PDA

View Full Version : History Lesson



sailsmen
11-25-2007, 08:34 AM
President Carter cut Defense spending $6 Billion his first month in office. Remember inflation at 13% and unemployment at 7%. Fuel shortages, price controls, Iran Hostages, prime of 21.5%? He asked his entire cabinet to resign. The cabinet he picked! It's obvious he should have asked himself to resign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Presidents
Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup
1981-1989

After America closed her doors to an expensive war in Vietnam (1975)1, the nation was in need of an overhaul of the economy, military, and public morale. Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential victory signaled what many believed the country needed to get back on its superpower feet again.
Before Reagan's election

The late 1970s had witnessed the triumph of Marxist governments in Angola and Nicaragua. El Salvador seemed ready to follow suit. The U.S. had been humiliated by the outcome of the Vietnam War (1975), and the Soviets seemed secure in their unrelenting mission to conquer Afghanistan.

Islamic fundamentalists had come to power in Iran. They had captured 52 embassy Americans as hostages, and the Jimmy Carter administration had made a bitterly unsuccessful attempt to rescue them.

As a result of Carter Administration policies, the American military was plagued by low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and practically zero maintenance on what did exist.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.

The U.S. economy was struggling, burdened by seemingly unstoppable inflation. High tax increases and an upward spiral of interest rates were an everyday occurrence for Americans. The United States seemed in an era of limits; the country seemed to be running out of oil, and in practice, U.S. foreign policy had adopted a stance of co-existence with the Soviet Union and China.

In 1980, the American electorate shooed in a leader with an eye toward countering domestic social changes wrought by Civil Rights and Affirmative Action programs and military superiority and a new sense of political direction. Ronald Reagan was inaugurated the 40th president of the United States in 1981.


Victory through strength

Defense secretary Caspar Weinberger was the new president's right-hand man throughout his mission to build up a massive military to wear down the Soviets in what would be the final years of the Cold War. Reagan's administration revived the B-1 bomber program, which had been canceled by the Carter Administration, and began production of the MX Peacekeeper missile. Reagan's response to Soviet deployment of the SS-20 missile was his approval of NATO's deployment of the Pershing II missile in West Germany, despite much protest.

By the time Reagan stepped down from the helm, he had expanded the U.S. military budget to a staggering 43% increase over the total expenditure during the height of the Vietnam war. That meant the increase of tens of thousands of troops, more weapons and equipment, not to mention a beefed-up intelligence program.

"Star Wars"

One of Reagan's controversial proposals was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a system intended to make the U.S. invulnerable to nuclear missile attacks by the Soviet Union. By stationing those defenses in outer space, the U.S. was able to circumvent the United Nation's Anti-Ballistic (ABM) Treaty.

In a speech in 1983, President Reagan announced his plans to create a shield against nuclear missile attacks. The news media quickly dubbed his new proposal for the SDI as "Star Wars," as well as characterizing it as a carelessly drawn-up science fiction idea.

Based upon original work by Nikola Tesla, SDI was designed to vaporize missiles from space by way of a laser guidance system, before they reached U.S. soil. The system grew into a series of systems that also formed a layered ballistic missile defense. The SDI was capable of zeroing in on only 30 percent of the earth's surface, and wasn't able to get a fix on the Soviet's nuclear launch sites.

By 1985, after billions of dollars but minimal results, Reagan's SDI was shut down but research continued. The debate over such a defense program continues to simmer over its advisability. But the elusive technologies of that time are a reality now, in the early 21st Century. This is not to state that the 1980's SDI is now a reality, just the portable high powered laser beam which has been deployed in large aeroplanes and in Space.


Lasers have been studied for their usefulness in air defense since 1973, when the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) was first tested against tactical missiles and drone aircraft. Work on such systems continued through the 1980s, with the Airborne Laser Laboratory, which completed the first test laser intercepts above the earth. Initial work on laser based defense systems was overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency2 (DARPA), but transferred to the newly created Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) in 1984. Work continues today under the auspices of the BMDO, the successor to the SDIO.

Current SBL planning is based on a 20 satellite constellation. Kill times per missile will range from 1 to 10 seconds, depending on the range from the missile. Retargeting times are calculated at as low as 0.5 seconds for new targets requiring small angle changes. Thus a system consisting of 20 satellites is expected to provide nearly full threat negation.

Progress and criticism

Throughout President Reagan's two terms (1981-1989), military spending was very high; however, he was able to accomplish it without breaking out into an economic sweat. Reagan's administration managed it while enjoying noticeably positive growth — albeit with massive budget deficits.

The Reagan years also saw the beginnings of a dramatic era of innovation. "Silicon Valley"3 came into its own. By contrast, the Soviet Union, and its military, was in an economic dilemma while attempting to stay in the race for preeminence, and their computing industry lagged far behind the West.

Over the years, many analysts have scrutinized Reagan's credibility as a military planner. Some critics have maintained that he engineered the greatest military force of all times, but did so with much waste — tripling the national debt. Such projects as taking World War II battleships out of mothballs and modernizing them were of questionable military value to some. Furthermore, reviewers have noted that the president fell short on some objectives, such as his goal of building a 600-ship navy and his Star Wars program.

Despite those debates, the Pentagon acknowledged its debt to the 40th president of the United States: Its newest, most modern aircraft carrier is operational — tellingly dubbed the USS Ronald Reagan.

The Reagan administration managed to keep America out of a major war for nearly a decade — but with several scary nuclear close calls. Much of the nation's current firepower is a legacy of the Reagan years.

The Soviet Union began to crumble in 1989 with the toppling of the Berlin Wall. America had emerged triumphant and the Cold War was officially ended in 1990.

1: The Fall of Saigon, (known also as the Liberation of Saigon) on April 30, 1975.

2: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, (DARPA), is the agency that created the original Internet

3: "Silicon Valley" is the euphamistic name given to the area between San Jose and Palo Alto California. Palo Alto is a suburban city where Stanford University is located. Nearby is Moffet Field, a Navy base situated on San Francisco Bay contains the primary Internet hub on the West Coast and San Jose whose fields of tulips, corn and orange groves succumbed to a building boom for technology companies.


Off-site search results for "Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup"...
Ronald Reagan
38). Sources: -Encyclopedia of American Presidents -Ronald W. Reagan -Encyclopedia of the Presidents and Their Times Hyperhistory.net may not endorse off-site links. Disclaimer: The above biography (like others on the biographies list) was ...
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4reaganronald.htm

Biography of Ronald Reagan
Reagan Ronald Reagan At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

Learn about Ronald Reagan.
18th Century History Articles and Products of History Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan won the Presidential election of 1980 by the support of conservatives and Christians across the country. Americans were dissatisfied with past leadership, and were ...
http://www.history1700s.com/store/ronald-reagan.shtml

Find books on Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup at Amazon.com. More books on Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup can be found at Barnes & Noble. Memorabilia related to Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup is at auction on eBay. Looking for a book on Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup that you thought you'd never find? Check Alibris for a bookstore near you.
Students of American history take note! You can get new and used United States history textbooks at Textbookx.com.

For teachers of American history, get more material related to Ronald Reagan's Military Buildup for K-8 grades at Scholastic Teacher Store.


Sponsors of U-S-History.com:

Dennis Reinhart
11-25-2007, 10:36 AM
Nikola Tesla. Great post Billy, most people have never even heard of Nikola Tesla,
http://www.frank.germano.com/nikolatesla.htm
he was born in Croatia and was a pure genius he made miniature oscillators the shook buildings blocks away he designed poly phase systems he kept all his ideas in his head, he at one time worked for Thomas Edison who wanted to use DC to light homes not AC, Edison used to electrocute dogs to scare people, Tesla's book man out of time is very good reading. Prior to his death he was in the works of transmitting electricity with out wires when he died the FBI seized his warehouse and all his records.
"Were we," remarks B. A. Behrend, distinguished author and engineer, "to seize and to eliminate the results of Mr. Tesla's work, the wheels of industry would cease to turn, our electric cars and trains would stop, our towns would be dark, and our mills would be dead and idle."
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/portret1_small.jpg (http://www.frank.germano.com/images/portret1.jpg)
Dr. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) Nikola Tesla (http://amazon.com/gp/product/0963601261?ie=UTF8&tag=teslatechnolo-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=384049&creativeASIN=0963601261&adid=6ca81d9b-3301-4a9f-a093-e5e36ced06bc) was born in Croatia, which at that time, lay within Austro-Hungary. Tesla was born "at the stroke of midnight" with lightning striking during a summer storm. He was born in Smiljani near Gospić, Lika, (the Krajina, a military district of Austro-Hungarian Empire, now in Croatia). At the moment of his birth, the midwife commented, "He'll be a child of the storm," to which his mother replied, "No, of light." Tesla was baptized in the Old Slavonic Church rite. His Baptism Certificate reports that he was born on June 28 (Julian calendar; July 10 in the Gregorian calendar), and christened by the Serb orthodox priest, Toma Oklobd'ija. It is interesting to note that he was a Serbian of Valachian descent.
Tesla was proud of his Croatian motherland and Serbian descent. When his mother died in 1892, he paid a visit to Croatian capital Zagreb, and gave a lecture about alternating current. On that occasion Tesla said: "As a son of my homeland, I feel it is my duty to help the city of Zagreb in every respect with my advice and work" - ("Smatram svojom duznoscu da kao rodeni sin svoje zemlje pomognem gradu Zagrebu u svakom pogledu savjetom i cinom"). Nikola Tesla, besides being a great inventor and an outspoken Serbian patriot, had sincerely adored free Serb states, Serbia and Montenegro. He had never hidden his patriotic feelings, on the contrary, he stressed them.

BruteForce
11-25-2007, 12:24 PM
History is written by the victors. Winston Churchill

If you look further back you can see that the root cause of the collapse was not due to the actions of a single US administration but the culmination of both a series of mistakes and bad judgment by the Soviets and the actions of several US administrations. Reagan deserves "some" of the credit but there were many players involved that set up the circumstances that lead to the collapse. He was in the right place at the right time.

Interesting article with a Russian perspective (no its not commie propaganda).
The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Yegor Gaidar

It has an interesting argument about why the USSR collapsed. Basically, the first part goes like this:

(1) Soviet agricultural policy was a complete disaster. The Soviet population increased; its grain production did not begin to keep pace. There's an amazing graph showing grain production actually declining slightly between 1965 and 1990.

(2) As a result, the Soviets needed to import grain. To do this, they needed hard currency, which in turn meant that they needed to export something. More bad news: their products were so lousy that no one would buy them. So they had to export raw materials.

(3) Luckily, "at almost exactly the time when serious problems with the import of grain emerged, rich oil fields were discovered in the Tyumen region of Western Siberia." Moreover, after the first oil shock of the 1970s, prices were high. The problem was temporarily solved. The USSR could have recognized that this solution was, in fact, only temporary, but no such luck:

"In the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet leadership, however, was not intellectually prepared to heed lessons from the School of Salamanca. The shortest quotation about the intellectual capacity of the Soviet leadership came from the Politburo minutes: "Mr. Zasiadko has stopped binge drinking. Resolution: nominate Mr. Zasiadko as a minister to Ukraine.""

(Priceless.)

(4) Then it all came unglued:

"The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options -- or a combination of three options -- available to the Soviet leadership.

First, dissolve the Eastern European empire and effectively stop barter trade in oil and gas with the Socialist bloc countries, and start charging hard currency for the hydrocarbons. This choice, however, involved convincing the Soviet leadership in 1985 to negate completely the results of World War II. In reality, the leader who proposed this idea at the CPSU Central Committee meeting at that time risked losing his position as general secretary.

Second, drastically reduce Soviet food imports by $20 billion, the amount the Soviet Union lost when oil prices collapsed. But in practical terms, this option meant the introduction of food rationing at rates similar to those used during World War II. The Soviet leadership understood the consequences: the Soviet system would not survive for even one month. This idea was never seriously discussed.

Third, implement radical cuts in the military-industrial complex. With this option, however, the Soviet leadership risked serious conflict with regional and industrial elites, since a large number of Soviet cities depended solely on the military-industrial complex. This choice was also never seriously considered.

Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership decided to adopt a policy of effectively disregarding the problem in hopes that it would somehow wither away. Instead of implementing actual reforms, the Soviet Union started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely.

The money was suddenly gone."

The rest of the article describes the denouement.

Pat
11-25-2007, 12:40 PM
I can remember the Carter years, voted for him. Seemed then and still is a nice enough gentleman. He is a tireless worker but as President he was overwhelmed.

The country will have to make a decision next year between a very liberal Hillary Clinton or an arch conserviative who is yet to be recogonized as the leader of the Republican pack.

Senator Clinton does command a distinctive lead in her party and her popularity with the public is about 55% to 45% in her favor. If elected what can America expect, Carter II or an LBJ, hopefully more like a Harry Truman. In any event it will hit our wallets because the Bush administration has charged the nations credit card to the limit and the bills come due Jan 09.

The planet wide issues the next President must face are as daunting as the 40's. It's scary for us older folk.

MERCMAN
11-25-2007, 01:13 PM
I was hoping for Evan Bayh, a conservative demo from In. to make a bid, but no dice. Our best chance is a middle of the roader regardless of party.IMHO

rumble
11-25-2007, 03:29 PM
hopefully more like a Harry Truman.



The similarities between W and Truman are striking. Both lost popularity
over unpopular wars and both suffered a hostile press. History, however, after about
20 years became very kind to Truman.

Leadfoot281
11-25-2007, 07:31 PM
I don't like any of the candidates.

The only ones that are actually qualified to hold the office aren't running; Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh, Sailsmen, Mike Poore, Dr. Laura, or possibly Leadfoot281. Hey, I couldn't mess things up worse than Carter.

Aren Jay
11-25-2007, 07:32 PM
The earthquake machine he had was cool

Marauder386
11-25-2007, 09:43 PM
At the end of my military carrer, I had to suffer through Bill Clinton ( or possibly Hillary ) destroying the military that Reagan had built up. I will never forget that we had been driven so low that at more than one point we where told to have our finances in order because we MAY NOT GET A PAYCHECK. I do not want this to happen again to our military as we are spread thin ...


8)

Haggis
11-26-2007, 07:07 AM
If you look further back you can see that the root cause of the collapse was not due to the actions of a single US administration but the culmination of both a series of mistakes and bad judgment by the Soviets and the actions of several US administrations. Reagan deserves "some" of the credit but there were many players involved that set up the circumstances that lead to the collapse. He was in the right place at the right time. Ya think, keep reading.

Interesting article with a Russian perspective (no its not commie propaganda).
The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Yegor Gaidar

It has an interesting argument about why the USSR collapsed. Basically, the first part goes like this:

(1) Soviet agricultural policy
(2) As a result, the Soviets needed to import grain.
(3) Luckily,
(Priceless.)

(4) Then it all came unglued:
"The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

First, dissolve the Eastern European empire...

Second, drastically reduce Soviet food imports by $20 billion...

Third, implement radical cuts in the military-industrial complex...

Unable to realize any of the above solutions....

The money was suddenly gone."

The rest of the article describes the denouement.

Now why do you think this all can to be?

Because Reagan expanded our military so fast that the Soviets could not keep up, therefore the colapse of the Soviet Union.

I served in West Berlin back in the mid-80's I seen first hand the the economy of the West and East. East Berlin was a show place for the Westerners, all ritzy and modern. Travel to the outskirts and the people were poor and the buildings and houses were run down and old. Oh, there were plenty of Mercedes and other luxury cars, but they were owned by the 'Party Elite' most East German's had to wait 10yrs for a car that was made from wood. And let's talk options: Color- what you got is what you got. Motor- what it has is what you got. Othet options-what you see is what you get; in other words 'no choice'.

duhtroll
11-26-2007, 08:18 AM
I spent the summer of '88 living with families in several different cities in the Soviet Union. Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kalinin, to name a few.

I arrived in Leningrad the day after the US had shot down the Iranian Airbus. We were greeted at the border by men with guns and we were escorted off the train (from Helsinki to L'grad) so they could search everything we had and take what they liked. Some students lost some items. (We were of course told to not bring anything we couldn't afford to lose.)

What Brute posted is correct -- I know because I was there. The families were struggling to obtain goods for which they had money, but no access. In the official exchange I paid $1.67 per Ruble, but on the street I could obtain 20 Rubles for $1. There were stores that only accepted foreign currency and people standing outside of them offering just about everything in trade.

I remember making a 7-minute phone call to my gf at the time on her birthday. It cost me about $40.

On my way back to the hotel one night in Moscow, I could have sold every single piece of clothing I was wearing to passersby.

Our military expansion, however good the heady feeling of triumph feels, was merely a small part in a larger equation given the problems the USSR faced.


Now why do you think this all can to be?

Because Reagan expanded our military so fast that the Soviets could not keep up, therefore the colapse of the Soviet Union.

I served in West Berlin back in the mid-80's I seen first hand the the economy of the West and East. East Berlin was a show place for the Westerners, all ritzy and modern. Travel to the outskirts and the people were poor and the buildings and houses were run down and old. Oh, there were plenty of Mercedes and other luxury cars, but they were owned by the 'Party Elite' most East German's had to wait 10yrs for a car that was made from wood. And let's talk options: Color- what you got is what you got. Motor- what it has is what you got. Othet options-what you see is what you get; in other words 'no choice'.

Haggis
11-26-2007, 08:37 AM
I spent the summer of '88 living with families in several different cities in the Soviet Union. Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kalinin, to name a few.

I arrived in Leningrad the day after the US had shot down the Iranian Airbus. We were greeted at the border by men with guns and we were escorted off the train (from Helsinki to L'grad) so they could search everything we had and take what they liked. Some students lost some items. (We were of course told to not bring anything we couldn't afford to lose.)

What Brute posted is correct -- I know because I was there. The families were struggling to obtain goods for which they had money, but no access. In the official exchange I paid $1.67 per Ruble, but on the street I could obtain 20 Rubles for $1. There were stores that only accepted foreign currency and people standing outside of them offering just about everything in trade.

I remember making a 7-minute phone call to my gf at the time on her birthday. It cost me about $40.

On my way back to the hotel one night in Moscow, I could have sold every single piece of clothing I was wearing to passersby.

Our military expansion, however good the heady feeling of triumph feels, was merely a small part in a larger equation given the problems the USSR faced.

The Soviet politicans cared squat for their people, as long as they could live in the lap of luxury. And yes I know what you are talking about dutroll, East Germans were always asking us to bring them blue jeans, cigerettes and anything else we could bring across the checkpoints. Can you say 'Black Market'. Neither I nor any of my friends, that I know about, smuggled anything over the border, can you say CID or worse.

The reason there were long lines at the food stores any other places is the the Soviet Union leaders were more worried about trying to keep pace with the American military to perserve their fat bellies and wallets then to feed the poor. If you look back at Russian history the nobilty and aristocrats have always lived off the sweat of the people. Once the people get tired of being run into the ground to keep their leaders fat, well do you remember 1917 and 1990. Sure I knew you did.

Bluerauder
11-26-2007, 08:43 AM
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.
Dayum, I must have missed this. If I would have known, I probably would have quit. Why didn't somebody tell me that I was supposed to be miserable and not enjoying myself. :rolleyes: Who writes this ^^^^ crap??? Probably the same folks now doing marketing for Ford Motor Company .... absolutely clueless. :shake:

I do however, agree with Haggis in that that old USSR just couldn't keep up with the military ramp-up in R&D and Production of new systems during the 1980's. Can you say M1 Tank, M2/M3 Bradley, M109A6 Paladin, UH-60 Blackhawk, AH-64 Apache, Patriot, ...... DDG-51, CVN, LA Class subs, Trident, Seawolf ... B-1, B-2, F-117, C-17, F/A-18, F-16 .... boys and girls?

In August 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Active US Army stood at a strength of 786,000 men and women. During the Clinton adminsitration, this was chopped some 40% to a level of about 480,000. The US Marine Corps, US Air Force and US Navy took similar hits. Their Research and Development and new equipment lines were cut by even more than that. We suffer today from the damage that the Clinton administration did to the US Armed Forces. The current OPTEMPO and rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan are tearing the guts out of the smaller force that is left. Hillary and/or Obama will destroy the rest. But we'll all feel good about all the new free give away programs ............. :(

Want a History Lesson .... Read the "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and draw your own parallels. :(

duhtroll
11-26-2007, 11:41 AM
The Soviet politicans cared squat for their people, as long as they could live in the lap of luxury.

Yep! Not like over here . . . :lol:


And yes I know what you are talking about dutroll, East Germans were always asking us to bring them blue jeans, cigerettes and anything else we could bring across the checkpoints. Can you say 'Black Market'. Neither I nor any of my friends, that I know about, smuggled anything over the border, can you say CID or worse.

When I left the USSR, I gave away all the items I had except for what I was wearing. Couldn't spend the Rubles and couldn't exchange them on the way out or the declarations wouldn't match.


The reason there were long lines at the food stores any other places is the the Soviet Union leaders were more worried about trying to keep pace with the American military to perserve their fat bellies and wallets then to feed the poor. If you look back at Russian history the nobilty and aristocrats have always lived off the sweat of the people. Once the people get tired of being run into the ground to keep their leaders fat, well do you remember 1917 and 1990. Sure I knew you did.

No, the reason was that their entire economy, military spending included, was on the verge of collapse.

After all, here in the good old US of A there aren't a bunch of rich people in control of the government while exploiting the poor . . .. Right? :rolleyes:

Them poor folks have got a free ride for TOO LONG! We'll show 'em!

ParkRanger
11-26-2007, 11:56 AM
Nothing like ignoring the present by going into the past. :bs:
Keep drinking the kool-aid :confused: and we will let you know when to pull your head out of the ground.

PR :burnout:

Haggis
11-26-2007, 12:01 PM
Yep! Not like over here . . . :lol:



When I left the USSR, I gave away all the items I had except for what I was wearing. Couldn't spend the Rubles and couldn't exchange them on the way out or the declarations wouldn't match. Right you gave it away to families, my experience they wanted us to give or sell to them the items so they could be sold on the 'Black Market'.


No, the reason was that their entire economy, military spending included, was on the verge of collapse. Right we agree, but why was it on the verge of collapse? On that we disagree.

After all, here in the good old US of A there aren't a bunch of rich people in control of the government while exploiting the poor . . .. Right? :rolleyes: Yes, but in the United States you do not have to remain poor. You can work your a$$ off and invest your money to take you out of the 'Poor House' just like my father did to give me a better life. Did you ever run around hungry or with news paper in your shoes? I didn't, but my father did.

Them poor folks have got a free ride for TOO LONG! We'll show 'em!
No one should get a free ride, we should all have to work for a living so that one day we will be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Not give it to some lazy bastard who wants to sit on his fat a$$ and be a Monday morning Quaterback.

Right you lived with Russian families in Russian, and you don't believe that the KGB or police had you seeing what they wanted you to see. I we went to East Berlin we went without any escorts showing us what they wanted us to see.

Yea, the polticians over here have it to easy and get paid way to much for what they do. I wish I could vote myself a wage increase when I wanted to. Hey, another thing we agree on. I never said our systems was perfect, but it is the best thing going right now.

duhtroll
11-26-2007, 12:19 PM
The problem is that "working harder" and "building a better life" don't necessarily go hand in hand in this country.

I get irritated with people who believe in absolutes like work=success and success=money. Since when?

Most of the people I hang out with (or want to know) are very successful people IMO and very few of them are rich. Some of the rich people I know would trade their money for more "success" in life (i.e. fewer people hating them, better family life, etc.)

Then there's the other half. I know people who have 4 jobs and still cannot afford to make ends meet -- and not because they are crack addicts or whatever. They simply don't make enough money yet work their asses off.

Personally, I've only ever held three jobs at one time. Right now I can afford to only have two. Pretty soon maybe just one. However, I can tell you that in many cases, the jobs I worked the hardest at and cared the most for are the ones that paid the least.

Success does not equal money, unless money is all that you value.


Right you lived with Russian families in Russian, and you don't believe that the KGB or police had you seeing what they wanted you to see. I we went to East Berlin we went without any escorts showing us what they wanted us to see.

Yea, the polticians over here have it to easy and get paid way to much for what they do. I wish I could vote myself a wage increase when I wanted to. Hey, another thing we agree on. I never said our systems was perfect, but it is the best thing going right now.

Haggis
11-26-2007, 12:40 PM
The problem is that "working harder" and "building a better life" don't necessarily go hand in hand in this country. Agreed, not all the time, but worked for my Dad and I.
I get irritated with people who believe in absolutes like work=success and success=money. Since when? I never said sucess=money, sucess=happiness. But, I could do with a little more money.

Most of the people I hang out with (or want to know) are very successful people IMO and very few of them are rich. Some of the rich people I know would trade their money for more "success" in life (i.e. fewer people hating them, better family life, etc.) As stated above; sucess=happiness.

Then there's the other half. I know people who have 4 jobs and still cannot afford to make ends meet -- and not because they are crack addicts or whatever. They simply don't make enough money yet work their asses off.
I also know people who work their a$$es off with more then one job. 1) get another job. 2) invest. But, you need to step back and ask yourself why do they need to work 4 jobs? Lifestyle, how many kids, how many cars, house to expensive, etc...
Personally, I've only ever held three jobs at one time. Right now I can afford to only have two. Pretty soon maybe just one. However, I can tell you that in many cases, the jobs I worked the hardest at and cared the most for are the ones that paid the least. Andrew, personally I have never worked more then one job at a time. Why, because I made a promise to myself that if I had to I would find a better job. Also growing up my Dad worked two jobs, seven days a week and sometimes on his primary job he would work double shifts just so the bills were paid and we had food on the table. But, when he was around he was always tired and angry.

Success does not equal money, unless money is all that you value. Amen brother. :up:

..........

Glenn
11-26-2007, 08:10 PM
If Clinton had been President during the time Reagan was President, when Reagan won the cold war, Clinton had have been worshipped as the savior of the world and given the Noble Peace Prize. Com'on give Reagan his just due - HE WON the Cold War. Regardless how much the Democrats hate to recognize Reagan's achievements - Clinton or Carter would have never done the same things as Reagan. Reagan may have been President at the right time, but he did the right things that no Democrat would have done.

If you want a european type socialist society that France and other european countries are already rejecting then vote for Hillary and grap your wallet because you are going for the ride of your life. O' and by the way pray you do not need serious medical help because you will not get it under Hillary Care.

Glenn

Haggis
11-28-2007, 05:00 AM
Well two days and no replies?