Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
<< He ended the cold war. >>
I think you might find Mr Gorbachev ended the Cold War. Reagan just prolonged the time it took him. can you say ABM treaty? Can you say Reykjavik conference? SALT II?
<<Reagan will go down in history as a great president. He ended the cold war. That was a major accomplishment. He also slashed taxes, which ended double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. These taxes cuts are the reason we have had a great economy for the past 20 years. To see this anyone way would be a revision of history.>>
He kicked employment up through deficit millitary spending, and quadrupled our debt in the process. All those Job's he created are long since gone, he created a defense spending economy that was unsustainable and most of those high paying defense jobs are gone the way of the dodo.
Inflation was dead before he took office, the Chairman of the Federal reserve, before Alan Greenspan was appointed, saw to that through the use of double digit inflation rates. He drove the economy into a wall to kill inflation. The credit goes to the fed, NOT Reagan.
The only taxes he cut were a reduction in the top tax bracket from 70% to 36%, and a modest reduction in capital gains taxes. The huge reduction in the upper bracket caused a tax INCREASE under Bushes adminstration on the middle class ("read my lips" to attempt to recover the lost revenue and probably resulted in Bush losing his second term and Clinton being elected.
You are the one revising History, although he can be credited with ending the cold war he did NOT do what you said otherwise.
He kicked employment up through deficit millitary spending, and quadrupled our debt in the process. All those Job's he created are long since gone, he created a defense spending economy that was unsustainable and most of those high paying defense jobs are gone the way of the dodo.
Inflation was dead before he took office, the Chairman of the Federal reserve, before Alan Greenspan was appointed, saw to that through the use of double digit inflation rates. He drove the economy into a wall to kill inflation. The credit goes to the fed, NOT Reagan.
The only taxes he cut were a reduction in the top tax bracket from 70% to 36%, and a modest reduction in capital gains taxes. The huge reduction in the upper bracket caused a tax INCREASE under Bushes adminstration on the middle class ("read my lips"
to attempt to recover the lost revenue and probably resulted in Bush losing his second term and Clinton being elected. You are the one revising History, although he can be credited with ending the cold war he did NOT do what you said otherwise.
thebestMAX.......... you beat me to the submarine But I was thinking because of what it was full of
Isn't the new carrier just another Nimintz (sp?) class like Carl Vison (sp?)? Or is it a new class of carrier?
Cheers,
Aquaman
But I was thinking because of what it was full of Isn't the new carrier just another Nimintz (sp?) class like Carl Vison (sp?)? Or is it a new class of carrier?
Cheers,
Aquaman
Thorn,
ABM helped. It ensured that both countries continued building weapons of mass destruction. USSR tried to keep up, but they went bankrupt in the process. Reagan's Star Wars project had them scared.
ABM helped. It ensured that both countries continued building weapons of mass destruction. USSR tried to keep up, but they went bankrupt in the process. Reagan's Star Wars project had them scared.
- Sep 14, 2000
- 7,509
- 136
- 106
The new carrier is a Nimitz Class. I think there is another one due in 2008 also that will be the last.
Aircraft Carrier? :Q I didn't even know that Canada had a navy. When did this happened? And why would we name a ship after the leader of another country?
rahvin,
Lets not let the facts get in the way.
Taxes collected in the 80.
The tax cuts(these were tax cuts for all) did not cause the debts we carry now. Run away spending caused these debts. Reagans budgets submitting to congress called for taxcuts and spending cuts. The democratic controlled congress did not follow the tax cuts. Granted Reagon could have veto the budgets.
Get the facts straight before start saying others are revising history. Feel free to post any links to support your argument, I will be waiting for them.
Lets not let the facts get in the way.
Taxes collected in the 80.
The tax cuts(these were tax cuts for all) did not cause the debts we carry now. Run away spending caused these debts. Reagans budgets submitting to congress called for taxcuts and spending cuts. The democratic controlled congress did not follow the tax cuts. Granted Reagon could have veto the budgets.
Get the facts straight before start saying others are revising history. Feel free to post any links to support your argument, I will be waiting for them.
<< ABM helped. It ensured that both countries continued building weapons of mass destruction. USSR tried to keep up, but they went bankrupt in the process. Reagan's Star Wars project had them scared. >>
crap. The attempted renegotiation of the ABM treaty just jeopardised the entire detente in the 1980's
backfire bomber, etc.
in fact, even your goverment did not want to spend on ABM, indeed maybe the most evocative information is that when a negotiation was reached, two sites were allowed, one on the largest missile base, and one on the capital of each country.
guess what, the russians defended the people in their capital. the americans defended their biggest missile base and thousands of miles of empty country.
When the last 2 Nimitz class carriers were funded, they decided to name the 2 presidents who start and end the cold war. so you get USS Harris S. Truman(CVN-75) and USS Ronald Reagan(CVN-76). not sure what they'll name CVX-77 though...
I think I remember hearing that the new carrier displaces 195,000 tons.
I dont think the displacement equals the actual weight, I think the displacement refers to the actual amount of water it displaces, enabling it to float. If I remember correctly, what causes things to float is that they displace more water than their actual weight.
I could be way off.
I dont think the displacement equals the actual weight, I think the displacement refers to the actual amount of water it displaces, enabling it to float. If I remember correctly, what causes things to float is that they displace more water than their actual weight.
I could be way off.
<<The tax cuts(these were tax cuts for all) did not cause the debts we carry now. Run away spending caused these debts. Reagans budgets submitting to congress called for taxcuts and spending cuts. The democratic controlled congress did not follow the tax cuts. Granted Reagon could have veto the budgets.>>
Regan passed the budget and if the spending increased it was his fault for not vetoing it. Congress controlls the pocket books, and you can't have it both ways by crediting Reagan for the tax cut and knocking the democrats for the increasing spending. If he couldn't get congress to reduce spending he should have asked that the tax cut be reduced but he choose to do both and as such he bears the full responsibility of that debt. Besides this is what you said:
<<He also slashed taxes, which ended double digit unemployment and double digit inflation.>>
I have already pointed out that Reagan had NOTHING to do with inflation, that was strictly the domain of the Federal Reserve. There is also NO evidence that the tax cut ended unemployment (which I would like proof it was double digit, because I remember nationwide unemployment never going above 8%). If anything the increased spending of the Democratic congress had much more effect on the economy than a tax reduction to the wealthy ever would have. It's simple economics that giving more money to people that already have everything they need will NOT increase spending or create jobs. That money will end up in investments doing very little for the economy. (and BTW for all you zealous republicans out there, I'm not arguing in favor of the pork pollitics of the 80's of which reagan was an active participant)
And provding a link that shows tax revenue increase during the 80's does nothing to prove your point. Guess what, tax revenue's have been increasing since the country started. It's called growth and this country has grown a LOT, and continues to. If you want to prove a tax cut stimulated the economy it must be isolated (as in there isn't a whole bunch of increased spending at the same time) and it must be immediately (ie the year after the cut) occuring (kinda like Kennedy's tax cut). Your graph show's a nice linear relationship, something you would see if you extended the graph on both sides into the 70's and 90's.
Regan passed the budget and if the spending increased it was his fault for not vetoing it. Congress controlls the pocket books, and you can't have it both ways by crediting Reagan for the tax cut and knocking the democrats for the increasing spending. If he couldn't get congress to reduce spending he should have asked that the tax cut be reduced but he choose to do both and as such he bears the full responsibility of that debt. Besides this is what you said:
<<He also slashed taxes, which ended double digit unemployment and double digit inflation.>>
I have already pointed out that Reagan had NOTHING to do with inflation, that was strictly the domain of the Federal Reserve. There is also NO evidence that the tax cut ended unemployment (which I would like proof it was double digit, because I remember nationwide unemployment never going above 8%). If anything the increased spending of the Democratic congress had much more effect on the economy than a tax reduction to the wealthy ever would have. It's simple economics that giving more money to people that already have everything they need will NOT increase spending or create jobs. That money will end up in investments doing very little for the economy. (and BTW for all you zealous republicans out there, I'm not arguing in favor of the pork pollitics of the 80's of which reagan was an active participant)
And provding a link that shows tax revenue increase during the 80's does nothing to prove your point. Guess what, tax revenue's have been increasing since the country started. It's called growth and this country has grown a LOT, and continues to. If you want to prove a tax cut stimulated the economy it must be isolated (as in there isn't a whole bunch of increased spending at the same time) and it must be immediately (ie the year after the cut) occuring (kinda like Kennedy's tax cut). Your graph show's a nice linear relationship, something you would see if you extended the graph on both sides into the 70's and 90's.
<<I dont think the displacement equals the actual weight, I think the displacement refers to the actual amount of water it displaces, enabling it to float. If I remember correctly, what causes things to float is that they displace more water than their actual weight.>>
They displace exactly their weight, if they displaced more then they weighed the water would launch them because the force of the displaced water would be greater than gravitational force. I'm not sure that made sense. Displacement is how you calculate the weight of floating objects.
They displace exactly their weight, if they displaced more then they weighed the water would launch them because the force of the displaced water would be greater than gravitational force. I'm not sure that made sense. Displacement is how you calculate the weight of floating objects.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
<< They were building that ship when I was getting out of the Navy..in 1991 >>
No they weren't...Congress didn't even appropriate funds for it until 1994 and the keel wasn't laid until 1998.
<< not sure what they'll name CVX-77 though... >>
They said yesterday during the christening that the USS Reagan was to be the last Nimitz class carrier. Where did you see the info about there beng another?
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, the computers on the Ronald Reagan will be programmed with Artificial Alzheimer's.
Fire And Forget at its best!
Radar Love (Golden Earring)
Fire And Forget at its best!
Radar Love (Golden Earring)
<<If anything the increased spending of the Democratic congress had much more effect on the economy than a tax reduction to the wealthy ever would have>>
This is so wrong as to be almost laughable. Where do you think the Democrats came up with the money to increase spending? Because of Reagan's tax cuts. Look at the chart again. Revenue more than doubled during the 80's.
You don't think the wealthy should have had a tax cut? You don't think it helped anything?
What do you think started all that extra money rolling into the IRS? The rich started investing more since they weren't being unfairly penalized for making money, and guess what: that money started rolling downhill to everyone else.
You can't deny that. I can't deny that Reagan certainly had the opportunity to veto some of the budgets, but he also had to worry about congress overriding that veto.
We can disagree about some of the things Reagan accomplished, but winning the cold war and jump starting the economy are arguments you can't win based on any kind of fact.
If Carter had won in 1980, would he have lowered taxes? If not, do you still think the economy would have done as well? I don't, and neither do many others.
This is so wrong as to be almost laughable. Where do you think the Democrats came up with the money to increase spending? Because of Reagan's tax cuts. Look at the chart again. Revenue more than doubled during the 80's.
You don't think the wealthy should have had a tax cut? You don't think it helped anything?
What do you think started all that extra money rolling into the IRS? The rich started investing more since they weren't being unfairly penalized for making money, and guess what: that money started rolling downhill to everyone else.
You can't deny that. I can't deny that Reagan certainly had the opportunity to veto some of the budgets, but he also had to worry about congress overriding that veto.
We can disagree about some of the things Reagan accomplished, but winning the cold war and jump starting the economy are arguments you can't win based on any kind of fact.
If Carter had won in 1980, would he have lowered taxes? If not, do you still think the economy would have done as well? I don't, and neither do many others.
btw did france ever fix their carrier? I'd heard they busted-off the prop and it's been in port for a while undergoing repairs.
I wonder just how long it would take us to build either the USS Enterprise or even the Voyager from Star Trek.
ThebestMAX, i'm assuming you meaning the Fictional startship, and not a Carrier named after the ships from ST right? Cuz we already got a U.S.S Emterprise out there..
Anyway it is a Nimtiz class(sp) I know there is another proposed class of carrier out there, but i think its not going to be as big and might incorporate some kind of "modular" construction.
ANyway, if we were to build the "fictional" starship, i'd hope our technology would have attained a level where building times would be slighty increased.
ThebestMAX, i'm assuming you meaning the Fictional startship, and not a Carrier named after the ships from ST right? Cuz we already got a U.S.S Emterprise out there..
Anyway it is a Nimtiz class(sp) I know there is another proposed class of carrier out there, but i think its not going to be as big and might incorporate some kind of "modular" construction.
ANyway, if we were to build the "fictional" starship, i'd hope our technology would have attained a level where building times would be slighty increased.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter