Ronald Reagan: A Simple Man Who So Nearly Destroyed Us

[Cancel 2016.2]

I would address each of these, but the basic point remains the same, your assertion that the CBO projected dot com boom levels of economic growth in projecting that there would be a surplus is simply incorrect. Rather than admitting that fact, you decide to obfuscate. Once you admit your initial error, I will be more than happy to address your additional errors above.

my words....

Also... those 'budget surpluses' NEVER existed on anything other than paper. They were never based on any realistic forecasting models. The idiots in the two parties pumped the CBO with a bunch of bullshit numbers based on the boom years of the late 90's and then told the CBO to 'project' the effect on yearly surpluses/deficits based on the ASSUMPTION that the boom years would continue for the next decade.

To which you responded... your response attempted to restrict the above to simply GDP growth rates... which I asked to see.

You provided the CBO report... for that.... thanks.

I then provided quotations directly from the link you provided showing that the rates of 3% and 2.8% that you quoted had subsequently been modified.

I also added in the OTHER data points that are not addressed simply by looking at GDP growth. Those data points include, but are not limited to, the amount of capital gains, the 'reductions in medicare spending'.... of which these two account for the majority of the so called 'budget surplus projections'

 

[Bonestorm]

my words....



To which you responded... your response attempted to restrict the above to simply GDP growth rates... which I asked to see.

You provided the CBO report... for that.... thanks.

I then provided quotations directly from the link you provided showing that the rates of 3% and 2.8% that you quoted had subsequently been modified.

The July 1999 numbers were modified to the 3% and 2.8% numbers I quoted. You pointed to different numbers altogether.

I also added in the OTHER data points that are not addressed simply by looking at GDP growth. Those data points include, but are not limited to, the amount of capital gains, the 'reductions in medicare spending'.... of which these two account for the majority of the so called 'budget surplus projections'

Even assuming you are correct, your prior statement is incorrect. No one supplied the CBO with anything and the CBO did not project dot com boom growth rates for the next decade.

You were just plain wrong. It's OK to admit it. It happens from time time. Even to me (though rarely).

 

[DamnYankee]

For one who claims to be intelligent, you do tend to churn out some simplistic bullshit.

Its a simple question, Tom. Were you afraid because he challenged them?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

All of them is the correct answer.

Right... you are full of shit. Thanks for clarifying.

Right, you just ignored it.

No moron. I stated that Glass Steagall repeal was the largest contributor to the economic collapse. It is. I stated that the bulk of the deficit spending since 2008 has been a result of that collapse. It is.

It is not 'ignoring it'. Or do you think I should have included conversations on every fucking President and their contributions to where we are today?

When you brought up Bush, I addressed it. But that was not a part of the point I was making.

It just isn't so:


Yes, they are.

As for your chart....

1) It shows 2009 data and the rest are PROJECTIONS.

2) The projections show the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan wars will continue through 2019 at a pretty even clip. Anyone here think that is realistic? Didn't think so.

3) It shows the Bush tax cuts being extended all the way through 2019 and somehow growing each year after 2011, which makes no sense

4) If it is going to 'project' numbers, then it is entirely dishonest not to project increases in bailouts as NOTHING was done to address the risk taking at the banks and thus another financial crisis is far more likely than an extension of the Bush cuts through 2019.

5) As I stated, it shows that the bulk of the debt added in 2009 was due to the economic downturn (which the repeal of Glass Steagall started) and the bailouts (again attributable to the repeal of Glass Steagall)

6) Your chart says NOTHING for the amount that things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security etc... will 'add to the deficit'. Why is that Nigel? Oh yeah, because the people who created this wanted to once again try an blame it all on Bush.

7) Take a look at the spending levels today vs. 2007 by the US government. Do tell us why they needed to escalate government spending that high and LEAVE it that high for the coming decade.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The July 1999 numbers were modified to the 3% and 2.8% numbers I quoted. You pointed to different numbers altogether.

You are either dishonest or just completely lacking in reading comprehension skills.

from your link....

The most significant change is CBO’s upward
revision of its projections of economic growth to reflect
the performance of the economy in recent months
and to incorporate recent revisions in the national income
and product accounts. On a fiscal year basis,
CBO now projects that GDP will grow by 5.1 percent
in 2000 and 4.7 percent in 2001, compared with last
July’s projections of 4.6 percent and 4.2 percent. For
2002 through 2009, the rate of growth of GDP averages
0.2 percentage points higher than the rate noted
in July’s estimates. As a result, current projections of
revenues, which reflect anticipated improvements in
incomes, are more than $500 billion higher over the
2000-2009 period than the amount CBO projected last
July. (Chapter 3 provides the outlook for revenues.)

So do tell us how the projections of GDP growth rates are not the same GDP growth rates you were discussing.

Even assuming you are correct, your prior statement is incorrect. No one supplied the CBO with anything and the CBO did not project dot com boom growth rates for the next decade.

You were just plain wrong. It's OK to admit it. It happens from time time. Even to me (though rarely).

You are wrong. It's ok to admit it. It happens from time to time. It is happening to you right now.

I DID NOT STATE THE CBO WAS USING DOT COM GROWTH RATES. I SAID THEY WERE USING BAD DATA. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CREATED THE STRAW MAN OF LIMITING IT TO GROWTH RATES.

They ARE using bad data. They ASSUMED cap gains would continue generating revenue at levels of the boom. That was a moronic assumption.

They ASSUMED Medicare spending would drop. That was a moronic assumption.

those two assumptions account for the bulk of the so called surpluses... as noted in the link you provided.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Its a simple question, Tom. Were you afraid because he challenged them?

You are right, it is a simple question.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also Nigel.... if you truly think the two parties don't pump the CBO with bad data.... take a good hard look at the health care fiasco. Tell us they didn't provide the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors in order to get the 'results' they wanted.

 

[Bonestorm]

Also Nigel.... if you truly think the two parties don't pump the CBO with bad data.... take a good hard look at the health care fiasco. Tell us they didn't provide the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors in order to get the 'results' they wanted.

They didn't pump the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors to get the results that they wanted.

If what you were saying were true, the GOP could have pumped the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors to show that its repeal bill would not increase the deficit but that didn't happen.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They didn't pump the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors to get the results that they wanted.

If what you were saying were true, the GOP could have pumped the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors to show that its repeal bill would not increase the deficit but that didn't happen.

The repeal of the health care bill will not cause the deficit to increase. The very fact that some idiots believe it will is amusing.

Tell us... how does NOT paying for 23 million people's insurance raise the deficit.

The entire claim is predicated on the false assumption that the health care bill would lower the deficit. We all know that is a joke.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They didn't pump the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors to get the results that they wanted.

If what you were saying were true, the GOP could have pumped the CBO with a bunch of smoke and mirrors to show that its repeal bill would not increase the deficit but that didn't happen.

The only other alternative is that the CBO is comprised of a bunch of morons.

They stated many times in your link that they didn't think the growth rates of the late 90's were sustainable.... yet they kept growth rates high.

They stated several times that there was bound to be a downturn after such explosive growth.... yet they kept revenues from capital gains high.

They stated that medicare spending would go down. yet there was NOTHING to back up this assertion on.

They stated clearly that the 2000 'surplus' was a result of deficit spending overall plus the massive surplus from social security. They were telling you where the surplus was.

They stated (as mentioned) that there was likely going to be a slow down coming, yet they kept employment projections at FULL employment. (I wonder what that does to revenue projections)

That entire report was based on data from the late 90's projected out.

 

[Bonestorm]

The repeal of the health care bill will not cause the deficit to increase. The very fact that some idiots believe it will is amusing.

And, if what you were saying about the CBO being a garbage in, garbage out operation, the Republicans could have fed the CBO data that resulted in the CBO finding that the repeal bill did not increase the deficit. But, that didn't happen.

Tell us... how does NOT paying for 23 million people's insurance raise the deficit.

The entire claim is predicated on the false assumption that the health care bill would lower the deficit. We all know that is a joke.

If you have a bill that increases revenues through taxation in a greater amount than it costs through outlays, you end up with deficit reduction. It isn't difficult stuff, SF.

 

[Bonestorm]

The only other alternative is that the CBO is comprised of a bunch of morons.

They stated many times in your link that they didn't think the growth rates of the late 90's were sustainable.... yet they kept growth rates high.

They stated several times that there was bound to be a downturn after such explosive growth.... yet they kept revenues from capital gains high.

They stated that medicare spending would go down. yet there was NOTHING to back up this assertion on.

They stated clearly that the 2000 'surplus' was a result of deficit spending overall plus the massive surplus from social security. They were telling you where the surplus was.

They stated (as mentioned) that there was likely going to be a slow down coming, yet they kept employment projections at FULL employment. (I wonder what that does to revenue projections)

That entire report was based on data from the late 90's projected out.

You're just plain wrong.

What they certainly did project out were the prevailing tax rates at the time and we all know what happened on that front.

 

[christiefan915]

The US establishment could never understand the Russian's mentality when it came to the defence of their territory. They had good reason to be paranoid after the German's reneging on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. A good strategist should always be able to put themselves into the mindset of their opponents, defining them as inherently evil and irrational was just simple minded.

Reagan, in his first term, really saw the world as black hats and white hats, Margaret Thatcher being far more intelligent was able to show him that his admin's behaviour was in grave danger of causing a new war. In his second term he was incredibly lucky that both Andropov and Chernenko had died so quickly paving the way for Gorbachev to come to power.

Absolutely. reagan's belligerent rhetoric is one of the things I most despised about him. "Evil empire"... what a load of crap.

For example, his words "...to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil..." is the kind of speech conservatives just love. Right v. wrong, good v. evil, black v. white. It's shallow and simplistic and I'm embarrassed when our leaders talk this way. bush was another one with his "axis of evil" nonsense. Then people wonder why those countries designated as evil hate us.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're just plain wrong.

What they certainly did project out were the prevailing tax rates at the time and we all know what happened on that front.

lmao... SHOW me where I am wrong. Your stating 'you are wrong' does nothing to advance this discussion.

Each one of the things I noted is IN the report you linked us to. Each one.

So tell us how it is I am wrong to point them out.

Note... as they pointed out... it was Medicare decreases and Capital gains revenue staying strong that accounted for the bulk of the projected surpluses.

This means they were projecting based on little to no downturn in the stock market, coupled with moronic assumptions of medicare spending decreases .

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Absolutely. reagan's belligerent rhetoric is one of the things I most despised about him. "Evil empire"... what a load of crap.

For example, his words "...to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil..." is the kind of speech conservatives just love. Right v. wrong, good v. evil, black v. white. It's shallow and simplistic and I'm embarrassed when our leaders talk this way. bush was another one with his "axis of evil" nonsense. Then people wonder why those countries designated as evil hate us.

ask the dissodents in Russian jails what that 'belligerent rhetoric' meant to them.

ask those under the boot of the USSR what it meant to them.

Either you are to young to remember or you simply weren't paying attention to the times.

 

[christiefan915]

No, he didn't communicate to the American people, he communicated to the people who believed the same way he did, I never liked Reagan, didn't think his speeches were all the great, and still don't. I thought he was a second rate actor turned president. He was never brought to task for his crimes, nor was his administration who was later turned loose to create the GW Bush administration and that is one we will be recovering from for a long time to come. This idol worship of Reagan is lost on me and always has been. I just think Iran Contra and it pretty much leaves a bad taste in my mouth!

A-MEN!

I will never, never understand the RW attitude, for lack of a better word, toward Iran-Contra. No matter how you look at it, reagan and bush came off badly. If they knew what was happening they were complicit in breaking the law. If they didn't know what was happening, they were dangerously out of touch with a rogue element in the administration. Take reagan's whiny, disingenuous comment: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me this is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

His "heart" told him? Imagine if Clinton or Obama used this phrase. Yet the reagan worshippers just ate it up.

 

[christiefan915]

It is not derangement, he was never brought to bear for his crimes in South America or the Iran Contra. He is not a Mount Rushmore figure as some have suggested. He was a President with got away with a lot.

He put the teflon in Teflon president!

 

[christiefan915]

The thing I liked about Reagan, the only place he invaded was Grenada.

The more I read about him, the less I like him. Here's another article with some info that was an eye-opener to me, esp. the part about the Khmer Rouge.

As the nation pays tribute to Ronald "Dutch" Reagan on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth, media coverage is every bit as laudatory as when he turned 90. I wrote in 2001 about PBS's fawning tributes on the Charlie Rose show and the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. Then, as now, one of the most glaring omissions was the human cost of his foreign policies. In the interest of filling out the Reagan portrait, let us consider a few regions unfortunate enough to capture his attention, starting with Central America.

In January 1981, the newly inaugurated Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's policy of supporting a Salvadoran government controlled by a military that, along with the security forces and affiliated death squads, killed about 10,000 civilians in 1980. In the first 27 months of the Reagan administration, perhaps another 20,000 civilians were killed. El Salvador's labor movement was decimated, the opposition press exterminated, opposition politicians murdered or driven into exile, the church martyred.

In April 1983, seeking to shore up shaky public and congressional support for continued aid to El Salvador, Reagan went on national television before a joint session of Congress and -- with a straight face -- praised the Salvadoran government for "making every effort to guarantee democracy, free labor unions, freedom of religion, and a free press." The Great Communicator/Prevaricator achieved his objective; aid -- and blood -- continued to flow.

In neighboring Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship slaughtered perhaps 40,000 civilians from 1977 to 1979 in a desperate bid to hold power. Candidate Reagan was sad to see Somoza go, and once in office his administration turned to officers from Somoza's hated National Guard to spearhead a "liberation" movement. Known as the contras, they never managed to hold a single Nicaraguan town in their eight years as Reagan's proxy army, though they were quite proficient at raping, torturing and killing defenseless civilians. Tens of thousands of Nicaraguans died in a war that never would have been were it not for good ol' Dutch.

A common criticism of Reagan is that this self-proclaimed fighter against the scourge of terrorism traded with a designated "terrorist state" -- the hostage-holding fundamentalist regime in Iran -- to generate funds for the contras after Congress turned off the tap. That's true as far as it goes. But the contras themselves were terrorists, as were those elements of the Honduran army that the CIA and Ollie North employed to help the contras, as was the notorious Salvadoran air force that assisted in the contra resupply effort. All murdered noncombatants to achieve political objectives. If they were "terrorists" -- and if words have meaning, they were -- what does that make their paymaster and cheerleader in the Oval Office?

In Guatemala, after the "born-again butcher" Efrain Rios Montt implemented in 1982 a scorched-earth military campaign that left thousands of Indian civilians dead, Reagan was furious. Not at our blood-soaked ally, but at Amnesty International and others who documented his depridations. Rios Montt was getting a "bum rap," Reagan whined.

In Southeast Asia, Reagan picked up where President Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski left off in collaborating with the Chinese government to support Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge, which had been driven from power in 1979 by a Vietnamese government that had grown weary of the Khmer Rouge atttacking villages on Vietnam's side of the border. Along with two hapless non-communist Cambodian guerrilla groups, the ousted Khmer Rouge utilized neighboring Thailand -- with the blessing and backing of the U.S. and China -- as a base from which to launch attacks inside Cambodia.

A bit odd, Reagan backing communist mass murderers. But he did so for a high-minded principle: self-determination. So strongly did he believe in this principle that he instructed his U.N. Ambassador to recognize the deposed Khmer Rouge, rather than the regime imposed by Vietnam, as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

Alas, it was all an act. Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Indonesia continued to occupy East Timor, the island it had invaded in 1975 with the blessing of the Ford administration. In this case, Reagan chose to oppose the Timorese resistance and support the Indonesian occupiers. Hey, what good are principles if they're not flexible - or disposable?

To give Reagan his due, a crucial difference between the occupations must be noted: Vietnam's (which he opposed) ended a bloodbath; Indonesia's (which he supported) constituted a bloodbath.

In southern Africa, Reagan was an enthusiastic champion of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and vicious destabilization of Angola and Mozambique. He considered the apartheid government a card-carrying member of the "Free World" and thus worthy of a "constructive engagement" policy. Like Dick Cheney, he dismissed Nelson Mandela's African National Congress as communist terrorists.

Reagan's African heroes were Zairian kleptocrat Mobutu Sese Seko and Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi. When Savimbi's horrific human rights record could no longer be denied, even some conservatives who had once sung his praises turned against him. Reagan stood steadfast. He had earlier hailed Savimbi as a "freedom fighter," just as he had elevated the Nicaraguan contras and the extremist Islamic fundamentalists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (many of whom are now fighting us in alliance with the Taliban) to "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers."

By providing apologetics, diplomatic support and/or military aid to some of the worst governments, rebel forces and terror-prone proxy armies of the 1980s, Reagan was an accomplice in hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's a big part of his legacy, and it's no cause for celebration.

http://web001.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/08-4

 

[cancel2 2022]

A-MEN!

I will never, never understand the RW attitude, for lack of a better word, toward Iran-Contra. No matter how you look at it, reagan and bush came off badly. If they knew what was happening they were complicit in breaking the law. If they didn't know what was happening, they were dangerously out of touch with a rogue element in the administration. Take reagan's whiny, disingenuous comment: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me this is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

His "heart" told him? Imagine if Clinton or Obama used this phrase. Yet the reagan worshippers just ate it up.

I would love one of these right wing revisionists to try to defend the illegal arm shipments and drug running by the CIA.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march082010/plumlee-sabow-ro-tk.php

 

[cancel2 2022]

The more I read about him, the less I like him. Here's another article with some info that was an eye-opener to me, esp. the part about the Khmer Rouge.

As the nation pays tribute to Ronald "Dutch" Reagan on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth, media coverage is every bit as laudatory as when he turned 90. I wrote in 2001 about PBS's fawning tributes on the Charlie Rose show and the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. Then, as now, one of the most glaring omissions was the human cost of his foreign policies. In the interest of filling out the Reagan portrait, let us consider a few regions unfortunate enough to capture his attention, starting with Central America.

In January 1981, the newly inaugurated Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's policy of supporting a Salvadoran government controlled by a military that, along with the security forces and affiliated death squads, killed about 10,000 civilians in 1980. In the first 27 months of the Reagan administration, perhaps another 20,000 civilians were killed. El Salvador's labor movement was decimated, the opposition press exterminated, opposition politicians murdered or driven into exile, the church martyred.

In April 1983, seeking to shore up shaky public and congressional support for continued aid to El Salvador, Reagan went on national television before a joint session of Congress and -- with a straight face -- praised the Salvadoran government for "making every effort to guarantee democracy, free labor unions, freedom of religion, and a free press." The Great Communicator/Prevaricator achieved his objective; aid -- and blood -- continued to flow.

In neighboring Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship slaughtered perhaps 40,000 civilians from 1977 to 1979 in a desperate bid to hold power. Candidate Reagan was sad to see Somoza go, and once in office his administration turned to officers from Somoza's hated National Guard to spearhead a "liberation" movement. Known as the contras, they never managed to hold a single Nicaraguan town in their eight years as Reagan's proxy army, though they were quite proficient at raping, torturing and killing defenseless civilians. Tens of thousands of Nicaraguans died in a war that never would have been were it not for good ol' Dutch.

A common criticism of Reagan is that this self-proclaimed fighter against the scourge of terrorism traded with a designated "terrorist state" -- the hostage-holding fundamentalist regime in Iran -- to generate funds for the contras after Congress turned off the tap. That's true as far as it goes. But the contras themselves were terrorists, as were those elements of the Honduran army that the CIA and Ollie North employed to help the contras, as was the notorious Salvadoran air force that assisted in the contra resupply effort. All murdered noncombatants to achieve political objectives. If they were "terrorists" -- and if words have meaning, they were -- what does that make their paymaster and cheerleader in the Oval Office?

In Guatemala, after the "born-again butcher" Efrain Rios Montt implemented in 1982 a scorched-earth military campaign that left thousands of Indian civilians dead, Reagan was furious. Not at our blood-soaked ally, but at Amnesty International and others who documented his depridations. Rios Montt was getting a "bum rap," Reagan whined.

In Southeast Asia, Reagan picked up where President Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski left off in collaborating with the Chinese government to support Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge, which had been driven from power in 1979 by a Vietnamese government that had grown weary of the Khmer Rouge atttacking villages on Vietnam's side of the border. Along with two hapless non-communist Cambodian guerrilla groups, the ousted Khmer Rouge utilized neighboring Thailand -- with the blessing and backing of the U.S. and China -- as a base from which to launch attacks inside Cambodia.

A bit odd, Reagan backing communist mass murderers. But he did so for a high-minded principle: self-determination. So strongly did he believe in this principle that he instructed his U.N. Ambassador to recognize the deposed Khmer Rouge, rather than the regime imposed by Vietnam, as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

Alas, it was all an act. Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Indonesia continued to occupy East Timor, the island it had invaded in 1975 with the blessing of the Ford administration. In this case, Reagan chose to oppose the Timorese resistance and support the Indonesian occupiers. Hey, what good are principles if they're not flexible - or disposable?

To give Reagan his due, a crucial difference between the occupations must be noted: Vietnam's (which he opposed) ended a bloodbath; Indonesia's (which he supported) constituted a bloodbath.

In southern Africa, Reagan was an enthusiastic champion of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and vicious destabilization of Angola and Mozambique. He considered the apartheid government a card-carrying member of the "Free World" and thus worthy of a "constructive engagement" policy. Like Dick Cheney, he dismissed Nelson Mandela's African National Congress as communist terrorists.

Reagan's African heroes were Zairian kleptocrat Mobutu Sese Seko and Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi. When Savimbi's horrific human rights record could no longer be denied, even some conservatives who had once sung his praises turned against him. Reagan stood steadfast. He had earlier hailed Savimbi as a "freedom fighter," just as he had elevated the Nicaraguan contras and the extremist Islamic fundamentalists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (many of whom are now fighting us in alliance with the Taliban) to "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers."

By providing apologetics, diplomatic support and/or military aid to some of the worst governments, rebel forces and terror-prone proxy armies of the 1980s, Reagan was an accomplice in hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's a big part of his legacy, and it's no cause for celebration.

http://web001.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/08-4

They were so against the Vietnamese that they were totally prepared to support the Khmer Rouge even after they were kicked out of Cambodia.