Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Reagan Legacy
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 86 (115730)
06-16-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by custard
06-16-2004 7:50 AM


you've got to be kidding
So you've lowered yourself to quote mining?
No, I put your exact quotes right before the sentence I used edited portions in order to point out they effectively said the same thing as mine. I included the FULL QUOTE before the sentence in order to show I was not quote mining.
If you want to pretend that my editing out superficial aspects of the original quotes (while actually including full quotes so people see the original intent of the quote I am using) is quote mining, well that's just ad hominem by me.
Feel free to use the full quotes against my full quote. I want to know how they are different besides semantics.
Oh yeah, you said "US" and I said "world".
#1... if more people were dying in the US as a result of the policies, how could they not be dying in greater numbers elsewhere? Research and policies were needed and only the US and Europe had the capabilities to spearhead this campaign.
#2... when a US scientist (Dr. Gallo) decided to create a science fraud in order to get credit for discovering the virus, he actively undercut world research and the Reagan administration backed his claims and worked to support him even though it threw off world research (confusing people about possible strains) just to ensure the US got credit where it was not due. So yes, his administration was actually responsible for undercutting world research.
If you need info on any of this, just google on AIDs virus discovery France and Gallo... I'm sure you'll hit something. Or get a good book on the discovery of the AIDs virus.
I'd recommend "And the Band Played On" but it IS semi-fiction and I'm sure (given your yen to quote Cato Inst, yet discredit Michael Moore, you wouldn't trust it).
Pretty important ommission on your part since your quote mining makes me look like I agree with you.
This confused me for a while and then I realized that you were the one making a mistake. I suppose I could have included your quote about hindsight, but I simply addressed that subject instead. If anyone could possibly take from the quotes I included that your post agreed with mine, then I apologize as that was not my intention.
I was merely pointing out that there is little difference between a legacy which ensured more died than had to, and having set policy which meant more died than would have if they had done a better job (hindsight or no). The end result is that more people died than would have if better leadership had held sway.
And as it stands your hindsight argument is bogus. While yes today we can see some things more clearly, it was clear to many physicians at the time (including his own surgeon general) that measures needed to be taken.
But let's clear the field here on something because I am definitely NOT LIKING a trend in your posts. You built a strawman of my position from the very beginning and continue to act as if you were right.
FROM THE BEGINNING I have felt that the Prez and Congress share credit and blame for almost all events which take place during an administration. In many cases the prez takes more of both to the degree that it was his personal policies that shaped any particular national policy.
I never said otherwise, and never meant to suggest otherwise. I am NOT a democrat and so have no care who gets blamed (or credited) for what.
I did not come on any of these RR threads and just start ranting about the guy. In each thread I came on to address POSITIVE CLAIMS of CREDIT that not only had no backing, but are pretty inconsistent with anything but base propaganda.
Now you can feel free to poke fun at my not presenting any data to you, including your unwillingness to page through material I present as if that means I am not presenting supporting evidence for my position.
But I don't like your misrepresenting my position.
So let's review... it seems like we'd agree that Presidents and Congresses take near equal blame or credit in proportion to their work on any policy, for the result of that policy... right?
Let's acknowledge this and remove it from further arguments.
On policy credit/blame:
I believe RR worked on the Cold War (spec. negotiating with Gorbachev) more than Congress, and so he deserves more credit for that than members of congress. My ONLY limit on this credit is that he did not do anything to make the SU crumble (which some claim), and he did some things which hurt the process (and so he could have done better... though he did good enough).
If someone wants to present real evidence which proves the harder claims, then I'll take a look. I believe some have already presented counterevidence and I will also suggest looking up Gorbachev's own assessments, which can be found on CNN (transcript should still be on site)
Economics I will get to in my reply to your other post (it should follow this one).
AIDs policy, especially as it grew to include anti-gay climate, is more his responsibility than members of Congress. It was his cabinet that mangled info and he personally allowed phobias and fallacies to go unchallenged. Kind of a Nero fiddled while Rome burned deal. But I will agree that the Dems didn't do too much either... does that make you feel any better? In the end Reagan left a legacy for AIDs in the US and the WORLD and it was bad.
As far as evidence goes... like I said you can look up the history of its discovery, including the Gallo controversy. I'm not sure why reading the entirety of Dan's link would hurt you (it's pretty interesting stuff actually), but might I recommend scrolling through the TRANSCRIPT till you see Koop's name? I don't know what page it starts on, but I found his name pretty easy when I first looked at it.
You can also look into one of RR's official biographers who has admitted (though I forget the title of the book or article now) that RR was "asleep at the switch" on AIDs. I believe his last name is Cannon.
Then again, I'm still a little non-plussed that you pretend like the evidence is not present in Dan's link, when it's been talked about by others and you refuse to go look for it. That's a little odd isn't it?
Looking back from 2004 and saying "man Reagan really effed up - look how many people died" just doesn't cut it.
If that doesn't cut it, just imagine what looking back from 2004 and saying he didn't ef up, especially knowing now what we (and he) knew then.
Just to make sure you understand something. I am under NO illusion that HIV would be cured by now if RR had done something different. I suppose it could have been contained, though admittedly many including Koop may have stopped that from happening.
But there is no question he displayed no leadership and allowed its impact to grow beyond what it should have had, including its synergistic effect of breeding more hate for gays which made people ignore AIDs which made etc etc.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 7:50 AM custard has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 86 (115772)
06-16-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by custard
06-16-2004 7:15 AM


the economic legacy
I apologize if I got a bit ascerbic, I don't have anything against you personally, but I may have allowed some of my dissatisfaction with the way these kinds of arguments are casually tossed about (regurgitated might be more accurate)without being challenged or really supported.
I just wanted to start with this little circle jerk so we can stay on the right mood.
I don't really mind if you get ascerbic. I don't get offended with tones or hyperbolic language as I view this type of thing as not "real world". My only concerns are a person actually deal with facts I present (and it is fair to say I am not presenting any documentation) BEFORE name calling, and that a person not continually address a strawman and insist that is what I believe.
I actually like your writing from other threads and so I go into all of this respecting you and meaning no disrespect. Heheheh, I still don't understand how you cling to some of your positions (or came to them since you seem so reasonable), but that's what the world is like.
Okay on with the freak show...
If you have additional data that you want to introduce, I will certainly give you the same courtesy and peruse it thoroughly.
You are correct that I am not doing a good job of presenting counterevidence, or positive evidence for some of the blame I am heaping on poor RR (AIDs excepted as some good stuff has already been presented).
The main reason is that RR is not that interesting to me anymore, and I do not have any links or book credits readily available on the subject. It does irk me that not three months ago I threw out a book on white collar crime which had a whole chapter dealing the oil crisis... but I realize you can't take my word that I had a book which backs me up.
Neither am I in the mood to spend vast amounts of time looking through materials to prove the position I have taken on his economic policies.
However, I am fine with perusing info anyone else cares to provide PROVING that RR's policies solved this or that. In truth, I feel more justified asking for proof he did something, than others asking me to prove he didn't. After all I was more intending to call BS on the claims being made, than to extend them into further criticism.
I realize I did though, so I guess I'll eat my slice of pie for that. Yeah, if anyone wants to disbelieve my positive statements that RR should be blamed for policies which fed corporate irresponsibility and eventually led to the degree of economic bust we had... that's fine. I guess people can even say he never cut education if that's what people really want to believe (though that would be odd as you can find it in his speeches if you look).
MMmmm... mmmm... oh yeah, delicious. And I guess I'll even eat a slice for my misunderstanding the nature of what "deregulation" policies were being attributed to Reagan as having helped "solve" the energy crisis. On further reading (a Cato paper nonetheless) I found that there was evidence that some of his policies helped remove impediments to the oil markets.
In my defense I believe the term "deregulation" was a bit of an equivocation, or easily misunderstood as those policies are not the same kind of "deregulations" people are talking about with respect to energy industry today. Thus I thought you and they were talking about one thing, and it really meant something else.
Also in my defense on the energy issue... the one bit of counterevidence I will present... here are three links (1 , 2, and 3) which examine the history of the 1970 energy crisis.
The first two show oil prices and present an outline which to some extent supports the idea that RR's initiative are what ended the crisis. However, I think if you look at the details of the timeline and read the third link on the history of percentage sharing between producers and sellers (so Arab and US companies) you may notice there is reason to question that RR solved the oil crisis.
First of all there are several historical events outside the US which removed domination of prices by certain Arab nations... setting the stage for their lowering anyway... right at 1981. Second, percentage sharing was set to peak at 1981 (as contracted between Arab and US companies) and so incentive to raise prices was there up until 1981. All of these could explain what happened post 1981, perhaps more easily than RR's deregulation (though that would help to some degree in reducing prices from inefficiency).
This of course does not address gouging by industries and I am sad to see the graph did not include PROFITS by US corps during this time. I claim this was also bad, but I have nothing to actually show and so people can disbelieve as they will.
As far as the rest of the economic stuff goes, it is up to people to show some evidence that RR's policies did what people claim they did.
In your defense you did offer a Cato Institute study which purported to show how great RR's supply side economic and tax reform policies were for the nation. And you did a good job presenting their data which appeared to support your position. As its stands I readily admit there was a broad growth in productivity and the general economy through the 80's as a result of RR's policies.
However... and I think I did not make my point clearly enough... productivity and general economic growth does NOT translate to better living for everyone, especially when the quality of life diminishes relatively between top earners and bottom earners as well as what one had before and what one has now.
Not only did the study's evidence contradict your position (and ironically their own) and so do not support your positive claims, I feel like I can use it as evidence for what I was saying.
you will have to show at least a modicum of evidence to convince me that the Reagan administration was solely responsible (if at all responsible) for the necessity of families to work more hours to obtain the same income. Perhaps you could find a graph or data set you find more appropriate to help prove your point.
Actually I don't. The claim being made was that there was all this growth of great new jobs... which is why unemployment went down. I pointed out this growth was not real as eventually the jobs were no more than schlep jobs.
You countered that this was not true and pointed to the median family income. Unfortunately as I pointed out, the authors themselves admit that the actual wages decreased significantly. Their only defense was to then add in average benefits to say average wages increased.
But that should obviously not work. You cannot take AVERAGE benefits which apply to all levels (and MUST get skewed to the rich as all graphs show it was the wealthy that grew in salary above the poor) and simply add it to the AVERAGE wage decrease as for a REAL WAGE that probably means nothing.
As wages DECREASE the level of benefits offered, much less in amounts given, rapidly decrease. You mentioned 401K plans, these simply did not exist for most low level workers until the 90's. Health insurance? Get real.
So this is really disingenuous. Benefits increased more for those whose wealth was increasing to a greater degree and were already earning more than the middle to lower class. The mid to lower class jobs which already did not pay much, while perhaps growing in numbers, decreased in what they paid out INCLUDING BENEFITS.
I might add that for a person with mid to low wages in a growing economy, one does not easily live on BENEFITS, and I find it highly suspect when people who advocate less taxation because people need to control their own money would turn around and argue money is better spent by the company for the employee than by handing it to the employees themselves.
.5% is 'many more' hours than the 70's? After four years of .5% increase in work hours a full-time employee goes from 40 hrs/week to 41 hrs/week. Not a dramatic increase from my perspective.
Heheheh. The seventies were NEGATIVE .5, while the eighties were POSITIVE .8. That means while people gradually worked less during the 70s they ended up working more than just 41 hours.
Then again this stat really means nothing. While it shows people did work more it does not actually say how much more, and how much more according to income level. You will note that Cato conveniently chose an obscure measure of hours worked by dividing over the entire population of available workers. Well how the hell does that tell you anything about the LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS of the MID to LOWER class.
Aren't you curious why they used averages and medians and no income breakdowns with no real consistency OTHER than when it provides a nice statistical picture... or allows them to make a "hey it looks bad, but remember this other stuff" commentary.
The real picture has to be kept in mind here. Look at what the stats or other evidence DO show. While the economy was growing, the money was shifting towards the wealthy faster than to the poor, making the poor relatively poorer than where they were at before even if the entire economy increased.
In order to get the increase they managed to get they admittedly had to work for lower actual wages. That meant longer hours, or more jobs, and to possibly have more family members begin working. That is what MUST account for the rise in median family income, or I would like to know what you think could be the answer as BENEFITS ARE NOT INCLUDED in the estimation of family median income....
This is where you have to start eating because there is no alternative interpretation of the data once you look at all of these things together.
Yes. Much like total comp, you have to look at total assets. If people choose to spend more of their money on things like cars, houses, stocks, bonds, etc. rather than stick it in the bank that's their prerogative. It doesn't mean they don't have the money to spend - which seems to be what you are implying.
Yeah, and just like comp you don't just get to "assume" them into being. You notice this also does not appear in any documented table, especially broken down by class.
So what if the Rich gained the most in relation to the other classes if ALL the boats were floated up? This isn't socialism,
You were the one that seemed to understand freedom in terms of relativism. Now picture this, you work longer than you did in the seventies for less money and end up saving less, while those that make more work less and end up having their salaries and benefits go up even more than your do over time.
Oh yeah and in the mean time, what chances you had at an education... so you could try and get any of the higher paying jobs that were being created... gets cut so you can't go to school or you are forced to take out loans at higher than normal rates.
Relatively your quality of life goes down.
It's sort of ironic that you punk on socialism when true socialist nations (scandinavian countries) maintained a much higher standard of living than the US, and the rich there were still pretty well off... improved even.
That's not what I'm seeing from the data. It looks like things were doing quite well until around 1991.
Maybe this was my error in not making it clear I was refering to INFLATION (seen in figure 5) which appeared to mirror my statement about the general economy. Look at that figure again if you must. Starting in 1986 inflation and all the rates started climbing.
Obviously that kind of puts into questions that his policies were what ended inflation, if in fact inflation began again and climbed and you will note hit its height at the end of his term (or shortly after). I know Cato and RR apologists like to throw everything on Bush,but he didn't retroactively cause interest rates to go back up.
Indeed the actual INFLATION RATE can be seen coming back down before RR's years (make sure not to confuse inflation rate with prime rate). If you have an explanation for how RR managed to turn them around without having even set policy according to Cato, you let me know.
You have not been able to demonstrate that the jobs were 'garbage jobs' or that families had to work versus choosing to work or being able to work.
Again, they admit that actual wages went down. Their only defense to the criticism that this meant garbage jobs were what were being created, is to simply STATE that AVERAGE BENEFITS, which have NO CONNECTION to median family income made up for this issue.
It is you... or Cato... which must provide better stats to justify the unstated but necessary premise that the bulk of the benefits went to those of the mid to lower income earners. That seems fallacious on its very face.
There was no depression during the Reagan administration. The data bears this out. The 'recession' (and there is a big difference) began under Bush.
You are right, the economy only started crumbling under Reagan and did not enter a full recession under Bush. The warning signs were ignored.
You are playing semantic games when you pretend there is a difference between a depression and a recession. Hmmmm what was that joke? If you're out of work it's a recession, if I'm out of work it's a depression?
So I think I have demonstrated that your original claims are erroneous or unsubstantiated. You even agree and change your position on the last one.
Well I will go so far as to agree I haven't done a great deal of getting my own data for substantiation. However, I believe it has been shown that your claims are not only not substantiated by the data, but in reality substantiate my own claims.
While I agree that things for the nation improved, when I said people (even the poor) were better off relative to the 70's that was NOT to say that the situation was maintained for longer than 1986, and many (of mid to low income) were relatively worse off at the end of RR's term than at the beginning.
I suppose it could be said that all had advantages in a growing economy which were not present in the 70's economy and so it is "fair" to say everyone was "better off". The rising tide does lift all, and lucky people (of any income) can rise more than others.
But did the policies create anything more than an artificial rise, for which we would all have to pay later... kind of a storm surge, rather than a real rising tide? I don't think the evidence points to more than a surge.
Thank you too for your posts.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 7:15 AM custard has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 86 (116021)
06-17-2004 11:12 AM


Whether or not Reagan - or anyone else - really knew how bad AIDS was going to get is beside the point. They were faced with a choice: do something, or condemn and walk away. They chose the latter.
This from the Sarawak Tribune:
quote:
Reagan legacy a bitter pill for gay community
Jun 9, 2004
NEW YORK — The death of Ronald Reagan has gone largely unmourned by America’s gay community, which still harbours bitter memories of the former president’s indifference to the emerging AIDs epidemic in the 1980s. Even as the eulogies poured in at home and around the world, gay activists offered a sharply divergent verdict on the Reagan presidency, which they see as tainted with the blood of thousands of victims of the HIV scourge.
It wasn’t just that he ignored the AIDS crisis, said Mark Milano, an HIV treatment educator who has been living with the virus since 1981. What was so unconscionable was that he and members of his administration actually took a pro-active decision to do nothing about it.
Initial public awareness of AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) dates back to the early days of Reagan’s first term, with the publication of a New York Times article in 1981 that detailed a rare cancer being seen in the homosexual community.
The acronym AIDS was first used in 1982 when more than 1,500 Americans were diagnosed with the disease. Reagan, as gay activists still angrily point out, never mentioned the word in public until 1987, by which time some 60,000 cases had been diagnosed, of whom half had died.
The lack of major federal funding to combat AIDS as the disease took hold is cited by many as a major factor behind its dramatic spread. In the critical years of 1984 and 1985, according to his White House physician, Reagan thought of AIDS as though it was measles and would go away. Lou Cannon, one of the most respected of Reagan biographers, wrote in his authoritative President Reagan, that the president’s response to the epidemic was halting and ineffective. — AFP
Commenting on another of Custards claims:
quote:
Of course not; but we are one of the richest countries in the world. Even at our lowest levels people have bedrooms, bathrooms, cable TV, access to all and any kind of food they will ever need, some of the best health care available for emergency services (and if you think you need insurance to get emergency services, in many states you don't if you go to the emergency room), computers, VCRs, DVD players, stereos, cars, jewelry, you name it.
This is clearly false, as the US still has high degree so poverty and homelessness; its difficult to understand how one can own a DVD player when you are living out of a Ryder truck migrating across the country in search of work.
As for health care, the US situation is pretty grim, wityh lower levels of output than most OECD countries for substantially higher inputs. All in all the American health care system must be considered infeeicient and expensive, overburdened as it is with mulitplied bureacracy
[quote] In addition to that, you are as upwardly mobile as you choose to be -within reason, you may want to be the next Bill Gates, but that is so much more than desire and dedication.[quote] Thats purely a propaganda position and undemonstrable.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-17-2004 10:17 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by custard, posted 06-17-2004 9:16 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 81 by nator, posted 06-21-2004 10:48 AM contracycle has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 86 (116208)
06-17-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by contracycle
06-17-2004 11:12 AM


contracycle writes:
Whether or not Reagan - or anyone else - really knew how bad AIDS was going to get is beside the point.
Actually, that is the point. Much like America's decision to enter WWII. Is FDR to be held responsible for not doing more or acting sooner to save the Jews extirminated in camps because now, in 2004, we know how bad it was in 1940? No, individuals should be judged primarily on the decisions they make based on the information they have at the time.
contracycle writes:
This is clearly false, as the US still has high degree so poverty and homelessness; its difficult to understand how one can own a DVD player when you are living out of a Ryder truck migrating across the country in search of work.
Really? Care to present your data showing how many people live out of Ryder trucks? Obviously the absolute dregs of those in the poverty bucket (as opposed to middle-class and rich buckets) will have nothing. You choose to ignore that I am not singling out the worst of the worst; I am speaking of 'the poor,' I refer to the entire group of individuals below the poverty line.
That is, specifically, an individual with an income less than $9,000 per year (based on the 2003 HHS criteria). Now guess what, with that level of income you qualify for food stamps (varies state to state but in CA it averages $200/month which is another $2400/year). You also qualify for, depending on your state, low income housing where you might pay as little as $300 a month for a fairly decent apt ( I know because I tried to get one but although I was 'poor' I was a student, and therefore could not qualify). Additionally, there are all sorts of other state, federal, and local programs and aid one qualifies for if his/her income is this low. That people are unaware of this, or choose not to seek it, is another issue.
When I first started going to college, I fell into the 'working poor' bucket. I made less than 9,000/per year (but I did not get foodstamps because I thought it was only for poor people - in retrospect I should have). My fellow students at school were in a similar position. Guess what? We all had cars (or some form of transportation), we all had televisions, VCRs, all sorts of stuff.
While my personal experience is not a statistically valid sample set, it does demonstrate that there are people who do live below the poverty line yet have a standard of living vastly superior to the majority of the world's poor.
contracycle writes:
Thats purely a propaganda position and undemonstrable.
Actually it is demonstratable; it is demonstrated every single day. Anyone, barring severe disabilities, can obtain a cheap or even free education in this country and use it to go on to achieve greater things.
One example of how this can be obtained is just about any poor person under thirty can join the military and qualify for practically a free ride (depending on the school they choose) once they get out after a few years. There are also things called grants and scholarships and loans that most people can obtain in one form or another.
It's all about choices. That you choose to ignore this fact is extremely fascinating.
This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 08:18 PM
This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 08:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by contracycle, posted 06-17-2004 11:12 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by contracycle, posted 06-18-2004 11:09 AM custard has not replied
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 06-20-2004 12:05 AM custard has not replied
 Message 82 by nator, posted 06-21-2004 11:28 AM custard has not replied

  
MexicanHotChocolate
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 86 (116287)
06-18-2004 2:54 AM


I am personally sick of all the idolatry on behalf of Ronald Reagan. I spent my formative years under his yoke. And if you think Carter whipped you with whips Reagan whipped us with scorpions.The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. He spent us into debt to defeat a nation that wasn't really our enemy while schools went into decline. It is because of Reagan and Bush I's idiotic nuclear policy that I spent the better part of my childhood scared out of my wits about nuclear annihilation. As far as AIDS is concerned when one is the President of the United States one does not ignore an epidemic for six years. It was Reagan ignoring the epidemic that lead to it becoming a pandemic.
I live in California and Reagan really fuct this state up royally when he decided that college and university students should pay fees instead of going to school for free as had been the traditional policy. If Reagan had had any sense he would have stayed an actor. He was lowsy at it but when you screw up a movie you don't put peoples lives in jeaopardy.
And by the way--any one who has worked with alzheimers can tell you the symptoms start showing up way before the disease is ever diagnosed. That means that in the last part of his second term Reagan was already dealing with memory loss. And he had his finger on the red telephone ladies and gentlemen.
This message has been edited by MexicanHotChocolate, 06-18-2004 02:00 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 3:17 AM MexicanHotChocolate has replied
 Message 68 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 4:07 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 86 (116291)
06-18-2004 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-18-2004 2:54 AM


mexchoc writes:
The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
That's a myth, it is untrue and I demonstrated why. All boats were floated up. Some more than others, the rich got richer, but the poor did not get poorer, they just didn't get rich. And why would they? This is not a socialist country.
mexchoc writes:
He spent us into debt to defeat a nation that wasn't really our enemy
What? Two words: COLD WAR. You seem to forget, there were ICBMs pointed at the major cities of the United States. Did you think that was just an excercise in military masturbation? I think people in the Czec republic, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East Berlin, East Germany, Afghanistan, and about twenty or thirty others would disagree with you.
As far as AIDS is concerned when one is the President of the United States one does not ignore an epidemic for six years.
He didn't ignore it for six years. As the posters here have pointed out, even if he wanted to, money for AIDS research found its way into the budget after 1983. 1981-1983 is not six years.
It was Reagan ignoring the epidemic that lead to it becoming a pandemic.
Right. The US is to blame for the whole world becoming infected. What can you possibly base that claim on?
That means that in the last part of his second term Reagan was already dealing with memory loss.
So what? That made his administration's policies bad?
I am personally sick of all the idolatry on behalf of Ronald Reagan.
I agree. And I am also sick of the recycled garbage that keeps spewing out into the world demonizing the guy as never having done a single thing right simply because people don't like republicans.
I just don't see how people can 'hate' Reagan. He was a politician, and by politician's standards, a pretty good one. He did some good things, and some not so good things for this country. It's stupid to deify or demonize him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-18-2004 2:54 AM MexicanHotChocolate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-18-2004 3:49 AM custard has not replied
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2004 6:25 AM custard has not replied
 Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 06-20-2004 12:17 AM custard has not replied

  
MexicanHotChocolate
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 86 (116300)
06-18-2004 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by custard
06-18-2004 3:17 AM


The Soviets only aimed their missiles at us because we aimed them at them first. You forget that we invented the damn things. And the only nation to ever use an atomic weapon in warfare is the US. And you forget that the Star Wars program was later proven to be largely a fraud.
Are we better off without the communists? It seems that the former Soviet Union is now largely run by the mob. One set of thugs was traded for another.
Reagan didn't make a major speech about AIDS until 1987, six years after he took office.
Yes the US is largely to blame for the AIDS epidemic getting worse, since the US could have put enormous resources into finding a cure if the Reagan administration wasn't so afraid of dealing with what was erroneously thought of as primarily a gay disease. The administration should have acted for what was in the best interest of the American people instead of bowing to the pressures of the religious right.
And are you forgetting the Iran/Contra scandal in which President Reagan went out of his way to break the law, arm terrorists, and support right wing paramilitaries who went on to kill 50'000 people?
Or what about the October surprise in which Reagan's men arranged for the hostages, whose release was negotiated by Carter, to be released after Reagan came into office?
As far as the alzheimer's disease reference is concerned it was more to point out that the man was not fully in control of his faculties while he was still president. Although the Reagan worshippers would have us believe he didn't become ill until after he was out of office, which from personal experience with the illness is a lie.
I don't hate Reagan the Man. I hate Reagan the Myth created by the elitists of the Republican Party who would have us believe he some how single handily saved western civ from evil commies, gays, environmentalists, and FDR style big government.
I could go on but I won't...from dessert to another...ttfn.
This message has been edited by MexicanHotChocolate, 06-18-2004 03:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 3:17 AM custard has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 86 (116304)
06-18-2004 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-18-2004 2:54 AM


MexicanHotChocolate writes:
quote:
I am personally sick of all the idolatry on behalf of Ronald Reagan.
I am too. The coverage devoted to him last week should once and for all lay to rest the myth of the "liberal media", but of course it won't.
quote:
He spent us into debt to defeat a nation that wasn't really our enemy while schools went into decline.
I agree to a point. Just as he has to share credit for those few things he deserves some measure of credit for, he gets to share the blame here. Congress did its part.
quote:
As far as AIDS is concerned when one is the President of the United States one does not ignore an epidemic for six years.
His is perhaps the most ignominiously bad performance in a medical crisis of any president ever. If there is any question as to what the administration's true feelings were, it was revealed in that one act that Rrhain mentioned earlier: not allowing HIV+ delegates to enter the country for an international conference on the disease. That showed beyond question that the reason there was no funding for research was because the administration felt that gay men were disposable.
One of Reagan's appointees does deserve a great deal of credit for doing what he could: C. Everett Koop. His appointment as surgeon general had been controversial because he was opposed to abortion. He turned out to be one of the best SGs we could have possibly had at that time. He used what he could of his budget to fight AIDS and pushed relentlessly for more funding. He was at least able to get approval for a report on the disease. He used that report to inform the public, in clear, concise and controversially frank terms what HIV and AIDS were, how they were spread and how one could protect oneself. He even went so far as to squeeze enough money from his budget to send a summary version of the report, in brochure format if I remember correctly, to every household in the US.
I don't think anyone could have performed better than Koop did at that time, given the attitude of the administration for which he worked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-18-2004 2:54 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 86 (116343)
06-18-2004 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by custard
06-18-2004 3:17 AM


That's a myth, it is untrue and I demonstrated why. All boats were floated up. Some more than others, the rich got richer, but the poor did not get poorer, they just didn't get rich.
Uhm.... I demonstrated why this was NOT so.
But I'll put it to you again. According to Cato's "analysis" the working poor admittedly had to work at LOWER WAGES, and for LONGER HOURS. This means to create that MEDIAN rise, a great many had to work many more hours than just 1-2 extra hours, including taking another job and/or having spouses go into the work force.
That speaks to real quality of life issues, despite the real growth of the economy and increased wealth of those who didn't have a hard time making ends meet before Reagan entered office.
While everyone's "wealth" rose up, the poor were left behind in a relative way. In a growing economy (especially post '86 when interest rates started back up) you tell me how that makes the poor better off.
I should also point out that if you look at the bar graphs Cato used to measure the rise of the water, you will notice some inconsistencies in measurements which pretty well skew the results of what you are looking at.
The improvement of the top quintile was measured from the bottom of that quintile. This means that if the top quintile's performance was also relatively greater at the top of that same quintile, the bar is skewed to make it look like the rich got less rich than they actually did.
In addition, the lowest quintile was measured from the top. I'm still unsure why they'd have to do that if EVERYONE improved. Again, this can skew the lowest quintile to show a greater improvement than they actually had.
Thus Cato cannot wash away the fact that while of course when an economy improves, in general everyone moves up (and indeed I will agree are given more chances to improve their lot than they had before) in this case the rich did get richer and the poor did get poorer. Oh yeah, and when the bust came, it is pretty easy to see who got hit worse... the people with the garbage jobs.
I do not understand your willingness to hang on to that study at this point. Well I'm kind of suspicious that you used it in the first place. Perhaps you did not notice, but it was written in 1996 to discredit Clinton's tax and economic policies. Uhhhhhh... now that we're in 2004, we can see that Cato's projections in this study were WRONG.
This should not be confused with my endorsing Clinton as some great guy, just pointing out that Cato was wrong.
And I really am stunned that a guy that can state Freedom is relative, cannot understand that quality of life is relative as well. Especially in a captialist economy it is relative to the people you live next to, and how well you lived before. On both counts the Reagan years sent the mid to lower classes downward.
The US is to blame for the whole world becoming infected.
Come on Custard. None of us have said that, and it does not logically follow from anything we have said.
At this point you are simply ignoring the real arguments being made and the evidence at hand to take some sort of mistaken ideological position.
PS--- In another post you tell people that if they are poor they have the ability to get grants and scholarships and loans! Since everyone was talking about the Reagan years I will repeat to you ONCE MORE... REAGAN CUT GRANTS AND SCHOLARSHIPS AND LET BANKS RIP STUDENTS ON LOANS. And during that time college costs were also zipping upward in growth that had not been seen before.
It appears from your writing that you not only have no idea what poor actually is (if you had a car, tv, and vcr going INTO college you did not come from a poor background), you experienced "student life" and "poverty" at a time that was NOT the Reagan years.
I am still a little bit uncertain how old you are, but it sounds like you went to school in the Clinton years. If so, double bad on you for extolling the virtues of Reagan.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 3:17 AM custard has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 86 (116409)
06-18-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by custard
06-17-2004 9:16 PM


quote:
Actually, that is the point. Much like America's decision to enter WWII. Is FDR to be held responsible for not doing more or acting sooner to save the Jews extirminated in camps because now, in 2004, we know how bad it was in 1940?
Well as a lot of Brits remarked in recent times, the Yanks were so late coming to the last war that they came to this one early. So rightly or wrongly, yes that feeling exists.
Criticism of both FDR and Reagan is entirely valid on these grounds. They were the incumbent; the buck stopped on their desk. This does not have to imply a great deal of FAULT, you understand... but they were respectively responsible.
Now, while I may not attribute to much fault despite his responsibility in the case of FDR, under the circumstances, I do attribute much more fault to Reagan. He turned a blind eye becuase of pandering to the religious right. At the very best case, that he underestimated the impact quite honestly, he was still willing to resort to moral condemnation as an excuse to leave his citizens to die. He carries the can.
quote:
Really? Care to present your data showing how many people live out of Ryder trucks? Obviously the absolute dregs of those in the poverty bucket (as opposed to middle-class and rich buckets) will have nothing. You choose to ignore that I am not singling out the worst of the worst; I am speaking of 'the poor,' I refer to the entire group of individuals below the poverty line
Actually, you wrote that "Even at our lowest levels" people have these things. That is indeed false as I claimed, and demonstrably so, as you admit. It was a rhetrical flourish, wasn't it?
quote:
While my personal experience is not a statistically valid sample set, it does demonstrate that there are people who do live below the poverty line yet have a standard of living vastly superior to the majority of the world's poor.
Oh, that I don't challenge.... much. Lets say I think the poor in America often command a lower proportion of national wealth than the poor in the third world do. But yes I agree that the material standard of living in the US for the very poor is usually higher than that of most of the world. But then, thats not surprising, considering how much of the worlds wealth is hoovered up by the US. The poor of the world are subsidising the poor of the US.
quote:
Actually it is demonstratable; it is demonstrated every single day.
LOL. To those with patriotism-tinted spectacles, perhaps.
quote:
Anyone, barring severe disabilities, can obtain a cheap or even free education in this country and use it to go on to achieve greater things.
How is that different to any OECD country? In fact, the very increasing disparity you mentioned previously indicates that the idea that "anyone" can simply make a success of themselves is not actually happening in practice; in practice, wealth begets wealth. Thats why I said talk of "anyone" being Bill Gates is undemonstrable and propagandist; to the extent that its true, its true of all the western democracies, but the extent to which is is true is Not Much.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-18-2004 10:14 AM
This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-18-2004 10:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by custard, posted 06-17-2004 9:16 PM custard has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 86 (116779)
06-19-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by custard
06-16-2004 5:51 AM


custard responds to me:
quote:
quote:
This wasn't a simple question of "deficit spending." This was an absolute explosion of deficit spending. Reagan claimed that by cutting taxes, the government would get more revenues and the "tax cuts would pay for themselves."
Really? Says who? Certainly not the White House budget plan of 1981:
Well, let's take a look at what people were saying about it:
William Safire (debate with James Carville, Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR, 1995):
The amazing thing about cutting taxes was that it increased revenues
Benjamin Friedman (Day of Reckoning, Vintage Books, New York, 1988, p. 128)
Tantalizing as it was, Reagan's claim that lower taxes would enlarge tax revenues never had substance.
Let's not forget Reagan's budget director, David Stockman (New Perspectives, "America Is Not Overspending; North America: The Big Engine That Couldn't," March 22, 1993):
The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax cutting that shattered the nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance and their own culpagbility in it ever since. Instead, they have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a mindless stream of anti-tax venom, while pretending that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit.
There you go. Even the budget director says that Reagan was saying that the tax cuts would pay for themselves.
quote:
quote:
If it weren't for the interest on the Reagan/Bush debt
(*blink!*)
Who said anything about Bush? The topic is The Reagan Legacy.
(*blink!*)
You don't think that Bush was simply continuing in the grand tradition of Reagan? Is not the current Republican "cut taxes, raise revenue!" mantra a direct example of the Reagan legacy? Reagan was the one that came up with the nutty idea. Every other person who is supporting it is doing so because of Reagan.
If my enactment a policy and handing the reins to you with you not changing it isn't the definition of a legacy, I don't know what is.
quote:
quote:
The deficit was sky-rocketing! Reagan/Bush tripled the deficit!
You keep mentioning Bush. Are you rolling in his administration with Reagan's? If so, that's not germain to this discussion.
Are you seriously saying that the reason the deficit tripled is because of Bush alone? That the main thrust of Bush's economic plan wasn't the same as Reagan's?
If I start a process, give you control, and you don't change it, do I get off the hook for its later consequences?
quote:
Please show me on the graph of the deficit below exactly where the deficit was skyrocketing.
You see the part where it goes up? That would be where. And it goes down only when taxes get raised.
And notice that the deficit went down in the Carter administration.
quote:
quote:
GDP actually shrank during the 80s (2.6) compared to the 70s (2.8).
(*blink!*)
Really? Well you are the math expert, but from the GDP data below I have a hard time understanding how a number that is getting larger is actually shrinking.
Are you incapable of reading for context?
Take a look at your numbers and take a look at mine. Was I referring to raw values? Obviously not. Despite the fact that I did not explicitly state it, I was obviously referring to the rate of GDP growth...which was higher in the 70s than in the 80s.
quote:
Ohhhh I see, you are including that huge Kennedy/Johnson spike.
No, I'm not. I'm referring simply from the period of 1970 to 1980 compared to the period between 1980 and 1990 as reported by the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Real GDP growth for the 70s was 2.8% per year while for the 80s it was 2.6%.
Even as a simple percentage from year to year, the average change in GDP for 1970 - 1979 was 10.1 while for 1980-1989 was 7.9. For Carter alone, it was 11.2 and for Reagan alone, it was 7.9.
For chained dollars, the 70s was 3.3 while the 80s were 3.1.
quote:
So the 'eighties' did not outperform the 'seventies,' so what?
The argument is that Reaganomics was wonderful for the country and the justification is that the 80s were somehow a better economic time than the 70s.
They weren't.
quote:
quote:
Isn't a good leader someone who can stand up to the emotional mob and refuse to be forced into making a bad decision?
Defeating the Soviets was a bad decision? Wow, that's a new one.
(*sigh*)
Tell me you aren't arguing that the ends justifies the means....

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 5:51 AM custard has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 72 of 86 (116782)
06-19-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by custard
06-16-2004 7:15 AM


Re: Food for thought
custard writes:
quote:
but you will have to show at least a modicum of evidence to convince me that the Reagan administration was solely responsible (if at all responsible) for the necessity of families to work more hours to obtain the same income.
From 1960 to 1973, the poverty rate was cut in half (data from Census Bureau). The economy collapsed then and the poverty rate began to rise. In the mid-90s, the value of a minimum wage job was the lowest it had been since 1955. Before 1973, 85% of young men working full time could keep a family of four above the poverty line. In 1994, it was down to 60%. Wages for male high school dropouts fell 25% while for graduates, it fell 20% (again, from the Census Bureau).

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 7:15 AM custard has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 73 of 86 (116785)
06-19-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
06-16-2004 7:42 AM


crashfrog responds to custard about me:
quote:
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that while Reagan was president, George Bush was vice president. Aka, "the Reagan/Bush administration."
No, I'm referring to the 12-year period when Reagan and then Bush were president.
Bush's economic policy was very much like Reagan's. Since we're talking about the legacy of Reagan, doesn't it make sense to include the effect of those who continued Reagan's policies?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2004 11:52 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 86 (116788)
06-19-2004 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by custard
06-16-2004 7:50 AM


Re: Give me something to take a bite of...
custard writes:
quote:
You show me some data that indicates the Reagan administration had any idea of how bad the AIDS epidemic was going to get,
Hmmm...disease that seems to be transmitted sexually, has killed 400 people, and has a very real probability of being in the blood supply....
...7 people dead from contaminated Tylenol.
One of these prompts a national response from the government and one doesn't. Strange how the government fell over itself to prevent the possibility of death when only 7 people had died, but when more than 400 gay men had died, we get nothing but you saying, "How could he know?"
Everybody who was investigating it knew. Why not Reagan?
Before there was a test for HIV, it was found that 80% of those who had AIDS also tested positive for hepatitis. It was suggested to the blood banks by the CDC to screen for hepatitis in order to better screen out possible infection with whatever it is that is causing AIDS.
They refused citing costs.
Don't you think the president would be a good person to say, "Screw your costs...we'll cover any loss. The blood supply is too important to play around with"?
As was said at the time by the researcher asking the blood banks to do this, "How many people have to die?"
They knew. Why didn't Reagan?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 7:50 AM custard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 86 (116789)
06-19-2004 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rrhain
06-19-2004 11:43 PM


Bush's economic policy was very much like Reagan's. Since we're talking about the legacy of Reagan, doesn't it make sense to include the effect of those who continued Reagan's policies?
Sure, if you say so. I was like 12 at the time or something. No, it does make sense. But I'm not really a part of the discussion; I was just trying to correct what I thought was a misunderstanding. But I see that it was I who was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 06-19-2004 11:43 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024