Quote:
Originally Posted by jobseeker2013
Gorbachev made the mistake of combining economic reform with political reform. People took their fredom and ran with it. He would been better of doing what china did and reform the economy but keep the totalitarian state in place.
|
Gorbachev had no choice but to bring about radical reforms. In fact he was appointed to do precisely that. The Soviets were falling very far behind the west in terms of technology and their economy was completely stalled. They could not match the innovation of the west and this would very soon, in their eyes, leave them so far behind that they would be neutered as a military power. The entire Soviet system needed to be reformed or it risked falling even further behind or collapsing from within.
Quote:
|
However, there is very little evidence Gorbachev's policies were a reaction to Reagan.
|
Gorbachev's appointment and policies were a reaction to the situation that the Soviet Union found itself in during the mid 1980's. Reagan's role in this was punctuating the rapid technological advancement of the west and applying pressure on the Soviets globally both militarily and economically. Reagan did not singlehandedly create the situation, but he very much took advantage of it to bring things to a head at that time.
Quote:
|
There is even less evidence that the Soviets spent more money on the military in response to the US buildup. In fact, there is good evidence Soviet spending remained the same in the 1980s!!!!
|
Soviet defense spending as a share of GDP went from 22% of the Soviet economy to 27% of the Soviet economy over the course of the 1980's. In order to pay for it during a time of collapsing oil revenues and rising grain prices (also through Reagan machinations) the Soviets froze production of consumer goods at 1980 levels over the entire course of the decade.
Articles citing that the Soviet Union did not spend more on the military are not well informed of how the Soviet system operated. The Soviet budget contained a single line item for "military" this line item was a rather small and consistent amount. However, it only was for the daily operation and maintenance of the military and had nothing to do with investments in new equipment, construction, research and development, missile forces, etc. The real Soviet military budget was more than 10 times the amount stated in the budget with the costs spread throughout the entire government.
Quote:
|
The US military buildup was essentially a big waste of money.
|
Well, the points mentioned above combined with the statements of the Soviets themselves said it was not. The Soviets were worried, so worried and so strained, that they were willing to change the entire core of their system in order to attempt to compete. Of course, that's just what Gorbachev and former Soviet military officers say on the subject.
Quote:
|
There has been an entire industry creating the myth of Reagan. Why not? It sells copies but it does not make it so.
|
There is both myth and substance when it comes to Reagan. I will agree that Reagan has been eulogized and elevated into a "conservative hero" and does not deserve credit for some of the things he is being given credit for. At the same time, the real Reagan is very different from the "conservative hero" Reagan in many ways and Reagan would probably be disgusted at some of the things modern Tea Party conservatives say he stood for.
I realize it's hard to separate the modern political demigod that he has been made from the real actions of his presidency, but when you do, you will find a man whose policies and leadership played a pivotal role at a pivotal time of history. He is not perfect, he is not a saint, but he was a pretty good president. Does he really deserve to be in the "top 7", I don't know. If it was top 5 I wouldn't have put him in there, but I do feel he was the best post-WW2 president we had with second place going to either Truman or Eisenhower (probably Truman, IMO). In this poll, I felt there was enough room to cover the "major moment" or "game changing" presidents and Reagan is in that pantheon.
What I will agree with is that the legacy of ending the Cold War is something that Reagan could not do alone. He needed man like Gorbachev. However, Gorbachev could not do it alone either. He needed a man like Reagan. Gorbachev himself has said so. It was the combination of the two that made the events that changed the world possible.
Quote:
|
Same goes for the tax cuts. Certainly when you have large military spending and tax cuts you will get an economic boost, however as another poster already mentioned, here were other pieces to the equation. However, the tax cuts military spending were very inefficient and the resources could have been spent elsewhere. A mediocre at best Presidency.
|
You're long on criticism, short on substance with this one. Where would the "resources" have been better spent? Regardless, no economist denies that Reagan ushered in a major rebound of the US economy during his presidency and saw the setting up of the economy that carried that nation through the 1990's and into the 21st century. Depending on which "school" you are from, he either did it unintentionally via "Keynesian" ideas by initiating deficit spending. If you look at it the other way (and I tend to) by reforming taxes, most critically through changes to capital gains, he spurred what has turned into massive private investment in the US economy.
What is often ignored is that Reagan's policies weren't solely "lowering taxes for the rich". His tax reforms had large, positive, impacts on the middleclass as well. By restructuring the tax brackets, standard deductions and exemptions and then indexing them for inflation, Reagan ended the "inflation creep" that happened during the 1970's where incomes rose sharply, pusing people into higher and higher brackets, despite the fact their real incomes remained the same. It was a massive and positive reform to the US tax code that we still benefit from.
Many also forget that Reagan, while running deficits also saw the long game. He became a big fan of "base broadening" when it came taxes. He closed down tons of loopholes, ended selected tax breaks and stepped up enforcement on evaders. The net result in concert with the heating up economy was that Reagan ended up bringing MORE revenue into the government, despite having slashed the taxes.
On the deficit end, he came into office with a 2.3% deficit, it had hit 6% by 1983 and then dropped every year until it was just under 3% when he left office in 1989. Among all presidents since 1900 he is the third biggest percent increaser of the deficit behind Woodrow Wilson and FDR. In terms of inflation adjusted dollars, he is the fifth highest deficit spender behind Wilson, FDR, W. Bush and Obama.
Quote:
|
I love how it is often ignored that Reagan the tough guy negotiated with terrorists and spend his entire second term in negotiation over arms.
|
...and I love how FDR tried to undermine the consitution and stack the Supreme Court. Something I would consider a far more heinous offense then the Iran-Contra scheme.
Every president, even ones that I myslef agree were among the best have blemishes on their record.
Quote:
|
Reagan gave Gorbachev a freedom award in 1992!
|
Maybe you should read up on what Gorbachev said about Reagan...
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.
