English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

as neo-cons claim that Reagan, single handed, out spent the USSR and thus defeated communism...

2007-08-04 06:10:08 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government Politics

- lets see how the double speak pans out on this one -

2007-08-04 06:14:17 · update #1

12 answers

yeh that myth was debunked awhile ago...anyone who thinks the raygun admin did anything other than capitalize on that countries natural path of evolution as they tried to get away from empire building(unlike us) Afghanistan was their vietnam and unlike us they learned very valuable lessons from that conflict. We however sowed the seeds of our own destruction.

2007-08-04 06:16:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 5

You're trying to compare Apples and Oranges. The Reagan victory was in foriegn policy and the Republican victory was in economic affairs.
The President dictates foreign policy and makes strong suggestions about the economy with tax policy. RR did out spend the Soviet Union in the long distance race called the Cold War. The Soviets spent themselves into oblivion trying to keep up. By forcing tax cuts RR also boosted our economy into a higher gear. I'm sure this last is has got you chuckling but it has happen every time it was tried (lower taxes=better economy). Ask JFK if that is not true.
Clinton had no foriegn policy to hang his hat on. Remember, it's the economy stupid. Clinton was handed a good economy despite his claims to the contrary. Look at the numbers and this is proven. Clinton wavered and flip-flopped about reducing the deficit. The Republican Congress forced some discipline (not Clintons strong suit) into his administration.
What other have said is also true; the dems dragged their feet in both instances and therefore deserve little or no credit for how things turned out.

2007-08-04 13:31:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It was a coup of course that defeated communism, not a republican or a democrat one, just a Russian one. Reagan's breaking the Russians economy helped of course, like a hunter shooting a bear in the head. It was a concerted effort however, involving no one less than Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Reagan too.

2007-08-04 13:25:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I have to agree with the repubs on that Reagan was very strong on the military but so good on diplomacy he could have sold ice water to the people in Siberia. Congress gave Reagan a lot of support. A good president will always get congressional support because the majority rules.
A bad one gets support by being a dictator.

2007-08-04 13:16:26 · answer #4 · answered by Enigma 6 · 3 1

Check out this chart http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

This chart show how Clinton dramatically improved U.S. economy and created a record surplus, record high paying jobs, record home ownership and the ENTIRE America prospered during his administration, not only the TOP 2%.

This chart also shows how messed up the economy was during Reagan years and how the spending was out of control. Republicans need to come outta their bubble and admit that Reagan didn't destroy USSR anymore than Dubya found WMDs in Iraq. They're both hoaxes and Republicans love to beleive them because it gives them "SOMETHING" to hold on to for 8 years of Reagan's bad economy, high unemployment, high deficit and religious intolerance. Reagan was a big failure but they can't stop worshiping him because they don't have REAL LEADERS like FRD, JFK & Clinton!

Reagan was Best of The Worst...until Dubya came along! And following Reagan footsteps, Dubya talking to millionaires said, ""Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/quotes )

Oh yeah, Republicans really care about people, don't they?

Great question! You get a STAR!

2007-08-04 13:38:53 · answer #5 · answered by Wichita Cool Dude 2 · 1 2

No, because the Dems fought him every step of the way. The republicans also fought Clinton and made him balance the budget.

2007-08-04 13:13:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

what glory is that? The glory of dealing with terrorism because Clinton let it build? The glory of rebuilding the military because Clinton demolished it?

2007-08-04 13:14:28 · answer #7 · answered by Monte 4 · 3 1

Charisma and standing up to them. If you wish, I'll be most happy to give much of that to the Dems.. :) Feel better? LOL!

Now, back to the future and where we're headed.

2007-08-04 13:14:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Nice one. But the right-wingers will just say that Reagan was such a warrior that he managed to defeat communism by himself and a Congress who didn't help him in doing so. Apparently, he is the new Ceasar for them.

2007-08-04 13:13:57 · answer #9 · answered by cynical 6 · 1 4

I think you're trying to group all people together. Kind of a bigoted way of thinking.

2007-08-04 13:30:50 · answer #10 · answered by 2BFree 4 · 1 1

The Dems get no credit. They begged him not to get the Soviets mad at him.

2007-08-04 13:26:08 · answer #11 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers