Reagan's legacy

[Xenimus]

What really revealing is the conservative belief that they can NEVER be wrong, their intent is devine. You see it with Bush, and reagan/ollie north. even now I see that Nixon never did anything wrong.

 

[Annie]

Clinton inherited a growing economy. He left a failing economy. posted by Avatar

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm

An analysis of the relationship between the deficit and the current economic expansion finds that Administration arguments reverse cause and effect. Deficit reduction did not cause an economic rebound; instead, a cyclical upswing already underway in 1992 was the largest single reason the deficit has declined in recent years. Furthermore, a nonpartisan appraisal would suggest that neither President Bush nor President Clinton deserve credit for the business cycle upswing that began in 1991.

http://bom.intnet.mu/AnnualRep2000/NatInc.htm

The growth of the economy slowed down in 1999, falling to 2.7 per cent from 5.7 per cent in 1998. Severe drought conditions prevailing during the later part of 1998 through 1999 adversely affected the agricultural sector, especially sugar production. Excluding the sugar sector, the growth of the economy was 5.5 per cent in 1999 compared to 5.8 per cent in 1998, showing that sectors of the economy other than sugar maintained their growth momentum. Exports of goods and non-factor services grew, in real terms, by 2.8 per cent in 1999 compared to 8.1 per cent in the previous year. Real aggregate domestic demand rose by 4.8 per cent in 1999 compared to 5.4 per cent in 1998.

 

[Socrates]

Republicans can make all the excuses they want; the fact remains that in 12 years of Republican economic policy the US ended up with a massive debt and that with 8 years of Democratic policy we were able to clean up some of the mess and have a large budget surplus. Now, after 3 1/2 more years of Republican policy, we're headed the wrong direction fast. The results speak for themselves, no matter what rationalization you come up with.

 

[Annie]

Then there is nothing to discuss. Dismissed.

 

[Xenimus]

If Iraq is successfull(not sure if its possible if our troops don't get out, don't we all agree there is an endless flow of terrorists? I mean wee have 13 or 14 USA bases being built in Iraq right now, so I don't think we're going anywhere. Their lands are very holy, deeply tied into their history, so its very important to them.) We will see what free trade, and unrestricted style economics can on a grand scale. The IRAQI constitution actaully makes in law of the land to have certain ties with US corporations. can you believe that? Thats almost UNHOLY.

 

[Annie]

I would find it difficult to believe that we agree on anything. Why did you just change the topic? Start a new thread.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Xenimus
If Iraq is successfull(not sure if its possible if our troops don't get out, don't we all agree there is an endless flow of terrorists? I mean wee have 13 or 14 USA bases being built in Iraq right now, so I don't think we're going anywhere. Their lands are very holy, deeply tied into their history, so its very important to them.) We will see what free trade, and unrestricted style economics can on a grand scale. The IRAQI constitution actaully makes in law of the land to have certain ties with US corporations. can you believe that? Thats almost UNHOLY.

What does this have to do with Reagan?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Socrates
Republicans can make all the excuses they want; the fact remains that in 12 years of Republican economic policy the US ended up with a massive debt and that with 8 years of Democratic policy we were able to clean up some of the mess and have a large budget surplus. Now, after 3 1/2 more years of Republican policy, we're headed the wrong direction fast. The results speak for themselves, no matter what rationalization you come up with.

Actually you got it backwards

12 years of Democrat House spending out the wazzoo (The hous does control the purse strings) and then 6 years of Republican house turned that around.

Nice try.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Lordy, lordy, lordy.

Well, to respond to what started this thread, there was this little thing called the Soviet Union a few years ago that kept a large chunck of Europe behind a wall and away from freedom. Not only did this divide Germany, but it basically created a "mexican standoff" with the United States, a fear of retaliation preventing nuclear war.

You'll notice that you don't hear about the Soviet Union much anymore. There is an entire generation of people that don't know what the Berlin Wall is or that there was once an East Germany that was seperate from West Germany.

Like it or not, the end of the Cold War is Ronald Reagan's legacy.

Other than that, I'll just say that in various places on various boards I have been called "conservaturd", "resumlican", adn the ever inventive "ignorant bastard" among other things. If the worst thing someone called me on a message board was "revisionist historian", that would be a pretty good day.

 

[Socrates]

Jimmy,

The problem with your argument is that Reagan didn't do anything to deserve credit for the collapse of all the economies in the communist countries. East Germany's economy wasn't bad because of anything Reagan did. It was bad because communism doesn't work. The same is true of the entire Eastern block. If a Democrat had been president, communist economies would have failed just as miserably.

Or do you think that Democratic economic policies in the US would have made the communist economic systems a big success?

 

[americanexpo]

Bar none, Reagan's positives will outshine his negatives, whatever they may be in the eyes of many people with many different opinions.

He restored America's confidence in itself, an act that no other potential leader (democratic or republican) living could have done after JFK's death (except RFK).

He told the truth, telling the world the Soviet Union was an evil empire. If you read the "Fifty Year Wound" you'll learn about how the Soviets spent billions of dollars on elaborate cities in the 70's and 80's, preparing for a scenario where America would force them into a first strike.

He inspired hundreds of millions, gave hope to nearly as many, and made the right decisions in an era of American history (from Eisenhower on) where most of our leaders made poor ones.

He also moved the country firmly to the center, a good occurance, because now a good Democratic or Republican president is able to win majority support for a good idea, without having to jump all the way to the right or left to get it.


Was he perfect? No. Was he effective? Yes. Was he the greatest president? No. But he's in the top 6 in my book (Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, FDR, Truman ahead of Reagan, Reagan is ahead of Teddy)

And one last thing. His religious faith, like that of Eisenhower, represents what is good about faith in the Republican party. Though both men approached their strong faiths from different angles and life situations, they should represent the twin pillars of faith in the Republican party, not the wackos at the 700 club and those who would enshrine hatred into the most important thing we've got, the Constitution.

 

[Annie]

I think what Jimmy is getting at is that the Soviets for years had tried to hide the systemic problems with their economy, helped in their deceit by the intellectuals in US and Western Europe. Reagan came in and said, "The Emperor is Evil and neked". Low and behold he was and it came crashing down.

Originally posted by Socrates
Jimmy,

The problem with your argument is that Reagan didn't do anything to deserve credit for the collapse of all the economies in the communist countries. East Germany's economy wasn't bad because of anything Reagan did. It was bad because communism doesn't work. The same is true of the entire Eastern block. If a Democrat had been president, communist economies would have failed just as miserably.

Or do you think that Democratic economic policies in the US would have made the communist economic systems a big success?

 

[Socrates]

Kath said,
"I think what Jimmy is getting at is that the Soviets for years had tried to hide the systemic problems with their economy, helped in their deceit by the intellectuals in US and Western Europe. Reagan came in and said, "The Emperor is Evil and neked". Low and behold he was and it came crashing down."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds like you agree with me. Reagan doesn't deserve credit for the collapse of communist economies. They failed on their own.

Your view seems to be that he was a good president because he called them evil. Well, it was common knowledge that they were our primary adversary. The JFK-Nixon debates were dominated by our awareness of the threat of communism. So, in calling them "evil" he wasn't fundamentally changing our view of communism.

 

[Annie]

No, I am NOT agreeing with you, only you could twist the meaning of what I said.

Please note, do not call me Kath. Call me Kathianne, Kathy, teach, or your highness, any of those will do.

I'm sorry you lost your partner, it was because of trolling. Please note.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Socrates
Jimmy,

The problem with your argument is that Reagan didn't do anything to deserve credit for the collapse of all the economies in the communist countries. East Germany's economy wasn't bad because of anything Reagan did. It was bad because communism doesn't work. The same is true of the entire Eastern block. If a Democrat had been president, communist economies would have failed just as miserably.

Or do you think that Democratic economic policies in the US would have made the communist economic systems a big success?

WRONG! If an Appeasment Democrat like Jimmy Carter were in power, Communism would have survived longer. IT eventually would have crumbled, but at what cost? Another 40 million dead? If a US president were to sit back and allow the USSR to continue intimidating neighboring countries to join the Soviet Unioin, then thye would have gained more land, more people and more money to sustain themselves for a longer time. What Reagan did was simply say Enough is Enough. He called their bluff by building more weapons, by offering the idea of SDI, by reinstilling American Pride, and above all by simply standing up to a bully.

If we allowed communism another 30 or 40 years of power due to no one standing up to it, could your conscience handle another 40 million people dead?

 

[Socrates]

Another 40 million dead? Where'd you get that number?

I've got a similar argument for you: If Clinton hadn't been elected in 92, the economy would have continued to decline as it had been and the US would no longer be a country. Clinton saved us by restoring economic prosperity.

I don't actually believe this, but I don't believe Reagan's policy of creating a nuclear arms race saved 40 million people's lives either.

No, it wasn't the arms race that made the communist economies fail. They failed because they don't work. They had their own internal problems, they didn't crumble because of US policies.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Socrates
Another 40 million dead? Where'd you get that number?

I've got a similar argument for you: If Clinton hadn't been elected in 92, the economy would have continued to decline as it had been and the US would no longer be a country. Clinton saved us by restoring economic prosperity.

I don't actually believe this, but I don't believe Reagan's policy of creating a nuclear arms race saved 40 million people's lives either.

No, it wasn't the arms race that made the communist economies fail. They failed because they don't work. They had their own internal problems, they didn't crumble because of US policies.

Perhaps you need to review history then. An estimated 40 million people were killed under Communist Rule in Soviet Russia from the 1940's upto the 1980's.

Also you must not have read that link i gave you. Here try again before you spout out more fallacies of Reagan's economy.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Go read the TRUTH about Reaganomics and then come back with an arguement.

Again, the arms race was calling the Soviets Bluff. In the 60's and 70's the Soviets continued to disobey arms treaties that they have made with the US and continued to aquire new countries to place under Soviet rule. If no one had stood up to them, this process would have continued long after the 80's, 90's even today. If the Soviets were able to gain more people, they would get more money. Many more people would have died as well due to the poverty and lack of freedom.

Revisionist Historians never seem to know anything about what really happened in history.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by Socrates
Jimmy,

The problem with your argument is that Reagan didn't do anything to deserve credit for the collapse of all the economies in the communist countries. East Germany's economy wasn't bad because of anything Reagan did. It was bad because communism doesn't work. The same is true of the entire Eastern block. If a Democrat had been president, communist economies would have failed just as miserably.

Or do you think that Democratic economic policies in the US would have made the communist economic systems a big success?

You are right about communism not working, problem is somebody forgot to tell the Soviets that for about a half century. As far as their economy, compared to the U.S. before Reagan they were pretty much on par. Our military funding had been slashed so deep it didn't take much for the Soviets to move ahead of us.

There are other things I could say, but looking at the thread they have already been said. I will say that the little things were important at the time Reagan was in office. It may not seem like much for him to simply call them "the evil empire", but it was important because nobody had done it before. The United States had pretty much taken a stance of throwing it's hands in the air and accepting that the Soviet Union existed. It's odd to think of it now, but a line like "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was a bold thing to say at the time. Even some people in the Reagan administration weren't sure it was a good idea.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember the Carter days. I would like to know where you got the rose colored glasses that make you think the economy in this country was in good shape in the late 1970's, because they must be powerful. I decided a long time ago that my respect for Jimmy Carter as a human being, what he's done outside his Presidency, was going to prevent me from bashing him, but I don't ignore the obvious either.

 

[Socrates]

Jimmy said:
"I don't know how old you are, but I remember the Carter days. I would like to know where you got the rose colored glasses that make you think the economy in this country was in good shape in the late 1970's, because they must be powerful."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response:

Jimmy, I never said the economy was in good shape at the end of the 1970s. So, I'm not sure who you think you are refuting.

What I did say, and what is true, is that Reagan's main legacy is that he left the US with a crushing national debt.

The citizens of the US are paying about 250 million dollars per year of interest on the debt. That's about 14% of all the taxes we pay. My God, what a tax cut we could actually afford if we weren't still paying so much for Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility. People think that the Iraq war is expensive if it costs 100 million a year. Hell, that's less than half of what we pay every year for Reagan's debt.

We could almost pay for the entire military with the money we spend just paying interest on the debt.

Not only that, when the government borrows this amount of money, it sucks money out of the economy that would otherwise be invested in private companies. So, it hurts no only the taxpayer but also impedes economic growth as well. This is all mainstream economics.

It's simply true that Reagan did untold harm to the US economy by being so fiscally irresponsible, and that is his legacy.

 

[Socrates]

Insein said, "Perhaps you need to review history then. An estimated 40 million people were killed under Communist Rule in Soviet Russia from the 1940's upto the 1980's."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Almost all of those murdered by the government in the Soviet Union were murdered by Stalin, who died way before Reagan took office. You think he deserves credit for putting an end to Stalinist practices even though they ended before he was president? You truly are insein.

You need to read Orwell's 1984, particularly the part about doublespeak, since you, the master of revisionist history, love to accuse others of the sins you commit.