What Would Reagan Have Done?

[quote]slimjim wrote:
haney wrote:

The economy suffered for several reasons, many of them being inherited problems from his predecessor.

Let me see if I understand this line of reasoning. I’m taking some of this from previous posts on different threads by different posters, not all from this one post.

The economy during Reagan’s years was fucked because of his predecessor. Then Clinton enjoyed the benefit of a strong economy because of his predecessor. Now the economy is suffering during Bush’s presidency because of Clinton? And you guys accuse the liberals of playing the blame game.[/quote]

Well you do the research, and tell me what was inflation from 1978 to 1982.

As for the late 90’s That from many factors. One of them being a poor economic policy. The biggest factor is a recession that was brought on by a tech bubble that busted. Factor in 9/11, and a few other issues can make a rough economy.

No blame game really just kind of the hands that have been dealt. The question is what do you do with what you were handed?

[quote]haney wrote:
WMD wrote:
haney wrote:
Your right that ending the cold war thing had nothing to do with Reagan.

Not that the cold war was essentially unsustainable or anything. Nope it was all about Reagan. Where’s my Ronald Reagan superhero doll?

I am sure you remember Senate and Congress pushing for us to dismantle weapons, or Europe wanting us to make pacts to dismantle. If we had started a dismantling of our weapons like all of Reagans opponents wanted us to do, do you think communism would of still fell?

Russia would have had just had to maintain. Which would certainly give them a chance to build capital for a later date. Oh but you knew that right?

So technically it was sustainable if Reagan did nothing. You guys should really try to remember your political climates from the era of when they were happening.[/quote]

I spent most of my years in the service during the Reagan era. We (in the Army anyway) knew then that the Cold War would have to come to an end. Russia did not have the economic resources to sustain itself or the Cold War. Communism (at least the Soviet model of it) was going to collapse any way. They just did not have the right kind of economic and political apparatus in place.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
WMD wrote:
The Bush administration has told any country desiring American money to fight their AIDS non-crisis that they cannot distribute condoms as part of their programs.

And… who cares? Sorry, not our problem. I don’t agree with the principle (of not allowing condoms to be distributed), but I really am not too upset about whatever money is or is not being sent to Africa. African countries have willfully resisted AIDS education for years, and have refused to use condoms when provided.

I see that you have a truly profound understanding of the problems faced in Africa regarding reproductive rights and education and the status of women there as well. I’m sure you also think they have plenty of food and money to go around, too.
WMD

Where did I mention anything about the status of women in African countries? Why would we want to fund countries that practice genital mutilations, by the way? Plenty of food and money? Well, they might be a little better off if the regimes weren’t so thoroughly corrupt that humanitarian aid can’t even reach the people.
Africa is just a pecuniary black-hole. WMD, you seem to think that the solution to these problems is just to give, give, give. Well, feel free to give out of your paycheck.

As for me, I’d like to stay out of fights that I know are unwinnable… and that’s what virtually all African politics seems to be.[/quote]

Nope, never said to put good money after bad. You made that up. I also never said to keep giving money to corrupt governments. There other ways it could be done. Many creative solutions are being used in other places. The only reason to give money to countries that practice genital mutilation would be to provide education and opportunity to women so that they begin to have economic power which will lead to political power. The attitudes towards sex, reproductive rights and women are all part of the AIDS problem in Africa.

I guess I’m just an old softie when I see women and children and even men dying horribly and the rest of the world standing by doing nothing. Good luck with your standing aside while others die. Karma is a bitch.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
WMD wrote:
nephorm wrote:
If there were an obesity “epidemic” sweeping through, say, the US…

IF?

Obviously you didn’t detect my subtle irony, there.
[/quote]

You need more practice…

[quote]WMD wrote:
haney wrote:
WMD wrote:
haney wrote:
Your right that ending the cold war thing had nothing to do with Reagan.

Not that the cold war was essentially unsustainable or anything. Nope it was all about Reagan. Where’s my Ronald Reagan superhero doll?

I am sure you remember Senate and Congress pushing for us to dismantle weapons, or Europe wanting us to make pacts to dismantle. If we had started a dismantling of our weapons like all of Reagans opponents wanted us to do, do you think communism would of still fell?

Russia would have had just had to maintain. Which would certainly give them a chance to build capital for a later date. Oh but you knew that right?

So technically it was sustainable if Reagan did nothing. You guys should really try to remember your political climates from the era of when they were happening.

I spent most of my years in the service during the Reagan era. We (in the Army anyway) knew then that the Cold War would have to come to an end. Russia did not have the economic resources to sustain itself or the Cold War. Communism (at least the Soviet model of it) was going to collapse any way. They just did not have the right kind of economic and political apparatus in place.[/quote]

Well then tell me if Reagan had not incresed spending would it still have had the pressure on it that forced it to colapse as quickly as it did?

Your perspective would carry more weight if it was during carters administration, rather than Reagan’s, but I am willing to hear more.

[quote]WMD wrote:
I guess I’m just an old softie when I see women and children and even men dying horribly and the rest of the world standing by doing nothing. Good luck with your standing aside while others die. Karma is a bitch.[/quote]

Karma really has nothing to do with it. I’m sympathetic to the problem and the people. I’m not arrogant enough to think I’ve found a solution, either… which is why I’d rather put money to use in other ways. By the way, I wasn’t even writing about African aid in my original post on this topic… this is a part of our government’s foreign policy, and is an entirely different issue from how money is spent, domestically, in research to cure various diseases. I think the American people were duped into thinking that AIDS (in America) was an epidemic, when it was actually confined to a relatively small population… a population that was capable of protecting itself through a little education, without the need for billions of dollars of AIDS research. Doctors have come out since, and have said “Yeah, we overstated the risks, since it was politically expedient.” That seems wrong to me. And it seems wrong to me that other, non-preventable illnesses lost funding or went by the wayside because it was politically expedient. I guess I’m just funny that way.

Neph,

I don’t think we get to decide what gets researched in that way.

Basically, there are many things that should be researched today, but are not, because there is no money in performing the research.

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable for having your own criteria for deciding on the research priorities.

However, at the time, before we learned more about AIDS, nobody knew it wasn’t going to be a big problem. I think you are complaining about the fact that people acted proactively to stave off what could have been just about the deadliest epidemic ever.

Because, yes, while preventable, you have to be honest and realize that people have always engaged in various practices, whether straight or gay, that put themselves at risk.

Facing that, it isn’t appropriate to blame the victim, though yes, the victim can blame themselves for not paying attention. It is in fact the job of the government to protect its citizens from threat – and it was perceived to be a threat whether or not people could choose to abstain or otherwise avoid it.

Again, I think it is only hindsight that lets up determine it wasn’t as big an issue as it was trumped up to be.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Neph,

I don’t think we get to decide what gets researched in that way.
[/quote]

But we do, when we donate lots of money and put pressure on the government to subsidize certain research.

My point exactly.

That isn’t quite true. Doctors and researchers already knew quite a bit about AIDS, and knew that the risks were being overstated. It was politically expedient for them to lie, so many of them did. Now it has become “gee, AIDS isn’t really that much of a risk when engaging in normal heterosexual sex, and it really wasn’t spreading into the heterosexual population like we said it was, and we did lie, but all’s well that ends well, right?”

And I can “blame” them for not paying attention, too… more importantly, I should not subsidize their mistakes.

Who perceived it as a threat, and why did they perceive it as such? We obviously will disagree about the role of government in protecting citizens from themselves.

[quote]
Again, I think it is only hindsight that lets up determine it wasn’t as big an issue as it was trumped up to be.[/quote]

And the admission of doctors after the fact.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
He probably would have illegally sold arms to Iran, ignored the exloding AIDS crisis, and helped widen the gap between the rich and the poor through poorly-thought-out economic strategies.

So, you’d want Carter back, with 14% interest rates, an oil embargo, rampant inflation? You’d want that cluster-fuck in the desert when they tried to save the hostages? And here’s some news: inflation and high interest rates hurt poor people a lot more than the wealthy – they widen the gap a lot more than what you think were ‘poorly-thought-out econ strategies’. Where do you think the boom from 1983 to 2000 came from?

Oh yeah, it was that stupid swine from Arkansas!
AIDs Crisis? – Who in the hell could stop anything like that? How do you stop homos from screwing each other in a San Francisco bath house? Crock!

I’d show you to be a moron point-by-point, but I believe your “homos screwing each other…” comment did my job for me.

[/quote]

LOL. Burned.

What would Reagan do?

He would do what the lobbyists and corporations who paid for his election told him to do, just like almost every politician has for decades and decades. Reagan and Clinton had little to do with the economic boom of the 90’s. Bush’s tax cuts are directly responsible for increased poverty rates and a lack of wage growth. This has been cited by numerous organizations, both partisan and non.

What AIDS crisis? Are you kidding? Do you understand that for most of the 90’s, heterosexuals were a more at risk group than homosexuals? Have you seen the devastation AIDS is creating in Africa? Have you seen the statistics of pregnancy and STD’s for “abstinence-based” educated youth? How many times have you had unprotected sex with someone? When was the last time you had an HIV test? Never? That would be the average. Stop homo’s from screwing each other in a bathhouse? If you really think AIDS is still confined to the homosexual population, I fear for your health.

The article link at the bottom of this post is a copy of a speech by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It is long, that is a fact. You will probably not agree with everything it says, regardless of your leanings politically. I believe it says many things that need to be heard by everyone. As many of you know, in lifting we can sometimes peak and cease growing. In order to continue to grow stronger, we have to try out different lifts, stretch ourselves. Note Dan John’s talk of wide experience.

I fully believe this is true for mental strength as well. As a Renegade, it is a firm belief of mine that strength comes from operating in chaotic environments that we may not like, that adversity breeds resilience and power. I try to engage people of opposing political views often, so that I hear different opinions. No one ever has the full story or all the facts when it comes to something as complex as modern American society.

Take the time to read the below article, reach outside the box and try a different lift for your brain, the results may be uncomfortable, but you will grow. Vigorous debate is how the Founding Fathers settled on our governmental structure. They listened to opposing viewpoints with an open mind and then made rebuttals.

Quotes from the article:

"There is nothing wrong with having business people in government. It?s a good thing if you?re objective is to recruit competence and expertise "

“protecting the environment is not about protecting the fishes and the birds for their own sake but it?s about recognizing that nature is the infrastructure of our communities and that if we want to meet our obligation as a generation, as a civilization, as a nation which is to create communities for our children that provide them with the same opportunities for dignity and enrichment and good health.”

Those of Us Who Know That America?s Worth Fighting for Have to Take It Back Now from Those Who Don?t

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0916-27.htm

I voted for reagan,to get rid of carter,and i think reagan did all he could to hurt the working men and women of this country while he was pres. and it was continued on in the bush 1 admin.I know a lot of working people who feel the same way and they considered their self repubs.Also remember when they cut monies for things like mental hosp. etc. and all of the homeless people because of it.Anybody remember the c-130 air force cargo plane that flu into southern AFBase loaded with coke and the pilot said thats how the weapons he delivered were payed for.

[quote]ron33 wrote:
I voted for reagan,to get rid of carter,and i think reagan did all he could to hurt the working men and women of this country while he was pres. and it was continued on in the bush 1 admin.I know a lot of working people who feel the same way and they considered their self repubs.Also remember when they cut monies for things like mental hosp. etc. and all of the homeless people because of it.Anybody remember the c-130 air force cargo plane that flu into southern AFBase loaded with coke and the pilot said thats how the weapons he delivered were payed for.[/quote]

Do you have a link or an article for the cocaine comment?

I am sure you think Giuliani arresting all the homeless was horrible too? It is interesting that in the end it reduced crime in the city.

[quote]ron33 wrote:
…i think reagan did all he could to hurt the working men and women of this country while he was pres. [/quote]

In English that translates as, “I am a lazy ass union member, and I think it is unfair that I should actually have to work for my wages.”

Remember seeing the coke deal on national news,the pilot was first taken into custody then when he told what he knew it was hushed up and you never heard any more about it,I dont know what line of work the doogie is in but in the construction trades in the 80s there were no lazy people unless they were related to whoever owned the company you worked for.there was so little work if you were lazy you would never have gotten a job,unless like i say you were related to the boss or owner of the company.Of course if you dont know or understand that you must not have to much upstairs,or you are one of the lazy mfers you speak of.There are more people that die working in the trades ,than other occupations.

[quote]ron33 wrote:
I voted for reagan,to get rid of carter,and i think reagan did all he could to hurt the working men and women of this country while he was pres. and it was continued on in the bush 1 admin.I know a lot of working people who feel the same way and they considered their self repubs.Also remember when they cut monies for things like mental hosp. etc. and all of the homeless people because of it.Anybody remember the c-130 air force cargo plane that flu into southern AFBase loaded with coke and the pilot said thats how the weapons he delivered were payed for.[/quote]

Exactly what did Reagan do to “hurt the working men and women”. My dad made more money in the 80’s than he had ever made in his oife. We actually bought a new house, and 3 new cars. From where I was standing, the 80’s beat the holy hell out of 1977 - January 1980.

But back to your little rant. What was it that Reagan did to the working man? I think you must have gotten your political commentary from People Magazine.

Rain,In my area ,great lakes companies were closing up people were losing their jobs houses etc. Didnt get info. from magazine lived and struggled during it.I also came down to the big D.during this time period cause there was supposed to be a building boom,but it was ending .what part of tejas did you have a great time in and what business.

I think the disaster w/ katrina gwb bungled but a most of the other candidates, if they were in GWB’s place , they would do the same. At least bush is an aggressive person and when he saw his error he got right back on it.

Reagan a good president? Not really, he horribly overspent on defense ,he should have done more for AIDS. BTW w/ AIDS i think its going to go like syphillus, syphillus used to be deadly , like dying from it in a few weeks now it’ll take a lifetime to kill you. Its adapted along w/ us by making itself less deadly. People w/ AIDS are living longer and longer i think it might be doing the same…

i need some ADD medication. Anyway i guess he did OK on foreign policy the main problem was the USSR but he should have forseen them falling apart beforehand and not been so confrontational, im surprised it didnt happen a few decades earlier.

I much prefer presidents to have a capitalistic orientation - spend on education , propping up new high-tech industries, trade policy to make america economically stronger, R&D when deemed useful , SS/Medicare/Medicaid

[quote]ron33 wrote:
Remember seeing the coke deal on national news,the pilot was first taken into custody then when he told what he knew it was hushed up and you never heard any more about it,I dont know what line of work the doogie is in but in the construction trades in the 80s there were no lazy people unless they were related to whoever owned the company you worked for.there was so little work if you were lazy you would never have gotten a job,unless like i say you were related to the boss or owner of the company.Of course if you dont know or understand that you must not have to much upstairs,or you are one of the lazy mfers you speak of.There are more people that die working in the trades ,than other occupations.[/quote]

Oh, so basically this is a pure junk assertion. similiar to Dan Rather on GWB before the election. Glad we cleared that up.

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
I think the disaster w/ katrina gwb bungled but a most of the other candidates, if they were in GWB’s place , they would do the same. At least bush is an aggressive person and when he saw his error he got right back on it.

Reagan a good president? Not really, he horribly overspent on defense ,he should have done more for AIDS. BTW w/ AIDS i think its going to go like syphillus, syphillus used to be deadly , like dying from it in a few weeks now it’ll take a lifetime to kill you. Its adapted along w/ us by making itself less deadly. People w/ AIDS are living longer and longer i think it might be doing the same…

i need some ADD medication. Anyway i guess he did OK on foreign policy the main problem was the USSR but he should have forseen them falling apart beforehand and not been so confrontational, im surprised it didnt happen a few decades earlier.

I much prefer presidents to have a capitalistic orientation - spend on education , propping up new high-tech industries, trade policy to make america economically stronger, R&D when deemed useful , SS/Medicare/Medicaid [/quote]

It didn’t happen a few decades earlier because they were still raking in Capital from all of the countries they took over. As I stated earlier they would not have gone broke any quicker if it was not because of Reagan forcing them to spend to keep up.

[quote]haney wrote:
ron33 wrote:
Remember seeing the coke deal on national news,the pilot was first taken into custody then when he told what he knew it was hushed up and you never heard any more about it,I dont know what line of work the doogie is in but in the construction trades in the 80s there were no lazy people unless they were related to whoever owned the company you worked for.there was so little work if you were lazy you would never have gotten a job,unless like i say you were related to the boss or owner of the company.Of course if you dont know or understand that you must not have to much upstairs,or you are one of the lazy mfers you speak of.There are more people that die working in the trades ,than other occupations.

Oh, so basically this is a pure junk assertion. similiar to Dan Rather on GWB before the election. Glad we cleared that up.
[/quote]

Right, a pure junk assertion. Much like Ronnie’s oft-quotes “welfare queen driving a cadillac.”