ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics
-
No. I do not. I contend that for all the so called greatness he had, he had saddled the US with a huge debt that has strategic problems. Now, US treasury bonds are held by China who could potentially use it as a lever of power if they so choose. Not least, if the US suffers recession and collapse, it is going to owe a heck of a lot of money. Not least, Reagan did not tip it over. The Soviet economy was already buckling under stress and they wanted to negotiate. There was no need for even a kick. The state of the economy, already practically total war levels, is simply buckling and they wanted to reform. You do understand the meaning of "total war" no?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Reagan sure tipped it over. Thats why Gorbachev was forced to initiate an arms treaty which Reagan rejected.
Why do you hate Reagan? Is it because he happened to be Republican?
P.S. I was editing that post when you replied. -
The wiki articles are clear. Reagan was instrumental in tipping over the Soviet Union and winning the cold war. You can continue playing denial and arrogance all you want. All you did is just show everyone here how biased and intellectual dishonest you are.
Reagan's spending on defence turned out to be good investment for that very reason. W/o his investment, the cold war would have continued with even more money spent and more people dead and oppresed. We look at history with logic and perspective, you don't.
And his tax cuts resulted in recovery for America. W/o his tax cuts, America wouldn't be what it is today. Thats why Reagan was hailed in such awe by the American public, both Dems and republicans. Reagan made America great again and gave his countrymen confidence. -
Wiki articles my pooey. You have no clue that Wikipedia is filled to the brim with fools. It essentially is a collection of fools agreeing to compromise for the sake of compromise. This article quote only right wing sources, and this is hardly balanced article. Not least there are turf wars from time to time with people editing the edited the edited the edited.Originally posted by Mat Toro:The wiki articles are clear. Reagan was instrumental in tipping over the Soviet Union and winning the cold war. You can continue playing denial and arrogance all you want. All you did is just show everyone here how biased and intellectual dishonest you are.
Reagan's spending on defence turned out to be good investment for that very reason. W/o his investment, the cold war would have continued with even more money spent and more people dead and oppresed. We look at history with logic and perspective, you don't.
And his tax cuts resulted in recovery for America. W/o his tax cuts, America wouldn't be what it is today. Thats why Reagan was hailed in such awe by the American public, both Dems and republicans. Reagan made America great again and gave his countrymen confidence.
That you even dare to trust such an article wholely sure speaks of your intellectual credibility. How many times must I knock into your head that his tax cuts led to a recession under George H Bush who had no choice but to raise taxes to ensure the government did not go bankrupt? The taxes before he came were understandably ludicrous, but he screwed it all with his incredible arms spending that led to a huge deficit. A government that is bankrupt is useless. Not least, you dared to cherry pick the article I posted which was an official Congress report and have thus far not addressed the points I had about the state of the Soviet economy which was stretched the limit by the 1980s because of their lack of development of a light industry because they devoted all their resources towards building to their military for 40 over years since the end of WWII. Every country, empire, that committed itself to such an affair simply bankrupted itself and collapsed, much as the Western Roman Empire has, or any other empire. By no means has Reagan anything to do with the Soviet Economy collapsing, since the Soviets did it to themselves and Reagan had nothing to do with it whatsoever. He only attempted to intimidate the Soviets into telling them that they will not win in the long run militarily. Which is true. The Soviet economy was shrinking and not growing in the 1980s with no end in sight. If you need a present example, go look at N. Korea.
And I recall that Alan Greenspan aimed consistently for moderate and constant growth and not an explosive one. Have you ever considered that? Clearly you are by no means a trained economist, much less a political scientist. If you are anything, you are a bloody liar, of the same stripes of Gazelle and that parasitic Oxford Mushroom. -
It seemed there is plenty of local leaving here each year n 800 of them left each year. If it such a great nation, why would the govt try to encourageOriginally posted by Mat Toro:making singapore such a great nation to live in.
them to come back by organizing a Spore fair in NY or speech by Manpower minister to encourgae 400 talented locals to come back? -
800 is a drop in the ocean. Singapore is still a great country.
much more came here every year. if singapore isn't a great nation, why would so many come? -
To u 800 is not many but to the govt, it is a serious problem. Remember the NAtional Day rally sppeech, the govt is worried about the people leavingOriginally posted by Mat Toro:800 is a drop in the ocean. Singapore is still a great country.
much more came here every year. if singapore isn't a great nation, why would so many come?
to other countries. Come to think about it, have u asked urself how come local want to leave? What is their reason for leaving? U 100% sure these foreigners come here want to settle here permanently? -
+1Originally posted by Mat Toro:800 is a drop in the ocean. Singapore is still a great country.
much more came here every year. if singapore isn't a great nation, why would so many come?
It look like immiration agencies will see a surge in application among local
after reading ur opinion. -
That's just what your warped notion of history's alleged role. It's only split in your view - as split as I'm certain as to your gender.Originally posted by Arapahoe:[quote]Originally posted by walesa:
[b]
After all, am I supposed to believe your opinion that it's"still too early" to judge Bill should hold more water than those who have directly experienced his policies first-hand?
[b]
History view past President on their major decision that transformed people. Changed life; change the world. Its not the things/decision he did nor did not make. And it is not because he work tirelessly to bring peace with no result. What is interesting is that when it comes to list of Bill's accomplishment it is never a solid yes. Views are alway split. So it is not time to judge. After all he is still in the limlight.
I didn;t ask you to believe. -
you must be an expert on American politics to make such a sweeping comment. are you George Bush's political advisor ?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Wiki articles my pooey. You have no clue that Wikipedia is filled to the brim with fools. It essentially is a collection of fools agreeing to compromise for the sake of compromise. This article quote only right wing sources, and this is hardly balanced article. Not least there are turf wars from time to time with people editing the edited the edited the edited.
That you even dare to trust such an article wholely sure speaks of your intellectual credibility. How many times must I knock into your head that his tax cuts led to a recession under George H Bush who had no choice but to raise taxes to ensure the government did not go bankrupt? The taxes before he came were understandably ludicrous, but he screwed it all with his incredible arms spending that led to a huge deficit. A government that is bankrupt is useless. Not least, you dared to cherry pick the article I posted which was an official Congress report and have thus far not addressed the points I had about the state of the Soviet economy which was stretched the limit by the 1980s because of their lack of development of a light industry because they devoted all their resources towards building to their military for 40 over years since the end of WWII. Every country, empire, that committed itself to such an affair simply bankrupted itself and collapsed, much as the Western Roman Empire has, or any other empire. By no means has Reagan anything to do with the Soviet Economy collapsing, since the Soviets did it to themselves and Reagan had nothing to do with it whatsoever. He only attempted to intimidate the Soviets into telling them that they will not win in the long run militarily. Which is true. The Soviet economy was shrinking and not growing in the 1980s with no end in sight. If you need a present example, go look at N. Korea.
And I recall that Alan Greenspan aimed consistently for moderate and constant growth and not an explosive one. Have you ever considered that? Clearly you are by no means a trained economist, much less a political scientist. If you are anything, you are a bloody liar, of the same stripes of Gazelle and that parasitic Oxford Mushroom.
-
What you've just posted is more than sufficient to debunk your initial drivel about your seemingly flippant stance on "the future foreign policy that needs attention will be coming out from Africa and the middle east".Originally posted by Arapahoe:Africa. Here is an observation by a well known writer. I think he outline it fairly and politely.
ClintonÂ’s trip was the longest and most extensive of any president of the United States to Africa. In an era of imagery, ClintonÂ’s eleven-day and six nation jaunt included a huge entourage of businessmen, politicians, and press members. His call for mutual regard and mutual respect was the turning point for America to open its mind and eyes to Africa. He was at ease and comfortable, clapping to the beat of tribal music. He offered a broad expression of contrition for what he called his countryÂ’s shameful legacy in Africa, including AmericaÂ’s role in the slave trade and its support of repressive anti-Communist dictators during the Cold War. And he even acknowledged the AdministrationÂ’s resistance to appeals for intervention in the Rwanda crisis.
In summary, let me say this: beyond the legacy of being the President who initiated the move to making Africa visible, Clinton will be seen as one who raised the profile of Africa, opened the eyes of the bureaucracy, exposed Americans to AfricaÂ’s diversity, and changed peopleÂ’s thinking about the continent. His efforts have raised the level of expectations for the next administration vis a vis Africa.
Still, the news is not all good. [b]Clinton did not fundamentally address real issues. As many a Caribbean and African leader would say, "Trade and investment are critical, but they are not enough in themselves." American foreign policy toward Africa and the Caribbean must be more all-embracing.
[/b][/b][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by Arapahoe:
First he doesn't have the excess baggage that Hiliary is carrying from Bill that I think is important. The future foreign policy that needs attention will be coming out from Africa and the middle east.
So what would you rather have and which side of the fence would you rather be on now that you've done your belated research on the Clinton administration's efforts in Africa and the Middle East? Instead of conceding the Clinton administration actually not having done anything for Africa, you're now saying they just haven't done enough, eh?
So is Hillary's efforts still hindered by her association with a President who did more than any previous administrations since the second world war for a region you regard to be important as far as the next administration's foreign policy goes? Or are you unable to make up your mind and need further research to ascertain millions of Americans' fixation on a President who left office with the third highest approval ratings in history?
While his foreign policies were, broadly speaking, extensively all-encompassing, the degrees of his successes were invariably different. It's not rocket science it wouldn't be realistic every foreign policy endeavour he pursued would have resulted in success on the scale of the Good Friday Agreement he had in Northern Ireland, would it? Or is it too complex for you to understand, by the law of averages, policies would invariably yield different measures of success? Or is your world blinded by the excessive monochromes that you can't actually look past success and failure in absolute terms, and perhaps understand that policies that aren't totally successful are hardly abject failures? -
Would you seriously expect to be considered a serious contender if you weren't looked at favourably and in a friendly manner?Originally posted by Arapahoe:Right now Hiliary is in the friendly crowd. Woman and democrats voters. If she wins the primary than we should see washington politics intensified. All dirty tricks will creep up. Bill will be a target by political opponent. Obama is clean, but lack experience.
I haven't got a clue what you're driving at with the above. Women and minorities form the core of the Democrats' support as much as any other group, so I don't see how Hillary needs to be in the "friendly" crowd to secure the support of this group - any Democratic candidate can reasonably expect to count on a sizable support from this group.
As a matter of fact, the primaries and caucuses are harder to win than the eventual presidential elections - I don't see how someone who can survive the primaries will actually worry about being a "target" of political opponents where "all dirty tricks will creep up". If anything, the baptism of fire in the primaries and caucuses would only do the eventual successful nominee a world of good when Election Day - by which time, he/she would no longer need to worry about detractors from his/her own party - comes around. -
To do more good than your limited intellect will ever permit you to understand.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Longest trip to Africa to do what good? How did it benefit the Africans?
Yes, and I presume it still beats someone who is genuinely dumb and espousing a brand of drivel so removed from reality it'd appeal only to the palpably insane.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Both FN and walesa chooses to play dumb just ebcause they hate replubicans.
The message and legacy is clear. Reagan did outspend the Soviet union and caused it to collapse because teh Soviets knew they could not keep up.
I bet the rift that started in Poland with Solidarnosc whose eventual impact extended to sparking off the domino-effect of de-satellisation across the Eastern Bloc, Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost & Perestroika with its ensuing economic woes and the differences between the reformists and the hardliners had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Union's collapse. Reagan's spending must have done it on its own, eh? -
Are you seriously oblivious to the obvious or are you that intellectually-handicapped you can't see the picture?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Reagan sure tipped it over. Thats why Gorbachev was forced to initiate an arms treaty which Reagan rejected.
Why do you hate Reagan? Is it because he happened to be Republican?
As a matter of fact, Gorbachev was a realist. Glasnost and perestroika became necessities as soon as he held the helm simply because he understood the USSR had to reform its economy and way of life for regime survival. The eventual demise of the Soviets would, by all accounts, be traced to the economic and domestic woes that resulted from Gorbachev's glasnost policies, instead of the thrash you've been dishing out about Reagan outspending the Soviets.
In fact, that approach was not exclusive to the Soviets. The Chinese did the same a couple of years later to sustain an ailing regime that had limited experience of running a market economy, running into similar problems - from instability to inflation - that had confronted the Soviets. If anything, the Chinese' saving grace stemmed from Deng's high-handed approach in dealing with the ensuing unrest (most famous of which was the Tiananmen Massacre in '89) and, to some at least, Deng's prudence at not implementing both glasnost and perestroika simultaneously.
If anything, the Chinese and Soviet experiences are sound justifications used by the North Koreans for their refusal to open up their economy (or any other aspect of life for that matter) for fear of the regime's decimation. -
That confidence was returned to the masses when Clinton was president, not Reagan.Originally posted by Mat Toro:And his tax cuts resulted in recovery for America. W/o his tax cuts, America wouldn't be what it is today. Thats why Reagan was hailed in such awe by the American public, both Dems and republicans. Reagan made America great again and gave his countrymen confidence.
Reagan did what was necessary in his time and rose to the challenges confronting him - and for that alone, he should very rightly be remembered as one of the outstanding Presidents of the 20th Century.
That said, as Fingolfin_Noldor has pointed out, Reagan's ill-advised economic policies led to a debt expansion that would - regardless of whether Reagan had realised it at the time - affect the impact of the economic policies he had put in place. Regan's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations had not cut unemployment, increased consumer spending or brought about economic recovery in the way he had hoped (as a matter of fact, unemployment was still on the rise right up to the final days of George HW Bush's term).
Ironically, it was through Clinton's fiscal policies where taxes were altered (favourably for some and harshly for others) in such a manner that the bulk of the American economy remain in the hands of the middle class, that the budget was balanced and eventually yielding record budget surpluses - and yes, unemployment declined and consumer spending increased too. That said, Clinton's achievements came at the expense of increasing the national debt too (although it was insignificant, compared to the scale of the national debt chalked up by Reagan and George HW Bush) - and that's a source of contention used by his critics and detractors trying to derail his economic achievements - but Clinton had succeeded in restructuring an economy whose growth could more viably sustain a national debt than the one George HW Bush had vacated when he left Office. -
some leave because they think Singapore is too stressed. That one no choice cos that is the only way we can survive. If they can't handle the competition, they can go.Originally posted by will4:To u 800 is not many but to the govt, it is a serious problem. Remember the NAtional Day rally sppeech, the govt is worried about the people leaving
to other countries. Come to think about it, have u asked urself how come local want to leave? What is their reason for leaving? U 100% sure these foreigners come here want to settle here permanently?
I won't worry if i am the PM. -
Now yu really showed you dunno US economics and politics.Originally posted by walesa:That confidence was returned to the masses when Clinton was president, not Reagan.[/quote]
This tells me you do not know american history at all. Everybody knows it was Reagan who gave americans their dignity back, thats part of the reason why why they called him the great communicator.
under clinton Americans lost their dignity. Their leader had a cheap affair in the office and pulled out of somalia. My american frens and colleagues were so disapointed and ashamed.
History did judge him well.
Reagan did what was necessary in his time and rose to the challenges confronting him - and for that alone, he should very rightly be remembered as one of the outstanding Presidents of the 20th Century.
Clinton on the contrary is still searching for a legacy cos he doesn't have one.
Again you showed your ignorance so openly. Turnaround of the US economy took place right under Reagan's policies of tax cuts.
That said, as Fingolfin_Noldor has pointed out, Reagan's ill-advised economic policies led to a debt expansion that would - regardless of whether Reagan had realised it at the time - affect the impact of the economic policies he had put in place. Regan's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations had not cut unemployment, increased consumer spending or brought about economic recovery in the way he had hoped (as a matter of fact, unemployment was still on the rise right up to the final days of George HW Bush's term).
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
[quote]
Ironically, it was through Clinton's fiscal policies where taxes were altered (favourably for some and harshly for others) in such a manner that the bulk of the American economy remain in the hands of the middle class, that the budget was balanced and eventually yielding record budget surpluses - and yes, unemployment declined and consumer spending increased too. That said, Clinton's achievements came at the expense of increasing the national debt too (although it was insignificant, compared to the scale of the national debt chalked up by Reagan and George HW Bush) - and that's a source of contention used by his critics and detractors trying to derail his economic achievements - but Clinton had succeeded in restructuring an economy whose growth could more viably sustain a national debt than the one George HW Bush had vacated when he left Office.
The very Clinton policies were proven to be destructive as it resulted in a recession that was turned around soon after Bush jr. did his tax cuts. The taxes were the killer of the economy. -
The North Koreans are wrong. Thats why they are starving and their people die like flies. Thats why they have 1oo - 200k suffering in political prisons today.Originally posted by walesa:Are you seriously oblivious to the obvious or are you that intellectually-handicapped you can't see the picture?
As a matter of fact, Gorbachev was a realist. Glasnost and perestroika became necessities as soon as he held the helm simply because he understood the USSR had to reform its economy and way of life for regime survival. The eventual demise of the Soviets would, by all accounts, be traced to the economic and domestic woes that resulted from Gorbachev's glasnost policies, instead of the thrash you've been dishing out about Reagan outspending the Soviets.[/quote]
Thats why Gorbachev pursued an arms treaty because he knew that the Soviet Union could not outspend Reagan. Thats how they lost the cold war.
That does not negate the fact that Reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In fact, that approach was not exclusive to the Soviets. The Chinese did the same a couple of years later to sustain an ailing regime that had limited experience of running a market economy, running into similar problems - from instability to inflation - that had confronted the Soviets. If anything, the Chinese' saving grace stemmed from Deng's high-handed approach in dealing with the ensuing unrest (most famous of which was the Tiananmen Massacre in '89) and, to some at least, Deng's prudence at not implementing both glasnost and perestroika simultaneously.
On the contrary, had there been perestrioka in china, you won't have thousands of farmers chased off their land weekly and rampant slavery in the rural areas today.
[quote]
If anything, the Chinese and Soviet experiences are sound justifications used by the North Koreans for their refusal to open up their economy (or any other aspect of life for that matter) for fear of the regime's decimation. -
I wouldn't like to know a brand of American history fit for the insane and delusional, that's for sure. Apparently, if you can't distinguish public and personal misdemeanours, your drivel carries as much weight as your seemingly defunct intellect.Originally posted by Mat Toro:This tells me you do not know american history at all. Everybody knows it was Reagan who gave americans their dignity back, thats part of the reason why why they called him the great communicator.
under clinton Americans lost their dignity. Their leader had a cheap affair in the office and pulled out of somalia. My american frens and colleagues were so disapointed and ashamed.
I never disputed the fact Reagan is indeed a celebrated figure in the US political arena. It's your problem your warped and distorted sense of "facts" precludes you from coming to terms with Clinton's economic legacy. Clinton doesn't need to search for a legacy, just as Reagan doesn't need you to sell him short by crediting him with the wrong things.Originally posted by Mat Toro:History did judge him well.
Clinton on the contrary is still searching for a legacy cos he doesn't have one.
If the turnaround of the US economy had taken place as a consequence of Reagan's policies on tax cuts, would you like to explain how the two recessions under Reagan's presidencies came about?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Again you showed your ignorance so openly. Turnaround of the US economy took place right under Reagan's policies of tax cuts.
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
Are you obssessed with pure figures that distort the statistical truth behind the real picture? If you'd been earning USD20, 000 per annum for 5 years, see a dip in the 6th to USD15, 000 before picking off with an average increase of 5% for the next 4 years, are you necessarily better off economically than someone who has been keeping a static USD20, 000 per annum wage for the same decade, averaging an increment of 2% per annum?
To qualify your point, In The New Republic (Sept. 2), Matthew Miller wrote, "The boom supply-siders love to tout, the 3.8 per cent annual growth between 1982 and 1989, came mainly because we were emerging from a deep recession that left jobless rates in double digits and much idle capacity." That, in essence is what provides you with the foundation of your "economic growth" without first taking into consideration the impact of the recessions on the Reagan administration.
Bold as the neo-conservatives would have you believe Clinton's economic legacy was a myth, I doubt I've seen anything as far-fetched as the bollocks you're painting on "interest rates, inflation, and unemployment under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency". You hardly need starker evidence to illustrate your stupidity - even taking aside Clinton's economic achievements, George HW Bush did better than Reagan on scores of inflation and unemployment (if anything, unemployment was lowest from the latter half of '91 to the summer of '92 during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush). The economic expansion under the Reagan administration was 32.8% even after accounting for the 2 periods of recession; Clinton's stood at 50%. The Clinton administration's unemployment rate stood at 4%, which was the lowest in 40 years.
I'm sure you limited intellect, for all its inadequacies, should have little trouble comprehending the following article.
Now that you've been found wanting in your valiant attempts to call a bluff, I'm indeed amazed how your limited intellect has actually got the capacity to weave up utopian notions that are so unrealistically romantic that would even put Hans Christian Andersen to shame.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Now yu really showed you dunno US economics and politics.
The very Clinton policies were proven to be destructive as it resulted in a recession that was turned around soon after Bush jr. did his tax cuts. The taxes were the killer of the economy.
The taxes were a killer to the economy in the minds of the insane and delusional, perhaps. Then again, for someone with a knack of painting distorted analysis and blatant lies as truth, I suppose George W Bush must be doing credit to the American economy by fighting senseless wars and expanding the national debt to astronomical proportions so as to enable his successor(s) to benefit from another maligned legacy of economic expansion, eh?
Now, I'd be amazed if what you claim to know could be classed as anything more credible than a figment of your own imagination. -
Would the non-proliferation of the arms race adequately explain the unrest within the former Eastern Bloc and within the Soviet Union itself? I'm still waiting for you to cite me more credible sources to back up your "Reagan's spending brought the USSR to its end" garb.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Thats why Gorbachev pursued an arms treaty because he knew that the Soviet Union could not outspend Reagan. Thats how they lost the cold war.
It doesn't render Reagan's spendings as any more substantial than Gorbachev's reformist stance, Walesa and the Pope's disdain for communism, the Soviet's economic woes post-glasnost, Yeltsin's hidden ambitions or a million other domestic factors as legitimate reasons for the eventual demise of the Soviets. After all, the Soviet collapsed from within - and that's a domain beyond Reagan's control.Originally posted by Mat Toro:That does not negate the fact that Reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
On the contrary, had there been perestrioka in china, you won't have thousands of farmers chased off their land weekly and rampant slavery in the rural areas today.
Wrong? By whose definition? Yours? Would it be wrong in the eye of Kim's regime who has at least sustained itself to this day?Originally posted by Mat Toro:The North Koreans are wrong. Thats why they are starving and their people die like flies. Thats why they have 1oo - 200k suffering in political prisons today. -
I thought during the Reagan years, there was a big increase in the budget deficit, probably due to increase military spending in SDI (Star Wars project). Research into SDI resulted in non conclusive outcome.
Following the economic recovery that began in 1983, the medium-term fiscal effect of Reaganomics was a soaring budget deficit as spending continually exceeded revenue due to tax cuts and increased defense spending. Military budgets rose while tax revenues, despite having increased as compared to the stagnant late 1970s and early 1980s, failed to make up for the spiraling cost.
In his first term, Reagan continued to demand increases to the defense budget of up to 10 percent a year. Congressional committees, meanwhile, investigated charges that the $1 trillion of U.S. military spending in Reagan's first term bought surprisingly little, pointing to alleged Pentagon mismanagement. In the 1980s, for example, nearly 50 of the largest U.S. defense contractors came under investigation for overcharges and other criminal malfeasance.
The 1981 tax cuts, the largest in U.S. history, also eroded the revenue base of the federal government in the short-term. The massive increase in military spending (about $1.6 trillion over five years) far exceeded cuts in social spending, despite wrenching impact of such cuts spending geared toward some of the poorest segments of society. Even so, by the end of 1985, funding for domestic programs had been cut nearly as far as Congress could tolerate.
In this context, the deficit rose from $60 billion in 1980 to a peak of $220 billion in 1986 (well over 5 % of GDP). Over this period, national debt more than doubled from $749 billion to $1,746 billion.
While deficit spending has value as an economic stimulus, and assisted the recovery in the post-1982 Reagan years, the dimension of the budget shortfalls of the 1980s left interest rates high and the dollar over-valued, causing investment and exports to suffer and, consequentially, increasing the U.S. trade deficit.
Since U.S. saving rates were very low (roughly one-third of Japan's,) the deficit was mostly covered by borrowing from abroad, turning the United States within a few years from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor. Not only was this damaging to America's status, it was also a profound shift in the postwar international financial system, which had relied on the export of U.S. capital.
Few ways to encourage growth, keynesian style, goverment spend more, then through the multiplier effects, the economy grows. Depending on spare capacity, there might be real output growth as opposed to inflationary growth. -
I already did twice, I'm still waiting for you to go read.
Would the non-proliferation of the arms race adequately explain the unrest within the former Eastern Bloc and within the Soviet Union itself? I'm still waiting for you to cite me more credible sources to back up your "Reagan's spending brought the USSR to its end" garb.
Reagan's policcies force the Soviets to reform and it led to the collapse.
It doesn't render Reagan's spendings as any more substantial than Gorbachev's reformist stance, Walesa and the Pope's disdain for communism, the Soviet's economic woes post-glasnost, Yeltsin's hidden ambitions or a million other domestic factors as legitimate reasons for the eventual demise of the Soviets. After all, the Soviet collapsed from within - and that's a domain beyond Reagan's control.
Why do you hate Reagan?
Are you a communist? Do you love communism? You think communism works?
Of course Kim is well fed. But not the populance of North Korea.
Wrong? By whose definition? Yours? Would it be wrong in the eye of Kim's regime who has at least sustained itself to this day?
So how can NK by right? If NK is right, why don't the world want to follow them? -
I'm still waiting for you to point me out to the part that categorically attributes the demise of the USSR to Reagan's spending.Originally posted by Mat Toro:I already did twice, I'm still waiting for you to go read.
Reagan's policies did not force the Soviets to reform - Gorbachev did so for long-term sustainability.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Reagan's policcies force the Soviets to reform and it led to the collapse.
Why do you hate Reagan?
Are you a communist? Do you love communism? You think communism works?
Are you stupid? Does your stupidity preclude you from coming to terms with the fact that Reagan's role was negligible as far as the Soviets' domestic matters, which ultimately led to its dissolution, were concerned?
So? Does that prove anything bar your stupidity? If Kim's regime's primary objective of not opening up the country was to sustain its regime and has done so successfully, is it still a failure that they've actually met their objectives?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Of course Kim is well fed. But not the populance of North Korea.
So how can NK by right? If NK is right, why don't the world want to follow them? -
I already did, you need to go and read.
I'm still waiting for you to point me out to the part that categorically attributes the demise of the USSR to Reagan's spending.
Thats right, change or die. They just can't keep up with Reagan's arms spending anymore. Thats how Reagam won the cold war against communists like you.
Reagan's policies did not force the Soviets to reform - Gorbachev did so for long-term sustainability.
Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union and set millions free.
Are you stupid? Does your stupidity preclude you from coming to terms with the fact that Reagan's role was negligible as far as the Soviets' domestic matters, which ultimately led to its dissolution, were concerned?
If that pot bellied dog eating dictator is so good, why noot you go to NK?
So? Does that prove anything bar your stupidity? If Kim's regime's primary objective of not opening up the country was to sustain its regime and has done so successfully, is it still a failure that they've actually met their objectives?
I don't see anything succesful or great about running a dictatroship while starving millions. -
Debating with Mat Toro, is akin to exchanging arguments with a petulant kid who simply goes on rambling the same thing again and again with no new arguments, no new anything. If by anything, the term "Republitards" fits him quite well, since constantly espouses neoconservative drivel and trivalises Clinton's legacy and efforts. All these are hallmarks of neocon bullshit.
If there is one thing that is certain, it is:
1. Mat Toro has no degree in economics, political science etc.
2. He cannot think critically.
3. He displays all the hallmarks of dishonesty, stupidity etc.
4. The only people who would listen to him and Republitards who obscure truth and celebrate Reagan like God.
5. He must surely be a PAP hack. Only a moron from NUS/NTU where they don't know how to write for nuts, excepting the humanities, and tries to pander to his political masters can only do this kind of thing. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Debating with Mat Toro, is akin to exchanging arguments with a petulant kid who simply goes on rambling the same thing again and again with no new arguments, no new anything. If by anything, the term "Republitards" fits him quite well, since constantly espouses neoconservative drivel and trivalises Clinton's legacy and efforts. All these are hallmarks of neocon bullshit.
If there is one thing that is certain, it is:
1. Mat Toro has no degree in economics, political science etc.
2. He cannot think critically.
3. He displays all the hallmarks of dishonesty, stupidity etc.
4. The only people who would listen to him and Republitards who obscure truth and celebrate Reagan like God.
5. He must surely be a PAP hack. Only a moron from NUS/NTU where they don't know how to write for nuts, excepting the humanities, and tries to pander to his political masters can only do this kind of thing.