You have been brainwashed and lied to by liberal left mainstream
media!
---
about what?
wasn't he surrounded by neocons?
didn't he trade arms for hostages?
didn't he lie about it then admit it?
wasn't he mentally unfit for the job?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIqRnLQ2GCY
On Jul 24, 12:04 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plain Ol, Plain Ol, Plain Ol,
>
> You have been brainwashed and lied to by liberal left mainstream media!
>
> This is an interesting article, especially about the supply side economics
> being a dismal failure in combatting offshoring of American Jobs. I
> agree. We need to repeal portions of NAFTA, and all of these other bull
> hockey purportedly free trade agreements that are so one sided.
>
> This gets into the whole "Tariff" situation to make things equal. I am
> not saying that I condone such policies, but I do think there has to be an
> equalizer, and/or defund these one sided treaties.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Reagan opposed war as an instrument of American hegemony. It is the
> > neoconservatives who use war to achieve hegemony. Reagan was not a
> > neoconservative.
> > ---
> > yet his decisions were controlled by neocons, as were the decisions of
> > Bush I&II, Clinton, and O.
>
> > Some will never forget that Reagan negotiated with and funded
> > terrorists and then lied to Americans about it.
>
> > The worms have had their fill.
>
> > On Jul 24, 8:20 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The Cost of the Left-wing's Ongoing Vendetta Against ReaganMonday, July
> > 23, 2012
> > > by Paul Craig Roberts
> > > What causes some people to feel compelled to make uninformed digs at
> > President Reagan? Is it just that they are brainwashed or, if they are
> > thoughtful people, just too involved with other matters to be well informed
> > about Reagan? How many of the digs at Reagan are deflective activity by
> > Clinton/Bush/Cheney/Obama shills diverting attention from the real causes
> > of our woes?
> > > Reagan and his administration are not above criticism, but Reagan most
> > certainly is not to blame for the financial crisis or for the
> > neoconservative wars for American hegemony.
> > > The Reagan administration's interventions in Grenada and Nicaragua were
> > not, as is sometimes claimed, precursors to Clinton's war on Serbia and the
> > Bush and Obama wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, with more
> > waiting in the wings. Reagan saw his interventions in the context of the
> > Monroe Doctrine, not as an opening bid for world hegemony.
> > > The purpose of Reagan's interventions was to convince the Soviets that
> > there would be no more territorial gains for communism. The interventions
> > were part of Reagan's strategy of bringing the Soviets to the table to
> > negotiate the end of the cold war. Reagan believed that getting the Soviets
> > to negotiate would be more difficult if they were still making territorial
> > gains or gains that the Soviets might perceive in that way. Possibly,
> > Reagan's advisers were wrong to put a Marxist interpretation on political
> > events in Grenada and Nicaragua, but that is the way Reagan understood them.
> > > When Reagan understood what the Israelis had lured him into in Lebanon,
> > he pulled out. Reagan opposed war as an instrument of American hegemony. It
> > is the neoconservatives who use war to achieve hegemony. Reagan was not a
> > neoconservative.
> > > The left-wing is more interested to blame Reagan for the financial
> > crisis than to understand the crisis. The left-wing accuses Reagan of
> > deregulating the financial system and of setting up a "Plunge Protection
> > Team" to rig financial markets.
> > > I have found that giving people information that they do not want to
> > hear is a frustrating experience. Heaven forbid that anyone would have to
> > overcome their ignorance or rethink their prejudices. But I keep trying.
> > > First, however, I want to answer two questions: What is the source of
> > the left's animosity toward Reagan, and "why does Roberts keep defending
> > Reagan?" The latter question is usually answered for me by people who know
> > nothing of my motives but are nevertheless comfortable in answering for me:
> > "He was part of it and can't admit he was wrong."
> > > The left's animosity toward Reagan is a mystery. Consider Reagan's
> > economic and foreign policies. The stagflation that Reaganomics cured was
> > hurting the poor, not the rich. The rich raise prices; the poor pay the
> > higher prices. There is always a risk of a cold war going hot. Negotiating
> > the end of the cold war did not please the military/security complex, and
> > apparently not the leftwing peaceniks either.
> > > The first business of the new Reagan administration was to complete the
> > Carter administration's plan to save autoworker jobs by imposing quotas on
> > imports of Japanese cars. Reagan did this even though it demoralized his
> > conservative free trade supporters. Reagan got no thanks from the left who
> > denounced him instead for bailing out his Republican buddies in the auto
> > business.
> > > I still hear from readers hostile to Reagan that Reagan's firing of the
> > illegally striking air traffic controllers is proof that he was a "union
> > buster." One sometimes feels sorry for people who have so little grasp of
> > politics. For a new president to let himself be rolled up by a
> > poorly-advised, illegally-striking public sector union would have rendered
> > Reagan impotent and without the power to achieve his ambitious agenda of
> > changing the economic and foreign policies of the US. Even Reagan's court
> > historians do not realize Reagan's extraordinary achievements in economic
> > and foreign policy.
> > > It wasn't Reagan's agenda that was anti-left; it was the rhetoric Reagan
> > used in order to keep the conservative base in line. Conservatives did not
> > understand supply-side economics any better than did the economics
> > profession and Wall Street. Conservatives wanted a balanced budget, which
> > is their solution to every economic problem. Reagan was talking about a 30%
> > reduction in marginal tax rates (the rate of tax applied to increases in
> > income) and about faster depreciation schedules for capital investments.
> > > What this meant to conservatives was more budget deficits. Wall Street
> > never lobbied me to repeal Glass-Steagall, but Wall Street did lobby me to
> > water down the Reagan tax rate reductions.
> > > On the cold war front, conservatives were very suspicious of negotiating
> > with the Soviets. Some conservatives put out the story that Gorbachev was
> > the anti-christ, that he would take Reagan to the cleaners and we would all
> > end up living under the red flag of communism.
> > > All of this was over the heads of the left-wing. Being creatures of
> > words, the left was moved by Reagan's words, not by his actions. Whatever
> > words David Stockman and others put in his speeches about cutting back
> > government and the welfare state, the record is clear that Reagan did not
> > cut back government or abolish the welfare state.
> > > I defend Reagan because I am fair and believe people should be judged on
> > their real record, not on a fabricated or demonized one. More importantly,
> > although people seem unable to learn from history, a lack of understanding
> > can lead to the wrong lessons being drawn from the past.
> > > For example, by the time of George W. Bush's presidency, jobs offshoring
> > by US corporations had reduced US GDP growth and employment opportunities
> > in manufacturing. The Bush administration's solution was to reapply the
> > Reagan solution--tax rate reductions. However, Reagan's tax policy was
> > directed at increasing the supply of goods and services relative to demand
> > in order to stop the rise in inflation and unemployment. Supply-side
> > economics is not a cure for declining employment opportunities and GDP
> > growth due to jobs offshoring. From a policy standpoint, the Bush tax rate
> > reduction was pointless, and it was ineffective as an answer to an economy
> > in decline from jobs offshoring.
> > > The Republicans, however, misreading the past, thought that tax
> > reductions and de-regulation were the stimulus that the economy needed.
> > Their mistake has left us with a hollowed out economy with the once
> > prosperous middle class in decline and with an ongoing financial crisis
> > that is held off with the Federal Reserve's policy of negative rates of
> > interest on overpriced bonds.
> > > If all the uninformed people who ranted about "Reagan deficits" and "tax
> > cuts for the rich" had bothered to educate themselves about the policy that
> > they so desperately wanted to demonize, a wider understanding of the Reagan
> > era might have created an audience among Washington policymakers for
> > writings by myself and others who stressed, to no effect, the adverse
> > impact of jobs offshoring on the economy. Instead, this cancer,
> > masquerading as the benefits of free trade, has gone untreated for 20 years.
> > > I agree that this is a lot of history in a few words, but it suffices to
> > make the point. Now to get on with Reagan's non-responsibility for the
> > financial crisis and war on terror.
> > > The Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, created in the last
> > year of the Reagan administration, was labeled the "plunge protection team"
> > by the Washington Post. The Working Group consists of the Treasury
> > Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the financial regulators.
> > > I do not know the reason the Working Group was formed other than it
> > appears to be a response to the October 19, 1987 stock market decline. I
> > suspect that there was concern that speculators either drove down the
> > market by short selling or took advantage of a decline in the market to
> > make money by short selling that worsened the crisis. If speculators were
> > indeed gaming the market at the expense of pension funds, IRAs, and long
> > term investors, the government might have felt obliged to come up with new
> > regulations or to use moral suasion or even direct intervention in order to
> > protect legitimate investors from the greed of speculators. If speculators
> > short the market and the Federal Reserve buys long, the shorts don't pan
> > out for the speculators.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment