DId Reagan REALLY have that much to do with the fall of the USSR?

[Daliman]

It seems to me that, while he may have helped a little, that communism fell in Russia due more to the fact that they had a new leader who wasn't as hardline, and that communism, as an economic model, just doesn't work very well, given that individual creativity is stifled by lack of incentive. I also heard before that Russia was good at producing big consumer products, such as cars,(although their design was crap for previous given reasons), but were not very good at making the little things. Either way, it seems to me Mother Russia fell more due to gout than Ronnie giving her a push down the stairs.
Any insight?

[andyfox]

When I was a kid, the conservative Republicans, Reagan among them, complained that the Russians were outspending us on defense, that we needed to up our defense spending to keep up. In fact, they were spending so much because they were so inefficient.

Managing a gigantic geographic entity like the U.S.S.R. would have been a daunting task for any government. An inefficient criminal conspiracy like the Soviet Communist government was destined, as Reagan said, for the ash heap of history.

[Non_Comformist]

I think the non polictical consensus is that it was destined to impload but that A) Reagan recognized this and B)took on the USSR where they were weakest by forcing them to spend more money than they were able to produce.

[Cyrus]

Very briefly :

Reagan gambled enormously with his foreign policy and, particularly, against the Soviet Union. He tore down nuclear control treaties that were more symbolic than anything, but that tearing down conveyed to the Russkies a dangerous message about American intentions - namely that the U.S. was priming up for war.

The SDI program (Star Wars) was a good example of a gambler's folly. The Russkies were finding themselves having to choose between a world where their most reckless and dangerous adversary would be untouchable in an attack (or wanted to be!) and a world whereby they would attack from a position of weakness and hope for the best. Ever went all in with Ace-crap heads up as the short stack?

The fact that Reagan gambled recklessly (and won out of luck) is demonstrated by the fact that Gorbachev was the catalyst for the Soviet Union's collapse through a series of ill-thought out and badly executed "reforms". However, it took a series of unlikely events for Gorbachev to finally take over! (Successive and unexpected deaths of General Secretaries Andropov and Chernenko.)

If you bear in mind that the Politburo at the time, was getting stacked with hostile and more conservative ideologues as a response to Reagan's belligerence, one realizes that Reagan's follies had a lucky break. And that's all there was to it.

We are supposed to learn from History. Not shape it to our theories or political beliefs.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

"When I was a kid, the conservative Republicans, Reagan among them, complained that the Russians were outspending us on defense, that we needed to up our defense spending to keep up. In fact, they were spending so much because they were so inefficient."

Not only were they inefficient, they were also poorer! The Soviets were spending far, far less than American politicians at the time would have us believe.

The CIA, we now know, was actually very accurate in its spying, analysis and reporting on Soviet military expenditures and strength. But the politicos would have none of it.

Ike warned about the dangers of the "military - industrial complex" as constituting a great danger for democracy if left unchecked. We did not listen to Ike. The primary beneficiaries of the Cold War economic priorities were the defense-related businesses.

...Come to think of it, since the Russkies were managing to sorta keep up with the West, durign the Cold War, with fewer resources and less money, well, that makes 'em, ya know, a li'l, efficient!..

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

The Soviets couldn't rationally attack us even if they feared someday becoming impotent against us militarily. The Ace-rag analogy is not truly apropos.

For one thing, MAD still held, and the amount of potential overkill on both sides was immense. For another thing, their conventional military machine was rapidly decrepifying. They simply couldn't win.

They were also slowly going broke over many years. In their last throes they spent much of their gold reserves for hard currency. Reagan's Star Wars simply gave them a little push along the path of economic ruin, as well as making them face the fact that they had no win against the West, period.

The Soviets were neither stupid nor suicidal. They saw the writing on the wall and knew the time was coming when they would have to change--which they managed to do after a fashion.

So Reagan's Star Wars had about as much chance of actually provoking a Soviet attack against us, as Mason's meteor has of actually landing on your head.

[HDPM]

Reagan did quite a lot. This country was on the rocks after losing in Vietnam (and then having a liberal congress give even more away after Nixon), Nixon's total debacle, and Carter's totally limp presidency. This was a country that couldn't land 6 helicopters in a third world country to get our citizens back. After Carter let them be taken basically. Make no mistake about it, in those years, the Iranians knoew that to jack with the Soviets meant annihalation. To jack with Carter meant a disappointed little reprimand from a weak man. This country was stifled with a 70% income tax. So Reagan came in and correctly pointed out how rotten the Soviets were. The idiots on the American left who apologized for the Soviets have never really been called on it. The Soviets were in fact evil and there was nothing good about them. Contrary to advice from many apologists, Reagan had the guts to say what the Soviets actually were. And he had the guts to crank up military spending. Which we needed. Not just new warheads, but the military had major problems in that era.

I disagree with M some because SDI was destabilizing. The USA talked MAD, but really was about angling for first strike capability. And not just under Reagan. But Reagan at least took the whole thing seriously, unlike Carter, who would yell at the guy with the football and shoo him away when he was on vacation in Plains. Oh, no big deal if you are 20 min or whatever away from the football in the cold war you dolt. Not that the Soviets couldn't have a spy in your administratition.

Even if the Soviet Uniion were going to fall, nobody seemed willing to give it a little push. Reagan was, with helping the war in Afghanistan (justified IMO even with the current problems) or spending on SDI. To use a ridiculous metaphor, even if the USSR was a crippled old man in a wheelchair, it was evil, and I'm glad somebody had the guts to talk about pushing it down some concrete steps. because there were a lot of apologists around, still are I guess. But they should be relegated to university faculties and not have any influence on the world. Not having them teach students would be good too. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The big disappointment of his presidency is that government spending rose. (Of course there were other problems, Iran Contra etc...)This would have been a truly great nation if we cut spending on social programs while increasing the revenue to spend on a military build up with the tax cut and improving economy. We might be a free nation today. Instead, the Christian right has too much power and the appropriators in both parties spend recklessly. People on the left keep talking about how Reagan changed everything around to the right, but I think the democrats won an important victory and now have a forever entrenched welfare state. Maybe the time to deal with domestic socialism was 1948 not 1988, I dunno.

There is my middle of the road post for today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

I actually agree that SDI was theoretically a bit destablizing but think the chanthe chances of Cyrus getting hit on the head by that meteor. The instinct for self-preservation trumps the desire to rule the world (except for the Islamic jihadist nutcases, apparently). So what I'm really saying is yes, it was psychologically and strategically destabilizing, but the chances that would translate into a full-blown war were nearly nil.

I agree with the spending critique. We did need to spend on the military then, but not on so many other government programs.

The only way to keep government spending under some control is to give it less money to spend. Even that doesn't always accomplish the goal as it spends in deficit at times. Therefore the only solution to government overspending is to always give the government far less than it proposes taking.

Curious question: how much of our federal budget is for non-essentials? (roughly considering essentials to be the basics outlined in the Constitution, that is).

Wasn't the country starting to coming out of the depression anyway, even without FDR's New Deal? I suspect things would have turned out just fine if left alone a bit longer.

[Cyrus]

The whole post if choke full of facile arguments and arbitrary assumptions. I wonder about the way you're putting your mind to work around such issues.

"The Soviets couldn't rationally attack us ... MAD still held "

This ignores the nuclear strategy of both parties. Trust me, there was a lot of strategy beyond MAD. You need to stoke up on the literature.

"They simply couldn't win ... They were also slowly going broke ... Reagan's Star Wars simply gave them a little push."

Then it was a small thing that Reagan did!...

"In their last throes they spent much of their gold reserves for hard currency."

Where did you get that??

"[The Soviets] saw the writing on the wall and knew the time was coming ... [They had to] face the fact that they had no win against the West, period ...they would have to change."

I'm sorry but this is a childish line of logic! You are saying that the Russian communists would willingly do away with their regime because they saw they were licked?? Like some fatalist old boxer who goes belly up? Where do you get such preposterous ideas? This is colossaly simplistic!..

"Reagan's Star Wars had about as much chance of actually provoking a Soviet attack against us, as Mason's meteor has of actually landing on your head."

I don't know the chances of that meteor but, if you were to look up the American side's analysis of the situation at the time, it was consistently and rightly gloomy because Reagan's policy was offering no alternative to the opponent but either to self-destruct or go for broke. If you happened to be reading anything from "Foreign Affairs" to "The Atlantic" you'd know.

The chances of Mason's meteor landing anywhere are not that much dimmer than the chances Gorbachev had of ascending to the throne of the USSR. You have not accounted for the fact that it took two rapid and successive deaths of the General Secretaries for Gorbachev to assume power. Multiply the probability of each of those three events happening (Andropov dying; Chernenko dying; Gorbachev chosen) and then tell me about meteors.

[Zeno]

I like your poker analogy. Reagan did indeed play a huge No-limit poker hand and it was about time someone forced the game. He sucked out and won. And now the left will never be able to forget or forgive him.

I am disappointed that no war occurred. I had plans to be smoking a cigar when the fireballs lit up the sky and then be glibly flicking the ashes off same as the first shock and heat wave vaporized my small frame. A sardonic smirk frozen on my face. But no such luck. Humanity survived. Such are the vicissitudes of the fates.


Le Misanthrope

[andyfox]

When Jack Warner of Warner Bros. heard Reagan was running for governor of California, supposedly he said, "No, Jimmy Stewart for governor, Ronald Reagan for best friend."

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your poker analogy. Reagan did indeed play a huge No-limit poker hand and it was about time someone forced the game. He sucked out and won. And now the left will never be able to forget or forgive him.

I am disappointed that no war occurred. I had plans to be smoking a cigar when the fireballs lit up the sky and then be glibly flicking the ashes off same as the first shock and heat wave vaporized my small frame. A sardonic smirk frozen on my face. But no such luck. Humanity survived. Such are the vicissitudes of the fates.


Le Misanthrope

[/ QUOTE ]

You got issues, dude...

[M2d]

Ice-9 would have left a longer lasting impression.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
because there were a lot of apologists around, still are I guess. But they should be relegated to university faculties and not have any influence on the world. Not having them teach students would be good too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some public floggings of the more pendatic puffheads would also be a good thing. Especially those that sit around in rickety old chairs pawing through issues of The Atlantic and Foreign Affairs. Two of the most bogus rags on the planet. They usually have reprints of Dali's paintings on the wall also, surealism being something they embrace almost by default.


I enjoyed your post and now think that perhaps I was wrong in saying that Reagan did not belong on US currency. I think that he does, if for no other reason than that the caterwauling and virulent shrieks from the left would be so amusing.

Le Misanthrope

[MMMMMM]

My line of reasoning above is indeed simple, yet largely true where it matters--sort of like Reagan himself.

I'll leave it to you to calculate the chances of a meteor falling on your head (with or without Mason's blessing;-)). Suffice to say the chances of the USSR attacking us over Star Wars were so far out on the tail of the curve as to be negligible. But pesist in your delusions, if you will. Maybe when that meteor hits you it will rap some sense into you;-)

[GeorgeF]

Volcker, who was appointed by Carter, raised interest rates to 18% (I think). That led to the Bull market of 1982-2000. Needless to say Reagan let him do it, which took courage.

Reagan also decontroled the oil industry causing the price of oil and commodities to fall. The primary exports of the USSR where commodities. FWIW decontrol of various industries was started under Carter and ended under Clinton with Nafta and reducing the power of the ICC. The big one was oil done by Reagan.

Reagan also reformed the tax code in ways that forced the idle rich to invest for 'total return' not 'tax losses'. That was over due.

These are the things that allowed the US to put the USSR out of it's misery. It might have been different if reform in the USSR happend faster.

[John Cole]

David Halberstam says that Pentagon officials deliberately lied to Ike concerning Soviet buildup, and Ike responded by playing catchup.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Reagan did quite a lot. This country was on the rocks after losing in Vietnam (and then having a liberal congress give even more away after Nixon), Nixon's total debacle, and Carter's totally limp presidency. This was a country that couldn't land 6 helicopters in a third world country to get our citizens back. After Carter let them be taken basically. Make no mistake about it, in those years, the Iranians knoew that to jack with the Soviets meant annihalation. To jack with Carter meant a disappointed little reprimand from a weak man.


[/ QUOTE ]
On the rocks? I guess as a matter of perception. But in reality, terrorism and foreign attacks have taken place under every administration, including Reagan's. Remember Beirut? I guess the Lebanese missed the memo about how the US was no longer "weak".
Reagan had a lot more to do with changing the perception inside America. He was an anti-intellectual, who thought of the the world as good vs. evil. He saw the US as No. 1, the ultimate "good guy" on the world stage. He was thus able to appeal to a platitude of Americans who wanted the world to make sense after Watergate and Vietnam. Thus, he projected the image of America being the greatest nation on Earth, calming the reactionary masses who had been scared spitless by the social and political upheaval that had occurred during the last two decades. Like Reagan, it was a message free of details and nuances, concentrating on the "white", and not the "gray" and "black" that goes along with it.
[ QUOTE ]

This country was stifled with a 70% income tax.


[/ QUOTE ]
You hang out with the Fords and the Gettys? I want to know who was paying 70% income tax back then. I sure don't know anyone.
[ QUOTE ]

So Reagan came in and correctly pointed out how rotten the Soviets were. The idiots on the American left who apologized for the Soviets have never really been called on it. The Soviets were in fact evil and there was nothing good about them. Contrary to advice from many apologists, Reagan had the guts to say what the Soviets actually were. And he had the guts to crank up military spending. Which we needed. Not just new warheads, but the military had major problems in that era.


[/ QUOTE ]
Who were these left-wing apologists? Can you name names? I am trying to think of Soviet apologists from that era, and I am drawing blanks. Please, enlighten me.
As for Reagan "cranking up the military", Reagan ushered in the era of the $500 hammer, ineffecient spending, and bloated defense contracts.

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with M some because SDI was destabilizing. The USA talked MAD, but really was about angling for first strike capability. And not just under Reagan. But Reagan at least took the whole thing seriously, unlike Carter, who would yell at the guy with the football and shoo him away when he was on vacation in Plains. Oh, no big deal if you are 20 min or whatever away from the football in the cold war you dolt. Not that the Soviets couldn't have a spy in your administratition.


[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have proof that this didn't also occur under Reagan's administration?

[ QUOTE ]

Even if the Soviet Uniion were going to fall, nobody seemed willing to give it a little push. Reagan was, with helping the war in Afghanistan (justified IMO even with the current problems) or spending on SDI. To use a ridiculous metaphor, even if the USSR was a crippled old man in a wheelchair, it was evil, and I'm glad somebody had the guts to talk about pushing it down some concrete steps. because there were a lot of apologists around, still are I guess. But they should be relegated to university faculties and not have any influence on the world. Not having them teach students would be good too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, care to name names? This stuff about pro-Marxists controlling our school's universities is just something I have not come across, either personally or second hand through the experiences of friends, family, and colleagues. In fact, my college poli sci professor proposed that in the future people would live in states run by corporations instead of governments. But that is another matter.
[ QUOTE ]

The big disappointment of his presidency is that government spending rose. (Of course there were other problems, Iran Contra etc...)This would have been a truly great nation if we cut spending on social programs while increasing the revenue to spend on a military build up with the tax cut and improving economy. We might be a free nation today. Instead, the Christian right has too much power and the appropriators in both parties spend recklessly. People on the left keep talking about how Reagan changed everything around to the right, but I think the democrats won an important victory and now have a forever entrenched welfare state. Maybe the time to deal with domestic socialism was 1948 not 1988, I dunno.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aah yes. The continuing fallacy about how ALL social programs must be cut (but defense spending must be increased), along with taxes, in order to make this nation move in the right direction. Despite the fact that inner city decay/drugs/violence coincided with Reagan cutting JobCorps. Despite the fact that under Reagan the gap between rich and poor was greater than it had been for decades. Despite the fact, that anyone with a brain can see that HMO's care more about their bottom line and cutting corners than caring for patients. Despite the fact that under the Great Society, the middle class grew and lower classes shrank at unprecedented levels. Despite all this, the notion still persists that America would be a better place if we just got rid of almost every single social program ever adopted. Aah, simplicity...

[ QUOTE ]

There is my middle of the road post for today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeah. Middle of the road. Well, maybe slightly to the right of Pat Buchanan.

[HDPM]

Making anybody pay 70% income tax is wrong. I don't care if 3 people were in that bracket, any tax system that takes that much from anybody is immoral. The rates now are complete theft and should be cut way down. Yes, I think the government should eliminate all social spending. No social security, medicare, welfare etc.... I don't want to pay for it and there is no legitimate governmental interest in it. At least Reagan got us on track just a little. Clearly the top tax bracket should be in the 5% range. More than 10% is pure socialism IMO.


As to HMO's, of course they are interested in profit. There should be no regulation of health care costs. There should be no governmental spending on health care at all. If you can't afford the care, you can decline it. That's all. You don't have a right to health care. I do have a right to my property. And it shouldn't be stolen by people who somehow think there is a right to socialized health care. I want to live in a free country, that's all.

How is that for moderately conservative. ( I really am a lefty because I think the programs should be phased out rather than eliminated immediately. I know it pushes me toward the dreaded socialism, but I am such a softy I think people who are dumb enough to relay on government largesse should have a chance to ease themselves back into productivity or locate voluntary sources of charity.) /images/graemlins/smile.gif


P.S. I would cut defense spending now. I think the pentagon should be a lot more efficient. But I would have a military. That is a proper function of government, unlike wealth redistribution.

[hetron]

You scare me!

[ QUOTE ]
Making anybody pay 70% income tax is wrong. I don't care if 3 people were in that bracket, any tax system that takes that much from anybody is immoral. The rates now are complete theft and should be cut way down. Yes, I think the government should eliminate all social spending. No social security, medicare, welfare etc.... I don't want to pay for it and there is no legitimate governmental interest in it. At least Reagan got us on track just a little. Clearly the top tax bracket should be in the 5% range. More than 10% is pure socialism IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]
The response to this is the classic dilemma facing the "liberals" in this nation. The "liberals" see the progressive strides made by this country, starting with regulation of the meat packing industry at the turn of the century, continuing with the New Deal and later on the Great Society, and says to himself, "A lot of what is good and right with America has to do with the contributions that progressive types have made throughout its history." Yet what is the thanks they get for it? They have to be on the look out for laissez faire right wing types who are constantly looking to destroy every piece of progressive legislation ever put on the books. In addition, they are branded socialists, un American, pinko commie muckrakers that should leave the country immediately and go live in Sweden or France somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]

As to HMO's, of course they are interested in profit. There should be no regulation of health care costs. There should be no governmental spending on health care at all. If you can't afford the care, you can decline it. That's all. You don't have a right to health care. I do have a right to my property. And it shouldn't be stolen by people who somehow think there is a right to socialized health care. I want to live in a free country, that's all.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. This must be the modern day version of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake". How are you going to "decline" something that will save your life?

"Oh gee, did you hear?"

"No, what?"

"Bob denied himself chemo treatments for his lymphoma."

"Why?"

"He couldn't afford it."

If what you say took place, you would create a larger gap between the rich and the poor. If the rich had access to life saving measures that the poor didn't, you are setting up a class war. You remember the French revolution and Bolshevik revolutions, right?

Much of the stability of our nation is DUE to our stable middle class. And much of the middle class is there BECAUSE of government programs and progressive reforms. I don't want to live in 1750 France, or 1910 Russia. I am quite happy living in a stable country, in if that means paying a little extra in taxes, so be it.

Maybe that's why you are such a pro-gun advocate. You aren't scared of the government, you are scared of all the poor people who are going to try to rob you if all the social spending you want to eliminate actually does get eliminated. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

How is that for moderately conservative. ( I really am a lefty because I think the programs should be phased out rather than eliminated immediately. I know it pushes me toward the dreaded socialism, but I am such a softy I think people who are dumb enough to relay on government largesse should have a chance to ease themselves back into productivity or locate voluntary sources of charity.) /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

You're a regular Ted Kennedy.

[ QUOTE ]


P.S. I would cut defense spending now. I think the pentagon should be a lot more efficient. But I would have a military. That is a proper function of government, unlike wealth redistribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proper according to whom? Locke, Hobbes, and Jefferson? They aren't around now, and never lived in a world anything like ours. Their writings, while certainly important for historical reasons, might not completely apply to today's world. Kind of like the poker expert of 1975 who might be a complete loser in 2004 if he doesn't adapt to today's real-world conditions.

As for wealth redistrubtion, we are doing a very bad job of it. I keep on hearing that the top 10% own 90% of the wealth, so clearly more aggressive wealth redistribution must take place. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HDPM]

"The response to this is the classic dilemma facing the "liberals" in this nation. The "liberals" see the
progressive strides made by this country, starting with regulation of the meat packing industry at the
turn of the century, continuing with the New Deal and later on the Great Society, and says to himself, "A
lot of what is good and right with America has to do with the contributions that progressive types have
made throughout its history." Yet what is the thanks they get for it? They have to be on the look out for
laissez faire right wing types who are constantly looking to destroy every piece of progressive legislation
ever put on the books."



I am not against all regulation. I think some of the progressive/populist stuff came about because of abuses. It is OK to regulate against abuses that are essentially illegal. A business doesn't have the right to kill people. It does have the right to sell a product for any price it wants to. So a drug company can't sell cyanide and label it Lipitor. But it can sell its drugs to whomever for whatever. If an old person can't afford it, well they are SOL. Yeah, if you can't afford medical care you die. So what? I would much sooner die than force somebody to pay for my care. I know I have no right to force somebody to pay for something I want. Again, being a softie, I understand local socialism to pay for emergency care to some extent. I also wouldn't mind paying a little in taxes to give out pain killers to those who can't afford medical care. But that is cheap, particularly if we legalize drugs. You could choose to use a bunch of heroin or whatever to kill the pain of terminal cancer or other diseases. I really don't understand why people are willing to tax others to pay for expensive medical care. I want to die with a clean conscience, not as somebody who has stolen to prolong my life. So I am not against all laws or regulations. I recognize that people are garbage and will deliberately hurt others. This is why the government should not give out business subsidies either. I would eliminate all business subsidies too.


See, I told you I was in a particularly moderate mood today. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Chris Alger]

I doubt that you'll find many Russian scholars of the next generation attributing the collapse of the USSR to anything Reagan did.

Reagan's anti-communsim was a combination of feel-good myth-making, a pretext for ignoring domestic demands for better services and government reform, a determination to centralize federal power, and the desire to bolster U.S. "crediblity" abroad, essentially by proving that the U.S. was stronger, meaner and more recalcitrant than Vietnam and Iran might suggest.

Communism in Russia was little more than ideological cover for these policies. The political freedom of Russians and Eastern Europeans therefore wasn't a concern to Reagan, any more than the political freedom of the Chinese and Tibetans were for him or any of his successors. In fact, when you look at the pivotal role U.S. liberalization toward China played during the Reagan years in enriching that country and its rulers, Reagan can just as easily be viewed as the most pro-communist president to date.

If you look back at White Hosue statements and contemporary accounts by right-wingers during Gorbachev's tenure, you also don't see much enthusiasm for his reforms. Generally, they're skeptical and dismissive: they're merely piecemeal; reform is impossible; it's just a trick; etc. You also don't see the Reagan White House encouraging reform with anything more than lukearm applause. You don't see the reaction you'd expect to see if the U.S. were giddy with anticipation that the Soviets are coming around to seeing things our way. Instead of cautious optimism there's a lot of sneering and fatalism.

After the house of cards collapsed there was a lot of hubris over how we "won" the cold war. Behind this, however, there was a real crisis over the need to manufacture a new "reason" with which to justify to the public the same old foreign policies and the risks and sacrifices they entail. There were a number of articles about the "challenge" of needing to justify a military collosus, thousands of nukes, aiding governments that were at most slightly better than what the Soviets would install.

On 9/11, that problem was instantly solved: we declared a "war" that cannot, almost by definition, ever end. Like the cold war, the bipartisan consensus is nearly absolute, aside from technical questions about the cost and manner of prosecution.

[adios]

On November 12, 1981 Reagan adopted “zero option” in Europe. The U.S. set a date for deployment of Pershing II missiles, while promising to cancel it if the Soviets dismantled all intermediate range nuclear weapons targeted for Western Europe. The Soviets did their usual ranting and made their usual threats but Reagan was undeterred. On November 23, 1983 the first Pershing II missiles were deployed in what was then West Germany. The Soviets broke off International Nuclear Force (INF) talks in Geneva but basically did nothing else. I believe that this was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. In short Reagan called their bluff and it demonstrated the weakness and vacuity of their regime to their cold war adversaries and the Iron Curtain countries oppressed by the Soviets. I believe that the timing was perfect and Reagan was essentially the right guy at the right time. It also showed the Soviets that he was serious about the Strategic Defense Initiative as well. A mamby-pamby liberal would have totally blown that situation. Bring it on /images/graemlins/cool.gif. It’s understandable why many on the left don’t give an iota of credit for the success of his presidency since it showed how totally bankrupt the liberal agenda was and still is.

[MMMMMM]

My view on all this is that most of the "social programs" don't accomplish much at all of what they are intended to do. We've had programs to end poverty, end illiteracy, end you-name-it, but they never work either. We keep trying to help the poor, but that never works. We fight a war on drugs and of course that fails too.

The only think that works is the process of becoming self-sufficient. Giving people the freedom to do that--and not weighing them down with all kinds of encumbrances from government (financial or otherwise)--is the only cure for poverty. The rich can't give the poor enough money to take them out of poverty! Nobody can! The only way for them to get out is to find a way out through study, application and work.

Redistribution of anything is theft, unless freely given. If you ask the bottom 50% if they would like to vote to steal the money of the top 5%, what do you think the answer would be? Our Constitution is supposed to protect against tyranny of the majority, but that's exactly what politicians pander to when they call for any sort of redistribution.

Furthermore, redistribution dsoesn't really work either. GROWTH works. There isn't a finite static pool of money or resources. Money is created or destroyed every single minute. Wealth is created or destroyed every single minute. Using resources wisely, and investing, and learning and growing: all create wealth. The creation or destruction of wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Attempting to remedy poverty through forced redistribution is like looking at life as a zero-sum game. That isn't at all what life is, though.

Encourage production and investment, and get more of it. Discourage prodution (tax it) and get less of it. Encourage self-sufficiency and get more self-sufficient people. Encourage laziness and dependency and get more welfare cases.

The idea of wealth redistribution as a social panacea rests on the immense fallacy that wealth is a zero-sum commodity. Except in specific games like trading or poker, it isn't. Parties are led to trade with each other because the trade benefits both. Investments are made and benefit both the investor and those using the capital for business or for growth purposes. The creation or destruction of wealth is more important than the precise distribution of wealth. Redistribution increases overhead, thereby decreasing overall wealth. Redistribution decreases incentives for productive activity, too.

Capital isn't just "money". Human resources are capital too, and so is "knowledge capital". Knmowledge capital makes our endeavors more efficient and saves us time. Also, knowledge capital just keeps growing, doesn't it? We don't float the idea of taking knowledge away from someone and giving it to someone else. Well, overall capital keeps growing too. If the world manages to avoid the specter of disastrous overpopulation, someday nearly everyone can be rich by today's standards. The poor today in America are pretty darned well off compared to the middle-class in colonial times. Sure some will always be richer than others, but if your standard of living increased more this year than in any year previously, do you really care that someone else's increased even faster? Elevating the living standards of everubody is better than redistributing wealth--and as prpgress marches on, the living standards of the country have risen greatly--and NOT due to redistribution--due instead to human PROGRESS. The less fetters there are on people, the more progress we will see--and the richer everybody will get.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think Reagan deserves anymore credit for the fall of the USSR than Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. I mean honestly, it was the combined effort of every president up to Reagan that led to the fall of communism in the former soviet union and eastern Europe.

I find it very odd that Reagan gets so much credit for the fall of communism, even though he was essentially there at the right time, but Clinton gets no credit for the economic boom in the 90's, Reagan always gets credit for the boom. The argument is always it takes time for someones economic reforms to truely have an effect, but why doesn't that apply to foreign policy as well. For some reason when Reagan did it, it was essentially instantaneous.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
In short Reagan called their bluff and it demonstrated the weakness and vacuity of their regime to their cold war adversaries and the Iron Curtain countries oppressed by the Soviets."

[/ QUOTE ]
What "bluff?"

How could deploying better missiles at a regime reveal a regime's "weakness and vacuity," or for that matter demonstrate anything about the regime?

[ QUOTE ]
A mamby-pamby liberal would have totally blown that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like Carter? It was under his administration that the Pershing II deployment was approved, at his request, by NATO (12/79). In 2/80 Carter made its production the highest national priority.

The deployment of the Pershing II and cruise missiles did indeed lead to the abolition of intermediate range nuclear weapons from Europe, but not in the way you're implying. In the first place, the "zero option," essentially a slogan of European antinuclear activists, was likely acceptable to Reagan advisors like Perle and Adelman because they knew the Soviets would never accept it. Halfway through his first term, however, Reagan's bellicosity, manifested in Weinberger's embarrassing nuclear "war winning" doctrine, created huge international groundswell of popular protest. Both the Democrats (who tended to support the Pershing II /cruise deployment) and the Soviet Union (now under Gorbachev) exploited popular fears so well that Reagan was forced to backtrack from his 1980 election campaign line that negotiations with the Russians were a waste of time. He agreed to abide by unratified Salt II limits, scaled back the MX deployment, cancelled the neutron bomb. When Gorbachev cut the link between Star Wars and European missiles, the man who made a career of sneering at containment and compromising our crusade against the Evil Empire was suddenly eager to negotiate.

In short, popular discontent with Reagan's militant anticommunist rhetoric led him to abandon it. Far from using nuclear pressure to do away with the USSR, Reagan was forced to embrace arms control negotiations and thus partly legitimated the Soviet Union. Remember all that right-wing bellyaching about how Reagan's advisors wouldn't "let Reagan be Reagan?" It wasn't his advisors but Reagan's best political instincts that forced him to moderate in order to get reelected.

Reagan had nothing to do with Gorbachev's liberalism. By scaling back planned nuclear weapons deployments Reagan almost gave the USSR a new lease on life. Gorbachev had let the Genie out of the bottle, however, and initated a process of collapse that even Gorbachev couldn't control.

For a good background, read this. (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/wittner.html)

Of course, since then "sounder" heads have prevailed. Although arsenals have been scaled back, the ongoing U.S. effort to develop an invulnerable first-strike capability and the absence of any serious deterrent means that the world is now threatened as never before by the prospect of nuclear disaster.

[Utah]

Isnt this country great!

I think its great that someone who is so terribly anti-American, who hates his country so much that he wishes it harm, who roots for the terrorists, and who completely dismisses everything this country stands for can walk and speech in complete freedom with no fear of having his ass completely kicked.

Now that is a great country!!! Although, I do wonder what you peace loving Palenstinian buddies would do if you were a palestinian and you went around completely badmouthing everything about the palestinians and talking about how you thought Arafat was the biggest criminal ever and how you thought Israel was in the right. hmm.......

Oh, yes, it is SO obvious that those in government were just thrilled with 9/11. I think you can see a little smirk on Bush's face when Andrew Card whispered in his ear telling him about the planes. I bet Cards first words were "Good news, all our problems are solved...." Oh, and the way Bush faked those tears. Wow, say what you will about the man, but that was pure genius.

[MMMMMM]

"On 9/11, that problem was instantly solved: we declared a "war" that cannot, almost by definition, ever end."

The jihadist terrorists declared war on us long before 9/11, both with words and by their attacks: we just weren't listening very well. So now, in your usual topsy-turvy way, you imply that we started or "manufactured" the war, when actually what we did after 9/11 was finally acknowledge it.

[Zeno]

I read that book years ago but I think the title is Cat's Craddle or something. That was a great story. I loved it. Kurt V is lazy and does not write much anymore, or am I wrong on this.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

So the Soviet Union imploded all on its own. Gorbachev took the first step and inched onto the slippery slope and then whoosh - it all came sliding down. This sounds about as good as anything. Freedom and openness is rather a dangerous commodity.


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, since then "sounder" heads have prevailed. Although arsenals have been scaled back, the ongoing U.S. effort to develop an invulnerable first-strike capability and the absence of any serious deterrent means that the world is now threatened as never before by the prospect of nuclear disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm stocking up on Cigars - there is hope yet.


-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The jihadist terrorists declared war on us long before 9/11. . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, around 700 A.D. I've read your posts: Islam breeds fanaticism and violence and these create terrorism, always has and always will, at least until we kill everyone that goes around saying "jihad."

"The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."

[jokerswild]

.

[MMMMMM]

Huh?

Al-Qaeda attacked us before 9/11 and you know it. bin-Laden didn't start his attacks or rhetoric against on 9/11. Others of the international jihadist movement have also attacked Americans/American interests and Europeans/European interests prior to 9/11. These attacks have been increasing over the last couple decades or so.

9/11 was just the unmistakable modern Defining Moment of the war of the jihadists against the West and America.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Although arsenals have been scaled back, the ongoing U.S. effort to develop an invulnerable first-strike capability and the absence of any serious deterrent means that the world is now threatened as never before by the prospect of nuclear disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really do live in Topsy-Turvy land, don't you? Defensive systems which one day may eliminate the threat of nuclear missile destruction altogether, are to you a bad thing.

To get to a nuclear-war-safe world, it is first necessary to render ICBM's ineffective. We are well-started towards that goal. The sooner we reach it, the better. We can't get there from here without traversing an uncertain region. We can't reach that goal by treaties for arms reduction, either, because the players will cheat.

Maybe you'd prefer to see the human race forever dependent on MAD while assorted lunatics gradually acquire their own nuclear arsenals?

[MMMMMM]

I don't smoke, but if it happens, I'd prefer to be watching it from some far northern vantage point--probably somewhere well north of Spitsbergen, for example.

Wonder how it would interact with the Northern Lights?

[andyfox]

This is a good point. The real battle against Communism took place in the twenty years following the end of World War II. Truman took the lead. It was under his watch that the Cold War started, that the enormous build up of the military and military industrial complex began, that the internal security measures designed, supposedly, to protect us from internal Communist subversion here at home, began. Eisenhower preferred more covert means to continue the battle and it was then the Democrats Kennedy and Johnson who resumed the overt toughness.

All the while, Reagan had been claiming that we were losing the Cold War and that two Armageddons were approaching: the biblical one and our imminent demise at the hands of the Soviets unless we woke up. He was, as usual, delusional.

[andyfox]

Strangelovian as it was, MAD worked, didn't it? If one is afraid the other side will do to it what it intends to do to the other side, it gives boths sides pause, no? Isn't that the theory behind gun ownership, that if only the criminals have guns, we're at their mercy, but having law-abiding citizens with such weapons acts as a deterrent? After all, the only time a country used atomic weapons was when it had the monopoly on them.

The two presidents that were most in favor of the missile shield were Reagan and Clinton. That's more than enough to make me think it must be a bad idea. /images/graemlins/smile.gif [Kind of like when both political parties agree on a bill and the vote is unanimous in the Senate. Must certainly be a bad idea. /images/graemlins/smile.gif]

[HDPM]

Mad worked, but it wasn't necessarily our strategy. We had a constant desire to have first strike capability and spent time and money getting it. If all you want is deterrence, you don't need much. There were first strike plans in the late '40's and 50's. the Soviets were smart to deliberately mislead us about their strength, they knew if we perceived them as weak there might be a first strike and an all out nuclear war. I think there were probably times where the US really considered it and believed a nuclear war was winnable. Fortunately it didn't happen. One example of the quest for first strike capability was developing very accurate missiles. How accurate does a whatever megaton thermonuke have to be to take out a city? Not very accurate. But to "bust silos" you need accuracy. that is first strike thinking, not MAD. The Soviets perceived a missile shielsd as a threat because they knew our strategy had a first strike component to it. If we had a perfect missile shield (unlikely) we might choose a first strike. However, by the time SDI came about, everybody knew how bad a nuclear war would be, so I think our strategy became more MAD by default.


A missile shield makes more sense now IMO. Just as we didn't think there would be limited conventional war after nukes came about, for a long time we haven't thought limited nuclear war was possible. I think there is a good chance we will see nuclear weapons used in our lifetimes. A scenario might be a purloined nuke used by a terrorist and a retaliatory strike against a state for helping. A missile shield of some sort might be effective against a small nuclear player who might launch a few missiles where it wouldn't have been effective against an all-out soviet strike. There are going to be more nuclear players and more players who are willing to use their weapons. I also think that once a limited nuke war is seen as possible that nukes will be used tactically. Like using small bunker buster nukes to take out underground complexes.

I don't think I am nuts to think this either. I don't think the world is very stable right now.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
A missile shield makes more sense now IMO. Just as we didn't think there would be limited conventional war after nukes came about, for a long time we haven't thought limited nuclear war was possible. I think there is a good chance we will see nuclear weapons used in our lifetimes. A scenario might be a purloined nuke used by a terrorist and a retaliatory strike against a state for helping. A missile shield of some sort might be effective against a small nuclear player who might launch a few missiles where it wouldn't have been effective against an all-out soviet strike. There are going to be more nuclear players and more players who are willing to use their weapons. I also think that once a limited nuke war is seen as possible that nukes will be used tactically. Like using small bunker buster nukes to take out underground complexes

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice analysis. I think this is basically inline with the current administrations thinking as well.

[MMMMMM]

MAD worked because both the Soviets and the Americans were relatively rational.

Since the present psychological trend is towards suicidal destructive irrationality (as borne out by ever-increasing numbers of jihad warriors and imams preaching glorification of the death-cult for Allah), we cannot count on MAD being a sufficient deterrent in the future--especially with the spectre of proliferation amongst lunatics and fanatical theocracies. Sooner or later WMD will be in the hands of those who would joyfully use them to go to Paradise while taking as many innocents with them as possible.

In short, MAD will be inadequate in the future because people are getting crazier.

[Chris Alger]

You're labelling it a "defensive" system only because you have some kind of messianic faith that the U.S. will choose, forever, to never attempt to use its invulnerable first strike system to increase it's power, but will instead surrender it because they're such nice guys. In your world, present and future U.S. leaders for thousands of years will never seek to maximize their power in the manner of nearly all other states, but will use their nuclear monopoly to spread peace, love and good will throughout the world, where everyone holds hands as they poke daisys into rifle barrels, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
We can't reach that goal by treaties for arms reduction, either, because the players will cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]
A ridiculous proposition that even Reagan abandoned.

[Cyrus]

"The present psychological trend is towards suicidal destructive irrationality. MAD will be inadequate in the future because people are getting crazier."

Misinformed gobbledygook.

MAD is "inadequate" (it actually is irrelevant) because MAD was supposed to be the deterrent stabiliser between two nuclear superpowers, two countries. The United States is no longer against a superpower - not even against a country. The threat of terrorism comes not from a specific country, that can be threatened, bombed or occupied.

In short, you want to win the war against terror but you find it as if it's a war between countries. No wonder you are so confused that you have MAD all wrong. (Or that you think the reason MAD is of no value is some quirky ...psychological trend! Oh, my aching sides.)

[MMMMMM]

You raise a reasonable point with regard to the potential for abuse in the distant future. However that seems a risk we have to take because the risk of madmen possessing nukes is great and more likely to occur in the foreseeable future. Further, the USA does not threaten democracies, only totalitarian regimes, so I don't see much wrong with that. We want other countries to be free to trade and build with. Notice that the free democracies of the world have had nothing to fear from us for the longest time, even though we held the power to annihilate them had we chosen.

[ QUOTE ]

We can't reach that goal by treaties for arms reduction, either, because the players will cheat.


A ridiculous proposition that even Reagan abandoned.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be clear that arms reduction may be achieved through treaties, but that arms elimination may not. One major party can always cheat enough to retain massive destructive capabilities given the immense destructive power of moern nukes.

[MMMMMM]

The idea of suicide bombing is getting more popular, and not just against Israel. More brainwashed Muslim fanatics are today ready to die in jihad for Allah than ten or twenty years ago.

Lunatic regimes such as Iran and North Korea (too late) must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. As proliferation occurs, the chance increases that nukes will end up in the hands of some true lunatic(s) for whom MAD has no meaning.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

If an old person can't afford it, well they are SOL. Yeah, if you can't afford medical care you die. So what?


[/ QUOTE ]
So what? Ummm...sorry to break this to you..but most people do NOT want to die, especially if the reason they are dieing is because they can't afford adequate health care.
[ QUOTE ]

I would much sooner die than force somebody to pay for my care. I know I have no right to force somebody to pay for something I want. Again, being a softie, I understand local socialism to pay for emergency care to some extent.


[/ QUOTE ]
Would you feel that way if your son or daughter needed a life saving operation and you couldn't afford it?

"Sorry Bobby, Daddy can't afford this operation and he thinks Medicaid is unethical. Say hi to Uncle Fred when you get upstairs!"

[ QUOTE ]

I also wouldn't mind paying a little in taxes to give out pain killers to those who can't afford medical care. But that is cheap, particularly if we legalize drugs. You could choose to use a bunch of heroin or whatever to kill the pain of terminal cancer or other diseases. I really don't understand why people are willing to tax others to pay for expensive medical care. I want to die with a clean conscience, not as somebody who has stolen to prolong my life.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hahahaha. Remember, we aren't talking about terminal patients (they get pain killing narcotics as part of palliative care already). We are talking about patients who have preventable causes of death who, under your scenario, can't afford care so instead they will die. So instead of curing them, we will just get them f*cked up stupid high!


[ QUOTE ]

See, I told you I was in a particularly moderate mood today. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I just hope you don't espouse your views at a dinner party where someone's parents or grandparents are receiving cancer treatments and could only afford them via medicare without the benefits of a concealed weapon. Maybe the 2nd amendment IS helpful for some people. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hetron]

You made the same arguments in our post about Libertarianism a while back. Frankly, your arguments don't hold water. I posted the staggering drop in the poverty level (from 22% before to 12% after) around the implementation of the great society programs. I could post information showing that certain social programs ARE effective in achieving their goals until I am blue in the face and you would chalk it up to some other factors.

Frankly, what you post is how capitalism should work IN a THEORETICAL environment, not how it works in the REAL world. In the real world, every single one of the richest nations in the world functions with social programs, some sort of social safety net for its citizens. Why do you think this is so?


[ QUOTE ]
My view on all this is that most of the "social programs" don't accomplish much at all of what they are intended to do. We've had programs to end poverty, end illiteracy, end you-name-it, but they never work either. We keep trying to help the poor, but that never works. We fight a war on drugs and of course that fails too.

The only think that works is the process of becoming self-sufficient. Giving people the freedom to do that--and not weighing them down with all kinds of encumbrances from government (financial or otherwise)--is the only cure for poverty. The rich can't give the poor enough money to take them out of poverty! Nobody can! The only way for them to get out is to find a way out through study, application and work.

Redistribution of anything is theft, unless freely given. If you ask the bottom 50% if they would like to vote to steal the money of the top 5%, what do you think the answer would be? Our Constitution is supposed to protect against tyranny of the majority, but that's exactly what politicians pander to when they call for any sort of redistribution.

Furthermore, redistribution dsoesn't really work either. GROWTH works. There isn't a finite static pool of money or resources. Money is created or destroyed every single minute. Wealth is created or destroyed every single minute. Using resources wisely, and investing, and learning and growing: all create wealth. The creation or destruction of wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Attempting to remedy poverty through forced redistribution is like looking at life as a zero-sum game. That isn't at all what life is, though.

Encourage production and investment, and get more of it. Discourage prodution (tax it) and get less of it. Encourage self-sufficiency and get more self-sufficient people. Encourage laziness and dependency and get more welfare cases.

The idea of wealth redistribution as a social panacea rests on the immense fallacy that wealth is a zero-sum commodity. Except in specific games like trading or poker, it isn't. Parties are led to trade with each other because the trade benefits both. Investments are made and benefit both the investor and those using the capital for business or for growth purposes. The creation or destruction of wealth is more important than the precise distribution of wealth. Redistribution increases overhead, thereby decreasing overall wealth. Redistribution decreases incentives for productive activity, too.

Capital isn't just "money". Human resources are capital too, and so is "knowledge capital". Knmowledge capital makes our endeavors more efficient and saves us time. Also, knowledge capital just keeps growing, doesn't it? We don't float the idea of taking knowledge away from someone and giving it to someone else. Well, overall capital keeps growing too. If the world manages to avoid the specter of disastrous overpopulation, someday nearly everyone can be rich by today's standards. The poor today in America are pretty darned well off compared to the middle-class in colonial times. Sure some will always be richer than others, but if your standard of living increased more this year than in any year previously, do you really care that someone else's increased even faster? Elevating the living standards of everubody is better than redistributing wealth--and as prpgress marches on, the living standards of the country have risen greatly--and NOT due to redistribution--due instead to human PROGRESS. The less fetters there are on people, the more progress we will see--and the richer everybody will get.

[/ QUOTE ]

[HDPM]

No, to be post of the year it has to have pornographic content basically. Shana Hiatt pics count.

The best point you raised was about the kids. I would do anything I could to get medical care for my kid. But it still doesn't mean I have the right to force somebody to pay for it. Basically what would happen without any government involvement is this: Doctors' income would go up and prices would go down. Everybody would have more money to spend on medical care. There would be a few charity cases, but the increase in wealth would mean more people would give to charity. So the odds are excellent that between charity, pro bono work/extension of credit by doctors, and voluntary help from family or friends, the kid's medical care would get paid. So I would go into debt to help my kid, but I would not rob a bank at gunpoint. If the kid died because I was a financial failure, well, both of us are SOL then. That would be pretty terrible. But it is terrible to live in a country where people use force on you to steal your property and pay for medical care. A lot of my money is hijacked and pays for people I don't like or respect and who are of no value to me. That is a trajedy too. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


The old people at a dinner party are easy. If they take the medicaid/medicare as restitution for amounts stolen from them and realize the system is awful, I don't resent them. If they tell me they have a right to it and they have a right to tax me, well then they can get f88ked and I don't care if they hate me for telling them they are immoral thieves.

P.S. You bring out the wishy washy middle of the roader in me.

[MMMMMM]

"I posted the staggering drop in the poverty level (from 22% before to 12% after) around the implementation of the great society programs."

Can you think if any other reasons (besides the Great Society programs) why that might be so?

[MMMMMM]

I read that the average lifetime return for an individual on Social Security taxes is around 1%--an absurdly low rate of return. If payroll taxes were eliminated, that money could instead be invested privately for retirement, as well as buying health insurance. But of course it's a government program so it is grossly inefficient, and sucks more money into oblivion than it puts to good use.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
No, to be post of the year it has to have pornographic content basically. Shana Hiatt pics count.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or at least have something to do with the term "bonus whores".

[ QUOTE ]

The best point you raised was about the kids. I would do anything I could to get medical care for my kid. But it still doesn't mean I have the right to force somebody to pay for it. Basically what would happen without any government involvement is this: Doctors' income would go up and prices would go down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how prices would go down if medical care wasn't subsidized?

[ QUOTE ]

Everybody would have more money to spend on medical care. There would be a few charity cases, but the increase in wealth would mean more people would give to charity.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you figure they would give in an amount directly proportional to what they were spending on medicare/medicaid taxes? How can you be so sure?

[ QUOTE ]

So the odds are excellent that between charity, pro bono work/extension of credit by doctors, and voluntary help from family or friends, the kid's medical care would get paid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you want the doctors to work for free now? I have news for you, doctors don't make what they used to, and are getting out of med school with more and more debt. I just graduated from medical school with over $120,000 in debt. Now you want me to work for free?
And my scenario had your kid getting sick in a one time deal. What if the kid had a chronic illness, like cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy? You want "family and friends" to pitch in for the kids life?

[ QUOTE ]

So I would go into debt to help my kid, but I would not rob a bank at gunpoint. If the kid died because I was a financial failure, well, both of us are SOL then. That would be pretty terrible. But it is terrible to live in a country where people use force on you to steal your property and pay for medical care.


[/ QUOTE ]
It would be a lot worse of a country to live in if people died because they were denied adequate medical care because they didn't make enough money,IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of my money is hijacked and pays for people I don't like or respect and who are of no value to me. That is a trajedy too. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
I see, everyone should only pay for things they like and respect. If that was the case, I wonder what John Ashcroft's salary would be?

[ QUOTE ]

The old people at a dinner party are easy. If they take the medicaid/medicare as restitution for amounts stolen from them and realize the system is awful, I don't resent them. If they tell me they have a right to it and they have a right to tax me, well then they can get f88ked and I don't care if they hate me for telling them they are immoral thieves.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's nice. Must be a hell of a dinner guest. Do you feel the same way about Veterans' benefits as you do about Medicare/Medicaid?

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. You bring out the wishy washy middle of the roader in me.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, chances are I bring out the common sense in you. You and I know we don't live in some sort of fairy tale land where uber-capitalist OR uber-socialist systems work. Under either of those two scenarios, control of society becomes too lopsided and the disenfranchised classes bcome angry. That's how revolutions start. The price you pay in taxes is the price you pay for having a stable society. If you look at all the rich, stable countries in the world, they all have social programs/some sort of safety net. Again, like I asked MMMMMM, why do you think this is so?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

If payroll taxes were eliminated, that money could instead be invested privately for retirement, as well as buying health insurance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Try getting private health insurance for your children if one of them has a chronic disease like cystic fibrosis and you are working at Burger King.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
"I posted the staggering drop in the poverty level (from 22% before to 12% after) around the implementation of the great society programs."

Can you think if any other reasons (besides the Great Society programs) why that might be so?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, can you help me out here?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
My view on all this is that most of the "social programs" don't accomplish much at all of what they are intended to do. We've had programs to end poverty, end illiteracy...

[/ QUOTE ]

They might be sold as putting an "end" to poverty/illiteracy/whatever, but nobody thinks it will actually end. The goal is to reduce the poverty roles, increase literacy, etc.

If you hold them to the standard that they have to "end" it, of course you will be disappointed with most/all social programs

[HDPM]

"Under either of those two scenarios, control of society becomes too lopsided and the disenfranchised classes bcome angry. That's how revolutions start"


See, there's the problem. And why I call Halloween a democrat holiday. A bunch of punks come looking for a handout and threaten to vandalize your property if you don't give them candy. Well, that is crap. I suppose it is better to buy the cretins off, but they should be told they are immoral bastards for thinking they have a RIGHT to welfare.


Look, if the government weren't artifially subsidizing schools your medical school tab would have been cheaper. You would be able to charge what you wanted for your services, what the market would bear. And no, you would not HAVE to work for charity cases. You COULD if you wanted. So If I had a sick kid and couldn't afford care, I bet a doctor would choose to treat him for a reduced fee or extend credit. Many professionals do this. I do it in my field. You will do it in yours. But the day somebody tells me I HAVE to work for free is the day I don't work for them. So if doctors hate me and my hypothetical kid, they are free to watch him die. If they decide it is worthwhile for them to treat the kid they will.

You would make more if it weren't for the government BTW.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view on all this is that most of the "social programs" don't accomplish much at all of what they are intended to do. We've had programs to end poverty, end illiteracy...

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. This makes sense to most people, but is lost on the "libertarian" crowd who think ALL social programs should be eliminated, regardless if any of them have shown themselves to be successful.

They might be sold as putting an "end" to poverty/illiteracy/whatever, but nobody thinks it will actually end. The goal is to reduce the poverty roles, increase literacy, etc.

If you hold them to the standard that they have to "end" it, of course you will be disappointed with most/all social programs

[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted the staggering drop in the poverty level (from 22% before to 12% after) around the implementation of the great society programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi hetron, you're wrong. Check out the Census Bureau stats here:

Poverty Highlights (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty02.html)

The poverty rate started it's descent in 1959 and most of the decline in the poverty rate was reacher prior to the implementation of the Great Society programs. I suspect it has something to do with the start of leveling the playing field for all races in seeking employment. If your arguement was correct then welfare reform in 1996 should have caused a significant increase in the poverty rate but it didn't.

The amount of aid that should be provided to the disenfranchised and how it that aid is administered by our government is a difficult and complex issue to resolve. I think though that it's fair to say that government hand outs aren't a panacea to solving social ills in our society. Capitalism in it's purest form can be and often is very cruel to some. The US has moved closer to pure capitalism starting in the Reagan years, no doubt about it. I think it's fair to say though that economic opportunities have increased as well.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Try getting private health insurance for your children if one of them has a chronic disease like cystic fibrosis and you are working at Burger King.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a few sad cases justifies screwing the entire system and everybody else by mandating an incredibly inefficient system whereunder nearly everyone suffers and wastes resources time and money?How about all the retired people who live crimped under Social Security income who would actually have been able to have a much confortable retirement income if their payroll taxes had been privately invested during their lifetimes, instead of being largely wasted by a hideous mandated major investment?

Also:

1) Don't have more kids than you can afford. If I have more kids than I can afford, why the hell should I be able to force YOU to pay for them? And if it isn't fair on a one-to-one personal basis, as in you and me, why would it be fair to impose the same requirement on all members of society? No difference really. They're not MY kids.

2) Don't work at Burger King unless you are a student or a very recent immigrant, or maybe if you are working part-time to supplement another larger income, or as a summer job

3) If you do work at Burger King, move up or move out, just like almost all their employeees do after a while. Probably nobody flips burgers for six years, say.

4) Don't think life is fair or that life can be forced to be fair--it can't be. Sad but true.

Reform medical tort law and income taxes, and more doctors and hospitals will be able to offer discounted rates and even some pro-bono services to the truly needy. A huge factor in current medical costs are the astronomical settlements which drive malpractice premiums through the roof, which in turn makes it less profitable to practice medicine or run a hospital, which in turn raises medical care costs for the consumer.

The only way to solve these problems is through greater efficiency. If you want NOT to solve these problems, put the government in charge of the matter and they will make the entire industry less efficient and thereby raise costs and decrease quality of service. How would you like to wait a year or two for an "elective" surgery such as, say, arthroscopic knee surgery? Go try out some "socialized" medicine such as in England, Europe or Canada. Get on the waiting list and enjoy.

[MMMMMM]

Jeez. How about a much stronger economy and industrial growth?

[MMMMMM]

And you guys think throwing money at a people problem will solve the people problem.

[jokerswild]

You must get your information from the EIB network.

[MMMMMM]

You mistake anti-fascism for fascism.