Patters

The old arguments of the Reagan era folk are no longer an argument for a solution, but an argument for an approach that has already failed. Because of this, a new progressive movement is starting to emerge. What it will really look like is anyone's guess, but my guess is that even liberals like me will have shift in a libertarian way in order to accommodate this new thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/op...ment.html?_r=1

.... We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest....

Thirty years ago, a newly elected Ronald Reagan made a fateful judgment: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”...

Reagan’s was a fateful misdiagnosis. He completely overlooked the real issue — the rise of global competition in the information age — and fought a bogeyman, the government. Decades on, America pays the price of that misdiagnosis, with a nation singularly unprepared to face the global economic, energy and environmental challenges of our time.

I'll summarize the rest rather than go over the sentence limit for patsfans.com: The editorial goes onto to say that a third progressive era will need to deal with deeply entrenched vested interests in order to revive public services, such as education and public investment; address the corruption on Wall Street; and reestablish the supremacy of voters over dollars. He sees the OWS, with its activities in more than 1,000 cities, as being the beginning of the path to renewal.

patsfan13

When we see government spending and corporate cronyism expanding the power of government and restricting the power of the individual Reagan's observation:

“Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”


is more true than ever.


The author is truly clueless, Reagan's intention was to defeat the USSR and reduce the size of government as a % of GDP to free up more resources for the private sector, this of course never happened. For the author to try to say that the Reagan concept has continued to this day is mind boggling in it's stupidity.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

Ronald Reagan has been dead about 30 years, including many of those years when was brain dead scribbling in the White House at cabinet meetings. You can believe what you want about Reagan's intentions, but the reality is that even after the Cold War ended he kowtowed to the military industrial complex giving them budgets with which to build their pipe dreams, with little evidence that our world is safer today than it was before Reagan.

He was famous for simple, stupid solutions, like the one that's so often quoted. Even in Libertarian solutions, government is part of the solution because it has a role to play in all walks of life, from our currency to our military to our courts to our highways to our human rights.

There is no evidence that reducing the size of government improves the economy. That was tried in the Coolidge-Hoover days and that worked out well only for the wealthy. In a few small countries like Switzerland you find some support for the theory, but you also find support for democratic socialism in even more small countries, like those in Scandinavia. Reducing the size of government simply increases the power of the oligarchs, nothing else. That's why the oligarchs want government reduced. The proper solution is to have an open, transparent government that answers to votes, not to Wall Street and their minions.

The reality is that Reaganism has failed just like Coolidgeism did; they both led ultimately to massive recessions/depressions, and levels of economic inequity that surely would make Christ turn in His grave if He were dead.

patsfan13

Government is much larger as a % of GDP that it was during the 80's/90's, especially when one includes state and local government in the equation. This is killing the economy and working people, as well as creating more unemployed.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

patsfan13

Speaking of corporate cronyism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/bu...le-energy.html



These artificially high energy cost are of course a very regressive tax on the poor.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

There's no evidence of that. Much of our GDP has historically come from government. The reality is that taxpayer dollars, except for that used to pay debt, goes back into the economy and effects ever level of business. For instance, without food stamps, chances are thousands of small businesses would close. I agree we need to pay down the debt (through tax hikes, preferably) because our debt payments create more jobs overseas than they create here. But, why do you believe that smaller government leads to more jobs? As is, the reality is that technology is taking away a lot of unskilled jobs (the Globe recently ran an article pointing out that self-service gas stations and supermarkets are resulting in fewer minimum wage jobs) and foreign trade agreements are taking away other jobs. The fact is that although the 1% have been doing extremely well over the last four or so years, they are not creating many jobs.

Wolfpack

Ignoring the fact that it is completely untrue, what a reprehensible thing to say. Not that I would expect anything less from the hate filled, intolerant left.

I hope you never have someone close to you suffer from that horrible disease and that you never realize just how much you lodged your foot in your mouth with such a hateful statement.

Patters

Your post makes no sense because you believe that Reagan did not have Alzheimer's, in which case calling him brain dead refers to his intellect, not to his brain function. So, what are you objecting to? Can you clarify that?

On the other hand, if indeed Reagan did have Alzheimer's, do you think he should have stayed on as president? He and his minions put our nation at risk with his selfishness. To ignore the possibility that we had a CiC who was suffering from Alzheimer's is not a form of sympathy, it's a form of reckless irresponsibility, in my opinion.

(And FYI, a great aunt of mine who I knew well died of Alzheimer's disease, and my family was there to care for her, so the pompous holier than thou mentality of some those wealth-worshippers on the right does not ring true to me.)

Wolfpack

Not only are you looking back with 20/20 hindsight, but you're also employing revisionist history. So I guess that means your hindsight more blind than 20/20. Reagan was not diagnosed with Alzheimer's until after he left office. You'll have to forgive me if I take the word of the official White House doctors over your angry, hateful, partisan attacks.

While Known for Being Forgetful, Reagan Was Mentally Sound in Office, Doctors Say - NYTimes.com

"''There was never anything that would raise a question about his ability to function as President,'' said Dr. Lawrence C. Mohr, one of Mr. Reagan's physicians in his second term. ''Ronald Reagan's cognitive function, belief structure, judgment, ability to choose between options, behavior and ability to communicate were totally and completely intact.

The doctors said they had taken the unusual step of discussing their former patient's medical history publicly because neither they nor Mr. Reagan had covered up any illness, and because they did not want history to see them as having done so.

While the doctors said they were familiar with Alzheimer's, none is an expert in it. But an Alzheimer's specialist -- after reviewing videotapes of news conferences and major events late in Mr. Reagan's Presidency, as well as the doctors' descriptions -- said he, too, saw no evidence that Mr. Reagan had the disease as President.
'Then it's surprising that you have such a callous and hateful attitude towards another individual who suffered from that disease. Actually, given what I know about you, it's not surprising one bit. When the target is a republican, there's no low you won't sink to.

Patters

Your compassion for those who suffer from illness rings false, I'm sorry to say, but perhaps that's because you make so many mean-spirited comments in this forum. That said, I'm glad that you believe Reagan did not have early Alzheimer's while in the White House, in which case my claim that he was brain dead should not be offensive to you, anymore than claims that Obama is helpless without a teleprompter is offensive to me.