• @bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    431 year ago

    He tried to “starve the beast”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

    The beast being the government itself. The idea is that the government is somehow overspending in comparison to the tasks carried out and it needs to be fixed by cutting funding.

    The result is obviously that the government will function even worse, so it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

    • @GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      For most of the Republican members of my family, the government is always out to get them. Something Reagan taught them.

  • BarqsHasBite
    link
    fedilink
    151 year ago

    I think Reagan can be summed up as the start of “burn it all down”. He defined the government as the problem and the solution was to demolish it.

  • He signed in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act on the heels of killing Carter’s Mental Health Systems Act.

    Basically killed a chunk of fed assistance for heath care, punted it to the states with a nebulous “we’ll figure it out” which they promptly didn’t. So state mental housing disappeared and now you have mentally ill homeless everywhere.

    And on top of everything else, throwing money at rich people, tax cuts for rich people, trickle down, throwing money at the military, and we haven’t even gotten to Gingrich’s bullshit “contract with America” that helped the Regan years push us towards the evangelical and fringe right we have to deal with today.

  • He pushed the whole “the government is the enemy” mentality which has made it almost impossible to have national healthcare among other things. The republicans also jumped into bed with Christian fundamentalists at this point and the NRA went from being for gun regulations to no regulations. It was a continuation of the backlash against the 60s that started with Nixon.

  • @satanmat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1191 year ago

    So many things.

    Refusing to say AIDS for years , let alone doing anything

    Iran -contra

    Making a deal with Iran to continue holding the hostages until after he becomes president

    Breaking PATCO the air traffic controller union

    So

    Many

    Things

  • @Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    251 year ago

    I think Iran (let’s leave the contra side out) was pretty bad. The US had been helping Sadam Hussein fight Iran by selling them weapons for years, only to discover they also started selling them to Iran too. Talk about hateful… Supplying weapons to both sides so they can go kill each other.

    It’s why Sadam was so distrustful of the US, especially when Shrub (Bush Jr) came knocking a couple decades later.

    • Otter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      631 year ago

      To expand, their policies were harmful and we’re still dealing with the consequences of them

      • “trickle-down” policies, which widened income inequality and increased national debt

      • initial inaction during the AIDS crisis made the epidemic and stigma a lot worse. It’s only recently that we’re starting to effectively deal with the illness

      • “War on Drugs” got worse under Reagan, with mass incarceration that disproportionately affected minority communities. Also the “Just Say No” campaign oversimplified the issue instead of addressing the underlying causes. Again, we’re only now starting to shift those policies into something that’s more productive

  • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    74
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    his election came out of treasonous interference overseas, his policy was to bailout people who made too many bets oil prices would never rise, his tax policy was to shift the burdens to the middle class and away from the rich, the current real estate laws that favor investors were created then, he illegally funded south american genocides, he oversaw a domestic crackdown on unions that is ongoing, his administration was run by the ghouls who later invaded iraq under false pretenses, and the guy was was also a huge piece of shit.

    I’m sure I left out a lot.

  • @weariedfae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    321 year ago

    In addition to all of the above they would literally consult their “psychic/astrologer” on policy decisions.

      • @weariedfae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Yarp. Her name was Joan Quigley.

        2 important excerpts:

        Joan herself in her memoir:

        Not since the days of the Roman emperors, and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation’s affairs of State.

        The chief of staff dude who found out and got pissed:

        Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco [Quigley] who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise.

        There’s a Behind the Bastards episode about it. Highly recommend.

  • Jo Miran
    link
    fedilink
    211 year ago

    If you have Paramount+, don’t mind doing a free trial, or like to sail the seven seas, you can watch The Reagans documentary series. Another documentary that gives you some insight into the type of people they were is the Rock Hudson one. The TL;DR on that one is that they had been good friends for decades, especially Nancy, and the moment it came out that he had AIDS, they pretended he had never existed.

    Ronald was basically an idiot but Nancy was a truly foul human being.

  • @M500@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    661 year ago

    Sorry to be that guy, but I’m trying to promote a community here.

    The title should ask, “Why were Ronald Reagan and Nancy…”

    This is because the subject, Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan, is more than 1 person.

    If anyone wants to learn English I’m moderating lemmy.ml/c/englishlearning

    I’m happy to answer any questions.

    • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -471 year ago

      Bruh it’s a title to a social media post. It’s not an essay and this isn’t English class. I really don’t understand why we need perfect English for a god damn social media post.

      Waiting for the asshat to come in and correct my grammar or something else I couldn’t give a fuck about since this isn’t English class.

      • DevopsPalmer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        Pretty sure English class is for daily life, so we don’t revert to grunting cave people. This sentiment is what fuels poor Grammer, and it doesn’t really take too much brain power to write/say things correctly

      • @otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        201 year ago

        Some people actually use social media to learn or practice another language, so some may appreciate the tip and the correction.

        As well, it just looks better when content is written properly. If the questions here were all stuff like “how is babby formed wen women is pragnant”, it wouldn’t seem like the kind of community made for people who are genuinely trying to find answers to their questions.

      • @groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        My family and I did not know any english when we came here as refugees. I learned english from watching television, lots of television. I appreciate people maintaining a modern linguistic standard so we don’t revert back to shakespearean or god forbid Canadian. (I am Canadian, I’m sorry)

  • @Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    He also layered on burying definitions of communism vs socialism. He angled on the public to be stupid enough to swallow that bullshit whole.