Reagan fans: what did Reagan do that you admire?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Little_Nemo

Arguably, Kennedy should have realized that the Bay of Pigs invasion was not going to succeed without American intervention. So he should have either called it off or committed to American intervention. There was no benefit in going ahead with an invasion that was doomed to failure.

Realistically, Kennedy was new to office and inexperienced. He let himself get led by advisors. But that’s part of being President - you have to take responsibility for mistakes other people made in your name.

Not really. You can’t “realize” anything if information is deliberately kept from you.

The full article from the Washington Post is here:
[

Kornbluh said there is no indication that Esterline or anyone else at the CIA warned President Kennedy of the leak before the invasion took place.

](Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack)

And, yes, some people argue that it wasn’t a “mistake” at all, that it was “treachery”.

[

@James K. Galbraith

One of the great travesties of the Cold War surfaced on April 29, when the Washington Post reported the declassification in full of General Maxwell Taylor’s June, 1961 special report on the Bay of Pigs invasion. Partial versions of this document have been available for decades. But only now did its darkest secret spill.

Here is what Taylor reported to Kennedy. The Russians knew the date of the invasion. (Therefore, Castro also knew.) The CIA, headed by Allen Dulles, knew that the Russians knew. (Therefore, they knew the invasion would fail.) The leak did not come from the invasion force; it had happened before the Cuban exiles were themselves briefed on the date. Kennedy was not informed. Nor, of course, were the exiles. And knowing all this, Dulles ordered the operation forward.

Was this incompetence? I think not. The evidence points, rather, to treachery.

](Wayback Machine)

[Little_Nemo]

I was looking at the broader reasons for failure. In retrospect there was no realistic possibility that 1400 exiles were going to overthrow Castro’s regime. The beliefs that it could were either based on wishful thinking that the Cuban people were waiting for a chance to oust Castro and would rise up in support of the invaders or on the belief that the invaders would just serve as a foot in the door and would offer justification for a follow-up American invasion that would actually overthrow Castro.

People in the military and intelligence community obviously couldn’t sell the idea that the invasion was a good idea because it would offer us an opportunity to get involved directly in a war. So they went with the idea that either the invaders were sufficient to succeed on their own or that the Cuban people would support them. Neither of these had any basis in fact.

After the disaster was over, asses had to be covered. Nobody wanted to say that they were incompetent and had misread the evidence. And nobody wanted to admit that they had essentially been lying and the whole point of the operation was to serve as a stepping stone for an American invasion. So the leak was offered up as a face saver. It basically made it plausible to claim that the overall plan was good as it had been presented and would have worked in other circumstances but it failed due to the leak not due to poor planning. It made the error specific rather than institutional.

[irae]

This is the answer to an entirely different question, but I feel it answers the OP rather nicely.

From Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

"Dear Yahoo!:
Why is Judy Garland such a popular gay icon?
Auntie Em
Encino, California

Dear Em:
Somewhere over the rainbow, past searches on “Judy Garland gay icon” and related terms, we discovered a number of complicated reasons why this singer and movie star is so beloved by the gay community.
The gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate calls Judy Garland “an Elvis for homosexuals.” In more closeted times, gays used the term “friend of Dorothy” to refer to themselves in mixed company, in homage to Garland’s role as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. Today, Garland isn’t as well known among the younger gay generation, but she still holds a special place in the hearts of many.

Judy Garland was hugely popular among gays during her lifetime. Her concerts were major gay meeting places, and in her later years, she made money singing at gay piano bars. Garland’s father was gay, as were her studio-executive mentor and two of her five husbands. She had many gay friends and went to parties where she joked that she was the only woman present. But her appeal was based on more than her own acceptance of gays.

Both onscreen and off, Garland projected a unique combination of vulnerability and strength. She sang of intense loneliness, followed by songs describing delirious love. She had legendary stage fright but declared her greatest happiness came from performing. These conflicts mirrored the lives of oppressed, closeted gay men in the 1950s and 1960s. They identified with the paradox and duplicity in Garland’s life. Severe laws and prejudice against homosexuality forced gays to lead double lives and hide their true selves.

As Dorothy, Judy Garland portrayed a misunderstood kid from a small town who has an amazing adventure in a Technicolor world. The central message of The Wizard of Oz is that you will find what you’re looking for inside yourself. That message resonated with gays of the era who yearned to come out into a colorful world and live what was inside of them.

While prejudice against gays is still common, the public is generally more tolerant these days. Homosexuals aren’t as strictly closeted as in Garland’s day, and her image doesn’t strike such a deep chord. But her plucky strength and sweetness continue to win admirers among people of all orientations. "

[Little_Nemo]

@irae

This is the answer to an entirely different question, but I feel it answers the OP rather nicely.

I’m not seeing the connection you’re making.

[irae]

Reagan, by today’s standards, would be called a RINO - he expanded the federal government, raised taxes, increased the deficit to previously unseen levels, etc. So not ‘one of them’, yet his message and example resonated with conservatives who’d been ‘closeted’ during the 70’s, and made them feel like their chosen lifestyle was okay.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

So… Reagan was gay?

[Shodan]

@irae

Reagan, by today’s standards, would be called a RINO - he expanded the federal government, raised taxes, increased the deficit to previously unseen levels, etc.

According to a 1996 study[31] from libertarian think tank Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
* The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared.

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Regards,
Shodan

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Shodan

Regards,
Shodan

And your point was…?

[Shodan]

Try reading the title of the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[irae]

I think his point was that, sure, Reagan expanded the federal government, raised taxes, increased the deficit to previously unseen levels, but the ends justified the means, or something.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Shodan

Try reading the title of the thread.

@irae

I think his point was that, sure, Reagan expanded the federal government, raised taxes, increased the deficit to previously unseen levels, but the ends justified the means, or something.

I didn’t think this was difficult. Shodan, you quoted irae, seemingly to disagree with the contention that Reagan is a RINO by today’s standards. Yet, none of the quoted bits you provided did that. Quoting someone, by all reasonable standards, implies that you’re addressing something they said, not the title of the thread directly.

So, by my reading, either: (1) I misunderstood (hence my query), (2) you misquoted irae (likely didn’t mean to include it), or (3) you’re out in the weeds and still don’t realize it.

Whatever the answer, my question of “what’s your point?” covered it. And is still outstanding.

[Guinastasia]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So… Reagan was gay?

Or a GOP Hag.

[Dick_Dastardly]

@Shodan

ccording to a 1996 study[31] from libertarian think tank Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
* The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. Quote:
The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared.
Quote:
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Regards,
Shodan

The Cato Institute is a right wing think tank set up by billionaires and big corporations with the express intent of campaigning for policies those people want. And so with this study they assemble a bunch of data that can persuade unknowledegeable people that Reagan did something special. yes, inflation, unemployment and interest rates fell under Reagan. That’s because interest rates had been artificially cranked up to almost 20% under carter to cut inflation and this had induced a big recession, massive unemployment etc. reagan got the benefit of this when the Fed was able to cut interest rates and a massice boom ensued.

You can see here

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/tax2006_4.gif
what happened to median income under reagan. Again, nothing exactly fantastic except for thwe top 1%. And that explains why the top, 1%/10%'s share of taxation went up. It’s because their share of the national income went up! Although their taxes obviously didn’t go up as fast as their income did.

Overall taxes were shifted from top earners to low-middle earners under Reagan (or just shifted into debt) and that’s why we got a lower national savings rate under reagan (because 90+% of Americans had to dig into their savings to maintain their living standards) and massive deficits. And of course despite the huge Reagan boom created by Carter appointing a hard money guy to run the Fed Reagan still only averaged dead-on-average post WW2 economic growth.
So without the cheerleading a slightly different picture emerges. Tell me which bits you don’t understand and I’ll try and explain them more clearly.