Conservatives love the guy. Liberals hate him. I was a kid/early adolescent in the '80's, so I really have no idea outside of what little I've read and heard about the man. Here's what I know (or what I think I know): - He pretty much defeated the Soviet commies single-handedly through building up our military and hard-nosed diplomacy, the theory being that we had to show our strength and flex our muscles in the face of the Soviet Union who basically did the same thing while waiting and hoping for any sign of weakness from us. History at least attributes that to him and I would tend to think that this would be the proper course of action. - The title of "The Great Communicator." I don't really grasp the connotation of that title. Elaboration would be appreciated. - He did away with the Dept. of Education, believing it to be a state issue. I have no idea whether this was a good idea or a bad idea. - He had this economic theory called "trickle-down economics," which I'd really like to hear both sides on from the BBS as I know this to be a main point of contention. The way it was once explained to me (by a Republican during the economically-strong Clinton years) is that all of the economic prosperity of the '90's was basically because of Reagan and not Clinton, and that the economic troubles we had in the '80's under Reagan was all part of the plan in a "no pain, no gain" type of scenario. He said it was all documented that it would happen the way it did. I'd really like to hear what Left and Right guys like Batman and T_J have to say about this one without too much poo-flinging, if that's even remotely possible. (I say Batman and T_J specifically because they're the smartest left and right guys I can think of off the top of my head and I've bascially ignored the D&D for so long that I have no clue as to who can make a strong argument either for or against the economic policies of Reagan, so if you're an economist or otherwise know something/have an opinion on the matter, then let's hear it.) - Iran/Contra. Something sneaky was supposedly going on. We armed Iraq to fight against Iran, no? Two countries full of a bunch of bad guys. Rather than risk all-out war, we supported and supplied the one we thought was the lesser of two evils, right? Sounds good in theory.... - He was parodied in one of my favorite episodes of The Boondocks when he met Uncle Ruckus at the Pearly Gates and told Ruckus how to get into "white heaven." What's that all about? I'm sure there's more, but this is enough for now. I think he could very well be more polarizing figure than was Clinton. Repub's think he's god, Dem's think he's the devil. Hard to get more split than that. Anyone care to shed some light on the above? Add more to the discussion? I'd appreciate it. Thanks as always.
(1) Most people agree on this, however it's still debated in economics and political science circles. The economic indicators for the USSR were dramatically heading into the dumper long before Reagan. That's been debated heavily here and elsewhere. (2) Yes, just really really connected with people of many different political persuasions. Just inspired confidence in most citizens. I can attest to this myself, even though I hated many of his policies, and disliked many of the people he surrounded himself with. One thing he was famous for, that subsequent repubs like Bush II and dems like Clinton did not do so much: he would meet with top congressional democrats off-line, after hours, to make sure they could agree on a few key points and get things done. Awesome. (3) Well, I don't think he "did away with it." He did cut a lot of college financial aid programs, that's for sure. He generally cut a good bit of social services types of thing, also, separate from education. The famous one was programs for the mentally disabled, greatly increasing the number of street people in urban America. He did that in California as governor as well. (4) It's just like it sounds. Let the rich get richer, and the crumbs and droplets of wealth fall down through the system, benefitting everyone. Statistically, this did not work for the middle and lower classes. I don't understand how this is debated, given the data. (5) Oh lord. Very stinky. And you have to talk about the incredibly shady "surprise" of the hostages being released when he first took office. Ugh. The arms were shipped from the (not savory) US-supported Contras in central america to Iran, to support Iran's sad military, so that they then agreed to release the hostages (and end the crisis that sunk Carter's presidency.) Please read up on it and don't rely on me or other BBS summarizers here! (6) no idea what that's about.
He made Ketchup into a vegetable! So bow to him or forever feel the wrath of God, like my fellow catholics in el salvador and guatemala. Remember that the Poor do not have rights, they are scum and should never rise against a military dictactorship who wants to murder them all. Long live deathsquads, long live manuel noriega and olly! =/ I ask myself that same question lynus.
The guy who explained it to you was lying to you, though I've heard that ridiculous theory before - it's a standard right wing talking point. His position makes no logical sense. If the economic growth in the late 90's was caused by Reagan in the early 80's, then what about the econmic growth of the mid 80's - was that caused by Lyndon Johnson in the late 60's? The only economists who propound these theories are TV-talking head hacks like Lawrence Kudlow. Academic economists don't believe in that crap because the promise of the Reagan years "I'm going to cut taxes AND balance the budget!" didn't materialize in the empirical data. In fact they didn't come close to materialzing and the result was record deficits. Fast forward to 2000-2008 and we tried it AGAIN thanks to the current brain trust. Guess what? The result was massive deficits AGAIN. But hey it's 2008, McCain is coming in with the SAME PLAN AGAIN, the same plan that he opposed and failed twice - maybe the third time will be the charm.
Reagan: Days of Wine & Roses That We Fake Perhaps some of us will get hammered tonight and write haikus.
Reagan and the soviets. Gorbachev shared equally in making the reforms that changed it, but Reagan inspired Americans to believe in the fight. Great communicator. Reagan made people feel good about being an American Dept. of Ed - He didn't do away with it but cut a lot of funds out of it. As public school teacher now, I can tell you that even Federal budget cuts hurt schools that need it most. Richer areas won't have problems because those parents will donate heavily to their schools. Trickle Down Economics - The theory is that if you give rich people even more money they will have so much that they will invest in creating jobs for lower economic bands of folks. The problem is that rich people hiring more cleaning staff and the like didn't really help anything. Furthermore the folks that would have enough to start up business that create good jobs are the uber wealthy who wouldn't need extra money to invest in the first place. Iran/Contra. - Reagan said he wouldn't talk or negotiate with terrorists then dealt arms to Iran, and illegally used money to support the contras in Central America which congress had forbidden him to do. I'm not sure about the last comment but it could come from the fact that Reagan vetoed sanctions against Apartheid South Africa. He was actually against sanctions which helped stop Apartheid. Luckily his veto received an override and went forward anyway.
Damn. I was pretty far off on that one. So....are you saying that Reagan somehow orchestrated the release just to make himself look good or something? I don't get it....We (and somehow Reagan prior to taking office?) basically bribed the Iranians with arms so the hostages would be freed? Is that the contention/conspiracy theory? We went in and got Noriega. What's the connection here? And....umm....what question do you ask yourself, exactly? He didn't lie to me. He thought differently, to be sure, but he didn't lie. He and I disagreed on damn near everything regarding religion and politics, and we somehow wound up being best friends all through college. Thanks for the bolded part, Sam. I'm looking for specifics like that. Hm. It was vetoed. Good. Why in the world would he do such a thing given the history of race relations in America?
He did the most important thing a President of this country can do......make it's citizens feel confident and comfortable so that it gets them out spending money. The most important thing a President can do is make American's happy.....perception is reality. Obama has it...he is just like Reagan. DD
Well his record regarding policies affecting most African American communities wasn't good. His official rationale for the veto was that sanctions would make it harder for those that suffered from Apartheid to get the necessities they needed, and add to their hardship rather than help to end Apartheid. I will point out that American big business who had been an ally of Reagan would lose money if the sanctions went into effect. I think it was a case of Reagan being influenced by money, and not taking enough interest in the injustices that went on. But I've tried to list his official reasoning as well, so you can make up your own mind.
Ronnie was an actor in B movies who had a few really good moments, when he showed he really could act. During most of the 1980's, he played the President of the United States. I have to say that Ronnie did a hell of a lot better job of it than George W. Bush.
In my lifetime, I have known very rich people, poor people, and all points in between. NEVER have I heard of anybody donating money to their neighborhood public school. What an odd thing to read.
Thanks for that. Can you expand on the policies that were a hindrance to the black community? Or is it just basic conservative 'small government, less in the way of social services' type stuff?
You've never bought the cookies/sausages/pretzels from the local kids at 3x the normal cost? Just this week I've donated to a co-worker's local school on some read-a-thon for his daughter's class. And my sister is bringing a magazine to buy cookie dough for her daughter's classroom. Not million dollar grant money, but they are certainly donations.
Are you serious? Oh my gosh it is incredibly common. Parents of students who attend schools in wealthy areas have donated computers, money to build auditoriums, money for school supplies or the supplies themselves and the list goes on and on. I can't believe you've never heard of anything like this. It is happens frequently at the elementary school level for sure. As a teacher we've studied this, and then experienced it in the field all over the place. The schools in wealthy areas have libraries, video cameras, art supplies, top of the line computers, playground equipment etc. donated all the time. The poorer schools actually do OK because of state and Federal funding. the Title I funds our school receives are a huge part of our budget, and as tough as it is to make ends meet, it would be impossible without it. It is the middle class schools that have a tough time. They don't get the federal funds as much, nor do they get the donations. They are kind of squeezed out.
There were cuts in the dept. of ed as mentioned. That affected the poorest communities most of all. Many of those communities were largely populated by African Americans. It was under his administration that they began to try and paint welfare recipients as Cadillac driving welfare queens who would squeeze out another kid to increase their hand out from the govt. The truth is that white women were the largest recipients of AFDC. There was also slaps in the face to the struggle and sacrifice of the civil rights movement. This is from the Washington Post. In general he just showed an insensitivity lack of caring about those concerns. It isn't that he was racist necessarily, just that he blatantly didn't care.
This is false. I am a senior at Stratford High School and you should see the amount of private funds we received for our football team. Something over 10,000 dollars. I would say that Stratford is in an area that is above average to semi rich. It's not like Memorial High(our rival) who is in a very rich area. Some parents are just crazy to support their childrens school in any away. Especially the PTA moms who want to show how much money they have and how involved they are in the community.
Perhaps you are correct - lying depends on state of mind ultimately. The problem with me is that that rationale is one that I've heard a hundred times and it's an obvious ploy, so I figure that intelligent people should know better and accordingly are probably lying if they repeat it seriously. I don't doubt that there are a number of true believers out there though. Years ago I posted what was essentially a textbook debunking of Supply side-ism in this thread, from an article: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=1029613&highlight=Krugman#post1029613 The underlying article was by Paul Krugman, and though he does have a partisan slant these days in his opinion pieces, and has become a bogeyman for the right, he has always been respected as a real economist and has a real-live academic reputation as a hardcore guy at Princeton.
refman here are some bits talking about the difference in schools found in wealthy communities and others. http://www.stanfordscientific.org/2...olicy-effects-on-two-nearby-school-districts/ Here is an article talking about the schools mentioned in the Stanford publication Here is another testimonial from a teacher which talks exactly about what I've witnessed. The kinds of things this teacher describes are only available at schools in wealthy areas with huge donations from residents and corporations where those residents have connections.
