ActivismEconomyGovernmentMilitarySocial IssuesUS PoliticsWorld Politics

21 Reasons Why Ronald Reagan Was a Terrible President

Updated on December 13, 2016
jeff61b profile image

Jeff is a computer professional who takes a great interest in politics and tries to always distinguish fact from opinion.

Official portrait of President Reagan, 1981
Official portrait of President Reagan, 1981

1. Reagan Supplied Weapons to America's Enemies

He armed Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war despite the fact that it was widely known Iraq was using chemical weapons against civilian populations in violation of international law.

2. Reagan Ignored the Atrocities Committed by Saddam Hussein

Even after the whole world condemned Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons to kill over 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Iraq, the Reagan administration continued to provide weapons and tactical information to Iraq. Iraq used this information to target its enemies with chemical weapons. Reagan even vetoed a UN resolution condemning Iraq.

3. Reagan Illegally Supplied Arms to Both Sides of the Iran-Iraq War

While he was supplying Iraq with weapons, Reagan also armed Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in direct violation of a U.S. law that he had signed.

4. Reagan Caved in to the Demands of Terrorists

After several Americans were taken hostage by terrorists in Lebanon, Reagan provided weapons to Iran in exchange for their release. Despite this concession, ultimately more hostages were taken.

Memorial to 241 Marines, soldiers, and sailors killed in the October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon.
Memorial to 241 Marines, soldiers, and sailors killed in the October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon.

5. Reagan Caved in to the Demands of Terrorists Again

After Reagan sent Marines to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission, a terrorist’s truck bomb killed 241 U.S. Marines. Reagan responded by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists wanted, pulling all the troops out of Beirut.

6. Reagan Was Weak in the War on Terrorism

After the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Reagan promised to track down and punish the terrorists who committed that horrible act. He never followed up on that promise.

7. Reagan Didn't Obey His Own Laws

He illegally supplied weapons to Nicaraguan rebels in violation of a law that he himself had signed.

8. Reagan Supported the Violent Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Government

He illegally supported the Nicaraguan Contras, whom he called “Freedom Fighters,” despite the fact that they killed civilians and wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government to restore the dictatorship that previously existed in Nicaragua.

9. Reagan Started an Unnecessary War to Divert Attention From His Failure in Beirut

Just days after the bombing that killed 241 Marines in Beirut, Reagan launched an attack on the island of Grenada to remove Cuban soldiers there. This successfully took attention away from the devastating loss of those Marines in Beirut.

USS Stark after 37 crew members were killed by an Iraqi missile on May 17, 1987.
USS Stark after 37 crew members were killed by an Iraqi missile on May 17, 1987.

10. Reagan Failed to Defend US From Saddam Hussein

When an Iraqi fighter jet fired a missile into a U.S. Navy ship in 1987, killing 37 men, Reagan did nothing in response to the attack. Iraq is still the only non-allied country to attack a U.S. warship without retaliation.

11. Reagan Helped Create Al Qaeda

The Reagan administration armed and supported the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. Many members of the Mujahideen, like Osama bin Laden, used their experience in Afghanistan to help them form the terrorist organization Al Qaeda.

12. Reagan Supported the Racist Apartheid Government in South Africa

When the white minority in South Africa (just 10% of the population) brutally repressed the black majority, even denying them the right to vote, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 to apply pressure to South Africa to end Apartheid. But President Reagan opposed any sanctions on South Africa and vetoed that bill. Congress was forced to override his veto.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

13. Reagan Supported the Most Brutal Dictators in the World as Long as He Didn't Consider Them “Communists”

  • He supported Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Later, when Noriega became too close with Fidel Castro, we suddenly considered him an enemy and removed him from power.
  • He supported Saddam Hussein when he committed the most brutal atrocities on Earth, killing thousands of his own people. Years later, when Saddam threatened our oil supply, we used these same atrocities as reasons to go to war with him.
  • He supported Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos even after Marcos killed his political rival and rigged his own reelection.
  • He supported the brutal regime in El Salvador when it was widely known that they were killing civilians, including Americans. After four American nuns were murdered by Salvadorian soldiers, Reagan’s Secretary of State defended the Salvadorians, suggesting that the nuns might have been shot while trying to run a military roadblock—but this wouldn't explain why they were also raped before they were killed.

14. Reagan’s Administration Had More Documented Corruption Than Any President in U.S. History

At least 138 Reagan administration officials, including several cabinet members, were investigated for, indicted for, or convicted of crimes. This is the largest number of any U.S. President. Many of them were pardoned by Reagan or President Bush before they could even stand trial.

  • Secretary of the Interior James Watt —Indicted on 21 felonies
  • Attorney General Edwin Meese —Resigned after investigations of corruption
  • Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger—Charged with Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned before going to trial
  • Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams—Plea bargained for Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned by President Bush
  • Two National Security Advisors Robert MacFarlane and John Poindexter—Pleaded guilty to Iran-Contra crimes and were pardoned
  • Three high ranking CIA officials, Alan Fiers, Clair George, and Joseph Fernandez —Convicted and pardoned for Iran-Contra crimes
  • At least nine Reagan appointees were convicted of perjury, lying to Congress, obstruction of Congress, or contempt of Congress

15. Reagan Frequently Repeated Bald-Faced Lies Even After They Were Publicly Revealed to Be Untrue

  • He told stories about having been a U.S. Army photographer assigned to film Nazi death camps. Reagan never visited or filmed any such camps.
  • He often told a story about a “Chicago Welfare Queen” who had 80 aliases and gotten $150,000 in welfare. She never existed but investigators did find one woman who had two aliases and received $8,000. Still, Reagan continued to tell the false version of the story.
  • He claimed that trees create more pollution than automobiles, an absurdly untrue statement that he literally pulled out of thin air.

16. Reagan Set Records for Budget Deficits

After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan’s own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only eight years. Although Republicans blamed Congress for the deficits, all eight of the budgets Congress passed had less spending and smaller deficits than the budgets proposed by Reagan.

17. Reagan's Economic Policies Put Millions of Americans out of Work

When he took office in 1981, unemployment was at 7.5% and dropping. A few months after his economic policies took effect, unemployment began to rise again. Millions of people continued to lose their jobs for the next two years until unemployment exceeded 10%. It stayed above 10% for nearly a year, peaking at 10.8%. Three years after he was elected, unemployment was still higher than when he was sworn in.

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo, 1976.
Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo, 1976.

18. Reagan’s Policies Allowed Hundreds of Thousands of Family Farms to Go out of Business or Declare Bankruptcy

By some accounts, nearly one third of all farms were at risk of being foreclosed during the 1980s. Reagan vetoed a farm credit bill that would have given farmers some relief. His popularity among farmers dropped so low that at one point when discussing the exportation of grain to other countries, Reagan joked that he would like to “keep the grain and export the farmers."

19. Reagan’s Financial Policies Caused the Savings and Loan Industry to Collapse

The financial deregulation and changes to the tax code that President Reagan enacted ultimately caused nearly 750 different financial institutions to fail. This cost taxpayers about $150 billion.

20. Reagan Robbed the Social Security Trust Fund to Pay for His Budget Shortfalls

After Reagan cut taxes for the rich, the tax revenue to fund the government was so small that the budget deficit grew to four times what it had been under Jimmy Carter. So Reagan “borrowed” hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay the country’s bills. That money has never been paid back.

21. Reagan Largely Ignored the AIDS Epidemic while Tens of Thousands of People Were Dying of the Disease

Many conservatives in the 1980s believed that AIDS was God’s punishment for being gay. Ronald Reagan did not publicly talk about AIDS until the 6th year of his presidency. In 1986, when AIDS fatalities were doubling every year, Reagan proposed cuts in funding for AIDS research.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • NateB11 profile image

      Nathan Bernardo 2 years ago from California, United States of America

      I had the misfortune of growing up during the Reagan-Bush years and I remember how horrific it was. Worst decade ever. Thanks for this great info, I'm glad somebody is saying it.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Lovely!Nicely done, and true as true can be.

      Now, as we sit here 2014....remember, and don't ever forget: He is hero to Tea Party.

      They want a repeat of Reagan, and worse.

      And all these years of calling him the greatest president has tarnished and degraded our image. imo

      This is why we really have 2 Americas, and not just in the income inequality sense.

      There are such disparate ideas of right and wrong, it's frightening.

    • CarolAnnHeadrick profile image

      CarolAnnHeadrick 2 years ago

      You are moronic. Reagan focused on the Cold War and won.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Carol Ann Headrick, apparently you cannot find anything, even one statement in the article that is not factually true. So you had to resort to childish, personal attacks rather than reply to the content of the article.

    • Timothy L. Locke 2 years ago

      "10. Reagan failed to defend us from Saddam Hussein.

      When an Iraqi fighter jet fired a missile into a U.S. Navy ship in 1987, killing 37 men, Reagan did nothing in response to the attack. Iraq is still the only country to attack a U.S. warship without retaliation."

      Incorrect. Israel, attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, in an effort to try to trick the US into Thinking it was Egypt that did the Attack, in an effort to get the American Military to Nuke Egypt for Israel. Israel was not only NOT Punished for this Blatant Attack upon the US Military, and the people of America it self, it was rewarded with additional Funds from the American Taxpayer, which today equates to nearly 50,000.00 for each man, woman, and child that lives in Israel today.

    • cathylynn99 profile image

      cathylynn99 2 years ago from northeastern US

      I was in school at the time. Reagan's policies made student loans way more expensive. one loan I had to get had 21% interest.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Timothy L. Locke, you are correct that an Israeli jet fired on a U.S. ship in 1967. It was interpreted by our government as an accident by a close friend and ally. Iraq, on the other hand was never a close ally like Israel was.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Despite the National Security Agency withholding tapes and documents that bear on the matter, there is overwhelming evidence, including NSA intercepts of the pilots’ transmissions, that this was a deliberate attack, seemingly designed to keep the U.S. from knowing of Israel’s impending attack on the Golan Heights, which Washington opposed. The Liberty sailors were ordered to be silent on pain of court martial, and the Navy conducted a superficial investigation, admitting that its purpose was not to “assign culpability.”

      To this day the official position of the Israeli and American governments is that the incident was an accident, which is about as likely as the attack on Pearl Harbor being accidental.

      It makes me ashamed to be an American.

      RICHARD M. BERTHOLD

      Albuquerque

    • Ruth A. Hibbard 2 years ago

      Reagan was a terrible governor of California and I never could understand why people liked him. He was one of those who saved himself during the McCarthy persecution of left-wingers by naming names of anyone who could be persecuted instead of himself!

    • phildazz profile image

      Allan Philip 2 years ago from Toronto

      Great job on the facts but that's what American presidents do. Right, their job is the f..k the world and they don't fail, actually Reagan was the best at it. Check out the guy in power now, he's giving Reagan a go for it. Sorry, couldn't help it. LOL

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I was born in 1968. I remember the Carter years. I grew up in the Reagan years. I cannot express how much I disagree with you here.

    • CarolAnnHeadrick profile image

      CarolAnnHeadrick 2 years ago

      I am shocked at your stupidity and gullibility, almost speechless. Reagan brought honor, pride and respect back to America. His goal was the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union. Maybe you are trying to hide what a disaster Obama is. He just cut our military forces by 20% because America is no longer the superpower, as planned. Hence, we are left less secure because the superpower status will be filled, most likely by a terrorist or communist state. Rather than Reagan's peace through strength, Obama has stated that he leads from behind - which, in essence, leaves America leaderless during this heightened time of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      You cant fathom that someone doesn't agree with you, can you? You are shocked that not everybody is like you?

      Cause I think it's stupid and gullible to worship Ronnie Rayguns.

      And I think Obama has brought back pride, which Republicans have destroyed with their sadistic policies.

    • raymondphilippe profile image

      Raymond Philippe 2 years ago from The Netherlands

      Thanks for sharing this interesting info on Reagan. As many other Europeans i never understood his popularity in the us. Nevertheless he and Gorbachev played an important role in bringing down the wall and nuclear disarmament. That certainly scored him some points in his favor.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      CarolAnnHeadrick, Obama has not proposed any cuts to defense spending. Congress cut the Defense budget by 10% when they passed the Sequester cuts. Obama's proposal is to actually increase funding to the defense department to a higher level than than it is with the sequester cuts.

      Republicans are calling this funding increase a "cut" because it was proposed by Obama.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Carol, you still engage in mindless insults and childish name-calling without refuting anything in the article. If you could find one word that was untrue you would do so. Thank you for your admission that the 21 reasons why Reagan was a terrible president is factually accurate.

    • David Menapace 2 years ago

      Not to mention his union busting with the air traffic controllers.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      The Union Busting, as so many call it, was a classic Reagan maneuver that illustrates what a good president he was.

      The Air Traffic Controllers union was not legally allowed to strike. It was against the law. It was a part of the contract they had all signed. They new it was illegal. They went on strike anyway.

      Ronald Reagan fired them. This is what he said would happen. This is what the contract said would happen. That contract they all signed. The one they new they were violating when they went on strike.

      They threatened to do 'A' which has consequence 'B'. Ronald Reagan warned them that if they did 'A', he would ensure consequence 'B' took place. They said 'your bluffing.' He said 'try me.' They tried him. He was not bluffing.

      Reagan did a lot of things wrong. He did a lot of things right. This was one of those things he did right.

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 2 years ago from Corona, California.

      Last paragraph fits all presidents. Standing up to the union took balls and more should do it. Greg.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, because they were gvt employees.

      As he said; "gvt can't stop functioning"......Compare that to today, when Reagan's party now feels free to shut the whole gvt down!

      Hate to tell ya--Reagan would have the same attitude towards the filibustering, blocking, and disrespecting the office of prez that the Republicans engage in on a regular basis today.

      I may have despised Reagans policies, but a gvt hater he was not! Unlike the GOP of today.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Some government employees can, and have, gone on strike. Air Traffic Controllers were not one of the groups that can. Neither can the military.

      But I have another problem with what you say. You claim Reagan was not a "gvt hater"? The man that said the most terrifying words in the Englsih language were "I'm with the government and I'm here to help" was not a government hater? The man that said "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem!" was not a government hater?

      Wow. What other insights into the mind and heart of Reagan do you have?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      FSame as you, which is none.So, what do you make of a guy who says gvt sucks, but we must keep it running, because people depend on it?

      Schizo? Bi-polar?

      Or just playing to his base when it suited him?

      I vote bi-polar.

    • Kathleen Cochran profile image

      Kathleen Cochran 2 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

      Greed and homelessness. Those are the two things I remember from the Reagan years, not to mention the American hostages in Iran he used as bait for his first election. And Carol, the name-calling really weakens your arguments.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I do not claim Reagan to be a 'great president.' I do not claim Reagan to be a 'terrible president.' I think those that push him to either extreme are (generally) suffering from tunnel-vision. You want to call the man bi-polar. Fine. But you miss the point when you do. Reagan was an _effective_ president. As such, he had two sides:

      * He was willing to compromise when he felt it was needed (worked a lot with Tip O'Neal)

      * He was willing to hold his ground when he felt it was needed (such as with the Air Traffic Controllers' union).

      The modern Republican Party has no sense of direction or purpose. They hold their ground -- not because they think it is needed, but because they think compromise is a four-letter word that indicates weakness. You can claim Reagan was a lot of things... but I will say with confidence that he would not approve of the current state of his party.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I think I said that too. Which makes it funny that they claim him as role model.

      Although he did have the same superior look down nose attitude about poor people, just like they do.

      And he's the one started the tax give aways to rich, and deregulating so his friends could have it, which lead to the downfall of America.

      But, he would never have supported laws which make it harder to vote! No prez in their right mind would do that.

      And no sitting member of Congress who gets paid by ME should be doing it either.

      That, is un-America as un-American can be.

      Reagan fought the commies, his party has now become them.

    • CarolAnnHeadrick profile image

      CarolAnnHeadrick 2 years ago

      I see total generalizing of the rich, white republicans who look down on the poor which is completely untrue. Have you looked around at the democrat leadership? Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Clintons, Al Gore, Joe Biden. The Obamas live high off the hog with our tax dollars. It is the democrat policies that look down on the poor. Give them subsidies, food stamps, just enough to keep them happy & voting for dems, but never a way out of poverty. Biden just said that Obamacare helps single women because now they don't have to work. Again, keep the poor from ever improving themselves. Republicans grow business, which grows jobs and everyone's future improves. And anti-voter ID law is a path to fraud. The NAACP in North Carolina just had an anti-Voter ID rally in which they REQUIRED ID to get in. Wonder why would that be. It has nothing to do with voter disenfranchisement.

    • Susan S Manning profile image

      Susan S Manning 2 years ago

      Great hub, and it's stimulated a great conversation. It's clear, as KD remarked, that he did some good things and he did some bad things, like all presidents. Many people don't see it this way and deem a leader either all good or all bad. Reagan is a particularly good example of how closely this can border on hero worship. All my life I've heard people talk of his greatness and I've seen how dangerous it is. They overlook and make excuses for the bad things he did just to keep seeing him as that great man, so those bad things get repeated. The same thing is happening with Obama, who's really just following the playbooks of his predecessors, including Reagan. Information like this is good, we need to be able to see the good and the bad, and we need to be honest.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Carol Ann Headrick, you said the Obama's "live high off the hog with our tax dollars". They live exactly the same lifestyle as previous presidents. When the Reagans or Bushes threw formal State Dinners, it was a sign of class and sophistication, but for some reason when the Obama's do the exact same thing they are accused of frivolously wasting tax dollars to support their luxurious lifestyle.

      Democrats just want the poor to have a safety net so they don't starve to death or lose their home while they are trying to get back on their feet. In my view, Democrats work to enable people to better themselves and become prosperous. Republicans work to make the rich and powerful more wealthy and more powerful while preventing everyone else from moving upward.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Jeff61b -- I agree. I would only modify your comment to read:

      "Politicians want to ensure that the poor sees them providing a safety net; in the end they only want to ensure that their voting base does not starve to death, or lose their home while they are in office -- if those things are to happen, it needs to be on the next guy's watch. Politicians want their image to be one of fairness; they want people to believe they are working to enable people to better themselves and become prosperous. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they work to make the rich and powerful (the people that contributed to their election campaigns and line their pockets while they are in office) more wealthy and more powerful while preventing everyone else from moving upward."

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      KDLadage - I don't dispute that a great many politicians only want to do what they need to do to get reelected. Maintaining the illusion of helping people is more important to them than actually doing something to help people. But I do believe there are a rare few who genuinely work to enable the less fortunate to better themselves. Granted they are decreasing in numbers, but they exist.

      Until recently, I've always felt that most politicians, even the ones I strongly disagreed with, wanted to genuinely do the right thing for the American people.

      But it is only in the last five years that I see a whole political party actively work to make things worse in the hopes of pinning the blame on the guy in the White House so they can win the next election.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Bingo Jeff....and once they win, it's all over for America.

      It becomes the corporate states, no loyalty to country, or people...only bottom line.

      And our kids dying for Someone else's empire.

    • RSPaxton profile image

      Rob Paxton 2 years ago from Minnesota

      I blame many of the problems on Ronald Reagan and his trickle down economics was bull...

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Jeff -- yes, it is true that the Republican Party has become some sick, twisted caricature. The Tea Party may, in the end, be the death knell of the American Dream.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yanukovich claims the ones who ousted him are fascist thugs......I DEF see the rise of that here.

      But I also know there are those who will not tolerate it.

      Have to hope those outnumber the thugs.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      How can you claim you are not trying to be rude after you call someone "dumb and gullible beyond belief"?

      Haw can you call someone dumb while posting a comment so filled with typos and errors it is painful to read as the brain stretches to parse out some form of meaning from the stream of seemingly random characters?

      I do not disagree with most of what (I think) you are trying to say. But damn, man.... do not insult others and claim you are not doing so; and do not call others dumb while you cannot be bothered to take enough time to make your point intelligible.

    • August 2 years ago

      Well done. Let's make a book!

    • John 2 years ago

      Carol you need to stop.... Biden just said obama care helps single women not they don't have to work.... Are you kidding me, how dumb can one person be? Obama care isn't a paycheck for poor people, and it's called the affordable care act.... Calling it Obama care is a joke, he wanted more options and less involvement from insurance companies this isn't his plan it was a compromise.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Right-Wingers don't care about facts. It's all about the emotional hatred w them. Here--here are facts:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bj0PkdXIYAEXXXO.jpg:la...

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Im glad of ythat. He also had powerful enemies, as he was shot at. But his voodoo economics hurt a lot of people.War on drugs and corrections corporq4tion of america begun in his era too. And we kn8w what his philosophy wss. Privitize and reap profits. Booooo

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Rich S, every fact stated in this article is backed up by archived links to historical web sites. Every one is a verifiable fact, not opinion like your comments.

      You can claim Reagan opposed apartheid but the fact is he vetoed every attempt to put pressure on South Africa to end it. The facts don't support your claims.

      I very much remember the Cold War and I remember how Reagan supported Central American terrorists who he called "freedom fighters". These terrorists killed lots of innocent civilians while trying to overthrow a democratically elected government

      Nobody has refuted #10. Reagan did in fact fail to do anything at all when a US ship was attacked by Saddam Hussein. That again is a historical fact.

      You don't deny that Reagan was terrible in fighting terrorism. You just nit-pic about the wording of the statement.

      Every statement in this article is factually correct and verifiable.

    • Chaz Faruk profile image

      Chaz Faruk 2 years ago

      21 Reasons Ronal Reagan Shouldn't be the Face of American Conservatism

    • misterhollywood profile image

      John Hollywood 2 years ago from Hollywood, CA

      Great post! I was never a fan of Mr. Ray-Gun. He was terrible for working people and really screwed a lot of gay people during the AIDS crisis. I. Following your hubs now.

    • Vinny 2 years ago

      there a lots of cute opinions in this story, but not a ton of facts.give us documented facts mr. Author.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Vinny, there are almost no opinions at all in this article. Every one of the 21 statements is a fact. You may have noticed those links after each one of the 21 points. Those are places you can go to get more information and verify the facts.

      Feel free to research any of these things yourself. So far nobody has offered any objective sources of information to contradict anything in this article.

    • rwp 2 years ago

      Facts, the modern conservatives' natural enemy. It's easy for them to play the denial game until they're presented with cited facts. Then they just want to hijack the conversation and try to make it about something else. Their attempts to do so in this comments section have been downright hilarious. Must hurt for them to be unable to defend their idol. Funny stuff. Also, good job shutting their nonsensical excuses and lies down, jeff61b.

    • Real President 2 years ago

      Ahhhhh when we had a real president and not someone named Barry

    • Frank 2 years ago

      Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit - he replaced our values of hard work, responsibility and community with "profits trumps all". Sold the nation of "supply side economics" and thereby decimated the middle class.

      Reagan surrendered to terrorists, cut and ran when attacked by military forces, engineered a "victorious" invasion of Grenada a tiny

      Caribbean Island with less than 30k population and with no army, navy or air force - with this single act he "restored our sense of pride" and got the nation ready for more warmongering.

      I lived trough Reagan's administration, every poll showed that the majority of the people disagreed with his policies - yet 90% were ready to re-elect him because "he seems like such a nice guy".

    • Fred Rivera 2 years ago

      Lots of details missing from these facts.

      For example, number 17. The 1981-82 recession started in July 1981, and Reagan's tax cuts, for better or for worse, had not yet been approved. They took effect on October 1, 1981.

      The 1981-82 recession was essentially a double dip recession, as we had a less severe recession under Carter, around 79-80. The high interest rates that caused both recessions, were products of the Carter administration and the Federal Reserve, and were meant to tame the double digit inflation affecting the USA and the world in the late 70's and early 80's. There really was little alternative to the high interest rates, to tighten money, to bring roaring inflation under control.

      It does seem quite a stretch to blame Reagan for the 1981-82 recession, since he was in office only five plus months when it began, and when his program had not even been approved by Congress when the recession started.

      As to Granada, the Prime Minister had been assassinated, there was a fear the medical students there could be taken hostage, and the invasion was considered a rescue mission to evacuate the students. Most of the students were very thankful they were evacuated, and a few of them felt they had not needed such a so called rescue.

      I only recently joined Hub, and I am seeing a pattern of leaving out facts that don't fit the easy explanation of the author.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      "It does seem quite a stretch to blame Reagan for the 1981-82 recession, since he was in office only five plus months when it began,"

      Perhaps now you understand the absolute idiocy of blaming Obama for TARP, 9-11,Hurricane Katrina and the recession of 2008.

      But hey--idiocy won 2 midterms.......so don't ever say propaganda doesn't work.

      It's a goldmine

    • Fred Rivera 2 years ago

      lovemychris:

      Lots of idiocy going around, and blaming Obama for those things is certainly part of that syndrome. If the original post had been about blaming Obama for those matters, I would have stated the post was wrong. The original post was the use of selective data to mislead the readers about certain elements of what jeff61b calls facts. There are many more missing elements of his list of facts.

      The Iran Iraq war comments made by the selective fact expert (jeff61b) are also in need of analysis.

      For better or for worse, the US policy in the Reagan years relative to that war was to try to ensure that the war was essentially a stalemate. To have had an Iranian victory would have been one set of disasters, and the have had an Iraqi victory would have been another set of disasters.

      We often have to "ally" ourselves with forces that we know we will ultimately have to oppose, once the short term alliance has ended. Such was the case in World War II. Once Stalin helped the USA and its more traditional allies defeat Germany, the USSR became the cold war enemy. But, it was necessary to be an ally of the USSR to defeat Germany.

      One can argue with the steps taken to assist Iraq and Iran to try to maintain a stalemate. However, I suspect that another reason given why Reagan was a terrible President would be "he let Iran take over the Persian Gulf", if Iran had beaten Iraq in the war between those two countries.

      Another incomplete fact about Reagan and Marcos needs to be discussed. Once Marcos rigged the election against Mrs. Aquino, Reagan tried to get the parties to negotiate a solution. Once it was clear Marcos would not cooperate, Marcos fled the country. Reagan did not support his effort to cling to power, and the US had a good relationship with Mrs. Aquino. Reagan wanted to avoid chaos when a strongman leaves power, and was not publicly critical of Marcos. The fact about Reagan and Marcos does not mention that Marcos fled his country during Reagan's presidency....a convenient omission.

      The Nicaraguan contras wanted to re-establish the dictatorship that previously existed in the country? No link on that documentation. Here is an omitted fact: Anastasio Somoza, the dictator overthrown in 1979 (I cheered his overthrow) was assassinated in 1980, before Reagan was elected. So, they could not possibly restore the dictatorship that previously existed in Nicaragua. I know Somoza thought he was God, but, he was not going to rise from death.

      Further, as to the Contras, they were a combination of groups, including former Somoza national guard elements, but they also had Alfonso Robelo as one of their political leaders. Robelo was actually in the first Sandinista government, part of the 'junta de reconstruccion' after Somoza was overthrown. He and Violeta Chamorro resigned from that government within a year, because the Sandinistas were increasingly totalitarian, and repressive, often suspending the publication of the opposition newspaper, nationalizing industries, and allowing a private sector under heavy government control, with government mandates that tied the hands of business people. It was a private sector more in name than in reality.

      Maybe jeff61b can explain to us why Robelo and Chamorro resigned from the Sandinista government within a year of the fall of Somoza.

      Chamorro later defeated Ortega to become the President of that country.

      The facts put out by jeff61b need to be challenged, as to the exclusion of other facts.

      I do not criticize Obama for secretly contacting the Iranian leaders, nor for his trying to put together a coalition that includes some terrible governments, in the effort to defeat ISIS. And, issues like helping both Iran and Iraq in their war need to be put in a greater context.

      Someday, an Obama hater will put out a list of reasons why Obama was a supposedly terrible President. You can bet that it will be full of one sided information, theoretically true, but lacking in context. If I am still around, I will counter that incomplete information, as I have countered the incomplete information shown by jeff61b.

      No one can put in all the details in their articles, but the omissions I have mentioned are serious, make no mistake about it.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Fred,

      Once again you have cleverly deduced that the author of the article is not a neutral observer and has an actual opinion. I hate to ruin your “gotcha” moment, but the title of the article should have given that away.

      I remember the Reagan years in vivid detail.

      Reagan overtly supported Saddam Hussein with weapons and supplies in the Iran-Iraq war even when it was clear that Iraq was using chemical weapons to kill thousands of civilians. We all saw images of thousands of dead men, women and children killed by Saddam’s chemical weapons. The entire world condemned Iraq for atrocities but Reagan never said a harsh word about Iraq’s crime. He even vetoed a UN resolution condemning Iraq. You can try to rewrite history any way you want, but that is a fact.

      Reagan did support Marcos until he fled the Philippines. Then he had no choice but to support the new Aquino government. The fact that Marcos fled the Philippines while Reagan was president is irrelevant.

      Your comments about the Sandinista government have nothing to do with the content of the article. The fact remains; they were a democratically elected government. For whatever faults they may have had, they were less brutal than some of the dictators we supported in that region. Do you remember how the Sandinistas were removed from power? They weren’t overthrown. They were voted out of office. And when they were voted out of office, they left office. Dictators do not tend to leave office due to election results.

      There is a great effort to rewrite history about Reagan in order to portray him as a great president and nominate him for Sainthood. I disagree with that false portrayal and this article was written to remind people of some facts that should be considered regarding Reagan’s legacy.

      You have done nothing to contradict any of those facts.

    • Fred Rivera 2 years ago

      I did not attempt to contradict your facts, I added facts that you apparently intentionally excluded.

      You only include what supports your conclusion. It is like saying "the crowds in Dallas were friendly to Kennedy on November 22, 1963, without including the rest of the story.

      I am looking forward to continuing to counter your cherry picking of facts which are true, to the exclusion of other facts.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Fred,

      I would say a better analogy of what you are doing would be like arguing with someone's conclusion about the Kennedy assassination by telling us what the barometric pressure was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. It might be accurate but has no relevance to the discussion.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 2 years ago

      Fred,

      By the way, I look forward to further comments from you. This is actually an enjoyable back-and-forth we have. Your comments are a nice contrast to all the angry insults I get from people who can't carry on a meaningful conversation beyond making childish insults.

      While I may disagree with you, I respect the fact that you can engage in an intelligent conversation.

    • Fred Rivera 2 years ago

      Permit me to be a least a bit conciliatory for a moment.

      When a raw fact is stated about the Obama deficits, something that is technically true, no fair person can simply say it is true, without discussing what Obama inherited, the context. Seriously incomplete truths require a response.

      I have, in other contexts, defended Obama against these incomplete truths. I have, in this context, acted against your statements, because of all you leave out.

      I too, was around in the time period of 1986, Marcos flight from the Philippines, and was in Central America (not Nicaragua) when the Sandinistas won a numerically fair election in the mid 80's. There are many details which I believe you left out, which if disclosed, would materially affect the debate on the matter.

      You do not know my political views, but the one thing I will not be silent for, is heavy duty exclusion of facts, to make a point. No insults, no character assassination, but no accepting of true statements that exclude other true statements.

      The "raid" of the SS trust funds is a result of bipartisan agreement that the surplus of SS tax proceeds versus SS benefit payouts would be used to purchase treasury securities, which finance the government's debt. Reagan was President, but this arrangement had the support of Tip O'Neill, and the Democrats, and many left wing pundits today (such as Michael HIltzik of the LA Times, to name one of many) believe this is a correct investment of SS surplus funds (when there is a surplus).

      Presidents cannot simply decide how to invest the SS surplus, and no President since Reagan has made a serious effort to change the investment policy.

      To leave out these details is an irresponsible exclusion that amounts to cherry picking of facts.

      That is how it will be,and if one person reads what I say, after reading what you say, and actually looks further into it than he/she would otherwise do, it is a good thing.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 24 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      35. Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which one would you consider the best president?

      Answer...Ronald Reagan, so your reasons why he was 'terrible' don't seem to be making much impact, do they?

      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipi...

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 24 months ago

      Fred Rivera - Unfortunately, others in our government, both Democrat and Republican, have followed Reagan's example and spent the Social Security surplus on other things.

      Republicans are now using that fact as an excuse to not pay back the money into the Social Security trust fund. They propose cutting SS benefits to make up the difference. This means they will have stolen the money we paid into Social Security all our lives and they will not pay it back.

      It was Reagan who convinced Republicans that "deficits don't matter" and that we could spend all that money without concern of paying it back. They are especially opposed to raising taxes to make up the difference for their deficits. This has now become one of the core principles of the Republican Party.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 24 months ago

      WillStarr - For the past couple of decades, there has been a concerted effort to rewrite history. Republicans have been working tirelessly to make Reagan a hero, even a god. They've tried to get us to forget the multitude of scandals, corruption, lies and failures of the Reagan years.

      That is one reason I wrote this article. Of course I'm not going to reach a large audience, but I have helped a few thousand people learn some truths about Reagan they had forgotten or didn't know.

      It's interesting to note the job approval rating of the last four two-term presidents at the end of their sixth year as president:

      Reagan 48%

      Clinton 68%

      GW Bush 36%

      Obama 48%

      Reagan, the Republicans' favorite president, has the exact same job approval rating as Obama, the man they want to call the worst president.

      Meanwhile, President Obama has been voted most popular world leader and the most admired man in the world for the sixth year in a row.

      What significance does that carry? Probably none. Just like the poll naming Reagan the best president since WWII.

    • James 23 months ago

      Nice hit piece, NewLibs. Easy to kick a dead lion isn't it.

    • Jose Alejandro 23 months ago

      "Reagan helped create Al Qaeda"

      "The Reagan administration armed and supported the Mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan, who later became the terrorist organization, Al Qaeda. "

      ROFLOL It was Carter who started that, as he himself has admitted!!

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 23 months ago from Corona, California.

      And they were supposed to know ahead of time that was going to happen. Wish I could see what's going to happen ahead of time. That's not the first time we armed the ones that later became our enemy. Greg.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      James -

      It's not a hit piece if everything is factual, which it is.

      Jose Alejandro -

      Carter was in his last year in office when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It was Reagan who spent the better part of a decade arming Islamic radicals.

      gregas -

      Republicans today are demanding that we repeat the same mistakes that Reagan made. They keep saying we must arm militants in this war or that war. Some of the militants they wanted us to arm a year or two ago are now calling themselves ISIS.

      We can learn from our mistakes of the past.

    • Tamirogers profile image

      Tami Rogers 23 months ago from Seattle, Washington

      Everything in here IS factual. Thank you for having the guts to say it. I tend to shy away from politics but when I agree with someone and see thoughtful writing..I say "good for you!"

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 23 months ago from Corona, California.

      Who armed Iraq against Iran? Greg

    • Chriswillman90 profile image

      Krzysztof Willman 23 months ago from Parlin, New Jersey

      Well congrats on starting a heated political debate. I appreciate you researched a lot of these facts. I honestly don't think there's been a perfect president including the great ones but that's our political world.

      There are things here that I and others don't agree with obviously but there's no need to get vicious because we all always have our own discrepancies in these matters.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      gregas -

      The answer to your question is Reagan. He armed both sides in that war.

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 23 months ago from Corona, California.

      That's a typical politician. Greg

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      gregas -

      Perhaps it is typical, but what's not typical is selling weapons to a brutal dictator who has been denounced by every world leader after it was thoroughly documented that he used chemical weapons to wipe out thousands of civilians in his own country.

      Reagan even vetoed a UN resolution condemning Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons against thousands of men, women and children.

    • Tony Litwinko profile image

      Tony Litwinko 23 months ago

      Reference point number 10: Iraq was not the first to attack. In the 1967 war, Israel attacked the USS Liberty, killing dozens of our men, wounding scores of others.

    • JPac1 profile image

      James Packard 23 months ago from Columbia, Missouri

      Interesting to see how immature and hateful people can get over differing opinions of one person. The thing is, Ronald Reagan was a person, just like the rest of us. He did a lot of things right ("Ending" the Cold War - although it takes a lot more than one person to end a war [conflict], created tens of millions of new jobs, etc.) and a lot of things wrong (listed above). You can make him look terrible or god-like depending on what you choose to focus on. Same with any politician. We should focus on the lessons his presidency taught us and use those lessons moving forward.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      I think the point is too often missed that Ronald Reagan was a leader- in a time when we sorely needed it.. This country hasn't had a true leader in some time. Bill Clinton would have made a good leader because he was able to galvanize so may people, but instead of HIM doing the leading, he let another part of HIM, do the leading.

      From the American President, artfully delivered by Michael J. Fox:

      "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      teamrn -

      And the president replied to Michael J. Fox "Louis, we have had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

      Now who do you think he was talking about?

      Reagan was not a great leader. He was just a skillful liar.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Interesting stuff.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      He was referring to the people, and I'm referring to the 'DUMBING DOWN OF THOSE PEOPLE' caused by lack of leadership and inspiration and motivation and I COULD GO ON AND ON. In the absence of leadership, people will drink the sand/won't know the difference. ]

      So, you have it. Sand drinker vs inspired citizenry. Which are you and to which do you aspire?

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      The unemployment numbers that are thrown around in the 5.6% range are very misleading. That is the UE-3. The numbers which show the whole unemployment picture are the UE-6, the REAL numbers and I refer you to an article in Forbes magazine for an explanation:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/louisefron/2014/08/20/...

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      One thing I would like to pick up on is the idea that Reagan armed and supported Al Qaeda. They didn't! At least not directly.

      We've got to remember the world was a very different place then with the West (not just America) knowing that the Soviets were in a mess economically and scared that they would one day decide to just walk in and take what they wanted.

      The Armed forces in the West (I was stationed in Germany at the time) knew that if the Russians ever came we would be outnumbered by seven to one (and that was just the forces deployed and without any mobilization. With it the odds went up to nearly twenty to one!)

      The West knew that with the Russians going into Afghanistan they were getting into a fight they couldn't win (The last one to conquer the place and hold it was Alexander the Great) and the Persians, the British and the Russians had tried since). The Pakistanis were arming the Mujaheddin. The Taliban were Pakistani in origin and the CIA were channeling funds to the Pakistanis with little say as to where it went from there.

      Some of the money did get into Al Qaeda's hands but it was the Pakistani intelligence that put it there. We in the west were using the Arab proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

      No doubt mistakes were made, but don't look at the little picture when it only tells half the story.

      As for Apartheid it wasn't Reagan who opposed the dismantling. He was only listening to the arguments put forward by Margret Thatcher who said imposing economic sanctions won't work and she was right.

      What did work there was the international committee that she persuaded the United Nations to send to South Africa that met with the likes of Mandela and the leadership of the ANC as well as the government.

      A result of this was South Africa woke up to the fact that the rest of the world was watching and things had to change. If you don't believe this then I suggest you get a hold of a copy of Mandela's book "Long walk to freedom" and read what he says about it.

      Looking at history you really have to be careful if you only read one book on the subject as all you get is that writer's opinion, the best way is to read two or three books from different political viewpoints and see what they all say.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      lawrence01 -

      This article is obviously a summary and not intended to go into great depth about each topic. That is why there are links to better sources of information after each item. Otherwise the article would have been 20,000 words long.

      On the topic of Apartheid, I believe it was accurate and it did include a link to a source with more detailed information.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      teamrn -

      I understand and agree with the point about the dumbing down of Americans. In my opinion, Reagan was elected specifically because of that factor.

      As for the unemployment rate, I simply use the same numbers and the same standard that has been used for all presidents throughout my lifetime. It would not be accurate to apply one standard during one presidency and a different standard during another presidency.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Thanks for the reply and the explanation that the article was a summary. The thing with summaries is they can be misleading. You were right in some ways, it's just that I'm a self confessed pedantic history lover and wanted to present a clear picture.

      As for Apartheid you are right in that he didn't support the sanctions but it was at the leading of Margret Thatcher (it's also said that Reagan and Bush were more afraid of what the British handbag could do than what Saddam could do)

      As for the war on terror it was during Re4agan's time the Libya carried out a series of attacks in Europe and American lives were lost. Everywhere I read about it they writers have decried that the American retaliation was way OVER THE TOP for the attack as Reagan ordered planes from Europe and from the 6th fleet to Bomb Tripoli (called Operation El Dorado Canyon). This isn't the kind of thing that is done by someone 'weak on terror'

      Reagan believed that you can only negotiate from a position of strength. When he took over the USA their military was still recovering from the debacle of the attempt to rescue hostages in Iran, a situation that had happened because since the Vietnam war the Americans had allowed their military to decline. He began the process of rebuilding the military, not just the hardware (they already had that) but the confidence to trust themselves and to trust their Military.

      Was he a lousy President? I'm not American and I don't know, but give the man credit for the things he did do! He wasn't soft on terror, he was often seen as the opposite. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article that's a good starting point to check the information out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bo... It took place in 1986 halfway through his second term.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      If you were to use the UE-E one time and the UE-3 anther time, that would be similar to comparing apples to oranges.

      However, our current POTUS uses the UE3 when it suits him and the UE-6 other times when it suits himpolitically. There is talk of the thousands of jobs that have been created (for example, isn't this a good thing?") and said with pride. When in fact we need several HUNDRED thousand jobs created monthly to make a difference. Several thousand jobs amounts to a few hundred per state!

      We must always be careful to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges,

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      One other thing that is mentioned in the article is that Reagan was arming both the Iraqis during Saddam's years. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      It was Kuwait paying for the weapons that Saddam was buying (talk about biting the hand that fed you) and they were buying from everyone but the Americans!!! The Brits sold him Nuclear Centrifuges for their weapons program, the French sold them a Nuclear reactor. The Brazilians were selling them Tanks and missiles (as well as the Soviets), The Japanese couldn't sell them arms (legally) so they were selling him Hospitals ready to assemble.

      During the Iran Iraq war Saddam had a $5 billion credit limit for his weapons with the British alone. The Brits also sold the Super Chieftain Tank to the Iranians and had 300 sat on the docks ready for shipping when the Shah was booted out. The deal only died when they took over the American Embassy.

      I spent three years in Iraq after Desert Storm helping the Kurds rebuild. I saw much of the hardware that the Iraqis had. I saw stuff from all the countries I just mentioned but the only American (and I'm a Brit) hardware I saw had a US Special forces soldier attached to it and there was no way the Iraqis were getting that!

      I strongly believe to this day that the biggest mistake Bush senior made was not finishing the job when his Generals begged him to! And the biggest Mistake his son made was not planning properly for the rebuild (but that's another discussion)

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      It takes guts to write a hub about politics, I think as politics make for 'very strange bedfellows' so I 'll try to be polite: "Reagan's economic policies put millions of Americans out of work"

      I read and researched enough to convince me, (at that time, I wasn't a student of politics) that the recession was in full swing when Reagan entered office and inflation was rising, Agree with his policies and economic theory or not, more people entered the work force in his presidency than have done so in BO presidency, where more people have gone on the entitlement rolls (at least food stamp rolls)

      Since president Obama took the helm, nearly 8 million people have entered the job force. That's only 178,000/month (about 33oo+ per state for a booster shot, then a cons\istn 300,000/month

      What, in particular, was it about President Reagan's policies that you found wreaked havoc on economy and how did they do it?

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      Well, that last post got away from me and I think I was half asleep when I wrote it!! Sorry about how it unraveled and became completely incomprehensible towards the end.

      Looking back at the second to last paragraph, what I started to say was that 8,000,000 jobs created sounds like a lot. But in the face of 2o-24millioout of work, suddenly the numbers don't sound so impressive or accurate

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      Lawrence01 –

      Reagan did give Saddam military support even after he gassed thousands of people in his own country. While the rest of the world condemned Iraq for using chemical weapons on civilians, Reagan continued to give Saddam aid and military intelligence to help Iraq fight Iran. He refused to publicly acknowledge that Iraq had committed these atrocities even when video of thousands of dead men, women and children were shown on the nightly news and UN experts verified that it was from Iraqi chemical weapons.

      Teamrn –

      When Reagan took office, the economy was improving. Unemployment was actually going down. It was not until several months into Reagan’s presidency after he implemented his policies that unemployment began to rise again. It went up from 7.5% to 10.8% nearly two years into his presidency. It seems hard to blame Jimmy Carter for that.

      It wasn't until year 4 of his presidency that unemployment finally dropped significantly, just in time for his reelection. The flaw in Republican theory is they believe tax cuts for the wealthy are the best way to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts only have a temporary effect on economic growth and it requires them to keep cutting taxes again and again until we have the huge budget deficits that we now see.

      Reagan never had to meet with the level of obstructionism that Obama had to deal with. During Reagan’s 8 years there were a grand total of 165 uses of the filibuster rule. This is usually a tactic by the minority party in the Senate kill legislation that they cannot stop with a simple majority vote.

      By comparison, Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster rule to kill legislation 450 times in just 6 years of the Obama presidency. Democrats in Congress were far more willing to work with Reagan than Republicans have been to work with Obama. We could easily have seen millions more jobs created if Republicans did not choose to kill every single jobs bill in the Senate using the filibuster.

      Despite Republicans’ attempts to prevent a recovery, the economy is finally rebounding nicely without any help at all from Republicans.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 23 months ago from Chicago

      jeff61b,

      jeff,

      I’m going to let as much slide as possible, but when I read obvious talking points (or the Gospel according to Arianna, Chris Matthews or Rachel) used to shore up an argument (and not doing homework to find the facts for oneself), I get steamed.

      The fact that articles were written about Harry Reid’s (what should be ‘well-known’ obstructionism seems to have escaped you:

      “Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. “ DOA (dead on arrival) is not just a term used in medical television. Harry Reid presided over DOA legislation (legislation that HE deemed DOA) and it never came up for a vote, despite Congressional DEMOCRATIC wishes.

      This article in the National Review

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry...

      and any # of Google articles on:

      https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=harry+reid%27...

      and in the New York Times:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/reid...

      How did Republicans attempt to prevent recovery? I’d like to know what YOU feel the Republican party did to discourage this. How could we “easy have seen millions more jobs created…”? Oh, I forgot, Republican obstructionism. What are a few examples and not just talking points. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.

      We need to create a good 300-400,000 jobs per month and that only comes partially from making the United States a more business-friendly tax environment (lowering corporate tax rates) and not raising the minimum wage to a point where small business CAN’T hire.

      When business owners have more money, they may hire more people, or if they can’t afford to hire more people, they contribute a bit more to their employees’ benefit package, or they get new signage, employing the services of local economies and giving them a shot in the arm. There are businessmen who hoard the money for themselves, but for every businessman who hoards, there are more who don’t. Forcing businessmen to comply with a minimum wage hike won’t have the desired effect, IMHO. Businesses will have to lay off a full-time worker to pay higher wages to someone else. That’s a tough choice to make; for by choosing to employ all, we do so at someone else’s expense. So, we’re not really employing all.

      At the end of the day, we might go to bed, glad that someone is enjoying higher wages, but rarely do we think about the someone else who had to lose his job to make that possible. So which do you want; higher wages for a few or job loss? Quite frankly, I’d like to see the everyone employed.

      Who is going to cherry pick, who is going to decide WHO gets the job?

      “Democrats in Congress were far more willing to work with Reagan than Republicans have been to work with Obama.” Before commenting, I’d like to know your source for saying this. Not a vacuous morsel that can’t be proven, not “it’s a well-known fact,” but actual facts, where you got the idea for this.

      Sure sounds like another talking point to me, so there’s no reason to discuss it.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      jeff61b

      You refer to Halabjah. The reality was quite different to what is sometimes reported. The word of the attack took two months to get out because the people had to flee over 200 miles to Turkey (thousands made the trek).

      The main weapons suppliers were Russia, China, Britain, France, Brazil and Middle Eastern countries.

      Saddam wanted the latest American weapons but Israel was warning Reagan that it was a bad idea so the Americans were not selling him anything apart from machinery that could have a dual purpose and spare parts for their aging F4 Phantoms bought in the late sixties (and other stuff that Saddam had bought from the likes of Egypt who were training his air force).

      As for the rest of the world condemning Saddam after Halabjah, they didn't! No one would believe their story (I know this as I went to Eastern Turkey three months after the event as stories had come out and the Missionary organization I was working with wanted to find out if it was true!). It took us until the aftermath of Desert storm when we could show the true devastation of what went on.

      1988 was the end of term for Reagan. When he stepped down there were rumors but no confirmed reports.

      You're right to bring attention to this, but I still believe you're wrong to blame Reagan for America's response as he was stepping down at the time that this all broke and even a President can't change things overnight

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      teamrn-

      Harry Reid was doing what Senate majority leaders do, exercising his power under the Senate rules to bring legislation up for a vote. It’s the exact same thing Mitch McConnell is doing now and the same thing John Boehner has been doing in the House

      We may hate the fact that they only bring up bills that they support but that’s what they do. Harry Reid is no different.

      John Boehner left dozens of bills lie on his desk that could have created hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs. Bills to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, roads, bridges, airports, bills to allocate money to help train workers for decent paying jobs.

      I was wrong when I said Republicans filibustered 450 times. I looked it up on the Senate web site and it was 505 times in six years. They literally filibustered virtually every single bill, no matter how routine or how important it might be. That is obstructionism to a degree never before reached under any other president.

      Republicans filibustered the Defense Department funding bill. (S. 3454)

      They repeatedly filibustered a bill to fund health care for 9/11 responders. (H.R. 847)

      They filibustered a bill (S. 3816) to keep more jobs in the U.S. by stopping tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas.

      Republicans filibustered a bill allocating money to put thousands of public school teachers, police and firefighters back to work (S. 1723).

      They filibustered the Rebuild American Jobs Act (S. 1769).

      They filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act (s.3220) which would allow women to be paid the same as men for doing the same work.

      Obama did lower taxes for small businesses as part of the economic stimulus. The fact is, big businesses have been raking in money quite nicely and they don’t need more tax cuts to hire more workers.

      Instead of giving more money to rich people, the best way to stimulate the economy is to help working class Americans have enough money to buy more products and create more demand so businesses need to hire more people to meet that demand.

      History has shown that raising the minimum wage does not force employers to lay off workers. It does enable low wage workers to make more money which they turn around and spend which further stimulates the economy and makes businesses even more profitable.

      No amount of tax cuts would help them hire more workers if working class people don’t have money to spend on their products.

      In case you haven’t noticed, Republicans did support a minimum wage hike when Bush was president but they refuse to raise the minimum wage under Obama – more obstructionism.

      During Reagan's first 6 years there were 112 filibusters by the Democratic minority in the Senate. Compare that to 505 filibusters by the Republicans during Obama’s 6 years. That alone demonstrates that Democrats were far more willing to work with Reagan than Republicans have been to work with Obama.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      you're interested to read more about the situation in Iraq then I wrote a hub about it. Here is the link http://hubpages.com/politics/Iraq-the-Kurds-and-a-...

      By the way. the arguments you are using can also be used to claim that Obama created ISIL as the weapons they are using are American weapons left behind after the US withdrawal in 2008 under President Obama. They left 21st Century weapons behind for the Iraqi Army who promptly abandoned them when the fighters showed up. Obama was warned that something like this would happen and he still gave the word to pull out!!!

      Obama left the Iraqis to defend themselves with little weaponry and even the Kurds (valiant fighters though they are) are fighting with weapons from the 1970s. Reagan would have happily given them what they needed (pity Bush and Clinton didn't do it in the 90's when this mess could have been prevented)

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      Lawrenceo1 -

      I’m old enough to have vivid memories of the Reagan years. I remember seeing the video of dead Kurdish men, women and children in villages that Saddam had gassed. I remember countries around the world condemning Iraq and passing a UN resolution condemning Iraq. I remember Ronald Reagan not saying so much as a harsh word about Iraq. This was all still while Reagan was in office. There was never any doubt about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.

      We have in subsequent years found that Reagan knew about the use of chemical weapons by Iraq as early as 1984 but continued to supply Iraq with supplies and intelligence.

      http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-...

      Ironically, a few years later when Iraq was our enemy, we used those same chemical attacks on civilians as reasons to go to war against him.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 23 months ago

      Lawrenceo1 -

      I'm going to assume you had a minor brain fart (as we all do) and not ridicule you for your mistake about Obama withdrawing from Iraq in 2008.

      As I'm sure you know, Obama did not become president until 2009 and the Iraq war ended (the U.S. pulled out of Iraq) in December 2011 not one day sooner than George W. Bush agreed to with the Iraqi government.

      Obama left the Iraqis with little weaponry? Really? We spent 8 years training and supplying their army. We left when the Iraqi government wanted us to leave. They were not begging us to stay and fight for them.

      It is ironic that you blame Obama for leaving weapons behind that are used by ISIL. It is hard to believe that Obama is to blame for ISIL getting weapons from the Iraqi army.

      Also, we did not arm the Kurds because the Iraqi government, our ally, did not want us to. They don't trust the Kurds. And those weapons would have likely found their way into the hands of ISIL and you would no doubt be blaming Obama for that too.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 23 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      As you pointed out I was wrong about the date that Obama took office and I apologize for that. I didn't blame Obama for the arming of ISIL but said that the arguments you use could be used (granted in the future) to claim that Obama was to blame for the arming of ISIL! Big difference!

      The problem was that the generals told the Politicians what would happen in Iraq and as usual no one listened!!

      As for the weapons given to the Kurds possibly ending up in the hands of ISIL. Shows how little you know of the Kurds!! They're the only reason there is still an Iraq!! They're the ones who fought back, they were the ones who streamed over both the Turkish and Iraqi borders to try to help their brothers and sisters in Syria. The Kurds have a saying "We have no friends but the Mountains" They know not to trust the West no matter what the Politician says.

      Winston Churchill once said that the making of a great leader is to study History, History and history. If the Politicians had done that they'd realize you never give your enemy a 'heads up' on what you are going to do!! (And before you say it that was Bush's mistake) All the insurgents had to do was lie low and wait! That's what they did and when the time was right they struck!!

    • old albion profile image

      Graham Lee 20 months ago from Lancashire. England.

      Hi Jeff. I always thought he was one of the good guys. You have opened my eyes with your tip top hub. Very well researched and presented.

      Well done.

      Graham.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "WillStarr - For the past couple of decades, there has been a concerted effort to rewrite history."

      By whom? The mainstream media is liberal, not conservative, so who is rewriting history? Where can we see this 'rewriting'? Sources please.

      "Republicans have been working tirelessly to make Reagan a hero, even a god. They've tried to get us to forget the multitude of scandals, corruption, lies and failures of the Reagan years."

      And liberals have been doing just the opposite, with screeds like this, and they have most of the media and Hollywood on their side, but Americans are not as stupid as liberals would like to believe. They know that Ronald Reagan destroyed the USSR, and the Berlin Wall, so this little list makes no real impact on his sterling reputation. President Ronald Reagan is considered the best President since World War Two by Americans. Period.

      But nice try.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Congress wouldn't approve money for a war on Sandanista's, so Reagan admn sold drugs and ak47's illegally--in America's ghettos, to get the money. They are responsible for the crack epidemic. Hip Hip Hooray!

      http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/the_octopus.htm

      You could argue that Reagan didn't know about it, and it was all Bush the Elders doing....

      In fact, I have read things that say Reagan didn't like Bush at all.

      If you research Leo Wanta--you will read that Reagan made him in charge of some trillions of dollars for the American People--and Bush the Elder stole it!! Bush Crime Cabal....hullo carlyle group 9/11

      But, the fact remains--Iran/Contra happened. And now you have one of the main characters of that illegality on Fox news, spouting that prez Obama hates America. (Oliver"shred the documents" North)

      Sinister!

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Congress wouldn't approve money for a war on Sandanista's, so Reagan admn sold drugs and ak47's illegally--in America's ghettos, to get the money. They are responsible for the crack epidemic."

      Oh brother!

    • Teamrns 20 months ago

      Congress wouldn't approve funding for a war on the Sandanista; so the Reagan o sold drug to fund a awar?) that is QUITE a stretch of the mind--would you do that? Create a culture dependent on cocaine just to get to fund a war? If you wouldn't do it, what makes you think that someone elae would?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Wow--I thought this was common knowledge by now......

      Iran/Contra

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/feature...

      Freeway Ricky Ross takes the hit

      http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/01/05/freeway-rick...

      Big Fox Hero--Ollie "The Shredder" North

      http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/03/then-al...

      Murdered Reporter.....nahhhh, not here!

      http://www.stufftheydontwantyoutoknow.com/video/cl...

      Gary Webb

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-levin/gary-webb...

      ******

      Also, google October Surprise.

      It's been verified, but of course--you believe what you choose, ignore that which you don't. *lalalalalalalalalala*

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      What about this?:

      "Congress wouldn't approve money for a war on Sandanista's, so Reagan admn sold drugs and ak47's illegally--in America's ghettos, to get the money. They are responsible for the crack epidemic."

      Do you have a link for that?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      What are you not getting?

      "According to a series of groundbreaking reports by the San Jose Mercury News, for the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring, comprised of CIA and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency agents and informants, sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles.

      Millions of dollars in drug profits were then funneled to the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense (Nicaraguan Democratic Force), the largest of several anti-Communists commonly called the Contras. The 5,000-man FDN was created in mid-1981 and run by both American and Nicaraguan CIA agents in its losing war against Nicaragua's Sandinista government, the Cuban-supported socialists who had overthrown U.S.-backed dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979.

      This CIA-backed drug network opened the first pipeline between Columbia's cocaine cartels and the Black neighborhoods of Compton and Los Angeles, according to the Mercury News.

      In time, the cocaine that flooded Los Angeles helped spark a "crack explosion" in urban America and provided the cash and connections needed for Los Angeles's gangs to buy Uzi sub-machine guns, AK-47 rifles, and other assault weapons that would fuel deadly gang turf wars, drive-by shootings, murders and robberies -- courtesy of the U.S. government."

      http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_N...

      *****

      What was Bush seniors job before VP?....Head of CIA.

      Where'd they get ak 47's? a gun store? Ha

      Maybe they did all this behind Reagan's back? I've read Reagan did not like Bush daddy.

      In either case, it happened, Ole Shred the documents North got a pardon, and now stars as a Fox News Subversive.

      I have an idea, just pretend it's Obama, then you'll believe it.

    • Teamrns 20 months ago

      I'm wondering , sort of thinking out loud here, so forgive me if I digress but Ronald Reagaan died how many years ago? History (the historians) will judge his presidency as good or lacking' Shouldn't we concentrating on the now, recent past and future?

      We should learn from the past (goods and bads), but to nit-pick and dissect something that is over without mentioning any positives (and you Know there were).seems non-productive at best. There would not have been the throngs at Ronald Reagan's funeral if he were the worst POTUS

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Woah...my bad!

      "The jury in the North trial, sworn in on Feb. 21, heard North's lawyers pledge to prove that the former White House aide helped keep Congress in the dark about U.S. military assistance to the Nicaraguan rebels with the approval of high government officials, including former President Reagan.

      Brendan V. Sullivan Jr., North's lawyer, said during his opening remarks that secretly aiding the contras at a time when Congress had prohibited such action “wasn't Oliver North's idea. It was the idea of the president of the United States.”

      “The president directed it,” Sullivan said, adding that Reagan told North and other administration officials that “if it leaks out, we'll all be hanged in front of the White House by the thumbs.”

      "Reagan never directed White House officials to lie to Congress about efforts to raise private funds for the Nicaraguan contras, McFarlane testified March 10.

      McFarlane, however, said that Reagan was adamant about avoiding leaks and insisted that the covert effort to raise money from third countries not be revealed to either Congress or the CIA."

      https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php...

      ******

      So, we should just "let this slide"???

      Fine by me.....let's let people out of prison who have done much less....shall we?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Lovemychris' source is "The Final Call :

      "The Final Call is a newspaper published in Chicago. It was founded in 1979 by Minister Louis Farrakhan and serves as the official newspaper of the Nation of Islam."

      Always check the source for loony liberal claims. You'll usually find that it's some left wing whacko site.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Iran/Contra;

      About 2,210,000 results (0.25 seconds)

      PICK ONE

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Sorry LMC, but quoting Louis Farrakhan as a legitimate news source just cost you all credibility. I checked, and not one mainstream media source carried this totally bogus story.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 20 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Will, to see if a story is bogus the mainstream media checks lovemychris to make sure it isn't something she said.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      What are you talking about? I quoted a lot more than Farrakhan! And Farrakhan is right about a lot of things.

      Did ya read or watch any of it?

      I just am AMAZED that people in America, this day and age don't know, or believe Iran/Contra happened!

      It's truly mind-blowing.

      Hey listen, like I said earlier--pretend it's Obama...you know, like Benghazi. IRS, FF, Gay coke-snorting killer: all those things you believe about him. (shhhh-they'll think we're cazy)

      And next time you guys go on a tangent about the CIA...remember HW Bush ran it.

      And thank god I don't tell my kids your American fairy-tales.

      I couldn't sleep at night!

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You're seriously claiming that super-kook, crazy man Louis Farrakhan is a legitimate news source? In all my dealing with liberals, you are the first to go that far!

      No one, other than other far-left liberals, will ever take you seriously again!

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 20 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, and these too:

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/feature...

      http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/01/05/freeway-rick...

      http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/03/then-al...

      http://www.stufftheydontwantyoutoknow.com/video/cl...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-levin/gary-webb...

      https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php...

      ******

      Are they ALL kooks?

      I guess those hearings were run by kooks and those reporters were all kooks and anyone who doesn't hold your views is a kook?

      Good luck with 87% of the world.....you 13%'ers time is just about up.

      No one buys your nonsense any more.

      Men are not superior

      Whites are not superior

      America is not superior

      Might does not make right

      Money is not God.

      It's the Apocalypse, baby.

      The Emperor has no clothes.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am talking about this claim from you, LMC:

      "Congress wouldn't approve money for a war on Sandanista's, so Reagan admn sold drugs and ak47's illegally--in America's ghettos, to get the money. They are responsible for the crack epidemic."

      You said that lie was based on this 'reliable' source:

      "The Final Call is a newspaper published in Chicago. It was founded in 1979 by Minister Louis Farrakhan and serves as the official newspaper of the Nation of Islam."

      Since you claimed that it was a legitimate news source, it's now a claim that has destroyed your credibility for all time.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 20 months ago

      WillStarr -

      You've repeated the same comment about 5 times. I think you've made your point adequately (and endlessly) about the one news source that was founded by Louis Farrakhan. Move on.

      I think lovemychris has cited several other sources of information as well.

      I'm not suggesting that I agree with all of LMC's claims, but I do get weary of someone repeating a single comment over and over.

      Move on or offer some new or meaningful comments about the topic.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am well aware Jeff, that liberals despise Ronald Reagan, and will use any source or skew any story in an attempt to smear his memory, but the fact remains that he was the most admired and beloved President since World War Two.

      Liberals, including those at PBS (the US version of Pravda) opine as to why Reagan was a bad president in their judgment, but they are still just opinions.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 20 months ago

      WillStarr-

      I do not despise Ronald Reagan.

      This article simply lists 21 facts - which are not disputed - that show he was a terrible president.

      Opinion polls change over time and Reagan's standing has dropped a bit lately despite Fox News and other conservative media trying constantly to rewrite history and portray him as a hero and an economic genius.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 20 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      It lists 21 opinions, not facts. Take # 1 for instance...it claims Reagan supplied weapons to our enemy...Iraq. But of course, Iraq was not our enemy at that time, was it?

      What is not mentioned in this obviously left-wing biased article is the fall of the USSR, the end of the three decade threat of all out nuclear war, and the destruction of the Berlin Wall, all of which were very much orchestrated by the Reagan administration.

      With that, I will leave your excellent and thought provoking Hub!

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 19 months ago from Yorktown NY

      It is ironic that former nations of eastern europe pay tribute to President Reagan while some in the US vilify him after over 25 years...

      http://markamerica.com/2011/11/25/reagan-honored-i...

      You can have your opinions but history speaks for itself.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 19 months ago

      Jackclee lm -

      There are very few opinions expressed here, just facts.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 19 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Some people in America honor him for far more than he ever did, and often praise him (or invoke him) for being for things he was on record as being against, or for being against things he was on record as being for.

      Some people in America vilify him for far more than he ever did, and often curse him (or invoke him) for being for things he was on record as being against, or for being against things he was on record as being for.

      The fact that the same happens outside of America should not be a surprise. The same is true, for example, of Margaret Thatcher (just replace "America" with "England", and "him" with "her" above).

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 19 months ago from Yorktown NY

      jeff61b - You can pick and choose facts all day long. No one is claiming Reagan to be a saint. You look at the totality of what he did and the effect they have on millions of people worldwide, that is the true measure of a President's effectiveness. By the way, he was not a Republican in today's political climate. Even in his days, he was a Conservative and he was not supported by many main stream Republicans at the time. He went to the American people and made his case. That is why he was re-elected by 49 of 50 states. That is the fact.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 19 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I love Reagan. I am a product of the Reagan generation and presidency. But I do not have any illusions when it comes to the man. I wanted to impeach him for the Iran-Contra business.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 19 months ago

      Jackclee lm

      Nobody disputes the fact that Reagan was reelected by a wide margin with 58% of the popular vote.

      The purpose of this article was to remind some people and educate others about the totality of what he did and not the myth that has been written around the man. Taking all these things into account, I think a legitimate argument can be made that he did more harm than good.

      Yes, Reagan was very conservative for his day. By today’s standards, the Republican Party has shifted so far to the right that Reagan would be considered a liberal. He saw the need to raise taxes several times, he negotiated with our bitterest enemies with no preconditions, he supported background checks and waiting periods to buy a gun, he increased the Earned Income Tax Credit to help the working poor, and he gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

      All those things are an abomination to today’s Republicans.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 19 months ago from Chicago

      Jeff, "During Reagan's first 6 years there were 112 filibusters by the Democratic minority in the Senate. Compare that to 505 filibusters by the Republicans during Obama’s 6 years. That alone demonstrates that Democrats were far more willing to work with Reagan than Republicans have been to work with Obama."

      How can you draw THAT conclusion? THAT ALONE DEMONSTRATES that Dems are far more willing to work with Reagan the Republicans are to work with Obama? I submit that it ONLY demonstrates that there was a difference in the number of filibusters, nothing more.

      I'm reasonable and the only reasonable conclusion I can draw from that statement was that there were more filibusters by Republicans than there were by Democrats.

      THAT ALONE?? It says NOTHING to me about working together or any other conclusions you may want to draw. Both Dems and Republicans filibuster. It may be a sign of conciliation or it may be WANTING TO MAKE A POINT/STATEMENT/PUTTING A PERSONAL AGENDA AHEAD OF WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 19 months ago

      teamrn -

      When Obama became president, Republicans decided to filibuster everything. Congress set records for the fewest pieces of legislation passed per year.

      The filibuster was used to enable as few as 41 senators to kill a bill by preventing it from even coming up for a vote.

      They literally killed every single jobs bill that was proposed. Their obstructionism had nothing to do with the merits of the legislation. They simply decided to make virtually every piece of legislation require a 60 vote super-majority.

      Meanwhile, Obama begged, cajoled, and pleaded with Republicans to work with him. And they refused because they wanted the country to fail while Obama was president.

      Yes. that is proof positive that Republicans were far less willing to work with Obama than Democrats were to work with Reagan.

      It proves that Republicans were less willing to work with Obama than any Congress was to work with any other president.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 19 months ago from Yorktown NY

      jeff61b - Here is President Obama's first term by the numbers from CBS news - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-first-term-by-t...

      Can you believe he only had 9 cabinet meetings in 4 years?

      How many meetings did he have with members of Congress?

      He just does not know how to negotiate with the opposition. Something else Reagan did well...

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 19 months ago

      Jackclee lm -

      Is that really the best you can do? Obama must be doing a damn good job. Especially when you compare him to Reagan.

      Thanks for the link, though. It contained some interesting data.

    • mgg48 19 months ago

      This is the biggest bunch of bs ever. I'll give you and A+ for hyperbole and spin. You don't report an event without reporting the reasoning behind it. You want to examine the Reagan presidency under a microscope? You'd need one the size of the State of Alaska to get all the illegal stuff the Obama Administration has pulled. Raised interest rates on student loan? Boohoo.........try working and putting yourself thru school no matter how long it takes! Too many whinny, self-absorbed children commenting here.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 19 months ago

      mgg48 -

      There is no hyperbole in this article. Every word is accurate and factual. If anything, this article is quite understated. Like many conservatives, you'd like to make this about Obama, but Obama has a squeaky clean record compared to Reagan.

    • Dan Capper 19 months ago

      Jeff this is one of the best articles on Ronald Reagan I've ever read. He was a HORRID president and unworthy of praise by his followers.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 19 months ago from Chicago

      Sad.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      jeff61b - Here are two comparisons between Reagan and Obama -

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/09/18/t...

      http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/109489-reagan-vs-o...

      The fact that you had to create this hub says so much about your bias. Millions of people around the world have reap the benefits of the Reagan years. Your selected criticism of him 30 years later reminds me of the guy who heckles Reagan in one of his press conference. You are free to make your points but history speaks for itself.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 18 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      So... the fact that someone has a different viewpoint than you means that person has a bias that can be assessed and judged?

      Cute. Completely wrong, but cute.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      kdladage - Look up the definition of bias...and read jeff's comments...

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 18 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      jackclee_lm -- please do not insinuate that I am illiterate. I know the definition of bias. And I know that bias is something we all have to some degree. The concept of an objective point of view is a fantasy.

      My point is not to state that jeff has no bias; my point is that you feel that you are in a position to assess his bias and judge him for it.

      I look at his comments, and I see bias. I look at your comments and I see bias. I read my own comments and I am acutely aware of my own bias. But I am not going to judge jeff or you based on that bias. We all obviously had very different experiences in the period of Reagan's Presidency. This is not a good or bad thing -- it just means we all see that period through different filters.

      We all have a different bias.

      And none of us is particularly wrong. Or right.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      kdladage -You are correct. Yes, everyone has bias including me. However, you can't re-write history. I have said Reagan is no saint. He has made mistakes just like all of us. The totality of someone's life is what we are talking about. If Jeff had acknowledged that, then I would have no problem with his hub. The reason I had to comment is that he is trying to distort history for many young people who has not lived or know Reagan. I see that as a recurring problem. We have people on the web "re-writing history" to support their personal agenda. How will young people today know any different? The public schools are not teaching it.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 18 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      If this is indeed your point -- and it most certainly could be -- then I suggest you write a hub where you address the efficacy of each of the 21 arguments presented here.

      In these 21 arguments, I see several that are spot-on, several I am not so sure about, and several I think are completely missing the point. But I do not feel as strongly about this as you obviously do. So...

      While being polite, and not making ad homonym attacks or anything like that, write an article that will address "The Truth when it comes to 21 myths concerning Ronald Reagan " -- I would love to read it.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      KDLadage - I am glad you are open to re-consider. I may try and do that and there are many topics on my plate right now. In the mean time, I would recommend you read up on Reagan as I have done. I know much more about Ronald Reagan the man from before he became president. He was a life guard, a radio announcer, an actor, a spokesman for GE, a radio commentator and the Governor of Calif. before becoming the President of the US after a failed try the first time. Yet, how many times have you heard in the news "Reagan was just a B actor that knows how to read his lines..."

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 18 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Yes. I love the RWR. I have many of his radio broadcasts in MP3 form... great stuff. He was an amazing man.

      Looking forward to your article.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 18 months ago

      President Reagan's greatest strength was that as a trained actor he was a very convincing liar.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      jeff1b - now you are just being ridiculous. What instill your hatred of this man? Freedom of speech protects you but you need to calm down and breath...

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      There is no free speech. So, when that good ole boy yelled at Obama "You Lie!"...that was hate, right? From a sitting member of Congress, directed at the president!

      RMoney saying 47% of Americans are moochers....Hate?

      Reagan saying, "We're cutting their allowance".....allowance, as if the American people are children.

      Meanwhile: tax breaks for the biz class......privatizing, selling off......making profit over people.....that's Love?

      Hate is in the eye of the beholder....and too strong a word to be bandied about for propaganda purposes. (myself, had years of being told I hate America, because I don't care for Bush)

      You don't know what another person hates, until they tell you.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Hate speech is not in the eye of the beholder. If someone tells a lie and he is called on it, that is not hate. What is hate is when someone tell a lie to defame another. I hope you see the difference.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 18 months ago

      Jackclee lm -

      I do not hate Reagan or anyone else. I've always chosen my words carefully to avoid overly harsh rhetoric and I certainly never expressed anything close to hatred.

      But I do have the right to express an opinion. It is not hate speech to point out that Mr. Reagan told lies.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      jeff61b - If that's all it was, I would have let it slide. Your last comment was what I was responding to. I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

      "President Reagan's greatest strength was that as a trained actor he was a very convincing liar."

      You chose to continue to propagate this distortion of one of the greatest president of the 20th century. The man is dead. If you want to offer your opinion, at least get the story right. You can disagree with his policies but not distort his legacy.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 18 months ago

      jackclee lm -

      It's your right to disagree with me just as it is my right to express an opinion. Looking at the excessively hateful comments some people have posted, it's hard to imagine that my comment about Reagan being a liar qualifies as "hate speech".

      I see real hate-speech every day. Nothing I have written comes close to to the multitude of vulgar hate-filled comments I see written about President Obama every day.

      There is not a politician in the country who has not been called a liar by somebody. Perhaps you are one of those people who worship Reagan as if he was Jesus. I hate to break it to you but Reagan was a fallible, imperfect human being who made mistakes and was capable of being dishonest. You need to accept that fact.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Jeff1b - Don't try to change what you mean to say. You accused Reagan of being an actor that was good at reading his line. A repeat of many of his detractors and a repeat of a lie and distortion. I have always said that Reagan was not a saint. One judge a person by the "totality of his life's work." That is where you failed. Your opinion is just that - your opinion. You can have your opinion on President Obama. Don't try to tie Reagan to Obama. If you care to - go do a search of Obama's speeches and he has Reagan as a role model -

      http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,91...

      So even your own hero, has a different opinion of Reagan than you.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 18 months ago

      jackclee lm -

      Now it seems like you're beating a dead horse by repeating the same thing over and over.

      I stand by what I said. Reagan was a good actor which helped to make him a more convincing liar. I don't think that's a hateful or even particularly harsh thing to say about the man.

      You are free to disagree, that doesn't make what I said a lie or a distortion, it is simply my honest opinion.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 18 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Jeff61b - Do you honestly know the difference between an opinion and a lie? This will be my last attempt to reach you. I was going to write a hub to rebuke these charges but here is one example:

      Let me used the Iran Contra scandal (your item #7) to illustrate.

      I lived thru that period and I knew exactly what happened.

      The illegal supply of arms to the Nicaraguans rebels was orchestrated by the Reagan team under Oliver North. The reason it was done was honorable. You see, we had an ongoing relations with the rebels trying to over throw a communist regime. The weapons were promised as part of a larger strategy. Congress came along and passed a law forbidding the Reagan Administration from intervening after the fact. So, Reagan Admin. was put in a dilemma. Does he obey Congress and let our allies go down in defeat with many potential casualties or does he go around Congress by supply the arms under the Iran-hostage deal? where no money was used from the tax payer? As you can see, foreign policy has always been muddy. Politics took over Washington which lead to the indictment of Oliver North (a patriot) and he went to jail for his part.

      Let me get to the original point. (difference between opinion and lie).

      You can have a different opinion of what the Reagan administration did in this case (I agreed with it and you can disagree with it). That would be a difference of opinion that I totally accept.

      Your one line summary is inaccurate and simplified a complex foreign issue which was based on your political leaning and not on the fact of the case. That is the lie.

      I hope you see the clear difference. If you care to learn the truth, please read up on the Iran Contra affair. There are books written on this topic.

      Peace.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 18 months ago

      jackclee lm -

      No further explanation is necessary. I think we both understand the difference between an opinion and a lie.

      In the article, I cited examples of lies that Reagan told. I think he was very skillful in telling those lies and I credit his acting ability for that skill. That is my opinion. You may disagree.

      I remember the Iran-Contra scandal quite well. I disagree with your characterization of that scandal (and of Oliver North) but I'm sure you believe every word you said. That doesn't make you a liar, it simply means we have different opinions about that period of our history.

      I enjoy discussing politics in a civil manner with people that have very different views from mine. I have no problem disagreeing with someone's opinion, but I'm not inclined, as you are, to call someone a liar just because we have differing opinions.

    • breezeit 18 months ago

      They forgot that he fired ALL of the air traffic controllers simply because they tried to unionize for better benefits and wages. Reagan=worst president until Dubyah.

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 18 months ago from Corona, California.

      Personally, I thought that was a good move. Unions have outstretched their powers. Just my opinion. Greg.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Iran/Contra was the cause of the crack epidemic of the 80's. Brought illegal guns into the streets--caused mayhem, chaos and death.

      With friends like that: who needs commie enemies?

      With patriots that lie and shred documents....who needs traitors?

    • Lowermiddleclass 18 months ago

      Didn't he also try to nullify all the civil rights gains made in 60's and 70's.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, and he sure was for gun control once the Black Panthers got armed.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 18 months ago from Chicago

      Love my Chris, YOU can fathom someone NOT AGREEING with you, cannot?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      You can believe whatever you wan. You dont get called an america hater for it, nor would it ever cross your mind that you are one. But im called it for 14 yrs now. And jeff is told he hates Reagan. Give me a break. Im not the one shutting down discussion by that tactic.

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 18 months ago from Chicago

      Jeff, I so disagree that GOP opposed out of hand, OBAMA policies. Also, I'm with KDLadge, that RR wasn't the best, but by far, he wasn't the worst. The jury is casting aspersions already on Barack Obama and he's still in office

      Lovemychris, I just asked a question, an innocent question. You CAN, CAN YOU NOT imagine that there might be someone (someone somewhere-probably under a rock) who is not 100% marching in lock step with you?

    • Chantelle Porter profile image

      Chantelle Porter 18 months ago from Chicago

      You read my mind. Great job.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Listen--did I call anyone stupid and gullible who disagrees with me? No. I stated my opinions....which are my opinions! Carol Ann called Jeff stupid, gullible and moronic because he doesn't like Reagan. It was her I was addressing. Maybe you should talk to her?

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 18 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      It is at times like this that I truly do love lovemychris.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Awwww, kd! Thanks!

    • teamrn profile image

      teamrn 18 months ago from Chicago

      totally ignoring my question, love

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Its silly! I engage in dialogue all the time. And im a 9/11 truther.....been made fun of for 14 yrs. Im well aware people dont agree with me.

      Now if i had called someone stupid for disagreeing, i could see your point. But i dint.

    • KDLadage profile image

      K David Ladage 18 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      lovemychris and I disagree on a great many things. But... she is polite and does not seem overly judgmental. I count her among the people that, when we disagree, we can laugh with each other, not at each other.

      Oh... teamrn -- I am glad we agree that Reagan was good, but not the God the Tea Party makes him out to be, nor the Devil the far left wing makes him out to be. But... the GOP does have an issue with *if Obama is for it, then we are against it*.

      This was a plank in their platform of "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

      Granted, this quote may not have been a direct statement of *we will oppose everything he does* kind of a thing (I realize that this was a purely political statement). But in the years since McConnell said this, the GOP has done little else but oppose Obama on every front. They do not offer alternative solutions, they just whine about the ones proposed by the current administration.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 18 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes--ty kd. I did not break rules to be banned for life. They just don't like my politics. And I've noticed others they do it to, too. But it really tickles me when they start going on and on about "freedom".

      And actually, I think these Baglicans did have a statement to oppose everything Obama does. It came as a memo from Newt "oral sex is not adultery" Gingrich.

      One word can describe their whole tenure so far: Waaaaaaaa

    • lambservant profile image

      Lori Colbo 18 months ago from Pacific Northwest

      Fascinating! Reagan, until recently, was my 2nd favorite US president, Lincoln being first! However, I started to research him a few years ago o enjoy hearing about all the great things he did to make him a great president! I think Reagan had some wonderful gifts and did well in helping to end the cold war, but like many presidents, he was very flawed! His star wars preoccupation, with the command to spend whatever it took, was grossly irresponsible! The Iran contra was bad as well! And by the list, it seems most of the people involved were charged! I think he was good at encouraging Americans and inspiration! As far as being the most corrupt administration in us history, I don't buy it! I think more people got caught, but corruption in on Nixon's watch was horrific and he and others left in disgrace! I don't doubt many flew under the radar! Mr and Mrs Clinton are so corrupt it's shameful, but they have money and power because they get away despite blatant evidence! Obama is a pass the buck, subversive! Just because People get away with stuff doesn't mean they're less corrupt! Obama is the worst in foreign relations- pouty, defiant and arrogant!

    • misterhollywood profile image

      John Hollywood 18 months ago from Hollywood, CA

      He was a terrible President . Not just bad but outright terrible. He blew up the deficit like a Macy's Day float.

    • Chantelle Porter profile image

      Chantelle Porter 18 months ago from Chicago

      WhenReagan became President, I lived In a small rural town. For the first tim ever we had homeless people on the street. He cut funding for mental hospitals and these poor folks wound up in the gutter. That's about the best I can say about him.

    • paul hyland 18 months ago

      had his wife on tv, telling everybody 'just say no' to drugs, while the CIA were helping the Contras ship tonnes of cocaine to the US to fund their war.

    • Mason Weasly profile image

      Mason Weasly 17 months ago

      "Iraq is still the only country to attack a U.S. warship without retaliation."

      Wrong! The USS Cole was fired upon and 17 Sailors were murdered by Al Qaeda without retaliation by Bill Clinton.

      The ring leader was killed in a drone strike two years later that was sent by GW.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 17 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Don't forget USS Liberty....no retaliation for that either.

    • Dean 17 months ago

      The worst ever

    • bayouelton 16 months ago

      lovemychris:

      “Perhaps now you understand the absolute idiocy of blaming Obama for TARP…”

      No on blamed Obama for TARP. He was a senator at the time and he voted for it.

    • bayouelton 16 months ago

      “The fact that you had to create this hub says so much about your bias,” by jackclee.

      Probably one of the more prescient comments so far.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 16 months ago

      bayouelton -

      You are entitled to your opinion about Obama just as I am entitled to my opinion about Reagan.

      This article lists facts about President Reagan. There is no hateful hysteria here like what you expressed toward Obama. You offer nothing to dispute any of the facts stated here about Reagan.

      I watched the Obama Gaffe Mania video. Most were either not gaffes at all or were very minor. Was it really a Gaffe to confuse Sioux City with Sioux Falls? I've heard the one about 57 states many times over the past 8 years because the Obama-haters, like the maker of that video, are hard-pressed to find any real gaffes since Obama seldom provide new ones to ridicule.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      There was no retaliation for USS Liberty....In fact, I'm surprised we aren't taught that "Muslims did it".

      And we probly gave them MORE money after it happened! So, I don't care who's prez...we get used and abused by Israel, IMO.

      And yes, people DID blame Obama for TARP: The Tea Party, to be exact. I didn't see any signs of Bush or Cheney with a bone thru their noses--did you?

      And people still blame Obama for Hurricane Katrina!

      Furthermore---you righty's have the benefit of hating Obama without being told you hate America: one of the most despicable things done to liberals during Bushco.

      "Hate the president, hate the troops"

      "Hate the war, hate America"

      blah blah blahhhhhh

      and you're still at it. NOW--if we LIKE the president, we hate America!

      It's idiotic in the EXTREME!

    • BD 15 months ago

      Reagan brought down the wall, brought home the hostages. All the Man Child Obama, the guy who is obsessed with word "I" has brought down is the entire country. Worst president since the flake Jimmy Carter

    • Elton Hartzler 15 months ago

      . . . . I didn’t have time to write a book. You listed 21 highly subjective claims that are misleading and dishonest at best or gross distortions of fact at worst. Anyone here can google any of them individually if they really care about the facts. Number #11 is just one example. Aid and support to the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan started under Carter. Guess you missed the movie with Tom Hanks.

      .

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 15 months ago

      Elton,

      Please feel free to go into detail about anything you think is inaccurate. A lot of people have tried but all the facts listed here hold up to scrutiny.

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 15 months ago from Corona, California.

      You know Jeff, only Gods are without fault. None of our presidents have been Gods. If you don't like someone you can find fault in them, I don't care who that person is. We all have them. If someone doesn't like, or believe in Jesus, I am sure they can dig up something on Him too, that would make him out to be a bad guy. Anyway, I have been reading these comments and every time someone disagrees with you they are wrong, according to you. You might be right on some of this stuff, maybe even all of it. But why do you have to bring up this crap on someone that is dead in the first place? Just my opinion, Greg.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 15 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Because they still hail him as conservative God.....we have right to say no more of your Gods....with their inhumane policies.

      And let me guess...you want to save the crap for Hillary, right?

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 15 months ago from Corona, California.

      I won't pick on anyone after they are dead.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 15 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well, you're one in a million then.......ever hear of Chappaquiddick?

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 15 months ago from Corona, California.

      I hear about people talking bad about dead people all the time. The media doesn't do anything but add fuel to the fires all the time. You won't find me talking bad about them. Can you explain to me what good it is going to do anyone with what has been said against Mr. Reagan on this hub. There is no sense in any of it.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 15 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Because they keep doing it over and over and over again.....

      Tax cuts/Trickle down...

      Been there, done that. It needs to stop!

      Those who ignore mistakes of the past repeat them. Let us be ever vigilant, and not keep making the same mistakes ad-nauseum!

      and I would say I would respect your take on this more if you would look a few posts up, and reprimand bd for insulting Carter, who is also dead. TY

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 15 months ago

      Gregas -

      It's not my intention to disrespect the dead. But Republicans have been rewriting history for the past 25 years to convince us that the very policies that did such harm to our country were actually good.

      They double down on all of Reagan's policies to a point that Reagan himself would find appalling.

      People need to set the record straight so we don't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

    • SixLakes 15 months ago

      BD writes, "Reagan brought down the wall, brought home the hostages." You should read up on the October Surprise. The Reagan team met up with Iran's government BEFORE the 1980 election. They promised to sell them arms in exchange for Iran keeping the hostages LONGER, as Reagan did not want the hostages released in the fall, before the election. What an honorable man you worship. *cough*

      It seems that many posting here defending Reagan are the "sheeple," the type that want a Big Daddy to think for them. These are also the type that listen to Rush Limbaugh.

      Fact: Ronald Reagan ran INTENTIONAL deficits. This is according to his own Budget Director. Reagan didn't care about the future debt. He wanted a reason to cut government programs, the ones that actually help people. He is currently burning in hell.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 15 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

    • thecrookedbell profile image

      thecrookedbell 14 months ago

      LOL. Not even worth a comment.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 14 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well, not to some.....But I'm a patriot.

      My bell is ringing loud and clear.

      "Ding Dong the witch is dead".......

      There's no place like home, and I aim to protect her.

      This man "gets" America

      https://youtu.be/ETNoPqYAIPI

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 14 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well, not to some.....But I'm a patriot.

      My bell is ringing loud and clear.

      "Ding Dong the witch is dead".......

      There's no place like home, and I aim to protect her.

      This man "gets" America

      https://youtu.be/ETNoPqYAIPI

      I urge all to listen. Made me cry.

    • Chris 13 months ago

      Two words:

      THANK YOU!

    • History0000 11 months ago

      Reagan also Deinstitutionalized the Mentally ill

      and cut funding for programs to transition them into society

      creating a nationwide homeless problem. Everytime you encounter a homeless mentally ill person on the streets of an American city or town you can thank Reagan.

    • CELEBSFAN78 profile image

      Ara Vahanian 10 months ago from LOS ANGELES

      Jeff,

      I really love the headlines after each number! It gives me a very good laugh as well as provide useful information. I have read and extensively studied about Mr. Reagan and I will say he was not a good president. I haven't read the full article yet but I plan to do so sometime soon. As I said, I love the bolded headlines after each number. Hilarious!

    • jberry 7 months ago

      I lived through the 21% inflation rate and the extremely high mortgage rates of the Carter years that just about destroyed the middle class of our nation. I lived through the cold war that had most Americans concerned that any day the Soviet Union would launch the first missile that would begin World War III and result in the destruction of both of our countries and much of the world. I lived through the years just prior to the Reagan years when the morale of most Americans was at an all time low and when hope for a better future was virtually non-existent. Then I lived through eight years of a Reagan presidency when a very imperfect president almost single handedly restored hope and pride in our country and a belief that we, as Americans, could overcome any and all obstacles and once again have a strong middle class and a free and safe country in which to live and raise our families. No president can instantly turn a bad economy around, but I witnessed and experienced his economic policies that gradually turned our economy into a great one that continued for years, even through the years of a Clinton presidency and to his credit, Clinton saw that Reagan's policies worked and he was intelligent enough to leave them alone and let us continue to prosper. I witnessed his diplomatic and communication skills that ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin wall and made our country and world much safer and I witnessed the tremendous improvement in morale in our nation. I witnessed and was part of the dramatic rise in the American spirit that resulted in our again being a nation that volunteered and gave to help those less fortunate, rather than demand that the government do everything for us. So, I don't know what fairy tales some of you have been reading. I'm neither a right winger, nor a Rush listener, but I have lived through a lot of presidencies and the Reagan years and those that followed shortly after were the best years for most Americans and far, far better than anything we have experienced in the last eight.

    • SixLakes 7 months ago

      Jberry writes, "No president can instantly turn a bad economy around, but I witnessed and experienced his economic policies that gradually turned our economy into a great one that continued for years, even through the years of a Clinton presidency and to his credit, Clinton saw that Reagan's policies worked and he was intelligent enough to leave them alone and let us continue to prosper."

      Jberry, Reagan ran up astronomical debt. You could give an impression to your neighbor of great wealth if you had unlimited credit cards. In fact, Reagan's economy was built on deficit spending. And ... for you to assert that Clinton followed Reagan's policies -- you do not seem to really know about their respective economic approaches. In fact, they were opposites!

      Reagan was a supply-sider. Clinton was a classic Keynesian. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and to his great credit, got rid of Reagan's deficit mess. Then, GW Bush, another supply-sider, got us back into indebtedness again with his Iraq War and his unfunded gift to the pharmaceutical companies, Medicare Part D. Obama inherited Bush's mess and has tried to keep the nation afloat despite Republicans' pathological stubbornness to not raise taxes on the rich again.

      Reagan wrecked our nation. Prior to Reagan, the US had a functioning public sector, including the adequate funding for regulatory agencies. which protect human health and the environment. Reagan stripped those, and his pernicious philosophies have tainted the whole Republican party, which is FAR to the right of what it was in the 1950s-70s.

    • Lencha Turk 6 months ago

      Was it Ronald Reagan who made vaccine court?

    • a. frazier 6 months ago

      Reagan was an out of work actor who wooed the AMERICAN public to the extent that republicans have made him a demi-god. between reign and the bushes, our country has a terrible deficit! his deregulating of companies have cost the trillions of dollars when we later had to bail out the "new"super companies. banks, airlines, pharmaceutical companies and god only knows who else put their face in the republican slop-trough.

      now, they have a candidate that has filed for bankruptcy 3 or 4 times and can't keep a wife (not even a foreign one)

    • alex figueroa 5 months ago

      you forgot crack

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 months ago from Ohio, USA

      #18 is typical Liberal bias : somehow they have convinced themselves that the federal government is empowered to take care of farmers, particularly "family farms."

    • dale 4 months ago

      worst presidents in past 80 yrs? johnson, nixon, ford, reagan, bush, and

      topping the list, george w and then hoover.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 months ago from Ohio, USA

      #19 is side-splitting. I am laughing so hard I can hardly type. Reagan is somehow blamed for law passed by Congress? ROFL. He signed it, sure, but all the blame falls on him? Congress is innocent?

      Anyway, the law was passed because S&Ls weren't making any money. They were constrained by other laws also passed by other Congresses and signed by other Presidents. Interest rates were so high that other investment instruments were attracting customers that used to frequent Savings and Loans. So Congress tweaked the laws and allowed S&Ls more flexibility in what they did with their customers' money. Human nature being what it is, that flexibility was abused by the bankers. That caused the crisis.

      If we blame Reagan for the S&L crisis then we must blame Clinton for the Real Estate crisis. A little research goes a long way.

    • CELEBSFAN78 4 months ago

      Now that I have taken the time to read this informative piece, let me offer my perspective on it. Yes you are right, Ronald Reagan was not a good president at all. In 1982, unemployment in the US was REAL bad. And secondly, Reagan claimed that raising the minimum wage would hurt the economy. Absurd! And also I believe that the GOP has not had a proper president since Lincoln in the 1860's. Great article and informative. The average American should absolutely read this!

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 months ago from Ohio, USA

      #16 opines Reagan spent too much money, #18 whines he didn't spend enough money.

    • jeff61b profile image
      Author

      jeff61b 4 months ago

      nicomp -

      Nowhere in the article does it suggest he didn't spend enough money. He certainly could have set better priorities for how the money was spent.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 months ago from Ohio, USA

      Jeff61b -- "Ronald Reagan vetoed a farm credit bill that would have given farmers some relief"

      That's a spending bill.

    • Donald 3 months ago

      Reagan destroyed unions

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 3 months ago from Corona, California.

      Not enough of them.

    • Sean 2 months ago

      Reagan was Traitor Trash............. Rotted POS.... Don't Forget The Iran Contra Affairs?????? Rethuglicans are The Worst

    • nicomp 2 months ago

      Wow, Sean, tell us what you really feel.

    • John 2 months ago

      I looked up the unemployment percentage through the website you provided. By the time Reagan left the White House, unemployment was almost down to 5%. The only time it was greater than when he got into office was his 2nd year after Reaganomics kicked in. Besides that, the rest is a bunch of half truths or the same terrible thing he did repeated in a different way. Instead of 21 terrible things he did, it should have been closer to 14 terrible things.

    • Sharon Smith 2 months ago

      This was a good article and I agree ge was not this great president that the republicans claim him to be.

    • Lincoln clay 3 weeks ago

      This is pretty cool, I listen to old school reggea and punk bands like bad brain's for the longest time they were saying the same thing.

    • Frank 2 weeks ago

      We had a long economic expansion under Reagan, that was politically credited to him, somewhat inappropriately. The Republicans created the Reagan myth with what George Bush correctly claimed to be Voodoo Economics. i.e. That the Reagan tax cuts triggered the expansion. The Reagan tax cuts were paid for by deficit spending, which does not expand the economy like Republicans would have us believe. The Republican rhetoric was that when business pay less tax, they create job with the savings. But that is not what happened. What happened, was CEOs took the tax savings and gave themselves larger and larger salaries, while holding back on workers raises. Looking at the graph of productivity versus worker wages, will clearly show, that productivity continued to clime, but worker wages stagnated. Higher corporate taxes do not necessarily hurt the economy, but they do encourage putting more money back into the business in order to reduce those taxes.

      The expansion was created by Paul Volker, who was selected by Jimmy Carter after a long period of stagflation created by OPEC's radical cut in Oil production to countries who supported Israel, in 1994 and again in 1998. The inflationary period actually started in 1965 with the Vietnam spending.

    • GALoren 8 days ago

      I'm still trying to find out what Reagan did that benefitted our nation or citizens. He messed up Social Security, encouraged chemical warfare to be used against Iran, by Iraq and that's about it. Reagan was an actor, nothing more, nothing less. What's that you say? He got the "Wall" torn down? If walls are meant to be torn down, why is Trump building another one?

    • GA Loren 8 days ago

      Ronald Reagan may not have been a great President, but he was an outstanding actor. He should have got an Acadamy Award for his "role" playing himself as The President

    • William Murphy 98 minutes ago

      Reagan was a mouth piece for the rich and companies - remember they got the Lexus we got the muffler

      Came in as president with the US being the largest CREDITOR NATION and left 8 years later with US being the LARGEST DEBTOR NATION. He gave huge tax cuts to his mentors - companies and the 1%. Raised taxes on the middle class , crazy military build up and to cover his massive deficits raided the social security trust fund and stuck us with worthless IOUs.

      It's been down hill since this traitor was elected.

    Click to Rate This Article