Was Reagan right to pump up the military and drive debt due to the alleged USSR threat?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Depends on wha you consider to be credible. To let your defense capability suffer because nobody is challenging you at the time is stupid.

You have to use reasonable forseeability. Obviously by the end, Reagan was wrong. But to put ourselves back in 1981, let's look at what the circumstances were.

- We were trading with them
- The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish
- Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR.
- Russia was making no threats whatsoever.


OK, so with that set of objective criteria, tell me how the USSR was such a threat AT ALL, but esp one that we had to hawk our future over.

Quote

Yes, there is and whether we missed it or not is a matter of opinion. I feel we haven't.

You're welcome to your opinion as to whether Reagan did a great job pumping the military to ridiculous proportion, cutting taxes all teh while and tripling the debt. Some people think malaria is cool, so who am I to say you're wrong?

Quote

Caught sleeping. Unless you believe the conspiracy theirists who (wrongly) think Roosevelt knew of the impending attack. Taking months to recover was a result of Roosevelt allowing our military to degrade to a minimum.

I agree - caught sleeping.

So how, after FDR inherited a total mess, did FDR let the military degrade? Was it degrade when he took office? Where was it in Dec, 1941 regard to 1933? Had it degraded. I'd like to see support for your assertion. Please, no RW rag sites.

Quote

We got lucky at Pearl in that the Japanese Navy decided not to send another wave of aircraft.

Maybe they had other places to go. Do research, tell me what they did just after Dec 7, 1941. It was their strategy to use their resources where tehy saw fit, no luck but design.

Quote

Our defenses were shattered and Pearl could have easily been taken from us if the Japanese had decided to try.

Yep, but as I said, they had bigger fish to fry to take other places first. Pearl Harbor wsn't their immediate goal and frankly it was too far east at that time. They wanted to stun us so they could do something else; what was that?

Quote

Midway was a battle that should have been a disaster for us but everything that could go right for us did and everything that could go wrong for the Japanese went wrong. Yes, our men fought bravely but there is no doubt that we got lucky. Sometimes in war things just happen that way.

Please, outline the luck.

Quote

The invasion of Europe was long after the time period I was referring to. By then we had ramped up our military forces and supply system all the way from raw materials to ammo in hand.

1) What time period did you refer to?

2) We were ramping up for Europe in 1940, Pearl Harbor was later

Quote

You have the luxory of being able to allow yourself to believe that. It's even easier now 25+ years later. Fact is, you have no idea as to what information the President had available to him and you most likely never will. Airmchair diplomacy is as easy as airmchair quarterbacking. And has about as much influence.

Again, look at the list of WHAT WE DID KNOW IN 1981 and make that claim.

- We were trading with them
- The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish
- Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR.
- Russia was making no threats whatsoever.

Quote

You entire last paragraph is nothing but a rant so I won't bother responding to it.

Oh, about fascist Ronnie being a war coward. Yea, how can you repsond and answer questions like how FR was able to enlist in the guard/reserve and be ok, yet when wartime kicked off all of the sudden he has an eye problem? Really, what can ya say?

[kelpdiver 2]

are you now stooping to arguing with made up RW enemies?

You claim Hoover killed millions for refusing to deficit spend. Reagan did exactly that to deal with the malaise of the 70s. How many millions did he save, by your fantastic math?

The crux of the argument for/against 'did Reagan outspend the Russians to a resolution to the Cold War' is a question of whether or not the Soviet Union would have fallen apart anyway. If you think it was a ticking bomb of FSU freedom, then it would be foolish. If you think it saved 10 years off the process, then it was genius.

Or it was just a byproduct of a plan to prop up the economy, not terribly different from our current stimu pork packages. He blew billions on the Star Wars fantasy, now we're blowing billions of getting people new, slightly more efficient SUVs. 2009 has a lot of free money for crappy trade colleges. 1980s blew a lot in the defense sector. Neither is blowing enough money (if you have to do it) on long lasting infrastructure. That was the long lasting mark of the 30s spending.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

OK, so with that set of objective criteria, tell me how the USSR was such a threat AT ALL, but esp one that we had to hawk our future over.

Without knowing what Reagan and his cabinet knew, i cannot make that call anymore than you can. Are you naive enough to think all executive decisions are made solely on information that is readliy available to the public?

Quote

so who am I to say you're wrong?

Ironic, isn't it?

Quote

Maybe they had other places to go. Do research, tell me what they did just after Dec 7, 1941. It was their strategy to use their resources where tehy saw fit, no luck but design.

The goal of the attack on Pear was to eliminate our Naval capabilities in the Pacific, not just deminish them. They were surprised when no carriers were in port, some of the main targets of the attack. With vitually all escort vessels damaged or otherwise out of service the carriers were sitting ducks for the Japanese forces. They left and headed west without accomplishing all of their goals and it cost them dearly. We were very lucky they made a poor (from their viewpoint) decision.

Quote

Please, outline the luck

One key point, but by no means the only point: A detachment of Japanese subs sent to patrol between Midway and Pearl were late getting to their destination. By the time they did the American carriers had already sailed past. Had the subs been on time they would have easily spotted our ships and any advantage of surprise we had would have been lost if not a carrier or two to torpedoes from those subs.

Quote

1) What time period did you refer to?

The several months after Pearl that it took us to get our military forces populated, trained, armed, equipped, and sent to where they were needed.

Quote

We were ramping up for Europe in 1940, Pearl Harbor was later

Are you lost in a time warp or something? Pearl was the final straw that pulled us into WWII. That happened first, then we had to ramp up for the European theater.

Quote

Again, look at the list of WHAT WE DID KNOW IN 1981 and make that claim

Yep, that's what you knew. Or, at least, that's the way you saw things. You still don't understand that decisions arte made by the President often based on information not made public. Reagan may or may not have had such info. You and I don't know if he did.

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.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

BTW, I found your attempt to use the "reasonable man" standard to the USSR a great deal entertaining.
What the hell is reasonable about anybody, American or Soviet, sitting with their finger on a button capable of killing millions of people?

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

are you now stooping to arguing with made up RW enemies?

The USSR was a threat viable enough to trash our economy and claim victory to their downfall? Really, China is laughing that while teh US and USSR's heads of state were so dumb as to fight each other in a Cold War that would never come to fruition, then as they fall one by one China is there building their manufacturing base waiting for the last one to fall, basically buying us as we do. And you're still there applauding Reagan for leading us down that path under the guise of a Russia that was on the verge of attacking when any competent person in 1981 in Reagan's postion would know there was nothing that would ever happen and even if it in some bizzare way did, we had a competent military and a massive nuclear arsenal; THERE WAS NO REASONABLE NEED TO OVERBUILD OUR MILITARY IN THE 80'S.

Quote

You claim Hoover killed millions for refusing to deficit spend.

The number is up for consideration, but yes, that was 1/2 of it, either deficit spend or raise taxes is actually what I said - thx for 1/2 quoting me for your convenience.

Quote

- Reagan did exactly that to deal with the malaise of the 70s.

OK, what was the malaise of the 70's? I love hopw you throw out some assertion w/o backing it. What issues? What problems rquird fascist Ronnie to pump the military, cut taxes incredibly and triple the debt? Please, name them and then tie in how FR had to apply his policies to fix them. Don't just say, OPEC, IRANIAN HOSTAGES, Etc. I mean really tell me me what happened in the 70's to create the mess that you say needed a massive military and pay cuts and how it worked out.

Quote

How many millions did he save, by your fantastic math?

I think he lost 2 trillion by my math, not sure tho, could you help me? Reagan also made billions for the rich, he is their martyr for sure.

Quote

The crux of the argument for/against 'did Reagan outspend the Russians to a resolution to the Cold War' is a question of whether or not the Soviet Union would have fallen apart anyway.

Well, that's your question. Did Reagan put us in the hole financially based upon an imagined threat? Was the USSR really a threat to us in the 80's? Sho me. We were feeding them, how were tehy about to atatck us when no one would win, esp since the fact you keep dodging; they were in a long war in AFG so how could they focus on us if they wanted to?

Quote

If you think it was a ticking bomb of FSU freedom, then it would be foolish. If you think it saved 10 years off the process, then it was genius.

The Cold War could have been resolved by intelligent people w/o a build-up.

Quote

Or it was just a byproduct of a plan to prop up the economy, not terribly different from our current stimu pork packages.

Nah, that may have been an unintended byproduct, but Reagan was heel-bent on boosting teh militiary, he had no eye problem there.

Quote

He blew billions on the Star Wars fantasy, now we're blowing billions of getting people new, slightly more efficient SUVs.

C4C was 3 billion in 2009 dollars, nothing vompared to his military spending then and Reagan's economy was stagnant, so he contracted the money supply and cut taxes - what a brilliant plan - shot the unemp from a stable 8 to almost 11%.

Quote

2009 has a lot of free money for crappy trade colleges.

Expound.
'

Quote

1980s blew a lot in the defense sector.

That's an understatement; don't forget the tax cuts, my friends.

Quote

Neither is blowing enough money (if you have to do it) on long lasting infrastructure. That was the long lasting mark of the 30s spending.

Really? He kept teachers working, kept the auto industry working and helped to keep the banking industry afloat; that's not infrastructure?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

BTW, I found your attempt to use the "reasonable man" standard to the USSR a great deal entertaining.
What the hell is reasonable about anybody, American or Soviet, sitting with their finger on a button capable of killing millions of people?

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, what was the malaise of the 70's?

Are you the only man alive who didn't think there was a problem in the 70s?

Quote

C4C was 3 billion in 2009 dollars, nothing vompared to his military spending then and Reagan's economy was stagnant, so he contracted the money supply and cut taxes - what a brilliant plan - shot the unemp from a stable 8 to almost 11%.

Are you talking about Reagan or Obama? Those numbers seem rather similar, save that we know with Reagan they improved. We're still on the download path here.

But again, why was Reagan's deficit spending so bad, and Obama's so good? The only difference is that he removed that 70% tax bracket that you dream about at night.

Quote

Really? He kept teachers working, kept the auto industry working and helped to keep the banking industry afloat; that's not infrastructure?

Infrastructure doesn't disappear as soon as you stop pumping in money. If we're going to blow a trillion dollars, why not in roads, bridges, water supply, power lines and production...stuff that we've been neglecting and need badly.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

BTW, I found your attempt to use the "reasonable man" standard to the USSR a great deal entertaining.
What the hell is reasonable about anybody, American or Soviet, sitting with their finger on a button capable of killing millions of people?

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia.

Quote

delluded parahoia paranoia

Wow Ever hear the pot/kettle analogy?

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.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Can't say Reagan didn't take responsibility.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related

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.

[JohnDeere 0]

That's great!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, I found your attempt to use the "reasonable man" standard to the USSR a great deal entertaining.
What the hell is reasonable about anybody, American or Soviet, sitting with their finger on a button capable of killing millions of people?

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia.

Quote

delluded parahoia paranoia

Wow Ever hear the pot/kettle analogy?

All you do is not respond in your response? And then of course point out a typo where I hit the 'h' ratherthan the 'n' - a true typo. as they're adjacent on the keyboard. Did I hammer you when you made a much more grave error of claiming Pearl Harbor was bombed on 1945 rather than 1945; not a typographical error, as the keys are not adjacent? But you feel compelled to demonstrate a simple grave error and why? You don't have an answer to my issues so you misdirect. I don't have to do that, which is why I didn't drag you thru teh mud over saying Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1945.

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia.

Answer it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Can't say Reagan didn't take responsibility.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related

Yea but he never held office as a Dem, just a Repub which is where he did all of his damage, that is, unless you like major deficits and drowning debt.

[mnealtx 0]

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

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

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Answer it.

Answer what?

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

Are you the only man alive who didn't think there was a problem in the 70s?

Quit skating, tell me all of the issue that happened in the 70's requiring FR to fuck everything up in the 80 via gross spending and tax cutting.

Quote

Are you talking about Reagan or Obama?

Here: C4C was 3 billion in 2009 dollars, nothing vompared to his military spending then and Reagan's economy was stagnant, so he contracted the money supply and cut taxes - what a brilliant plan - shot the unemp from a stable 8 to almost 11%.

Obama with C4C, Reagan with the military spending and taxx cuts. You drew a comparison so did I.

Quote

Those numbers seem rather similar, save that we know with Reagan they improved. We're still on the download path here.

I don't follow this, clarify.

Quote

But again, why was Reagan's deficit spending so bad, and Obama's so good?

Reagan didn't receive a 2009 economy. That is insane if you try to compare the two. Reagan spent unnecc on a military buildup due to his dellusion that the commies were coming. Obama is trying not to let an economy that is on the brink of destruction slip into the GD by stimulus spending - is that dishonorable, wrong, errant - tax cuts my friends????

Quote

The only difference is that he removed that 70% tax bracket that you dream about at night.

And then he replacd 50% for 38%. Replaced 38% for 28% and there we were, poor, honorable GHWB had a pile of garbage he had to raise taxes for to escape, which cost him 1992.

As for the only difference being taxes. That is incorrect on so many fronts:

- Reagan did not receive a 2009 econmy, debt mess, deficit mess. Just a stagnant economy and high int rates. Unemp was bad but stable - I think 8%ish. The wprld was mostly at peace; Carter resolved the Iranian hostages issue as Reagan took office; no one hated us and Russia was dumb enough to take the batton of the M.E., so all was well here.

- Obama hasn't touched taxes yet, so how is there a comparison? There isn't.

I laugh when I see conservatives try to compare what Reagan received to what Obama received. Listen, just go to the GD and multipy by at least .50 and that's what we have now. The subsequent recessions in the early 80's, 90's were child's play compared to this. And our approach is quite different too, we used to tax our way out, now we deficit spend - can't anger our poor-baby rich people.

Quote

Infrastructure doesn't disappear as soon as you stop pumping in money. If we're going to blow a trillion dollars, why not in roads, bridges, water supply, power lines and production...stuff that we've been neglecting and need badly.

Teachers aren't part of infrastructure? The 4th most dominant product: car manufaturing isn't part of the infrastructure. Not to mention the energy appropriations Obama has made? He has done a lot to buld infrastructure, conservatives just ignore the mess their guy gave our guy; what else can tey argue?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Hey! What do you think you're doing introducing facts into the discussion?

I can't wait to see Lucky's response to those figures. I'm pretty sure he'll find some way to disallow your post.

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

Answer it.

Answer what?

I'll clean up the typos:

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya never know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of evel; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have/manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded paranoia.

So address it. It's sarcasm, it's saying that overpending wasn't needed. Debt is good under conservatives; make a point of it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Hey! What do you think you're doing introducing facts into the discussion?

I can't wait to see Lucky's response to those figures. I'm pretty sure he'll find some way to disallow your post.

Sure, joke around, acquiescence noted. If you had a response to data or other evidence you would make it - you don't so you screw around - loud and clear.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

The data mnealtx posted speaks for itself. I am curious how you could possibly see that as the USSR not being any kind of threat.
I won't address you rediculous, sarcastic rant. I've already told you that.

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.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Lucky is too busy pissing in the wind to view his "alleged" threat. Take a peek Lucky. Reagan not only tried to bridge the gap, he brought back dignity to the military.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Wow. You sure know how to kill a thread in a hurry, don't you??

[RonD1120 62]

I read your posts and find it difficult to think you have any positive concern for the U.S.A. That being said, I voted for Ronald Reagan and believe I made the correct choice.

When he took office the interest rates were the highest in my lifetime. The U.S.S.R. was still focusing on world domination. Berlin was a city divided. When he left office the interest rates had returned to normal, the U.S.S.R did not exist and, the Berlin wall was gone.

I have a certificate of recognition from the Department of Defense on my wall for my service during the cold war period. I firmly believe President Reagan was exactly right.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When he took office the interest rates were the highest in my lifetime. The U.S.S.R. was still focusing on world domination. Berlin was a city divided. When he left office the interest rates had returned to normal, the U.S.S.R did not exist and, the Berlin wall was gone.

No, you have to go slightly into the Bush continuation for the USSR/Berlin events.

But yeah, any notion that life was great in Jan of 1981 is delusional, and would make it hard to understand how the GOP managed to keep raising the specter of another Carter for the next 4 elections.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No, you have to go slightly into the Bush continuation for the USSR/Berlin events.

Not only that, but the most important years of the cold war were 46-58 when we built our nuclear arsenal. And to think, we did this while fighting in Korea and the debt actually fell during a couple of years. Then fascist Ronnie proliferated the Cold War and tripled the debt, all when the major hostilities between the US and Russia had greatly subsided.

Yet FR gets the credit....criminal.

Quote

But yeah, any notion that life was great in Jan of 1981 is delusional, and would make it hard to understand how the GOP managed to keep raising the specter of another Carter for the next 4 elections.

81 sucked, but so did the early 70's, mid 70's and late 70's. Carter wasn't the problem, he wasn't the solution, but he wasn't problem of the 70's.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Mike, you asked me to answer a question or questions, you said they were here in this post, They're not. Go ahead and post it / them. Be detailed an enumerate; I will answer them with detail.