Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

In memoriam Ronald Reagan watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    "Expressing a criticism of an administration which committed some very dubious acts does not automatically qualify you as a communist! If it does, please explain the connection to me..." - kingslaw

    You agree with this man and like him you have NO valid arguments.

    http://news.bostonherald.com/nationa...71&format=text
    so creating a huge federal deficeit for the country was good then? and
    increasing the number of americans under the poverty line was good?
    you have no hell of a strange sense of what is good and valid, if you do answer please do explain why instead of just calling people communists
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderer)
    Not a big fan of Reagan. At all. When Gorbachev realised the arms race was messing up the Soviet Union (and the world), his government made overtures to the Reagan administration to begin multilateral nuclear disarmament. The Americans ignored them and stepped up the arms race. The Soviet Union collapsed, and now a vast number of nuclear weapons exist in a volatile, only partially stable area. Great, positive end to the cold war.
    ive been reluctant to write anything about Reagan. there are far better tributes to be found online and fact should be hard to ignore. im also surprised by comments here, which appear to consitute a majority, denouncing his work and even criticising his cold war success. comments such as this above. comments that painfully omit the very essence of the man and the source of his respect. comments that omit the very real nature of the world during the cold war years. comments that omit his political circumstances and counterparts. comments that omit his ideology and faith in the free man.


    it was Thatcher who kept the pressure on Reagan to maintain nuclear weapons. it was the progressive Gorbachev who the Soviets elected directly to appease Reagan. it was Reagan who spread democracy and freedom without firing a shot.

    "Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired. To have achieved so much against so many odds and with such humour and humanity made Ronald Reagan a truly great American hero. "
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so creating a huge federal deficeit for the country was good then?
    the subsequent boom in the 90s would illustrate that to be the case.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ive been reluctant to write anything about Reagan. there are far better tributes to be found online and fact should be hard to ignore. im also surprised by comments here, which appear to consitute a majority, denouncing his work and even criticising his cold war success. comments such as this above. comments that painfully omit the very essence of the man and the source of his respect. comments that omit the very real nature of the world during the cold war years. comments that omit his political circumstances and counterparts. comments that omit his ideology and faith in the free man.


    it was Thatcher who kept the pressure on Reagan to maintain nuclear weapons. it was the progressive Gorbachev who the Soviets elected directly to appease Reagan. it was Reagan who spread democracy and freedom without firing a shot.

    "Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired. To have achieved so much against so many odds and with such humour and humanity made Ronald Reagan a truly great American hero. "
    Surely you do admit that although he contributed alot to the fall of communism he wasn't the only reason it failed. Also that although he did a lot of great things he was also associated with some negative things,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Surely you do admit that although he contributed alot to the fall of communism he wasn't the only reason it failed. Also that although he did a lot of great things he was also associated with some negative things,
    it is language like that which causes concern. that communism failed and not the Reagan/Thatcher determination that ended it. he was the prime player in ending communism not only in Europe but around the world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it is language like that which causes concern. that communism failed and not the Reagan/Thatcher determination that ended it. he was the prime player in ending communism not only in Europe but around the world.
    ok I will rephrase there were other factors which also contributed to the collapse of conmmunism. Yes Thatcher and Reagan played a very important role and communism probably wouldn't have collapsed (I don't use the word ended because it is still around just not so much in Russia) without them but there were other factors which we also important like corruption in Russia ect. I just don't think that Thatcher and Reagan can be cited as the only reason.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the subsequent boom in the 90s would illustrate that to be the case.
    so let me get this straight you think it was a good policy at the time to think i know lets make the US the biggest debtor nation in the world so they could buy weapons while the poor got poorer
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so let me get this straight you think it was a good policy at the time to think i know lets make the US the biggest debtor nation in the world so they could buy weapons while the poor got poorer
    But at least American arms guarantee the poor are 'free' whilst they starve to death!
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    But at least American arms guarantee the poor are 'free' whilst they starve to death!
    It's getting harder and harder not to burst out laughing when you hear the lines: "the land of the free, and the home of the brave"...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    It's getting harder and harder not to burst out laughing when you hear the lines: "the land of the free, and the home of the brave"...
    "home of the brave..."? Didnt the President of the Home of the Brave give some lame excuse for missing military service in the Vietnam War?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    It's getting harder and harder not to burst out laughing when you hear the lines: "the land of the free, and the home of the brave"...
    I know what you mean. I have been reading about the treatment of ethnic minorities in America, past and present and many of them were far from free so a long time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    It's getting harder and harder not to burst out laughing when you hear the lines: "the land of the free, and the home of the brave"...
    not really. i cant think of a shred of plausible evidence that supports your claim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    "home of the brave..."? Didnt the President of the Home of the Brave give some lame excuse for missing military service in the Vietnam War?
    pleased to see youre aware of that 'lame excuse' before you gratuitously damn a country. and you wonder why people think youve fallen off the left side of the map?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so let me get this straight you think it was a good policy at the time to think i know lets make the US the biggest debtor nation in the world so they could buy weapons while the poor got poorer
    it was a good policy at the time for reasons that should be evident, not only of the american economy but of the nature of war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    ok I will rephrase there were other factors which also contributed to the collapse of conmmunism. Yes Thatcher and Reagan played a very important role and communism probably wouldn't have collapsed (I don't use the word ended because it is still around just not so much in Russia) without them but there were other factors which we also important like corruption in Russia ect. I just don't think that Thatcher and Reagan can be cited as the only reason.
    theyre not cited as the only reason. just, quite rightly, as the prime contributors.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it was a good policy at the time for reasons that should be evident, not only of the american economy but of the nature of war.
    so what are these reasons?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "so creating a huge federal deficeit for the country was good then? and
    increasing the number of americans under the poverty line was good?
    you have no hell of a strange sense of what is good and valid, if you do answer please do explain why instead of just calling people communists." -Speciez99

    He didn't create a federal deficit....I don't even understand why any honest person would state such a thing unless the person wasn't honest and the statement was nothing more than a blatant and vicious lie. Or maybe you're just ignorant....In either case, your statement was based on a false premise.

    Reagan, nor any president for that matter, controls the purse strings. All spending bills must go through Congress and in Reagan's case...a democratically controled Congress. Reagan did push through tax cuts which created the biggest economic boom in our nations history which also made more money for the federal govt. than had ever been made previously. He also pushed for cuts in federal spending...All this combined more than made up for the military spending which helped end the Cold War.

    You are also trying to imply that people were worse off under Reagan. Well, compared to who? Do you even know that unemployment and inflation under Carter were more than double of that under Reagan. Reagan cut interest rates which helped to spur economic growth......

    More later....it's break time..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronnie Raygun)
    "so creating a huge federal deficeit for the country was good then? and
    increasing the number of americans under the poverty line was good?
    you have no hell of a strange sense of what is good and valid, if you do answer please do explain why instead of just calling people communists." -Speciez99

    He didn't create a federal deficit....I don't even understand why any honest person would state such a thing unless the person wasn't honest and the statement was nothing more than a blatant and vicious lie. Or maybe you're just ignorant....In either case, your statement was based on a false premise.

    Reagan, nor any president for that matter, controls the purse strings. All spending bills must go through Congress and in Reagan's case...a democratically controled Congress. Reagan did push through tax cuts which created the biggest economic boom in our nations history which also made more money for the federal govt. than had ever been made previously. He also pushed for cuts in federal spending...All this combined more than made up for the military spending which helped end the Cold War.

    You are also trying to imply that people were worse off under Reagan. Well, compared to who? Do you even know that unemployment and inflation under Carter were more than double of that under Reagan. Reagan cut interest rates which helped to spur economic growth......

    More later....it's break time..
    Reagan cut federal spending by $963 billion, this resulted in a 11% increase in GNP, and an a decreasing of unemployment by 7%. Inflation also dropped by 3.2%. These facts I assume is what you base your arguement on.

    You seem to have also forgotten that he increased the federal deficiet to %2.2billion, and in 1989 his miltary spending alone was $2.8trillon for that year. These meant in 1989 the interest on the US debt alone was $216million. Under his Presidency, the number living under the poverty line increased from 11.7% of the population to 15% in two years. Also to add to these economic sucesses we also have Black Monday when the dow jones fell 508 points whipping off 20% of the stock values of US companies.

    If you think that economic policy isn't decided by the President you can say good bye to the claims in the first paragraph. If not accept that for the very poor it to a large extent it did not help them and left problems for the country.

    And compared to who? No one, we are analysising his actions and there immediate effect.

    Oh and the debtor nation thing, oh you are arguing with J.J. Hogan, an academic historian. "The large federal budget deficits, the large trade deficits and their impact in coverting the US into the world's leading debtor nation are the main legacies of the Reagan era"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "home of the brave..."? Didnt the President of the Home of the Brave give some lame excuse for missing military service in the Vietnam War?" - kingslaw

    No. He didn't. He served as a jet pilot in the air national guard.

    By the way, did you know that Clinton (liberal) was a draft dodger? For liberals it seems to be a resume enhancement. Yet, when you have a man who served his country honorably he's call the very thing that leftists are praised for......a draft dodger.

    "I know what you mean. I have been reading about the treatment of ethnic minorities in America, past and present and many of them were far from free so a long time." - ranndom

    Minorities have been mistreated since the beginning of time and it was happening in europe and other parts of the world long before this country was ever founded....and is still happening in many parts of the world including europe, asia and yes.....North America.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "You seem to have also forgotten that he increased the federal deficiet to %2.2billion," - speciez99

    President Reagan entered the White House with an attitude of working honest deals with the Congress on spending. He wanted more defense spending, lower entitlement spending, lower tax rates which would boost the economy (and thus revenues) and seemed to achieve that agreement with Congress in both 1981 and 1982. However, despite getting concessions on taxes, congress never once cut spending, and the actual budgets were higher than what Reagan asked for 7 out of 8 years. This attitude of "cut spending later" helped continue the debt trends that began under Ford and Carter. By the end of Reagans terms, debt had increased by $2 trillion.

    You are saying that Reagan asked for deficits when actually it was a liberal Congress who refused to cut social spending so they could buy more votes.

    Here is the chart.

    Federal Budget Outlays
    Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
    Cumulative Percent Difference
    (billions of dollars)

    Fiscal Year Outlays Cumulative

    Differences

    Reagan. Congress. % Cumlative
    Proposed. Actual. Diff. Differences.
    1982 695.3 745.8 7.3 0.0
    1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 12.1
    1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 10.8
    1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 11.6
    1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 13.5
    1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 14.6
    1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 19.1
    1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 24.5
    Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8 Avg 3.1


    "and in 1989 his miltary spending alone was $2.8trillon for that year. These meant in 1989 the interest on the US debt alone was $216million." - Speciez99

    Then why was a liberal Congress spending EVEN MORE than he proposed? Afterall, we did achieve his goal of defeating our main adversary...

    I'll get to the rest later....
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 11, 2004
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.