About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Conservative media take note: Reagan preached tax cut gospel to America’s students

September 03, 2009 1:09 pm ET by Matt Gertz

Putting aside possible ulterior motives, the conservative freak-out over President Obama’s planned speech to students urging them to stay in school and work hard is due to fears that Obama will use his platform as an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically, that’s exactly what President Reagan did two decades ago.

On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes:

Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.


I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Reagan returned to the topic, this time telling the students that lowering taxes increases revenue:

Q My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?


PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them. Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government. And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher. And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low.

The students probably didn’t know any better, but this is an idea that has been rejected by virtually every economist not named Larry Kudlow.

Do Sean Hannity and the folks at NewsBusters think President Reagan was engaging in Maoist indoctrination? Do Glenn Beck and WorldNetDaily think Reagan was pulling a Mussolini or attempting to assemble his own Hitler Youth? Or is it possible that the conservative media has decided that if Obama is for it – whether “it” means “universal health care” or “stay in school” – they’re against it?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (September 03, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
      8 1
      President Ronald Reagan-America's Greatest Appeaser.
      He gave Arms to the Terrorist State Iran like he wasn't the President but instead was Caesar.
      At the begining of the AIDS Crisis this Man stuck his head in the Sand.
      This was done because He was either Unaware or He just didn't Care about the Rights of the Gay Man.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Mike_Jackson (September 04, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
        4  
        Remember when Cheney was asked what he thought of the fact that a majority of Americans no longer said they supported the Iraq/Afghan wars? I think his reply was a sneering "So?"

        You can talk truth to power, but power usually ignores you, does what it wants and sleeps well at night.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The Concervative (September 04, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
           
        Reagan did what he had to do about Iran... As far as AIDS, I dont believe anybody did anything at that time because nobody knew what the hell the gay men were spreading around until it really got spread...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 06, 2009 3:45 am ET)
           
        And he gave crack cocain to America
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (September 03, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
      18 1
      Talk about indoctrination......this supply side nonsense has never worked nor led to greater tax revenues to the feds.

      Even Reagan's budget director admitted it :

      But as early as August 1981, Stockman began having gnawing doubts about his budget. Computer simulations failed to project the tremendous growth he had predicted, and later he would admit to cooking the numbers (!) before selling the budget to Congress. That December, the Atlantic Monthly published an article in which Stockman made several damaging and embarrassing confessions about the entire supply-side philosophy.

      He admitted that the 1981 tax cut "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate" for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich had long ago been coined "trickle down economics" - and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman told the interviewer. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."7

      The Rosy Scenario failed to materialize. The economy did not grow out of its deficits. In 1986, Washington and the rest of the nation would again be surprised when Stockman confessed all in a book entitled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.


      Reagan nearly tripled the debt even after instituting 7 tax increases.

      In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion.

      Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion.

      In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer


      Treasury Site where you can verify the information

      http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 04, 2009 4:21 am ET)
           
        That revelation about Stockman was a VERY big deal at the time. Well covered by the MSM-- especially the trickle-down admission.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (September 03, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
      10  
      At the time of his comment, the marginal tax rate was 28%, which was lower than what it had been. At the end of his presidency the marginal tax rate was 39%.
      Hmmmm.... I guess that didn't work out quite like what he expected.

      As far as the whole "low taxes means more revenue" that only works when people are making that much more money. If it happens to be that people don't make a lot, while taxes are high, the revenue will reflect that. If people are making a lot of money during low tax times, then the revenue reflects that. The whole "trickle down" theory has been debunked. All it did was allow the rich to accumulate even more wealth, while the middle and lower classes lost wealth.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
        12 1
        And I'm sure if any of the Disciples of St. Ronnie / Trickle-down enthusiasts read the above posts by pros2pros or Bilbo-dies, they'll realize they've been duped, and have to re-think their entire mythology.

        Ha ha, just kidding, they'll say Stockman was a leftist plant or disgruntled RINO, and carry on.
        Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
            7 1
            No one in particular, Snoop. There are 5 or 10 dreamy-eyed Raygun groupies who post here regularly.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by NMEd (September 04, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
           
        Yet Michael Medved continues to act as if "trickle down" works. He keeps talking about how "when wealthy people do well, everyone does well." He claims that those with wealth are able to start businesses, create more jobs, and allow others to increase their incomes (or, at least, to have jobs). Show me the evidence, Mike.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (September 03, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
      9  
      Let's not stop with Beck.

      Get businesses to stop advertising on Fox - period!

      America has become the laughing-stock of the world.

      We've degenerated into a dysfunctional society of whiners.

      And Fox is leading the way.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (September 03, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
      12  
      Q: My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?


      PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do, unfortunately, I added on 20,5%debt/GDP. To put that in context, I was the first President to increase our debt%/GDP, since 1945! (Not counting Nixon/Ford's pathetic 0,1% increase of course)

      I started a trend that raised our debt%/GDP from 32.6% to 75.5% in 2009! Remember, it would've been greater if it weren't for that "tax & spend" yahoo Bill Clinton!

      The important lesson to be learned here? By simply duping the American public, my rich friends and I have just gotten richer, and the kicker? I'm remembered as a "fiscally conservative" President!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by maestro12345 (September 03, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
        12
      Ladies and Gentlemen,
      You are all missing the point. Reagan was about to leave office for one. So, he may have been talking about issues but he certainly wasn't trying to sell the presidency or himself. The people who were angry weren't just conservative right, it was mainly educators in general. No expert in their field wants to be told how to do their job. They certainly don't want to teach their students to adore an individual. Was the President's speech possibly just a pep talk about doing well in schooL? Quite possibly it was. But the lesson plans asked children to support the president and specifically President Obama. This was the problem that caused many to be upset. Is it good to support the President? Sure it is. But forcing them to do so is contrary to free thinking and learning. This website is amazing, because it always rips on conservatives for their views, but acts as if liberals shouldn't be ripped for theirs. Double standards don't make for educated conversation.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (September 03, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
        8  
        You show no proof of your statement on support, or its origin.
        Consider yourself ripped, ravaged and torn to pieces, if it makes you happy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2009 9:17 pm ET)
          9  
          I think the fact that maestro's talking about Obama's upcoming speech in the past tense sort of takes the wind out of the pleas for educated conversation. Or even sane conversation.

          Pile on some unsupported claims, and the obligatory abuse of the term "double standard", and we have another cookie cutter wingnut joke .
          Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (September 03, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
        10  
        support the President in what maestro? Could it be to support the president in setting educational goals and standards for them to strive to achieve. That is exactly what they were about it was not about teaching adoration for a particular person or his policies,you missed the boat completely. How quickly you cons forget:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-y2QghS2gU

        Where was your outrage at this, and let us not forget the loyalty oaths people had to sign to get into see President Bush,or Monica Gooding and the turning of the DOJ into a department of loyal Bushies.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by EZ4you2say (September 03, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
          3
        Oh you're in for it now!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (September 03, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
        9  
        >>You are all missing the point.

        There is not f**ing point except that the Republicans want to vilify the president no matter what he does. That is the only point. This is absolutely insane to defend the this right wing crap.

        link
        Report Abuse
        • Author by using61account (September 03, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
            12
          Isn't there a small difference between inviting four volunteer groups of children to come and hear what you think and entering the classrooms of every child in public school and pushing your agenda to them? I'm afraid that anyone who has ever read Huxley's "Brave New World" reacted the same way to the potential for "conditioning" all our children that the President's original lesson plans presented. Fortunately, the President was sensitive to our shock and has had the follow up lesson plan rewritten to be centered on the benefits of education rather than the benefit of supporting one president, I hear tell.
          Also, my name isn't Kudlow and I think the Laffer Curve makes a lot of sense. You can and will reduce revenue by taxing small business into stagnation if not into flight right out of the country. Permanent new jobs come from thriving new small businesses, not government programs.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by doubter (September 03, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
            7  
            I read "Brave New World" and all I thought was that the president was going to talk to school kids. I can't remember a time when I was young and in school when we weren't encouraged to support (specifically) whatever president was in office. Even when it was apparent that Nixon was a lying criminal, our teachers told us to pray for him and continue to urge our parents to support him. Yes, I grew up in the South. And by the way, if you think school kids today are going to listen to anything that comes from a person in authority, you're really dreaming.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
            6  
            Congrats, using61. Begging the question is one of the most popular logical bloopers used by conservatives, but most can only manage to work one or two into a post. You're raising the bar.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pianoteacher (September 03, 2009 10:26 pm ET)
            6  
            Actually, Reagan had his talk broadcast nationally, too, according to the article:

            On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marvin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program "to schools nationwide on three different days."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (September 03, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
            5  
            The instances of the four volunteer groups, I see no mention of it above, clarify it please. We are talking about one talk to one group of students by the president. Not pushing an agenda into every classroom, Where do you get that?
            Small businesses do not face any new taxes. The 1% of the population who earned 21.2% of all income in 05, now they face the removal of some shrub era tax breaks. So they'll maybe have to wait a year or so for that new boat/airplane/professional sports team, or recondition their misstress collection.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 03, 2009 11:28 pm ET)
            5  
            It seems like you might have benefitted from a similar message when you were in school, so that you'd know that reading only the first few lines of a paragraph is not enough. President Reagan didn't just talk to 4 volunteer groups. His speech and the question/answer portion were televised to students across the nation.

            On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marvin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days."

            When you become a well-educated economist who can make a determination about the trickle down theory, get back to us.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (September 03, 2009 11:55 pm ET)
            7  
            >>I'm afraid that anyone who has ever read Huxley's "Brave New World" reacted the same way to the potential for "conditioning" all our children that the President's original lesson plans presented.

            Let me repeat: this whole debate is completely moronic. I can't even believe we are having this. I have read Huxley, but from your quote, you apparently have not.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by abeth (September 04, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
            4  
            Small businesses don't flee the country due to the nature of their business, using61. The idea that mom and pop down the street is going to pick up shop and move to China, because their taxes were too high, is not only against every economic principle behind small business - it's just plain stupid.

            Permanent new jobs are not coming from thriving new small businesses or government programs, they're coming from established multinational corporations. The reason? Your precious trickle down economics. The reduced tax on the wealthy gives them immense power to muscle your thriving small businesses in to obscurity.

            It's been a part of tax theory since late ancient times that you're going to get more tax revenue from those who can afford to part with it. This is why, pre-Reagan, taxes on the upper echelon of income earners were higher. Taxing me 28% isn't going to net you anywhere as much revenue as taxing Bill Gates 40%, and Bill Gates isn't going to notice because he makes billions. The typical response to that being "he earned it, let him keep it!" The idea that any one man has an inalienable right to control that much of the country's wealth is just as stupid as mom and pop going to China. The greater your wealth, the greater your responsibility to the government. Such is the nature of income taxation. According to Republicans, though, the only way to save small business is to ensure that the insanely wealthy keep their money. Thus destroying small business when the insanely wealthy use that money to push mom and pop out.

            Are you still not seeing it? It's really quite plain.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mbluesky (September 03, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
          10  
          And as a former Republican supporter (but not for the last 8 years - since the Iraq War) I have to say that I am so disgusted by the Republican tactics of smear/hate/fear being used that I am willing to promise I will NEVER ever again vote for a Republican at the local, state or national level. If they do not repudiate this sick accusation, along with the hatred spewed by Beck, Rush, Palin and their other mouthpieces - they will lose me forever, not just temporarily. And I think they will lose an entire generation of young voters who will also be disgusted with their racism and knee-jerk partisanship.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (September 04, 2009 10:26 am ET)
            5  
            im right there with you. i made exceptions for arlen specter though.

            my father a longtime republican switched over. i have long been considering doing so myself
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jonesjax2374 (September 03, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
        8  
        Lessons plans are always the same: What do you think he is asking? How do you think you can apply this to your life? Its standard stuff. Most teachers don't do them verbatim. Its just at discussion tool. People need to calm down. Its making those who oppose Obama seem hysterical. Is that the image you want to project? This is my 9th President and believe me, they've all spoken to schools etc. Calm down. Pick a real issue. Don't be hijacked by wingnuts.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (September 04, 2009 10:15 am ET)
        5  
        don't speak of double standards.

        president obama has been subjected to such standards since his elections.

        -he has been asked to provide a birthe certificate when no president EVER has had to do so.

        -he wants to give a speech about staying in school and doing well and people are demanding to see the speech beforehand and see if it meets with their approval.

        -he has been called a Marxist, Maoist, Communist, Socialist, RACIST, to a degree never EVER heard of before. (the last few presidents have been called some of these things or others at varying points but not to the almost daily degree of the current president.)

        -the president gets called "barack the magic negro" and a song is made about it. was there ever a time that bill clinton got called an ignorant hick because he was from Arkansas? or Gore for that matter as well since he was from Tennessee?

        the answer is simply no. this is what infuriates me more than anything. i hated bush 43. i disagreed with him on everything possible and im a Rpublican. i didn't respect the man, but i respected the office, and thats what this is all about. the respect for the current man does not exist nor does there seem to be any respect for the office because of the man currently sitting in the office.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (September 04, 2009 10:16 am ET)
          1  
          i apologize for my one spelling error, my above post was written fast and in a great deal of frustration
          Report Abuse
    • Author by using61account (September 03, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
        10
      Isn't there a small difference between inviting four volunteer groups of children to come and hear what you think and entering the classrooms of every child in public school and pushing your agenda to them? I'm afraid that anyone who has ever read Huxley's "Brave New World" reacted the same way to the potential for "conditioning" all our children that the President's original lesson plans presented. Fortunately, the President was sensitive to our shock and has had the follow up lesson plan rewritten to be centered on the benefits of education rather than the benefit of supporting one president, I hear tell.
      Also, my name isn't Kudlow and I think the Laffer Curve makes a lot of sense. You can and will reduce revenue by taxing small business into stagnation if not into flight right out of the country. Permanent new jobs come from thriving new small businesses, not government programs.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by skatscan5624 (September 03, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
        9  
        And Reagan and Bush did more to destroy small businesses with their tax cuts for big business and tax handouts to big business to move jobs out of the country.

        It is to Laff.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (September 03, 2009 7:37 pm ET)
        4  
        There is a "small" difference, but it is so small that it shouldn't even be on the radar.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Butterfly813605765 (September 03, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
        3  
        If you are capable of reading past the first sentence before posting three times you will read that the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-span. And Instructional Television Network fed the program "to schools nationwide on three different days".

        Me thinks this is 'no difference'.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ellaquince (September 03, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
      7  
      The wackaloons will just take Reagan's earlier attempt to indoctrinate children with his political beliefs as proof that Obama is doing the same thing. "See, he's copying Reagan," they'll say. "It's been tried before!"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by luv2purple (September 03, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
      9  
      What a shame and a sham the right is foisting on America. The other day when Tom Ridge was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, she repeatedly pressed him on his role in Iraq, selling the war on faulty WMD scares etc. Although Ridge clearly knew he was taking heat, he also thanked Rachel for the respectful tone and said the nation would be better off if the dialogue was more like this one, with respect and disagreement, rather than hateful, vitriol backed up with rhetoric and no facts. The sad thing is that it is Ridge's party...the republicans...who have issued such verbal poison. Shameful. I've lost all respect for the conservative movement and those who spew such hate speech. There is no one way street for good ideas.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2009 9:25 pm ET)
        6  
        I caught the end of that. Did I miss something, or was Ridge claiming he was misquoted as Maddow read from his book?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (September 03, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
             
          She read from the book jacket, which was written by the publishing company, and he disavowed the sentiments. John Dean said though, that as an author himself, he always got to review, edit and approve the dust jacket commentary.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (September 03, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
          3  
          >>I caught the end of that. Did I miss something, or was Ridge claiming he was misquoted as Maddow read from his book?

          He was actually making that claim. Another bizarre instant in our discourse.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (September 04, 2009 11:21 am ET)
            5
          So she (sort of) know better than he does about what's in his book?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 04, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
            4  
            Hard to say. With Ridge, it could have been ignorance or lying.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (September 04, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
                8
              That's not the point. If he denies what she's saying, I'm going to believe him over "her".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 04, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
                3  
                She was reading from the book jacket, she was holding it in her hands and reading directly from it. Delldolly says above that it was words written by the publishing company, I don't know.

                I would think an author would take some responsibility for words written on his own book, but if you'd rather believe Ridge "just because", you're welcome to do so, and I'm not surprised.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by do-aa (September 03, 2009 8:25 pm ET)
        8
      Hmm four (4) area middle schools versus as many classrooms across the nation as possible. Your right, what a bunch of hysterical over reactors.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RightWingExtremist (September 03, 2009 10:04 pm ET)
        7
      In 1988, everyone knew the content of the President's speech in advance - no surprises. That's not the case with President Obama.
      There's nothing wrong with ANY President, including President Obama, talking to students - ever.
      If President Reagan inappropriately used that venue to indoctrinate children to conservatism, then it was wrong.
      If President Obama inappropriately uses this venue to indoctrinate children to liberalism, then it is wrong as well.

      Schools should teach facts, and show theories on all sides of any issue.
      If they focus on politics, then fairly show all forms of ideology.
      Schools have long been a platform for liberal teachers, professors, and administrators to spread their agendas.
      Just like the Madrasas in Islam, they force their slanted views upon students.

      That kind of indoctrination needs to stop on ALL fronts, be it conservative OR liberal.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (September 04, 2009 10:49 am ET)
        6  
        which would be true if the president had not given the basic outline of his speech, but the president has done that. so we know what the content will be just not the exact word for word text.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by njack (September 04, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
           
        That's a broad generalization there, saying "Schools have long been a platform for liberal teachers, professors, and administrators to spread their agendas." I am a school teacher and I do not force my platform on any of my students. However, I do give them a platform for polite discourse in the classroom, to teach that if people have to yell to get their message across, then the message should be ignored.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jonesjax2374 (September 04, 2009 8:59 pm ET)
        2  
        I have many conservative friends who went to the same public schools and colleges I did. And yet they didn't become liberal. So perhaps people can think for themselves. Isn't that what the right is saying? So don't presume our country is stupid. Even though Fox news counts on it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jpeagle21 (September 04, 2009 1:00 am ET)
        6
      Wrong. Regan did not prepare a speech for the sole purpose of showing to school-age kids. He was asked questions and answered them. The networks choe to rebroadcast. There is a big difference. Good try, but you missed on this one. If the pressident gets up there and preaches the importance of education and making the most of yourself and leaves it at that, I am all for it. If he uses it as an opportunty to get the young generation on board with his policies, I am against.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 04, 2009 2:40 am ET)
        4  
        Regan did not prepare a speech for the sole purpose of showing to school-age kids. He was asked questions and answered them. The networks choe to rebroadcast. There is a big difference.(jpeagle21)

        What is that difference? Could you be more specific?

        If he uses it as an opportunty to get the young generation on board with his policies, I am against. (jpeagle21)

        Did you have the same problems with Reagan's promoting policy to kids?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 04, 2009 2:42 am ET)
          4  
          I should have added;
          Did you have the same problems with Reagan's promoting policy to kids that you do with your predictions of Obama pomoting policy to kids?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (September 04, 2009 10:46 am ET)
          2 2
          Who's Regan?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 04, 2009 11:41 am ET)
            3  
            That's JPEagle's typo I copied and pasted. I'm pretty sure he meant Ronald Reagan, which you should have picked up on as I corrected the spelling in the next two posts.

            I know, it's pretty funny that a Reagan-worshiping conservative would misspell The Messiah's name, but I wasn't going to focus on that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (September 04, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
                8
              Oh man, this is funny. You refer to Reagan as "The Messiah" when you worship Obama like a god. Hilarious.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 04, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
                5  
                You wingnuts sure spend a lot of time cracking up at imaginary things. Weird.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by sklein1033 (September 04, 2009 1:19 am ET)
        10
      Reagan was absolutely correct in his assersion that federal tax receipts would increase as a result of a decrease in marginal tax rates.

      Early in Reagan's term, congress passed the Economic Recovery Act of 1981.

      According to the Congressional Summary of Receipts, Outlays, Surpluses,and Deficits, federal receipts in 1982 were 617 Billion and this increased to 991.20 billion in 1989. Federal receipts grew substantially AFTER marginal tax rates were reduced.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Real Rita (September 04, 2009 9:00 am ET)
        10
      Ummm.. everything I read shows economists agreeing with Reagan's plan. Obama actually got tongue tied on this when Charlie Gibson was stating how when Reagan lowered taxes the revenue rose. I no, I am not just going by Charlie Gibson. I read a lot of similar cases. To say it has been rejected by virtually every economist not named Larry Kudlow is wrong.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RLS (September 04, 2009 9:58 am ET)
        7
      Huge difference. Tax cuts are the "American" thing to do. In this case you are exactly right! It is NOT about the message and is IS about the messenger. Why would Americans want a radical leftist addressing their kids? Of course there was no outrage at President Reagan, what was there to fear? Thanks for what you all do to make that point abundantly clear.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by acluisgood (September 04, 2009 10:52 am ET)
        3  
        Tax cuts for the rich are the "American thing to do"; at least since 1980.
        And lets' not forget Herbert Hoover who cut taxes for the rich leading up to Great Depression. How'd that work out?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cosmiquemuffin (September 04, 2009 10:41 am ET)
         
      This is awesome! But what is the source? You know the wingnuts won't read a MediaMatters article. Is there a transcript from CSPAN, or (gasp!) YouTube? CSPAN's got to have the suckiest search ever.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by starkcr31 (September 04, 2009 10:46 am ET)
        7
      Pushing tax cuts is the same as pushing a broken health care bill? Now I've heard everything.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by acluisgood (September 04, 2009 10:55 am ET)
      4  
      If Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Payne were alive today they would be considered radical leftists by fascist nimrods.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Mayor (September 04, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
        5
      There is very little to actually compare between the Bush lesson plan and that of Obama.

      The Bush lesson plan on biographies took no stand of which biography the children should read... and as of 2008, there were plenty of negative biographies that could have been incorporated into that lesson plan.

      On the other hand, Obama's plan asked the children to read books written by Obama himself.

      It's not rocket science to understand the gaping difference between those two requests.

      Furthermore, the "Freedom Timeline" had lesson plan contained five stories: a 1777 spy that saved Washington's campaign, 1831 The Underground railroad, 1886 the statue of Liberty, 1938 The March of Dimes, 1948 Berlin Airlift. None of these are remotely connected to any Bush policy.

      On the other hand, the Obama lesson plan engages children directly in Obama's policies asking children "Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?", and other requests that are completely inappropriate for a grade school classroom.

      As for the longer Reagan section, there is a minor inaccuracy in the barb following Reagan's tax cut spiel... it should read "uniformly accepted only by people named Kudlow, patently rejected only by those named Krugman, and hotly debated by everyone else."

      Report Abuse
      • Author by whackamole (September 04, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
           
        I've looked through both lesson plans, and I'm not seeing where either encourages the children to read books written by Obama. I see this: "Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama," but that's not the same thing at all, and, in fact, is pretty much the same approach as the Bush lesson plan.

        As for "Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?", if the president asks kids to encourage their parents to support the public option, that's one thing. If the president asks kids to stay in school and work hard and make plans for the future, I'm not seeing the problem.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (September 04, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
        2  
        Mayor, Did you leave out BushIcfor a reason? Maybe to make your point? Tell me what BushI had to say...when talking to the kids...or is it temporary amnesia?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Mike_Jackson (September 04, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
      2  
      Probably the way to counter objections to Obama talking to school kids would be to give equal time to someone like Palin or whatshername Bachmann?

      I think the majority of kids would see thru the latter really quick, probably completely bamboozle them with questions they stutter over and Obama would shine. Either way FOX News would get to spin it as a victory for fair and balanced and at least Obama would get his time.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jonesjax2374 (September 04, 2009 9:00 pm ET)
        2  
        Oh by all means invite Bachman to speak to my schools here in Oakland. THEN you'd see some parents yank out their kids. With good reason.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by russ139 (September 04, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
         
      Sorry to correct the former President, but since he was speaking to students, I think it particularly important to be accurate.

      The colonies did not rebel because of Government intrusion into their lives, nor did they rebel because of taxes. They rebelled because of

      "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal64 (September 04, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
         
      I am going to open a can of worms> my kids brought home the letter from the school and told me they dont want to listen to the presidents speech> i would disagree with them but fifteen to twenty minutes out of their school day is wasting learning time> we watch the presidents speech at night at home> and then they can ask questions _ too long for anyone besides a high schooler> and yes_ i dont think the kids will be listening
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kareniflorida (September 04, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
         
      From the Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1991:
      "House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

      The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

      'The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,' House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "

      Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]
      Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to 'start using precious dollars for campaigns' when 'we are struggling for every silly dime we can get' for education programs."

      If the conservative media "has decided that if Obama is for it – whether “it” means “universal health care” or “stay in school” – they’re against it", it looks like they learned it from the Democrats.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle delimitation41haunt (September 05, 2009 10:11 am ET)
      1  
      NBC Nightly News showed a brief clip of President Reagan answering a young girls' question (during this same 1988 "town hall with school children") about "how long before we see a woman president".

      So video of the event still exists and NBC has it on file. Someone needs to contact them and obtain the full tape.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by workingclassblues (September 06, 2009 9:39 am ET)
         
      Why are we talking about this ridiculous crap in the first place?!? The president wants to sent a message to school children-So What!!- What does Charlie Manson think? Has anyone asked any Muppits? I'm sure they can shed some light on the subject. How about the Superfriends! Yea! They won't steer us wrong!

      All of the above are more credible than the band of kooks, charlatins, liars and jokers trying to 'school' us on Fox,WND and A.M. radio. This is desparation x 1000. These terrorist attacks against the president will not go unpunished. We must bring back the [b]Fairness Doctrine[b]in order to shut down the right wing smear machine.
      Report Abuse