reagan did neither, it was clinton and bush that did both

Post #158,592 by boxley 6/5/04 10:01:20 PM Reply	reagan did neither, it was clinton and bush that did both Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518 Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #158,594 by deSitter 6/5/04 10:15:18 PM Reply	He created both trends Yes, Clinton was if possible even worse than Reagan and Bush, with Shrub even worse yet. A destroyed office is not going to attract a sane person. -drl
Post #158,640 by mmoffitt 6/6/04 1:01:00 PM Reply	Try some arithmetic. Add all the deficits of all Presidents up to Reagan. Then add Reagan's deficits. Guess which number is bigger? "Didn't sack the Treasury" my ass. bcnu, Mikem If you can read this, you are not the President.
Post #158,660 by a6l6e6x 6/6/04 5:14:48 PM Reply	But, the Soviet Union came apart at the seams because of him And to quote Martha, "That's a good thing!" Alex Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher
Post #158,693 by deSitter 6/6/04 10:35:12 PM Reply	Not true The SU was collapsing already in the 70s. Why? Because they could not produce anything anyone else wanted to buy. The thing died of being too heavy, cumbersome, and consumptive to remain fed - in spite of the well-established brilliance of Russian scientists and engineers and industry of their workers. The Soviet SYSTEM died like a weed that had grown too large to be supported by its shallow roots. The social experiment of Marxist-Leninism had failed. Anyone might have been at the helm - thank Bog it was Gorbachev instead of Stalin. We are now engaged in an equally wrong-headed and disastrous social experiment at the hands of the Radical Republicans - enforced, soulless, blind equalism that erases individual merit and reduces everything to numbers and bottom lines - Marxist-Leninism in another guise. It too will fail all by itself. When WE fail, let's hope we have our own Gorbachev to intone the eulogy. -drl
Post #158,726 by a6l6e6x 6/7/04 1:12:28 AM Reply	Not that some of what you say about SU wasn't true... but, Reagan ratcheted up the defense spending and scared them with "Star Wars". They could not match that. He also ridiculed them in an effective way. The domestic policy was a horse of a different color. Alex Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher
Post #158,728 by bepatient 6/7/04 1:16:20 AM Reply	We outspent them. Best engineers and scientists all dedicated to the military machine that couldn't keep up to ours. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,873 by mmoffitt 6/7/04 6:14:26 PM Reply	And spent ourselves out of existence as well. bcnu, Mikem If you can read this, you are not the President.
Post #158,890 by bepatient 6/7/04 7:29:30 PM Reply	jury still out.. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,904 by Silverlock 6/7/04 8:40:32 PM Reply	A convenient fiction Not the part about the US spending money like a drunken sailor. The part about it's significance in respect to the collapse of the Soviet empire. A factor of course, but not remotely the decisive one. The Beatles had more consequence. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #158,906 by bepatient 6/7/04 8:51:11 PM Reply	RIght. Ringo did it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,786 by Arkadiy 6/7/04 10:48:48 AM Reply	Blah, blah. blah You're old enough to have lived in 70s. Do you really remember SU collapsing then? Guess what, neither do I. May be I was under 10, but I _lived_ there. Anyone who hates Soviet Union (and that really should include every sane person on Earth) has to respect the man who killed the Beast dead. He was the one who had the guts to call a spade a spade, and then proceed to break it for good. People around him were oh so sure that Soviet System is immortal, is the "radiant future of the whole humanity" or at least a permanent factor in the world. He saw it a vulnerable then, just as clearly as you seet its vulnerability now. Thank you, President Reagan. -- Buy high, sell sober.
Post #158,790 by bepatient 6/7/04 10:55:05 AM Reply	applause +5 insightful. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,896 by deSitter 6/7/04 8:05:40 PM Reply	Sorry bud, you weren't here Intelligence of S capability was always vastly inflated, again to justify monster defense budgets. Containment destroyed the SU, not profligacy. -drl
Post #158,721 by ben_tilly 6/7/04 12:41:19 AM Reply	How quickly you forget War on Drugs October Surprise Iran-Contra Affair None of these affected the Constitution? And it was under Reagan's watch that the USA went from being the biggest net exporter in the world to running the biggest trade deficit in the world. While Reagan's excesses have been topped since, they certainly lowered our standards considerably. Cheers, Ben PS Reagan's record looks even worse if you count people supported who've since turned into blowback. People who include Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #158,727 by bepatient 6/7/04 1:15:17 AM Reply	Nice try. Trade Deficit went south of the border under Carter. Its never been back since. The only President to improve the deficit since Carter was Bush Sr. The explosive decompression of the deficit occurred under Clinton. [link\|http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/tradebalchart.htm\|http://www.globalpol...tradebalchart.htm] If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,730 by deSitter 6/7/04 1:27:41 AM Reply	This is just false Keeping up the military machine is as much a drain on us as it was on them (look around you if you want to see the results). The difference was not a matter of pressure, but temperature - their economy burned out ON ITS OWN. This fiction that "Reagan won the Cold War by outspending the Russians" is astoundingly bad history. This is another reason why you do not piss away your treasury and energy on large standing armies. -drl
Post #158,732 by ben_tilly 6/7/04 1:37:14 AM Reply	Did you respond to the wrong post? What Bill said above is not simply false. There was a trade deficit when Reagan started in office, not a surplus. I had that wrong. Bill pointed that out. There was no discussion of politics with the USSR there. I haven't been able to verify his claim that deficits started on Carter's watch though. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #158,733 by deSitter 6/7/04 1:41:05 AM Reply	Oops - had both open - put this under beep "outspent" -drl
Post #158,734 by bepatient 6/7/04 1:52:52 AM Reply	I gave you the pictures. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,735 by bepatient 6/7/04 1:59:33 AM Reply	It is a vast simplification. But it is not as patently false as you want it to be. You are indeed correct in assuming that the soviet economy was caving in on itself, however the vast amount of resources required to keep pace with us was a HUGE drain on their foreign currency reserves, it created "false" shortages of necessary living products, etc... THe spending itself would not have killed a functional economy (that quickly...as the jury is still out on what it has done to ours)...but one so hobbled from poor central planning and a desperate lack of liquid currency...well you can see what happened. However...that level of spending did indeed speed things along quite nicely. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,731 by ben_tilly 6/7/04 1:28:34 AM 6/7/04 1:34:54 AM Reply	I definitely made a mistake I was reaching for Lester Thurow's remark, ...the epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: 'When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world's largest debtor nation.' Which is true. But we were already on the path from creditor to debtor in 1980. A fact that I got wrong. As for the explosion in the trade deficit under Clinton, you'll note that I did mention that Reagan's excesses have been topped since. That would be an example. Cheers, Ben Update: I've been searching for when we went to having a trade deficit. Apparently it happened in 1971 under Nixon. I don't know if we went back positive during the 70's though, we might well have. To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court] Edited by ben_tilly June 7, 2004, 01:34:54 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #158,736 by bepatient 6/7/04 2:00:53 AM Reply	Bounced around zero till the oil crisis Never been back there since. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #158,875 by mmoffitt 6/7/04 6:17:21 PM Reply	IIRC, we became a debtor nation in 1982. For the first time in decades. Then, Reagan really ratched up spending. First term: From World's largest Creditor to Debtor. Second term: From debtor to World's largest Debtor. That is what the Neocon's call "Economic Revival". bcnu, Mikem If you can read this, you are not the President.
Post #158,883 by Simon_Jester 6/7/04 6:46:31 PM 6/7/04 6:47:39 PM Reply	Actually, trade deficits started before Carter. back in '71...and they've been following the curve ever since. [link\|http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt\| source ] Edited by Simon_Jester June 7, 2004, 06:47:39 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #158,888 by bepatient 6/7/04 7:28:14 PM Reply	They bounced a bit early.... ...then headed straight south in the Carter era (not blaming it on him by the way...thats when opec flexed) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!