This is absolutley a debate: The Reagan Presidency.

[Lisa F]

he comment was tongue in cheek. My point was that if the worst things you can find to say about a 93 year life has to do with condiments, that person is doing a heck of a lot better than most people in this world.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Lisa F
The comment was tongue in cheek. My point was that if the worst things you can find to say about a 93 year life has to do with condiments, that person is doing a heck of a lot better than most people in this world.

Bingo on that, LisaF!

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I found this comment particularly juvenile and obnoxious ... especially given the fact that Mr. Reagan has not been interred yet.

"Originally posted by Son of the Morning
I threw my dirt on him before he was put in the ground."

I don't think I took that statement the same way you did. I thought SOTM meant he should not be accused of saying something bad about the dead, because he had said the same things when they were alive.

 

[JimB.]

Back to the OP (sort of).............

I think history will judge President Reagan very favorably.

I did not agree with everything he said or did (not even close), but I DID vote for him twice.

A lot of what he accomplished are "intangible" & not easily measure quantitatively.

HE is responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union & the end of the Cold War. It is important to note that he did it by SPENDING the SU into the poorhouse. Hence, a significant portion of the 80's deficits.

In 1980, did anyone on this board ever even consider the fall of the Iron Curtain with your LIFETIME, let alone 9 years? It was primarily due to the steadfastness of President Reagan.

The man simply did not waver in his principals, regardless of the issue, regardless of the public outcry.

The democrats HATED him because he was able to push his agenda through, in spite of a democratic majority in Congress by "going over their heads" and appealling directly to the American Public.

Not too concentrate on a single issue, but a previous poster stated:

Oh, and as far as your revisionist history, you largely ignore all facts. In 1984 Edward Brandt, the assistant secretary for health, asked for $55 million dollars for R&D pertaining to a blood test, a vaccine, and a cure. Reagan funded $51 million with many restrictions. After much media coverage of the progression of the disease (thankfully due to groups such as ACT UP) budgets were expanded. But, in in 1985 the Reagan administration sought to reduce funding.

But the following is a record of Reagan's "AIDS Spending"

Government Spending on HIV/AIDS

Fiscal Year/ ($ Millions) / % growth over previous year

1982/ 8/
1983 / 44/ 450.00%
1984 / 103/ 134.09%
1985 / 205 / 99.03%
1986 / 508 / 147.80%
1987 / 922 / 81.50%
1988 / 1,615 / 75.16%
1989 // 2,322 / 43.78%

Total 5,727

No comments, just let it speak for itself.


Rest in Peace, Mr. President. Ya' did good. For America & the World.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Sorry folks, ketchup still does not meet the requirements of a serving of vegetables.
It has already been pointed out on this thread that this was someone else's suggestion, was never seriously considered, and was never said by RWR, nor was it a policy of his administration. This is a red herring, I do not understand why you continue to bring it up.

The deficit thing is inaccurate? Do numbers lie? Reagan accumulated the largest deficit in history! Of course w is trying with all of his might to wrestle that record from him. Oh yes, the original and tired republican argument. [In a whiney voice] But Congress passed the bills. It's not Reagan’s fault. [End of whiney voice.]

Please. That argument is nothing more than a joke. As stated before, it was Reagan’s policies that caused the deficit to explode exponentially. (Well, close to it anyway. ) He is the one responsible.
I ask this sincerely, I do not know the answer, is his deficit the largest by raw numbers, number adjusted for inflation, or percentage of GDP? IMHO, this makes a very important difference. Regardless, the budget is a result of compromise, Reagan gets half the credit/blame with Congress--just as Clinton shares the blame/credit for balancing the budget. Just because it is inconvenient to you political stance doesn't negate it's truth.

His tax cuts favored the disproportionately favored the wealthy. Although, we must give him some credit for shifting some of the tax burden back onto corporations.
Conceded. Two points however: 1. The rich pay more taxes, they will get a larger percentage of any tax cut simply because the numbers involved are larger. 2. You can disagree with his approach but he did have the poor in mind. His theory was that a rising tide floats all ships. If the overall economy grows, more jobs will be created, wages will increase, and the dollar amounts of taxes collected will increase. All of this in fact resulted from his tax policy. The deficit grew, but not as a result of his tax cuts, because they resulted in INCREASED REVENUE.

Oh, and as far as your revisionist history, you largely ignore all facts. In 1984 Edward Brandt, the assistant secretary for health, asked for $55 million dollars for R&D pertaining to a blood test, a vaccine, and a cure. Reagan funded $51 million with many restrictions. After much media coverage of the progression of the disease (thankfully due to groups such as ACT UP) budgets were expanded. But, in in 1985 the Reagan administration sought to reduce funding.
I concede these facts. Do you concede the facts posted earlier, that he heavily increased the funding for AIDS research in his first year, and that this funding doubled every year he was in office? You are arguing that his INCREASE in one year wasn't big enough, and that he proposed a reduction one year that did not in fact occur. What's more, you are here arguing he should have spent more money after pages of vilifying him for overspending! It seems you don't mind deficits when the program hits close to home.

 

[Galahad]

In 1980, did anyone on this board ever even consider the fall of the Iron Curtain with your LIFETIME,

DW and I were musing last night that there are way too many people today that neither see the fall of the Iron Curtain a particularly big deal....and further, who even understand that communism is/was evil and needs/needed to be defeated just as fascism needed to be defeated and what it will mean to the world to get rid of it.

 

[Patch'sD]

Here, Here, Jim B Well put. Thank you

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Pete's Mom
I remember being around 12 or 13 and laying in bed at night scared to death that the Soviets were going to nuke us and wondering if I was going to wake up in the morning. I can't imagine feeling the same way by just "reading or studying" it more than 20 years later.

Can you honestly say that 20 or more years from now that a new generation will be able to fully understand the impact of 09/11 as we feel it now?

Exactly. Reading about a historic event can never have the same impact as experiencing it first hand.

The school drills example is perfect. I recall my grade school and sitting with my back against the wall feeling absolutely protected by the seemingly endless think brick walls. Looking back now, that building seems a lot less imposing as I recall it then and the idea of a building protecting us from a nuclear blast is absurd at best. And don't get me started on the drills that had us hiding under our desks with our backsides facing floor to ceiling glass windows.

 

[Chicago526]

I was 4 when he took office, and 12 when he left. I don't know why, since I was so young, but I never liked the man. I never believed a word that came out of his mouth! I grew up in a Republican household, so my parents didn't influance me, either. As an adult, I'm a moderate Democrat.

That said, I've always felt that even though his policies (IMHO) were wrong (and sometimes VERY wrong), he had nothing but the best interests of this country at heart. And that, at least, I can respect him for.

As for Nancy, while I do sympathize (it's never easy to watch a loved one be sick for so long), I don't find her the "hero" so many others do for watching over her husband for ten years. She had the best medical help money could buy. Unlike most spouses of Altzheimer patients, she wasn't changing Ronnie's diapers or giving him sponge baths, or "baby prooffing" the house. She was able to have others do that for her. Nothing wrong with that if you have the means, of course. But she didn't have even close to half the struggle with this as many, many other people do.

Anyway, as Dennis Miller would say, that's my opinon, I could be wrong!

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Chicago526
As for Nancy, while I do sympathize (it's never easy to watch a loved one be sick for so long), I don't find her the "hero" so many others do for watching over her husband for ten years. She had the best medical help money could buy. Unlike most spouses of Altzheimer patients, she wasn't changing Ronnie's diapers or giving him sponge baths, or "baby prooffing" the house. She was able to have others do that for her. Nothing wrong with that if you have the means, of course. But she didn't have even close to half the struggle with this as many, many other people do.

I find that extremely offensive. How do you measure one's sacrifice? Aftre having watched my mother deal with myfather dying after only a two month hospitalization, I can imagine the strain that Nancy must have dealt with after watching her husband waste away for 10 years. The presence or absence of help does not lessen the pain and a person's economic status makes them no less immune to the devastation of losing a loved one.

 

[Chicago526]

gometros,

I'm sorry for your family's loss. But please try reading the whole post, thanks.

I know several people who believe Nancy walks on water for standing by her husband while he was sick, and for her fundraising and awarness efforts. And that's wonderful, don't get me wrong. But to me, the real heros of Altzheimers and other degenerative illnesses are the spouse/family members who are the primary caregivers who don't get much (if any) help, and who don't get their picture in the paper or bookings on Larry King Live.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Chicago526
gometros,

I'm sorry for your family's loss. But please try reading the whole post, thanks.

I know several people who believe Nancy walks on water for standing by her husband while he was sick, and for her fundraising and awarness efforts. And that's wonderful, don't get me wrong. But to me, the real heros of Altzheimers and other degenerative illnesses are the spouse/family members who are the primary caregivers who don't get much (if any) help, and who don't get their picture in the paper or bookings on Larry King Live.

I don't think that loss, pain or suffering can actually be quantified. It serves no purpose to say that "A" 's situation is worse than "B"'s and that money can sooth the pain. Nancy had the money to send President Reagan anywhere she wanted to. She kept him home and stayed there with him. She deserves credit and support for all of that, as do all of the families that struggle with this illness.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by jimmiej
I'm sure you're aware govt. revenues increased after the Reagan tax cuts. Where did all that extra $$$ go? If you say to the military, I would say it was worth it to defeat the Soviets. A look back shows a mostly Democratic-controlled congress overspent.

Government revenues increased after the Reagan tax cuts because Reagan signed "revenue enhancements" in five out of the eight years he was in office. Although I didn't agree with many of President Reagan's priorities, I admire the fact that he didn't let his ideology get in the way of doing what was right for the country. That meant raising taxes when the deficit began to choke the economy.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Chicago526
gometros,

I'm sorry for your family's loss. But please try reading the whole post, thanks.

I know several people who believe Nancy walks on water for standing by her husband while he was sick, and for her fundraising and awarness efforts. And that's wonderful, don't get me wrong. But to me, the real heros of Altzheimers and other degenerative illnesses are the spouse/family members who are the primary caregivers who don't get much (if any) help, and who don't get their picture in the paper or bookings on Larry King Live.

I did read the post and my reply still stands. Dawn's reply says all that I could have said on that matter.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Originally posted by Chicago526
gometros,

I'm sorry for your family's loss. But please try reading the whole post, thanks.

What more was there to read in your post that had to do with this subject...NOTHING that's what.

I watched my dad suffer and die with cancer. I watched my mom try to deal with it the best she could. We had help, but that did not make her or my pain any less. That is just sick that you would even say such a thing.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Chicago526
As for Nancy, while I do sympathize (it's never easy to watch a loved one be sick for so long), I don't find her the "hero" so many others do for watching over her husband for ten years. She had the best medical help money could buy. Unlike most spouses of Altzheimer patients, she wasn't changing Ronnie's diapers or giving him sponge baths, or "baby prooffing" the house. She was able to have others do that for her. Nothing wrong with that if you have the means, of course. But she didn't have even close to half the struggle with this as many, many other people do.

Anyway, as Dennis Miller would say, that's my opinon, I could be wrong!

This is so offensive on so many levels. Unless you were living with the Reagans for the past 10 years, you have no clue what Mrs. Reagan went through. The fact that she could afford the best medical care is a blessing, not something to berate her about. It does not decrease the struggle she had, watching her husband slowly slip away day after day.

I was fortunate that when my dad's Alzheimer's became so bad that he could no longer live at home we were able to put him in a caring, structured environment to live. He came to love the place, his fellow residents and many of the staff. For us, it was a financial struggle to make ends meet, but we managed. The fact that we were not caring for him 24/7 did not lessen our struggle or pain as we watched him slowly walk into his sunset. When his end came on 02/25/04, we, like Mrs. Reagan, were relieved that his suffering was over, but also devastated at our loss.

There is no way to measure the pain and suffering any person has and I think it is simply wrong to imply or state that one person's suffering or pain is less than someone else's simply because of their financial situation. Unless you know the individual and their situation intimately, you have no idea what is going on in their life.

 

[cati]

Sorry, I totally disagree with you. I thought President Reagan was a wonderful President.

 

[N.Bailey]

It was because Reagan had built the military up that we won the 1st Gulf War so easily too.

I was too young to ever vote for Reagan, but I do remember the feelings the country had towards the Soviet Union. No one will ever be able to understand that, no matter how hard they may try. Maybe it's because I'm older, but I don't fear the terrorists as much as I feared the Soviets.

As for the tax cuts, you don't have to agree with Reaganomics, but those figures talk for themselves.

 

[jenfur]

I was too young to really care how Reagan's policies effected me, but he seemed like a nice guy who loved this country. I also know when people die, nobody at the funeral or talking about him/her in public decides to list all of their wrong-doings even IF they did it daily when the person was alive. I also know some people don't really have good manners anymore.

As for people who think this is a great time to talk about revisionist history and how if we show respect for a dead man for a week or so the world will become completely ingnorant about the 80's (by the way, which week caused their ignorance?) others without proper manners will be sure to remind them of their opinions when President Carter passes.

 

[Catzeyes]

Count me in as another one who thinks he was a great President.