Thread: CBS "Reagan" Mini-Series ....

Originally posted by momfromTN
I think you are a little off about the economy. It was really good back then for the most part. The 80's were some of the most prosperous in recent history.

The AIDS virus was a new thing back then that no one really had much information on. There was a LOT of research going on back then, though, so I feel your statement is unfair.

As far as the Clintons go, there would be no movie about them, because the Liberal Media doesn't have the hatred for them like they do anyone who is a Republican or conservative in any way.

And, BTW, if there were such a movie, YES there would be screaming about it. I never ever liked Clinton, but I feel a movie like that would be wrong, so I would also protest.

And honestly, how do we really know what is true and what isn't? Especially with a hater like Babs in on it.

The Reagan years was filled with the homeless, don't you recall the hoopla about Nancy buying dishes for the white house while people were starving in the streets, I do. Reagans economic strategy was called trickle down economics, which was give the rich tax breaks and they would invest that money thus trickling down to the poor, basically a giant load of BS was all that the poor and the homeless got. Then of course there was Aids, yes it was a new disease but Reagan and the government ignored it entirely, the funding and research you speak of was started and funded by Activists who had fundraisings to get money for the research. So lets give credit where credit is due, Reagan was uncaring toward the homeless and people sick with Aids, his failure to act to provide funding for assistance for these people certainly tell the story better than any Hollywood movie. History is history you can't change it, it is what it is, as for Clinton I really don't care whether they make a movie before or after he is dead and gone, I'll watch it just like I intend to watch the one about the Reagan's. The truth is everyone who chooses to go for public office has to know there might come a time when their life is put under a microscope and looked at, Reagan should have known that better than others since he was a former leading man of Hollywood before pursuing public office. I'm glad you have fond memories of the Reagan years but I don't. Most of the people I know don't have good memories of a great economy either.

"People starving in the streets"? Where? I never saw people starving in the streets. We have charities to help people that are homeless and need a meal. The government doesn't have to do everything for everybody. Our church here gives a good meal to anyone who needs one every night. No one has to starve.

Maybe you are talking about the mentally ill who won't accept help because of paranoia. They think there is poison in the food or other things that are a delusion to them. The mental institutions were closed leaving hundreds of people homeless on the streets. Not healthy people but people with mental illnesses. Sad but true. Society yelled for these institutions to be closed but they never thought what to do with the people after they were closed and had nowhere else to go.

Originally posted by momfromTN
Of course life is not peachy, but you all make it sound like EVERYTHING is the fault of any conservative president. Homeless people have always been there, as well as the poor. There ARE programs within the government and within private organizations that help the homeless and poor, so don't tell me there isn't. There are many who are on the corners, holding those signs that if you offered to let them do a small job for food, they would refuse and want your money. I know because my DH tried it once. The ones I really feel for are those who lose their jobs unexpectedly and ones who are trying to do for themselves. And yes, the vets do need more help. But damn! To blame Pres Reagan and Bush and Bush Jr, for all the ills in the world is just not making any sense to me. The presidents are not miracle workers and they cannot wave a magic wand to make the world's ills go away. I guess Pres Clinton's years in office were the magic years. Oh yeah.(just kidding) And yes, I know that just because people don't like Bush, or Reagan, that doesn't mean they automatically love Clinton.

The AIDs thing was very new during the 80s. What did you want Reagan to do? I mean, no one knew this was totally incurable at the time. You cannot just stop the government and give all monies to anything coming down the pike. I don't believe it was totally ignored. I am not sure what you expected. And what business is it of anyone's if Nancy Reagan bought whatever? Hilary Clinton took off with things that didn't belong to her after the presidency, and during the presidency, she was always taking Chelsea traveling somewhere. Doesn't that cost money too? And Jackie Kennedy redid the White House, to the dismay of many. So what? How do you know for sure that some things are not bought with their OWN money. A lot of these people are rich, anyway, ya know? I guess that rich people, especially republicans, are supposed to be ashamed of being rich and give their money away. Of course we never see a democrat do it, but boy they sure talk about it. LOL! And I will tell you that rich people DO pay a LOT of taxes. I know a millionaire, personally and I know for a fact he pays a LOT of taxes. And no, before someone gets all up in arms, we ARE NOT rich. Not by any stretch. And, if you get down to it, people who have kids and make under 25,000 a yr, don't really pay taxes.(and yes I know that depends on your situation) That is why they get HUGE refunds, like my brother did. He was basically paid to file a return. I sure wouldn't have minded the $4000 he got. LOL! Hey, if you can get it, and are entitled to it legally, then go for it. By golly if I ever got rich, I would enjoy it fully.
Mesue, I guess this is yet another thing we disagree on. And, truthfully, I was a rather liberal high school and college student during Reagan's years, and I thought that it was unfair that the government didn't foot my bill for college. I even had a chance to see Reagan personally at my college and didn't. (kickin my own butt) I then grew older and read more and realized that the government does NOT owe me everything in life and that you have to work for what you get. There is nothing wrong with a hand-up and helping someone out, but there is also nothing wrong with those WHO CAN help themselves, to get off their butt and do it. Personally, if the welfare rolls could be purged of the slackers who don't BOTHER to help themselves, then there would be more help for those who truly need it.

Ok, speech done. I will agree to disagree and move on now. Thank you.

First of all you can't group the working poor who get no help at all with the people who stand on street corners or the people who qualify for aid, those are three different groups of people. You continually say that Aids was new during this time, apparently you feel that is a good excuse for the Reagan administration not to have acted on it, actually that is the worst excuse I've heard, yes it was new and no one supposedly knew much about it, exactly why Reagan should've acted to protect us all. You continually say we can't blame Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr. for the ills of our world, so apparently you feel their just figure heads, Bush Jr. has us in a war, he is effecting many peoples lives, his economical policy affects us all, he asked for the job now he can take the criticism for it, and why can't we blame them I've never noticed you or any Republicans cutting Clinton any slack just because he is one man. Heck you all even beat up on Mrs. Clinton all the time. She was just a first lady, how canyou hold her responsible. As for the dishes Nancy Reagan bought for the white house, they cost 45,000.00 and the reason everyone knew about it was it went before a committee, the tax payers paid for it not her or Reagan, thats what all the hoopla was about, her spending all that for dishes while there was homeless and starving families on the street. Currently the American people are paying 52% of their income in taxes higher than its ever been and that includes the working poor. Whether you like it or not history tells the story about the Reagan years and that is what the conservatives don't want presented, they would prefer just to remember it all through rose colored glasses. I don't think now or ever in the past the government owed me anything but it does have certain obligations to the American people and one of them is to provide funding for research on a new disease when its people are dying of it and it has an obligation to its people when they can't find a job and are starving on the streets. You can't just say, their homeless because they want to be and ignore the problem, you can't just turn the mentally ill out on the streets and expect them to have a home to go to or to be able to function without any help. And MomfromTn. you know you love to debate this stuff as much as I do. I just wish you would get in touch with more of your liberal side, what did you do to that kid who had a liberal side, dig her out of the closet.

I am a realist, not looking at anything thru any rose colored glasses, MeSue. I know NONE of our politicians are perfect. And no, I don't see our presidents as figure heads, BUT, they are only men. They cannot wave a magic wand and cure all the ills of the world. Every president I remember has had his good and his bad.

Anyway, MeSue, I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. You have some valid points, and I am not totally wrong here either. So, lets just leave it at agreeing to disagree, if thats ok with you.
And that Liberal kid in me is long hidden away. I get her out and look at her every so often but for the most part, the real me takes over. And I like it that way.