Reaganomics

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending.

[/quote]

No. Read:

‘After his election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan changed the American strategy against the Soviets from a policy of containment to one of pursuing victory. The core of this strategy was economic warfare. Exploiting the inherent weakness of the Soviet economy(which was smaller than the economy of California alone), Reagan turned the dollar into a weapon, subjecting the Soviet economy to unrelenting pressure. He began by forging an alliance with Saudi Arabia and convincing the desert kingdom to increase its oil production, thereby lowering world oil prices. This move undercut the Soviets’ chief economic export - oil - and forced them to ramp up production to compete.

Reagan also pushed for a technological embargo on the Soviet Union, but he arranged for the Soviets to get hold of one particular type of technology. According to Thomas Reed, who was a member of Reagan’s National Security Council, the United States allowed the Soviets to steal technology specifically designed to malfunction. This was a clever maneuver, especially because the Soviets were planting Soviet intelligence officers into all their supposedly friendly delegations - for example, every Soviet cosmonaut who worked with the Apollo/Soyuz flight was a KGB officer. “Within a few months, the shipments began,” Reed recalled. “Improved” - that is to say, erratic - computer chips were designed to pass quality-acceptance tests before entry into the Soviet service. Only later would they sporadically fail, frazzling the nerves of harried users." Used to sabotage the Soviet oil and fuel system, these chips caused the largest natural gas explosion in world history - a blast along a trans-Siberian pipeline so large that measuring agencies thought a 3-kiloton nuclear device had been detonated.

The program was called “Farewell,” and as Reed pointed out, the "campaign was cold-eyed economic warfare, put in place to inflict a price on the Soviet Union for corrupting the lofty ideals of detente. While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy. Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end.’ - Secret Weapon Kevin Freeman

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending.

[/quote]

No. Read:

'After his election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan changed the American strategy against the Soviets [/quote]

What policy was that ?

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?

CS[/quote]

Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.

Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.

I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.

Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!

Thank you,

Zeb[/quote]

Yep he also helped facilitate a pattern of deregulation, along with Alan Greenspan and all those other criminals, whose continuation led us to where we find ourselves now. Granted, it wasn’t all him. IMO, that fucker should’ve been investigated from the get-go. Iran contras anyone?* B-list shithead actor who gradually assumed stances of progressively more severe conservatism. Shit, just ask Gore Vidal for sources. He’ll tell ya.

B-B-But he’s a liberal!

*Nope never heard of it… Ah, conspiracy theories…[/quote]

inb4 Zeb insults you for your age
[/quote]

Yes, but just barely…GET EM!

[/quote]

Haha

I agree with Orion. Carter and Reagan are two cheeks of the same arse.

(imo, no lecture here)[/quote]

And you are the middle part…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?

CS[/quote]

Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.

Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.

I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.

Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!

Thank you,

Zeb[/quote]

Yep he also helped facilitate a pattern of deregulation, along with Alan Greenspan and all those other criminals, whose continuation led us to where we find ourselves now. Granted, it wasn’t all him. IMO, that fucker should’ve been investigated from the get-go. Iran contras anyone?* B-list shithead actor who gradually assumed stances of progressively more severe conservatism. Shit, just ask Gore Vidal for sources. He’ll tell ya.

B-B-But he’s a liberal!

*Nope never heard of it… Ah, conspiracy theories…[/quote]

inb4 Zeb insults you for your age
[/quote]

Yes, but just barely…GET EM!

[/quote]

Haha

I agree with Orion. Carter and Reagan are two cheeks of the same arse.

(imo, no lecture here)[/quote]

And you are the middle part…[/quote]

I wasn’t going to respond to this but I have the perfect picture that is funny AND ontopic!

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?

CS[/quote]

Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.

Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.

I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.

Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!

Thank you,

Zeb[/quote]

Yep he also helped facilitate a pattern of deregulation, along with Alan Greenspan and all those other criminals, whose continuation led us to where we find ourselves now. Granted, it wasn’t all him. IMO, that fucker should’ve been investigated from the get-go. Iran contras anyone?* B-list shithead actor who gradually assumed stances of progressively more severe conservatism. Shit, just ask Gore Vidal for sources. He’ll tell ya.

B-B-But he’s a liberal!

*Nope never heard of it… Ah, conspiracy theories…[/quote]

inb4 Zeb insults you for your age
[/quote]

Yes, but just barely…GET EM!

[/quote]

Haha

I agree with Orion. Carter and Reagan are two cheeks of the same arse.

(imo, no lecture here)[/quote]

And you are the middle part…[/quote]

I wasn’t going to respond to this but I have the perfect picture that is funny AND ontopic![/quote]

I can always use a good laugh even if it’s on me…And the above was a joke you know that right?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending.

[/quote]

No. Read:

'After his election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan changed the American strategy against the Soviets [/quote]

What policy was that ?
[/quote]

Ah…as it goes on to say, the policy of victory as opposed to containment…???

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I can always use a good laugh even if it’s on me…And the above was a joke you know that right?[/quote]

Oh yes :slight_smile:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending.

[/quote]

No. Read:

'After his election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan changed the American strategy against the Soviets [/quote]

What policy was that ? I know it sounds pretty and all , but what did Reagan do that Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon do . I say the answer is nothing and the Russian Empire collapsed
because they got bogged down in Afghanistan.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending.

[/quote]

No. Read:

'After his election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan changed the American strategy against the Soviets [/quote]

What policy was that ? I know it sounds pretty and all , but what did Reagan do that Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon do . I say the answer is nothing and the Russian Empire collapsed
because they got bogged down in Afghanistan.
[/quote]

I’ll make this really clear for those who were either too young to have witnessed it, or that have not read and understand history.

  1. Ronald Reagan increased defense spending well over what Carter had it at.

  2. The Soviets tried keeping up with said spending as they feared the US would get a far superior military and that is what crushed them economically.

REAGAN DID IT!

End of story!

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending.

[/quote]

No. Read:

'After his election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan changed the American strategy against the Soviets [/quote]

What policy was that ?
[/quote]

SDI, which was the bestest bluff EVA!!

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time
[/quote]

What scared them was the “crazy cowboy” in the White House. So they spent far more than they had. Sort of like what we’re doing right now under Obama. Isn’t Obama a wonderful President?

:wink:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time
[/quote]

What scared them was the “crazy cowboy” in the White House. So they spent far more than they had. Sort of like what we’re doing right now under Obama. Isn’t Obama a wonderful President?

;)[/quote]

OK what ever you say (Eye Roll)

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time
[/quote]

What scared them was the “crazy cowboy” in the White House. So they spent far more than they had. Sort of like what we’re doing right now under Obama. Isn’t Obama a wonderful President?

;)[/quote]

OK what ever you say (Eye Roll)[/quote]

Well, then let’s take your scenario and see if it makes sense. The Russians saw the US military build up under Reagan and never reacted because they never felt threatened. Now does that make sense?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time
[/quote]

What scared them was the “crazy cowboy” in the White House. So they spent far more than they had. Sort of like what we’re doing right now under Obama. Isn’t Obama a wonderful President?

;)[/quote]

OK what ever you say (Eye Roll)[/quote]

Well, then let’s take your scenario and see if it makes sense. The Russians saw the US military build up under Reagan and never reacted because they never felt threatened. Now does that make sense?[/quote]

Do you remember the news surrounding the military build up in Afghanistan , I am betting it was America reacting to Russia rather than the other way around . There was talk about America going into Afghanistan to evict Russia

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time
[/quote]

What scared them was the “crazy cowboy” in the White House. So they spent far more than they had. Sort of like what we’re doing right now under Obama. Isn’t Obama a wonderful President?

;)[/quote]

OK what ever you say (Eye Roll)[/quote]

Well, then let’s take your scenario and see if it makes sense. The Russians saw the US military build up under Reagan and never reacted because they never felt threatened. Now does that make sense?[/quote]

Do you remember the news surrounding the military build up in Afghanistan , I am betting it was America reacting to Russia rather than the other way around . There was talk about America going into Afghanistan to evict Russia
[/quote]

Maybe the Russians want it now?

Sell it for one dollar if they do!

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will stand corrected , Reagan did increase spending in military . But we had just come out of a recession and our military was still smarting from the spanking they got in VietNam . The reason the Soviet Union increases their military spending is because they found Afghanistan to be a quagmire .

PS that recession was a long one all through Nixon and Carter[/quote]

Oh Pitt…you’re a good guy and all but you should really do more reading and exercise less prejiduce.

We suspended action in Viet Nam in January of 1973. Carter was elected in 1976 and refused to build up the military even though it was depleted.

“As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist. Important U.S. military personnel were not reenlisting; it just wasn’t worth it to them. In fact, thousands of enlisted men’s families survived on food stamps.”

When Reagan entered the picture he elevated military spending to its highest since WWII. This obviously caught the Soviet Union’s attention. And while they were involved in a war in Afghanistan it was their own military build up attempting to keep pace with the US which drove them under.

Begin your education below.

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/?gclid=CImoysSYuq8CFUPf4AodfXwxkw

[/quote]

You got the Carter years in the military we totally agree on that issue . The Russians were floundering in Afghanistan . The only reason they worried about America is because of their occupation of Afghanistan . Russia put it’s first troops in in the Carter admin. but did not move into full occupation until Reagan was in office for quite some time
[/quote]

What scared them was the “crazy cowboy” in the White House. So they spent far more than they had. Sort of like what we’re doing right now under Obama. Isn’t Obama a wonderful President?

;)[/quote]

OK what ever you say (Eye Roll)[/quote]

Well, then let’s take your scenario and see if it makes sense. The Russians saw the US military build up under Reagan and never reacted because they never felt threatened. Now does that make sense?[/quote]

Do you remember the news surrounding the military build up in Afghanistan , I am betting it was America reacting to Russia rather than the other way around . There was talk about America going into Afghanistan to evict Russia
[/quote]

That may be the case. BUT…the fact the fact that we built up our military at such a rapid rate scared the Russians which caused them to build their military beyond the point where they could afford it. Somewhat like what we’re doing with our social structure under the failed Obama Presidency. There is a record 14 million people on food stams under Obama…He is the food stamp President. What a legacy!

But make sure you vote for him in Novemeber you want to keep him right where he is—LOL