More Reagan - split from other thread

[Dreadnought]

I see that there is a Reagan argument going on right now. That's all well and good, but can't we all agree that most of America's current issues were Carter's doing?

 

[REDY]

Reagan is only American president who I seriously like. I dont know that much of American history to know all previous American presidents (especcialy these before 20th century), but since Reagan USA hasnt good president as Reagan was.

Wilson and Truman were good presidents.

Kennedy and Theodore Roosvelt werent bad presidents.

 

[Lord Baal]

Can a mod split off this Reagan crap?

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Since you all wouldn't take Plotinus' advice, I did it for you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LightSpectra]

Well now it looks like I was the one who started this debate, which is a bunch of cackleschmack.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Fun Fact: This thread is the only google result for cackleschmack.

 

[Padma]

Well now it looks like I was the one who started this debate, which is a bunch of cackleschmack.

Not my intent, I assure you.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Gorbachev brought the Soviet "Empire" to an end, and maybe he came to power and did it because of policies conducted by the USA in Reagan's time, but Reagan had little to with this except make the speeches and give the OK to some decisions. He'd never have been smart enough for that, he was just a face. In reality he was a slave to different ideologue "advisors", one group of whom did indeed advocate the policies which pressurized the USSR.

Another group of ideologues caused him to reduce the power of the US government and people in favour of a small group of corporate interests, something US "democracy" has never recovered from since. The same policies enriched the few and the present at the expense of the middling/poor and the future generation, began the mass enslavement of millions of Americans through debt (to the same bunch of people), and effectively made the "American dream" a thing of the past.

Congrats Reagan.

 

[LightSpectra]

Gorbachev brought the Soviet "Empire" to an end, and maybe he came to power and did it because of policies conducted by the USA in Reagan's time, but Reagan had little to with this except make the speeches and give the OK to some decisions. He'd never have been smart enough for that, he was just a face. In reality he was a slave to different ideologue "advisors", one group of whom did indeed advocate the policies which pressurized the USSR.

This was in fact the opinion of several people in Reagan's administration: they thought he would be easily dominated to their agenda. Hence their bitterness when they realized that it was quite the opposite, and Reagan had used them as disposable administrators.

I've already stated what caused the end of the Soviet Union: exaggerated defense spending plus the decrease in oil exports, both of which happened as a result of Reagan's policies.

Another group of ideologues caused him to reduce the power of the US government and people in favour of a small group of corporate interests, something US "democracy" has never recovered from since. The same policies enriched the few and the present at the expense of the middling/poor and the future generation, began the mass enslavement of millions of Americans through debt (to the same bunch of people), and effectively made the "American dream" a thing of the past.

Oh, sorry, your first paragraph was sane enough that I took you seriously before I read this paragraph. "Mass enslavement of millions of Americans through debt?" Yeah, alright. I suppose the same thing happened during FDR's presidency, and is happening now during Obama's -- considering both of them deficit spent to a far larger degree than Reagan ever did. And at least the '80s budget deficit was an investment that was paid off in the '90s as a result of the end of the Cold War.

 

[Pangur Bán]

This was in fact the opinion of several people in Reagan's administration: they thought he would be easily dominated to their agenda. Hence their bitterness when they realized that it was quite the opposite, and Reagan had used them as disposable administrators.

I've already stated what caused the end of the Soviet Union: exaggerated defense spending plus the decrease in oil exports, both of which happened as a result of Reagan's policies.

I don't disagree that US policy in this era brought about Gorbie and his reforms, but the idea that an actor was the genius behind this strategy is ... well, it's as laughable as it sounds.

There's actually a video from early in Reagan's reign where he is rebuked by one of his advisors when believed to be off-camera. It's embarrassing.

Oh, sorry, your first paragraph was sane enough that I took you seriously before I read this paragraph. "Mass enslavement of millions of Americans through debt?" Yeah, alright. I suppose the same thing happened during FDR's presidency, and is happening now during Obama's -- considering both of them deficit spent to a far larger degree than Reagan ever did. And at least the '80s budget deficit was an investment that was paid off in the '90s as a result of the end of the Cold War.

Sorry, debt is slavery for millions of Americans. If you've ever been in large scale debt you would appreciate that. It is misery too. Are you disputing that or something?

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't disagree that US policy in this era brought about Gorbie and his reforms, but the idea that an actor was the genius behind this strategy is ... well, it's as laughable as it sounds.

He was an actor. No disputes there. He was also president of the Screen Actor's Guild and a successful two-term governor of California.

It's like disputing that Napoleon ever conquered Europe because lawyers aren't military commanders. Or disputing that Abraham Lincoln became president of the U.S. because woodsmen aren't statesmen.

There's actually a video from early in Reagan's reign where he is rebuked by one of his advisors when believed to be off-camera. It's embarrassing.

Firstly, Ronald Reagan as a democratically elected president never reigned over America. Secondly, what's your point? Statesmen clash with advisors all the time. Hence why it's the statesmen who are in charge and not the advisors.

Sorry, debt is slavery for millions of Americans. If you've ever been in large scale debt you would appreciate that. It is misery too. Are you disputing that or something?

So when exactly did Reagan cause millions of Americans to enter personal debt slavery? I freaking love shady totalitarian conspiracy theories, so please provide a citation to this when you get around to it.

 

[Pangur Bán]

He was an actor. No disputes there. He was also president of the Screen Actor's Guild and a successful two-term governor of California.

It's like disputing that Napoleon ever conquered Europe because lawyers aren't military commanders. Or disputing that Abraham Lincoln became president of the U.S. because woodsmen aren't statesmen.

But you're the one giving him the credit as if he actually did these things. He was just the face on the chip packet, not the chips themselves.

Firstly, Ronald Reagan as a democratically elected president never reigned over America. Secondly, what's your point? Statesmen clash with advisors all the time. Hence why it's the statesmen who are in charge and not the advisors.

The advisor (some CEO or something) actually gave him into trouble, and he meekly complied. I tried to find it ...

So when exactly did Reagan cause millions of Americans to enter personal debt slavery? I freaking love shady totalitarian conspiracy theories, so please provide a citation to this when you get around to it.

You don't have to "totalitarianly" conspire to do something to do it. Reagan and his ideologue advisors just bought the theory, I doubt they had the foresight to foresee the social consequences of easily available capital. Though I wouldn't put that past them all, in general the most cynical ones were just businessmen trying to acquire more power for themselves as they always have. Reagan though let it happen ...

 

[LightSpectra]

But you're the one giving him the credit as if he actually did these things. He was just the face of the packet, not the chips.

And what do you base this on? Disgruntled members of his administration that turned their backs on him after they themselves discovered how disposable they were? Or Reagan's own simplistic mannerisms, which even the former admitted were deceiving?

You don't have to "totalitarianly" conspire to do something to do it. Reagan and his ideologue advisors just bought the theory, I doubt they had the foresight to foresee the social consequences of easily available capital. Though I wouldn't put that past them all, in general the most cynical ones were just businessmen trying to acquire more power for themselves as they always have. Reagan though let it happen ...

And when did Reagan force each American family to use their personal finances to spend beyond their means, without their knowledge no less?

 

[Pangur Bán]

And what do you base this on? Disgruntled members of his administration that turned their backs on him after they themselves discovered how disposable they were? Or Reagan's own simplistic mannerisms, which even the former admitted were deceiving?

The guys you were talking about were sidelined by other advisors, not by Reagan himself. I know everyone loves a cult of personality, but we're talking about some of the smartest and most powerful people in 80s America. Actors don't get the better of such people. You know it!

And when did Reagan force each American family to use their personal finances to spend beyond their means, without their knowledge no less?

Oh gimme a break. You know what people are like

... but it's got to the stage now where most people HAVE to borrow just to go to college. I.e. most Americans today have got the choice between social stagnation and social debasement through debt. Reaganites said reduce government spending to fatten the fattest, and then probably some of the lard will trickle down. It was never gonna happen.

Now the average middle class American borrows through college, leaves college and is forced to spend his/her youth in temp jobs (growing so that, with laxer laws, companies can avoid paying for the benefits government doesn't provide) to pay that debt. He or she has to pay extortionate house prices or else rent or live with parents because baby-boomers and other entrenched interests have been goring on their debt for rising house-prices. All the while they'll have to channel much of their income to subsidise the parasite fat-cats who cream health-care payments, a cream they'll make fatter and fatter because they law says they can. And to top it off will, as far as economists can see, will go into middle/late age faced with the reduced/non-existent social security and medicare even though they've spent their lives paying for it.

That's the modern "American Dream". That goes pack to Reaganite ideology, though he can't take all the blame.

 

[LightSpectra]

The guys you were talking about were sidelined by other advisors, not by Reagan himself. I know everyone loves a cult of personality, but we're talking about some of the smartest and most powerful people in 80s America. Actors don't get the better of such people. You know it!

Your response was cute, but it did not answer my question, which is to what you're basing the notion that Reagan was a figurehead on: his enemies or his former allies?

... but it's got to the stage now where most people HAVE to borrow just to go to college. I.e. most Americans today have got the choice between social stagnation and social debasement through debt. Reaganites said reduce government spending to fatten the fattest, and then probably some of the lard will trickle down. It was never gonna happen.

Except for the fact that unemployment went down a grave amount. "Trickle-down economics" is a pejorative term, but nevertheless it's an economic actuality that repressive taxation of any tax bracket will inevitably stunt everybody else's at the same time. John F. Kennedy also cut taxes on the upper echelons in the late '50s/early '60s, which created jobs and prosperity for everybody. He put it this way: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Nevertheless if you want to plug your ears and "lalala" until the economic figures of the 1980s disappear, be my guest.

That's the modern "American Dream". That goes pack to Reaganite ideology, though he can't take all the blame.

It was Reagan's ideology to increase costs of college and spend far beyond one's financial means? I didn't know that. Citation please?

 

[Earthling]

As Nancy Reagan would say, you must be a Gemini, 2 faced and untrustworthy

Clearly that sums up the thread. Hotheaded Pisces are all the rage these days but I hear that was FDR

 

[Pangur Bán]

Your response was cute, but it did not answer my question, which is to what you're basing the notion that Reagan was a figurehead on: his enemies or his former allies?

Neither. Question makes no sense ...

Except for the fact that unemployment went down a grave amount. "Trickle-down economics" is a pejorative term, but nevertheless it's an economic actuality that repressive taxation of any tax bracket will inevitably stunt everybody else's at the same time. John F. Kennedy also cut taxes on the upper echelons in the late '50s/early '60s, which created jobs and prosperity for everybody. He put it this way: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

That's the ideological crap that's destroying the values of American society. Lower tax doesn't mean all people will get richer. It means the rich will pay less tax, and the poor will have to pay the shortfall (+ profit) indirectly through privatisation of the cut government services ... often things that most civilised societies pay for through government. This and other such ideological/greed driven policies is why we have the following:

The income going to the richest 1% has gone up threefold in real terms in the past twenty years, while the income of the poorest 40% went up by a more modest 11%.

The richest Americans have got richer in the past two decades
In 1979, the top 1% received just 7.5% of national income, compared to 15.5% in 2000.

The share of the poorest 40%, in contrast, declined from 19.1% to 14.6%.

Nevertheless if you want to plug your ears and "lalala" until the economic figures of the 1980s disappear, be my guest.

Real wages have actually been going down since Reagan, but this may have started before him.

It was Reagan's ideology to increase costs of college and spend far beyond one's financial means? I didn't know that. Citation please?

LightSpectra, you know how much the average European pays for college? Nothing. Healthcare? Nothing.

Europeans don't brain-wash their poor population into believing government expenditure is "lack of freedom" in order to actually enslave their poor population to fear and debt-slavery and make rich people richer and more powerful.

It makes no sense to enrich some insurance plutocrats at the expense of the poor by allowing them to "mediate" access to health care. Even for the plutocrats themselves it makes sense to spread skills in our workforce and make college easy to access. This is one of the reasons you are becoming poorer than Europeans and less happy. Nowadays, Americans want to move here! This is a trend that will accelerate too I think ...

 

[LightSpectra]

Neither. Question makes no sense ...

Asking on what source you base your accusations is nonsensical?

That's the ideological crap that's destroying the values of American society. Lower tax doesn't mean all people will get richer. It means the rich will pay less tax, and the poor will have to pay the shortfall (+ profit) indirectly through privatisation of the cut government services

That's only if the poor are paying more taxes, which they were not, since Reagan's tax cuts were across the board.

... often things that most civilised societies pay for through government.

Government is not a source of revenue.

Real wages have actually been going down since Reagan, but this may have started before him.

This is a credible source, how?

LightSpectra, you know how much the average European pays for college? Nothing. Healthcare? Nothing.

That's quite a feat, since that would mean that all college tuition and medical fees are in Europe are managed from charity. Which is not the case. Government only makes revenue by taxation, so that means the average European is paying quite a bit for health care and college. The only difference is how direct it is.

Europeans don't brain-wash their poor population into believing government expenditure is "lack of freedom" in order to actually enslave their poor population to fear and debt-slavery and make rich people richer and more powerful.

Sane people also don't think that anybody who doesn't agree with them are enslaving brain-washing ideologues. There are reasons not to share your beliefs beyond pure malice. Get over it.

It makes no sense to enrich some insurance plutocrats at the expense of the poor by allowing them to "mediate" access to health care. Even for the plutocrats themselves it makes sense to spread skills in our workforce and make college easy to access. This is one of the reasons you are becoming poorer than Europeans and less happy. Nowadays, Americans want to move here! This is a trend that will accelerate too I think ...

I'm actually in favor of government-run universal health care, which is why I'm quite baffled as to how you're attributing any of this to Reagan.

Also, citation needed on the "you are becoming poorer than Europeans and less happy." If surveys are to be believed, poorer countries are happier overall, so it sounds like you're pulling this out of thin air.

 

[Cutlass]

Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War'

By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A01

In the throngs of mourners passing through the Capitol yesterday afternoon, one stood out -- a vigorous senior citizen with a distinctive birthmark on his bald pate, whose tight gestures and bright eyes brought back memories of some of Ronald Reagan's greatest moments. Mikhail Gorbachev had flown from Moscow to pay respects to Nancy Reagan and to the man with whom he changed the course of history. "I gave him a pat," Gorbachev said later, reenacting the fond caress he had given Reagan's coffin.

Last evening, in an ornate conference room at the Russian Embassy on Wisconsin Avenue NW, Gorbachev gave a kind of personal eulogy to his first and most important American friend. It combined emotion, rigorous historical analysis and an interesting appraisal of Reagan's place in American life and history.

Reagan, said Gorbachev, 73, was "an extraordinary political leader" who decided "to be a peacemaker" at just the right moment -- the moment when Gorbachev had come to power in Moscow. He, too, wanted to be a peacemaker, so "our interests coincided." Reagan's second term began in January 1985; two months later, Gorbachev was elected general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party.

But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."

By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior U.S. officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration.

The changes he wrought in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. "The country was being stifled by the lack of freedom," he said. "We were increasingly behind the West, which . . . was achieving a new technological era, a new kind of productivity. . . . And I was ashamed for my country -- perhaps the country with the richest resources on Earth, and we couldn't provide toothpaste for our people."

Reagan had been a kind of reformer in the United States, Gorbachev suggested. His first term as president "came at a time when the American nation was in a very difficult situation -- not just in socio-economic terms, but psychologically, too," because of "the consequences of Vietnam and Watergate" and turmoil at home. Reagan rose to the occasion and "restored America's self-confidence. . . . This is what he accomplished."

"He was a person committed to certain values and traditions," Gorbachev continued. "For him the American dream was not just rhetoric. It was something he felt in his heart. In that sense he was an idealistic American."

By the end of that first term, Reagan was "the preeminent anti-communist," Gorbachev said. "Many people in our country, and in your country, regarded him as the quintessential hawk."

Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States.

"All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."

The big change was in Washington, Gorbachev said. "When he [Reagan] was elected to a second term, he, and especially the people close to him, began to think about how he would complete his second term -- by producing more and more nuclear weapons . . . and conducting 'special operations' around the world, etc. etc."

The Soviet leadership, Gorbachev said, evidently referring to himself, concluded that instead, Reagan would "want to go down in history as a peacemaker" and would work with Moscow to do so. "A particularly positive influence on him -- more than anyone else -- was Nancy Reagan," Gorbachev said. "She deserves a lot of credit for that."

Once Reagan decided to try to make peace, he found an eager partner in Moscow, Gorbachev said. "The new Soviet leadership wanted to transform the country, to modernize the country, and we needed stability, we needed cooperation with other countries. . . . And we both knew what kind of weapons we each had. There were mountains of nuclear weapons. A war could start not because of a political decision, but just because of some technical failure. . . .

"A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race," Gorbachev added, including military-industrial lobbies on both sides. His predecessors in Moscow had concluded that continuing the race was the only way they could achieve security for the Soviet Union.

But by his new calculation in 1985, the situation was ripe for change. He and his comrades concluded that it was really inconceivable that anyone in the White House actually wanted to blow up the Soviet Union, just as they ruled out the possibility of ever deliberately trying to destroy the United States. So it would make more sense "to find ways to cooperate."

His first meeting with Reagan in Geneva in November 1985, "confirmed the correctness of our assessment of the situation," he continued. This was the first Soviet-American summit in seven years, and it did not begin well. After the first session, he recounted, his comrades asked for his impressions of Reagan. "He's a real dinosaur," Gorbachev quoted himself as saying. "And then I learned," he added, "there was a leak from the American delegation, that . . . Reagan [described] Gorbachev as 'a die-hard Communist.' "

But just a day and a half later, the two men signed an agreement that stated their mutual conviction that nuclear war was unthinkable. They initiated a batch of new cooperative enterprises intended to improve relations. "That was the beginning of hope," Gorbachev said.

At subsequent meetings at Reykjavik the next year, in Washington in 1987 and in Moscow in 1988, relations got better and better. By the time he came to Moscow in 1988, Gorbachev recalled with evident satisfaction, Reagan had changed his views.

"An American reporter asked President Reagan, while we were taking a walk . . . 'Mr. President, do you still regard the Soviet Union as an evil empire?' And Reagan said no."

Staff writer David E. Hoffman contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html

So yea, really sounds like Reagan is the only person who could possibly have been president and single handedly, with effort by no one else in the world, brought down the Soviet Union.

But that also doesn't explain why Reagan was so irresponsible, and, to be literally accurate, stupid, as to adopt the fraud of "supply side economics" over legitimate economic policy and run huge deficits when it was all well within his ability to balance the budget.

 

[LightSpectra]

So yea, really sounds like Reagan is the only person who could possibly have been president and single handedly, with effort by no one else in the world, brought down the Soviet Union.

According to Gorbachev, yes. You highlighted the "that's not serious" line in order to make it seem as if Gorbachev is denying Reagan the credit, though the rest of the very same paragraph demonstrates that he was simply saying that the financial cost of the end of the Cold War made it a "defeat" in a sense.

Already covered this. Copy/paste for your benefit:

"[Reagan] was a man whom fate set by me in perhaps the most difficult years at the end of the 20th century. He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War."

Article: Gorbachev Recalls Reagan As Honest Rival, AP

But that also doesn't explain why Reagan was so irresponsible, and, to be literally accurate, stupid, as to adopt the fraud of "supply side economics" over legitimate economic policy and run huge deficits when it was all well within his ability to balance the budget.

Already covered this. Copy/paste for your benefit:

Reagan gave Donald Regan, his Secretary of the Treasury and later Chief of Staff, as well as David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, an unprecedented amount of authority to look out for areas in the budget where cuts could be made. Stockman produced an impressive figure of $100 billion annually in potential cuts. However, when he began bringing this to Congressmen, they refused: even die-hard conservatives did so. The reason is that while it's easy to speak of "balancing the budget" as an act of responsibility, it's difficult to explain to your constituents why they are the ones who are bearing the decrease in spending. Even Dick Cheney, then a member of the House, refused to agree to the cuts. Stockman remarked, "I was shocked to find that the Democrats were getting so much Republican help in their effort to keep the pork barrel flowing and the welfare state intact." (Stockman, The Triumph of Politics, pg. 7, 391, 394.)

Reagan wasn't surprised by this and likely anticipated it. He didn't really care though. His goal was to end the Cold War and revitalize the economy, both of which he accomplished during his presidency.

Now, will you care to respond this time, or are you going to make more profound statements and then exeunt?