The Truth About Reagan And Unions

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Article from the American Thinker.

While union leaders and agitators repeatedly push the narrative that Ronald Reagan hated unions, and that union members hated Reagan, reality tells a far different story.

Read article at: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/reagan_and_unions_setting_the_record_straight.html

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, it's true. To many republicans today, Reagan would be considered a socialist for his pro-union stance, and for his idea of what a fair income tax rate would be for the wealthy.

Reagan was, for all his faults, an American first.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Yes, it's true. To many republicans today, Reagan would be considered a socialist for his pro-union stance, and for his idea of what a fair income tax rate would be for the wealthy.

Reagan was, for all his faults, an American first.

Because redistribution of wealth is what made America great, right barbarian?

Being that the "puppet of the perverts" (Ronald Reagan) was socially a Libertarian, it doesn't surprise me that he kowtowed to the left wing labor unions as well.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Yes, it's true. To many republicans today, Reagan would be considered a socialist for his pro-union stance, and for his idea of what a fair income tax rate would be for the wealthy.

Reagan was, for all his faults, an American first.

After 4 years of George H. W. Bush (41), people knew he was no Reagan. He didn't have the touch to bring Democrats and Republicans together. Clinton for all his faults did a relatively good job in his 2nd term to bring Democrats and Republicans together. Don't get me wrong, I was against almost everything Clinton did even with Republican support. I'd like to see someone not named Bush or Clinton as our next President. Who that would be, I don't have a clue. It's too early.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He didn't have the touch to bring Democrats and Republicans together.

How does one bring two different political parties whose ideology are worlds apart (and should be) "together"?

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

How does one bring two different political parties whose ideology are worlds apart (and should be) "together"?

Reagan did it. But the present Democratic Party has taken an extreme left turn. With its current leadership, it may be impossible.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Reagan did it.

As you pointed out, Reagan was proponent of labor unions, something that conservatism doesn't promote. I pointed out that his social policies were left wing Libertarian.

Reagan was an actor, he made conservatives think that he was one of them.

But the present Democratic Party has taken an extreme left turn...

Being that the Demoncratic Party has advocated abortion on demand since the Roe v Wade ruling back in 1973, I beg to differ with that statement.

 

[elohiym]

Because redistribution of wealth is what made America great, right barbarian?

Deposit expansion is redistribution of wealth. Therefore, redistribution of wealth built the country you consider "great."

 

[The Barbarian]

Because redistribution of wealth is what made America great, right barbarian?

Don't see how. There's been a massive redistribution of wealth to a very few people, and the country is much worse off as a result. Concentration of wealth is the mark of a third-world country; that will have to be addressed.

Being that the "puppet of the perverts" (Ronald Reagan) was socially a Libertarian, it doesn't surprise me that he kowtowed to the left wing labor unions as well.

As I said, he was an American first. I can see how that would enrage you.