Ronald Reagan's Uniting Principles

[Phatscotty]

[BigBallinStalin]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

If that picture embodies your view on the government, then you're a hypocrite, or you enjoy acting immorally, which is worse. I guess anyone is justified in ridiculing you.

Cheer-leading for Reagan is funny though. He devastated many black communities with his ramped-up war on drugs. Maybe that's what you find appealing? Maybe not? Certainly, cutting taxes offset these costs on your "freedom and liberty" scale, as you implied earlier, but your perception of "freedom and liberty" is messed up since you discount these costs to others by so much.

Yeah, it seems that people are justified in ridiculing you.

[Baron Von PWN]

The Former Soviet Union
The soviet's economic policies bankrupted themselves, but I'll admit that Reagan's ramped up spending compelled the Russian government to fold their cards some time sooner than they had to, but it didn't render the Russians powerless. What did the US gain by dumping billions into its war industry?

After the Russian experience with shock transitional economics during 10 years, the Russians could ignore NATO demands/concerns as they invaded Georgia. According to the Globalist,
1) "[Russia is] now by far the most formidable, best maintained and most modernized nuclear strike force on the planet."
2) "Under Putin, Russia became the world's largest oil and natural gas producing and exporting power."
3) "But those same forces took the United States and its allies totally by surprise in August 2008, when they conquered one-third of the mountainous, supposedly-easy-to-defend former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus in a mere 48 hours. "
4) "Russia remains the supreme military power across the entire Eurasian landmass. In an increasingly chaotic world, driven by an ever more acute competition over resources, that real military power may well end up counting for a lot."

Yeah, what a "victory" for the US. All that spending gave the USG a stronger incentive to start wars in other countries while obtaining the benefit of... defeating the Soviet Union and having Putin revamp Russia into a supreme regional player which can still challenge US power. Sure, the Russians don't directly counter the USG's global plans as frequently, but all that spending didn't defeat them. They're still a strong player.

I knew my Soviet sense was tingling! By merely mentioning the Soviet Union I become aware of you, mention Russia as well and I am summoned.

Anyways.

1) Interesting, and feasible but I'm suspicious. Sure they've invested allot but many of their tests of new rockets have been failures, and I'm curious where he's getting his info.The article offers no hint, what's his source? the Kremlin?

2) That's also about all they export. That and Soviet era military tech. It's impressive yes but focusing on it ignores the real industrial decline and lack of economic diversity.

3) Well this is a little spurious. The break away republics hold key mountain passes into Georgia, and they were already independent of Georgia central control. The breakaway republics also already had Russian military presences in the form of peacekeepers. Not to mention this was a war fought on ground the Russians probably have highly detailed soviet charts of. Hell I bet they have the construction plans for all of Georgia's infrastructure.

Sure once through the passes the Russians still had to fight the Georgians. However the Russian's had air superiority and they outnumbered them about by about 7000 soldiers (when counting abkhaz and south ossetian allies.), as well as no doubt having more tanks as well. This victory isn't as impressive as the article makes it sound. ( The russians actually lost a number of aircraft during the war)

4) a highly suspect claim, considering China's growth in strength. A claim made without support. Russia beat up tiny Georgia, he makes it sound like they punched out someone with some serious military power.

Reading the article he sounds like a guy who's swallowed the Kremlin line. Let's acknowledge Russia's strengths but let's not go overboard here.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Former Soviet Union
The soviet's economic policies bankrupted themselves, but I'll admit that Reagan's ramped up spending compelled the Russian government to fold their cards some time sooner than they had to, but it didn't render the Russians powerless. What did the US gain by dumping billions into its war industry?

After the Russian experience with shock transitional economics during 10 years, the Russians could ignore NATO demands/concerns as they invaded Georgia. According to the Globalist,
1) "[Russia is] now by far the most formidable, best maintained and most modernized nuclear strike force on the planet."
2) "Under Putin, Russia became the world's largest oil and natural gas producing and exporting power."
3) "But those same forces took the United States and its allies totally by surprise in August 2008, when they conquered one-third of the mountainous, supposedly-easy-to-defend former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus in a mere 48 hours. "
4) "Russia remains the supreme military power across the entire Eurasian landmass. In an increasingly chaotic world, driven by an ever more acute competition over resources, that real military power may well end up counting for a lot."

Yeah, what a "victory" for the US. All that spending gave the USG a stronger incentive to start wars in other countries while obtaining the benefit of... defeating the Soviet Union and having Putin revamp Russia into a supreme regional player which can still challenge US power. Sure, the Russians don't directly counter the USG's global plans as frequently, but all that spending didn't defeat them. They're still a strong player.

I knew my Soviet sense was tingling! By merely mentioning the Soviet Union I become aware of you, mention Russia as well and I am summoned.

Anyways.

1) Interesting, and feasible but I'm suspicious. Sure they've invested allot but many of their tests of new rockets have been failures, and I'm curious where he's getting his info.The article offers no hint, what's his source? the Kremlin?

2) That's also about all they export. That and Soviet era military tech. It's impressive yes but focusing on it ignores the real industrial decline and lack of economic diversity.

3) Well this is a little spurious. The break away republics hold key mountain passes into Georgia, and they were already independent of Georgia central control. The breakaway republics also already had Russian military presences in the form of peacekeepers. Not to mention this was a war fought on ground the Russians probably have highly detailed soviet charts of. Hell I bet they have the construction plans for all of Georgia's infrastructure.

Sure once through the passes the Russians still had to fight the Georgians. However the Russian's had air superiority and they outnumbered them about by about 7000 soldiers (when counting abkhaz and south ossetian allies.), as well as no doubt having more tanks as well. This victory isn't as impressive as the article makes it sound. ( The russians actually lost a number of aircraft during the war)

4) a highly suspect claim, considering China's growth in strength. A claim made without support. Russia beat up tiny Georgia, he makes it sound like they punched out someone with some serious military power.

Reading the article he sounds like a guy who's swallowed the Kremlin line. Let's acknowledge Russia's strengths but let's not go overboard here.

My main point with that article is to show NS that the US "victory" over the Soviet Union wasn't much of a victory. To me, the expenditures were justifiable for the sake of "freedom and liberty." I'm using Martin Sieff for this, but he's making a different point. He's saying that Russia isn't this "sick man of europe" which many (according to him) label Russia as. Putin's authoritarian form of governance is producing results which may establish a model for other authoritarian governments to follow. That said:

1) Here's his credentials: http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=180, and here's what books he's written: http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Sieff/e/B002T3QW26

2) I admit that the Russian economy has many systemic problems. Since Russia can export tons of weapons to countries, thereby influencing the politics within those countries, does that mean that all that US spending in "defense," really defeated the Russians? No, not really.

According to [url=google's publicdata]http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=russia+gdp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:RUS&ifdim=region&tstart=608878800000&tend=1271566800000&hl=en_US&dl=en[/url], in 1990 Russia's GDP (US$) was $500bn. In 2010, it was $1.5 trillion. Their economy is growing; it's not in decline, and if Russia was less authoritarian (haha), it's economy would very likely develop faster.

Cia factbook:

show

Those kinds of exports and reserves really matter, so I don't understand why you dismiss it as if it's no big deal.

3) Assuming the author can be trusted on his opinion of US analysts of that situation, his point is that the US analysts were surprised that the Russians did so well. I'm guessing that others thought that Russia would fare much worse in that war, but they didn't and that's pretty much his point. The point that I'm making with NS is that Russia could invade a country with practically zero negative consequences (for Russian power) from the regional and global players. 1990 Iraq dreamed of this power, yet didn't have it. Russia obviously still has that power. (of course, the values of Kuwait and Georgia are very different, but I'm showing that Russia wasn't defeated and still remains a problem even though the US threw billions of dollars in "defeating" them.)

4) It's about power projection. Compared to China, the Russians have much better nuclear weapons, and the Russia's blue-water navy capabilities are significantly better than China's, which so far is practically none or very small--as far as the US is concerned. But, what we're overlooking is their Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The Chinese and Russians aren't opposed to each other, thus increasing Russia's power in that region. And, who influences politics more within Eurasia? China or Russia? Who contributed to the nuclear research and military capabilities of countries within that region? I'd say Russia did much of the heavy lifting; therefore, Russia compared to China has much more power within that region.

Russia still matters and is still a major player in the world of geopolitics. Reagan's increased spending on US military to "defeat" the Russians was largely pointless because the benefits don't offset the costs.

[Night Strike]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

There's a big difference between mandatory drug tests simply because a person is poor (which is unconstitutional) and mandatory drug tests for people who are trying to get money from the government (completely constitutional). If you are poor and don't take any money from the government, then you wouldn't have to take the drug test. If you have to have a drug test in order to work for your money, then it is completely logical to drug test a person before handing them free money from the government.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

There's a big difference between mandatory drug tests simply because a person is poor (which is unconstitutional) and mandatory drug tests for people who are trying to get money from the government (completely constitutional). If you are poor and don't take any money from the government, then you wouldn't have to take the drug test. If you have to have a drug test in order to work for your money, then it is completely logical to drug test a person before handing them free money from the government.

Whatever, dude. That's irrelevant. PS posted a picture which he provides as a response to explain his interpretation of freedom, liberty, etc., so I used his picture and rolled from there.

If you want to stuff your words in Phatscotty's mouth, then I hope you find that enjoyable, but please do that where I can't see it--like in live chat!

[Phatscotty]

See the mock thread of this one for that evidence on drug tests.


What I don't get is that you love toting about "Freedom and Liberty," but you never really explain what you mean. If you support Reagan and his warmongering, his deficit spending, his increased military spending, etc., all at the expense of taxpayers (via violating their property rights through taxation) at that time and for future generations (repaying debt), then please explain how these main policies of his promote "Freedom and Liberty."


Explain what you mean by "individual freedom," "Liberty, "and Freedom" and a lot of these problems melt away (for us).

Cutting taxes. The bill he signed allowed people to keep more of the fruits of their own labor. This is a plus for freedom and liberty. Do you agree so far?

I never expect for a president to do a perfect job, or fix something 100%, or ignore the Congress that controls the spending. I only judge presidents as moving something more in the right direction or less on a given issue.

Ah, so no explanations. Okay.

What do you want explained? I asked if you agreed with me so far....if you do we can continue down the example I am providing. If you do not agree, we have to go over that before we can continue. Then we can get into the rest about deficits etc

see underlined.

You want me to explain how your examples fit into my definitions? I will give it a shot.

Warmongering does not do much for individual freedom, but I guess depending on the whatever war you might be talking about, some would be worse for I.F. than others... On the other hand a lot of foreign markets have been opened up as a result, and the petro-dollar got stronger, making gas cheaper, which can actually lead to increased freedom for people to travel. There are probably 100 more sectors that can be shown to have been affected negatively, also with a few consequences where freedoms actually increased, intended and unintended.

I do not lay the deficit solely at the foot of Reagan, which is also to say I do not ignore the reality that the Democratic Congress controlled the purse for spending, but it takes 2 to tango. Obviously, deficits do not increase freedom in the short run, but some have theorized in the long run that deficits are needed in times of economic turmoil and emergency and will pay off in the end with a recovered economy which would in theory increase Economic Liberty. After all, we would not have had the 90's we knew without the overcoming the struggles of the 70's and laying a proper foundation in the 80's that promoted entrepreneurship and much lower taxes....

Taxation and violating of property rights.... that's an interesting argument because you would be assuming I expected Reagan to reverse the great society and the new deal with the stroke of a pen or something. Presidents come into the system the way it was before they were president, the don't get to change the entire tax structure on a whim, and certainly not with a Congress of the opposite party. You really seem to be ignoring Congress with your claims.

Freedom

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Liberty
1: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2
a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3
: an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4
: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

Reagan addressed many issues concerning personal Freedom and Liberty for the better, and he did a lot more for those issues than other president before or since. That's why he's getting a spot on Mount Rushmore and replacing Roosevelt on the dime.

49 out of 50 states in 1984 agreed.

Would you mind giving your point of view on the issues you brought up. What is your point about them and how they impact Freedom and Liberty?

[kentington]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

There's a big difference between mandatory drug tests simply because a person is poor (which is unconstitutional) and mandatory drug tests for people who are trying to get money from the government (completely constitutional). If you are poor and don't take any money from the government, then you wouldn't have to take the drug test. If you have to have a drug test in order to work for your money, then it is completely logical to drug test a person before handing them free money from the government.

Whatever, dude. That's irrelevant.

What makes this irrelevant?
Do you believe that drug tests to receive welfare is equivalent to enforcing something at gunpoint?

[BigBallinStalin]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

There's a big difference between mandatory drug tests simply because a person is poor (which is unconstitutional) and mandatory drug tests for people who are trying to get money from the government (completely constitutional). If you are poor and don't take any money from the government, then you wouldn't have to take the drug test. If you have to have a drug test in order to work for your money, then it is completely logical to drug test a person before handing them free money from the government.

Whatever, dude. That's irrelevant.

What makes this irrelevant?
Do you believe that drug tests to receive welfare is equivalent to enforcing something at gunpoint?

OH, yeah you are right, and I was wrong! I'll admit that! It wouldn't be at gunpoint--until of course the person refused yet still received their checks and then the cops enforce that rule-breaking by the gunpoint. But hey, that's that.

However, to rehash that whole debate, only targeting poor people for drug tests because they receive something from the government is arbitrary and discriminatory. Why not charge the richer people who receive bailouts, guaranteed loans, subsidies, etc.? Why only test for illicit drugs when frequent use of alcohol clearly has negative effects equivalent to or even exceeding the use of certain drugs? There wasn't a good answer to that, which was interesting.

[Phatscotty]

Because sometimes drug abuse can be the cause of unemployment, and sometimes unemployment can lead to drug abuse....when we think we are helping people with a hand-up, we are actually enabling the destruction of that life, not aiding it. And there are other obvious reasons to drug test certain employees, like people who carry guns or drive vehicles.

I need to go on record here for all the newbs who weren't around for DTWA. I support the people deciding if they want to drug test or not. Some courts have struck it down, other courts have upheld it. The poll for this community voted in favor of it, and it won by a wider margin than Obama's "decisive" victory over Mccain.

[Night Strike]

However, to rehash that whole debate, only targeting poor people for drug tests because they receive something from the government is arbitrary and discriminatory. Why not charge the richer people who receive bailouts, guaranteed loans, subsidies, etc.? Why only test for illicit drugs when frequent use of alcohol clearly has negative effects equivalent to or even exceeding the use of certain drugs? There wasn't a good answer to that, which was interesting.

So because there wasn't a good answer to an unrelated situation, it means we aren't allowed to enact solutions in another area? And I actually have a better solution that would address all the problems: stop using the federal government to hand out free money to any person/business.

[BigBallinStalin]

What do you want explained? I asked if you agreed with me so far....if you do we can continue down the example I am providing. If you do not agree, we have to go over that before we can continue. Then we can get into the rest about deficits etc


You want me to explain how your examples fit into my definitions? I will give it a shot.

First, thanks for responding, PS. I think we see eye-to-eye on a lot of political issues, and to be fair, you sometimes get criticized unfairly, so I'm really glad you wrote this response! Let's get into it:

EDIT: NOTE: My meaning of freedom and liberty are related to classical liberalism and somewhat with libertarianism.

Warmongering does not do much for individual freedom, but I guess depending on the whatever war you might be talking about, some would be worse for I.F. than others... On the other hand a lot of foreign markets have been opened up as a result, and the petro-dollar got stronger, making gas cheaper, which can actually lead to increased freedom for people to travel. There are probably 100 more sectors that can be shown to have been affected negatively, also with a few consequences where freedoms actually increased, intended and unintended.

The warmongering wasn't necessary because the Soviet Union was already on its way out. That warmongering created a sense of required emergency for the American public. This was used primarily to expand the "military-industrial complex" at the expense of taking US citizen's property (money) for the sake of "security theater." Taking people's money in order to aid crony capitalists doesn't promote freedom.

Does threatening countries with violence and fighting proxy wars increase security or increase instability? Nuclear weapons are enough, so in my opinion, no, and that doesn't promote freedom. Recall the Iran-Iraq war. The US dumped money on both sides--mainly on Iraq. Did that promote freedom or liberty? No. It prolonged a war which resulted in millions dead. Future social capital was destroyed at the helping hand of the US. Where's the promotion of liberty here? There is none.

What about the Iran-Contra Affair? Reagan was involved that, admitted to it, and then later denied it. Thank North that he burned all the papers, some of which very likely bore presidential signatures. Reagan is the Commander-in-Chief. He authorizes much of this. This lack of transparency is not a promotion of freedom. The lack of punishment (to North) is not a promotion of justice. This was not freedom.

Opening markets sounds nice, but you can open markets in autocracies or anacrocies that you prop up or in countries that are much more democratic. Can the US take credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union? Sure, a little, so it promoted freedom somewhat; however, that economic system was bound to fail. The heavy lifting was done by the systemic flaws of state ownership over the means of production. In that sense, the flaw of central planning clearly led to the delayed promotion of freedom. However, many of those countries broke away from the union and ended up with Soviet-backed dictators. There wasn't much freedom from all that US hustle and bustle.

Has freedom been promoted with open markets? If it's Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Egypt, Chile, etc., then that trade reinforces those peoples' lack of freedom. Americans get cheaper gas by supporting a dictator in Saudi Arabia. That's can be seen as promoting a reduced price of mobility for many Americans; however, the US through the Vinnel Corporation and "care-package" deals of military equipment reinforce the Saudi King's power over his oppressed people. With that kind of trade-off, it's a joke to say that overall freedom was promoted.

Recall Bastiat's What Is Seen and What Is Unseen. If the government take people's money in order to provide something that also may seem to promote freedom (e.g. you get cheaper gas); however, we sometimes forget that people could have spent that money, which was taken, on purchases directed by their own total freedom. That's missing from your point.

I do not lay the deficit solely at the foot of Reagan, which is also to say I do not ignore the reality that the Democratic Congress controlled the purse for spending, but it takes 2 to tango. Obviously, deficits do not increase freedom in the short run, but some have theorized in the long run that deficits are needed in times of economic turmoil and emergency and will pay off in the end with a recovered economy which would in theory increase Economic Liberty. After all, we would not have had the 90's we knew without the overcoming the struggles of the 70's and laying a proper foundation in the 80's that promoted entrepreneurship and much lower taxes....

The executive sets the legislative agenda, and Reagan pushed for more deficit spending, so it's no surprise that Congress went along--especially when increased spending goes to their districts which increases their chances of re-election. This benefits both Democrats and Republicans; however, this means of political enrichment requires a burden which must be repaid later by the citizens. That doesn't promote economic liberty.

How did his deficit spending and his creating a publicly acceptable trend for deficit spending, promote "liberty and freedom" when it devalues your money, creates inflation, misallocates resources, contributes to a future bust, creates stronger incentives for the US to become more aggressive globally, etc.? Deficit spending does not promote freedom. Maybe it promotes more freedom for politicians and their close friends. It lets them spend more irresponsibly too!

Taxation and violating of property rights.... that's an interesting argument because you would be assuming I expected Reagan to reverse the great society and the new deal with the stroke of a pen or something. Presidents come into the system the way it was before they were president, the don't get to change the entire tax structure on a whim, and certainly not with a Congress of the opposite party. You really seem to be ignoring Congress with your claims.

Given the above, I made my actual position very clear.

Freedom

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Liberty
1: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2
a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3
: an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4
: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

Reagan addressed many issues concerning personal Freedom and Liberty for the better, and he did a lot more for those issues than other president before or since. That's why he's getting a spot on Mount Rushmore and replacing Roosevelt on the dime.

49 out of 50 states in 1984 agreed.

Would you mind giving your point of view on the issues you brought up. What is your point about them and how they impact Freedom and Liberty?

Given what I've said, I disagree.

In general, Phatscotty, regarding Reagan's push to reduce taxes, I'll agree that only that was a step in the right direction. As far as that, Reagan was a dick, he spoke a lot of bull, and his light attempts in promoting freedom were offset by his more significant moves away from freedom.

I didn't even get into his ramped-up drug war and its effects on poor people. It goes on. Reagan was great at being a typical American president of the 20th century, which doesn't amount to much in terms of liberty for US citizens and around the world.

[BigBallinStalin]

However, to rehash that whole debate, only targeting poor people for drug tests because they receive something from the government is arbitrary and discriminatory. Why not charge the richer people who receive bailouts, guaranteed loans, subsidies, etc.? Why only test for illicit drugs when frequent use of alcohol clearly has negative effects equivalent to or even exceeding the use of certain drugs? There wasn't a good answer to that, which was interesting.

So because there wasn't a good answer to an unrelated situation, it means we aren't allowed to enact solutions in another area? And I actually have a better solution that would address all the problems: stop using the federal government to hand out free money to any person/business.

Well, I agree with your last statement.

[kentington]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

There's a big difference between mandatory drug tests simply because a person is poor (which is unconstitutional) and mandatory drug tests for people who are trying to get money from the government (completely constitutional). If you are poor and don't take any money from the government, then you wouldn't have to take the drug test. If you have to have a drug test in order to work for your money, then it is completely logical to drug test a person before handing them free money from the government.

Whatever, dude. That's irrelevant.

What makes this irrelevant?
Do you believe that drug tests to receive welfare is equivalent to enforcing something at gunpoint?

OH, yeah you are right, and I was wrong! I'll admit that! It wouldn't be at gunpoint--until of course the person refused yet still received their checks and then the cops enforce that rule-breaking by the gunpoint. But hey, that's that.

However, to rehash that whole debate, only targeting poor people for drug tests because they receive something from the government is arbitrary and discriminatory. Why not charge the richer people who receive bailouts, guaranteed loans, subsidies, etc.? Why only test for illicit drugs when frequent use of alcohol clearly has negative effects equivalent to or even exceeding the use of certain drugs? There wasn't a good answer to that, which was interesting.

I wasn't making an argument. I was clarifying.

I think it's okay to require a drug test to receive government handouts. If you are a large corporation you should be subject to equivalent testing. I think it is stupid for the government to not know how the handouts are being spent. Except in a lot of cases they are just buying votes and pandering to their friends.

Like you agreed with Night Strike, I also agree with that point. No government handouts. Then they wont have to worry about any of it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, but how are politicians going to secure votes without channeling money to supportive groups?

[chang50]

Yeah, but how are politicians going to secure votes without channeling money to supportive groups?

And more crucially how can democratically elected politicians put sensible long term plans in place,that are often extremely unpopular in the short term,when they need to be elected every x years?Democracy is only the least worst system we have,no more,and shouldn't be put on the pedestal it often is.

[kentington]

Yeah, but how are politicians going to secure votes without channeling money to supportive groups?

I don't know. They might actually have to make the World a better place. That way they can get a job when they don't get re-elected.

[Baron Von PWN]

The Former Soviet Union
The soviet's economic policies bankrupted themselves, but I'll admit that Reagan's ramped up spending compelled the Russian government to fold their cards some time sooner than they had to, but it didn't render the Russians powerless. What did the US gain by dumping billions into its war industry?

After the Russian experience with shock transitional economics during 10 years, the Russians could ignore NATO demands/concerns as they invaded Georgia. According to the Globalist,
1) "[Russia is] now by far the most formidable, best maintained and most modernized nuclear strike force on the planet."
2) "Under Putin, Russia became the world's largest oil and natural gas producing and exporting power."
3) "But those same forces took the United States and its allies totally by surprise in August 2008, when they conquered one-third of the mountainous, supposedly-easy-to-defend former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus in a mere 48 hours. "
4) "Russia remains the supreme military power across the entire Eurasian landmass. In an increasingly chaotic world, driven by an ever more acute competition over resources, that real military power may well end up counting for a lot."

Yeah, what a "victory" for the US. All that spending gave the USG a stronger incentive to start wars in other countries while obtaining the benefit of... defeating the Soviet Union and having Putin revamp Russia into a supreme regional player which can still challenge US power. Sure, the Russians don't directly counter the USG's global plans as frequently, but all that spending didn't defeat them. They're still a strong player.

I knew my Soviet sense was tingling! By merely mentioning the Soviet Union I become aware of you, mention Russia as well and I am summoned.

Anyways.

1) Interesting, and feasible but I'm suspicious. Sure they've invested allot but many of their tests of new rockets have been failures, and I'm curious where he's getting his info.The article offers no hint, what's his source? the Kremlin?

2) That's also about all they export. That and Soviet era military tech. It's impressive yes but focusing on it ignores the real industrial decline and lack of economic diversity.

3) Well this is a little spurious. The break away republics hold key mountain passes into Georgia, and they were already independent of Georgia central control. The breakaway republics also already had Russian military presences in the form of peacekeepers. Not to mention this was a war fought on ground the Russians probably have highly detailed soviet charts of. Hell I bet they have the construction plans for all of Georgia's infrastructure.

Sure once through the passes the Russians still had to fight the Georgians. However the Russian's had air superiority and they outnumbered them about by about 7000 soldiers (when counting abkhaz and south ossetian allies.), as well as no doubt having more tanks as well. This victory isn't as impressive as the article makes it sound. ( The russians actually lost a number of aircraft during the war)

4) a highly suspect claim, considering China's growth in strength. A claim made without support. Russia beat up tiny Georgia, he makes it sound like they punched out someone with some serious military power.

Reading the article he sounds like a guy who's swallowed the Kremlin line. Let's acknowledge Russia's strengths but let's not go overboard here.

My main point with that article is to show NS that the US "victory" over the Soviet Union wasn't much of a victory. To me, the expenditures were justifiable for the sake of "freedom and liberty." I'm using Martin Sieff for this, but he's making a different point. He's saying that Russia isn't this "sick man of europe" which many (according to him) label Russia as. Putin's authoritarian form of governance is producing results which may establish a model for other authoritarian governments to follow. That said:

1) Here's his credentials: http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=180, and here's what books he's written: http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Sieff/e/B002T3QW26

2) I admit that the Russian economy has many systemic problems. Since Russia can export tons of weapons to countries, thereby influencing the politics within those countries, does that mean that all that US spending in "defense," really defeated the Russians? No, not really.

According to [url=google's publicdata]http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=russia+gdp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:RUS&ifdim=region&tstart=608878800000&tend=1271566800000&hl=en_US&dl=en[/url], in 1990 Russia's GDP (US$) was $500bn. In 2010, it was $1.5 trillion. Their economy is growing; it's not in decline, and if Russia was less authoritarian (haha), it's economy would very likely develop faster.

Cia factbook:

show

Those kinds of exports and reserves really matter, so I don't understand why you dismiss it as if it's no big deal.

3) Assuming the author can be trusted on his opinion of US analysts of that situation, his point is that the US analysts were surprised that the Russians did so well. I'm guessing that others thought that Russia would fare much worse in that war, but they didn't and that's pretty much his point. The point that I'm making with NS is that Russia could invade a country with practically zero negative consequences (for Russian power) from the regional and global players. 1990 Iraq dreamed of this power, yet didn't have it. Russia obviously still has that power. (of course, the values of Kuwait and Georgia are very different, but I'm showing that Russia wasn't defeated and still remains a problem even though the US threw billions of dollars in "defeating" them.)

4) It's about power projection. Compared to China, the Russians have much better nuclear weapons, and the Russia's blue-water navy capabilities are significantly better than China's, which so far is practically none or very small--as far as the US is concerned. But, what we're overlooking is their Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The Chinese and Russians aren't opposed to each other, thus increasing Russia's power in that region. And, who influences politics more within Eurasia? China or Russia? Who contributed to the nuclear research and military capabilities of countries within that region? I'd say Russia did much of the heavy lifting; therefore, Russia compared to China has much more power within that region.

Russia still matters and is still a major player in the world of geopolitics. Reagan's increased spending on US military to "defeat" the Russians was largely pointless because the benefits don't offset the costs.

If his article said what you said, with arguments backing it up. I would be much more supportive.

1) So he's a long time journalist. That explains the lack of supported argument.

2) I agree it has strength and I'm not dismissing the political leverage its exports give it. (See the Ukrainian oil transit crisis).

Note the bit about other heavy industries reliant on the Russian domestic market. What that really means are rusting out Soviet industrial beasts being supported by state subsidies.

The article just seemed a little triumphalist for Putin and Russia. I do agree that Russia is no sick man of Europe but is rather an re-awakening great power. The sick men seem to be further west.

It felt like "Man russia's got oil, Bam their set economy's great now!"

3)Your point is very relevant and one I have no problem supporting.

I don't put much stock on US pundits opinions of Russia or even US news outlets on Russia. They tend to be the absolute worst for nonsense. SO I didin't look at them much. He makes Russia's victory seem impressive, which really shouldn't be. A better equipped, battle hardened army*, with more manpower and an intimate knowledge of the region, goes up against an outnumbered and untested force.

It's a no brainier, what's impressive was the geo-political wisdom shown in not going all the way and taking Tbilisi.

* The war in Chechnya taught Russia many hard lessons, and many(if not all) of the soldiers sent into Georgia, were veteran contract troops from the Chechnya conflicts.

4) The shanghai co-op agreement is in my opinion a strictly on paper agreement. It has no real teeth. However it does establish general agreement and a determination to not directly compete in their spheres.

I will concede the point that Russia is the most powerful military in Eurasia, due to its power projection abilities and maintained tech advantages.

I suspect the Chinese have more than they let on.


However, don't conflate the Soviet Union with the Russian Federation. They are different actors, have different goals and operate within different ideological constraints. I feel this is the biggest mistake modern commentators make.

I wouldn't say the US defeated the CCCP, rather the CCCP no longer wanted to fight. IT ceased to believe in itself its ideology tiered and used up.The CCCP is dead. In that sense the USA won that war, it didin't die.

Russia in its current form is an entirely new creature, cannibalized from the Soviet Union's corpse and is now adding new strengths. as a result it shares certain similarities, but its goals and aspirations are very different.

The USA didn't defeat Russia it defeated the Soviet Union.

[Night Strike]

Yeah, but how are politicians going to secure votes without channeling money to supportive groups?

By standing on principle and actually working to enact those principles.

[oVo]

By eliminating money from the equation. This presidential election is expected to break the billion dollar barrier in expenditures and I think the majority of those funds could be put to better use elsewhere. Election finance and campaign reforms are long overdue. It's time for both parties to fix this absurd process...

and level the playing field.

[Phatscotty]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

If that picture embodies your view on the government, then you're a hypocrite, or you enjoy acting immorally, which is worse. I guess anyone is justified in ridiculing you.

Cheer-leading for Reagan is funny though. He devastated many black communities with his ramped-up war on drugs. Maybe that's what you find appealing? Maybe not? Certainly, cutting taxes offset these costs on your "freedom and liberty" scale, as you implied earlier, but your perception of "freedom and liberty" is messed up since you discount these costs to others by so much.

Yeah, it seems that people are justified in ridiculing you.

Who peed in your cheerios man?

I have never advocated for mandatory drug tests, I personally have advocated for testing when suspected, and generally I am for the people of the state deciding how to run their own programs. And whether the person is poor or not has nothing to do with it. If you want to talk abouit Pee tests, you will have to troll along with NotYou2. So you see it's your assumption which is wrong, therefore if I am a hypocrite, you are going to have to point it out in a different example besides juxtaposing your pee test on Penn's liberty post. The only ridicule here is that which I will pass on concerning your incorrect assumptions about my position on pee testing.

I don't know where you are coming from with all this, but it seems like maybe the Reagan Death Squads might have impacted you early in life.

[Phatscotty]

If you really believed in those words, then you wouldn't advocate for mandatory drug tests on poor people because that would be enforced by the barrel of the gun. "...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

There's a big difference between mandatory drug tests simply because a person is poor (which is unconstitutional) and mandatory drug tests for people who are trying to get money from the government (completely constitutional). If you are poor and don't take any money from the government, then you wouldn't have to take the drug test. If you have to have a drug test in order to work for your money, then it is completely logical to drug test a person before handing them free money from the government.

Whatever, dude. That's irrelevant. PS posted a picture which he provides as a response to explain his interpretation of freedom, liberty, etc., so I used his picture and rolled from there.

If you want to stuff your words in Phatscotty's mouth, then I hope you find that enjoyable, but please do that where I can't see it--like in live chat!

I just posted the picture, it was not in response to anything, and only an effort to get the Ronald Reagan thread back to Liberty and Freedom and away from silly pee test trollery

[Falkomagno]

[AAFitz]

He certainly united AIDS sufferers in hate against him, by virtually just ignoring the pandemic as long as he possibly could.

Ignoring such a disease in the beginning has a geometric effect. Arguably millions could have been saved, or educated, had he even acknowledged it existed publicly, let alone did anything about it.

As far as his economic theory...

He simply based his entire policy and public presentation based on the hate and fear of another group of people, though in his case it was hardly limited to one group.

A hero indeed, and no surprise, one of yours.

[AAFitz]

Yeah, but how are politicians going to secure votes without channeling money to supportive groups?

By standing on principle and actually working to ignore those principles.

fixed