ABC News'

[Orton's Arm]

He built up the economy?!    He created massive deficits and debt that we're still paying for after he left (deja vu to today)!  What did he do to penetrate the censored realm, use telepathy? 

724501[/snapback]

You clearly a) don't know what you're talking about, and b) have no interest in learning.

[GG]

He built up the economy?!    He created massive deficits and debt that we're still paying for after he left (deja vu to today)!  What did he do to penetrate the censored realm, use telepathy? 

724501[/snapback]

 

Now that's more like it. Now my faith in the world has been restored.

[Chilly]

But Ronald Reagan rose above the rest.  He did the following:

1. Built up the American economy.

2. Used the resulting economic strength to build up the military.

3. Made it so that the Soviet leadership was more focused on Reagan than on their own citizens.

4. Reagan put forth a vision of freedom, so simply and clearly it even penetrated the censored realm of the Soviet Union.  The Soviet government lacked a similarly compelling vision with which to explain their own actions.  In fact, Soviet moves to a more open society seemed to be guided by Reagan's vision.  Legitimizing Reagan's vision in this way ultimately did a lot to cause that government's fall.

724031[/snapback]

 

I don't know, it seems to me that the fall of the Soviet Union has more to do with internal Russian affairs then Reagan.

 

Reagan played a huge part putting pressure on them, but ultimately it was the Soviets and the Soviets who couldn't maintain that delacate balancing act of a competitive authoritarian system, which is what Gorbachev was moving toward.

 

Gorbachev did too much too fast, which led to the USSR's downfall.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

China is our biggest challenge in the future

723605[/snapback]

 

I disagree. I think the EU presents FAR more of a threat to the US in the immediate future than does China.

[MattyT]

I disagree. I think the EU presents FAR more of a threat to the US in the immediate future than does China.

724623[/snapback]

Economically, or otherwise?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Economically, or otherwise?

724626[/snapback]

 

Both. They've proven to be quite insistent on forwarding their agendas at the expense of our interests on the global stage.

[PastaJoe]

You clearly a) don't know what you're talking about, and b) have no interest in learning.

724509[/snapback]

 

I'm sorry, I forgot that you're from the Bizarro World where Republicans like Reagan and Bush don't create massive deficits and debt. And I'm always interested in learning, but not being indoctrinated like you've been.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm sorry, I forgot that you're from the Bizarro World where Republicans like Reagan and Bush don't create massive deficits and debt.  And I'm always interested in learning, but not being indoctrinated like you've been.

725088[/snapback]

Your original post made three points:

- Reagan didn't build up the economy

- Reagan created massive deficits

- Reagan's message couldn't penetrate the censored Soviet realm

 

I'll deal with these points:

 

There are three ways in which the federal government can affect the economy: monetary policy, fiscal policy, and everything else. The Carter administration's monetary policy had largely been formed through misguided Keynesian theory. According to such theory, you're supposed to expand the nominal monetary supply whenever you want to give the economy a boost. The idea is that businesses will be surprised by your policy, and this element of surprise will actually help. This monetary policy didn't work, as shown by the stagflation of the Carter era.

 

Reagan chose Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve. Greenspan did such a good job that he continued to serve under Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. Greenspan chose to put a much higher priority on fighting inflation than Keynesian monetary theory would suggest; and Greenspan's policies worked out better in the long run. Reagan may only have had a bachelor's in economics, but his instinctive grasp of monetary policy proved better than a host of Keynesian PhD's.

 

Then there was Reagan's fiscal policy. Or rather, there was the fiscal policy formed through the joint interaction between Reagan, the Democrat House, and a Senate taken over by Democrats in 1986. Democrats wanted high spending on wasteful social programs, discretionary spending (read: pork), and other forms of spending. Democrats also wanted high taxes to pay for their waste. Reagan wanted low taxes and low spending, except on the military. They compromised with low taxes and high spending. To blame Reagan alone for the deficit ignores the complete absence of any spending discipline whatsoever in the Democrat-dominated House. The reduction of tax burdens probably played a significant role in helping the economic recovery. Lower taxes mean you're putting fewer obstacles in the paths of those who seek to create economic value.

 

The third way Reagan created economic value was to reduce regulatory burdens and other government obstructions to economic growth whenever possible. You'll recall that airline prices fell dramatically after that industry was deregulated. Unfortunately, Reagan's power to reduce the intrusiveness of the federal government was surprisingly limited, but he clearly did what he could. The actions he took yielded results.

 

As for the question of how Reagan's message could penetrate the censored Soviet realm: a little probably trickled through because of Soviet visitors to the U.S., the Voice of America radio effort, things like that. But mostly it was because of the Soviet government summarizing Reagan's speeches in order to criticize or ridicule them. Pravda and other Soviet media outlets were certainly not afraid to distort Reagan's message. But by that point, cynical Soviet citizens had learned to see through most such distortions. Or they'd report his words honestly, but fail to get the expected reaction. The Soviet government apparently told its people about Reagan's Evil Empire remarks. The hope was to get people angry at Reagan. Instead, many apparently agreed with him.

 

I agree with one of the implications you made in your post, which is that deficits are terrible and inexcusable, except in a time of war. The larger a nation's debt, the more of its tax revenues must be squandered on useless interest payments. Unfortunately, big government was far more important to Democrats, both politically and ideologically, than fiscal discipline was. Reagan knew he couldn't convince congressional Democrats to cut spending. But he also knew a tax cut in the short run could force spending cuts in the long run. Those spending cuts started appearing in 1994, when Republicans finally took control of the House.

[Alaska Darin]

Your original post made three points:

- Reagan didn't build up the economy

- Reagan created massive deficits

- Reagan's message couldn't penetrate the censored Soviet realm

 

I'll deal with these points:

 

There are three ways in which the federal government can affect the economy: monetary policy, fiscal policy, and everything else. The Carter administration's monetary policy had largely been formed through misguided Keynesian theory.  According to such theory, you're supposed to expand the nominal monetary supply whenever you want to give the economy a boost.  The idea is that businesses will be surprised by your policy, and this element of surprise will actually help.  This monetary policy didn't work, as shown by the stagflation of the Carter era. 

 

Reagan chose Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve.  Greenspan did such a good job that he continued to serve under Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.  Greenspan chose to put a much higher priority on fighting inflation than Keynesian monetary theory would suggest; and Greenspan's policies worked out better in the long run.  Reagan may only have had a bachelor's in economics, but his instinctive grasp of monetary policy proved better than a host of Keynesian PhD's.

 

Then there was Reagan's fiscal policy.  Or rather, there was the fiscal policy formed through the joint interaction between Reagan, the Democrat House, and a Senate taken over by Democrats in 1986.  Democrats wanted high spending on wasteful social programs, discretionary spending (read: pork), and other forms of spending.  Democrats also wanted high taxes to pay for their waste.  Reagan wanted low taxes and low spending, except on the military.  They compromised  with low taxes and high spending.  To blame Reagan alone for the deficit ignores the complete absence of any spending discipline whatsoever in the Democrat-dominated House.  The reduction of tax burdens probably played a significant role in helping the economic recovery.  Lower taxes mean you're putting fewer obstacles in the paths of those who seek to create economic value.

 

The third way Reagan created economic value was to reduce regulatory burdens and other government obstructions to economic growth whenever possible.  You'll recall that airline prices fell dramatically after that industry was deregulated.  Unfortunately, Reagan's power to reduce the intrusiveness of the federal government was surprisingly limited, but he clearly did what he could.  The actions he took yielded results.

 

As for the question of how Reagan's message could penetrate the censored Soviet realm: a little probably trickled through because of Soviet visitors to the U.S., the Voice of America radio effort, things like that.  But mostly it was because of the Soviet government summarizing Reagan's speeches in order to criticize or ridicule them.  Pravda and other Soviet media outlets were certainly not afraid to distort Reagan's message.  But by that point, cynical Soviet citizens had learned to see through most such distortions.  Or they'd report his words honestly, but fail to get the expected reaction.  The Soviet government apparently told its people about Reagan's Evil Empire remarks.  The hope was to get people angry at Reagan.  Instead, many apparently agreed with him.

 

I agree with one of the implications you made in your post, which is that deficits are terrible and inexcusable, except in a time of war.  The larger a nation's debt, the more of its tax revenues must be squandered on useless interest payments.  Unfortunately, big government was far more important to Democrats, both politically and ideologically, than fiscal discipline was.  Reagan knew he couldn't convince congressional Democrats to cut spending.  But he also knew a tax cut in the short run could force spending cuts in the long run.  Those spending cuts started appearing in 1994, when Republicans finally took control of the House.

725106[/snapback]

You're wasting your time. Pasta Joe is a hypocrite apologist. Anything Republican = Inherently Bad, while anything Democrat = Inherently Good.

 

At the end of the day, both Republicans AND Democrats are responsible for government spending - at all times.