Had Ronald Reagan lived, he would have turned 99 today. Those too young to have listened to Reagan's many great speeches and those who believe that Barack Obama is a great communicator should take time and listen to a few of Reagan's speeches.
Reagan's core values did not change from his early entry into politics until the day he left office. He did not need focus groups and polls to help form his positions. Reagan knew that a big part of his job was to lead people to the correct position - not to tell them what he thought they wanted to year.
When you listen the speech below, try to estimate the year in which the speech was given before Reagan gives it away. If you are like me, you will miss by at least a few years. Also notice how relevant Reagan's comments are to today's political environment.
Keep in mind that Reagan used note cards for his speeches and he was not flanked by dual teleprompters. Compare this speech with modern politicians who cannot even read a teleprompter without butchering the English language.
[YOUTUBE="Tiimeless wisdom of Ronald Wilson Reagan"]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lvg7lRsCVJ8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lvg7lRsCVJ8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
It does help to have been an actor. Reagan's "core values" favored the haves...not saying he was evil or wicked or anthing of the sort. However, the truth is the truth, his vision of America was: "If you have a job, thank a rich man."
thecavemaster Wrote:It does help to have been an actor. Reagan's "core values" favored the haves...not saying he was evil or wicked or anthing of the sort. However, the truth is the truth, his vision of America was: "If you have a job, thank a rich man."
The truth is the economy was horrible for everybody under Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Life was very good for most Americans during the Reagan era. Reagan inherited a mess from Carter and left a booming economy behind. I remember trying to buy my first home during the Carter years. I refuse to believe that anybody who has the education to compare the mortgage rates, inflation rates, and the unemployment rates of the Carter years to the Reagan years can possibly argue that poor and middle income families were not much, much better off under Reagan.
You need to flush that liberal propaganda from your head and look at Reagan's record for yourself. Nobody is better off when the inflation, mortgage, and unemployment rates soar out of control. While you are at it, you should do some research into government policies that have preceded instances of hyperinflation in world history and then consider the impact of the deficits that Obama is piling up.
If you are a young person, you should be praying that the second coming of Ronald Reagan appears soon because your future will be very bleak if the socialists maintain control of our federal government.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The truth is the economy was horrible for everybody under Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Life was very good for most Americans during the Reagan era. Reagan inherited a mess from Carter and left a booming economy behind. I remember trying to buy my first home during the Carter years. I refuse to believe that anybody who has the education to compare the mortgage rates, inflation rates, and the unemployment rates of the Carter years to the Reagan years can possibly argue that poor and middle income families were not much, much better off under Reagan.
You need to flush that liberal propaganda from your head and look at Reagan's record for yourself. Nobody is better off when the inflation, mortgage, and unemployment rates soar out of control. While you are at it, you should do some research into government policies that have preceded instances of hyperinflation in world history and then consider the impact of the deficits that Obama is piling up.
If you are a young person, you should be praying that the second coming of Ronald Reagan appears soon because your future will be very bleak if the socialists maintain control of our federal government.
Under Reagan, the middle class shrank, the lower class grew, the upper class grew. That's isn't propoganda, my friend. That's fact. Now, that is one aspect of Reagan's Presidency. I think he had a way about him that made this country feel better about itself, proud of itself. But, as to the economy, supply side, trickle down, buyer beware.
thecavemaster Wrote:Under Reagan, the middle class shrank, the lower class grew, the upper class grew. That's isn't propoganda, my friend. That's fact. Now, that is one aspect of Reagan's Presidency. I think he had a way about him that made this country feel better about itself, proud of itself. But, as to the economy, supply side, trickle down, buyer beware.
You have a poor understanding of history. Look up the numbers and try to make an objective case that people were worse off under Reagan than Carter. I have heard all of the liberal talking points about the decade of greed but most of us who lived through that period know the truth. Reagan was a very popular president for good reason.
If you want to keep ticking off your talking points, then I will be forced to post the numbers myself. Save yourself some embarrassment and compare the misery indexes from the Carter and Reagan years for yourself.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:You have a poor understanding of history. Look up the numbers and try to make an objective case that people were worse off under Reagan than Carter. I have heard all of the liberal talking points about the decade of greed but most of us who lived through that period know the truth. Reagan was a very popular president for good reason.
If you want to keep ticking off your talking points, then I will be forced to post the numbers myself. Save yourself some embarrassment and compare the misery indexes from the Carter and Reagan years for yourself.
MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY VOL. 2... Elizabeth Hoffman and Jon Gjerde, editors.... take a look at the chapter on Reagan's overall economic policies, what happened at the top, what happened at the bottom... concentration of wealth etc. Talking points? Like that term belongs to one political philsophy or the other? Good grief. I was working my way through school in that time... Reagan fought every minimum wage hike proposal... however, he embraced whatever policies that sweetened the pot for concentrated wealth. That's the truth, my brother. I WAS there.
thecavemaster Wrote:MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY VOL. 2... Elizabeth Hoffman and Jon Gjerde, editors.... take a look at the chapter on Reagan's overall economic policies, what happened at the top, what happened at the bottom... concentration of wealth etc. Talking points? Like that term belongs to one political philsophy or the other? Good grief. I was working my way through school in that time... Reagan fought every minimum wage hike proposal... however, he embraced whatever policies that sweetened the pot for concentrated wealth. That's the truth, my brother. I WAS there.
I don't have that book available. Have you had a chance to compare misery indexes yet? Did you sleep through the Carter years, when most Americans struggled to make a living? Liberals hated Reagan because the economy boomed - mortgage rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates all plummeted.
Because Carter was a liberal who pursued liberal remedies to a terrible economy and Reagan, a true conservative, who applied conservative fixes to the economy - there has never been a better opportunity to compare the results of the two approaches. For that reason, no president has been more demonized by the left than Reagan.
Reagan had very good reasons to oppose minimum wage laws. They are unnecessary and benefit nobody. In difficult times, minimum wage laws cost jobs. In good times, scarcity of qualified workers drives wages above the minimum rate for almost everybody who wants to work.
History has proven resoundingly that Reagan was one of the most successful presidents of the modern era. That is why he was popular. Liberals tried to paint Reagan as likable idiot who somehow managed to hire competent people to run the White House but most people were too smart to fall for that narrative. A successful presidency does not just happen by accident.
Now, I suggest again that you look up the indexes and compare Reagan's economic record to Carter's and then tell me that you are not just talking from liberal talking points. The numbers do not lie.
I know I'm stating the obvious, but you guys don't agree on anything.
Thank you Ronald Reagan. And, thank you Rich Man!
Stardust Wrote:Thank you Ronald Reagan. And, thank you Rich Man!
:lmao:
Ronald Reagan was no idiot. Ronald Reagan was a communicator, had an ability, a gift, of lifting the spirits of the American people, making people proud to be Americans, confident in the future... he exuded strength and resolve. However, Hoot, you are incorrect as to his economic policies. And, it's a funny thing... you seem to be pretty nimble in finding all manner of things on the internet, yet "I dont have access to that volume"? To me, it was nigh impossible not to like and respect Ronald Reagan. I simply think his economic policies (supply side etc.), which, in a sense, weren't "his" but part of a philosophy, did precisely what the book I cited suggests they did.
thecavemaster Wrote:Ronald Reagan was no idiot. Ronald Reagan was a communicator, had an ability, a gift, of lifting the spirits of the American people, making people proud to be Americans, confident in the future... he exuded strength and resolve. However, Hoot, you are incorrect as to his economic policies. And, it's a funny thing... you seem to be pretty nimble in finding all manner of things on the internet, yet "I dont have access to that volume"? To me, it was nigh impossible not to like and respect Ronald Reagan. I simply think his economic policies (supply side etc.), which, in a sense, weren't "his" but part of a philosophy, did precisely what the book I cited suggests they did.
It is pointless refuting an absence of facts. Citing a page in a book on a forum such as this, particularly when you do not even bother to quote the relevant passage, is no different than not providing any facts of your own. You are simply running with the bait and demonstrating how disconnected from reality the socialists in this country are. I will reel you in at my leisure.
Aslan Wrote:I know I'm stating the obvious, but you guys don't agree on anything.
It is good to see some younger people checking out the politics forum. Do you have any political views? Check out the Declaration video and let us know what you think about it. What is your opinion about Ronald Reagan?
Aslan Wrote:I know I'm stating the obvious, but you guys don't agree on anything.
You are not quite right. We agree that Kennedy was right to send troops into the South to enforce the 1957 Civil Rights Act when some states in the South refused to follow the law. This morning, thecavemaster is back to calling me names. If you spend much time on this forum, you will notice that although few liberals are regular participants, they are the source of most of the name calling. It must be a plank in the Democrats' platform. :biggrin:
thecavemaster Wrote:MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY VOL. 2... Elizabeth Hoffman and Jon Gjerde, editors.... take a look at the chapter on Reagan's overall economic policies, what happened at the top, what happened at the bottom... concentration of wealth etc. Talking points? Like that term belongs to one political philsophy or the other? Good grief. I was working my way through school in that time... Reagan fought every minimum wage hike proposal... however, he embraced whatever policies that sweetened the pot for concentrated wealth. That's the truth, my brother. I WAS there.
Do you honestly think that a higher minimum wage is really all that much of a benefit to the recipitant? All that happens is the overall cost of goods and services goes up with it, thus creating a washout. You apparently have the same economic and fisical intellect that the entire Obama wizz-kid team does. What is it, an overall 8% financial experience mod among his administrative cabinet?
thecavemaster Wrote:It does help to have been an actor. Reagan's "core values" favored the haves...not saying he was evil or wicked or anthing of the sort. However, the truth is the truth, his vision of America was: "If you have a job, thank a rich man."
Who are you supposed to thank, the federal government?
Mr.Kimball Wrote:Who are you supposed to thank, the federal government?
The idea that stuffing the pockets of the uber rich, I don't mean you, Kimball, despite your success in the mercantile game, means all boats rise doesn't bear out. Ronald Reagan blocked increases to the minimum wage, which meant that the real value of the minimum wage was eroded each year by inflation. Average American workers saw their real wages stagnate between 1980 and 1995. Because many people were losing income, borrowing was the only way they could maintain their standard of living. People borrowed on credit cards and home equity, and there were spikes in student-loan debt. There had been increases in borrowing relative to household income since the 1950's, but the rise had been relatively slow until the 80's. Prior to the 1980's, home equity loans had been rare. You'd get one morgage and keep it until you moved or paid it off. Refinancing became even more common in the nineties.
thecavemaster Wrote:The idea that stuffing the pockets of the uber rich, I don't mean you, Kimball, despite your success in the mercantile game, means all boats rise doesn't bear out. Ronald Reagan blocked increases to the minimum wage, which meant that the real value of the minimum wage was eroded each year by inflation. Average American workers saw their real wages stagnate between 1980 and 1995. Because many people were losing income, borrowing was the only way they could maintain their standard of living. People borrowed on credit cards and home equity, and there were spikes in student-loan debt. There had been increases in borrowing relative to household income since the 1950's, but the rise had been relatively slow until the 80's. Prior to the 1980's, home equity loans had been rare. You'd get one morgage and keep it until you moved or paid it off. Refinancing became even more common in the nineties.
Unfortunately my good friend I dont fall into that category. Strictly Middle Class. If you had to face the obstacles of over regulation, over taxation, blah, blah, blah of what it takes to just keep the lights on you would understand why those even attempting to take a stab at a small business are a few and far between breed.
As far as that new fangled credit card issue dont forget to even remotely suggest that many people just simply tried to live above their means, with the convenience of just swiping a card offers. People have a way of forgetting that those charges do have to be paid back. It's sometimes called trying to keep up with the Jones'.
Mr.Kimball Wrote:Unfortunately my good friend I dont fall into that category. Strictly Middle Class. If you had to face the obstacles of over regulation, over taxation, blah, blah, blah of what it takes to just keep the lights on you would understand why those even attempting to take a stab at a small business are a few and far between breed.
As far as that new fangled credit card issue dont forget to even remotely suggest that many people just simply tried to live above their means, with the convenience of just swiping a card offers. People have a way of forgetting that those charges do have to be paid back. It's sometimes called trying to keep up with the Jones'.
A 2008 report by the Government Accounting Office found that nearly 2/3 of US companies paid no corporate income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. Along with many others, I favor Congress enacting a corporate minimum tax...it is projected that 60 billion in revenue would be generated. Here's my bet: small business owners paid taxes each year in that span. The truth is, Kimball, were we to talk face to face, we'd agree on quite a bit when it comes to nurturing and protecting small businesses. I just don't believe in allowing the uber rich to use their power to control government and shape the rules in ways that redistribute income upward.
thecavemaster Wrote:A 2008 report by the Government Accounting Office found that nearly 2/3 of US companies paid no corporate income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. Along with many others, I favor Congress enacting a corporate minimum tax...it is projected that 60 billion in revenue would be generated. Here's my bet: small business owners paid taxes each year in that span. The truth is, Kimball, were we to talk face to face, we'd agree on quite a bit when it comes to nurturing and protecting small businesses. I just don't believe in allowing the uber rich to use their power to control government and shape the rules in ways that redistribute income upward.
Corporations pay taxes on profits. No profit - no tax.
Corporations should not be taxed anyway. Their dividends are already taxed, their employees' wages are taxed, and they pay property taxes. Corporate taxes are just an indirect tax on the American people. We pay corporate taxes when we buy their products and we pay for them when corporations cut jobs and move to locations with lower or nonexistent corporate taxes.
[QUOTE=Hoot Gibson
Corporations should not be taxed anyway. Their dividends are already taxed, their employees' wages are taxed, and they pay property taxes. Corporate taxes are just an indirect tax on the American people. We pay corporate taxes when we buy their products and we pay for them when corporations cut jobs and move to locations with lower or nonexistent corporate taxes.[/QUOTE]
As Senators, John McCain and Barack Obama received a combined total of 3.1 million from donors including Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, insurer American International Group (AIG), and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some of the top recepients of contributions from companies receiving TARP money are the same members of Congress who chair and ranking member committees charged with regulating the financial sector and overseeing the effectiveness of this unprecedented government program. I'm talking about what the uber rich do to control government and shape the rules in ways that redistribute income upward. Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?
thecavemaster Wrote:As Senators, John McCain and Barack Obama received a combined total of 3.1 million from donors including Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, insurer American International Group (AIG), and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some of the top recepients of contributions from companies receiving TARP money are the same members of Congress who chair and ranking member committees charged with regulating the financial sector and overseeing the effectiveness of this unprecedented government program. I'm talking about what the uber rich do to control government and shape the rules in ways that redistribute income upward. Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?
I think that you have once again failed to respond to the correct post or simply did not take time to read my post. Reboot and try again.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Corporations pay taxes on profits. No profit - no tax.
Corporations should not be taxed anyway. Their dividends are already taxed, their employees' wages are taxed, and they pay property taxes. Corporate taxes are just an indirect tax on the American people. We pay corporate taxes when we buy their products and we pay for them when corporations cut jobs and move to locations with lower or nonexistent corporate taxes.
Exactly, it's not rocket science. That ought to be a pretty good indicator of the profitability of corporate America. Is no one smart enough in Washington to figure out that corporate profits always trickle back into the taxable economy in one way or another? Either through reinvestment, or through a sales tax when that money is ultimately spent. That is on reason why the United States had a much stronger ecomomy during the Reagan years.
It's the taxation on top of what has already been taxed that is killing the ecomomy of small business America in this country.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I think that you have once again failed to respond to the correct post or simply did not take time to read my post. Reboot and try again.
Are you suggesting that the uber rich, if given enough tax breaks, will, of a natural economic law consequence, benefit society as a whole? That's what I take from your post.
Mr.Kimball Wrote:Exactly, it's not rocket science. That ought to be a pretty good indicator of the profitability of corporate America. Is no one smart enough in Washington to figure out that corporate profits always trickle back into the taxable economy in one way or another? Either through reinvestment, or through a sales tax when that money is ultimately spent.
It's the taxation on top of what has already been taxed that is killing the ecomomy of small business America in this country.
Well said. Until politicians are willing to give up some power, our economy will continue to decline. Eliminating corporate income taxes and freezing government spending and hiring - a real freeze - would be an excellent start.
Federal jobs need to be slashed and federal pay needs to be frozen to allow private salaries to catch up with them. The federal parasites need to gain some experience working in the private sector.
Unfortunately, incumbent politicians are not going to voluntarily shrink the size of federal government. They need to be persuaded. The threat of Vermont seceding has not phased Washington's bureaucrats for life, maybe if Texas and a few other red states do the same, the Obamanistas will get the message.
thecavemaster Wrote:Are you suggesting that the uber rich, if given enough tax breaks, will, of a natural economic law consequence, benefit society as a whole? That's what I take from your post.
Economics 101. Businesses build and expand where they can maximize profits. Lower their costs and the jobs will come. It worked in Ireland and it would work here. Taxes are job killers and money spent on taxes cannot simultaneously be spent on wages, facilities, or equipment. Think of the federal government as a black hole, sucking this country's wealth away from its citizens at an ever accelerating pace.
The socialists' idea that waging warfare against success is good for working people has never worked and it will never work. Socialists do not seem to learn from their failures, the way that normal Americans do.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Well said. Until politicians are willing to give up some power, our economy will continue to decline. Eliminating corporate income taxes and freezing government spending and hiring - a real freeze - would be an excellent start.
Federal jobs need to be slashed and federal pay needs to be frozen to allow private salaries to catch up with them. The federal parasites need to gain some experience working in the private sector.
Unfortunately, incumbent politicians are not going to voluntarily shrink the size of federal government. They need to be persuaded. The threat of Vermont seceding has not phased Washington's bureaucrats for life, maybe if Texas and a few other red states do the same, the Obamanistas will get the message.
What assurances can corporate America give if their taxes are eliminated? And, I assume, you are talking about Exxon and the like? The huge multi-nationals with profits like the GNP's of a lot of countries?
thecavemaster Wrote:What assurances can corporate America give if their taxes are eliminated? And, I assume, you are talking about Exxon and the like? The huge multi-nationals with profits like the GNP's of a lot of countries?
In the case of Exxon it means more exploring and drilling. Thus taxable worker's wages. The idea of business is to make money.There is your assurance. It would also free us from foreign dependence, aka as being held hostage.
thecavemaster Wrote:Are you suggesting that the uber rich, if given enough tax breaks, will, of a natural economic law consequence, benefit society as a whole? That's what I take from your post.
That is exactly what he and I both are saying.
I think that T. Boone Pickens is a prime example of someone reinvesting previously gained capital.
thecavemaster Wrote:What assurances can corporate America give if their taxes are eliminated? And, I assume, you are talking about Exxon and the like? The huge multi-nationals with profits like the GNP's of a lot of countries?
What kind of assurances do you mean? If you make operating a business in the US more attractive than operating elsewhere in the world, then there is no logical reason for businesses not to expand and new business ventures to be formed. Do you prefer having Exxon-Mobil expanding its operations in other countries, where it will employ fewer American workers?
To socialists, companies like Exxon-Mobil, whose profit margin is dwarfed by many companies in other industries, just represent a source of cash that rightfully belongs to "the people." They do not seem to grasp the notion of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The last time I checked, Exxon-Mobil pays about three times as much in various taxes in this country as it makes in profits.
Why should I care if those profits are more than the GDP of many small countries in this world? In fact, why should Americans not celebrate those profits? Profitable companies employ more people and afford employees better salaries and working conditions than less profitable companies. Of course, it is hard to top the working conditions and wages of the federal government, which pays employees with other people's money and never has to balance its books.