corporate America was also a backer of NAFTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeper1 10 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/ sorry to get off the nafta topic, but i had a semi-relevant onion article to contribute. enjoy. Edited February 28, 2011 by keeper1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS03 99 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/ I realllllllly hope that you didn't post this being serious. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/ sorry to get off the nafta topic, but i had a semi-relevant onion article to contribute. enjoy. Articles like these are why I love The Onion. Funny, but the grain of truth deeply sown. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeper1 10 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I realllllllly hope that you didn't post this being serious. lol what, where do you get your news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS03 99 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 what, where do you get your news? Tom Tucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeper1 10 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 well-played, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 NAFTA was Clinton's baby... actually Reagan started pushing for a unified North American Free Trade Agreement in 1980, that is where the true seeds of NAFTA began...Bush SR. continued to work the deal and brought a free trade alliance with Canada in first and then bolstered support for Mexico during his term and just ran out of time before he could get it done...this took close to 15 years to get enough support and it was still a close call....Clinton was just the idiot left holding the pen when it was signed. Good point. Just like the captain is praised when things go well, the captain can be criticized when things go awry. NAFTA, as you said, was Reagan's and Bush the Elder's baby. Clinton was just all too giddy to get it signed early in his first term. I think Clinton deserves the most blame for signing that travesty, but Reagan and Bush I aren't free from blame here, either. Clinton would've been a great president if he could've kept NAFTA off and his pants on. I don't think you can much blame Clinton for the most of something that started 13 years or so before he came in to office? Reagan/Bush secured the Canada part of the deal before Clinton was even a twinkle in the Democrats eye? He could have stopped it though, which is where you can blame him. I think Clinton was an "OK" president...NAFTA, the DMCA, and BJ's were his biggest blunders....although if Monica Lewinsky would have been hot, I would have been more understanding...I mean you are the leader of the free world Willie...what the hell? Daddy Bush signed the treaty, Congress ratified in 1993 with a bi-partisan vote. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994. Being old gives me an edge on stuff like this. I beleive that Corporate America was also a backer of NAFTA. this is what it boils down to when you look at the numbers...but, people would rather just blame Clinton than look at the numbers...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuceswild 15 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 actually Reagan started pushing for a unified North American Free Trade Agreement in 1980, that is where the true seeds of NAFTA began...Bush SR. continued to work the deal and brought a free trade alliance with Canada in first and then bolstered support for Mexico during his term and just ran out of time before he could get it done...this took close to 15 years to get enough support and it was still a close call....Clinton was just the idiot left holding the pen when it was signed. I don't think you can much blame Clinton for the most of something that started 13 years or so before he came in to office? Reagan/Bush secured the Canada part of the deal before Clinton was even a twinkle in the Democrats eye? He could have stopped it though, which is where you can blame him. I think Clinton was an "OK" president...NAFTA, the DMCA, and BJ's were his biggest blunders....although if Monica Lewinsky would have been hot, I would have been more understanding...I mean you are the leader of the free world Willie...what the hell? this is what it boils down to when you look at the numbers...but, people would rather just blame Clinton than look at the numbers...lol. Agreed. NAFTA was already firmly rooted before the bill was signed. It would have appeared that the US was backing out on its word if Clinton doesn't sign that bill. It happens quite a bit when big ideas are formed and not followed through with before a new President comes to power. It was a product of Reagan and it came even more to life during Bush Sr's term. Clinton was a pretty good president all-in-all. Far superior than either Bush which doesn't say much, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneWarning 212 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Reading this thread made me wonder if I was on cnn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuceswild 15 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Reading this thread made me wonder if I was on cnn.com. Haha. I thought this entire website was endorsed by FoxNews.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Reading this thread made me wonder if I was on cnn.com. Information for life boys and girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Instead of picking sides and arguing who is to blame for NAFTA, what many are failing to see is the global agenda of both parties. Both Republican and Democrat forces were involved and fully supported NAFTA, they both have done little to anything to correct the border issues and both are heavily backed and supported by corporate entities. Both left and right are to blame for the fiasco known as NAFTA. Interestingly enough, have you ever considered this? Political Spectrum Total Govt. TYRANNY {------------------------------------------} ANARCHY Where did our founders put us at on this spectrum? The letter A would be the Articles of Confederation. Tyranny{-------------------------------------------A--------} Anarchy The Constitution moved us further left as in the diagram below. The Constitution is identified by the star below. Tyranny{-----------------------------------------*----A------}Anarchy Today where are we at? Total Govt.{-----D-R-----------------------------*-----A-------}Anarchy Notice, the Dems are to the left and the Republicans are to the right, however BOTH GROUPS ARE TO THE LEFT! While we argue over who is to blame, and keep picking sides, both groups are sliding way to far to the left and most of America is oblivious to this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [_] Good logic.[X] Flawed logic. Your entire argument that Reagan was a good president comes from the premise that he fixed all those problems that you listed. My argument is that ANY president with a heartbeat would have "fixed" those problems. As I said with the collapse of the USSR, ANY president would get the credit for being at the head of the ship. Those fuel prices weren't going to stay that high forever. The unemployment wasn't going to stay that high forever. Reagan was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Nothing more, nothing less. And I've made the argument (which you failed to rebuke, BTW) that Reagan made foreign affairs historically worse. I'm waiting for a response from you on that point. I've just showed FOUR instances of Reagan's asinine foreign policy. So Iran released the hostages. Good. I don't see Iran using American-sold arms against us in Kandahar, either... You're the one pleading with us in the Greenberg thread to look at the big picture. Follow your own wisdom here. Kind of like how Clinton got praise for the economy simply because he was president when the internet exploded? *insert Algore joke here* Reagan did expedite the crash of the soviets though by scaring them over the cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 While we argue over who is to blame, and keep picking sides, both groups are sliding way to far to the left and most of America is oblivious to this fact. Great point, Buc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't think you can much blame Clinton for the most of something that started 13 years or so before he came in to office? Reagan/Bush secured the Canada part of the deal before Clinton was even a twinkle in the Democrats eye? He could have stopped it though, which is where you can blame him. I agree with most of what you're saying, all except the level of blame to ascribe. That bill wasn't getting anywhere close to a 2/3 vote in either house of Congress. If Clinton vetoes that bill, NAFTA is dead. I do understand that there would have been international backlash. But goodness sakes, I think common sense had to prevail there. It wasn't like the ramifications of NAFTA were state secrets. Kind of like how Clinton got praise for the economy simply because he was president when the internet exploded? *insert Algore joke here* Reagan did expedite the crash of the soviets though by scaring them over the cliff. LOLGore. I think there is some merit to what you're saying. Our executive leaders tend to get disproportionately blamed or praised for events outside their control. Though I don't think Clinton got praise for the economy solely because the internet took off during the later parts of his term. E-business was still in its infancy during Clinton's second term. Did it play a part? I think so. But most of Clinton's success came from being efficient with money and bucking the trend of Keynesian economics that has this nation in a death-grip right now. I still think that Reagan did very little scaring, really. He was very charismatic and a great orator, but I don't think Gorbachev feared him. I think the USSR was more crumbling from the inside out, and Reagan's 2nd term coincided with the greatest crumbling. But I see where it would appear that way, Reagan had a commanding presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.