555 votes of ballot stuffing although that infamous unabomber (that or some guy who worked for Jimmy Carter) have been trying to stuff it with 1s.

I have the perfect birthday gift for him: A retroactive impeachment, for all the harm he caused, to this and other countries.

Michael - Long time no see! ;D

One thing was for sure. NO other coutries EVER thought to mess with us while Ronnie was in charge! 555 Star Wars laser shots...

Did I vote 1-1-1? I don't recall. ;D

I remember the night Reagan was elected and how America started to change for the better. Obama is no Reagan, and never will be.

JP - Score the song on it's merits, not your political beliefs. ;D

Tricklin' down y'all some fives!

I can't imagine a worse insult than being compared to FDR or JFK....

Without Reagan, we'd still have the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union, the "stagflation" of the Carter years ... you know, all that stuff that Mr. Pacholek apparently wishes we still had. 555

Good one... don't like Reagan too well (I don't like jellybeans or "Bedtime for Bonzo" either), but the parody is great. 5s.
TT: How about being compared to Hitler, Stalin, Marshal Tito, Nikolai Ceausescu or Pol Pot? ;)

A psychopath is a psychopath, and (at least in the US) a valid plea of insanity can keep a perpetrator out of prison and in a psychiatric hospital, where he belongs. The two above knowingly and coldbloodedly brought great harm to this country. JFK, among many other misdeeds, got us involved in Vietnam, costing 50,000 American lives and billions of dollars, which accomplished nothing. (The Communists took over anyway.)

If you're truly interested in why this writer regards FDR in that way, it's in our parody here
http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/donmclean152.shtml
but be warned that it's not an easy read.

The Hitler card has been so over-played that it's easy to ignore if someone plays it on you. Likewise the rest of the psychos - it's a meaningless insult. .But FDR and JFK seem to be some kind of cult heroes to many, mostly due to good PR/brainwashing (and for JFK, martyrdom), so it would indeed be bad to be compared to those who fooled so many people about their evil, whereas no one disputes the insane evil of those whom you cite.

Cheers.

Reagan's economics produced, how would I say it nicely, less than optimal results on behalf of Joe and Jane Average, but he managed to crush the USSR. That is a feat enough. Reagan showed us Sting was right - the Russians loved their children too and quit communism. Fives.

Susanna, you've been the victim of disinformation spread by a Left-biased media. When Reagan took office, inflation was running at about 13%/yr, and the economy was stagnant. Reagan zapped the misery in about two years, vs. eight years of Depression under Franklin D. Roosevelt, which was ended only by the US gearing up to enter WW 2.

The Dow Jones Stock Index was languishing in the 750s just before Reagan took office. His administration commenced a bull market that, with the usual brief hiccups, lasted *eighteen years*. Check the charts and note that steep upward climb from 1982-1999.

1980-2000:
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia19802000.html

Entire history, 1900 - present:
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html

Before someone says that a strong stock market helps only the rich: The stock market is an indicator of the economy in general. If companies are doing well, they expand, build new facilities, hire more workers, etc.

The term "trickle-down effect" was a diabolical bit of Newspeak (He who controls the language controls the truth -- G. Orwell & T. Turtle); the term used by economists (coughttcough!) is "multiplier effect": For every dollar invested in *production* (as opposed to Gov give-aways or pork barrel projects), about $6 -$7 is added to the total economy, as the expanding employment allows workers to buy homes, cars, eat at restaurants more often, etc. -- which boosts those industries and encourages entrepreneurs to start *new* businesses, thus creating yet more employment, in a "benevolent cycle" (as opposed to a "vicious cycle").

Supply-side economics *does* work. Reagan's tax cuts very much benefited the blue-collar and middle classes, who got to keep more of their paycheck. and not "just the rich" (more disinformation rhetoric).

TT's only quibble is that Reagan didn't cut spending enough to match the tax cuts, but the military build-up that convinced the Kremlin hard-liners that they couldn't win was money well spent, IMHO, *and* allowed the military budget to be reduced drastically once the Cold War ended -- thanks to Reagan.

You might find interesting the same parody that was recommended to Andria above,

http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/donmclean152.shtml ,

with emphasis on footnotes [16] through [18], which cover the disastrous 1970s through Reagan's years. And please remember that what might be made to work in a small, homogeneous country like Finland might not work in a country with sixty times the population, a globally-based economy, a high degree of heterogeneity, and a constant influx of immigrants from all over the World, who may have language barriers, less education, differing customs, etc.

Not to mention having to overcome that which still handicaps the descendants of the terrible institution of slavery, *which was brought to the New World by Europeans* -- British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, French, but not by the Finnish. ;)

Doubtful that Finland, or any other country, could do as well under the same circumstances, but the data are unquestionable -- Reagan improved the economy tremendously, *especially* for Joe and Jane Average. Kippis!

I remember some howls of complaining about Ronnie and he did do some stupid deeds like Iran-Contra, firing the air traffic controllers, El Salvador + Guatemala and such and "going to Bitburg" (ask the Ramones about that one). Still he debated w/ Tip O'Neil (House Speaker, a Dem) but there was great RESPECT between Ronnie and Congressmen of both parties. That's something Obama is trying to reestablish in DC again. If Reagan were to see the GOP now he wouldn't recognize it because there's too many stupid egotistical loudmouths in it slanging nerve gas and saying nothing. Ronnie was nothing like that, he was too mature and cool. Not to mention he talked to the Soviet Union and peace was achieved. That's his legacy for what we can all appreciate. Reagan is an American icon. I also rooted for John McCain in 2000. He is a Vietnam War vet hero but Dumbya used that to smear him ( he said that McCain had shell shock and wasn't suitable to be President. He also used the "black baby" card - John has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter ). Dumbya is a cretin and a moron. You're not. You made a good tribute to the Gipper.

What was wrong with firing the Air Traffic Controllers? As a supremely-critical Federal position, their contract, *which they signed*, forbade them to strike. They broke their contract. So they were fired.

It was rough for a bit, but pretty soon, things were OK again -- and Reagan had broken the Government-supported stranglehold that unions in general had on the throats of their employers.

That stranglehold was why a lot of businesses moved their employment overseas, or to the less-unionized South, and why so many more films are shot in Seattle, Toronto, the Deep South, etc.: - to get away from the ultra-high-cost union contracts in "Hollywood' (Los Angeles, and California in general.) Evening the playing field (the pro-union laws passed by Dems) helped make US businesses competitive again. Example; The airline industry, paralyzed by featherbed union contracts, economized, and consumers won: A ticket cost less in 1988 than in 1978, even without adjusting for inflation.

Yes, Reagan and Tip O'Neil would claw at each other politically, then leave arm-in-arm to go have a drink together. Does Obama think he invented civility? Reagan had it, then we lost it during the 90s. Overall, good post.

Mark, in case you've forgotten, or weren't born yet and believe the right-wing myths, PLENTY of countries messed with us when the old buzzard was in the White House. To name just 3: Iran. Libya -- Lockerbie happened 2 years after he bombed them. China -- so much for "He beat the Commies." Patrick: America did NOT start to change for the better: Unemployment went from 7 to 11 percent in 2 years, and our manufacturing base was ruined, due to his crazy harebrained tax scheme. It took until 1986 for him to get unemployment below its Carter-years peak. So when you say a politician is "no Reagan," the appropriate response is, "Thank God." TT: Reagan had NOTHING to do with the demolition of the Berlin Wall: It was still standing when he left. What took it down was the people of the East demanding what the West had; if anything, Reagan probably delayed its fall. And the President who "got us involved in Vietnam" was Eisenhower, and Reagan supported that war long after it was revealed to be wrong. And as for "what was wrong with firing the air-traffic controllers," Air Florida Flight 90. January 13, 1982. 78 people died. Did we punish Reagan for this? No, "we" renamed the airport from which the doomed flight took off after him! That's like renaming Pearl Harbor after Tojo! Face it, Reagan was a disgrace. He wasn't a great President, he just played one on TV. And what would he, or you, have called it if a Democratic President had sold weapons to Iran, Saddam, and the future Taliban and al-Qaeda, making the latter two possible? "For it to prosper, none dare call it 'Treason.'"

Michael, Fiddlegirl and I are hurt! -- You ranted twice here, but not at all at our Obamabash of 1/31. We were so looking forward to seeing you!

You're flat wrong on the unemployment and economic figures -- look up the Carter era for yourself. You might not be quite old enough to remember it, but I am. I'm not going to point out the figures, as actual "facts" have never had any effect on your opinions, but if you *really* wanted the truth, all of that is in the parody linked to both Susanna and Andria. It's not easy reading, but reality is more complex than bumper stickers. The reply to Susanna contains a lot of this in condensed form.

As a reminder, I have an MBA in Finance and Economics, and more than twenty years' experience in financial-related fields. No guarantee of being right -- lots of MBAs at Lehman Bros. were wrong -- but hey, I'm still in business, and they're not, so .... :-D

Really curious about your educational level, major, etc., and professional background, as qualifications to know and understand economic facts and issues. Your page just says "working in retail". Starbucks? What? Care to share, so we know the base from which you speak?

Take a weekend some time and read the economic history of the US, as condensed by FG and TT at that "American Pie" parody, http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/donmclean152.shtml. Would love to see your comments.

And quite ironic that you used the title of an extreme-right-wing book (published by the John Birch Society, of which no, I/we are *not* members) in your closing. You achieved the goal on your bio -- *to make us laugh". See you at that parody!

Unemployment and economic figures are not the only statements about which you are wrong. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinions you like about whomever you wish. But you are not entitled to rewrite history or ignore facts which run contrary to your agenda.

1) Your pronunciations about Iran and Libya conveniently ignore their history of antagonization toward the U.S., and the issues surrounding the policies adopted and actions taken. You also adopt the false and naive assumption that if we would all "just be nice" to terrorists, they would be nice back and we would all be friends. Baloney. As far as China is concerned, even their leaders acknowledge that, apart from disagreements over Taiwan, the US and Chinese governments were able to cultivate diplomatic relations and work together on a number of issues, notably Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.

2) Reagan had plenty to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was his relationship with Gorbachev that encouraged the opening of the communist bloc, starting with the symbolic point of Berlin, and with the rest of the Iron Curtain following. (The "people of the East" could have demanded anything they wanted, but without the Soviet government's willingness to change, they weren't going to get it.) Your statement that Reagan "probably" delayed Communism's fall is baseless and ridiculous.

3) Likewise, your pronunciations on Vietnam display a similar lack of historical knowledge. Troops under Eisenhower were sent as "military advisors", not combat troops. Those troops *tripled* in 1961 (under JFK), and tripled again in 1962 (also under JFK). Combat troops were deployed under LBJ in 1965. Your statement that Reagan "supported" the war is disingenuous. What he actually said was that it was "a noble cause", and that the tragedy lay in insufficient resolve on the part of the US, which is true at least to a large extent.

Finally,the crash of Air Florida Flight 90, while tragic, was *not* due to air traffic controller error, but to pilot error. According to the NTSB report, the pilots failed to turn on the engine's internal ice protection systems, used reverse thrust in a snow storm prior to takeoff, and failed to abort takeoff even after detecting a power problem while taxiing and visually identifying ice/snow buildup on the wings.< BR>
The facts are sometimes inconvenient, Mr. Pacholek, but they *are* still the facts. Unless you get them straight, you run the risk of looking foolish.

Mr. Pacholek, to see the crucial role of my late friend, President Reagan, in motivating the removal of the Wall, and of the subsequent collapse of th e CCCP (English: USSR, or just "Soviet Union", see this:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/thecyrkle3.shtml

Dos vedanya!

response to TT: Reaganomics helped bring America out of the post-Vietnam War economic doldrums. It happened in 1983, just in time for a looming re-election campaign start. However in fall 1982 the GOP took a beating in Congressional elections due to the recession and double digit inflation. It was pretty bad, I remember it. I see some parallel to today - Obama inherited an economy in horrible shape as well as an ugly war ( Lebanon was a thorn in Reagan's side ). Reagan did get along with his Congressional / party rivals even if they clashed in the Capitol - and they did. Obama seems to want to WORK with Congress even with the GOP gains of last fall. I admire these aspects in him just as I do in Ronnie. Obama is intelligent, he's no big dummy ( like someone before him) and he seems to an alright guy but Obama is Obama and Reagan is Reagan. Obama didn't invent "civility" and neither did Reagan but I'm glad just to see someone trying to ressurrect it. After Reagan ( and the Cold War ) a new era had arrived everything seemed to look cool and bright. Instead, the momentum was thrown away.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the *entire economic history of the US" is in the linked parody, complete with facts and figures. (It's not short. ;) Reagan was inaugurated in Jan. 1981. As you said, within only two years, a strong and enduring recovery was underway. You can't undo two or three decades of economic malfeasance in six months, no matter what voters would like to believe.

The *facts* (sorry to keep re-using that word) are that the housing bubble that led to the current economic meltdown was the direct result of legislation and fiscal policies pushed by the Clinton Administration. Uh, wasn't Clinton from the same party as Obama? ... just askin'.

No apologist for Dubya here, but a recession had started *before* W was inaugurated. That became known only after his inauguration, due to the fact that there's a lag in verifying preliminary numbers.

None of which excuses W's huge war spending, nor Obama's failed promises to fix the economy. O's boondoggle bailouts, clunkers, etc., did nothing useful in the two years he's been in office, whereas inflation was reduced by 75%, unemployment down sharply, etc. after Reagan had been in office two years or so.

I just wish that people would look at actual f*cts, and the root causes of them, from an objective POV, but most people seem unable to do that. Cheers.