I will post what it says in my book, and I want you guys to post what you think about it.
Deregulation
As part of his promise to reduce government and "get the government off the backs of the American people," President Reagan pursued a policy of deregulation. This meant cutting the rules and regulations government agencies placed on businesses. Under President Reagan, for example, the Department of Transportation wrote new rules for automobile exhaust systems and safety measures that were easier for car manufacturers to meet.
Reaganomics
Deregulation and his court appointments showed President Reagan's commitment to a conservative view of government. It was his economic policies, however, that formed the core of the "Reagan Revolution." Reagan believed that lower taxes would allow individuals and corporations to invest in new businesses. Because a tax cut would mean less income, Reagan also called for less government spending. Supporters called Reagan's economic policy supply-side economics because it proposed to stimulate the economy by increasing the supply of goods and services. The president's critics ridiculed the policy as "Reaganomics."
In 1981 Congress lowered taxes and slashed nearly $40 billion from federal programs such as school lunches, student aid, welfare, low-income housing, and food stamps. Critics charged that these cuts hurt both the working poor and unemployed people. Supporters argued that Reaganomics would boost the economy, helping everybody in the long run.
While Reagan cut domestic programs, he pushed for sharp increases in military spending. The president declared that the Soviet threat made it necessary to build up the military.
Government Debt
With higher defense spending and lower taxes, the government spent more money than it collected in revenue. It had to borrow money to make up the difference. This borrowing increased the federal debtâ"the amount of money owed by the government. Between 1970 and 1980, the federal debt had grown from $381 to $909 billion. By 1990 the debt had jumped to $3.2 trillion.
Recession and Recovery
President Reagan's new economic policies seemed to falter when a serious recession began early in his first term. However, the economy recovered a year later and began to boom.
In 1983 the economy began a long, steady rise. Businesses expanded, and the high jobless rate of 1982 declined. Investors showed confidence in the economy with a boom in stock trading.
The federal debt continued to grow as well. In 1985 Congress tried to halt growth of the debt by passing the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The act set a series of targets for eliminating the federal budget deficit by 1991. If Congress and the president could not agree on voluntary spending cuts, the law called for automatic spending cuts to balance the budget. The provision for automatic cuts did not apply to all areas of the budget, however, so it had limited success.
Kids can't get a proper education (which I thought was an issue you had from the last thread) and people are on the street starving, but at least we have a strong military.
It's better than kids aren't alive, and people are dead on the street, but at least we have food stamps.
[quote]I lol'd at the part where you implied winning the arms race wasn't vital to our survival.
We already won. Have you ever heard of quit while you're ahead?
Yeah of course we weren't going to nuke them, but we had to bluff and act like our mind wasn't made up yet.
The USSR was bluffing on how many missiles they had. That's why we kept spending. Gorbachev was the person who actually wanted to end the Cold War because he knew they were behind.
It's better than kids aren't alive, and people are dead on the street, but at least we have food stamps.
I am quite disappointed that you don't think we tried to negotiate during the Cold War. It didn't work, we had to build up our military.
could you please stop reacting on your interpretation, and start reacting on what I wrote?
I didn't say anything like that. but the way you said it, it was like black and white, like you had to build an army, or die.
maybe that's my interpretation though, and you meant something completely different. I'm sorry, then.
I just can't remember many negotiatons passing by in history class (none actually). maybe that's a gap in the book, maybe that's because there weren't many serious tries, that it was comparable to the israel conflict these days.
Slashing military spending to boost schooling = a bunch of dead kids because we weren't able to defend ourselves
I don't care so much about the rest of this, but what you said was incredibly stupid. Education equals intelligence, inteligence equals better workers and increased quality production. Which equals a country that runs itself better, which equals less morons that want to make a giant crater out of the middle east.
Having military defense is great of course, but education really is the most important thing in the world. Without it we'd (i'm using we loosley here) still be thinking that a rock on a stick is a novelty idea.
Having military defense is great of course, but education really is the most important thing in the world. Without it we'd (i'm using we loosley here) still be thinking that a rock on a stick is a novelty idea.
I lol'd at the part where you implied that education will protect the United States. You really think that if we just fixed everything else world peace would happen? Cuss don't work like that. Wars aren't won through people thinking hard, they are won because people fight.
I lol'd at the part where you implied that education will protect the United States. You really think that if we just fixed everything else world peace would happen?
Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. Besides world peace is impossible for humanity. I'm just saying that defense and education should be considered equaly important.
Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. Besides world peace is impossible for humanity. I'm just saying that defense and education should be considered equaly important.
Meh, I'd be willing to accept that; however, it seems that defense is a little more expensive to start with thus it would cost more for less. Thus in order to make it truly even defense spending would have to be higher than that of education.
Having two guns held against the USSR, who has holding one, was already a defense, why did we need to add two more? 4 to 1?
Education funds have dipped now even further than Reagan. Reagan started the trend, and now it will be extremely difficult to put it at where it needs to be.
Smart people like Eistien whose work helped create the atom bomb which ended the war with Japan two years earlier then expected and made the planned invasion of the japanese homeland moot, saving an estimated million US soldiers.
But look farther then that. Sure it saved some U.S. lives then, but in the long run the destructive capabilities of such a device led to many other deaths. You're being shortsighted. You're argument makes no sense. Schools didn't pay Einstein to make the bomb, the Department of Defense did. Thus military spending was good.
Education funds have dipped now even further than Reagan. Reagan started the trend, and now it will be extremely difficult to put it at where it needs to be.
yes, of course, that's why private schools are cheaper than the public ones. XP
I lolled at that point.
I once heard the brother of the boyfriend of my sister, say that if america would invest half of the military budged into charity, they would have a lot less problems with people who say that america is the bad guy around. (that brother of the boyfriend of my sister flies a chenook, so he would know something about war...)