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.

[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.

[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:"

[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?

[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