On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>
> >> Ronaldus Magnus was a
> >> master; Donnie, not so much.
> >>
> >
> > Ronald was an actor. He
> > acted the presidency well.
> >
> > As more details come out
> > about his "presidency" it is
> > becoming incresingly clear
> > he did not do much, and
> > the little he did came
> > mainly from his
> > prompters.
> >
> > Trump is/was a clown,
> > albeit one with claws.
> >
> > dk
> You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
> was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
> ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
>
> Bob Harper

A different perspective:

By Peter Dreier - May 1, 2004

As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.

Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.

His indifference to urban problems was legendary. Reagan owed little to urban voters, big-city mayors, black or Hispanic leaders, or labor unions—the major advocates for metropolitan concerns. Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, saying: “How are you, Mr. Mayor? I’m glad to meet you. How are things in your city?”

Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency that resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers. Fortunately for Reagan, the “HUD Scandal” wasn’t uncovered until he’d left office.

Reagan also presided over the dramatic deregulation of the nation’s savings and loan industry allowing S&Ls to end their reliance on home mortgages and engage in an orgy of commercial real estate speculation. The result was widespread corruption, mismanagement and the collapse of hundreds of thrift institutions that ultimately led to a taxpayer bailout that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

On 6/25/2022 1:11 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ronaldus Magnus was a
>>>> master; Donnie, not so much.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ronald was an actor. He
>>> acted the presidency well.
>>>
>>> As more details come out
>>> about his "presidency" it is
>>> becoming incresingly clear
>>> he did not do much, and
>>> the little he did came
>>> mainly from his
>>> prompters.
>>>
>>> Trump is/was a clown,
>>> albeit one with claws.
>>>
>>> dk
>> You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
>> was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
>> ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> A different perspective:
>
> By Peter Dreier - May 1, 2004
>
> As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.
>
> Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.
>
> His indifference to urban problems was legendary. Reagan owed little to urban voters, big-city mayors, black or Hispanic leaders, or labor unions—the major advocates for metropolitan concerns. Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, saying: “How are you, Mr. Mayor? I’m glad to meet you. How are things in your city?”
>
> Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency that resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers. Fortunately for Reagan, the “HUD Scandal” wasn’t uncovered until he’d left office.
>
> Reagan also presided over the dramatic deregulation of the nation’s savings and loan industry allowing S&Ls to end their reliance on home mortgages and engage in an orgy of commercial real estate speculation. The result was widespread corruption, mismanagement and the collapse of hundreds of thrift institutions that ultimately led to a taxpayer bailout that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Amazing how many people who lived through those years beatify Reagan now.

Bob Harper schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 00:51:32 UTC+2:
> >> “I’m a libertarian,” he said to Rolling Stone (4/13/11). “I would be a Republican if they would. Which means that I like the Barry Goldwater Republican Party, even the Reagan Republican Party.”
> >>
> >> Obviously this is an old quote, but do you see anything in his current politics that would contradict this? And I'm not sure if having a talk show on HBO makes him a danger to anyone.
> >
> > Do you think Reagan's politics had more in common with Trump's politics or with Biden's politics? Since it is clear that Maher voted Biden, you might figure out the answer to the 1st question yourself.
>
> Trump's. Bur Ronaldus Magnus was a master; Donnie, not so much.
>
> Bob Harper

Hmmmm... I think that's actually hard to say. In regards to their politics which must be looked within their historical context, they both did really well imo. From a rhetorical pov Reagan very likely appeals to more people than Trump, but doesn't this reveal more about the so-called libertarians than Trump?

In regards to my message to mswd:

I was just trying to point out how Maher's vote contradicted his statement. Maher stated "I would be a Republican if they would [be libertarian]... Which means that I like... the Reagan Republican Party."

Since Reagan's Republican Party comes closer to Trump's Republican Party in politics, one could see it as Maher contradicting himself. But "liking" doesn't equal to "voting for them", so my response didn't really show how Maher contradicted himself. My response to mswd was indeed a bit stupid...

Bob Harper schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 18:05:23 UTC+2:
> You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
> was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
> ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
>
> Bob Harper

Not bad at all.

In regards to inflation and Biden, I thought this was funny: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OCJpgUuFcf0

JohnGavin schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 19:11:52 UTC+2:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ronaldus Magnus was a
> > >> master; Donnie, not so much.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ronald was an actor. He
> > > acted the presidency well.
> > >
> > > As more details come out
> > > about his "presidency" it is
> > > becoming incresingly clear
> > > he did not do much, and
> > > the little he did came
> > > mainly from his
> > > prompters.
> > >
> > > Trump is/was a clown,
> > > albeit one with claws.
> > >
> > > dk
> > You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
> > was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
> > ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> A different perspective:
>
> By Peter Dreier - May 1, 2004
>
> As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.
>
> Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.

What undifferentiated nonsense, and I really do not believe you actually looked a bit more deeply into the claims Mr Dreier has made. Not saying some aren't valid in some way, but he is taking an undifferentiated look at it, creating quite a distorted image.

Just to adress the last claim "poverty rates in cities grew":

Scott Sumner - June 17, 2017

"This is from a Jeff Madrick article on poverty in America, in the New York Review of Books:

The poverty rate has been as low as 11.1 percent, in the 1970s; it rose under Ronald Reagan to approximately 15 percent and then fell to about 13 percent before rising again, then fell again under Bill Clinton to 11.3 percent before rising in the 2000s.

I see this all the time, and I find it really annoying. In a very technical sense this is true, but I’m going to present more complete data, and you tell me whether it’s misleading.

The poverty rate was 11.6% when Carter took office in 1977. The poverty rate rose to 14% in 1981, when Reagan took office. The poverty rate fell to 12..8% in 1989, when Reagan left office.

So how can the NYR of Books say “it rose under Reagan to approximately 15 percent”? That’s because in Reagan’s second year there was a very serious recession, and the poverty rate reached 15%. But the NYR of Books creates the impression that it rose during the 8 years that Reagan was in office, which is simply not true. Poverty fell under Reagan. it was Jimmy Carter who presided over a surge in poverty."

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/how_much_did_po.html

JohnGavin schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 19:11:52 UTC+2:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ronaldus Magnus was a
> > >> master; Donnie, not so much.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ronald was an actor. He
> > > acted the presidency well.
> > >
> > > As more details come out
> > > about his "presidency" it is
> > > becoming incresingly clear
> > > he did not do much, and
> > > the little he did came
> > > mainly from his
> > > prompters.
> > >
> > > Trump is/was a clown,
> > > albeit one with claws.
> > >
> > > dk
> > You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
> > was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
> > ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> A different perspective:
>
> By Peter Dreier - May 1, 2004
>
> As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.
>
> Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.

What undifferentiated nonsense, and I really do not believe you actually looked a bit more deeply into the claims Mr Dreier has made. Not saying some aren't valid in some way, but he is taking an undifferentiated look at it, creating quite a distorted image.

Just to adress the last point "poverty rates in cities grew":

By Scott Sumner - June 17, 2017:

"This is from a Jeff Madrick article on poverty in America, in the New York Review of Books:

"The poverty rate has been as low as 11.1 percent, in the 1970s; it rose under Ronald Reagan to approximately 15 percent and then fell to about 13 percent before rising again, then fell again under Bill Clinton to 11.3 percent before rising in the 2000s."

I see this all the time, and I find it really annoying. In a very technical sense this is true, but I’m going to present more complete data, and you tell me whether it’s misleading.

The poverty rate was 11.6% when Carter took office in 1977. The poverty rate rose to 14% in 1981, when Reagan took office. The poverty rate fell to 12..8% in 1989, when Reagan left office.

So how can the NYR of Books say “it rose under Reagan to approximately 15 percent”? That’s because in Reagan’s second year there was a very serious recession, and the poverty rate reached 15%. But the NYR of Books creates the impression that it rose during the 8 years that Reagan was in office, which is simply not true. Poverty fell under Reagan. it was Jimmy Carter who presided over a surge in poverty."

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/how_much_did_po.html

JohnGavin schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 19:11:52 UTC+2:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ronaldus Magnus was a
> > >> master; Donnie, not so much.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ronald was an actor. He
> > > acted the presidency well.
> > >
> > > As more details come out
> > > about his "presidency" it is
> > > becoming incresingly clear
> > > he did not do much, and
> > > the little he did came
> > > mainly from his
> > > prompters.
> > >
> > > Trump is/was a clown,
> > > albeit one with claws.
> > >
> > > dk
> > You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
> > was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
> > ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> A different perspective:
>
> By Peter Dreier - May 1, 2004
>
> As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.
>
> Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.

What undifferentiated nonsense, and I really do not beleive you actually looked a bit more deeply into the claims Mr Dreier has made. Not saying some aren't valid in some way, but he is taking an undifferentiated look at it, creating quite a distorted image.

Just to adress the last point "poverty rates in cities grew":

By Scott Sumner - June 17, 2017:

"This is from a Jeff Madrick article on poverty in America, in the New York Review of Books:

"The poverty rate has been as low as 11.1 percent, in the 1970s; it rose under Ronald Reagan to approximately 15 percent and then fell to about 13 percent before rising again, then fell again under Bill Clinton to 11.3 percent before rising in the 2000s."

I see this all the time, and I find it really annoying. In a very technical sense this is true, but I’m going to present more complete data, and you tell me whether it’s misleading.

The poverty rate was 11.6% when Carter took office in 1977. The poverty rate rose to 14% in 1981, when Reagan took office. The poverty rate fell to 12..8% in 1989, when Reagan left office.

So how can the NYR of Books say “it rose under Reagan to approximately 15 percent”? That’s because in Reagan’s second year there was a very serious recession, and the poverty rate reached 15%. But the NYR of Books creates the impression that it rose during the 8 years that Reagan was in office, which is simply not true. Poverty fell under Reagan. it was Jimmy Carter who presided over a surge in poverty."

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/how_much_did_po.html

Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 21:59:10 UTC+2:
> JohnGavin schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 19:11:52 UTC+2:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Ronaldus Magnus was a
> > > >> master; Donnie, not so much.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Ronald was an actor. He
> > > > acted the presidency well.
> > > >
> > > > As more details come out
> > > > about his "presidency" it is
> > > > becoming incresingly clear
> > > > he did not do much, and
> > > > the little he did came
> > > > mainly from his
> > > > prompters.
> > > >
> > > > Trump is/was a clown,
> > > > albeit one with claws.
> > > >
> > > > dk
> > > You beclown yourself, Dan. On his watch the back of a ruinous inflation
> > > was broken, the economy prospered, the Wall came down, and the Cold War
> > > ended without a shot. Not bad for an actor.
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> > A different perspective:
> >
> > By Peter Dreier - May 1, 2004
> >
> > As some Americans mourn the death of Ronald Reagan, let us recall that the two-term president was no friend to America’s cities or its poor. Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.
> >
> > Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.
> What undifferentiated nonsense, and I really do not believe you actually looked a bit more deeply into the claims Mr Dreier has made. Not saying some aren't valid in some way, but he is taking an undifferentiated look at it, creating quite a distorted image.
>
> Just to adress the last claim "poverty rates in cities grew":
>
> Scott Sumner - June 17, 2017
>
> "This is from a Jeff Madrick article on poverty in America, in the New York Review of Books:
>
> The poverty rate has been as low as 11.1 percent, in the 1970s; it rose under Ronald Reagan to approximately 15 percent and then fell to about 13 percent before rising again, then fell again under Bill Clinton to 11.3 percent before rising in the 2000s.

For better readability: This part is the quote from the Jeff Madrick article, the rest is by Scott Sumner - just to avoid confusion.

*last point instead of claim

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 9:05:23 AM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 6/24/22 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>
> >> Ronaldus Magnus was a
> >> master; Donnie, not so much.
> >>
> >
> > Ronald was an actor. He
> > acted the presidency well.
> >
> > As more details come out
> > about his "presidency" it is
> > becoming incresingly clear
> > he did not do much, and
> > the little he did came
> > mainly from his
> > prompters.
> >
> > Trump is/was a clown,
> > albeit one with claws.
>
> You beclown yourself, Dan.

Just like everyone else in this ng.

> On his watch the back of a ruinous
> inflation was broken, the economy
> prospered, the Wall came down,
> and the Cold War ended without
> a shot. Not bad for an actor.

"On his watch" does not mean he
actually did anything. Have you
read "Henderson the Rain King"?

The notion that any one person
deserves credit for events that
result from the actions of many
people and from economic and
social evolution is medieval.

As I pointed out many tmes, the
US has not had a real president
since Dwight Eisenhower. JFK
was a playboy who spend more
time and energy rotating his
mistresses in the White House
than doing any real work. LBJ
was a dubious character, RMN
was "not a crook", Carter and
his buddy Brzez completely
messed up the Middle East,
and so on.

And the Cold War did not
really end, as it is plainly
obvious by now.

dk

On 2022-06-25 2:07 p.m., Marc S wrote:

>
> So how can the NYR of Books say “it rose under Reagan to approximately 15 percent”? That’s because in Reagan’s second year there was a very serious recession, and the poverty rate reached 15%. But the NYR of Books creates the impression that it rose during the 8 years that Reagan was in office, which is simply not true. Poverty fell under Reagan. it was Jimmy Carter who presided over a surge in poverty."
>
> https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/how_much_did_po.html

We got you first time!

Graham schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 23:27:36 UTC+2:
> On 2022-06-25 2:07 p.m., Marc S wrote:
>
> >
> > So how can the NYR of Books say “it rose under Reagan to approximately 15 percent”? That’s because in Reagan’s second year there was a very serious recession, and the poverty rate reached 15%. But the NYR of Books creates the impression that it rose during the 8 years that Reagan was in office, which is simply not true. Poverty fell under Reagan. it was Jimmy Carter who presided over a surge in poverty."
> >
> > https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/how_much_did_po.html
> We got you first time!

Sorry for doubling posting. As explained I wanted to correct a word and change something for better readability. I am using a browser to read on here (deletion works).

Graham schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 23:27:36 UTC+2:
> On 2022-06-25 2:07 p.m., Marc S wrote:
>
> >
> > So how can the NYR of Books say “it rose under Reagan to approximately 15 percent”? That’s because in Reagan’s second year there was a very serious recession, and the poverty rate reached 15%. But the NYR of Books creates the impression that it rose during the 8 years that Reagan was in office, which is simply not true. Poverty fell under Reagan. it was Jimmy Carter who presided over a surge in poverty."
> >
> > https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/how_much_did_po.html
> We got you first time!

I know noone cares, but I thought I should correct myself here, after reading more about the economic policy under Reagan and its effects, I shouldn't have defended it here.