Flashback: Reagan on Unions...

[ragincaucasian]

Here's a newsflash people: The nation is BROKE. When you're broke, you don't keep spending money like a ******* sailor on shoreleave.

not broke enough for this I take it

: Walker pushed through new tax breaks, mostly for business, that add about $140 million to the deficit. We question the utility of some of the breaks, especially adding $25 million to the already underused state Economic Development Tax Credit program. The break for health savings accounts, while a good idea, didn't have to be done now. We'd rather see more focus on existing business clusters and promoting innovation. We'd also like to see lower tax rates and a broader base. Eliminate loopholes that make the code overly complex

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116508343.html

you can't claim 'broke', blame the working man, then turn around and give wheel barrels of cash to people who already have it

 

[ragincaucasian]

Reagan knew he was doing. Small government was the way to go.

what part of Reagan showed you "small government"? Seriously.....
What does Obama have to do with any of this? If anything Reagan was more "liberal" than Obama. There is no difference between "R" and "D" in American politics, so quit fooling yourself into thinking one is a better team than the other or that things were better in the "good old days".

http://www.mysouthwestga.com/news/story.aspx?id=577126

GOP frets over Reagan mythmaking

"To only look at the imagery of Reagan is to see only half the picture of the man because he was a very strong advocate for conservatism," said Ed Meese, Reagan's Attorney General and the keeper of the conservative flame for his old boss.

Republicans are partly to blame for their predicament. After assessing the honor accorded to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, they decided that their own icon should get his due and made a concerted effort to plaster Reagan's name on schools, streets and even the airport of the capital city he made a career out of running against.

And here in California, where centennial festivities are being held this weekend at his newly renovated presidential library, there is a carefully crafted effort to present Reagan as the man who restored America's confidence in itself - not as the great evangelist for modern conservatism.

"Let history say of us, 'These were golden years - when the American Revolution was reborn, when freedom gained new life, when America reached for her best," Reagan is captured saying in a video montage at the close of the tour as images of the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, little ******** saying the Pledge of Allegiance and aging veterans marching in a parade are shown on screen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html

Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.
3. Reagan was a hawk.
4. Reagan shrank the federal government.
5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm#docs

On November 25, 1986, the biggest political and constitutional scandal since Watergate exploded in Washington when President Ronald Reagan told a packed White House news conference that funds derived from covert arms deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran had been diverted to buy weapons for the U.S.-backed Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

In the weeks leading up to this shocking admission, news reports had exposed the U.S. role in both the Iran deals and the secret support for the Contras, but Reagan's announcement, in which he named two subordinates -- National Security Advisor John M. Poindexter and NSC staffer Oliver L. North -- as the responsible parties, was the first to link the two operations.

The scandal was almost the undoing of the Teflon President. Of all the revelations that emerged, the most galling for the American public was the president's abandonment of the long-standing policy against dealing with terrorists, which Reagan repeatedly denied doing in spite of overwhelming evidence that made it appear he was simply lying to cover up the story.

Despite the damage to his image, the president arguably got off easy, escaping the ultimate political sanction of impeachment. From what is now known from documents and testimony -- but perhaps not widely appreciated -- while Reagan may not have known about the diversion or certain other details of the operations being carried out in his name, he directed that both support for the Contras (whom he ordered to be kept together "body and soul") and the arms-for-hostages deals go forward, and was at least privy to other actions that were no less significant.

In this connection, it is worth noting that Poindexter, although he refused to implicate Reagan by testifying that he had told him about the diversion, declared that if he had informed the president he was sure Reagan would have approved. Reagan's success in avoiding a harsher political penalty was due to a great extent to Poindexter's testimony (which left many observers deeply skeptical about its plausibility). But it was also due in large part to a tactic developed mainly by Attorney General Edwin Meese, which was to keep congressional and public attention tightly focused on the diversion. By spotlighting that single episode, which they felt sure Reagan could credibly deny, his aides managed to minimize public scrutiny of the president's other questionable actions, some of which even he understood might be *******.

Twenty years later, the Iran-Contra affair continues to resonate on many levels, especially as Washington gears up for a new season of political inquiry with the pending inauguration of the 110th Congress and the seeming inevitability of hearings into a range of Bush administration policies.

For at its heart Iran-Contra was a battle over presidential power dating back directly to the Richard Nixon era of Watergate, Vietnam and CIA dirty tricks. That clash continues under the presidency of George W. Bush, which has come under frequent fire for the controversial efforts of the president, as well as Vice President Richard Cheney, to expand Executive Branch authority over numerous areas of public life.

Iran-Contra also echoes in the re-emergence of several prominent public figures who played a part in, or were touched by, the scandal. The most recent is Robert M. Gates, President Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense (see below and the documents in this compilation for more on Gates' role).

This sampling of some of the most revealing documentation (Note 1) to come out of the affair gives a clear indication of how deeply involved the president was in terms of personally directing or approving different aspects of the affair. The list of other officials who also played significant parts, despite their later denials, includes Vice President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, CIA Director William J. Casey, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan, and numerous other senior and mid-level officials, making this a far broader scandal than the White House portrayed it at the time.

In that connection, what follows is a partial list of some of the more prominent individuals who were either directly a part of the Iran-Contra events or figured in some other way during the affair or its aftermath:

Elliott Abrams - currently deputy assistant to President Bush and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, Abrams was one of the Reagan administration's most controversial figures as the senior State Department official for Latin America in the mid-1980s. He entered into a plea bargain in federal court after being indicted for providing false testimony about his fund-raising activities on behalf of the Contras, although he later accused the independent counsel's office of ******* him to accept guilt on two counts. President George H. W. Bush later pardoned him.

David Addington - now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and by numerous press accounts a stanch advocate of expanded presidential power, Addington was a congressional staffer during the joint select committee hearings in 1986 who worked closely with Cheney.

John Bolton - the controversial U.N. ambassador whose recess appointment by President Bush is now in jeopardy was a senior Justice Department official who participated in meetings with Attorney General Edwin Meese on how to handle the burgeoning Iran-Contra political and legal scandal in late November 1986. There is little indication of his precise role at the time.

Richard Cheney - now the vice president, he played a prominent part as a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf. He later pointed to the committees' Minority Report as an important statement on the proper roles of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Robert M. Gates - President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was ****** to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)

Manuchehr Ghorbanifar - the quintessential middleman, who helped broker the arms deals involving the United States, Israel and Iran ostensibly to bring about the release of American hostages being held in Lebanon, Ghorbanifar was almost universally discredited for misrepresenting all sides' goals and interests. Even before the Iran deals got underway, the CIA had ruled Ghorbanifar off-limits for purveying bad information to U.S. intelligence. Yet, in 2006 his name has resurfaced as an important source for the Pentagon on current Iranian affairs, again over CIA objections.

Michael Ledeen - a neo-conservative who is vocal on the subject of regime change in Iran, Ledeen helped bring together the main players in what developed into the Iran arms-for-hostages deals in 1985 before being relegated to a bit part. He reportedly reprised his role shortly after 9/11, introducing Ghorbanifar to Pentagon officials interested in exploring contacts inside Iran.

Edwin Meese - currently a member of the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, he was Ronald Reagan's controversial attorney general who spearheaded an internal administration probe into the Iran-Contra connection in November 1986 that was widely criticized as a political exercise in protecting the president rather than a genuine inquiry by the nation's top *************** officer.

John Negroponte - the career diplomat who worked quietly to boost the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America as ambassador to Honduras, he also participated in efforts to get the Honduran government to support the Contras after Congress ****** direct U.S. aid to the rebels. Negroponte's profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)

Oliver L. North - now a radio talk show host and columnist, he was at the center of the Iran-Contra spotlight as the point man for both covert activities. A Marine serving on the NSC staff, he steadfastly maintained that he received high-level approval for everything he did, and that "the diversion was a diversion." He was found guilty on three counts at a criminal trial but had those verdicts overturned on the grounds that his protected congressional testimony might have influenced his trial. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from Virginia in 1996. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)

Daniel Ortega - the newly elected president of Nicaragua was the principal target of several years of covert warfare by the United States in the 1980s as the leader of the ruling Sandinista National Liberation Front. His democratic election in November 2006 was not the only irony -- it's been suggested by one of Oliver North's former colleagues in the Reagan administration that North's public statements in Nicaragua in late October 2006 may have taken votes away from the candidate preferred by the Bush administration and thus helped Ortega at the polls.

John Poindexter - who found a niche deep in the U.S. government's post-9/11 security bureaucracy as head of the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program (formally disbanded by Congress in 2003), was Oliver North's superior during the Iran-Contra period and personally approved or directed many of his activities. His assertion that he never told President Reagan about the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras ensured Reagan would not face impeachment.

Otto Reich - President George W. Bush's one-time assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Reich ran a covert public diplomacy operation designed to build support for Ronald Reagan's Contra policies. A U.S. comptroller-general investigation concluded the program amounted to "prohibited, covert propaganda activities," although no charges were ever filed against him. Reich paid a price in terms of congressional opposition to his nomination to run Latin America policy, resulting in a recess appointment in 2002 that lasted less than a year

 

[grower_boy]

Can you be specific about the Reagan crap you preferred over Obama's?

I'll be honest, I'm only speaking from one little corner of the world here...

I'm into communications, and "Reagan crap" called for deregulation. Service providers were able to go on their own so to speak, and didn't have the government on their backs 24/7. Obama's administration is pretty much the opposite. The whole "big government" philosiphy limits the freedoms that companies have, and I would imagine that this is paralleled in other fields. It is my personal belief that government regulation should be kept to a minimum.

It's supposed to be a "free country" and all, and with a pro-regulation type guy like Obama in office, it really isn't. Of course a lot of republicans might be even worse, banning flag burning and ******* their religious beliefs on everyone. I really can't stand either party. I'm a bit of an anarchist, if you want to know the truth.

 

[ragincaucasian]

"Reagan crap" called for deregulation.

what the hell are you talking about?

Deregulation is what LEAD to the whole financial collapse we had in 2008......!!!

Deregulation is what LEAD to the Deepwater Horizon disaster

Deregulation is what LEAD to the consolidation of the telecoms to completely fuck us to no end...


I'm beginning to think you have no fucking idea what you're regurgitating....you Milton Friedman disciples are a fucking cult
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

 

[emceeemcee]

Chomsky on the North Korean-stye deification of Reagan:

This deification of Reagan is extremely interesting and a very—it’s scandalous, but it tells a lot about the country. I mean, when Reagan left office, he was the most unpopular living president, apart from Nixon, even below Carter. If you look at his years in office, he was not particularly popular. He was more or less average. He severely harmed the American economy. When he came into office, the United States was the world’s leading creditor. By the time he left, it was the world’s leading debtor. He was fiscally totally irresponsible—wild spending, no fiscal responsibility. Government actually grew during the Reagan years.

He was also a passionate opponent of the free market. I mean, the way he’s being presented is astonishing. He was the most protectionist president in post-war American history. He essentially virtually doubled protective barriers to try to preserve incompetent U.S. management, which was being driven out by superior Japanese production.

During his years, we had the first major fiscal crises. During the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, the New Deal regulations were still in effect, and that prevented financial crises. The financialization of the economy began to take off in the ’70s, but with the deregulation, of course you start getting crises. Reagan left office with the biggest financial crisis since the Depression: the home savings and loan.

I won’t even talk about his international behavior. I mean, it was just abominable. I mean, if we gained our optimism by ******* hundreds of thousands of people in Central America and destroying any hope for democracy and freedom and supporting South Africa while it ****** about a million-and-a-half people in neighboring countries, and on and on, if that’s the way we get back our optimism, we’re in bad trouble.

Well, what happened after Reagan left office is that there was the beginnings of an effort to carry out a kind of—this Reagan legacy, you know, to try to create from this really quite miserable creature some kind of deity. And amazingly, it succeeded. I mean, Kim Il-sung would have been impressed. The events that took place when Reagan died, you know, the Reagan legacy, this Obama business, you don’t get that in free societies. It would be ridiculed. What you get it is in totalitarian states. And I’m waiting to see what comes next. This morning, North Korea announced that on the birthday of the current god, a halo appeared over his birthplace. That will probably happen tomorrow over Reagan’s birthplace. But when we go in—I mean, this is connected with what we were talking about before. If you want to control a population, keep them passive, keep beating them over the head and let them look somewhere else, one way to do it is to give them a god to worship.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011//17/democracy_uprising_in_the_usa_noam

 

[ragincaucasian]

And Reagans 'trickle down theory' did work

Reagan knew he was doing. Small government was the way to go.

do your fucking homework
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman

yeah, good ole Voodoo Economics at work

 

[grower_boy]

what the hell are you talking about?

Deregulation is what LEAD to the whole financial collapse we had in 2008......!!!

Why didn't it lead to a financial collapse in 1988 then? Reagan was more deregulatory than Bush was, and the economy was pretty good right on through the '90s. Even Clinton had some aspects of deregulation during his presidency.

Deregulation is what LEAD to the Deepwater Horizon disaster

Maybe I'm just an ignorant bastard, but what is that?

Deregulation is what LEAD to the consolidation of the telecoms to completely fuck us to no end...

And they don't right now?

I'm beginning to think you have no fucking idea what you're regurgitating....you Milton Friedman disciples are a fucking cult
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Like I said, I'm only speaking from one point of view. You don't gotta throw a damn screwdriver at my balls over it, dude. I never claimed to know a lot about politics, I was just stating a simple opinion. So chill the hell out.

 

[ragincaucasian]

Why didn't it lead to a financial collapse in 1988 then? Reagan was more deregulatory than Bush was, and the economy was pretty good right on through the '90s. Even Clinton had some aspects of deregulation during his presidency.

what is your question? If I do not swallow the BS mythology of Reagan then I somehow must be carrying water for "the other team"? Hardly....where did I cheerlead for Clinton?

I never claimed to know a lot about politics, I was just stating a simple opinion. So chill the hell out.

you don't expect people to call you on continuing false naratives and lies?

You're failing to critically examine American politics.....its just kabuki WWE theatrics and you're falling for it. You're under the illusion that there is actually a difference between Clinton-Reagan-Bush-Obama......

Maybe this is more your speed

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Trident1]

Good example Scott... how much money did the USPS make last quarter? Or last year?

***wait for it***

Here's a newsflash people: The nation is BROKE. When you're broke, you don't keep spending money like a ******* sailor on shoreleave. Now I know the unions are a huge powerbase for a certain political party (ask Harry Reid), but the people spoke, and the leaders in WI are doing what they were elected to do. Or does that argument only work when the the other party wins an election? :dunno:

Nah the Dems want to spend our way out of the deficit by borrowing.:1orglaugh

That's like paying one credit card bill with another high interest credit card. You never get out of the hole. Duh.:clap:

 

[busaguy79]

If all of us on this board were so smart then we wouldn't be on a porn forum we would be running this country so as far as i'm concerned we can all beat our chests and and post how much we know and how we are so smart about politics, the fact is we aren't **** and the only change we can do is when we vote, so get over it and get back to the porn!

 

[ragincaucasian]

If all of us on this board were so smart then we wouldn't be on a porn forum we would be running this country so as far as i'm concerned we can all beat our chests and and post how much we know and how we are so smart about politics, the fact is we aren't **** and the only change we can do is when we vote, so get over it and get back to the porn!

great contribution :why:

we need more RevTaz indian posts

 

[emceeemcee]

The Reagan myth making process is a bizarre thing. It's quite concerning to watch how effective it's been. The true believers just lap that **** up. I even read an op-ed from a columnist in my local paper here in Australia which gushed love for him for being everything he wasn't.

 

[busaguy79]

Just throwing in a reality check

 

[Trident1]

Reagan was a good President pure and simple. He was leagues above JFK, LBJ, Ford and Carter.

 

[Deepcover]

I don't think Reagan was a good President. He spended so much money, didn't do anything during the ***** epidemic, made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Plus in that speech you can clearly see him as a puppet President. Then again I guess every US President becomes a puppet. It's an evil system but I guess that's just politics...

 

[ragincaucasian]

Just throwing in a reality check

not for nothing, but how do you participate in a democracy if you are a completely uninformed citizen? What does it matter if you vote and "make your voice heard" if you are mislead and willfully ignorant on what you're voting for?

You've presented a myth about the effects of Reagan supply-side economics, where the top corporate entities are incentived (at the expense of the working class). Presumably you believe this myth to be true and accurate, and you use it to make future decisions. If what your interpretations or founded on are the result of clever PR and emotions, what are you truly basing your opinions on? Its like asking an 8 year old to make a sound financial decision ("do you want the wild berry snow cone for $9 or save your money for a bike next month?"), where emotion and feel-good stimulus is what rules the motivations.

So if you are standing for "democracy" and "freedom" what difference does it make if you never exercise it, if all we're gonna do is just throw everything on a whim?

We invent gimmick words like "drinkability", "cold activation", and "vortex bottle" to cloud the issue that whats really at work is a cheap and poorly constructed alcoholic rice and corn concoction is being ****** off as quality / actually tasty version of a glorious ***** just to make the most profits possible. Dupe the masses into believing Budweiser and Miller and Coors are actually good tasting beers (creating a new standard for taste) thats the same analogy we have with politics

 

[grower_boy]

what is your question? If I do not swallow the BS mythology of Reagan then I somehow must be carrying water for "the other team"? Hardly....where did I cheerlead for Clinton?

I'm saying if deregulation was that bad, why didn't the economy collapse in 1988 rather than 2008?

you don't expect people to call you on continuing false naratives and lies?

Nobody is calling anyone out except for you. I stated my personal OPINION as a communications major that I am in favor of deregulation. And who says that your wikipedia-backed facts are anymore correct than any of the other posters' opinions? I really want to know.

I never lied about a damn thing...I stated my OPINION. And if yours is different, it's not that big of a deal.

You're failing to critically examine American politics.....its just kabuki WWE theatrics and you're falling for it. You're under the illusion that there is actually a difference between Clinton-Reagan-Bush-Obama......

And who says you're examining them correctly? What makes you so much better than everyone else?

I'm not under any illusion. If you read my post I said that I **** both of the parties, and that's all I have to say about that. I just know enough to know that in the world of telecommunications AKA electronic media, the Reagan years were very different from the Obama years, etc.

 

[busaguy79]

not for nothing, but how do you participate in a democracy if you are a completely uninformed citizen? What does it matter if you vote and "make your voice heard" if you are mislead and willfully ignorant on what you're voting for?

You've presented a myth about the effects of Reagan supply-side economics, where the top corporate entities are incentived (at the expense of the working class). Presumably you believe this myth to be true and accurate, and you use it to make future decisions. If what your interpretations or founded on are the result of clever PR and emotions, what are you truly basing your opinions on? Its like asking an 8 year old to make a sound financial decision ("do you want the wild berry snow cone for $9 or save your money for a bike next month?"), where emotion and feel-good stimulus is what rules the motivations.

So if you are standing for "democracy" and "freedom" what difference does it make if you never exercise it, if all we're gonna do is just throw everything on a whim?

We invent gimmick words like "drinkability", "cold activation", and "vortex bottle" to cloud the issue that whats really at work is a cheap and poorly constructed alcoholic rice and corn concoction is being ****** off as quality / actually tasty version of a glorious ***** just to make the most profits possible. Dupe the masses into believing Budweiser and Miller and Coors are actually good tasting beers (creating a new standard for taste) thats the same analogy we have with politics

Sorry i'm a Guiness drinker

And because i'm not taking part in a useless thread on a porn forum doesn't mean i'm a 'unimformed citizen lemming', I just choose to keep the reasons I have my opinion to myself and if you have a problem with that well too bad for you bud

 

[D-rock]

Ahhh...Reagan, one of the biggest economic disasters this country has ever had. The amount of nonsensical idolization Reagan has and the amount of revisionist history or just plain things his supporters conveniently ignore or twist around about his presidency has come to the point where Reagan is now the most overrated president in history. If you take out his overrated role in the fall of the U.S.S.R he wasn't even mediocre. We are still suffering for him and will continue to do so for decades to come. Our country will probably never recover from what he did by the looks of it now. He was somebody that believed in cowboy capitalism, because to him it basically felt right and helped people he waned to support, not that he actually thought logically about it or because he actually gave a crap about most of the American people. I know, how about all those people that idolize Reagan reanimate his corpse so we can ask him where all that trickle down went. Most people didn’t even get that. It must have turned to vapor and vanished before it ever reached the masses. I still can’t believe people were and are stupid enough to still believe in any of the Reagan administration’s economic concepts when they so brazenly fly in the face of common sense. Now we even have decades of proof of it. That so many people are so gullible about Reagan says a lot about the American public then and now.

Whether people like class warfare or not, it’s reality, and don’t blame anybody but the people at the top for that. While our country has been crumbling, the income and standard of living for most individuals has been dwindling the last four decades, while the rich and elite have been tailoring law after law and the tax code to benefit themselves at the expense of everybody else they have now created a income gap between themselves and everybody else that’s only rivaled by our countries Gilded Age over a century ago and at the rate it‘s going it‘s going to get back there in the near future. You know the one before unions, safety laws, most worker protection laws, laws that governed pay, environmental laws, where the common people were pretty much ruled over like kings by the elite, where people died protesting it, where corporations literally had the police and other agencies come and beat people on their work line and bust up protest. It’s starting to slowly but surely get back to that point, and here we are starting to slowly stripping away one protection, one fairness inducing law after another so they can start all over again.

Hey, don’t let what I say stop anybody though. I’m sure all you who disagree will be one of the first people that will want to go and join in a coal mining company town (or it’s present or futuristic equivalent) when they start up again, won’t you. Just remember when you do about that whole thing about how relatively unfettered capitalism “works” stuff and about how it makes the country that has it “better“ and how it’s more “fair“.

The public sector has far outpaced the private in the last decade in benefits, and for "average" jobs, salaries as well. Here in DC, Feds salaries and benefits are astonomical when compared to their provate sector counterparts, and when Obama ordered a two year freeze on raises, people lost their freaking minds! They truly act like they are SUPPOSED to get more every year without earnig it!

You have to keep in mind that that's not because the public sector jobs got so incredibly good they made everybody else look bad. That's because most common private sector jobs have started really sucking more and more for a growing segment of the population the last four decades they started making the public sector jobs look abnormally good by comparison. It's not that those public sector jobs are that good, it's that the private sector jobs suck that bad. Once upon a time most people could go out and get a private sector job like that that paid a living wage. They also could get one more reliably, quicker, with less education and investment, and they didn't have to pay as much for health care and had an actual pension...YES, I said private sector jobs gave actual pensions once upon a time. That isn't just something that old people make up. Yes, they also gave decent affordable health benefits once upon a time to. Yes, once upon a time a gigantic percentage of families could (gasp) go without needing two incomes to get by.

You shouldn't be blaming private sector jobs, you should instead take a long hard look at our corrupt economic capitalistic system, how it's corrupted this country, (which Reagan was a VERY HUGE part of), why our politicians don't side with what benefits the vast majority of the people anymore for the benefit of the few already rich people, and where all those once nice and plentiful private sector jobs went.

There is corruption in unions, and some of them or at least some of the leaders of them aren't always the greatest thing, but as long as corporations are as corrupt as they have ever been, if not more so, as long as greed is the motivating factor that "runs" our economy, unions are by far the lesser of two evils, and since too many people don't want to change the system or hold politicians and our corporations to account....

 

[emceeemcee]

Reagan was a good President pure and simple. He was leagues above JFK, LBJ, Ford and Carter.

I love how you qualify his 'goodness' by comparing it to a bunch of other shitty presidents



:1orglaugh