The problem with this kind of thinking can be summed up by the parts I’ll put in boldface.
Things are going a little sideways now, wouldn’t you agree? The world is not coming to an end, exactly, but our arrangements in it are breaking up all at once, threatening to wreck everyday life for a whole lot more people than just the poor mutts on the margins. The endless insults to common decency and common sense by the vicious governing blob that runs things don’t help, either. The main question du jour: when things break really badly, will they break against that vicious blob hard enough to make it stop?
This blob — a weird cabal alien to our heritage — is composed of people with names and duties, and institutions too. They have already lost their credibility, their authority, and their legitimacy. The problem is that they haven’t lost their power to wreck our country. Exposed and disgraced as they are, they still occupy the seats of command, still twiddle the dials on the control console, still enjoy a foolish illusion of invulnerability.
I’m in favor of wholesale impeachment of these top people as the best way to go, first, to pry their hands off the levers of power, and second, use the process of impeachment to move public sentiment to a firmly anti-blob position.
See what I’m talking about? Those two statements are self-evidently contradictory. If they still occupy the seats of command—and they assuredly do—how the hell do you propose to successfully impeach them, then? Do you seriously expect a system under their control to right itself just because you have your lawyers ask their lawyers, nicely and politely, to cut out the shenanigans and skullduggery? Even if that miracle somehow does happen, who’s going to make it stick? Or, in Stalin’s famous (and possibly apocryphal) formulation, how many divisions has the Pope?
Yes, their assumption of invulnerability is in fact a foolish illusion, but not because they’re afraid of being impeached. It’s the same old story, though: the Second Amendment has no power against tyranny if Our Side has preemptively foresworn to see that’s it enforced—ie, to ever do anything with all those guns but keep them safely locked in gun safes or closets no matter what…exactly as the rabid opponents of the 2A have mandated. They did that for a reason, and so far it’s worked out quite well indeed for them.
There’s more to Kuenstler’s piece, of course, lots of it good. But in the end he’s self-stymied by some too-familiar habits of thought and emotion: the hopeless faith that, in a rigged game wherein the rules are arbitrary and favor one side over the other, appeals to the umpire might still somehow save the day. That, despite a veritable Everest of indisputable evidence to the contrary that stacks up higher each and every day, there’s still something of honesty and probity left in the crooks and grifters at the helm of the ship of (Super)state. That, in people visibly, demonstrably evil to their very marrow, there is nevertheless some good in them somewhere that might somehow be brought forth, if we can only appeal to it vehemently enough.
Would that it were so. Alas, it is not. The number of decent men in the US Congress can be counted on one’s fingers without resort to one’s toes; much as I do appreciate them, Rand Paul and Matt Gaetz will never be able to impeach anybody all by themselves. As to dismantling Foggy Bottom, fuhgeddabouddit, ain’t gonna happen without gunplay.
Not that pointing out the mal- and mis-feasance rife throughout FederalGovCo isn’t a worthwhile endeavor, mind; in fact, it’s a vital step in the whole long slog. I repeat: a process, not an event. But at some point cold, hard steel (or lead) must come into play, and all the pleas in the world for comity and gentlemanly restraint aren’t going to change that.
2
2
- Entries
The only way impeachment will work is if it’s done the old fashioned way – with extreme prejudice.
Kunstler is long on diagnosis but very very short on actual working solutions. I saw him at a Land Institute conference, giving a talk, much the same as he writes. I proposed what I thought was a real solution to the problem, and he ridiculed it – he’s good at that – and everybody had a good laugh. I asked him what his solution was, and he had nothing – “you figure it out, wise guy”. From what I figure, he’s an entertainer and gets paid more or less well for it. If the problems get fixed, he’s out of a job. There are a lot of people who make bank like that and there’s a reason for the apparent contradictions – it pays them for the problems to continue. You see this with the “COVID resistance” people – they put on long disquisitions, have expensive “conferences” and get nothing done – and lead people down blind alleys. The trick is to keep the rubes buying your stuff, and keep them distracted. The fix to the “COVID crisis” as well as any other RNA retrovirus infection is simple and cheap: 30 mg zinc per day and 500mg quercetin per day. The mRNA vaccines don’t work, and they’re dangerous. There, in two sentences the problem is fixed, no more need for conferences, self-enriching grifters, or blind alleys.
In four short years Trump was fixing all the “intractable” problems this country, and world, was having.
One side creates the problem, one side prevents anything getting done about it except Jaw Jaw.
The truly sad thing is that Trump just applied common sense and American first values for the most part. It’s really that simple.
Yes, like Energy Independence and lower oil prices is better for the economy.
Also, it deprives others of revenues to make mischief.
The only goal the biden cabal has is to wreck the country and make our enemies stronger.
Our Enemy is the Deep State Globalist One Worlders who wants to destroy America because we have always been in the way.
More than that though they want to destroy EVERY Nation.
The Commies weren’t Russian. Marx was a German who wrote his manifesto in London. There were Marxist uprisings all across Europe in 1848 and afterwards. There Commie organizations in every Western Nation, including the US, in 1900. It was an anomaly that went against Marxist theory when Russia became the first of the European Powers to fall to them. Mussolini and then Hitler simply figured Socialism depended upon Nationalism instead of Class as the unifying force.
Today we have two wars happening. The War to end Enlightenment Free Market Capitalism as typified by America and Enlightenment Nationalism that the Internaionalist One World Globalists also need to end.
“The Commies weren’t Russian.”
But the russians are commies 🙂
Not only are we in the way but we have the most wealth to plunder.
Commie, like Nazi, means something. Russia is not Communist.
DC is Communist.
It means the same thing it always has. There has never been a textbook communist government/economic system anywhere. There is very little difference in russia 1985 and russia 2023. Evil then, evil now. The fact that the DC cabal are also communists doesn’t change that.
Putin is an evil murdering thug just like every russian dictator before him, with or without a paper politburo.
The difference is actually stunning.
There is private property. The Soviet Union is no more and their control of Eastern Europe has been reversed. They do not have military forces massed at the Fulda Gap and their total GDP of their whole Empire is 1/3 what it was then. they don’t profess to want to take over the world and push One World Government on everyone.
the Commies are in Beijing and DC. the other similar ideology is in Iran.
Uh huh, if private property is the distinction then don’t claim we have communism here. And we do, and that’s because book correct communism has never even been attempted. Communist is the term we use for the state controlling everything even if it appears to be in private hands in concert with no choice of the people for their leaders. By that definition the russians, the chinese, and ourselves are all communists, us being the last to join.
Is Ukraine in eastern europe? I do believe so.
The
russianSoviet Union GDP was always a lie, still is. There is no way to compare GDP before and after the wall came down and country’s left the “union”.I have no clue why in the midst of russian expansion and alignment with the chinese CCP you state they have no desire to take over the world or have one government. Maybe you think Xe and Putin are two saints out to save us from the boogeyman.
Except I know damn well you don’t think that, so you’ll have to explain what you think the BRICS attempt and russian ukraine expansion is if not domination.
“The difference is actually stunning.”
Is it stunning to the conscripts sent to the Ukraine front to die?
Is it stunning to the average russian that still has no freedom and is poorer than dirt?
It may be stunning but not in any good way. The collapse of the soviet union was our doing, they don’t get credit for it as though they decided to be nice one day.
JHK is just another grifter on the flip side of the coin
Reply to Barry.
Is it stunning to the conscripts sent to the Afghanistan and Iraq front to die for no reason? In hindsight, I think right now Russian troops have a far better understanding of what they’re fighting for than ours.
Is it stunning to the average Russian that still has no freedom and is poorer than dirt? There is poverty everywhere and yes, the average Russian is actually a little better off now than in 1998.
The collapse of the Soviet Union PEACEFULLY anmd the dismemberment of the Russian Czarist Empire had an important component internally from the actions of Yeltsin and even Gorbachev.
Well, we’ve beaten this to death numerous times, so I’ll stop here and read any reply you make. No need to keep beating the same drum.
There was nothing peaceful about the collapse of the Soviet Union. It cost us trillions and took the lives of 50K+ Americans, because those actions we took to counter the evil empire are why it collapsed.
Communists always murder people. There are none that didn’t do that. Yeltsin and Gorbachev were communists, thus killers. As is Putin, a KGB trained murderer that ran the terror network Red Brigades.
I don’t know if there is a heaven or hell. But I always hope there is a true hell for the people like them. There is not enough suffering for them on this earth.
The lives of most of those 50k were wasted by LBJ’s deliberate wrongheaded move to put 500k troops into Vietnam.
Reagan collapsed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. As the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 80s – 1991 loss of life was minimal. We have to give d\credit to Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II but we also have to give a nod to the management of the collapse to Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
Hard liners in the Soviet Union were prepared to use nukes to avoid the loss of Eastern Europe, never mind the Czarist possessions.
A summary of what went wrong after that is written by George Kennan in 1998. BEFORE Putin ever hit the national and international scene.
https://timesofgold.com/2022/03/01/george-kennan-1998-interview-on-nato-expansion/
Kenny, that’s a very poor summary of the historical facts.
Before the Reagan presidency exists, the entire “cold war” era from 1945 on exists. Reagan continued and amped up certain parts of the cold war, but Reagan did nothing on his own and does not deserve all the credit.
You can blame Eisenhower and Roosevelt for mistakes in WW2, but that doesn’t change why we were in the fight and the ultimate responsibility for the death and destruction. LBJ was a worthless POS president. The Russians are pure evil, then and now. It is the russians that supported the North Vietnamese, aided them, supplied them, advised them. It is the russian communist expansion attempts that we countered with American lives and it is the russians that are responsible.
Reagan collapsed the Soviet Union. His CIA (the one that Daddy Bush ran for a while) told him and all of US the Soviet Union was as strong, or stronger than US. They were lying because the Cold War was remunerative to them. Reagan said he’d send them to the Dustbin og History and the Deep State of that time, including candidate Bush, said he’d start WW III (sound familiar – same thing they ran on Goldwater – read his Conscience of a Conservative and see how things like Vietnam would have been handled far differently than the Dems wanted, amongst other things. Same thing they tried on Trump).
Reagan said Bullshit, did what he said was going to bury them, and BURIED them. Kennan, who actually engineered Containment, had nothing to say about it because he saw the results. BUT, Kennan was actually interested in winning the Cold War FOR AMERICA and hence couldn’t understand why, after having WON, we were throwing it all away.
And we did.
And that is Deep State burying Reagan’s good works.
And THAT is it in a Nutshell.
Ike warned us. We keep forgetting it and making excuses for MIC and Deep State.
The CIA knew the true strength of the russians and properly shared it with presidents. I’ve seen the assessments from long ago that were declassified. What they and nearly everyone missed was the dire straights the entire economy was in and how perilosly close the collapse was.
Reagan did not collapse the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did it all by itself. Reagan, and every president prior, just didn’t aid them for the most part, opposed them when it was useful (such as Vietnam).
Reagan existed for the last act and did a fine job, but he doesn’t deserve all or most of credit for the fall.
If you really want to know what was the real death knell for the Soviet Union, look to Afghanistan. The russian incursion into Afghanistan occurred during the Reagan years and it is that, not Reagan that broke the russian empire.
Reagan correctly saw the reports of MILITARY Strength and saw the ECONOMICS of the whole system as the Achilles Heel. No one else got that. Because our “Brain Trusts” were mostly lawyers and lifelong politicians who didn’t “get” economics. Even Nixon bought into Keynesianism. Reagan had an ECONOMICS DEGREE (IIRC from U of Illinois, not some Ivy school).
Reagan, like Trump (a Wharton Grad in Economics), used OUR Economic Resurgent Strength as the pillar behind Increased Defense Spending and Unequivocal Declarations of Moral Certitude when almost all Presidents since Ike wouldn’t.
Vietnam was an unmitigated Disaster for us and almost led to Soviet Dominance. They were ascendant everywhere in the 60s and 70s because LBJ sent 500k troops when 50,000 and Air and Naval Power were needed. This allowed the casualty numbers to rise and the Media to falsely report US as LOSING. This destroyed our domestic Anti-Communist group of politicians.
REAGAN had the fortitude to stand up against the Media Barrage and take the Heat while he called out the Evil Empire, gave us Morning in America and Established America as the Leaders of the Free World with the Moral High Ground again.
After JFK we had a LOT of trouble, with the Dems especially, as a Fifth Column. That extended to the entire ranks up to POTUS for the Dems, the entire of the State Department, and probably major elements in the FBI/CIA. Especially after Hoover died, who for all his depraved Power Mad machinations was probably an Anti-Communist (probably because he preferred Fascism).
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of economics alone, not even close. There are so many factors in the collapse it’s difficult if not impossible to pin it on one single item. It is clear that the military defeat in Afghanistan combined with the loss of many young russian men had created an even deeper hatred for the ruling communists than had existed prior. Combine that with glasnost and perestroika, both failures in the end, and the russian people and the satellite country’s saw a crack and broke it wide open. Unfortunately the russian DNA is what the russian DNA is and they desire rulers.
Reagan didn’t break the soviet union, the soviet union broke itself, aide by the USA for many years.
Reagans economic policy only looks good because he came in after the Carter years. Reagan thought if I mowed your yard and you mowed mine, that the service economy would create wealth. On every thing from illegal immigration to controlling government spending, Reagan failed. He is given credit way beyond that which is deserved. The opportunity was there after the Carter years to do something bold and set the nation on the correct path. Lotta talk, no action.
Of course it did collapse economically.
Of course Reagan’s shift made the difference.
Containment had worked, where they were contained. But they were still expanding right through the Carter years.
It was Reagan’s shift from Containment to Punishment that made the difference and why EVERYONE opposed him in Deep State. Just like Trump.
The key pillar to Trump’s MAGA was the same as Reagan’s. Make us economically strong and make the other side exocnomically weak.
The Economics rules the Might of a Nation.
A good economy allows us to afford a Great Military.
Reagan was no Trump, not even close. You need to look at what Reagan actually did instead of reading the hype.
Reagan was a republican first and last. And the republican party is anti-American to it’s very core. It was then and it is now.
Economics is just a tiny part of why the russian empire fell. And what did Reagan do to enhance the economic failure of the russian empire? He had a list of sanctions, things like stopping Aeroflot flights to the US, damn near all of them were nothing of any real value except for internal politics. It’s often stated that Reagan’s military spending increases “bankrupted” the Soviet Union, but reality is that the russians spent the same amount with little change in the Reagan administration, and other countries have spent similar out sized portions of their budgets without failing.
I well remember that when all the other “sanctions” had failed Reagan put into place a sanction on pipeline building (sound familiar), which he promptly dropped because American companies wanted their piece of the pie.
Reagan was no Trump, not even close.
I didn’t read the hype, I lived.
it. We went from “we lost Vietnam” and we better resign ourselves to the Soviet Union being here forever, but that they were winning. This was as late as Under Carter.
Reagan, Maggie and Pope John Paul sank the Soviets.
Large scale regulatory reductions.
Broke the air traffic controllers. Supported the higher interest rates. Refocused spending into Defense Spending.
Made sure WASTEFUL spending was reduced.
What do you think Supply Side means? Deregulation, started under Carter, was a LYNCHPIN.
If you believe sanctions are what Reagan did to sink the Soviets then you have no idea how Trump was really attacking the ChiComs.
Economic Strength at home is the key. Then you press your advantage and make them keep up.
Reagan did that. No one before him since JFK cared about real American Economic success. Actually, Ike probably.
List the things Reagan did to create “Economic Strength at home”…
“Reaganomics” were fine common sense economic measures. But let’s be clear, of the three tiers he stated, tax cuts, spending reduction, and reduction in federal regulations, only tax cuts actually occurred and they were easy since they were astronomically high. Those tax cuts were then offset with other tax increases and government spending rose the entire time Reagan was in office. The debt tripled under Reagan. Say that agains, the US debt TRIPLED under Ronald Reagan.
That’s a fact. Regulation didn’t disappear, it increased, debt increased, and unemployment remained high (it did come down from the Carter years).
On the plus side, GDP nearly doubled, but this was due to that tripling of the federal budget, so how good is that?
Which has exactly dick all to do with the collapse of the russian empire.
edit: Forgot, as I said, no comparison to Trump and Reagan. Reagan was just another republican government man. Good ideas are worthless unless implemented. Trump did, Reagan didn’t. Simple as that.
I said we have Commies in DC. They haven’t managed to end private property…Yet. But they aim to do that, unlike the Russians. Who have no desire and especially NO MEANS to do that here.
And that, is all I care about.
“Russia is not Communist.
DC is Communist.”
OK, understand that you didn’t mean we are already communist.
I on the other hand think we are. Communism in the new age doesn’t require direct state ownership, just control, and the feds have control. Thus we have car companies building cars that will not sale, “news” organizations that report what the government tells them, and people being jailed for no crime while actual criminals are turned loose. That is straight from the new communist textbook, IMO.
They already control private property, they just choose to maintain the illusion that it’s yours until they can get weapons and ammo from us. Now, that will not happen, but they think it will. That is all that separates us from the truly enslaved.
Before the Commies took over Russia they were allied with Britain for a few hundred years, and friendly with the US.
To paraphrase your own statement.
if we wiped out every
JooRussky on the planet we’d still have a Commie problem.Because Communism came from the minds of two Germans harbored in London. but it’s much older than that. Collectivism has been the natural societal underlying structure for most of History and Free Market Democracy and Republics have been an aberration.
That’s the last I’ll say of it.
Comments are getting wonky 🙂
Up above Kenny states:
“Large scale regulatory reductions.
Broke the air traffic controllers. Supported the higher interest rates. Refocused spending into Defense Spending.
Made sure WASTEFUL spending was reduced.
What do you think Supply Side means? Deregulation, started under Carter, was a LYNCHPIN.”
First, I think you’ve lost sight of the discussion which is not about how good a president Reagan was (or wasn’t) but about the collapse of the russian empire and what caused it. Reagan was the 3rd best president in my lifetime behind Ike and Trump that I have in a 1st place tie.
OTOH,
List the “large scale regulatory reductions” as I find there was no meaningful change under Reagan.
Truly you cannot think firing the striking aircraft controllers had the russians shaking in their boots screaming “no mas”. As an aside, what exactly did firing the controllers accomplish? Nada, not a damn thing. Fine by me that he fired them, they deserved it, but do you think it accomplished anything?
Defense spending was increased, not paid for. The deficit under Reagan tripled.
Reagan did nothing to reduce wasteful spending, just another canard promoted by the republican apparatchik.
None of this except possibly the defense spending has anything to do with the russian empire inmploding. And that is not the reason either as russian defense spending didn’t change during the Reagan years.
The same way Trump had 2 purposes to build a solid, Supply Side foundation in America, is the one Reagan had. American Strength and also America’s Resolve was bolstered.
Trump and Reagan both know/knew that Wars are won by Economic Strength. Military Strength simply follows, as long as National Will is there.
Both Reagan and Trump had a coordinated Domestic/Foreign Policy Agenda that was symbiotic of Economic Strength at Home, Naming the Enemy Clearly, and using our Strong Economy to build Militarily and to build up the Will/Ego of America. Pressed to try to do the same the Soviets simply could not keep up and what Containment had weakened Reaganomics broke.
The Deep State/Uniparty was simply Winning, for itself, with the Containment Policy, which ensured a Stalemate and NeverEnding War. America was being bled dry by it slowly but surely.
In hindsight, given what we learned under Trump, this is now Obvious.
“Trump and Reagan both know/knew that Wars are won by Economic Strength.”
Trump knows it, and wanted to return mfg here, and at a minimum get it out of china. Reagan thought having manufacturing elsewhere was just fine.
“Pressed to try to do the same the Soviets simply could not keep up…”
The truth is they didn’t change a damn thing, didn’t alter their defense appropriations, nada. It’s all there but you’ll have to look at it instead of listening to the government owned republican party tell you how swell it all was.
I was working when Reagan was elected and worked through the carter years. Carter and his policy were so hated Reagan could have righted the ship, but he didn’t. He caved on everything from immigration to sanction on the russians. He didn’t cut regulations (list them if he did) and he spent even more money that before.
I don’t know why you’re misremembering the whole of the 1980s, but Trump basically used Reagan as his template and added his own Flair…
Reagan did not think that was fine.
Show me when Reagan REAGAN said that.
Remember,. his Bushie Buddies like Baker and Cheney had to be in his Admin and they certainly weren’t to be trusted.
But the movement of mfg out of the US began under BJ.
REAGAN instituted TARIFFs on Japan and FORCED the Japanese to move mfg HERE. There was a comedy made about it:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091159/?ref_=nm_flmg_t_75_act
Gung Ho starring Michael Keaton and George Wendt.
Japanese have to BUY a US car company plant.
Year it was made – 1986
I’m not misremembering anything. Reagan made it very clear that we would all be fine under a service economy and manufacturing began a steeper decline under Reagan.
My argument is not that Reagan wasn’t a good president, he was. My argument is that he gets credit not deserved because he blew a massive opportunity and I know because I was there for it, seeing manufacturing plants closing the doors. He gets credit for calling the russians what they were, evil. He gets credit for rebuilding the military, he gets credit for GDP growth. But there is also the truth – one always ignored, that the deficit tripled as the government spent money it didn’t have. That tends to make the economic numbers look good in the short term, but eventually the chickens come home to roost.
Better than average? No doubt. Best president since 1952? No. He’s behind Ike and Trump.
“America’s most recent experiment with protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country—the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression…”
Reagan suffered from the same bullshit business school doctrine in place both before and after I went to school, starting with the stupid idea that tarriffs caused the great depression. When you have that wrong your policy is shaped by similar wrong idea’s. Misunderstanding the role of a broken world post WW2 in the rise of the US as an economic powerhouse is just the beginning.
President Reagan on Trade & Tariffs
read this to find what Reagan thought of tariffs even though he used them. The problem with most of the Reagan tariffs is they were targeted not to help the economy, but to help individuals/companies (like Harley Davidson).
You want to compare Reagan to Trump, yet it was Trump that had to get rid on one of the worst, if not the worst, trade policy of all time, NAFTA. NAFTA was Reagan’s baby, NAFTA was Reagan nuking manufacturing in the USA. NAFTA was, as Perot rightly called it, a great suck of jobs to the south.
NAFTA
Nope, nothing wrong with my memory. The manufacturing slide began with Reagan because he thought it was a good idea.
Except he actually did the opposite and you’ve never produced anything from Reagan himself a out the issue.
Cite Reagan saying that.
Your attributing to Reagan something that began under HW Bush.
You are ignoring the plain facts that I have linked to, Reagan on tariffs, Reagan and NAFTA. You are ignoring a tripling of the deficit under Reagan while claiming that he broke the russian empire. You are not alone in that assessment as it is the view sold by the republican establishment, but it’s wrong.
No need to continue this. I worked through it, saw the factories, my customers, closing, and moving operations to Mexico and Asia.
I listened to Reagan early and had high hopes he would turn the economy around. He did, but that wasn’t too hard to do since the depth of the Carter depression meant damn near anyone could. The real manufacturing slide began with his economic policy and continued until Trump came through and stopped the slide and was in the process of turning it the other direction. Trump was stopped by the same people that tell you how wonderful Reagan was…
and Trump kept NAFTA and fixed the parts BJ screwed up.
Conceptually there was nothing wrong with the idea of NAFTA. Mexico should have to stop manipulating their currency.
So, once again, Trump used Reagan as his template.
The PROBLEM with these things is the execution. It was left up to Uniparty to actually implement Free Trade and they implemented Move The MFG to ChiComs instead.
Nothing Reagan said there has anything about America becoming a Service Economy.
True Free Trade DOES enrich both parties.
We can have Free Trade with a Canada run by Multiney as Canada, for all it’s issues, still has a relatively Free economy compared to most of the World.
Reagan envisioned America mfg supplying the World.
Reagan FORCED the Japanese to stop manipulating their currency. It rose against the dollar for years, as it should. this FORCED Japanese investment to come to America.
Again, I have not said Reagan didn’t do some good. I’m saying that Reagan’s good had only a minor part in the collapse of the russian empire.
You think the Japs coming here to manufacture cars broke the russians?
Let me explain why the japs came to the USA. The Reagan tarrifs only play a minor part in it.
The #1 reason foreign manufacturers come here is to avoid paying corporate tax on their products. They don’t show any profit on sales here, or very little. They ship sub assemblies to the US and then put it all together here. The cost charged for the sub assembly moves the profit to Japan/wherever for their government to tax, while the American subsidiary barely shows a profit and pays very little tax.
I know a US CEO/engineer of a large Japanese machine tool company (now retired). They never showed more than a half million in profit here while at home they made hundreds of millions of dollars.
There is a lot more to it than tariffs and it was not addressed by Reagan and it certainly wasn’t by anyone after, until Trump. Trump has talked about the challenge of the tax system and that it needs repair to eliminate this, but had not tried to implement that before the coup.
Here is a nice comparison of economy’s and how they were doing. It puts a halt to the Reagan “economic miracle” nonsense.
https://www.businessinsider.com/revealed-the-truth-about-ronald-reagans-economic-growth-miracle-2012-2?op=1
From the same people that are busy rewriting the History of Trump’s Economics Miracles.
Of course the American Economy was stronger and on better footing in 1988 than in 1980. Reaganomics was indeed a Miracle.
Supply Side works.
Their graphs are correct, I could care less their leanings one way or another.
I’m pretty sure you are not going to argue with the data, since it’s there and correct.
Anyway, I think this is the end of this one for me. I respect your opinion and I know you are an intelligent man. I’ve been through this stuff a hundred times over the years, and the data always says the same thing I knew at the time. The republican hype is always opposite what the data shows. Which, as I have stated, doesn’t mean Reagan was a bad president and in fact he was a good one. But it’s not IMO true that Reagan was primarily responsible for the fall of the russian empire, not even close. The USA stood up to the russians for almost 50 years at a cost of life and treasure and that is what broke the russian empire, not one particular actor. Reagan was an important cog in the gear train, not insignificant, but not what the government owned republican party has always made it out to be.
Reagan laid it all out and then proceeded to execute his Strategy and 8 years later The Soviet Union collapsed, first in The Warsaw Pact Nations and then in The USSR itself.
You basically agree on the facts but deny that Reagan said what he was going to do, did it, and it worked.
It’s clear as day that Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II took out the Sockets like they said they would.
That’s the last I’ll write in that.