Let the Tiny Pendulum Swing...

That is not supported by the facts:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

What brought down the soviet union in the late 80's was the same force that devastated the economies in Houston and New Orleans in the mid 80's; falling oil prices. The soviets lost a ton of oil revenue and just couldn't pay their bills and prop up their eastern european satellites. They did not pull their weight economically, and had to be jetisoned.

 

I disagree . It took a lot more than the price of oil to bring down the Soviet Union. Reagan military expenditures along with the technological advancements of the United States - such as SDI - convinced Gorbochev that the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States. This realization caused it to stop trying which ended the cold war and eventually led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As I said, Gorbochev acknowledged this. I may be wrong but I suspect he knew what was going on in the Soviet Union at that time.

 

On the contrary, with the skyrocketing oil prices, that would help strengthen 'ol Russia!
Yikes, that concerns me....(sorry not to get sidetracked from the main thread, but that might be another pendulum swinging)

 

Right. Seems to me the repubs are fear mongers, who always conjur up a new boogie man, then use it to justify the next great weapons system. They do this to put money in the hands of the defense contractor CEOs, their donors and old skull and bones buddies.

In the 80's, the CIA accurately pegged Russia as not that much of a threat. Reagan got Paul Wolfowitz into the CIA, under Bush I as CIA director, and the largely external group called "team b" produced a report that stated the regular CIA had, guess what, under estimated the Soviet capability. Here comes Star Wars, or SDI. Five years later the Soviet Union can't even feed its people and disintegrates. Another boondogle for the defense contractors. Meanwhile, poor folks get inadequate medical care.

Then who is involved 20 years later in over stating the threat from Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz for Bush II. Seems I've seen this one before.

We spend 500 Billion a year on defense, or next closest competitor, Russia spends 90. China spends 75. We don't need to spend 500, if we'd just keep our nose out of everyone else's business, like the rest of the world does. We should not be the policeman of the world, especially when we have to borrow huge sums to do it, ruining our currency, driving up inflation, eroding our savings, and lowering our standard of living. And we're the only industrialized nation without universal health coverage, so we can build bombs and stealth fighters that we have to struggle to find foes to use them against. The foes we find generally have AK-47's.

 

I agree that most Democrats are working class Americans. But it is that block of voters who are dependent on the federal government that vote consistently Democratic and who the Demos can rely on year in and year out. It was the one group even Reagan could not win over. They vote as a block and they vote Democratic.

 

No disagreement with this. The problem is, what is the alternative. When the disparity between rich and poor becomes too great, and the poor have it too hard, they riot. Happened in France in the 1800's, happened in Russia in the 1900's. You don't have to have a full scale revolution, but street rioting, like seen in France just a few months ago, is a very bad situation. Governments have learned its better to redistribute some of the wealth, than to have street rioting, burning, and killings. Overall, I agree with the govt. position. It's a practical reality of the world. Same reason Iran threw out the Shah, but the Saudi's keep the Royal Family. The Royal Family is enlightened, they know there is plenty money for everyone, and they let enough scraps fall from the table to keep everyone happy.

There is not enough talent in the nation for everyone to get a top flight job, nor enough need in the economy for everyone to have a top flight job. Just share the wealth. You'll have some abuse, but you'll help an awful lot of folks that really need it also. I liked the welfare reforms in 1996, think they have worked well. You can't live on welfare forever.

 

You guys need to stop reading the Demo propaganda sheets with its bumper-sticker slogans and get your facts straight.

When Reagan took office inflation stood at over 11& and unemployment over 7%. He implimented an economic policies based on supply-side economics whcih maintains that economic growth can best be achieved by creating initiatives for people to produce goods and services. His opponents derisively referred to it as "Reaganomics". Despite the ridicule from Democrats, real Gross Domestic Product growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew at an annual rate of over 3% during the remainder of his time in office.
In 1986 Reagan achieved an overhaul of the tax system that eliminated many deductions and exempted many people with low incomes. At the end of his administration the nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. Many economists such as Milton Friedman have maintained that Reagan's tax policies invigorated the American economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s.
In foreign policy he sought to achieve peace through strength. As a result of President Carter's policies, at the time Reagan took office the American military was plagued by outdated equipment, practically zero maintenance on what did exist, low pay, and low morale. Many military were not reenlisting and thousands existed on food stamps.
Reagan saw that the military had to be strengthened if we were to successfully negotiate with Russia. During his two terms he increased military spending by 35% but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. This was not about money, but military capability.
With the new funding, Reagan began production of the XM Peacemaker missile system. His response to the Soviet deployment of the SS-20 missile system was his approval of NATO's deployment of the Persian II missile in West Germany, despite much protest.
His most controversial program was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) system, derrisively called Star Wars by its detractors. The purpose of SDI was to make the United States invulnerable to nuclear attack by destroying incoming missiles with a laser beam. This was not a new idea. Lasers have been studied, and continue to be studied, for defensive purposes since 1973. When SDI failed to win public support, it was shut down but research continued. During his administration, President Clinton called for the development of SDI, although he did not call it that. Today it exists in a limited fashion in the high powered lasar beams that have been deployed on aircraft and space. Research continues in this area and the current plan is to establish a network of 20 satellites designed to knock out incoming missiles every one to ten seconds. Retargeting times are estimated as low as 0.5 seconds. This system is expected to provde the United States with full threat negation.
With Gorbachev he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missles, the first truely successful arms limitation treaty. Were it not for his increased military spending it is highly unlikely that this treaty would have ever been signed. Gorbachev knew the Soviet Union could not keep up with the United States either in expenditures or technological advancements, and decided the best course of action to take was for both nations to accept nuclear disarmament.
There is no doubt that during Reagan's two terms, military spending was very, very high. By the time he had stepped down from office he had expanded the military budget to a staggering 43% increase over the total expenditure during the Vietnam War. However, he was able to accomplish that without economic dislocation - despite the budget deficit. During the length of his administration the nation enjoyed noticable economic growth.

 

he also left a staggering amount of debt, forcing Bush to raise taxes after his infamous pledge not to, probably contributing heavily to his re-election defeat.

Rageannomics began the trend to outsized CEO pay and a widening in the income gap between the haves and havenots. Trickedown, or trickleon?

He also sold weapons to Iran to fund the Conta insugents, which congress had outlawed.


Reagen was by and large a successfull president on some fronts. He was the best I had ever seen at rallying and "coaching up" the American public.

But he had flaws in his presidency, and left some serious problems when he left office.

How's those economic policies working for Bush 2?