General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU may have to TS me - I agree 100% with this Republican talking point
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hlthe2b
(113,824 posts)He clearly would have been a Democrat in today's world. One of the last Republicans that I could respect.
Gothmog
(179,429 posts)Reagan could not get the GOP nomination in the current Republican party
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)He would just keep talking about the Cadillac driving woman using food stamps and crack jokes about people dying from AIDS and the Teabaggers would swoon.
Reagan is the original Teabagger.
Don
rockingirl
(39 posts)real truth here once again! nice job!
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)unless you accept that the policies promulgated in his name were actually his creations.
The reality is that he just went along with the likes of Stockman & signed what he was told to. He would be just as much a sockpuppet of the teabaggers as he was of the nasty "advisers" who were using him as a front man back in the 80's.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)After all, Reagan was a congenial, easily-manipulated airhead who:
despised labor unions (PATCO firings, etc.),
showed disdain for weaker members of society ("welfare mothers", mental patients, etc.),
made up nonsense and passed it off as fact ("Trees cause more air pollution than cars", etc.),
appointed members to his Cabinet who were the antithesis of the departments they headed (James Watt at Interior, Edwin Meese at Justice, etc.),
surrounded himself with corrupt people who abused their offices http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/157477/-List-of-Reagan-administration-convictions
was itching to flex his military muscle (Beirut, Grenada, etc.), and greatly increased military spending at the expense of soclal programs while running up a huge deficit in the process
got the ball rolling on outsourcing
sneered at the unemployed, telling them they needed to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", and "vote with their feet" that is, move away from their homes to try to find a job
was a rabid proponent of deregulation
etc., etc.
As an added "bonus", Reagan, as governor of California, sicced the National Guard on students at Berkeley, an action which undoubtedly encouraged fellow Republican James Rhodes to do the same thing at Kent State a year later.
These are only some of the reasons why Ronald Reagan is still worshipped by today's Republicans, while Eisenhower barely gets a mention.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)He was the worst of the worst.
Don
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Unbelievably.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I agree with all of your points, but his biggest asset (and the reason Romney is failing) is that Reagan was an actor.
He didn't have to actually believe anything he said; he just had to say it so that it was believable. That's what he was trained to do.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)NOT!
Which is what Reagan did in his term and publicly spoke about wanting to make sure his tax rates were "fair" when talking about it.
Methinks Grover Norquist of today would have a fit with Reagan then!
Basically Republicans like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower would all be called "communists" today, and Reagan would be a party outsider (if he didn't have the hero worship "mythos" that doesn't look as much as what he did as he became more of a "god" figure to replace the more "liberal" Jesus with).
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)after reducing them in 1981, but...
"The primary effect of the tax changes over the course of Reagan's term in office was a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments. Federal revenue share of GDP fell from 19.6% in fiscal 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, before rising back to 18.4% by fiscal year 1989. Personal income tax revenues fell during this period relative to GDP, while payroll tax revenues rose relative to GDP.[4] President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover administration.[11]
"In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
So Reagan cut capital gains to 20%, and even though he raised them to a maximum 28% of 1986, he slashed the highest rate of income taxes from 70% all the way down to 28%, which placated his rich buddies. His vision of "fair rates" was reducing his rich buddies' Federal income tax rate from 70% to 28% and raising payroll taxes. He would still fit in easily with today's GOP.
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)Of course, what he pushed then could be a blueprint for the DLC platform.
Booster
(10,021 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,597 posts)It was the beginning of the right wings' takeover of the country...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
nightscanner59
(802 posts)"I don't see any homeless people"
"It's been said I favor the rich, I don't deny it"
and the infamous, when backed into a corner with a question he couldn't handle:
"Well... there you go again"
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)'If you see one redwood, you've seen them all.'
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)pretty sure he was referring to Eisenhower
FailureToCommunicate
(14,597 posts)Booster
(10,021 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,597 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)check out his administration's African policies. He also set us up for what we are dealing with in the Middle East now.
My dad gave up on him when he didn't confront mccarthy when tailgunner joe accused George Marshall of being a communist. Ike hid when he knew Marshall and should have confronted that travesty.
A colonialist, a corporatist, and a coward. His picture was on the wall of almost all of my elementary school rooms. But by college I had learned a little about him.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Military Industrial Complex.
Javaman
(65,676 posts)all he was doing with that speach was trying to cleanse his soul.
he's as much to blame for the MIC as anyone.
It was under his presidency that our nuclear stockpile increased.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)And I too agree with this Republican 100% but this was before Citizens United and Voter Suppression.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)but they would say he wasn't in Europe on D-Day and should not have been awarded honors for it.
Glaisne
(642 posts)welcome to the new normal where the Democrats are the Republicans, and the Republicans are batshit insane!
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)actually cared about the people of this country other than the wealthy elite.
spartan61
(2,091 posts)that I could truly respect. Too bad his party has disintegrated into what it has become today. He must be rolling in his grave in disgust.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)it's not one of today's republican talking points. They would eliminate social security, unemployment insurance, and labor laws in a heartbeat if you let them.
Eisenhower was one of the better republicans IMHO, He would probably be a Democrat if he were alive today.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Not a republican talking of today's republican party, or the republican party of the 1950's either.
It has never been documented that Eisenhower ever spoke those words publicly, or that any republican ever spoke those words publicly.
He wrote them in a letter to his brother in 1954.
That said, and though it galls me to say this, I believe that Ike may have been a pretty decent, honest person, and he is probably the only republican that I have ever regarded as possibly being decent and honest.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.
Eisenhower, 1946
Still, Ike was an exception to this hard, fast rule:
[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="blue" size="size" face="face"]NEVER. EVER. TRUST. A. REPUBLICAN. OR. ANY. CONSERVATIVE.[/font]
Barry2012
(51 posts)Todays republican party should have its name changed to the nazi party.their ideologies have become scary.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)They are zombies, they eat brains.
irisblue
(37,436 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)i don't know if he was referring to the John Birch Society, but republicans of the past did a lot to keep order in their own house to not let right wing extremists ever gain a foothold.
YellaDog1950
(44 posts)The splinter group that Eisenhower refers to is in italics.....not unlike some of the nutballs the Repugnant Party is permeated with these days.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm
heaven05
(18,124 posts)to the point.period
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
calimary
(89,913 posts)(Insert arrogant sniff here).
dsteve01
(312 posts)a real cool guy.
I'd vote for a zombie-him!
Raine1967
(11,676 posts)Well played sir, well played.
KG
(28,795 posts)
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)You could believe and trust him. and he knew and warned everyone about the military industrial complex.
90-percent
(6,956 posts)from the vantage of history. i cant name them, but hes got a couple of bad decisions under his belt. Coulda done more about the Commie Witch Hunts and desegregation, I think?
By and large an honorable public servant who did a lot for the good of the commons.
Any modern Republican, if they were educated on his life, would consider him more of a commie pinko fag than Dennis Kuchinich. His MIC speech, the interstate hwy system, 50's middle class prosperity, and I remember as a kid he governed from the golf course. I wish we had an Eisenhower serving as President in the present. We need honorable not-possible-to-corrupt people in all our Institutions.
He also did a great job in WW2, where your abilities to lead can tilt the future of the entire free world and hundreds of thousands of lives are your responsibility. Romney in WW2 would have probably spent it as an obscure Milo Minderbinder scamming money from both sides. I'd fight for Ike. I wouldn't bother using my turn signal for Rmoney.
-90% Jimmy
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)http://littlerock.about.com/cs/centralhigh/a/Integration.htm
Ike sent the 101st to Arkansas, and imposed the Warren Court's will at the point of a gun. Can you picture how FAUX would portray Barack Obama if he did such a thing today?
Moostache
(11,160 posts)My only quibble is the turn signal...I don't think I could be bothered to step off of the accelerator for Romney...
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
get the red out
(14,031 posts)It's ok, they'd hate him now.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Yeah, but what if they BOTH (i.e. ALL) decided to take it away from us at the same time?
Biden says "no way", but Obama says "hey, we've been offering to"
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)I recall reading once that before the 1952 election, it was unclear to everyone whether Ike was a Republican or a Democrat. By today's standards, he'd be one of us, for sure.
jsr
(7,712 posts)President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan
February 6, 1974
...Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay...
MADem
(135,425 posts)The Northern Republicans, many of them, became Democrats, and the Southern Democrats became Republicans.
Even though DDE came from a racist state, his worldview was broadened by a career in military service.
Wednesdays
(22,536 posts)And he didn't want anything resembling it anywhere near Washington.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Turbineguy
(40,037 posts)but they are stupid.
patrice
(47,992 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"I don't remember."
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)Probably learned his evil ways in that socialist organization, the army.
Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)
Vogon_Glory This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vogon_Glory
(10,289 posts)I concur with Ike's comment, but it looks like the party reactionaries were biding their time.
And to touch on an earlier Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) talking-point: we are again facing malefactors of great wealth.
Let no one kid you. This election is about class war, waged by a privileged, arrogant, and wealthy few against the rest of us.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Even Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley would be ashamed of where their party has moved. They were the prototypical Conservatives, but they believed in the ability of both sides working for the common good. They might disagree on the degree of changes, but both saw progress as a basic strength of the US.
Wednesdays
(22,536 posts)about the latter day GOP and some of its members before he passed on.
BrainMann1
(460 posts)No we will not TS you ., I agree; but the fact is your talking about the old Rep's of days gone. Stay focus with today.
Texasgal
(17,240 posts)Republican Party.
Todays GOP is nasty and HATEFUL. Nothing like they were in 1954.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)They're still stupid, but their numbers are no longer negligible
hay rick
(9,587 posts)The Social Security Online History has a page devoted to Eisenhower's statements on Social Security. Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history///ikestmts.html
Excerpts:
1. SPECIAL MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS TRANSMITTING PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM--AUGUST 1, 1953
I stated that the provisions of the Old Age and Survivor's Insurance law should cover millions of our citizens who thus far have been excluded from participation in the social security program.
...
Under the attached plan, approximately 10 1/2 million individuals would be offered social security protection for the first time. About 6 1/2 million of these would be brought into the system; the remaining 4 million would be eligible for coverage under voluntary group arrangements. New groups to be covered would include self-employed farmers; many more farm workers and domestic workers than are now covered; doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, accounts and other professional people; members of many state and local retirement systems on a voluntary group basis; clergymen on a voluntary group basis and several other smaller groups.
...
There are two points about these proposals which I cannot stress too strongly. One is my belief that they would add immeasurably to the peace of mind and security of the individual citizens who would be covered for the first time under this plan; the second is my belief that they would add greatly to the national sense of domestic security.
4. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT UPON SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1954. SEPTEMBER 1, 1954
By enabling some 10,000,000 more Americans to participate in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program, it gives them an opportunity to establish a solid foundation of economic security for themselves and their families.
Beyond broadening the coverage of this program, this new law contains four other important provisions:
First, it raises payments to all retired workers by at least five dollars a month. It also raises--by $13.50 a month for retired workers and by $31.25 a month for families--the ceiling on payments to people now receiving monthly checks. People becoming eligible in the future will also receive higher payments, including increases that result from raising from $3,600 to $4,200 the maximum wage base from which the amount of their benefit checks is determined.
Second, the law eliminates the four or five lowest years of earnings from the computation of the OASI checks of workers who retire in the future. This provision is of great importance to many people whose years of unusually low earnings--for reasons of unemployment, illness, or otherwise--would sharply reduce their benefits.
Third, all retired workers under the program are permitted to earn more without forfeiting OASI checks. The amount of exempt earnings is increased to $1,200 a year, and this annual exemption is applied equally to wage earners and self-employed workers.
Fourth, the Act preserves the benefits rights, under Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, of those workers regularly covered under the program who become totally disabled for long and indefinite periods.
This new law is an important part of the broad program of the Administration and the 83d Congress to improve the well-being of our people. In the past month I have signed into law a number of other Acts directly affecting the human problems of each family in the land. These include:
1. More hospitals and nursing homes for persons who are chronically ill, special medical facilities for people not requiring hospitalization, and rehabilitation facilities for disabled people.
2. A start toward increasing from 60,000 to 200,000 by 1959, the number of disabled people rehabilitated each year.
3. Three Acts helping the States and local communities meet the nation's educational problems.
4. Help to provide and improved housing, to prevent and eliminate slums, and to conserve and develop urban communities.
5. Extension of the unemployment insurance program to almost 4,000,000 more workers.
These Acts and the Social Security amendments I have approved today will bolster the health and economic Security of the American people. They represent one of the cornerstones of our program to build a better and stronger America.
5. SPECIAL MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS ON OLD AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND ON FEDERAL GRANTS-IN-AID FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. JANUARY 14, 1954
Today, thousands of OASI beneficiaries receive the minimum benefit of twenty-five dollars a month. The average individual benefit for retired workers approximates fifty dollars a month. The maximum benefit for an individual is $85 a month. For OASI to fulfill its purpose of helping to combat destitution, these benefits are too low.
I recommend, therefore, that benefits now being received by retired workers be increased on the basis of a new formula to be submitted to the appropriate Committees by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. This formula should also provide increases for workers retiring in the future, raising both the minimum and the maximum benefits. These increases will further the objectives of the program and will strengthen the foundation on which its participants may build their own security.
...
6. The Benefit Rights of the Disabled Should Be Protected. One of the injustices in the present law is its failure to make secure the benefit rights of the worker who his a substantial work record in covered employment and who becomes totally disabled. If his disability lasts four years or less, my preceding recommendation will alleviate this hardship. But if a worker's earnings and contributions cease for a longer period, his retirement rights, and the survivor rights of his widow and children may be reduced or even lost altogether. Equity dictates that this defect be remedied. I recommend, therefore, that the benefits of a worker who has a substantial work record in covered employment and who becomes totally disabled for an extended period be maintained at the amount he would have received had he become 65 and retired on the date his disability began.
6. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT UPON SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1956. AUGUST 1, 1956
Eisenhower's Presidency included the establishment of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and the establishment and extension of disability benefits through the Social Security Administration.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)to the left of many DC "Democrats"...
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)In it, Spencer Tracy plays a Republican candidate for president, but when he gives his speeches, he is FAR to the left of today's Blue Dog Democrats, not to mention the current Republicanites.
indepat
(20,899 posts)political apparatus: their present mantra is anathema to every principle that guided Ike, Teddy, Abe, and our founders. 
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Romney and Ryan are amateurs.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)in the same sentence with himself.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The only reason he ran as a Republican was because he was afraid that they would nominate an anti-UN isolationist.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)FreeBC
(403 posts)I'd love to see it on billboards in the south.
elleng
(141,926 posts)this is a particular Republican saying something correct! Happens sometimes, or 'did!'
B Calm
(28,762 posts)has changed. Now it's solely the party of the top 1%.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)ronwelldobbs
(28 posts)Nowadays, the GOP/TP would consider Ike no different from Ho Chi Minh.
4lbs
(7,395 posts)How the GOP has devolved since then.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)We are still suffering the consequences of the 1953 coup in Iran, which brought down the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
Imagine what things could have been like if Eisenhower had not authorized that coup. Iran would not have grown to despise us, and would not have taken 52 American hostages in 1979, thereby bringing down Carter's Presidency and ensuring the election of Ronald Reagan.
I don't think Eisenhower was a great President. Great Presidents don't authorize coups of democratically elected governments.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)It was because Mosaddegh wouldn't play ball by BP and Aramco's rules that he was overthrown.
allan01
(1,950 posts)r.r as governer once said that taxes are a privelige not a right , before it was found that he had not payed any taxes for several years . sound familiar ? this was whilst r.r was a democrat. a friend related that to me as she told some right wingers at a local fair 
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)steve2470
(37,481 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)to his brother.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Was in the background, FUNDING a lot of the noise from these people!
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwarPanasonic
(2,921 posts)Eisenhower also warned us not to let the MIC grow too big.. and his own party let it get too big for its own hitches.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)with their endless assault of Crapaganda..and now Ike rolls in his grave to see how they shame his party.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,493 posts)I would love for someone to have a hologram of Eisenhower giving that speech show up at the GOP convention.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)
"Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of
Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
& Rec !!!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)http://www.alternet.org/news/149700
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)but I think we've been given enough information to see that Dems are more than willing to put these programs on the bargaining table.