Ronald Reagan

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.