[dgs212]

The spirit is debate:

I saw in moki's summary thread that you stated that you couldn't see Reagan being evil, and also that your response to criticism of america is "how would YOU do it differently" approximately. i wanted to respond to that but I didn't want to hijack moki's thread. therefore:

Why do you like Reagan, if I'm not reading too much into your statement about his possible evilness? First, am i right to assume that you liked reagan? Second, based on what policies? How do you feel with regards to his blemishes as a president? That is, do you feel that although he made some (horrendous) mistakes, his accomplishment outweigh them? Or do you feel that he made no mistakes? I'm just curious, although obviously I side with t_f in placing Reagan very high in the pantheon of Horrible People in History (just so you know where I'm coming from).

Similarly, I'd love the opportunity to refute the common claims that leftists (although I see my political views as well outside the traditional left-right specrum) only go in for US-bashing and have no constructive insights, if you have the time and inclination. As such, shall we pick a current and relevant example of debate, say "The War on Terror?" Maybe a new thread?

[idjeff]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Similarly, I'd love the opportunity to refute the common claims that leftists (although I see my political views as well outside the traditional left-right specrum) only go in for US-bashing and have no constructive insights, if you have the time and inclination.

Hmmm, I'd like to see that too.

[Krusty]

Wow, this is like the forum version of "Hey buddy, you wanna take this outside "?

Still ... I fear the outcome of such a debate will inevitably end in both sides declaring victory as there will be no possibility of neutral scoring.

Speaking of Reagan, however. Here's a great site that chronicles the major events of Reagan and his appointees. It's a quick read for all the info it contains ...

Oh, allow me to get this out of the way early:

<Expected Rebuttal> Yeah, you mean the way they SPIN the Reagan years </Expected Rebuttal>

[raskol]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Hmmm, I'd like to see that too.

Yes consider me a spectator as well.

I'd be especially interested in finboy's argument that leftists have no constructive ideas.

[Axo1ot1]

Wow. It would be intense to have someone challenge me to summarise my political beliefs. I'm glad I'm not finboy. He's got quite a task if he choses to respond!

[yakkiebah]

yes that would be interesting, if finboy does it right it would be insightful for finboy himself as for us and strenghten his position. no matter what the outcome. bat if it turns in one of those personal slam fests...

[finboy]

Originally posted by dgs212:
The spirit is debate:

I saw in moki's summary thread that you stated that you couldn't see Reagan being evil, and also that your response to criticism of america is "how would YOU do it differently" approximately. i wanted to respond to that but I didn't want to hijack moki's thread. therefore:

Why do you like Reagan, if I'm not reading too much into your statement about his possible evilness? First, am i right to assume that you liked reagan? Second, based on what policies? How do you feel with regards to his blemishes as a president? That is, do you feel that although he made some (horrendous) mistakes, his accomplishment outweigh them? Or do you feel that he made no mistakes? I'm just curious, although obviously I side with t_f in placing Reagan very high in the pantheon of Horrible People in History (just so you know where I'm coming from).

Similarly, I'd love the opportunity to refute the common claims that leftists (although I see my political views as well outside the traditional left-right specrum) only go in for US-bashing and have no constructive insights, if you have the time and inclination. As such, shall we pick a current and relevant example of debate, say "The War on Terror?" Maybe a new thread?

No new thread necessary, unless this one gets locked I guess. I think all of this stuff has been pretty well covered in numerous threads over the past couple of years. You just weren't around for it.

In the interest of open debate, you go ahead and summarize all the things that lead you to think that Reagan was evil (one of the most horrible people in history, etc.) and why his politics were harmful. You make the statement that he made some "(horrendous) mistakes" -- outline them, and explain (as I mentioned in the thread that you cited) how things should be done differently in a way that actually works.

As for the opportunity to refute the "common claims" that leftists only go for US-bashing and have no constructive insights -- here it is! I don't agree with your (obvious) premise that I actually feel that way.

You also might want to explain why The Left often chooses to make personal attacks on those folks that they don't understand and/or agree with. Again, here's your chance.

After that, I probably won't need to respond, but if I get time, I'll post back with my thoughts.

[dgs212]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

I am not challenging finboy to "take it outside," politically speaking. I have no ill intent, nor a desire to vanquish a foe (finboy is not my "foe"). I'm just interested in politics and I don't rightly understand the opposing view so I'd like it explained to me. Finboy, please dismiss the comments above this post about an all-out political cage-match or whatever. Like I said, I'm just curious.


I thought about making the topic of this thread a private message, but decided against it so that others could throw their voice in as well. Maybe i made a mistake.


Y'all need to squash the violence.

[davesimondotcom]

Yeah, that Reagan guy was so evil. Damn him for becoming President and causing the down fall of the Iron Curtain, almost instantly causing the freeing of hostages in Beruit (not personally, but because he was NOT Carter), lowering taxes, having a booming economy.

Meanwhile, he did use lables like "Evil Empire" that made leftist feel uneasy. He did believe strongly in "peace through stregth" which made leftistts feel uneasy. He literally hated the concept of a wall forcing people to stay in a country apart from freedom and their families (which made some leftists uneasy.)

Sorry, I know this was for finboy to respond, but I felt I should too.

I think Ronald Reagan was one of the last centuries greatest leaders. By leader, I mean someone who did what he believed in, despite polls and pressure, and was proven right.

Everyone has their flaws, but I can't buy this stuff about Reagan being evil. It's typical name calling.

[mo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yeah, that Reagan guy was so evil. Damn him for becoming President and causing the down fall of the Iron Curtain, almost instantly causing the freeing of hostages in Beruit (not personally, but because he was NOT Carter), lowering taxes, having a booming economy.

Beirut? Those are the ones for which he traded weapons. You mean Iran in 1981, right?

[finboy]

Originally posted by mo:
Beirut? Those are the ones for which he traded weapons. You mean Iran in 1981, right?

That's probably what he meant.

I think most of the Reagan thing, especially when it's spouted by those who weren't there and can't remember those years anyway (and don't remember the Leftist spin during the Reagan years), comes from the idea that some folks just have to have a boogieman. Just as the religious right demonizes Hollywood and rock 'n roll for contributing to the decline in morals (yeah right, like cocaine causes people to use it), the left has to find jingoism and fascism at every turn, and find a few people to demonize. When they demonize Jerry Falwell, that's ok, he's begging for it. When they demonize Reagan, though, I start to have problems, because I think most of that is revisionist sour grapes or spin inertia, or the simple need for a demon.

[dgs212]

I'm attempting to compose a nice long response, but I keep getting interrupted, so it might have to wait until later tonight.

In the meantime, let me just say that my quarrel is not with reagan the man, per se, but his administration's policies. How much influence he himself had is debatble, especially in light of Reagan's near-constant refusal to be linked to the policies carried out while he was in office. This, of course, could be a particularly thorough example of "plausible deniability."

[raskol]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Y'all need to squash the violence.

I just said I was an interested spectator.

Thanks finboy for refuting the statement that leftists have no constructive ideas.

I think I attack people because my ideas are often attacked in the media and I am sick of it. The rightists do the same thing. Look at Spliff, he attacks everything I say.

Ok promise not to post in this thread from hear out.

[finboy]

Originally posted by dgs212:
I'm attempting to compose a nice long response, but I keep getting interrupted, so it might have to wait until later tonight.

In the meantime, let me just say that my quarrel is not with reagan the man, per se, but his administration's policies. How much influence he himself had is debatble, especially in light of Reagan's near-constant refusal to be linked to the policies carried out while he was in office. This, of course, could be a particularly thorough example of "plausible deniability."

I understand completely about the time thing. I don't have time to do those long, structured responses either.

Please make sure you document the efforts he went to in order to distance himself from his administration's policies, since I don't remember that happening either. I do remember him DELEGATING and that was PART OF HIS PLATFORM and management style going in. I do, however, also remember all the revisionists telling us that he didn't take responsibility, systematically.

[finboy]

Originally posted by raskol:


Ok promise not to post in this thread from hear out.

Why not? You've got something to contribute to this as well!

[thunderous_funker]

I think even if we limited the discussion of the effects of Reagan's policies to only a few small areas he'd still be guilty of some of the worst crap by any president.

Central America
Deregulation
Environment

Any one of those areas of policy would yield enough crap for a demon's resume.

But he made a lot of fiery speeches, kicked some Arab ass and made sure that small portions of the population made out like bandits. That makes him popular with nationalists.

He also gets the credit "bringing down the Iron Curtain" which I think is it's own kind of revisionist history. He certainly pushed them with the old Guns & Butter idea, but let's not get carried away. Sure, the USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up (it might have done so anyway), but the arms race also created a whole set of new ugly problems to deal with. Not to mention that just bringing down the walls didn't equate to a better life for Eastern Europe. 5 years of "freedom" and most of those countries were lining up to vote for Communist leaders again so they could at least get jobs and eat. It's wonderful to talk about one bad ideology going down, but let's not forget what really happens on the street level isn't quite so glorious as all that. Quality of life in Russia and other former soviet bloc countries are only just now starting to show some improvement and others are just getting back to where they were before they went bankrupt.

Even so, I'll concede the Iron Curtain thing so people can concentrate on trying to defend his actions on the 3 fronts I mentioned:

Central America
Deregulation
Environment

Hell, what he's responsible for in Central America is probably enough for him to clapped in irons and flogged publically for a decade and a half as far as I'm concerned.

[raskol]

Originally posted by finboy:
Why not? You've got something to contribute to this as well!

Ok. I am not a Reagan scholar but just to get things rolling...

How about during the Iran-Contra hearings; many times he claimed he did not recollect meetings and conversations that took place. Oliver North was offered as a sacrifice.

I think he did a lot to spur the economy in the short-term (10-20 years) much to the detriment of the public sector, foreign relations, and the environment. Most of the economic expansion benefitted the wealthy.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
...and made sure that small portions of the population made out like bandits.

OK, start with demonstrating that this is true. Make sure to demonstrate how other portions of the population didn't.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Speaking of Reagan, however. Here's a great site that chronicles the major events of Reagan and his appointees. It's a quick read for all the info it contains ..

Now THAT was a trip down memory lane. I remember all those debates with my father (rabid Reagan fan) about those events. Ah, memories...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
OK, start with demonstrating that this is true. Make sure to demonstrate how other portions of the population didn't.

You mean aside from the record setting unemployment and poverty statistics?

How about:

"The Congressional Budget Office finds that taxpayers earning under $10,000 lost an average of $240 from last year's tax cuts, while those earning over $80,000 gained an average of $15,130." (2/27/82)

Or

"Between 1980 and 1995, US wage inequality (the ration of the lowest wage decile to the median wage), grew by 15%. By contrast, the wage inequality in Germany declined by 7%." (Economist, 1996, 62)

There are tons of statistics showing that income disparity in the US has increased dramatically and continually since the early 70's with periods of acceration during the 80's and 90's.

There can be no doubt of the phenomenon, but I suppose people could try to claim that it had nothing to do with specific policies of specific presidents.

Or remember this one?

"The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the top [tax] rate from 70 to 50 percent--the rest of it is a secondary matter," Stockman explained. "The original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that's having the most devastating effect on the economy. Then, the general argument was that, in order to make this palatable as a political matter, you had to bring down all the brackets. But, I mean, Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate."

--Former White House Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman to William Greider, "The Education of David Stockman," The Atlantic, December 1981.

A Trojan horse? This seemed a cynical concession for Stockman to make in private conversation while the Reagan Administration was still selling the supply-side doctrine to Congress. Yet he was conceding what the liberal Keynesian critics had argued from the outset--the supply-side theory was not a new economic theory at all but only new language and argument to conceal a hoary old Republican doctrine: give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects "trickle down" through the economy to reach everyone else. Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" he explained, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
There are tons of statistics showing that income disparity in the US has increased dramatically and continually since the early 70's with periods of acceration during the 80's and 90's.

What about quality of life and national security and stuff like that? You forgot all the "misery index" stuff. What is the quality of life now versus then for the folks on the bottom of the heap? Plus, what happened to the folks who were on the bottom of the heap back then, either by group or demographic? Are they still there?

As for the part that "made out like bandits" -- who would those folks be, exactly? What are they doing nowadays? What happened to all that money?

What about the middle class? Didn't they get some of that too? Is education easier to get or harder to get today than it was in 1980? Does the government spend more or less, per capita, today than it did in 1980?

What about the real estate markets? Is it easier today for folks to own their own home than it was in 1980? Are banks in better financial shape today than they were in 1980? And retirement alternatives -- today versus then. All that deregulation that is so commonly derided ended up fueling the growth of a self-regulating free market in so many things that benefit the average consumer that it can't be measured.

Come up with what you want to, but I lived there and saw it happen. Or, in the case of the extreme accusations, saw that they didn't happen. There was a much larger obsession with greed and abusing regulation in the 1990s than was ever conceived in the Reagan era.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
What about quality of life and national security and stuff like that? You forgot all the "misery index" stuff.

How does that affect income disparity?

If the rich got richer during a period of increased costs due to "misery index" stuff, that would suggest that they had a disproportionally small financial burden for those things?

Or am I missing your point?

[dgs212]

Stephen J. Rose's "Social Stratification in the United States (New York: New Press, 1992), in its analysis of the middle class (i.e. those making between 75 and 125 percent of the median income) shows a dramatic exodus from the middle class ranks in the 1980s as compared with a much smaller exodus starting in 1967 and continuing through till today. This exodus was composed primarily of people going down, rather than up, the class scale, although a few did in fact go up.

I would credit this shrinkage with the rampant unemployment, cuts to social services, and the decrease in real dollar wages for the middle class and lower class that were prevelant during the 80s, a direct result of the Reagan administrations adherence to trickle-down economic theory. Undoubtedly, this royally screwed a great number (perhaps the majority) of working- and middle-class, american, many of whom have yet to recover.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by finboy:

You also might want to explain why The Left often chooses to make personal attacks on those folks that they don't understand and/or agree with.

You've noticed that too, huh?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How does that affect income disparity?

If the rich got richer during a period of increased costs due to "misery index" stuff, that would suggest that they had a disproportionally small financial burden for those things?

Or am I missing your point?

The rich got richer in the '90s too. How do you figure that the '80s were hell on earth?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The rich got richer in the '90s too. How do you figure that the '80s were hell on earth?

Well the topic is Reagan's legacy for starters.

Since you asked, though, I've been saying for a long time that that 90's "boom" was a sham we are only now realizing.

In fact, the disparity in the 90's probably accerated faster than the 80's, but I'm not sure of that. I'm just guessing that the explosion in the top top 1% would have blown the curve, so to speak.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well the topic is Reagan's legacy for starters.

I'm sure you understand the value of seeing that legacy in a histrorical context.

Since you asked, though, I've been saying for a long time that that 90's "boom" was a sham we are only now realizing.

I don't know what this means. It was all smoke and mirrors? No wealth was generated? No new businesses were created? The jobs people had didn't really exist?

In fact, the disparity in the 90's probably accerated faster than the 80's, but I'm not sure of that...

It did.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
I'm sure you understand the value of seeing that legacy in a histrorical context.

I don't know what this means. It was all smoke and mirrors? No wealth was generated? No new businesses were created? The jobs people had didn't really exist?

It did.

Sure, all presidents following Reagan have inheirited a system for which the course has already been largely set. I'm not sure that I would characterize Bush I or Clinton as having vastly different ideas about economic policy. Clinton had different ideas about taxation and spending, but he certainly didn't rock the boat when it came to accelerating disparity.

The 90's "boom" was mostly on paper and affected a much smaller number of people (significantly) than most people wanted us to believe. All those hundreds of thousands of jobs were mostly in low-paying sectors of the economy. Outside of the tech sector, things didn't really change all that much. The illusion was that we were all getting rich in the New Economy, when the reality was that very few people got rich and even fewer people stayed rich.

If you'd like to start a thread on the Clinton economy I'd be happy to particpate in it. Having gone through most of it in the tech sector, I feel I have a pretty good idea of the myths and the facts.

Back on topic in this thread--I made the claim that Reagan's economic policy favored a small minority of people who did very well while everyone else treaded water or went down the drain. finboy asked me to back it up and I feel that I have. Or are we going to say that we must reserve judgement on Reaganomics until some future date?

I'd say the ideas of Trickle-down, supply-side and Voodoo economics have been largely debunked and discredited (even by it's own proponents) in recent years.

What other aspects of the Reagan legacy should we analyze next? I mentioned Central America and the Environment. Anyone want to defend Reagan on those fronts?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Sure, all presidents following Reagan have inheirited a system for which the course has already been largely set...

ALL presidents inherit what their predecessors fashioned. What about the economy Reagan inherited? It's true that Reagan set a new course during his time in office. Thank God. We were in pretty bad shape until he came along.

[dgs212]

Before we move on to the horrors of environmental and foreign policy under Reagan, allow me to touch briefly on his most lasting economic contribution: Reaganomics.

Simply put, Reaganomics was a financial disaster. It's very difficult to assess isolated economic policies in light of:

1) accumulated effects from previous policies
2) the vast complexity of total economic systems, and
3)the way statistics can be manipulated to prove or disprove this or that theory

With that in mind, I'd like to examine one very concrete estimation regarding Reaganomics. The federal defecit.

When Reagan entered office, the total national debt was 1 trillion dollars. This figure includes all the debt run up by since the revolutionary war. When Reagan left office, the defecit had risen to 3.5 trillion dollars. In 8 years, reaganomics more than tripled what had taken over 200 years to accumulate. This very real economic burden is ours to keep until we can pay it off, and bears a significant influence on current expenditures. Why was the debt so dramatically expanded. Reagan's economic policy revolved on the following principles:

Increase in military funding of 181 trillion
decrease in social service programs funding of 140 trillion
190 billion in mostly upper class tax cuts.

the total yields a net loss of 231 billion dollars.

The theory, though, stated that the tax cuts would stimulate corporate investment, nullifying the defecit thus created. Where reagan got this idea, you'd be hard-pressed to figure out, as Department of Commerce figures explicitly outline that priods of lowered corporate taxes (1973-1975 and 1979-1982) yielded steep drops in capital investment and that the sharpest rise in captal investment took place between 1975 and 1979, when corporate taxes where higher than they had been in the preceeding five years. Trickle-down, voodoo, reaganomics; whateer you call it, it didn't work.

Forget the 350,000 people whose Social Security disability benefits were cut. Forget free lunches for one million poor children, for many of whom those lunches constituted half of their dialy nutritional intake. Forget that the ration of CEO earnings to average earnings rose by 135% (from 40:1 to 93:1) between 1980 and 1989. Forget that before-tax income for the top 1% rose 77% (77!!!) while the bottom 40% experienced a slight decrease.

Forget all that. Remember, though, that reaganomics has saddled all of us, our children, and their children with an incredible fiscal burden that even today dictates govenrment income and expense.

[raskol]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
ALL presidents inherit what their predecessors fashioned. What about the economy Reagan inherited? It's true that Reagan set a new course during his time in office. Thank God. We were in pretty bad shape until he came along.

So who's fault is it that the economy was in such bad shape? I assume that you are defending Reagan and blaming Carter? What about Gerald Ford? Richard Nixon?

It is just a massive simplification to blame the administration before for current problems. In fact it is most likely false to say that the President has all that much control over the economy. Case in point: Bush will now engage in an economic front. Just the idea that he is working on the economy will be used as some sort of proof that he is interested in the economy and we will see what happens.

CORPORATIONS CONTROL THE STATE
CORPORATIONS CONTROL THE ECONOMY

We are heading toward a corporate controlled fascist feudalism. Mark my words. The indicators are all there. The warning signs are blaring.

[raskol]

Originally posted by dgs212:

Forget all that. Remember, though, that reaganomics has saddled all of us, our children, and their children with an incredible fiscal burden that even today dictates govenrment income and expense.

The greatest American President!

Add to that what Bush is doing now. The more I think about it the more angry I become.

Who owns history? The upper-class owns history. The people who write it control it. This is a classic case. In the face of all evidence to the contrary Reagan is being idolized. He was a great ACTOR.

[Spliffdaddy]

lots of teenagers speculating about Reagan.

heh.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lots of teenagers speculating about Reagan.

heh.

Way to contribute.

Not to be snarky, but I was alive and cognizant through both reagan terms, although not of voting age.

Regardless, we should be commending people for political skepticism, not belittling them. Or would you prefer blanket approval of all US Presidents, for the glory of Lady America *sheds lone tear* ?

[raskol]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Way to contribute.

dgs212 put spliff on your ignore list. I managed to get a thread locked because I actually responded to him. My bad. He is THE MacNN troll. I know this now.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by raskol:
dgs212 put spliff on your ignore list. I managed to get a thread locked because I actually responded to him. My bad. He is THE MacNN troll. I know this now.

Nah, it seems like the ignore function would make the threads very disjointed, with people resonding to things you can't see. Maybe I don't understand how it works. Basically, though, I just like to read as much as possible.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by raskol:
So who's fault is it that the economy was in such bad shape? I assume that you are defending Reagan and blaming Carter? What about Gerald Ford? Richard Nixon?

I am blaming Carter as well as Nixon and to a lesser extent Ford. Ford didn't serve a full term so I don't hold him as responsible but Nixon's economic policy was just as disastrous as Carter's.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by dgs212:

... With that in mind, I'd like to examine one very concrete estimation regarding Reaganomics. The federal defecit...

Debt is simply a tool. It can be used to buy an expensive car that you really can't afford or it can be used to purchase a home. Debt in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It depends on what the debt is used to purchase. The deficits we ran in the '80s helped to turn around the economy and rebuilt our military. The military spending we did helped to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union. The debt we ran up in the '80s purchased things that were and still are truly valuable to us. And given the size of our economy the increase in our debt was significant but in no way was it even close to crippling.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
I am blaming Carter as well as Nixon and to a lesser extent Ford. Ford didn't serve a full term so I don't hold him as responsible but Nixon's economic policy was just as disastrous as Carter's.

In what way? What did the presidents do that did so much damage to the economy? I have little knowledge in what past US presidents have done, I must admit.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by undotwa:
In what way? What did the presidents do that did so much damage to the economy? I have little knowledge in what past US presidents have done, I must admit.

Nixon was probably the most liberal president of the post-war era but that doesn't fully account for his poor economic policy. Nixonomics was especially benighted because Nixon's policy choices were not made out of conviction but solely to promote his re-election in 1972. As to specifics, two of the most damaging things he did was to impose wage and price controls and to promote a weaker dollar. His tax policy was a hash too.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by raskol:
He was a great ACTOR.

No he wasn't. Olivier was a great actor. Richardson, Guinness, Gielgud were GREAT actors. He was (at best and most generously) a mediocre actor that had the support of a very strong studio system. Even for the times his acting was shallow and unrefined... oh. Wait. This is politics, right? Sorry. I was discussing his actual acting career.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
No he wasn't. Olivier was a great actor. Richardson, Guinness, Gielgud were GREAT actors. He was (at best and most generously) a mediocre actor that had the support of a very strong studio system. Even for the times his acting was shallow and unrefined... oh. Wait. This is politics, right? Sorry. I was discussing his actual acting career.

LOL! well, he was the best actor politics ever put into play.
Unless you count Gopher or Sonny.

[maxelson]

You kidding? Even Fred Thompson was better than Ronny... although neither is worthy of serious note, IMO.

Hm. Something about low rated actors and entertainment industry goons going into politics. Something to research...
Actully, Clint Eastwood rates pretty well in my book. He bucks the trend- but he stayed local- and was a pretty popular mayor, wasn't he?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
You kidding? Even Fred Thompson was better than Ronny... although neither is worthy of serious note, IMO.

Hm. Something about low rated actors and entertainment industry goons going into politics. Something to research...
Actully, Clint Eastwood rates pretty well in my book. He bucks the trend- but he stayed local- and was a pretty popular mayor, wasn't he?

good point! forgot about Thompson.

I think the correlation is you don't have to act all that well since people are so used to being lied to by politicians they supply the willing suspension of disbelief.

[maxelson]

Funny. We were talking about this very thing at rehearsal last night. I said that perhaps I should think about going in to politics. A friend said "Nah. That requires a bad actor. You're too good."
Opening Much Ado next week. Seems... apropos. (Title- not content)

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
You kidding? Even Fred Thompson was better than Ronny... although neither is worthy of serious note, IMO.

Hm. Something about low rated actors and entertainment industry goons going into politics. Something to research...
Actully, Clint Eastwood rates pretty well in my book. He bucks the trend- but he stayed local- and was a pretty popular mayor, wasn't he?

Clint Eastwood is also a card-carrying Libertarian, and a fan of small government.

What I'm replying to point out is that the entertainment/politics street isn't just one-way:

Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, was involved with JFK and LBJ's administrations, before becoming head of the MPAA in 1966. As a side note, he threatened Oliver Stone over Stone's interpretation of history in "JFK."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Clint Eastwood is also a card-carrying Libertarian, and a fan of small government.

What I'm replying to point out is that the entertainment/politics street isn't just one-way:

Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, was involved with JFK and LBJ's administrations, before becoming head of the MPAA in 1966. As a side note, he threatened Oliver Stone over Stone's interpretation of history in "JFK."

umm....hello? we were being politics neutral. I only brought up examples I could think of, its only coincidental they were all republican.

[deedar]

Forget the impact on the economy. How about the escalation of the AIDS epidemic brought about by the Reagan Administration�s callous and mean-spirited ignoring of the developing AIDS crisis of the early 1980s? Bastnards.

[dgs212]

Personally, I think the economy if beyond all hope of being fixed, short of scrapping it and starting over again (not likely), so I'm not really interested in Reagan's effect on it. It's very difficult to measure who did what as it's in essence aggregate.

The US economy, in the abstract, is of limited debatable worth. it does, however play a big part in dictating domestic policies so it should not be overlooked (as I noted above with a slew of information regarding how many americans were screwed over by reaganomics).

The social effects are evident. Homelessness went up, aid to the poor went down, unemployment went up. I suppose, though, that one could argue that these are good things as they all point to lower inflation, lower interest rates, and higher tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. If you were already well-off, no doubt the second set of effects were the sum total of reagan's policies as you experienced them. It depends on whether you're looking out for your own interests or you have a broader outlook. If you did well under reagan's economic and domestic policies, chances are you're not complaining. You could notice the disparity between your own situation and the situation of those below you on the class scale and wonder why they did so poorly and you did so well. That would be a good first step towards honesty. Or you could ignore them and conclude that as long as you're doing okay, it doesn't matter what happens to anyone else. I can guarantee you, though, that the people who did poorly under reagan are bitterly aware of their own situation and the situation of those above them, classwise.

note: this is directed at no one in particular. it is general "you."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deedar:
Forget the impact on the economy. How about the escalation of the AIDS epidemic brought about by the Reagan Administration�s callous and mean-spirited ignoring of the developing AIDS crisis of the early 1980s? Bastnards.

AIDS has roughly a ten year incubation rate. The AIDS crisis of the early 1980s had its origins in the early 1970s. It also had virtually nothing to do with the federal government, or for that matter, government at any level. The transmission factors were private in nature - unsafe sex (which, of course, nobody knew at the time), promiscuity, IV drug use.

What Reagan did was duck the issue. That's maybe cowardly, but it doesn't make him the monster people like to pretend. For one thing, I'm not sure Carter would have done much different had he been reelected. Jimmy Carter had a pretty awful record on gay issues as president.