I'm lost. What's going on with our economy?

Pre-College Topics High School Life
41

<p>precisely. the soviets couldnt keep up in the arms race so they had to quit, reform, and disintegrate.</p>

42

<p>

Except the Cold War really ended thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, who decided to drastically increase transparency, make it legal to bad mouth the government, and made the USSR less of a military dictatorship, thus causing it to collapse into protest and withdrawal. Reagan didn’t do much compared to that.</p>

<p>

Actually, as Reagan was increasing weaponry, Grobachev was decreasing it. If Russia had kept to his plan, they would have dismantled their last nuclear weapon in 2000.</p>

43

<p>the arms race of the early 80s forced the soviets to reform. reagan’s show of strength made it so the soviets HAD to give up and reform. gorbachev came to power in the late 80s, after reagan’s increase in defense spending.</p>

44

<p>

What reason did the Soviets have to keep up with Reagan? It was idiotic, each side already had enough to destroy the world 14 times over, there was absolutely NO need to make more. It’s not like “Oh no, they could destroy the world 15 times over! Somehow that will matter!” And FYI, even with Reagan making more and Gorbachev destroying them, the Soviet Union still had more.</p>

45

<p>yet the soviet economy and its basis on socialism could not keep up. it was bankrupting / ruining the soviet economy.</p>

46

<p>

If you think the issue was the Soviet system (not actual socialism, but whatever), then what did Reagan have to do with its collapse? Did he set up their system on its self-destructive course?</p>

47

<p>he knew that the soviet system would collapse under an escalating arms race.</p>

48

<p>[Everything</a> You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong - By Leon Aron | Foreign Policy](<a href=“http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong]Everything”>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong)</p>

49

<p>

What arms race! Reagan made more; Russia didn’t even try to keep up. They instead starting destroying them.</p>

<p>And they still had more: <a href=“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/608px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png[/url]”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/608px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>(You can see how little Reagan actually increased ours, and how Russia actually just decided to stop while they were way ahead, when Reagan was trying to goad them on.)</p>

50

<p>@dolorous but look how much the soviets increased arms up till 1985!!! reagans increases seem minimal compared to the ussr’s early 80s increases. he knew that the ussr would crack if it continued to manufacture arms/weapons and it did, after 1985.</p>

51

<p>

Then give Carter just as much credit; look at the rate during the late 70s and 80. Plus, it’s cheaper to just let missiles sit than to go through the process of disarming them, yet there you have it, they spent the money on disarming them. You’re really not getting it, you’re just buying into the bull of the people who want to put Reagan on the 20.</p>

52

<p>no one’s putting reagan on the 20 any time soon.</p>

53

<p>and im not “getting it” because im right :)</p>

54

<p>

Tell that to the conservatives. You might also want to mention the dime.</p>

<p>

Despite the fact that you’ve offered no evidence, merely stated it.</p>

55

<p>Soviet Russia? Puh-leeeeeze.</p>

<p>The issue is that the Dems need more money to fund Obama’s healthcare system, among other new social programs, and the Reps are making a lot of noise at this particular roadblock. Politically, it’s nothing new.</p>

<p>You aren’t going to tax the lobbyists who fund your campaign, so taxing the super-rich is a non-issue. It’s the difference between taxing the people who make up to 1000k annually more, or taxing everyone below that the same. You’re not getting rid of the “super-rich” with taxation. Sorry. </p>

<p>Truth is, though, the people who live on welfare don’t care where their money comes from so long as they get it. That’s how the “super-rich” can get away with what they do.</p>

56

<p>

</p>

<p>Well no, that’s not true. At all.</p>

57

<p>evidence is just a code name for finding various articles and statistics that, when spinned in a certain way, support a particular viewpoint.</p>

<p>plus im not on an actual computer</p>