Comment by paul — May 21, 2007 @ 12:43 pm

Paul, put the crack pipe down!!!!

That’s not the way I remember it. Now, my memory is probably fuzzy on a few things, but I believe there were people at that time (Brezhnev era, in the US), pointing out the economic unsustainability of the USSR’s nuclear program. By that time, the west was beginning to see the economic strain in the USSR — in the gradually lessening of economic and military support for third-world regimes, cutbacks in medical research, and other areas. While Gorbachev oversaw the winding down of Soviet empire, it had been visible to the West in many ways before then.

“It is my recollection that “parity” was not economically sustainable by the USSR, and that was the proximate cause of its collapse.”

We now know that this is true. However, back in 1980, it certainly wasn’t widely believed in America – especially among the Republican Right hawks, whose hero was Ronald Reagan. They thought there was a “missile gap” in the Soviets’ favor. They thought the Soviet Union was going to last forever, and maybe defeat us in a war, unless we made an immediate effort to build up our military.

That all seems silly, now. But back then, such ideas were the central principle of Reagan-style foreign policy…and Reagan turned his back on them, even though they got him elected and defined his political beliefs.

This is a non-partisan issue.

Comment by joe — May 21, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

It is my recollection that “parity” was not economically sustainable by the USSR, and that was the proximate cause of its collapse.

Of course, it is yet to be seen whether “parity” was economically susatinable by us any better than by them. But, we have yet to pay down the debt that Reagan accumulated during those years.

The burden of that debt continues to be borne by working people through lower wages, poor healthcare and an uncertain future.

The country is voting for them primarily because of their unsettlement of the Iraq war and need for change in that specific conflict. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to be a permananent fixture. The Democratic politicians of today are just mostly ambitious and not full of much substance (Baracka Obama’s “new kind” of politics, whatever the hell that means, given that he has an old-age liberal-type voting record). Their only solutions are raising taxes and finding new ways to intimidate those who don’t share their views (i.e., “We want you to quit your job and be without economic means because you don’t agree with us and don’t want conform to our radically P.C. setting”). Franklin D. Roosevelt, they aren’t.

I could go on and on….

And to get to your other claims:

Minimum Wage – I think one has to be very careful about this, because while I support a 10-year raise given healthy economic activity and surveying of purchasing power in each state, businesses have the right to eliminate jobs because of a minimum wage lift. The minimum wage may not afford lots of purchasing power, but at least the jobs are there. People can usually work hard at them and move on. Low-wage work is more about getting that initial experience than it is about a “living wage.” The person can always pick up a second or third minimum wage job until something better comes along. It’s tough, but your resume’ won’t be hurting. Let us not contribute to the faster decline of low-skilled work; It bugs me when seemingly every job out there requires “experience”, yet you don’t know where to get it because the non-college entry-level jobs are disappearing.

Social Security – Protect benefits for all boomers. People born after 1964(myself included) will need to plan for their own retirements and accept reduced benefits from Social Security itself.

Progressive Taxation – Not an expert, but the “bracket” system needs reform, better indexed to inflation.

Stem Cell Research – agreed.

Universal Health Care – needs the right definition and substance in order to go into effect. Health care certainly need fixing, though. Democrats have no definitive, substantive plan.

Energy Policy – No opinion.

Balanced Budget – overrated.

Full Funding for Education and other Infrastructure based investments. – Agreed, generally. I think Education in the United States gets plenty of funding. All that money simply needs to be better shuffled.

They had more warheads, but that was because their guidance systems were so lousy that they needed to put up a lot more warheads to be confident in hitting their target. It was never a case of their nuclear arsenal suprassing ours.

Anyway, I should have written “In 1980, everyone IN AMERICA thought the USSR was in it for the long hall, and was at rough parity with us militarily.” My comment was about how impressive it was that Reagan was able to recognize and act on this insight given the intellectual and political milieu he came from, which was the “Containment is for Wimps” American right.

I’d say that the right went wrong when the elected the lousy President and all around hack Ronald Reagan.

Only the current clown and his merry bunch of thieves could make Reagan look GOOD.

Or maybe they could call it “How the Right will insure the Left’s continued rise”

If the left is so loony, why is the country voting for them. Is the country loony? Is this the place where you blame the media for the fact that people can’t make informed choices?

Issues where the left has the overwhelming support of the people:

Minimum Wage
Social Security
Progressive Taxation
Stem Cell Research
Universal Helath Care
Energy Policy
Balanced Budget
Full Funding for Education and othe Infrastructure based investments

Oh yeah, and ending the war.

Not sure where the country is in line with the Right at this point.

“How the Left Went Loony”

;-)

The GOP is hanging itself on the rope it stole from the public. Still, I think the Gipper has other worries right now, like how to escape the fiery pit where he will spend eternity attoning for all the women and children his death squads raped and murdered.

Comment by Zimzone — May 21, 2007 @ 10:57 am

Ronning probably was “acting” like a Democrat when he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild.