Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody mentions it because it is not true. And I just looked it up to make sure, unemployment was double digit for 10 months. Interest rates soared into the double digits to counter inflation, and as a result private investment plummeted and we entered recession. Even in retrospect most economists agree what Volcker did was right.
In 1980 the Soviet economy was not spiraling downward. In fact they were experiencing the same problem as the US, a stagnant economy and high inflation, not recession or collapse. Also, Soviet defense spending was RISING with the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. When the US increased defense spending, the Soviets were quick to follow. For example, by the mid-80s they budgeted a 50% increase in defense spending, which completely annihilated the civilian manufacturing sector. Once again, this caused significant social unrest, especially in Eastern Europe.
Our military was not vastly superior to the Soviets own when Reagan took office. We rapidly demilitarized following the end of the Vietnam War and the DoD had focused on cutting costs in the late 70s. Nearly all of the advanced weapons and equipment used by our armed forces today came out of the 80s; Abrams, Bradleys, B-2 Spirits, F-22 Raptors, AH-64 Apaches, even Humvees. Also that worthless GPS system came out of 80s defense spending, as did our contribution to the ISS.
They could handle Afghanistan. What they could not handle were cheap American supplied Stinger missiles wiping out multi-million dollar helicopters and aircraft.
The only one perpetuating myth here is you, as usual.
As if Reagan came into office during such a rosy time. He came into office because of how destructive government had become. Apparently the Reagan revolution isn't something you understand. Apparently those times were something you can't comprehend. The times that just occurred were medial to those times when inflation, jobless rates, high interest rates and an energy crisis were before us.
Your little mind must not understand what the START agreements included. It must not understand how this was the first time in our history where a huge class of nuclear weapons were elminated: Speech on Foreign Policy (December 16, 1988) - Miller Center of Public Affairs
How it benefited us? How do you like traveling along your route with GPS? How about lasers? Laser surgery? How about practically everything around you that is "technologically advanced", that wasn't founded because it was fun. SDI clearly brought up a position of the US that the Soviet Union couldn't lie, cheat or steal its way into.
It ran out of money, which coincidentally (not really) was the purpose of its programs. What has it produced? Only a moron would think it hasn't produced anything in the light of Russia wanting to restrict its possibilities as much as possible because it removes the threat of MAD. Or maybe you don't remember Russia throwing a hissy fit over the US positioning missile defense in Poland and Eastern Europe?
Our relationship with Iran? They're just another blowhard looking for power through tyrannical purposes. Something you seem to be an admirer of.
Well you'e dodged my questions, downplayed the interventionist Reagan doctrine, ignored his fiscal policies, and resorted to increasingly nonsensical insults, so I'll waste no more time talking to you. Your final two sentences are particularly ironic given your bluster and fervor.
Well you'e dodged my questions, downplayed the interventionist Reagan doctrine, ignored his fiscal policies, and resorted to increasingly nonsensical insults, so I'll waste no more time talking to you. Your final two sentences are particularly ironic given your bluster and fervor.
Yeah, your dismissive policy would serve you much better than actually attempting to backup your ignorant rhetoric. No attempt to address the minutia shows exactly what your type is all about. Good luck in your drunk allure...
Yeah, your dismissive policy would serve you much better than actually attempting to backup your ignorant rhetoric.
You've done nothing but avoid or dismiss the issues I'm addressing, why waste my time with someone who prays at the altar? Iran, nothing, Contra scandal, nothing, Nicaragua, silence. Reaganomics? Pass. Your posts are empty.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California is one step closer to establishing an annual day honoring Ronald Reagan, the former president, governor and actor.
The state Senate on Thursday unanimously passed a bill designating Feb. 6 as Ronald Reagan Day. It encourages schools to spend the day commemorating Reagan's life and accomplishments.
I just don't Get It. What's the fascination with this guy? He was a mediocre president at best. I have no idea whether or not he's considered a good or bad governor by folks in CA. There's even talk of putting him on the $50 bill.
Anyway, I don't live in CA, but I will celebrate Ronald Reagan Day all the same. I'll spend the entire day telling my neighbor to tear down that ugly row of bushes.
LOL. Reagan was a horrible Governor and an even worse president.
If this bill becomes law all I can say is I'm glad I live in Northern CA.. we don't care for him in this neck of the woods.
What the hell are they thinking?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
