I'm sure this mini series will be but a blip on the Radar scope. It will have no where near the impact of the cult following Regan has that is trying to get him etched on Mount Rushmore and his own monument in Washington's central Mall.

They got the aircraft carrier, and that's just the first step.

How about Nancy's psychic?

why do people think Reagan should get a monument?

what about adams? madison?

nancy had a psychic? are first ladies required to be weird?

Yeah, his tax cut delivered us out of a near Depression(double-digit inflation and unemployment over 10% when he took office to very low inflation and unemployment and outstanding growth).

He cut taxes on EVERY TAX BRACKET by huge margins - putting more money back into EVERYBODY'S pockets - letting them spend more of the money THEY earned. The resulting economic explosion caused government revenues TO GO UP, not down, even though he cut taxes so dramatically across the board. Since revenues did INCREASE, you cannot say that his tax cut "caused" those deficits...

And enough with the "tax cuts for the wealthy" nonsense. Not only were taxes cut across the board, but the highest bracket paid MORE of a percentage of the total percentage of taxes than they did when Reagan took office.

Prosperity was there for the taking for all. In the Reagan years, 16% of the people who started the Reagan years as the poorest Americans - a full 16%, were in the highest tax bracket by the time Reagan left office. Better than 1 in 6!

He took a very measured strategy to defeat the Soviet Union - a crushing regime which had killed tens of millions and kept much of the world under a dictatorial boot. His accelerating of the arms race, knowing that the Soviets would not be able to compete, and that they would spend everything they could to attempt to anyway, not only broke the back of the Soviet Union once and for all but made the United States the dominant military power in the world. This, despite the usual liberal claims of disaster - "Oh, you're going to start World War III!!! Are you mad??? We should figure out WHY they hate us and not make them hate us more!!!" Sounds very familiar, huh?

The ONLY thing really negative in terms of effect on the country in the Reagan years was the deficits and the debt. As I show above, NONE OF THIS was caused by tax cuts, as revenues actually WENT UP(doubled, in fact, over the course of his Presidency) after the cuts.

But Reagan spent too much. Part of this was justified - the Defense run-up defeated the worldwide terror of the Soviet Union and crushed Communism on this earth forever(China is becoming ever more Capitalist now), as well as making us the dominant world power.

However, the domestic spending was too much. And this must be partly blamed on Reagan and partly blamed on the all Democratic Congress he had for most of his Presidency. The Democrats passed all these Spending initiatives, after all. Reagan signed them, and he shouldn't have. But when you have neither House, you must play ball or the other side can simply block everything you try to do...

At any rate - an economic explosion that delivered us from the jaws of one of the worst recessions ever(makes this last one look tame by comparison), put a whole lot more money in the pocket of every American, crushed a worldwide dictatorial regime and won the Cold War...

What, exactly, was "shitty" about those years???

Here's a quote from the film that, I think, shows you what the tone of this thing will be like - and it ain't no fair or good thing:

When Nancy tearfully employs Reagan to do something about people suffering with AIDS, he coldly says,

"They who live in sin shall die in sin!"

Uh... Yeah...

Just utterly ridiculous.

the big hair and parachute pants

natesfortune,

First of all, why bother with a such a long response that will fall on deaf hears? Just trying to save you some time and effort.

And Reagan does need to take a large chunk of blame for the deficits, though clearly they were not in any way bad for our Nation in the long term, because he made the deal with the Democrats. The spending was as much his fault as anyone else's.

Of course Reagan rarely gets credit for one of his biggest successes, and one of the biggest and most significant of any administration of this century, his handling of the Fed Reserve.

Oh, Please - you accuse somebody else of a "vulgar style of arguing" then say something like this - something that's accusatory to the extreme - without giving a shred of evidence to support it.

Please give some evidence to support this.

They didn't "do anything" at first because it was just a disease at first - nobody had an inkling of an epidemic till the mid-eighties, and Conservatives don't think the Government should be providing Health Care. It was a medical problem that turned into an epidemic - then got attention.

Nothing more sinister than that.

Unless you've got proof or evidence that it was "because of ****".

Come on...

You never heard about that? There was a huge hoopla about it at the time. Rumor had it that indirectly the psychic was the one running the country.

I think that rumor is 100% B.S. but I also don't think Reagan was particularly relgious. I do think he knew how to walk the walk and say the right things to woo that particular voting bloc, however.

I would love it if this entire movie was like that old SNL sketch with Phil Hartman, where Reagan plays dumb for the press, but as soon as they are out of the room he rolls up his sleeve and starts calling the shots with great bravado. Funny stuff.

Yet his private letters and journals would indicate the exact opposite.

well i was 8 when he left office, so i dont remember much

Madison was basically a so-so President.

Now Reagan -

BTW: For all you Reagan fans - a question: Wasn't the '80s the first decade in American history that the middle class has not grown?

On the first point, why would what I say "fall on deaf ears"? I assume these newsgroups are filled with adults who like to argue with facts and logic.

If you don't have reasons(facts or logic) to support your point of view or to refute what somebody else says, then logically, you must be wrong and you should change your mind, right?

Isn't that what discussions are for? Why would somebody WANT to stay wrong if they have no reason to think what they do?

I just don't understand what you mean by "deaf ears". I figured responses that actually explained WHY they take the stance they do would be welcomed.

As for your second point, I say very clearly that Reagan is to blame for the Deficits - and explain why. It was near the bottom of my post, which you must not have read(as it was a long post - well, hell, I just looked at it again - and it ain't THAT long...).

I only said that the tax cuts DID NOT cause the deficits near the top.

Didn't Madison lead us in the War of 1812 (the 2nd war for independence)? wasn't he also the father of the constitution?

Madison wasn't President at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

Father of the Constitution? Madison's main job at the Constitutional Convention was that of recording secretary.

I was there, and I remember what happened. That's ALL the proof I need.

In a previous message, you went on for about a page, praising Reagan. You didn't provide any proof of what YOU were saying, so please spare us all the 'where's your proof-Bill O'Reilly style' of arguing.

Remind me which party is it that's currently pushing a expensive prescription drug benefit again?

FS

I think you misunderstand where I am coming from. I don't disagree with you. Heck, take a look at my sig. But I do think that many Reagan admirers do not place enough blame on him for the spending, finding it too easy to pass the buck onto the Democratic congress. My point is that the deal was made before Congress passed the bills which Reagan signed. He, unfortunately, took the easy way out.

And as for the "deaf ears" sentiment, I was merely speaking from experience.

Both parties - you have been reminded.

you say you don't need proof, then ask him for his proof? a little odd, no?

i wasn't there so i dont know how much he did but history says he was very influential on the Constitution

First of all, where is YOUR proof? You typing words on a screen is not proof of anything.

It is interesting that way that you see things though. Facts and logic, right and wrong, black and white. I'm guessing you're about 18 or 19.........

I was just kidding. Madison was very influential, as was Hamilton and others, in the Constitutional Convention. But Madison didn't write the Constitution - the Committee to Draft did.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...006EDT0798.DTL

"President Bush has made the legislation a top priority, and both chambers passed bills earlier this year that would create a prescription drug benefit while also overhauling the entire 38-year-old government program of health care for seniors."

So, does the statement that "Conservatives don't think the Government should be providing Health Care. " hold true with Bush making this a "top priority"?

FS