Ronald Reagan Day

In my first year at Graduate School (1980), candidate for President Ronald Reagan came to Claremont. I arrived early, and stood just in front of the stage. A nearby parking lot had been cleared for the helicopters to land on, and a wooden walkway was built from the lot to the stage. Anti-Reagan protesters dutifully lined up along the walkway in hopes of shouting at or throwing something at Reagan. In due course, two helicopters landed. Reagan didn't use the walkway; he went around by the street. The whole purpose of the walkway was to draw the nut jobs away from the proceedings. It worked. I realized then that Reagan was smarter than his enemies and for the first time I believed that he might win.

February 6th was the 100^th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth. The day is notable. Reagan was one of the two greatest Presidents of the twentieth century. The other was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I'll let my readers place their weights on the scales, if so they choose. Here is my estimate.

FDR gets credit for a transformation of the American economy and political system that was unprecedented. The New Deal, including Social Security, are pretty big weights on the scale. He led the nation out of the Depression (even if his policies didn't really help much), and he led the nation into World War II (even if rather belatedly).

RR didn't have to deal with a Depression, but he broke the back of inflation. From my early childhood until Reagan's election, inflation was a fact of life. The first coke and comic book I bought with my own money cost 12 cents apiece, including the deposit on the coke bottle. Since 1980 almost everything I want to buy has come down in price.

Reagan was the first President to sign an arms control agreement that really worked. The Soviets put short range nuclear missiles into Eastern Europe. Their strategy was to force Western Europe to decouple from the United States. Reagan put our own short range Nukes into Western Europe, with the support of Margret Thatcher (may her name be praised!), Francois Mitterrand, and Helmut Kohl.

The American Left went into action to stop Reagan. Anti-nuke rallies were held across Europe and the United States. These rallies weren't concerned with Soviet arms, only with American arms. They failed, and the result was the INF Treaty, which resulted in the actual destruction of nuclear weapons. Once again, Reagan was smarter than his enemies.

Finally, Reagan won the Second World War. No peace treaty between the Soviet Union and Germany was ever achieved. Reagan cut the Gordian knot by engineering the end of the Soviet Union. He guessed that the Soviet economy could not bear an attempt to match the U.S. arms buildup that he presided over. He said as much in letters to his Soviet counterparts. He was right. Though the final collapse came after he left office, he still gets the credit.

FDR won a very hot war. Reagan won the Cold War. Take your pick. I have tended to put FDR first and Reagan second, but now I am not so sure. At any rate, Reagan was a world historical figure with few peers.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Those who love you have a lot to be happy about.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

(1) 1980s Inflation was wrung out by the action of the federal reserve. You really confound two separate issues. What you seem to be missing is that prices on many consumer items have come down since Reagan is because we shipped a lot of jobs overseas and devastated the American middle class. Thanks Ronnie and Republicans.

(2) Reagan's part in the crack-up of the Soviet Empire is vastly overstated. It really lacks any understanding of what was actually happening due to Reagan's stupid nuclear policies. The large-scale organizing and protests of the Western European anti-nuclear left and center was a key element in spurring the Eastern European actions that led to the splitting up of the Soviet Empire. Coupled with the work of Western and Eastern European unions and the European Christian churches, the work of the left was far more instrumental than anything Reagan did.

[KB]

1. The Federal Reserve could not have accomplished what it did without Reagan's firm support.
2. No. It isn't. The U.S. arms buildup rapidly accelerated the economic and psychological decline that brought down the USSR. By holding the coalition together against enormous political pressure from within, Reagan won the board game.

The idea that "the Western European anti-nuclear left and center was a key element in spurring the Eastern European actions that led to the splitting up of the Soviet Empire" is fantasy. The Eastern European nations had a hand in organizing those anti-nuclear protests. You saw propaganda out of Eastern Europe at all of those rallies.

[jhm47]

Mr. Pay seems to have a typical revisionist liberal view of history. Reagan certainly WAS instrumental in the fall of the USSR, and also the Berlin Wall. His optimistic, positive message was also a tremendous influence on the psyche of the average American, and contributed greatly to the turnaround of the dismal Carter economy (stagflation, gas rationing, defeatist attitude). Reagan drew a line in the sand and the Russkies did not dare to cross it. Now, we have a "pseudo-Carter" president, who is encouraging inflation with his monetary policies, and discouraging energy production with his "green" hogwash. We can only hope for another Reagan to undo the Obumble crumble of our country.

[Donald Pay]

The assumption of the right is always that change is determined from the top down, and that it is manipulated by the elites, because that's how rightist organizing is accomplished (see, eg., the Tea Party). Sorry, the fall of the Soviet Empire had more to do with bottom-up organizing on both sides of the iron curtain around the anti-nuclear and nuclear freeze movements, by media that could be freely accessed, and by people willing to address issues across ideological and geographic boundaries. The people of Europe hated both the Soviets' and the Reagan administration's policies. They organized against both.

[Jimi]

Donald,

How did Bottom-Up organizing cause the Soviets to spend 70% of it's output on the Military? How did bottom-up organizing cause the Soviets to decline to a almost zero percent GDP growth rate by 1988? How did Bottom-Up organizing convince OPEC and the Arabs to increase oil production to undermine the Soviet Economy?

[Donald Pay]

Jimi,

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers. You say the Soviets were spending 70% of output on the military, but globalsecurity.org, using US government sources, says it was 15-17% of Soviet GDP, and the rate of increase in military spending actually slowed in the 1980s. The Soviets made no effort to match SDI, because it was far cheaper to simply construct more warheads. SDI never made any sense.

The Soviet economy was crumbling, but not because it was responding in-kind to Reagan's misplaced priorities.

[William]

"The assumption of the right is always that change is determined from the top down, and that it is manipulated by the elites, because that's how rightist organizing is accomplished (see, eg., the Tea Party)."

That's one of the nuttiest things I think I've seen you post here, Donald.

While there are those "on the right" that are attempting to define themselves as "leaders" of the Tea Party, it's more grassroots than anything I can think of, particularly "on the left" and certainly more defined by a belief in the core values of the Constitution. An emphasis on a federal government, truly limited by its enumerated powers and on individual rights is more accurately defined as libertarian.

[George Mason]

You can smell the liberal sour grapes from here. Reagan freed the U.S. economy from the clutch of government and promoted freedom around the world against the wishes of the liberals. As a result he enriched is all.

[Donald Pay]

No sour grapes. The right engages in myth making, which is fine in election mode, but really gets in the way of any rational analysis of Reagan's Presidency. This sentence is particularly revealing, "Reagan freed the U.S. economy from the clutch of government and promoted freedom around the world against the wishes of the liberals."

Well, there you go again. Yeah, I suppose he freed the US economy to have one corruption scandal after another and ended up increasing the federal deficit beyond anything seen before. He sunk the US farm economy to the point where South Dakota's entire Legislature protested in Washington, DC. The S&L industry went under (partly Carter's fault). Superfund was mismanaged to the point that several EPA administrators were convicted. The Interior Department was totally corrupted. He started the de-industrialization of America.

I think all presidents, liberal and conservative, "promote" freedom around the world, but when our democratic ideals get in the way of the international corporate elites' interests, democracy isn't such a high priority (with Reagan or any other president, including Obama). Certainly Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech was stirring. Yet his deeds were quite spotty on promoting democracy elsewhere. Indeed, he promoted and supported authoritarian regimes in Latin America and the Middle East (including Saddam Hussein).

I think the Reagan years were a disaster.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"increasing the federal deficit beyond anything seen before."

That's not true....the deficit during the latter part of the depression was higher, and the for the five years after WWII were 8 times higher than during the Reagan Years. Reagan's deficit was also under the control of the Democrats, they controled the House and the Senate.

[duggersd]

I believe the real turn in the Cold War was when Reagan walked away from a bad deal in Reykjavik. He had the backbone to stick to his guns and take the criticism by walking away. Gorbachev insisted any deal had to include the US not pursuing SDI (or as I always like to call it, the Ronald Ray Gun). He knew the USSR could not keep up with the spending to have their own system or to overcome SDI.
Whatever one believes about Ronald Reagan and his economic policies, not to mention any other policy, there is no denying his optimism and his high regard for our country led to the people having the kind of attitude that our country could overcome its difficulties and the US is a good place. Today, I hear lip service paid to that idea by a certain person who recently gave a State of the Union Address, but I do not see those kinds of actions. And it appears to show in the outlook the people have today.

[Donald Pay]

I agree partly with duggersd on SDI, but for different reasons. There is really no evidence for the myth that the Soviets tried to match SDI, thus bankrupting themselves. There is a little bit more evidence that the Afghanistan war had a corrosive effect, and the US effort to stand up the mujahadeen and extend the war probably had greater impact on the Soviets.

The protests against Reagan's SDI, against Reagan deploying tactical nuclear weapons and against nuclear power in general was covered extensively on Western media and even Communist-controlled media gave some coverage. All of this was available to those in the Eastern bloc. This along with new opportunities to communicate across the Iron Curtain spurred organizing on these issues in the Eastern Bloc. So, without Reagan's bad priorities there wouldn't have been the protests that served as a model for how the Eastern bloc activists could gain freedom.

By far the more important factor in the collapse of the Soviet Empire is that Gorbachov was a reformer, who wanted a more open society. He couldn't pull it off within the confines of the economic collapse, caused by internal economic issues, including the oil shock.

I never had a problem believing in the enduring values of the United States, and maintain my optimism, even with the two worst Presidents in history (Reagan and Bush 2). Reagan's words hit me as rather hollow and self-serving. I'm sure he believed them, but his actions didn't match his words.

[BillW]

Donald has a few nuggets of truth wrapped in his typical blankets of liberal nonsense. Most credible historains will say that the fall of the Soviet Union can be largely attributed to the simultaneous pressure from outside driven by Reagan and to a lesser degree Thatcher; and from the inside, but hardly by Donald's left wing buddies. History gives the credit to leadership from within the iron curtan to Pope John Paul II. It was his leadership in Poland that gave moral authority to the shipyard workers at Gdansk who supported Lech Walesa in their strike. Without the Pope encouraging Poles to stand with Walesa, the collapse never would have happened. Europe is still predominantly Catholic, and it was the Pope's message to eastern European Catholics that opposing the Soviets was morally justified that fueled the demonstrations that followed the Polish revolution.

Donald is also partially right when he wrote "we shipped a lot of jobs overseas and devastated the American middle class. Thanks Ronnie and Republicans." The collapse of American manufacturing, the rampant off-shore outsourcing of jobs and our conversion to the failed 'service economy' began under Reagan. Donald blows it (again) with the "Thanks Ronnie and the Republicans" line. He forgot to thank Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who have followed the same economic thinking, and under whom the loss of American middle class jobs continued unabated to this day.

Donald gets a lot of things right - the pressure from within that helped bring dow the Soviet Union and the origins of the outsourcing exodus are good examples ... where he blows it is when he can't see the world through anything other than his outrageously biased prism - all good must be credited to the left and all that is bad must be attributed to Republicans.

[Donald Pay]

I'm quite willing to concede that Pope PJ2 had tremendous impact in Poland. The Lutheran Church had great impact in East Germany. In South and Central America, Catholic Liberation Theology and several Bishops and various orders of nuns had a huge impact. In South Africa, it was Bishop Tutu. My point is that Ronald Reagan was not an important factor in the democratization of Eastern Europe, and he was an outright opponent of democratization in Central and South America and South Africa.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: to say that Reagan was one of the two worst presidents is five kinds of stupid. He was clearly one of the best. Proof of this is your imaginary anti-nuclear movement in Warsaw Pact nations. No such animal existed, or if it did, it was controlled.

The anti-nuclear weapons movement was aimed solely at NATO. Reagan, with Thatcher's help, resisted it. That alone was an example of greatness.

[Dave]

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. Yesterday, when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?“

[Dave]

The mistake being made here is to assume that "leftist" regimes are "bottom up" and "rightist" regimes are "top down." The regimes being debated are "authoritarian" and therefore without exception and by definition, ALWAYS "top down"...

[Jimi]

Gee Dave....not even one mention of a Democratic Controled House and Senate, an inherited Democratic Controlled House and Senate from a Democratic Presidency....that's Wierd! It's almost as if your trying to assume correlation equals causation or something.....

But your right....Reagan was just horrible....Now go get Shine Box!

[Dave]

One word... Veto.

[Dave]

Or, Jimi is implying that the "success" of the Reagan years were actually due to the Dems... In which case R2 was a complete failure.... Which is it?

[BillW]

Dave ... you have quite a knack for taking disjointed nuggets of fact,making up a few new facts, and leaving out a whole lot of other facts, and spinning it all into quite a yarn. As Lincoln said, you have a talent for speciously combining words to turn horse chestnuts into chestnut horses. If only any of it were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ...

[BillW]

Dave ... you have quite a knack for taking disjointed nuggets of fact,making up a few new facts, and leaving out a whole lot of other facts, and spinning it all into quite a yarn. As Lincoln said, you have a talent for speciously combining words to turn horse chestnuts into chestnut horses. If only any of it were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ...

[Jimi]

Dave,

"the "success" of the Reagan years were actually due to the Dems."

Sure...O.K...Fine, then we can say in the same line of thinking that the success of Clinton was because of the Republicans.

[Dave]

Wow BillW, Thanks for making such a coherent counter argument... (?)

Jimi, the real sins of the 90's were NAFTA CAFTA and GATT. Corporatist DEMS and the GOP worked together to dump this load on the American people. And the GOP accused Clinton of triangulation. Why? Because they wanted all the credit for these turds.

[Dave]

BTW Jimi, I put success in quotations... I don't think they were in any way success, or good for America.

[Jimi]

Dave,

"Good for America" is dependent upon perspective. I doubt the majority of the population would agree with your perspective on what is "Good for America."

Your immature representation of history is very revealing.

Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more major tax increases during his administration. By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut. These tax increases were most enacted as part of budget deals that cut domestic discretionary spending. Compared to today’s Republicans, Reagan was a model of fiscal responsibility. The point being that Reagan left office with a net tax decrease...not a net tax increase....and doubled revenue to the government by doing so. He is being blamed for raising the S.S. Payrol Tax and the Gas Tax which is and has been the Democrats baby since inception. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Most of the deals Reagan made with the Democrats were based on compromise.

You pointed out that Reagan tripled the deficit...incorrect. It's nothing compared to FDR's and Obama's. The point being that by the time Reagan had left office his deficit was neglegable, especially with the growth in the economy we were seeing at the time, and the growth of the 90's can be directly attributed the investments made during the Reagan years, especially in the all the advanced Military Technologies.

The first Deficit Reagan would have been responsible for would have be the 1982 deficit which was 128 Billion. When Reagan left office the deficit was 153 Billion. We have had reasonable GDP growth every year since WWII except when Obama and the Decmorats came to power in 2006 and 2008...why don't you complain about that?

GDP Deficit
1982 3253.2 127.98 a
1983 3534.6 207.80 a
1984 3930.9 185.37 a
1985 4217.5 212.31 a
1986 4460.1 221.23 a
1987 4736.4 149.73 a
1988 5100.4 155.18 a
1989 5482.1 152.64 a

[Dave]

Sorry Jimi, I'm not going to play your game of 3 card monty...

[BillW]

Wow Dave, Thanks for making such a coherent counter argument to Jimi's facts ...

You lib wackos crack me up - don't like history? Just rewrite it. You wrote a tome devoid of truth and fact ... either you are completely delusional or you slept through your entire high school years. Either way it cannot be remedied here. Insulting those who won't waste their time countering lunatic manifestos doesn't add a scintilla of credence to your singularly ignorant representation of the Reagan presidency.

[Dave]

Without doing a point by point...

Jimi don't know s*it about me, But he knows most Americans would disagree with me.
Jimi must be God (or the devil)

Jimi admits RR raised taxes (11 times) And goes on to say these tax increases were passed as deals to cut domestic spending (Tax increases to cut spending???) (But somehow the federal deficet continued to go up most every year...)

Jimi mentions FDR. I assume he longs for the days of hobos riding the trains and soup lines...

Jimi cites federal deficit numbers that don't jibe with the numbers that I have. (and doesn't cite a source so I have no way to know what the * he is talking about)

(insert random table here)

BTW, there is a story about a FOX news employee who came out and said they just make stuff up...

[Jimi]

Dave,

"Tax increases to cut spending"

Yes.....go read up on it! It's called compromising with "Tax and Spend" Liberal Democrats. Reagan wanted to cut dicresionary domestic spending, it was part of his platform when he ran for President, and to get that accomplished he had to give up of some of his 1981 Tax Cut, which lowered the personal income tax bracket for the middle and top brackets from 70% to 28%. By the time left office he raised SS Payroll Tax [demanded by the Democrats to get the 75 year projection solvent],the Gas Tax [demanded by the Democrats], and the top personal income brakets to 33%. There were some other tax increases he chose to make, mainly because there was a restructure of funding streams for various areas of the Military and Government complex.

"federal deficit numbers that don't jibe with the numbers that I have"

This is historical data...common knowledge! The reason it doesn't matchup to your numbers is probably because you are using the "adjusted for inflation" in 2010 or 2005 dollars, I used "Nominal Dollars," and it matters what year is chosen to adjust for inflation; or you are looking at numbers that are not just the federal deficit...they include the states as well.

http://www.davemanuel.com/charts2/surpluses_and_deficits_1940-2010.jpg

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

"But somehow the federal deficet continued to go up most every year"

It just isn't ture. Reagan's defcit is similar to every (8) term Presdient. It goes up and down depending on the buisness cycles. Reagan's deficit, whether adjusted for inflation or not, reached it's peak in 1986, and dropped considerably before he left office. Know the facts....instead of being a hater.

[Dave]

Sorry Jimi, I don't recall telling you to "go get Shine Box!" What's with all the PROJECTION on the right?

[Jimi]

Dave,

**I don't recall telling you to "go get your Shine Box!"**

Nope...your sure didn't....all you did was attempt to use a propoganda piece to rewrite history in the eyes of Collectivists who not only dispise America, but would love to see the Capitalist System crumble and American Liberty become a footnote of history.

[Dave]

Jimi,

Fox "news" called, they want their propaganda back...

[Jimi]

Dave,

Think Progress is a set up to be a propoganda machine. It is listed as a 501(c) buisness mainly funded by George Soros and headed up by John Podesta. You come here and used a Think Progress piece that has a specific agenda tied to it....makes you look like a complete fool, and then you turn around write everybody off as if you have a leg to stand on....amazing!

Actually it isn't....nothing amazes me from the Left these days!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_soros_web_and_the_spiders.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress

[Dave]

LOL! (laughing my *ss off)

You using americanthinker.com to discredit CAP... That's priceless!

Still laughing...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker

[Dave]

BTW, here's a link to a graph. (the link is to a "far-left kooky fringy crazy moon-bat" web site but the data is from the CBO)

http://thegooddemocrat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/deficit7-11-07.gif

(Continued random chuckling)

(ahhh, that was funny)

[Jimi]

Dave

You need to provide some context to that graph. What is your point, in presenting that graph? Because if think that it provides some comparison to previous administation you are incorrect. You probably did not notice that the graph is in "Nominal Dollars," and you can't compare administration unless your using the "Adjusted For Inflation" dollars.

"You using americanthinker.com to discredit CAP"

What is your point? Are you claiming that this is not true?

"funded by George Soros and headed up by John Podesta."

It was the New York Times themselves that point it out, not the American Thinker???????? And who might the New York Times be in the tank for...Gee I wonder. But nothing hides the fact that Think Progress is funded by Soros, and what might his agenda be? Maybe you better read up on it, before you keep digging your hole deeper.

[Dave]

A: Look, if you can't read a simple graph titled "Yearly US Budget Deficit or surplus," I'm not sure I can help you...

B: Using one partisan outfit to to discredit another is pretty sophisticated, don't you think? What's next? You gonna use some Breitbart video to discredit Shirley Sherrod?

C: Should I do my research with Glenn Beck or Bill O? You like sourcewatch.org so I'll go there...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros

Oh ya... That's evil all right... (Zzzz) Doesn't like GWB and gives to progressive causes... Cant get worse than that... (unless you listen to Glenn and Bill)

[Dave]

More... (shoot! I forgot you cant read graphs...)

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms (has a table in addition to graph)

http://traxel.com/deficit/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

[Jimi]

Dave,

Yeah...I read that graph back in 2007....way to keep up with the current data. And BTW, if you don't understand the difference between "Nominal" and "Adjusted" dollars, then you are fooling yourself into thinking something that may not be what you think it is, all becuase the idiots on the left told you it was O.K. to think it.

Again, what is your point?

"Using one partisan outfit to to discredit another is pretty sophisticated, don't you think?"

No...I don't like sourcewatch, I just snagged a couple of things to offer some context as to why Think Progress' piece of the Reagan Legacy was bunk...Period! Are you denying that Think Progress is funded by Soros or not? Are you denying Think Progress has a vested interest in propogandizing the Reagan Legacy or not?

Again, what is your point?

"That's evil all right... (Zzzz) Doesn't like GWB and gives to progressive causes"

I'm sorry, but if that's all you know about Soros, and you think that is somehow the entire story of the Soros Funded agenda.....then you are clueless. In fact, I know you are clueless, and to be quite frank.....it really shows.

[Dave]

Glenn is on the TeeVee... Better go watch...

[Jimi]

That's what I thought....You got nothing!

[Dave]

"I read that graph back in 2007....way to keep up with the current data"
Did the historical data on RR's tax and spend (and spend) years change in the last couple years?

'"Nominal" and "Adjusted" dollars'
So I give you graphs (and a table)using adjusted $ and you're blind to that? And btw my first graph didn't state that it was "nominal dollars" so your deception has been revealed.

Your stance on propaganda really is amazing... Clearly your propaganda is far superior to mine...I think it's pretty clear that you think anyone to your left is un-American and possibly not even human.
Who do you think has a vested interest in conservative politics? Do your homework! Multinational corporations, the defense industry, the prison industry, big oil and gas. And living in a small state they all have a much greater influence! In the presidential race it's winner take all so in reality these interest only have to influence a few votes. And in the Senate SD is over represented by as much as 38:1 compared to California, so $1M spent campaigning for a candidate in SD is worth $38M in CA.
And just who are these corporate interest looking out for? It ain't me, and most likely it's not you... I can understand why you and this blog might want to commit to the propaganda stream in hopes of getting some sort of "fellowship" at a think tank or some ad $ from the higher-ups. And Kudos for your effort. But it really is misguided.

You allude to the "evils" of George Soros. Please tell me of his evils, and stop alluding to them. How can one present a counter argument when one is faced with "straw men?" I have not denied any Soros involvement with TP. But you have not provided ANY information to show why that is even relevant! (other than Beckish innuendo...)

[Jimi]

Dave,

Your original graph was in "Nominal" dollars. But that's besides the point. Just because you offer a graph of the economic performance of the United States, something I am very familiar with....Well so what? What are you trying to point out?

"Please tell me of his evils, and stop alluding to them"

Do some damn homework instead running around accusing everybody else that they don't know what they are talking about. If you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have to explain any of this to you. We may disagree, which is fine, but at least you would understand the various positions.

Since you don't know I will just touch on the basics.

Soros believes in an Open Society or tru Democraycy with a economic system now refered to as State Capitalism, where society has no boundaries both in physical terms and in ideological terms, all based on the teachings of Karl Popper. The Unted States is not a true Democracy, it is a Republic. Soros has spent a large portion of his wealth undermining the economies of governments in attempts to shape cultures and societies in his own view, and build his wealth, which he is now doing in the United States. In some areas of the world this may not be a bad thing, but it is not a good thing for the United States.

Soros beleives that Free-Market Capitalism is an "Enemy" of the Open Society, and is just as oppressive as a Communist System. It's not that he wants a Communist system, but what he wants is refered to as State Capitalism. Where markets are not allowed to reach equilibrium naturally but are forced to reach equalibrium thru government regulation. Soros also believes in Wealth Re-distribution but not in terms of any one area of the planet, he believes in redistribution of wealth on a global scale.

Soros is funding an entire political and cultural movement to undermine the Free-Market Capitalism System. Soros is clearly pulling the strings of the Left and is the only reason for Obama's success, and still has direct communication with Obama. He has his hands on our politics, and has the ability to undermine, which basically goes against what he has been advocating, and that alone should make one question. If you are supporting Soros and Obama's agenda you are kissing you and your families financial future good-bye!

[Dave]

Wow! That IS crazy! Thanks for the blackboard presentation.

[Buy Custom Dissertation]

Your blog is great. Your thoughts are also very good and i am very inspired from your post. That is why I visit this blog again and again and will come back in future too. Thanks.