The Reagan lie continues today...

[mudwhistle]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-g-o-p-s-economic-delusion


For one thing, decades of rhetoric about waste in Washington—one of Reagan’s favorite talking points—have skewed voter perceptions. “People think that there are a lot of ways to end fraud that would help balance the budget,” Nyhan says. Forty-nine per cent of those surveyed in a 2013 Fox News poll agreed that cutting “waste and fraud” could eliminate the national debt. In addition, voters have a poor sense of how government money is spent. When Trump says that he wants to close the Department of Education and the E.P.A., it might sound like a big saving. Yet their combined budgets amount to a small fraction of his proposed tax cut. Likewise with foreign aid: polls show that Americans think as much as a quarter of the federal budget goes to other countries, when it’s actually less than one per cent of total spending.
________________________________________________________________________________________

The Republicans learned from Reagan that a HUGE LIE can be forgiven if your party keeps telling the work how wonderful a President that you were, as the GOP does Reagan. Now, all the GOP hopefuls, especially the fraud Phrump, have also taken to heart the Great Reagan Lie.

The other fact that the article points out in that FOX news viewers are very to fool. They believe most anything FOX swears is true.

Wow prior to Reagan no one talked about waste and fraud in government. Who knew?

Yep.....everyone knows there is no waste or fraud.

 

[JimH52]

Okay. let's talk numbers...

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Reagan increased the national debt 186% from the level that Carter left him
GW Bush increased the national debt 101% from the level that Clinton left him
Obama has increased the national debt 55.4%

So the Republicans talk a good game, but they increase the national debt even more than a Democratic administration. And many of us are still struggling to recover from the mess that GW left us.

Which president increased the debt by $8 Trillion?

Which President increased the nation debt 186%

 

[baileyn45]

Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!

Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.

US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...

You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”

Perestroika refers to the reconstruction of the political and economic system established by the Communist Party. Politically, contested elections were introduced to reflect the democratic practices of Western society and allow citizens to have a slight say in government. Economically, Perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system, reflecting successful capitalist practices in the economies of Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unfortunately, such an economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy, which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.

Cold War Museum

nothing reagan faced that will ever compare to what oama faced ... the banks failing the car companies failing the market crashing ... and you're trying to say Reagan did a better job then Obama ??? the problem you right wing nut jobs have is you refuse to see democats greatness when you see it ... that would force you to agree ...

I can't speak for the right wing but giving presidents credit for the performance of the economy is moronic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!

The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.

Greg

The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.

Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.

The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.

US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...

You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”

Perestroika refers to the reconstruction of the political and economic system established by the Communist Party. Politically, contested elections were introduced to reflect the democratic practices of Western society and allow citizens to have a slight say in government. Economically, Perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system, reflecting successful capitalist practices in the economies of Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unfortunately, such an economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy, which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.

Cold War Museum

nothing reagan faced that will ever compare to what oama faced ... the banks failing the car companies failing the market crashing ... and you're trying to say Reagan did a better job then Obama ??? the problem you right wing nut jobs have is you refuse to see democats greatness when you see it ... that would force you to agree ...

I can't speak for the right wing but giving presidents credit for the performance of the economy is moronic.

Very true.

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause problems, however he wasn't the only one guilty.

 

[JimH52]

Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!

The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.

Greg

The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.

Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.

The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

A B movies actor did a better job pretending he was President than he did in his below average movies.

 

[Moonglow]

Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!

Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.

US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...

You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”

Perestroika refers to the reconstruction of the political and economic system established by the Communist Party. Politically, contested elections were introduced to reflect the democratic practices of Western society and allow citizens to have a slight say in government. Economically, Perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system, reflecting successful capitalist practices in the economies of Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unfortunately, such an economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy, which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.

Cold War Museum

nothing reagan faced that will ever compare to what oama faced ... the banks failing the car companies failing the market crashing ... and you're trying to say Reagan did a better job then Obama ??? the problem you right wing nut jobs have is you refuse to see democats greatness when you see it ... that would force you to agree ...

How dare you insult my intelligence by trying to pigeon hole me as a republican..Sir, I say to you, good day...

 

[Iceweasel]

Okay. let's talk numbers...

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

Reagan increased the national debt 186% from the level that Carter left him
GW Bush increased the national debt 101% from the level that Clinton left him
Obama has increased the national debt 55.4%

So the Republicans talk a good game, but they increase the national debt even more than a Democratic administration. And many of us are still struggling to recover from the mess that GW left us.

You're tarnishing the reverent image conservatives have of the brain addled buffoon......who took guidance from his wife who took guidance from a fortune teller.....need anyone say more?

A swingandamiss. No, you guys can't tarnish reality. It doesn't work that way. Many of us were alive then, I started a company serving other businesses and know full well the economy improved greatly, even with the added debt and lowered taxes. More activity = more income.

Oh yeah.......much like the country was doing great in 2008....when Doofus was at the helm. Dream on.

Nor will excusing/ignoring Democrat spending work. Nor will excusing 19+ trillion in debt we have now thanks to obama's social spending. The only tarnish here is between your ears.

Let's ignore the fact that Doofus Bush started two worthless wars and provided tax cuts to the rich, which greatly increased the debt, and just blame Obama. Nice try, weasel.

Libs are like jello, ever shifting around. Now it's W. We did pretty good for the most part until the last year. How was he responsible though? We've spent way more than any program under his watch, and he was far too liberal with spending. So it doesn't compute that we are still limping along after all the spending and it's Ws fault.

Conservatives seem to have selective memories.....the facts don't support your myths. But continue with your conservative made-up fantasies.....only other gullible conservatives believe that crap.



From 2012......

Spending – Federal spending, however, has increased much less. Total federal outlays in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 last year totaled just under $3.69 trillion, according to finalU.S. Treasury figures. That’s just 4.8 percent above the total outlays for fiscal 2009, which was well underway when Obama took office.

To be sure, Obama was responsible for some of the FY 2009 spending, but as we’ve shown in detail elsewhere, his early spending initiatives added — at most — $203 billion to the fiscal year 2009 spending levels that were set before he took office.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)

Factcheck.org?

 

[Moonglow]

Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!

The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.

Greg

The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.

Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.

The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

A B movies actor did a better job pretending he was President than he did in his below average movies.

He used a wig, along with contact lenses to keep his viral masculinity from failing his fan club...

 

[billyerock1991]

As you can clearly see below Reagan had nothing to do with the wall coming down ... when it all started he tried to take claim for it ... typical reagan, taking credit for something he had nothing to do with ... but you republicans need a hero ... ya got one ... a budget raising, tax increasing, credit taking lair name Ronald reagan ...

In the early days of November 1989, East Germans turned out in massive street protests to demand Gorbachev-style reforms. Their dictatorial rulers tried to appease them by issuing "new" travel regulations. Though the rules suggested that there would be freedom, the fine print still included the national security exemptions that had always prevented East Germans from leaving. None of the people writing these new regulations took the obvious steps that would have been needed to open the border, such as consulting the Soviets or informing the border guards that such a move was coming. In short, there were no signs that authorities intended to open the wall on Nov. 9.

That night at 6, Guenter Schabowski, a member of the East German Politburo who served as its spokesman, was scheduled to hold a news conference. Shortly before it began, he received a piece of paper with an update on the regulations and a suggestion that he mention them publicly. He had not been involved in discussions about the rules and did not have time to read the document carefully before starting.

His hour-long news conference was so tedious that Tom Brokaw, who was there, remembered being "bored." But in the final minutes, an Italian journalist's question about travel spurred Schabowski's memory. He tried to summarize the new regulations but became confused, and his sentences trailed off. "Anyway, today, as far as I know, a decision has been made," he said. "It is a recommendation of the Politburo that has been taken up, that one should from the draft of a travel law, take out a passage. . ."

Among the long-winded clauses, some snippets leapt out: "exit via border crossings" and "possible for every citizen."

Suddenly, every journalist in the room had questions. "When does that go into force?" shouted one. "Immediately?" shouted another. Rattled and mumbling to himself, Schabowski flipped through his papers until he uttered the phrase: "Immediately, right away."

It felt as if "a signal had come from outer space and electrified the room," Brokaw recalled. Some wire journalists rushed out to file reports, but the questions kept coming, among them: "What will happen to the Berlin Wall now?"

Alarmed about what was unfolding, Schabowski concluded with more muddled responses: "The question of travel, of the permeability therefore of the wall from our side, does not yet answer, exclusively, the question of the meaning, of this, let me say it this way, fortified border." Furthermore, "the debate over these questions could be positively influenced if the Federal Republic [of West Germany] and if NATO would commit themselves to and carry out disarmament."

As NATO was unlikely to disarm itself by breakfast, Schabowski clearly did not expect much to happen that night. But it was too late -- by 7:03 p.m., the wires were reporting that the Berlin Wall was open.

Across the border, a West German television channel, ARD, reported the news cautiously in its 8 p.m. broadcast, first asserting only that the wall probably would become "permeable" soon. But for its next news program at 10:30 p.m. -- delayed to 10:42 by a soccer match -- the staff went big. Hanns Friedrichs, the moderator who enjoyed a Cronkite-like status in the country, proclaimed, "This ninth of November is a historic day." East Germany "has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone."

YOU ARE WONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Review of Jack F. Matlock Jr.'s book, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.



Ronald Reagan was widely eulogized for having won the cold war, liberated Eastern Europe and pulled the plug on the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer and other notables offered variations of

The Economist
's cover headline: "The Man Who Beat Communism."

Actually, Jack F. Matlock Jr. writes in Reagan and Gorbachev, it was "not so simple." He should know. A veteran foreign service officer and respected expert on the Soviet Union, he reached the pinnacle of his career under Reagan, serving first as the White House's senior coordinator of policy toward the Soviet Union, then as ambassador to Moscow. In both the title of his memoir and the story it tells, he gives co-star billing to Mikhail Gorbachev.





Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."





This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan's graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock's book bears out his former boss's judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader.





During his first term, Reagan denounced the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union as an "evil empire." The name-calling riled many Soviets (and more than a few Sovietologists) but did little diplomatic harm, since relations between Washington and Moscow were already in a rut. The Kremlin had become a geriatric ward, with Red Square doubling as the world's largest funeral parlor.





Then, in 1985, soon after Reagan's second inauguration, the vigorous, 54-year-old Gorbachev ascended to the leadership. He wanted to demilitarize Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to the Augean task of fixing a broken economy. Initially, he expected no help from Reagan, whom he regarded as "not simply a conservative, but a political 'dinosaur.'"

For his part, Reagan assumed the new general secretary of the Communist Party would be "totally dedicated to traditional Soviet goals." Nonetheless, he was prepared to test Prime Minister Thatcher's first impression: " like Mr. Gorbachev; we can do business together."

Getting back into the business of diplomacy with the principal adversary of the United States appealed to Reagan, just as it had to six previous occupants of the Oval Office. Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had tried to make the most of Nikita S. Khrushchev's slogan of "peaceful coexistence"; Lyndon B. Johnson jump-started arms control talks with Aleksei N. Kosygin; Richard Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter signed strategic-arms limitation agreements with Leonid I. Brezhnev. But those Soviet leaders were committed, above all, to preserving the status quo. Sooner or later, each caused a setback or a showdown with the United States through some act of barbarity or recklessness: the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979, the destruction of a South Korean airliner that had wandered off course in 1983. Breakthroughs in United States-Soviet relations were inherently subject to breakdowns.





Gorbachev altered that dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different direction—away from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.





Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.





As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.





Matlock describes in telling detail how Reagan rehearsed for his first meeting with Gorbachev, which took place in Geneva in November 1985. Reagan assigned the role of the Soviet leader to Matlock who, for maximum authenticity, played his part in Russian, mimicking Gorbachev's confident, loquacious style. Matlock also sent Reagan a series of "spoof memos" that were "interlaced with jokes and anecdotes," based on an educated guess at what Gorbachev's own advisers were telling him in preparation for the encounter.





Shortly before setting off for Geneva, Reagan dictated a long memo of his own, laying out his assessment of the man he was about to meet. The Reagan game plan was to look for areas of common interest, be candid about points of contention and support Gorbachev's reforms while (in Matlock's paraphrase) "avoiding any demand for 'regime change.'" He cautioned the members of his administration not to rub Gorbachev's nose in any concessions he might make. Above all, Reagan wanted to establish a relationship with his Soviet counterpart that would make it easier to manage conflicts lest they escalate to thermonuclear war—an imperative for every American president since Eisenhower.





Matlock puts the best light he can on Reagan's dream of a Star Wars anti-missile system, but he stops short of perpetuating the claim, now an article of faith among many conservatives, that the prospect of an impregnable shield over the United States and an arms race in space caused the Soviets to throw in the towel. Instead, Matlock focuses on Reagan's attempt to convince Gorbachev that American defense policy posed no threat to legitimate Soviet interests and should therefore not prevent the two leaders from establishing a high degree of mutual trust.





That word figured in Reagan's mantra, "trust but verify." It set Gorbachev's teeth on edge. However, Reagan intended the motto not just as a caveat about dealing with the Soviets but also as a subtle admonition to his relentlessly hard-line and mistrustful secretary of defense, Caspar W. Weinberger. According to Matlock, Weinberger was "utterly convinced that there was no potential benefit in negotiating anything with the Soviet leaders and that most negotiations were dangerous traps." The rivalry that Matlock describes between Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz bears an eerie similarity to what we know of the one between Colin L. Powell and Donald H. Rumsfeld. Shultz grew so exasperated with Weinberger's militancy and obstructionism that he contemplated resigning. Reagan wrote in his diary, "I can't let this happen. Actually, George is carrying out my policy."





That policy, as Matlock summarizes it, "was consistent throughout." Reagan "wanted to reduce the threat of war, to convince the Soviet leaders that cooperation could serve the Soviet peoples better than confrontation and to encourage openness and democracy in the Soviet Union."





Presidential attachment to those precepts neither began nor ended with Ronald Reagan. It was Jimmy Carter who first put human rights prominently on the agenda of American-Soviet relations. George H. W. Bush skillfully served as a kind of air traffic controller in 1991, when the increasingly beleaguered Gorbachev brought the Soviet Union in for a relatively soft landing on the ash heap of history—a major contribution to the end of the cold war that Matlock dismisses in a footnote as "cleanup" diplomacy.





While Matlock could have been more charitable to Reagan's predecessors and to his immediate successor, his account of Reagan's achievement as the nation's diplomat in chief is a public service as well as a contribution to the historical record. It is simultaneously admiring, authoritative and conscientious. It is also corrective, since it debunks much of the hype and spin with which we were blitzed earlier this summer. The truth is a better tribute to Reagan than the myth.

"Reagan and Gorbachev": Shutting the Cold War Down

Much better than any myths quite frankly!!!

Greg

and yet he had nothing to do with the down fall of the wall as i said ... just his ramblings in the press if you feel thats much better who am I to challenge your inaccuracies

 

[JimH52]

US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...

You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”

Perestroika refers to the reconstruction of the political and economic system established by the Communist Party. Politically, contested elections were introduced to reflect the democratic practices of Western society and allow citizens to have a slight say in government. Economically, Perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system, reflecting successful capitalist practices in the economies of Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unfortunately, such an economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy, which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.

Cold War Museum

nothing reagan faced that will ever compare to what oama faced ... the banks failing the car companies failing the market crashing ... and you're trying to say Reagan did a better job then Obama ??? the problem you right wing nut jobs have is you refuse to see democats greatness when you see it ... that would force you to agree ...

I can't speak for the right wing but giving presidents credit for the performance of the economy is moronic.

Very true.

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause problems, however he wasn't the only one guilty.

He was the only President in US History to call for a tax cut, mostly for the wealthy and going to war at the same time. Then he ordered the military to attack the wrong country....?

 

[Theowl32]

Oh, so now you down to the singular? Got it. You gave up on the plural form of the word WAR

How did you get fucking stupid? Practice practice practice.

Let's see, who was president when the war in Afghanistan started? Bush.

Who was president when we invaded Iraq? Bush.

Now when you have more than one of something, it is considered plural. With an S at the end of a word to indicate more than one.

As in two wars that Bush had going. Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you really this fucking stupid. Or playing at being so fucking stupid? Come on, tell the truth.

Are wars free? Drugs free? Tax cuts free? No, they are not free.
Are you an idiot? Yep.

Booooosh started the war in Afghanistan?

Fucking loser

 

[Wilbur Right]

The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

Really? Reagan was a decent actor who said his lines very well.
Combine that with a populace that worships actors and don't mind being lied to when they like what the liar is saying and we end up with a Reagan.

And unfortunately those same desires by the populace may put another actor in the WH. Trump.

 

[Iceweasel]

I must have touched a nerve. You RW buffoons are drooling all over yourselves defending RR. FUNNY!

No one is drooling, you clown. Calling you on your bullshit because you idiots have nothing and simply cycle your hate from Bush to Reagan and back. No one takes you seriously, don't kid yourself.

 

[Moonglow]

I voted for Reagan, but I was only 18 at the time..Young and dumb.....He did do a good job of telling people tough shit, I got mine, go get yours......Shutting down US military bases instead of over seas bases sure pissed people off...and his progressive attitude about the war on drugs was a totalitarianism view from the nation's past, being harsh and draconian...

 

[Moonglow]

As you can clearly see below Reagan had nothing to do with the wall coming down ... when it all started he tried to take claim for it ... typical reagan, taking credit for something he had nothing to do with ... but you republicans need a hero ... ya got one ... a budget raising, tax increasing, credit taking lair name Ronald reagan ...

In the early days of November 1989, East Germans turned out in massive street protests to demand Gorbachev-style reforms. Their dictatorial rulers tried to appease them by issuing "new" travel regulations. Though the rules suggested that there would be freedom, the fine print still included the national security exemptions that had always prevented East Germans from leaving. None of the people writing these new regulations took the obvious steps that would have been needed to open the border, such as consulting the Soviets or informing the border guards that such a move was coming. In short, there were no signs that authorities intended to open the wall on Nov. 9.

That night at 6, Guenter Schabowski, a member of the East German Politburo who served as its spokesman, was scheduled to hold a news conference. Shortly before it began, he received a piece of paper with an update on the regulations and a suggestion that he mention them publicly. He had not been involved in discussions about the rules and did not have time to read the document carefully before starting.

His hour-long news conference was so tedious that Tom Brokaw, who was there, remembered being "bored." But in the final minutes, an Italian journalist's question about travel spurred Schabowski's memory. He tried to summarize the new regulations but became confused, and his sentences trailed off. "Anyway, today, as far as I know, a decision has been made," he said. "It is a recommendation of the Politburo that has been taken up, that one should from the draft of a travel law, take out a passage. . ."

Among the long-winded clauses, some snippets leapt out: "exit via border crossings" and "possible for every citizen."

Suddenly, every journalist in the room had questions. "When does that go into force?" shouted one. "Immediately?" shouted another. Rattled and mumbling to himself, Schabowski flipped through his papers until he uttered the phrase: "Immediately, right away."

It felt as if "a signal had come from outer space and electrified the room," Brokaw recalled. Some wire journalists rushed out to file reports, but the questions kept coming, among them: "What will happen to the Berlin Wall now?"

Alarmed about what was unfolding, Schabowski concluded with more muddled responses: "The question of travel, of the permeability therefore of the wall from our side, does not yet answer, exclusively, the question of the meaning, of this, let me say it this way, fortified border." Furthermore, "the debate over these questions could be positively influenced if the Federal Republic [of West Germany] and if NATO would commit themselves to and carry out disarmament."

As NATO was unlikely to disarm itself by breakfast, Schabowski clearly did not expect much to happen that night. But it was too late -- by 7:03 p.m., the wires were reporting that the Berlin Wall was open.

Across the border, a West German television channel, ARD, reported the news cautiously in its 8 p.m. broadcast, first asserting only that the wall probably would become "permeable" soon. But for its next news program at 10:30 p.m. -- delayed to 10:42 by a soccer match -- the staff went big. Hanns Friedrichs, the moderator who enjoyed a Cronkite-like status in the country, proclaimed, "This ninth of November is a historic day." East Germany "has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone."

YOU ARE WONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Review of Jack F. Matlock Jr.'s book, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.



Ronald Reagan was widely eulogized for having won the cold war, liberated Eastern Europe and pulled the plug on the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer and other notables offered variations of

The Economist
's cover headline: "The Man Who Beat Communism."

Actually, Jack F. Matlock Jr. writes in Reagan and Gorbachev, it was "not so simple." He should know. A veteran foreign service officer and respected expert on the Soviet Union, he reached the pinnacle of his career under Reagan, serving first as the White House's senior coordinator of policy toward the Soviet Union, then as ambassador to Moscow. In both the title of his memoir and the story it tells, he gives co-star billing to Mikhail Gorbachev.





Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."





This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan's graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock's book bears out his former boss's judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader.





During his first term, Reagan denounced the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union as an "evil empire." The name-calling riled many Soviets (and more than a few Sovietologists) but did little diplomatic harm, since relations between Washington and Moscow were already in a rut. The Kremlin had become a geriatric ward, with Red Square doubling as the world's largest funeral parlor.





Then, in 1985, soon after Reagan's second inauguration, the vigorous, 54-year-old Gorbachev ascended to the leadership. He wanted to demilitarize Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to the Augean task of fixing a broken economy. Initially, he expected no help from Reagan, whom he regarded as "not simply a conservative, but a political 'dinosaur.'"

For his part, Reagan assumed the new general secretary of the Communist Party would be "totally dedicated to traditional Soviet goals." Nonetheless, he was prepared to test Prime Minister Thatcher's first impression: " like Mr. Gorbachev; we can do business together."

Getting back into the business of diplomacy with the principal adversary of the United States appealed to Reagan, just as it had to six previous occupants of the Oval Office. Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had tried to make the most of Nikita S. Khrushchev's slogan of "peaceful coexistence"; Lyndon B. Johnson jump-started arms control talks with Aleksei N. Kosygin; Richard Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter signed strategic-arms limitation agreements with Leonid I. Brezhnev. But those Soviet leaders were committed, above all, to preserving the status quo. Sooner or later, each caused a setback or a showdown with the United States through some act of barbarity or recklessness: the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979, the destruction of a South Korean airliner that had wandered off course in 1983. Breakthroughs in United States-Soviet relations were inherently subject to breakdowns.





Gorbachev altered that dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different direction—away from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.





Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.





As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.





Matlock describes in telling detail how Reagan rehearsed for his first meeting with Gorbachev, which took place in Geneva in November 1985. Reagan assigned the role of the Soviet leader to Matlock who, for maximum authenticity, played his part in Russian, mimicking Gorbachev's confident, loquacious style. Matlock also sent Reagan a series of "spoof memos" that were "interlaced with jokes and anecdotes," based on an educated guess at what Gorbachev's own advisers were telling him in preparation for the encounter.





Shortly before setting off for Geneva, Reagan dictated a long memo of his own, laying out his assessment of the man he was about to meet. The Reagan game plan was to look for areas of common interest, be candid about points of contention and support Gorbachev's reforms while (in Matlock's paraphrase) "avoiding any demand for 'regime change.'" He cautioned the members of his administration not to rub Gorbachev's nose in any concessions he might make. Above all, Reagan wanted to establish a relationship with his Soviet counterpart that would make it easier to manage conflicts lest they escalate to thermonuclear war—an imperative for every American president since Eisenhower.





Matlock puts the best light he can on Reagan's dream of a Star Wars anti-missile system, but he stops short of perpetuating the claim, now an article of faith among many conservatives, that the prospect of an impregnable shield over the United States and an arms race in space caused the Soviets to throw in the towel. Instead, Matlock focuses on Reagan's attempt to convince Gorbachev that American defense policy posed no threat to legitimate Soviet interests and should therefore not prevent the two leaders from establishing a high degree of mutual trust.





That word figured in Reagan's mantra, "trust but verify." It set Gorbachev's teeth on edge. However, Reagan intended the motto not just as a caveat about dealing with the Soviets but also as a subtle admonition to his relentlessly hard-line and mistrustful secretary of defense, Caspar W. Weinberger. According to Matlock, Weinberger was "utterly convinced that there was no potential benefit in negotiating anything with the Soviet leaders and that most negotiations were dangerous traps." The rivalry that Matlock describes between Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz bears an eerie similarity to what we know of the one between Colin L. Powell and Donald H. Rumsfeld. Shultz grew so exasperated with Weinberger's militancy and obstructionism that he contemplated resigning. Reagan wrote in his diary, "I can't let this happen. Actually, George is carrying out my policy."





That policy, as Matlock summarizes it, "was consistent throughout." Reagan "wanted to reduce the threat of war, to convince the Soviet leaders that cooperation could serve the Soviet peoples better than confrontation and to encourage openness and democracy in the Soviet Union."





Presidential attachment to those precepts neither began nor ended with Ronald Reagan. It was Jimmy Carter who first put human rights prominently on the agenda of American-Soviet relations. George H. W. Bush skillfully served as a kind of air traffic controller in 1991, when the increasingly beleaguered Gorbachev brought the Soviet Union in for a relatively soft landing on the ash heap of history—a major contribution to the end of the cold war that Matlock dismisses in a footnote as "cleanup" diplomacy.





While Matlock could have been more charitable to Reagan's predecessors and to his immediate successor, his account of Reagan's achievement as the nation's diplomat in chief is a public service as well as a contribution to the historical record. It is simultaneously admiring, authoritative and conscientious. It is also corrective, since it debunks much of the hype and spin with which we were blitzed earlier this summer. The truth is a better tribute to Reagan than the myth.

"Reagan and Gorbachev": Shutting the Cold War Down

Much better than any myths quite frankly!!!

Greg

and yet he had nothing to do with the down fall of the wall as i said ... just his ramblings in the press if you feel thats much better who am I to challenge your inaccuracies

 

[Wilbur Right]

Booooosh started the war in Afghanistan?

Come on you lying asshole.

Bush had two WARS. Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars. Plural. Just like I said, you stupid piece of white trash.

 

[Stephanie]

we should really push for a law that says: some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. the reasons to hate someone is Pathetic.

Not fair. It would disenfranchise most of the democrat base.

No kidding

 

[baileyn45]

US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...

You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”

Perestroika refers to the reconstruction of the political and economic system established by the Communist Party. Politically, contested elections were introduced to reflect the democratic practices of Western society and allow citizens to have a slight say in government. Economically, Perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system, reflecting successful capitalist practices in the economies of Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unfortunately, such an economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy, which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.

Cold War Museum

nothing reagan faced that will ever compare to what oama faced ... the banks failing the car companies failing the market crashing ... and you're trying to say Reagan did a better job then Obama ??? the problem you right wing nut jobs have is you refuse to see democats greatness when you see it ... that would force you to agree ...

I can't speak for the right wing but giving presidents credit for the performance of the economy is moronic.

Very true.

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause problems, however he wasn't the only one guilty.

Amen. It always cracks me up when I listen to people put all the credit or all the blame on presidents. My sister has 2 daughters one was on a high school state championship soccer team in 2007. The younger one played on the same team in 2009-2012 and didn't even win their league. I'll never vote for a dem again.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!

The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.

Greg

The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.

Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.

The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

Reagan was a uniter and negotiated with the Soviets to end the Cold War. He called evil evil and good good. He turned the economy around and saw one million jobs created in a month, and interest rates plummet so people didn't have to pay 19% for a home loan. He worked well with Democrats on the Hill and America became respected in the world again.

Exactly what is it that makes the left of today hate him?