I'm confused why do people hate Ronald Reagan?

[Gammaj4]

Because of his dangerous economic policies.

Yes because the Idea that the government should have a BALANCED BUDGET, and not spend MORE money than it actually HAS is very dangerous.

That wasn't what I was talking about, and knowing US presidents I'm calling bullcrap unless you can show me data proving he didn't spend at a deficit.

Reagan's Idea was to balance the budget, but Congress is not always helpful in that regard.
Also, to be fair he did want to build up a better military, so he did have to spend a good bit there.

 

[j0frenzy]

Most of my points have already been said on page 1, but having limited time to read through all of this, I will just add my two cents.
My first gripe is the big deregulation of the economy. Admittedly, his individual policies did not do anything that terrible, but it was what he set up, namely an entire party of people saying that companies don't need to be regulated. Add to that that his economic policy can be generally described as let's go back to the way it was before the Great Depression and see if it produces a better result and you get a terrible set up for the economy. (Note: I am in no way a scholar of the economy, but this is generally the way it has been described to me).
Two, the budget. I will admit that Reagan had a nice idea of lowering spending. Cut taxes and cut spending. The problem was that he only got around to cutting taxes and then actually increased spending. You want someone to blame for the massive debt America has now? There he is.
Lastly, AIDS and homosexuals. This was probably the most repugnant thing the man ever did. He essentially refused to do anything a thousands of dying Americans because they were living an 'immoral' lifestyle. His cure for HIV was that homosexuals should stop having sex. He didn't really care if they died.
These are my personal reasons for disliking the man.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

People hate Reagen?

He's mine and my family's favorite president, and I think he's one of the best presidents.

 

[ThePreshFrince]

"why don't black people trust ronald reagan?"
"he's white"
"he's a republican"
"he shouldn't have been trusted in the first place"

 

[Worgen]

And Kennedy "walked the brink of nuclear extincion and refused to blink" much more then reagan did during the cuban missle crisis.

HA. AHHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA Seriously? I hate to break it to you but Kennedy CAUSED the Cuban Missile Crisis. If there's a president that really deserves shit it is this man. Kennedy was a moron and a much worse president than Reagan.

OT: Honestly I always thought Reagan was a pretty good president. He did a lot of good things for the country. His economic policy was meant as a short term solution to the steady decline of the United States, not a long term fix. He gets a lot of hate because he's really the only Republican of note whom people liked, and still like, except for ol' Abe himself. And you really can't make fun of Lincoln.

the only thing reagan did for this country was commit high treason and get a fall guy to take the blame for it and you need to read up on your history sinec you seem to think that kennedy put missiles in cuba

 

[neoman10]

Because, in my opinion, his foreign policy was a joke, he instilled in the minds of Americans that Socialism=Bad, and his economic policy were helping only the people who don't need it.

The "Trickle Down Effect" is a joke. If you give rich people money, they will spend it; not necessarily on investment is the problem.

Further more, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA

One of America's greatest presidents, James Madison, came up with the separation of church and state when he was at the tender age of 13. Apparently, from where he is speaking, he has not figured that out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceTg4AtwaTo

not when he was president, but the bias in this is border-line hilarious. yes, it was a different time, but this is his general belief from what I see

Reagan is narrator by the way, if you haven't figured that out

 

[CD-R]

Personally not been an American, I shouldn't really comment, But backing saddam to invade and in the process destroy the most western influenced city in Iran, after the Shah was toppled from power by the theocracy, the bungled rescue attempt of American hostages and subsequent parts for oil debacle with Iran, Along with his hypocritic remarks about America not dealing with terrorists whilst actually doing so, although in light of Bush I would not say he was a bad president but mediocre at best.
But like I say ,what would I know not having lived in the states during his administration.
Just an outsiders perspective.
Reagans economic model wasn't so bad it did cut a lot of red tape and did a lot to create job growth, its just unfortunate that people started to regard it as a kind of gospel and didn't actually pause to examine other models and causes and effects of policy, deregulation = good,
no regulation = bad!

No the whole mess in Iran was mostly Jimmy Carters fault. Not soley Carter's, the British helped a little bit too.

 

[nomadic_chad]

No the whole mess in Iran was mostly Jimmy Carters fault. Not soley Carter's, the British helped a little bit too.

How?

 

[CD-R]

Personally not been an American, I shouldn't really comment, But backing saddam to invade and in the process destroy the most western influenced city in Iran, after the Shah was toppled from power by the theocracy, the bungled rescue attempt of American hostages and subsequent parts for oil debacle with Iran, Along with his hypocritic remarks about America not dealing with terrorists whilst actually doing so, although in light of Bush I would not say he was a bad president but mediocre at best.
But like I say ,what would I know not having lived in the states during his administration.
Just an outsiders perspective.
Reagans economic model wasn't so bad it did cut a lot of red tape and did a lot to create job growth, its just unfortunate that people started to regard it as a kind of gospel and didn't actually pause to examine other models and causes and effects of policy, deregulation = good,
no regulation = bad!

No the whole mess in Iran was mostly Jimmy Carters fault. Not soley Carter's, the British helped a little bit too.

From the way I understand it asically Iran wanted to nationalize there oil production. This pissed off the Brits because they had a vested interest in that oil. So British intelligence convinced the Carter administration that Iran was becoming communist so they supported the Shah takeover of Iran. Some guy wrote a book about, don't remember the name. It looks like I misread your post I thought you were reffering to the Shah taking over Iran.

 

[bruunwald]

His economic policies were disingenous and disastrous. Anyone who believes that the rich should get more money because it will then "trickle down" to the poor deserved to go broke. Problem was the rest of us got screwed by it too.

Because it's generally necessary to try to say something good to offset my obvious dislike, the thing I will say is part of his enormous defense budget was proper care for the soldiers themselves. The military offered terrific retirement and pension packages as a part of his defense spending, and something like the Walter Reed fiasco would likely have never happened under his watch.

That?s very generous, but contrast that last part with his closure of state-run and VA hospitals while governor of California. The streets have been flooded with crazy people ever since, many veterans.

You have it right about trickle-down economics. What a joke. He robbed many families blind, leaving those already on the poverty line (mine included) completely broke from tax increases while the rich got every break and got richer. Anybody who thinks that worked out well for a majority of Americans is either themselves wealthy for life, or nuts, and in either case, forgets what a disaster it eventually led to in the recession of the early nineties. Slick Willy got us out of that, and left us with a surplus. Then came Bush #2 with most of Reagan?s old cabinet in tow. Which is worth mentioning because it brings up Reagan?s rotten nominations and his god-awful hawk-filled administration.

Reagan talked tough, sure. You can give him credit for a loud mouth. Through pure luck it did the appearance of some good, but there was every chance it could have gone the other way. People with fewer stars in their eyes might call that reckless. But the real crime here is how much credit Reagan has been given for ending the Cold War when really all he did was make tough and pretty speeches to insert himself into changes for which other, much braver people were ultimately responsible, often at risk to their lives and the lives of their families.

How about the Velvet Revolution? How about Radio Free Europe? How about the people of Eastern Europe who protested and fought and languished in prisons and got shot at crossing borders, and who fought tanks and soldiers and cops, sometimes with nothing but rocks? Why should they be forgotten while Reagan gets all the credit for making a pretty speech about tearing down a wall after those events were already in motion? It?s worse than a joke. I have a feeling in Europe he is not so prized and venerated for that. It?s embarrassing.

And don?t even get me started on the whole Iran Contra affair. Had a Democrat pulled that while in office and then claimed no memory of the event, he would have been hung for treason. He?s a criminal.

Finally, let?s not forget, Reagan ushered in the era of Big Religion in politics. That?s not as bad as the era of rotten political campaigns the first Bush brought upon us, but it?s one big cause for reasonable discussion in politics having gone the way of the dinosaur. And that?s a big contributor to why this county is sliding back to the Middle Ages.

In every way he gave power to those who would best abuse it, took power from those who treated it responsibly and left us with a legacy of same we seem completely unable to break with. He didn?t begin the Republican Political Machine on its now-forty-year campaign to rewrite history in its own image and to win for winning?s sake even if its members no longer have anything to contribute when they do win office. But he certainly sped it along its way.

 

[Paddin]

Because he is downright responsible for the current war in Afghanistan. Y'see he FUNDED Al Quaeda.

He did it to deture the sovites, not his fault he can't see 20 years into the future.

Erm.. yes it is. A leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world should have foresight, if he can't see the repercussions of his own actions then he shouldn't have done them.

However, I was confused about it also, especially seeming he had quite high approval rates

 

[mafyapenguin94]

And Kennedy "walked the brink of nuclear extincion and refused to blink" much more then reagan did during the cuban missle crisis.

HA. AHHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA Seriously? I hate to break it to you but Kennedy CAUSED the Cuban Missile Crisis. If there's a president that really deserves shit it is this man. Kennedy was a moron and a much worse president than Reagan.

OT: Honestly I always thought Reagan was a pretty good president. He did a lot of good things for the country. His economic policy was meant as a short term solution to the steady decline of the United States, not a long term fix. He gets a lot of hate because he's really the only Republican of note whom people liked, and still like, except for ol' Abe himself. And you really can't make fun of Lincoln.

the only thing reagan did for this country was commit high treason and get a fall guy to take the blame for it and you need to read up on your history sinec you seem to think that kennedy put missiles in cuba

I'm a history major, specializing in U.S. History from 1945. Unfortunately, as I type my response I realize that it has almost nothing to do with the topic so I will PM it to you.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

My favorite move of his was firing all the Air Traffic Controllers when they went on strike, and replacing them with the military ATC's until new ones could be hired and trained. Good business!

So you're all for federal government stepping in and resolving union issues in a way that is most detrimental for the workers? (not very republican)

As an aside, don't you think those air traffic controllers were just trying to become rich like you intend, and live the American dream? Reagan shat all over that...then wiped his ass with whatever was left.

Adressing this issue first, Air Traffic Controllers are government employees, so I don't think it was out of bounds for the pres to step in there. As for the union, there is a risk you take when you strike... your employer could realize he's better off without you...

 

[neoman10]

Because he took credit for ending the Cold War. Reagan did jack shit to finally end it, it was the Hungarians and the Poles that brought the USSR down.

No, it was Gorbachev, the last USSR leader who brought it down.

Eastern Germans moving through Hungary into Austria that threatened to depopulate East Germany, and Poles forcing in sweeping political reforms that undermined hardcore Communism. I'm pretty sure that's more threatening to the USSR than some morons in Washington and Moscow.

One of America's greatest presidents, James Madison,

James Madison never had a son and he fought the War of 1812...
I laugh at you thinking Madison was a great President.

yes, but he basically made the federal government how it is (or was, depending how you look at it) and he created some of the most brilliant American ideals.

 

[Uszi]

I can understand if you dislike the man, but from what I learned about him he did a pretty good job as president. I will admite mabey it was just propagada they were teaching at school, but I don't really see anything he did bad. His fixed the ecomey in the 80's "During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.3%, hitting highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration."
Persued personaly freedom for the people and try to make us less rreliant on the goverment. Quiltys I both like, nowif people can give a vaild reason for why he did a bad job then I will reconsider my take on him.

It's what I call the internet phenomenon. Actually, it probably has a real name, but you see it alot on the internet.

Basically, there are people who love Reagan. LOVE.

Now, lets say you merely dislike Reagan. If you participate in a discussion, your dislike is going to quickly get washed over by someone throwing flower petals around the room and blowing trumpets. So your opinion must become more extreme in order for you just to be heard in the debate. And if you want to win the debate, then you have to become even more extreme.

That's Reason #1.

Reason #2:
There are a lot of people who strongly dislike the Republican party. Reagan is a Moses-esque figure within the right wing, and so he sort-of neatly embodies the GOP. That means that everyone's dislike for the GOP get's funneled into a seething anti-Reagan rage.

Reason #3:
Some people, especially on the internet, but everywhere really, have not advanced beyond middle school style political thought. I.e., people will say, "I hate X!" and you will ask, "Why do you hate X!" And they will say, "Cause those guys are always talking about X! And that they go on and on about X annoys me, so I hate X!"

Which is obviously immature, but people still do it. It's ok to dislike something when you've considered it on its own merits and you've decided it's not for you. It's no ok to decide arbitrarily to dislike something in some sort of attempt to "get back" at people who annoy you.