Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2010-04-16 15:26:54
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6015|Truthistan

JohnG@lt wrote:

I've never stated that I even liked Reagan, let alone thought he was some second coming. I was eight years old when he left office and my parents probably voted against him for all I know, they're apolitical people.

I used to enjoy reading your posts but now you sound like nothing more than ATG mixed with Turquoise when he's feeling socialistic
Hey just trying to keep you guys honest... I can argue both sides of the spectrum very easily, but here on DST I find the far right to be very full... but you guys keep messing it up... you need to come to the table with more than mass media talking points... Back it up with something other than news opinion pieces or worse, website blogging opinions pieces that simply repeat myths, innuendos and outright fabrications... otherwise DST becomes a circle jerk.

IMO One of the things Reagan did that was interesting was the USSR collapsed under his tenure... you can't take that away from him. But the arming of Afganistan had some blow back. And another intersting thing was his "the missiles will be flying in 10 minutes"... now if the Soviets knew that he was going senile at the time, that must have scared the Bejesus out of them.... So there was an arms race, financial warfare, killing Soviets in Afganistan and the costs of that war and his senility being used as a psych weapon... brilliant.

But his economic theories have born poison fruit and we are all paying for it now. No doubt he was an important figure in American history but no everything that came out of his presidency was good....   ie the rise of the religious right, censorship, anti-sex, homophobia etc etc, the moral socialists really got a foothold under his presidency.

Hope that was more fair and balanced.
2010-04-16 15:32:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6426|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

I used to enjoy reading your posts but now you sound like nothing more than ATG mixed with Turquoise when he's feeling socialistic
I don't agree with Diesel on everything, but you have to admit that he does his research.
2010-04-16 16:17:51
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6653|949

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Homeland security - that's defense, right?  Add that in.  Nuclear warhead resarch and maintainance - that's part of a national defense, right?  Supplemental spending bills for Iraq/Afghanistan?

It's all right there in the chart, buddy.

Anyway, I'm glad we can all agree that Reagan was a douche.
DHS is on the chart, not part of DoD.

Nuke research and maintenance is covered under DoE - on the chart.

Iraq and Afghanistan are part of the DoD budget for 2010.

Are you agreeing with the voices in your head, KJ?
Must be the voices

WIKINONSENSE wrote:

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3][4] Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40–50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
But maybe since it's not in a graph I can't understand it.
2010-04-16 16:35:11
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6432|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Homeland security - that's defense, right?  Add that in.  Nuclear warhead resarch and maintainance - that's part of a national defense, right?  Supplemental spending bills for Iraq/Afghanistan?

It's all right there in the chart, buddy.

Anyway, I'm glad we can all agree that Reagan was a douche.
DHS is on the chart, not part of DoD.

Nuke research and maintenance is covered under DoE - on the chart.

Iraq and Afghanistan are part of the DoD budget for 2010.

Are you agreeing with the voices in your head, KJ?
Must be the voices

WIKINONSENSE wrote:

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3][4] Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40–50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
But maybe since it's not in a graph I can't understand it.
Linky? Would like to see their source documents to see what they consider "defense-related".

Odd, since Obama directed that all "OCO" (the artist formerly known as GWOT) expenditures--that would be Iraq and Afghanistan--be included in the baseline Defense budget, no longer in supplementals. And the rest of the budget got raped accordingly this year. So while the DoD budget went up, it included what was normally submitted in supplementals in previous years and existing baselines got reduced to make up for it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-16 16:49:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6127|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Any attempt to do so is an attack on freedom. It doesn't matter whether it's in the business world, or in your personal life, if the government steps in and tries to influence your decisions via monetary incentives/disincentives, you are being controlled.
Its not an attack on 'freedom' its a means of preventing stupid greedy people ruining the world for the rest of us.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-04-16 16:50:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6426|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

So while the DoD budget went up, it included what was normally submitted in supplementals in previous years and existing baselines got reduced to make up for it.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
2010-04-16 16:52:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6127|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

WRT the Cold War, his policies intentionally forced the USSR to spend itself into bankruptcy. His administration knew that the USSR wouldn't not attempt to keep pace with the US in a military build-up. They also knew that the USSR's economy couldn't sustain it, while ours could. The US's build-up and the USSR's collapse were not merely happenstance.
Reagan also gave Gorbachev a way out without losing too much face - which is just as important - even more so now we're dealing with the Chinese....
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-04-16 16:55:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6432|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So while the DoD budget went up, it included what was normally submitted in supplementals in previous years and existing baselines got reduced to make up for it.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
No, it's a neutral thing. Just makes it more sporty for everyone. But hard for those outside of the DoD to understand when you say "our budget's been cut by 40%" and they say "but the defense budget is higher than ever".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-16 16:58:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6426|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So while the DoD budget went up, it included what was normally submitted in supplementals in previous years and existing baselines got reduced to make up for it.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
No, it's a neutral thing. Just makes it more sporty for everyone. But hard for those outside of the DoD to understand when you say "our budget's been cut by 40%" and they say "but the defense budget is higher than ever".
I just wish we'd do less of this supplemental spending and simply budgeted for it.

I figure we've existed as a country long enough that we should be able to anticipate a general total amount of spending that will need to be done over the next year.

Leaving the door open for large amounts of supplemental spending outside of the budget is very bad for a country that really needs to cut its debt.
2010-04-16 19:18:59
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6432|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


You say that like it's a bad thing....
No, it's a neutral thing. Just makes it more sporty for everyone. But hard for those outside of the DoD to understand when you say "our budget's been cut by 40%" and they say "but the defense budget is higher than ever".
I just wish we'd do less of this supplemental spending and simply budgeted for it.

I figure we've existed as a country long enough that we should be able to anticipate a general total amount of spending that will need to be done over the next year.

Leaving the door open for large amounts of supplemental spending outside of the budget is very bad for a country that really needs to cut its debt.
The problem with the supplemental spending is that it is war costs, not baseline spending. You can't really predict/budget war costs on a biennial basis, which is how the federal government works--you plan two years out. We just submitted our requirements for FY12. No way you can do that with war costs...they're too variable. Granted, we've been doing this war thing for a while, but even at that, with strategy changes, and force level changes, all that shifts within a budget cycle. There's really know way to fund that outside of annual supplementals. A necessary evil, so long as we're still fighting.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-16 20:18:45
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6793|PNW

burnzz wrote:

i voted for Reagan. i think today's republican's bare little resemblance to the party that got him elected.
^^^THIS.

First presidential election I voted in helped get Bush into office for his first term. If I had started in the 80's, it would have been for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and reluctantly Clinton (if Bob Dole was the opposition).

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-04-16 20:21:56)

2010-04-17 04:48:46
BLdw
..
+27|5192|M104 "Sombrero"

FEOS wrote:

BLdw wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Both recognize that true GDP figures are difficult to verify due to the nature of the Soviet economy. Even WAGs in the high double-digit range like that point to unsustainable military spending in relation to GDP...which was a direct result of Reagan policies.
True GDP figures are too difficult to verify. Extensive studies show that the collapse of Soviet Union wasn't much of a direct result of defence spending, as Reagan policies and Afghan war added very little to it. Evidence that the Soviet Union increased its own military spending to 27% of its GDP is not officially confirmed by many of who have studied collapse of Soviet Union.
That's funny, because multiple sources have shown that while, not a direct result, the military spending was a significant contributing factor to the acceleration of the collapse of the Soviet economy. Pretty much what's been said from the beginning.
Then are we having a conversation over a point of view?

I don't deny that military spending wasn't one of the contributing factors in the collapse of Soviet Union. I question the thesis of whether Soviet Union increased its military spending to 27% of the GDP. I've read that the actual increase of Soviet Union's military spending, due Reagan's pressure, caused actually only marginal rise in defense costs.

You say that Reagan's policies forced Soviet Union to increase its military spending to 27% of the GDP and thus creating "massive" pressure. (Correct me if I've misread you)

I don't deny that Reagan gave the last push (and neither do you it seems), but I do question whether Reagan's policies caused as much pressure as has been said over the years. We both rely on the information we have received over the years and ironically enough we have same sources too (at least one of them is the same), MIT. You seem to support the more official thesis of Reagan's policies that caused Soviet Union to increase its military spending to 27% of the GDP. I rely (somewhat) to those who have not confirmed this thesis because of the lack support for the claims.


Correct me I've misread you.

FEOS wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Soviet Union was rotting all over, it is true that Reagan might have given the last poke but it was just a poke as nothing else was needed. Both Reagan and Gorbachev knew that Soviet Union was going to collapse soon, and Reagan saw there his opportunity. He poked. It was a "great" move in the right time and everything could be backed up with Reagan's policies if someone tried to disprove it. It was victory, not only for freedom and capitalism, but to show how the way of living in West was the right way to live. It was meant to show people all over the world how right choices and strong leadership with great wisdom is born in free and democratic society, like USA. Reagan used his great rhetoric skills in the right time.
Again, would it have happened regardless? Maybe. According to Shahter, the mighty Soviet Russia recovered from far worse on its own previously, so who knows. It is a fact that Russia increased defense spending in response to Reagan's policies. It is a fact that said defense spending exacerbated an already dire economic situation, hastening the collapse of the Soviet economy, thereby bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union. It is also a fact that other Reagan economic policies that had nothing to do with the military put pressure on the Soviet economy from other areas (like the energy and export sectors)...again, putting additional pressure on an already fragile economy. An economy that may or may not have recovered on its own without those additional pressures. He simply ensured it wouldn't.
I haven't denied that Reagan gave the last push, but I question whether his policies had such an impact as has been said. I know Soviet Union increased its defense spending in response to Reagan's policies, I question how much it actually affected. I also know that Reagan had long-term economic policies that were meant to put pressure on the Soviet Union. But yet I have to question whether these policies caused as much pressure as have been said. It's widely ignored that Soviet Union received quantitative setbacks during the time of Nixon, thus creating "massive" pressure on the Soviet Union. It seems that also problems within Soviet Union itself have been greatly ignored too. Soviet Union was also in need of information technology to keep up the pace with new form of industrialism. But in order to make this work Soviet Union needed technology from West and that didn't work with its current policies.

All in all, I don't deny that Reagan did the last move but I question whether any other president had not been able to do it. Any move to cause more pressure to Soviet Union had caused it to collapse. Reagan was just in the right time.

FEOS wrote:

BLdw wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Please point out a US news outlet that is government-run...even though nowadays that's much easier to do than it used to be.
Not really government run news outlet, but gag order. Gag order is quite strong in Western Europe (France, UK. Germany, Spain and Italy has their own versions of gagging too.) and very strong in USA. In China they can prohibit everything they want without any legal justification ("international" justification) and in West we use civilized version of "gagging everything legally". It's hard to tell which one is worse...
I don't know what USA you're talking about. Our press can't be shut up, no matter how badly we would like to at times--the First Amendment of our Constitution prevents it.
Gagging order works very well in the USA too. Sure First Amendment of your Constitution prevents it, in theory, yet it happens in USA. It's not a "mystery" or conspiracy how gag order works. It's a legal way of gagging information to maintain the safety of public, or to prevent any information to be published if it's seen to be unconstitutional or thread to the national security. Press can bypass this (because of free media) but it may lead to court.

Gagging order is actually very deep in form of laws and "gaggings" are very rarely taken into the court as it could easily mean tremendous loss for both participants taking part in the process. Gag order is also often used to sway public opinions by single handedly reporting from certain point of views while hiding more crucial problems/questions/et

Will see how badly my quotations are messed...

Hopefully I did mention many times enough if Reagan did the last push or not. *Cough*

Last edited by BLdw (2010-04-17 04:50:55)

2010-04-17 04:58:13
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6127|eXtreme to the maX
The Russians were pretty good at exaggerating their capabilities, at the trivial level flying the same bombers over Red Square multiple times.

When the curtain came down and the West started verifiying USSR arms reduction programs some people were pretty shocked at how they'd been had.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-04-17 08:03:22
SealXo
Member
+309|6557
reagan had the russians to fuck around with.

fact. if those rooskis werent fucking around, and reagan implemented the same policies. supply side would have been a major success. i mean no shit carters deficit went down, he didn't do shit. vietnam? sure- But at the time congress voted unanimously for it as well as how congress almost did for iraq.

reagan is awesome.

Last edited by SealXo (2010-04-17 08:04:29)

2010-04-17 08:26:17
Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5184

SealXo wrote:

reagan is awesome.
You weren't even alive when he was President.

Neither was I.
2010-04-17 12:09:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6426|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


No, it's a neutral thing. Just makes it more sporty for everyone. But hard for those outside of the DoD to understand when you say "our budget's been cut by 40%" and they say "but the defense budget is higher than ever".
I just wish we'd do less of this supplemental spending and simply budgeted for it.

I figure we've existed as a country long enough that we should be able to anticipate a general total amount of spending that will need to be done over the next year.

Leaving the door open for large amounts of supplemental spending outside of the budget is very bad for a country that really needs to cut its debt.
The problem with the supplemental spending is that it is war costs, not baseline spending. You can't really predict/budget war costs on a biennial basis, which is how the federal government works--you plan two years out. We just submitted our requirements for FY12. No way you can do that with war costs...they're too variable. Granted, we've been doing this war thing for a while, but even at that, with strategy changes, and force level changes, all that shifts within a budget cycle. There's really know way to fund that outside of annual supplementals. A necessary evil, so long as we're still fighting.
Points taken, but maybe this is indicative of needing a less interventionist foreign policy.
2010-04-19 01:12:00
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6796|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

as long as you keep applying your faulty economics on this matter you'll never understand how ussr operated and what caused it to collapse. of course it wasn't absolutely closed. but the fact of the matter is it recovered from much worse sutuations than it was in at gorbachev's times (ww2 in which it sustained the most casualties and toook the greatest damage of all, for example) - and it did it by itself. your "star wars" nonsence is but a joke compared to all that.
The things you point out, while terrible, are not directly economic in nature and preceded the downfall by decades to boot.

If the mighty Soviet Russia recovered from "much worse" than in Gorbachev's time on its own, then just what was it that caused it to be unable to recover during Gorbachev's time?
it didn't start with gorbachev. it started much earlier, during brezhnev, and the foundation for ussr' downfall was laid ever earlier by khruschev - they didn't just have their propaganda machine tell their people they were going to live better - in terms of happy-meals-per-day - than in the "rotting west", they started themselve to beleave in that nonsence and acted accordingly.

FEOS wrote:

It wasn't just Gorby on his own...he didn't have that kind of power. And if you don't think the Soviets spend billions of rubles trying to counter the SDI program, you're deluding yourself.
the only thing gorbacjev did was seal the deal, nothing else. what you don't understand is that soviets with their closed economy (okay, the closed part of it) and absolute totalitarian power could just print any amount of money they wanted, strictly ration consumer stuff as they did after ww2, go outright orwell-ways. with that they could have lasted a hell of a lot longer - to these days for sure, and it's a big question if usa would have been able to keep up, especially considering that the countries of warsaw pact and china probably wouldn't have allowed united states to spread their world-wide financial pyramid - the biggest source of their power - onto those ecomonies too if ussr didn't collapse. instead, soviet leaders, who evidently lost the vision of how ussr was supposed to be run, opened their utterly uncompetitive economy to the world market - which, of course, immediately destroyed it. it was an economical suicide, but gorbachev & co were either too dumb to see it, or were confused by their "friends" from the west. so, if any credit is to be given to reagan and his cabinet for "ending" the cold war and the subsequent collapse of the soviet union it's in helping soviets into this trap, which, tbh, they were already going into already for a long time even before gorbachev.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

who said anything about government controlling your media? it is controlled allrught, just not by the government, but still does its job of brainwashing the population, and quite successfully. you keep stereotyping whatever it is i'm posting as if it's all dreaded totalitarian communist propaganda.
I never said any such thing. You, however...
oh, so you didn't imply anything like that? fine. what's with "government controlled media" then? do you honestly beleave that there is any real difference between government controlled media and the media controlled by lobbysts and financial frauds?

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You certainly post at times like you pine for "the good old days", but it really makes not difference to me one way or the other.
i do actually know what it was like during those "good old days", unlike you. if anything it was a lot better than today in many ways.
Ah, yes. So much better as Soviet Russia, Comrade. I'm pretty sure I remember "the good old days" better than you do, as I'm older than you are. Nothing to write home about when both sides were constantly poised to nuke each other. This is much, much better.
well, the following may be debatable, but a lot of info - from both sides - have been revealed suggesting that after the cuban missile crysis nobody was really planning on ever using nukes. and i wasn't speaking about that anyway. how does no unemployment sound? free education available to anybody? what about free medical care? or actually working law enforcement institutions? an strong army? no problems with drugs (apart from alcohol)? it was all there, in the totalitarian shit-hole full of evil commies.
i doubt you'll understand, but, well, there goes...
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-04-19 01:44:52
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6737
^^

Does not understand how economics work.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-04-19 02:28:39
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6696|Canberra, AUS
free education and healthcare is useless if it isn't good education and healthcare.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-19 02:49:15
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6796|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

free education and healthcare is useless if it isn't good education and healthcare.
scientists, engeneers and doctors who received their education in soviet union still do your research, build your equipment, write your software and work in your labs and clinics.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-04-19 03:56:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6696|Canberra, AUS
despite, not because
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-19 04:08:07
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6796|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

despite, not because
orly? and before they went to work for you they were doing stuff in soviet union - you know, like sending man to space and all. despite being oppressed and exploited by the horrible commie regime of course.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-04-19 04:20:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6696|Canberra, AUS
yes, despite.

In terms of scientific and academic freedom and hence quality the soviet union comes right down near the bottom. education is more than just producing nuclear physicists, you know.

Last edited by Spark (2010-04-19 04:21:37)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-19 04:50:08
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6796|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

yes, despite.

In terms of scientific and academic freedom and hence quality the soviet union comes right down near the bottom.
scientific and academic what?

Spark wrote:

education is more than just producing nuclear physicists, you know.
absolutely. it's also planning and management.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-04-19 05:07:11)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-04-19 05:26:58
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6432|'Murka

BLdw wrote:

FEOS wrote:

BLdw wrote:


Not really government run news outlet, but gag order. Gag order is quite strong in Western Europe (France, UK. Germany, Spain and Italy has their own versions of gagging too.) and very strong in USA. In China they can prohibit everything they want without any legal justification ("international" justification) and in West we use civilized version of "gagging everything legally". It's hard to tell which one is worse...
I don't know what USA you're talking about. Our press can't be shut up, no matter how badly we would like to at times--the First Amendment of our Constitution prevents it.
Gagging order works very well in the USA too. Sure First Amendment of your Constitution prevents it, in theory, yet it happens in USA. It's not a "mystery" or conspiracy how gag order works. It's a legal way of gagging information to maintain the safety of public, or to prevent any information to be published if it's seen to be unconstitutional or thread to the national security. Press can bypass this (because of free media) but it may lead to court.

Gagging order is actually very deep in form of laws and "gaggings" are very rarely taken into the court as it could easily mean tremendous loss for both participants taking part in the process. Gag order is also often used to sway public opinions by single handedly reporting from certain point of views while hiding more crucial problems/questions/et

Will see how badly my quotations are messed...

Hopefully I did mention many times enough if Reagan did the last push or not. *Cough*
Your points WRT Reagan (and Nixon) are valid. The closed nature of Soviet society makes it difficult to prove one way or the other, doesn't it?

As to the "gag order" bit. I'd like to see if you can provide some examples of US press being suppressed by the government in the way that you're describing...at least in the post-WW2 period, as I'm not aware of any.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard