Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.

40kFSU wrote:Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.

True.

It seems that every 4-8 years we test the limits of just how much of an expansion of government the populace will take. Or, more likely, how far they can extend deficit spending until the bubble bursts.

Yeah, wish we would learn our lessons. Im going back to the threads about painting little plastic army men. Take care out there.

40kFSU wrote:Sebster you are completely incorrect in my opinion . It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue.

No, that's absolutely wrong. Even the argument from an expanded tax base turns only on the reduction of the tax rate under certain conditions, which are themselves arguably fictitious.

40kFSU wrote:
All you have to know is our current socialist administration fought like hell to keep Bush's tax cuts in place back in December because they knew the economy would collapse further.

This demonstrates a poor grasp of economics. Arguing to avoid raising taxes during an economic downturn does not indicate that lower taxes, in general, spur the economy, or even that they expand government revenue. And that's before we start considering the political significance of conceding to the demands of the opposition party in order to secure the passage of a budget.

40kFSU wrote:
We have a 1.4 Trillion dolllar deficit because of the idiotic government take over of healthcare and stupid stimulus bill the administration admits failed.

No, we have a 1.4 trillion dollard deficit because of the stimulus bill exclusively, which the administration has not called a failure.

40kFSU wrote:
Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets. Every other president, and pathetic other powers, just accepted them as the status quo.

Right, because the Cuban Missile Crisis was a tea party to which Kennedy invited Khrushchev, no US President engaged in negative diplomacy regarding Nasser, and the Nixon administration never opposed Soviet influence in Latin America. And the Korean War? That never happened either. Nor did the conflict in Vietnam (relevant because I assume you're using "Soviets" as a euphemism for "communists").

40kFSU wrote:
Frankly, the fact you know so much about Reagan is an admission of his greatness.

I'm going to bet that you know quite a bit about Jimmy Carter. Clearly was a great man, and President.

40kFSU wrote:
And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?

Deflection. Wheterh or not tax cuts cause problems is a matter of policy, not individual burdens.

cant tell if your serious about the jimmy carter bit...i hope your being sarcastic, just cant tell, because i suck at picking up sarcasm on internet...ignore this if you were being sarcastic.

40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.

During much of the height of American power, basically 1947-1995, the average tax burden was much higher than it is currently. Freedom doesn't really enter into the equation, unless you consider criminal law to be important to freedom, in which case we are freer now then we have ever been.

I have no idea why you believe the turning point was 2008, other than a dislike of Obama, because his administration hasn't been revolutionary in any way. His only significant departure from past administrations has been the healthcare legislation, which is only significant in that it actually passed given that Presidents have been trying to reform the system since Nixon.

I dont like him because he passed a bunch of anti coal laws when he first came to office...but no, his tenure in office thus far has not been revolutionary

biccat wrote:

40kFSU wrote:Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.

True.

It seems that every 4-8 years we test the limits of just how much of an expansion of government the populace will take. Or, more likely, how far they can extend deficit spending until the bubble bursts.

The populace takes a lot more than they normally would due to the simple fact that government is usually expanded during wartime. The populace writes it off as a necessity to fight the war more effectively, but the expansion is never undone following the war.

40kFSU wrote: And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?

See, that's the problem with this little smoke screen you've thrown out. i AM paying too much in taxes. the Big oil, and the billionaires aren't paying enough. the middle class (which i classify my family at) has been squeezed to the breaking point almost. i don't owe them more. a few big oil companies and Warren Buffett do.

vonjankmon wrote:Reagan did a lot of things that at the time seemed like the right decisions. He also gets credit for a lot of things that he had nothing to do with, such as the economy. But at the same time so did Clinton. The presidents have little to no control over the economy when they are in office.

Yes, definitely.

Reagan also was in office when the USSR finally collapsed but it would have happened eventually regardless, Reagan did speed it up with his actions though. I think it would be very tough to argue either of those points IMO.

People claim the Soviets collapsed because they tried to match US military spending. This is completely untrue;

"Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s."
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

Rather, the Soviet Union collapsed because an entirely state planned economy is a stupid idea, and one that didn't work. Decades of economic stagnation convinced the Soviets themselves that they had to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote:Sebster you are completely incorrect in my opinion . It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue.

No, it isn't. That statement relies entirely on the highly speculative work of Arther Laffer, who gained political favour during the Reagan administration. But Laffer's work has never been taken seriously by other economists, who have studied the issue of optimal taxation and found the rate of tax maximisation to be around 60 to 65%, and that every developed economy in the world is well and truly short of the point where a tax increase would result in reduced revenue.

So, far from being a "a proven fact", the idea that a lower tax rate grows the tax base is actually a highly speculative idea with a wealth of evidence strongly against it.

All you have to know is our current socialist administration fought like hell to keep Bush's tax cuts in place back in December because they knew the economy would collapse further.

That's plainly untrue. The current administration fought to protect the tax cuts for the middle class, and was forced to compromise with the Republicans, who wanted all tax cuts preserved. Obama did this to keep his pre-election promise, and because tax cuts, along with government spending, are good things to chase in

We have a 1.4 Trillion dolllar deficit because of the idiotic government take over of healthcare and stupid stimulus bill the administration admits failed.

That's just piffle. First up, you're in deficit because you're in the downswing of an economy, during which revenue will be down and expenditures up, simply by the nature of being in downswing. Second up, healthcare spending hasn't even taken effect yet. Thirdly, the stimulus bill didn't have as great an effect as hoped, because it needed to be bigger, but to deny that it had any effect is denying fundamental, base level economics - increasing a primary economic input increases aggregate demand.

Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets.

That's a simply dreadful understanding of history. What do you think the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis were about? Or Vietnam?

Were you aware that Carter actually ramped up military expenditure before Reagan did, for exactly the same reason.

Frankly, the fact you know so much about Reagan is an admission of his greatness.

I also know a lot about Mussolini. Someone can be very famous for being very bad, or, as in this case, very famous because some other people have made the political decision to pretend someone was a lot greater than they were.

But the fact is, your opinion on him doesn't matter.

This is first thing you've said in your post which is true.

And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?

That's a really terrible way of setting tax policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote:Agreed, but it was relatively small in comparison to the alternatives.

The US is actually middle of the road, if you look at government spending as a proportion of GDP. It's at 39%, only marginally ahead of Germany at 43%, roughly equal with Canada, and greater than Australia at 34%.

This idea that the US is somehow miles away from the rest of the developed world, and unique in having low government, is completel piffle.

sebster wrote:piffle.

I lost my aunt about 3 years ago, and she used to say 'piffle' alot.
thanks for using that as much as you do!

Sorry for the OT!

40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.

Yeah, this is a piece of nonsense that really has to die.

Greece is teetering on the brink of collapse because Greece has always teetered on the brink of collapse. A look at their finances over the last 200 years has shown they've been insolvent for more than half of that time. Historically, it's a have-not country. It's also been a dictatorship in living memory, just like Portugal and Spain.

The kind of corruption inherent in dictatorships doesn't just go away when you turn on the democracy button, the power structures and personal relationships that built the powered elites remain in place. So even once you get elections, you still have these toxic relationships, you still get deals made on the sly, and you get the waste and inefficiency that comes with that.

Meanwhile, the powerhouse economies of Europe are bubbling along as well, or much better than the US. You can cheer and celebrate your self-satisfaction over your ideals of capitalism, but Germany isn't debating whether to increase the debt limit or slide into financial ruin.

What Germany and France are suffering for is attaching their own money supply to weaker European states, and therefore being forced to throw their money in to solve the problems of another country. The lesson to be learned is about not attaching your state to one that is historically shaky, even if things look like they're going alright at the moment, but any greater lesson about the apparent evils of government spending is entirely delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:I lost my aunt about 3 years ago, and she used to say 'piffle' alot.
thanks for using that as much as you do!

Sorry for the OT!

Don't thank me, thank 40kSFU.

OH REAGAN! He is a man of virtues and high spirited what is not to love about the guy (Alot )

This pretty much summarizes my feelings on America's most hilariously overrated president.

Even at age twelve I could tell that Jimmy Carter was an honest man trying to address complicated issues and Ronald Reagan was a brilcreemed salesman telling people what they wanted to hear. I secretly wept on the stairs the night he was elected President, because I understood that the kind of gaks I had to listen to in the cafeteria grew up to become voters, and won. I spent the eight years he was in office living in one of those science-fiction movies where everyone is taken over by aliens—I was appalled by how stupid and mean-spirited and repulsive the world was becoming while everyone else in America seemed to agree that things were finally exactly as they should be. The Washington Press corps was so enamored of his down-to-earth charm that they never checked his facts, but if you watched his face when it was at rest, when he wasn’t performing for anyone, you could see him for what he really was—a black-eyed, slit-mouthed, lizard-faced old son-of-a-bitch. He was a bad actor, an informer for McCarthy, and a hired front man for a gang of Texas oilmen, fundamentalist dingbats, and right-wing psychotics out of Dr. Strangelove. He put a genial face on chauvanism, callousness, and greed, and made people feel good about being bigots again. He likened Central American death squads to our founding fathers and called the Taliban “freedom fighters.” His legacy includes the dismantling of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the final dirty win of Management over Labor, the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base, the embezzlement of almost all the country's wealth by 1% of its citizens, the scapegoating of the poor and black, the War on Drugs, the eviction of schizophrenics into the streets, AIDS, acid rain, Iran-Contra, and, let’s not forget, the corpses of two hundred forty United States Marines. He moved the center of political discourse in this country to somewhere in between Richard Nixon and Augusto Pinochet. He believed in astrology and Armageddon and didn't know the difference between history and movies; his stories were lies and his jokes were scripted. He was the triumph of image over truth, paving the way for even more vapid spokesmodels like George W. Bush. He was, as everyone agrees, exactly what he appeared to be—nothing. He made me ashamed to be an American. If there was any justice in this world his Presidential Library would contain nothing but boys' adventure books and bad cowboy movies, and the only things named after him would be shopping malls and Potter's Fields. Let the earth where he is buried be seeded with salt.

the color purple wrote:He likened Central American death squads to our founding fathers and called the Taliban “freedom fighters.”

The Taliban didn't exist while Reagan was in office, or in politics. He did call the mujaheddin freedom fighters, which they were in the sense that they were fighting for freedom Soviet Occupation.

the color purple wrote:
...the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base...

That's the result of economic reality, not Reagan's policies.

the color purple wrote:
...the embezzlement of almost all the country's wealth by 1% of its citizens...

That's blatantly false. Not the bit about wealth concentration, but the bit about it being the result of embezzlement.

the color purple wrote:
...the scapegoating of the poor and black...

That kind of racism doesn't really exist anymore, not to any significant degree in terms of politics. There is still structural racism, but "blaming the blacks" is about the quickest way you can kill a political career. The issue of blaming the poor predates Reagan by a very long time, even if we're only considering the US.

the color purple wrote:
...AIDS...

Say what? Is this some argument from AIDS as a government conspiracy?

reds8n wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China

I can't help but point out that the reason China is growing so rapidly is because:

a) It started out so much more behind its competitors.
b) It has such a large population. As the Economist said, "If China can't produce more with its billion people than the US can with 300 million, it's doing something terribly wrong."

Of course, that's off topic, and I'll end my involvement with that debate here.

I will however say that I USED to be a proponent of Reaganomics, and his other policies. However, as times gone on my belief in that theories superiority has faded.

I do believe that Reagan does deserve some credit for turning around American OPINION of the Cold War, to be perfectly frank, the Soviets were never winning the Cold War. They just had some times when they were really good at making us think we were losing. I'd honestly say that the microchip and computers, and the increasing superiority of the Western economies had a far bigger impact in the final collapse of the Soviet Union than Reagan's policy's.

That said, I do still look back at him with a positive eye.

dogma wrote:That kind of racism doesn't really exist anymore, not to any significant degree in terms of politics. There is still structural racism, but "blaming the blacks" is about the quickest way you can kill a political career. The issue of blaming the poor predates Reagan by a very long time, even if we're only considering the US.

It would be more about Reagan using dog whistles on 'state's rights' and 'welfare queens'.

Say what? Is this some argument from AIDS as a government conspiracy?

There's been a lot of criticism that Reagan responded very slowly to AIDS, this is perceived by many people as being because at the time it was just perceived as a disease killing gay people, but I have no idea how true that is, like Bush and Katrina it seems far more natural to figure it was a result of not understanding the scale of a problem until too late. Besides, while Reagan did respond slowly, so did most every other national leader.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:I do believe that Reagan does deserve some credit for turning around American OPINION of the Cold War, to be perfectly frank, the Soviets were never winning the Cold War. They just had some times when they were really good at making us think we were losing. I'd honestly say that the microchip and computers, and the increasing superiority of the Western economies had a far bigger impact in the final collapse of the Soviet Union than Reagan's policy's.

Basically, what caused the communists to lose the cold war is the plain and simple fact that communism is harmful to your economy. Without private industry to innovate, you don't get new technologies developed at anything like the same rate. It's really weird that people who are so opposed to communism would spend so much time trying to ignore the singlest best piece of evidence about why communism is bad.

I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.

Ronald Reagan's biggest accomplishment in presidency was to improve the self confidence that America had by strengthening the nation's economy. He did this by reducing inflation, increasing employment and cutting taxes to nearly 25 percent. He was also instrumental in appointing the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Besides this, be started a war against the drugs

In addition he reduced not just inflation but also regulations. By the mid-1980s, the economy had recovered substantially and was growing.

his approval rating stood at 64 percent.( no easy feat)


TAKE A SEAT! all presidents, even bad ones(jimmy carter, warren harding, cough*obama*cough) have done good things

the color purple wrote:I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.

Well in light of your balanced comment I'd proffer:
*Pissing off democrats.


If you want a real conversation on the merits of the Reagan Presidency, there are a plethora of books. I suggest you consult those, not the rantings of people who have too much time and too little insight on the intrantz. Whenever you have a real question you should consult the libary to get a more balanced and nuanced view.

the color purple wrote:I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.

Resolving the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

biccat wrote:

the color purple wrote:I'd like one of the Reagan fans to actually list an accomplishment. Not something blatantly false, like ending the Cold War, destroying the Soviets, or being "fiscally responsible". An actual, positive accomplishment of his administration.

Resolving the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

-Providing lots of copy material for Saturday Night Live.
-Invading a perfectly good Caribbean island.
-Realizing Lebanon is a mess and getting the hell out, before compounding the error.
-Jelly beans in the White House.
-Not calling himself a jelly donut while telling the Rooskies to tear down that wall.
-Not presiding over 10% unemployment.
-Not presiding when the rating agencies threatened to take down the sovereign credit ratings of the United States.
-Not starting any wars, something none of the Presidents that followed him have done since. Yes, little Timmy there was a time when we weren't involved in four wars at the same time. There was a time when we weren't involved in any wars. I know, sounds like a fairy tale.

You forgot:

- Getting shot and living through it.

Only happened to 1 other president, a recognized badass.

biccat wrote:You forgot:

- Getting shot and living through it.

Only happened to 1 other president, a recognized badass.

QFT

Frazzled wrote:
-Not starting any wars, something none of the Presidents that followed him have done since. Yes, little Timmy there was a time when we weren't involved in four wars at the same time. There was a time when we weren't involved in any wars. I know, sounds like a fairy tale.

Apparently when Reagan decides to invade another country with the express purpose of deposing the government in power it doesn't count as a war. Then there's all the various direct naval actions during the Iran-Iraq war, which were at the very least on par with the present Libyan affair. Reagan also deepened the US involvement in Nicaragua, though that was primarily covert.

So Reagan started one war, directly involved the US in another, and used the CIA to try and influence the outcome of the Nicaraguan conflict (whether or not he succeeded is open for debate). And that's before we consider all the various factions his administration overtly and covertly supported via monetary and materiel aid.

I really, really don't know why Reagan inspires so many people to forget the basic facts of his Presidency.

The forgetting happens on both sides, some people forget his negatives, some people forget his positives.

dajobe wrote:The forgetting happens on both sides, some people forget his negatives, some people forget his positives.

I mean, generally I understand that when a person is mythologized he is ascribed traits, both positive and negative, that he is undeserving of. Its just somewhat shocking with Reagan given that he wasn't in office all that long ago, and there are plenty of reliable sources of information regarding what he didn't do. He isn't like one of the Founders, who are sufficiently removed from current events to expect inaccuracies in the perception of their legacies.

I would rank the man as one of the best President is history (I'm not big on specific rankings), but the mythology built up around him is more deceptive than the one around FDR, or even Lincoln and Washington.

okay, what you just said is probably true

dajobe wrote: He did this by reducing inflation, increasing employment and cutting taxes to nearly 25 percent.

You're aware he raised taxes so often during the remainder of his administration that he ended up pretty much where he started, right?

Oops, this is a Reagan thread! As Frazzed said, you want facts, go read a book or something - facts don't belong here! We're supposed to be talking about how Reagan made us feel good.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
-Not starting any wars, something none of the Presidents that followed him have done since. Yes, little Timmy there was a time when we weren't involved in four wars at the same time. There was a time when we weren't involved in any wars. I know, sounds like a fairy tale

It probably does because it is one.

dajobe wrote:Ronald Reagan's biggest accomplishment in presidency was to improve the self confidence that America had by strengthening the nation's economy. He did this by reducing inflation, increasing employment and cutting taxes to nearly 25 percent.

But Reagan didn't reduce inflation. He happened to president while the cost of supply (read as 'oil') was reducing, bringing inflation down. His own policies, tax cuts coupled with spending increases, were inflationary.

Nor did he strengthen the economy. He happened to be President at a time when the economy was recovering from economic downturn, and being driven by new investment thanks to new technological developments. Don't thank Reagan for the recovery, thank the microchip.

Nor were the tax cuts effective in driving economic growth - they have a very poor stimulus effect. Reagan also increased taxes subsequently, as even he could admit he'd made a mistake, though every die-hard Republican since has tried to pretend he didn't.

Besides this, be started a war against the drugs

That was Nixon, and all he really did was give it a name, the trend towards increasingly strong policies against drug use is now almost a century old. Given it's pretty poor results, I'm also not sure it's anything to be proud of.

his approval rating stood at 64 percent.( no easy feat)

This is basically it, isn't it? The entire cause for people loving Reagan. Because he's the last Republican president that people liked, so they exaggerate how liked he was, and ignore all the stupid stuff he did in office. I wonder if this is why the left wing loved the gak out of Kennedy, until Clinton came along.