Gates Proposing Cuts in Military Budget

01-06-11, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

What we need is less government. If history is any indicator, that is probably not what we are going to get.

Another convert to Reagan. "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." -

Takeda Shingen · 01-06-11, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Another convert to Reagan. "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." -

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

01-06-11, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

But very targeted big spending. Reagan spending collapsed the Soviet Union.

Good to be here.

Takeda Shingen · 01-06-11, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

But very targeted big spending. Reagan spending collapsed the Soviet Union.

Debatable. Lots of revision over the years by the cult of Reagan. I used to subscribe to that view. Now I see him as just another free-spending politico. Nothing magic about the man.

01-06-11, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Debatable. Lots of revision over the years by the cult of Reagan. I used to subscribe to that view. Now I see him as just another free-spending politico. Nothing magic about the man.

Former Soviet reality is enough to convince me. If you cannot see the difference it is because you were born in the late 1970/early 1980's. Those of us born earlier can recognize the reality easily.

Takeda Shingen · 01-06-11, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Former Soviet reality is enough to convince me. If you cannot see the difference it is because you were born in the late 1970/early 1980's. Those of us born earlier can recognize the reality easily.

Ah. So my age places my views on the Index Prohibitorum. I suppose that is a convenient enough tool for silencing dissent. Of course, if what you say were true, everyone born prior to the dates you listed would be lock-step in their opinions. I wonder if that is true.

Ducimus · 01-06-11, 05:51 PM

You know, one of the biggest problems with neoconservatives, is they seem plan, act, talk, etc, like the US is still the all powerful and influential nation it was during the cold war. The world has changed since then, and is no longer the place where nations had to ally themselves with either the soviet bloc, or the US lead Nato/western alliance. That scenario gave us economic and political clout we no longer have.

Gerald · 01-06-11, 05:51 PM

So now let's talk about the Catholic Church, which is quite distant from the main issue, but neither Reagan or age,has nothing to do with this

01-06-11, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Ah. So my age places my views on the Index Prohibitorum. I suppose that is a convenient enough tool for silencing dissent. Of course, if what you say were true, everyone born prior to the dates you listed would be lock-step in their opinions. I wonder if that is true.

That was not my intent...to silence you...it was my intent to ask you to look deeper and employ your greater mind to go outside today's reality to examine the reality which came before you. History is about the 'place of the then' , not the place of the then seen through the eyes of today.

nikimcbee · 01-06-11, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

You mean Congress. He's just being bipartisan.

Gerald · 01-06-11, 08:02 PM

In order to understand what China stands for and what is said there, so it is an advantage of knowing their limitations, to a large extent, what you have to read between the lines to get a rough estimate, and the whole country is one big firewall, as the principle does not allow uploads (to phones, for example) which we are accustomed to do, the list is very long on what is happening, and that must be experienced live, to get 'some' insight..

gimpy117 · 01-06-11, 08:13 PM

Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks.

Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that.

And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce.

Freiwillige · 01-06-11, 08:55 PM

Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history.

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

Takeda Shingen · 01-06-11, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history.

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

Yes, I'll agree about the shrinking of government. Reagan was a mixed bag; really good about the size of government and anti-drug programs, and and really bad about things like the deficit and free trade. I have no problem giving Reagan his due, but the concerted efforts of certain groups which seek to omit certain aspects of his admistration while exaggerating others in order to present him as some sort of political godhead is almost farcical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

You mean Congress. He's just being bipartisan.

Then I suppose that we should really be giving Tip O'Neill credit for defeating the Soviet Union.

Tessa · 01-07-11, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

When Reagan was Governor of California he left office with the state having a budget surplus of several millions, the next Govenor (much to my horror since I live here) Jerry Brown was the next Governor and before his first term was up he'd already blew through the entire surplus and plunged the state into an equal amount of debt. Believe Reagan was quoted previously, but the truth behind it is the same "the cure to government, is less government".

One thing Reagan had was a real backbone, he wouldn't let anyone intimidate the US. He was a big fan of cruise missles, and wasn't afraid to have Battleships/Destroyers in the area launch attacks at those whom struck at us. He wasn't afraid of "polictial correctness" and used the armed forces when they were needed. Had Reagan been president in the 90's there's a good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened, why? Because at one point Bin Laden was at a know location, coraborated by several reliable sources. All Clinton had to do was order the strike and 1 cruise missle would have brought him down. This chance happened right after the Lewinski scandal broke and didn't take the action he should have because it might have possibly make his political situation worse. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William Tecumseh Sherman

01-06-11, 05:51 PM	#8
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	So now let's talk about the Catholic Church, which is quite distant from the main issue, but neither Reagan or age,has nothing to do with this __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

01-06-11, 08:02 PM	#11
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	In order to understand what China stands for and what is said there, so it is an advantage of knowing their limitations, to a large extent, what you have to read between the lines to get a rough estimate, and the whole country is one big firewall, as the principle does not allow uploads (to phones, for example) which we are accustomed to do, the list is very long on what is happening, and that must be experienced live, to get 'some' insight.. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

01-06-11, 08:13 PM	#12
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks. Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that. And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce. __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

01-06-11, 05:51 PM	#7
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	You know, one of the biggest problems with neoconservatives, is they seem plan, act, talk, etc, like the US is still the all powerful and influential nation it was during the cold war. The world has changed since then, and is no longer the place where nations had to ally themselves with either the soviet bloc, or the US lead Nato/western alliance. That scenario gave us economic and political clout we no longer have.

01-06-11, 08:55 PM	#13
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history. And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.