The following was included in the first entry that popped up when I googled “Reagan AIDS funding”.
"AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 – when the media started blaring headlines – from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988. Reagan’s secretary of Health and Human Services in1983, Margaret Heckler, declared AIDS her department’s “number one priority.”
It was from a column by Brent Bozell. Yes, he’s a conservative. Is factually incorrect?
My memories of Reagan (I was in college and not political at the time) are “the trickle down” President; the guy who said that trees caused pollution; the guy who made demonizing “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” an accepted thing (IOW, the man who sneered at the poor–and made it a righteous, acceptable, respectable thing to do–lazy goodfernothings etc). His war on drugs has been ridiculous, futile and expensive since the day it started–and yet it still continues today.
I am glad to say I never voted for him, but I will say that he (and Nixon–and isn’t that quite the statement right there?) were much more moderate than today’s Republican party–and that is a disquieting thought. I never admired his hokieness or his false folksy BS. Only in America could a third rate actor become Leader of the Free World.
Spending in 1982 was eight million dollars when it had barely been heard of. By Reagans last year in office it was one point six billion.
But it doesn’t matter, because liberal canon is that Reagan was a modern day Nero who fiddled while San Francisco burned. It feels better to imagine him lighting hundred dollar bills with delight while intentionally witholding the means to save lives.
Reagan never mentioned the word “AIDS” publicly during his presidency. He never acknowledged that it exists. He took zero leadership in a time of crisis. I’m glad to see that Congress - which controls government spending - did not feel the same way, though. Thanks for the stats!
ETA:
I’m from San Francisco. If we were in the Pit, I’d tell you exactly what I think of you.
He was slime, and destructive to the country, for all the reasons others have mentioned and more. I wouldn’t be surprised if some future history dates his Administration as the “beginning of the decline and fall of the United States of America”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future historians looked at the posts made on SDMB and elsewhere by people like Der Trihs and list them as a factor in the decline of the moral resolve of the West. :rolleyes:
But seriously how is the President who helped win the Cold War be one of the causes of America’s downfall? That’s like saying Emperor Trajan was the cause of Rome’s decline-Gibbon must be spinning in his grave.
We went through all of this when he died, Curtis. This is one of those divides that will never be bridged. Reagan is a polarizing figure that people just cannot view objectively, especially those who have cut their ideological teeth on being anti-Reagan.
Hopefully twenty or thirty years from now he will be viewed more objectivelhy after the rubbish of the radical leftists peddled by Zinn and Chomsky and et. al have been discredited.
I’ll add that there was probably terrorism committed as well. It’s debatable whether the mining of harbors in Nicaragua was actually more undeclared war or just terrorism. Certainly today if someone placed explosives in American harbors with the intent of sinking American shipping it would be viewed as terrorism.
What IS certain is that people on boats going into and out of those harbors were mostly not ideological Marxists. nor soldiers, but just poor working people.
Does it bother any of you Reagan apologists that he committed treason?
Does it bother you that he sold weapons to Iran after Iran funded the Hezbollah bombings in Beirut which killed almost 300 Americans, including over 200 US servicemen?
Does it bother you that he supported and supplied weapons to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Can you imagine if a Democrat had sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein?
Does it bother you that he arranged for the release of US hostages in Iran to be delayed for an extra 3 months so they could be turned over to his adminstration instead of Carter’s?
Do you guys actually believe your own bullshit when you canonize this fraud?
Nobody’s saying Reagan was perfect here. But if you are going to complain Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon (which I agree) than what about Clinton who withdrew from Somalia, and ignored the warning signs of Al-Qaeda and 9-11.
Nobody’s talking about Reagan withdrawing Marines from Lebanon. I was talking about the fact that he sold weapons to Iran after Iran funded the bombing of both the US Embassy and the US Marines barracks in Beirut. These bombings killed close to 300 Americans, most of whom were US Marines and other service personel.
Imagine if Iran funded and supplied a terrorist attack today which killed more than 200 US Marines, then Barack Obama rewarded them by giving them weapons. What do you think Reagan worshipping conservatives would say?
Clinton didn’t ignore “the warning signs of Al-Qaeda and 9-11”; that was Bush. Clinton’s people tried to warn Bush and his fellow scum; Bush’s reaction was to order the State Department to lay off Bin Laden, and to ignore repeated warnings afterwards. But then, Bush had no reason to want to stop Bin Laden.
We weren’t at war with the Soviet Unoion, and Osama and the Taliban were worse then them anyway.
Reagan couldn’t have thought Iran was that much of a threat since he was good buddies with Khomeni and gave Iran lots of weapons.
And arming anyone at all (much less saddam fucking Hussein) ith chemical weapons is a war crime and an evil act, no matter who their enemy is.
Not according to some of the people who were in the loop, but if you want to believe that the hostages being released 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn into office was a coincidence, I’m not going to sway you.
I think treason and rampant corruption outweigh any marginal “postives,” which basically amounted to being good on TV. He certainly isn’t worthy of the lionization he gets from the right.