T Nation

What Would Reagan Have Done?


Imagine if Reagan had a 55-45 Senate and a Republican House. Chairs of all the committees! Absolutely an f'in shame!!
Jump in guys with one for the Gipper! How would RR have handled...?


He probably would have illegally sold arms to Iran, ignored the exloding AIDS crisis, and helped widen the gap between the rich and the poor through poorly-thought-out economic strategies.


Who cares?


What aids crisis?


You make some interesting points. However, Reagan's strength lied not with the other branches of government, but with the people! When he wanted something done he would simply appeal directly to the people through the television medium and the outpouring of support that he achieved through letters to Senators and Congressmen did the trick.

Ronald Reagan was indeed unique in that respect. He came across as honest, warm and very charismatic. I can't imagine another President having that sort of effect on the populace.


So, you'd want Carter back, with 14% interest rates, an oil embargo, rampant inflation? You'd want that cluster-fuck in the desert when they tried to save the hostages? And here's some news: inflation and high interest rates hurt poor people a lot more than the wealthy -- they widen the gap a lot more than what you think were 'poorly-thought-out econ strategies'. Where do you think the boom from 1983 to 2000 came from?

Oh yeah, it was that stupid swine from Arkansas!
AIDs Crisis? -- Who in the hell could stop anything like that? How do you stop homos from screwing each other in a San Francisco bath house? Crock!


I'd show you to be a moron point-by-point, but I believe your "homos screwing each other..." comment did my job for me.


Ironic comment from someone who recently called the President a "retard". I'm sure you could show that somebody is a moron point-by-point.


Ironic comment from someone who recently called the President a "retard". I'm sure you could show that somebody is a moron point-by-point.[/quote]

Not really ironic. My comment was a bit of hyperbole. While no one could possible believe that Dubya is an actual, according-to-Hoyle retarded person, he is certainly one of the less intellectually curious presidents we've had in a while.

Whereas the "homos" comment was just plain hate-filled.


Reagan did not ignore the AIDS crisis. That is another left-wing lie.

If they keep saying it enough people will believe it.


I ask again, what aids crisis?


I wonder why someone can't start a thread without it breaking down into name calling?


I often wonder the same thing. It's why it often seems so pointless to try and discuss any important issues or topics in the politics forums because there will always be someone who has to pop off at the mouth and ruin it.

Civil discourse is a lost art.


Headhunter, Is that a typo ? is it suppose to 93 to 2000.because the 80s sucked,everybody was laid off, losing their jobs.i agree also on the peanut farmer.


Well, he started it by mentioning Reagan.


Exactly what Ivy School did you attend?

Undergarduate or graduate?


Why, the one my Grandpa the Senator and my Daddy the CIA director got me into, of course.


Get over it. Bush won. Twice. Calling him a retard, or whatever "hyperbole" you fashion does nothing but make you look like a very petty loser. The attitude you have portrayed on this thread is PRECISELY why republicans are winning more seats by wider margins in each successive election cycle.

I, for one, can only pray that you continue your "hyperbole". It means that you are losing. And that is not hyperbole.


You're 100% right. In a biography about Reagan, there is an off-hand remark by Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury and also White Chief of Staff, taken out of context, about how to prevent aids; so forgive the intellectually challenged that might blame this on RR.
To answer the original question, President Reagan would have verbally put the three stooges from Cali in their place and showed this country the vile heart of the liberal, socialist agenda.
This following piece should be of interest to the bleeders about their weak arguments. Please read the last paragraph a couple of times so you will understand why race is a non-starter.
"With all the poverty talk these days. Here is an interesting summary article from the Heritage Foundation. Yes, I know it's a conservative group, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Executive Summary: Understanding Poverty in America by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Executive Summary #1713"

January 5, 2004 | | |

If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation's poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. In contrast to the 25 percent of "poor" households that have cell phones and telephone answering machines, ap-proximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation's remaining poverty would quickly be reduced. This is, perhaps, the best news about poverty in the United States.
Hey harris, what aids crisis?


Well, first of all, Bush "won" once. He was appointed the other time.

And second, Lin...just because you keep repeating "What AIDS crisis?" like a broken record doesn't make it make sense.