The Reagans

[strandinthewind]

I know what you mean Jonny Stew. The Reagan years were hard for many people. But, in all fairness, Reagan was handed an already weak if not failing economy with 21 or higher percent interest rates, etc. Moreover, during any two term Presidency there have been severe ups and downs in the economy. For example, Bill Clinton's Presidency ended with an economy fast approaching a recession.

So, I think I have come to the conclusion that the economies have historically been cyclical and will always be that way no matter what any political body does. I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates. But, I think even with these tools, it still boils down to the inventiveness of man (the internet boom in Pres. Clinton's economy, etc.) to promote any real stimulation.

Just food for thought and not meaning to be antagonistic or promoting of one political party over another

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Ah, but first I must propose my vigorous beliefs on why Reagan should replace that crippled devil Roosevelt on dimes.

I know - that they are proposing to place the Gipper on the dime is just an outrage. But, people just have no taste when promoting an agenda.

Interesrtingly, a similar thing recently happened here in Atlanta. Our airport (the second largest in the country) was named "Hartsfield" after a local prominent white aviation figure. Then, Maynard Jackson, a very well liked and prominent African Amercian mayor of Atlanta, died. Just about the entire group of African American political movers and shakers determined the airport should be renamed the Maynard Jackson airport and the hell with ole Hartsfield. The fight got so ugly here that you were branded a racist if you dared question why Mr. Hartsfield's name should be removed. The promoters of the name change even had candlelight vigils against the obvious racism that they felt was going on. In the end, it became the "Hartsfield-Jackson" airport - a suitable compromise in my book. Yet, there are still cries of racist when in my book the African American politicos wrongly used the false threat of racism to achieve their goals - which I find disgusting.

So, I think the conservative right wing will similarly scream liberal bias when the sides go to war on the dime. Sad - but very true

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know - that they are proposing to place the Gipper on the dime is just an outrage. But, people just have no taste when promoting an agenda.

Interesrtingly, a similar thing recently happened here in Atlanta. Our airport (the second largest in the country) was named "Hartsfield" after a local prominent white aviation figure. Then, Maynard Jackson, a very well liked and prominent African Amercian mayor of Atlanta, died. Just about the entire African American political movers and shakers determined the airport should be renamed the Maynard Jackson airport and the hell with ole Hartsfield. The fight got so ugly here that you were branded a racist if you dared question why Mr. Hartsfield's name should be removed. The promoters of the name change even had candle light vigils against the obvious racism that they felt was going on. In the end, it became the "Hartsfield-Jackson" airport - a suitable compromise in my book. Yet, there are still cries of racis when 9n my book the African American politicos used the threat of racism to achieve their goals - which I find disgusting.

So, I think the conservative right wing will sililarly scream liberal bias when the sides go to war on the dime. Sad - but very true

How ridiculous. However, race (that is, if it exists...) will continue to factor into everything n our lives.

I read an article the other day where a woman argued that if a white woman gives birth to a baby from an African-American father, the mother should then be considered black.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know what you mean Jonny Stew. The Reagan years were hard for many people. But, in all fairness, Reagan was handed an already weak if not failing economy with 21 or higher percent interest rates, etc. Moreover, during any two term Presidency there have been severe ups and downs in the economy.

Fair enough... though the lean years continued thru Bush Sr.'s four years in office. If Reagan had done such a great job, I think his eight years should have been long enough to get things turned around for those of us not lucky enough to already be rich.

And our current Republican President has also pushed tax-cuts, etc., that benefit the upper-class (which include his family and associates), while "blue-collar" workers continue to struggle.

Currently these tax-cuts are going to cost the public library where I work, to lose HALF of their budget... which will mean less hours, less books, less computers, less research materials, and possibly less employees (and we only have five).

Then there are the many ways in which the Republican party has worked to block and deny various rights to homosexuals. They're against civil unions, they're against allowing a same-sex partner to be covered under your medical insurance, they're against laws that would protect homosexual victims of hate crimes, etc., etc.
Hell, many in the Republican party are even against striking down sodomy and oral sex laws involving same-sex partners!

Don't get me wrong, Jason... I don't at all think that the Democratic party is perfect. They're far from it. But I do feel they're most definitely more favorable in regards to a good number of very important issues.

But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, and I'm glad we can have these types of debates here on the Ledge.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Hell, many in the Republican party are even against striking down sodomy and oral sex laws involving same-sex partners!

Ha!

So much for Coultergeist touting that ultra-conservatives in the bible belt have better sex than liberals.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Hey! lol

Seriously though, whatever programmer thought it would be a great idea to air a miniseries mocking a dying man should be fired. I think most conservatives and liberals can agree that it was poorly timed, to say the least.

It's about as well timed as some Republicans effort to get him on the dime instead of FDR. Now that's tactless.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
In the evidence department, Exhibit No. 1 is that the 40th president is played by Mr. Barbra Streisand, James Brolin. The actor and his wife are longtime activists for far-left causes. In the last month alone, as reported by Matt Drudge,

Yeah. Matt Drudge has no ax to grind.


[QUOTE]Miss Streisand has labeled the California recall a right-wing "attempted hijacking of the democratic process," attacked "the myth of Big Government" and demanded an independent probe into White House leaks.[QUOTE]

And it's not?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
For example, Bill Clinton's Presidency ended with an economy fast approaching a recession.

The stock market only went to sh*t about three days after the supreme court ruling.

[/QUOTE] I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates. [/QUOTE]

Yes but these tax cuts aren't real. Bush's tax cuts have mainly shifted the burdens onto state and local governments. Ask anyone you know how much their property taxes have gone up in the last couple of years.

[jwd]

Lets not forget that there are three branches of government. To give TOTAL credit or discredit to a presidency or president would be a little short sighted imo. And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country. To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.

A special thank you to strandinthewind(Jason) for your unbiased and open minded comments, and not just in this thread!


Joe

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by dissention






And if Bill Clinton was in the last stages of cancer or even Altzheimer's, the conservative-ruled media would hold restraint in a biopic?

Well, I would certainly hope they would show restraint. But if they didn't, I wouldn't be laughing about it, telling everyone "Remember that Reagan TV-movie..."

I think we have to be careful about justifying current behavior that might be deemed questionable by saying "Well, in the future, the other side would probably do something just as bad."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates.

Yes but these tax cuts aren't real. Bush's tax cuts have mainly shifted the burdens onto state and local governments. Ask anyone you know how much their property taxes have gone up in the last couple of years. [/B][/QUOTE]

I know. The Bush Administration economic policies certainly leave a lot to be desired if you are in a lower income tax bracket or a state trying to pay for the Bush policies (which for the most part have been widely supported by the Demo.'s when it came time to vote). Although every tax bracket got a reduction, IMO, the bracket whose spending will best effect the manufacturing product (and therefore the entire economy) is the $40,000 a year and below people and that percentage was not cut enough. Personally, I think there ought to be a flat income tax of 20 percent; that way the "class warfare" arguments used in tax cut arguments is greatly lessoned. But, that will never happen so we have to deal with what we have, which unfortunately is special interest driven.

On the bright side, the economic indicators indicate that while it has a long way to go, the economy is picking up on almost all fronts. Hopefully, this will mean the big companies will begin hiring again to increase output. Interestingly, I truly believe the low interest rates along with the refinancing boom has been sort of a jump start to the economy. I mean I know people who have refinanced several times and too cash out to pay for things their lower paying jobs would not allow them to buy without the payment for it over 30 years at 5%.

Finally, Johnny, I, too, love this type of debate and love even more that, for the most part, we Ledgies respect other people opinions and present ideas without vitrol - now if we all could only be that way in a Stevie v. L.B. debate .

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
Lets not forget that there are three branches of government. To give TOTAL credit or discredit to a presidency or president would be a little short sighted imo. And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country. To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.

A special thank you to strandinthewind(Jason) for your unbiased and open minded comments, and not just in this thread!


Joe

I am blushing - thank you for the compliment.

I, too, just hate the hate everyone seems to have more of these days regarding partisan politics. I wish Bush could have or would have been the uniter he claimed. But, I think the way the election in 2000 turned out and his choice of Ashcroft as payback to the far right (which I do not think Bush is - I think Bush is a moderate) made that impossible. To his credit, he has been able to get huge support from all sides for most of his policies notwithstanding the 9/11 "there's terrorists out there and to speak against Bush is to be a traitor" that some in Republican party promote or at least tolerate.

Why can't we all just get along

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's about as well timed as some Republicans effort to get him on the dime instead of FDR. Now that's tactless.

I'm not sure I get the analogy. I was saying that they could have at least waited until after Reagan was dead to do this. Roosevelt IS dead.

That being said, they should leave the dime alone! Roosevelt was a great man and deserves it. Let them do some kind of special commerative quarter or something like they did for Kennedy.

[jwd]

Posted by strandinthewind:

I am blushing - thank you for the compliment.

Why can't we all just get along

You're very welcome!

I agree, and if I could, I'd buy you a drink!!

CHEERS!

Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country.

Unfortunately, any time one "side" feels they're completely right and the other is completely wrong, you're going to come to an impasse, and unfortunately that's the way it's been in politics for a good long time. I wish it weren't so, but I see no change in sight.

Originally posted by jwd
To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.

I agree... which is why I always try to say "some Republicans" or "most Democrats," etc.

I prefer to see people as individuals, not as some label.
Even after these types of discussions, I couldn't sit down and tell you necessarily which Ledgies are conservatives and which are liberals.

As I said, I don't think the Democratic party is the be-all and end-all... but I'm much more confident giving them my support, than I would be the Republican party. For all the reasons I mentioned earlier.

But I definitely don't think anyone who disagrees with me is the enemy.