I see both views Nick. I see that Reagan contirbuted and lead and usually the leader gets the credit. DOes the Captain not get fired when a ship runs aground? Same thing for when it goes well, the leader gets the credit. Do you think Jimmy Carter's lack of push and lack of competition would have "nudged" them towards the brink?
Yes, while Carter was President the USSR was spiraling down the hole that ultimately led to Gorbachev manipulating its end.
Reagan using their moment of self-destruction to agrandize himself through his "tear down that wall!" speech was dishonest, nothing more than propaganda, and Republicans have used that propaganda to credit Reagan when in fact his efforts are not what accomplished the end of Soviet Russia. Reagan contributed, but the meetings initiated by Gorbachev were his real accomplishment, not his outrageous spending.
Reagan did raise our spirits with his happy rhetoric, that's true, and after Nixon/Ford/Carter it sure felt good, but what his real work boiled down to was breaking labor Unions, Iran-Contra, record debt, ignoring a major health crisis and turning America against gays, ruining Environmental Protection, etc, etc. Republicans try to distract from that by giving him disproportionate credit for toppling the USSR.
One of lessons out of the Reagan years is that a facade of niceness, someone who makes you feel good, is not the same as someone who accomplishes good. Some people put all their effort into being liked, into making people feel good, then don't do the work that'll fulfill the expectations they've created.
The unnecessary spending is bullshit. The country has always been spent into debt while fighting an enemy in declared or non declared wars.
It is not bullshit. When FDR spent us into debt to fight an enemy, it was legitimate. Reagan's out of proportion military spending was not a legitimate national security response. USSR was going down anyway, nudged by all of the Western world for many years.
The difference from your point of view is that Democrats would spend to fund social programs vice industry. The problem I have with that is people become accustomed and without incentive fail to ever leave entitlement. Think of one of your folk heros who said "Poor folks need a hand up not a hand out".
Democrats also spend to fund programs that invest in our future or address issues that legitimately impact our society as a whole like NASA and environmental concerns. And I support that. I agree with what appears to be your opinion of welfare programs. I think welfare should be coupled with some kind of job training and child care and capped at a lifetime use of maybe 2 to 4 years tops. After that no more. I think the disability arm of Social Security is abused to a shameful degree and should be restructured. Bottom line, Americans who are able to work should work for a living, and if they choose not to then they should be without funds. I think if their options are work or starve, they'll work.
That realism Bill truly believed and yet you claim he was bullied into it by republicans.
I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about welfare reform, I've never claimed he was bullied into it by Republicans. Clinton talked at length about welfare reform during his first campaign running for President. It's one of the reasons I worked for him, voted for him, and believe Hillary will also be a fiscally responsible President. If you're referring to something else, let me know.
I would prefer that if my govt spend money it be to strengthen our country via defense or industry. Ask any economist, govt spending is an effective way to spur a lagging economy.
Yes government spending is an effective way to prime the pump of a capitalist economy. That's what Bill Clinton did with his economic policy. He primed the pump.
That's not what Reagan did, nor the current Bush. Dumping billions (of debt money) into old and wealthy industry --the military complex and, with Bush, oil-- and racking up debt to do it does not spur a lagging economy, it bloats the element that's already rich and trickles down pennies to the other sectors. That's the reason the rich got so much richer and the middle class lost ground during both Reagan's and Bush's administrations. Spending money that way is not any more effective than the welfare you disapprove of.
Government spending on investment in new industry is very different from government spending on unnecessary war and tax cuts for rich corporations. Tax cuts for the rich does not spur the economy, it spurs greed. Putting money in the hands of people (middle class for instance, or all the start-ups during the Internet growth years) who'll pump it back into the economy spurs the economy. If you're going to tax-cut industry you do it for poor and middle class interpreneurs not old rich guys.
Think of the stagnation that would have occured after the internet bubble burst IF money was not being pumped into the economy via the govt spending programs.
Think of where we'd be in terms of energy independence if that money had been pumped into research and development of alternative energy sources rather than into the neocon war machine and tax cuts for rich oil corporations. There'd be all kinds of innovation. There'd be new companies making money, spreading around the wealth to newly successful people. There might even be growth rather than further decline in the auto industry. Bush pumped money where there already was money. Gore would have pumped money into new investment, which is where real growth happens.
Also while your at it feel free to admit while Clinton neglected other priorities it was easy to allow record profit due to the dot.com explosion make his policies SEEM ideal.
Be specific about what you think Clinton neglected.
And Clinton's economic policies WERE ideal for the economic situation he had before him. Do you even know what he (and Rubin and Gore) did that spurred on the dot com success?
The thing I see most though is that your views can easily be seen both ways not in just one way. The one way, "my way or the highway" idea is what is destroying this country. Forgive me if I do not sit by while you make all knowing statements that belittle the truth. The way all this works is way too complex for one simple set of party ideological values to always be correct.
This discussion began when you wrote, "See when you post something that is obviously a patent lie and then someone like me reads it." When I challenged you, you then went on to post links to evidence that proved what I wrote was true, not "a patent lie."
I don't say my way or the highway when someone proves I'm wrong, but I don't buy propaganda and I'm not fooled by charisma or happy talk. Not any more. Show me the facts, show me the dates, show me the money trail, show me the proof, the evidence, the experience. I think Obama comparing himself to Reagan is very revealing and very troubling. Something just isn't right. Hillary Clinton is by no means perfect but she'll clean up Bush's messes and start us back on the road to innovation and growth that Bill Clinton had us on, that Al Gore would have continued us on. Obama is not saying anything that indicates he understands the necessity for that or how to do it.
