The Reagan Legacy

Well it certainly seems you forgot about him budgeting nearly $3 billion for AIDS research between 1984 and 1989. I daresay that may have contributed to the fight against AIDS.

I thought you said only Congress has the power of the purse.

Ahh the simplicity of hate. This is almost as laughable as when my parents spent eight years demonizing Clinton over every perceived mistep the government made.Here's a two-bit lesson in US government:1-No President is 100% reponsible for the actions of the US government and economy that occur during his time in office.2-There is a little branch called the legislative branch (Congress) which holds the sole power of the purse. In fact, no law can be passed without the cooperation of said branch.3-There is another branch called the judicial branch (supreme court). These folks also influence how laws are interpreted (Roe v Wade) and they are people who hold their positions for LIFE. So the ramifications of these appointments aren't usually felt until subsequent presidencies. Well boo hoo. Guess you should have gone to a cheaper school. How the amount of debt you were willing to incur have anything to do with the President? Sorry, it has none. More importantly, businesses and home buyers, two key drivers for the US economy, felt a great deal of relief from the decrease in run away inflation - as did most consumers who held jobs and saw their hard earned cash being devalued at an alarming rate in the seventies.Uh, whether the crises began as a result of OPEC, US oil interests, or the international jewish conspiracy it doesn't matter. The point is that it ended on Reagan's watch. If you contend his policies had nothing to do with it, fine, show me the money (or in this case, data). The ole 'yeah there were lots of jobs, but they were all at MacDonalds' hue and cry, eh? That's almost as tiresome as the 'but how can you explain the complexity of the eye!' argument we read here daily. So if all of these jobs were 'garbage' jobs, how did the US get to be number one in the world (at the time) in high-skilled high tech industries such as avionautics, aero-space, chemicals, computer manufacture and design, software design, etc. etc? Show me the money Holmes. What decrease in accountability? The one where Nike, Microsoft, IBM, Intel employees became paper millionares? Even the secretaries? And don't you think that the massive numbers of people who went to college on the GI Bill after vietnam MIGHT have contributed to the number of workers with college degrees competing for jobs? Actually life has become better for most people - especially the middle class. Is it all because of Reagan? 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.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. That is conjecture. Besides, since we seem to pin on all the US victories and defeats on the incumbent President, then since he was in office for a critical portion of the cold war, he should get credit for it; otherwise, using this logic, we should strip the economic recovery from Clinton since we were already recovering during the last two quarters under Bush I.I love how some people can only begrudgingly give credit to Reagan for this; as though it kills them to think the Reagan presidency could have done anything right at all in eight years. If that isn't irrational bias, I don't know what is. Gee, actually I would interpret that the other way. It sort of undercuts anyone saying RR doesn't deserve most of the credit. Partisan politics is absolutely amazing. Can't you see this is as silly as adhering blindly to a particular religion? Bush I did NOTHING right during his four years? Then why did we begin our economic recovery during the last year of his presidency? Did Clinton's mere nomination cure all of our economic ills? Please.And what about Kuwait? Say what you will about oil interests and not finishing the war the first time, but he did lead an international coalition to liberate a sovereign nation from a tyrannical, torturous dictator. Or does the freedom of the Kuwaitis not really mean anything? They're just a bunch of rich Arabs after all. This claim has always confused me. In what way was Reagan the President 'terrible' for education? Isn't most highschool and below education paid for by the state and county taxpayers? How is the federal govt at all to blame for a state's money problems in this regard? Show me the money!I'm not a die-hard republican shill, and RR was no saint, but he did some good things, he was our leader when our nation faced serious internal and external threats (cold war, Iran hostage, inflation, recession), and most people in the country,at the time, trusted him. When have we had a president like that? Not Bush, certainly not Clinton, and half the country still whines with Al Gore and Michael Moore that GWB isn't the legitimate president.Here's something else to reflect upon. Despite our massive military build up during the eighties, how many armed conflicts involving US combatants actually occurred during the RR era? Grenada? Now how about Bush? How about Clinton?It's a bit much to canonize the man, but this demonization of him is absolutely ludicrous.This message has been edited by custard to change 'health care' to 'emergency services.', 06-13-2004 07:25 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 12:39 PM

Are we going to start playing this game again? Are you really incapable understanding the point? If so, I will reiterate for you (and any others who refuse to see the forest for the trees).1- Congress has the power of the purse.
2- Presidents submit proposed budgets to congress.
3- RR was accused of 'ignoring' the AIDS problem.
4- If RR was ignoring the AIDS problem, then why did he budget $2.79 billion for AIDS research during the years of 1984 and 1989?Number four indicates that RR did NOT 'ignore' AIDS. And yes, since congress did vote to spend money (number 1) on AIDS both RR AND congress should get credit for this. Him for proposing to spend money on it, and congress for agreeing to spend money on it. Pretty cool how that works, eh?However, if this explanation doesn't help, I can recommend some great US govt classes at Michigan. It's in your neck of the woods and Ann Arbor is a fun little college town. Ask for professor Raymond Tanter. He's a pretty bright guy, although >GASP< he did serve as one of Reagan's advisers.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 07:23 AM

You mean, the game where you make a point that I don't understand and so I ask you for clarification, but you jump up my ass about it? Yeah, I guess we're playing that now. Yeah, that's pretty cool. But if he shares credit for budget success, doesn't he also share blame for budget failure? I presume you agree, but where you said this:

quote:

---

What else, the budget deficit? The ones the democratic congresses kept passing? That's the argument I love the most. Blame the Chief Executive for federal spending. Sorry, the power of the purse belongs to the legislative branch alone. The President can propose all the budgets he wants, but Congress actually has to pass them in order to spend the money.

---

it doesn't sound like you do. So I'm a little confused. On one hand you seem pretty eager to insulate the President from any bad budgeting decisions - that's Congress's fault - but on the other, you're pretty quick to make sure we all know about his budget successes.Maybe I'm an idiot, or you're just not being clear enough, but it sounds like you're trying to praise Reagan with faint damnation, if you catch my drift.And moreover, the claim isn't that Reagan ignored AIDS - it's that he ignored AIDS at the time he really could have made a difference and stopped an epidemic - i.e. before 1984. What on earth do budget appropriations after that time have anything to do with it? Um, yeah. Just like Vancouver is in your neck of the woods. Christ, how dumb do you think we are here in Flyover Country?

Oh, I thought it was the game where you make a glib, one liner remark and then come back and act like that wasn't a loaded question from the get go.Tell you what, from now on, I'll treat your questions as though they are aboveboard interrogatives without laced sarcasm or hostility and just straight up answer them. In this case you wrote:

quote:

---

I thought congress had the power of the purse?

---

My answer to that question is:Yes, they do. In general, yes I agree. And depending on the Congress-Prez relationship (e.g. Clinton-Gingrich), and who is sponsoring what, both branches share a varying degree of fiscal responsibility. No, I do agree. No, the President is responsible for bad budgeting decisions, AND the congress shares responsibility for passing bad budget decision. The reverse also holds true. Ultimately one could argue that all good and bad budget decisions are due to congress, but that is too simplistic. In general, the branches work together to reach a compromise. No. I'll dare to borrow from the Rrhain repetoire: doubtful. No. I merely point out that the accusation that Reagan 'ignored' AIDS during his presidency was false. Yes it was. Go back and read the post. Holmes claimed:

quote:

---

In short, part of Reagan's legacy was ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be.

---

AIDS wasn't diagnosed as AIDS until what, 1982? So is it a surprise that people weren't clamoring for federal funding right away? Was RR or Congress supposed to be clairovoyant? Should they have funded research before 1984? Sure, hindsight being what it was. That is a different argument. I'm going out on a limb here, but I ASSUME that the federal money used for research during the eighties actually helped make some headway with the diagnosis and treatment of the disease - which gets back to my first point that RR was not ignoring the issue.If you want to argue the horse was already out of the barn by 1984 and that the money spent on research after 1983 was wasted or useless, I couldn't say; however, I would be surprised if the medical community thought that money spent on AIDS research after 1983 was wasted. Maybe you could look into that.

Um, no. North Ironwood, MI is only 112 miles from Duluth, MN. When you practically border a state, that counts as being in your neck of the woods.Vancouver is about 950 miles and two states away from SF, so I would say that is NOT in my neck of the woods. I don't think you are dumb. I think you need to brush up on your geography. This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 09:09 AM

Here is some food for thought regarding the economy under Reagan compared to other presidents (from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html):

quote:

---

1- Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

​

2- Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

​

3- Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

​

4-The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

---

Is it any surprise the first part of the 70's was booming? There was a war on. But what makes RR look so good is that most people are comparing him to Carter and not Carter's predecessors, which as Rrhain points out, gets glossed by Reaganophiles. Look at the economic growth though. Reagan's tenure beats the Nixon/Ford/Carter years and the Bush/Clinton (to 1994)years. And for Holmes's claim that the middle class got hosed and only the upper middle class made out. This shows the median, not mean, for wages increased during RR. Look at the unemployment and interest rates. Are they better under other presidents? Yes, but again RR looks so good because things were so awful at the end of the Carter administration - and that is what RR's administration should be credited for: the economic turn around.http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig05.gifhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig03.gifFinally, although Rrhain does not mention this, many people complain about the HUGE budget deficit Reagan ran up. Well the defecit had reached it's peak by 1987 and had already come down considerably by 1989. In fact, if you look at the deficit in terms of a percentage of GDP, which really makes more sense, the deficit was almost the same (3%) in 1989 as it was when Reagan took office in 1980.So Rrhain makes a good point that RR's presidency was not the ultimate economic miracle, but it wasn't peanuts (sorry Jimmy) either. His administration deserves credit where credit is due: the economy was in shambles and things were getting worse, and then things turned around dramatically.Was he a saint? I don't think so; but he was a good president and say what you will about Iran-Contra (which I really could care less about frankly) he wasn't an arrogant, silver spoon sucking golfer(Bush) or a lying satyr (Clinton) and I wasn't embarassed when he was in the public eye.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 08:58 AM

Just so's there's no hard feelings, you came on after I left for a time, but when I cam back I've liked a number of your posts.Your last two posts attacking me so virulently in defense of Reagan seem out of character, and thankfully or me they are wrong. Or at least, inaccurate. Here's a two-bit lesson, don't act like you know more than your opponent, when you have no knowledge of who he is. I have worked in the US government and know quite a bit how it functions... apparently more than you... whoops!You'll have to point out where I said that the Democratic Congress had NO responsibility for the trainwreck that was the 80's. Go on and show me. See I'm an independent. I hold ALL members of government responsible where the responsibilities lay.All I did was shoot down the idea the Reagan did all these things that were attributed to him. What I really love is that (as crash has already pointed out) you rush back and forth saying his responsible and he is not responsible, depending on what suits your argument best.Given that RR and all the Reps take credit for the early 80's economic boom, it seems more than laughable how they don't take credit for the bust.If RR and the Reps were really against the budgets which were passed they could simply not have signed it. You may remember that that is EXACTLY what Clinton did in order to force the congress to bring him a better budget. Not sure if you worked in the US government during those times, but it was bizarre as entire agencies (including my own) were shut down during his stalemates.I know Reagan could beat the commies in Russia, but not the Democrats in Congress... raspberries! Oh custard. How I wish I had gone to a cheaper school! Yet that does not reflect any understanding on your part of how this all worked. Once everything was cut, and in some cases it was dramatic, many (like me) were forced to continue school but now use more loans at much greater rates, or quit and immediately start working to pay back the loans they already had.It was essentially a national bait and switch, with college costs increasing well beyond inflation every year.By the way, eventually I did go to a cheaper school. But the damage was done. And before you cut RR some slack on this, he was a MAJOR proponent of cutting education funding. I am unsure how you cannot be aware of this fact, especially if you are from CA. No, why don't YOU show me the data proving he stopped the "energy crisis" through deregulation. This was asserted before without any data and I pointed out that it was not. You should pretty easily be able to look up the facts about the "energy crisis" at this point and you will see it is widely acknowledged as having been manufactured (and no not by some vast conspiracy... just more assholes like Ken Lay).In fact, I believe somewhere at EvC I have already posted a link on energy deregulation studies done by the gov't and in it the US gov't itself says the 70's crisis was manufactured. For once I want the shoe on the other foot.You prove to ME that Reagan CAUSED the end of the crisis, rather than it just ended on his watch. I want to see that especially given your stripping the Presidency of any power in deference to the Congress. Uhmmmm... how old are you custard? You really talk as if you never lived through the 80's and early 90's.As it stands I said there was a boom through the early portion of the 80's, perhaps even up till 86. Past that it was a decline into a pretty massive Recession. It was the early boom that put us on top, the slide put us under.Or do you not remember the concerns in the late 80's of Japan destroying us in the high tech sectors and even Bush boo-hooing that we had to turn our industries around? Are you for real? You have no knowledge of the massive shifts in organizations which stranded workers? I suppose Springsteen's "born in the USA" album was popular amongst all those paper millionaires in the rust belt happy to see their jobs disappear. Oh yeah and EVERYTHING Michael Moore says is a lie, too... raspberries.In the town I was living in during most of this period, many many companies went under or shipped away, stranding locals with nothing until the JAPANESE came in to employ them (and let me tell you they couldn't employ everyone).Really, how old are you, or where were you living 83-94? It just doesn't seem to have been in the US. Holy f'n!!!! Okay, do you even live on this planet? Lowest levels? Cable TV, computers, VCRs, DVDs (uh they didn't even have those back in the 80's), cars, and HEALTHCARE?That seals the deal, if I move back to the states I am definitely moving to SF, because it must be a dreamboat. Buddy, visit the southside and westside of Chicago and THEN tell me about how the poor live. Oh yeah, and lets have you visit West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana.Oh yeah again, and then go visit the poor in places like Sweden and Denmark. Their poor live better than I did on a government salary! I did give him credit for this. I just don't give him the demigod status being tossed at him on that subject. Are you seriously telling me with all the facts available to you that he actually ENDED the COLD WAR?Like the energy crisis, he was in office when it happened. That does not make him the person who DID IT. Unlike the energy crisis, RR should get credit for keeping things together enough that it never went hot and Gorbachev was able to institute reforms.What I don't get is how you can come off giving him no, or begrudging credit, when I not only said people could have done worse, but that Gorbachev's own commentary ends anyone being able to give RR no credit. How? Please tell me the exact words Gorbachev used which allows you to say RR deserved MOST of the credit. There was nothing like that in the interview I saw. Yes it is. That's why I'm independent. Bush 1 did nothing of noteworthiness while in office.I suppose it was to his credit that he sent troops to check Saddam Hussein's advances. But even the Reps rip him for not finishing the job, and worse still having essentially greenlighted Hussein's advance into Kuwait as well as reneging on helping the rebellion in the south after the war.I don't think Clinton helped the economic recovery. I think the economy started fixing itself. Please let me know what policy he put in place (or was it the Democratic congress) which turned the economy around.Economies go up and down. Sometimes this can even be out of the grasp of those in power (pres and congress). There is no question policies in the early 80's led to the resulting collapse late 80's and 90's. I saw no evidence that any policy was ever put in place to fix this.Clinton did manage to overhaul the education system (college anyway) and was able to pull the government together (yes even with some republicans) to get the government's books back in order. They all get credit for this.I was also with Reps ripping into Clinton foreign policy. So I guess there goes your stereotyping.Bush Jr makes Clinton and Reagan look like diplomatic and economic geniuses. He may make me vote for the first Democrat in quite a while. Heheheh. Of course the freedom of Kuwaitis means nothing, that's why we didn't set them free. Or can you SHOW ME THE MONEY on how the Kuwaitis were freed?If you know ANYTHING REAL about that war, when Iraq invaded the Royalty, who had a long standing practice of abusing their populace as well, fled Kuwait to let their people suffer.Other than a small handful, the rest partied in around the world, until the US removed Hussein's forces from Kuwait. At that point the US kindly reinstated the totalitarian regime over your average Kuwaiti.Had we allowed those within the nation to form their own government, instead of holding them until the original despots returned, I guess I might buy your argument. I was talking about secondary education, not highschool and below. For the college system, the federal gov't stripped grants and scholarships and general funding (which is what pays stipends and tuition coverage), compunding that by letting banks walk all over students. In fact, if you had a loan ~1986- ~1988 you were actually prevented from real consolidation of your loan, in order to protect banks. Not that I'm a big Clinton fan, but outside of the tail end of his term in office, didn't Clinton have MOST people's support? I could be wrong, but I thought that was the case.That said, Hitler had the greatest support German's ever gave anyone. That didn't make his policies right, and that's all I'm concerned with. Uh... didn't I already say this myself somewhere? Maybe it was in the other Reagan thread.Here's something for you to reflect on. In the midst of all of this great wonderful gosh golly economic times he brought to us, was one of the worst economic scandals. Do you remember the Savings and Loans scandal? You know where Republicans decided to have taxpayers foot the bill for corrupt bankers so that people like Bush's sons (who ran corrupt banks) didn't really have to face any hard time?Do you remember that? Do you remember the number of people and businesses taken out by that? Oh that's okay I guess, they all went to work as secretaries for IBM and became paper millionaires!AND AS FOR AIDS. The fact that you can throw a number of dollars around as if that means RR did anything positive for the AIDs crisis, is truly the height of partisan support.
Here is a document Dan linked to in post 14 of this thread where you can read RR's own surgeon general describing his having to trick RR and Company into getting anything done.If that is not enough, please read actual histories of the discovery of the HIV virus. After not funding research enough, Reagan and his administrators wanted to make sure the French did not succeed in identifying the virus first, and had US researchers actively hinder global research. They treated it as if the important thing was getting the medal for solving it first, rather than getting it solved sooner by anyone. The canonization came first, and I simply shot it down. What good this man did was NOT what the author wrote. His contributions were rather small (or perhaps modest is the word) and consisted more in improving morale rather than actual lives.

---

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

quote:

---

Um, no. North Ironwood, MI is only 112 miles from Duluth, MN. When you practically border a state, that counts as being in your neck of the woods.

​

Vancouver is about 950 miles and two states away from SF, so I would say that is NOT in my neck of the woods.

​

I don't think you are dumb. I think you need to brush up on your geography.

---

A quick Mapquest search showed me that Crashfrog is 665 miles and over 10 hours of driving from Ann Arbor, MI.Ann Arbor, where I currently live, is in southeast MI, close to Detroit, lake Erie, and only a couple of hours drive from Cleveland.It's not that close to Prior Lake, MN.

SHHH!Lady, you are totally undermining my argument. Sure everyone in the Midwest knows that just because the UP is near Minnesota doesn't mean he's close to AA, but all the other posters don't know that!SHEESH!!! Thanks alot!

quote:

---

Actually life has become better for most people - especially the middle class. Is it all because of Reagan? 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 (and if you think you need insurance to get health care, just ask California - you don't if you go to the emergency room), computers...

---

Excuse me????We couldn't afford health insurance for me when my husband was a graduate student (he was covered, but not me, his wife) and I was looking for better paying work in my field in the early 90's. I was working, but not getting paid enough to afford even the cheapest basic care.Even when I did get better benefits later, they were still only major medical. I still had to pay out of pocket for basic checkups and screenings and tests, which meant that I just didn't get them. I couldn't afford thousands of dollars a year for basic healthcare, so I went without and hoped for the best.And are you crazy with that comment about the emergency room constituting great medical care?What kind of long-term cancer treatment do you think you can get in the emergency room?They don't do mammograms in the emergency room, nor do they do prenatal checkups, nor do they do any kind of preventative or regular medical screenings in the emergency room.Oh, and if you think that everyone in the country can afford a computer, you are completely deluded.If we all have access to all the food we need, then why are there longer lines than ever at soup kitchens and emergency food banks, and why are kids going to school hungry everywhere?What a rosy picture you paint of poverty in the US.Have you ever been to North Philadelphia? Have you ever been to a mountain town in the Appalachains? Have you ever been to most of Detroit?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-13-2004 10:27 AM

Dude, scroll up and take your own advice about not acting like you know more than your opponent.That you worked in the US government means absolutely nothing to me. In fact, having worked for the US govt myself and having worked with other govt employees it doesn't really help make your case that you know what you are talking about. In any case, it is moot: I don't care if your real name is Bill Clinton, I am responding to your accusations, not your previous work experience. Amazing. You see what you want to see (as is evidenced by your interpretation of the eighties). I don't know how I could have made myself any clearer. Oh well, I won't go over it a third time. No, not all the reps. You are generalizing. That would be like me saying all democrats are ignorant liberal idiots. And we were talking about Reagan, not Bush. Thankfully I did not; but I can read the paper and listen to the radio so I am not entirely ignorant. What are you talking about? Half the time Reagan had a Republican majority, and half the time he was able to build a consensus with the dems (remember the 'Reagan Democrats?'). You claimed he did not, not me. I called bullshit on your claim. You have the burden of proof, do your own footwork. As you can see by my previous posts, I've provided plenty of data supporting my position. I confess that I don't really know the impact that Reagan had on school funding. But as I stated, I don't care. The nation has no obligation to provide cheap loans or free education. You could have worked yourself through school (like I did) or quit, get a job, save up some money and go back later.We were in a COLD WAR and we were trying to get out of a DEPRESSION. The prez and congress chose to make cuts - you can blame it all on big bad Ronnie, but since you know the govt system so well you know that dumping it all on him is bogus.Is that what all your vitriol towards RR is about? Your subsidy got cut? That's pretty weak if that's the case. My age is irrelevant. What is relevant is the data, not emotional memories, but actual data regarding the time and topic in question. Yes I lived and worked through the eighties and nineties, but how I feel about them is irrelevant. My individual experience is nothing to base national statistics on. Neither is yours.I suggest your memories of that time are not doing you justice and you should refresh them with the data I have provided. For instance, you will see that despite your claim that the economy started tanking around 1986...

quote:

---

As it stands I said there was a boom through the early portion of the 80's, perhaps even up till 1986. Past that it was a decline into a pretty massive Recession.

---

... the recession really didn't hit nationally until around 1991. Yes I'm for real. Facts, numbers, cite sources. Your memories mean nothing to me. Of course we all saw the layoffs and stuff on TV. But I'm not going to argue speculative numbers with you. You made a claim, I questioned your claim, back it up. Don't just keep telling me how bad you remembered it to be. Yeah, that's a solid foundation for an argument: a New Jersey poseur in a jean jacket. Holmes, people aren't share croppers anymore. Most po' folks don't live in shanties. They live in trailers and rent-subsidized apartments. They have many amenities half the world would kill for. But I admit that for this claim I have no statistics in hand to back them up. Only personal experience and that, I realize, is not a valid sample size from which to draw conclusions. I'll table this part of the discussion if you want. So what? I didn't compare the US to those countries for precisely that reason. We are not a socialist country. That is straying from my point. I agree, no demi-god status for Reagan. And no I don't think he ended the cold war by himself at all. I wrote this: Obviously some of his policies helped facilitate this. At least I that is what I have read and I have yet to see any compelling data otherwise. People forget that Reagan didn't fight the cold war by himself, there were other countries - like Great Britain, other branches of govt, and other key players like Jim Baker, etc. He certainly wasn't alone.But if people are going to dump all of the bad stuff that happens during an administration on the chief exec, then they better pony up and give him some props for the good things that occur as well. To do otherwise is inconsistent and demonstrates irrational bias. You've busted me there. I misquoted what you said and I did not see the interview. And that's all I said. Well I could go into a six month long story about how I personally sat in the sand with both Kuwaitis who were fighting to get their country back AND Saudis who were terrified their country would get invaded. I know that Kuwait (and many of the Arab emirates) is not what most US citizens would call a 'free' country, but what autonomy they had was a damn sight better than being ruled by a foreign dictator named Saddam. Or would you disagree?I personally saw Kuwait city before and after the war. So I know whereof I speak; but don't take my word for it, use your own reasoning. Kuwaitis used to have a council and a elect leaders to represent them and had many rights Iraqis did not have (e.g. you didn't get tortured if your country's national soccer team lost). After they were invaded by Iraq, what rights did they have? Did they get to spend their oil money, or did Saddam? Do you honestly think they would have preferred life under Saddam? Then why were they so desperate to pay to get their country back?Freedom is relative. Compared to what the Kuwaitis experienced under Saddam, their old government was free. Ergo it is not out of place to say we freed the Kuwaitis. Well I only took two years of economics so I'm not much of an expert about WHY the economy improved, but I hesitate to say it fixed itself. I would have to review the policies and laws passed during the latter half of the Bush administration and first part of the Clinton presidency(during which I was inebriated).But I never claimed Clinton did anything, except maybe not screw up the recovery - which, in itself, is no small feat. Yeah it was all Bush's fault. He passed the laws to free up the restrictions on the SNLs and he personally made them speculate their investor's money. It's all so clear to me now. So let me get this straight, because I want to be sure I understand you clearly. So budgeting billions of dollars for AIDS two years after the virus was identified is not something positive? Not in the slightest?Because you said this:

quote:

---

In short, part of Reagan's legacy was ensuring that HIV became a worse threat to world health than it had to be.

---

So how did budgeting AIDS dollars ensure that HIV became a worse threat? You ask me to do some research, and I will because until this thread I knew very little about the AIDS topic except there was a lot of ridiculous hyperbole, such as your statement, flying around. So I'll check your thread and get back to you on this one. Because I'm pretty confident, although I may be wrong, that Reagan did not 'ensure HIV became a worse threat to world health.' I did not read the initial thread as a canonization so much as a query. But since I don't watch television, I don't subject myself to the hours of RR tribute the must be flooding the airwaves and so I didn't have a knee jerk reaction to the initial thread.I did have a reaction to your absolute hatred and demonization of a person based on nothing but your personal experiences (which is fine for you I suppose, but worthless when trying to convince people who didn't live through a Japanese take over or a cut student loan).Your ridiculous claims that this President was responsible for every negative thing that happened during his and his successor's administrations, but not at all responsible for any positive things was truly appalling.I understand better, now , why you are unable to be objective about this person. Even your reply has nothing more to offer but your feelings, personal memories, and accusations that my position is weak because you don't know if "I was there" when it all happened; but you provide no actual evidence or data for anything really.You made claims that seemed specious to me, I called you to the floor on them, but you do not provide anything of substance to back them up. I, on the other hand, have provided data to support my position yet you ignore this and speak in anecdotes. I'll be happy to continue discussing this with you, but I can't debate your feelings and memories.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 11:58 AM

OK, in my haste I threw in the word 'health care' when I should have said 'emergency services.' I am in no way referring to a health plan of any kind, although the truly poor do, in fact, have plans that vary from state to state - which while nothing I would want, still beats anything in Africa and South America.And no, I'm not comparing US poverty to EU poverty, any of us with any knowledge realizes that these are entirely different political systems. I'm comparing being poor in the US to being poor in just about any non-first world country. And there is absolutely no comparison between the standards of living. That's why we have immigrants migrate to first world countries. I never said 'great medical care.' And I certainly do know that if a homeless, jobless person shows up at a hospital in an immediate life threatening condition, then he/she will receive treatment. Yes that would be a deluded statement; however, I did not say everyone in the country can afford a computer and you darn well know it. And anyone who can't get their hands on a cheap computer can easily access one at - taadaaa- the local library. Straying off topic, but I'll bite:1- What does the length of a line have to do with availability of food? I could counter and say that, if anything, it shows there is plenty of food because the lines are longer than ever. Both conclusions would be specious.2- Because their parents send them to school hungry. If they would cut back on the beer and cigarettes, kids would have plenty to eat. I do the shopping in this household, I know how much food costs. Welfare, foodstamps, and SSI combined with assisted living and about a million job programs are more than enough to get an egg and a piece of toast in a kid's stomach before he runs to school. Unless the Pall Malls are your first option.And who told them to have kids anyway? Just because you have unprotected sex and spawn a few brats the state has the responsibility to raise, clothe, feed, bathe, and keep them happy? Sorry, that's called SOCIALISM and that is about as far from the type of ruthless capitalism we practice in this country. Are you kidding? Who said being poor was fun? Not me. I said that compared to truly poor people in this world, in general our poor have it pretty darn good. Do you for one second think our poor have it worse than India, most of Africa, East Asia, South America? You must be absolutely ignorant to the state of the world outside the ivory towers of our country. No. Yes and it was charming. My uncle lives in one and I didn't see a single Hatfield, McCoy, or Nell anywhere. I don't know where 60 Minutes finds these people, but I saw roads and houses and electricity pretty much everywhere I went. Most? Well I may not be from 8 mile, but I did live in Michigan for several years and I have visited Detroit several times. What is your point? That poor people live there? Guess what, they live everywhere.You know how many dead bodies I saw floating by in the Detroit river every time I went? None. Zero. None on the streets either. Somehow all those poor, destitute, starving people weren't dropping dead all over the place. I wonder why not?Now how many dead people do you think I would I see floating in the Ganges if I went to India? How about the Nile? Any idea? More than zero.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 12:31 PM

I have come to the conclusion that no one who was born after FDR was President should be allowed to express an opinion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion