Ronald Reagan (page 3)

watson

Not sure why Hitler is brought into this discussion. Are you saying that because Reagan stepped up and said that the country was better than we thought we were, and we responded to that in a positive way that he somehow compares to Hitler?

BizzyBee

Not sure - sounded like Reagan told America what they wanted to hear and so did Hitler. Either way, there was a self-serving agenda that people bought in to.

Both tapped into a need that was based on existing political disillusionment. Both were uber-charismatic. Both engendered extreme loyalty in spite of their personal ideological failure.

watson

Very fashionable.

FlyingHighNow

Bizzy, it has been said "wheel barrows of money" wouldn't buy goods in Germany at the time Hitler came to power. The German people were brought to their knees and were in agony. They were desperate to believe anything and do anything to get their economy back to health. Hitler was supposedly a dynamic, strong and charismatic speaker. (I think he looks pretty crazed in the films that are available today.) He had a seething anger for Jews and other "inferiors" that he blamed for not only the downfall of Germany but of the entire world. They were his scapegoat.

Reagen was small scale in his similarities to Hitler, but one thing stands out about him, he was willing to take America on a long walk on the backs of the least fortunate members of society, swearing it would help the economy. He started a similar scapegoating, only this time it was on a class of people, in addition to those less fortunate like the mentally and physically disabled and ill for starters. The trickle down economics scheme was sold to the American people. It was a crooked bill of goods.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/begins.htm

"He intentionally broadened his appeal because it was necessary. Now he needed to broaden his appeal to the great mass of voting Germans. His chief assets were his speech making ability and a keen sense of what the people wanted to hear."

"The German people were tired of the political haggling in Berlin. They were tired of misery, tired of suffering, tired of weakness. These were desperate times and they were willing to listen to anyone, even Adolf Hitler."

darthfader

This thread clearly supports Godwins Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." [ 3 ] [ 2 ] In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all online discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

I really don't see how you can compare any modern US president to Hitler.

FlyingHighNow

Watson, it is said that those who do not know history are those who are doomed to repeat it. Hitler is a huge lesson that no one needs to forget. Reagen was as heartless as Hitler when it came to his views of the poor, the ill, the helpless. In the USA it wouldn't have worked to get rid of them, so he just fixed it where the middle class and below would die a slow, "natural death." Social Darwinism was introduced into the minds and hearts of a nation filled mainly with those claiming to be Christian. We see this attitude prominent today in the Republican party. "The strong survive. F'everyone else."

FlyingHighNow

This thread clearly supports Godwins Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." [3] [2] In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all online discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

I really don't see how you can compare any modern US president to Hitler.

I'm laughing. Did you even read the tongue in cheek quote. Check 98% of the longest threads on JWN for a test why don't you? You won't see a discussion of Gerald R. Ford, a republican, go into a comparison to Hitler. Kennedy, Nixon? No. You're very naive to think that American politicians, including presidents, can't be just as dangerous in their thinking and policies as Hitler.

darthfader

My point was that within 20 posts, you were comparing Ronald Regan to Hitler. I would have thought it that would have taken more posts than that before we stooped that low.

Ronald Regans error was not cutting spending at the same time as cutting taxes. The deficit balooned under his watch. And for that matter, the percent of Government spending has been increasing as a % of GDP quite steadily over the past 90 years except for the Internet Boom years (1992, 2000). That economic flourish was a "perfect storm" of increased productivity + technical advancement in business and it makes no sense to credit any president with that success either.

BurnTheShips

That economic flourish was a "perfect storm" of increased productivity + technical advancement in business and it makes no sense to credit any president with that success either.

You also have to remember that the period marked the end of the Cold War. We cut military spending in the 1990s. A huge percentage of the "surplus"* was tied to the reductions in defense spending. We cut military spending as a percentage of GDP by 50% by the end of the 1990s. These started under GHWB, and continued under Clinton.

The 2000 budget "surplus"* was of about $230 billion. Compare this with the defense spending cuts over the same time period:

I think part of the reason for the economic boom of the 1990s was a "peace dividend" that we did not receive previously, and haven't received since. You could say that the 1980s military buildup paved the way for the 1990s by hastening the collapse of the Soviet bloc.

We also have to remember the 1994 Congress, which initially fought tooth and nail to slash Federal spending, to the point that a Federal shutdown ensued in 1995. Clinton ended up relenting and signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.....which was legislated by a Republican Congress.

Lastly, the future surpluses projected at the time were based on a high flying stock market and booming economy. The bursting bubble changed all this.

*Where is the "surplus"? I don't see it.

Fiscal Year	Year Ending	National Debt	Deficit
FY1993	09/30/1993	$4.411488 trillion
FY1994	09/30/1994	$4.692749 trillion	$281.26 billion
FY1995	09/29/1995	$4.973982 trillion	$281.23 billion
FY1996	09/30/1996	$5.224810 trillion	$250.83 billion
FY1997	09/30/1997	$5.413146 trillion	$188.34 billion
FY1998	09/30/1998	$5.526193 trillion	$113.05 billion
FY1999	09/30/1999	$5.656270 trillion	$130.08 billion
FY2000	09/29/2000	$5.674178 trillion	$17.91 billion
FY2001	09/28/2001	$5.807463 trillion	$133.29 billion

BTS

FlyingHighNow

Reagen did cut spending. He cut it to the people who could least afford it. It isn't low to compare someone to Hitler, if the shoe fits. In Ronald's case, it fits. I'm surprised it only took 20 posts. You can quote Godwin. It doesn't mean that Hitler's ideas about the helpless are different from RR or any other Social Darwinis's ideas.

Ronald Reagan

Share this