Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 30 May 2004 12:27:45 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:


I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt


Your opinion, is of course, your's.

Mine too.

But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

Economic conditions in the early 1960s were quite different. Low
inflation, low growth, small deficits, much excess capacity in the
economy. The early 1980s saw large deficits and high inflation.
Different problems require different solutions.

Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates
in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile?

Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls in August of 1971 thereby
fostering shortages and inflationary expectations. He then bungled
relations with OPEC and IRAN causing a series of supply-side oil shocks.
It was Gerald Ford who gave us the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
as the economy spiraled out of control. The notion that Carter created
stagflation is absurd. His policies provided the ultimate remedies.

Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Even as Reagan and the chicken hawks
prattled on about the red menace and squandered treasure on the B1B,
battleships, and Star Wars, the Russian economy declined to the point
that its GNP was less than Italy's. If Bill Casey's CIA had been
focused on gathering and analyzing intelligence rather than mining the
harbors, we could have saved a lot of money--however, since the
Reaganauts put the cost off on to future generations, why should you care?

You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer

It was the high interest policy of Paul Volcker (a Carter appointment)
that brought down inflation. When the recovery finally happened, it was
demand driven, not supply-side. It's no coincidence that as Reagan
became more addled by Alzheimer's he became enamored with kookier ideas.
The Laffer Curve is about as realistic as the death rays that Reagan
imagined could zap incoming warheads.

--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.


And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable,

A felony's a felony.

you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way. While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

It was a series of crimes.


Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages after complaining about European
allies conducting conventional trade. George Shultz, hardly a liberal,
claims to have told Reagan to his face that he traded arms for hostages.
Why did Reagan deny it? Was he a fool or a knave?

Cheers

--mike


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8