Text From Reagan's 1988 Nationally Televised Speech to America's Students

[Mr. Peabody]

The entire text can be found here -

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...88/111488c.htm

A few choice selections -

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're 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 -- belonged to us, and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

Q. Do you feel that in your two terms as President that you and your administration have carried out the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

The President. Have we carried out the plan set by the Founding Fathers? I think we have subscribed to that. When we came into office, there were some things that we thought were very wrong, including the fact that there were more people unemployed, inflation was robbing the people of their earnings and their money, interest rates were high and all. And in these last several years, we have not only restored prosperity, but we have created almost 18\1/2\ million new jobs, added to those jobs that were already there so that unemployment is so far down that today of all the Americans, 16 years of age and up, to whatever age, that pool of people -- 62.7 percent of those people have jobs, are employed today. But also, more important than that, I think we have restored the belief in America's freedom and the obligation that we have to our country. I think there's more patriotism today. We've been in a time when people have gotten rather cynical about those things.

Q. My name is Casey Lee, and I'm from St. Stephen's School. And I was wondering what was the most important thing that you wanted to accomplish, but that you weren't able to accomplish as President?

The President. I could sum that up very briefly: the Federal deficit -- the fact that for over a half a century our government has been spending more money than it takes in. And we have a plan working now that is aimed at 1993, of bringing us down each year. Last year we reduced the deficit by around $70 billion, and this year we're aiming at about another 30 so forth. But that is the thing.

And I think that what we're going to have to have -- and what I want to strive for -- is an amendment to our Cons ution that requires the Government every year to balance the budget. And in doing that -- also a tool for the President, and it's called line-item veto.

Now, you probably don't know what that means, but I'll explain very quickly if I can. The line-item veto -- the Congress when they have ways of putting in bills a number of things instead of just a bill to get one thing accomplished. And then with all these hidden things -- and some of them are appropriations, spending bills and so forth -- the President either has to veto the whole bill or let it become law. And sometimes they attach them to a bill that you just can't veto. Line-item veto is what I had as a Governor. Forty-three Governors in the States have line-item veto. It means that you can go into that bill and pick out that single item that has nothing to do with the whole bill and veto that. And I think the President should have it, like the Governors do.

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

The President. I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government. And I definitely believe it is because one of the principal 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 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 you know something, I studied economics in college when I was young, and I learned there about a man named ibn-Khaldun, who lived 1,200 years ago in Egypt. And 1,200 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 the empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great, and the revenue was low.'' So -- all right.

Q. My name is Chris Allen. I'm from Poolesville Junior-Senior High School. I was just wondering what you and Mrs. Reagan feel about the new gun ban law.

The President. What we feel about the new -- --

Q. Gun ban law.

The President. The gun -- --

Q. Ban.

The President. Gun ban? Well, I think there has to be some control. But I thought that in California we had a system that probably was the best. I have never felt that we should, for the law-abiding citizens, take the gun away from them and make it impossible to have one. I think the wrong people will always find a way to get one. But what we had was -- even if today when I go back to California, if I want a gun and go in a store to buy a gun, I have to give them the money, but I have to wait a week, no matter who I am. I have to wait a week and come back then to get the gun, because in that week, my name is presented to investigative element there in the State that checks to make sure that I have no criminal record, that I have no record of mental problems or anything of the kind. Then, and only then, can you pick up the gun and take it with you.

But if I could, I know we're running out of time, but let me just tell you something that -- I got the strangest letter when I was Governor. There was talk about having a gun ban in California. It didn't go through. But I got a letter from a man in San Quentin prison, and from the prison he wrote me the letter to tell me he was in there for burglary. He was a burglar. And he said, ``I just want you to know that if that law goes through, here in San Quentin there will be celebrating throughout the day and night by all the burglars who are in prison because'' he said, ``we can watch a house we plan to rob for days. We can learn the habits of the people living in that house, to know when is the best time to go in and be a burglar -- rob it.'' He said, ``The only question we can never answer is: Does the man in that house have a gun in the drawer by his bed?'' He said, ``That's a risk we have to run.'' He said, ``If you tell us in advance they won't have a gun in that drawer by their bed,'' he said, ``the burglars in here will be celebrating forevermore.''

Reagan talked about the need for a line-item veto, low taxes, and responsible gun ownership. Where the was the outrage then? What were the Texas school districts doing at that time? Were they making the viewing optional? Did they refuse to air it and only make it available as a recording?

Obama's speech is about personal responsibility for education and employment opportunities (something conservative are in favor of , right?) and the right goes ape . Parents keep their kids from school and school districts refuse to show the speech. Ha.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The entire text can be found here -

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...88/111488c.htm

A few choice selections -



Reagan talked about the need for a line-item veto, low taxes, and responsible gun ownership. Where the was the outrage then? What were the Texas school districts doing at that time? Were they making the viewing optional? Did they refuse to air it and only make it available as a recording?

Obama's speech is about personal responsibility for education and employment opportunities (something conservative are in favor of , right?) and the right goes ape . Parents keep their kids from school and school districts refuse to show the speech. Ha.

Didn't Castro and Chavez do this also? Lenin? That's what I heard on talk radio about Obama's speech..Indoctrination and stuff..

[Mr. Peabody]

Didn't Castro and Chavez do this also? Lenin? That's what I heard on talk radio about Obama's speech..

B-b-but Obama talks about himself too much in his speech.

[Yonivore]

B-b-but Obama talks about himself too much in his speech.

I would have expected nothing less from this megalomaniac.

[SouthernFried]

Difference...

Reagan talked about what this country was founded upon, as highlighted by the poster...Free enterprise, Cutting taxes, limiting govt., individual Liberty.

The stuff that SHOULD be taught in schools anyhow.

Obama is talking about Expanding Govt...which requires more taxes and less free enterprise, less individual liberty and more state control.

People are not upset at OBAMA for talking to students...they're upset at what he stands for. Obama talks about not what this country was founded upon...but HIS "vision" for it.

Which is a very, very different thing.

People are not upset at Presidents talking to students...unless they don't like what they say. Even if he tells kids to "study hard"...nobody wants this guy telling their kids anything.

Since so many don't like what this President stands for, they don't want their kids being a captive audience for it.

I don't blame them at all.

And if you don't think leftists weren't crying about Reagan's speeches...you weren't paying attention, or not old enough to care. Reagan was under constant fire, continuously, from the left.

and so it goes...

[Yonivore]

Reagan talked about the need for a line-item veto, low taxes, and responsible gun ownership. Where the was the outrage then?

He wasn't a socialist, America-hating, lying wad like Obama.

The country loved and revered Reagan, electing him twice in landslide victories.

And, it also appears this was a Q&A Format...not just a presidential address.

[Mr. Peabody]

Difference...

Reagan talked about what this country was founded upon, as highlighted by the poster...Free enterprise, Cutting taxes, limiting govt., individual Liberty.

The stuff that SHOULD be taught in schools anyhow.

Obama is talking about Expanding Govt...which requires more taxes and less free enterprise, less individual liberty and more state control.

People are not upset at OBAMA for talking to students...they're upset at what he stands for. Obama talks about not what this country was founded upon...but HIS "vision" for it.

Which is a very, very different thing.

People are not upset at Presidents talking to students...unless they don't like what they say. Even if he tells kids to "study hard"...nobody wants this guy telling their kids anything.

Since so many don't like what this President stands for, they don't want their kids being a captive audience for it.

I don't blame them at all.

And if you don't think leftists weren't crying about Reagan's speeches...you weren't paying attention, or not old enough to care. Reagan was under constant fire, continuously, from the left.

and so it goes...

Where is Obama talking about the virtues of expanding government in his speech? Please show me the text.

[SouthernFried]

The entire text can be found here -

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...88/111488c.htm

A few choice selections -



Reagan talked about the need for a line-item veto, low taxes, and responsible gun ownership. Where the was the outrage then? .

Are you outraged at this??

[Mr. Peabody]

Are you outraged at this??

Nope. Should I be?

[SouthernFried]

Where is Obama talking about the virtues of expanding government in his speech? Please show me the text.

I don't think you understand...

Obama is DOING everything he can to expand govt...even if he wont say it. Actions speak much louder. People don't care what he "says" anymore. Even if he just tells kids to "study hard." They don't want this type of guy telling their kids ANYTHING.

[SouthernFried]

Nope. Should I be?

No, you shouldn't be. Reagan was not outrageous.

Obama is outrageous, and elicits outrage amongst many.

Hope that helps.

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't think you understand...

Obama is DOING everything he can to expand govt...even if he wont say it. Actions speak much louder. People don't care what he "says" anymore. Even if he just tells kids to "study hard." They don't want this type of guy telling their kids ANYTHING.

So...it's not the speech, or its text,that is upsetting people, it's the fact that Barack Obama is President? Interesting.

So everyone grousing about the speech and the alleged "indoctrination" are just full of and hiding their true motivations? Nice.

[Mr. Peabody]

No, you shouldn't be. Reagan was not outrageous.

Obama is outrageous, and elicits outrage amongst many.

Hope that helps.

I'm sure he does elicit outrage among "many."

It didn't help though. I was already aware that there are groups that don't care what he has to say, even if it's just "study hard."

[nuclearfm]

There is some serious stupidity in this thread.

[SouthernFried]

It didn't help though. I was already aware that there are groups that don't care what he has to say, even if it's just "study hard."

Well...there you have it then.

[SouthernFried]

So...it's not the speech, or its text,that is upsetting people, it's the fact that Barack Obama is President? Interesting.

So everyone grousing about the speech and the alleged "indoctrination" are just full of and hiding their true motivations? Nice.

We're not hiding anything. We don't like him, and don't want him talking to our kids.

Obviously, you knew this already. Not sure why your posting.

[Mr. Peabody]

Obviously, you knew this already. Not sure why your posting.

I enjoy the conversation.

[SouthernFried]

I enjoy the conversation.

[Spawn]

So...it's not the speech, or its text,that is upsetting people, it's the fact that Barack Obama is President? Interesting.

So everyone grousing about the speech and the alleged "indoctrination" are just full of and hiding their true motivations? Nice.

At least he's honest.

[SpurNation]

Nobody can speak for everybody. But from my own personal perspective and years of hearing political speeches that were supposed to be about a certain topic turning into agenda speeches regarding other topics...I had become leary of any politician's motive when giving a speech.

When I first heard of the speech that was going to be given regarding education...it was posted in such a way that made it sound it was a mandated event that the parents of children in public schools had no control over their children watching. And in years past I wouldn't have objection to even if it was. But as I stated before...years of political BS has turned my openess to anything a politician wants to publicly address into skepticism of what their hidden agenda in that address might convey.

That was my biggest concern as a parent. I applaud Obama for making this speech available to review before delivering. It is a great speech that all children should hear. Even Gingrich approved of the speech in an interview with Mat Lauer on the Today Show this morning.

But as I might have over reacted based on initial reports from my point of view....so has many from the other side of that aisle even as this debate continues.

But I do understand...we have been cohearsed and lied to by so many elected officials in the past many are taking a more cautious approach to anything they (government officials) have to say.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think you understand...

Obama is DOING everything he can to expand govt...even if he wont say it. Actions speak much louder. People don't care what he "says" anymore. Even if he just tells kids to "study hard." They don't want this type of guy telling their kids ANYTHING.

Yes, because people are stupid.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama is DOING everything he can to expand govt"

lie, but that's expected, reflexive with you assholes

[nuclearfm]

"Obama is DOING everything he can to expand govt"

lie, but that's expected, reflexive with you assholes

Yup, honestly. Do people honestly believe the administration wanted to take over GM? If he let them fail, he would of took the blame, if he takes over he takes the blame.

You just can't win. Anything is attack able.

[Gino]

Talk about EPIC FAL.

As if Mr. Peabody and other liberals cant tell the difference between a speech and a Q & A forum.

How in the world could Reagan answer the following queston without being political?:

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

Now compare Reagan answering this queston and being "political" in his response versus Obama asking school children to write letters explaining how they coul help him.

Give me a freaking break. This is quite the stretch. At least Mr. Peabody included the "questions" before showing Reagan's response. The Daily Kos disingenuously edited it to make it appear that Reagan was just giving a speech and including all this stuff in.

Some people have no shame.

[Spurminator]

As if Mr. Peabody and other liberals cant tell the difference between a speech and a Q & A forum.

How in the world could Reagan answer the following queston without being political?:

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

Now compare Reagan answering this queston and being "political" in his response versus Obama asking school children to write letters explaining how they coul help him.

Give me a freaking break. This is quite the stretch. At least Mr. Peabody included the "questions" before showing Reagan's response. The Daily Kos disingenuously edited it to make it appear that Reagan was just giving a speech and including all this stuff in.

Some people have no shame.

Maybe they shouldn't have fed Cameron that question if they didn't want to get political.