One more bit of Republican mythology shot down

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Well, that's completely false. There's nothing 'partisan' about it. And in fact, your inability to be wrong civilly makes you not only look the fool, but likely actually be the fool.

You are not alone in confusing the difference between choices, and 'partisanship'.

If I'd posted that Reagan had got us into Vietnam and Bill Clinton cured cancer, you would have a point. I didn't, and you don't.

I don't think R's are all bad or D's all good, and have never said so, as many times as the foolish have made the false claim.

I do prefer the D's overall to the R's, strongly, and say why, which oh by the way is sort of the purpose of this board, not your personal lying snipes.

But you are, sadly, projecting.
Your entire OP is a sad attempt to use one random example as a hasty generalization of an entire political party. You then use this ridiculous proposition as a foundation for assigning the exact opposite position (i.e. that of righteous forthrightness) to the opposing party. Your choosing to be partisan doesn't make you any less partisan.

No, it's not. Nowhere do I say that the single anecdote *proves* the generalization about Republicans. A study of which party behaves this way proves it, but this thread merely is about the one anecdote being corrected from the popular myth. It mentions it in the larger context that it's yet one more in the long string of such Republican anecdotes, but doesn't claim to prove the generalization.

You're still clueless on the word partisan.

Partisan would be condemning a Republican for taking a bribe while excusing a democrat for taking a similar bribe, and so on.

Partisan is NOT making a fair analysis and reaching the conclusion that the parties are not equal in every way, when the facts say they aren't.

Partisan is your failing to acknowledge the flaws in one party, and attacking the fair criticism of that party's wrongs with false statements.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, aren't you doing pretty much the same thing you're accusing Craig234 of doing? Rather than focusing on the merits of what he's saying, you're attacking him as a person.
Because of the way he broached the topic, I can only conclude that there are no merits to what he's saying. That's my point.

Lame, intellectually dishonest, vapid, evasive, useless crap response. I've been working on not being overly subtle quite as much, and hope I wasn't there.

You've yet to say one word on what the thread is about; you are failing to add any value, instead simply acting in a completely partisan manner by throwing out nonsensical attacks.

I understand the 'make enough noise to drown out the issue' approach, and the best response may be to show the fool doing it for being one.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
Outlays for Mandatory Spending, in Billions of Dollars

Year Medicare Medicaid
1980 34.0 14.0
1981 41.3 16.8
1982 49.2 17.4
1983 55.5 19.0
1984 61.1 20.1
1985 69.7 22.7
1986 74.3 25.0
1987 79.9 27.4
1988 85.7 30.5

hmm.....

Source: CBO
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: alchemize
You do realize Reagan is dead?

The myth is not. You would suggest that we never discuss or correct or learn from history?

So we need to battle over it to re-write it the way we like. Interesting way to "learn" from it.

I think it's worth correcting some myths in our political culture, and that it's worth correcting the common myth that Reagan's 'there you go again' rebuttal was a strong point for him, rather than what it actually was, a lie told effectively that helped him get the power to help the rich - and an act against democracy insofar as the public has the right to an accurate idea of what its candidates will do. Being 'Teflon' for 'getting away' with lies should be a strong condemnation of a politician, not a compliment, in a democracy.

I really don't care about a specific line some politician made in a campaign before I was born. (This was 1980?) Yet I'll bite at the bit. Isn't Obama "Teflon" for "getting away" with lies that he is different from the rest? This myth that he is above the rest and won't be corrupt is obviously a mark against democracy, as you call such things.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
I've often debunked some of the right-wing's fallacies that lead to false mythologies, and ran across another today I'll pass along.

One of the most famous of Reagan's quips was in the debate with President Carter where he chided Carter, 'There you go again'. Reagan was an actor, and well able to 'look good' in that sort of setting, and he scored a lot of points by not only making Carter look like he was a politician lying about Reagan's position, but more broadly implying that a lot of Reagan's reputation for extreme positions was not accurate. He looked like the 'honest outsider' chiding Carter for not telling the truth, and the public warmed to him.

The detail I hadn't kept track of was that the quip was in response to Carter saying that Reagan would try to cut Medicare spending.

The funny thing is, the moment Reagan had power, he tried to push through a $20B cut to Medicare.

So, the moral the right takes from the story is that Reagan was a great leader who beat Carter in the debate in part with that line; the more important lesson they should take from the incident is that they are once again giving credit to the Republican for a lie. It's just remarkable how little facts have to do with the views of so many on the right.

If a democrat had entangled us with a nation by having it illegally help us sell missiles to Iran, you wouldn't hear the end of it (as Reagan did with Israel). What harm in that? Well, next thing the US is doing is sending the Marines in to help Israel invade Lebanon. If a democrat had done that and then pulled them out when one bomber got through, you wouldn't hear the end of that either, 'cut and run', cowardice, disgrace, emboldening the enemy - but the righties learn neither the lesson of hypocrisy or unjustified invasion.

I think it's worth correcting some myths in our political culture, and that it's worth correcting the common myth that Reagan's 'there you go again' rebuttal was a strong point for him, rather than what it actually was, a lie told effectively that helped him get the power to help the rich - and an act against democracy insofar as the public has the right to an accurate idea of what its candidates will do. Being 'Teflon' for 'getting away' with lies should be a strong condemnation of a politician, not a compliment, in a democracy.

LOL this has got to be one of the most pathetic ego stroking theads ever posted here.

Welcome to the 1984 Presidential debate Craig. :roll: So, 1983 was "the moment Reagan had power"? By 1983 (when Reagan asked for the $20B cut) the Medicare budget rose $20B beyond the 1980 budget when Reagan was campaigning for the Presidency. Typical lying partisan scumbag Craig234, didn't work for Mondale, doesn't work for you either.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Outlays for Mandatory Spending, in Billions of Dollars

Year Medicare Medicaid
1980 34.0 14.0
1981 41.3 16.8
1982 49.2 17.4
1983 55.5 19.0
1984 61.1 20.1
1985 69.7 22.7
1986 74.3 25.0
1987 79.9 27.4
1988 85.7 30.5

hmm.....

Source: CBO

Read more carefully: *pushed for* a cut, breaking his campaign promise, not *got* a cut. Thanks to the democratic Congress who protected Americans from him on this.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Well, lucky for Craig, the Democratic party is pure, wholesome, drama-free, free from corruption and scandal, the party of integrity, and always tell the truth.

What a breath of fresh air!
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, lucky for Craig, the Democratic party is pure, wholesome, drama-free, free from corruption and scandal, the party of integrity, and always tell the truth.

What a breath of fresh air!

Just ask Kwame Kilpatrick!
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Outlays for Mandatory Spending, in Billions of Dollars

Year Medicare Medicaid
1980 34.0 14.0
1981 41.3 16.8
1982 49.2 17.4
1983 55.5 19.0
1984 61.1 20.1
1985 69.7 22.7
1986 74.3 25.0
1987 79.9 27.4
1988 85.7 30.5

hmm.....

Source: CBO

Read more carefully: *pushed for* a cut, breaking his campaign promise, not *got* a cut. Thanks to the democratic Congress who protected Americans from him on this.

So, did he push for a REAL cut, or a "politician" cut?

Most "cuts" in DC are not cuts at all, but rather a reduction in the INCREASE.

So basically, if they were going to increase the budget by $40,000,000.00 and increased it instead by only $30,000,000.00, they will still call it a cut, even though it is only a reduction in the increase.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, lucky for Craig, the Democratic party is pure, wholesome, drama-free, free from corruption and scandal, the party of integrity, and always tell the truth.

What a breath of fresh air!

Blackangst, you too add yet one more post showing that the partisan, ideological righties are simply unable to deal with any facts negative about their party here. Not one word about the actual thread toic, but rather a weak attempt to lie about what I said, as if the thread said Republicans are 100% wrong and Democrats are perfect, because that lie of a straw man is the only thing you can argue against, not the actual topic. Your post shows how you not only can't handle the facts, but can't even discuss the issue without making things up.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, lucky for Craig, the Democratic party is pure, wholesome, drama-free, free from corruption and scandal, the party of integrity, and always tell the truth.

What a breath of fresh air!

Just ask Kwame Kilpatrick!

Hey he's alright he has rockin' parties, and never fails to "clean up" afterwards!
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, lucky for Craig, the Democratic party is pure, wholesome, drama-free, free from corruption and scandal, the party of integrity, and always tell the truth.

What a breath of fresh air!

Blackangst, you too add yet one more post showing that the partisan, ideological righties are simply unable to deal with any facts negative about their party here. Not one word about the actual thread toic, but rather a weak attempt to lie about what I said, as if the thread said Republicans are 100% wrong and Democrats are perfect, because that lie of a straw man is the only thing you can argue against, not the actual topic. Your post shows how you not only can't handle the facts, but can't even discuss the issue without making things up.

Craig, your post clearly shows lack of comprehension. I have railed the GOP on a few issues, most importantly the ones that matter the most ~to me~. Partisan? Shit man. You are the very definition.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Outlays for Mandatory Spending, in Billions of Dollars

Year Medicare Medicaid
1980 34.0 14.0
1981 41.3 16.8
1982 49.2 17.4
1983 55.5 19.0
1984 61.1 20.1
1985 69.7 22.7
1986 74.3 25.0
1987 79.9 27.4
1988 85.7 30.5

hmm.....

Source: CBO

Read more carefully: *pushed for* a cut, breaking his campaign promise, not *got* a cut. Thanks to the democratic Congress who protected Americans from him on this.

So, did he push for a REAL cut, or a "politician" cut?

Most "cuts" in DC are not cuts at all, but rather a reduction in the INCREASE.

So basically, if they were going to increase the budget by $40,000,000.00 and increased it instead by only $30,000,000.00, they will still call it a cut, even though it is only a reduction in the increase.

This again? Can there ever be a discussion on spending without someone misrepresenting the issue with games played around the issue of increases?

Spending 101:

- Flat spending, IMO, is fair to say when the same level of service per person is provided.
That means that increases matching population increases and inflation are *flat*.

- Maintaining the same *dollar* spending, or less of an increase in dollars than needed to match population and inflation, is a *cut* to the program.

- Other increases - for expanding the program to new people, expanding the level of service, etc., are *increases*. Cutting those is not a cut, it's reducing the increase.

In these discussions, it's all too easy for people to gloss over what the types of spending are, so that they call matching population increase an 'increase', or they call taking out a plan to add adults to a program for children a 'cut'. Your post not taking any note of the types of increases suggests you are not paying attention to that important issue when throwing around the question of whether they're 'politician's cuts'.

For example, if the budget increases cover only part of the population/inflation increases, and leave fewer procedures covered or higher deductibles after inflation, it's a cut.

If you want to read some of the specifics on the history of Reagan's policies on healthcare spending, here is one link.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, lucky for Craig, the Democratic party is pure, wholesome, drama-free, free from corruption and scandal, the party of integrity, and always tell the truth.

What a breath of fresh air!

Blackangst, you too add yet one more post showing that the partisan, ideological righties are simply unable to deal with any facts negative about their party here. Not one word about the actual thread toic, but rather a weak attempt to lie about what I said, as if the thread said Republicans are 100% wrong and Democrats are perfect, because that lie of a straw man is the only thing you can argue against, not the actual topic. Your post shows how you not only can't handle the facts, but can't even discuss the issue without making things up.

Craig, your post clearly shows lack of comprehension. I have railed the GOP on a few issues, most importantly the ones that matter the most ~to me~. Partisan? Shit man. You are the very definition.

You refute not any word of my post, and just throw out more partisan hot air. You can keep it up all day, I'm sure.

Just because your partisanship is not universal on every issue doesn't mean it's any less on this issue. You still have yet to say one word on the thread topic, just hot air.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Outlays for Mandatory Spending, in Billions of Dollars

Year Medicare Medicaid
1980 34.0 14.0
1981 41.3 16.8
1982 49.2 17.4
1983 55.5 19.0
1984 61.1 20.1
1985 69.7 22.7
1986 74.3 25.0
1987 79.9 27.4
1988 85.7 30.5

hmm.....

Source: CBO

Read more carefully: *pushed for* a cut, breaking his campaign promise, not *got* a cut. Thanks to the democratic Congress who protected Americans from him on this.


I read carefully. I know what you were getting at. I was just posting the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. Don't read more into it than is there.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Outlays for Mandatory Spending, in Billions of Dollars

Year Medicare Medicaid
1980 34.0 14.0
1981 41.3 16.8
1982 49.2 17.4
1983 55.5 19.0
1984 61.1 20.1
1985 69.7 22.7
1986 74.3 25.0
1987 79.9 27.4
1988 85.7 30.5

hmm.....

Source: CBO

Read more carefully: *pushed for* a cut, breaking his campaign promise, not *got* a cut. Thanks to the democratic Congress who protected Americans from him on this.

So, did he push for a REAL cut, or a "politician" cut?

Most "cuts" in DC are not cuts at all, but rather a reduction in the INCREASE.

So basically, if they were going to increase the budget by $40,000,000.00 and increased it instead by only $30,000,000.00, they will still call it a cut, even though it is only a reduction in the increase.

This again? Can there ever be a discussion on spending without someone misrepresenting the issue with games played around the issue of increases?

Spending 101:

- Flat spending, IMO, is fair to say when the same level of service per person is provided.
That means that increases matching population increases and inflation are *flat*.

- Maintaining the same *dollar* spending, or less of an increase in dollars than needed to match population and inflation, is a *cut* to the program.

- Other increases - for expanding the program to new people, expanding the level of service, etc., are *increases*. Cutting those is not a cut, it's reducing the increase.

In these discussions, it's all too easy for people to gloss over what the types of spending are, so that they call matching population increase an 'increase', or they call taking out a plan to add adults to a program for children a 'cut'. Your post not taking any note of the types of increases suggests you are not paying attention to that important issue when throwing around the question of whether they're 'politician's cuts'.

For example, if the budget increases cover only part of the population/inflation increases, and leave fewer procedures covered or higher deductibles after inflation, it's a cut.

If you want to read some of the specifics on the history of Reagan's policies on healthcare spending, here is one link.


Yes, that's all true. But Steven still has a point. Even when you allow for the necessary increases, any reduction in requested increase is spun as a "cut".
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
I've often debunked some of the right-wing's fallacies that lead to false mythologies, and ran across another today I'll pass along.

One of the most famous of Reagan's quips was in the debate with President Carter where he chided Carter, 'There you go again'. Reagan was an actor, and well able to 'look good' in that sort of setting, and he scored a lot of points by not only making Carter look like he was a politician lying about Reagan's position, but more broadly implying that a lot of Reagan's reputation for extreme positions was not accurate. He looked like the 'honest outsider' chiding Carter for not telling the truth, and the public warmed to him.

The detail I hadn't kept track of was that the quip was in response to Carter saying that Reagan would try to cut Medicare spending.

I think the reason you couldn't keep tack of "detail about Carter saying Reagan would cut medicare spending" is because you invented it.

Here's the transcript. The discussion involves SS and medicare. But Reagan didn't make the quip in response to Carter saying he would cut Medicare spending.

To save time, just scroll on down to the quip and work your way backwards. Se the last paragraph for the quip.

(BTW: I used Word search and got nothing for "cut", "reduce", "reduction" "spending" etc.)

MR. HILLIARD: Yes. President Carter, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a Social Security System that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the Social Security System?

MR. CARTER: As long as there is a Democratic President in the White House, we will have a strong and viable Social Security System, free of the threat of bankruptcy. Although Governor Reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making Social Security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. I noticed also in The Wall Street Journal early this week, that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making Social Security more sound by reducing the adjustment in Social Security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. These kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security, the well being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. But no matter what it takes in the future to keep Social Security sound, it must be kept that way. And although there was a serious threat to the Social Security System and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when I became President, the action of the Democratic Congress working with me has been to put Social Security back on a sound financial basis. That is the way it will stay.

MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?

MR. REAGAN: Well, that just isn't true. It has, as I said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes, and I don't believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. Now, again this statement that somehow, I wanted to destroy it and I just changed my tune, that I am for voluntary Social Security, which would mean the ruin of it. Mr. President, the voluntary thing that I suggested many years ago was that with a young man orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for Social Security insurance because she was not his mother. And I suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who is paying in should be able to name his own beneficiary. That is the closest I have ever come to anything voluntary with Social Security. I, too, am pledged to a Social Security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours that they are going to continue to get their money. There are some changes that I would like to make. I would like to make a change in the regulation that discriminates against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her father's or her husband's benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in; but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. I'd like to change that.

MR. SMITH: President Carter's rebuttal now.

MR. CARTER: These constant suggestions that the basic Social Security System should be changed does call for concern and consternation among the aged of our country. It is obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that Social Security benefits should not be taxed and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which Social Security payments are made to retired people. We also need to continue to index Social Security payments, so that if inflation rises, the Social Security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of a Social Security check continue intact. In the past, the relationship between Social Security and Medicare has been very important to providing some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare. Now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on out-patient care, not in-patient care; an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. These are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal.

MR. SMITH: Governor?

MR. REAGAN: There you go again. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. There is something else about Social Security. Of course, it doesn't come out of the payroll tax. It comes out of a general fund, but something should be done about it. I think it is disgraceful that the Disability Insurance Fund in Social Security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness, and they are receiving disability checks from Social Security every month while a state institution provides for all of their needs and their care.

Conclusion: Craig's myth about "myth busting" is busted!

:D

Fern

Edit: Link to transcript
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Fern

I think the reason you couldn't keep tack of "detail about Carter saying Reagan would cut medicare spending" is because you invented it.

I'd like to compliment you on being the only one on your side to at least make an effort to have a fact-based discussion, but then you go and screw up with the lie that I 'made it up'.

Mondale's statement was already referenced; here's CNN's version, in two different areas:

In this debate, when Carter accused Reagan of planning to cut Medicare, Reagan (who had complained Carter was mis-representing his stands on a number of issues) responded with the now-famous line: "There you go again.

To Carter's attack that he would cut Medicare, he quipped, "There you go again."

So right or wrong on the issue, I did not 'make it up', it's a views of the event that clearly is held by others.

Conclusion: Fern's attempt to correct needs to be corrected.

As for the issue itself - you do raise an area that's fair for interpretation. There were a number of statements made by Carter, and you can choose how you view the response.

But you can tell the gist of Reagan's response was at the notion that he was an opponent of Medicare, by his referencing that specific point immediately following his one-liner.

His claim is that he was not against Medicare, and in fact was in favor of the principle of providing the assistance, just under a different but similar program proposed at the time.

Now, let's get back and connect that to the topic of this thread - the myth of Reagan's one-liner being undercut by Reagan's position actually being dishonest.

Read this brief article for a very good summary of Reagan and his opposition to Medicare.

Since few ever seem to click such links, I'll excerpt some key points:

The war against Medicare dated back to the 1940's, when Harry S. Truman attempted to to create a national health insurance system. (Yes, this debate's been going on intermittently for more than half a century.) He encountered a well-organized and financed opposition that included insurers, large corporations, the American Medical Association ... and the usual conservative interests of the time.

In the Red-baiting language of the day, the PR experts of the day introduced the phrase "socialized medicine" into the public lexicon. (Then, as now, conservatives and their consultants seemed to have a gift for phrasemaking.)...

Truman was forced to retreat in the face of a successful anti-"socialist" campaign. Yet the health problems of the elderly remained especially pressing. Of 12 million seniors in the 1950 census, two-thirds had income of less than $1,000. By the early 60's the number of seniors had jumped to 17.5 million, and hospital costs were escalating at a rate several times greater than the cost-of-living index.

A series of incremental reforms were passed in 1960 creating the "Old Age Assistance" and "Medical Assistance for the Aged" programs, but these extended only limited coverage. When John F. Kennedy became President in January 1961, he began to work for comprehensive health coverage for both elderly and low-income Americans.

Enter the AMA. As Skidmore and Larry de Witt recount, Ronald Reagan was hired as part of a covert campaign to undermine support for Medicare and Medicaid. "Operation Coffeecup" was born.

Reagan recorded an LP (or "long playing" record), "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine." The AMA sent it to the "ladies' auxiliary" of the Medical Association in each county (unthinkable as it is now, medicine was so male and gender roles so different that each county had a "ladies' auxiliary" for doctors' wives.)

The "ladies" were instructed to "put on the coffeepot," play the record for their friends and fellow physicians' wives, and then get out the stationery (scented, no doubt) so that each of them could write personalized letters to their Senators and Congressmen. (Yes, they were called "Congressmen" then, even if there had already been some heroic women among them.)

There was no public announcement of the recording, or of "Operation Coffeecup." The idea was to make it seem as if the letters were spontaneously written by distressed citizens. Portions of the recording were also reportedly broadcast as radio commentary.

Max Skidmore writes:
(Reagan) no doubt terrified many of his listeners with his conclusion, telling them that if they did not prevent the passage of Medicare, "one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

This was a very imaginative tactic for the time. "Coffeecup" meets today's criteria for a "viral" marketing campaign: It was designed to appear spontaneous rather than organized and well-funded. It used word-of-mouth communication backed by prepackaged content. And that content that used some of the finest media technology then available - full sterephonic sound reproduction!

The "Socialized Medicine" record was Ronald Reagan's first venture into political speech. It didn't just represent smart, well-funded political strategy. It also launched a career that in turn brought about the conservative revolution. Reagan's efforts in "Operation Coffeecup" were so well-received that he was invited to give a speech for Barry Goldwater at the 1964 GOP Convention.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, in my opinion, the actual history of Reagan on Medicare show he was dishonest in his statements in the debate - his first political speech being paid by big medical business in a secretive campaign to prevent the government from passing Medicare in an album titled not "Why I am in favor of the goals of Medicare but prefer another program to do it", but rather "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine." In other words, in complete opposition to the program the government was trying to pass, Medicare.

Reagan's comments in the debate, in my view, are dishonest and simply tried to hide his actual history, because it was politically helpful to him to be dishonest:

When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another.

That statement, that he was in favor of the government passing legislation to provide care for seniors, but his objection was just that he wanted to have the government provide even better care than Medicare - is not at all the actual history of his covertly business-funded polemic against "Socialized Medicine".

Having said all that, I did not research the topic here as thoroughly as I should have. Because of that, there was room for some clarification.

Conclusion: Craig234's debunking of the myth of this debate line just being great speaking, and not an incident of Reagan deceipt, is correct, and Fern's debunking is debunked.

But again, good for you for at least taking the debate to a more substantive level, at least in some of your comments, if not other irresponsible and false ones.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Craig234

I'd like to compliment you on being the only one on your side to at least make an effort to have a fact-based discussion, but then you go and screw up with the lie that I 'made it up.

Excuse me Craig, but you seem to have missed addressing your lie about Reagan asking for the $20B cut "the moment Reagan had power" when in fact Reagan waited 3 years after both being elected and after the Medicare budget increased $20B before asking for the "cut". Great speaking? C'mon Craig, work your magic, why is your lie less decietfulie than Reagan's supposed lie? I know the answer, but I just wanna hear you spin your own dishonesty.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Craig234

I'd like to compliment you on being the only one on your side to at least make an effort to have a fact-based discussion, but then you go and screw up with the lie that I 'made it up.

Excuse me Craig, but you seem to have missed addressing your lie about Reagan asking for the $20B cut "the moment Reagan had power" when in fact Reagan waited 3 years after both being elected and after the Medicare budget increased $20B before asking for the "cut". Great speaking? C'mon Craig, work your magic, why is your lie less decietfulie than Reagan's supposed lie? I know the answer, but I just wanna hear you spin your own dishonesty.

You did not acknowledge the error you made: you instead substituted a different topic and tried to play it off as if you had not said what you did that was wrong.

The error was your saying I "invented" the "detail about Carter saying Reagan would cut medicare spending", to quote you. I proved above I did not invent it.

In your response, the actual topic is nowhere to bge found, replaced as if the whole exchange had not been about that, but only the timing of the $20B issue.

Now, for the $20B issue - I did make an error there. The moment - figuratively, I mean the first couple months, not the first 60 seconds - Reagan was in power, he began the efforts to implement the right-wing programs on Medicare as documented in the links I posted. I should have said his efforts against Medicare began immediately, and not the specific $20B cut. That's an error; and it has no effect on the accuracy of the point of the thread.

You also need to get a clue on the difference between error and lie. Lie is intent to deceive, as when Reagan misrepresented his own history he knew well on Medicare, or your swapping the actual point I responded to, the one about Carter's claim, with another, the $20B timing.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
There he goes again...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

/thread :D

LMFAO! QFT :)

Pretty funny how some people are so clueless they can't say anything on the topic, but instead don't even notice that the joke they're laughing at was already made in the thread sub-topic...
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,640
2,034
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
There he goes again...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

/thread :D

LMFAO! QFT :)

Pretty funny how some people are so clueless they can't say anything on the topic, but instead don't even notice that the joke they're laughing at was already made in the thread sub-topic...

I'm not sure how you can seriously expect a reasonable debate on something when your thread title smacks of your usual arrogant elitism. No one really gives a shit what you have to say because you spend half your time insulting and talking down to about 50 percent of the population. Stop talking down to people and maybe you'll get the reasonable discussion that you are looking for.

Edit - Nothing personal Craig, just trying to help you out.