Reagan

[Pure]

Reagan, perhaps more cynically than Bush, began the Republican cultivation of the 'values' and 'evangelical' folks. He didn't bend over backwards, but he did some things they wanted and managed to sound 'pro life' (who knows what he really was?)

Secular, small-government conservatives picked that up (and didn't like it). Witness this account of Ayn Rand's views of RR:

· 1976 - Rand endorsed President Gerald Ford in one of the last issues of The Ayn Rand Letter. Her longtime friend Alan Greenspan worked in the Ford administration, and Rand had personally met Ford. She specifically disapproved of Ronald Reagan, who was challenging Ford for the Republican nomination, on the basis of his opposition to abortion rights[*]


· 1980 - Rand did not endorse or vote for any candidate. She continued to oppose Reagan and his "mixture of capitalism and religion," calling him "the representative of the worst kind of conservatism."

-----
From an Ayn Rand FAQ, [sympathetic]

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html

 

[cantdog]

Watt was certainly a nutball of the religious kind. He was incharge of the national parks and lands, whose charters specify that they be preserved to varying degrees, but he sponsored strip mining them and so on. He left a "beauty strip" near the roads, to give the impression to casual visitors, the ones who seldom left the car, that endless forests surrounded them, when in fact, beyond the beauty strip, they were industrial areas.

They asked him why he was unconcerned with their preservation, and he told them. He expected the Rapture in his lifetime. There was no sense preserving them for future generations, since there weren't going to be any future generations, only the coming of the Kingdom; the end of history and the return of Christ.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The justification that Roxanne is using here relies on GNP as the master indicator of whether an economy is a good one or not. GNP does not reflect the condition of life for the lower strata of a society. Indeed it seems to rise simultaneously with extraordinary widening of the gap between rich and poor. If the proper gauge of a civilization is the way of life of its citizens, then that gap's widening is an indicator that, for most of its members, the economy is not doing well, despite the GNP's health. That sort of economics seems to imply that a civilization consists entirely of its super-rich.

I don't have any more time for this thread, unfortunately, but I believe that a fair review of income distribution by "quintile" (lowest one-fifth of the population vs. highest one-fifth) will disprove this assertion. It's a complex issue and I won't suggest a simplistic response, except to say that the hypothesis you have forwarded is not supported by the facts.

Good luck on your paper, SJ. I'm glad to have contributed a bit of balance that hopefully rises above the level of partisan blather. My apologies to any I may have slighted in my responses here - they were not directed at any particular individual or post (and that applies to the preceeding sentence, too.)

 

[rgraham666]

I'll quote this tiny stat from the Congressional Budget office yet again, Roxanne, to show how things have changed since Reagan.

From Paul Krugman's column: America The Polarized - New York Times, January 4, 2002

Adjusting for inflation, the income of families in the middle of the U.S. income distribution rose from $41,400 in 1979 to $45,100 in 1997, a 9 percent increase. Meanwhile the income of families in the top 1 percent rose from $420,200 to $1.016 million, a 140 percent increase. Or to put it another way, the income of families in the top 1 percent was 10 times that of typical families in 1979, and 23 times and rising in 1997.

I doubt there's been any change in those trend since.

 

[Pure]

As a tribute to Roxanne



Here are a couple assessments of Reagan, from the Right, i.e., Peggy Noonan and Margaret Thatcher

PEGGY NOONAN in the Wall Street Journal

The Ben Elliott Story
What I saw at the funeral [of Ronald Reagan]

Monday, June 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
What was the meaning of the past remarkable nine days? You cannot stop the American people from feeling what they feel and showing it. From the crowds at Simi Valley to the hordes at the Capitol to the men and women who stopped and got out of their cars on Highway 101 to salute as Reagan came home--that was America talking to America about who America is.

It was a magnificent teaching moment for the whole country but most of all for the young, who barely remembered Ronald Reagan or didn't remember him at all. This week they heard who he was.

The old ones spoke, on all the networks and in all the newspapers, and by the end of the week it was clear that Ronald Reagan had suddenly entered the Lincoln pantheon. By Friday it was no longer a question, as it had been for years, whether he was one of our top 10 presidents. It was a question only whether he was in the very top five or six--up there with Lincoln and Washington. An agreement had been reached: the 20th century came down to FDR and RWR.

What is important now is that we continue to speak of the meaning of his leadership. Not bang away about what a great guy he was--there are a lot of great guys--but what huge things he did, not because he had an "ideology" but because he had a philosophy, a specific one that had specific meaning.

He was the great 20th-century conservative of America. He applied his philosophy to the realities of the world he lived in. In doing so he changed those realities, and for the better. This is what we must pass on.

I think of the moments of the past week in Washington: George Shultz reaching out spontaneously and with such heart to touch the coffin in the Rotunda. Al Haig too. I was there and saw how moved they were.

Walking into a room in the Capitol Wednesday before dusk: A handful of people were standing together and gazing out a huge old white-silled window as the Reagan cortege approached down Pennsylvania Avenue. The sun was strong, like a presence. It bathed the women in glow. One was standing straight, with discipline. Her beige bouffant was brilliant in the sun. I approached, and she turned. It was Margaret Thatcher. It was like walking into a room at FDR's funeral and seeing Churchill.

The cortege was coming toward the steps. We looked out the window: a perfect tableaux of ceremonial excellence from every branch of the armed forces. Mrs. Thatcher watched. She turned and said to me, "This is the thing, you see, you must stay militarily strong, with an undeniable strength. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated."

To my son, whose 17th birthday was the next day, she said, "And what do you study?" He tells her he loves history and literature. "Mathematics," she says. He nods, wondering, I think, if she had heard him correctly. She had. She was giving him advice. "In the world of the future it will be mathematics that we need--the hard, specific knowledge of mathematical formulae, you see." My son nodded: "Yes, ma'am." Later I squeezed his arm. "Take notes," I said. This is history.

Inside the Washington National Cathedral the day of the state funeral: When the television cameras broadcast from inside the cathedral at 11:30 a.m., everyone--dark clad, many distinguished, all 3,000 of them--stood in complete silence as the doors opened for the Reagan family. It was so silent that all you could hear was the metal point of the vicar's staff hitting the marble floor as he processed down the aisle. Oh what a sound. It sounded like tradition. Majesty.

But before the cameras were there, an hour and two hours before, it was the last gathering of the clans. The room rocked with affection and laughter. We were hugging and shaking hands. Oh, it was beautiful. I saw Mari Maseng Will, whose job I had taken in the White House when she moved up from speechwriting. In those days--only 20 years ago, and yet in some respects so long ago--there were, as there are now, a half dozen White House speechwriters, and, by what was then fairly recent tradition, one woman among them.

I hadn't seen Mari in years. She looked beautiful and tall but also now distinguished. I asked how she felt after the past few days, our lives passing before our eyes. "I feel young again," she said. I laughed and said "God, me too." I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, all the people of 1984 were there again, and talking and gesturing, but now after all these years they were free, unburdened, fully able, and eager, to appreciate each other. Man, the love and respect in that room.

Just in my line of sight was an extraordinarily wide variety of people in the assemblage. The people inside that cathedral who were not there by virtue of their position--senators, congressmen, diplomats--were people who actually loved the Reagans. My eye went from a grieving Mikhail Gorbachev to Joan Rivers to Jim Billington of the Library of Congress to Oscar De la Renta, from Antonin Scalia to Buffy Cafritz, from Clarence Thomas to Merv Griffin, from Prince Charles to Oatsie Charles.

The Reagans knew everyone; they really reached out into all spheres. The Carters didn't know everyone; they were Georgia. The Bushes don't know everyone. The Clintons knew Hollywood, but Hollywood didn't love them; it just embraced them. The Reagans were loved by the ones who knew them. It's nice when you see this. The last first couple of whom I think it could be said were the Kennedys.

I was walking down the aisle when someone called to me and said, "Peggy, Natan Sharansky": a small balding man who looks like a shy accountant. He was in the gulag when Ronald Reagan was president. He was in solitary confinement, and when word would reach him of Reagan's latest anticommunist speech, he would tap out in Morse code a message to his fellow prisoners.

And now he was here, a free man, at the funeral of Ronald Reagan, who got him out of the gulag, which was run by Mikhail Gorbachev, who was right over there. Oh life, what a kick in the pants it can be. All I could do as it all flashed through my mind was ask if I could put my arms around him, and all I could think of say was, "Oh, Natan Sharansky." A beautiful moment for me.

When the funeral was over, when we came down the steps and out of the Cathedral, I saw Tom Daschle and Byron Dorgan and Sen. Reed from I forget where, standing together, talking. I thought: Good for them for being here and showing such respect. So I went over and introduced myself and told them it was great to see them and it was a beautiful day for all of us. They were sweet and friendly and we all laughed and shook hands. This was another good moment to have at Ronald Reagan's funeral.

Many great things were said about Reagan, especially the words of Baroness Thatcher, the Iron Lady. What a gallant woman to come from England, frail after a series of strokes, to show her personal respect and love, and to go to California to show it again, standing there with her perfect bearing, in her high heels, for 20 hours straight. I wonder if the British know how we took it, we Americans, that she did that, and that Prince Charles came, and Tony Blair. One is tempted to fall back on cliché--"the special relationship." But I think a lot of us were thinking: We are one people.

The morning Americans stood in line and filed in to see the flag-draped coffin in the rotunda, Sen. Rick Santorum called together some old Reagan hands to speak to senators and staff about the meaning of Reaganism. It was one of those moments when everything seemed to come together. Ed Meese spoke so movingly of the Reagan he knew, the one who came out of the Midwest and into California.

Jim Miller, his former budget director, spoke with bracing clarity of the real economic facts of American life before Reagan, and American life after. Richard Perle, who had been in the Defense Department, spoke of Reagan the tough negotiator of the end of the Soviet Union. I spoke on a lesson we can draw from Reagan's life. C-Span was there and, I'm told, used our remarks as a kind of voiceover for the pictures of people going to the and viewing the flag draped coffin. I felt blessed to be there. This is what I got to say:

Thank you. I am honored to be here. After the drama of the past few days I am officially farklempt, and I fear I may perhaps lose my voice this morning. I am very happy to see the senators here, but I am happiest to see Orin Hatch, because if I lose my voice he can stand up and sing.

I speak on Mr. Reagan. In such a big life, such a multifaceted life, there are many lessons. And you can wonder which One Big Lesson you should take away from watching him. I have a thought, but I think it is perhaps personal, or in a way intimate. It has to do with how we live our lives. Which is always the great question of course, How to live?

Ronald Reagan once summed up John F. Kennedy. He went to a fund-raiser for the JFK Library at Ted Kennedy's house in 1984. Reagan said of Kennedy, "As a leader, as a president, he seemed to have a good, hard, unillusioned understanding of man and his political choices. . . . [He] understood the tension between good and evil in the history of man--understood, indeed, that much of the history of man can be seen in the constant working out of that tension. . . . He was a patriot who summoned patriotism from the heart of a sated country. . . . He was fiercely, happily partisan, and his political fights were tough--no quarter asked and none given. But he gave as good as he got, and you could see that he loved the battle. . . . Everything we saw him do seemed to show a huge enjoyment of life; he seemed to grasp from the beginning that life is one fast-moving train, and you have to jump on board and hold on to your hat and relish the sweep of the wind as it rushes by. You have to enjoy the journey; it's ungrateful not to. I think that's how his country remembers him, in his joy."

When it was over, Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Onassis, walked up to President Reagan and said, "Oh, Mr. President, that was Jack.
And now I think: that was Reagan, too. And that should be us.
It's a short ride. Even the longest life is a little too short. You get some time; what do you want to do with it? You want to bring your love to it. And by bringing that love, be constructive, add to, help build and rebuild just by your presence, just by showing up.

How did Reagan do this? He felt something was true. He studied it; he questioned it; he read about it. He concluded it really was true. But he knew that what was true was unpopular, and it would hurt him if he held it high. He held it high anyway. That was his way of showing his love.

=====
Margaret Thatcher's eulogy at RR's funeral

Margaret Thatcher's Eulogy At Reagan's Funeral
(*** Because Baroness Thatcher had a stroke a while back, her doctors asked her not to do public speaking engagements anymore. But, Margaret Thatcher taped a eulogy for the funeral and it was simply magnificent. I can't speak for anyone else, but I sincerely appreciate the beautiful and kind words Maggie had for the Gipper. If it's possible, my admiration for the Iron Lady, who is in my opinion the second greatest leader Europe has produced in the last century after Churchill, has increased. Here is what she had to say...***)
We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend.

In his lifetime Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he set himself. He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism. These were causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk.

Yet they were pursued with almost a lightness of spirit. For Ronald Reagan also embodied another great cause - what Arnold Bennett once called `the great cause of cheering us all up'. His politics had a freshness and optimism that won converts from every class and every nation - and ultimately from the very heart of the evil empire.
Yet his humour often had a purpose beyond humour. In the terrible hours after the attempt on his life, his easy jokes gave reassurance to an anxious world. They were evidence that in the aftermath of terror and in the midst of hysteria, one great heart at least remained sane and jocular. They were truly grace under pressure.

And perhaps they signified grace of a deeper kind. Ronnie himself certainly believed that he had been given back his life for a purpose. As he told a priest after his recovery `Whatever time I've got left now belongs to the Big Fella Upstairs'.

And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed.

Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.
Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity.

Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.

I cannot imagine how any diplomat, or any dramatist, could improve on his words to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva summit: `Let me tell you why it is we distrust you.' Those words are candid and tough and they cannot have been easy to hear. But they are also a clear invitation to a new beginning and a new relationship that would be rooted in trust.

We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape with those words. It is a very different world with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president.

As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president.

Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively.
When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.

When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew `the Old Man' would never wear.

When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership.
And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding.

Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.

Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's `evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.

So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.

Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.
Therein lies perhaps the final explanation of his achievements. Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people.

As an actor in Hollywood's golden age, he helped to make the American dream live for millions all over the globe. His own life was a fulfilment of that dream. He never succumbed to the embarrassment some people feel about an honest expression of love of country.

He was able to say `God Bless America' with equal fervour in public and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America - and to make sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.
With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer "God Bless America".

Ronald Reagan's life was rich not only in public achievement, but also in private happiness. Indeed, his public achievements were rooted in his private happiness. The great turning point of his life was his meeting and marriage with Nancy.

On that we have the plain testimony of a loving and grateful husband: `Nancy came along and saved my soul'. We share her grief today. But we also share her pride - and the grief and pride of Ronnie's children.

For the final years of his life, Ronnie's mind was clouded by illness. That cloud has now lifted. He is himself again - more himself than at any time on this earth. For we may be sure that the Big Fella Upstairs never forgets those who remember Him. And as the last journey of this faithful pilgrim took him beyond the sunset, and as heaven's morning broke, I like to think - in the words of Bunyan - that `all the trumpets sounded on the other side'.

We here still move in twilight. But we have one beacon to guide us that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example. Let us give thanks today for a life that achieved so much for all of God's children."
John Hawkins | 09:58 PM | Comments

 

[izabella]

When Reagan left office unemployment, interest rates and inflation were solidly in single digits and trending down. A period of economic growth had begun which continues to this day, with only the mildest downturns (compared to the recessions of previous eras.)

By the time Reagan left office, "the homeless" who had been almost unheard of in America in the late 70's, skyrocketed into an epidemic - 2,000,000 people became homeless during his administration. He cut the HUD budget by three-quarters, which meant far less money for subsidized housing for the poor. His tax cuts also provided far less incentive for private developers to build low income housing.

At the same time, he slashed funding for a variety of social services, silly things like public health, drug rehab and food stamps - programs that were relied upon by all the mentally ill people who had been released from state facilities in order to cut that wasteful government spending! So add thousands of mentally ill to the homeless problem.

I looked up a quote that stuck in my dad's head from that era - he'd repeated it to me when I'd ask why there were so many people begging for money and sleeping in the streets - Reagan was asked in an interview in 1988 what he thought of the homeless people sleeping in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House:

"There are always going to be people. They make it their own choice for staying out there."

Yes, it was "Morning in America" for the wealthy, and mourning in America for the poor who saw the sun rise while huddled over a grate on the street.

So, yes, Ms. Appleby, by some measures some Americans were better off. By other measures, such as the huge deficit he racked up and the homeless problem he created, Americans were much worse off. It depends on what your measure of success is and where on the economic scale you lie.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

By the time Reagan left office, "the homeless" who had been almost unheard of in America in the late 70's, skyrocketed into an epidemic - 2,000,000 people became homeless during his administration. He cut the HUD budget by three-quarters, which meant far less money for subsidized housing for the poor. His tax cuts also provided far less incentive for private developers to build low income housing.

At the same time, he slashed funding for a variety of social services, silly things like public health, drug rehab and food stamps - programs that were relied upon by all the mentally ill people who had been released from state facilities in order to cut that wasteful government spending! So add thousands of mentally ill to the homeless problem.

I looked up a quote that stuck in my dad's head from that era - he'd repeated it to me when I'd ask why there were so many people begging for money and sleeping in the streets - Reagan was asked in an interview in 1988 what he thought of the homeless people sleeping in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House:

"There are always going to be people. They make it their own choice for staying out there."

Yes, it was "Morning in America" for the wealthy, and mourning in America for the poor who saw the sun rise while huddled over a grate on the street.

So, yes, Ms. Appleby, by some measures some Americans were better off. By other measures, such as the huge deficit he racked up and the homeless problem he created, Americans were much worse off. It depends on what your measure of success is and where on the economic scale you lie.

I don't agree with all of this, Izabella. Part of the problem was the down sizing of the military beginning with George H.W. Bush that continued through Bill Clinton. That threw nearly a million people into the work place at a time when the economy was on a down slide. The greatest personell cuts came under Bush sr and Reagan. It finally slowed under Clinton.

Reagan, as you recall, had what he called "Reaganomics" and sometimes "Trickle Down Economics". This is the old Republican party economic line: Make the rich REALLY rich and the poor will get some of the left overs.

 

[izabella]

I don't agree with all of this, Izabella. Part of the problem was the down sizing of the military beginning with George H.W. Bush that continued through Bill Clinton. That threw nearly a million people into the work place at a time when the economy was on a down slide. The greatest personell cuts came under Bush sr and Reagan. It finally slowed under Clinton.

Reagan, as you recall, had what he called "Reaganomics" and sometimes "Trickle Down Economics". This is the old Republican party economic line: Make the rich REALLY rich and the poor will get some of the left overs.

I'm not sure what parts you disagree with? He did slash the HUD budge from $32B in 1981 to $7B in 1988 and that did mean less money for subsidized housing. He did cut funding for social services, and there were a lot of people thrown on the streets from the cuts in budgets for mental institutions, and the homeless problem which didn't exist during Carter did skyrocket during Reagan's administration.

I do remember the trickle down economics, and how slowly it trickled down, if ever. That's what the 25% tax cuts for the rich was about.

I agree the homeless problem got worse over the years after he was in office, but it was created during the Reagan years, as was a huge budget deficit based on the tax cuts and increased military spending.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Those were not witch hunts. Although some excesses were committed, Communism was very real and the USSR was a very real threat to the world. If you don't believe me, ask the people of Poland, Hungary, The Baltic States, Slovakia, the Czech Republic or other victims of Soviet aggression.

As for Hollywood, there was a threat there too, although probably not as much of one as was claimed.

Communism was not always a dirty word or a synonym for slavery and oppression. When the USA fell apart during the Great Depression, a lot of very patritoic, well-meaning citizens became interested in communism as a means of saving what seemed very much like a failed economic system.

Following WWII and the rise of the Cold War, the Chinese revolution and Korean war, the Rosenberg spy case, people began to get pretty panicky about Communism, and not without good cause. However, the idea that there was ever a significant Soviet plot to infiltrate and take over the US from the inside is pretty ridiculous.

That didn't stop politicians and others from exploiting this fear for political gain by conducting witch-hunts, looking for "commies" here and there, ruining lives and careers and trampling on civil rights in a way that's shameless even by today's standards. For a while, the US was hardly better than the Soviet Union, where you could destroy someone's reputation or get them fired just by starting a rumor that they held "communist sympathies". Kids were urged to spy on their parents, employees were forced to sign loyalty oaths, crap like that went on.

Joe McCarthy, an alcoholic third-rate senator from Wisconsin, and Roy Cohn, his legal aid, were the top commie-hunters. They liked going after Hollywood types because that gave them a lot of press coverage, grilling stars and forcing them either to "name names" or go to jail. Arthur Miller, a young playwrite at the time, wrote The Crucible, a play about the Salem witch-trials, as a parable about the damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't methods of the McCarthy hearings.

McCarthy finally went too far when he accused the US Army of having been infiltrated by communist agents and he ran up against Joseph Welch, a Boston Brahmin lawyer, council for the Army, and as dignified and decent as McCarthy was bullying and corrupt. The hearings were televised. It was the early days of live television and people were glued to their sets. The moment when McCarthy went too far and accused a young Army lieutenant of being a communist and Welch exploded, standing up and shouting out, "Have you no decency, sir? Have you not a shred of common human decency left in your body?" and McCarthy crumbled on camera before Welch's moral superiority is one of the most dramatic images in American political history.

McCarthy never recovered. The communist witch-hunts stopped soon after, and that was the end of that.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm not sure what parts you disagree with? He did slash the HUD budge from $32B in 1981 to $7B in 1988 and that did mean less money for subsidized housing. He did cut funding for social services, and there were a lot of people thrown on the streets from the cuts in budgets for mental institutions, and the homeless problem which didn't exist during Carter did skyrocket during Reagan's administration.

I do remember the trickle down economics, and how slowly it trickled down, if ever. That's what the 25% tax cuts for the rich was about.

I agree the homeless problem got worse over the years after he was in office, but it was created during the Reagan years, as was a huge budget deficit based on the tax cuts and increased military spending.

Exactly, Reagan was slashing the HUD budget at the same time he was throwing military "lifers" out on the street in a miserable economy.

What I disagreed with was you 2 million people on the street. There were 2 million on the street, but nearly half of them were products of the previous Bush administration.

 

[Pure]

the reagan miracle

deficit spending on military items in peacetime. (true conservative?)

There is a nice graph of budget deficits at

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/PRES/fedbudget/index.html



From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained

"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending.

Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]

From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006." Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf. Page 5.

 

[izabella]

Exactly, Reagan was slashing the HUD budget at the same time he was throwing military "lifers" out on the street in a miserable economy.

What I disagreed with was you 2 million people on the street. There were 2 million on the street, but nearly half of them were products of the previous Bush administration.

Bush? Reagan followed Carter, and Bush was VP to Reagan from 1980-1988, and then he became President for one term after Reagan's departure. Then came Clinton, and then GWBush.

 

[amicus]

Pure]

Here are a couple assessments of Reagan, from the Right, i.e., Peggy Noonan and Margaret Thatcher

PEGGY NOONAN in the Wall Street Journal

The Ben Elliott Story
What I saw at the funeral [of Ronald Reagan]

Monday, June 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
What was the meaning of the past remarkable nine days? You cannot stop the American people from feeling what they feel and showing it. From the crowds at Simi Valley to the hordes at the Capitol to the men and women who stopped and got out of their cars on Highway 101 to salute as Reagan came home--that was America talking to America about who America is.

It was a magnificent teaching moment for the whole country but most of all for the young, who barely remembered Ronald Reagan or didn't remember him at all. This week they heard who he was.

The old ones spoke, on all the networks and in all the newspapers, and by the end of the week it was clear that Ronald Reagan had suddenly entered the Lincoln pantheon. By Friday it was no longer a question, as it had been for years, whether he was one of our top 10 presidents. It was a question only whether he was in the very top five or six--up there with Lincoln and Washington. An agreement had been reached: the 20th century came down to FDR and RWR.

What is important now is that we continue to speak of the meaning of his leadership. Not bang away about what a great guy he was--there are a lot of great guys--but what huge things he did, not because he had an "ideology" but because he had a philosophy, a specific one that had specific meaning.

He was the great 20th-century conservative of America. He applied his philosophy to the realities of the world he lived in. In doing so he changed those realities, and for the better. This is what we must pass on.

I think of the moments of the past week in Washington: George Shultz reaching out spontaneously and with such heart to touch the coffin in the Rotunda. Al Haig too. I was there and saw how moved they were.

Walking into a room in the Capitol Wednesday before dusk: A handful of people were standing together and gazing out a huge old white-silled window as the Reagan cortege approached down Pennsylvania Avenue. The sun was strong, like a presence. It bathed the women in glow. One was standing straight, with discipline. Her beige bouffant was brilliant in the sun. I approached, and she turned. It was Margaret Thatcher. It was like walking into a room at FDR's funeral and seeing Churchill.

The cortege was coming toward the steps. We looked out the window: a perfect tableaux of ceremonial excellence from every branch of the armed forces. Mrs. Thatcher watched. She turned and said to me, "This is the thing, you see, you must stay militarily strong, with an undeniable strength. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated."

To my son, whose 17th birthday was the next day, she said, "And what do you study?" He tells her he loves history and literature. "Mathematics," she says. He nods, wondering, I think, if she had heard him correctly. She had. She was giving him advice. "In the world of the future it will be mathematics that we need--the hard, specific knowledge of mathematical formulae, you see." My son nodded: "Yes, ma'am." Later I squeezed his arm. "Take notes," I said. This is history.

Inside the Washington National Cathedral the day of the state funeral: When the television cameras broadcast from inside the cathedral at 11:30 a.m., everyone--dark clad, many distinguished, all 3,000 of them--stood in complete silence as the doors opened for the Reagan family. It was so silent that all you could hear was the metal point of the vicar's staff hitting the marble floor as he processed down the aisle. Oh what a sound. It sounded like tradition. Majesty.

But before the cameras were there, an hour and two hours before, it was the last gathering of the clans. The room rocked with affection and laughter. We were hugging and shaking hands. Oh, it was beautiful. I saw Mari Maseng Will, whose job I had taken in the White House when she moved up from speechwriting. In those days--only 20 years ago, and yet in some respects so long ago--there were, as there are now, a half dozen White House speechwriters, and, by what was then fairly recent tradition, one woman among them.

I hadn't seen Mari in years. She looked beautiful and tall but also now distinguished. I asked how she felt after the past few days, our lives passing before our eyes. "I feel young again," she said. I laughed and said "God, me too." I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, all the people of 1984 were there again, and talking and gesturing, but now after all these years they were free, unburdened, fully able, and eager, to appreciate each other. Man, the love and respect in that room.

Just in my line of sight was an extraordinarily wide variety of people in the assemblage. The people inside that cathedral who were not there by virtue of their position--senators, congressmen, diplomats--were people who actually loved the Reagans. My eye went from a grieving Mikhail Gorbachev to Joan Rivers to Jim Billington of the Library of Congress to Oscar De la Renta, from Antonin Scalia to Buffy Cafritz, from Clarence Thomas to Merv Griffin, from Prince Charles to Oatsie Charles.

The Reagans knew everyone; they really reached out into all spheres. The Carters didn't know everyone; they were Georgia. The Bushes don't know everyone. The Clintons knew Hollywood, but Hollywood didn't love them; it just embraced them. The Reagans were loved by the ones who knew them. It's nice when you see this. The last first couple of whom I think it could be said were the Kennedys.

I was walking down the aisle when someone called to me and said, "Peggy, Natan Sharansky": a small balding man who looks like a shy accountant. He was in the gulag when Ronald Reagan was president. He was in solitary confinement, and when word would reach him of Reagan's latest anticommunist speech, he would tap out in Morse code a message to his fellow prisoners.

And now he was here, a free man, at the funeral of Ronald Reagan, who got him out of the gulag, which was run by Mikhail Gorbachev, who was right over there. Oh life, what a kick in the pants it can be. All I could do as it all flashed through my mind was ask if I could put my arms around him, and all I could think of say was, "Oh, Natan Sharansky." A beautiful moment for me.

When the funeral was over, when we came down the steps and out of the Cathedral, I saw Tom Daschle and Byron Dorgan and Sen. Reed from I forget where, standing together, talking. I thought: Good for them for being here and showing such respect. So I went over and introduced myself and told them it was great to see them and it was a beautiful day for all of us. They were sweet and friendly and we all laughed and shook hands. This was another good moment to have at Ronald Reagan's funeral.

Many great things were said about Reagan, especially the words of Baroness Thatcher, the Iron Lady. What a gallant woman to come from England, frail after a series of strokes, to show her personal respect and love, and to go to California to show it again, standing there with her perfect bearing, in her high heels, for 20 hours straight. I wonder if the British know how we took it, we Americans, that she did that, and that Prince Charles came, and Tony Blair. One is tempted to fall back on cliché--"the special relationship." But I think a lot of us were thinking: We are one people.

The morning Americans stood in line and filed in to see the flag-draped coffin in the rotunda, Sen. Rick Santorum called together some old Reagan hands to speak to senators and staff about the meaning of Reaganism. It was one of those moments when everything seemed to come together. Ed Meese spoke so movingly of the Reagan he knew, the one who came out of the Midwest and into California.

Jim Miller, his former budget director, spoke with bracing clarity of the real economic facts of American life before Reagan, and American life after. Richard Perle, who had been in the Defense Department, spoke of Reagan the tough negotiator of the end of the Soviet Union. I spoke on a lesson we can draw from Reagan's life. C-Span was there and, I'm told, used our remarks as a kind of voiceover for the pictures of people going to the and viewing the flag draped coffin. I felt blessed to be there. This is what I got to say:

Thank you. I am honored to be here. After the drama of the past few days I am officially farklempt, and I fear I may perhaps lose my voice this morning. I am very happy to see the senators here, but I am happiest to see Orin Hatch, because if I lose my voice he can stand up and sing.

I speak on Mr. Reagan. In such a big life, such a multifaceted life, there are many lessons. And you can wonder which One Big Lesson you should take away from watching him. I have a thought, but I think it is perhaps personal, or in a way intimate. It has to do with how we live our lives. Which is always the great question of course, How to live?

Ronald Reagan once summed up John F. Kennedy. He went to a fund-raiser for the JFK Library at Ted Kennedy's house in 1984. Reagan said of Kennedy, "As a leader, as a president, he seemed to have a good, hard, unillusioned understanding of man and his political choices. . . . [He] understood the tension between good and evil in the history of man--understood, indeed, that much of the history of man can be seen in the constant working out of that tension. . . . He was a patriot who summoned patriotism from the heart of a sated country. . . . He was fiercely, happily partisan, and his political fights were tough--no quarter asked and none given. But he gave as good as he got, and you could see that he loved the battle. . . . Everything we saw him do seemed to show a huge enjoyment of life; he seemed to grasp from the beginning that life is one fast-moving train, and you have to jump on board and hold on to your hat and relish the sweep of the wind as it rushes by. You have to enjoy the journey; it's ungrateful not to. I think that's how his country remembers him, in his joy."

When it was over, Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Onassis, walked up to President Reagan and said, "Oh, Mr. President, that was Jack.
And now I think: that was Reagan, too. And that should be us.
It's a short ride. Even the longest life is a little too short. You get some time; what do you want to do with it? You want to bring your love to it. And by bringing that love, be constructive, add to, help build and rebuild just by your presence, just by showing up.

How did Reagan do this? He felt something was true. He studied it; he questioned it; he read about it. He concluded it really was true. But he knew that what was true was unpopular, and it would hurt him if he held it high. He held it high anyway. That was his way of showing his love.

=====
Margaret Thatcher's eulogy at RR's funeral

Margaret Thatcher's Eulogy At Reagan's Funeral
(*** Because Baroness Thatcher had a stroke a while back, her doctors asked her not to do public speaking engagements anymore. But, Margaret Thatcher taped a eulogy for the funeral and it was simply magnificent. I can't speak for anyone else, but I sincerely appreciate the beautiful and kind words Maggie had for the Gipper. If it's possible, my admiration for the Iron Lady, who is in my opinion the second greatest leader Europe has produced in the last century after Churchill, has increased. Here is what she had to say...***)
We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend.

In his lifetime Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he set himself. He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism. These were causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk.

Yet they were pursued with almost a lightness of spirit. For Ronald Reagan also embodied another great cause - what Arnold Bennett once called `the great cause of cheering us all up'. His politics had a freshness and optimism that won converts from every class and every nation - and ultimately from the very heart of the evil empire.
Yet his humour often had a purpose beyond humour. In the terrible hours after the attempt on his life, his easy jokes gave reassurance to an anxious world. They were evidence that in the aftermath of terror and in the midst of hysteria, one great heart at least remained sane and jocular. They were truly grace under pressure.

And perhaps they signified grace of a deeper kind. Ronnie himself certainly believed that he had been given back his life for a purpose. As he told a priest after his recovery `Whatever time I've got left now belongs to the Big Fella Upstairs'.

And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed.

Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.
Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity.

Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.

I cannot imagine how any diplomat, or any dramatist, could improve on his words to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva summit: `Let me tell you why it is we distrust you.' Those words are candid and tough and they cannot have been easy to hear. But they are also a clear invitation to a new beginning and a new relationship that would be rooted in trust.

We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape with those words. It is a very different world with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president.

As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president.

Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively.
When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.

When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew `the Old Man' would never wear.

When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership.
And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding.

Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.

Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's `evil empire'. But he realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors.

So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.

Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.
Therein lies perhaps the final explanation of his achievements. Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people.

As an actor in Hollywood's golden age, he helped to make the American dream live for millions all over the globe. His own life was a fulfilment of that dream. He never succumbed to the embarrassment some people feel about an honest expression of love of country.

He was able to say `God Bless America' with equal fervour in public and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America - and to make sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.
With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer "God Bless America".

Ronald Reagan's life was rich not only in public achievement, but also in private happiness. Indeed, his public achievements were rooted in his private happiness. The great turning point of his life was his meeting and marriage with Nancy.

On that we have the plain testimony of a loving and grateful husband: `Nancy came along and saved my soul'. We share her grief today. But we also share her pride - and the grief and pride of Ronnie's children.

For the final years of his life, Ronnie's mind was clouded by illness. That cloud has now lifted. He is himself again - more himself than at any time on this earth. For we may be sure that the Big Fella Upstairs never forgets those who remember Him. And as the last journey of this faithful pilgrim took him beyond the sunset, and as heaven's morning broke, I like to think - in the words of Bunyan - that `all the trumpets sounded on the other side'.

We here still move in twilight. But we have one beacon to guide us that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example. Let us give thanks today for a life that achieved so much for all of God's children."
John Hawkins | 09:58 PM | Comments

[/I]

~~~~~~~

I just had to 'quote' this in hopes maybe a few more would read....

Thank you Pure....I witnessed that funeral and much of what was included in the posted articles and it once again brought tears to my eyes.

It was a moment in American history never to be equalled again, I think and I for one at least, thank you very much for reminding me of just how important the Reagan years really were.

warm regards...


amicus....

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Bush? Reagan followed Carter, and Bush was VP to Reagan from 1980-1988, and then he became President for one term after Reagan's departure. Then came Clinton, and then GWBush.

Yes. That's right. The pan handlers began showing up with the military cuts backs under Reagan and continued though Bush's terms. The next time I saw panhandlers at the freeway exits was 4 years ago under Bush jr.

As you remember, the military cutbacks began with Reagan's belief in "Star Wars", a technology that had no hope of ever working. The same thing happened at the CIA under Reagan. Spy sattelites took over for assets on the ground, much to the dismay of the CIA when real, "eyes-on", intel was needed to stop junior from starting the war in Iraq.

 

[rgraham666]

If unemployment went down in the States, it's probably because they changed the meaning of the word 'unemployed'. Like in Canada and Britain.

Here in Canada we have what used to be called 'Unemployment Insurance', to cover everybody between jobs. Everybody paid into it, there's a deduction from your paycheque. It didn't last forever, and it wasn't a lot, but it made life easier if you were looking for a new job.

They changed it to 'Employment Insurance' and changed the rules so that only about 1/3 of the people that lose their jobs can collect it now. Even though everybody still pays into it. On the plus side, from the government's point of view, EI now has a huge surplus which they factor into their finances to make them look better.

In Britain they changed what defines 'unemployed' 32 times between 1979 and 1994 or about every six months. In 1994 there were 3 million unemployed, under the 1979 rules there would have been 4 million.

It's amazing, isn't it? What you can do with numbers?

 

[kendo1]

Woodstock!

Who could forget the famous line by Country Joe and the Fish?

Governor Raygun, zzappp!

Starwars indeed. How did they know?

The Fish Cheer:

Gimme an F!
F!
Gimme an I!
I!
Gimme an S!
S!
Gimme an H!
H!
What's that spell ?
FISH!
What's that spell ?
FISH!
What's that spell ?
FISH!

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds —
The only good commie is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Huh!

Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.


Meanwhile, in California...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If unemployment went down in the States, it's probably because they changed the meaning of the word 'unemployed'. Like in Canada and Britain.
. . . In Britain they changed what defines 'unemployed' 32 times between 1979 and 1994 or about every six months. In 1994 there were 3 million unemployed, under the 1979 rules there would have been 4 million.

It's amazing, isn't it? What you can do with numbers?

Nice theory, but it's wrong.

from Wiki:

A major focus of Reagan's first term was reviving the economy, which was plagued by a new phenomenon known as stagflation (a stagnant economy combined with high inflation). He fought double-digit inflation by supporting Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker's decision to tighten the money supply by dramatically hiking interest rates. While successful at reducing inflation, this plunged the economy into its most severe recession since the Great Depression. The unemployment rate increased from 7.5% when Reagan took office to a peak of 10.8% in late 1982. By mid-1984, however, unemployment was back down to its of early 1981, and continued to drift downward for the next five years, a period of strong economic growth. During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988, the economy added 16,753,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 7.5% to 5.3%. In addition, the poverty rate fell from 14% to 12.8. [9]

Incidentally, Volcker was appointed by Carter.

There have been no signifigant changes in the way unemployment is calculated in the U.S. That particular game is the specialty of the socialist democracies of Europe, which have something to hide in this area. For all the contempt for it's "cowboy capitalism" expressed by European (and AH) elites, the U.S. does not have anything signifigant to hide in this regard.

 

[kendo1]

Nice theory, but it's wrong.

from Wiki:


Incidentally, Volcker was appointed by Carter.

There have been no signifigant changes in the way unemployment is calculated in the U.S. That particular game is the specialty of the socialist democracies of Europe, which have something to hide in this area. For all the contempt for it's "cowboy capitalism" expressed by European (and AH) elites, the U.S. does not have anything signifigant to hide in this regard.

Thatcherism in the UK. They were great buddies.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thatcherism in the UK. They were great buddies.

The UK wasn't exactly thriving pre-Maggie, and hasn't done too badly since. For all the bile spilled in her direction (mostly by beneficiaries of the corrupt and unsustainable socialist enterprises she allowed to collape) I notice the new guy has not done a thing in the way of reversing the big and important changes she wrought.

 

[kendo1]

My point was that they both tackled the same problems in the same way.
With the same results.
The US and the UK are both better for it.

Thatcher was loved and hated. But she was respected.

What about Reagan?
He pulled the US out of a hole.
Was he respected for this?

My impression, from this side of the pond, is that people think of him as a doddering, old fool who slept half the day away.
Of course, that is just from what was reported in the media.


I kind of like him.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

double post deleted

 

[rgraham666]

Roxanne, is it possible, just once, to refer to other countries of the world as if they are not the Soviet Union reborn?

And those years I mentioned were under Thatcher, hardly a paragon of socialism.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oops, sorry Kendo. I missed your point.

Rob, all I did was point out the fact that the nations of western Europe, most of which are considered at least in part to be socialist, and which are democracies, are known for playing games with their umemployment figures, which in almost every case have remained above 10 percent for a generation. Most notorious in this regard is Sweden, which according to authoritative sources has unemployment in the neighborhood of 17 percent, and which claims a rate closer to 5 percent.

It's a fair cop, and the only "on the other hand" I can offer is that U.S. politicians and government bureuacrats are just as mendacious when it suits their purpose. They just don't need to be on this issue.

 

[wazhazhe]

The Fish Cheer:

Gimme an F!
F!
Gimme an I!
I!
Gimme an S!
S!
Gimme an H!
H!
What's that spell ?
FISH!
What's that spell ?
FISH!
What's that spell ?
FISH!

Um ...

No offense but the Fish Cheer didn't spell "fish"; at least not when performed live. Think of another four letter word that begins with f.

 

[rgraham666]

Roxanne, you're simply illustrating my point.

Your definition of unemployed is different than Sweden's. Yet it's still simply a definition. What makes theirs more incorrect than yours?