RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP

RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RottenJohnny -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 12:44:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The Soviets did not respond to SDI by spending recklessly, that is a myth. The USSR had significant economic woes long before Reagan and the final straw was the protracted war in Afghanistan not SDI. Oh, Jesus. Are you really gonna try splitting hairs over this? There were plenty of other issues with the economic stability of the USSR. The fact that Reagan upped the ante by throwing SDI into the pot certainly gave them another avenue they were concerned about competing with and they couldn't do it. I'm not saying it was the sole reason the USSR collapsed but it was a well played hand by Reagan and it helped tip the balance.

Winterapple -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 12:58:03 PM)
FR Nixon was a very intelligent man. He also had very real character flaws and mental issues. He was temperamentally unsuited for high office and his mental health to fragile to cope with the strains of public life. The stories that are still coming out about how unraveled he was during his second term are chilling. His resentful nature and paranoia kept him from realizing that the call was coming from inside the house. A tragic figure, yes but also a malevolent one and one. He had his gifts but his flaws including his character sunk him in the end. Some say Carter was one of if not the most intelligent man to be president. But his personality and temperament were stumbling blocks. Reagan was a gifted politician. He understood instinctively as a actor the theatrical side of public life. He benefited from the fact there are people who are not only unbothered by their leaders lying to them but want their leaders to lie to them. Doughty Carter telling people to put on a sweater had no chance against Reagan's MGM pep. The list of disasters Reagan unfurled is very long. Everything from the cancellation of Captain Kangaroo to our current economic woes can be pretty much laid at his feet. He was president when the Soviet Union collapsed. It's wishful thinking to believe he was the one who puffed and blew it down. Afghanistan was the final nail not Reagan. And Walesa deserves a great deal of credit. The creepshow in Central America is a dark stain on Reagan and the US. The only thing it accomplished was compromising America's integrity and making a mockery of the ideas that at it's best America stands for.

Marc2b -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 1:12:58 PM)
The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred in 1991, during the elder Bush's term and three years after the end of Reagan's Presidency. One of the reasons Afghanistan was the final straw was Reagan's funding the Mujahideen. I think you are engaging in exactly what I was talking about above... you sound like you don't like Reagan, therefore you are unwilling to acknowledge any credit. Do not try to push me into a stance of giving Reagan all of the credit... I am not... but an objective look at history and the facts makes it clear he had a policy of undermining the Soviet Union. He pursued that policy and its contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union was significant.

Winterapple -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 1:28:29 PM)
Yes, it officially fell while Bush Sr was president but the narrative often goes that the real glory was Ronnie's and it was all over but the shoutin' when he left office. Afghanistan would have bit the Soviets in the ass regardless. And no I didn't like Reagan or his policies. Trickle down economics. Deregulation. Guys whose environmental policy is based on the belief Jesus is coming back soon so we might as well chop down all the trees which give you cancer anyway. The nasty class warfare (Reagan gave us the welfare queen). The very nasty business in Central A America. It's a very long list. I give him credit for a great deal. A great deal of bad shit. History isn't going to be kind to Reagan or his apologists and deifiers.

Winterapple -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 1:35:27 PM)
And I wasn't trying to push you or anyone else here into taking any kind of stance. I didn't think you were giving Reagan all the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. I'm just not inclined to give him any credit at all for what was inevitable before he even came to office.

Marc2b -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 1:56:27 PM)
quote: I'm just not inclined to give him any credit at all for what was inevitable before he even came to office. I think very little in history was inevitable and I don't think the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of them... I guess that we're going to have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

mnottertail -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 2:11:29 PM)
Well, we know there economy was never as strong as ours, and we never had lech walsea, poland and other satellites rebelling and afghanistan down our neck at the same time as well as a quick succession of change in government again and again leading to a mid leveller as president, but we have had afghanistan, iraq and innumerate borrow and spenders standing on our neck for awhile, and our cheeks are not as rosy red with blush makeup as reagan would have us these days..........just saying....

DomKen -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 2:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The Soviets did not respond to SDI by spending recklessly, that is a myth. The USSR had significant economic woes long before Reagan and the final straw was the protracted war in Afghanistan not SDI. Oh, Jesus. Are you really gonna try splitting hairs over this? There were plenty of other issues with the economic stability of the USSR. The fact that Reagan upped the ante by throwing SDI into the pot certainly gave them another avenue they were concerned about competing with and they couldn't do it. I'm not saying it was the sole reason the USSR collapsed but it was a well played hand by Reagan and it helped tip the balance. Show me some data then. Some increase in Soviet military spending that can be attributed to SDI. We know there was no serious missile defense program in the USSR and there was no attempt to increase the size of Soviet strategic or conventional forces. So what was the money pit that was the Soviet response to SDI?

Moonhead -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 2:35:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We know there was no serious missile defense program in the USSR... Mostly because they'd already taken a stab at that themselves and found it completely unworkable.

DomKen -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 2:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred in 1991, during the elder Bush's term and three years after the end of Reagan's Presidency. One of the reasons Afghanistan was the final straw was Reagan's funding the Mujahideen. I think you are engaging in exactly what I was talking about above... you sound like you don't like Reagan, therefore you are unwilling to acknowledge any credit. Do not try to push me into a stance of giving Reagan all of the credit... I am not... but an objective look at history and the facts makes it clear he had a policy of undermining the Soviet Union. He pursued that policy and its contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union was significant. And what was the actual effects of that policy? Did the Soviet's spend lots of money to counter SDI? No. Did the US greatly increase funding for the Afghan rebels forcing the Soviets to increase their commitment? No. Did the US ramp up in conventional forces result in a counter build up in Soviet forces? No. Which trading partners did the US peel away from the Soviet sphere causing economic woes in the USSR? None. Reagan was in the right place at the right time but his contribution to the fall of the USSR was minimal.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 4:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Show me some data then. Some increase in Soviet military spending that can be attributed to SDI. We know there was no serious missile defense program in the USSR and there was no attempt to increase the size of Soviet strategic or conventional forces. So what was the money pit that was the Soviet response to SDI? Here, Ken. This seems to be a reasonable document about it. If you want specifics, I'm sorry. I simply don't have access to high-level Soviet era military defense programs and planning. But it's probably a safe bet that somewhere within the eleven or so time zones that made up the USSR there was at least one facility tinkering with a weapon and at least one Soviet state representative that was pushing for more funding. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/mar-apr/kass.html

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 5:22:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: The former Florida governor, until now a revered figure in the party, had the temerity to state in public what many others think in private: that the Republican Party has become so intransigent that even Ronald Reagan couldn’t fit under its tent. “Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party . . . as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said Monday in a meeting at Bloomberg headquarters in New York, according to the online publication Buzzfeed. “Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support,” Bush added. Reagan today “would be criticized for doing the things that he did.: This brought immediate condemnation from the Grand Inquisitor himself, Defender of the Faith and Keeper of the Tax Pledge Grover Norquist, who told Talking Points Memo that Bush’s sentiments were “foolish” and “bizarre.” Column at Washington Post Thoughts? Did Governor Bush make a valid point? Who gives a fuck about Bush....your premise was regards Reagan. Reagan came in with a debt at 900 billion.....a smoking lot but, not near what we have today. Reagan came in and said..."Debt doesn't matter" (and essentially..."open up the punch bowl"). That's where it all began, and Reagan proved that with an open credit card....life was good. And no Prez since has been willing to take away the punch bowl but.....before we blame the Pols....let's all consider one very salient fact: You didn't stop them and you were ALL very pleased to get the roads, SSI, Medicare and every gawdamned other thing increased.....using what? Everything you all complained about....sucking up to the govt. tit. Deal with it....you....we....me....we all wanted the gifts that were bestowed....and guess what peeps....the bill has arrived. It ain't them....yeah...it's them but....we didn't say no. In fact, by default we said...."may I have some more please?". Welcome to your VISA bill.

dcnovice -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 5:30:38 PM)
quote: Who gives a fuck about Bush....your premise was regards Reagan. Oh, honestly. Did you even read the OP, Lookie? It quoted Gov. Jeb Bush, who offered what to me seemed an insider's take on the evolution of the GOP. Reagan was one of his examples. George H.W. Bush was the other. Hence the question about whether Gov. Bush was making a valid point.

Winterapple -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 5:53:39 PM)
There are things in history that when we examine them could have gone radically different they did for any number of reasons. But some things are and were inevitable such as the ending of the institution of slavery in the Americas. The Soviet Union was a doomed ship from the beginning. When Lenin arrived at the Finland Station birds of fate were crying this isn't going to work. Human nature was going to doom it if nothing else. The ship was faulty to begin with, you add a mutinous crew and captains who steered into choppy seas and the ship went down. Democracy and capitalism despite their faults are the better system. Kruschev's son. now an American citizen, says his father saw the writing on the wall when he visited the US and saw how well so many Americans lived. I also can't see how if Carter had been president instead of Reagan that things would have gone that much differently for the Soviets. They might have squeaked along for a few more years than they did but maybe not. But it was going to go under for reasons that had nothing to do with who the American president was. Of course we can agree to disagree. It's only a difference of opinion. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I have any disrespect for you or how you articulated your opinion. Certainly, in disagreeing with you I bear no personal animosity towards you and apologize if there was anything in my posts that led you to think that.

DomKen -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 6:15:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Show me some data then. Some increase in Soviet military spending that can be attributed to SDI. We know there was no serious missile defense program in the USSR and there was no attempt to increase the size of Soviet strategic or conventional forces. So what was the money pit that was the Soviet response to SDI? Here, Ken. This seems to be a reasonable document about it. If you want specifics, I'm sorry. I simply don't have access to high-level Soviet era military defense programs and planning. But it's probably a safe bet that somewhere within the eleven or so time zones that made up the USSR there was at least one facility tinkering with a weapon and at least one Soviet state representative that was pushing for more funding. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/mar-apr/kass.html Did you read this document? It's rank speculation about how the USSR might respond to SDI written in 1985. Here are some actual facts about what they did and didn't do. Tried to reduce strategic arsenals (saves money not spends it). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2008.00736.x/abstract Gorbachez actually refused a proposal to build a Soviet SDI https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/2011/May/ATL-050411_hoffman.html

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 7:11:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Who gives a fuck about Bush....your premise was regards Reagan. Oh, honestly. Did you even read the OP, Lookie? It quoted Gov. Jeb Bush, who offered what to me seemed an insider's take on the evolution of the GOP. Reagan was one of his examples. George H.W. Bush was the other. Hence the question about whether Gov. Bush was making a valid point. Well, it's entirely possible I missed the main premise. (It's happened before.....ONCE!)

erieangel -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 8:03:18 PM)
I think Jeb Bush is right on target, which is probably why he didn't run this year--he probably doesn't fit in the new Republican party either. As for Reagan bringing down the USSR...what a laugh. The Soviets drove themselves into bankruptcy. Just as we are doing. In the very same country, mind you. The people of Afghanistan might be backward, they might be not be "living" in the 21st century but they are some of the fiercest warriors on the planet. The only way to defeat the Taliban and Afghan insurgency groups at this point would be to bomb the country into smithereens, a traditional ground war is useless and un-winnable. Of course, killing every single civilian in that country would make this country a rogue nation, a villain and the enemy of even most of our current allies. So the only true course of action would be to cut our losses and slink home with our tails between our legs, something the warmongers are clearly opposed to doing.

Musicmystery -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/14/2012 9:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery He took us on a reckless spending spree neither nation could afford and then got awarded coincidental credit for something Gorbachev did. He used SDI as a means to panic the Russians into a spending spree THEY couldn't afford. And it worked. I'm not saying we did it for free but compared to what happened to the USSR, what it cost us was cheap. Quite a romance you've got going there. You missed quite a bit of history in the meantime. Start with Poland.

Marc2b -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/15/2012 8:01:07 AM)
quote: Did the Soviet's spend lots of money to counter SDI? No. True… but that is not the significant effect of SDI. The Soviets weren’t too worried about the U.S. creating a fully workable SDI. What they were worried about was advances in technology that would have other military applications that would result from research into SDI. The West was already leaping ahead of the Soviet Union in technology and SDI research funding would increase that lead. There was also the worry that even a partially successful SDI would tip the nuclear balance away from Mutually Assured Destruction, making it possible for the U.S. to launch a first strike while being able to survive the counterstrike. If the Soviets could not come up with their own version of SDI, their only counter would be a massive increase in missiles needed to overwhelm an SDI system… a very expensive proposition. quote: Did the US greatly increase funding for the Afghan rebels forcing the Soviets to increase their commitment? No. What it did was present the Soviets with a choice… either increase their commitment or withdraw. Having to withdraw from the Afghanistan demonstrated that their military was hardly the invincible juggernaut many believed it to be… it was particularly noted in Eastern Europe. quote: Did the US ramp up in conventional forces result in a counter build up in Soviet forces? Yes. In the early 80’s the Soviet Union increased its military spending by about 20%. In the mid-80’s the Soviet military spending decreased because its faltering economy could no long sustain it. That is why Gorbachev began seeking arms reduction treaties around this time. quote: Which trading partners did the US peel away from the Soviet sphere causing economic woes in the USSR? In 1983 the U.S. successfully pressured the International Energy Agency to limit soviet natural gas exports. The U.S. also got Saudi Arabia to increase oil production resulting in a drop of oil prices which was devastating to Soviet oil exports. This left the Soviets cash strapped… cash that was desperately needed to buy grain. quote: Reagan was in the right place at the right time but his contribution to the fall of the USSR was minimal. Once again. Reagan was not the sole “dragon slayer” of the “evil Empire” that conservatives would have us believe… but his contributions to the Soviet collapse were not “minimal” as you and others would have us believe. The Soviet Union was already groaning under its own economic inefficiency. Reagan sought to accelerate that by countering the Soviets militarily by proxy (eg the Mujahideen, the Contras) and by choking off their most important exports. I don’t remember where I first read it but I do remember one of Reagan’s advisors quoting him during a Cabinet meeting in which Regan remarked that the Soviet Union just needed a few good kicks in the right places and the whole “house of cards” would come tumbling down. That appears to be pretty much what happened. It is arguable whether or not the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway if someone else had been President but it is just as arguable that a different set of policies would have resulted in a economically recovering Soviet Union if they got the money they needed from oil and natural gas sales. I remain convinced that both those on the right who credit Reagan as the great “dragon slayer” and those on the left who roll their eyes and proclaim that Regan had nothing to do with it are allowing their political biases to overrule their objectivity. As usual, the answer is not found at the extremes, but somewhere in the middle.

DomKen -> RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP (6/15/2012 9:43:07 AM)
So I was correct in every point but somehow I'm still wrong and you're right? Do you realize how utterly absurd that is?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875