Frank S:

That's what people who don't have knowledge and reason want to believe and thats why they are always trying to revise "TRUE" history.

As I had pointed out, and this is due to knowledge, reason and facts is that Reagan DID help to finally win the cold war. Some people forget the "600 ship Navy" of which I was proudly a member of. Let's not forget "Star wars" which is what put the final nail in the coffin. Because of captialism (which is a good word) and Reagan making our military ever stronger as well as Reagan being an OUTSTANDING comander in cheif is what finally broke the USSR's back.

Bush will hopefully be as sucessful as Reagan in attempting to win the war on terror. It will be much harder to do because the ones involved (terriost) are such cowards and wussies they hide in the dark. What needs to be done sucessful will be taken out those who can't hide as well who help to fund terriost such as Saddam in Iraq. Once we take out a few leaders who support terriost I honestly believe it will put a huge stop to it. Next after Iraq is delt with we should move on the Iran, and then where ever we damn will please.

Some question, should the USA be able to determine who runs a country. My answer is YES, if a certain leader is a nut who wants nothing more then to kill American civilians, destroy America with what ever means, by flying jets into buildings, chemicals, nukes etc. I believe we have a right and and a responsibility as the world leader (yes my liberal friends, no matter how much you may wish upon a star we are the world leader) and as that leader with our moral foundation it is up to us to insure the world is a safe place and safe first and formost for americans here at home.

Also as I have said before most of these middle east wackos, like Saddam are pure wussies when faced with real power. Remember Desert Storm, wussie Saddam was hiding all over the place and had doubles. Can anyone remember any American leader ever doing that during war or conflicts. I didn't think so.

Thank God we had strong leaders like Kenndy (bay of pigs), Reagan (ending the cold war) Bush senior (liberating Kuwait) and now hopefully Bush W. who will kick Saddams as* once and for all as well as other wackos that need to be taken out around the world.

 

If we only "unleashed the gates of hell" on the Middle East this Wednesday on 9/11. Wouldnt that be a perfect anniversary gift for those a$$holes?

 

Sadam should have got his butt kicked 10 years ago!!!!!! Hopefully this time they will eliminate him for good. That whole area needs to be made into a golf course with LOTS of bomb crater hazards. If they only didn't have the worlds supply of oil underneath them.

 

Hmmm... interesting theory. Sad that if you look at facts it will show otherwise.

The US was heavily involved in supporting and defending Canada due to the USSR. Ever hear of NORAD? If defending your own country to to proximity to the US is a problem, move north away from the borders.

Most of the policies that led to the strong economy during the Clinton administration were due to the long term economic goals during the Reagan administration. Seems to me the ball got dropped fairly quick once again, wonder how that happened?

I was born shortly after the Cuban missile crisis. Both my father and myself served time in the military. One of the drills we did in my job was to to send authentication to release nuclear weapons in the event of a Soviet launch.

In my lifetime, I have seen this threat disappear. I have pictures of Soviet spy ships and planes. I have pictures of the East German border patrolled by men in towers with machine guns.
Unlike many others, I am aware of the approx 70,000 Kuwaitis that are still unaccounted for after the invasion by Iraq.

My daughter is already growing up in a nation that has less threats to its existance than it did when I was her age. Hopefully this trend will continue with leaders willing to step up to the plate and not pass the buck.

 

signmaster:

DAMN, what an outstanding post!!! You are absolutely correct that the economy we had was due to Reagan. Most people believe the current president in office controls how the economy will turn out. Fact is it takes years, and I mean years for a policy change to really see an effect. Now we are begining to see the effect Clinton had with the economy and it is truly sad. But why should he care he made his big money, helped China with their nukes so now they are or will be VERY soon a threat to the USA. Good ol' Clinton. It is good that we don't have that wussy pre's Clinton in office or we would be bending over now for Saddam and the other terriost.

Isn't is also funny that in 1998 when Clinton said (it's different then actually doing, liberals say things rather then doing) anyhow, isn't it funny how back in 1998 all the big Dem's in congress and the house were all for invading Iraq. Now that Bush is the pre's and jets flown throw 2 buildings, washington etc they don't want to invade. Now it's we have to wait and see if we have the proof.

Those are liberals on display for you fokes, they talk the talk but can NOT walk the walk. They are about as coward as the terriost themselfs.

As I said TIME TO LIGHT THE CANDLE and send it on over to Iraq and then watch the terriost sh*t their pants and back way up back into the caves they belong in.

 

The tactic of don't **** with them and they won't **** with you proved to work real well with Al Quada and Osama bin Ladin didn't it? The truth of the matter is we should have dealt with the issue of Saddam Hussein ten years ago. The only reason we didn't was because George Bush Sr. was too worried about the title of winning the "100 Hour War." Had we stuck around and finished the job we very well may not be in the position we are today of trying to go back and finish what we already started but failed to complete. Instead we can go ahead and spend the billions of dollars all over again to wage war with Iraq now, or spend even more later once Iraq's 'threats' are proven to be more iminent. Anyone that thinks if left unrestrained that Saddam Hussen will grow into a legitimate 'partner for peace' in the international community is just simply out of touch with reality. In my opinion, war with Iraq is inevitable. We can go to war now while the threat of weapons of mass destruction exist, or wait a few years untell they are a reality. The only real difference will be the number of lives lost on our part to deal with the same problem we've already had the oppurtunity to correct once before. Perhaps this time we'll finish the job so we don't have to do it all over again in another ten years.

And as far as the economy - the facts are that in 8 years President Reagan piled on more debt than any other nation in history, and your going to tell me he was the great savior of our economy? LOL The only part of 'tickle down economics' that trickled down was the debts trickling down from one generation to the next to pay off... PERHAPS spending our nation into over a trillian dollars of debt helped prevent war with the USSR, but to go back now and act like the Reagan administration's economic policies are responsible for the economic success we have enjoyed as a country over the last ten years is simply wishful thinking...

 

I think Iraq should have been dealt with during Desert Storm. Everybody knew Iraq would come back to haunt us.

Having said that, the underlying reason we are involved in the Middle East is *OIL*. We need it, they got it. As long as the western world is overly dependent upon foreign oil this will continue to be a problem. It is, after all "THEIR OIL".

The idea of If they won't sell THEIR OIL cheap enough, let's take it from them is gonna lead to bloodshed.

The price of oil has a very strong influence on the western world economy and as a result, the rest of the world. Probably the best thing to do would be to invest in technology to make our vehicles, homes and factories more fuel efficient.

I would guess the Mideast does not care for U.S. Armed Forces being there all that much as would be the case if the situation were reversed.

OK. I feel better now. I think. $.02

 

Ummm... Yeah, sure. I seem to recall somebody flying all around the country, slipping into bomb shelters, then getting back on his plane, again flying all around the place.

Then I remember another guy being in an "Undisclosed and secure location" for weeks after...

 

And it was a democratically controlled Congress that signed off on every penny spent. So it was a co-operative effort that did the USSR in. Checks and balances, as they say.

 

STX/98

1) I agree with you that war with Iraq is inevitable.

2) I disagree with your presumption that George Sr. did not oust Saddam the first time for fear of that label. As he said in the beginning of the war, the sole objective was to oust Saddam from Kuwait. That is how he garnered the support of the Arab world. He stuck to his word. Had he gone too far then, people would be blaming him now for the September 11th attacks. Hindsight is 20/20.

3) I would like you to back up your statements about Reagan's deficit spending. I adhere to the Keynesian school of economics (which school do you adhere to?), which essentially states that in times of low demand and high unemployment a deficit will have no cost whatsoever. In just about any school of economics, all policies translate into "when you are in a recession, you should incur a deficit, when you are in a very bad recession, you should incur a HUGE deficit." There is an absolute need for compensatory spending in times of a recession, lest uncontrolled deflation starts and you find yourself in a depression. Perhaps you could elaborate on what YOUR fiscal and economic policy would have been during the Reagan administration.

Another question, just curious -

Do you always match your cash expenditures for the year with cash receipts, or do you have a mortgage, car loan, and a credit card? If you do have those things, you participate in deficit spending.

 

Yeah, but we have limits. Limits of our own and that of the lenders. What's the limit for our Government? If Reagan, Bush, and Bush are to be believed, there is no limit on how much the country can borrow and there is no time limit on how long the gov can take to repay that debt.

We have to budget to repay our personal and business debts. Seems like the government as envisioned by Reagan, Bush, and Bush don't have to.

 

Interesting...People have personal limits and limits of lenders....Well, let's see. What does the government have? Is it conceivable that "personal limits" exist in the form of Congress (who are elected by the "person"-als) when they approve spending? And let's see....Is it also conceivable that the US government has lenders? I wonder who buys Treasuries!??! Could it be that they are traded on the open market? Well, I guess they do have lenders. If the security wasn't attractive, the "lenders" wouldn't buy them....

It seems weird to me that when it applies to the government, people think that debt is bad. But when it applies to themselves, they think it is great. Hasn't it been in the latest news that the HIGHEST amount of debt per dollar of income exists today in American households? I would go so far to say that the government is probably more fiscally responsible than the average American. The "unhapiness" with "deficits" comes from the average American having a weak grasp on the important role debt and deficit spending have in the operation of a fluid economy.....

 

Sounds about right.

 

So, basically, you're telling me that there's no limit as to how big a deficit the government can run and that there are no consequences to be paid?

Hell's bells, why the hell don't we run that damned deficit to the moon and back. Shoot, we don't ever have to pay anymore taxes! Just let that defict grow, baby, GROW! Need a new fleet of carriers, just print more money! Need a new roof on the Capitol dome, just print more money!

Yeah, Baby! Cut taxes to zero and let that deficit fly!

Oh, wait a minute. Didn't other countries do that? Now toilet paper is worth more than their paper money and they need wheelbarrows to pay their bills... Hmmm....

 

BTW, I think personal debt is bad. I pay cash wherever possible. The truck was purchased on a 0% loan, though. I paid cash for the last property I bought. The next property I buy will also be paid for without a loan. The mortgages I did have were paid off way ahead of time. I have no mortgages and only the truck loan (no interest).

When Bush got the office, I knew that more than ever, Cash is God and I had zero confidence that he could keep the economy growing. I dumped all my stocks. The only thing I bought was gas and oil stocks that I sold for a pretty profit a few months later. I wasn't the only one. Most of my investing buddies and gals sold too.

The latest was Kmart stocks that I bought for 50 cents a share and sold for 75 cents. I'm sitting on 10,000 shares that I bought for 55 cents a share.

Most of my "upper income" friends are now carrying zero debt. That's the kind of confidence we have...