Ronald Reagan

[randolph]

Well, the conservatives are celebrating the myth of Ronald Reagan as the great conservative savior. Reality is in short supply when it comes to what happened during Reagan's administration.
Reality:
1- He had to back off on the massive tax cut with more than ten tax increases.
2- He greatly expanded government employment by thousands.
3- He spent millions on the half-baked starwars scheme.
4- The national debt was far higher at the end of his administration than at the beginning.
5- the Iran-Contra affair revealed a pot full of devious and illegal activities.
6- His "trickle down economics" is like a coffee pot with a plugged filter. Most the good stuff stays at the top while little goes to where its needed.
7- Yes, even David Stockman, Reagan's director of Management and Budget has condemned his administration as the beginning of the decline of the United States.

In spite of all this the myth lives on.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, the conservatives are celebrating the myth of Ronald Reagan as the great conservative savior. Reality is in short supply when it comes to what happened during Reagan's administration. ...

In spite of all this the myth lives on.

Your list omits what has been aptly called his Administration's "legacy of silence" on AIDS.

For two years in a row in the mid-1980s, the City of San Francisco's AIDS budget was larger than Reagan's for the entire United States. (Dianne Feinstein was mayor at the time.) Reagan's proposed federal AIDS budget for 1986 called for an 11 percent DECREASE in AIDS spending.

The figures are easily accessible, so I won't fill this post with more. I think the point has been made.

[ila]

Ronald Reagan always struck me a very sincere and likeable person. I realize that he was a politician and what a politician wants the public to see can be different from the real person.

One of the great debates of his terms as US president is whether or not he was responsible for ending the cold war. I would think that he was a key player in it, but certainly not the only one.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Ronald Reagan always struck me a very sincere and likeable person. I realize that he was a politician and what a politician wants the public to see can be different from the real person.

One of the great debates of his terms as US president is whether or not he was responsible for ending the cold war. I would think that he was a key player in it, but certainly not the only one.

I think he just happened to be in the presidency at a time when two forces of history collided. The first was that the arms race was bankrupting the Soviet Union, and the second was that Mr. Honecker took one step too far in the GDR and finally precipitated the German people to tear down the Berlin Wall. That Reagan made a speech with a famous line in it a two years earlier ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall") is, I believe, largely coincidental.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

I think he just happened to be in the presidency at a time when two forces of history collided. The first was that the arms race was bankrupting the Soviet Union, and the second was that Mr. Honecker took one step too far in the GDR and finally precipitated the German people to tear down the Berlin Wall. That Reagan made a speech with a famous line in it a two years earlier ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall") is, I believe, largely coincidental.

But was the arms race bankrupting the Soviet Union because Reagan was spending massive amounts on the military or was the Soviet Union going bankrupt trying to get ahead of the US before Reagan's presidency?

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

But was the arms race bankrupting the Soviet Union because Reagan was spending massive amounts on the military or was the Soviet Union going bankrupt trying to get ahead of the US before Reagan's presidency?

Of course, this is only my opinion, but I don't think one can separate out the specific period of Reagan's presidency from the arms race as a whole, which began with the close of World War II. Independent of which side one was on, it seems very clear that the United States was the instigator by dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a bi-polar world -- especially one in which that bi-polarity was codified in the way Europe was split up by the terms of surrender of Germany -- it became necessary for the Soviets, from the leadership's point of view, to attempt to keep up with the United States, which it believed posed a legitimate threat.

This continued unabated throughout the period of the Cold War, with almost all advances (with the exception of the Soviets winning round 1 of the "space race" with the Sputnik launch) coming from the United States and then followed by catch-up on the Soviet Union's part. During the Reagan presidency, the new threat was the Strategic Defense Initiative (also known as "Star Wars"), proposed by Reagan in March 1983. This idea of using ground-based and space-based systems to protect against nuclear ballistic missiles sent the Soviet Union into a financial tailspin of catch-up spending.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, this is only my opinion, but I don't think one can separate out the specific period of Reagan's presidency from the arms race as a whole, which began with the close of World War II. Independent of which side one was on, it seems very clear that the United States was the instigator by dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a bi-polar world -- especially one in which that bi-polarity was codified in the way Europe was split up by the terms of surrender of Germany -- it became necessary for the Soviets, from the leadership's point of view, to attempt to keep up with the United States, which it believed posed a legitimate threat.

This continued unabated throughout the period of the Cold War, with almost all advances (with the exception of the Soviets winning round 1 of the "space race" with the Sputnik launch) coming from the United States and then followed by catch-up on the Soviet Union's part. During the Reagan presidency, the new threat was the Strategic Defense Initiative (also known as "Star Wars"), proposed by Reagan in March 1983. This idea of using ground-based and space-based systems to protect against nuclear ballistic missiles sent the Soviet Union into a financial tailspin of catch-up spending.

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

Just to be clear, I was speaking only of the arms race and the specific dynamic of this or that new weapon (system), followed by catch-up, ad infinitum. I was not speaking generally of being an "agressor," although one could certainly make an argument for their being a bit more equality of aggression between the two Cold War sides, with one's aggression a bit more blatant (i.e., your references to European countries and Stalin) and another's a bit more subtle (i.e., the U.S. in Latin America and Southeast Asia).

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

But was the arms race bankrupting the Soviet Union because Reagan was spending massive amounts on the military or was the Soviet Union going bankrupt trying to get ahead of the US before Reagan's presidency?

I think the Brezhnev Soviet was thoroughly corrupt and ossified. Without the power of the despot Stalin the collapse of it was inevitable. Regan's starwars and rhetoric may have hastened it. however, it was the prosperity of the West and especially West Germany that sealed the fate of a failed communist totalitarian empire. I am sure the Soviets knew full well the massive spending on starwars was nonsense. The failure in Afghanistan demonstrated the weakness of the Soviet empire and also contributed to its demise.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, the conservatives are celebrating the myth of Ronald Reagan as the great conservative savior. Reality is in short supply when it comes to what happened during Reagan's administration.

Reality is also in short supply from Obama.
Desperate Left Legacy Theft: ?Obama Is More Like Reagan Than?Anyone Else?

"Many of the qualities that he [Obama] exhibits are reflective of what Ronald Reagan was really all about."

Excuse me, but what are these qualities? Didn't Reagan say government isn't part of the problem, government is the problem? Obama is more like FDR than FDR was. He thinks government is the solution to everything. I am always amazed when people like Willie Brown (and Nancy Pelosi - she was a true artist in this) from the above link can say with all seriousness such blatant lies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Reality is also in short supply from Obama.
Desperate Left Legacy Theft: ‘Obama Is More Like Reagan Than…Anyone Else’

"Many of the qualities that he [Obama] exhibits are reflective of what Ronald Reagan was really all about."

Excuse me, but what are these qualities? Didn't Reagan say government isn't part of the problem, government is the problem? Obama is more like FDR than FDR was. He thinks government is the solution to everything. I am always amazed when people like Willie Brown (and Nancy Pelosi - she was a true artist in this) from the above link can say with all seriousness such blatant lies.

This thread is about Ronald Reagan. You've already started and nurtured a bash Obama thread.

[randolph]

As we have heard many times over the years, President Eisenhower warned us about the development of a military industrial complex. The "cold war" got it started, then Korea then Viet Nam and then Reagan's starwars greatly enhanced military spending. Now it dominates our entire economy. It did not defend us against terrorists attacks, it can't win a war in Afganistan, yet the spending is sacrosanct especially among Republicans. The conservatives rant about government spending but say little about the military. Probably 10% of the military budget would provide us the worlds finest healthcare system. Over 50% of government spending is military related!
When are Americans going to wake up!

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

As we have heard many times over the years, President Eisenhower warned us about the development of a military industrial complex. The "cold war" got it started, then Korea then Viet Nam and then Reagan's starwars greatly enhanced military spending. Now it dominates our entire economy. It did not defend us against terrorists attacks, it can't win a war in Afganistan, yet the spending is sacrosanct especially among Republicans. The conservatives rant about government spending but say little about the military. Probably 10% of the military budget would provide us the worlds finest healthcare system. Over 50% of government spending is military related!
When are Americans going to wake up!

In my opinion, it's more accurate to say that military spending as a general category is more sacrosanct to Republicans, but that Democrats -- with few exceptions -- are no more likely to support cuts if it means cutting DoD spending in their own districts. And the arms buildup was not slowed by Democratic administrations. Give both parties the credit they are due as beholden to the military-industrial complex!

[randolph]

"How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse." Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."
Jobs recovery could take years

In the wake of Friday's disappointing jobs report, Neal Lipschutz and Phil Izzo discuss new predictions that it could be many years before the nation's unemployment rate reaches pre-recession levels.

Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.
But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?
We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.
Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:
Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."
In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."
No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.
Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"

[Enoch Root]

Yes, austerity and sacrifice indeed. That is to say: austerity and sacrifice for the working people of America. The toilers be damned! But those nice rich people, we can't very well take them to task can we? After all, it is not the case that they are rich because they take from their workers, those who actually do something for a living other than cashing a fat check at the end of the month. No, not at all.

Capitalism dying? Not a big deal. The American Dream never really existed if by American Dream you mean real freedom. Democracy dying on the other hand--yes, very big deal. Not that America is truly a democracy.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

As we have heard many times over the years, President Eisenhower warned us about the development of a military industrial complex. The "cold war" got it started, then Korea then Viet Nam and then Reagan's starwars greatly enhanced military spending. Now it dominates our entire economy. It did not defend us against terrorists attacks, it can't win a war in Afganistan, yet the spending is sacrosanct especially among Republicans. The conservatives rant about government spending but say little about the military. Probably 10% of the military budget would provide us the worlds finest healthcare system. Over 50% of government spending is military related!
When are Americans going to wake up!

For one thing, Reagan's Star Wars program was to dupe the russians into thinking we were spending much more than we actually were in order to get them to spend as well and push their economy over the edge. But aside from that, if you were president, and you saw the type of military build up the russians were engaged in after the Cuban Missile crisis during the cold war, what would you do?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

After all, it is not the case that they are rich because they take from their workers

Take what? The rich have given the workers jobs. What did the workers have that the rich took?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

For one thing, Reagan's Star Wars program was to dupe the russians into thinking we were spending much more than we actually were in order to get them to spend as well and push their economy over the edge. But aside from that, if you were president, and you saw the type of military build up the russians were engaged in after the Cuban Missile crisis during the cold war, what would you do?

Nuke Em! Just kidding

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Take what? The rich have given the workers jobs. What did the workers have that the rich took?

Labor, the basis of all wealth.
Someone somewhere has to do something to create wealth.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Nuke Em! Just kidding

LOL you know that's actually the typical response I get from democrats who criticize the war mongering republicans. I was talking to one guy back around 2005 about the Iraq war. He was complaining about the war there. I asked him what he would do. Carpet bombing Iran with nukes and even going to war with China were among his recommendations lol.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Labor, the basis of all wealth.
Someone somewhere has to do something to create wealth.

Yes, labor is a part of it, but I thought it usually started with an idea. You can't just blindly work without a direction. You get an idea, then you work on it. Eventually, if your idea is profitable then your work will pay off, and you can afford to hire workers to help with increasing demands. If you do it right, you can continue to profit, and use those profits to continue to grow the company. If the company is successful enough, then yes, you can afford to keep some of those profits yourself. And why not? It was your idea that started the whole thing. It was your sweat that turned it into reality back when you worked much longer hours than your workers do now and for free because it all went into the company.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by ila

Ronald Reagan always struck me a very sincere and likeable person.

Always the ones I trust the least.

[randolph]

Yes, labor is a part of it, but I thought it usually started with an idea.

Tracy

Yes, true enough, however, lots of people have ideas but nothing comes of them. Why, because no labor occurred. To implement an idea, some form of labor must occur. Money is stored labor. The person with an idea goes out and finds financing (stored labor) to implement his idea. Let's say it is drilling for oil where he thinks it can be found (his idea). OK, he contracts with an oil drilling company to drill the well. The owner of the drilling rig has a crew (labor) to use equipment made in a factory by labor built by financing (stored labor). It always ends with labor being the basis of enterprise. Capitalism is simply the manipulation of stored labor. Obviously, the person with the idea that turned into an enterprise has a right to the benefits of that enterprise. He also has the responsibility to fairly share the benefits with the workers who made the enterprise possible.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by ila

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

You're right, ila there's always more than one view and I for one disagree very strongly with what you're saying here.
There have been more than fifty interventions by the US involving souvereign countries since WWII and Irak and Afganistan are just two of them.
How about all those democratically elected governments in South and Middle America that were replaced through US intervention. Chili, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala......need I go on? All these democratically elected governments were replaced by US puppets and more often than not monstrous dictators, like for instance the infamous Pinochet.
Documents have shown that also the preparations for the attempted coup in Venezuela a few years ago were funded and supported by the US.
'Democracy' is just a word US presidents like to use in their speeches. It is not something people in foreign lands are meant to enjoy.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

Yes, true enough, however, lots of people have ideas but nothing comes of them. Why, because no labor occurred. To implement an idea, some form of labor must occur. Money is stored labor. The person with an idea goes out and finds financing (stored labor) to implement his idea. Let's say it is drilling for oil where he thinks it can be found (his idea). OK, he contracts with an oil drilling company to drill the well. The owner of the drilling rig has a crew (labor) to use equipment made in a factory by labor built by financing (stored labor). It always ends with labor being the basis of enterprise. Capitalism is simply the manipulation of stored labor. Obviously, the person with the idea that turned into an enterprise has a right to the benefits of that enterprise. He also has the responsibility to fairly share the benefits with the workers who made the enterprise possible.

If I had a drilling crew I'd be punching holes in the earth at random since I have no clue where to drill. The guy who knows where to drill has a valuable skill and should be paid well for it. How many people can work on an oil well? Probably quite a lot with a little training. How many people know where to drill? Probable not so many, and with a lot of training. Simple supply and demand. If you try and unbalance the supply and demand equation then you're left with something unsustainable.

[randolph]

Tracy

Simple supply and demand. If you try and unbalance the supply and demand equation then you're left with something unsustainable

I am not sure what you mean here.
OK, lets say the oil rig strikes oil. The contractor and the workers get paid for the time they drilled. The guy who got the financing now owns the well and its output. Presumably the value of the oil is far beyond the cost (labor) of creating the well. The guy is now extremely rich. He pays off the financing, buys a yacht (built by labor) and an expensive house (built by labor). Financing the well was a risky gamble, it could have been dry and the people who financed lose their investment (stored labor). Capitalism is taking risks and yes the system rewards capitalists for taking risks.
In Norway, however, things are very different. The state owns the oil rights and does the drilling and sells the oil. The benefit of this goes to the people of Norway. Everybody has excellent health care in a well run corruption free state free of extremely wealthy corporations buying off and corrupting the legislature.
I know that won't work here in this big country but it's nice to think about. Imagine the wealth there would be in this country if we all owned the oil. There would little or no taxes and we would all be happy, right?

[Enoch Root]

The rich in all the ages of the earth that have passed and all the ages to come have never earned their money. How is it someone "earns" millions and billions of dollars? They don't. The workers did that. Many man hours were put to work in order to generate that much money. But do the workers see a fair share of this? No. It all goes into the pockets of the people at the top. People deserve to be recompensed for their efforts but upper management never works like their workers do. People deserve to be recompensed for their efforts but not in such a way that others are left with nothing. The rich take the profits generated by workers. This has gone into overdrive the last 20 to 30 years. Wages for the working people of America have stagnated even though their productivity has gone up and all that profit is taken from them by the people at the top.

Furthermore, as to your quip about the rich providing jobs to the people: do you not see what is wrong there? Why should we be at the mercy of the rich? Why should we be one step away from having to lick their boots for a job? Why should we be forced to live in a social structure that demands of us to be servile? Why is it they "deserve" (they don't) to have so much more than everybody else, to have more than they need to live?

The rich take money from us. They feed on us like so many parasites. They are the ones with a sense of entitlement. They think they are entitled to exploit us. They think they deserve all that money, the consequences on the people be damned! The rich take our dignity from us because they make us work in order to enrich them further and they only deign to pay us, they do not treat us fairly. Any group of people that views democracy, freedom, worker's rights, unions and so on and so forth as hindrances to profit, who view we the people as tools or numbers (as you just so disgustingly put it: abstracting workers into supply and demand) rather than individuals is a group to be wary of and they ought justly be regarded as immoral.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If I had a drilling crew I'd be punching holes in the earth at random since I have no clue where to drill. The guy who knows where to drill has a valuable skill and should be paid well for it. How many people can work on an oil well? Probably quite a lot with a little training. How many people know where to drill? Probable not so many, and with a lot of training. Simple supply and demand. If you try and unbalance the supply and demand equation then you're left with something unsustainable.

Knowing where to drill has nothing to do with supply and demand. Perhaps a little Economics 101 is in order. Here's a simple explanation:

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ1...ly&demand.html

[Enoch Root]

When she wrote about supply and demand as regards the workers I thought she meant there are fewer people who know how to find oil and more who can drill oil. That because there is less of the one group than the other, the group with fewer members "deserves" to be paid more.

[randolph]

In the book I am reading " The Middle East" slavery was routine in those days. If you needed help you raided the neighbors for women and workers. Slaves were a good deal no wages, just enough food and water to keep them working. Sounds like the beginning of capitalism.
A lot of our current products are being produced by workers close to slavery. In Asia they get just enough pay to stay alive and get to work. Things are changing in China, however, the workers are getting fedup and demanding a decent wage. So what do the capitalists do? They move production somewhere else where they can find desperately poor that are willing to work for slave wages.
Think about that when shopping at Wallmart.

[randolph]

Hey, all conservatives, you can sign up for conservative Email for only $39.95. What a deal!


In the world of email, a short list of companies dominate--Google, AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft--but there's a new player in the game that's ready to tear down their firewalls: Ronald Reagan. Just as Reagan took on Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, the conservative icon's family isn't about to bow down to any lily-livered liberals, be them presidential candidates or billion-dollar tech giants.

Last year, in his father's memory, Reagan's son Michael launched an email service to end the monopoly of left-wing Internet companies. His charge was simple: "Every time you use your e-mail from companies like Google, AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Apple and others, you are helping liberals," Reagan wrote at the time. "These companies are, and will continue, to be huge supporters financially and with technology of those that are hurting our country." For only a small $39.95 annual fee, conservatives around the country could purchase an @Reagan.com email address, and rest easy knowing their money was going only toward conservative causes.

Liberal companies provide it free.

Conservatives charge, figures.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If I had a drilling crew I'd be punching holes in the earth at random since I have no clue where to drill. The guy who knows where to drill has a valuable skill and should be paid well for it. How many people can work on an oil well? Probably quite a lot with a little training. How many people know where to drill? Probable not so many, and with a lot of training. Simple supply and demand. If you try and unbalance the supply and demand equation then you're left with something unsustainable.

Originally Posted by smc

Knowing where to drill has nothing to do with supply and demand. Perhaps a little Economics 101 is in order. Here's a simple explanation:

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ1...ly&demand.html

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When she wrote about supply and demand as regards the workers I thought she meant there are fewer people who know how to find oil and more who can drill oil. That because there is less of the one group than the other, the group with fewer members "deserves" to be paid more.

I am willing to entertain Enoch Root's explanation for Tracy Coxx's initial post regarding "supply and demand." If that is what was meant, then the problem is the use of the economics term "supply and demand" rather than "labor market supply and demand" or "labor supply and demand," which are specific concepts in economics that do not necessarily follow the standard supply and demand equations typically taught in economics courses.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Liberal companies provide it free.

Conservatives charge, figures.

Could we establish right here and now that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans truly care about the people? That they both pander to the rich? It is true that the Republicans exploit the people gleefully and openly and then turn around and sell it all as freedom to the people (many of whom buy it for some reason), but both parties do it. And both are quite content to continually bombard the world and establish neo-colonies. I know this because my homeland is a colony of the United States of America.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

I am not sure what you mean here.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When she wrote about supply and demand as regards the workers I thought she meant there are fewer people who know how to find oil and more who can drill oil. That because there is less of the one group than the other, the group with fewer members "deserves" to be paid more.

What Enoch said. If you were to buy the services of an oil well crew, and they wanted 50% of the profits, you'd say "no way man. There's plenty of other oil well crews out there that charge a lower flat rate." Because there's a large supply of oil well crews to choose from. If you were to buy the services of a trained professional with a proven track record of finding oil, that's a rare commodity and as such, it's going to cost you.

Originally Posted by randolph

Financing the well was a risky gamble, it could have been dry and the people who financed lose their investment (stored labor). Capitalism is taking risks and yes the system rewards capitalists for taking risks.

If it went dry, the oil well workers would still get paid. They do not take on the risk. It's the guy who makes all the investments who stands to loose everything.

Originally Posted by randolph

In Norway, however, things are very different. The state owns the oil rights and does the drilling and sells the oil. The benefit of this goes to the people of Norway. Everybody has excellent health care in a well run corruption free state free of extremely wealthy corporations buying off and corrupting the legislature.
I know that won't work here in this big country but it's nice to think about. Imagine the wealth there would be in this country if we all owned the oil. There would little or no taxes and we would all be happy, right?

lol to quote Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School, sounds like fantasy land. Why should there be only one type of government on this planet? There are plenty of socialist countries out there. Fine, let them live that fantasy. In this country we're giving capitalism a shot. Many people come to America to live under that kind of system. I presume that some people who aren't gung ho about capitalism could move to one of the many other socialist countries.

[randolph]

Tracy

In this country we're giving capitalism a shot. Many people come to America to live under that kind of system. I presume that some people who aren't gung ho about capitalism could move to one of the many other socialist countries.

Really? Over half of our tax money goes to the Pentagon. This is nothing more than military socialism. Spending on military hardware is a dead end for all that capital. It does not generate real profits, it just keeps the military/industrial complex going. Imagine, if you will that military spending was cut twenty five percent and our taxes were cut a similar amount. that would free up billions of dollars to invest in productive enterprises that could benefit the society.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If it went dry, the oil well workers would still get paid. They do not take on the risk. It's the guy who makes all the investments who stands to loose everything.

Again, you keep viewing things in terms of money rather than in terms of people. The oil workers will see very little money from the oil and we the people will see none of it because the ruling class takes it all for itself instead of it being used for the betterment of us all. The workers will see very little even though they are the ones who worked to get to the oil. Whereas the investor, who did nothing, gets all the money. The rich get richer because the system is built for their benefit, because the system works on the backs of the working class while the rich go about at their leisure. They use us in order to have a good life while we toil endlessly. Have you noticed people have no time for family anymore? That both parents work in order to provide for their family but it is still not enough?

The last 20 years have been terrible for the working class whereas the rich have been reaping obscene rewards and now they are doing even better after the stimulus. You keep giving precedence to those who truly freeload, that is to say the rich, over those who truly work, that is to say the working class. The people of America may be many things but lazy is not one of them. We the people suffer and we suffer not only at the hands of the rich but those who pander to them like you. What you fail to recognize--but more likely, what you recognize but are comfortable with--is that capitalism is a gigantic pyramid scheme where the base is composed of us and on our backs sit the ruling class siphoning all the money we generate from us. Why should they have all the land and all the money and all the resources? We the people should own our land, not the rich. We the people should own the oil, for example. It is not a fantasy. You on the other hand are an apologist for those who oppress us. Why should any government or private industry be allowed to stand that hogs all the necessities of life on this planet?

There is not a single socialist country in the world. The ones you are likely speaking of are social democracies where the government, at the encouragement of the people, is made to face up to the inequalities inherent in capitalism (where a small group of people own all the land and have all the money and power, just like the empires of old, for what is capitalism but the newest version of empire?) and try to provide services for the people. And contrary to the garbage people like you tend to sling, they the citizens of this or that social democracy do not do this because they are weak, because they want a "nanny state," but because capitalism concentrates all the money and power in a small group of new age lords and kings. And look at the results!: they are healthier, better educated than Americans, and happier! Whereas Americans don't have a clue how to relate to each other as people, no one speaks to one another (ever lived in a suburb like me? everyone in their prisons of wood, no one speaking with their neighbors, no large community dinners, everything tv and internet and the zombie catatonia of it all). Whereas Americans are obese and deeply ignorant of their own history or basic facts about astronomy or evolution (case in point: many in your country are convinced the Founding Fathers were Christian, 20% think the sun revolves around the earth, and there's the endless stream of bullshit from creationists) and god forbid you ever get sick because you'll lose all your possessions to the sharks at insurance companies.

All of this, of course, may have reached apotheosis in the form of this Tea Party phenomenon: they name themselves after a tax revolt that was about taxation WITHOUT representation as opposed to their delusion that it was about high taxes, these people think the Constitution was handed to them by Jesus himself (I've seen the painting and it is not encouraging), these people think Mexican immigrants are the biggest problem facing America (it's not, that title goes to private industry), and that tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy (it doesn't, the last 20 odd years shows as much and the money the rich have are ill-gotten gains, bloodmoney, anyway, garnered on the backs of the citizens of the world and war and death, because that is what a capitalist country does--it invades country after country for resources and slaves, the separation of the "free market" and the government is an illusion, because they always get the government to make war on some place or another or to make friendly with the government of some other place in order to set up branches of their company over there).

And people move to the US because you've very effectively sold the lie of the American Dream. It doesn't mean they would approve of your human rights abuses. If I remember correctly the US is like 20th place or lower (if not 30th) in social mobility. The countries of Europe are now higher up on the list. It sounds like your attempt at argumentum ad populum (either they do all agree with the massacres the US commits around the world or they don't but they still gather on your land in great numbers, in either case it does not mean you are correct). And it is rather difficult for people to move to countries that have greater freedom than the US when 1) the rich have taken all their money from them and 2) the propaganda from your media with their vapid incessant cries of "Best freest country in the world!" do not report things as they are.

One last tiny note for randolph: it is not military socialism. It is military welfare or corporate welfare. But they unlike the people do not need it and do not deserve it.

[ila]

Originally Posted by ila

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

You're right, ila there's always more than one view and I for one disagree very strongly with what you're saying here.
There have been more than fifty interventions by the US involving souvereign countries since WWII and Irak and Afganistan are just two of them.
How about all those democratically elected governments in South and Middle America that were replaced through US intervention. Chili, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala......need I go on? All these democratically elected governments were replaced by US puppets and more often than not monstrous dictators, like for instance the infamous Pinochet.
Documents have shown that also the preparations for the attempted coup in Venezuela a few years ago were funded and supported by the US.
'Democracy' is just a word US presidents like to use in their speeches. It is not something people in foreign lands are meant to enjoy.

I think the citizens of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany (and yes I know Czechoslovakia and East Germany no longer exist as such) might have a case to show that there was intervention in their affairs. Those are just the countries where there was direct intervention that resulted in either a communist puppet government being installed or the country being absorbed into the Soviet Union. There are other formerly independent countries, such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, that had been part of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union until recently. Then there are other countries that have had a great influence exerted on them from the Soviet Union; Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, and many more from South America.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

I think the citizens of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany (and yes I know Czechoslovakia and East Germany no longer exist as such) might have a case to show that there was intervention in their affairs. Those are just the countries where there was direct intervention that resulted in either a communist puppet government being installed or the country being absorbed into the Soviet Union. There are other formerly independent countries, such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, that had been part of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union until recently. Then there are other countries that have had a great influence exerted on them from the Soviet Union; Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, and many more from South America.

Of course, you are correct about direct intervention in the countries you list, of the very sort your describe.

Just so we don't lose site of the unfortunate dual history of superpower aggression, the list of countries in which the United States has directly intervened is also long. Here is just a sample of military intervention:

1890, Argentina, troops sent to protect U.S. economic interests in Buenos Aires

1891, Chile, Marines deployed to clash with nationalist rebels

1891, Haiti, U.S. troops put down revolt on Navassa

1893- , Hawaii, U.S. navy and ground troops overthrow and annex an independent kingdom

1898-1910, Philippines, U.S. navy and ground troops seize the country from Spain and kill 600,000 filipinos

1898-1902, Cuba, U.S. navy and ground troops seize Cuba from Spain (and still hold a Naval base on Cuban soil)

1898, Puerto Rico, U.S. Navy and ground troops seize Puerto Rico from Spain (still a U.S. colony)

1898, Guam, same as Puerto Rico above

1903, Honduras, U.S. Marines intervene in popular revolution

1907, Nicaragua, U.S. troops deployed to set up "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate

1916-1924, Dominican Republic, Marines land and begin 8-year occupation to protect U.S. economic interests

1918-1922, Russia, U.S. Navy lands ground troops five times to fight the Bolsheviks

1922-1927, China, U.S. Navy and ground troops deployed during nationalist revolt

1925, Panama, U.S. Marines suppress a general strike

1932, El Salvador, U.S. Navy warships sent during the Mart? revolt

1947-1949, Greece, U.S. command operation to direct the far right in a civil war

1948-1954, Philippines, CIA directs war agains the Huk rebellion

1950, Puerto Rico, U.S. commands curshing of independence rebellion in Ponce

1953, Iran, CIA overthrows democracy and installs the Shah

1954, Guatemala, CIA directs exile invasion after new government nationalizes lands owned by U.S. companies; issues nuclear threat and launches bombers

1958, Lebanon, U.S. Navy and marines occupy country to stop rebels

1960-1975, Vietnam -- need I say more

1963, Iraq, CIA organizes a coup that kills the president and brings the Ba'ath Party to power, which then brings Saddam Hussein back from exile to become head of the Secret Service

1965, Indonesia, CIA assists the army in a coup that results in 1 million Indonesians slaughtered

1965-1966, Dominican Republic, U.S. troops land during the election campaign; bombings by U.S. air force

1966-1967, Guatemala, U.S. Green Berets intervene against rebels

1973, Chile, CIA engineers/backs a coup that ousts a democratically elected president

1981-1990, Nicaragua, "Iran-Contra" affair

1983-1984, Grenada, U.S. troops land and invade four years after a popular revolution

1990-1991, Iraq, First Gulf War

1992-1994, Somalia, U.S. troops, U.S. Navy help lead "UN" occupation during a civil war, backing one faction in Mogadishu

Shall I continue?

My point, of course, is that there's no clear good guy / bad guy in the world when it comes to the Cold War and its aftermath.

[randolph]

Back to Ronald Reagan. Iran/ Contra. I never did get a clear picture of how involved Reagan was in the critical decision making. He was the "teflon" President.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Back to Ronald Reagan. Iran/ Contra. I never did get a clear picture of how involved Reagan was in the critical decision making. He was the "teflon" President.

Using a "teflon" pans doesn't mean that the food you're cooking never touches it, only that the residue doesn't stick.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

...Shall I continue?...

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

I like the term Transcanada, lots of hotties up there.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

I like the term Transcanada, lots of hotties up there.

That's the name of a highway.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

That's the name of a highway.

Yes, I know, just playing with words.

[randolph]

I would like to post more of the Stockman article.

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."
Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."
And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

Apocalypse?

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

I could have listed much more, and specifically left the Canadian references for you, my friend. Note it's the United States and not the Soviet Union your fine country has always had to fear.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

I would like to post more of the Stockman article.

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."
Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."
And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

Apocalypse?

I have long argued with colleagues that the two most important dates in twentieth century history may well have been:

August 15, 1971: The day Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system and ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce.

August 4, 1914: The day "socialists" in European parliaments sided with their bourgeois governments and voted in favor of extending war credits so that World War I could be waged (thus compelling the Bolsheviks to declare the end of the Second International and the need for a new Third International).

What is it about August?

[Enoch Root]

Maybe it's in the word, august.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, I know, just playing with words.

I know, but now I'll never travel on that highway again without thinking of your post, randolph.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

I have long argued with colleagues that the two most important dates in twentieth century history may well have been:

August 15, 1971: The day Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system and ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce.

August 4, 1914: The day "socialists" in European parliaments sided with their bourgeois governments and voted in favor of extending war credits so that World War I could be waged (thus compelling the Bolsheviks to declare the end of the Second International and the need for a new Third International).

What is it about August?

According to the Terminator franchise, Judgement Day occurs on August 29th. Just sayin'...