Talk:Political positions of Ronald Reagan

POV issues

Article contains misinformation from biased sources. Virtually all facts are obtained from sources authored by conservative or pro-conservative individuals or entities. The issue is best verified on Tax revenue. Reagan believed in tax cuts and closing loop-holes. He did cut taxes but overall tax rates raised for the middle class and the poorer Americans and US tax-revenue decreased nonetheless. The consequence of the tax-cut populist measure was to force the US to borrow heavily from foreign countries.

• You didn't date your talking points. What specific issue(s) do you have a problem with? I'll give you one month to rebut, then I'm removing the neutrality tag.
• The issue of Reagan and tax increases has been well debunked. Marginal tax rates are what matter generally and the top marginal tax rates, specifically. In that there is little to debate, though I'm not opposed to debate on valid debatable points. If you google, 'Historic Marginal Tax Rates', you'll clearly see, using the Tax Foundation web site for instance, that the top marginal tax rates were significantly reduced under Reagan. Reagan was in office until Jan. 1989. For the tax year 1988, the highest marginal federal tax rate is 28%, not counting A.M.T. That top marginal rate of 28% was the lowest top marginal rate since 1931, when the top federal marginal tax rate was 25%.
• On the raising tax rates for the middle class and poor issue, again this has been mostly debunked, though not nearly to the degree of the prior issue. From shortly after WWII through about Reagan's era, the lowest marginal tax rate was 20%. That was reduced to a low of 14% through 1976, then was reduced again to 0% on incomes no higher than just under $4,000 for a period of about 10 years. But given the historic perspective that the lowest marginal rate was 20% for some three decades, and the perspective that Reagan lowered rates for anyone making over $17,000 a year, you could just as well argue that Reagan lowered tax rates for the poor and middle class (except of course for those paying no tax on income, they obviously had their taxes increased), by creating one poor and middle class tax rate of 15%. 10stone5 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Reagan opposed universal healthcare? Really?

Not according to his early budget proposals. The 1982 proposal especially waxes poetic in its "message from the president" (page 16, or M11):

"I remain committed to a national health plan that would assure

basic and catastrophic medical coverage for all Americans, as well

as for prenatal and infant care. An estimated 22 million Americans

lack any private or public health insurance coverage. Another 60

million people lack adequate basic coverage or protection against

catastrophic medical expenses. Given the fact that adequate cost

containment does not exist and the need for overall budgetary

constraints, the budget does not include specific amounts for this

plan. However, it is important that our Nation attempt to meet

these needs and that the incentives in our health care system be

restructured. A clear demonstration of success in restraining medical

care costs is an essential prerequisite to the enactment of a

national health plan."

He's a bit more specific and less weasel-wordy in his 1981 proposal. The idea of reforming the system before extending universal coverage actually has a lot of merit (Mitt Romney rather infamously—in wonk circles—failed to do this), and ObamaCare itself was originally meant to follow this same formula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.222.137 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

AIDS

Nothing on Reagan and AIDS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.142.177.34 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow. And I thought I included many more references than usual

Maybe some people have very high standards? Then why wasn't this true before?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim, as I noted before, thank you for contributing to the article. I reviewed your edit and the contents of what you added. The citations must be clear and specific. I contacted you a few minutes ago and asked if you had url links for some of the articles you cited, as those would greatly assist in verifying what you added.

The entire entry reads like a GOP rigmarole in time of political campaigns. Reagan raised tax rates for the middle class while cutting corporate and capital taxes. Overall, the tax revenue decreased and the result was that we had to borrow money from foreign sources to close the gaps in the Reagan budgets. The sources cited in the article are all biased and all second hand. None of the claims made in the entry is based on official government documents, which are all easily obtainable and available on the Internet. Instead, verbose and biased books are used as sources, such as the "History of the American Experience". To learn about taxation, tax bills, and their actual effects, use the official website of the Treasury department: http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/offices/Pages/Office-of-Tax-Analysis.aspx

Similarly, on foreign policy Reagan is credited for the end of the Cold War but not for the rise of Al-Qaeda. Reagan used federal resources to finance, train, and exploit Islamist groups to undermine the Soviets. Even when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan Reagan continued to support the Islamist groups that led to the Taliban. He fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden — himself a prominent mujahideen commander — emerged from these mujahideen groups. U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the close relations between the US intelligence services and the Islamist fighters. Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

The reason why I took special note of your revision is because it lacks some of the fundamentals of citations. It's not your fault, but it can and should be easily fixed with citations templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}. "The Chicago Defender, Hutchinson, Earl Ofari, June 28, 2006" isn't going to cut it. What was this published in? When did you access it? etc. I recommend using those templates from now on.

As for the article and my changes to what you wrote:

• "Reagan supported South Africa in spite of apartheid because South Africa was anti-communist." -- needs a citation
• "...and said (while campaigning in Georgia) that President Davis was his "hero."" -- citation: News Hour with Jim Lehrer: Historians reflect on former President Ronald Reagan's legacy in U.S. politics, June 7, 2004 - Roger Wilkins commented on Reagan's Jefferson Davis remark -- this isn't a proper citation. Was this a television program? Or a news article? Who is Roger Wilkins? Where is this found? A verification is needed.
• "At first Reagan opposed the Martin Luther King holiday, and signed it only after an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate) voted in favor of it." -- citation: HR 3706, "A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a legal public holiday", Library of Congress. -- even without a link, I can tell this does not back up the claim that Reagan opposed it and only signed it after others supported it, simply because of what I presume is its title. This is the text of the bill, not a report on the bill. Verification is needed.
• "Congress overrode Reagan's veto of the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act." -- citation: Reagan's Veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Ronald Reagan, March 16, 1988 -- What kind of a citation is this? Is this a news article? A journal paper? A speech? A file? Where was it published? Verification is needed.

As for the 1980 Mississippi campaign rally, that was discussed here.

One more point I'd like to bring up is about Bob Herbert and his writings. Frankly, just as the National Review and Weekly Standard shouldn't be used to cite info on Reagan because they are overtly conservative, Herbert shouldn't because he is overtly anti-Reagan. Especially when it comes to race, Herbert has a bone to pick with Reagan.[1]

There's no special treatment being made here, just a careful analysis of what was written and what was cited. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you were more consistent. You weren't very careful with the details of a number of things previously mentioned elsewhere. Also, given your interest in Reagan, you probably read the same news stories about Reagan that everyone else read when he was President. Maybe you forgot? Or question some things much, much more than others for reasons difficult to determine. Also, I'm surprised that even a sub-article to the main article, such as this one, had so little detail, especially after all that was said about such sub-articles before.

At least you're consistent, or consistently inconsistent.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

article seems pretty biased towards reagan and his ideals, to show but one example "He and his wife sought to reduce the scourge of drugs"... "scourge"? what are drugs, a fiery demon? 86.167.8.107 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Iran-Contra

This section seems to be written in a very informal, non-encyclopedic tone. I'll leave it for a bit for the author to address, but I'll rewrite it to be more formal in a week or so if it's not changed 137.99.236.88 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights, Minorities

"His opposition was based on his view that certain provisions of both Acts violated the US Constitution and in the case of the 1964 Act, intruded upon the civil rights of business and property owners.[32]"

The Citation does not in any way support this editorialization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.68.29 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

re: School Prayer

You site The New York Times to support the claim that Reagan did not seek an amendment instituting school prayer. However, The New York Times, May 18, 1982, supports my personal memory that he did, under the title: REAGAN PROPOSES SCHOOL PRAYER AMENDMENT Cneron (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Abortion Section

The first sentence is presumptuous "Reagan was pro-life, and therefore anti-abortion. This suggests that all who are pro-life feel this way, but that is incorrect. peter spering 23:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Reaganism

Reaganism redirects here but I think it have its own article. It's certainly as notable as Clintonism or Thatcherism. Charles Essie (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)