OT: Discussion of Reagan's legacy

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:03 am

PK,

My point being that those events with Carter and Reagan were a result of the times. I don't see any event that was that magnitude when Clinton was in office. He did broker some peace with N. Ireland, but N. Ireland probably isn't at the same scale of Eygtp-Isreal or the Cold War but that's what was on the table at the time. As for Reagan and the Cold War, this wasn't pro-active. Pro-active is Eisenhower brokering peace with Russia thus aveting the USSR. Reagan was entrenched in the Cold War. His statement and actions to the USSR and Gorbachav weren't one where he was trying to stop a stalemate 20 years down the line. We had thousands of nukes pointed at each other. If that's not a reaction than I don't know what is.

For the people that say Osama Bin Laden should have been taken out in the mid 90s. The country wasn't there yet. You can't say that Clinton should have done more. We were in a cacoon and thought of terrorism as "not me". It took 9.11 to bring us into play and bring American minds around thinking as if they are targets. And while Osama was busy building and training Al Queda what the f*** were we doing. YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESS was trying to impeach slick willy for having his willy be slicked. I don't condone what he has done but it's funny that the last years of his Presidency were one where the country couldn't get enough sex and very little terrorism. In this time clinton had the ever so malign propotional response. They hit us we bomb a few camps. The US and the world were not at a place where full scale war was acceptable.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:16 am

And while Osama was busy building and training Al Queda what the f*** were we doing.

Better question would be what was Clinton doing? I know he was real busy counting his illegal campaign contributions and getting blowed but he was offered Bin Laden after the WTC was bombed in 1993 and he declined. I share you disdain for the republican congress though. Instead of going after Clinton for something as stupid as getting a blowjob (like they've never been given one while in office), the cowards should have had him impeached for treason. Seee my links in my previous post. what the man did to our national security is despicable. But let me say Bush isn't much better. Anyone who wants to can waltz across our borders illegally..............and get to freakin' stay!!!!!. This AFTER 9/11. I wouldn't piss on either one if they were on fire

Ronald Reagan once said "A nation who can't control it's borders isn't a country anymore". And he's right

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:33 am

Blueduke:

Problem is the 9.11 terrorist trickle in from Canada I beleive. We want so much to stop the immigrants from Mexico yet we have out sidedoor to canada wide-open.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:04 am

They trickle in any way they can get in. My point is the Bush Administration hasn't done a damn thing to stop the inflow of illegals. Some of these people are coming over to do more than sponge off the taxpayers. Some want to kill us. whether they come in from the north or the south is irrelevant. They're overunning this country and nobody.Dem or GOP seems to give a squat.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:27 am

blueduke wrote:
In 1980:
- inflation was 12%/year (unthinkable now)
- mortage rates were 18% (in fact the only way I got a house was an owner finance at 12%)
- the economy was in the crapper

Agree with you on all of these.

- we had hostages in Iran
- the result of attempting to set those hostages free was a crashed helicopter and a couple of dozen dead military men

Fine...although would you be criticizing a Republican if he had taken military action (and failed) to free hostages?

- the DOW (I kid you not!) was at 750!
- only about 50% of our combat aircraft were battle worthy
- our nuc arsenal was < USSR
- unemployement was 8+%
- the world wondered if the age of American superority was over

That was the Carter legacy.
This is the Regan legacy

In 1988:
- inflation was 3%
- unemployement was 4%
- the DOW was 2800
- we had a 600 ship Navy
- we had more nucs than USSR (basically the cold-war genius of Regan was to use our economic resources to bankrupt the USSR and it worked!)
- several new tactical aircraft
- the economy was in the 7th year of a peacetime expansion, the longest in history at that point.
- the average American had the swagger back in his step
- tax rates were the lowest since WWII

Those are hard facts from some one who lived them.

I agree that Reagan built up our defense, and that was essentially a good thing. Whether getting more nukes than the USSR actually bankrupted them is a point of debate...many experts are pretty sure that the USSR would have gone down without it.

I've got an issue with your employment numbers here.

Unemployment:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

At the end of 1980, unemployment was at 7.2 percent. It ranged from 6.3-7.8% that year. It was never 8+ that year, as you claim (although it was close).

At the end of 1988, unemployment was at 5.3 percent. Highest unemployment that year was 5.7 percent. You said it was 4%. Close, but not exactly correct.

Now those are both close. But the difference unemployment between 1980 and 1988 was closer to 2% (7.2 - 5.3) versus the 4+ percent that you claim. It's a big difference.

But the more important thing is looking at unemployment during Reagan's tenure. Unemployment reached it's ALL TIME peak (from 1948 onwards) during the Reagan administraton, with a rating of 10.8 in December of 1982.

Now it can be said that the high unemployment numbers were all Carter's part, and that may be part of it. But along with the good came some bad times as well.

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

And finally, you bring up only the positives of Reagan's administration (and there were good things that came out of it) and only the negatives of Carter's administration. So, in the interest of fairness, some of Reagan's negatives:

Iran-Contra: The really important one, as people in the administration superceded the authority of Congress and the government to sell arms to fundamentalist Iran and give the profits to the Contras. This was illegal and was funding supporters of the Somoza regime. The Somoza regime was condemned by human rights groups for his treatment of the opposition, and 50,000 are said to have been killed by his regime. This includes the assasination of the editor of the major newspaper in Nicaragua (La Prensa), because he opposed the Somoza regime in the paper.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/somoza.htm

While we're at it, his support of far-right thugs in Central America cost these nations hundreds of thousands of lives. The story is that the US didn't want communism to spread. Which is fine...but they used horrible dictators that used the most undemocratic of means (death squads, suppression of free speech, etc.) to stop communism.

Deficit: Simply, we had the largest deficits EVER (at that time) under Reagan.

http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/Deficits.gif

Trickle-down economics: There's no evidence from any serious economists that this could or did work. If you can find something defending this position, let me know.

There are others too....but I'd rather not get too deep into it. The point isn't to bash Reagan, as there were good things that he did.

However, if you misrepresent Carter's accomplishments as strictly negative, then you (in fairness) need to also address the negatives of the Reagan administration.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:08 am

I agree that Reagan built up our defense, and that was essentially a good thing. Whether getting more nukes than the USSR actually bankrupted them is a point of debate...many experts are pretty sure that the USSR would have gone down without it.

I'd like to see a list of some of your "experts". Here is a link to quite a few "experts" the left always seem to recognize.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004 ... 2827.shtml

Trickle-down economics: There's no evidence from any serious economists that this could or did work. If you can find something defending this position, let me know.

I think "trickle down" (if that's what you want to call it) worked pretty good

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

The Somoza regime was condemned by human rights groups for his treatment of the opposition, and 50,000 are said to have been killed by his regime.

you failed to mention how many died at the hands or Oertaga and failed to name your source for the "50,000 who were murdered under Somoza's regime". Interesting to note there was no mention of how quickly the Sandnistas lost power when free elections (observed by Jimmy Carter no less) were implemented.

The story is that the US didn't want communism to spread. Which is fine...but they used horrible dictators that used the most undemocratic of means (death squads, suppression of free speech, etc.) to stop communism.

I suppose we would have been safer if USSR or Cuba would have established their own base here? Ortega flew to Moscow for what? Coffee?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:21 am

Blueduke, you're right, the Sandinistas were very oppressive and killed a lot of innocent people. But they didn't start out that way. The movement enjoyed wide support among the people because Somoza was so hated in Nicaragua. We're talking about a man who, after the disasterous earthquake in Managua that killed tens of thousands, took the international aid money that flowed in and lined his own pockets with it. The Somoza family pretty much prevented free elections from taking place since the first Somaza seized power (after elections) in 1937. The Sandinistas were thrown out in 1990, but it was done via election, not coup. That never could have occured under Somoza or the right-wing Contra groups that were fighting for a return to dictatorship.

The mistake Reagan made in Latin America wasn't unique -- it was the same mistake made by his predecessors, Dem and Republican. They equated anti-communists with pro-democracy or pro-freedom movements. Certainly Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas were repressive and killed many innocent people. But the guys we supported were often just as brutal and repressive, as evidenced in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Chile. Frankly, Latin American policy didn't really change (except briefly under Carter) until the Cold War ended.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:42 am

>>>YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESS was trying to impeach<<<

John:

I'm not a registered Republican. In fact, I've never voted for a Republican for president in my life. Voted for Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992 (the shame) and Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000.

I'm not a registered Democrat, either. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, for the record.

>>>The US and the world were not at a place where full scale war was acceptable.<<<

We're not at that place now, either, especially when the pretense for that war was as big of a sham as any of the lies constructed by earlier administrations. I'm all for going after the Taliban and Al-Queda in Afghanistan. But Iraq? That's just W cleaning up Daddy's unfinished business and getting 800 Americans killed in the process.

Take care,
PK

Badger_Fan · Post by **Badger_Fan** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:40 pm

I just love the fact that Blue Duke is posting links like they are accredited, respected news links. Quoting Republican leadership on their opinions of Clinton isn't exactly unbiased, fact-finding posting.

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:55 pm

Badger_Fan wrote:I just love the fact that Blue Duke is posting links like they are accredited, respected news links. Quoting Republican leadership on their opinions of Clinton isn't exactly unbiased, fact-finding posting.

He's definitely quoted some biased sites, but many of his Clinton links are CNN, which is hardly a Republican stronghold...

Take off the partisanship blinders... Denying Clinton is a criminal is every bit as bad as promoting Reagan as the Messiah

Post by **Jared** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:47 pm

blueduke wrote:
I agree that Reagan built up our defense, and that was essentially a good thing. Whether getting more nukes than the USSR actually bankrupted them is a point of debate...many experts are pretty sure that the USSR would have gone down without it.
I'd like to see a list of some of your "experts". Here is a link to quite a few "experts" the left always seem to recognize.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004 ... 2827.shtml

Would you consider Mikhail Gorbachev to be an expert on this? Here's an short article with quotes from Gorbachev. The beginning of the article says that "The Cold War ended despite President Reagan's arms buildup, not because of it--or so former President Gorbachev told the authors."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

An interesting point in the article is this

The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense.

So if the USSR didn't change it's spending in response to Reagan's increase in spending, how could it be said that Reagan's increase in military spending caused the fall of the USSR?

I'll address the trickle-down stuff later....I've got a softball game in a little bit, so time is short.

The Somoza regime was condemned by human rights groups for his treatment of the opposition, and 50,000 are said to have been killed by his regime.
you failed to mention how many died at the hands or Oertaga and failed to name your source for the "50,000 who were murdered under Somoza's regime". Interesting to note there was no mention of how quickly the Sandnistas lost power when free elections (observed by Jimmy Carter no less) were implemented.

Brando answered this one pretty well. As for a source for the 50,000 number, here's one from Microsoft Encarta.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... ragua.html

Interesting that you put in quotes that "50,000 who were murdered under Somoza's regime". That certainly wasn't my quote. Search the post and see if I said that. Also, you can search the site that I link to and see if it was worded that way, and it wasn't. It's not a good idea to quote someone with words that aren't theirs.

The story is that the US didn't want communism to spread. Which is fine...but they used horrible dictators that used the most undemocratic of means (death squads, suppression of free speech, etc.) to stop communism.
I suppose we would have been safer if USSR or Cuba would have established their own base here? Ortega flew to Moscow for what? Coffee?

Nice strawman argument. Obviously that wouldn't be good. But instead of supporting other more moderate rulers in the area, we decided to go with supporting undemocratic strongmen that used death squads, suppression of the press, torture, and other means to keep power. We supported Somoza, and he was so bad that the people turned to a somewhat Communist government. True, the Sandinistas were no saints...but they did leave power under free elections. And as Brando said, "That never could have occured under Somoza or the right-wing Contra groups that were fighting for a return to dictatorship."

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:49 pm

Adultery may be a crime in many places, but it is so common, you would have to consider about 30 percent of the population criminals, most of which have no other type of crime on their record, not that Clinton was ever convicted of anything. In any case, I see no reason why it affected his ability to run the country except for the waste of time that Starr caused. However, conservatives tend to look for moral leaders, liberals just want a leader who runs a country effectively.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:54 pm

I just love the fact that Blue Duke is posting links like they are accredited, respected news links. Quoting Republican leadership on their opinions of Clinton isn't exactly unbiased, fact-finding posting.

every anti Reagan link is unbiased I guess? Give me a break. oh btw when did CNN become a right wing mouthpiece?

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:00 pm

In any case, I see no reason why it affected his ability to run the country except for the waste of time that Starr caused

If Clinton hadn't lied for months on end there would have been no time "wasted", no? Taking illegal campaign contributions from a communist country and that same country ending up with our nuclear secrets is a little bit more important than who gave who a blowjob. So is the fact that over 400 FBI files on known conservatives ended up in the White House. A Nixon aide went to prison for reading ONE.

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:06 pm

Adultery Shmultery... why is that people are so quick to point to the BJ and say "It isn't that bad..." like that's the only thing Clinton every did wrong?

Lying in front of a Grand Jury? ...you are the President of the United States... you took an oath to get into office... and you go and make a mockery of the justice system which is a foundation to the country you represent?

When did morality ever get confused with purity? Last I looked in a dictionary morality = "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct" Seems like morality is about the only thing you can build a system of law around.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:54 pm

Clinton could have had an orgy with lesbians and hermaphrodites in the Oval Office, for all I care. My HUGE beef with him was that he lied under oath during grand jury testimony.

He should have been removed from office for that. It's a felony, regardless of the reason why he was called to testify.

Out,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:11 pm

Jared wrote: Trickle-down economics: There's no evidence from any serious economists that this could or did work. If you can find something defending this position, let me know.

LOLOL.

Ever hear of Martin Feldstein? Maybe he isn't serious enough for you...lol. Mr. Feldstein fell out of favor with the Reagan administration because he felt that the growing deficits were erasing the benefits of supply-side economics, but there are plenty of economists that agree with him.

Jared wrote: Deficit: Simply, we had the largest deficits EVER (at that time) under Reagan.

I have much more debt now that I have ever had before (the only debt I have is for a house, but the mortgage on my house is probably 15 times more debt than I ever had before). Does that mean I am worse off than when I was 18 and had no debt? Hardly. I have a ton more savings, many more assets, and I am much more productive and can pay off the debt. Reagan's debt as a percentage of GDP is higher than it could or should have been, but it certainly isn't the highest EVER and other indicators of economic performance were pretty strong.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:16 pm

Would you consider Mikhail Gorbachev to be an expert on this? Here's an short article with quotes from Gorbachev. The beginning of the article says that "The Cold War ended despite President Reagan's arms buildup, not because of it--or so former President Gorbachev told the authors."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

I just saw on CNBC that the NY Times attributed some analysts as saying that Reagan's buildup strengthened the hands of the hawks in the Kremlin who were resisting Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glastnost. So Reagan may have delayed the end of the USSR if anything else.

Gorbachev set his country and the entire Eastern Bloc on what he thought was a better course. But this course meant he would no longer have the power that took his whole career to attain. He stepped aside and didn't even try to take over prized assets that former KGB members did, as they took over the oil rights, for instance.[/img]

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:21 pm

Would you consider Mikhail Gorbachev to be an expert on this? Here's an short article with quotes from Gorbachev. The beginning of the article says that "The Cold War ended despite President Reagan's arms buildup, not because of it--or so former President Gorbachev told the authors."

so the communist leader from the losing side's opinion has more clout than....... practically everybody else. what did you expect hinm to say? "Yeah Ronnie really kicked our ass. We had you guys suckered in real good till he came along. He supersized your military and we just had to give up." Whatever. I thought you guys on the left were enamored with the Arthur Schlesinger's and LA Times, NY Times? Or is that only when it fits your argument? oh it's the Atlantic now that holds the ultimate truth. They scooped the world, baby! Only they knew the USSR didn't increase military spending! Only they knew SDI was no cause for concern or even played a part in their demise. They're really going against the grain here as alot of liberals and news sources the left like to recite are saying the opposite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jun6.html

Btw, Daniel Ortega was voted out of office for a reason. And it's not b/c somebody else was the murderer and torturer and he was warm and fuzzy.

I'll address the trickle-down stuff later....

Going to tell us voters in 49 out of 50 states that went to Reagan in his re-election bid knew less than you?????? If "trickle down" didn't work why the blowout? this may be a huge surprise but ALOT of people vote with their pocketbooks. Let's not forget how things were before he came to office too. 18% intrest rates. Double digit inflation. A military in terrible shape. Carter didn't have a chance. Neither did Mondale four years later.

It's not a good idea to quote someone with words that aren't theirs.

This is what you said.............

The Somoza regime was condemned by human rights groups for his treatment of the opposition, and 50,000 are said to have been killed by his regime

I wasn't meaning Jared claims this................. But Jared was the one who brought it up and used it in his argument, no? FWIW Jimmy Carter supported the Shah of Iran. Hardly a loveable fellow but he was certainly better than who followed him. Sometimes presidents supported the lesser of the two evils. But only one side is getting condemed for it.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:25 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
Jared wrote: Trickle-down economics: There's no evidence from any serious economists that this could or did work. If you can find something defending this position, let me know.
LOLOL.

Ever hear of Martin Feldstein? Maybe he isn't serious enough for you...lol. Mr. Feldstein fell out of favor with the Reagan administration because he felt that the growing deficits were erasing the benefits of supply-side economics, but there are plenty of economists that agree with him.

To concede a point, yes, there are a few economists that are supporters of trickle-down economics. However, I'm still not sure how good their evidence is that Reagan's trickle down economics policy was what stimulated the economy. If you have any good articles on this, let me know. (And this isn't a challenge...I'm actually very curious about the other side of the debate with regards to whether trickle down economics worked).

However, it seems like Martin Feldstein (Harvard) and his positions on supply-side economics are very much in the minority when it comes to economic scholars. For example, the last budget which was fairly supply-side in nature (tax cuts for the rich) was opposed by many major economic thinkers. 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize winners were against it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm

Also, here is an excerpt from a New York Times article (no longer up, link to somewhere that quotes it) about a textbook by a Harvard economics professor, Greg Mankiw.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_a ... chive.html

In a section of his book entitled "Charlatans and Cranks," Mr. Mankiw ridiculed the Reagan policies as "fad economics" that were tantamount to "fad diets."

"An example of fad economics occurred in 1980," Mr. Mankiw wrote, "when a small group of economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise revenue."

After reviewing the impact of Mr. Reagan's policies, which included a run of high budget deficits that lasted until the mid-1990's, Mr. Mankiw wrote that the moral of the experience was that "when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate."

In later editions of his textbook, Mr. Mankiw dropped the entire section on "charlatans and cranks" and muted his criticism. But he has not mended his fences with today's advocates of big new tax cuts.

"These insulting passages display an enormous level of ignorance about the economic reality of the 1980's," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a
political group in Virginia that raises money for candidates who support Reagan-style tax cuts.

So I think that supply-side economics is in the minority amongst economists. That doesn't mean it's wrong...but it might be telling. (Again, I'd be interested to read some economic analyses of the Reagan years in support of it.)

Jared wrote: Deficit: Simply, we had the largest deficits EVER (at that time) under Reagan.

I have much more debt now that I have ever had before (the only debt I have is for a house, but the mortgage on my house is probably 15 times more debt than I ever had before). Does that mean I am worse off than when I was 18 and had no debt? Hardly. I have a ton more savings, many more assets, and I am much more productive and can pay off the debt. Reagan's debt as a percentage of GDP is higher than it could or should have been, but it certainly isn't the highest EVER and other indicators of economic performance were pretty strong.[/quote]

As I take it, your argument is that undertaking a deficit to have a more productive economy is good. That's fine, because with the increased productivity, the government can then use the increase in tax revenues (from increased economic production) to pay off the debt.

But this doesn't square with what happened during the Reagan administration. If you look at the chart linked before (http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/Deficits.gif) the deficit rises substantially up until about 1985. In 1986 is when Reagan brought in a new tax increase on businesses. Here's an excerpt from a PBS site on the Reagan tax cuts (bold mine):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheigh ... omics.html

Some in the Reagan camp were optimistic, despite the failure to cut total government spending. They were the advocates of what traditional Republican economist Herbert Stein -- echoing the music of the day -- called "punk" supply-side economics, which made sweeping assertions that reductions in tax revenues resulting from tax cuts would be more than made Up for by higher tax revenues generated by economic growth. It did not turn out that way. Because spending did not come down with taxes -- and indeed defense spending went up sharply -- and because the tax cuts did not feed back into the economy to the extent hoped, both the federal debt and the annual deficit ballooned; and in 1981-82, the economy was in a deep recession.

In September 1982, in its first effort to repair the damage, the Reagan administration followed the "largest tax cut in history" with the "largest tax increase in history." But there was no catching up. By the end of Reagan's first term, the supply-side logic was discredited in the eyes of many, and the inability to bring taxes and spending down together stood in marked contrast to Volcker's victory over inflation. David Stockman, Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the administration dejected, disillusioned with supply-side economics, and chastened by the realities of the political process. Failure to achieve fiscal-policy change, he argued, was a clear vindication of the "triumph of politics" -- of entitlements over austerity, and of the enduring pork-barrel tradition of American legislation over any cold economic logic. "I joined the Reagan Revolution as a radical ideologue," he wrote. "I learned the traumatic lesson that no such revolution is possible."

So after supply-side economics didn't work, Reagan initiated the "largest tax increase in history". Doesn't sound like he really believed in trickle-down economics, and neither did many others.

Post by **Jared** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:01 am

blueduke wrote:
so the communist leader from the losing side's opinion has more clout than....... practically everybody else. what did you expect hinm to say? "Yeah Ronnie really kicked our ass. We had you guys suckered in real good till he came along. He supersized your military and we just had to give up." Whatever.

Actually, I do think his opinion means something, and wco makes a good point about how Reagan's position might have given more strength to hard line positions.

But that was only part of the point I was making. I also quote the estimates of Soviet expenditures from CIA reports, that show constant levels of spending by the USSR during the 80s. Do you think that these CIA estimates have clout?

I thought you guys on the left were enamored with the Arthur Schlesinger's and LA Times, NY Times? Or is that only when it fits your argument? oh it's the Atlantic now that holds the ultimate truth. They scooped the world, baby! Only they knew the USSR didn't increase military spending! Only they knew SDI was no cause for concern or even played a part in their demise. They're really going against the grain here as alot of liberals and news sources the left like to recite are saying the opposite.

What's with the stereotyping of people on the left? I don't care where the facts come, as long as their sound. But if you want another source on military spending by the USSR that aren't the Atlantic, then here you go:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... budget.htm

Since the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 percent of its annual gross national product to military spending, according to United States government sources. Until the early 1980s, Soviet defense expenditures rose between 4 and 7 percent per year. Subsequently, they slowed as the yearly growth in Soviet GNP slipped to about 3 percent. In 1987 Gorbachev and other party officials discussed the extension of glasnost' to military affairs through the publication of a detailed Soviet defense budget. In early 1989, Gorbachev announced a military budget of 77.3 billion rubles, but Western authorities estimated the budget to be about twice that.

Have you provided any facts that show that the USSR DID increase their military spending in the 1980s? I'm not denying that military spending didn't help hasten the demise of the Soviet Union, since their military spending was a huge chunk of their GNP. But this was a process that built over 40 years of fighting the Cold War. Reagan continued it, and it's all well and good. But his increases in military spending DID NOT cause their to be an increase in Soviet military spending....so I don't see how it can be said that it hastened the fall of the Soviet Union.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jun6.html

Yeah...some people in the press didn't like him. Same with Clinton, same with Bush. I don't understand the point you're making.

I really don't care where the facts come from...as long as their sound and solid. Doesn't matter if it comes from Super Conservative Weekly or the Flaming Liberal Gazette.

Btw, Daniel Ortega was voted out of office for a reason. And it's not b/c somebody else was the murderer and torturer and he was warm and fuzzy.

You're right. But I am not a defender of the Sandinistas. Never was. The point is that the Contras and Somoza was a terrible anti-democratic dictator responsible for the deaths of thousands. We shouldn't be supporting people like that.

I'll address the trickle-down stuff later....
Going to tell us voters in 49 out of 50 states that went to Reagan in his re-election bid knew less than you?????? If "trickle down" didn't work why the blowout? this may be a huge surprise but ALOT of people vote with their pocketbooks. Let's not forget how things were before he came to office too. 18% intrest rates. Double digit inflation. A military in terrible shape. Carter didn't have a chance. Neither did Mondale four years later.

Well the huge tax increase in 1982 (largest in history, to my knowledge) showed that trickle down didn't work. It helped fix the economy, but not because of trickle down economics. Because of a tax hike to cover up the massive tax breaks given before.

And also, voters do vote from their pocketbooks...but they also vote for other reasons as well. Mondale wasn't a great candidate, and Reagan won over a lot of Democrats for lots of reasons, some economic, some because of his Cold War stance, some for other reasons.

And yes....things did get better after Carter left. It might have been due to normal business cycles...I don't know. (I'm also not one to give Clinton the credit for the boom of the 90s...a lot of what happens in economics happens regardless of who's in office.) The main point is that trickle down economics doesn't work. (Also, see my previous post on supply-side economics, and feel free to respond to that as well.)

It's not a good idea to quote someone with words that aren't theirs.
This is what you said.............
The Somoza regime was condemned by human rights groups for his treatment of the opposition, and 50,000 are said to have been killed by his regime
I wasn't meaning Jared claims this................. But Jared was the one who brought it up and used it in his argument, no?

Yes, I did. I was referring to the use in quotes of the word "murdered" when I said was killed. No matter. The point still stands. I used it in my argument, and provided multiple sources to back it up.

FWIW Jimmy Carter supported the Shah of Iran. Hardly a loveable fellow but he was certainly better than who followed him. Sometimes presidents supported the lesser of the two evils. But only one side is getting condemed for it.

Was the Shah that bad? If I remember correctly, he started the "White Revolution" where he worked to Westernize Iran. In it he allowed women to vote, among other things. He did have a secret police force that was fairly brutal, but (and I could be wrong on this) I believe he used it against Islamic fundamentalists (like the Ayatollah).

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:07 am

Well the huge tax increase in 1982 (largest in history, to my knowledge) showed that trickle down didn't work. It helped fix the economy, but not because of trickle down economics. Because of a tax hike to cover up the massive tax breaks given before.

When Reagan entered office the top rate was 70%. When he left it was 28%. Like I said alot of people vote with their pocketbooks and if people weren't keeping more of their money and seeing the economy rebound with interest rates lowered reagain wouldn't have taken 49 out of 50 states. You can spin any way you want but common sense will tell you some things.

What's with the stereotyping of people on the left? I don't care where the facts come, as long as their sound.

That's what you do Jared. "Right wing thugs".remeber that one? Besides A.S. is very respected on the left (in case you didn't know). Often quoted by your leftist friends.....until he gave Reagan a kind word that is. NOW he's irrelevant.

Yeah...some people in the press didn't like him. Same with Clinton, same with Bush. I don't understand the point you're making.

The point is the majority of the press, while liberal are singing a different tune about Reagan than your "experts", "pie charts", and "links".

The main point is that trickle down economics doesn't work.

B/c your pie chart says so!!!!!!!!! Voters in 49 out of 50 states are rubes!

Was the Shah that bad? If I remember correctly, he started the "White Revolution" where he worked to Westernize Iran. In it he allowed women to vote, among other things. He did have a secret police force that was fairly brutal, but (and I could be wrong on this) I believe he used it against Islamic fundamentalists (like the Ayatollah).

How is his secret police force any different than Somoza's henchmen? and yes he used it against his enemies and he certainly was better than what came after him. The point is to you Somoza is the devil incarnate and no matter how big a communist Ortega was that was no excuse to support Somoza. Now how pray does the Shah who was indeed brutal to his enemies get a pass? Looks like someone wants to have it both ways.

as for deficits...........
Wonder if a Democratic Congress had anything to do with the deficits? They controlled congress for quite a while, no? If the treasury takes in more money after tax cuts, doesn't that mean the tax cuts worked? JFK thought so. Up until Reagan it was he who handed out the biggest tax cut in history.

If those tax cuts bother anyone so bad, why not give the money back? How about it, Mr Kerry? How about it Mr. Being liberal talking head on tv is the only way I can get work? Hoew about it Alec "If Bush wins the election I'm leaving the country for good" Baldwin?

Clinton's first two years as prez he got ziltch accomplished. This with having Dem majorities in both House and Senate. Then the mid term elections came and alot of Dems were looking for work. Then we saw surpluses. Sadly those same stalwarts who kept "Universal Health Care" and other "The gov't will take care of you" schemes from costing us up the yazoo have turned into drunken sailors. Spend spend spend is the order of the day. And it's not all on defense either. "You an illegal alien? No problem. Come on in. We'll give you free health care, free education, let you drive with no auto insurance, and if you get a driver's licesnse we'll even let you vote". I'm being sarcastic but you get my drift I hope. Pork barrell legislation has always been around but it's out of control now. My rant is finished for this evening. Good night

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:37 am

Jared wrote: However, it seems like Martin Feldstein (Harvard) and his positions on supply-side economics are very much in the minority when it comes to economic scholars. For example, the last budget which was fairly supply-side in nature (tax cuts for the rich) was opposed by many major economic thinkers. 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize winners were against it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm
Jared,

I really don't want this to turn into the battle of Google searches. Just do some on your own (I did include one below) and I think you will find quite a few economists that agree with supply-side economics. I honestly think you will be surprised. I really do think you have a desire for the truth, but it is going to be hard for me to convince you when you came into the discussion thinking that there were *no* noted economists that agreed with Reagan's policies (not trying to beat a point you already conceded I'm just not sure how many economists it would take to move you from none to "very much in the minority" to some, etc.).

Leebo,

I'm trying to look at this with an open mind. I think that if trickle-down economics works, then it's something that we should embrace. If it doesn't work, then we should look to try something different. And I really didn't think any serious economists were proponents of supply-side economics. I was wrong there...although I do think that a large majority of economics disagree with it, and that likely is because it's a flawed theory. But I'm very open to hear the other side, and I may definitely be wrong.

I really don't think Bush's budget was *that* bad. It took me about 10 seconds to find the following link.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/1 ... oks02.html

Interesting link. I hadn't heard of that. Though I'd like to see the National Journal article and see everyone on the list (can't find it on the site....it'll probably pop up later.)

I do think that the budget was bad because of the huge deficits we're undertaking. When the deficits get huge, then the government is forced to either raise taxes or cut government programs. In a Republican administration, the latter is more likely. And it's more likely to be funding for social programs vs. other programs. And that's something I don't agree with. (Though to clarify, I'm not of the viewpoint that the government spending money is a cure to all ills, or that we should make huge increases in welfare spending or anything like that.)

Jared wrote: "Well the huge tax increase in 1982 (largest in history, to my knowledge) showed that trickle down didn't work. It helped fix the economy, but not because of trickle down economics. Because of a tax hike to cover up the massive tax breaks given before.
Jared,

Since we are talking economic theory here can you point me to economists that think that huge tax increases help fix the economy during a recession? Did you think Bush should have increased taxes?

Actually, I definitely don't think he should have increased taxes. That would have been a big mistake. I think he should have cut taxes...BUT the tax should have been a smaller tax cut (so that we don't have a large deficit). Also, I think the tax cut should have been weighted less for the upper 1-5 percent, and larger for the lower and middle classes. This being based on the idea that giving money to people more likely to spend it would be a more direct way to stimulate the economy than giving it primarily to the rich and waiting for it to "trickle down".

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:45 am

PK,

The statement about your Rep Congress was more general to most conservaties. I know you are a card carrying libertarian.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:17 am

Jared wrote: For example, the last budget which was fairly supply-side in nature (tax cuts for the rich) was opposed by many major economic thinkers. 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize winners were against it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm

I have to admit that after further research I do find it highly entertaining that the "think tank" that issued the statement referenced in the link above has the following founders:

- Jeff Faux (the first President) who has a 1996 publication "The Party is not Over: A New Vision For the Democrats"

- Robert Reich (sec. of labor for Clinton)

- Ray Marshall (sec. of labor for Carter)

- Barry Bluestone - served as a member of the senior policy staff of Congressman Richard Gephardt, and continues to serve as a policy advisor to the Democratic leadership in both the U.S. House and Senate.

Those are the only members I researched. If I get bored I will research the Nobel prize winners.