Please explain how and why our economy took off half-way through Reagan’s first term.
You’re kidding, right? Much of your post is spent bashing conservatives and praising liberals. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that you don’t identify with one school over the other?
No, JJ, they got him for lying under oath to two grand juries, and that’s perjury, no matter what you lie about. And your views on his extramarital peccadilloes tend to give us a hint or two more toward what your socio-political leaning might be. M’self, I wouldn’t mind paying the “price” if I’d actually gotten a “good leader” in return.
Must you resort to cheap, sexual ad hominem attacks? Do you have some evidence to back these claims? Perhaps you have first-hand knowledge of Clinton’s qualifications? Or Reagan’s, or Bush’s? Do you consider yourself to be presidential material by such a standard?
I’m not sure your statistical database is as extensive as might be desired, but I can’t get too worked up, in any case, over what foreign nationals think of our internal politics. No one has argued that Clinton makes a lousy impression, and certainly he has a way with young interns, trailer-park trash and foreign nationals. I hunger for that sort of charisma, yes I do!
Considering that many of those people in Latin America VOTED for the communists, and Reagan ILLEGALLY had those governments overthrown, I believe many of them are QUITE bitter.
But then, anyone who would VOTE for a COMMUNIST is just wrong, right?
OK, I haven’t got all of this bold, italics, and quote stuff down yet but here I go:
POINT 1:
The economy took off under Reagan because the economy is cyclical. It might have rebounded even better without the tax cuts. The question is, what did Reagan do to help it? The answer is NOTHING! He borrowed and spent and borrowed and spent. So how do we pay it back? Ask Clinton, who got your soul back for you. I don’t have the time to give you an Economics lesson. Take a class or go to the library. You may even meet somebody to share ideas with.
POINT 2:
I did bash conservatives, because it just so happens that conservatives (or slowpokes) that I’ve interacted with fit my description. And its true that their only goal over the last 8 years was to try to shoot down everything that Clinton tried to accomplish and make him look as bad as possible. Also, for any progress made from 1993-2000, they ALWAYS tried to give the credit to someone else and deflect it away from Clinton. So lets not kid ourselves, these people deserve to be bashed. And I did praise the liberals that I’ve met in my life, so I should clarify that not all liberals are the way I described them. In fact many are just as closed-minded as the slowpokes I know. But of course I was being very general. And I praise the work that Jesus did, but that doesn’t make me a Christian, does it?
POINT 3:
There is a difference when lying about a sex act and lying about something that affects national security. I didn’t hear many slowpokes demand that Reagan go on trial for his very questionable actions. OK, so they caught Clinton lying. I suppose he would’ve been better off claiming that he just plain forgot. But he was forced to lie because, I repeat, the only goal of the slowpokes for 8 years was to destroy Clinton. And since you refer to me in your question, I consider it a disrespectful and disgraceful thing to cheat on your wife even though I’m not married. But people do it, and shouldn’t lose their jobs for it. And you would’ve seen how great of a leader you had if would’ve just taken your head out of the garbage can just once.
POINT 4:
My point in addressing the Reagan-Bush non-sex scandal years in the manner I did was because many slowpokes seem to assume that they were good presidents because they didn’t get into hot water with their wives. It was a joke and I’m sure Reagan and Bush are quite virile.
And why was a grand jury investigating the President’s sex life? Hint: It starts with “W” and ends with “itchhunt”.
This is exactly why no other major country in the world groks the whole Lewinsky bruhaha – because they recognize that the impeachment occurred in a particular context, that of Clinton’s enemies trying (repeatedly, and without success) to find something to smear him with.
The mindless Rush Limbaugh dittoheads love to parrot about how Clinton was “the most corrupt president of all time,” yet they gloss over the fact that Bill didn’t get convicted of most of the charges levelled against him. Note that Ray’s ability to barter a deal with Clinton over his Lewinsky testimony was the only victory he had – w/r/t Travelgate, Whitewater, and all the rest, Ray couldn’t gather enough evidence to chase after Bubba Bill.
If you think a wayward pecker is more important than illegal arms deals with the nation’s enemies, you’ve got some serious priority issues to work out.
I guess violating laws is okay as long as it’s for a cause you support, eh?
All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. During Reagan’s terms that was controlled by the Democrats. During Clinton’s terms it was controlled for the final 6 years by the GOP. Reagan was able to pass his tax cuts by compromising on spending. The Reagan tax cuts fixed the economy while the Democrats spending ran up the deficit.
Don’t they teach government where you are? We learned which branch controls spending in junior high. Perhaps you were absent that day.
I remember the government shutdown when congress wanted to cut taxes to jumpstart the economy and reduce spending to balance the budget. Clinton shut down the government rather than accept the reduced spending and claimed that balancing the budget would wreck the economy. Clinton was able to forestall and lessen the tax cuts and spending reduction but was not able to stop them.
If you go back to the budgets Clinton submitted in 93 and 94 when his party was in control of congress they have small deficit reductions due to defense cuts but they project long term deficits. It was not until republicans took control in 94 that budgets were submitted that eliminated the deficit.
There is a sucker born every minute.
BTW…
Let’s put just a tiny bit of perspective on this. These were not little countries all by themselves that America was taking on. These were little countries being ripped apart by two superpowers looking for an edge in global supremecy.
In an imperfect world, I’m at least glad that we were on the winning side. Thank you Reagan for that.
Clinton…
Well, I would bet that he had a lot more fun in office (and IN the office:)) than Reagan.
So, if I read you correctly, you’re suggesting that Reagan did not intend to increase government spending? Or did he simply try to spend funds more wisely? And in his case, wise meant borrowing to ramp up the military, even though we already had the strongest in the world by far. Hmmm, I do recall a proposal for a Strategic Defense Initiative of some sort(or Star Wars as it was better known as). So you’re suggesting that higher military spending would have somehow lessened spending by our government?
I guess Reagan was happy to have protection from the oncoming Soviet missiles (its a damn good thing we ramped up our military or we surely would’ve lost the war to Iraq), even if it greatly restricted our economic growth, took away quality jobs of hard working Americans, and left loads of debt for our children to deal with. In case you don’t follow: Tax cuts + Higher Spending --> Lower national savings (or higher debt in this case) --> Higher interest rates (Even a Greenspan-like figure wouldn’t have been able to save us under Reagan) --> Lower corporate investment (high capital costs slow businesses down) --> Unemployment (or at the very least under-employment) --> Low GDP (which is kept artificially high by the government spending) --> And Voila! You have the Bush Recession. And you have people working harder with no real wealth gains (check the stats on how much service-sector or McDonald’s-type jobs increased under Reagan). And you have loads and loads of interest-bearing debt that you can’t pay back. And finally, Americans wise-up and put Clinton in office. And he clears the whole mess up in 8 years (when even the best economists predicted it would take at least 50). D’ya still think that Reagan was better? Well, keep studying.
You might try some studying yourself. Reagan’s defense buildup eventually added about 100 billion per year to the defense budget, while other forms of government spending increased by over 700 billion per year by the end of his term. His deficits never went much over 300 billion even with these huge spending increases, because revenue went up sharply in the Reagan years AFTER taxes were cut.
BTW, I don’t buy the notion that Reagan wanted to cut the budget heavily but was thwarted by Congress. Reagan TALKED small government, but he didn’t walk it. Read David Stockman’s biography, “The Triumph of Politics”, and you’ll see that when push came to shove, Reagan really didn’t want to cut anyone’s social programs.
Reagan was “The Great Communicator”, and was perfectly willing to do an end-around on Congress and go directly to the people if he wanted something done. This in turn would put political pressure on Congress, and cause them to cave to what he wanted. But other than one budget year, he never employed this tactic to force major spending cuts.
Clinton did a better job of holding down non-military spending than did Reagan. Of course, Clinton had a Republican Congress, but Reagan probably could have forced the Democratic Congress to do his bidding, especially in his peak popularity years before Iran-Contra became a serious issue.
You made 2 very good points. I was merely using the military spending as an example of how little economic sense Reagan and his advisors truly had. And regardless of how you want to slice it or dice it, his administration left the nation in a tremendous debt, which even forced his buddy Bush to break his “No New Taxes” promise. And with Clinton in charge, this problem has been eliminated.
And for Puddleglum, if Reagan was so anti-spending, couldn’t he have vetoed the Dems’ spending bills? I’m pretty sure that the Dems didn’t have the 2/3 majority to overturn his vetoes.
He could have but his priorities were tax cuts, increased defense spending, and then balanced budgets. He was willing to compromise on the third to achieve his first two priorities. So he traded higher deficits for twenty years(so far) of unprecedented proseprity and the fall of the evil empire. Not a bad trade.
This comment explains alot. I am from the planet Earth and the year here is 2001. Are you a visitor from a planet that does not understand economics or government? If so our Earth ways may seem strange to you, but if you go to our Earth representatives called “psychiatrists” and explain to them they way it works on you home world I think they may be of help to you understanding the way things work here on Earth.
I suppose you’re allowed to believe what you want to believe. And my “SLOWPOKE” reference to conservatives still rings true. It is a free country after all. And its not illegal to believe that Reagan had some sort of positive impact on the economy of the last 8 years, just like its not illegal to believe in the Easter Bunny or in Creationism.
Clearly, you have no intention of learning about Economics and are satisfied with your faith-based belief system. And like many others, you have some deep-rooted hatred for Mr. Clinton (perhaps due to his intelligence, charisma and success that completely overshadow any GOP member in recent history). This seems to be supporting your blissful ignorance.
But your ignorance is by choice and I’m not out to change the world. I mean, if people like you didn’t exist, people like me would never realize how lucky we are to have open, free-thinking minds that are constantly willing to learn. I see no value to be added by continuing this dialogue. So good luck and please don’t be shy about providing the last word.
Thank you, I will feel free to have the last word while you go off to your cave on Mars to sit with your fingers in your ears, trying desperately to forget the time you were vanquished by my superior arguements. However do not feel bad at having been defeated, I have succesfully debated people who actually knew things about economics and had not just memorized the name of John Maynard Keynes in a vain attempt to impress sorority girls. I do not blame you because your closed mind was not able to accept so much truth at one time, but shrank back from it like someone who recoils from the noonday sun after exiting a darkened movie theater. Perhaps one day you will be able to breathe in the pure oxygen of truth, until then enjoy your smog.
The truth remains, for those with minds open enough to accept it, that Reagan left this world a much safer place, and our country a much more prosperous place than he found it. Clinton left the world a much more tawdry place and when historians look back at the late 20th/early 21st, which will be called the “era of Reagan” they will be profoundly grateful for what that great man did to progress human freedom and national greatness. These same historians will look back with profound puzzlement at why Clinton, will all his political skills, chose to waste his two terms getting BJs and bombing small countries to cover it up.
puddlegum, how exactly did Reagan bring down the Evil Empire? You keep asserting that, but Gorby and Sakharov had waaay much more responsibility.
by what mechanism? Oh, that’s right- the arms race. Reagan forced the Soviets to spend ever-increasing amounts of money to keep up with the U.S., and collapsed.
so when the Soviet Union spent huge amounts of money, it was bad. But when Reagan did the same, it was good. Even though it brought us to the brink of some bad economic shit.
before you criticize Juggernaut (btw- I love your name) on economic facts, don’t you think it would be a good idea to have those facts on hand? Cuz you do have factual, reason-based justifications for disagreeing with him, right? I mean, what kind of person would claim victory in a debate without having any facts to back them up?
Reagan defeated the evil empire using several different strategies. First he galvanized the opponents of communism. He supported the Afghans in their war, the contras in their war, he supported Solidarity in Poland, he liberated Grenada. Each of these were small but collectively they signaled to the communists that the era of appeasement was over. Secondly he comitted the US to rebuild its military and to pursue innovative new weapons such as SDI. The Soviets, with their backwards economy had no chance at matching this buildup in terms of either numbers or innovation. Gorbachev realized this and tried to get Reagan to negotiate this advantage away. When Reagan refused to do this Gorbachev tried to liberalize the economy so the USSR could match the US. In doing so he inadvertently let the genie out of the bottle.
Reagan does not deserve all of the credit for what happened but it was his strong leadership and clear moral vision that set the stage for the events that unfolded.
Name an opponent of communism that he “galvanized”?
Afghanistan was a good decision–except that he picked the wrong partisans to support, leaving us with the Taliban.
He suported the fascist National Guard in Nicaragua in their attempt to reclaim the power they had abused for several decades, murdering their own people. That really showed those pesky Russkies. In doing so he violated U.S. and international law.
He gave lip service to Solidarity (while trying to destroy organized labor in the U.S.). So what? Everybody outside Poland and East Germany supported Solidarity.
“Liberated” Grenada? He chased out a bunch of unarmed Cuban engineers (suppressing a violent hospital in the process) and continued building the same “threatening” airport that they were building to the very same specifications that they had been using.
Yeah, he “stood up” to the Russians (whatever that means) and happened to be hanging around when the rickety Soviet economy began its inevitable collapse. As to whether they were actually paying any attention to his brave stand, we’ll have to wait until a few more scholars have had the chance to review the notes of Andropov and Gorbachek.
puddleglum-communism in Latin America was VERY different from Communism in the USSR. Get this through your thick little skull: Reagan supported FASCIST DICTATORS. The contra thing was ILLEGAL. NO, the Sandistas were not saints. But, the people they were fight against, and Somoza, were much worse. Okay? How about Archbishop Romero? Was HE a communist?
Also-the Soviet Union was already falling apart. The arms race had nothing to do with it. Reagan screwed us. The man was a horrible economist.
