Talk:Ronald Reagan

"Filmmaking"?

I'm fairly certain that the reference to RR should be "film acting", rather than "filmmaking"!

I don't believe that he did much "filmmaking", if any at all.

That should be changed, almost without doubt.

76.183.239.222 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Joe Reader

I've reworded it. Thanks -- Happyme22 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Should "The Hasty Heart" not also receive a mention??? Not only did it receive an Oscar nomination for Richard Todd (and win two Golden Globes) but it was the only film Ronald Reagan made in London. His experiences of the technical crews turning down overtime opportunities because of overly high direct taxation impressed on Reagan the fact that the Socialist policies of the Labour government in Britain of the late 40s were not for him!!! He did not need an intense academic understanding of economics - his experiences gained while working on the "Hasty Heart" were burned into him!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrs10 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Great Communicator

It seems to me that the use of the word rhetoric in this section comes across as not being NPOV. I was reverted, but because rhetoric seems loaded to me, is there a better phrasing to use? Or does nobody agree with me on this one? :P Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, rhetoric is: the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech; the study of the effective use of language; the ability to use language effectively; the art of prose in general as opposed to verse; the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory; etc. That seems to describe what Reagan did pretty well. If you are more comfortable with another word I'm open to possibly replacing it, but I think "speech" in place of "rhetoric" sounds very odd. Happyme22 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. I agree. "speech" in place of "rhetoric" did sound odd, but I just didn't know what would fit. I guess it's moot, since it's just a feeling that it's loaded, and trying to even avoid the appearance of systemic bias. Along the lines of "I don't like it" Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, in spite of the dictionary definition, the word rhetoric is often (intentionally) used with a negative connotation. However, I'm at a loss to think of a better word choice. LarryJeff (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence is awkward and the citations are bad. One cite is a dead link and the other one points to a book review that you can't access unless you pay for the privilege. Since when do we use book reviews as citations? This sentence smacks of original research with these dead end citations to dress it up. And in terms of the word rhetoric, that is a loaded word in any context.Malke2010 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sense of humour

To claim that Reagan had a good sense is entirely POV and has no place here. A sentence like "To his supporters Reagan had a good sense of humour" would be far fairer. By the way Reagan's favourite comedian was Benny Hill who was about as amusing as toothache.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The rewording would be appropriate, however, your opinion of Benny Hill (even if I agree with it) is your opinion, and has as much place here about the statement in question. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a second gentlemen: NPOV doesn't mean politically correct. There are multiple sources in the article that say that Reagan had a good sense of humor and that his humor contributed to his public persona. If it is cited and well established, how is that not in keeping with NPOV? Happyme22 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Err, considering it helped him win the presidency during 1984, especially during the debates... Soxwon (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Then for the statement in question, it can be supported by those references using a refname tag, should be simple enough. What line is it? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Only Reaganites think Reagan had a good sense of humour. Reaganite sources supporting this hardly makes for NPOV.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, the longstanding information is already cited. Smokey, Reaganite sources? Let's check the sources given for all things re: humor in the article: CBS News, a story with Dan Rather (not exactly a Reagan guy) recounting multiple displays of Reagan's humor; Fox News, a story chronicling different humorous instances; About.com, labeling his Cold War joke a "classic radio gaffe". I suppose the only one with a hint of bias could be this from National Review, which says all the same things as the others but occasionally raises eyebrows because of the publication it is from. No matter, as a simple Google search seems to reveal that there are a good many reliable sources. Even more within the Google News archives. I'll go ahead and replace the National Review one simply to avoid conflict. Happyme22 (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sense of humour is by definition POV. Some people found Benny Hill funny. Some didn't. Ditto Reagan.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, it was the reason he beat Mondale in 84, was one of the things he's best remembered for, and recognized by his adversaries, sounds pretty definitive. Can we please give this a rest? Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

african americans

why does this article mention he wasn't popular with blacks? The entire republican party is unpopular with blacks. Showtime2009 (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true of George W. Romney or Nelson Rockefeller, two other Republican governors and Republican presidential candidates in 1968. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is only two exceptions. The party in general is not popular with blacks. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In the 1956 presidential election, Eisenhower won 60% of the black vote. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Reagan came of age politically, the situation was different than it is today. It was not a foregone conclusion that any Republican politician of that era would be unpopular with blacks. If Reagan did become unpopular, it may well have been due to something related to his particular policies or political persona than it was to his party affiliation. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Early 1980s recession

The article appears to avoid mentioning the Reagan recession. Any reason why? Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence should be added. This topic is too politicized with POV left and right. You can find 100 economists who will say Carter caused the recession and 100 economist who will say Reagan caused it. Same situation as now in USA. Is Bush or Obama to blame for the current recession and would it be known as the 'Obama Recession'? Meishern (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bush recession began in December 2007. Obama was elected because of it, not in spite of it. Please pay closer attention. The Reagan recession appears to be covered in every reliable source on the subject except this hagiography on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are not facts; opinions differ based on the source. Labeling recessions according to presidents solely based on whose presidency it occured in and one's own personal like/dislike of the president is not warranted. Meishern is correct in saying that perhaps a sentence on the early 1980s recession could be added, though phrases such as "Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year" are within the economy section.... Hagiography? Please... Happyme22 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

They are most certainly facts: It is a fact that the U.S. entered a recession in December 2007. It is a fact that voters were frustrated with the Bush economy (and other things) and elected Obama because of it. It is a fact that a discussion of the "Reagan recession" was extensively covered in the media and in books and papers. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean you want to make it more clear that Reagan was elected in a recession, which was ongoing early in his term, then perhaps that would be appropriate (near the section that mentions the recession). If you're proposing inserting reasoning as to who caused what, then that's not going to fly here. The article you linked to basically says, "There was a low-point, but then fiscal policy helped turn around the recession and Reagan regained popularity." I think this article captures that point already, but that's just me.—DMCer™ 11:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

<-----

Partisan politics. Why waste time arguing if Carter or Bush caused the recessions and Reagan fixed it and Obama is in the process. I disagree with the name 'Reagan Recession' since other sources label that time period as "Reagan-Volcker-Carter" recession. Meishern (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the Reagan recession, and there's quite a bit written about it. But you won't find it in this article. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this has already been settled. The consensus is that it doesn't belong in the article.—DMCer™ 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lou Cannon

Considering that some of Lou Cannon's work is used in this article, I'm curious why the early life section is so short and lacking in important detail about Reagan. For example, I wanted to know more about Reagan's use of the "binge" metaphor to describe the recession on January 14, 1981. Apparently, his father was an alcoholic, and Reagan's experience with his father lends touching insight into the character and moral fortitude of a man who most people don't know. It would be nice if biographical articles actually focused on the person. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, you are correct in that nothing is written about his alcoholic father. I don't know how we could have missed that.... I'll add something. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "binge metaphor," however. Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why "surprisingly"? There's a lot missing in this article. The alcoholic binge metaphor was a central touchstone regarding his discussion about the 1981 recession, and is covered by Cannon in detail in President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (2000). Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Variditas, you already covered the question about the 1981 recession in your posts above this topic. If you have a personal vendetta against Reagan, that's cool, but please refrain from editing the article if you let your emotions rule you. You edited for 5 years so I am sure you must have forgotten the [[1]] guide. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is completely off-topic and should be removed. This thread topic is about my request to expand the early life section. If you wish to discuss me instead, please compose an e-mail with your thoughts enclosed, and send it to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

economy

The national debt did not increase from 700 billion to 3 trillion; rather 900 billion to 2.7 trillion Kpomplun (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) He was a great man!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.56.91 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

There seems to be a growing consensus among scholars such that both conservative admirers and liberal critics agree that he has been the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945, leaving his imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics. for example "As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in Reviews in American History, Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," Journal of Social History, Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," Enterprise & Society, Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine and good but I moved it from the lead, where it was being given undue weight, to the legacy section. Happyme22 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"both conservative admirers and liberal critics" This has POV issues, as suggests all conservatives admire and all liberals criticize Reagan. Please replace with a less partisan statement, e.g "both admirers and critics" --92.9.184.151 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I fixed that. Rjensen (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Shouldn't there be a redirect to the Wikipeida Article Reagan administration scandals under the heading of Further Reading?````

No, that article is linked in other places. Ronald Reagan bibliography is linked because the content of that page is simply a list of further reading on Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

End of the cold war mythos

Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the cold war. The cold war ended because of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

well I was in Moscow when Chernobyl happened and can report the Cold War did NOT end then. For this article you need reliable sources to cite. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Try to read for comprehension: "The cold war ended because of" means something important here. As for sources, this claim does not appear in the article, but the other one does. "Some would argue that what killed the Cold War was the world's worst nuclear accident, which occurred in the spring of 1986. That disaster may have marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union." (Lopez & Myers 1997)

"In policy terms, Chernobyl's positive fallout followed quickly. As Velikhov described, it pushed Gorbachev toward "a great, instinctive leap to break the old cycle" of secrecy, stubbornness, and deadlocked negotiations. By May, Soviet delegates to the Stockholm talks on conventional forces had new instructions-to accept unprecedented on-site verification measures-and by July a treaty was completed. At this time, Gorbachev also requested an "interim" summit, before the next scheduled U.S.-Soviet gathering, which became the famous Reykjavik conclave of October 1986...There Gorbachev shocked Reagan and his advisers-but not those who understood the seriousness of his January proposal-with huge concessions in a bid for total nuclear disarmament. Agreement foundered on only one issue: Gorbachev's insistence on modest limits to SDI, which Reagan rejected. But there was no more mistaking the sincerity and radicalness of Gorbachev's intentions. The genesis of Reykjavik, and the underlying shift in Gorbachev's view on international security, are seen in various deliberations from the summer and early fall of 1986."English 2000 Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

not quite. Reagan had launched a new arms race (Star Wars and many other programs) that the Soviets knew they could not compete in--they lacked modern computers. Chernobyl demonstrated the inferiority of their poor technology, meaning they had to accept reagan's terms (which included ending the Berlin Wall).Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The arms race prolonged the cold war; it did nothing to end it. For Gorbachev, the Chernobyl disaster showed "the sicknesses of our system...the concealing or hushing up of accidents and other bad news, irresponsibility and carelessness, slipshod work, wholesale drunkenness." According to Gorbachev, "Chernobyl made me and my colleagues rethink a great many things."[2] Soviet society began to open up as the media began reporting on the disaster, and glasnost began to be practiced rather than preached, for the first time:

The truth about Chernobyl which eventually hit the newspapers opened the way to a more truthful examination of other social problems. More and more articles were written about drug abuse, crime, corruption and the mistakes of leaders of various ranks. A wave of 'bad news' swept over the readers in 1986-87, shaking the consciousness of society. Many were horrified to find out about the numerous calamities of which they had previously had no idea. It often seemed to people that there were many more outrages in the epoch of perestroika than before although, in fact, they had simply not been informed about them previously.[3]

Chernobyl changed everything: It forced the leaders of the Soviet Union to reevaluate their positions; it opened the country up to the free flow of information; and it ended the cold war. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

the accelerated arms race made the Soviet position hopeless and the military, the scientists and the political leaders all realized that they had to exit from the arms race on Western terms, which meant giving up the empire, first in Afghanistan then in eastern Europe. The cold war ended in a military defeat for the Soviets. Glasnost hastened the process because it was no longer possible to cover up the failures and ignore vast military lead opening up by NATO. Gorbachev though he could preserve Communism in the USSR by giving up the empire, but that proved a fallacy when he could not produce economic progress and when the republics resisted and some of the military revolted (1991). By then it was clear that Communsim was also a failure and it was shut down in late 1991. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From Ruud van Dijk's Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1 [4], [5]:

Gorbachev's efforts to limit nuclear arms and end the Cold War had initial sources in the necessity for economic reform at home. The economic cost of defense could not for long be sustained, especially in an economy that was being rocked by reform. On January 15, 1986, Gorbachev proposed that all intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe be eliminated and that all nuclear weapons be retired by 2000. Parity in arms was replaced by reasonable sufficiency and the arms race was described as a specific threat to Soviet security. Received cynically in the West, Gorbachev's proposal actually fit perfectly with Ronald Reagan's desire to eliminate nuclear weapons. The Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 further instilled in Gorbachev a horror of nuclear war or nuclear accidents resulting from war. Combining this passion with the new thinking on Soviet security, Gorbachev was able to make arms reduction offers that eventually resulted in important arms control agreements...

The Chernobyl disaster strongly influenced Mikhail Gorbachev's thinking with regard to Soviet Union foreign policy strategy. He sent a letter to U.S. president Ronald Reagan with a request to meet and discuss questions concerning the nuclear arm race programs of both the USSR and the U.S. Meetings between the two presidents took place in Reykjavik, Iceland on October 11 and 12, 1986. Gorbachev's dream was to reach an agreement on the complete liquidation of nuclear weapons, which was only made more urgent by the Chernobyl disaster. For the Soviet leader, the Reykjavik summit was a crucial event in post-war Soviet foreign policy and a major breakthrough in the realm of actual nuclear disarmament. Though the meeting did not yield immediate results because of the U.S. president's insistence on keeping his SDI plans intact, Gorbachev was able to find a similar nuclear abolitionist in Reagan, and this new understanding ultimately resulted in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Reduction Treaty, signed by Soviet and U.S. leaders on December 8, 1987, in Washington...

The Chernobyl disaster made evident the critical need for dialogue between the two major participants in the nuclear-arms race. If ending the Cold War was one of Gorbachev's top priorities at the outset of his career as General Secretary, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl strengthened his determination by making the consequences of nuclear war painfully clear.

May I just butt in here and mention that Star Wars had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War. It didn't work then, was easily (and cheaply) fooled and now after 30 years of experiments, still doesn't. The cold war ended when the brave people of East Germany opened their borders fully expecting a Hungary style Soviet invasion. Reagan had nothing to do with it. Richrakh

In regards to the early life of Ronald Reagan, I came across a picture of a young, handsome man in a boat with another man, and on the back of the picture was written "Dutch"...

Is it possible through this medium to be put in touch with 'someone' who could advise me if this could actually be Ronald Reagan in early 1930's. There is a story to this picture, but I need to find the right people or place to help with this.

Sincerely, Carla Cashion (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several different reasons for the end of the Cold War, and I have my opinions on what caused the end just as everyone else has theirs. But please -- this is not the place to discuss them. Feel free to discuss them and their respective sources at Talk:Cold War. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And to User:Carla Cashion above: Perhaps you could take your request to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All States except

...so now D.C is State no. 51...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

Why are so many POV guotes allowed here, but not elsewhere? They are properly referenced, but come from biased sources. Shouldn't they be removed or at least quotes with opposing opinions be allowed? It really slants the article. richrakh````

Which "POV quotes" are you referring to? The statement which you removed about Reagan reinvigorating morale is a statement of fact, backed up by nearly all, if not all, Reagan biographers, most prominently Lou Cannon (the most respected and well known of Reagan biographers). Among many others is Gil Troy, whose opinion is referenced elsewhere in the article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean… [[Termed the Reagan Revolution, his presidency would reinvigorate American morale[80][81] and reduce the people's reliance upon government.]] …which I tried to remove?

This statement is NOT fact. It is an opinion by Cannon and Troy and most of the Republican party, but it is refuted by the books of William Kleinknect, Michael Schaller, Haynes Johnson and the 35 million people who voted against him. Not one of them was “reinvigorated.” Look, when Obama says that “Hope has returned to America” do you believe him? Would it be a fact if it was “…backed up by all, if not all…,” of Obama’s biographers”? As you can see, such an implication is a ridiculous, though referenced, POV and should be removed.

Similarly, the second phrase of that sentence, that the Reagan Revolution would “reduce the people’s reliance upon government.” is also a POV. It implies that is a good thing, which is an opinion. Further, though many people were removed from the food stamp and welfare programs by the Reagan administration, those people came to rely on the government in other fashions, such as increased enlistments, higher crime, greater use of emergency rooms, etc. I would be happy to add proper references to that, if you let me.

Finally, Ronald Reagan and his staff knew what they were doing and did it deliberately, critics be damned. You do the man no service when you limit access, delete opposing comments and whitewash his achievements. He can stand on his own. Richrakh````

Richrakh is pretty hostile to Reagan...but he's also hostile to the experts that write about Reagan. The latter is a very serious flaw that he has to overcome to be an effective editor. He mentions a couple books (Schaller, Haynes Johnson) that are decades old that were part of the battles of the time. He also mentions a recent book by a local crime reporter in New Jersey which the NY Times said is "This is an ad hominem vision of politics in which differences are never the result of disagreement and misunderstanding, always of evil and dishonesty. It will appeal only to those already running a high partisan fever." So it's time to start reading more widely -- start with Wilentz, a leading liberal historian.Rjensen (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I VOTED for Reagan. Stick to the point. "...would reinvigorate American morale[80][81] and reduce the people's reliance upon government..." is an opinion. If you cannot defend that statemnet, (my reading list aside) it should be removed. To be an effective editor you must stop being a cheerleader. Richrakh````

Wiki's job is to report the opinions of experts. Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias (Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides' of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.' - (emphasis added)

I repeat - (my reading list aside) To be an effective editor you must stop being a cheerleader. Please review the comments of Happyme22 's 1st paragraph and her comments about "Richrakh being pretty hostile to Reagan."

Health and well-being: HIV/AIDs Funding

The current content, "As thousands became infected with the virus, President Reagan did not increase funding to try to discover cures, rather he downplayed the situation and only acknowledged that it was an issue of concern at the May 31, 1987 Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington," is inaccurate. From President Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address:

We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.

On Sept. 17, 1985, in response to a reporter's question during a White House new conference, President Reagan responded,

[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.

During Ronald Reagan's first full fiscal year as President, 1982, funding by federal government for HIV/AIDS research went from zero to $8 million. When Reagan left office in 1989, the fiscal budget for HIV/AIDs was $2.322 billion. Under Reagan, HIV/AIDS research increased an average of 128.92 percent per year. The facts simply do not support the misstatements currently posted on Wikipedia, which misrepresents the historical record of the Reagan Administration's response to HIV/AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.20.124 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this, or is Wikipedia spurning facts again? - 63.226.191.95 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Factually correct or not, I don't think the paragraph about HIV belongs in this section of the article. The rest of the section speaks exclusively to President Reagan's own personal "health and well-being." LarryJeff (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

this article is completely and wholely wrong. the presidentcy of ronald reagen has nearly destroyed the social and ecconomic structure of this nation and continues to do. our current is a direct result of reagens ecconomic policies. to glorify this monster is unfantomable to me. i will never understand his appeal but i will bear witness to the destruction he caused for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.252 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti environmentalism

Should his opposition to expanding national parks and regulating CO2 emissions be included in his policy? He stated numerous times how he felt that CO2 emissions from cars were not significant.

Ex:"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" "A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" and "I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about" (which for the record is completely false).--67.86.120.246 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalism is boring for one, and how is that really relevant to the overall achievements and failures of Reagan? When people think Reagan they think: "Cold War", "Contra", "Tear down this wall" and "Jellybeans". I don't think it's really worth starting an argument over something that wasn't really that important in the time, nor to the overall crux of what made Reagan, Reagan. My 2c. I just quite enjoy this article for it's balance atm, and having hippies and global-warming-deniers arguing over it and changing things ever two seconds would suck. 121.74.243.13 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic data during Reagan Administration

tuco_bad 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles about Reagan and "Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration"‎ cite various economic statistics. I am citing data directly from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. tuco_bad 22:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Indeed, there are many different economic statistics presented on this page and the various articles dealing with Reagan's economic policies. But we are not here to discuss that; we are here to discuss the repeated insertion of an "average" unemployment. I do not doubt the Bureau of Labor Statistics' ability to find an average unemployment figure for all presidential administrations, but the relevance of said averages, especially during the Reagan presidency, is what conerns me. As you well know, President Reagan inherited an economic slump which turned into about a year long recession, during which unemployment figures were higher than they regularly are. Those figures inflate the average. After that year, unemployment steadily dropped for the remainder of the Reagan presidency, dropping down very low. So presenting an average as a way to justify whether or not his economic policies were good or bad, which is what this average seems to attempt to do, doesn't seem the right thing to do, as a definite cause of the early 1980s recession has not been established; some blame Carter, some blame Volker, some blame Reagan. If Reagan casued the recession and caused the recovery then the average may be an interesting figure, but there is no consensus for the cause of the recession. Happyme22 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

From the Reagan article:

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).[99] Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%.

To follow your logic, we should remove the 12.5% inflation average of Carter and 4.4% average of Reagan. Also by NOT reporting that unemployment hit over 9% in 1982 and 1982 and averaged 7.5% in Reagan’s term, one would get the idea that the employment situation under Reagan was good.

We should report the raw data, and let the reader research further the causes, and of course, you might wish to add that recessions skewed the statistics.

However, let us report ALL the data, not selective data. tuco_bad 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Mattnad (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to prove. The facts state that Reagan's policies were responsible for the decline in unemployment, growth of jobs, and the rise of the national debt, among many other things. What is in doubt is who caused the early 1980s recession. By putting that figure in, you are blaming Reagan for the early 1980s recession, which I will object to because there is no single source for the cause.

One would get the idea that the unemployment situation under Reagan was good because the unemployment situation under Reagan was good. Of the eight Reagan years, unemployment rose during the first two (due to the recession) and dropped for the remaining six. What caused the recession? The debate rages on today and we still are not sure.

It is not the reader's job to research, it is our job to research. Presenting an inflated figure and telling the reader to go out and research why it is inflated is called slander. That's promoting a hidden agenda, not telling the truth. Happyme22 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You write: “…unemployment situation under Reagan was good.” Therefore you do not want any data on Wikipedia that conflicts with your viewpoint. Unbelievable! tuco_bad 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing Happyme22 from providing context (from a reliable source), but the facts are the facts. If Happyme22 can find a reliable source to support his views, then that's fine. But to censor a statistic with the hyperbole that it's "slander" and "promoting a hidden agenda" is probably not assuming good faith.Mattnad (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting a fact is never slander. The only hidden agenda here is that of Happyme22. Rickrakh````

Economics section

I am fairly new to this but I wanted to call attention to the section "Presidency, 1981–1989" sub section ""Reaganomics" and the economy". The second paragraph reads.

Except for the Obama Administration, Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[101]

The reason I am asking this is that it seem wrong.

First off the Obama administration is barely 1 year old so this seems to be pointless and I am unsure what this piece of info is trying to say.

Secondly, would this info not more appropriately be placed under

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

Thanks for your time.

Thumper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.29.68 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Obama Administration is only 1 year old, but I just wanted to be accurate as to what I said about Reagan and his economics policies. tuco_bad 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Pretty sure George Washington through Herbert Hoover didn't raise the Federal minimum wage either, as it didn't then exist. 65.103.17.145 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reagan didn't raise the minimum wage because to do so in an economic downturn will fuel unemployment and delay recovery. Obama probably won't raise the min wage for the same reason. Employers have to trim workforces when the min wage is raised.Malke2010 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama has aready raised the minimum wage on July 24, 2009. George W. Bush raised it in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Clinton raised it twice, George H. W. Bush raised it in 1990 and Reagan raised it in 1989. The US minimum wage started under Roosevelt in 1939. Some short term job loss is always a result, but things soon equalize and increased consumer power creates more jobs than before. www.time.com, www.infoplease.org. Richrakh````—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs)

Reagan wasn't in office in 1989. (Please see term limits section of the U.S. Constitution.) George H.W. Bush was president in 1989. Clinton raised it during plush economic times. The economy was also plush when George W. Bush raised it. So when Clinton and Geo W. Bush raised it, it was okay because unemployment was low and plenty of jobs were available. George H.W. Bush raised it during the start of the recession and made things worse. Dumb move. Obama has now raised it during the worst economic crisis in the history of America fueling job losses worse than the Great Depression. Dumber move.Malke2010 18:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reagan was in office in 1989. His term ended on January 20, 1989. The part about the federal minimum wage not increasing during Reagan's presidential term is correct though as can be verified by looking at the US Department of Labor's website at [6]. Richrakh however is correct about the federal minimum wage being increased during Obama's time in office on July 24, 2009. It was increased from $6.55 to $7.25. I'll remove the part about Obama now so that its up to date.Chhe (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)