GMAC is gonna suck the bailout tit again....

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

>Virtually the whole debt is the doing of the right, yet the fault is the left's . . .

Oh, I'd say there was enough "doing" and "fault" on both sides to go around. Both parties like nothing better than to spend.

Nothing wrong with spending, provided you have an income to support the habit and put a bit aside for a rainy day.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Data from the US Treasury are generally more accurate than youtube clips, in my experience.

Yeah sure............... Ben Bernanke

Worse...Tim Geithner...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

How long can we fail to produce products and still have a high GDP so we can pay the bills for matching the world dollar for dollar in military spending?

It took a few decades for deficit spending combined with an expensive military to crush the Soviet Union.

The Cold War started in 1945-46, right? The debt fell under Truman and Eisenhower for a given year or two, even during Korea. Then it was ok in the 60's, even fell in 69. Point is, the Cold War build-up of the late 40's, 50's, 60's didn't run the debt up, so why under Reagan? Hmm, if I could just put it together, hmmmm, think, think, think.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States lower left graph

You can see the debt start to climb as the top tax rate falls. Esp when fascist Ronnie took office and hammered it down from 70% to 50% overnight, it really took off. The 38% and 28% nailed the coffin shut. Clinton had such a massive growing economy he was able to heal it with just a 40% top brkt, but we have to get back to no less than 50%, preferably 50-70% to be healthy again. It worked all the way from 32 when Hoover pumped it to 63% until fascist pig Reagan slammed it.

_______________________________________________

Now, let's talk the scarry and dangerous axis of evil Russians. In WWII they had teh help of the enire world to take out 2 rouge nations; Germany and Italy. Who knows what apportionment you would lay on them as far as what good % they did in taking out Germany. Let's say 50-50, Russians / allieds. Tell me how, if they are such a feared fighting force that they lost 10.5M troops and the allieds lost about 1/2M. Germany lost 6M. They don't seem too dangerous to me. We are talking conventional now, not nukular (GWB), as Pakistan has the button, so that's not what you buildup for, if they resort to the button all the tank and airships don't matter.

So how much of a threat were they? And tehy had homefield advantage too, we had to travel 1000's of miles and we were substantial. Come on, the USSr was never shit militarily, fascist Ronnie wanted to give the country to Military Industrial Complex and had to dream up an enemy.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Come on, the USSr was never shit militarily,

Tell that to any of the armor folks that were stationed in the Fulda Gap - they'll be more than happy to tell you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Better yet - tell that to the Czechs or the Poles, or the East Germans.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Come on, the USSr was never shit militarily,

Tell that to any of the armor folks that were stationed in the Fulda Gap - they'll be more than happy to tell you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Better yet - tell that to the Czechs or the Poles, or the East Germans.

Why ignore the data that the Alliedes lost ~1/2M, the USSR 10.5M. Who did what? Did the USSR do proportionately that much more toward overthrowing Germany? W/o brealing out the calculator, to be even with us, they would have had to have done 3/4 + of the handling of Germany to justify the losses, unless they were an inferior fighting force and had to rely on sheer numbers, which I think is the case. Germany lost 6M and Russian had homefield or had to jump over to adjacent nation, many allieds, eps us had to travel; hwo is it that the USSR lost almost twice the troops Germany did and literally 50 times the troops we did if they were equaly as lethal as us?

Why notr go back and address other issues in my posts?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Come on, the USSr was never shit militarily,

Tell that to any of the armor folks that were stationed in the Fulda Gap - they'll be more than happy to tell you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Better yet - tell that to the Czechs or the Poles, or the East Germans.

Why ignore the data that the Alliedes lost ~1/2M, the USSR 10.5M. Who did what? Did the USSR do proportionately that much more toward overthrowing Germany? W/o brealing out the calculator, to be even with us, they would have had to have done 3/4 + of the handling of Germany to justify the losses, unless they were an inferior fighting force and had to rely on sheer numbers, which I think is the case. Germany lost 6M and Russian had homefield or had to jump over to adjacent nation, many allieds, eps us had to travel; hwo is it that the USSR lost almost twice the troops Germany did and literally 50 times the troops we did if they were equaly as lethal as us?

Why notr go back and address other issues in my posts?

How about you stick with one timeframe?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Come on, the USSr was never shit militarily,

Tell that to any of the armor folks that were stationed in the Fulda Gap - they'll be more than happy to tell you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Better yet - tell that to the Czechs or the Poles, or the East Germans.

Why ignore the data that the Alliedes lost ~1/2M, the USSR 10.5M. Who did what? Did the USSR do proportionately that much more toward overthrowing Germany? W/o brealing out the calculator, to be even with us, they would have had to have done 3/4 + of the handling of Germany to justify the losses, unless they were an inferior fighting force and had to rely on sheer numbers, which I think is the case. Germany lost 6M and Russian had homefield or had to jump over to adjacent nation, many allieds, eps us had to travel; hwo is it that the USSR lost almost twice the troops Germany did and literally 50 times the troops we did if they were equaly as lethal as us?

Why notr go back and address other issues in my posts?

How about you stick with one timeframe?

Cold War 1945-1989.

Senile Reagan thought the USSR was so tough and scary ...based upon what? Their lame attempt in Afghanistan? Going back, going back, going back....I find nothing from the USSR to make me think they are or ever were a force to be reckoned with, so why the fear? If they lost 10.5M troops, Germany 6M, the US 200k in the overthrow of Germany/Italy, then what makes a sane person (not Reagn) think the USSR would be tough enough to come to the US and kick our asses? They had homefield and they lost 50 times that of the US. It was pure dellusion by Ronnie.

The central questions are this: What makes a sane person believe that the USSR was, A) a threat, and, B) militarily far superior to us so we had to spend 100's of billions?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The central questions are this: What makes a sane person believe that the USSR was, A) a threat, and, B) militarily far superior to us so we had to spend 100's of billions?

I refer you back to my original answer - ask someone who was actually tasked with defending against an attack by the Russians. Or the folks that were occupied by them.

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're a military intelligence and planning expert too, right?

Oh, and an FYI - trying to use troop levels at the end of 1945 to justify military decisions in the 1980's is either extremely delusional or extremely dishonest - take your pick.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I refer you back to my original answer - ask someone who was actually tasked with defending against an attack by the Russians. Or the folks that were occupied by them.

You have to make your argument a microcosm rather than a general overview in order to try to persuade me they were ever collectively tough. I'm sure there were some bad-asses in the Russian army, but as a whole you have to evaluate the entire force and their record in order to determine their lethality. I'm not talking 1 division, 1 encounter, I'm being imperical and looking at teh entire machine; the only reasonable way to estimate a countries military. You also have to determine they wanted to overtake the US in order to conscionably justify the bilking of 100's of billions on the overbuilding of our military and I haven't heard any arguments toward that from anyone.

Quote

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're a military intelligence and planning expert too, right?

All I've ever declared to be is an acft structural expert. After 20 years in structure, 25-30 in all of acft, being in the USAF, flying with my dad and hanging at the airport since I was 5 YO I think I get aviation. So if you want to be sarcastic rather than constructive, fine, but I want to hear how Reagan could think the USSR was militarily leathal enough to mortgage our future. So no, I'm not an expert in anything but acft structure.

Quote

Oh, and an FYI - trying to use troop levels at the end of 1945 to justify military decisions in the 1980's is either extremely delusional or extremely dishonest - take your pick.

This was never about troop levels, this is about government desire militarily and military potemtial in 1981. The numbers I gave you were troop deaths in WWII; the USSR lost 10.5M, Germany 6M, the US 200k.

Mike, I see you're avoiding teh issue, but here it is big and bold:

WHAT WOULD MAKE A PERSON BELIEVE THAT THE USSR WAS BOTH WANTING AND ABLE TO BEAT THE USA MILITARILY? We have to use the past to understand the future/present in 1981 so we can understand why Reagan would think there was a need to pump our military so big.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike, I see you're avoiding teh issue, but here it is big and bold:

WHAT WOULD MAKE A PERSON BELIEVE THAT THE USSR WAS BOTH WANTING AND ABLE TO BEAT THE USA MILITARILY? We have to use the past to understand the future/present in 1981 so we can understand why Reagan would think there was a need to pump our military so big.

Guess what, Lucky - Reagan wasn't building the military based on Russian troop levels ca. 1945 - take $20 and go buy a clue.

Or you could just admit you were full of shit - your choice.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Mike, I see you're avoiding teh issue, but here it is big and bold:

WHAT WOULD MAKE A PERSON BELIEVE THAT THE USSR WAS BOTH WANTING AND ABLE TO BEAT THE USA MILITARILY? We have to use the past to understand the future/present in 1981 so we can understand why Reagan would think there was a need to pump our military so big.

Guess what, Lucky - Reagan wasn't building the military based on Russian troop levels ca. 1945 - take $20 and go buy a clue.

Or you could just admit you were full of shit - your choice.

THE PA'S NEVER END, DO THEY?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Reagan wasn't building the military based on Russian troop levels ca. 1945

I never once said they did, I stated the WWII losses to establish the lethality of the USSR Army as compared to the rest of the world and by that determined they weren't a force to be feared then, nothing since made me think different, so why build up the military so grossly that it put us in the hole to that degree? If they were a force and a threat in 1981, I would be the first to say we should build our military in preparation for a war or showdown, I just don;t see any evidenmce that:

- They were a threat

- They were militarily so superior in 1981 that we needed to build up

This has zero to do with troop numbers in WWII, as in who had how many troops, this was all about will and lethality in 1981 and we must use their history to find evidence of where they're at by looking at history, right? Unless we had a Ouija board.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mike, I see you're avoiding teh issue, but here it is big and bold:

WHAT WOULD MAKE A PERSON BELIEVE THAT THE USSR WAS BOTH WANTING AND ABLE TO BEAT THE USA MILITARILY? We have to use the past to understand the future/present in 1981 so we can understand why Reagan would think there was a need to pump our military so big.

Guess what, Lucky - Reagan wasn't building the military based on Russian troop levels ca. 1945 - take $20 and go buy a clue.

Or you could just admit you were full of shit - your choice.

THE PA'S NEVER END, DO THEY?

Saying you're full of shit isn't a PA - put your big boy pants on and suck it up.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

I stated the WWII losses to establish the lethality of the USSR Army as compared to the rest of the world

Once the Soviets had attained nuclear capabilities the strength of their army in WWII was, from that time forward, a moot point.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I stated the WWII losses to establish the lethality of the USSR Army as compared to the rest of the world

Once the Soviets had attained nuclear capabilities the strength of their army in WWII was, from that time forward, a moot point.

I covered this formerly in th thread. The Reagan buildup was generally conventional. See, if someone wants to push the button, no amount of conventional force matters, which is why we are not going to allow N Korea and Iran to get nukes. We were developing nuclear weapons in the S Pacific from 46 to 58 I want to say and after that it was the Nay of Pigs, not a conventional military operation, but a stand-off. After that VN and the military buildup, but it was escallated during Reagan's term, mostly conventional and there was no need. USSR Communism is a horrible form of fiscal government and was failing early. Hee is a small bit of info about their economy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

The Eleventh Plan, 1981–1985

During the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, the country imported some 42 million tons of grain annually, almost twice as much as during the Tenth Five-Year Plan and three times as much as during the Ninth Five-Year Plan (1971-75). The bulk of this grain was sold by the West; in 1985, for example, 94 percent of Soviet grain imports were from the nonsocialist world, with the United States selling 14.1 million tons. However, total Soviet export to the West was always almost as high as import, for example, in 1984 total export to the West was 21.3 billion rubles, while total import was 19.6 billion rubles.


So we actually exported more to them than they did to us, they had no grain so they had to import it and had been for decades it appears. Probably not enough fertile grouds to grow it upon.

So if we had been hostile with them in the early 80's, what would make a reasonable person believe they wanted to attack us, over-militarize us, etc? Kinda a bad idea to kill your bread supplier.

Did the US spending really effecct the USSR and hasten their collapse? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

Neither the strong nor the weak version of the proposition that American defense spending bankrupted the Soviet economy and forced an end to the Cold War is sustained by the evidence.


The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s.

The Carter-Reagan military buildup did not defeat the Soviet Union. On the contrary, it prolonged the Cold War. Gorbachev's determination to reform an economy crippled in part by defense spending urged by special interests, but far more by structural rigidities, fueled his persistent search for an accommodation with the West. That persistence, not SDI, ended the Cold War.

Now think about this, how do you feel with the weapons disseminated to smaller Russian block countries?
____________________________

Pakistan has nukes, so what does that mean? They could have virtually no military and wouldn't have to have one if tey have nukes. It's really a different animal than conventional buildups. Small countries just need nukes with a finger hovering over the button, large countries need both conventional and nuclear, but they canniot use the nuclear option unless at the last moment. The Reagan buidlup was about conventional military, so explain how the USSR was so tough and wanting to attack us in 1981.

[kj126 0]

recieved this in an email, so who is to blame...........

Wait its bush again, nope Obama, possibly the system as a whole.


> Many other programs not listed, such as AmTrak.
>
> This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE !!
>
> To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature, It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:
>
>
> . The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
> . Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
> . Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
> . War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right;
> $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the
> poor" and they only want more.
> . Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
> . Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
> . The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence
> on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a
> budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You
> had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
>
> You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

I Am Sofa King We Todd Did!!

[Lucky... 0]

But you never post an alternative. See, if you agree there is a problem but just criticize the current propositions, your words fall unheard.

Tell me what to do with the uninsured.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm looking forward to the frog marches

OK, now I'm confused. How are the French responsible for this?

They are responsible for Obama's way of thinking, and Obama will open up the government check book.

(Way of thinking being socialistic, apologetic, and spineless. Sounds French, no?)

The debt was:

- 900B as Reagan took it in 1981

- 2.7T as Reagan left it - with a 250B/yr deficit

- 4T as GHWB left it with a 290b/yr deficit

- 5.5T as Clinton left it WITH A 236B SURPLUS AND THE DEBT WAS ALMOST LEVELED

- 11.3T As Bush left it and left a MASSIVE MESS OF A DEFICIT, not sure it's actually tallied yet.


So tell me, how is D spending so huge and teh R's fiscally responsible?

Here is a little clip for you to help put things in perspective. I find it usually helps when someone draws a picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5fL469k9qc

Yes this clip has been used on speakers corner before. I just thought I would post it again if you missed it.

-------> I find it usually helps when someone draws a picture,

You'll get there, just keep trying. Not me, I can easily extrapolate from words.

-------> Here is a little clip for you to help put things in perspective.

I had to stop at intervals and fix all the fuckups on the vid; it's really just a RW video rag.

- Under FDR with the GD and WWII we drive 40MPH to Greensburough, NC.

------so let's examine that. The GD and 4 years of fuck-ups and tax cuts, lassiz faire brilliance killing x number of Americans and ruining most things, this mess gets handed off to FDR. About all we can say for Hoover is that he finally came to his senses and jacked taxes to 63% top brkt. and started some relief programs. Other than that FDR inherited a total POS. Then after fixing it it turned south mid 37 and then the world was at unrest and he had a MAJOR war to contend with. So after setting us up to win, the debt grew undewr the GD and WWII. At least he had the sense to jack taxes to, at one point in 44-45, 94% top brkt.

FDR handled the GD and war perfectly. Love to hear neo-cons bitch about his spending yet love hos bomb-dropping; the Manhattan Project cost 2B; quit bitching.

- The car went backwards 20 MPH under Truman.

----------- BS, the debt was 258,682,187,409.93 in 1945 and 259,105,178,785.43 in 1952, which is kind, as using 1953 numbers is more acccurate and they're 7B higher. Remember kids, the top tax brkt was in the 90's during the 40's and 50's, the debt actually fell a couple years under Eisenhower.
http://130.94.230.21/debt_history.htm

Remember, the debt grew the most under time of WWII and when the top brkt was
- Under facist Ronnie with a Dem Congress

--------- This retard needs to understand the Senate was R but for the last 2 years when really few fiscal laws were passed. Most of the damage hadd been done the first 6 years. The narrator is an idiot.

- Under Clinton with the Repblican congress.

----------- Hey idiot narrator, both chambers of congress were Dem for his first 2 years, the time when teh tax increases were passed. Very little was done after that, as Newt threw his dick up on the counter against Clinton and lost.

-- Under GWB the debt car went 64MPH,

---------- these are adjusted for inflation, as he said. Reagan was 50MPH, GWHB was 63, so we see the real leadfoots here.

-- Budget estimates for the next 8 years.

------------ Right, estimates. I wonder when Clinton took office I bet the adjusted estimates were for 4 trillion, but it endsed up being 1.6 with a huge surplus and balanced budget, sane debt increase.

One factor dickhead narrator isn't factoring is the condition of teh debt car. To blame Clinton, GHWB or Obama for whatever spending/debt increase is idiotic, as their car was battered and running on 2 cylinders, the others had at least descent running cars. Of course the neo-con approach is to ignore this.

What they're doing is looking at this as an abstract of the Obama's presidency. They're saying that if Obama passed a 787B stimulus Bill every year plus war appropriations for Bush's wars and so on that the 178MPH would be reality and they're right. If we kept this pace of spending up, that would be true. But this is spending directly related to:

- Bush's 2 illigitimate Wars he didn't finish or win

- Bush's crashed economy

- Bush's 700B bank bailout

- Bush's entire mortgage mess, much of what hasn't been uncovered yet


But the other side says to let the economy fix itself and tax cuts, my friends. Brilliance. This logic is like lending a car with 250k miles to a neighbor and as he calls and says it broke down, you ask what he did to break it. Just ridiculous.

Let's examine the individual presidents speed.


FDR = 40 MPH

Truman = -20MPH

Reagan 50MPH

GHWB = 63MPH

Clinton 18MPH

GWB = 64MPH

So let's group them by party:

Dems:

Clinton 18MPH

FDR = 40 MPH

Truman = -20MPH

AVERAGE: 12.66 MPH

Repubs:

Reagan 50MPH

GHWB = 63MPH

GWB = 64MPH

AVERAGE: 59 MPH.

So now who's the leadfoot party. But let's be fair and look at the totality of the issues during their presidencies.

- FDR: GD, WWII

- TRUMAN: DROPPED BOMBS, Postwar labor issues, postwar prosperity

- REAGAN: COULDN'T FIND DIAPERS TO FIT QUITE RIGHT, THE PSEUDO-COLD WAR AGAINST A SO-CALLED ENEMY THAT WAS ON THE WAY OUT ANYWAY

- GHWB: INHERITED A MESS FROM A DELUDED PRESIDENT, FORCED TO RAISE TAXES AGAINST HIS WISHES TO CONTROL THE DEBT, HAD TO REDUCE AN OVERBUILT MILITARY, GULF WAR

- CLINTON: INHERITED A DEFICIT AND DEBT MESS FROM 8 YEARS OF REAGAN AND 4 OF GHWB TRYING TO FIX IT, ENJOYED THE COMPUTER START-UP ERA,

- GWB: INHERITED THE TAIL END OF THE MOST ROBUST ECONOMY EVER, 911, KATRINA

So that completes the picture, some presidents that sucked have a bit of an excuse, others do not. GWB had some bad shit happen, but handled it all wrong. Reagan had very little bad happen and totally fucked it up. Clinton had a great stretch of time and did most things right. Obama inherited a total abortion and to this early point has done very well. GHWB inherited a turd and never had teh chance to fix much, had the war as a distraction but handled it perfecctly.

I apologize to conservatives for the data; I'm sure there are plenty of spelling errors you can investigate.

You must be proud of yourself.... Was that your forum Picasso?

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

In one post you use the relative weakness of the Soviet army in WWII to show whay the US didn't need to buildup its military under Reagan, yet in the next you essentially agree that the strength of the Soviet army in WWII was immaterial during the 80s. I don't get it.

Quote

Now think about this, how do you feel with the weapons disseminated to smaller Russian block countries?

Anybody with a brain knows it sucks and why.

Quote

The Reagan buidlup was about conventional military, so explain how the USSR was so tough and wanting to attack us in 1981.

You pretty much answered that question in the previous sentence. "Small countries just need nukes with a finger hovering over the button, large countries need both conventional and nuclear, but they canniot use the nuclear option unless at the last moment."

Reagans campaign ad from 1984 answers all your questions perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You must be proud of yourself.... Was that your forum Picasso?

Why not hit reply in that case - save the bandwidth - you didn't add anything anyway, just skip it or if you need to add nothing, do so, but don't pretend you actually contribute.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Virtually the whole debt is the doing of the right

There you go making up stuff again.

Quote

All I've ever declared to be is an acft structural expert.

No, you have claimed to be an economics expert as well.

I can't believe you had the balls to post this:

Quote

THE PA'S NEVER END, DO THEY?

Irony score off the freakin chart!!!!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In one post you use the relative weakness of the Soviet army in WWII to show whay the US didn't need to buildup its military under Reagan, yet in the next you essentially agree that the strength of the Soviet army in WWII was immaterial during the 80s. I don't get it.

I realize it would actually take you some work, but why not post examples of how I did that. Here it is again, not that you shouldn't go back and make your point, you won't, but when Reagan cam into office and decided the axis of evil was horrible and had to be stomped out, he should have made an assessment on 2 points:

1) The USSR was an active and imminent threat

2) The USSR had the conventional lethality to do grave damage to the US so we better tool up

OK, agree? So now we have to determine both items above. We were trading with them, I don't see how they were a threat. They made no overt threats and in fact, since teh Bay of Pigs had even repaired our relationship.

Now for the second, how do we determine how conventionally lethal the USSR is in 1981? Well, the Afghan War started a little over a year prior and I don't know what other conflicts they had gotten in before that, but the last major one I know of where we could make an assessment was WWII. I've posted the numbers a lot of times, the fact is that the USSR was not an efficient killing machine but a large low-tech force who threw a lot of people at an issue and a lot died, they eventually got teh job done. The US, OTOH, lost 200k as they did what % inteh defeat of Germany/Italy? If we did the same amount as Russia, we were 50 times better/more efficient. I just can't make an argument for how tough Russia was in 1981 by looking at ANY of their past performances, can you? And I can't establish how Russia had an itch to defeat us. Reagan was a product of the 40's, 50's where he thought the commies were-a-comin and never lost the delusion. He was basically a fascist businessman that was protectionist of corporations; this truely was a MAJOR shift in our society and ole crappy drawers had to use the USSR as a reason to shift the country to the corporations.

Quote

Anybody with a brain knows it sucks and why.

Right, it was a rhetorical question, the idea is that promoting teh breakup of teh USSR was a bad idea; thx fascist Ronnie.

Quote

You pretty much answered that question in the previous sentence. "Small countries just need nukes with a finger hovering over the button, large countries need both conventional and nuclear, but they canniot use the nuclear option unless at the last moment."

That doesn't answer it, now you answer it: The Reagan buidlup was about conventional military, so explain how the USSR was so tough and wanting to attack us in 1981.

How was Russia both wanting and able to attack the US in 1981?

Quote

Reagans campaign ad from 1984 answers all your questions perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

Thank you!!! Sinc no one can really be sure who's right (how tough the bear is) isn't it smart to be as string as the bear?

And 1989 showed who was right. It didn't take a genius in 1981 to understand that Russia wasn't shit. Their economy was decimated then, they had no designs to attack us; WE PROVIDED THEIR FUCKING GRAIN FOR FUCK'S SAKE. So we have to use what intelligence is available and make an honest detrmination.

See a pareallel between idiot Reagan and idiot GWB? They hide behind the supposedly unknown and then blame it on bad intelligence after things go to fuck. Those 2 turds are to blame for the massive debt, the debt might be 3-4T at the most w/o them, probabluy 2Tish, now the Dems are allegedly evil by some for having to spend our way out of this mess THEY CREATED.

Butthx for cherry-picking all that info you ran from the post.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Virtually the whole debt is the doing of the right

There you go making up stuff again.

The debt increase goes in 2 main steps.

- 900b to 5.5T
Reagan started the tax cut and massive spend frenzy, the 2 following presidents - GHWB and Clinton - cut spending, cut the military and increased taxes. Their deeds paid off in 2001 when Clinton left with a 236B surplus and the increase to the debt his last year was only 33B from 12 years of 250B/yr.

- 5.5T to where it is today 12T and climbing
GWB took the economy, gave away the surplus and cut taxes in the start of what is today a $1T war and climbing. He spent on whatver he wanted and cut taxes leading to this mess. Will Obama be able to cap this mess so the next neo-con can run it up again?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

1: The only ones who know whether or not the Soviet Union was an imminent thereat were the Soviet leadership and those who had access to intelligence pointing one way or the other. I'm pretty sure you don't fall into either one of those categories. That means you have to make your best guess without the benefit of knowing what Reagan knew.
Were they an imminent threat? My guess is the same as yours; No. But that doesn't mean that status could not change at the drop of a hat. Since you are so fond of diiging in the past, the US cut off trade with Japan in July of 1941. Less than 5 months later they attacked Pearl Harbor and caught the US with our pants down.

2: Exactly my point, thank you very much. Since we didn't know what the future of US-Soviet relations was going to be we had no choice but to be prepared for any eventuallity. That includes conventional as well as non-conventional warfare. If you don't understand that concept, watch the Reagan ad again. Selling lots of grain to the Soviets is a poor reason to think we were immune from any conflict with them. Most wars through history have been over one of two things: Resources or religion. Sometimes both.

BTW, I did post an example of you contradicting yourself. Re-read my post and pay attention to what lines of yours i quoted.

edited to correct typo

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The debt increase goes in 2 main steps.

THREE, you clearly are not looking at what is currently going on.

Quote

- 900b to 5.5T

Carter lead that, Reagan had to try to turn around the economy while trying to bust the USSR.

Quote

- 5.5T to where it is today 12T and climbing

GWB inherited the recession from Clinton (now, unlike you I don't blame this things on party's... There are plenty of reasons why the Clinton recession happened). GWB then had to deal with not only the recession, but 9/11.

Quote

Will Obama be able to cap this mess so the next neo-con can run it up again?

Again, if you look at the data, Obama is spending at a rate that makes anyone else look pennywise and thrifty.

But your partisan blinders prevent you from seeing that.

You bitch about debt, but Obama is increasing the deficit faster than any other person EVER. Where is your outrage at that?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334