Reagan and Fbook
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=187695
Printed Date: 14 March 2026 at 10:28pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Reagan and Fbook
Posted By: Glassjaw
Subject: Reagan and Fbook
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 10:17am
|
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/02/06/the-disastrous-legacy-of-ronald-reagan-in-charts/ - http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/02/06/the-disastrous-legacy-of-ronald-reagan-in-charts/
Someone posted this on Fbook, and thought it might stir some nice discussion here. TL;DR: Reagan was a fail.
------------- |
Replies:
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 10:32am
| An interesting book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man suggests that several of things in your article were set in motion long before Reagan's presidency. |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 10:34am
To be truthful I'm not that well versed in the topics discussed in my article, but I am aware of them. I'll check your book out though. ------------- |
Shub wrote:Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 11:29am
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 12:00pm
I'll leave this here:  |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 7:01pm
|
Awfully kind of you whale, but I can't see anything.
------------- 
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 7:17pm
|
Way to fail at image, whale. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 7:42pm
|
I always considered Reagan an overrated President and Nixon an underrated president. ------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 9:14pm
|
Star Wars was the shizzle. It essentially kept the Soviets coming back to the conference table time after time because the mere concept of us having something that threw the MAD concept out of whack like orbital interception did simply scared the living jebus out of them. While it never made it to fruition, it not only kept Gorby from pulling a Kruschev and walking away from talks, it helped bankrupt the USSR in their attempts to come up with a counter. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: MeanMan
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 9:21pm
|
Ill have to re-read the paper I wrote on how Reagan was one of the top presidents. Quite a few people in the class did Reagan. ------------- 
hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives." |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 08 February 2011 at 11:47pm
|
The article makes it pretty clear it's not exactly unbiased. Still, pretty interesting to see the figured presented in the graphs. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 09 February 2011 at 12:18am
Reagan had his positives, but they were usually the policies of his predecessors as well or they contradicted the traditional conservative values (especially his supposed hardline anti-communist stance) that he campaigned on. I liked his actual foreign policies, but he shouldn't be considered the beacon of conservatism that he is. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 09 February 2011 at 1:23am
|
I wasnt a fan of his lassiez-faire economics. It essentially made the rich richer and the poor poorer (golly gee), while hardline conservatives touted it as being close to perfect. Whereas Nixon's freezing of wages and prices avoided a mid seventies recession. -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 09 February 2011 at 1:43am
I can get behind this. Nixon and Kissenger were definitely worth having, and I would argue that they started the end of the Cold War while making it acceptable to "lose" (quotations because Vietnam was lost as soon as China went nuclear and, to a significant extent, the US chose to support Diem in the south) Vietnam.
Between his domestic policies, outspoken hard-line conservatism paired with his unwillingness to actually follow through with the policies that followed from his positions, and his (ridiculously effective) public relations campaign that essentially started the anti-intellectualism movement, I feel like he was easily one of the worst presidents of the 20th century. Like I said, he had his ups, but calling him one of our best presidents would require a bunch of intellectual leaps that I don't think can be justified. And I wish that site would actually hotlink to the full-size graphs. It sucks not being able to see the fine print on some of them. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 09 February 2011 at 7:07am
|
So, for those who think Nixon was a paragon of excellence, I pose this question. If he hadn't opened trade relations in the manner that he did, do you think we'd be facing the horrible trade deficit we do right now? ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 09 February 2011 at 6:20pm
The Nixon thing kind of baffles me. I see Nixon now being praised in circles all over, yet unless my grasp of history is entirely misled, he was a paranoid delusional who was determined that the president of the Unted States was above law and ethics.
History may look more kindly on his foreign policies, but domestically he was a nightmare.
As far as Reagan, I think he's pulled too far in both directions. He set some questionable policies into play, no doubt about that, but he did what he felt was right for the time. That's all any president can do, and I'm not sure he or anyone else would have predicted the nightmares that deregulation would be produce.
|
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 09 February 2011 at 8:54pm
|
Without Nixon there would be no EPA and with no EPA there would be no sunshine and bunny rabbits
to roast alive with my giant lens out of a projection TV. ------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
Posted By: Mitpeel
Date Posted: 10 February 2011 at 10:26pm
|
I think everybody on this thread has established some good points on Reagan's positive and negative attributes. As history lays its eyes on every President its hard to argue that he had some major impacts on foreign and domestic policy that lead to the fall of the Soviet Empire and the largest economic boom in our country's history as well as put us back in the driver's seat as the lone world super power. Now I am sure people will say that is starting to wither.....but whose fault is that now. I am sure if he could come back from the grave and help us, he would. But our country is in our hands now. Lets return to the basics of self reliance, good ctitzenship,take responsibility and do the right thing for us and our neighbors. God Bless America!! ------------- All work and no play makes a dull old man!! Project Salvo Response Trigger Cyclone hopper 14" J&J Cermamic Barrel |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 February 2011 at 12:43am
The counterpoint for consideration there is that by the time Reagan was in charge, the Soviet Union was already in decline, and the end was near eventually anyway.
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 11 February 2011 at 1:30am
FTFY. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 11 February 2011 at 1:43am
------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 11 February 2011 at 9:47am
Decline, yes. To the point of dissolving within the next decade? No. I know you're studying quite a bit and thus, have a ton of reading on your plate. I would suggest however, picking up David Remnick's "Lenin's Tomb" and giving it a read. He was posted in Moscow during the final decades of the Soviet Empire and tells the story from the inside. Gorby didn't necessarily want to continue to play the "keep up with America" game when it came to military spending and projects, but Reagan essentially pushed hard enough in strategic places that he was forced to. That lead to poor allocation which in turn lead to there simply not being enough of anything to go around. Had Reagan not challenged Gorbachev in the manner that he did, the USSR would have been able to recoup and push on for at least another 20-30 years. In fact, if the economic and social reforms that Gorby started at the end had been put in place a few years earlier, the USSR would probably be as stable as China, if not as wealthy. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |