Since we put a man on the moon in 1969, what have we achieved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reagan won the Cold War. Probably the biggest contribution to humanity since the end of WWII.

TOTAL NONSENSE! First, Reagan didn't do anything - the USSR dissolved! And second, since WWII we have been involved in so many more horrible and deadly wars (Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq) that WWII looks quaint in comparison.

Np. First, While I disagree that Reagan "won" the Cold War, he clearly did something. See, e.g., his policies. Second, given the number of casualties and nuclear bomb, WW II does not look quaint. So try again, bro.

What policies actually ended the cold war? From what I see, Gorbachev had to wait until Reagan was gone to do anything.

If Reagan had stayed a Democrat most of you denying he had anything to do with what happened, and how it advanced what happened, with Soviets would be touting his contribution.

Timing is everything in life...along with some things he did...the time was right. Communism was never going to be able to produce enough to keep the Soviet Union and all those welfare satellite nations the USSR was trying to hold onto.

See...the answer is in the middle. Those of you saying he did NOTHING...that's nonsense...those of you saying he WAS the reason...that's nonsense too.

Partisanship, lack of knowledge...both foster ignorance.

Not really. I did several years of soviet studies. Social forces were going to rip apart the Soviet Union. This is what I was taught in school, before it happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Achieved in what sense? May I direct you to the device you are currently using to post on DCUM?

That was what first leapt to my mind, too.

Heard of the Internet, OP? I assume you have, since you're using it. On a computer or phone, too, I imagine.

+1
OP, don't rush it. The IA will take over the world soon enough. We will be extinct like the dinosaurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reagan won the Cold War. Probably the biggest contribution to humanity since the end of WWII.

TOTAL NONSENSE! First, Reagan didn't do anything - the USSR dissolved! And second, since WWII we have been involved in so many more horrible and deadly wars (Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq) that WWII looks quaint in comparison.

Np. First, While I disagree that Reagan "won" the Cold War, he clearly did something. See, e.g., his policies. Second, given the number of casualties and nuclear bomb, WW II does not look quaint. So try again, bro.

What policies actually ended the cold war? From what I see, Gorbachev had to wait until Reagan was gone to do anything.

If Reagan had stayed a Democrat most of you denying he had anything to do with what happened, and how it advanced what happened, with Soviets would be touting his contribution.

Timing is everything in life...along with some things he did...the time was right. Communism was never going to be able to produce enough to keep the Soviet Union and all those welfare satellite nations the USSR was trying to hold onto.

See...the answer is in the middle. Those of you saying he did NOTHING...that's nonsense...those of you saying he WAS the reason...that's nonsense too.

Partisanship, lack of knowledge...both foster ignorance.

Not really. I did several years of soviet studies. Social forces were going to rip apart the Soviet Union. This is what I was taught in school, before it happened.

Did you miss this? Timing is everything in life...along with some things he did...the time was right. Communism was never going to be able to produce enough to keep the Soviet Union and all those welfare satellite nations the USSR was trying to hold onto.

[Anonymous]

If timing really is everything, then Bush won the Cold War.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1960s: Moon Landing
1970s - 2015: AIDS healthcare, the Internet

Anything else?

AIDS was an achievement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although Reagan didn't go out and fight on a horse or something he did contribute a lot to the downfall of the soviet union. Either way he should be credited.

Interesting word, credited.

You, your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt that Reagan left them while he tried to outspend the Soviets into oblivion.

Ha.
You wanna talk about debt???
Let’s discuss Obama’s contribution to the national debt.........

It's gone up up up under everyone but Clinton, where the growth almost came to a halt. US Government these days is a wealth transfer mechanism to the rich, the old, and to defense contractors.

[Anonymous]

IMO, the Soviet Union's collapse was probably accelerated 5-15 years by Reagan.

1) Soviets subsidized their satellites (wheat, $, etc.)
2) Soviets began having problems feeding themselves in the 1960s. To continue their subsidies, they had to buy more wheat on the world market requiring $.
3) Soviet main source of $ was gold and oil.
4) Gold cratered from $800/oz to $200/oz between 1980 and 1986. Oil cratered from $80/bbl to $15/bbl in that timeframe as well
5) Reagan convinced the Saudis to agree to an oil output increase, during a time when the Soviets had to spend more $ on Afghanistan and shiny new missiles to keep up with Reagan's defense spending increases. This in addition to buying grain and other subsidies to their satellites.

http://www.aei.org/feature/the-soviet-collapse/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although Reagan didn't go out and fight on a horse or something he did contribute a lot to the downfall of the soviet union. Either way he should be credited.

Interesting word, credited.

You, your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt that Reagan left them while he tried to outspend the Soviets into oblivion.

Ha.
You wanna talk about debt???
Let’s discuss Obama’s contribution to the national debt.........

Give me a break. You need to learn how to look at historical data and apply some deductive reasoning. You also need to understand the power of the presidency vs. the Congress, who approves the national budget. The debt has been rising steadily since it first topped $1T in 1982. Here is the breakdown in terms of percent increase for our past five presidents.

Reagan - $908B to $2.6T - 186% increase over term in office
Bush 1 - $2.6T to $4.1T - 58% increase over term in office
Clinton - $4.1T to $5.7T - 39% increase over term in office
Bush 2 - $5.7T to $10T - 113% increase over term in office
Obama - $10T to $17.8T - 78% increase over term in office

What do you notice? First, Reagan indeed presided over the largest percent increase in the national debt of the whole group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although Reagan didn't go out and fight on a horse or something he did contribute a lot to the downfall of the soviet union. Either way he should be credited.

Interesting word, credited.

You, your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren will still be saddled with the debt that Reagan left them while he tried to outspend the Soviets into oblivion.

Ha.
You wanna talk about debt???
Let’s discuss Obama’s contribution to the national debt.........

Give me a break. You need to learn how to look at historical data and apply some deductive reasoning. You also need to understand the power of the presidency vs. the Congress, who approves the national budget. The debt has been rising steadily since it first topped $1T in 1982. Here is the breakdown in terms of percent increase for our past five presidents.

Reagan - $908B to $2.6T - 186% increase over term in office
Bush 1 - $2.6T to $4.1T - 58% increase over term in office
Clinton - $4.1T to $5.7T - 39% increase over term in office
Bush 2 - $5.7T to $10T - 113% increase over term in office
Obama - $10T to $17.8T - 78% increase over term in office

What do you notice? First, Reagan indeed presided over the largest percent increase in the national debt of the whole group.

Second, I wanted to point out Bush 1's dramatic decrease. I wasn't old enough to vote for him in 1988, but had I been, I would have. I don't like everything he did but I think he was an adult and a pragmatist who actually cared about solving problems. He had the guts to do the right thing when circumstances warranted a change in his previously stated policy. I have been a registered Democrat now for 20 years and I say that without reservation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the Soviet Union's collapse was probably accelerated 5-15 years by Reagan.

1) Soviets subsidized their satellites (wheat, $, etc.)
2) Soviets began having problems feeding themselves in the 1960s. To continue their subsidies, they had to buy more wheat on the world market requiring $.
3) Soviet main source of $ was gold and oil.
4) Gold cratered from $800/oz to $200/oz between 1980 and 1986. Oil cratered from $80/bbl to $15/bbl in that timeframe as well
5) Reagan convinced the Saudis to agree to an oil output increase, during a time when the Soviets had to spend more $ on Afghanistan and shiny new missiles to keep up with Reagan's defense spending increases. This in addition to buying grain and other subsidies to their satellites.

http://www.aei.org/feature/the-soviet-collapse/

Nice lie there. Anyone who pulls the Saudi oil output numbers can demonstrate it is a lie. When Reagan came into office, they were pumping >10 mil a day.by the end of his term it was 5.5m barrels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the Soviet Union's collapse was probably accelerated 5-15 years by Reagan.

1) Soviets subsidized their satellites (wheat, $, etc.)
2) Soviets began having problems feeding themselves in the 1960s. To continue their subsidies, they had to buy more wheat on the world market requiring $.
3) Soviet main source of $ was gold and oil.
4) Gold cratered from $800/oz to $200/oz between 1980 and 1986. Oil cratered from $80/bbl to $15/bbl in that timeframe as well
5) Reagan convinced the Saudis to agree to an oil output increase, during a time when the Soviets had to spend more $ on Afghanistan and shiny new missiles to keep up with Reagan's defense spending increases. This in addition to buying grain and other subsidies to their satellites.

http://www.aei.org/feature/the-soviet-collapse/

Nice lie there. Anyone who pulls the Saudi oil output numbers can demonstrate it is a lie. When Reagan came into office, they were pumping >10 mil a day.by the end of his term it was 5.5m barrels.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=sa&product=oil&graph=production

In 1985 Saudi Arabia was pumping 3.388 million barrels a day; it had increased to a bit over 5 million barrels. This was apparently enough to take the price of oil from the mid-20s to the mid-teens.

With that said, the fact of the matter is that the Soviets were getting squeezed financially by cratering gold/oil prices in 1985 (went from mid-20s to mid-teens), this cannot be disputed. The Baltics and other ex-USSR states were allowed to be let go after the West threatened to not send the Soviets/Russians $100B of loans in the early 1990s.

And yes, Saudi Arabia changed tack in the mid 1980s -- oil even went below $10 a barrel for a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut

http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,961087,00.html