"How Reagan Won the Cold War" Topic

Yes I've heard the story Mr Doc Mcb, HOWEVER Herodotus
NEVER met a liberal democrat! If he had I'm sure the
'theif' would of never seen the dawn of the next day.

Eh, whatever. Perhaps I was expecting too much.

"Later in 1983, Reagan proposed the SDI, which Gorbachev and the Soviet military took far more seriously than American commentators."

And for how long did they take it seriously?
As I said before, they passed it on to Sakharov for analysis, who then dismissed it.

Fizzzle….

Splooge…..

Plehhhhhhhhhhh…….

OK, are we having fun yet?

John,

Yeah, big time fizzle. Oh well. Hopefully mcb will start some topics that he can actually discuss.

doc,

I feel you have posted some good material that supports Ronald Reagan being a good President who had a good appreciation of the situation.

But not that he 'won' the Cold War.

To use one of your own examples: the USSR needed Supercomputers and RR wouldn't allow them to buy any.

First, what US President did allow strategic technology exports to the USSR after WW2?

The fact that the USA had another whole class of technology that they ahd a huge advantage over the USSR in indicated the times ahd changes, not the strategy.

RR couldn't have won the Cold War in Nixon's time, or Ford's or Carter's. The circumstances were not right.

But any of the above could have won the Cold War in RR's time. Well maybe not Ford.

He did a good job (IMO) and the Cold War ended on his watch. But the telling factor ws not RR, but the growing technological and other advantages of the USA.

He did not win The Cold War and more than Harry S Truman won the war with Germany.

[Gorby was a factor, surely]

But keep in mind, that prior to Gorbachov, the Soviet Union was run by a gerontocracy of Stalinists. No significant reforms would happen in the Brezhnev years, the economy just continued to slide. Brezhnev was suceeded by a couple of really old guys who died in quick succession.

Gorbachov represented a new generation of party apparatchiks, who really were to young to be part of Stalin's group. He simply was not willing to engage in the degree of brutality which would have been required to hold the system together. Like all of the post Stalinist generations, he had no faith in the Communist regime — he understood that it was not working.

I think the cold war lasted a few extra years due to Ronald Reagan's 'challenge'. You know how people are when they get challenged. (They fight longer than they otherwise would have out of stubborness and pride). Put someone between a rock and a hard spot and they are more likely to push the only button that would have made an impact. The Nuc. button. Ronald Reagan almost killed us all. Therefore, it would have been sooner under Carter for the opposite reasons.

Sorry, Under President Reagan the Soviets had to act and could not follow our spending on defense and the improvement in our economy. I know many will point to the deficit but remember it is Congress that approves the budget so President Reagan had to follow to get the spending for the armed forces. If the liberal congress did not spend like drunken sailors the tax money coming into Treasury would have more than covered the increase defense spending. Unfortunally our Republican lead Government is as drunk as they were in the 80's and spending our futures away. Proud to be conservative but not happy voting Republican in 2004.

[Sorry, Under President Reagan the Soviets had to act and could not follow our spending on defense and the improvement in our economy.]

Another fooled by the myth

Sorry, not buying it. I give RR as much credit as all the previous presidents.

I just think it's the height of irony that Stealth is based on a russian researcher's physics paper.

Marshall Ney-

Are you going to tell me that the Reagan administration ever submitted a balanced budget to the Congress? You do know that the President submits a budget, right?!

Well, the facts are that the Federal deficit as a percentage of real GDP shrunk every year from 1945 to 1981. The Republicans gain two of the three branches of government and whamo!, the percentage not only climbs but goes through the roof.

Gee, what could have caused that? Taxes from 70% to 23% maybe on the rich. Hmm Hmmm? Did we forget that. Should I repeat it so it sinks in? 70 to 23, 70 to 23, 70 to 23….

Oh, and then there is the case of those four splended Iowa class battleships. Each one must have contributed at least a percent to the random chance of the Soviet Union calling it quits. And the rest of the military spending on additional goodies, the reason for such increased expenditures was to grow the economy. Remember that reason? TO GROW THE ECONOMY. Nothing was mentioned of defeating the Soviet Union in any way. That only came after when the Neocons would 'seize the moment' so that Reagan would be given an additional cannonization reason to add to his right wing sainthood portfolio and to be used as propaganda but all they really cared about was the 70 to 23, 70 to 23, 70 to 23 and the continual reductions in capital gains taxes etc.

Oh, and I remember back in 1987 when I was in the army. We got a wopping 10% raise in our salary that year. Of course that part of the military budget was proposed by the Democrats in the house budget. If it was up to the Republicans, we wouldn't have got squat. It would have been funneled to the star wars program no doubt instead.

I actually read this whole thread. Guess I don't suffer from ADD after all.

When it was over all I could ask myself is what is the point? Is Reagan up for saint-hood somewhere and if enough people believe he won the Cold War… he's in?

Now I'm sure no one is so puffed up to actually believe economies and societies implode immediately because of some minor change in the ruler and the resultant barely noticable policy changes, of another country far away.

Because that sort of logic would lead me to believe :

That it was Ayatollah Khomeni who brought down the USSR, just look at the timeline for pete's sake. It was downhill for the Soviets pretty much from the point the ol' Ayatollah's people took US citizens as hostages.

The whole war in Afghanistan was just the USSR trying to show off and tell the Ayatollah (who lived next door after all) to get in line you see. So military defeat, rise of Gorby, its all the Ayatollah's doing. Timeline says so.

" the amazingly successful partnership between Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan that accelerated, if not caused, the fall of Communism and led to the end of the Cold War."

I can think of 1.3 billion reasons why the report of Communism's fall is fallacious. ;)

Like the T1000 in Terminator, it seems the authoritarian Russian state is slowly reassembling it self too.

Question of the day: Is Marshal Ney the sockpuppet of Gandalf?

[I can think of 1.3 billion reasons why the report of Communism's fall is fallacious. ;)]

While it's governed by the Chinese Communist Party, you would be hard pressed to describe China as a Communist country now.

"It is glorious to become rich" is not Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy.

How about this for a compromise. I'll give you RR won the cold war, but then you give me that Bushie is losing the goodwil won thereby in Iraq? Works for me.

[I know many will point to the deficit but remember it is Congress that approves the budget so President Reagan had to follow to get the spending for the armed forces. If the liberal congress did not spend like drunken sailors the tax money coming into Treasury would have more than covered the increase defense spending.]

Wait a second…

1. Reagan won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets.

2. All that spending was the "fault" of the Tax-and-Spend Liberal Democrats (TM)

3. Lots of spending is bad.

Does anybody besides me see a flaw in this Ann Coulterish revision of history?

Yup. Trying to have their cake and eat it too.

No, John. That would imply that they are deliberately trying to do something through argument. I, on the other hand, think they're too dumb to come up with something that allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

Good point.

Sam, it's guns versus butter. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in federal revenues. This would have covered the increase in defense spending. Congress expanded domestic spending also, which increased the deficit. Each of those is demonstraby the truth. Where's the flaw?

Both guns and butter beat the Soviets. They couldn't match us defense spending. They could couldn't match US consuemr satisaction.

Whether money was spent on defense or the private sector ir buried the Russins further. The best spent money was that invested in further production and innovation rather than consumed in guns or butter, as it increased the Snowball of US production that the USSR couldn't hope to match…

Hence my point that the better and more productive system won, every new advance like supercomputers increased the lead.

The guy at the top making micro-adjustments in the winning hand did not win the cold war. The productive system (capitalism and a freer society) itself won the cold war.

[Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in federal revenues. This would have covered the increase in defense spending. Congress expanded domestic spending also, which increased the deficit. Each of those is demonstraby the truth. Where's the flaw?]

No, wrong. Reagan's tax cuts made the deficit skyrocket and I recall that there was serious talk at that time from within the administration of repealing or modifying the tax cuts. The budget Reagan sent to congress sharply increased defense spending and at the same time made cuts to social spending.

Huh, that's strange, my post got overlapped by Tony's.

Here it is again.

Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in federal revenues.

This is a lie. Outright lie.

1981, when Reagan took office, total federal revenues as a percentage of GDP: 19.6%

By 1986 it had fallen to 17.5%

When he left at the end of 1988, it had barely blipped back up to 18.1%.

Not my hobby horse milcari, but your figures do not support your argument. You may be correct, but the instances you produce do not speak to your point.

[Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in federal revenues.

This is a lie. Outright lie.]

Here you are talking federal revenues – an absolute measure.

[1981, when Reagan took office, total federal revenues as a percentage of GDP: 19.6%

By 1986 it had fallen to 17.5%

When he left at the end of 1988, it had barely blipped back up to 18.1%.]

Here you are talking about Fed revenues as a % of GDP.

Federal revenues could well have increased in absolute terms, while decreasing as a % of GDP if GDP was rising. I don't know if this was the case, but your figures don't preclude that possiblity.

mlicari, I have absolutely no interest in arguing with someone who calls me a lier. Apologize or be ignored.

Doc,

Remember: thicker skin.

Now get back to playing.

from the Cato Institute website (not pro-Reaganomics!)

Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues doubled in the 1980s from $517 USD billion to $1.03 USD trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 USD billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 USD billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite (Reagan would say BECAUSE — doc) income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986.

Remember: thicker skin.
Now get back to playing.

I'll play, but not with louts who will not abide by even the most basic standards of civility.

doc mcb 12 Dec 2005 10:12 a.m. PST

Sam, it's guns versus butter. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in federal revenues.

*NJH: This assertion requires numbers to substantiate it.

This would have covered the increase in defense spending.

*NJH: While serving at the Pentagon during Reagan's first six years, and having to work on the budget (3600, 3700, 3800 and et al monies) of our rather large organization, I can say for certain each year we were required to trim 10% from our budget. The increase definitely wasn't going to us.

Also, President Reagan's administration had a nasty and wasteful habit of privatizing blue suit jobs – that is under his administration military personnel were moved out of certain jobs and they were then bid out to civilian contractors. In the early eighties the average annual cost for a military person to fill a job was $35,000. The average annual cost to have that same job done by a civilain was $108,000. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the Reagan defense budget skyrocketed. That and the 600 ship fleet.

Federal revenues could well have increased in absolute terms, while decreasing as a % of GDP if GDP was rising. I don't know if this was the case, but your figures don't preclude that possiblity.

Absolute figures are not relevent or useable for a couple of reasons. First, inflation needs to be accounted for, which the meausure I use inherently does. Second, the way the income-based taxes work (personal, corporate, and payroll) makes it so that absolute revenues automatically go up with economic growth. To show any true increase (or decrease) away from the inherent trend (that is, the result of policy decisions), you need to count revenues as a percent of GDP.

mlicari, I have absolutely no interest in arguing with someone who calls me a lier. Apologize or be ignored.

The thing is, I'll call 'em like I see 'em. You posted false information as if it were true. Most reasonable people define that as a lie.

Play with the meaning of is is…….then call someone a liar! How so very liberal of some.

Go back and read what I posted.

Nominal federal revenues doubled in the 1980s from $517 USD USD billion to $1.03 USD USD trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent.

"Real federal revenues" means after inflation is accounted for. Twenty percent climb means, well, what I said: Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in federal revenues.

Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986.

Once again, that's a real increase.

I'd appreciate an apology.

Once again, that's a real increase.

No, if the size of the economy is not accounted for, you can't make this statement. Given that under Reagan, revenue as a percentage of GDP fell almost constantly, that means his tax policies made it so tax revenue shrunk even as the economy grew. In other words, absent Reagan's tax cuts, the federal government would have had more revenue than it did, not less. Reagan's tax cuts did what all tax cuts do: reduce government revenue compared to what it would have collected absent the cuts.

One can legitimately debate the merits of that, but onw can not claim that Reagan's tax policies increased government revenue.

Hi

Not piling on, but suggesting a logical fallicy:"Absolute figures are not relevent or useable for a couple of reasons. First, inflation needs to be accounted for, which the meausure I use inherently does. "

Actually, this is in error. The idea of tax cuts is not "cutting" percentage revenues of GDP, but rather cutting tax as an agent to expand the size of the TOTAL economy which can easily produce a larger economy, greater total revenues, and still reduce the PERCENTAGE of the GDP Produced as tax income.

Now, about Reagan. I sorta want to KNOW. I mean, in my life both history and political types have debated the importance of individuals. At least when I was in college, most of my socialist professors and friends asserted that the "dead hand of history" moved events and that "The Cult of the Individual" was, at best, evil and destructive. AT THE SAME TIME, History Profs insisted you knew the NAMES and events of these irrelevent people!

Here on the CA… it is often asserted that stupid americans voted for the wrong guy…….TWICE. So, which is it, if the dead hand of history is the determinant in the fall of the Soviet Union, why would a Demo win in the last two elections for president have changed anything?

Or, perhaps, the right guy at the right time can influence a trend for good or band.

Rocky

rather cutting tax as an agent to expand the size of the TOTAL economy which can easily produce a larger economy

Well, that's why I noted that one can debate the merits of tax cuts, on a macroeconomic level. But one can not debate the fact that in the near-term, tax cuts ALWAYS reduce government revenue.

Note that in real dollars, it wasn't until 1987 that Federal income tax receipts were back to the 1981 level.

Anyway, the problem with the supply-side economic argument is that it's quite vague about when the macroecnomic benefits will be realised. Of course, one can also debate whether those benefits would be realised at all.

Reagan's tax cuts did what all tax cuts do: reduce government revenue compared to what it would have collected absent the cuts.

No, not if the tax RATE cut changes the way wealthy people invest, leading to economic growth. The government takes a smaller wedge, the pie gets larger as a result, and the government's wedge, though a smaller angle, actually contains more pie.

Arguing about numbers and economic concepts is fine; imputing dishonorable motives to me is not fine.

rather cutting tax as an agent to expand the size of the TOTAL economy which can easily produce a larger economy

Well, that's why I noted that one can debate the merits of tax cuts, on a macroeconomic level. But one can not debate the fact that in the near-term, tax cuts ALWAYS reduce government revenue.

Note that in real dollars, it wasn't until 1987 that Federal income tax receipts were back to the 1981 level.

Anyway, the problem with the supply-side economic argument is that it's quite vague about when the macroecnomic benefits will be realised. Of course, one can also debate whether those benefits would be realised at all.

I'll also note four interesting numbers (all in 1996 constant billions of dollars).

1970 GDP: 3578

1980 GDP: 4900.9

1990 GDP: 6707.9

2000 GDP: 9224

If you'll work a little math, you'll see that in each decade, real GDP has grown by 37%.

So, I'll take my 37% growth in GDP without tax cuts for the rich and massive budget deficits, thank you.

Well, we agree that massive budget deficits are bad. Sometimes they are temporarily necessary to fight a war, however.

This I confess I do not understand:
"Given that under Reagan, revenue as a percentage of GDP fell almost constantly, that means his tax policies made it so tax revenue shrunk even as the economy grew. In other words, absent Reagan's tax cuts, the federal government would have had more revenue than it did, not less. Reagan's tax cuts did what all tax cuts do: reduce government revenue compared to what it would have collected absent the cuts."

That can only be true if we assume the economy would have grown as fast absent the tax cuts. How could we know that? Do you simply discount any possibility that a tax cut might stimulate economic growth?

And I assume — may I? — that all else be equal, you would not see an increase in government's share of GDP as a good thing? I mean, we don't WANT the government expanding as a share of the total economy, right?

[Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986.]

Not so fast, there, Doc…

First of all, most of Reagan's tax cut was rolled back within two years by his own administration. (remember David Stockman?)

Second, Federal spending on state subsidies fell dramatically in Reagan's first term, meaning that the states, almost without excception, had to raise taxes in order to continue the basic services. Now… how do most states raise tax revenue? That's right, Sales Taxes.

And by the way… How is it that the "Liberals in Congress" take the blame for all that spending, but Reagan gets credit for all those tax cuts? Either Congress did it, or they didn't: the Democrats held the House for the entire 8 years of Reagan's term. As our pal Gandalf is fond of saying, "You can't have it both ways." Either Congress gets credit/blame for taxes and spending… Or Reagan does. Which one is it?

The fundamental double-talk of your version of this story, though, is still a problem. You and the other Rightees argue that Reagan out-spent the Soviets, and thus won the Cold War. Okay… so you're giving Reagan *credit* for a massive increase in spending.

Now, don't tell me that those huge deficits, then, were the fault of the Democrats in Congress. Unless, that is, you're willing to give the Democrats in Congress credit for the very spending that you claim won the Cold War.

Kevin-chan ignored this kind of logic when I suggested it to him, Sam. Let's see what Doc does ….

Are we really rehashing "trickle-down"? I didn't know there was still anyone who that line of shyte.

le bon roi rene 12 Dec 2005 3:19 p.m. PST

Are we really rehashing "trickle-down"? I didn't know there was still anyone who that line of shyte.

*NJH: I can tell you what "Trickle Down" netted me – a big whopping 18% on a 30 year mortgage, which I was able to refinance to 16.5% about a year before I sold the house. Now I have a 15 year mortgage at slightly more than 4%.

Where was the Prime during the Reagan years? I'll tell you, it was higher than Scurvey on a weekend binge. The Reagan years weren't much better than the Nixon years, and I dare say the Bush years (either one). How is it that out of the last 25 years the only ones that appear to have been good to the average American were the Clinton years?

"How is it that out of the last 25 years the only ones that appear to have been good to the average American were the Clinton years?"

Because if you're getting young women to please you on a regular basis you'd be surprised how well you can concentrate on your work the rest of ther day. Geez, look at Kennedy.

American men should just let the women vote. Seems it might work out better for all concerned.

Update 6 years later:

link

Georgia On My Mind

Having commented only on negative news stories today, I want to wrap up the weekend with a story I've been sitting on for a while: the Republic of Georgia has erected a nice, if casual, monument to Ronald Reagan in Tbilisi:

Georgia's pro-Western president has unveiled a monument to Ronald Reagan in the capital of the ex-Soviet state praising the 40th U.S. president for "destroying the Soviet Empire."

Mikhail Saakashvili, whose government has for years had tense relations with Russia, also lambasted Moscow's attempts to "restore" the Soviet Union by creating an economic bloc with other ex-Soviet nations.

He said Wednesday that the bronze statue that depicts Reagan sitting on a bench "deserves a place in the heart of Tbilisi, the heart of Georgia."

This year is, of course, the centennial of President Reagan's birth, and several Eastern European countries, who remember the role that Reagan played in liberating them from the Russian Empire, have honored him in recent months. This is the statue that Georgia's president dedicated in Tbilisi:

So anyone can sit down next to RR and commune. The inscription on the bench is a Reagan quote: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." A sobering reminder for us more, perhaps, than for the Georgians.