The Reason I Do Not Like George Bush

[v-ault]

I've always been amused at the liberals on this board think I love GWB simple because I defend him on certain issues. To them, I'm a blind party loyalist.

The reality is that I view much of the Bush presidency as an unmitigated failure, and one of the biggest political disapointments in my life. But, it isn't for the reasons that the sheep in the media or the general voting population always cry about. Its not Iraq, or Katrina, or the WoT...

...no my friends, THIS is why I long ago decided that George Bush is a fraud:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html


And no, war spending is not part of this. We're talking discretionary spending here... war spending and Iraq allocations are done in separate bills that aren't counted in discretionary spending. When you see things like "Bush asks Congress for 88 billion for the war" - that isn't included in something like this.

Expansion of the dept of education with NCLB is a huge one... the travesty of that medicare bill is another... the list is huge - but he just proves that the wing of the republican party he belongs to cares nothing about the budget, spending or domestic management - they are about aggressive international intervention, lower taxes (without the accompanying spending cuts and program trimming), and harping on moral issues.

He is not in the same wing of the party as say Barry Goldwater or Reagan.

[themadchemist]

Ronald Reagan was a tremendous deficit spender. Bush has inherited his legacy.

This administration has spent money like it's water, but on all the wrong things. The prescription drug benefit was put together badly and more recent plans for health savings accounts would not stem the overall burden of healthcare on the US economy (even if they would let the government leave the needy out to dry). Similarly, defense spending has gone out of control, without having great returns, and No Child Left Behind has put tremendous burdens on state budgets.

The military should be strong--but dollars don't necessarily equal strength. The same is true of health care and education and a whole host of other issues. Today's conservatives are either talking about hacking programs to pieces or throwing money at them with no sense for quality, in a way that sometimes just amounts as a subsidy to big industries. It is possible to find efficient ways to help more people.

What we see, and it's troubling, is an absence of fiscal restraint; an absence of recognition that we all have a stake in government and a responsibility to help keep our country solvent; and an absence of utility in the massive spending in which we are engaging.

[v-ault]

Ronald Reagan was a tremendous deficit spender. Bush has inherited his legacy.


Reagan's defecits were due to an overwhelmingly democratic Congress headed up by Speaker Tip O'Niel who stonewalled him on spending cuts that he proposed every year but they would never let through. Reagan wanted to abolish the department of education for christ's sake... if he had his way entitlements from the Great Society programs of LBJ would have been reformed or destroyed.

Bush's deficit spending is under the watch of 6 years of a Republican Congress, and a lot of it was PROPOSED by him. No Child Left Behind for example was a massive entitlement spending program, as was his medicare reform package - and he was woefully inept at reforming the Social Security System and other initiatives in his "ownership society" initiatives - and so the net result is huge deficits.

The economy of the 90s, the budget surplus and growth of the economy was due to a hawkish Republican Congress that DRAGGED Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget, program reform/cuts. Part of the rationale of the country electing Bush in the first place (and my support for him) was that a Republican Congress, with a Republican President would be able to do all the things that Reagan WANTED to do, but couldn't do because of obstructionist democrats.

Turns out Bush was a domestic policy lightweight and let us all down - and now we might have to deal with somebody even worse in McCain.

But, the love for Reagan was for beating the **** out of Congressional democrats to drop the top tax rate from 70% to 30%, and working non-stop for 8 years on shrinking the size of the federal government, divesting authority FROM the Federal Government to the STATES (ie local control), all while confronting communism and managing its destruction.

[themadchemist]

if he had his way entitlements from the Great Society programs of LBJ would have been reformed or destroyed.



Yeah, sure, always turn to the social safety net when you want to axe something. Reagan wasted plenty of money on pointless defense projects. And if he had any sense of fiscal responsibility, he wouldn't have slashed taxes in the face of increased spending.

[Blue Velvet]

One reason for an intense disliking of George Bush: promoting faith-based groups as deliverers of social programs, nationally and internationally.

[v-ault]

Yeah, sure, always turn to the social safety net when you want to axe something. Reagan wasted plenty of money on pointless defense projects. And if he had any sense of fiscal responsibility, he wouldn't have slashed taxes in the face of increased spending.

Wasteful defense spending? Um no - it was specifically the ramp up in spending on conventional forces, the nuclear arsenal and the SDI initiative that put pressure on the Soviet Union to match us - as they were competing in the world for influence they couldn't be perceived as being the lesser power, otherwise the United States would gain influence, followers and arrest and beat back the spread of communism. To keep up, the Soviet Union increased their own military spending - only because they were a communist nation and not a market economy like the United States, they couldn't sustain it, pay for it or even engineer anything like we could - and they went more or less bankrupt. That economic crisis and their inability to match the United States in ANYTHING was one of the largest contributing reasons for why the Soviet Union collapsed and communism died in the former Soviet satellite nations.

You never lived under the yolk of a Soviet presence in the world - but its demise is likely the single largest event in the latter half of the 20th Century with major geopolitical ramifications across the globe... and for the better. Independence, freedom and market reform came to 20+ former Soviet states, ending more than 70 years of tyrannical rule, suppression of free speech and free association, the end of the partition of Berlin and E/W Germany and the reforms that took place in Europe in the 1990s. Indeed, the European Union and the Euro in comparison to the strength of the dollar which we talked about in that economic thread, NEVER would have been much of a political force without the new eastern Europe states and the demise of the Soviet Union.

And all of it was linked back to the United States defense buildup. Keep in mind the US was so weak militarily that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 - something they never would have even DREAMED of trying under Reagan. That resulted in us attempting to train a resistance in Afghanistan under Carter (including a man named Osama Bin Laden) - which was a direct precursor to the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Had our military been formidable at the time, the Soviets never would have done that and Bin Laden would be forgotten to history.

As for spending - taxes needed to be cut, pure and simple. The top rate being 70% was punitive and wrong, and it drastically hurt business, entrepreneurship, invention, ingenuity, personal savings and growth, etc. The supply side theory held (correctly) that a drastic cut in taxes would encourage growth and in the long run government income would go up, which it of course did. But as for deficits and spending - Reagan made it very clear to Congress when he proposed his budget every year that he wanted spending cuts, not just tax cuts. The democrats in Congress were on board with his tax cuts because it made them look good to their electorate, but were unwilling to take the unpopular decisions to cut spending. History shows they were giant cowards, because many of the things Reagan asked them to do (welfare reform for example) but didn't, turned out to be MAJOR accomplishments during Clinton's presidency under the Republican Congress and extremely popular with the public - so they blew it big time.

Moral of the story is that deficits, balanced budgets and surpluses are 95% a matter of Congressional will, and have little to do with the president. He proposes the budget, but he has no power over it. The bully pulpit of the presidency can help shape public will - as it did with tax policy and the size of government... but he can't exert pressure on every subject, and in the case of spending restraint, he just couldn't get congress to go along with him.

Its one of lifes kick in the balls to Republicans that Regan gets pegged with the defecits and Clinton gets credit for the surpluses, when in fact the responsible party is congress in both occasions - and the democrats are responsible for the defecits and the republicans are responsible for the surpluses.

But the biggest betrayal that made the republicans get what they deserved was their refusal to stay small market, balanced budget conservatives when they had a monopoly on power. They had every level of government, even down to the Governorships and State Houses - and they blew their historic opportunity to really get this country on the right track and keep it there... and they will forever be damned in my book for that betrayal.

And, I blame a lot of that on George W. Bush - because he was the one who reshaped Congress into that mess. He recruited a lot of the members of congress and governors - and almost all of them were ignorant of the economic principles of the party - they were simply "the president's men".

Which will remain my biggest problem with Bush for the rest of time.

[.Andy]

As a liberal sheep let me thank you for clarifying your position on George Bush v-ault.

[Iscariot]

As a liberal sheep let me thank you for clarifying your position on George Bush v-ault.

Can I... can I pet you?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Im not a liberal but I think Labels show pure ignorance. Notice how often the republican party members use these names on anyone with a different view point.

With that being said I dont like George because the man is a liar.
His lies has cost this nation 4,000 dead americans,1 trillion dollars of debt and he is responsible for the death of a estimated 150,000 dead iraqi's for missing WMDs that his dad gave to Saddam. We could go on and on with this pathetic president,pharmacys,healthcare,Katrina, Homeland security,spying on Americans,Torture,Oil giants,attacking the Constitution,etc.

He really should be on trial for dereliction of duty and breaking the oath of the office of the president of the united states. Worst two timer we ever elected. Im ashamed he is my president and it will take the U.S. decades to undo his damage.

[themadchemist]

Wasteful defense spending? Um no - it was specifically the ramp up in spending on conventional forces, the nuclear arsenal and the SDI initiative that put pressure on the Soviet Union to match us - as they were competing in the world for influence they couldn't be perceived as being the lesser power, otherwise the United States would gain influence, followers and arrest and beat back the spread of communism. To keep up, the Soviet Union increased their own military spending - only because they were a communist nation and not a market economy like the United States, they couldn't sustain it, pay for it or even engineer anything like we could - and they went more or less bankrupt. That economic crisis and their inability to match the United States in ANYTHING was one of the largest contributing reasons for why the Soviet Union collapsed and communism died in the former Soviet satellite nations.


To attribute the Soviet economic collapse to SDI is an exaggeration. The idea that by wasting our money on a pointless initiative, we were draining the coffers of the Soviet Union, sounds like the worst, most inefficient strategy ever. It's also not correct--the Soviet Union was collapsing under the failures of its own flawed economic strategy. And it was also facing internal political pressure as well as external political pressure applied by Reagan (and really, all the Cold War presidents) and the European powers. This aligned with one of the few Soviet leaders somewhat responsive to the people's concerns, but perestroika was too little, too late, to save the Soviet Union, it was only enough to push the fervor for change forward.


You never lived under the yolk of a Soviet presence in the world - but its demise is likely the single largest event in the latter half of the 20th Century with major geopolitical ramifications across the globe... and for the better.


This is a nice rhetorical sleight of hand. I never said anything about the Soviet Union--I think the fall of the Soviet Union was a great development (though the successor states have mismanaged, with the neglect of the world, the aftermath). My problem was with some of the defense spending of the Reagan administration, which I would argue did not contribute sufficiently to the defeat of the Soviet Union to merit its expense.


And all of it was linked back to the United States defense buildup. Keep in mind the US was so weak militarily that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 - something they never would have even DREAMED of trying under Reagan. That resulted in us attempting to train a resistance in Afghanistan under Carter (including a man named Osama Bin Laden) - which was a direct precursor to the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Had our military been formidable at the time, the Soviets never would have done that and Bin Laden would be forgotten to history.


This, I think, is a stretch. First of all, I don't think our military was so weak that this was the causal factor. Even with a stronger military, we ended up fighting plenty of proxy battles with the Soviet Union.

Also remember that the Soviets stepped into a conflict that was already occurring. It wasn't an offensive move for them, it was defensive (at least, in the scheme of the whole chess game). From the 60s on, the Marxist party in Afghanistan was building support. Mohammed Daoud Khan overthrew the monarchs, but then was subsequently overthrown by the Marxists with help from the Afghan Army. That was in early 1978. Undoubtedly, the Soviets had been funding the Marxists and currying favor with the army for a decade (and their history of engagement in the region goes back almost to the Bolshevik Revolution), but active military involvement was in an effort to counter the anti-Communist insurgency. This suggests to me that whether or not we were strong, the Soviets would have entered because they had spent 60 years engaged in the region. Deterrence works better to check offense than it does to check what is perceived as defense.

If our military were stronger, the Soviet Union may have funded pro-Communist elements within Afghanistan and we could have still ended up funding the mujahideen. But let's see, who else funded the mujahideen? That's right, the Reagan administration.


As for spending - taxes needed to be cut, pure and simple. The top rate being 70% was punitive and wrong, and it drastically hurt business, entrepreneurship, invention, ingenuity, personal savings and growth, etc. The supply side theory held (correctly) that a drastic cut in taxes would encourage growth and in the long run government income would go up, which it of course did.


Some cut in the top rate was warranted, but those rates were cut and have subsequently been cut far below any logical point. What we see is an unprecedented concentration of wealth at the top of the ladder at the same time that we are failing to provide basic services to the bottom. That trend was accelerated greatly by the Reagan administration's war on the poor.

And a key aspect of the Reagan philosophy of supply side was that deficit spending wasn't a big deal. Friedman said this all the time. Reagan was so ideologically (or perhaps politically) tied to tax cuts, that he really had no problem with the deficit spending. And that led for some serious economic woes for the country during the 80s, for which supply side was a contributor, though not the whole story. Reagan's crusade for deregulation didn't help.


But as for deficits and spending - Reagan made it very clear to Congress when he proposed his budget every year that he wanted spending cuts, not just tax cuts. The democrats in Congress were on board with his tax cuts because it made them look good to their electorate, but were unwilling to take the unpopular decisions to cut spending. History shows they were giant cowards, because many of the things Reagan asked them to do (welfare reform for example) but didn't, turned out to be MAJOR accomplishments during Clinton's presidency under the Republican Congress and extremely popular with the public - so they blew it big time.


The reforms that Clinton enacted were far more modest than those that Reagan did. And the Democrats were right to block the sorts of spending cuts that Reagan wanted, which would have further eroded our support for the poor. Remember, this is the Reagan with a proclivity for leaving the mentally ill in the streets.


Moral of the story is that deficits, balanced budgets and surpluses are 95% a matter of Congressional will, and have little to do with the president.


This assumes that all proposed balanced budgets are made equal. If a president submitted a budget balanced by eliminating the Department of Defense, Congress would have a responsibility to block it. If the President's only mechanism to balance the budget in the face of rapidly declining taxes is to cut spending in a stupid manner, then Congress should block that. Should Congress have blocked a lot of those tax cuts, sure, but Reagan also should never have proposed them.



Its one of lifes kick in the balls to Republicans that Regan gets pegged with the defecits and Clinton gets credit for the surpluses, when in fact the responsible party is congress in both occasions - and the democrats are responsible for the defecits and the republicans are responsible for the surpluses.


If I recall correctly, Clinton did not face the most loving Congress in the history of the United States. Somehow he managed to work with Congress to balance the budget...So yes, he gets credit.


And, I blame a lot of that on George W. Bush - because he was the one who reshaped Congress into that mess. He recruited a lot of the members of congress and governors - and almost all of them were ignorant of the economic principles of the party - they were simply "the president's men".

Which will remain my biggest problem with Bush for the rest of time.

Again, Bush enacted some stupid, expensive measures that really could only be fixed by the systemic changes that the liberals are calling for but the conservatives hate. He was going to face large increases in health care expenditure one way or another, because he and Congress (including the Democratic Congress) were never going to have the courage to remake the healthcare system in this country (and no, I don't mean with the miserable Health Savings Accounts). As for military spending, what with the massive corruption from private firms, the provision of no bid contracts, and war that has drained both lives and money, it has been a sad, sad adventure in waste.

[joefinan]

Who cares about political stuff?

If he uses a Mac then I like him.

[themadchemist]

Who cares about political stuff?

If he uses a Mac then I like him.

OK, this takes the cake. Dude, Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. Think. Think. Think. Who cares about political stuff?? Everyone who posts here!

And for the record--

"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical computing ceremony."

[atszyman]

The economy of the 90s, the budget surplus and growth of the economy was due to a hawkish Republican Congress that DRAGGED Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget, program reform/cuts.

So Congress bending the president to their will is a good thing?

Part of the rationale of the country electing Bush in the first place (and my support for him) was that a Republican Congress, with a Republican President would be able to do all the things that Reagan WANTED to do, but couldn't do because of obstructionist democrats.

Wait, the republicans were dragging Clinton along but when the houses were controlled by a different party and tried to drag Reagan along they're obstructionist?

This is part of why this country is becoming so politically divisive. Everyone who doesn't agree with how you think is either labeled an obstructionist (congress) or an activist (judge).

Most elected representatives are trying to do what they think is best for the country, that's why the voters elected them. They are not being activist or obstructionist, they are just trying to steer the country in the direction they believe to be right, even though it's hard to believe even the current administration with the republican congress was just trying to do what they thought was best for the country (they were incompetent to the point you had to wonder if they were doing it on purpose, but I doubt it was intentional). Neither side has the answer 100% right and if they could put aside the party bickering and actually engage in an intellectual debate on a bill we might actually come up with some decent answers that could help all of us.

Reagan may have had good ideas on cuts, but who's to say that any of his policies would have been as effective or even good for the country if he would have had a republican congress. He might have been worse than GWB given a blank check, or he might have set the country in order and toppled some of the forefathers for the greatest president ever. Who knows? The blank check that is afforded when 2 branches are controlled by the same party can really be a corrupting force if not used properly.

[Naimfan]

To attribute the Soviet economic collapse to SDI is an exaggeration.

Well, as you say, "This is a nice rhetorical sleight of hand." ;) He didn't say that. He said the build-up in conventional forces, nuclear arsenal AND SDI. Zeroing in on SDI is always tempting, but it represented a fraction of the buildup that was necessary. One of the ironies is that if you review the defense requests from Reagan, they were LESS than those submitted by Carter, who deserves a lot of credit for recognizing the sad state of the US military in the 1970's (the "Vietnam hangover") and moving to correct it.

This is a nice rhetorical sleight of hand. My problem was with some of the defense spending of the Reagan administration, which I would argue did not contribute sufficiently to the defeat of the Soviet Union to merit its expense.

Which programs? Define "sufficiently?" Etc. ;)

There is little doubt that the buildup of US and other NATO members' military strength removed one of the USSR's most threatening options--their unquestioned ability to invade and conquer Western Europe. What was a certainty (without the use of nuclear weapons) suddenly became a question mark, even with the size of the Soviet military, following the US military buildup started by Carter and continued by Reagan. A complete examination of the question from the Soviet perspective has yet, to my knowledge, been attempted--most likely because the critical data remains unavailable.

This, I think, is a stretch. First of all, I don't think our military was so weak that this was the causal factor. Even with a stronger military, we ended up fighting plenty of proxy battles with the Soviet Union.

Depends on who you ask. Talk to Colin Gray or Robert Singer, and they'd say it was definitely a causal factor. And the US military really was that weak then, in terms of deployable ground combat power.

[leekohler]

Im not a liberal but I think Labels show pure ignorance. Notice how often the republican party members use these names on anyone with a different view point.

With that being said I dont like George because the man is a liar.
His lies has cost this nation 4,000 dead americans,1 trillion dollars of debt and he is responsible for the death of a estimated 150,000 dead iraqi's for missing WMDs that his dad gave to Saddam. We could go on and on with this pathetic president,pharmacys,healthcare,Katrina, Homeland security,spying on Americans,Torture,Oil giants,attacking the Constitution,etc.

He really should be on trial for dereliction of duty and breaking the oath of the office of the president of the united states. Worst two timer we ever elected. Im ashamed he is my president and it will take the U.S. decades to undo his damage.

Agreed on all points! v-ault- you'll get much further around here if you quit referring to everyone who disagrees with you as a liberal. You'll find most of us are quite moderate and some relatively conservative. The world isn't black and white and neither are ideas.

[miloblithe]

The Soviet economic system was failing, sure, but the reason the Soviet Union collapsed WHEN it did was because of political decisions by Gorbachev, not because Reagan built up the military.

[hulugu]

I've always been amused at the liberals on this board think I love GWB simple because I defend him on certain issues. To them, I'm a blind party loyalist....

Hmmm...."the liberals" are calling you a "blind party loyalist?"

I'll be the first to admit that based on some of your earlier arguments, you have appeared to be a Bush loyalist, and furthermore, I appreciate your arguments here and your specific point-of-view.

But, I think you should be more careful in assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal." It's easy to put people into little boxes, but you'll see a fairly wide range of opinion here, and you'll be surprised at what issues people suddenly break order on. For instance, leekohler and I disagree about bans on smoking, just to think of one recent thread.

[leekohler]

Hmmm...."the liberals" are calling you a "blind party loyalist?"

I'll be the first to admit that based on some of your earlier arguments, you have appeared to be a Bush loyalist, and furthermore, I appreciate your arguments here and your specific point-of-view.

But, I think you should be more careful in assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal." It's easy to put people into little boxes, but you'll see a fairly wide range of opinion here, and you'll be surprised at what issues people suddenly break order on. For instance, leekohler and I disagree about bans on smoking, just to think of one recent thread.

I'm also very pro gun ownership rights. I bet that just knocked v-ault on his butt. ;)

[hulugu]

I'm also very pro gun ownership rights. I bet that just knocked v-ault on his butt. ;)

That's right. I'm probably middle-of-the-road on that issue (depending on who you ask, I'm sure).

That's the problem with parties and these general "liberal" versus "conservative" labels, they tend to pigeon-hole rather than describe a person's particular beliefs.

[Daveman Deluxe]

I'm also very pro gun ownership rights. I bet that just knocked v-ault on his butt. ;)

Driving to the office today, I saw a car with a Jesus fish and two bumper stickers: "I Am the NRA" and "Obama '08".

[Ugg]

Driving to the office today, I saw a car with a Jesus fish and two bumper stickers: "I Am the NRA" and "Obama '08".

And everyone thinks the US is polarized!

[Roger1]

Driving to the office today, I saw a car with a Jesus fish and two bumper stickers: "I Am the NRA" and "Obama '08".

They have medicine for people like this :p

[Iscariot]

I'm also very pro gun ownership rights. I bet that just knocked v-ault on his butt. ;)

He smokes and likes guns... I wonder if there's a connection :O

I need 20 CCs of Freud, stat!

[Naimfan]

He smokes and likes guns... I wonder if there's a connection :O

I need 20 CCs of Freud, stat!

LOL! Probably not, since I don't smoke, but like guns . . .

[needthephone]

To the rest of the world he seems slightly crazy. I mean (and I am not gay) why is he so obsessed with stopping Gay Marriage-so what if two people want to be together let them- who is he or any of us to tell them what to do.

He denies Global warming has anything to do with polution.

He should (and the same goers for the UK and Aus too) fix his own country first and reign in his foreighn policy a bit..

This is a perfect example of why I hope a democrat wins next time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WdSXZVE2n0

[Desertrat]

I've never seen Dubya as truly being a conservative. And, after all, he grew up under LBJ's Great Society programs as the son of a professional governmental employee.

NCLB and Free Pills for Old Pharts aren't conservative programs; the latter was an Algore offering in Florida in 2000.

Overall, it seems to me that the 21st century Republicans tried to use the federal budget to buy votes, just as Democrats have. They're just not very talented in their rhetoric. :)

While I certainly support tax cuts, I've seen no efforts toward getting rid of wasteful programs or agencies.

(While I agree with v-ault about Tip O'Neill, I'd add that Dan Rostenkowski was then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, with incredible power over the federal budget. He certainly made no effort to hold down the "Reagan deficits".)

This current "stimulus package" is as bad an idea as has come down the pike in a long time. It increases the deficit by some 75%, it's inflationary insofar as "printing money", and the spending will be largely for consumer goods--which to a great extent are imports and worsen our balance of payments deficit.

I'm underwhelmed by some aspects of our Homeland Security system, notably the TSA...

'Rat

[hulugu]

...This current "stimulus package" is as bad an idea as has come down the pike in a long time. It increases the deficit by some 75%, it's inflationary insofar as "printing money", and the spending will be largely for consumer goods--which to a great extent are imports and worsen our balance of payments deficit....

Do you have a source for this, I haven't heard the 75% increase of the deficit before.

[v-ault]

To attribute the Soviet economic collapse to SDI is an exaggeration. The idea that by wasting our money on a pointless initiative, we were draining the coffers of the Soviet Union, sounds like the worst, most inefficient strategy ever. It's also not correct--the Soviet Union was collapsing under the failures of its own flawed economic strategy. And it was also facing internal political pressure as well as external political pressure applied by Reagan (and really, all the Cold War presidents) and the European powers. This aligned with one of the few Soviet leaders somewhat responsive to the people's concerns, but perestroika was too little, too late, to save the Soviet Union, it was only enough to push the fervor for change forward.



This is a nice rhetorical sleight of hand. I never said anything about the Soviet Union--I think the fall of the Soviet Union was a great development (though the successor states have mismanaged, with the neglect of the world, the aftermath). My problem was with some of the defense spending of the Reagan administration, which I would argue did not contribute sufficiently to the defeat of the Soviet Union to merit its expense.

That is so wildly inaccurate. The Soviet economy was indeed flawed, but it was hardly unstable or "in trouble". The Soviet economic collapse of the late 1980s and early 1990s was a direct result of them attempting to compete with our defense buildups in nuclear capability as well as conventional forces, as well as our economic expansion. They saw themselves lagging behind the US on both fronts, where previously they had been our equals, and attempted to keep up.

In doing so, the socialist theory broke down, because the money they were taking from their citizens was now being poured in a disproportionate way into non-renewable resources (the military) that didn't broaden their economic base. You see, when you spend on tanks, planes, soldiers, etc, those are items in a budget that don't grow your economy - you don't have people learning as many skills, producing products, developing markets, providing vital services (doctors, lawyers, etc), nor do you have spending in infrastructure - electricity, hospitals, schools, etc. That wears down an economic base and means that the economy shrinks, and does not expand. When that happens to a Socialist country, it spells doom, because the government depends on the forced taking of economic resources (money) from its population to further the interests of the state.

As such, when the economy shrinks, and more and more money pours into non-renewable economic resources (the military), it exacerbates the problem, and each year that goes by, the economy splinters more and more. That drastic wearing down of the Soviet economy can be linked DIRECTLY to the 1980s defense buildup and their attempts to counter it.

And in regards to SDI, it did indeed have an effect. Former KGB and Soviet government officials have written volumes of books about SDI - and how they didn't think it would work... but they thought it MIGHT work - and that alone was enough to send them into a panic.

The threat of SDI completely nullifying their nuclear arsenal threat against western Europe, coupled with the Soviet Union's inability to keep up with the conventional and nuclear military buildup is DIRECTLY what lead to the nuclear drawdown treaty that was signed between Reagan and Gorbachev. It was the Soviet panic that they couldn't keep up, the threat that their arsenal would be left neutralized, and the dominance of the American military machine that brought them to the negotiating table and ended up getting that deal done - which significantly decreased the size of nuclear forces in both countries.

Which was of course the theory Reagan operated under. Negotiate from strength, not weakness - and you'll achieve more peace than you will from negotiating from weakness.


First of all, I don't think our military was so weak that this was the causal factor.

No, of course it wasn't - but it was weak BY COMPARISON. In terms of ability to project across the globe, size and scope of conventional forces and nuclear arsenal, we were of course one of the two major superpowers in the world. Weak we were not.

Weak by comparison, however - we were. We had just been driven out of Vietnam by a rag-tag group of jungle guerrillas, after which the country was immediately taken over by communists supported by the Soviet Union. We were embarrassed on the national stage, the Soviets were emboldened, and we were on the run.

Our military was strong, but demoralized and defeated. Re-enrollment was atrocious. The Soviet Union did not fear us, and our forces could not match them in the middle east, eastern europe or south-east Asia.

But to classify us as weak - that would be a misnomer that I don't think I intended. But weak by comparison we were - both weak by Soviet standards, and weak compared to where the military was after the 1980s buildup.

The first gulf war could NEVER have happened in 1979 for example. We simply didn't have the capability. There is no question the military was dramatically overhauled after Carter.

we ended up fighting plenty of proxy battles with the Soviet Union.

Also remember that the Soviets stepped into a conflict that was already occurring. It wasn't an offensive move for them, it was defensive (at least, in the scheme of the whole chess game). From the 60s on, the Marxist party in Afghanistan was building support. Mohammed Daoud Khan overthrew the monarchs, but then was subsequently overthrown by the Marxists with help from the Afghan Army. That was in early 1978. Undoubtedly, the Soviets had been funding the Marxists and currying favor with the army for a decade (and their history of engagement in the region goes back almost to the Bolshevik Revolution), but active military involvement was in an effort to counter the anti-Communist insurgency. This suggests to me that whether or not we were strong, the Soviets would have entered because they had spent 60 years engaged in the region. Deterrence works better to check offense than it does to check what is perceived as defense.

If our military were stronger, the Soviet Union may have funded pro-Communist elements within Afghanistan and we could have still ended up funding the mujahideen. But let's see, who else funded the mujahideen? That's right, the Reagan administration.


Which almost proves the point. The Soviet Union had designs on Afghanistan for a very long time, but NEVER moved in to the country. Not under Johnson, Nixon or even Ford. But they went for it under Carter, because they were DESPERATE to maintain the Communist regime in Afghanistan and until that point they were very VERY worried about the response by the United States in retaliation. The fact that the regime was in jeopardy under Carter, post Vietnam with a weakened military was the opening they needed and they pushed it.

That NEVER would have happened if it happened in say 1984.

Some cut in the top rate was warranted, but those rates were cut and have subsequently been cut far below any logical point. What we see is an unprecedented concentration of wealth at the top of the ladder at the same time that we are failing to provide basic services to the bottom. That trend was accelerated greatly by the Reagan administration's war on the poor.

And a key aspect of the Reagan philosophy of supply side was that deficit spending wasn't a big deal. Friedman said this all the time. Reagan was so ideologically (or perhaps politically) tied to tax cuts, that he really had no problem with the deficit spending. And that led for some serious economic woes for the country during the 80s, for which supply side was a contributor, though not the whole story. Reagan's crusade for deregulation didn't help.


Wow, that was a lot of fluff and generality . Cut beyond a logical point? When you are forcibly taking over 30% of a persons income (like you're even entitled to it in the first place) I'm sorry but that is not ENOUGH of a cut. I don't give a **** if the guy is a billionaire or if he's a useless worker at McDonalds. Taxes need to come down more than that... the cuts he gave the American people were simply all he could get done.

War on the poor? Jesus! He cut income taxes on the lowest income bracket as well, and he didn't threaten any meaningful social programs on the poor. Of course he cared about deficit spending - one of his campaign promises was to balance the budget in 3 years - something he couldn't do because of a stonewalling bloated democratic congress obsessed with spending money on 400 dollar toilet seats and ****. The government was embarrassingly wasteful and Reagan wanted to cut the waste, so that the services to the poor and underprivileged would be delivered efficiently.

Created economic problems in the 1980s? Like what? The MASSIVE boom to the economy? The long expansion of government revenues even despite the tax cuts? The growth of the dollar? What the hell economic problems are you talking about? That decade was nicknamed "the roaring 80s" (a reference to the 20s) for a reason.

The reforms that Clinton enacted were far more modest than those that Reagan did. And the Democrats were right to block the sorts of spending cuts that Reagan wanted, which would have further eroded our support for the poor. Remember, this is the Reagan with a proclivity for leaving the mentally ill in the streets.


Sort of - depends on your point of view. Clintons reforms were most of what Reagan WANTED to do and TRIED to do, but was blocked from doing by democrats.

You whining about Reagan's war on the poor, and how his cuts were bad for the country likely loves the reforms Clinton signed (which ONE MORE TIME was instituted by the republican congress over Clinton's massive objection) are apparently not realizing that they are the reforms Reagan wanted to institute in the 1980s to balance the budget, but was denied by the democratic congress. Clinton just co-opted those issues as part of his "third way" politics, and took credit for them.

Welfare reform (war on the poor indeed), entitlement reform, these were things Reagan wanted to do, and had he been successful, those deficits wouldn't have existed. Reagan hated deficits - all supply-siders do.

Not that deficits are all that damaging anyway - but that's another debate all together.
On that mentally ill/poor stuff, you have got to be kidding me

This assumes that all proposed balanced budgets are made equal. If a president submitted a budget balanced by eliminating the Department of Defense, Congress would have a responsibility to block it. If the President's only mechanism to balance the budget in the face of rapidly declining taxes is to cut spending in a stupid manner, then Congress should block that. Should Congress have blocked a lot of those tax cuts, sure, but Reagan also should never have proposed them.


I can't even respond to this... "tried cutting spending in a dumb manner"??? What the hell does that mean. When people talk in generalities and vagaries like that, it almost always means they don't have anything to really back it up with. Cut in a dumb way... ::sigh::


If I recall correctly, Clinton did not face the most loving Congress in the history of the United States. Somehow he managed to work with Congress to balance the budget...So yes, he gets credit.

Right, so the big scary evil Reagan is a bad guy, but the nice happy, smooth Clinton who was able to win over the hostile congress with his lovely prose and superior ideas - he deserves credit. What the hell.

He didn't "work with Congress". **** like Welfare Reform he saw pass Congress and the Senate with so much support that it would have become a law even if he vetoed it. So he decided to play the politician, take the rug out from under the congress and after vetoing it twice came out and said, "I am in favor of welfare reform" and made it out like it was his issue.

Clinton was a slimy bastard.

[stevento]

This thread prices my point that George bush is very remminicent (sp?) of Hitler. His own party hates him but is afraid to speak out against him
bush's spending is out of control not that I have any problem with huge spending as I am a democrat. He overspends in all the wrong places (tax rebate stimulus) and underspends in all the wrong places(schools)

[Iscariot]

This thread prices my point that George bush is very remminicent (sp?) of Hitler. His own party hates him but is afraid to speak out against him
bush's spending is out of control not that I have any problem with huge spending as I am a democrat. He overspends in all the wrong places (tax rebate stimulus) and underspends in all the wrong places(schools)

Godwin's law. I declare this thread over.

[Desertrat]

stevento, you obviously know somewehere around zero, zilch, zip, nada about the Hitlerian period. For starters, just Google up "Krystallnacht" and take it from there...

Budget Deficit: Last I read, it's projected at $216 billion. So, $150 billion as the basic for "stimulus". Yesterday, it was reported that the Senate was upping that by somewhere around $32 billion. Lord knows what that ratpack will wind up with, after Conference Committee.

For all that I've griped about Dubya, neither Clinton nor Obama have a clue about economic matters. They're political clever, and know how to get elected to high office, but they've already exceeded their competency. Seems like all they know is how to be compassionate with other people's money--which ain't real compassion. It ain't "change", either.

Re the USSR: SDI was the straw that broke the camel's back. The percentage increase in ruble expenditures to attempt to achieve some form of parity was far more than their third-world economy could handle.

The other major contributing factor was Lech Walesa and the strike at the Gdansk shipyards. The ensuing political uproar in Poland made the Polish armed forces unreliable in Soviet eyes, and the loss of those many divisions meant no further ability to threaten western Europe with a ground invasion.

'Rat

[Ugg]

For all that I've griped about Dubya, neither Clinton nor Obama have a clue about economic matters. They're political clever, and know how to get elected to high office, but they've already exceeded their competency. Seems like all they know is how to be compassionate with other people's money--which ain't real compassion. It ain't "change", either.

Re the USSR: SDI was the straw that broke the camel's back. The percentage increase in ruble expenditures to attempt to achieve some form of parity was far more than their third-world economy could handle.

The other major contributing factor was Lech Walesa and the strike at the Gdansk shipyards. The ensuing political uproar in Poland made the Polish armed forces unreliable in Soviet eyes, and the loss of those many divisions meant no further ability to threaten western Europe with a ground invasion.

'Rat

Every business that Dubya touched, failed. His economic advisors have broken the camel's back, hardly a glowing recommendation.

The argument about the causes of the downfall of communism will obviously go on for many years. However, Reagan did not bring it on, he only took advantage of an unstable situation. Let's face it, the US government had no idea that the USSR was going to fail.

You are on the right track with Poland, but you also need to look at the Lutheran Church in East Germany, the dissenters in Hungary and the general dissatisfaction of virtually everyone behind the Iron Curtain.

Hönecker, like Tito brought down the East German economy by trying to pacify his people with cheap consumer goods from the west.

Any discussion about the downfall of the USSR is pointless unless it takes into account what was happening in the other Comintern countries. The entire system was economically unviable. Even the CIA was astonished that the USSR collapsed. Reagan was clueless.

[leekohler]

He smokes and likes guns... I wonder if there's a connection :O

I need 20 CCs of Freud, stat!

I smoke pole too. Get over it. I also don't own a gun, just feel that people should be able to.

And v-ault, you should been gay and in your late teens/early 20's when Reagan was president. Boy was that fun. No- he was by no means a "good guy". He was a first class jacka** who ignored the AIDS epidemic and set the mentally ill loose on the streets after he closed every state run mental institution in the US. Great guy, that Reagan. :rolleyes:

[v-ault]

I smoke pole too. Get over it. I also don't own a gun, just feel that people should be able to.

And v-ault, you should been gay and in your late teens/early 20's when Reagan was president. Boy was that fun. No- he was by no means a "good guy". He was a first class jacka** who ignored the AIDS epidemic and set the mentally ill loose on the streets after he closed every state run mental institution in the US. Great guy, that Reagan. :rolleyes:

Right, cause government is the answer to everything :p

[leekohler]

Right, cause government is the answer to everything :p

And the free market cured mental illness and AIDS? Are you serious? You have a lot to learn. Just so I know- how old are are you? I'm guessing early 20's at the most.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We need a balance between the free market and govt, when either one becomes dominate it causes many problems. Almost like not having either democrats or republicans running everything. Its better for us when the two must work together though both seem to have become expert at screwing the American people.

[v-ault]

And the free market cured mental illness and AIDS? Are you serious? You have a lot to learn. Just so I know- how old are are you? I'm guessing early 20's at the most.

Am I serious? Are YOU SERIOUS? Yeah, cause there's cure for aids and no more mentally ill people on the street...LOL. And I never said the free market cured any of those. Where i'd say that? Who cares anyway?

You're making the mistake of assuming the government is very good at finding out that information, or managing it.

Look at the **** about Chinese made toys and the toxic plastic/paint. The government has been charged with taking care of that **** and making sure it doesn't happen, but guess what - it happened anyway. The government is inefficientive in dealing with these matters.


There are organizations like that ALL OVER the place - they're called NGOs (or non-governmental organizations) and they are often in charge of things the government might do, but instead are charged to do it in the private sector.

Think of the Red Cross. Emergency response - medical care... blood donations and banking. These are things the government COULD do... but the Red Cross does it a lot better than they EVER could (check out FEMAs emergency response for Katrina, and the international Red Cross' response to the Tsunami for example).

Its the nature of government to be un-innovative, bloated, slow and inefficient. The government is a monopoly in and of itself. Imagine every negative aspect of a monopoly, amplify it by 10 and there you have what government does.

I see it every day in the work I'm in. My old company was founded by former NSA people - they are 100% government people... they think like government people, they act like government people, they manage employees like government people, etc. My old company is inefficient, slow, poorly manages its assets, and takes about 10 times longer to do something than it should.

I've worked in pure private sector companies before, and its ASTONISHING to see the difference.

Lesson? Government is poison, and it should be as small as humanly possible.

You should see some of John Stossel's work on OSHA and the FDA - would really completely change your mind about the necessity (or efficacy) of government.

Sir, you have a lot to learn. Enough with that liberal garbage (aids/mentally ill).

[thebassoonist]

Who cares about political stuff?

If he uses a Mac then I like him.

One of my friends is considering buying a Mac and I told her that they are very easy to use - even George Bush can operate one.

[thebassoonist]

Am I serious? Are YOU SERIOUS? Yeah, cause there's cure for aids and no more mentally ill people on the street...LOL. And I never said the free market cured any of those. Where i'd say that? Who cares anyway?

You're making the mistake of assuming the government is very good at finding out that information, or managing it.

Look at the **** about Chinese made toys and the toxic plastic/paint. The government has been charged with taking care of that **** and making sure it doesn't happen, but guess what - it happened anyway. The government is inefficientive in dealing with these matters.


There are organizations like that ALL OVER the place - they're called NGOs (or non-governmental organizations) and they are often in charge of things the government might do, but instead are charged to do it in the private sector.

Think of the Red Cross. Emergency response - medical care... blood donations and banking. These are things the government COULD do... but the Red Cross does it a lot better than they EVER could (check out FEMAs emergency response for Katrina, and the international Red Cross' response to the Tsunami for example).

Its the nature of government to be un-innovative, bloated, slow and inefficient. The government is a monopoly in and of itself. Imagine every negative aspect of a monopoly, amplify it by 10 and there you have what government does.

I see it every day in the work I'm in. My old company was founded by former NSA people - they are 100% government people... they think like government people, they act like government people, they manage employees like government people, etc. My old company is inefficient, slow, poorly manages its assets, and takes about 10 times longer to do something than it should.

I've worked in pure private sector companies before, and its ASTONISHING to see the difference.

Lesson? Government is poison, and it should be as small as humanly possible.

You should see some of John Stossel's work on OSHA and the FDA - would really completely change your mind about the necessity (or efficacy) of government.

Sir, you have a lot to learn. Enough with that liberal garbage (aids/mentally ill).

Wow. AIDs victims and the mentally ill are garbage. Maybe you need to develop a little empathy. Imagine if someone in your family contracted AIDs or had a mental illness - you might not want their cause to be called "garbage."

[v-ault]

Wow. AIDs victims and the mentally ill are garbage. Maybe you need to develop a little empathy. Imagine if someone in your family contracted AIDs or had a mental illness - you might not want their cause to be called "garbage."

Those diseases are garbage. Am I wrong? He kept saying AIDS and Mentally ill to defend whatever position he had, and I consider that just liberal propaganda.

And anyway, the constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness. It doesn't guarantee happiness.

There's no reason to tax the richer people more to help out the poor people. It's largely not my responsibility over poor people, people with aids, etc. In a free society, you have to deal with inequality (in terms of class/social status/wealth). You can't have both and that's what a lot of liberals seem to want.

Me, to be honest, I don't give a damn about the mentally ill, people with aids, or people on welfare. Sure it's sad but it's not my responsibility to give up my money and give it to people less successful than me just so they can live OK. Hell, the quicker we get people off those government programs, the quicker they'll learn personal responsibility and maybe make something out of their lives.

This is my philosophy and I know a lot of people here won't like it and disagree with it.

[Naimfan]

I also don't own a gun, just feel that people should be able to.


That's OK--I have (now) four, so we average out. ;)


And anyway, the constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness.

Really? Please cite where it does. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

Those diseases are garbage. Am I wrong? He kept saying AIDS and Mentally ill to defend whatever position he had, and I consider that just liberal propaganda.

And anyway, the constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness. It doesn't guarantee happiness.

There's no reason to tax the richer people more to help out the poor people. It's largely not my responsibility over poor people, people with aids, etc. In a free society, you have to deal with inequality (in terms of class/social status/wealth). You can't have both and that's what a lot of liberals seem to want.

Me, to be honest, I don't give a damn about the mentally ill, people with aids, or people on welfare. Sure it's sad but it's not my responsibility to give up my money and give it to people less successful than me just so they can live OK. Hell, the quicker we get people off those government programs, the quicker they'll learn personal responsibility and maybe make something out of their lives.

This is my philosophy and I know a lot of people here won't like it and disagree with it.

It's very clear that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. That's been obvious since you got here.

That's OK--I have (now) four, so we average out. ;)


Oh fun! Let's go to a range sometime. :)

[Naimfan]

Oh fun! Let's go to a range sometime. :)

You're on!

Are you still digging out from all the snow I'm hearing about?

[leekohler]

You're on!

Are you still digging out from all the snow I'm hearing about?

Yes! It's been really beautiful here. I love snow. Man, you should have seen it the night of the storm. It was amazing. And of course, I was out in it. I love winter.

[yg17]

You're making the mistake of assuming the government is very good at finding out that information, or managing it.

No, you're making the mistake of assuming that the government isn't good at anything. With the right people running, the government is very good at those things. But for the past 7 years, we've had the wrong people running it. We need to try to fix what's broken, rather than throwing it out completely.

[eric55lv]

Well another reason not to like him is because we wernt in any wars,global warming was almost reversed,ect. when Bill Clinton was in office then the retard came into office and now global warming is at its worst we are in a pointless war and stuff like that

[v-ault]

No, you're making the mistake of assuming that the government isn't good at anything. With the right people running, the government is very good at those things. But for the past 7 years, we've had the wrong people running it. We need to try to fix what's broken, rather than throwing it out completely.


Sure the government's good at stuff. They're good at deficit spending.

This is my own philosophy, the government should only:

Protect our rights (which entails a lot of stuff)
Maintain infrastructure
Provide a strong national defense

That's what you call a good government.

It's very clear that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. That's been obvious since you got here.


I worry about family and friends- anything else is not my responsibility.

Well another reason not to like him is because we wernt in any wars,global warming was almost reversed,ect. when Bill Clinton was in office then the retard came into office and now global warming is at its worst we are in a pointless war and stuff like that

You've GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

[hulugu]

Those diseases are garbage. Am I wrong? He kept saying AIDS and Mentally ill to defend whatever position he had, and I consider that just liberal propaganda.

And anyway, the constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness. It doesn't guarantee happiness.

There's no reason to tax the richer people more to help out the poor people. It's largely not my responsibility over poor people, people with aids, etc. In a free society, you have to deal with inequality (in terms of class/social status/wealth). You can't have both and that's what a lot of liberals seem to want.

Me, to be honest, I don't give a damn about the mentally ill, people with aids, or people on welfare. Sure it's sad but it's not my responsibility to give up my money and give it to people less successful than me just so they can live OK. Hell, the quicker we get people off those government programs, the quicker they'll learn personal responsibility and maybe make something out of their lives.

This is my philosophy and I know a lot of people here won't like it and disagree with it.

I'm not sure if your philosophy can survive contact with the real world...

First, I don't really know what you mean by "those diseases are garbage." Ignoring the semantic difficulties, what does this really mean?

Secondly, a lot of public welfare programs are actually utilitarian. It's not just compassion, but a belief that having people starve in this country or having demented homeless people shuffling around is detrimental to our society in the long term.

Thirdly, the free market is an impressive force for change, but because the motive for profit is so high and the requirements for moral force so low, the free market can fail in a number of ventures, especially when it comes to long-term health over short-term profit.

[it5five]

You should see some of John Stossel's work...

John Stossel is one of the the biggest tools ever. He often lies and misrepresents facts in order to promote his flawed view of the world.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=19
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=john+stossel

[v-ault]

Really? Please cite where it does. :rolleyes:

Well, you know what I meant. The declaration of independence. You don't have to be so picky ;)


Also, to everyone else who disagrees with me, let me say this: I do support the THEORY of people like Ludwig von Mises... what my criticism is falls into the practicality of it in today's world. Mises is brilliant - and I wish his world was reality, but it isn't. Really wish his world was reality.


Secondly, a lot of public welfare programs are actually utilitarian. It's not just compassion, but a belief that having people starve in this country or having demented homeless people shuffling around is detrimental to our society in the long term.


Yup, exactly what my dad would say. I happen to disagree. I think welfare programs are detrimental to our society in the long term.

[Naimfan]

Well, you know what I meant. The declaration of independence. You don't have to be so picky ;)


Hmmm....so now being picky has been reduced to asking that a quote at least come from the correct document? ;)

That's it! More taxes for education! :D

[hulugu]

...Yup, exactly what my dad would say. I happen to disagree. I think welfare programs are detrimental to our society in the long term.

Your dad sounds like a wise man. ;)

[leekohler]

Yup, exactly what my dad would say. I happen to disagree. I think welfare programs are detrimental to our society in the long term.

So having the mentally ill roam the streets is beneficial? Wow. Maybe you should listen to your dad. He sounds like a very intelligent person.

[v-ault]

So having the mentally ill roam the streets is beneficial? Wow. Maybe you should listen to your dad. He sounds like a very intelligent person.

That's the point of family. By the way, you have a NASTY habit of putting words in my mouth or not understanding what I say. Where'd the hell did I say it was beneficial? What's beneficial is just putting them to sleep ;). But that's a whole different topic and I don't believe humans have the right to do that.

Being liberal=intelligent

[solvs]

Well, you don't like Bush, so obviously you're a liberal. :rolleyes:

The government is inefficientive in dealing with these matters.
Those same people who keep telling you gov is bad is going out of their way to prove it. Under better management, it can be better. Under poor management, you get what we have now. There's a balance to private and gov, rights and responsibility, something the current neocons in power seem to have backwards.

There are organizations like that ALL OVER the place - they're called NGOs (or non-governmental organizations) and they are often in charge of things the government might do, but instead are charged to do it in the private sector.
Some are good. Some are not. Same with gov.

Think of the Red Cross.
The same Red Cross that lost billions of dollars after 9/11?

Its the nature of government to be un-innovative, bloated, slow and inefficient.
Other countries can do it, why can't we?

And the nature of business is to make profit. No matter what. Again, there are positives and negatives to both.

My old company is inefficient, slow, poorly manages its assets, and takes about 10 times longer to do something than it should.
So does mine, and we're privately owned.

I've worked in pure private sector companies before, and its ASTONISHING to see the difference.
I worked for the county, and it was incredibly efficient. My Mom worked for the state, and it wasn't. I've worked for private companies that were great, some weren't. You're generalizing to make your point.

Government is poison, and it should be as small as humanly possible.
Yes, because that always works so well. Just ask the patients at Walter Reed, or the Iraqi contractors, or anyone who was around before we had gov oversight. Granted, Bush has created the largest gov yet, which the GOP supported, so it's kinda a moot point. You guys talk a good game, but we can see how you act on it. Like with Terry Schivo.

You should see some of John Stossel's work
Stossel? Really? You might want to read up on him. He's not really that reliable a source.

Sir, you have a lot to learn.
There's that condescension again.

Enough with that liberal garbage (aids/mentally ill).
Enough with that neocon garbage. :rolleyes: See, doesn't sound as good when it's against you does it? You wonder why it's hard for us to take you seriously. Maybe throw in a few "lolz" and "bwahs" and that'll do it.

[v-ault]

Solvs, no links on your part--total rhetoric ;).


But let's get down to it. I'm still confused on what you guys are trying to say
Are you guys saying that government is always better than the private sector because I disagree with that completely.

Government oversight isn't bad, but I think NGOs can handle that much better.

About that whole "There's that condescension again." I said that to that guy because that guy originally said I had a lot to learn. I think you should tell him that, not me.

Red Cross still handles stuff much better than fema could ever dream of.

What exactly is your guys' point? Do you guys hate the private sector? Apple wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the private sector.

What's with this whole take you serious thing? Have you read my damn posts? They're some of the longest posts on here. Is it bad that I show some emotion and personality in my posts, unlike a ton of posters here. Oh look at me. I can post properly and seem classy (LOL).

In fact, 2 people have PMED me asking me for my opinion on certain issues because they happen to think "i'm really smart" based on my posts.


Oh, and there isn't really a difference between neocons and liberals, but once again, you won't understand what I mean.


By the way, this thread is really suppose to be about Bush. But we've gone into me arguing with a fellow poster on Ronald Reagan all the way to name calling and how much the private sector sucks.

[atszyman]

But let's get down to it. I'm still confused on what you guys are trying to say
Are you guys saying that government is always better than the private sector because I disagree with that completely.

We're only saying that under proper management the government can run certain institutions better and more efficiently than the private sector.

Red Cross still handles stuff much better than fema could ever dream of.

Of course, but FEMA has been gutted and mismanaged for the last 7 years. Before then it actually managed to do a decent job in areas that needed them.

What exactly is your guys' point? Do you guys hate the private sector? Apple wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the private sector.

The private sector is fine for most industries, but some can be handled with greater efficiency, and do more good if run (properly) by the government. If the private sector is the answer to everything, why aren't police, fire, and national defense handled in the private sector?

[solvs]

Solvs, no links on your part--total rhetoric ;).
Not the way it works and you know it.

Are you guys saying that government is always better than the private sector because I disagree with that completely.
No one is saying that, and as a matter of fact, I clearly stated that it wasn't.

About that whole "There's that condescension again." I said that to that guy because that guy originally said I had a lot to learn. I think you should tell him that, not me.
He doesn't call people "dumb idiots" or "douchebags" or say things like "lolz" and "bwah" as responses and call it intellectual conversation. It's bad enough to be condescending, and you should read his post closer because he made some good points you're still ignoring, you just might learn something, but to be undeservedly condescending is even worse. You're talking down to us, but you've done nothing to prove the superiority you obviously feel you have. He's trying to relate experience, I'm trying to argue tactic (again, noticing you've yet to dispute any of my or anyone else's actual points), and you're making ad hominems. You don't see the difference?

Red Cross still handles stuff much better than fema could ever dream of.
Under better leadership they both can be, and have been, better.

Do you guys hate the private sector?
Of course not, but once again the strawman. There is a balance between unregulated and socialism. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to see that, that it doesn't have to be one or the other. People have laws, but shouldn't be infringed upon as those you support are attempting to do. Business should have laws as well, as the people you support let them get away with things they shouldn't. Mine safety, food, toys, healthcare. They should have guidelines, as we've seen with even the small amount of leeway we've given them that they've chosen to abuse. Unless you like having a business decide it's cheaper to pay for lawsuits of those who might die or get hurt in it's vehicles than to spend a little more and issue a recall.

And again, it's precisely the people who tell you gov is broken who are the ones breaking it.

Oh look at me. I can post properly and seem classy (LOL).
That's why. It makes you sound like you're twelve. You claim to be better than that. Prove it.

In fact, 2 people have PMED me asking me for my opinion on certain issues because they happen to think "i'm really smart" based on my posts.
Me too. So? People think Bill O'Reilly is smart. People think Bush is smart. That proves nothing. Maybe they just think that we evil liberals are ganging up on you, because, of course it can't be anything you're saying or doing, and since we all disagree we must be liberals. You might have said something smart of interesting in this or another thread that was missed by the rest of us because it was buried in rhetoric or inflammatory comments that have nothing to do with anything and still don't address the arguments.

BTW, having to point out that people are PM'ing you about such things makes you comes off as defensive, and to be honest, a little insecure. ;)

Oh, and there isn't really a difference between neocons and liberals, but once again, you won't understand what I mean.
There's a huge difference, in ideology and implementation. Of course, most people are somewhere in between. But you choose to label everyone else a liberal, whether true or not. One of those you'd think as a liberal actually voted for Bush. You're the one making labels, I just threw one back to you, and obviously you didn't like it. I'm guessing you missed my point, which was that.

Though I love that you've tossed another condescending remark out there about how I or we don't get it, but you still haven't actually bothered to clarify your comment if there is something we just don't get.

By the way, this thread is really suppose to be about Bush. But we've gone into me arguing with a fellow poster on Ronald Reagan all the way to name calling and how much the private sector sucks.
Other than me throwing the term "neocon" at you as a response to your overly using the term "liberal" against everyone, and as a negative at that, you seem to be the only one name calling. And again, no one is saying what you seem to think or are at least claiming we are about the private sector. Reagan was bound to come up. I'm sure you think back fondly on him, but the truth is that he wasn't as Reaganesque as the legend tells, and someone has pointed out why, just as we've pointed out the very valid reasons we dislike the current Pres. Both of which you've chosen to ignore, refusing to respond to it with actual debate about our points, instead arguing about the fact that we're arguing and playing victim while insulting us because you seem to think we just aren't getting what you think is your superiority.

Again, you want to have honest debate, let's do so. Cut out what we've been criticizing you for so we can see these fantastic points you think you're making. But you want to keep doing this, this way? Why should we be expected to take you seriously enough to want to debate you?

[hulugu]

Solvs beat me to it, but nonetheless:


...But let's get down to it. I'm still confused on what you guys are trying to say
Are you guys saying that government is always better than the private sector because I disagree with that completely.

Strawman.

Government oversight isn't bad, but I think NGOs can handle that much better.

Do you have proof for this? A case study or even an anecdotal example?

About that whole "There's that condescension again." I said that to that guy because that guy originally said I had a lot to learn. I think you should tell him that, not me.

Which guy? And, furthermore:

Oh, and there isn't really a difference between neocons and liberals, but once again, you won't understand what I mean.

What's up with this? Condescension thy name is v-ault.

Red Cross still handles stuff much better than fema could ever dream of.

What exactly is your guys' point? Do you guys hate the private sector?...

Yes. Sure, why not?
Again, strawman.

What's with this whole take you serious thing? Have you read my damn posts? They're some of the longest posts on here. Is it bad that I show some emotion and personality in my posts, unlike a ton of posters here. Oh look at me. I can post properly and seem classy (LOL).

Length does not mean depth. ;) Emotion isn't bad, but meaningless gibberish, swearing, and insults do not make a good post.

In fact, 2 people have PMED me asking me for my opinion on certain issues because they happen to think "i'm really smart" based on my posts.

You get a cookie. ;)

By the way, this thread is really suppose to be about Bush. But we've gone into me arguing with a fellow poster on Ronald Reagan all the way to name calling and how much the private sector sucks.

Threads go where they may.

[thebassoonist]

Solvs, no links on your part--total rhetoric ;).


But let's get down to it. I'm still confused on what you guys are trying to say
Are you guys saying that government is always better than the private sector because I disagree with that completely.

Government oversight isn't bad, but I think NGOs can handle that much better.

About that whole "There's that condescension again." I said that to that guy because that guy originally said I had a lot to learn. I think you should tell him that, not me.

Red Cross still handles stuff much better than fema could ever dream of.

What exactly is your guys' point? Do you guys hate the private sector? Apple wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the private sector.

What's with this whole take you serious thing? Have you read my damn posts? They're some of the longest posts on here. Is it bad that I show some emotion and personality in my posts, unlike a ton of posters here. Oh look at me. I can post properly and seem classy (LOL).

In fact, 2 people have PMED me asking me for my opinion on certain issues because they happen to think "i'm really smart" based on my posts.


Oh, and there isn't really a difference between neocons and liberals, but once again, you won't understand what I mean.


By the way, this thread is really suppose to be about Bush. But we've gone into me arguing with a fellow poster on Ronald Reagan all the way to name calling and how much the private sector sucks.

Okay, here's a couple of things that I would like to hear your opinion on.

-Child Labor (cheap, exploitable labor!)
-Retirement (should we have social security, or should the elderly have to continue to work - therefore making the next thing important...)
-Child Care and Early Childhood Education (should we have fully public preschools and child care? Should it be subsidized so that both parents can work? Should this be something businesses are forced to provide?)
-Public schools (should we leave education to the free market as well? Maybe it would be better just to have the poorer children who can't afford school working in factories?)
-Health Care - preventative versus what we currently have? An example, giving a type 1 diabetic insulin for life is much cheaper than taking care of the complications (limb removal, kidney dialysis, heart and eye surgeries). Currently our system is set up to only give those without insurance emergency care. The same is true of prenatal health care. Providing the preventative, prenatal care is much more economical than taking care of a severely ill infant, keeping it in the NICU for months. Maybe it is just better for insulin-dependent diabetics like myself and ill infants to be put to death. Should we get rid of all government health care? Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP?

90% of people in Welfare Programs are only in the program for one year at a time (meaning they are in poverty one year, and out the next - correct me if my statistic is wrong, but this is what I can recall from a class). Should we back away from this problem, or help them afford food, housing, and health care (as well as training for a job)? What will happen if we completely back away?

The free market is great for giving us good consumer products. But there are global costs to this. Some people (myself included) don't think that you can put a price tag on the environment, health, and children. What is the price of a human life? Is it priceless? Then maybe the free market isn't the way to go.

I would love to hear what you have to say about these things because clearly you are more brilliant than anyone who has opposed your views in this thread.


*I must make a note that I am just as guilty as most Americans. I am a consumer, I'm not as bad as some people (I don't own a car, I live with three other people, I keep my lights off and hardly ever print things) but I still have no idea what kind of labor went into my MBP or, well, into my shoes. But I'm trying.

[v-ault]

Again, you want to have honest debate, let's do so. Cut out what we've been criticizing you for so we can see these fantastic points you think you're making. But you want to keep doing this, this way? Why should we be expected to take you seriously enough to want to debate you?

That's not the case at all. I really don't care to argue all this private sector vs government stuff because it's a sense of philosophy and you won't change my mind and obviously, I won't change your mind. It's hard to debate philosophies because no cares about the other point. I have a firm belief in the "do nothing" or laissez faire approach. People will disagree with that, and that's fine.

But what I will debate is anyone here blaming Reagan for deficit spending. No one has seriously argued my points on what I said on Reagan besides the nonsense "Reagan put the mentally-ill on the streets". By the way, you've obviously not read my posts on Reagan; you should do that if you want to learn something.

What I do have a problem with is with you saying I'm rhetorical (you are, not me) and saying that's why no one takes me serious. Basically, I'm a conservative and you all do is say no one will take you serious, which is an attempt to indoctrinate everyone to the liberal point of view.

I swear, I curse, and I speak my mind. And guess what? I don't have problem when Bush uses the "F word" or any of that, but sophisticated liberals do. I think more presidents should act like that.

You just reply with your high school teacher like authority and say a bunch of one line sentences and say see, condensation, or the famous post a link (even when it is the huffington post) and say see). You hardly make any logical sense besides spewing out what liberal media outlets say.

If anyone wants to debate me on Reagan/Bush (hate bush though), feel free. Don't just reply and say Reagan put the mentally ill on the streets. themadchemist debated me correctly and did not try talk down to me like you do, even though he has much more of a right to do so because you don't hold a candle next to him (not saying he knows more than me--not by a long shot).He has stopped posting in this thread and I haven't found anyone worthwhile to debate with.


Understand?

[hulugu]

So, basically, you want to choose the ground on which to fight? Okay. I'll argue your earlier point.

Wasteful defense spending? Um no - it was specifically the ramp up in spending on conventional forces, the nuclear arsenal and the SDI initiative that put pressure on the Soviet Union to match us - as they were competing in the world for influence they couldn't be perceived as being the lesser power, otherwise the United States would gain influence, followers and arrest and beat back the spread of communism. To keep up, the Soviet Union increased their own military spending - only because they were a communist nation and not a market economy like the United States, they couldn't sustain it, pay for it or even engineer anything like we could - and they went more or less bankrupt. That economic crisis and their inability to match the United States in ANYTHING was one of the largest contributing reasons for why the Soviet Union collapsed and communism died in the former Soviet satellite nations.

This simply isn’t true. In 1985, the CIA noted that while the Soviet military spending exceeded that of the United States by roughly 45 percent, the annual increase averaged 4-5 precent from 1965 to 1976, but had declined to 2 percent since then. Part of this had to do with the CIA’s analysis of the Soviet Union’s military expenditures, which because of the inherent difficulties in analyzing a closed-state, were made using US equivalents. This created an estimate, but there were critiques of the estimates on both sides: some believed the number was inflated to justify the new Reagan defense budget, others thought the number wasn’t high enough.
That this number continued throughout the Gorbachev era, who steadily fought against increases in expenditures, fearing the kind of runaway spending that the US was absorbing, and yet the Soviet empire was already breaking. The main reason for this was not spending in order to keep up with US missile and bomber deployments, but also to support the war in Afghanistan, which was going poorly. However, while rubles were shifted, the Soviet Union's basic defense budget never grew at a rate that would justify this idea.
Frankly, it's just ******** *********. (Threw that in so I didn't sound like a school marm).

The notion that Reagan’s massive defense budget destroyed the Soviet Union in just eight years came about just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when such notables as Dan Quayle and Richard Perle stated such. And, frankly, their statements didn't reflect the reality of the Soviet position.

What broke the Soviet Union was a combination of poor long-term fiscal policies, the massive defense spending incurred since 1967, reforms by Mikhail Gorbachev, the increasing unrest because of the Afghan war, and discord in the vassal states. Let us not forget the disaster at Chernobyl and of course the increasing movement of US culture and products into the Soviet black-market.

Reagan's defense budget didn't destroy the Soviet Union, it withered from within, eaten away by a dozen different factors.

[v-ault]

So, basically, you want to choose the ground on which to fight? Okay. I'll argue your earlier point.



This simply isn’t true. In 1985, the CIA noted that while the Soviet military spending exceeded that of the United States by roughly 45 percent, the annual increase averaged 4-5 precent from 1965 to 1976, but had declined to 2 percent since then. Part of this had to do with the CIA’s analysis of the Soviet Union’s military expenditures, which because of the inherent difficulties in analyzing a closed-state, were made using US equivalents. This created an estimate, but there were critiques of the estimates on both sides: some believed the number was inflated to justify the new Reagan defense budget, others thought the number wasn’t high enough.
That this number continued throughout the Gorbachev era, who steadily fought against increases in expenditures, fearing the kind of runaway spending that the US was absorbing, and yet the Soviet empire was already breaking. The main reason for this was not spending in order to keep up with US missile and bomber deployments, but also to support the war in Afghanistan, which was going poorly. However, while rubles were shifted, the Soviet Union's basic defense budget never grew at a rate that would justify this idea.
Frankly, it's just ******** *********. (Threw that in so I didn't sound like a school marm).

The notion that Reagan’s massive defense budget destroyed the Soviet Union in just eight years came about just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when such notables as Dan Quayle and Richard Perle stated such. And, frankly, their statements didn't reflect the reality of the Soviet position.

What broke the Soviet Union was a combination of poor long-term fiscal policies, the massive defense spending incurred since 1967, reforms by Mikhail Gorbachev, the increasing unrest because of the Afghan war, and discord in the vassal states. Let us not forget the disaster at Chernobyl and of course the increasing movement of US culture and products into the Soviet black-market.

Reagan's defense budget didn't destroy the Soviet Union, it withered from within, eaten away by a dozen different factors.


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


That is so wildly inaccurate. The Soviet economy was indeed flawed, but it was hardly unstable or "in trouble". The Soviet economic collapse of the late 1980s and early 1990s was a direct result of them attempting to compete with our defense buildups in nuclear capability as well as conventional forces, as well as our economic expansion. They saw themselves lagging behind the US on both fronts, where previously they had been our equals, and attempted to keep up.

In doing so, the socialist theory broke down, because the money they were taking from their citizens was now being poured in a disproportionate way into non-renewable resources (the military) that didn't broaden their economic base. You see, when you spend on tanks, planes, soldiers, etc, those are items in a budget that don't grow your economy - you don't have people learning as many skills, producing products, developing markets, providing vital services (doctors, lawyers, etc), nor do you have spending in infrastructure - electricity, hospitals, schools, etc. That wears down an economic base and means that the economy shrinks, and does not expand. When that happens to a Socialist country, it spells doom, because the government depends on the forced taking of economic resources (money) from its population to further the interests of the state.

As such, when the economy shrinks, and more and more money pours into non-renewable economic resources (the military), it exacerbates the problem, and each year that goes by, the economy splinters more and more. That drastic wearing down of the Soviet economy can be linked DIRECTLY to the 1980s defense buildup and their attempts to counter it.

And in regards to SDI, it did indeed have an effect. Former KGB and Soviet government officials have written volumes of books about SDI - and how they didn't think it would work... but they thought it MIGHT work - and that alone was enough to send them into a panic.

The threat of SDI completely nullifying their nuclear arsenal threat against western Europe, coupled with the Soviet Union's inability to keep up with the conventional and nuclear military buildup is DIRECTLY what lead to the nuclear drawdown treaty that was signed between Reagan and Gorbachev. It was the Soviet panic that they couldn't keep up, the threat that their arsenal would be left neutralized, and the dominance of the American military machine that brought them to the negotiating table and ended up getting that deal done - which significantly decreased the size of nuclear forces in both countries.

Which was of course the theory Reagan operated under. Negotiate from strength, not weakness - and you'll achieve more peace than you will from negotiating from weakness.

[hulugu]

^ :rolleyes:


I miss Swarmlord. ;)

[CorvusCamenarum]

^ :rolleyes:


I miss Swarmlord. ;)


Whatever happened to him? Did I miss something?

[it5five]

He got banned. Although I don't know exactly what happened. I am curious too.

[atszyman]

...
------------------
...


This is exactly why you should provide some links in posts. Are we supposed to take everything you say as absolute truth because you typed it? Why should we not afford the same honor to hulugu? After all, he's been around over 3 years longer than you on these boards. Maybe if we had outside information it would be obvious who we should believe but at this point it's your word vs. his, and a lot of us will be more inclined to believe someone who's been here longer.

[pdham]

As such, when the economy shrinks, and more and more money pours into non-renewable economic resources (the military), it exacerbates the problem, and each year that goes by, the economy splinters more and more. That drastic wearing down of the Soviet economy can be linked DIRECTLY to the 1980s defense buildup and their attempts to counter it

The collapse of the soviet economy is far more complicated than saying it was caused by a single occurence. For one, there is a an inherent flaw in a supply driven economy in a place with no social captial. The unstabble nature of supply side economies is a well documented economic phenomenon.

Because of the centrally planned, supply side system the Soviet Union was unabley to quickly respond to market changes and realign their economic offerings. This occurs because rarther then basing industry and product diversification on anticipated change in final demand, supply side economies base demand on the change in final supply. The logic that an economy can produce demand by changing supply is flawed and resulted in the unstability of the Soviet economy.

From the link below:

Many of the defects of the system, such as soft budgetary
constraints and the resulting self-perpetuating shortages of
intermediate and consumer goods, inefficient patterns of capital
investment and wrong state-fixed prices were systemic and could not
be corrected.

The above reasoning is often debated and is certainly not the only cause. The link below is to an article from a Duke professor which talks about a couple causes. And yes defense spending is ONE of them, but hardly the onle one.

http://www.econ.duke.edu/Papers/Other/Treml/collapse.pdf

[Ugg]

Everyone seems to think that the collapse of communism was centered in the USSR. Solidarity in Poland, protests in East Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic all had a huge impact on the collapse. The USSR was incapable of reigning in the protesters of all the Comintern countries.

First and foremost, communism imploded because of internal issues, not external ones.

History will prove all the worshippers of reagan wrong. It's just sad to see so many people elevate him to a pedestal that he doesn't deserve.

[Naimfan]

The collapse of the soviet economy is far more complicated than saying it was caused by a single occurence.

That, I think, is inarguable.

Generally, I think it's fair to say that the Carter/Reagan buildup of US military strength, particularly conventional forces, was one of the many straws. How much of an effect is impossible to say.

[solvs]

Basically, I'm a conservative and you all do is say no one will take you serious, which is an attempt to indoctrinate everyone to the liberal point of view.
If you knew anything about me, you'd know just how ridiculous that is. I'm not saying no one will take you seriously because you're a conservative. There are actually quite a few conservatives here who are well respected members. Though there were far more before your party began imploding. I almost voted for McCain in '99, and probably would have had he won over Bush against Gore. Not anymore of course, but I haven't changed, he and the party and people he supports have. But you'd rather do what you're accusing us of, and throw out the term liberal as if it fits all of us exactly to turn us into the partisans, and as if it's an insult. It's a tactic we've seen many times here before.

you should do that if you want to learn something.

themadchemist debated me correctly and did not try talk down to me like you do, even though he has much more of a right to do so because you don't hold a candle next to him (not saying he knows more than me--not by a long shot).He has stopped posting in this thread and I haven't found anyone worthwhile to debate with.

Understand?
That would be condescension, not condensation. Ironic that you have a problem with me talking down to you, which you feel you don't deserve, but have no problem talking down the rest of us. Despite any basis for this feeling of superiority. Again, when you act like that, why should be treat you or your posts with any validity? And again, whatever point you may be trying to make, is completely lost in the tactics you're using.

You just reply with your high school teacher like authority and say a bunch of one line sentences and say see, condensation, or the famous post a link (even when it is the huffington post) and say see). You hardly make any logical sense besides spewing out what liberal media outlets say.
I use links to prove my opinion. That's why I believe something, because I see it. If you don't like a link, if you disagree, tell us why, and supply your own. Post opinion all you want, but you post opinion as fact, even if it can be proven incorrect, and you seem to think we should all take you as an authority, which so far, you've given us no reason to. Calling everything that isn't conservative "liberal media" does you no justice either.

If anyone wants to debate me on Reagan/Bush (hate bush though), feel free. Don't just reply and say Reagan put the mentally ill on the streets.
We could post several links proving he did actually close mental institutions and cut funding for programs to help the mentally ill, beginning as far back as the 60's when he was gov (it's one of those things we don't normally have to prove because it's pretty much common knowledge), and I can if you'd like, but why do I think you wouldn't care anyway calling them all "liberal media" links, making fun of the fact that I actually follow the rules here, while not actually providing any links or proof of your own?