I've had it up to HERE.

[kellinator]

All right. All week I've been quiet about the Reagan media circus, not wishing to court the drama. But fuck it. I'm not going to take it anymore.

How fucking sad am I supposed to be that Reagan died? Look, people die. It happens. A peaceful death at 93 after a long full life is the best that any of us can hope for. And when that death is preceded by the living hell known as Alzheimer's disease -- well, that's a blessing.

Not that Reagan was exactly interested in providing funds for Alzheimer's research during his time in office. Maybe if that had been more important to him than tax cuts for the rich, he wouldn't have had to suffer through that long death -- and neither would have millions of innocents, including my grandmother.

Not to mention all the other diseases that Reagan ignored -- AIDS, anyone?

Despite his own recollections to the contrary, Ronald Reagan spent World War II in Hollywood making movies. Jimmy Stewart took time out from his film career to be a fighter pilot -- and had a clause in his contract that if the film studio tried to get publicity out of that, he'd walk off the set.

Last Sunday should have been dedicated to celebrating and remembering the brave troops who stormed the beaches on D-Day, not Reagan. Don't insult real heroes by comparing them to this man.

What's with all this misguided 80's nostalgia? See if shawnj refreshes your memory. The '80s sucked, and Reagan was a big part of why.

And for those who are convinced that Reagan was a genius -- well, gaiagurl helped me out with this link to some of Reagan's more bizarre quotations.

What set me off to the point of no return was hearing someone say that it won't be as big a deal when Jimmy Carter dies, he won't be as "well-remembered or missed." Whether or not you like his politics, Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to helping the less fortunate. He is one of my personal heroes and is respected around the world. If people think Ronald Reagan is a better man that Jimmy Carter -- well, maybe the United States is in even worse shape than I thought.

Go ahead. Have your bread and media circuses devised to get Dubya reelected. You get the America you deserve.

(Just wish I'd had the balls to post this earlier in the week. Nobody reads LiveJournal on Friday.)

Comments

[dwivian]

William Keegan should do better research.

Net taxes gained by the government, in fact, DID rise during Reagan's administration, largely attributable to a shift in money usage (people weren't scheming to protect money, but to spread it around into areas where taxes could be gained). It takes almost NO work at all to find that online.

Tax rates fell from 90% to 38.9%. Realize that there was a point at which making more money was like making no money at all, leading to the idea of a limited salary but non-taxable benefits like corporate jets, cars, houses, golf memberships, and other shelters, again limiting the ability of the government to charge for use.

All weird tax laws do is change behaviour (thus taxes on vices like tobacco and alcohol). I will always believe in a proportional tax scheme over a progressive one, with a simple progressive shift in the basis to prevent taxing the poor, because everyone should bear an even responsibility for the even opportunity of our country.

The reason Bush-the-elder had to blink and raise taxes is he didn't have the kohones to do what Clinton did, and shut down Government to get a better budget. Deficits come from spending more than you have, not from taking in less. Ever since FDR there has been an expansion of per-capita spending, with the exception of Clinton's years. Bush-the-miniscule and his GOP congress is trying to correct that by spending even more to get us back on track. Idiots.

And, the rich DO work more at making money when they get to keep it. The poor do, too, if you require they work to get the money instead of give it to them with weirdly managed tax credits (it is possible to end up with a larger refund than you actually paid, making it welfare instead of a refund).

Reagan had his problems, but his economic policy moved America out of a recession. I remember the fuel lines under Carter, and all the gardens and government cheese necessary to make ends meet. The total GNP rose well under Reagan, though it couldn't self-sustain without Government rising to the challenge of reducing expenditures. Alas.....

[orfeo517.livejournal.com]

Well, I will agree that Reagan had his problems:)

[dwivian]

Cool! Now, just point them out without resorting to distortion or lies. The facts are there, if someone will just go about making the proper case. The stuff people are parroting now is so easy to refute, but the truth is dull.

I've tried this before and gotten accused of practicing boredom as a profession, so I just play a short bit of tag with the problem posts to try to avoid the dreaded "tl;dr".

[orfeo517.livejournal.com]

Okay. Tell me that Reagan didn't fund Saddam Hussein against Iran. Tell me that Reagan didn't fund Osama Bin Laden against the Soviet Union! Convince me that this isn't a severely hypocritical government!

[dwivian]

Of course Reagan funded Hussein. He'd not gone all crazy on the Kurds at that point, and it looked like a good way to stabilize the MidEast to keep oil flowing, and thus destabilize the Soviet Oil export program. Good move, but lousy cleanup.

Reagan CONTINUED the funding for Osama that began under Carter. Yah, that one was a Carter plan, in an effort to support anti-soviet activity in Afghanistan. Again, good idea, but lousy cleanup afterwards.

What hypocrisy? We've never said it didn't happen....