Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-04-16 10:15:12)
I don't know that he spent trillions....Mekstizzle wrote:
Is that really true though, I bet the USSR would have failed regardless of whether he spent trillions on the military or not. I'd say Afghanistan probably screwed them over more than Reagan and his trillions of dollars worth of spending did
at the age i was during that time i was swallowing the shit about sudden freedom and democratisation they were pumping through the media without as much as chewing. and before that i was just as easily fed with communist propaganda. it was much later when i actually started questioning and processing that information, and, if i learned anything at all, soviet union did not collapse because of any economic pressure from outside - how on earth do you apply that kind of pressure on a closed economy, man? think about it.FEOS wrote:
And your perspective on that is from what age? I'm sure your perspective from the Soviet/Russian side of things is entirely different, but age also makes a difference in how one processes and understands what one experiences firsthand.Shahter wrote:
and i was, like, dead when it happened, huh? if anything, i have actually seen what ussr was like immediately prior to the glorious end of the cold war with my own eyes, when you only read about it in papers and seen what they chose to show you about it on tv.FEOS wrote:
No, the one that involves facts. The one that I (and others here) lived through
when you clear your own lawn i'll take that from you. and, besides, i'm not basing my opinions on TASS or Pravda. you probably think i'm a communist or smthing - how ridiculously close-minded of you.FEOS wrote:
That's right. TASS and Pravda are known for their objectivity and not being regime mouthpieces, aren't they?Shahter wrote:
yeah, yeah. my sources are biased now, and yours aren't.FEOS wrote:
vice the one that you read about--via totally unbiased sources, I'm sure.
See I think you are giving Reagan faaaar too much credit for this. He intentionally increased deficit spending with the explicit purpose of bankrupting the USSR? The USSR collapsed internally, overspending on military was a minor cause in the grand scheme of their failed central planning. Painting Reagan as the facilitator or even the mastermind of such a scheme is laughable at best. Internal combustion, with a smidgen of external pressure responsible.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.
Hence the disconnect in KJ's post.
I believe your question has already been answered, but I'll go ahead and answer it again.Shahter wrote:
at the age i was during that time i was swallowing the shit about sudden freedom and democratisation they were pumping through the media without as much as chewing. and before that i was just as easily fed with communist propaganda. it was much later when i actually started questioning and processing that information, and, if i learned anything at all, soviet union did not collapse because of any economic pressure from outside - how on earth do you apply that kind of pressure on a closed economy, man? think about it.
ussr was defeated first and foremost in ideological field. it collapsed because those who got to run it thought they could turn soviet union into soviet bordelo.
Clear my own lawn? 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.Shahter wrote:
when you clear your own lawn i'll take that from you. and, besides, i'm not basing my opinions on TASS or Pravda. you probably think i'm a communist or smthing - how ridiculously close-minded of you.FEOS wrote:
That's right. TASS and Pravda are known for their objectivity and not being regime mouthpieces, aren't they?Shahter wrote:
yeah, yeah. my sources are biased now, and yours aren't.
I think you are giving him far too little credit. I've seen far more evidence of the increased defense spending being the proximate cause of the USSR's rapid collapse than anything else. If you think anywhere from 27-30% of GDP spending on the military isn't backbreaking for any economy, then you're on crack.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
See I think you are giving Reagan faaaar too much credit for this. He intentionally increased deficit spending with the explicit purpose of bankrupting the USSR, knowing the USSR would get into a spending race? The USSR collapsed internally, overspending on military was a minor cause in the grand scheme of their failed central planning. Painting Reagan as the facilitator or even the mastermind of such a scheme is laughable at best. Internal combustion, with a smidgen of external pressure responsible.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.
Hence the disconnect in KJ's post.
Last edited by FEOS (2010-04-16 12:21:19)
Of course it wasn just "happenstance" but is it not controversial whether Reagan had so much impact what happened?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.
Where did this 27% of GDP come from? I've read that it's not backed up with clear evidence at all, and was actually well hidden propaganda.FEOS wrote:
I think you are giving him far too little credit. I've seen far more evidence of the increased defense spending being the proximate cause of the USSR's rapid collapse than anything else. If you think anywhere from 27-30% of GDP spending on the military isn't backbreaking for any economy, then you're on crack.
Last edited by BLdw (2010-04-16 12:46:08)
You rhetoric is amazing.. to paraphraseJohnG@lt wrote:
Well, the party machine promises the world to special interest groups that would destroy the country if they all got their way. Obama's administration is almost wholly owned by unions so we're in for a world of hurt economically if he gets a second term. Expect massive protectionism, massive expansion of unions and crap like cap and trade if he's re-elected. The unions in this country want nothing more than our country to resemble France with its lifetime employment, ridiculous benefits packages etc. Nevermind that France is failing, they don't care.Spark wrote:
Funny to note how Democrats only seem successful when they make an effort to differentiate themselves from the party machine.JohnG@lt wrote:
It depends on what criteria they are using, whether they're including future debt from current legislation etc It's nigh on impossible to accept them without the backing data they used.
Reagan and especially Bush Jr were not fiscal conservatives. Bush Sr. had a war to fight and a recession so his presidency is kind of a wash. Clinton was more libertarian than anything and was an aberration in American politics. He is NOT representative of the Democrat party platform in the slightest.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2010-04-16 12:57:22)
Various sources, not just wikipedia. Yes, the 27% came from wikipedia (which of course came from an MIT study), the 30% came from another study. 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. There were a few others that contributed, as well, that were non-military in nature (ie, working with Europe to decrease purchases of Soviet natural gas). All focused on exacerbating the economic problems in the USSR, accelerating the collapse.BLdw wrote:
Of course it wasn just "happenstance" but is it not controversial whether Reagan had so much impact what happened?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.Where did this 27% of GDP come from? I've read that it's not backed up with clear evidence at all, and was actually well hidden propaganda.FEOS wrote:
I think you are giving him far too little credit. I've seen far more evidence of the increased defense spending being the proximate cause of the USSR's rapid collapse than anything else. If you think anywhere from 27-30% of GDP spending on the military isn't backbreaking for any economy, then you're on crack.
Edit: Even quick skimming over wikipedia states that there's no clear evidence of where that 27% GDP is taken from.
I've come to the conclusion that the USSR was too big a place with too many disparate ethnic groups and an overcomplicated central planning structure that was doomed to fail. I've read a good amount of text on this subject as well. Even written a research paper or two on it. Centralized planning failure, too many ethnic groups to control, too vast of a land, inherent corruption.FEOS wrote:
I think you are giving him far too little credit. I've seen far more evidence of the increased defense spending being the proximate cause of the USSR's rapid collapse than anything else.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
See I think you are giving Reagan faaaar too much credit for this. He intentionally increased deficit spending with the explicit purpose of bankrupting the USSR, knowing the USSR would get into a spending race? The USSR collapsed internally, overspending on military was a minor cause in the grand scheme of their failed central planning. Painting Reagan as the facilitator or even the mastermind of such a scheme is laughable at best. Internal combustion, with a smidgen of external pressure responsible.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.
Hence the disconnect in KJ's post.
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.Diesel_dyk wrote:
You rhetoric is amazing.. to paraphraseJohnG@lt wrote:
Well, the party machine promises the world to special interest groups that would destroy the country if they all got their way. Obama's administration is almost wholly owned by unions so we're in for a world of hurt economically if he gets a second term. Expect massive protectionism, massive expansion of unions and crap like cap and trade if he's re-elected. The unions in this country want nothing more than our country to resemble France with its lifetime employment, ridiculous benefits packages etc. Nevermind that France is failing, they don't care.Spark wrote:
Funny to note how Democrats only seem successful when they make an effort to differentiate themselves from the party machine.
"Funny to note how Democrats Republicans only seem successful when they make an effort to differentiate themselves from the party machine."
Well, the party machine promises the world to special interest groups that would destroy the country if they all got their way. Reagan's/ W's administration is almost wholly owned by unions big corporations so we're in for a world of hurt economically if when he gets got a second term. We should have expected Expect massive protectionism tax cuts for the rich, massive expansion of unions the defecit and crap like cap and trade an expansion in mitlitary spending when he got if he's re-elected. The unions big corporations in this country want nothing more than our country to resemble France China with its lifetime employment, ridiculous benefits packages etc. lack of liberty, extremely poor working conditions and its authoritarian government. Nevermind that France the United States is failing, and they don't didn't care.
I really like the comments on how glorious Reagan was... while ignoring how the path he set in the 1980's led to the gutting of the real economy, the gutting of US manufacturing base and the rise of Wall street financial corruption and the series of wall street bubbles we suffered from.... alll because "govt should get out of the way" of the profiteering..... Take this entire 2008 depression and lay the blame where it belongs.... Reagan's support of the special interests at the expense of the American public.
And Seriously... you guys are starting to sound like a committee to glorify stalin during the height of the Soviet Union.... spare us the bs propaganda and lay the blame where it belongs...... I have to laugh everytime I read a comment that basically states "everything GOP is great" and "everything Democrat is horrible and unamerican" and "If a democrat did something good then it must have been a mistake or that they weren't a true democrat." Seriously.... I thought you guys were smarter than that or is FOX news actually able to train you guys to be little parrot-monkeys who are incapable of critical thinking.
Not even close. This year, it's at 4.7% of GDP.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that the USSR was too big a place with too many disparate ethnic groups and an overcomplicated central planning structure that was doomed to fail. I've read a good amount of text on this subject as well. Even written a research paper or two on it. Centralized planning failure, too many ethnic groups to control, too vast of a land, inherent corruption.FEOS wrote:
I think you are giving him far too little credit. I've seen far more evidence of the increased defense spending being the proximate cause of the USSR's rapid collapse than anything else.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
See I think you are giving Reagan faaaar too much credit for this. He intentionally increased deficit spending with the explicit purpose of bankrupting the USSR, knowing the USSR would get into a spending race? The USSR collapsed internally, overspending on military was a minor cause in the grand scheme of their failed central planning. Painting Reagan as the facilitator or even the mastermind of such a scheme is laughable at best. Internal combustion, with a smidgen of external pressure responsible.
I have no idea what people find so awe-inspiring about Ronald Reagan. Post his speeches and he's seen as a visionary. Post Obama's and he's full of hot air. This kind of stuff makes me laugh and disappointed at the same time.
@ FEOS: Hasn't our military budget been historically around 27% at least? Perhaps we should give OBL credit when the US inevitably collapses from such a financial burden.
Again, none of this is to say that there weren't other contributing factors to the USSR's downfall. But to dismiss Reagan's influence out of hand is to ignore facts. Would it have collapsed regardless? Most likely. Would it have happened as precipitously had Reagan not implemented his defense and economic policies vis a vis the USSR? Most likely not.wikipedia wrote:
For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.[22] Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[23][24]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.
Military spending as % of GDP, 1940-2003.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that the USSR was too big a place with too many disparate ethnic groups and an overcomplicated central planning structure that was doomed to fail. I've read a good amount of text on this subject as well. Even written a research paper or two on it. Centralized planning failure, too many ethnic groups to control, too vast of a land, inherent corruption.FEOS wrote:
I think you are giving him far too little credit. I've seen far more evidence of the increased defense spending being the proximate cause of the USSR's rapid collapse than anything else.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
See I think you are giving Reagan faaaar too much credit for this. He intentionally increased deficit spending with the explicit purpose of bankrupting the USSR, knowing the USSR would get into a spending race? The USSR collapsed internally, overspending on military was a minor cause in the grand scheme of their failed central planning. Painting Reagan as the facilitator or even the mastermind of such a scheme is laughable at best. Internal combustion, with a smidgen of external pressure responsible.
I have no idea what people find so awe-inspiring about Ronald Reagan. Post his speeches and he's seen as a visionary. Post Obama's and he's full of hot air. This kind of stuff makes me laugh and disappointed at the same time.
@ FEOS: Hasn't our military budget been historically around 27% at least? Perhaps we should give OBL credit when the US inevitably collapses from such a financial burden.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-16 14:06:31)
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yeah, I was mixing up 2010 budget with GDP. My bad.
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.FEOS wrote:
I believe your question has already been answered, but I'll go ahead and answer it again.Shahter wrote:
at the age i was during that time i was swallowing the shit about sudden freedom and democratisation they were pumping through the media without as much as chewing. and before that i was just as easily fed with communist propaganda. it was much later when i actually started questioning and processing that information, and, if i learned anything at all, soviet union did not collapse because of any economic pressure from outside - how on earth do you apply that kind of pressure on a closed economy, man? think about it.
ussr was defeated first and foremost in ideological field. it collapsed because those who got to run it thought they could turn soviet union into soviet bordelo.
First, the USSR wasn't a closed economy. There's no such thing.
Second, the pressures were internal as well as external. The Reagan administration recognized the existing pressures and saw an opportunity to apply even more, anticipating (correctly) that the additional pressure would facilitate the collapse. That additional pressure was increased defense spending in response to ours. We knew Star Wars was a pipe dream. There was never any real intent to field anything there. But the Soviets didn't know that, so they built (spent) to counter it. We built the MX for the sole purpose of forcing the Soviets to counter it, then offering it up as a bargaining chip (along with the commensurate Soviet weapons) during disarmament talks. All unsustainable spending (on the part of the Soviets). All spending the Reagan administration knew was unsustainable on the part of the Soviets, giving them incredible leverage at the bargaining table.
That is how you apply that kind of pressure.
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.FEOS wrote:
Clear my own lawn? Please point out a US news outlet that is government-runShahter wrote:
when you clear your own lawn i'll take that from you. and, besides, i'm not basing my opinions on TASS or Pravda. you probably think i'm a communist or smthing - how ridiculously close-minded of you.FEOS wrote:
That's right. TASS and Pravda are known for their objectivity and not being regime mouthpieces, aren't they?
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.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.
That doesn't include all costs, just the DOD budget. We service debt, have research programs that don't fall under the umbrella, etc. Thanks for the pretty little picture though.JohnG@lt wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … tegory.jpgKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yeah, I was mixing up 2010 budget with GDP. My bad.
Debt serviced is 4.63%, it's all right there in the chart.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That doesn't include all costs, just the DOD budget. We service debt, have research programs that don't fall under the umbrella, etc. Thanks for the pretty little picture though.JohnG@lt wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … tegory.jpgKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yeah, I was mixing up 2010 budget with GDP. My bad.
The things you point out, while terrible, are not directly economic in nature and preceded the downfall by decades to boot.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.FEOS wrote:
I believe your question has already been answered, but I'll go ahead and answer it again.Shahter wrote:
at the age i was during that time i was swallowing the shit about sudden freedom and democratisation they were pumping through the media without as much as chewing. and before that i was just as easily fed with communist propaganda. it was much later when i actually started questioning and processing that information, and, if i learned anything at all, soviet union did not collapse because of any economic pressure from outside - how on earth do you apply that kind of pressure on a closed economy, man? think about it.
ussr was defeated first and foremost in ideological field. it collapsed because those who got to run it thought they could turn soviet union into soviet bordelo.
First, the USSR wasn't a closed economy. There's no such thing.
Second, the pressures were internal as well as external. The Reagan administration recognized the existing pressures and saw an opportunity to apply even more, anticipating (correctly) that the additional pressure would facilitate the collapse. That additional pressure was increased defense spending in response to ours. We knew Star Wars was a pipe dream. There was never any real intent to field anything there. But the Soviets didn't know that, so they built (spent) to counter it. We built the MX for the sole purpose of forcing the Soviets to counter it, then offering it up as a bargaining chip (along with the commensurate Soviet weapons) during disarmament talks. All unsustainable spending (on the part of the Soviets). All spending the Reagan administration knew was unsustainable on the part of the Soviets, giving them incredible leverage at the bargaining table.
That is how you apply that kind of pressure.
I never said any such thing. You, however...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.FEOS wrote:
Clear my own lawn? Please point out a US news outlet that is government-runShahter wrote:
when you clear your own lawn i'll take that from you. and, besides, i'm not basing my opinions on TASS or Pravda. you probably think i'm a communist or smthing - how ridiculously close-minded of you.
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.Shahter wrote:
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.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.
DHS is on the chart, not part of DoD.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.
I checked from wikipedia just to see if it was there -- that's why I mentioned it.FEOS wrote:
Various sources, not just wikipedia. Yes, the 27% came from wikipedia (which of course came from an MIT study), the 30% came from another study. 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. There were a few others that contributed, as well, that were non-military in nature (ie, working with Europe to decrease purchases of Soviet natural gas). All focused on exacerbating the economic problems in the USSR, accelerating the collapse.
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.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.
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...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.
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.BLdw wrote:
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.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.
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.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.
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.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...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.
Clinton's shrinking of government is partially due to having a Republican Congress most of that time.Mekstizzle wrote:
How true are these anyway?
http://jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/uncateg … 2006_2.gif
http://bethesignal.org/wp-content/uploa … mccain.jpg
(I'm aware that if they included Obama on this, he would actually not fit in the images he would be that high up, but the thread is about how awesome Reagen was for all his key conservative values and such, and I can't see it looking at these things)
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-16 15:24:56)
Whenever you look at budgets, you have to look at both the Executive and Legislative branches. Too often, everyone ignores the latter, but they are the ones who actually spend the money. The Executive branch just says what they want to buy, the Legislative branch actually says what gets bought and puts out the money to buy it. They are more responsible for budget surpluses and deficits than the President, tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Clinton's shriking of government is partially due to having a Republican Congress most of that time.Mekstizzle wrote:
How true are these anyway?
http://jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/uncateg … 2006_2.gif
http://bethesignal.org/wp-content/uploa … mccain.jpg
(I'm aware that if they included Obama on this, he would actually not fit in the images he would be that high up, but the thread is about how awesome Reagen was for all his key conservative values and such, and I can't see it looking at these things)
Likewise, Reagan's success depended partially on a Democratic Congress part of his reign.
