Reagan's legacy

[5stringJeff]

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.

Your argument totally ignores the fact that Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union's economy by his defense build-up (don't try to refute that, either; former Soviet ministers have already confirmed it), Bush 41 fought a war in the Middle East, and Bush 43 is fighting a global war on terrorism. Clinton, on the other hand, gave NATO some American troops for Bosnia and Kosovo and generally ruled over a peaceful time when he didn't have to spend any money on fighting wars.

 

[Socrates]

Jeff said, "Your argument totally ignores the fact that Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union's economy by his defense build-up."



Response: So it's your view that if Reagan hadn't spent so much money on defense, the Soviet economy would have been prosperous and successful?

There obviously something wrong with this argument since so many other communist countries collapsed too, but not because they were negatively affected by the arms race. Poland's economy didn't suck because of Reagan's policies. They weren't even involved in the arms race. And the same can be said for most of the communist economies that collapsed.

The truth is that all the communist economies failed because a completely goverment-planned economy doesn't work nearly as well as a regulated free market. Sorry, Reagan's policies didn't bring about their economic failures; they failed all by themselves.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Socrates
Response: So it's your view that if Reagan hadn't spent so much money on defense, the Soviet economy would have been prosperous and successful?

More like, if Reagan hadn't spoken up and made an issue of wether they were fit to govern, they would have continued having chernobyls, etc., without concern for world opinion. He took a risk by standing up and saying that their very existence was wrong.

The truth is that all the communist economies failed because a completely goverment-planned economy doesn't work nearly as well as a regulated free market. Sorry, Reagan's policies didn't bring about their economic failures; they failed all b

Which is why we shouldn't tax people based on how rich they are. People by themselves will always be more fruitful and generous than some bland b-euro-crat.

 

[Socrates]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
More like, if Reagan hadn't spoken up and made an issue of wether they were fit to govern, they would have continued having chernobyls, etc., without concern for world opinion. He took a risk by standing up and saying that their very existence was wrong.

This in no way refutes my claim that the communist economies failed because they don't work, not because of Reagan's economic policies in the US.


Which is why we shouldn't tax people based on how rich they are. People by themselves will always be more fruitful and generous than some bland b-euro-crat.

Taxing the rich their fair share and having a government-planned economy have nothing to do with each other. Taxing the rich to pay for public schools, for example, makes our entire society more educated and more productive. This policy helps our entire economy and makes the country stronger. It doesn't make our country communist. Even Adam Smith, the prophet of free markets, recommended that we tax the rich to pay for public schools and other basic services. So, to say that taxing the rich to make our society stronger makes us communist is simply false.

 

[nbdysfu]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nbdysfu
More like, if Reagan hadn't spoken up and made an issue of wether they were fit to govern, they would have continued having chernobyls, etc., without concern for world opinion. He took a risk by standing up and saying that their very existence was wrong.
[you said]
This in no way refutes my claim that the communist economies failed because they don't work, not because of Reagan's economic policies in the US.

Work on your text separation there.

But firstly you totally missed my point. I'll reiterate as plainly as possible. Russia's economy was a lugubrious failing beast in the wild and only reagan was willing to speak it's name. Okay that's still too out there.

The soviet economy was failing in a vacuum in which no one would challenge it. People under it were subject to its flaws without help from the outside world. Throughout the 70s the soviets claimed an empire. Reagan changed this by challenging the Soviet Union to come clean and give up its iron fist.

Without Reagan's voice the soviet union would have gone on killing off its own people at the same time as it took fresh chunks of the world.

Originally posted by Socrates
Taxing the rich their fair share and having a government-planned economy have nothing to do with each other. Taxing the rich to pay for public schools, for example, makes our entire society more educated and more productive. This policy helps our entire economy and makes the country stronger. It doesn't make our country communist. Even Adam Smith, the prophet of free markets, recommended that we tax the rich to pay for public schools and other basic services. So, to say that taxing the rich to make our society stronger makes us communist is simply false.

Percentage based taxation on income is fair. And those working below 25k or so should not be obligated to pay taxes. Taxing people for what they already own is rediculous.

How much of the money from estate taxes goes to public schools? Do you even know? I think you as a generous individual could do better with your money. And as a human functioning at a local level you could choose to fund local school branches based on their capabilty and dedication to actually teaching. Then YOU as a member of society would make society stronger.

So, to say that taxing the rich to make our society stronger makes us communist is simply false.

Where did I say that? It's dehumanizing. It makes us sheep. Our neighbours become pigs at the trough. It takes away our ability to give to our family members and to our community until we all feed at the public trough known as welfare, and have been stupified by the daycare known as public school. It's a lose lose situation but it's still not as bad as communism.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by OCA
*sigh* *shrug* I don't know, I guess demos don't want to face the truth, I mean what i'm about to link them to is irrefuteable truth but they will continue to black out and rewrite history because they are jealous that they cannot produce someone as loved and popular as Reagan.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4204&highlight=reaganomics

The simple, plain and irrefuteable truth about the deficit is that in the first few years of Reagan's tax cuts the Congress, heavily Democratic and led by the loser Tip O'Neill did not adjust for the initial lower revenues by lowering spending but in fact did just the opposite they increased spending exorbitantly resulting in the deficit. Yes that is a fact, Democrats were at fault for the deficit, the president spends nothing, Congress is responsible for appropriating funds. This is something that Demos have been repeating for 15 years because they believe that Americans are basically stupid and will not check them on their lies. Sorry, people are on to the lying and scandalous left.

Read and enjoy leftist revisionists.

Tried that at the begining of this thread OCA. He's obviously lost in his own little world where taxes are 100% and Scoialist state is the one true God.

 

[phadras]

yourself can never get their minds outside the box that they've made for themselves... Despite what many people like yourself believe the President of the United States is only the head of the executive department of government and DOES NOT RUN THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY... Jeeeez Need to get rid of the idea that Pres. have that much effect on the overall economy... He can cut taxes, provided the Congress agrees, and stimulate the economy SOME.. Or increase taxes and deflate the economy.. But actual economic growth is not based on governmant plans or tax cuts, but on economic factors..

 

[Isaac Brock]

Sigh, I questionned wheter to join the fray on the whole Reagan legacy, but I'll try anyways.

I was not grown up in the Reagan era or even a citizen of his country. However, I do know a few things about him here and there.

Regan wasn't a perfect president, but he didn't seem to be a bad one either. He did help end communism decisively. He did re-invent US economics (though I'd say with mixed results), he also had a great relationship with Canada and was a good friend of our then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

However, he did play Realpolitik and lost a few times. He did a acrue a heavy debt and he did maybe fall asleep in a few of his cabinet meetings.

I must say that the postings I've seen on this board have almost painted him in almost Messiac qualities. He appears that he can do or have done no wrong. Well he did do wrong and he didn't quite escape his presidency unblemished.

However, the test of a man is not just in his successes and failures, but in his attempts and I do believe Reagan was a good man for the most part, not perfect, but human. It is fair and perhaps very appropriate to discuss both the successes and failures of his presidency.

It is not blasphamous to discuss a man. Heck! I'd be happy if a bunch of my friends when I die said, "Yeah he was a good guy, didn't shut up sometimes, smelled after he worked out, but a good guy.". Some people may not like what he did, but the fact they are discussing his presidency at all is enough of an indication that a man's life work was worthy of discussion in itself.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Sigh, I questionned wheter to join the fray on the whole Reagan legacy, but I'll try anyways.

I was not grown up in the Reagan era or even a citizen of his country. However, I do know a few things about him here and there.

Regan wasn't a perfect president, but he didn't seem to be a bad one either. He did help end communism decisively. He did re-invent US economics (though I'd say with mixed results), he also had a great relationship with Canada and was a good friend of our then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

However, he did play Realpolitik and lost a few times. He did a acrue a heavy debt and he did maybe fall asleep in a few of his cabinet meetings.

I must say that the postings I've seen on this board have almost painted him in almost Messiac qualities. He appears that he can do or have done no wrong. Well he did do wrong and he didn't quite escape his presidency unblemished.

However, the test of a man is not just in his successes and failures, but in his attempts and I do believe Reagan was a good man for the most part, not perfect, but human. It is fair and perhaps very appropriate to discuss both the successes and failures of his presidency.

It is not blasphamous to discuss a man. Heck! I'd be happy if a bunch of my friends when I die said, "Yeah he was a good guy, didn't shut up sometimes, smelled after he worked out, but a good guy.". Some people may not like what he did, but the fact they are discussing his presidency at all is enough of an indication that a man's life work was worthy of discussion in itself.

I can agree with that. As long as his actual failings were listed. The economy and his defeat of Communism in the USSR were not one of his failings.