So, CNN is running a column by Tea Party critic and Palin agonist David Frum on how to commemorate the centennial of the greatest domestic policy president of the twentieth century. Despite Frum’s chirping against a grassroots protest movement with a political philosophy nearly identical to the Gipper’s and a candidate who has his gift for communication (and enervating the left) while lacking his extensive reading and government experience, he does have a great suggestion: build a “museum in Washington dedicated to the victims of communism.”
That would be a great tribute to the Gipper as it would highlight both his strong opposition to communism and his long-term love of liberty.
In response to Frum’s post, Sissy Willis tweets that the Tea Party is the “appropriate national commemoration of this good man and great president”.
There seem to be a number of people out there – Frum, others, even one or two on this blog – who know they have to acknowledge Reagan was great, but hate the Tea Party, so they try to make it sound like the Tea Party somehow doesn’t stand for the Reagan legacy of small(er) government.
That makes me hesitate. I would say that Reagan was the least bad of the terribly bad lot we’ve had from Hoover/Roosevelt onward.
You did say “domestic”. On defense policy (and spending), Reagan did what he had to do to defeat Communism. “Permission granted.” On domestic policy (and spending), Reagan did achieve an overall slight reduction in government. Not nearly enough. But since everyone other President grew government, it makes Reagan the least bad.
Reagan was just another invade and spend and cut taxes for rich Republicans con artist. His place in history is guaranteed because this miserable excuse for a human being decided to ignore AIDS. In fact, Reagan didn’t mention AIDS in public until 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died.
So much for that “greatest domestic policy president of the twentieth century” thing.
#2 – Get upset much, Miss Thang?
Your trolled “argument” is so full of holes and fishooks that I would guess you’ve been getting talking points from PMSNBC. But I digress:
You stated (rather hysterically) that “Reagan was just another invade and spend and cut taxes for rich Republicans con artist.”
Wrong.
According to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis, all income groups – from richest to poorest – experienced real income gains under Reagan.
However, from 1977 to 1981 (otherwise known as the Carter debacle), only the incomes of the TOP 1% grew.
That’s right, Evileene. The top 1% experienced income growth under Carter. In other words, THE RICH. In fact, their share of income gains was 160% higher under Carter than Reagan.
Federal spending on poverty programs went from $140 billion in 1982 to $180 billion in 1991 – an annual growth of 3%. In other words, the welfare state grew under Reagan.
However, between 1982 and 1989, real after-tax income per person went up by 15.5%, and families saw their income go up 12.5%. And fewer people went on welfare.
And by cutting the top marginal tax rate to 28%, actual revenues almost doubled in the eight years of the Reagan presidency – from $550 billion to $991 billion.
Match, set, game. You lose. Thanks for playing. We have wonderful parting gifts for you backstage.
Regards,
Peter H.
Auntie Dogma take your dog poo somewhere else; it will go well as a cleanser mask on Nancy Pelosi when she’s at the spa.
#2- Incomprehensibility has a new name!
Dan, I’m glad at least you’re still reading David Frum –it seems since his website editors got viciously active with the red pencil editing out comments contrary to the Great David’s wisdom… or David’s wife… or David’s father-in-law… or David’s sister… and then blocking anyone who made more than two untoward comments about the Great David… his readership is now somewhere just north of those who subscribe to the Bobby Jindal YouTube channel.
David is just another garden variety “speech-writer turned pundit” that forgets he was once somewhat noteworthy when other people mouthed his ideas. He was, at his best, a background person with some crafty, catchy turns of a phrase or two. Nothing more.
What he thinks might be a fitting memorial for Mr Reagan’s centenary of birth isn’t very important to anyone except the Great David, the Great David’s wife, the Great David’s sister, the Great David’s father-in-law, etc.
I think the most fitting tribute would be to make some of the faux-Reagan-auts found in these comment threads actually read and comprehend at least one speech made by Reagan… of course, that would be done at the expense of some severe kicking and screaming by them –but their conservative edu-ma-kation clearly needs some assist when they get so much of American history, colonial history and Reagan’s history so wrong, so often.
Reagan has his library and museum. He has a legacy in development. He has, generally, history’s good review. Let’s focus in on the assets already in place and honor the man for what he was able to achieve through years and years of public service in government –literally, a career in government service that eclipses his accomplishments in the film arts, labor movement or as a Father.
Am I the only one that would bet my life savings that Frum would take the position that the idea of a museum dedicated to the victims of communism (e.g.): “strikes the wrong tone;” constitutes a childish, pedestrian, and transparent attack on liberal Democrats; and/or would be a monument to the embarrassing, misguided, and uncivilized rage of the Tea Parties (and their icons), HAD IT BEEN SUGGESTED BY ANYONE BUT HIM, like one of those silly Palin-ites or Glenn Beck worshippers?
No, bet Sean.
Perhaps some of us do over-rate Reagan as a president. I mean, yeah, Reagan’s defeat of the Soviet Empire and the generation of prosperity produced by his tax policies were pretty decent achievements in their own way; but compared to the monumental accomplishments of Jerry Ford (“Whip Inflation Now!” “Swine Flu” Defeat in Vietnam)…. there’s just no comparison.
Well it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that if he’d said something sooner, gays would be more accepting of responsibility and wouldn’t be blaming everybody else for imagined sleights. I have no doubt that AIDS would just be an inconvenience like having a cold. Surely we wouldn’t have a “Safe Schools Czar” who digs teaching fisting to kids after advising how to pick up old men in the bus station tea room.
And clearly because he didn’t speak up sooner, gays are relegated to anonymous sex in public bathrooms, truck stops, rest areas and street festivals. Now gays are forced to make bareback flicks and teach kids that abstinence is the worst way to prevent the spread of disease.
All because the Gipper didn’t say something sooner.
On the flip-side, however, you might notice that in the absence of Uncle Sugar doing anything, the PEOPLE started their own information and education groups. But then again, it did lead a group of dim-witted gays to leap of the short bus and create ACT-UP.
The correct response to David Frum to my mind is, “hey Davi….oh look! better people!” then walking away.
“Reagan didn’t mention AIDS in public until 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. ”
…Your house is on fire. You’re standing in the living room, watching it burn your family alive. But it’s your neighbor’s fault you’re getting burned?
If Reagan giving a speech was so pivotal in saving lives from AIDS, how many years did it take after that speech for the bath houses in Cali and NYC to close?
Reagan also said that Socialism was the enemy and Democrats loved destructive expansions of government. When do you plan on paying attention to all of those speeches?