Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General "Reagan Principles"

Every single one of the sites you posted a link to are either mildly or radically to the left of center. I use the CATO Institute as a source about Social Security, and CATO does have a bias on that subject, but you post a litany of leftist sources and I'm supposed to accept them as factual and unbiased? Give me a freaking break! Why can you not get beyond your own liberal dislike of Pres. Reagan and look at some unbiased sources about him?

Senator, the slant of those folks reporting a factual history doesn't make it any less factual. A leader needs to be more than just liked, more than just popular. Reagan's administration - the true vehicle of the "Reagan Principle" was one corrupt or disasterous event after another...with a smile & a twinkle in his eye for nearly the whole ride.

The only domestic action he took I could support was his reaction to PATCO. It was a legitimate & strong stance. But everything that has been said above - those negatives you can't stand to hear - are absolutely fact.

Our government redistributes wealth through taxes. Something Pres. Reagan was against. When income grows it is because those create it, more often the not the wealthy, make it grow. If the top 1 or 2 percent of the households got richer that's fine with me. The top 5% pay about 80% of all of the income taxes collected.
The air traffic controllers strike was illegal. There is no right to strike when it puts public safety in danger. That this freed other employers to stand up to unions is not something that can be blamed on Reagan. It helps to take as close a look at what the unions were doing as compared to what management did. Neither side is innocent of doing wrong. The failure of the median real wage is Reagan's fault? What an excellent example of leftist bias!
Reagan worked with right wing dictatorships to prevent left wing dictatorships from coming to power. Not the best foreign policy but one that was started by Pres. Truman and a very necessary one due to the Cold War we were engaged in. Reagan did all of this in a political vacuum? There wasn't another super power trying to take over or to make those countries its client states? Where is the concern for human rights abuses in Cuba? The Cubans were supporting the Sandinistas. Chile is now economically better off than Cuba is.
There is no such thing as bad tax cut! Reagan cut taxes and our economy boomed. The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented. That is like saying your financial situation will improve when you pay more for everything you buy. When costs go up, and taxes are a cost, your standard of living goes down. Unless of course you are a liberal who believes that our government can spend your money better than you can. What a crock of s#it!

To slant the history being reported requires a distortion of that history.

What is your evidence that any of the linked items slanted history?

What is your evidence that they didn't?

The evidence that they didn't is in the linked pieces themselves. Are we really going to get into "yes they did" "no thye didn't" "I know what you are but what am I" kind of playground debating?

The linked pieces are in and of themselves biased. But since they reflect your biases the sources are acceptable to you.

There is such a thing as a bad tax cut when it doesn't spur the economy to a point of generating revenues to cover the continued, and increased, spending. Reagan's admin did the tax cut, but failed to cover its spending mandate.

Any of us can charge our way to a nice life style. Sooner or later we are expected to pay for it or change the life style. Bush-1 paid for that lack of responsibility on the part of his predecessor. Clinton successfully turned that around. Bush-2 followed the "Reagan Principle" & got us totally f***ed up yet one more time. Another Clinton turnaround to come?

Senator, your Reagan legacy is based on myth & popularity polls, not historical evidence.

A tax cut is not meant or designed to spur our economy. All a tax cut is meant to do is let you keep more of your money! The more of our money we keep the better off our economy and country will be. No Congress failed to cut social spending as they had promised to do. Had Congress kept its word the military spending would not have caused a deficit. When are you going to hold Congress as responsible for the deficits? This problem will be dealt with when all who deserve to be blamed for it are.