Reagan and today

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A speech before he became president combined with a bunch of idiotic
current leftist garbage.
No one ever stepped in to try to fill his shoes, if anyone could.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, I'm sentimental. Another!

[Guest Letereat!]

Thanks 6.8 AR. I needed something to strengthen my resolve. Makes me dislike Nancy, Barney and their peers even more vehemently.

[greenego]

The question is who will step up? Who will take on the Washington elite without becoming one of them?

[Sidinman]

The question is who will step up? Who will take on the Washington elite without becoming one of them?

I don't think that is even possible.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The answer is believing in our country. He reminded us of that shining city on the

hill John Winthrop spoke of. He reminded us of the ones who fought for the rights

we share today. He reminded us to believe in ourselves. He brought this country back

together in the face of an adverse media. When they worked against him, he side-

stepped the media and went directly to the people with his message. He left us with

more than he started with, and reminded us to do the same. I could go on and on.

There hasn't been another more inspirational and passionate US President, since

the founders. There may never be, but he put enough wind in the sails, if people pay

attention to what he said, to right the wrongs in our country.

[greenego]

I don't think that is even possible.

You may be right. When the republicans gained control of congress it only took a couple of years for them to fall in the same patten as the the ones they replaced. Now a lot of people believe the upcoming election will some how be different. The republicans will regain control of congress and follow Regan's philosophy. The hope and change we need are rational leaders willing to do what it takes the get the country back on track. I do not see anyone as dynamic or with the vision of Reagan in the current crop of candidates.

[mcurrier]

I don't think that is even possible.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

The question is who will step up? Who will take on the Washington elite without becoming one of them?

Ron Paul. Rumor has it that he will run in 2012.

[Guest HvyMtl]

"For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but only for a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today."

--President Reagan, in his inaugural address, January 20, 1981

NOTE: He talked the talk, but did not walk the walk - Under Reagan, the national debt would nearly triple to $2.9 trillion.

I think people forget, he was the originator of tax cut and spend, which is what people point to as the failure of both Bush Sr. and Jr.'s version of "conservatism."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think he walked the walk better than you will admit. If you will recall he had a

democrat congress, headed by Tom Foley, who gave Reagan what he wanted,

sometimes, but only when Foley got to keep spending. Two party extortion, if

you will. He also reversed a trend, left by Carter and maybe Ford administrations,

that left our economy more able to pay the debt.

Since your next move will be probably be to say something like Clinton had a

budget surplus, it was only because of the same two party extortion that was used

against Clinton. A Clinton, unchecked, would have gone wild spending on social

programs and gifts to foreign countries. Maybe they cancel each other out,

but the policies under Reagan allowed that surplus to happen. It was in no part due

to Clinton. I'll take your numbers as gospel, as they are becoming irrelevant to the

ones being accumulated today.

There were a couple more House Speakers that took advantage of Reagan's goals.

Jim Wright. Forgot the other one. Remember, appropriations bills start in the House.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ron Paul. Rumor has it that he will run in 2012.

I'd take Ron Paul as President. I wish I learned more about the man a lot earlier.

[greenego]

Ron Paul. Rumor has it that he will run in 2012.

I did see a Ron Paul in 2012 bumper sticker a couple of weeks ago. I have read things he has written off and on since the late 70s. Always made a lot of sense, but out of the main stream. Last election media tried to made his supporters out to be a little crazy. I am hoping he will run again.

[Mike.357]

I was never a big fan of Ronnie. He was a decent actor and I could never tell while in office if he was acting or working from the heart.

As far as greatness, I think he is compared to those who served in the years right before and since. Not much there to compare too. I do not see him as this great conservative icon that I always hear about.

I would vote for him now. There is not much out there right now any better.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Actually, the Senate was Republican and the Democrats held the House during most of Ronnie's reign. (First time in decades the Republicans held the Senate...)

Ironically, if you look at the budgets proposed during the Reagan Era, Congress granted him LESS than what he proposed per budget...

What he did do right was he went with the idea the Soviet Union did not have the economy to support a huge military. So increasing defense spending would pressure the Soviet Union to try and keep up. This was successful, wildly so, and ended the Soviet Union.

Grenada was also handled correctly (we came in, kicked the Cubans out, then left, quickly) This is why Americans are loved by the population there...

Mike is right, in the aspect Reagan stood out due to the poor Presidents around him. Nixon resigned. Ford was a place holder, Carter was in too deep, Bush Sr squandered a 97% approval rating, Clinton was not the Superman the Dems play him out to be and dont get me started on Dubya...

Edited August 24, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest mosinon]

I heard a story, probably apocryphal, that Ronnie once told his barber that he came to Washington to do three things: Cut taxes, reduce the size of Federal Government, and to strengthen defense. He then said: "Well, two out of three ain't bad"

It is probably horse puckey but it is a little telling. Reducing the size of government is hard. Elected officials versus hired folks. You get eight years, they get 40 or whatever. It is a hard thing to do.

I do recall when when everyone said Reagan was spending us into oblivion but I also recall the surpluses of the Clinton years. Seems like it could've worked out (I think the US would have been debtless in 2010 according to some projections) but then the George got elected and, well, he was not good.

The thing about conservative government and taxes is that you don't tax less just to tax less. You tax less because the government does less and doesn't require the same amount of dough. In other words, the only thing worse than tax and spend is cut taxes and spend. Somehow that seems to have become a central policy of the Republicans. The solution to everything is a tax cut but there are no spending cuts.

To my way of thinking it would be preferable to keep taxes the same, cut a bunch of spending and get the debt to zero.

But people will never go for that, ever. Try to cut military, medicare or Social Security and see how many votes you get. Everyone wants to blame the politicians but they are out there doing just what you want, telling you what you want to hear. The guy who tells you what you want to hear the best wins.

Side note: Looks like TARP is going to be profitable. So when the economy recovers will Bush get half the credit?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's doubtful.

[tnhawk]

I did see a Ron Paul in 2012 bumper sticker a couple of weeks ago. I have read things he has written off and on since the late 70s. Always made a lot of sense, but out of the main stream. Last election media tried to made his supporters out to be a little crazy. I am hoping he will run again.

As many are tired of both the Rep. and Dem. parties, it appears that Ron Paul is gaining the support necessary for another campaign.

[greenego]

As many are tired of both the Rep. and Dem. parties, it appears that Ron Paul is gaining the support necessary for another campaign.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate when daddy Bush ran the first time. I voted for him because i didn't think daddy Bush would carry on with Reagan's policies. Reagan's biggest failure was running up the deficit, mostly on military spending. A lot of people would say this wasn't all bad. Two of the biggest things he did was bring down inflation and restore the country's pride.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A sad day but with so many truths:

YouTube - Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address

Dolomite

[BryanP]

Ron Paul. Rumor has it that he will run in 2012.

If he somehow managed to win he'd be assuming office at the same age Reagan was when he retired (78). I don't see it happening.

[StPatrick]

As much as I appreciate the libertarian influence in politics (as they are forcing the Reps towards more traditionally conservative fiscal positions, and also allowing political space for more personal choices that would have been considere dheresy in 1994), the "big L" libertarians are not now, and will never be, a serious political force until they can find a platform that resonates with adult voters.

Legal weed, the gold standard, and a complete non-interventionist military foreign policy, combined with unfettered free trade (which I support in principle, but cannot accept when other states act aggressively against our own interests - ignoring sanctions, etc.) cannot get to 50% and elect a president. I much prefer traditional classical liberal principles being injected into the already existing Republican party; the current economic situation allows us to avoid the culture wars and come together on common issues such as growth, taxation, and regulation. Goldwater 2012?