I know, I know, all of you conservatives are too blinded to even KNOW
when you are duped by president who wasn't really that great. he was
good at ACTING like a president, practicing scripts for speeches for a
week before giving them. He ACTED as president exclusively. Anything
that went before the public was scripted, and practiced before hand.
Even his funeral is a well scripted act, 300 pages worth! But alas,
below is what Reagan REALLY did for our country:

David Lazarus
Wednesday, June 9, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ronald Reagan may have been a good and decent man.

As president, though, Reagan pursued policies that were short-sighted,
reckless and, for many, hurtful. His economic legacy is one of
deplorable disregard for the consequences of his actions, and the
ramifications of Reagan's decisions remain with us to this day.

I'll focus here on just three issues: soaring budget deficits,
homelessness and AIDS.

On the matter of deficits, Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the
amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it
spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent,
while aggressively increasing defense spending.

In 1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan lamented "runaway
deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent
of gross domestic product. Within only two years, however, his
policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200
billion, or 6 percent of GDP.

"It was an experiment," said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics
at UC Berkeley. "No one before Reagan had ever run such huge deficits
during peacetime. He showed that you could smile and tell everyone not
to worry and, politically, no one will call you to account."

This lesson clearly wasn't lost on the current occupant of the White
House, who has followed the Reagan economic playbook virtually step by
step in taking a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit this
year of more than $520 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP.

Runaway deficits

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can lead to higher
interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing costs and cause funding
to dry up for important social programs, such as education and health
care.

"It was up to the first President Bush, the loyal soldier, to clean up
the mess by raising taxes, and he didn't get re-elected because of
it," Auerbach observed. "Clinton also had to raise taxes because of
Reagan."

Over time, the Reagan deficit became the Clinton surplus. We may not
be as fortunate, though, in our efforts to sweep away the current Bush
deficit. The looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers, Auerbach
noted, will soon place a huge burden on government coffers.

"We recovered from the Reagan deficit because we were able to raise
taxes and cut spending," he said. "We won't be able to do a quick fix
this time because of the impending collapse of Social Security and
Medicare."

Homelessness, meanwhile, is something we definitely can do something
about -- and are, in the form of innovative programs like supportive
housing, which gets people off the streets and into the care they
require.

When homelessness first became a national issue, however, the Reagan
administration all but turned a blind eye to the problem. Federal
expenditures for low-cost housing plunged during Reagan's watch from
$32 billion in 1981 to just $7 billion in 1987.

At the same time, funding was slashed for a variety of social
services, including public health, drug rehab and food stamps --
programs that were relied upon by the thousands of mentally ill people
who'd been released from state facilities as a cost-cutting move.

Reagan was asked in a 1988 interview, shortly before Christmas, what
he thought of the homeless people sleeping just across the street from
the White House in Lafayette Park.

"There are always going to be people," he replied. "They make it their
own choice for staying out there."

A couple of years later, Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, commented on
her fear that she might be recognized by a homeless person while out
jogging.

"What would I say if I were asked why I didn't talk to my father, or
argue with him, about this national tragedy?" she wrote in Parade
magazine. "How do you argue with someone who states that the people
who are sleeping on the streets of America 'are homeless by choice?' "

Last but not least, AIDS. Reagan is not to blame for this horrific
epidemic, or for the high cost to the nation in terms of lost lives
and lost productivity. What he is responsible for is the government's
callous failure to respond to this crisis in a timely manner.

Reagan famously did not utter the word AIDS in public until 1987. He
did precious little to arrest the spread of HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS, in the early 1980s, and limited the amount of official resources
dedicated to what was perceived by his administration as an affliction
exclusively of the gay community.

Decision-making power

"If this was affecting straight men and women at the time, nobody
would have sat around," said Rene Durazzo, international program
director for the nonprofit San Francisco AIDS Foundation. "Reagan had
the power to make world- changing decisions. Because he failed to do
so, we lost hundreds of thousands of people."

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that nearly 1 million
Americans are now infected with HIV.

"We've spent billions of dollars because of the epidemic and faced
millions in lost productivity," Durazzo said. "All this could have
been minimized if the Reagan administration had just acted sooner."

Ronald Reagan is justifiably being praised this week for having
restored a sense of pride to Americans. This was a considerable
achievement.

But his legacy didn't end there. Reagan needs to be remembered as well
for his other deeds (or lack thereof). And, for posterity if nothing
else, he needs to be held accountable.

basskisser wrote:

I know, I know, all of you conservatives are too blinded to even KNOW
when you are duped by president who wasn't really that great.

You just couldn't be more wrong.

I don't like a lot of what Reagan did, and I consider
his political career to have ended in failure -
Iran-Contra - despite the very high approval ratings he
had from the public at the end of his term.

The greatness of a political leader is NOT determined
by whether or not you like the things he did.
Greatness is determined by measurable and lasting
impact he makes. Reagan was simply a giant.

This small statement in an analysis piece last Sunday
by Ronald Brownstein, the lead political writer for the
L.A. Times, explains why:

During the New Deal period ushered in by Roosevelt,
"the burden of proof was on those who tried to argue
that government should not act," said veteran
Democratic strategist Bill Galston. "But in the era
of Reagan, which I think we are still in, the burden
of proof is on those who think the government should
act. And if you bear the burden of proof, you have
the problem."

http://tinyurl.com/23vdq

I regard Reagan's achievement in shifting the burden of
proof as great for two reasons. First of all, it
really did happen, and he was almost singlehandedly
responsible for it. His statement in his first
inaugural address, "Government is not the solution to
our problem; government is the problem", galvanized the
supply-siders and other intellectuals, and absolutely
reversed, at the national level anyway, a 50 year
monopoly on opinion-making held by the
statist/collectivist heirs of FDR. It was a rout.

Secondly, I LIKE that result. I think it is great in a
*normative* sense, in addition to the factual sense.

You may disagree with me on the second; there is no
rational disputing of the first.

Let's look at a few of the specific things you don't
like about the Reagan legacy, as opposed to the
sea-change in attitude I've elaborated above.

"Runaway" deficits:

Your guy writes,

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can
lead to higher
interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing
costs and cause funding
to dry up for important social programs, such as
education and health
care.

Let's focus particularly on "cause funding to dry up
for important social programs, such as education and
health care." THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!!! That is
PRECISELY why they did it. I support that. I don't
think the government should BE in the business of
providing health care or education. Verdict: great
achievement.


Homelessness:

Reagan did not cause this. Your guy's statement that
mentally ill people had been released from state
hospitals "as a cost-cutting move" is a lie. The shift
in treatment mental defectives from state hospitals to
outpatient community centers began in the 1950s, and
became official federal policy in the adminstration of
"Saint" John Kennedy.


AIDS:

No defense required. People have AIDS as a direct and
easily avoidable result of deeply irresponsible
*choices* they make. Nothing similar can be said about
most forms of cancer, kidney failure, multiple
slerosis, muscular dystrophy, and most other ailments
on which federally funded research is done.

I'm not suggesting homosexuals and drug-abusers
"deserved" AIDS, but neither did the public "deserve"
to get saddled with billions of additional dollars of
taxes in order to research a disease that is EASILY
avoided. Or, are you and your guy suggesting that
money should have been shifted from research on breast
cancer, prostate cancer, MS, MD, Alzheimer's and other
diseases that DON'T result from personal choices, and
been spent on AIDS instead?

We all know the real reason your guy is upset:
homosexuals are one of the "darling" groups of liberals.


Economists make a distinction between "positive" and
"normative" economics. Positive refers to things that
are posited, while normative refers to what is believed
"ought" to be done according to norms of value. In
this positive sense, Reagan was one of the greatest
presidents of the 20th century. I personally believe
there were five objective greats: both Roosevelts,
Wilson, Johnson and Reagan. I would rank Reagan #2,
behind FDR. Normatively, I don't like much that FDR
did at all, but there is no disputing that he did it,
and changed the political landscape in fundamental,
enduring ways.

basskisser wrote:
I know, I know, all of you conservatives are too blinded to even KNOW
when you are duped by president who wasn't really that great. he was
good at ACTING like a president, practicing scripts for speeches for a
week before giving them. He ACTED as president exclusively. Anything
that went before the public was scripted, and practiced before hand.
Even his funeral is a well scripted act, 300 pages worth! But alas,
below is what Reagan REALLY did for our country:

David Lazarus
Wednesday, June 9, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ronald Reagan may have been a good and decent man.

As president, though, Reagan pursued policies that were short-sighted,
reckless and, for many, hurtful. His economic legacy is one of
deplorable disregard for the consequences of his actions, and the
ramifications of Reagan's decisions remain with us to this day.

I'll focus here on just three issues: soaring budget deficits,
homelessness and AIDS.

On the matter of deficits, Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the
amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it
spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent,
while aggressively increasing defense spending.

In 1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan lamented "runaway
deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent
of gross domestic product. Within only two years, however, his
policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200
billion, or 6 percent of GDP.

"It was an experiment," said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics
at UC Berkeley. "No one before Reagan had ever run such huge deficits
during peacetime. He showed that you could smile and tell everyone not
to worry and, politically, no one will call you to account."

This lesson clearly wasn't lost on the current occupant of the White
House, who has followed the Reagan economic playbook virtually step by
step in taking a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit this
year of more than $520 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP.

Runaway deficits

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can lead to higher
interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing costs and cause funding
to dry up for important social programs, such as education and health
care.

"It was up to the first President Bush, the loyal soldier, to clean up
the mess by raising taxes, and he didn't get re-elected because of
it," Auerbach observed. "Clinton also had to raise taxes because of
Reagan."

Over time, the Reagan deficit became the Clinton surplus. We may not
be as fortunate, though, in our efforts to sweep away the current Bush
deficit. The looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers, Auerbach
noted, will soon place a huge burden on government coffers.

"We recovered from the Reagan deficit because we were able to raise
taxes and cut spending," he said. "We won't be able to do a quick fix
this time because of the impending collapse of Social Security and
Medicare."

Homelessness, meanwhile, is something we definitely can do something
about -- and are, in the form of innovative programs like supportive
housing, which gets people off the streets and into the care they
require.

When homelessness first became a national issue, however, the Reagan
administration all but turned a blind eye to the problem. Federal
expenditures for low-cost housing plunged during Reagan's watch from
$32 billion in 1981 to just $7 billion in 1987.

At the same time, funding was slashed for a variety of social
services, including public health, drug rehab and food stamps --
programs that were relied upon by the thousands of mentally ill people
who'd been released from state facilities as a cost-cutting move.

Reagan was asked in a 1988 interview, shortly before Christmas, what
he thought of the homeless people sleeping just across the street from
the White House in Lafayette Park.

"There are always going to be people," he replied. "They make it their
own choice for staying out there."

A couple of years later, Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, commented on
her fear that she might be recognized by a homeless person while out
jogging.

"What would I say if I were asked why I didn't talk to my father, or
argue with him, about this national tragedy?" she wrote in Parade
magazine. "How do you argue with someone who states that the people
who are sleeping on the streets of America 'are homeless by choice?' "

Last but not least, AIDS. Reagan is not to blame for this horrific
epidemic, or for the high cost to the nation in terms of lost lives
and lost productivity. What he is responsible for is the government's
callous failure to respond to this crisis in a timely manner.

Reagan famously did not utter the word AIDS in public until 1987. He
did precious little to arrest the spread of HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS, in the early 1980s, and limited the amount of official resources
dedicated to what was perceived by his administration as an affliction
exclusively of the gay community.

Decision-making power

"If this was affecting straight men and women at the time, nobody
would have sat around," said Rene Durazzo, international program
director for the nonprofit San Francisco AIDS Foundation. "Reagan had
the power to make world- changing decisions. Because he failed to do
so, we lost hundreds of thousands of people."

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that nearly 1 million
Americans are now infected with HIV.

"We've spent billions of dollars because of the epidemic and faced
millions in lost productivity," Durazzo said. "All this could have
been minimized if the Reagan administration had just acted sooner."

Ronald Reagan is justifiably being praised this week for having
restored a sense of pride to Americans. This was a considerable
achievement.

But his legacy didn't end there. Reagan needs to be remembered as well
for his other deeds (or lack thereof). And, for posterity if nothing
else, he needs to be held accountable.

Different people have different opinions about the life of
Ronald Reagan
- but there's one think I think everyone agrees on.

America will be forever in his debt.

Last but not least, AIDS. Reagan is not to blame for this horrific
epidemic, or for the high cost to the nation in terms of lost lives
and lost productivity. What he is responsible for is the government's
callous failure to respond to this crisis in a timely manner.

AIDS should have been treated (locally) like a STD. If that had been done
the spread of the disease would have been slowed and hundred of thousands
would be alive today. Politics reared it's ugley head because Gays were the
primary infection vector and you would be a homophobe if you were to treat
it like any other STD.

"If this was affecting straight men and women at the time, nobody
would have sat around," said Rene Durazzo, international program
director for the nonprofit San Francisco AIDS Foundation. "Reagan had
the power to make world- changing decisions. Because he failed to do
so, we lost hundreds of thousands of people."

If it were infecting Straights the Public health officials would have
followed up on infections and quarantined those who behaved irresponsibly.
They couldn't do this with Gays.

SNIP
there were five objective greats: both Roosevelts,
Wilson, Johnson and Reagan. I would rank Reagan #2,
behind FDR. Normatively, I don't like much that FDR
did at all, but there is no disputing that he did it,
and changed the political landscape in fundamental,
enduring ways.
SNIP

This last comment speaks volumes about the true character of Conservatives
in this country- They give FDR his due- or any other Commander-In-Chief for
that matter, Democrat or Republican- because of a sense of decency, honesty,
and fair play. I don't hear any of that coming from the Left. They are
conspicuous in their silence, and a few of them have the audacity to mock
and ridicule a man who dedicated his life to this country, and the world, at
the hour of his death.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


Last but not least, AIDS. Reagan is not to blame for this horrific
epidemic, or for the high cost to the nation in terms of lost lives
and lost productivity. What he is responsible for is the government's
callous failure to respond to this crisis in a timely manner.

AIDS should have been treated (locally) like a STD. If that had been done
the spread of the disease would have been slowed and hundred of thousands
would be alive today. Politics reared it's ugley head because Gays were
the
primary infection vector and you would be a homophobe if you were to treat
it like any other STD.

"If this was affecting straight men and women at the time, nobody
would have sat around," said Rene Durazzo, international program
director for the nonprofit San Francisco AIDS Foundation. "Reagan had
the power to make world- changing decisions. Because he failed to do
so, we lost hundreds of thousands of people."

If it were infecting Straights the Public health officials would have
followed up on infections and quarantined those who behaved irresponsibly.
They couldn't do this with Gays.

Can you imagine what the outcry would have been like if they would have
tried to quarantine gays that were infected, or closed down the bath houses
that were spreading it so rapidly. AIDS is mostyl tranmitted through
behavior, and there is no way the gay community would have let their
behavior be modified by law.

SNIP
there were five objective greats: both Roosevelts,
Wilson, Johnson and Reagan. I would rank Reagan #2,
behind FDR. Normatively, I don't like much that FDR
did at all, but there is no disputing that he did it,
and changed the political landscape in fundamental,
enduring ways.
SNIP

I can't imagine any serious person putting LBJ on a list of great
Presidents. Wilson is a bit of a stretch too.

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
This last comment speaks volumes about the true character of Conservatives
in this country- They give FDR his due-

Oh? I guess that means the legion of Republicans who regard FDR as a
traitor and sneer that the New Deal "failed" aren't really conservatives?

DSK

"****tard" wrote in message news:evHxc.7966

You just couldn't be more wrong.


I dislike intensely the aggressive, vulgar writing style you have otherwise
employed over the past several days, but with what you have written above I
concur fully.

They give FDR his due- or any other Commander-In-Chief for
that matter, Democrat or Republican- because of a sense of decency, honesty,
and fair play. I don't hear any of that coming from the Left.

Because you don't listen to the left, Barthfarkle. You listen to the right tell
you what they want you to think the left is saying, or not saying.

Many liberals have acknowledged that Reagan was a great American, (some even
right here in this NG). Again I say, if you're not hearing the left, it is
because you are not listening.

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

SNIP

there were five objective greats: both Roosevelts,
Wilson, Johnson and Reagan. I would rank Reagan #2,
behind FDR. Normatively, I don't like much that FDR
did at all, but there is no disputing that he did it,
and changed the political landscape in fundamental,
enduring ways.

SNIP

This last comment speaks volumes about the true character of Conservatives

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian.

in this country- They give FDR his due-

Oh, come off it! FDR was as vilified by the right, in
his day and for some years after his death, as Reagan
has been by the left.

or any other Commander-In-Chief for
that matter, Democrat or Republican- because of a sense of decency, honesty,
and fair play.

Excuse me?! You think hard-ass, troglodyte
conservatives give Clinton and Carter any respect at
all? I didn't particularly care for either one of
them, although I believe history will be far kinder in
the long run to Clinton than he has been treated so
far, but both of them were duly elected presidents, and
both of them are the objects of absolutely irrational
hatred by conservatives. No, conservatives do NOT give
Carter and Clinton the respect that a former duly
elected president is due.

I don't hear any of that coming from the Left. They are
conspicuous in their silence, and a few of them have the audacity to mock
and ridicule a man who dedicated his life to this country, and the world, at
the hour of his death.

Where have you seen anything like "mockery" coming from
mainstream liberal pundits and opinion makers? The
****witted comment appearing here by some guy calling
Reagan a "pig" is hardly representative.