BF2S Forums Ronald Reagan

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.

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.

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....

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".

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.

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)

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)

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.

^^

Does not understand how economics work.

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.

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.

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)