17 Feb 2014 11:53 am
Speaking of memory, the massive build up that scared the **** out of the Soviets was mostly real. That's part of the increase you cite. The impression was very strong that they might return the favor and build up as well (ala Cold War style). Here was the kicker: America's economic strength could draw on it's credibility, reserve currency status, basic intrinsic wealth, etc. to pull off the threat of ever-increasing military. THAT was the ploy the Soviets could not pull off. The "We'll match every ammo pile bullet for bullet" plan was not credible for them. I mean, not even close. It took lots of overt spending to show the seriousness and commitment the US was willing to put forth at the time. Very expensive proposition.Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 12:11 am » wrote: Your memory is sound. But your narrative can use some clarity.
Reagan robbed social security. Reagan MASSIVELY grew government. Reagan borrowed more radically, whether in real dollars adjusted for inflation, or in debt as a percentage of GDP, than any president sonce Roosevelt in WWII. The precious, precious unborn have to PAY THAT MONEY BACK.
Much of the "production" that Reaganites credit him with was PAYED FOR BY GOVERNMENT. Many of the JOBS they credit him with were either government jobs, or jobs with government as the only customer. Still many more were PART TIME jobs, as Reagan's IRS rewarded hiring lots of part timers instead of full time workers as a trick to play with the employment numbers.
Reagan inherited an economy of 3 trillion dollars, and borrowed a couple of trillions - TRIPLING our national debt from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion. It's not hard to "look good" on borrowed money that is passed along to other presidents, who then get cussed for the debt.
That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an HONEST comparison of the two, instead of the conservative mainstream media spin-narrative that folks seem to take for granted.
If Carter had tripled the national debt, the triumphal screeching of contards would echo through the ages into infinity.
Let's look at the size of government:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... ince-1962/
Carter inherited a federal government with 5,005,000 total employees at all levels, including military. In 1981, it had been reduced to 4,982,000. The reductions came from the civilian side. Contrary to popular belief, there were MORE people serving in the military, not less.
Reagan inherited a government with a total of 4,982,000 employees, and left it in 1989 with 5, 292,000. MIND YOU, that does not reflect the massive build up in jobs whose only customer was government.
AGAIN: That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an attempt at HONEST comparison of the two, instead of the conservative mainstream media spin-narrative that folks seem to take for granted.
That scenario was a very unique collision of events. To compare times even relatively soon before and after is missing some very real circumstances.
That's what I remember...
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.
I like the very things you hate.