Regan-isms

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hypoc8, Jan 6, 2010.

  1. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    All it does is further prove that you're both viewing the same thing on two entirely different points. It is possible for a popular person to have a bad track record in his actual politics. Whether or not you want to acknowledge or disregard it to hold onto your opinion is a different thing altogether.

    You've essentially proved sinwin's point without even trying.
     
  2. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,830
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    It's well known facts have a liberal bias.

    in Republican Land all facts are nothing but fabricated lies spread by elitist professors, statisticians, experts, and intellectuals who have a secret liberal hidden agenda against the common man.

    And only Bill O'Reily and Faux News can save them.
     
  3. socaldude28

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southern california
    Verified:
    Photo
    ummm not really but thx for trying to be clever :)

    my main point was that Gorbachev himself, Soviet generals, eastern european leaders (havel, walesa. . .), even john kerry give Reagan substantial credit for winning (or if u prefer a less loaded term. . . successfully unwinding) the Cold War. This is not to deny Gorby his crucial role, only to place it in its proper context.

    Economically we can talk back and forth at each other till the sun don't shine about inflation, interest rates, economic growth, poverty rates, wealth creation. . . etc. Obviously a fruitless exercise as ideologically no one is going to back down. . . The bottom line is Americans vote their pocketbooks and if Reagan won 49 states after 4 years and his VP won after 8 years perhaps it indicates something. . . if u disagree that's cool - just saying you're in the minority on this one :)

    another favorite Reaganism for those seeking a little levity. . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc
     
  4. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL, you think Obama isn't getting exactly what he wants right now? Obama hasn't done shit, but it IS for lack of trying.
     
  5. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I don't have to try.

    But what did Reagan do exactly to end the Cold War? Beyond the lip service and the posturing...

    Why dismiss this aspect of his term of office? As if Economics is not a concern to most people.

    Any politician would win if their opponent openly said, on a large political stage, that they would raise taxes. Just ask Walter Mondale how that worked out for him in 1984. Sometimes, the American public, regardless of political affiliation, don't want to hear the truth. At least not that candidly. :rolleyes:

    Bush I said, "Read my lips... no new taxes". And he won, even though he raised all the "old ones". We all know the person with the best lip service tends to have an edge over the opposition. Find me a politician who won office that didn't have some kind of a catchphrase or gimmick?

    The fact is, this whole thing about Reagan, his popularity and whether or not he did a good job in office is all an open ended question that has no definitive answer. You have your reasons for liking the guy. sinwin and I definitely have our reasons for not. That doesn't make you anymore right than it makes us anymore wrong.

    And as much as you want to think you're not proving sinwin's point of looking at a president's celebrity more than his credentials, you're doing just that. Now for a second post in a row. :biggrin1:
     
  6. socaldude28

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southern california
    Verified:
    Photo
    VinylBoy u kinda do have to try harder!

    Concerning the Cold War, well you could check out the documentary on the subject I linked to. That would be a start. However, I'll list a few points (sorry if some are repetitive, but they didn't seem to register the first time 'round. . .)

    1) Reagan nearly doubled the defense budget, putting enormous strain on the Soviets to maintain huge defense budgets they could not afford at a time their economy was suffering

    2) He sent military aid (most notable Stinger missiles) to the Afghans, turning that war against the Soviets, costing them billions of dollars, thousands of soldiers and severe discontent amongst Soviet citizens that eventually figured out the imminent victory promised by their leaders was not happening

    3) He sent money and weapons to oppose just about every soviet satellite or communist-leaning dictatorship in the world, again forcing the Soviets to match him when they couldn't afford to

    4) He sent Bill Casey (CIA) to Saudi Arabia and worked out a deal to get Saudis to greatly increase oil production, thus sending the price of oil down well below $20 from $40 or more during the oil crises that helped cause Carter's demise. (Reagan's economic policies that killed high inflation also contributed to the oil price crash). The Soviet Union got most of its hard currency through selling oil so its revenues crashed at the same time it was being pushed so hard to spend more

    5) SDI caused panic amongst Soviet leaders as it would render the trillions of dollars invested in their nuclear arsenal worthless and require them to spend hundreds of billions of dollars they did not have to match it. Again, watch the documentary if u want to hear Soviet officials say this :) SDI was the one program Gorby always tried to kill in his numerous summits with Reagan

    6) Reagan supplied covert aid to Solidarity and Poland and various other dissident groups throughout eastern europe as they gradually gained more confidence in defying the Soviet regime and eventually demanded complete independence. Revolutions do need money, and Reagan was not afraid to supply it.

    7) Reagan put enormous pressure on the Soviets that any crackdown on eastern Europe as it had done successfully so many times in the past (as in Hungary for example) would not be tolerated and might even cause war. Hence, no crackdown. Glasnost and Perestroika did not include seeking outright independence, but Gorby was powerless and afraid to stop it.

    8) Reagan's strong ideological attacks on communism not only strengthened America's resolve, but encouraged Eastern Europeans like Havel and Walesa to revolt and know they had strong western support (again their words not mine). It also played a key role in the Politburo selecting Gorbachev in the first place to try to respond to Reagan with an appealing vigorous leader of their own.

    9) The hugely controversial placement of intermediate range nuclear weapons in western europe in 1983 presented the USSR with an even more united NATO that would not roll over and tolerate violent crackdowns in Poland and elsewhere.

    I'm sure I'm missing more points, but those are a few. In summary, you halve Soviet revenue, cause them to lose a war in Afghanistan they were previously winning (losing popular support for the regime at home), make it impossible for them to divert now precious resources to their economy, support all anti-communist guerillas, intellectuals and movements worldwide (but especially Eastern Europe). . . essentially we spent them into the ground and squeezed them from all sides.

    As for economic policy. . . no need for strawmen VinylBoy! when did I say economics don't matter to people? But if you insist, Reagan's economic policies led to increasing productivity, lower unemployment, lower inflation, lower interest rates, higher economic growth, the longest peacetime economic expansion in history up to that point.

    No wonder he's popular!
     
  7. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gonna go ahead and link Krugman for this one:

    Reaganomics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

    As for interest rates, go ahead and ask south america how low they were.
     
  8. socaldude28

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southern california
    Verified:
    Photo
    uh oh simwin. . . going Krugman on me already? :cool:

    The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

    Of course you have your favorite economists and charts and I have mine. My only thought before was obviously I'm not gonna make u a supply-sider and you're not gonna make me prefer a social-democratic model. But what can't be denied is Americans vote their pocketbooks and thought Reagan did such a bad job. . . . they elected his VP to succeed him in a landslide!!
     
  9. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mine comes from a nobel laureate, yours comes from a conservative think tank. Having said that, your link does nothing to refute mine.

    I have an open mind, you could make me a supply-sider, if only there were some data behind it. Sorry about your closed mind.

    Who quickly was unpopular when he got in office, then started a war to try and get some approval back, but still managed to be a one termer, losing to a philandering moderate pothead form the south.
     
  10. socaldude28

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    296
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southern california
    Verified:
    Photo
    so disingenuous regarding your open mine dude! our links obviously refute each other's. the econ data sited comes from OMB.

    here's some info on Krugman. . . Krugman is a self-described leftist so of course criticism of him will come from the right! Various economists from various schools of thought win nobels.

    KrugmanÂ’s Posthumous Nobel by Donald Luskin on National Review Online
     
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Not really. :rolleyes:

    Or, you could present a detailed argument since you're the one trying to use it as part of yours.

    Now, was that terribly difficult? Good for you!!

    And it was summarized nicely too. Kudos!!

    You were the one that referred to it as a "fruitless exercise". :rolleyes:

    I actually didn't, but you've perked my interests a little.


    Funny how you made no mention to the recession of 1982. :wink:
    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, calculating the National Unemployment Rate from 1980 through 1988, we started at 6.3% and ended up at 5.3%... but that's after we experiences a huge swell in claims which peaked in December of 1982 at 10.8%. Grant it, the rate did go down as it always does. But if you want to applaud Reagan for essentially lowering the rate by 1% after he left office, then so be it. But let's not distort the facts to make it seem as if everything was just peachy keen those 8 years, nor leave out that we experienced some major economic hardship well into Reagan's term. Our inflation rate started at 13.91%, which was close to its peak going well into 1981 where the rate remained over 10%. It didn't go back down to normal till around 1982, two years into his term. We can say that some of these conditions were inherited it from Carter if you want to play the blame game... but you can't diverge all of it on the previous administration.

    I also noticed that you didn't mention anything about the deficit. :rolleyes:
    A combination of tax cuts that only benefitted the wealthy and excessive military spending (gotta love that Cold War, right), fueled by notable reductions in domestic spending, caused the federal budget deficit to drop lower than levels previously reached during the recession.

    I could go on, but I'll stop here for now.

    With certain people, of course. Alas, with the gay & lesbian community he will never be seen with the same admiration, and considering his silence on a global pandemic for many years while tens of thousands of people died, do you blame them? If I were you, I wouldn't refer to them as just a fringe, minority group either. Also, all of that economic growth you talked about was not being felt in the poor, urban areas as well where the crime rates and poverty level was rising.

    So please, be specific... who was he popular with again? Put a real face to those with the smiles!!
     
    #111 B_VinylBoy, Jan 21, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
Draft saved Draft deleted