Reagan $50: Most say keep the change

As much as I liked Ronald Reagan and believe he possibly was the best Presidents in the post World War II years if not the 20th century, I favor keeping Ulysses S Grant on the $50.00 bill. Although the Grant Administration was not that good and full of scandals, he was one of America's greatest generals and played a major role in the Civil War. Grant should continue to be honored on the 50 Dollar Bill.

If Ronnie Raygun were to be displayed on the $50 bill, that would be the queerest bill, in American history. It would be even queerer than a $3 bill !!
For all those who got their scivvies in a bunch, " queer " meant something else, before it became an insult to homosexuals, a context which I always avoid.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I could see putting FDR on a bill, or Mt. Rushmore, but otherwise, Ben should stay put.

"Yawning partisan divide" or yawning etching of Reagan before his 3 pm nap?

As the legend goes, when Lincoln was told General Grant, one of his few successful officers at the time, was fond of drink, he requested that they find out what he was drinking and distribute some to the rest of his generals. Best presidential autobiography too -- ghostwritten by Mark Twain. US Grant should stay on the bill.

We should name the Deficit after Saint Ronny Raygun. He was the one who started this country down the path of massive deficit spending and billions in tax dollar give aways to the Military Industrial Complex.

The Ronald Reagan Memorial US Deficit:
.
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/business/files/2008/11/us-budget-deficits.JPG
.

"As much as I liked Ronald Reagan and believe he possibly was the best Presidents in the post World War II years if not the 20th century. . ."

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

I disagree. How can a President that put us into debt be the greatest President post WWII? Didn't he coin "borrow and spend?" I would prefer LBJ. He got a lot of civil rights bill passed and changed America, for the better.

No, No and No!

Reagan, with his extreme anti-government, anti-tax ideology and his "politics as corporate marketing", led to the destruction of the American middle class and the destruction of the economy. He was anti-union, anti-intellectual, anti-environment ... he was a complete disaster, rivaled only by baby-Bush.

And don't even start with the claim that he "brought down" the Berlin Wall. The Soviet Union was collapsing from inside and he happened to be walking by when it fell.

Ronnie Raygun belongs on the ash heap of history, not on a $50 bill.

I disagree. How can a President that put us into debt be the greatest President post WWII? Didn't he coin "borrow and spend?" I would prefer LBJ. He got a lot of civil rights bill passed and changed America, for the better.

Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | April 22, 2010 2:42 PM

Ratings of Presidents by historians seem to go up and down like a college football poll. As a historian myself I believe it is way too early to rate any of the Presidents over the past 30 to 40 years. We still do not know how some of their polices and decisions play out in the long run, and many of us that actually lived through that particular era have personal feelings for individual Presidents that affect how we rate them. And some Presidents are marked by events that occurred during their administrations such as Vietnam with LBJ, Watergate and resignation from office by Nixon, and scandals and impeachment with Clinton. Those events cover up some of the good things that happened during their administrations. For example LBJ pushed through a lot of legislation including landmark Civil Rights legislation, Nixon opened up relations with Mainland China and Clinton presided over prosperous economic times. But to truly rate how good or bad any of those Presidents (LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger actually were is almost impossible at this stage of the game. And I did not mention Obama because he has not even served half of his first term and no one really knows what successes and failed policies will come from his administration. It is just too early to even try to rate Obama. A good example of how historians rate individual presidents is that of Truman and Eisenhower. Both were not ranked high by historians at the time they left office but now historians believe their Administrations were successful, especially that of Truman.

“I disagree. How can a President that put us into debt be the greatest President post WWII? Didn't he coin "borrow and spend?" I would prefer LBJ. He got a lot of civil rights bill passed and changed America, for the better.”
.
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | April 22, 2010 2:42 PM
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

If you are old enough to have lived through that era as an adult, you would understand why Reagan was such a great president, and why he spent all that money.
.
If you were too young to know, you forgot, or you refuse to learn, allow me to tell you why. We spent all that money, and particularly on military stuff, in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union and force them to a choice between bullets or butter. That was the explicit reason behind the budget imbalance, and everyone knew it at the time. Why it has been forgotten in the interim is a bit of a mystery. (Selective memory I guess.) This build up was our chance to end the Cold War - and it worked. I sleep a lot better now, knowing that tomorrow is unlikely to bring a nuclear holocaust while having my cream of wheat. I also feel a lot better knowing that the effort FREED hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe from the yoke and slavery of communism. (That, in the words of the commercial, was PRICELESS.)
.
And how much did Reagan add to the debt? When Reagan took office, the national debt was $934 billion. When he left office EIGHT YEARS LATER, it was $2.697 trillion. In other words, he added $1.763 trillion to the debt (which, in relative terms, isn’t that much more than the $1.573 trillion Obama added to the debt in his FIRST YEAR.) Remember, also, that tax revenues dropped during Reagan’s two terms.
.
Consider also that the debt increased every year Bill Clinton was in office. He added $1.54 trillion to the debt, despite increased tax revenues. His so-called “surplus” was basically an accounting trick. Furthermore, unlike Reagan, Clinton wasn’t President in a Cold War. Obama isn’t either. Thus, neither have had any legitimate national defense excuse for such extraordinary spending.
.
Not only did Reagan have the resolve and huevos to get the job done, he inspired us to believe that we could make the world safer and freer. And it happened.
.
And you would really prefer that war-monger Johnson to Reagan? Johnson who turned Vietnam into an all-out shooting war? The operation in Grenada and the peace keeping mission in Beirut represented the total extent of Reagan’s deployment of U.S. forces in hostile operations (and the peace-keeping mission wasn’t supposed to be hostile). Those pale in comparison to the blood and treasure Johnson squandered in Vietnam.
.
And, yes, Johnson got bills passed: like the Medicare bill. Medicare is on the cusp of bankruptcy because it was designed with a flaw (much like the one in Social Security). It is going to help bankrupt the country because of the obligations that will come due shortly. This is problem endemic to Democrat entitlement programs: they are designed with flaws that nobody cares about in the short term, but end up killing us in the long term. (Just wait and see if Obamacare doesn’t do the same.) Yeah, great stuff.

Reagan instead of Grant would be OK. Reagan instead of Andrew Jackson on the $20 - now that would be great!

As someone with Cherokee ancestry, the Democratic President who launched the "Trail of Tears" is not a favorite.

But the Republican President who demanded the destruction of the Berlin Wall is definitely a favorite.

* * * * *
Posted by: HHH | April 22, 2010 1:38 PM
.
I don’t know where you got the graph from, but it is false. The budgets of every President since Dwight D. Eisenhower have added to the debt - including Clinton’s. Then again, I am not surprised that you would feature such a blatantly false piece of propaganda. The truth or falsity of a statement doesn’t matter to you as long as whatever is said reflects poorly on your adversary.

What would TeaBaggers be saying if President Obama sold dangerous weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages or withdrew from Beirut after a Marin barracks was bombed? They say they aren't racists so does that mean they would take a big gulp of KoolAid and call President Obama tough on terror and cheer him and celebrate him????

"If you were too young to know, you forgot, or you refuse to learn, allow me to tell you why. We spent all that money, and particularly on military stuff, in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union and force them to a choice between bullets or butter. . ."

-----------------------------------
You are correct. I am not interested in learning that "failed" policy from Reagan. Who in the right mind would want to institute a "borrow and spend" policy on expensive military toys. That is the same ridiculous policy that "no non-sense" countries like North Korea already have right now. I don't see them as an advance culture. Just bullies around the block. Beside, Reagan didn't bankrupt the Soviet Union. That is a myth that Republicans love to play over and over. Learners of History already know that there were two components to the collapse of the Soviet Union:

1. The Afghanistan War which drained the Soviet's Treasury- which has nothing to do with Reagan's spending on military toys. If you were speaking of Star War- it was a failed attempt because the technology wasn't advance enough at the time. They canned that program! In matter of fact, the Afghanistan War was credited to a Democrat- " U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) who partnered with 'bare knuckle attitude' CIA operative Gust Avrakotos to launch Operation Cyclone, a program to organize and support the Afghan mujahideen in their resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."- source Wiki.

2. The Soviet had no innovation due to its political structure- Communism. In the 1980's, the computer industry was growing leaps and bound! The Soviet,only, had toilet paper that felt like paper (just my sarcasm)!
--------------------------------------

"...Not only did Reagan have the resolve and huevos to get the job done, he inspired us to believe that we could make the world safer and freer. And it happened...."

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

Inspired you to believe- indeed, even your false sense of security has made you think we are safer. Indeed, Bin Laden is using the same strategy against us- we spend ourselves into oblivion! Anyway, the Soviet had about 3,000 nukes in 1980. They have about the same amount of nukes today, take or minus a few hundreds. America had about 2,000 nukes in 1980. Today, we have about the same plus or minus a few hundreds. I see where you get your false sense of security from- a complete failure to understand our weakness. . .
-------------------------------------

"...Consider also that the debt increased every year Bill Clinton was in office. He added $1.54 trillion to the debt, despite increased tax revenues. His so-called “surplus” was basically an accounting trick. Furthermore, unlike Reagan, Clinton wasn’t President in a Cold War. Obama isn’t either. Thus, neither have had any legitimate national defense excuse for such extraordinary spending."

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

Once again, you have no understanding of your weakness. If the Soviet Empire can fall because of a little war in Afghanistan, what makes you think that We would fare better? Bush already bit the bait! We have already spend ourselves into oblivion. . .Next!

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

" And you would really prefer that war-monger Johnson to Reagan? Johnson who turned Vietnam into an all-out shooting war? The operation in Grenada and the peace keeping mission in Beirut represented the total extent of Reagan’s deployment of U.S. forces in hostile operations.."
-------------------------------

I'm not sure what your point is here? You seem to think war is a game. Is one war worth more fighting for than others? The truth is: no war is worth fighting for; since, the beginning of time, people are only force to fight because of the few on top who wants to control the world. Since you are older than me, perhaps you can elaborate why Oliver North had to testify in Congress? Wasn't he like selling weapons to Iran to fund a secret war in Nicaragua? But how can such a lowly Colonel have so much authority that he can trade with Iran? Please tell the rest of us. . .we would like to know how he got his hands on some of those spare parts for the F-14's- which was in service with the Iranian Air Force at the time. And, we don't know how many people died in Nicaragua. . .too many tombs of the unknown. If you have more information, we would like to write "History" correctly so that our children can learn from it.
-----------------------------------

"...And, yes, Johnson got bills passed: like the Medicare bill. Medicare is on the cusp of bankruptcy because it was designed with a flaw (much like the one in Social Security)."

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

1. We already know why Medicare and Social Security is insolvent. If we follow the money- the flaw is that all past and present administrations (including Republican and Democrat) have been dipping into the fund when they are forbidden to. One hand here..and one hand there into the cookie jar. How much cookies do you think will be left? Because, Social Security not only funds benefits but it funds government spending; such as wars, freebies to corporation, tax breaks, & various programs. So, your flaw is baseless since Social Security also funds everything else besides benefits! And, then all the sudden! The politicians have the nerve to play "we are bankrupt!"

2. Secondly, just try taking 30-40 million American Senior's Medicare away. . .I dare you! You will see pitch forks from the shores of New York city to the shores of San Fransico! Senior Citizens are feared by all Politicians- because they actually go vote in their wheelchairs!

Having said that- of course, I think Ronald Reagan is a likable person. But did he do anything that drastically changed America for the better? Nope! Not in my book. . .

* * * * *
Posted by: strain to use your brain | April 22, 2010 5:33 PM
.
You may be straining, but you are failing too.
.
Do you have any idea to whom weapons were sold, and what weapons were involved? Do you even realize why Marines (not Marins) were in Beirut when the barracks were attacked? It doesn’t sound like you know any of this stuff. Educate yourself and then see if you still feel like flinging the same crap, will ya?

This build up was our chance to end the Cold War - and it worked. I sleep a lot better now, knowing that tomorrow is unlikely to bring a nuclear holocaust while having my cream of wheat.

Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2010 5:58 AM

Oh really? You feel safer now that all of those nukes controlled by the old Soviet Union is now being controlled by many rogue countries? Ready and willing to sell those nukes to the highest bidder! Chances of a nuclear attack are much higher now then they were during the cold war! Ending the cold war was possibly the biggest mistake The US has ever made in respect to nuclear security!

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | April 23, 2010 12:06 PM
.
Scot,
.
I respectfully suggest that you have been reading too many Tom Clancy books, or more likely watching too many of the movies based on the same (e.g. “The Sum of All Fears.”) The idea that we are less safe from nuclear attack following the end of the Cold War, or that “[e]nding the cold war was possibly the biggest mistake [t]he US has ever made in respect to nuclear security” is insanity; it’s sheer paranoia.
.
Give me one documented case (and I stress “documented”) that reflects that “all of those nukes controlled by the old Soviet Union is (sic) now being controlled by many rogue countries … [r]eady and willing to sell … [them] to the highest bidder” as you claim. If you can, and I seriously doubt that you can, I might agree with you to some degree. Do you seriously doubt that terrorists wouldn’t have already purchased and deployed a nuke if they were for sale “to the highest bidder”? Do you think terrorists lack the funds? I hate to tell you this, but the one thing they do have is a lot of money.

* * * * *
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | April 22, 2010 10:24 PM
.
Your response reads like a child screaming “La La La La La. I’m not listening” and holding his fingers in his ears, when being told to do something by an adult.
.
1. You are incorrect in asserting that Reagan’s policies didn’t help to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yes, the Soviet Union was headed toward bankruptcy due to its own foreign wars and institutional failures, as you claim. However, the Soviet Union arrived at the state of insolvency a lot faster as a result of U.S. policy than it would have if left to its own devices. It is a fact that, as a direct result of U.S. policy, the Soviet Union spent more money and effort on developing its military might - to the detriment of its own citizens’ need for food and goods. And, had Yuri Andropov or some similar ogre retained power, Reagan’s efforts might not have come to fruition as soon as they did. However, his policies worked precisely because reasonable minds were in charge in the former Soviet Union. See http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/ In which case, Reagan’s policies were capable of bringing about change.
.
2. I suffer from no false sense of security as you claim. The number of nuclear weapons in the world does not determine the question of security. There will always be nuclear weapons until everyone forgets the recipe for the Bomb. That’s not going to happen. We have to accept that the existence of nuclear weapons is, and will remain, a constant factor with which we must live. Security exists (or doesn’t) depending on the number of nuclear nations willing to use their weapons against us. The end of the Cold War meant that the country with the second biggest stockpile of nukes was not willing to nuke us. They still aren’t. Despite growing animosity between the U.S. and Russia, the latter still understands that nuclear war with the U.S. is a no-win situation. They have so much more to lose there now that their economy and standard of living has improved. Thus, I stand by my prior statement that we are much safer, as is the world in general, because of the end of the Cold War.
.
3. We have yet to spend a $1 trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least little more than that). In which case, we have hardly squandered our national wealth on these wars as you claim. We are nowhere near the problem the former Soviet Union had in keeping up its war in Afghanistan. Your contrary assertion is delusional. Next!
.
4. I do not think “war is a game” as you assert. You indicated your preference for Johnson, and I pointed out that he was a distasteful choice because of his warmongering. That was an expression of my distaste for war. How does that make it sound like war is a game?
.
5. With regard to Colonel North’s escapades, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair . In it you will see that Reagan didn’t authorize the sale of weapons directly to the government of Iran, or the transfer of funds to the contras. What is stated in the article is consistent with Reagan’s testimony in the Iran-contra prosecutions. Thus, Ollie North’s activities were entirely rogue behavior.
.
Furthermore, you are incorrect in suggesting that F-14 parts were sold to factions within Iran. Iran never had F-14s. The last fighters sold to Iran (under the Shah) were the F-4s which had much less speed and capability than the F-14s. And we didn’t even sell them F-4 parts. What got sold to parties within Iran were TOW anti-tank missiles (effective up to about 4,500 meters) and 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles (with a range of about 22-23 miles) for Iran’s use in its war against an invading Iraq.
.
6. You are completely wrong about the problems with Medicare and Social Security. It wasn’t a question of some ill-bent Democrats or Republicans dipping into the cookie jar. The programs were both designed NOT to accumulate funds. The law has always required that both programs convert any funds in excess of what is needed pay current debts into bonds (i.e. debt instruments) and to transfer the accumulated funds to the general fund for Congress’ use in other matters. In other words, those programs lack funds by design. As a result, those bonds must be redeemed by future tax payments - meaning we get to pay for the programs twice. And, furthermore, the planners seem to have underestimated the demand on these programs, meaning that, even apart from the lack of savings, the programs are incapable of responding to all the obligations that are soon to come due. There won’t be a question of “taking away” these programs. They will simply collapse from their own birth defects. Either that, or they will take us down with them from the many trillions of dollars in obligations coming due.

What is stated in the article is consistent with Reagan’s testimony in the Iran-contra prosecutions.

Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2010 2:55 PM

Are you referring to "I don't recall"?
I watched every second of those hearings and hardly believe -as you do - that North went roque. There is no question in my mind and anyone else who has one that Reagan knew exactly what was going on. PahLease spare us the rhetoric.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | April 23, 2010 3:36 PM
.
Hey Scot,
.
You can believe anything you want to believe. However, to believe that Reagan knew and approved of the whole ball of wax, you have to believe Ollie North. There is no other evidence of Reagan’s knowledge or approval of the illegal transfer of the sale proceeds to the Contras (which was the ONLY illegal part of the deal). So, do you really believe Ollie North? The jury didn’t believe him. They convicted him (although it was later thrown out by the Court of Appeals). It seems as though you’ve adopted the most untenable position of all.

1. ...Your response reads like a child screaming “La La La La La. I’m not listening” and holding his fingers in his ears, when being told to do something by an adult.

---------------------------------
This is a blog. If you are going to post, then you should be aware that people will express different point of views that doesn't reflect your convictions. If Reagan is your Hero, then more power to you. He's a nice guy but he is just not my Hero. And, I don't think he should be on the $50. We have differences. . .that's good in a free society.
----------------------------------------

2. " We have yet to spend a $1 trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least little more than that). In which case, we have hardly squandered our national wealth on these wars as you claim. We are nowhere near the problem the former Soviet Union had in keeping up its war in Afghanistan. Your contrary assertion is delusional. Next!"
----------------------------------

Next? Hahahaha. . get back in line, who said the wars were over? Wow, you are so delusional that you don't even know the Iraq War and Afghan War is not over yet. Isn't it in its 9th year and counting. . . .I assume you must have stop counting when you saw the "Mission Accomplish" banner. That's exactly what Moscow did! They stop counting. . .and it slowly progress to...7, 8...9..10 years, Happy Anniversary!
----------------------

3. "The end of the Cold War meant that the country with the second biggest stockpile of nukes was not willing to nuke us. They still aren’t."
-------------------

Exactly! Before or after the Cold War, they were never willing to nuke us anyway. It was all bluff! Because, we had the same nukes. So, it's irrelevant. Nuclear is obsolete anyway. The only thing we have to do is keep it away from terrorists. Laser beam is so much faster- it'll stop the missile dead in its track. Whoever owns space, owns the sky. . .keeping stockpiles of nukes will no longer save you in the future.
---------------------------------

4. "....Iran never had F-14s. The last fighters sold to Iran (under the Shah) were the F-4s which had much less speed and capability than the F-14s. "
--------------------------------------
Silly...there were 79 F-14's in the Iran Air Force. They were purchased prior to the toppling of Iranian Shah. Here is a source: "...according to Cooper, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force was able to keep its F-14 fighters and AIM-54 missiles in regular use during the whole of the Iran–Iraq - source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#Iranian_combat_experiences_with_the_AIM-54_Phoenix

---------------------------------
5. "Thus, Ollie North’s activities were entirely rogue behavior."
------------------------------------

Hahahaha! So. . .one man managed to carry a TOW missile on his back. . .tie it to a mule, go through high security checkpoints, have the guards sign off, put it on a plane, instructs the pilot to land his cargo in Iran without filing a flight path, and sells it. Then, uses the money to fund the Contra instead of pocketing it. Wow ...that is an amazing feat! Are you sure he didn't have help? Or, "I don't recall" either. . .???

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

6. "...funds in excess" blah..blah..blah. . ."The programs were both designed NOT to accumulate funds..."

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

So other words, you point out there were excess fund (social security actually works). . .but that the politicians spent it on pork projects. Thanks, I can always count on you to point out the truth!

"Do you seriously doubt that terrorists wouldn’t have already purchased and deployed a nuke if they were for sale “to the highest bidder”? Do you think terrorists lack the funds? I hate to tell you this, but the one thing they do have is a lot of money.
Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2010 1:33 PM"
-----------------------------------

You must mean North Korea because a major part of their economy is selling weapons around the world. So, it's very possible but not related to the Soviet collapse, or rogue states.

Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2010 8:12 PM

Ya whatever! Reagan kissed OBL and Saddams asses, trained them, supplied them with weapons and biological information and WOW look where that got us today! You're a moron man!

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | April 24, 2010 7:25 PM
.
Scot,
.
As usual, you display profound ignorance.
.
Military and moral support for Saddam Hussein did not begin with Reagan. It began with Carter. Carter embraced Hussein as a counterbalance to the Islamic revolutionary forces that had been holding American hostages since the downfall of Shah Reza Pahlavi. The ‘Hostage Crisis’ had dogged Carter during the second half of his term.
.
And, you know what? Carter’s embrace of Hussein was a good thing. We had no diplomatic relations with Iran. We had to deal with them and bring pressure to bear against them indirectly. Hussein’s Iraq presented an existential threat to Iran which kept it from spreading radical Islam or extending hegemony across the Arabic-Islamic world. Furthermore, our greatest support for Iraq came in 1982 and later, when Iraq was on the defensive in the war and it looked like it might lose. The U.S. determined that an Iraqi loss to Iran would not have been in our best interests; and I don’t think you can reasonably argue that this determination was wrong.
.
On an entirely different level, alliance with Hussein was not only desirable, but necessary as well, in our Cold War with the Soviet Union. Much of that Cold War was conducted in regional conflicts around the world. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and had threatened to do the same with Iran. As crazy as it may seem, we actually warned the Soviet Union to stay out of Iran - or we would defend it. Hussein was anti-communist, which, in a manner consistent with the foreign policies of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, was sufficient in itself to warrant our support. Our support of tyrants during the Cold War was common, even during Democrat administrations. (E.g. Support for the Shah, the Somozas in Nicaragua, and Diem in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations are just a few examples of this.)
.
Thus, when Reagan embraced Hussein, he was merely continuing Carter’s good idea. The U.S. continued to have some need to pressure Iran with regard to hostages because Hezbollah (an Iranian satellite group) kept stealing Americans in the Middle East. We also had a need to keep the Soviet Union and its allies from developing strong ties to the region.
.
All of the above (BTW) was one of the reasons it was STUPID for George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Once we toppled Saddam Hussein, we had no regional bully on the block to check the hegemonic and expansionary aspirations of the Iran. You might have even noticed that all of Iran’s saber rattling and nuclear program didn’t start in earnest until Saddam’s regime fell. Now we have a larger existential threat from Iran to the region, to our allies there, and to the U.S. itself. A number of the Arab countries in the region are now demanding (and seeking) nuclear weapons to hedge against Iranian advances there. You have to know that can’t be good.
.
In short, Carter’s and Reagan’s foreign policies regarding Hussein were smart. Bush was the dummy. Thus, there is (and never has been) a good reason to criticize Reagan for his support of Hussein at the time. You are simply wrong on this point.
.
Much the above is true and applicable to our support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan (in which Osama Bin Laden participated). We supported them because they served well as our boots on the ground in the fight against Soviet expansion in the region.
.
Furthermore, at the time we supported them, there was no good reason to foresee that any of the Mujahedeen, or Osama Bin Laden in particular, would turn against us. Their hostile attitude toward us didn’t happen until after the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan and Reagan left office. In fact, they didn’t turn against the U.S. until the U.S. (a heathen nation in their eyes) began to station American troops in Islamic countries. The latter is an abomination in their eyes, and was one of the stated reasons they hated us; that, and the fact that our military presence in the gulf kept the present Saudi royalty safe from overthrow by Islamic radicals.
.
There you have it (again), Scot. Your reasons for criticizing Reagan are rubbish (you Moron).

Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | April 23, 2010 8:25 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. *****
I’m glad I got your attention.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2. *****
Our forces are not actively deployed in Iraq as they used to be, and they are scheduled to be out of country by next year. How much more money do you think we are going to spend on the war there when it is virtually over? How much longer do you think we will be in Afghanistan? That is why I said we haven’t squandered our national wealth on these wars, and why we are not likely to do so. Heck, Obama has spent more in his first year in office than we are likely to spend in either Afghanistan or Iraq or in both places combined. You are the one who has blown the expense out of proportion to reality.
.
And don’t push that “Mission Accomplished” crap in my face. Your assumption is wrong. I was against that war from the outset. I thought it was a very foolish maneuver. (See my latest response to Scot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. *****
You are wrong about our adversaries’ willingness to use nukes. They were willing to use nukes against us during the Cold War. Boris Yeltsin actually indicated that places in the United States were had been targeted for nuclear strikes in the event of a nuclear exchange (started from either side). Furthermore, given the limited resources in the Soviet Union, can you say with certainty that the Soviets would have built as many ICBMs with nuclear warheads if they had no resolve to use them? I think it’s foolish for anyone to assume such a thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4. *****
I stand corrected on the F-14s. However, the arms’ sales to Iran did not involve spare parts for any aircraft. The sales included 18 Hawk surface to air missiles, somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 TOW anti-tank missiles and some parts for the Hawk missiles. And that was it.
---------------------------------
5. "Thus, Ollie North’s activities were entirely rogue behavior."
------------------------------------
Hahahaha!
*****
You don’t understand what went on. Ollie North was in the loop regarding the sales of weapons to Iran, but that was not his operation. That was handled by Seacord and Poindexter. Ollie North’s sphere of operation was to supply funds and material to the Contras. It was North’s idea to shunt money from the sales of arms to Iran (or, more correctly, Iranian factions). The diversion of that money was not contemplated in the original plan. It was an afterthought by North and his arms dealing buddies that was neither known by Reagan, nor approved by him. In which case, it was rogue behavior. THAT is what was consistent with Reagan’s testimony. Reagan testified affirmatively that he did not know of the transfer of funds from the Swiss bank accounts (into which the funds from the arms sales went) to the Contras, and that he did not authorize the transfer. There was no “I don’t remember” about it.
.
And, besides, even Mr. Walsh, the special prosecutor for Iran-Contra, pointed out that it was debatable whether the arms sales to Iran violated any law. It was against American foreign policy to sell arms to Iran, but there is a difference between violating foreign policy and committing a crime. No one was indicted for the sales of arms to Iran. The defendants were all indicted for the transfer of federal government funds to the Contras (in violation of the Boland amendment), for obstruction of justice for shredding papers, for lying to Congress, and/or for taking gratuities. Thus, the only genuinely criminal behavior involved in the matter was, in fact, North’s rogue behavior.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. …
* * * *
So other words, you point out there were excess fund (social security actually works). . .but that the politicians spent it on pork projects. Thanks, I can always count on you to point out the truth!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No, you’re not even warm. There are no excess funds, and Social Security does not work. Money is needed to pay future claims. It should have been set aside for that purpose. Instead, because of the law, the money was shunted to the general fund. That wasn’t because Congress was dipping into the cookie jar to pay for pork. The law put that money on Congress’ plate. That’s what’s wrong with it.
.
Now all that money is gone. Soon, the amount paid into Social Security by existing workers will not be sufficient to pay existing claims. Even retiring the bonds from taxes won’t be able to pay all the claims. As a result, Social Security will go broke from obligations to pay trillions of dollars as baby boomers continue to retire. A few weeks ago, Ben Bernanke said that Social Security taxes (or taxes in general) will have to be raised, benefits will have to be cut, or the retirement age will have to be raised, just to keep the Social Security program afloat a while longer. If a private business were run in the same fashion, we would call it a failure. Under these circumstances, I don’t see how you can say that Social Security works.

Johnny W you just love to hear yourself babble on dont you. Whatever. Reagan was a moron, Bush was a moron and well...

" How much more money do you think we are going to spend on the war there when it is virtually over? How much longer do you think we will be in Afghanistan? . . ."
--------------------------------------

Virtually over? Shaking my head. . .didn't we just sent 30,000 troops to Afghan to fight 1 million Talibans? This war is going to last a long time. There are only two options: either we pull out or we kill everyone of them. That's going to take a long time! But, nevermind, it's pointless to argue with you.. . There is no sense of reality.