More critically, would you have yet heard of the end of it if Bush had made any of these errors — esp. the “57 states” one?

They’re still telling the “My Pet Goat” lie…

But no, there’s no bias. None. Nada. Zilch.

I can’t believe I have to say this, but it’s pretty damn important for the leader of a country like ours to know history… to know the legacy of this and other nations…

It’s pretty damn important because to a lot of people in the world, history is EVERYTHING. History informs thier every decision.

I can’t stand the double standards any more.

Not knowing which camp was liberated is pretty small potatoes. Especially since it was a distant relative, and it occurred before he was born. My father fought in WWII and until recently I had some mistaken ideas about which battles he was involved in. You see, he didn’t talk about it much.

On the other hand, I do not include my father’s service as part of my resume.

As far as knowing the historical details; so what? I have read fairly widely about WWII. I know the essentials. There were concentration camps; there was genocide; American liberated some camps and found horrific conditons. Sadly, for the survivors other camps were liberated by Russians. Areas of Europe that were “liberated” by Russia sank into Despotic rule. The U.S. expended enormous wealth and energy in restoring the areas we liberated. The U.S. sponsored the growth of Democratic institutions in formerly depsotic states; and U.S. military power protected those Democracies for over fifty years of Cold War. If a Presidential candidate understand these facts, I am satisified. I wonder if he understands those truths?

At the end of the day, I can admit that it wasn’t Reagan’s dimness that ruined his presidency, it was his commitment to ideology over truth and reason.”

Ah, yes, the old ‘your guy is an imbicile’ routine. I’m quite sure Amanda has never read “Reagan in His Own Hand”. You might disagree with his ideology, but to declare that he was “dim” is just silly. But there’s no convincing the likes of Amanda, who is really just performing as ordered by the party to revise history for us non-comformers. Say it enough and it’s true. Even you start to believe the lie.

Sergey said Reagan did four things:

Win the Cold War-even Gorbachev says so.

Bring down the Berlin Wall-this was a consequence of winning the Cold War and the most visible manisfestation of this victory. If I were scoring it like a baseball game, I would give Reagan the Win and Bush Sr the save (and I’m glad the manager did not call on Dukakis to come out of teh bullpen.)

Restoring ideals-an important part of how we won the Cold War

Ending Welfare madness-true, Reagan did not end it. But he raised awareness of it so that it could be dealt with by his successors after his higher priorities were accomplished-winning the Cold War and getting our economy back on track.

Which would make sense since conservatives are quite ok with evil corporations that Americans work for actually making money.

How a liberal arrives at simultaneously choking the life out of capitalism and professing a better economic outlook is beyond the absurd. So far beyond is really rather humorous.

1. Reagan did not bring down the Berlin Wall.

2. Reagan did not end welfare.

Sure, Reagan helped these things happen, as did many people and events. But to assign Reagan credit for things he failed to implement as president and which took place after he’d left office is simply inaccurate and, far more so, than the niggling gaffes for which Obama is so obsessively pilloried on this blog.

My point still stands: Reagan underperformed the average post WWII Democrat president on every major economic indicator.

Sure, you can slice and dice the data, like comparing his performance only to Carters! (And I previously noted that in GDP terms, he did outperform Carter, though not in terms of employment or personal income growth). But when you look at ALL the data, the pattern is clear, Reagan underpeformed the Democrats. He did, at least, outperform the Bush’s, whose numbers average significantly worse than Carter’s.

All that said, we can’t meaningfully assess performance on numbers alone. Business cycles, global events and, even, weather, effect performance deeply.

I support the basic economic principles Reagan espoused: small government, low taxes, minimal regulation.

Where I depart is on Reagan’s success in implementing them. Reagan bought growth by massive government revenue transfers, i.e. simultaneous spending increases and tax cuts. This is economic steroids and only postpones the economic reckoning: one which in Reagan’s case doomed the career of his successor GHW Bush.

My interest in pointing out Reagan’s economic underperformance is not to suggest that he was sitting in the Oval Office exercising month-to-month control over economic growth or employment or even tax collection. My point is more that the mainstream media gave credit to Reagan for economic success, when the results just are not there to back it up.

I was just bringing anecdotal evidence of what you were talking about. AMT has the same problem-if you are subject to it, you really get nailed.

(i have played that bracket thing several times in my life as salary went up and down and i crossed it. if you cross it cross it wide, it hurts less).

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913–2003
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

i should have been more clear as to that.

thank you for pointing it out and i am sorry if it was confusing… (and if i am still wrong, let me know, cause i dont want to be 🙂 )

oh here is another interesting graph that is probably more of what people think when they talk taxes.

Graph 1: Federal tax burden, 1979–2001
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/fed-tax-burden-cbo-data.php?series=eff_tax_rate

and
Average pretax income, 1979–2001

This graph portrays the trend in pretax income in constant 2001 dollars for the various household income groups.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/fed-tax-burden-cbo-data.php?series=income

when looking at that last one though, remember that this table doesnt track individuals, but rather each zone that year.

a socialist lookin at it would say see… the classes are always apart… but a person that knows math or knows the data would know that this reflects those families that year that made that much, and at no time can it show how many moved from one level to another.

Corporation Income Tax Brackets and Rates,
1909-2002
oh, and a real eye opener from another site.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

it boggles the mind how much from people and companies the politicians are actuall siphoning.

it buggers the mind to understand that if they werent taking this, people would be using it to progress faster, as capital is ultimately what they are neutralizing.

thanks for your point MartyH!!!