Defending the Truth

Clinton inherited a world in which there was no longer a Soviet Union, nor a Cold War. Reagan inherited a world in which the Soviet Union existed and was expanding its influence, e.g. invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet/Marxism in Africa and South America.

Reagan decided to rebuild the United States Military, a military that was in decline. The rebuilding and updating of equipment and missile cost the country large sums of money. However, the idea of Peace through Strength became a reality. The arms race that Reagan joined with the Soviet Union, brought them to the tables, negotiations led to the reduction of nuclear weapons by both sides. Ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed, gone were the days of needing a military that could stand up to a conventional attack by the Soviet Union. Clinton was albe to reduce spending by reducing the size of the military. Under Clinton the military reduced manpower, eliminated naval vessels and army and marine divisions. This resulted in lower operating costs and decreased spending on the military.

The question that must be answered is this; Would Clinton have been able to accomplish this if the Soviet Union and the Cold War still existed??? The answer is a resounding NO. Thus from Reagan actions and work, Clinton was able to not only balance the budget but create a surplus. They both go hand in hand. If not for Reagan's success, there would not have been a Clinton success either.

dmk

I do not mean to question Reagan's handling of the cold war. But a large amount of debt is bad for the economy, and it needs to be paid off in times of prosperity. Even with the Cold War, I think that Reagan and Bush Sr. could have done more to balance their budget. But even if they could not, Clinton was certainly correct for raising taxes and cutting spending to reduce the deficit.

...and as a direct result of the most massive tax increases in history, Clinton led to the stifling of the economy - leading to the recession we saw at the end of his presidency.

Oh give me a freakin' break.
Reagan didn't CAUSE the Soviet Union's downfall. The were in the process of digging their own grave economically long before Reagan came onto the scene.

If anything, Reagan may have accelerated the process on a time-scale of months. To give Reagan credit for causing the downfall is to ignore the gross problems that were inherent to the Soviet Union's actions and structure.


And AGAIN, it's like there is a memory lapse which ignores the fact that there WAS A PRESIDENT inbetween Clinton and Reagan.
Does anybody remember Bush Sr?
After the collapse during Reagan, why didn't he scale back the military and balance the budget?

Is "fiscal responsibility" a foreign concept to some conservatives?
People talk about the "sacrifice" that happened during the previous wars, but where is the talk of SACRIFICE to pay for THIS war?
Oh. You mean that would involve NOT cutting taxes for the rich??? Heaven Forbid!

I'd say that Reagan was a piece of the puzzle - but actually a rather significant piece.

The United States could afford to accelerate the arms race - even though we didn't accelerate it as much as was thought. The USSR was on the brink of collapse, and their "trying to keep up" put them over the edge.

And yes, there were many other factors involved - including the basic fact that an atheistic, communist regime simply cannot be self-sustaining.

Whether it was months or years, Reagan's approach definitely accelerated the collapse of the USSR.




Oh yeah... And you're a pig.

Quite frankly, Russia was a car stuck in drive with no steering capability and no breaks, headed towards a cliff.
All Reagan did was give the driver a reason to step on the gas.


I wonder about that with regards to China.
And if China is to fall, how hard of a fall will it be...


No. I'm not a pig. So you're STILL wrong.
< fighting urge to do the unthinkable regarding the first sentence... >

===================================

On another note, blaming Clinton or giving Reagan credit, or vice versa, for the economy trends is like blaming a liberal or conservative for the tides.

The economy just plain CYCLES. That's what it does. Regardless of who is at the helm.


------------------------------------
The Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions
In his 1984 book “Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions” Ravi Batra presented a calculation of decennial averages for i) money growth, ii) number of new regulationary laws or institutions and iii) inflation in the USA for a period exceeding two hundred years. The cycles were of a regular rise and then decline in the above mentioned variables. While an unrelated prediction for a depression to unfold in the 1990s failed to materialise, the evolution of these variables in the 1990s and 2000s has broadly conformed to the regular decennial pattern.
Business cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh how easy it must be to look back at history with all the knowledge of what has occurred in the last 20 years. Anyone who thought that the Soviet Empire was poised for a collapse in 1980 was considered an idiot.

Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson declared in 1981 "It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable." Strobe Talbot claimed that the United States, "goal of rolling back Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the US simply does not ahve the military or political power to do that."

In 1982, Arthur Schlesinger JR stated unequivocally, "Those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of collagpse are only kidding themselves, wishful thinkers always see other societies as more fragile than they are. Each superpower has economic troubles; neither is on the ropes." And Seweryn Bialer of Columbia declared, "The Soviet Union is not now nor will it de during the bext decasde in the throes of a true systemic crisis."

Hmmmm..........So today the story goes, Reagan didn't do anything to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet even former members of the Soviet Union state otherwise. KGB General Oleg Kalugin states, "Reagan and his views disturbed the Soviet government so much they borede on hysteria. Ther were cables about an imminent crises. He was seen as a very serious threat." Yevgeny Novikov, a senior staffer of the Communist Party Central Committee claimed that, "There was widespread concern and actual fear of Reagan on the Central Committee. He was the last thing they wanted to see in Washington."

Reagan called the Soviet Union and evil empire and he was ridiculed by academia and the main stream media. Reagan proclaimed that the Soviet Union would be left on the ash heap of history and these great members of the academia made their predictions.

Looking back now we see who was right and who was wrong. The amiable dunce knew more about the workings of the world than these highly estimed professors. To this day it still pisses them off. That is why they are so eager to rewrite the history, and you join them in excusing their ignorance.

And yes there was a President between Reagan and Clinton, Bush raised taxes, did he not, lo and behold, higher taxes and the deficit remained. It wasn't until Clinton was faced with a Republican House that cut spending coupled with his tax hikes did the budget become balanced. Imagine that, in order to reduce the deficit one need not only raise taxes but also cut spending. Hmmmm I wonder, I recall in 1986, President Reagan made a deal with Congress to raise taxes, providing for every $1 tax increase there was a $3 in spending cuts. To this day, we are still waiting for the cuts. Perhaps if Congress had kept their word, the deficit would have been nil much sooner. But then it was all Reagan's fault.

For 70 years the liberal have embraced the Keynesian economic model of increasing spending to stimulate economic growth, yet only complain when Republicans use the same model. So it is fine for the democrats to do this, but not for the republicans.

The simple fact remains, I will agree, the Republicans in Congress have abandoned their conservative principles. The recent election was not a repudiation of conservatism, but that of liberalism. For it was moderate republicans that were shown the door. They forget their basic principle and paid the price. I say good riddance, this opens the door for the conservatives to take the party back.

dmk

This is where I would disagree with you.

If Bush had left the tax rates alone, and not give tax benefits to small businesses, do you honestly think that doing so would not have made a difference??

When you give small-businesses more benefits by means of tax deductions, this in return gives them more money to spend. All I hear about on the news is the amount of jobs created. Over the past couple of years, it's been up up up, and unemployment numbers have been going down down down.

You claim Clinton was certainly corrent for raising taxes and cutting spending to reduce the deficit. Well now, can you tell me where in these numbers the "surpluses" Clinton had was used to pay off the national debt??

Prior Fiscal
Years

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

Bureau of the Public Debt : The Debt To the Penny



Looks to me that the national debt was rising during the Clinton administration. hmmmm...

The only difference that I see between Clinton and Bush, is that Clinton ignores terrorism, which in return prones us to attack on American soil. Bush decided to fight terrorism because of 9/11, and since then, no attacks on American soil. Do remember that a tragedy here on American soil hurts our economy dramatically.

Well... then there's the little "issue" of Clinton ushering in the largest tax increases in American history.

But the liberals STILL cannot see how that stifled the economy and led to the recession we were in when Clinton left office.