Newt Gingrich

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Can you believe what acamp did to my usertitle? Of all the lowdown, dirty, rotten...

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Bombing a country who can't retaliate in a strong manner is pretty risk averse. It is not doing nothing, but obviously it wasn't a successful deterent for the long haul. I don't know if the republicans had inside info about the whole wag the dog scenario. If they did not, then I would say that bringing that up is playing politics with national security. Which in my book, is NEVER OK.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The people on the left disagree with you Lovemyirish, they give credit to Carter for the spending, and not Reagan. Isn't it funny how so many people can see things soo differently.

Carter put some of the final nails in the Soviet coffin. He got them to invade Afghanistan. He reinstated registering for the draft (which terrified the Soviets since they thought he was building up for a war). He got the M1 Abrams tank produced (yeah the one that has been enormously successful). Stealth Bomber? Carter.

On 30 June 1977 he [Carter] announced that the B-1A would be cancelled, in favor of ICBMs, SLBMs, and a fleet of modernized B-52s armed with ALCMs. Carter called it "one of the most difficult decisions that I've made since I've been in office." No mention of the stealth work was made public, the program being top secret, but today it is known that he started the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) project in early 1978, which eventually led to the B-2 Spirit.

Reaction to the cancellation was unsurprisingly split along partisan lines. Robert Dornan claimed "They're breaking out the vodka and caviar in Moscow." In contrast, it appears the Soviets were not at all excited by this development, considering a large number of ALCMs a much greater threat than a smaller number of B-1s. Tass commented that "the implementation of these militaristic plans has seriously complicated efforts for the limitation of the strategic arms race." Military leaders were generally happy with the decision, however. Alexander Haig, then commanding NATO, described the ALCM as an "attractive alternative" to the B-1. French General Georges Buis stated "The B-1 is a formidable weapon, but not terribly useful. For the price of one bomber, you can have 200 cruise missiles."

Did Carter outspend the Soviets? Mostly...but frankly...it doesn't matter. The Soviets would spend whether we did or not. And their entire system was so corrupt, dysfunctional, and screwed up that they could never have survived into the 1990's. Their implementation of Communism was more than enough to be crushed under it's own disgusting weight..economically and socially.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Bombing a country who can't retaliate in a strong manner is pretty risk averse. It is not doing nothing, but obviously it wasn't a successful deterent for the long haul. I don't know if the republicans had inside info about the whole wag the dog scenario. If they did not, then I would say that bringing that up is playing politics with national security. Which in my book, is NEVER OK.

Name a President that HAS bombed a country that could retaliate... Truman was the last possibly only by virtue of FDR's death.

As for playing politics, the R's knew. This info was given to the Armed Services Committee...Congress was briefed before hand.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Trickle down is not a sham in my opinion, the basic premise makes sense. Wealthy people with more money tend to spend and invest, thereby stimulating economic activity.
The largest employers are small businesses. Given the incentive to invest their money by increased profits should only increase employment (and tax revenues).

Trickle down was actually not about businesses getting taxes cut.

Trickle down stated that if RICH PEOPLE paid less taxes, they would invest it and spend it and jobs would be created eventually.

Here's the kicker, Trickle down assumes that MIDDLE CLASS people's money does not get invested or spent. I invest 25% of my salary...so I find this hard to swallow.

Here's the second kicker, Reaganomics calls for increases in spending too since (in theory) the tax cuts will drive the economy to grand heights and tax revenues will follow.

Just for the record, it did not work out that way.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Carter put some of the final nails in the Soviet coffin. He got them to invade Afghanistan. He reinstated registering for the draft (which terrified the Soviets since they thought he was building up for a war). He got the M1 Abrams tank produced (yeah the one that has been enormously successful). Stealth Bomber? Carter.



Did Carter outspend the Soviets? Mostly...but frankly...it doesn't matter. The Soviets would spend whether we did or not. And their entire system was so corrupt, dysfunctional, and screwed up that they could never have survived into the 1990's. Their implementation of Communism was more than enough to be crushed under it's own disgusting weight..economically and socially.

I agree about the Sov's. Their economy was ripe with corruption and lack of efficiency.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I agree about the Sov's. Their economy was ripe with corruption and lack of efficiency.

You are too kind to them...at least you kept the language rated G...I struggled with that when talking about them. [but that's what happens when you study the moral and political abomination that was the USSR]

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Name a President that HAS bombed a country that could retaliate... Truman was the last possibly only by virtue of FDR's death.

As for playing politics, the R's knew. This info was given to the Armed Services Committee...Congress was briefed before hand.

I don't consider bombing an effective deterrent. It doesn't work most of the time. In fact, it seems to only strengthen hatred and resolve. It's like slapping someone on the wrist. "I'm unhappy with your behavior, but I'm only going to make you hurt a little". Invading Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq is action. Bombs are a minor annoyance.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Under Kennedy and Reagan, tax revenues jumped when tax rates declined. Tax revenues nearly doubled in the 80s. Not too shabby for an actor.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't consider bombing an effective deterrent. It doesn't work most of the time. In fact, it seems to only strengthen hatred and resolve. It's like slapping someone on the wrist. "I'm unhappy with your behavior, but I'm only going to make you hurt a little". Invading Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq is action. Bombs are a minor annoyance.

Tell that to Slobodan Milosevic

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Under Kennedy and Reagan, tax revenues jumped when tax rates declined. Tax revenues nearly doubled in the 80s. Not too shabby for an actor.

Under Clinton they skyrocketed...right after the tax INCREASE.

Tax revenues did not jump because taxes declined they jumped in spite of it.

Kennedy is a KEY exception since the rates he was taking down were monumentally high...

Reagan's tax revenues increased as the economy improved. (same thing with Clinton btw) Neither of the two Presidents saw revenues increase because of tax policy...it was in spite of it.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Tell that to Slobodan Milosevic

And our troops are still involved. Where is the clamor to get out of all the other "hot spots"??? I'm so tired of the b.s. about Iraq, it makes me sick.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Under Clinton they skyrocketed...right after the tax INCREASE.

Tax revenues did not jump because taxes declined they jumped in spite of it.

Kennedy is a KEY exception since the rates he was taking down were monumentally high...

Reagan's tax revenues increased as the economy improved. (same thing with Clinton btw) Neither of the two Presidents saw revenues increase because of tax policy...it was in spite of it.

Over 25% isn't a big decrease in the average tax rate ?? Come on, we can argue all nite about the cause and effect. The bottom line was that after tax rates decreased in the 1920's, under kennedy, and under reagan, tax revenues soared. That is historical fact. and seems WAY too obvious to be coincidental to objective economists. The economy improved BECAUSE of the tax rate decrease. If you choose not to accept it, fine, but most republicans accept it as gospel.

Also, it seems highly unlikely that tax revenues would increase from dramatic tax cuts in the 1920s and Kennedy, and not from Reagan.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I would not be surpised at all. I know that Clinton was tremendously active on the military and intelligence front...just as much as his predecessors. He used military intervention against more than a couple tyrants.

I didn't mean that as a compliment. I mean that some assert that they were all involved in the same scandals in the 80s. Granted, it's one huge conspiracy theory, but run a Yahoo/Google search on 'Mena Airport' and you'll see what I mean. True or not, it'd make for one helluva movie.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Under Clinton they skyrocketed...right after the tax INCREASE.

Tax revenues did not jump because taxes declined they jumped in spite of it.

Kennedy is a KEY exception since the rates he was taking down were monumentally high...

Reagan's tax revenues increased as the economy improved. (same thing with Clinton btw) Neither of the two Presidents saw revenues increase because of tax policy...it was in spite of it.

Dude, you're just wrong about that. First off, David Stockman tried to sabotage Reagan's own policies b/c he didn't realize that politics played a big part & they were not going to reduce the size of govt even though that was an initial goal. Secondly, the biggest mistake Reagan made was letting Volcker (Carter appointee) remain head of the Fed for as long as he did. I think you know who Reagan replaced him with. Old man Greenspan must've been doing something right b/c Bush Sr & Clinton saw fit to keep him on board. And, I'm sure you enjoy a similarly low mortgage rate as we all do.

Contrary to the expectations of all the pundits, even after their tax cuts the affluent paid a greater amt. of federal taxes than before. Rich people who used to pay a marginal tax rate of 70% & saw their tax rate decline dramatically still paid about 50% more in taxes tothe gov't. Not only did the rich pay more in absolute terms, the proportion of federal taxes collected from those in the top 1% of income went from 18% of all revenues in 1981 to 28% in 1988. The top 5% of income earners, who paid 35% of the Treasury's tax revenue in 1981, bore 46% of the tax burden in 1988. Meanwhile, the tax share of the middle- & lower-middle-income Americans DECLINED. The Reagan tax cuts which you attack as a bonanza for the rich, actually extracted a bigger share of tax revenue FROM upper-income taxpayers.

How did this occur? sharply lower marginal tax rates gave many Americans a greater incentive to move their $ out of tax shelters & into the productive economy & also to work harder to produce more wealth. Thus their total income rose, and even though the marginal rates were lower, they ended up paying MORE to the IRS.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

It's not debatable, it was a sham. By Conservative and Liberal Economists time and time again. In fact, it is not even really an economic theory since it has been disproven. It is a socio-political theory...but not one that holds water from an economic or monetary perspective.



He has done good things. He has done a good job supporting Free Trade in many ways. He is a lot like Clinton in that regard. Admittedly he has allowed a few protectionists to raise their heads...but generally he has pursued some decent trade agreements.

Honestly, his biggest problem is that he has not successfully launched any important Domestic agenda items in a few years. His efforts stalled out a couple of times. (Soc Security reform comes to mind).

He needs to work with Congress more in the next two years and he might get some things done.



I think he is a bad manager, since he lets people like Rumsfeld stay around and do more harm than good.

But let's face it, if he was a TRUE idiot he could not become President. He is politcally astute and wiley.

If it was a sham, then, by your logic, you have to include the Keynesian approach as a sham too. The most pressing problem of the late 1970s (which you seem to deem as wildly successful, so much so that Carter did NOT get re-elected) was stagflation. This posed a serious problem for the school of Keynesian economics, b/c stagnant growth & inflation were not supposed to occur simultaneously. The Keynesian approach was premised on the notion that experts can control the ups & downs of the economy by manipulating govt spending & the money supply.

It may make sense in theory, if you accept its assumptions, yet during the 1970s, the U.S. encountered high rates of inflation & high unemployment. Regarding Reagan's policies, his critics loved to throw around the term "trickle-down" & "Reaganomics" but in fact, his approach was to combine the monetarist & the supply-side solutions.

Reagan played the ultimate salesman. He had his head of OMB, Stockman, as well as the Dems, convinced of a scorched earth policy of program & entitlement cuts. Stockman later discovered what Reagan already knew: that legislators of both parties place a high priority on getting reelected, & they are strong backers of spending programs in their home states that will help them in this effort. So, in sales parlance, Reagan started high w/ plenty of room to negotiate. He came down in order to convince his foes he was giving in to their demands. However, his goal remained tax cuts & defense buildups. He eaily accomplished this and the economic success & end of the Cold War proved this.

 

[lattedatte]

Guys, I really don't want to come off as a holy roller, just so you know. I've got plenty of faults--just ask my wife!

Now back to your regularly scheduled political discussion/debate...

lol...

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Domestically he was risk averse, but not in foreign policy.

My key knock on him was that he never came up with a large scale Foreign Policy that was coherent. He tried to maintain the status quo, but he seemed to take issues as they happened a bit more than I like.




Ummm...dude, he sent troops to more countries to shoot more people than any President in 30+ years.

The military was globetrotting with him as President.

He also did not ignore Saddam. In 1998 when he said we might need to invade Republicans accused him of doing so to take people's eyes off the Lewinsky scandal.


WIKIPEDIA ABOUT BOMBING IRAQ


Remeber Operation Infinite Reach? I doubt it. It's been effectively ignored by the media and Republicans

Now I know why Clinton was frustrated that he wouldn't be remmebered as a War President. Those weren't exactly missions to pat himself on the back over. I don't think anyone will confuse him w/ FDR, JFK, HST, DDE or even Reagan. I don't think it was ignored by the media & Republicans as much as it was forgotten. THe only thing I rememeber him bombing was the aspirin factory & some other empty buildings. Not exactly the Cuban Missile Crisis or bombing of Lebanon. You can dress up a turd in an attempt to make it looke pretty, but in the end...it's still a turd. I believe Saddam remained in power & continued manufacturing WMDs after the bombing by Clinton. At least Bush got the SOB.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

He is making the incorrect assumption that the higher spending led the Soviets to spend more. In fact during the Reagan years they CUT SPENDING. They ran out of money once they got involved in Afghanistan.



Well of course I can't convince them...they are happily ignorant of the truth. They don't want to know what really caused the USSR to fall apart. If they did they would be shocked. (although they would be proud to know it was not Defense but rather our standard of living that lead to the questioning of the government)

So if people don't agree w/ your slant on the Cold War, then their ignorant lemmings? Sounds pretty elitist to me. Actually sounds like the limousine liberals in Hollywood & D.C. who tell us simple folk the way things out to be (i.e., socialism) but have no intentions of living under the same conditions. Same w/ free speech. Liberals believe in free speech so as long as they it agrees w/ them.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Dude, you're just wrong about that. First off, David Stockman tried to sabotage Reagan's own policies b/c he didn't realize that politics played a big part & they were not going to reduce the size of govt even though that was an initial goal. Secondly, the biggest mistake Reagan made was letting Volcker (Carter appointee) remain head of the Fed for as long as he did. I think you know who Reagan replaced him with. Old man Greenspan must've been doing something right b/c Bush Sr & Clinton saw fit to keep him on board. And, I'm sure you enjoy a similarly low mortgage rate as we all do.

Contrary to the expectations of all the pundits, even after their tax cuts the affluent paid a greater amt. of federal taxes than before. Rich people who used to pay a marginal tax rate of 70% & saw their tax rate decline dramatically still paid about 50% more in taxes tothe gov't. Not only did the rich pay more in absolute terms, the proportion of federal taxes collected from those in the top 1% of income went from 18% of all revenues in 1981 to 28% in 1988. The top 5% of income earners, who paid 35% of the Treasury's tax revenue in 1981, bore 46% of the tax burden in 1988. Meanwhile, the tax share of the middle- & lower-middle-income Americans DECLINED. The Reagan tax cuts which you attack as a bonanza for the rich, actually extracted a bigger share of tax revenue FROM upper-income taxpayers.

How did this occur? sharply lower marginal tax rates gave many Americans a greater incentive to move their $ out of tax shelters & into the productive economy & also to work harder to produce more wealth. Thus their total income rose, and even though the marginal rates were lower, they ended up paying MORE to the IRS.

Another movie quote for ya'll: DAMN, LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON BRAD! Now where is the In-N-Out Burger sandwich, its WAY better than the Big Kahuna burger!

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Another movie quote for ya'll: DAMN, LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON BRAD! Now where is the In-N-Out Burger sandwich, its WAY better than the Big Kahuna burger!

Classic indeed. "do you mind if i wash down this tasty burger w/ your refreshing drink?"

 

[TexasDomer]

I remember seeing an interesting documentary on US-Soviet relations during Reagan's administration. It is true that their military was stretched by Afghanistan, but it is also true that Reagan's spending on defense and his touting of SDI put even more pressure on the Soviets. While their military spending went down in absolute terms, as a % of GDP it went up, leaving other state controlled industries and services in trouble. This was due to an overall contracting Soviet economy. Military spending decline happened at a slower rate than overall market decline. This was because they felt that had to keep up not only with missiles, but also with the T-80 to counter the M1, the MiG 27 to counter the F-15, and so forth.

This was confirmed by former Soviet military leaders.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I didn't mean that as a compliment. I mean that some assert that they were all involved in the same scandals in the 80s. Granted, it's one huge conspiracy theory, but run a Yahoo/Google search on 'Mena Airport' and you'll see what I mean. True or not, it'd make for one helluva movie.

Ah, I know the one you are talking about. Yeah, it got disproven... But it does prove that conspiracy theories are far more fun that the truth...which tends to be too boring.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

[

Contrary to the expectations of all the pundits, even after their tax cuts the affluent paid a greater amt. of federal taxes than before. Rich people who used to pay a marginal tax rate of 70% & saw their tax rate decline dramatically still paid about 50% more in taxes tothe gov't. Not only did the rich pay more in absolute terms, the proportion of federal taxes collected from those in the top 1% of income went from 18% of all revenues in 1981 to 28% in 1988. The top 5% of income earners, who paid 35% of the Treasury's tax revenue in 1981, bore 46% of the tax burden in 1988. Meanwhile, the tax share of the middle- & lower-middle-income Americans DECLINED. The Reagan tax cuts which you attack as a bonanza for the rich, actually extracted a bigger share of tax revenue FROM upper-income taxpayers.

You just summarized exactly what Reaganonmics did.

The rich got richer...the middle class declined...the poor got poorer.
Their tax burden declined AS DID THEIR SHARE OF OVERALL INCOME.

Thanks...you getting this data saved me so much time in proving my point. Whew.

How did this occur? sharply lower marginal tax rates gave many Americans a greater incentive to move their $ out of tax shelters & into the productive economy & also to work harder to produce more wealth. Thus their total income rose, and even though the marginal rates were lower, they ended up paying MORE to the IRS.

That is true they paid more. They also paid more because their share of the pie grew, grew, grew...while the rest of the country stagnated.

You sure you are not secretly a socialist. That's a powerful argument you just made against Reagan... I am impressed.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

If it was a sham, then, by your logic, you have to include the Keynesian approach as a sham too.

The Keynesian approach is widely known to have holes I am not here to defend it.

But the fact remains that Reaganomics is not an economic theory that works...it's merely bad fiscal policy.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

And our troops are still involved. Where is the clamor to get out of all the other "hot spots"??? I'm so tired of the b.s. about Iraq, it makes me sick.

They are not hot spots. That's the beauty of it. Those actions very much served their purpose.

Even Bush agrees its not a hotspot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301421.html

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The bottom line was that after tax rates decreased in the 1920's, under kennedy, and under reagan, tax revenues soared. That is historical fact. and seems WAY too obvious to be coincidental to objective economists.

Clinton raised taxes early on and the economy boomed and tax revenues increased. That is a historical fact. So, what exactly is your point?

The economy improved BECAUSE of the tax rate decrease. If you choose not to accept it, fine, but most republicans accept it as gospel.

Tax cuts can provide temporary boosts in the economy as consumption increases...this is true. However, tax cuts do not cause revenues to increase in the long run. If they did, we would have a negative tax rate.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Now I know why Clinton was frustrated that he wouldn't be remmebered as a War President. Those weren't exactly missions to pat himself on the back over. I don't think anyone will confuse him w/ FDR, JFK, HST, DDE or even Reagan. I don't think it was ignored by the media & Republicans as much as it was forgotten. THe only thing I rememeber him bombing was the aspirin factory & some other empty buildings. Not exactly the Cuban Missile Crisis or bombing of Lebanon.

He did what he had to where he had to. It took Bush Sr years to agree to send troops to Bosnia.

I believe Saddam remained in power & continued manufacturing WMDs after the bombing by Clinton. At least Bush got the SOB.

Well it's been proven to not be true. In fact the man heading that area up was clear (since we caught him alive)...those plans never continued past 1991.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

So if people don't agree w/ your slant on the Cold War, then their ignorant lemmings? Sounds pretty elitist to me. Actually sounds like the limousine liberals in Hollywood & D.C. who tell us simple folk the way things out to be (i.e., socialism) but have no intentions of living under the same conditions. Same w/ free speech. Liberals believe in free speech so as long as they it agrees w/ them.

Education on a subject is not elitism.

For instance, my mother is a doctor. She is clear that placing butter on a burn is not beneficial. MILLIONS of people believe otherwise.

Is she being elitist? No. She's just right.

I don't have a "slant" on the Cold War. I have read the information that has been released on this topic. It is clear, Russia was on the decline.

People will believe whatever they want when they don't get educated about an issue.

I got educated about it. I am not offering opinions. I am merely stating the facts as they are known today.

Back in the 80's it was believed the Soviet Union could continue on for another 20-50 years with no issues. They were wrong back then, but they only had opinion.

That being said, when analysts at the time reviewed Soviet Build ups, they did NOT coincide with U.S. build ups...they coincided with changes in power in the Politburo.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I remember seeing an interesting documentary on US-Soviet relations during Reagan's administration. It is true that their military was stretched by Afghanistan, but it is also true that Reagan's spending on defense and his touting of SDI put even more pressure on the Soviets. While their military spending went down in absolute terms, as a % of GDP it went up, leaving other state controlled industries and services in trouble. This was due to an overall contracting Soviet economy. Military spending decline happened at a slower rate than overall market decline. This was because they felt that had to keep up not only with missiles, but also with the T-80 to counter the M1, the MiG 27 to counter the F-15, and so forth.

This was confirmed by former Soviet military leaders.

Not to mention our attack choppers were a concern against their tanks.