Posted by Tina
GOP political strategist, Ford O’Connell has a new book out, “Hail Mary: The 10-Step Playbook for Republican Recovery”. I’d be tempted to read it if it were not for step #1 in which he advises that in order to win the Republican Party, and I presume the GOP faithful, must “get over” Ronald Reagan…because “he’s dead”.
I have to wonder if he is among those who would also suggest we “get over” the founding fathers who, in their wisdom, managed to create quite a legacy for themselves and our nation through their embrace of freedom and the basic rights of the individual. I wonder because the love and admiration Reagan’s fans share for him is not mere idol worship. It is also not personal; most of us did not know Reagan personally. The love and admiration we share for Ronald Reagan is for the man’s ideals and principles. He lifted the American people, the American image in the world, and he inspired and uplifted people all across the world to embrace and appreciate freedom and their own personal dreams.
O’Connell suggests that we “move on”. I would ask, move on to what? The principles that have engaged his former charge, John McCain, to bend and play ball with his ideological opponents? The principles of go along to get along? The principle that popularity will result in good leadership?
A single comment made by O’Connell provides at least a partial answer:
“The Reagan fixation is a drag on the future success of the GOP at the national level. It undermines the candidates because it becomes a crutch for their inability to articulate an actual agenda or a forward-looking vision.”
A “crutch” for their “inability to articulate” and agenda or vision?
Nonesense!
The vision that works is the vision espoused by Ronald Reagan…a vision that reflects American ideals…freedom and individual responsibility and urge.
The Reagan “fixation” that O’Connell is so worried about is a shared affinity with the ideals that Reagan held. It’s appreciation of the positive image of America that Reagan presented to the world. It’s about the commitment to freedom and free market principles that were articulated by Reagan with such clarity and certainty. It’s about the affects of Reagan’s confidence and good humor. It’s about the world wide jump start that Reagan’s presence and message gave every time he went before the cameras. It’s about a projection of strength. Under Reagan the world knew that it was risky to mess with America or her allies.
Any candidate can articulate these principles and ideals if he believes them himself…and he will articulate them in his own natural way…and they will resonate.
So, no Mr. O’Connell, we will not be “getting over” Reagan any more than we will get over George Washington, John Adams, George Mason or any other leader who served this nation originally or by representing the nation’s founding principles and values. We will also not be “moving on”, an expression more fitting the ongoing Clinton family campaign.
Indeed, the alternative expressed by Bill Clinton recently for his wife, communitarianism…AKA, socialism, Marxism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, is not working. It has not worked even as it has been tried in nation after nation for decades.
We’ve seen this ideology represented more starkly than ever before in the last five years and had quite enough of the redistribution thinking that puts the state above the individual and the elitists in Washington in charge of every aspect of our lives. We’ve had quite enough of the mess that this kind of thinking has created in our lives via ongoing busted budgets and the latest affront, the Affordable Care Act. We’ve had quite enough of the lousy economy and the poor jobs picture. We are finished with the loss of respect America has around the world and the constant bowing to nations that spew hate and are dedicated to the idea of world domination. In terms of the deeper picture we’re tired of paying for programs that do not lift the poor out of poverty but instead condemn too many of them to a life of permanent poverty. We are done with schools being run by communitarian types who pay themselves well while failing to deliver an exceptional education to all American kids. We’ve had quite enough of education that fails to teach our founding principles or pass on the heritage of our nation that our children so richly deserve to experience as future adults of this great nation, the United States of America. We are tired of our military being turned into a club for social engineering while our warriors are not given the tools and support they need or the care they deserve. We are tired of the leaks, the spying, and the abuses of power that seem to go hand in hand with those of the communitarian state of mind.
We demand, and we will get, a GOP leader that reflects American values. Ronald Reagan the man has indeed passed on but the things he stood for live on and his memory stands as a beacon for future generations of leaders. There will be no moving on. There will be no compromise of basic principles. There will be no more bending to the will of those who seek to supplant our founding ideals with the ideals of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il…or Ung or any of the other minor tin hat dictators that have embraced the ideology of centralized government with control and power in the hands of the few at the top. And that would include the socialist light versions that swept through nations to replace the former kingdoms of Europe and her satellites.
This is America…let freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit, re-introduced by Reagan, once again become the leading ideals of the GOP!
We need another Ronald Reagan type man or woman who will honor their oath to protect our country, respect their wedding vows and live by a moral code in all the say and do. We do not want another liar or cheater who we can’t trust or believe anything they say or do.
In the 1984 presidential electoral votes by state Reagan won every state except for Mondale’s home state of Minnesota and Washington, D.C. (Wikipedia)
Not able to locate any other president who won by that many electoral votes. He sure most have done something right during his first term to win his second term with that many states. Why wouldn’t we want someone just like him instead of what we have now?
Reagan wasn’t a perfect man, but he sure has been the best president this country has had since Abe Lincoln was our first Republican president.
Kaboom bonus!
Hear Judge Napolitano school Juan Williams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuSVek7tJUE&feature=player_embedded
It took me exactly 43 milliseconds to get over Ford O’Connell. I suggest he take 10 steps on a 7 step pier.
“I wonder because the love and admiration Reagan’s fans share for him is not mere idol worship.”
It is, though. I know it is because the Reagan you talk about is nothing like the Reagan who actually lived. The real Reagan raised taxes 8 times, raised the debt ceiling 18 times, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and expanded the reach of the federal government more than any president before him. Even Mike Huckabee has said that Reagan would have a hard time running as a Republican in today’s political climate.
The real Reagan simply isn’t good enough for modern Republicans, so you have to construct a whitewashed saint to stand in for him. That is nearly the definition of idol worship.
“Indeed, the alternative expressed by Bill Clinton recently for his wife, communitarianism…AKA, socialism, Marxism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, is not working.”
This sentence encapsulates the modern right’s celebration of ignorance. You can’t list *six distinct philosophies* and claim that they are all the same exact thing, then be expected to be taken seriously by anyone other than the already converted. You are obsessed with using these words even though you have no idea what they actually mean. Your latest hobby horse is “communitarianism.” Not only do you constantly misuse this word, but you do so with a sense of pride and and a belief that it makes you look clever. It does not.
Chris: “It is, though… The real Reagan raised taxes 8 times, raised the debt ceiling 18 times, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and expanded the reach of the federal government more than any president before him.
A. The ideals held by any leader can never be reflected perfectly by his record. Reagan achieved every one of his three major goals. Not all tax cuts work for the people. Reagan’s tax cuts worked to create jobs and a vibrant economy. Reagan governed within a very tough reality. Democrats were very powerful in the Congress and they had the media behind them. Democrats worked constantly to discredit his ideas. Tip O’Neill made spending cut promises in exchange for tax cuts and then purposely failed to deliver on his promise. In other words Reagan worked within the system and managed to be very successful for the American people.
B. Raising the debt ceiling should be attributed to Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the House, who spent like a woman at a garment sale, breaking agreements with Reagan and sending last minute spending budgets that were thousands of pages long…impossible to read and remain within legal restraints.
C. The amnesty agreement that was supposed to end amnesty agreements…so much for Democrat agreement.
D. As for expanding the reach of government? That’s quite a stretch. Depends on what you mean by it. The Great Society represents quite a reach.
E. Reagan represented to the world the ideals that best support free people and admiration for him and his ability to articulate those ideas remain constant.
“…you have to construct a whitewashed saint to stand in for him.”
Utter leftist BS.
The difference can be illustrated through comparison to the current occupant of the WH. Look at the rhetoric and record. Obama is a man of mixed messages, a) Soaring images that rival Reagan’s and b) His leftist controlling ideals:
His policies since being elected have not resulted in any of those realities…NOT ONE! The real agenda was expressed but was hidden behind the giant whitewash of the above soaring rhetoric. A citizen had to brush that rhetoric aside to discover his real agenda. One example:
The fawning, fainting adoration that followed this man both before and after his election is pure idolatry. His record of high unemployment, a constantly fragile economy, failed green energy investment, a healthcare law that has resulted in disaster and chaos, continuing war and an absolute mess in the ME, rebuffs and snubs to our allies and embrace of our enemies…you name it the idolatry cannot be explained in any way by his personally driven record. We can give harry and Nancy some of the credit for the record but they worked as a team on the same agenda with that super majority.
Th difference is both stark and dismissive of your feeble evaluation of the genuine admiration people (all over the world) hold for Reagan because of his ability to articulate policies that work!
“This sentence encapsulates the modern right’s celebration of ignorance…”
Says the guy who even in the face of such massive failure continues to support ideas that have failed across the globe every time they are tried. have you read about the mess in Venezuela recently? They fast tracked socialist ideals and show you the inevitable, albeit slow and painful, result that will follow Obama’s Marxist based ideals.
“You are obsessed with using these words even though you have no idea what they actually mean.”
Please…enlighten us, oh man of such enlightenment and experience. We await your teachings with baited breath!
“Your latest hobby horse is “communitarianism.” Not only do you constantly misuse this word, but you do so with a sense of pride and and a belief that it makes you look clever.”
I use it because it is the word used by Bill Clinton to launch his wife’s campaign for president. He was sent out to test the waters and see if the word would resonate with nuts like you. I set out to destroy its chances a la Alinsky…fool us once.
Changing the word that is used to describe the lefts agenda does not change meaning in terms of what Hillary Clinton would do if given the power.
I know you don’t agree with me, Chris. I will let our readers decide to what degree this article is “clever”. As for me it matters not one bit since “clever” was never my goal.
Thanks for the opportunity to counter your ridiculous opinions. As always the people are better served when they can make comparisons and decide for themselves.
Tina, defending Reagan:
“The ideals held by any leader can never be reflected perfectly by his record.”
Tina, attacking Obama:
“Look at the rhetoric and record.”
You literally cannot manage to keep your arguments intellectually consistent over the course of one comment.
The reality for Americans is that the left has had a long successful ride of nearly unrestrained power.
It has taken us further and further away from the constitutional principles that make American unique in all the world.
America’s exceptional difference was built upon individual freedom, the rule of law, and the right to own property!
Democrat polices are constantly biting at those values, chewing away big chunks and constantly moving us toward control and power being vested in Washington DC and mediocrity and dependence in the citizenry.
Reagan was one of the few leaders who was able to successfully articulate the brilliance of the founding values. He was able to achieve small victories that gave the people an experience of those values made manifest in our lives. And that experience includes seeing the poor uplifted into the middle class. It includes seeing the generosity of private citizens when they are able to benefit from their own work and achievement. We experienced the power of a dynamic economy to offer more opportunity for every citizen. We also witnessed the attraction of these values as they touched the lives of others around the world.
We desperately need another leader like Reagan. As a model there is none in recent memory to compare. So no…we will not move on!
Chris: “You literally cannot manage to keep your arguments intellectually consistent over the course of one comment.”
You fail to remain on point!
The subject was idolatry as opposed to admiration. I gave a comparison that illustrated the difference.
Obama’s record is much worse in terms of working within our checks and balances system and meeting his stated goals and yet his fawning followers cannot admit he has failed to deliver on his promises. He has achieved what the radicals wanted of him but that has not resulted in “every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.”
The policies that flow from Obama’s ideals do not deliver those things to the people…not even in small ways! What they deliver is BIG GOVERNMENT POWER and diminished prosperity and ownership in the citizenry.
Tina: “A. The ideals held by any leader can never be reflected perfectly by his record. Reagan achieved every one of his three major goals.”
Can you be more specific? Which three goals were those?
“Not all tax cuts work for the people.”
Really? I’m surprised to hear that from you. Which tax cuts do you oppose?
“Reagan’s tax cuts worked to create jobs and a vibrant economy.”
Yes, I’ve acknowledged as much.
Now what do you think of his tax increases? Did those also help to create jobs and a vibrant economy?
“Reagan governed within a very tough reality. Democrats were very powerful in the Congress and they had the media behind them. Democrats worked constantly to discredit his ideas. Tip O’Neill made spending cut promises in exchange for tax cuts and then purposely failed to deliver on his promise. In other words Reagan worked within the system and managed to be very successful for the American people.”
Even if this were true, what does it have to do with anything I wrote?
“B. Raising the debt ceiling should be attributed to Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the House, who spent like a woman at a garment sale, breaking agreements with Reagan and sending last minute spending budgets that were thousands of pages long…impossible to read and remain within legal restraints.”
This is bullshit. You would never in a million years hold the currently Republican-controlled House to the same standard.
“C. The amnesty agreement that was supposed to end amnesty agreements…so much for Democrat agreement.”
So some amnesty is a good thing? Keep in mind, this is what Reagan said in a debate with Walter Mondale in 1984:
“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
Can you imagine any Republican candidate saying these words today? Can you imagine any of them even using the word “amnesty” in a supportive tone without immediately being denounced as a RINO?
“D. As for expanding the reach of government? That’s quite a stretch. Depends on what you mean by it.”
ARE YOU KIDDING ME. I don’t even know what you’re doing right now. You KNOW that Ronald Reagan expanded the reach of the federal government more than any prior president. EVERYONE knows that. We’ve discussed it here before. A stretch? That’s ridiculous. Why would you rather look stupid than be honest?
“Depends on what you mean by it?” How about by “every possible measure,” according to the Washington Post?
“Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that “in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” This rhetorical flourish didn’t stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government’s size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.
Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan’s massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his “no new taxes” pledge.
The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan, in large part because of his buildup at the Pentagon. (It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.) Reagan also abandoned a campaign pledge to get rid of two Cabinet agencies – Energy and Education – and added a new one, Veterans Affairs.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104_2.html?sid=ST2011020403674
WaPo too liberal for you? Try the right-wing Mises Institute, which points out that Reagan signed TEFRA, “the largest tax increase in American history:”
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Or Lew Rockwell’s conservative site, which condemns Reagan’s most devoted followers as creating a false idol of the man:
“As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%.
Ah, but this was for defense, one might protest. And defense spending, according to the conventional wisdom, doesn’t count for some reason. In fact, defense spending is good for a “capitalist” economy, even though it was supposedly defense spending that brought down the Soviet economy. (I wonder if Reagan’s increases in California’s spending when he was governor can be attributed to a good-faith effort on his part to beat Oregon and Nevada in an arms race.)
All in all, Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode, causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress. Reagan’s tax cuts notwithstanding (some of which he reversed), the state grew fat and its growth will inevitably be financed through inflation or tax increases (unless the state defaults).
Reagan also bombed Libya, put the “war” in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people.
That he did all these things in the name of “freedom,” “capitalism,” “small government,” and “liberty” renders his legacy, in my opinion, all the more insidious. If bad Reaganesque policies continue to have a pass because of their superficial rhetorical selling points, American liberty will have suffered, not strengthened, because of him.
Many Americans say Reagan was a man of principle, regardless of what else we might think of him. And yet I’ve heard few examples of how he acted on his principles. More often, I hear excuses that he had a principled ideology but failed to follow through.
Still, his rhetoric probably did bring a fair number of people around to adopting some good values. And even some of his policies — such as pulling out of Lebanon after terrorists bombed the Marine base in Beirut, lifting oil price controls, continuing Carter’s deregulation — were quite admirable, especially by today’s standards.
By and large, however, Reagan’s words are used to advance the power of the state. Many in today’s War Party, previously critical of Reagan’s relative restraint, claim that Reagan would have approved of their pet war in Iraq, when we do not know one way or the other if that is true.
They say Reagan made them revere liberty, and that their reverence towards liberty leads them to revere war.
They say that his words about the Soviet Union are applicable today, and that what we face now is Cold War II.
They say that Clinton and even Bush the Second haven’t sufficiently followed Reagan’s policy of bloated military spending and foreign bellicosity.
They have in the past compared him to Thomas Jefferson, when all the two presidents had in common was that their words were better than their presidencies. (Even this is a weak comparison, seeing as how President Jefferson actually shrank the government.)
Today’s champions of neo-Reaganism invoke the legacy of a man who practiced libertarian rhetoric and carried out a predominately statist agenda, and they do it to advance an agenda even more statist than Reagan’s.
As much as I think certain misanthropes distort and twist Reaganism to their devious purposes, it is no surprise that the Gipper would have such a vile following. No symbol is more useful in the advocacy of empire than a respected leader who glorified freedom even as he trampled it.
I can’t speak of Reagan the man, whom I never knew. It seems clear, however, that freedom lovers who mourn his passing should likewise mourn his legacy, which, as it stands, is hardly a cause for celebration.”
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html
“The Great Society represents quite a reach.”
Yes, but the fed still grew at a larger rate under Reagan than it did under LBJ, by every conceivable measure. And the Great Society cut the poverty rate in half in less than ten years. Since then, poverty in the U.S. has never once reached the highs it did before the Great Society was passed. Maybe you’d like to go back to pre-1960 poverty rates, but I wouldn’t.
“E. Reagan represented to the world the ideals that best support free people and admiration for him and his ability to articulate those ideas remain constant.”
Again, you’re talking about “ideals” and “articulation” as if they are more important than actual policy. You do this while simultaneously criticizing Obama supporters for allegedly prioritizing those matters in the same way. You’re being a massive hypocrite, and as usual, you don’t even notice.
“Utter leftist BS.”
No, it’s a fact-based opinion shared by many on the left and right.
Most of your comments about Obama are beside the point. There are a million other articles where we can discuss the merits or lack thereof of Barack Obama. This article is about Reagan. However, I do have to address this Obama quote you brought up, because you used it as evidence of what a terrible president Obama is:
“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.”
It’s a good thing St. Ronnie would never support such a sinister, socialist, Marxist, communitarian, Kenyan anti-colonialist, doo-doo head greeny lefty scheme as cap and trade!
Except that, oh wait, he totally supported cap and trade:
http://www.voxeu.org/article/sordid-history-congressional-acceptance-and-rejection-cap-and-trade-implications-climate-policy
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html
You are unable to make cogent arguments in support of your opinions, Tina, because you have no real knowledge of the history of your own movement. Cap and trade, like the individual mandate, used to be a very popular idea among Republicans. That it is now disparaged as socialism run amok simply proves how radical your party has become. Ronald Reagan simply could not run on the same platform today and be considered at all palatable to the right wing.
“The difference is both stark and dismissive of your feeble evaluation of the genuine admiration people (all over the world) hold for Reagan because of his ability to articulate policies that work!”
This would be more convincing if you *actually knew what Reagan’s policies were.* But clearly, you don’t. You’ve bought into the sanitized Heritage version of the facts that leaves out everything inconvenient to the GOP. You have no idea who the real Ronald Reagan was. He did express many of the ideals you purport to believe in, but he was willing to compromise (a dirty word among today’s Republicans) and he did not at ALL decrease the size of government; he grew it more than any president in history. For supposed supporters of “small government” to heap such praise on him simply makes no sense. The only explanation is willful ignorance. There’s also his many moral failings, such as selling arms to terrorists and aiding Saddam and Al Qaeda; conservatives ignore these while calling for Obama’s impeachment for aiding Syrian rebels. (Another fun fact: Reagan also called for civilian trials for terrorists, just like Obama.)
“Says the guy who even in the face of such massive failure continues to support ideas that have failed across the globe every time they are tried. have you read about the mess in Venezuela recently? They fast tracked socialist ideals and show you the inevitable, albeit slow and painful, result that will follow Obama’s Marxist based ideals.”
You’ll have to be specific, and you’ll have to stop conflating different terms. Marxist governments certainly have failed; the democratic socialist governments of Europe, however, have existed for decades. They aren’t perfect, but social mobility in most of these countries is better than the U.S. We have seen that countries which have embraced austerity–the path endorsed by Paul Ryan–have done much worse in the recession than those who have embraced stimulus, which is by definition a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the less well off.
“Please…enlighten us, oh man of such enlightenment and experience. We await your teachings with baited breath!”
Oh, please. Plenty have tried to explain to you the differences between socialism, Marxism, etc. etc. You don’t care. You have flat out told me the differences don’t matter to you because the terms have the desired effect.
“I use it because it is the word used by Bill Clinton to launch his wife’s campaign for president. He was sent out to test the waters and see if the word would resonate with nuts like you.”
You believe Reagan practiced small government, and I’m the nut? LOL
“I set out to destroy its chances a la Alinsky…fool us once.”
Yes, tell us again how you use the very tactics you claim to despise.
“Thanks for the opportunity to counter your ridiculous opinions.”
My opinions are based on facts. Yours are based on propaganda and a near-religious need to believe in things that are obviously, objectively untrue.
Tina: “You fail to remain on point!”
No, I am completely on point; “saying things Tina doesn’t like” does not = going off topic.
You criticized an author for rightly pointing out that many of Reagan’s supporters go over the top in their praise of the man. You then went on to prove his point by revealing your complete ignorance of the man, claiming that he practiced small government when, as everyone with Internet access can easily determine, he did no such thing.
You are the one who keeps trying to turn the discussion into yet another diatribe against Obama. No matter what we are discussing, you always try to put me on the defensive by bringing up every single fault of Obama’s you can possibly think of, and ask me to defend every single one. That I have no interest in doing so apparently doesn’t tip you off that the guy just doesn’t interest me that much anymore.
“The subject was idolatry as opposed to admiration. I gave a comparison that illustrated the difference.”
Tina, you *are* the comparison. I’ve never waxed poetic about Obama the way you do about Reagan. In fact, I’ve been pretty clear that my general opinion of Obama is a resounding “meh.” I’ve defended him from your stupider accusations, of course, because that’s my duty as a citizen with common sense, who doesn’t want the populace to spend time fretting about non-existent gun bans, FEMA camps, death panels, birth certificates and the like. But I’ve also criticized him heavily for things you’ve defended, such as indefinite detention, warrantless wire-tapping, Guantanamo, and droning.
My opinion of Obama is grounded in the real world. Your opinion of Reagan is not. That is the difference between admiration (or, in my case, what little is left of it) and idolatry.
Chris: “Can you be more specific? Which three goals were those?”
1.Lowering taxes to improve the economy, increase productivity, and improve the lives of individuals/families.
2.Shrink the size of government by eliminating waste and streamlining regulation. He did this but also wanted to do more.
3.Peace through strength- stronger national defense
“Really? I’m surprised to hear that from you. Which tax cuts do you oppose?”
When I said not all tax cuts “work for people” I was thinking of the lame tax advantages introduced by Obama. They are basically tax incentives such as the one he offered businesses if they would buy new equipment or hire new people. These tax “cuts” have strings attached and do nothing to spur investment and growth or affect the overall economy. They act as eye wash, a means of appeasing the masses, rewarding special interest groups, and most of all create an illusion that Obama is a meaningful tax cutter.
“Now what do you think of his tax increases? Did those also help to create jobs and a vibrant economy?”
The tragedy of the tax cut agreement he made with Tip O’Neill is that the promised spending cuts never happened. A Forbes article explains one rate increase that Reagan agreed to…notice he did so on principle:
Reagan wanted to reform the SS program to allow people to choose personal accounts as an alternative but was unable to persuade on the issue. He chose this rate compromise to save what was already becoming a problematic program in terms of sustainability. The efforts to discredit Reagan remain today simply because if the people ever personally discover the value of creating personal wealth the Democrat big government platform will collapse!
I don’t have any information about the affect of those tax hikes on the economy only the spending that followed and helped to create deficits and debt.
“This is bullshit. You would never in a million years hold the currently Republican-controlled House to the same standard.”
Wrong. The current Republican held House hasn’t had much luck doing anything and there isn’t much chance that they will be able to do anything. They are ineffective and scared. Since Harry Reid has refused (Until this year) to even submit a budget there wasn’t much to work on. Legislation that has been passed has been deemed dead on arrival by Harry Reid as you know. Republicans were criticized badly by Republicans for spending too much in the Bush years. We even tossed them out of office for the failure. I defended them based solely on a comparison to the debt to GDP ratio which was in line with other administrations. The current rate is 100.7%…in 2010 it was 91.6%…in 2008 (Bush) it was 69.6%…in 2006 it was 64.0%…in 2001 (Clinton) it was 56.6%…in 1996 it was 67.6% . Clearly our debt is outpacing growth by dangerous levels under Obama’s policies and under Bush and Clinton they were more equally aligned. Obama/Reid/Pelosi deserve more criticism than Bush.
Most of the ongoing rise in our debt results from the unsustainable programs created, supported and implemented by Democrats…and so yes, Democrats deserve greater criticism. Obama has added another, the ACA…whoopee!
“So some amnesty is a good thing? Keep in mind, this is what Reagan said…”
You keep in mind that it was an amnesty that was supposed to end the need for amnesty! Reagan believed that people who had been here for a long time and their children who had been raised here should be made citizens. Many people agreed; it seemed fair. The idea was to get our immigration policy and our border security in order and we never followed through. Now we are right back where we started with the same problem facing us. Is it any wonder that Republicans are asking for border security first now? This is particularly true with terror threats on our own soil now more likely. Do you not agree?
NPR on the Reagan bill:
We know how that worked out.
“Can you imagine any Republican candidate saying these words today?
No but then the times they have changed, dramatically! Democrats today are much more radical and uncompromising and they seem not to care that our borders remain a problem. America cannot absorb massive amounts of immigrants without dramatically changing the nation in terms of our heritage (freedom) and in terms of our economy. Shared misery, it turns out, is pretty undesirable.
When will Democrats begin to engage in a real conversation that addresses the issues instead of playing the usual political games?
“You KNOW that Ronald Reagan expanded the reach of the federal government more than any prior president. EVERYONE knows that. We’ve discussed it here before. A stretch? That’s ridiculous. Why would you rather look stupid than be honest? “
Why the attack? I said it depends on what you mean by “expanded the government”
What did you mean?
“How about by “every possible measure,” according to the Washington Post?”
Oh well…as long as the Washington Post says so. But what does it mean? Did Ronald Reagan enact the Medicare program that has grown since it began by leaps and bounds under every president? How about the Social Security program…the programs that live and grow under the Great Society of LBJ? These are the main drivers of expansion in government. Now…Reagan greatly expanded the military but his expansion followed decimation by his predecessor so the responsibility is really a shared responsibility. George Bush faced the same problem following the Clinton administration, although I’m not sure it was as bad.
So please. Tell me what you mean by saying that Reagan expanded government more than any President before him? Haven’t they all? When has government ever retracted substantially? Republicans do try but too many politicians, the media and the ignorant populace all love those programs and bureaucracy and Democrats feed that ignorance for their own personal power.
“It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.”
What do you want to bet that Democrats in Congress under Reagan and Republicans under Clinton are more responsible for those changes?
Bill Clinton was a big government guy prepared to expand government with his wife’s healthcare program and the people wisely elected Republicans to stop the insanity in what was called the 1994 Revolution. It was called that because Democrats had held control of Congress for most of forty years before that! Democrats OWN most of the debt because their policies create debt and they fight every single idea or plan to curb spending and debt!
“Ah, but this was for defense, one might protest. And defense spending, according to the conventional wisdom, doesn’t count for some reason.”
(Are you intentionally being an a-hole? Is all of this need to discredit Reagan a result of Obama’s contrasting spectacular failure?)
OF COURSE military spending counts! The military is the ONE big thing that the federal government is REQUIRED to do by Constitutional decree! Reagan’s defense spending reversed the damage to our military readiness that the Carter years created…it also played an huge role in bringing down the Soviet Union and the Wall came tumbling down! His peace through strength position meant that for the first time the US and the Soviets would begin to disarm and destroy nuclear weapons. It may not mean much now that we have empowered Iran but it was quite significant then!
Peter Ferarra of Forbes compares Obama’s economic policies to Reagan’s. Our readers would do well to read the full article. Information on defense spending in this article is of interest. So is this:
I don’t have time tonight to address every negative point you have attempted to lay at Reagan’s feet but I can assure you of one absolute fact. Reagan fought communism in all of its forms because of what it does to the human spirit and individual freedom. Kennedy started the era of Vietnam fighting the spread of communism.
Conservapedia
What you know about Reagan’s record and that of the Democrats is colored and distorted by your grossly inadequate leftist education. Pol Pot killed millions of Cambodians during the Carter years.
Ask-Wikipedia:
The idea that Reagan supported such a regime is absurd!
Democrats, on the other hand, have long been backers/supporters of communist regimes over those people seeking freedom…it was the same in Nicaragua.
All of the garbage about “revering war” is quite comical and completely misses the purpose, liberation, that has been behind America’s wars. I don’t expect you to get it. Since the end of WWII communist influence over the Democrat Party and our institutions of education has greatly expanded and grown in influence. I think you have been indoctrinated, Chris. The words “revere war” are a dead giveaway. Alinsky couldn’t have thunk up a more ridiculous and distorting negative label.
Lordy …will I be able to get to sleep? It’s questionable. However, this is all I can do tonight. I will continue in the morning.
“Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge…”
The welfare state enlarges…Reagan is to blame…and you are critical? Interesting!
Reagan’s record on any economic issue can be found at National Review where they have posted the content of a special issue of the magazine. On welfare and the poor the standard left line was that Reagan hurt the poor; the idea was sold in the media with lies and mythmaking:
The bigger lie is that conservatives, given the chance, would throw people into the streets and leave them to die. The truth is we abhor policies that keep people stuck in poverty and prefer policies that help people move out of poverty. We prefer policies that do this with incentives more than more spending by the federal government. I’ve ready posted the numbers of the working poor that moved into the middle class under Reagan. That is the best measure of the success of Reagan’s fiscal policies for the poor based on the principles and ideals he held.
I already addressed the reason for increased military spending. If Democrats presidents would stop gutting the military the need for much greater spending under succeeding presidents would not occur…(And our military would not be jerked around with every power change).
“…causing monstrous budget deficits”
Given the “new norm” the word “monstrous” is way over the top. Then, as now, the budget deficits are caused by spending that exceeds what Congress has budgeted for the year…the question then becomes under Reagan why didn’t Tip O’Neill create an adequate budget proposal?
The biggest drivers of increasing national debt have been SS and Medicare under all presidents. We’ve known since even before Reagan that these programs cannot be fully funded without budget busting deficits. Democrats fight reforms to these programs and they do it using emotional appeals to the masses that label reformers as cold hearted killers of children and old people. The truth and facts are not addressed by Democrats.
“Reagan also bombed Libya”
Military History:
And the problem is what? That he acted as Commander-in-Chief in a responsive manner? How is this worse than what has happened under Obama? Obama’s policies have emboldened terrorists. Al Qaeda has expanded and grown in influence under Obama’s leadership and policies of appeasement. Iran continues to be the biggest supporter of terror all across the globe and is now being given even greater ability to expand this support as Obama and Kerry have agreed to lift sanctions without real demands being made. Insanity!
“Reagan…put the “war” in War on Drugs”
Yes. But let’s put it in a context of the times. The focus then was to shift from simply arresting the pushers on the street to damaging suppliers, assisting the addicted, and discouraging drug use in the very young. Conservapedia:
Tina, well said! And the evidence is all on your side. Anyone who cares to look can see that Obama is a heavy handed socialist. I watched Michelle talking to Barbara Walters about her husband and she was saying, oh, he cares so much about the little people without health insurance, and how he had to impose ObamaCare. Well, if he cared so much he might have listended to his critics a little. They were warning him that the people he was allegedly trying to help were in fact the very people he will be hurting. Now that’s become a reality. It’s cost them their jobs, it’s reduced their income and in many cases it took away their health insurance because it is now un-affordable. Millions of the middle class have been damaged by Obama the Socialist. It makes me wonder how Obama can keep up the pretext this is helping anyone except their big campaign donors and themselves…albeit at the cost of the public’s money. He’s going down in history as our worst president and a robber baron.
Chris: “Cap and trade, like the individual mandate, used to be a very popular idea among Republicans.”
Solving a perceived problem is always popular. How you go about solving the problem is where contention comes in. In the 1980’s there was very little science to prove the problem was a result of human activity but there was a lot of fear. Hindsight is twenty twenty. We erred on the side of safety.
After billions of dollars spent, we now discover that the “Acid Rain” problem turns out to be naturally occurring.
Debunk House:
After reading some of the rest of your rant against Ronald Reagan, and considering your opinion is based entirely on leftists opinion that is colored by hatred, envy, and a deep seated need to destroy anyone that represents (or represented) a threat to their dreams of central control and fundamental transformation, i will not respond to you further. Its a complete waste of my time.
Instead I will consider a tribute piece that highlights people from outside of America about this person you so disparagingly refer to as “St Reagan”.
Jack I am amazed at the threat Reagan still poses to the lefts true believers (And a few right RHINO’s).
Its funny…they have no problem invoking FDR or JFK when it suits them and I have never heard any of them say it’s time to “move on” from their admiration for Kennedy (Camelot for heavens sake!) or the socialist policies they have pushed for for over seven decades!
But the worst of all is the way his record, as well as his persona, are ripped to shreds with distortions and lies. In some cases it’s just another matter of the left being on the side of murderous communists against their own government…overtly so when a Republican is President. Calling evil good and good evil is a trademark.
Reagan is loved by people all over the world, not because he was perfect or had a perfect record, but because he understood and could articulate the value and benefits of freedom and because he championed the individual above the state. Hmmm…isn’t that EXACTLY what this country was founded upon…freedom and individual rights.
Tina, I’d like to apologize for my hostile tone earlier. It was unwarranted.
I do feel the need to respond to two major points right now:
“2.Shrink the size of government by eliminating waste and streamlining regulation. He did this but also wanted to do more.”
Can you please explain to me how exactly Reagan managed to “shrink the size of government?” I have posted numerous articles, from both the left and the right, detailing how Reagan actually grew the size of government. The number of federal workers went up. Military spending way up. Taxes were increased more times than they were cut. The national debt tripled from $848 billion to $2.6 trillion.
In what way did he shrink the government?
I’m not even really criticizing any of this–I’m just saying that it seems strange to me that so many proponents of “small government” profess so much admiration for Reagan, and seem to have no idea of the ways in which he grew the size of the federal government.
It’s also strange that you criticize Obama so much for his strategy with Iran and Al Qaeda, and that you try to use this to make him look unfavorable compared to Reagan, completely glossing over Reagan’s documented history in aiding both of these enemies.
I think there was some confusion earlier–some of the comments you’ve attributed to me and my “leftist indoctrination” were actually made by very right-wing sources such as Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. These sources are seen as aggressively pro-free market even among mainstream conservatives. They don’t have a lefty bone in their bodies. I think you have a tendency to dismiss harsh criticism of certain right-wing individuals as “leftist” and therefore not worth engaging, but many of these critiques actually came from the hard right. I can understand that my smug attitude earlier probably made you a lot less willing to entertain any criticism presented by me, but much of the words you took the most issue with were not mine, but were made by staunch conservatives.
One more thing tonight:
“What the left doesn’t acknowledge is that poverty rates were declining before the GS! See census sourced chart here:”
Tina, you’ve presented that chart more than once before, and I’ve explained each time that it has a crucial flaw: it wrongly points to the year 1968 as the year that the Great Society began. The Great Society actually began in 1964.
Looking at the very same graph with the knowledge that the Great Society began in 1964, not 1968, shows a VERY different result from the one that author wanted us to see. True, there is a gradual, slow drop in the poverty rate from 1958 to 1964, but there is a much larger drop from 1964 to 1968. In fact, it’s the largest drop in poverty since poverty rates have been recorded.
Since 1964, the year that the Great Society actually began, the poverty rate has never once gone back up to the levels seen before the Great Society passed. That would indicate that the Great Society was at least partially a success. The programs of the GS have kept the poverty rate from going back to the high levels of the pre-GS era.
To clarify, the graph you linked to does come from the Census Bureau, but the label “War on Poverty begins” was added in later. That part does not appear on the original graph from the Census, because it’s inaccurate. The War on Poverty began in 1964.
LOL Epic Fail
reaganomics failed and even the Pope has to say it …get over it
reagan did do something great only it helped germany not the USA. reagan privatized healthcare and created the crappy healthcare system that drops ya when ya get sick after paying premiums for years.
We need to get rid of the Tea Party, Repeal citizens United. and create new parties. Not just 2.
hey I hear it’s only a couple thousand to but a law these days..
Guess what Koch Brothers most Americans have had it with that so called tea party of yours!
Dewey, why don’t you attend a few Tea Party meetings and see what they are really about. It’s not the fantasy you assert.
The American Thinker discusses recent comments made by the Pope questioning his opinion on capitalism. In the process he compares North and South Korea as examples of the two very similar states in terms of the people and then their governments. It’s an appropriate addition to this discussion.
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
Excellent observation Peggy. I have a feeling that line will become a famous quote some day…hopefully not on our tombstone.
Peggy: “The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”
Peggy, what do you mean by this? By “those who vote for a living,” are you talking about Democratic voters who vote for candidates that support social welfare programs? It seems like you are implying that there are more people on welfare than working. But you can’t be saying that now, because you’ve said it before here, and I’ve shown you numerous fact-checking agencies who have proven that this charge, despite being repeated by numerous conservative blogs as well as FOX News, is not even remotely true. Here, I’ll show you again:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/death-spiral-states/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/30/charlie-sykes/charlie-sykes-says-today-there-are-more-people-wel/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/deathspiral.asp
So since you can’t mean to suggest that there are more people on welfare than working–as you would never repeat such a poisonous lie–can you explain what you did mean? I don’t know how else to take your statement.
Or perhaps Jack can explain it to me, since he found the quote so powerful.
Tina, can you address the comment I made which corrected the chart you cited, which erroneously pointed to 1968 as the date that the War on Poverty began, thus leading readers to come to totally distorted conclusions on the effect of the War on Poverty? I ask because you have linked to this chart many times in the past, and each time I have corrected it, but you’ve never addressed my corrections. Can I at least trust that you won’t link to that erroneous chart again?
#22 Chris: “Peggy, what do you mean by this?”
I’m referring to uninformed, able-body voters who vote for candidates because they know they’ll provide for their ongoing and generational livelihood. This does not apply to the disabled or voters who take care of a disabled person.
I made no reference to party since both Republicans and Democrats have Progressives in them.
Chris: “So since you can’t mean to suggest that there are more people on welfare than working–as you would never repeat such a poisonous lie–can you explain what you did mean? I don’t know how else to take your statement.”
I do not recall ever saying there were more people on welfare than working. I have referred to Margaret Thatcher’s quote about running out of other people money. I’ve inferred we are headed in that direction, but even with the low employment and increase in government jobs we’re not there…yet.
If ObamaCare is not repealed we will be there in about 5 years. ObamaCare was never about providing health care for the 30 million who didn’t have it, because there will still be 30 million people without health care in 2022. It was/is all about transforming this country into a socialist state.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured
“I’m just a mom.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-mother-give-powerful-speech-obamas-tyranny/
Peggy: “I’m referring to uninformed, able-body voters who vote for candidates because they know they’ll provide for their ongoing and generational livelihood.”
This still doesn’t make any sense. You said, “The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.” Do you really believe that the group you just described is actually larger than the number of employed people in the United States? What could you possibly be basing that on? The turnout rate in the last election was less than 60% of the country. Obviously, more than 60% of the country is employed. Even if you believed *every single voting American* fit your description, they still wouldn’t outnumber “those who work for a living.” That statement is complete nonsense.
“I’ve inferred we are headed in that direction, but even with the low employment and increase in government jobs we’re not there…yet.”
Increase in government jobs? What on earth are you talking about? Government jobs have decreased under Obama, as even the conservative American Enterprise Institute acknowledges:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/
There has been a slight uptick in federal jobs, but it’s an increase of less than 1%. To say that there has been an “increase in government jobs” under Obama is spectacularly uninformed.
“ObamaCare was never about providing health care for the 30 million who didn’t have it, because there will still be 30 million people without health care in 2022.”
Your arguments do not make any sense. Prior to the ACA, there were about 50 million uninsured Americans. Cutting the number of the uninsured by 20 million people over a period of twelve years seems like a pretty good idea to me. How can you say that the law was “never about providing healthcare” given this substantial predicted decrease?
Chris: “This still doesn’t make any sense. You said, “The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.” Do you really believe that the group you just described is actually larger than the number of employed people in the United States?”
I’m sorry you are unable to understand that I did NOT say there were more. What I did say is that the government workforce is increasing and we are headed to have more government workers than private workers. With a out of control government that needs voters to sustain its own self-preservation it will eventually devour itself.
Guess, to help you understand you need help with understanding what “Is” is.
Has government employment really increased under Obama?: (Sept. 2012)
“So what are the facts? It depends on whether you’re looking at the federal workforce or the total government workforce.
The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers. The fact is that there is no month during President Obama’s term when the federal workforce was smaller than it was in the first month of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The president took over in January 2009. Every month after January 2009 has seen more federal workers than were employed in January 2009.
Moreover, there are more federal workers under President Obama than there were under President Bush. This is clear from the chart below.”
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/
“How can you say that the law was “never about providing healthcare” given this substantial predicted decrease?”
Guess you didn’t like the CBO report I provided above, so I’ll not waste my time trying to explain it to you again.
Please see my Madison Root for president post. You may learn something from a 5th grader.
Peggy: “I’m sorry you are unable to understand that I did NOT say there were more.”
I’m sorry that you are still unable to understand your own words that you write on this blog. You clearly DID say that there were more people who “vote for a living” than people who “work for a living.” These are your exact words:
“The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.””
“Outnumbered” means “more.”
I realize why you’d want to pretend you didn’t say this. It must be embarrassing to say something so stupid. Obviously, people who “vote for a living” do not outnumber people who work for a living. The total number of *voters* doesn’t even outnumber the total number of working people. You said this without thinking, because it felt good. You got a false sense of superiority to those you see as lazy and irresponsible. Jack praised your comment because it gave him the same positive feeling. But it falls apart after a moment’s scrutiny.
But it’s right there, and everyone can see it. The least you can do is ask Tina or Jack to delete that comment–I’m sure they’d do you the solid. But telling me that you didn’t say something which you clearly did only makes you look more stupid than the original comment. I don’t know why you would try to do this.
“What I did say is that the government workforce is increasing”
Not only is this an entirely different claim than the one you made in comment #19 (showing once again that you have a hard time following your own thought process), it’s also *not true,* as I have already shown you, and as the AEI page you link to yourself points out. You keep saying that “government workers” have increased. But only federal workers have increased. The state and local government workforce has gone way down under Obama, so much so that it amounts to a net reduction in the total government workforce. Saying that the number of government workers has increased is simply a lie. Only one subset of the government workforce has increased; as a whole, it has decreased.
Even if you only look at federal employees, the number of government workers is lower now than at any point since 1966.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/?_r=0
There was a slight uptick last year as the AEI shows, but it was by less than 1%, hardly a cause for alarm. The above article shows that since then the federal workforce has gone back down.
Claiming that government employment is growing at an alarming rate is simply dishonest from any angle, even if you make the bizarre choice of only counting federal workers as government workers.
“Guess, to help you understand you need help with understanding what “Is” is.”
I genuinely can’t believe you are trying to play this off as if I’m the one who doesn’t understand the meaning of words, when you just showed that you apparently don’t know what “outnumbered” or “government” means. You are being completely unreasonable.
“and we are headed to have more government workers than private workers.”
Who is telling you these ridiculous things, and why do you believe them?
There are currently about 114,692,000 Americans employed in the private sector.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
There are currently about 21,862,000 Americans employed in the public sector.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
Over the past four years, the number of people employed in the private sector has been growing while the number of people employed in the public sector has been shrinking.
I almost can’t believe you can sit there and type out the statement that “we are headed to have more government workers than private workers” and not feel completely ashamed, but then I remember that you also claimed that there are more voters you disapprove of than workers in *total,* so there is really nothing you could write that would surprise me at this point. Maybe next you’ll tell me that there are more people in Colorado than there are stars in the sky, or that the world is in danger of being overrun by teaming hordes of panda bears. It would make just as much sense as the laughable claims you’ve forwarded so far.
“Guess you didn’t like the CBO report I provided above, so I’ll not waste my time trying to explain it to you again.”
The CBO report in no way justifies anything you’ve said, which you’d know if you weren’t equally terrible at both math and basic reading comprehension. You claimed that the healthcare law wasn’t about reducing the number of the uninsured, and then linked to a CBO report that showed it reduces the number of the uninsured by almost 20 million people. And not only did you fail to note the irony, you acted like I was the stupid one for not understanding your brilliant argument.
My god.
“Please see my Madison Root for president post. You may learn something from a 5th grader.”
Pretty sure that fifth grader knows that 115 million is more than 22 million, so I think you may want to consult with her first.