Reagan: Twenty five year later Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall

[CrusaderFrank]

How did they do it? How did the Communists get our Progressive to fall so madly in love with the USSR?

 

[JoeB131]

How did they do it? How did the Communists get our Progressive to fall so madly in love with the USSR?

You keep beating that strawman, frank, since you can't argue the point, obviously.

 

[Camp]

How did they do it? How did the Communists get our Progressive to fall so madly in love with the USSR?

This is what turned me against Reagan. It has nothing to do with a love of Communist.
amazon.com/PeaceKeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commander/dp/1597974250

It explains how Reagan contributed to the birth and creation of modern day terrorism. The author is the Marine Colonel that commanded the Marines in Lebanon when the barracks suffered a terrorist attack that killed over 240 Marines. He is a credentialed and recognized terrorist expert and served in that capacity until his retirement. After his retirement he continued to be a key consultant on terrorism for the US government. The brief review in the provided link gives a synopsis of the idea that Reagan's policies created terrorist groups as we know them today.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did they do it? How did the Communists get our Progressive to fall so madly in love with the USSR?

This is what turned me against Reagan. It has nothing to do with a love of Communist.
amazon.com/PeaceKeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commander/dp/1597974250

It explains how Reagan contributed to the birth and creation of modern day terrorism. The author is the Marine Colonel that commanded the Marines in Lebanon when the barracks suffered a terrorist attack that killed over 240 Marines. He is a credentialed and recognized terrorist expert and served in that capacity until his retirement. After his retirement he continued to be a key consultant on terrorism for the US government. The brief review in the provided link gives a synopsis of the idea that Reagan's policies created terrorist groups as we know them today.

Oh come on. At least be honest about your love and longing for the USSR

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Berliner Mauer fell on the day it did due to a, get this, clerical error, but it would have fallen within weeks, anyway. And no, Stephanie, Putin is not trying to put that wall up again. You have some strange fantasies.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think that on balance Reagan was a good president and a decent person. Like any president, he did some good stuff and he made some mistakes. He contributed to the fall of communism, but he was not the only one. Communism was bound to die the moment it was born, and that's a good thing. When Gorbachev installed perestroika, that was the beginning of the end and indeed, Pres. Reagan played a big role in this, for which I'm thankful. However, he had nothing to do with the fall of the Berliner Mauer. The credit for this goes in good part to Pres. Bush (41), who worked tirelessly behind the scenes, to former chancellor Helmut Kohl, who did the same, but just as much to a clerk in the communications ministry of the DDR who fucked up a communique on Nov. 9, 1989 by using an accidental double negative, and before the upper brass could undo it, the gates were already opened. The majority of the credit needs to go to the brave citizens of the former DDR, who faced down tanks and machine gun muzzles on the streets of Leipzig, then Dresden, then Görlitz and Zwickau. It's the height of hubris to credit any one US president for the sweeping changes in another part of the world. So yes, Pres. Reagan gets some credit, but not as much as hyperpartisans here want to trumpet. History is such a cool thing; people should actually learn it.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[turtledude]

yeah, that is what the olympic movement is about.

he ruined the dreams of hundreds of athletes for an IMPOTENT pandering

should people have boycotted our games due to our invasions in 91 and then in 2002?

Well, let's look at that.

IN 1991, the entire world in the UN voted to authorize us to go into Kuwait to expel the Iraqis. We did that, we had the good sense NOT to invade Iraq proper.

In 2001, the entire world voted to take action against Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda. So, yeah, the Salt Lake City Olympics were safe once MItt Romney got all his rich Mormon Pals to open their wallets to bail it out.

The whole world was appalled when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. And it should have been. It wasn't worth starting World War III over, though.

BS detector redlined

Duly noted that your false equivlency failed.

duly noted how stupid your response is. the whole world was not appalled. just the western bloc

so stop lying.

 

[JoeB131]

duly noted how stupid your response is. the whole world was not appalled. just the western bloc

Actually, a lot of NON-Western countries participated inthe boycott, including China and Japan.

Which was the right thing to do.

 

[guno]

How did they do it? How did the Communists get our Progressive to fall so madly in love with the USSR?

You keep beating that strawman, frank, since you can't argue the point, obviously.

They don't call him little Frankie retard for nothing

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did they do it? How did the Communists get our Progressive to fall so madly in love with the USSR?

You keep beating that strawman, frank, since you can't argue the point, obviously.

They don't call him little Frankie retard for nothing

So cute you're running this sock account.

Precious

 

[Dad2three]

"But revenues went up"

Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts to the rich.

Libs are liars and play games with words. He raised taxes a bit after coming down a lot. How fucking hard is that? We either believe nuts on the internet like you or our lives for those of us who were there.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics Facts And Figures - Forbes
In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax ratesto restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

Got it, you don't go on what Reagan's own people say, instead you stick with the MYTH created by the right wing on Reaganomics, lol


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?


How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending



Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn t Square with Reality - CBS News

you poor dear. Your hate is duly noted. now go take it somewhere else
the people around you must be so proud of how much hate you can spread

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

if Reagan was a myth, then the Russians fell for it. They just gave up after bankrupting themselves in the arms race but they believed reagan would never hold back millitaraly. Had Carter still been in there they would have had their way with him. thats why Liberals hate reagan, their not willing to give any credit for a thing. Had the wall come down under Carter, it would have been an American holiday every year.

Got it, communism isn't REALLY a failed economic and political system, Just that St Ronnie doomed them by his years of HUGE Gov't spending WHILE gutting US revenues