Lower taxes....

Smaller government...

Putting more power in the hands of the states....

And creating a military of such might and technological advances that all of our enemies spend themselves to death without ever firing a single shot.

Ahhhh....it's a shame we do not have anyone who is even a tenth the leadership ability as Reagan running today. He was sharp as a tack, and he truly was "The Great Communicator". When he would address the nation it was like having your dad or grandpa talk to you. He had the ability to explain everything in terms everyone could understand and make you feel it was gonna be alright.

And my favorite Reagan quote: "Government is not the solution, it is the problem...."

1. Substantial tax cuts
2. Substantial military modernization and build-up
3. Started SDI
4. Bombed Libya
5. Crushed the Evil Empire
6. Helped reverse Carter's disasterous economic legacy.

Ronald Reagan's economic legacy:

Trade deficit Current Account Deficit
Year ($ Billions) ($ Billions)
1981 -34.6 +8.2
1982 -38.4 -7.0
1983 -64.2 -44.3
1984 -122.4 -104.2
1985 -133.6 -112.7
1986 -155.5 -133.2
1987 -170.3 -143.7
1988 -137.1 -126.5

This is what happens when you cut taxes and increase defense spending.

joe,
the economic guru,
what exactly the correlation between
"cut taxes and increase defense spending and....trade defecit"?????

please refrain me from your own amateurish interpretations I've seen plenty of and I am not impressed,
but rather give me the URL where some noted economist makes the case for you.


P.S. watching you whipping yourself on this one brings tears to my eyes as always.

1. Substantial tax cuts
2. Substantial military modernization and build-up
3. Started SDI
4. Bombed Libya
5. Crushed the Evil Empire
6. Helped reverse Carter's disasterous economic legacy.[/b][/quote]
Buff,
VERY good retort to Drav, indeed.

Buff,
I wouldn't bet money on it.
we, the human beings, have a very short memories.

"11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
"

(---Ecclesiastes)

joe,
the economic guru,
what exactly the correlation between
"cut taxes and increase defense spending and....trade defecit"?????

please refrain me from your own amateurish interpretations I've seen plenty of and I am not impressed,
but rather give me the URL where some noted economist makes the case for you.


P.S. watching you whipping yourself on this one brings tears to my eyes as always.[/b][/quote]
Serge I provided statistics for both the trade deficit and current account deficit.

My remarks were referring to the current account deficit 1980-1988.

Serge, am I going to have to explain the concept of deficit spending to you?

:D

you did NOT....
you said TRADE defecit, do you know what TRADE defecit is?

Is it good or bad? What TRADE deficit a function of?

tsk-tsk, Japan in those year had trade SURPLAS, and what happened to Japan in the 90's?

no, I'll spare you, I ONLY would like to see the explanation of how
DEFECIT SPENDING correlates with TRADE defecit.

...and all I have asked was a lousy URL proving your point.

Joe, we BOTH know that there is no correlation,
or you would stick it in my eye.

being a good guy,
I'll throw you a rope
(you can use it later on to hang yourself ;-)))

http://www.google.com/search?q=trade+defec...pending+defecit

Please notice how economists view the lack of correlations, while the amateur greenspans use CAPS to make their illogocal point stick out
;-)))

Joe Sixpack, since you never had the pleasure of living in Europe in a time when communist where not only pointing nukes at every european, but were also using tons of resources to overthrow societies and goverments, then you will probably not understand how much Ronald Reagan did for peace. But instead of me learning you about history, then I think you should read http://www.reagan.dk/newintro.htm



Last edited by Rolo at Jun 6 2004, 01:18 AM

ok, ok,
I'll do it for you, as I have nothing better to do at 6 am
;-))

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FederalDeficit.html

Rolo,
you think we have a chance to get thru Joe's head???

He is the OLDEST person on this board. I measure his age by the ability of him to LEARN things which are not the part of his pre-concived believes.

I am expecting " :stout: " response from him any time now...

no, I'll spare you, I ONLY would like to see the explanation of how
DEFECIT SPENDING correlates with TRADE defecit.

...and all I have asked was a lousy URL proving your point.

Joe, we BOTH know that there is no correlation,
or you would stick it in my eye.[/b][/quote]
Serge, your obsession with the trade deficit is yours not mine.

My point was that Reagan turned the USA into the world's greatest debtor nation by cutting taxes and increasing government spending with borrowed money, fucking up the current account.

Understand?



Last edited by Joe Sixpack at Jun 6 2004, 01:34 AM

Don't be naive. It already was.

Don't be naive. It already was.[/b][/quote]
http://www.iie.com/images/mann0899-fig1.gif

Reagan made things worse.

Joe Sixpack, you still do not understand/see HOW the cold war was won?

I dont give free economic lessons to dumb asses, but here's a chart of all of the important numbers regarding the U.S. economy from 1929-2000. I'll give a free hint as well: the green line is the important one.




http://www.die.net/musings/national_..._1929-1999.png

The collapse of the Soviet Union was, I believe, the most important world event post World War II. I remember sitting in my living room watching, shocked, as the events unfolded on CNN. Now, there is a debate of course as to how much credit Reagan should get. Destroying communism was his lifelong ambition. There were dozens of moves his administration made that were intended to weaken the Soviet Union and by all accounts they did. Reagan was bold - even brazen - in facing the USSR down. This was completely at odds with the approach of all the US presidents after Kennedy. Iranian and North Korean leaders were angry when they made the "Axis of Evil". Can you imagine the anger the leaders of a first rate superpower felt at being labelled an "Evil empire"?

Thre have been Soviets who said Reagan policies were the primary reason for the collapse.

Here is what the Soviet economist Pinsker said "If it had not been for the Reagan defense buildup, if the United States had not demonstrated that it is willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it we probably would not be sitting here today having a free discussion between Russians and Americans."

Probably. Pretty good odds.

I know you are referring to outspending the USSR militarily and sending them to the wall financially.

But that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. Russia was never anything more than a second world nation on steroids.

Even if you believe that tactic was necessary, Reagan could have outspent the Russians and jacked up taxes to cover the bill but he didn't. My discussion was about deficit spending.



Last edited by Joe Sixpack at Jun 6 2004, 01:59 AM

Anyway I'm off to watch a movie now so you can all argue amongst yourselves from here on in.

:butt:

Joe,

Do you mean the trade deficit or the US debt? You showed a graph of the trade balance. The trade balance is the value of exports minus imports. The US sells buys more from it's trading partners than it sells.

I think you are getting confused. Cutting taxes and government spending does not cause trade deficits.

And Reagan is the man that made everyone believe that.

"What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." - Paul Samuelson, MIT, Nobel laureate in economics, 1985.

"On the economic front, for the first time in its history the Soviet leadership was able to pursue successfully a policy of guns and butter as well as growth ... The Soviet citizen-worker, peasant, and professional - has become accustomed in the Brezhnev period to an uninterrupted upward trend in his well-being" -
John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, 1984.

http://www.iie.com/images/mann0899-fig1.gif

Reagan made things worse.[/b][/quote]
Nice graph. Note the three peaks in the graph where the US trade deficits were at their lowest. Those were all recession years. Some economists see those events as noncoincidental.

The trade deficit figures were in the table I cut and pasted.

I was referring to the current account deficit figures.

I think you're still confused.

The account balance refers to the net inflow of goods, services, investments, money transfers, etc. The trade balance refers to the net flow of goods and services. That's all.

It sounds like you want to say the US debt

Soviet Union was widely infecting politics in europen countries, when Reagan began as President. The leftwing in Europe was not only receiving money and education provided by the Soviet Union, they also had a waste intelligence network in european countries reporting back to Moscow. The debate in european countries were more and more in sympathy with the Soviet Union, and I´m sure that if the US had choosen the policy of isolationism, then the world map would be VERY different today. You can still find communist politicians in europe, but they are getting older or are converting to other more moderate socialist views.

Ronald Reagan made the power of balance not only military, but also in politics - in a time when he could just as well have sit on his ass in the whitehouse and build an army in the US, then he choose to confront communist thoughts in europe, which made europeans get their things together - ex. by speeding up the creation of the EU.

Sure Ronald Reagan was not the only force behind the fall of the Soviet Union, but Ronald Reagan made sure that there were a strong/powerful alternativ to communists, and when he left the whitehouse, then the domino events had already been started, which ultimate lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.

In 100 years I´m sure Ronald Reagan will be mention in historybooks - I´m not so sure about Joe Sixpack :awinky:



Last edited by Rolo at Jun 6 2004, 03:41 AM

I think you're still confused.

The account balance refers to the net inflow of goods, services, investments, money transfers, etc. The trade balance refers to the net flow of goods and services. That's all.

It sounds like you want to say the US debt[/b][/quote]
Colin,
There is a good Jewish proverb:
"When 2 people, without talking to each other, tell the third one that he is drunk-
the third one should go home to bed"

joe has no concept of what he is talking about, and the saddest part,
I doubt he'd EVER understand

re Soviet Union collapse and Reagan.

Everybody know who was the President to see it collapse, but how many of you know that it was...
JF Kennedy who put the wheels into the motion and whose idea was to get USSR involved in the arms race?

JFK forsaw well that what USA economy CAN afford, USSR economy can't.
Military budget in USA never exceeded 30%, while in USSR it was whoapping 80%!

I did .. and I learned this from you a while back.

I think if he keeps studying economics he might become a capitalist. ;-)

JFK and Ronald Reagan were 2 smart politicians who had foresight, positive visions and the charisma to get the attention of the world - history will treat them well :)

I think if he keeps studying economics he might become a capitalist. ;-)[/b][/quote]
...and become a poster boy for Reagan's quote you posted:
""How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan
"
;-))))

history?
seems like BOTH enjoy the quite large following while they were ALIVE,
something not too many artists can claim
;-)))

ahhh! the NEW one to finish the losing battle...glad you FINALLY replaced the old and worn " :stout: "

you making progress, FINALLY,
you ARE learning something
;-)))

JoeSixpack,

This is what his friends and his "enemies" have said on being told of his passing:

Thatcher -

"a truly great American hero.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."


Gennady Gerasimov, top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s -

"Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal"

Mikhail Gorbachev -

"Reagan was a statesman who, despite all disagreements that existed between our countries at the time, displayed foresight and determination to meet our proposals halfway and change our relations for the better, stop the nuclear race, start scrapping nuclear weapons, and arrange normal relations between our countries,"



Pretty nice tributes.

What will your friends and enemies say about you?
How many will mourn your passing?

And you dare criticise the man.....

fuck you.



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Jun 6 2004, 07:39 AM

when I joined the marine corps in the early 80's the military was in a very bad way, the seventies were a very hard time, just after nam, noone wanted to be in, those in wanted out. money was very low and moral was even lower. BUT those first couple years Pres Reagan instilled pride back, gave us a nice and very needed raise. During those years all of us had a picture of the commander and chief in our rooms, every morning we would salute him..............That's how much respect he had on us grunts.....


RIP and semper fi :salute:

Joe, explain what a trade deficit is, and why you think it's important.

Hey, don't forget that the 40th President of the United States was also a great Actor who appeared in over 50 films.

Reagan was also governor of California for eight years.... maybe Arnie is trying to shadow his career.

I liked Reagan, he was a great bloke. :salute: