[southernmissouri2007]

Can the Right Wingers here answer me as to why you worship President Ronald Reagan as a God ? In my opinion Reagan is the worst President that the United States of America has ever had. Ronald Reagan busted a Trade or Labor Union called PATCO he fired the Air Traffic Controller Workers he claimed to be pro Union but I believe he only did this for the Working Class Votes he cut Welfare Spending for the Poor after he said he would not he also caused People to become Homeless. My point is that Reagan declared War on the Working Class. Reagan also cut Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid don't forget that in the 1960's Reagan was anti Medicare and anti Medicaid. And just one more thing Reagan was pro War.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(1986)



http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 975455.stm



WW in 1986: Stop Reagan’s terrorism against Libya!



Published Oct 12, 2008 7:56 PM

Workers World is in its 50th year of publication. We are reprinting articles from our archives on major developments of past years. This one on the bombing of Libya appeared originally in the April 24, 1986, issue.



By Joyce Chediac



The Reagan administration’s murderous bombing of Libya, which resulted in at least 100 civilian deaths, was a long-planned act of aggression and war.



http://www.workers.org/2008/world/ww_1986_1016/



And then there were the wake-up calls -- the terrorist bombing of a Berlin discotheque only a few blocks away from my living quarters. In response, Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya, even though it later turned out that we had no proof they did it.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Aboutme.htm

Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.



Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm



Myth: The recession of 1982 was Carter's fault.



Fact: That recession occurred in the second year of Reagan's term, following tax cuts and deregulation.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm

THE REAGAN YEARS:

A Statistical Overview of the 1980s

The following statistics offer a quick but comprehensive overview of all the major trends of the Reagan-Bush era. They include tax cuts, income inequality, corporate lobbying, deficits, debts, economic growth, poverty, welfare, and a comparison of the U.S. to other rich nations.



This whirlwind tour should take about as long as it takes to read a newspaper. It is the compilation of statistics that I wish I had found when I was researching the 80s. Understanding them is crucial because today's Congress is pursuing all the same policies: cutting taxes on the rich, slashing welfare for the poor, and spending more money than it takes in. No voter is informed without knowing the statistical results of these policies.



This website is designed to be read in two ways. The first way -- reading it straight through -- gives a bird's-eye view of the 80s. The second way is to select the links entitled "More," which gives detailed comments on each point and hopefully answers questions and counter-arguments raised by the overview. I highly recommend reading the overview first, since the comments can get somewhat lengthy and digressive. A plain-English summary follows at the end for the statistically impaired. :-)



Sections:



Events leading to the 80s:

The Rise of the Corporate Special Interest System

The Economic Slowdown of the 70s

The Rise of Supply-Side Economics



Statistics of the 80s:

Wealth and Income Inequality

Taxes

Budgets and Deficits

Economic Performance

Poverty and Welfare

Comparison of U.S. to Other Rich Nations

Summary



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm



PANELS DEEPEN REAGAN MEDICARE CUTS



By BERNARD WEINRAUB, Special to the New York Times



Published: June 9, 1981





http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/09/us/pa ... -cuts.html



Ronald Reagan's Legacy



His destructive economic policies do not deserve the press's praise.



by John Miller



Dollars and Sense magazine, July / August 2004 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronal ... egacy.html<H1>The Ronald Reagan Myth</H1><H3>The Progressive Review http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronal ... .htmlLabor - And A Whole Lot More

Ronald Reagan's War on Labor

Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended. http://www.dickmeister.com/id89.html </H3>

Christopher Hitchens Dispels Ronald Reagan Greatness Myths(1996)

Published on Sunday, February 6, 2011 by The Nation

Reagan's Real Legacy





by Peter Dreier



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/06-0

[jimjam]

Reagan was an absolutely perfect front man for some of the more nefarious forces of capitalism. He had lots of experience as an actor and had the leadership act down very well. The rightward turn of American politics was not exactly a sponteneous will of the people thing. It was carefully planned, well financed and impecibly executed. Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchel predicted accurately that America would soon be so conservative that people from Nixon's time would not recognize it. Reagan fit in perfectly with the 1 percenting or corporatization of America. He was affable, likeable, spit out memorable one liners and totally alligned with big money. If you didn't know any better, you could like the man. Also, his handlers were quite adept at image making and getting past screw ups like the savings bank bail out and iran/contra. The PR they ran on union busting made it seem, not that working people were getting the short shrift but that Ronnie was riding in like the cowboys of old to devistate the bad guys. Image, PR and acting have a lot to do with it. FDR who was no conservative was also a master image creater.

[Sternschild]

We worship him as God? Of this I was not aware.

[Potemkin]

We worship him as God? Of this I was not aware.

Back in '80s, most American conservatives did hero-worship Ronnie. Not so much now, however, since most of the chickens released by Reagan in the 1980s came home to roost in the 2000s.

[Tainari88]

Reagan sucked. But, he sure had enormous support. He vilified Jimmy Carter and even delayed the release of the hostages in Iran so Carter would look weak and ineffective.

Reagan in my opinion was not bright at all. He was an American jock, a mediocre actor at best, and all that crap about him being about family values? Bullshit. He had married Jane Wyman the actress first and divorced her and hardly paid attention to his first child with her. He very rarely spoke to his kids. He was obessesed with his career and his background was all about some religious fanatic mother who wasn't the brightest woman in the world and his father was a drunkard who was highly conservative.

Dutch was all about image as Jimjam wrote. In my opinion, Reagan never viewed the USA as a place for working class people. It was a place where you got rich by aligning yourself with the power players and leaving 'the losers' behind. That was his philosophy. If you were poor. Tough cookies.

He treated the Bushes like servants. Lol. They wrote about his many snubs to them but the Bushes admired his cunning ways with selling the anti-working man scenario and exalting the rich and wealthy. That was a huge hit with the conservatives in the USA.

Meanwhile I saw his handiwork in Nicaragua in 1981. I was not impressed with his aggressive pro war stances and domino effect policies against democratically supported popular national movements in Central America.

With time people will realize Reagan was a destroyer, a very shallow in the intellect leader, a bullshitter and basically worthless leader. But, the USA deserved him. Their value system is as fake as a Hollywood set. And he fits that shit to a tee.

[Atlas Guate]

This could go on and on and on, just so that I can enjoy this, let me begin with this small little item:

Reason #1: He won the Cold War!

Boy what a rant you started with, it's clear you left-wingers hate Reagan... (Hmm this may be reason # 2 )

[Rei Murasame]

What did you think of Ronald Reagan's massive illegal immigrant amnesty programme? How conservative was that on a scale of 1 to 10?

[Tainari88]

Rei, Reagan's amnesty programme was about serving the interests of the agri-business people in California and again it doesn't matter who is in charge whether conservative or a cheap liberal in the White House. The market economy and the big business interests are the ones who get the borders softened or not. Reagan did what the big dogs wanted to happen in the capitalist scene.

Atlas Guate is foolish. He won the cold war by himself. Lol. The USSR was rotting for a long time before Reagan.

And Reagan was a liar. Lied about Iran contra and everything else. But lying and politicians are kind of synonymous, so no big surprise there.

[Rei Murasame]

Rei, Reagan's amnesty programme was about serving the interests of the agri-business people in California and again it doesn't matter who is in charge whether conservative or a cheap liberal in the White House. The market economy and the big business interests are the ones who get the borders softened or not. Reagan did what the big dogs wanted to happen in the capitalist scene.

Beautifully put. That is exactly correct.

It's amazing how so many of them don't realise this though.

Let me tell you a story about that, it's like most Western Europeans and North Americans don't seem to understand it at all.

I went away from the UK for while, and at some point after I came back, I got into a conversation with people just casually about the mass immigration issue. And all of them started talking about 'political correctness' being to blame, and other secondary manifestations like that.

So I said to them basically that this is not so, and that what has happened is that the financiers and multinational companies have created a double-victimisation by ripping up people out of their homelands in developing countries, dragging them into Europe en masse, which in turn then victimises the host population by creating ethnic tensions and wage suppression. All so that the financiers and multinational companies can have a wider margin.

It's like the so-called conservatives don't understand it because they have yet to think it through, or they have yet to see it with their eyes as it's being done to people.

It's like the only people who actually get it, are the Third Positionists on my side, and the Marxian Socialists on yours. It's like everyone else inbetween those two extremes is totally blind to it.

But it is also a matter of experience too, since I spent some time in developing countries and saw it, and you grew up in Puerto Rico which means you definitely saw it. So for the two of us, this was always going to be common sense.

[Daktoria]

You're not getting it Rei. The key word was "California" since that's where Reagan ran from as governor.

Who runs California, and what does California do?

[Rei Murasame]

No, I'm very sure that I got it. I've been getting it for about 12yrs now.

[Atlas Guate]

He vilified Jimmy Carter and even delayed the release of the hostages in Iran so Carter would look weak and ineffective.

This is patently false. The hostages were released on the same day that Reagan took the oath of office, knowing that some could misinterpret his role in the release, he asked Carter to go to Germany and greet the released hostages. Reagan never took credit for their release, though many speculate that the Iranians feared Reagan and this helped obtain the freedom of the hostages.

Meanwhile I saw his handiwork in Nicaragua in 1981. I was not impressed with his aggressive pro war stances and domino effect policies against democratically supported popular national movements in Central America.

I too saw (and lived through) the effects of both the Carter and Reagan policies in C.A., Carter allowed the fall of Nicaragua and the near collapse of both El Salvador and Guatemala, had Carter's policies continued most if not all of C.A. would now be an annex to Cuba, where the Castro dictatorship is as bad as (or worse) than any right-wing dictator's. There was little "popular" about the civil wars of C.A. they were mostly imported from the Soviet Union via their Cuban proxies, there was certaintly nothing democratic about them, neither the USSR nor Cuba are anyone's model of democracy. Proof of this is the consistant defeat of socialist candidates in current democratic elections in C.A. (except Nicaragua whose elections are suspect).

This does not mean that I condone the human rights violations by some of the military dictators in these countries, I also saw crimes and massacres committed from the communist guerrillas. Most left wingers will wear "Che" T-Shirts but forget the vast human rights violations and murders he committed.

[The Immortal Goon]

He's also the only president to have committed treason as defined by the US Constitution.

Speaking of which...

This is patently false. The hostages were released on the same day that Reagan took the oath of office, knowing that some could misinterpret his role in the release, he asked Carter to go to Germany and greet the released hostages. Reagan never took credit for their release, though many speculate that the Iranians feared Reagan and this helped obtain the freedom of the hostages.

Please. He ended up giving the Iranians, enemies of the US, weapons. A deal was worked out with Iran to make sure that Carter was booted out and Ronnie was put into office. The former President of Iran fully admits that this happened; Gary Sick of the National Security Council under both Carter and Reagan says that it happened; and Reagan's White House staffer Barbara Honegger has no problem in saying that it happened.

The only people that don't say this happened are people pandering to the portion of the public that was too stupid to oppose Reagan.

Reason #1: He won the Cold War!

So will you say that the USSR was a completely viable and workable system until Reagan came to office? If not, then it was an internal collapse that Reagan had nothing to do with. If not, then how did Reagan win the Cold War a decade after he was out of office? If it was policy coming to fruition, how do you know it wasn't Carter? Or Grant for that matter?

[Tainari88]

Immortal goon, we got a conservative gung ho guy here....from Guatemala?

Ronnie Reagan is to be worshiped as an Immortal Goon.

Nicaragua did not turn out to be easy to manipulate did it? They have had problems with the Nicas from the beginning. Back when the USA was shopping around for a canal for their East Coast-West Coast interests. That Walker debacle did not work. Damn nicas are hard cookies to crumble.

Che was scum that murdered and the death squads backed by illegal CIA funds obtained by Ollie North and his crew were clean and innocent right Guate?

De Guatemala a Guatepeor should be your nick.

[Atlas Guate]

Atlas: This is patently false. The hostages were released on the same day that Reagan took the oath of office, knowing that some could misinterpret his role in the release, he asked Carter to go to Germany and greet the released hostages. Reagan never took credit for their release, though many speculate that the Iranians feared Reagan and this helped obtain the freedom of the hostages.

Please. He ended up giving the Iranians, enemies of the US, weapons. A deal was worked out with Iran to make sure that Carter was booted out and Ronnie was put into office. The former President of Iran fully admits that this happened; Gary Sick of the National Security Council under both Carter and Reagan says that it happened; and Reagan's White House staffer Barbara Honegger has no problem in saying that it happened.

The only people that don't say this happened are people pandering to the portion of the public that was too stupid to oppose Reagan.

You have your facts confused, the Iran-Contra deal happened in 1986, I was referring to the hostages released on Jan 20, 1981. Reagan took full responsibility (March 19, 1987) for the Iran-Contra scandal, even though the investigation led by independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh concluded the Reagan did not know about the deal.

Atlas: Reason #1: He won the Cold War!

So will you say that the USSR was a completely viable and workable system until Reagan came to office? If not, then it was an internal collapse that Reagan had nothing to do with. If not, then how did Reagan win the Cold War a decade after he was out of office? If it was policy coming to fruition, how do you know it wasn't Carter? Or Grant for that matter?

There were four crucial events that led to the end of the Cold War (and the Soviet Union).

The first, on March 8 1983, in Orlando Fl, Reagan gave his “Evil Empire” speech, though controversial, this acknowledgment of what deep inside everyone (both in the west as well as those trapped behind the iron curtain) knew was true. The Kremlin were deeply worried, because they knew that Reagan meant what he said, and this speech challenged the legitimacy of their cruel regime.

The second, two weeks later, Reagan introduced SDI a shield to shoot down any incoming missile. Reagan offered to share this technology (once deployed) with others including the Soviet Union. The Kremlin knew the implications, they could never afford to keep up without economic ruin. They had long known that the U.S. had the technical and financial capacity for SDI, but thought they lacked the will, Reagan proved to them that he did.

The third was the deployment of Pershing missiles in Chancellor Helmut Kohl's Germany, followed by other Western European nations, thereby effectively neutralizing the Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed at Western Europe. This event (bitterly opposed by “peace activists”) along with SDI and Reagan's iron will forced the soviets to negotiate with the west a real reduction of nuclear weapons (Carter's SALT treaty only called for a limit in the rate of increase).

The fourth, came in October 1986 during the Reykjavik summit, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. Gorbachev refused any reduction in nuclear weapons without Reagan giving up on SDI, even though once again, Reagan had offered to share this technology and even offered to refrain from deploying SDI unilaterally. Reagan left the summit, as he was leaving, (according to Peter Hannaford) Gorbachev said: “I don't know what else I could have done.” Reagan's reply: “You could have said yes.”

This last event was perhaps climatic, the soviet economy could no longer keep-up, Gorbachev introduced Glasnost (limited free speech) and Perestroika (economic reform). Once those enslaved for so long got this limited taste of freedom, they wanted more, the days of the U.S.S.R were numbered.

June 12, 1987, the speech at the Brandenburg gate: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Though it is true that no one man single-handedly won the Cold War, President Reagan is widely considered by historians to be the central figure associated with the fall of the “Evil Empire”.

[Kman]

I am extreme right-wing and I dont worship him as a god, I think he was a traitor to the free market since he greatly increased government spending during his time as president.

[Atlas Guate]

Immortal goon, we got a conservative gung ho guy here....from Guatemala?

Ronnie Reagan is to be worshiped as an Immortal Goon.

Nicaragua did not turn out to be easy to manipulate did it? They have had problems with the Nicas from the beginning. Back when the USA was shopping around for a canal for their East Coast-West Coast interests. That Walker debacle did not work. Damn nicas are hard cookies to crumble.

Che was scum that murdered and the death squads backed by illegal CIA funds obtained by Ollie North and his crew were clean and innocent right Guate?

De Guatemala a Guatepeor should be your nick.

You wouldn't be trying to diminish my points of view simply because of the color of my skin?

Why if I were a “progressive leftist liberal” I could call you a racist.

Like I said, there is plenty of blame to go around, the difference is that I will acknowledge the evil done by military dictators while you close your eyes and pretend that Che, Castro and their ilk are all innocent and good.

The fact remains, that we now have free and democratic elections (since the late 80's) and former "guerrilleros" get very few votes proof that their cause was never "popular" nor democratic. Nicaragua has had fairly questionable elections in the past.

As for the Nica Canal, don't forget that the Panama Canal was finished and run by the U.S. until Carter gave it back (Probably the only thing Carter did right.)

Please do refrain from ad-hominems, they make you and your arguments seam to lack a solid basis. Thank you.

[Tainari88]

Well, Guate. You sure did not deal with TIG's analysis of Reagan's problems with the Jimmy Carter scandal.

My arguments don't have a solid basis?

Look Atlas Guate, there is a lot of evidence that Ronald Reagan engaged in illegal activity related to circumventing congressional rules and regulations in order to do what he wanted to do with his bull ideas related to 'freedom fighters'.

Guatemala has one of the ugliest histories in Central America in terms of having the American government interfere in defense of private industry in the region. Brutal dictatorships, outright force used, and let us not get into Arbenz in the 50's and the funding of the Guatemalan military to keep peasant uprisings from occurring against all that dirty intervention.

I know Guatemalan history very, very well. It has to do with my interest in Mayan Classic culture and the Quiche Mayan groups in Guatemala. How the military went into those villages and murdered whole families wholesale for even participating in trying to get some land reform in Guatemala.

The history of the presidencies. I was a translator for a bunch of Indigenous organizations in Guatemala. I had to hear every horror story committed by right wing LADINO families who treated the indian population that is the majority in Guatemala like pariahs and denied them basic rights for years!! All to please the lord and masters of private profits like the United Fruit Company.

I find an intense dislike for Guatemalan sellout military people Guate. Especially the ones who worship Ronald Reagan's Guatemalan policies. I really dislike those.

Go on, respond to TIG's analysis and mine if you can. Defend that Teflon Alzheimer ridden, Hollywood set jock, old fart Conservative mediocre actor jerk off president of yours.....I will come after you with everything I got in my memory, my files, and my capacity.

Metele mano al tema Senor Conservador de Guatemala. A ver quien gana el debate este?

And don't try any avoidance tactics when you wind up losing all your 'points'. Because TIG just blasted all your theories of the cheap kind out of the water. You don't respond to his statements. But decide to go after me....thinking I am the 'uninformed' one on Guatemala. How wrong you are...

[The Immortal Goon]

Though it is true that no one man single-handedly won the Cold War, President Reagan is widely considered by historians to be the central figure associated with the fall of the “Evil Empire”.

No good historian would say anything of the kind. Not for ideological reasons, but by virtue of the fact that most of the documents associated with such recent history are still sealed.

The rest of your examples are just instances where Reagan did shit with the Soviets with the aim of coming to a foregone conclusion. I can, doing the same thing, say that Carter ended the Soviet Union:

There were four crucial events that led to the end of the Cold War (and the Soviet Union).

The first, on January 1, 1979, Carter recognized Red China and revoked the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. Though controversial, this acknowledgment of China was an acknowledgement of something that was deep inside everyone (both in the west as well as those trapped behind the iron curtain) knew was true. The Kremlin were deeply worried, because they knew that Carter meant what he said, and China was now no longer a proxy for the Soviet Union - further isolating them and bolstering US interests in Asia.

The second, Carter ordered a massive five-year defense buildup that the Soviets found provocative. They had long known that the U.S. had the technical and industrial capacity for a major conflict, but thought they lacked the will, Carter proved to them that he did.

The third was the July 3, 1979 order that President Carter signed - the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. In the words of Brzezinski, "That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

The fourth, a long process in which Carter forced the Soviet Union to accept the SALT II agreement. Russia had attempted to hurt Carter by delaying acceptance and hoping that the Senate and other domestic powers would thwart him. Carter, on the other hand, attempted to use SALT as a way to undermine Russia's motives in the Third World. In the end, but tactics ended up working - and Carter eventually won out when the Senate didn't approve the agreement but he forced the Kremlin to abide by it anyway.

This last events were perhaps climatic, but with the Soviet Union involved in its own Vietnam, isolated from China, and being punished by human rights advocates that Carter catered, "the Carter administration embraced what then CIA Director Stansfield Turner described as a "series of policies on nuclear weapons that laid the whole foundation for Reagan's expansion of nuclear weapons, and war-fighting, and war-winning capabilities." He pushed plans to develop the MX first-strike missile system, proposing that it be made mobile by running the warheads on a rail network linking a series silos in Utah and Nevada. After cancelling deployment of the neutron bomb, he backed a new medium-range nuclear system in Europe that could reach Soviet territory. He also increased the defense budget by 5 percent." (1)

January 4, 1980, the speech from the Oval Office: “The Soviets must understand our deep concern. We will delay opening of any new American or Soviet consular facilities, and most of the cultural and economic exchanges currently under consideration will be deferred. Trade with the Soviet Union will be severely restricted.

I have decided to halt or to reduce exports to the Soviet Union in three areas that are particularly important to them. These new policies are being and will be coordinated with those of our allies.

I've directed that no high technology or other strategic items will be licensed for sale to the Soviet Union until further notice, while we revise our licensing policy.

Fishing privileges for the Soviet Union in United States waters will be severely curtailed.

The 17 million tons of grain ordered by the Soviet Union in excess of that amount which we are committed to sell will not be delivered. This grain was not intended for human consumption but was to be used for building up Soviet livestock herds.

I am determined to minimize any adverse impact on the American farmer from this action. The undelivered grain will be removed from the market through storage and price support programs and through purchases at market prices. We will also increase amounts of grain devoted to the alleviation of hunger in poor countries, and we'll have a massive increase of the use of grain for gasohol production here at home.

After consultation with other principal grain-exporting nations, I am confident that they will not replace these quantities of grain by additional shipments on their part to the Soviet Union."

Though it is true that no one man single-handedly won the Cold War, President Carter is widely considered by historians to be the central figure associated with the fall of the “Evil Empire”.

[Kman]

Reagan didnt end the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed on its own because it was a society based on communist central planning and because of this unable to provide a decent standard of living to its population and this caused them to eventually revolt. Even if Jimmy Carter had been president in the 80's the Soviet Union would have still collapsed.