CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Invoking Reagan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Invoking Reagan

post #1 of 54
2/7/08 at 6:50pm
Thread Starter 
When I hear these Republican saying they would make Reagan proud, these guy are fucking delusional.

Reagan wasn't event "Reaganesque" :

Quote:
Voted for the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" in 1967.

Increased payroll taxes.

Cut-'n'-run after the Marines Barracks in Beirut were bombed.

Blanket amnesty.

Raised the national debt to 3 trillion (from $700 billion).

Sold arms to terrorist to finance Nicaraguan rebels.
So what is it these guys have in common with Reagan again?
Reply
post #2 of 54
2/7/08 at 6:59pm
With Romney, I always assumed it was the hair.
Reply
post #3 of 54
2/7/08 at 7:41pm
Reagan was the last rep who was not a bush and president. The real irony of Reagan is Bush is 100% his fault.
Reply
post #4 of 54
2/7/08 at 8:06pm
Reagan was a conservative who did some decidedly non-conservative things. But he is responsible for building the coalition that won Republicans 5 of the last 7 presidential elections. How you feel about Reagan is largely a product of your idealogical leanings, but history has and will continue to be kind to Reagan. Conservatives generally revere the guy and hold him up, rightly or wrongly, as their conservative ideal. It's not too surprising that a bunch of Republican presidential candidates try to invoke his name and claim to be the heir of Reagan. Obama (or his supporters) is certainly not trying to downplay the JFK comparisons.
Reply
post #5 of 54
2/7/08 at 8:08pm
I...think eenin's right?

I feel off.
Reply
post #6 of 54
2/7/08 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car View Post
Obama (or his supporters) is certainly not trying to downplay the JFK comparisons.
That's true, and JFK probably falls much shorter of the liberal ideal than Reagan does of the conservative ideal. He was certainly no dove on foreign policy, pretty much got us into Vietnam, and didn't really spend too much energy on the civil rights movement (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this).
Reply
post #7 of 54
2/7/08 at 8:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
That's true, and JFK probably falls much shorter of the liberal ideal than Reagan does of the conservative ideal. He was certainly no dove on foreign policy, pretty much got us into Vietnam, and didn't really spend too much energy on the civil rights movement (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this).
I think a lot of that is the manner in which they went out. Had the assassination of Reagan been successful, conservatives would probably be the most fervent supporters of human cloning around.
Reply
post #8 of 54
2/7/08 at 10:31pm
Both JFK and Reagan where horrible Presidents. They should both be remembed poorly.
Reply
post #9 of 54
2/7/08 at 11:25pm
Yeah, but JFK was George Clooney and Reagan was Wilford Brimley. I can at least admire JFK for something.

Reagan is the perfect conservative - raised poor, he was a fervent democrat and New Dealer (SOCIALIST!). Then he made money and suddenly didn't want the government to spend HIS tax dollars helping families like it helped his. He divorces his wife, pays little attention to his children, all while spouting about 'values' and other moral bullshit. Blows up the budget and helps to train modern terrorists all in the name of speeding up a collapse that was 70 years in the making.

People like Reagan because they made them feel good about themselves. Admittedly that's something to admire. I just think we should hold higher standards before we start naming every Federal building after the guy. Soon airports will just be called 'Reagans'.
Reply
post #10 of 54
2/7/08 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey View Post
Both JFK and Reagan where horrible Presidents. They should both be remembed poorly.
Reagan was around for a long time and did enough that it's easy to see how someone could think of him as great or horrible, but what is it about JFK that you hate? I'm not trying to be difficult;, I really don't know.
Reply
post #11 of 54
2/8/08 at 1:14am
Reagan was also involved with the Actor's Guild in the 1940;s when Communist agitators attempted to take over the Guild. Reagan was shocked by the willingness of the Commies to engage in intimidation and violence to get their way. This is why Reagan turned conservative. People remember the late 1940's-early 1950's solely in terms of HUAC and McCarthy. They forget why McCarthy was able to have so much influence (albeit briefly). There were leftists who really wanted to overthrow the US via violence back then.

Just like today when very real terrorists are used to justify all manner of crimes by the current US Gov't. And some prominent entertainment figures, like Reagan, have switched from Left to Right (eg Dennis Miller) because of 911
Reply
post #12 of 54
2/8/08 at 3:29am
Stop reading Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.
Reply
post #13 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
Reagan was also involved with the Actor's Guild in the 1940;s when Communist agitators attempted to take over the Guild. Reagan was shocked by the willingness of the Commies to engage in intimidation and violence to get their way. This is why Reagan turned conservative. People remember the late 1940's-early 1950's solely in terms of HUAC and McCarthy. They forget why McCarthy was able to have so much influence (albeit briefly). There were leftists who really wanted to overthrow the US via violence back then.

Just like today when very real terrorists are used to justify all manner of crimes by the current US Gov't. And some prominent entertainment figures, like Reagan, have switched from Left to Right (eg Dennis Miller) because of 911
As I don't know much about the communist agitators in the Screen Actors Guild in the 40's, I'm willing to take all of this on faith. It still doesn't mean that the hysteria they contributed to didn't do more harm than good, though.
Reply
post #14 of 54
2/8/08 at 1:15pm
Every president has been flawed. To canonize anyone reeks of old world royalty worship.
Reply
post #15 of 54
2/8/08 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club View Post
Blows up the budget and helps to train modern terrorists all in the name of speeding up a collapse that was 70 years in the making.
There's an old story.. When Reagan first took office he gathered all of his top commanders and strategists and basically said "what can we do about Soviets?"

They got more nukes then us..
They got more tanks than us..
They got more jet's than us..
and they kept running down the list and finally Reagan asked "OK, what do we have more of then them?"

They looked around at each other and one of them said "money"

See, most people under 25 don't understand what it is like to have to have drills in preparation for nuclear war, they don't understand what it is like to have the looming threat of impeding doom if the soviets launched the missiles at us. Heck, I'm 31 and I only had slight anxiety (mostly through movies \ news). The slightest escalation might end up in full on nuclear war. Now that we look back on it, there were at least 2-3 (maybe more, I only know of 2 for sure and vaguely remember hearing of a 3rd) occurrences where the world almost ended and it was LUCK \ human judgment (as in people didn't follow orders) that saved us.


That's mostly why he's remembered favorably, he helped stop the USSR by bankrupting them (and almost us). There's more to it, obviously and other key players (the Pope!!) but that's the gist of it.
Reply
post #16 of 54
2/8/08 at 2:54pm
And then the Republicans realized that, without the threat of an insidious, looming boogeyman, most Americans could see that their war-mongering, military spending, and ridiculous trickle-down policies were bankrupting the country, both morally and financially. So they replaced the Red Menace (Is Your Neighbor a Commie?) with the Islamic Horde Menace (They're Coming to Kill Your Children, Even If You Live In West Bumblefuck, North Dakota!).

At least His Holiness Reagan didn't invade Iraq or Iran after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.
Reply
post #17 of 54
2/8/08 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club View Post
People like Reagan because they made them feel good about themselves.
Tony Robbins '12
Reply
post #18 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
See, most people under 25 don't understand what it is like to have to have drills in preparation for nuclear war, they don't understand what it is like to have the looming threat of impeding doom if the soviets launched the missiles at us. Heck, I'm 31 and I only had slight anxiety (mostly through movies \ news). The slightest escalation might end up in full on nuclear war. Now that we look back on it, there were at least 2-3 (maybe more, I only know of 2 for sure and vaguely remember hearing of a 3rd) occurrences where the world almost ended and it was LUCK \ human judgment (as in people didn't follow orders) that saved us.
That's as may be, but the Soviet Union was a crumbling wreck by the time Reagan took office. His "outspend the Russians" policy may have hastened--not caused--their demise, but considering the cost (funding terrorists and nun-rapers the world over, racking up a ludicrous national debt, basically handing the keys to America over to a bunch of corporations), I don't think it was worth it.

The guy used a Buick to swat a mosquito. And he's praised for ridding the world of the mosquito rather than condemned for wrecking the Buick.
Reply
post #19 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:11pm
But-but...he cut taxes! Once.
Reply
post #20 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:13pm
God, I'm sick of this bullshit story. Look, people THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A COLD WAR. We knew the Soviets didn't have the ability to invade America, and they knew the same about us. We knew that mutually assured destruction was accomplished well before Reagan took office, and so did the Soviets. THERE WAS NEVER ANY SOVIET THREAT TO AMERICA. Nobody in the government had any fear of a Soviet invasion. What they did have a fear of was labor unions, The New Deal, and the civil rights movement. So they connected all these things to "communism" in the name of wiping them out, and kept the country in constant fear of "communism" for decades. And the Soviet government did the same thing to their people. It was a massive con game perpetrated by both governments against their own people.
Reply
post #21 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
God, I'm sick of this bullshit story. Look, people THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A COLD WAR. We knew the Soviets didn't have the ability to invade America, and they knew the same about us. We knew that mutually assured destruction was accomplished well before Reagan took office, and so did the Soviets. THERE WAS NEVER ANY SOVIET THREAT TO AMERICA. Nobody in the government had any fear of a Soviet invasion. What they did have a fear of was labor unions, The New Deal, and the civil rights movement. So they connected all these things to "communism" in the name of wiping them out, and kept the country in constant fear of "communism" for decades. And the Soviet government did the same thing to their people. It was a massive con game perpetrated by both governments against their own people.
You're batshit crazy, you know that right?
Reply
post #22 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:52pm
No, he's pretty much right. Mutually assured destruction basically guaranteed that there would be no actually fighting. There wasn't a real threat, it was all propaganda.
Reply
post #23 of 54
2/8/08 at 4:58pm
Yeah, I'm crazy. And the people that thought enough nukes to blow up the world three times over wasn't enough were perfectly sane.
Reply
post #24 of 54
2/8/08 at 5:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
That's as may be, but the Soviet Union was a crumbling wreck by the time Reagan took office. His "outspend the Russians" policy may have hastened--not caused--their demise, but considering the cost (funding terrorists and nun-rapers the world over, racking up a ludicrous national debt, basically handing the keys to America over to a bunch of corporations), I don't think it was worth it.

The guy used a Buick to swat a mosquito. And he's praised for ridding the world of the mosquito rather than condemned for wrecking the Buick.
The Soviet Union was indeed on the decline when Reagan took office BUT there was no guarantee it would have crumbled, especially now that we have a clearer picture towards future events. How much longer did the Soviet Union have left? 20, 30 years? We have no idea what would have happened if Reagan hadn't hastened the demise. Imagin what someone like Putin in charge might have done? Like I said, a few other key players, Gorbachev was a necessity.

Also, nothing was wrecked by Reagan. When the Soviet Union collapsed ( while Bush I was in office) it opened a huge economic possibility for us and the world.


3 Trillion dollars worth of debt could easily have been irradiated, unfortunately Clinton and Bush II (more so) dropped the ball big time.
Reply
post #25 of 54
2/8/08 at 5:27pm
It wasn't a threat, that's for damn sure. The only thing that could have gone wrong is if crazy people provoked each other past the point of reason, something Reagan seemed determined to do. And it seems hard to believe that a country that was allowing its nuclear power plants and infrastructure to deteriorate to the level of the Russians was going to be around much longer. But say they had been--what would have changed? Given the state Russia's in today, how much worse could another decade or two of Soviet rule have been? Putin certainly wouldn't have been in the mix--he's a capitalist through and through.

I'm not sure what that chart is supposed to prove.
Reply
post #26 of 54
2/8/08 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
3 Trillion dollars worth of debt could easily have been irradiated...l
Best Freudian slip I've seen in this forum in a while.
Reply
post #27 of 54
2/8/08 at 5:47pm
Reagan is the opposite of what he's deified for. He raised taxes multiple times, including one of the largest tax increases in history (on the social security tax, which hit primarily the middle class); he expanded government beyond anything it had ever been; he blew the deficit into the stratosphere (interest upon which we're still paying by the thousands each year); and had more convicted criminals in his administration than any administration in history. If that's the Republicans' salad days, it really speaks to the level of deception (and self-deception) that defines the party.

ps. I agree that the Cold War was basically an engineered handout to the military industrial complex soaked in fear to make it more palatable. Exactly what Eisenhower warned against happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 speech
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.

We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The whole thing should be read and is here.
Reply
post #28 of 54
2/8/08 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
It wasn't a threat, that's for damn sure. The only thing that could have gone wrong is if crazy people provoked each other past the point of reason, something Reagan seemed determined to do. And it seems hard to believe that a country that was allowing its nuclear power plants and infrastructure to deteriorate to the level of the Russians was going to be around much longer. But say they had been--what would have changed? Given the state Russia's in today, how much worse could another decade or two of Soviet rule have been? Putin certainly wouldn't have been in the mix--he's a capitalist through and through.

I'm not sure what that chart is supposed to prove.
Chart = GDP, we could have wiped out 3 trillion in debt pretty easily with the right leadership (see Clinton \ Bush II comment)

The state Russia is in today is in direct relation to Reagan's plan to bankrupt the Soviets, had that plan not happened and the Soviets were around today, with their level of natural resources and military power, combined with China (Communist) I don't see how the USSR would be crumbling.

As to Putin, no he wouldn't have been in power but as I said, imagine someone LIKE Putin taking control of USSR? I could easily see someone of his character (thug) using the USSR military \ resources to expand their empire. It isn't too far of a stretch to imagine the USSR invading Iraq in 2002 (actually, probably 1998) and taking out Saddam and seizing control of their resources. They had a huge set back in Afghanistan in their attempt to seize oil, why wouldn't they try again? Remember, this was a 'what if Reagan hadn't tried to Bankrupt the USSR and hastened their demise' scenario.

--- edited

DOH! Damn spell checker...

eradicated!!! That's what I get for right clicking and choosing the first word.
Reply
post #29 of 54
2/8/08 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
That's mostly why he's remembered favorably, he helped stop the USSR by bankrupting them (and almost us). There's more to it, obviously and other key players (the Pope!!) but that's the gist of it.
I'm 30, first off. Second, this whole line of reasoning is so stupid because it ignores the fact that there was one guy who had an interest in change AND had the power to make it happen, and he was Gorby. You toss aside his deeds like they were second to Reagan's (he was a 'key player' in Reagan's plan, HA!), which is just so typically American (WE did it. Not you, it was all US!).

The Soviet system was to fail because their reliance on heavy industry to run their economy was set up before the technological age. They couldn't keep up in the modern World. Marxism as understood in Russia was a creation of the Industrial age, and their revolution started at the end of that period. Their system was doomed to fail because of its rigidity.

Look at Russia now; as you've already shown, they're in deep shit. They didn't have the infrastructure to clean up the mess that was made, yet you think they could have not only maintained, but built it up stronger? China survived because they chose to stay pretty well under the cuff; they didn't have much interest in becoming a World power, and once they did decide to be players, they started accepting various forms of Capitalism. At worst, Russia would have followed the same pattern, and it probably would have been better for them.

The USSR didn't have it in them to last much longer than they did. Reagan sped it up, no doubt, but at what cost? Is the modern state of Terrorism worth ending the Soviet regime early?
Reply
post #30 of 54
2/8/08 at 6:34pm
When did it become conventional wisdom that Reagan caused modern terrorism?
Reply
post #31 of 54
2/8/08 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
As to Putin, no he wouldn't have been in power but as I said, imagine someone LIKE Putin taking control of USSR? I could easily see someone of his character (thug) using the USSR military \ resources to expand their empire. It isn't too far of a stretch to imagine the USSR invading Iraq in 2002 (actually, probably 1998) and taking out Saddam and seizing control of their resources. They had a huge set back in Afghanistan in their attempt to seize oil, why wouldn't they try again? Remember, this was a 'what if Reagan hadn't tried to Bankrupt the USSR and hastened their demise' scenario.
Actually (no edit feature) I've had time to rethink this and I don't think the USSR would have invaded Iraq, Saddam was fairly socialist and in that 'what if' scenario the USSR would have had more power back in 1991 and probably would have aided Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (training, equipment etc..). So disregard that part of my post.
Reply
post #32 of 54
2/8/08 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car View Post
When did it become conventional wisdom that Reagan caused modern terrorism?
Reagan didn't cause modern terrorism, he enabled it. And it's not conventional wisdom, which is why people invoke Reagan in the first place. It should be understood, but it's not.
Reply
post #33 of 54
2/8/08 at 7:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club View Post
I'm 30, first off. Second, this whole line of reasoning is so stupid because it ignores the fact that there was one guy who had an interest in change AND had the power to make it happen, and he was Gorby. You toss aside his deeds like they were second to Reagan's (he was a 'key player' in Reagan's plan, HA!), which is just so typically American (WE did it. Not you, it was all US!).

The Soviet system was to fail because their reliance on heavy industry to run their economy was set up before the technological age. They couldn't keep up in the modern World. Marxism as understood in Russia was a creation of the Industrial age, and their revolution started at the end of that period. Their system was doomed to fail because of its rigidity.

Look at Russia now; as you've already shown, they're in deep shit. They didn't have the infrastructure to clean up the mess that was made, yet you think they could have not only maintained, but built it up stronger? China survived because they chose to stay pretty well under the cuff; they didn't have much interest in becoming a World power, and once they did decide to be players, they started accepting various forms of Capitalism. At worst, Russia would have followed the same pattern, and it probably would have been better for them.

The USSR didn't have it in them to last much longer than they did. Reagan sped it up, no doubt, but at what cost? Is the modern state of Terrorism worth ending the Soviet regime early?
The Soviet model lasted for 70 years, there is no doubt it would have continued unless Reagan had enacted his plans. Reagan crippled the Soviets economic capabilities by creating back-channel sanctions against them and cutting off their funding from the rest of the world. No one had thought to do this before, everyone just agreed to the Soviet demands. This caused the Soviets to have internal struggle and make changes, without income from foreign countries, combined with increased military spending and the socialist model taxing their resources a financial collapse was possible. Without Reagan those sanctions wouldn't have happened and the Soviets could have easily continued to change to modern technological advances (they're the ones building nuclear reactors for Iran).

Do you think Gorby had any other choice then to make the actions he did? You're trying to give him far too much credit as an instrument of change. It was advantageous of him to be in change as someone else might have lashed out like a cornered animal.



source of quote
Quote:
Throughout the Cold War, however, the Western democracies did not develop a coherent, strategic, economic-warfare policy toward the Soviet Union until the early 1980s. Early in his first term, President Ronald Reagan approved a coordinated, strategic plan that integrated economic warfare into a well-defined U.S. national-security strategy with the goal of rolling back Soviet communism and forcing the Soviet system to reform within or collapse into itself. Reagan's national-security adviser, William P. Clark, presided over development of the plan that integrated economic warfare into U.S. diplomatic and defense goals, beginning with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) No. 66 of November 1982.

To coordinate federal agencies, an earlier directive, NSDD-48, created a Senior Interagency Group for International Economic Policy (SIGIEP) that reported to the president through his national-security adviser, with separate interagency groups tasked with working some particular economic-warfare issue. In January 1983, shortly after the issuance of NSDD-66, Reagan signed NSDD-75, which laid out a three-part strategy to take down the Soviet Communist Party without risking war. The strategic document combined diplomacy, military power, propaganda, subversion and economics in a multifront offensive against the Soviet Union. The strategy aimed at reversing Soviet expansionism, promoting internal change within the U.S.S.R. and conducting negotiations where there was strict reciprocity and mutual interest. One of the keys was to starve the Soviet economy of desperately needed technology and loans.
Reply
post #34 of 54
2/8/08 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
The Soviet model lasted for 70 years, there is no doubt it would have continued unless Reagan had enacted his plans.
There is doubt, and it wouldn't have continued. It couldn't have. Their economy wasn't prepared for the modern age. It's why they're still fucked economically, even after dismissing the Socialist State.

Gorbechev didn't enact Perestroika just because they needed the money. It was his leadership which ended Soviet oppression, not Reagan's.
Reply
post #35 of 54
2/8/08 at 9:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club View Post
There is doubt, and it wouldn't have continued. It couldn't have. Their economy wasn't prepared for the modern age. It's why they're still fucked economically, even after dismissing the Socialist State.

Gorbechev didn't enact Perestroika just because they needed the money. It was his leadership which ended Soviet oppression, not Reagan's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

Sorry bud, history's against your argument. Follow the link, look at the dates of 'Perestoroika' and then follow the dates associates with Reagan's policies (1981\2 started the ball). The Soviets could have withstood it had Reagan not cut off their foreign funds. The big giant socialist machine needed grease and Reagan's actions cut that off, a cog busted loose and they're still cleaning up the mess. That's also WHY they're fucked economically, as you put it, today.
Reply
post #36 of 54
2/8/08 at 10:44pm
I would like to know why the Reagan administration engaged in rhetoric about fiscal responsibilty and the virtues of a free market, when his nanny government was ready to bail out any company in trouble, and also when his administration was trying to beef up corporations and industry with hand-outs? Oh yeah, its called hypocrisy.
Reply
post #37 of 54
2/8/08 at 11:17pm
Oh, and while on the subject of the Soviet Collapse. The lovers of Reagan just love to take credit for toppling the red empire. They fail to realize that it was not Reagans policy that brought it down, actually it was the Soviets who shot themselves in the foot.

What that means is that it wasted valuable resources (especially money) when it engaged in its own Vietnam when it invaded Afghanistan. They poured lots of "effort" (read:money and resources) into that long war, having more than insignificant effects on their economy. It was this war that ultimately drained and killed the Soyuz Sovyetsky. It was already shot in the jugular when Reagan his policies (1982 in its actual rolling out) as the war was already well way with the invasion being in 1979 and the offensives immediately after that. Go ahead, tell me that the US played a part in that role and that we (through Jimmy Carter)won it for the Afghans.

Sure keep on watching Charlie Wilson's War, but it was also the Chinese (with their Type 56's), Egypt, the UK, Saudi Arabia, and most significantly Pakistan that helped out the Afghans more than we did. Claiming that Reagan killed the USSR reminds me of the ending of Conan the Destroyer where after the beast is slain, that scrawny faggot comes and stabs its nearly dead body, acting like he killed it. Reaganites can continue to argue that he won it, but so can this man...
As a matter of fact he does! He even states that the collapse made the US more "haughty and arrogant" (1997 interview).
Reply
post #38 of 54
2/9/08 at 12:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

Sorry bud, history's against your argument. Follow the link, look at the dates of 'Perestoroika' and then follow the dates associates with Reagan's policies (1981\2 started the ball). The Soviets could have withstood it had Reagan not cut off their foreign funds. The big giant socialist machine needed grease and Reagan's actions cut that off, a cog busted loose and they're still cleaning up the mess. That's also WHY they're fucked economically, as you put it, today.
Sorry, Chief, but Gorbechev didn't all of a sudden change his entire political ideology because the US started getting into shorting their funds. He didn't invent those ideas overnight as some attempt to save the Union, they were developed over his lifetime. Hell, he wasn't even in office at the time Reagan's plan started. Such huge changes aren't the product of a couple years of panic. The fact, friend, that the Soviet economy was hit so hard by Reagan's plan early just goes to show how awful their economy was. If you're a strong economy, such a plan would take many, many years to have a worthwhile effect. They were living paycheck to paycheck, and anyone who's done this knows that you're not in a position to survive long-term by doing it, and neither was the USSR, buddy.

It sped up the inevitable, and that's it. And for it, we suffered AND Russia has suffered. Get your history lessons from places other than quick searches on Wikipedia.
Reply
post #39 of 54
2/9/08 at 1:00am
JFK was a horrible President because he brought the world to closer to WWIII then any other person in history. The Cuban missile crisis was his fault, and he was too stupid to even figure it out. He esclated Vietnam to such an extent that it almost destoryed NATO. He was an idiot who is only well remembered because he died on film.

Reagan was an idiot for different, yet the same reasons. He sold out to the religious right to gain power in the United States, the effects of which still haven't been truely felt. But will more then likely cripple the United States if not checked in soon. His military buildup bankrupt the Soviet Union first, but it's bankrupt the United States as well. The fact is, Russia can now afford that kind of military build up. If the Soviet Union had been run by then Brezhev, Andropov or Chernenkov (all of whom where sick and dying by the time he came along, or they assumed power) or Gorbachev who was not strong, the United States would have lost. Today the US owe 9 trillion dollars, most of which is owned by other countires...including Russia. That is Reagan's legacy.
Reply
post #40 of 54
2/9/08 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
The Soviet model lasted for 70 years, there is no doubt it would have continued unless Reagan had enacted his plans.
No.

I know the CIA doesn't have the same punch as your source, author of such hard-hitting exposes as 'Terrorists Cheer Kerry's Rhetoric; Bin Laden, al-Sadr and Kim Jong-il are using John Kerry's defeatist anti-Bush campaign both to stir up anti-Americanism worldwide and to divide Americans' and 'Out of the `quagmire': media managers covering an awe-inspiring military campaign seemed determined to turn war in Iraq into a U.S. defeat as in Vietnam - Cover Story', but it's the best I can do.

You'll have to do better than right-wing rags like Insight if you expect to be taken seriously.
Reply
post #41 of 54
2/9/08 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Chart = GDP, we could have wiped out 3 trillion in debt pretty easily with the right leadership (see Clinton \ Bush II comment)
I fail to see how that chart connects to your statement in any way except to show that the GDP went up over the years. And I agree that the Russian collapse was largely a botched opportunity on the part of the US (though claiming that the deficit could have been instantly wiped out through some kind of magical trade policy is a ridiculous exaggeration--it's not as though capitalist countries, the US included, weren't selling stuff to the Soviets pretty much as soon as they joined the world market). But I don't see your point. Reagan isn't to blame, because he had some mysterious plan to recoup the devastating deficit that he saddled the country with, and that Bush I and Clinton failed to follow up on? Weak.

Quote:
The state Russia is in today is in direct relation to Reagan's plan to bankrupt the Soviets, had that plan not happened and the Soviets were around today, with their level of natural resources and military power, combined with China (Communist) I don't see how the USSR would be crumbling.
You do realize that Russia and China were rivals, if not outright antagonists, during the cold war, right? And again, Russia's infrastructure was a mess by the 70s, it wasn't magically caused by Reagan.

Quote:
As to Putin, no he wouldn't have been in power but as I said, imagine someone LIKE Putin taking control of USSR? I could easily see someone of his character (thug) using the USSR military \ resources to expand their empire.
The USSR was ruled by dictatorial thugs for 70 years. I'm not sure what Putin, or a Putin-like substance, would have added to the mix that wasn't already there. It was in the nature of the Soviet regime to be a half-crippled bureaucracy, no matter who was in charge. Putin's freaky because he's a free-market, individualist type. He wouldn't have that kind of ambition and power if the Soviet Union hadn't become a capitalist nation. If anything, the old USSR would have prevented the rise of an individualist like Putin.
Reply
post #42 of 54
2/9/08 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Thain View Post
Claiming that Reagan killed the USSR reminds me of the ending of Conan the Destroyer where after the beast is slain, that scrawny faggot comes and stabs its nearly dead body, acting like he killed it.
I think you mean Dragonslayer.

"All hail Imperator Rex... dragonslayer!"
Reply
post #43 of 54
2/9/08 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
I fail to see how that chart connects to your statement in any way except to show that the GDP went up over the years. And I agree that the Russian collapse was largely a botched opportunity on the part of the US (though claiming that the deficit could have been instantly wiped out through some kind of magical trade policy is a ridiculous exaggeration--it's not as though capitalist countries, the US included, weren't selling stuff to the Soviets pretty much as soon as they joined the world market). But I don't see your point. Reagan isn't to blame, because he had some mysterious plan to recoup the devastating deficit that he saddled the country with, and that Bush I and Clinton failed to follow up on? Weak.
The point was, 3 trillion dollars isn't that large of a number if you look at the graph when it was incurred and compare it to the later administrations. Reagan had a reason for his outlandish spending. Once the Cold War was ended we should have reeled in the national debt (like after WWII). Also, I didn't say instantly, but over 15 years(Clinton, Bush II) with sound leadership and budget restraint it definitly should be less than 3 trillion. I'm not going to get into the blame of who didn't do what (Bush II screwed the pooch royally) but the blame isn't on Reagan. It should be noted that Bush II was doing sound economically in the beginning but about 2004 the wheels on the bus flew off and turned into the worst pile up in the history of histories. ... 3.1 trillion proposed budget... fucking A.
Reply
post #44 of 54
2/17/08 at 10:01pm
The Soviets were his justification for the manipulation of our Federal Reserve to run up debt. All while claiming to fight some evil empire. Go ahead, keep taking bait.

I will bite and launch some more finger pointing. Reagan was partly responsible for the oil problems we have today, as he repealed the standards, as set in CAFE and proposed after the 1974 oil crisis, for fuel efficiency in automobiles. This was obviously to please his corporate masters, but it would have huge ramifications in the future. Ronald reagan was the devil. It is laughable when people invoke his name as if he were some angel. He was a creation of his "pezzo novante" (I've watched the Godfather films too many times). He was an actor and that what was needed to play the part of president. He was invited to speak in Japan and some other places out of the blue, and he seemed clueless as to what they were asking him. Some one forgot his script...

Honestly, lack of common sense (like reducing fuel standards) is an epidemic for some people. More idiocy I recently heard was when Tom DeLay denied the existence of Global Warming, saying that there is not enough evidence to support such a thing, and that to say it is humans causing it is arrogant. With 6 billion taking a shit all the time, how can you say that? maybe when the human poulatiopn was 15,000...but fuck these people who deny something life threatening just because fixing it will undermine the ability of some to make money.
Reply
post #45 of 54
2/19/08 at 6:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Also, I didn't say instantly, but over 15 years(Clinton, Bush II) with sound leadership and budget restraint it definitly should be less than 3 trillion.
The left hated Reagan during his tenure, and it hates him today. No surprises there. I'm interested, however, in the quote above.

When we had the budget surplus, there was absolutely no serious talk about using it to pay down the deficit. The real question being debated was, "Do we spend the windfall or give it back to the taxpayers directly?" This was when I realized that "sound leadership and budget restraint" is a pipe dream. When it comes to budgeting, America is like a doctor's daughter with her first credit card: we'll run that bastard right up until daddy brings the hammer down.

Unfortunately, I think that hammer will look a lot like global depression.
Reply
post #46 of 54
2/19/08 at 5:04pm
Well, as one of the grown-ups who are in charge said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Why should we pay down the deficit?
Reply
post #47 of 54
2/27/08 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
Well, as one of the grown-ups who are in charge said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Why should we pay down the deficit?
Is this a rhetorical question?
Reply
post #48 of 54
2/27/08 at 11:54am
Yes. I know why we should pay down the deficit. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, does not. But he's a grown-up and knows more than me.
Reply
post #49 of 54
2/27/08 at 12:00pm
"Deficit"", eh?
Sounds like french to me!
Reply
post #50 of 54
2/27/08 at 12:37pm
No, that'd be Le Deficit.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Invoking Reagan