Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:07 PM |
Unless I'm mistaken, he's not on any bill or coin in circulation. Why not? Do you think Reagan should be on any of our currency? Perhaps on the dime, to kick out that dirty socialist FDR?
Also, on a somewhat related note, is Margaret Thatcher on any of the pound bills/pence in Britain? She should be. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:10 PM |
| I can't find anything on thatcher. As for Reagan why would he be on a currency? All he did was stabilize economy and bankrupt anothers. Not really bill/coin worthy if you ask me. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
re567
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4550 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:10 PM |
Thatcher should be on the pound.
She did some good, and some bad things. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:22 PM |
There are many things Reagan did well, and for which he should be remembered.
Economy - He cut taxes, cut spending for needless government programs, and tried to abolish the Department of Education. He had a mostly hands-off laissez faire approach to economics which led to amazing growth and expansion of the economy during the 80s. It severely reduced inflation and unemployment.
He also cracked down on unions like Thatcher, resulting in less and less strikes and therefore more profit. This is good.
Foreign Policy - He defeated the USSR economically, politically, and militarily. He helped end the Cold War. He increased military spending and rebuilt American patriotism.
Also, this: "Reagan helped to reduce inefficiencies in the federal bureaucracy. When Reagan took office, it took seven weeks to get a Social Security card and 43 days to get a passport. By the time he left office, both could be had in 10 days."
God Bless Reagan! God Bless the USA! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:24 PM |
| The Founding Fathers are more special than him. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:25 PM |
God Bless Reagan! God Bless the USA! [x2]
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:28 PM |
| Like I said: He stablized the economy and defeated the USSR. I don't find this worthy of a bill. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:29 PM |
@flat
I AGREE. He didn't have to ruin the USSR. Just make them free, end the Cold War, and knock down th' wall. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:30 PM |
> Just make them free, end the Cold War, and knock down th' wall.
And that's exactly what he did... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:32 PM |
@Midmyst
Notice how I didn't add ruin it politically and economically. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:35 PM |
| He made plenty of peoples life miserable - even though they did nothing because, of what he did. Doing that doesn't make you deserve a bill/coin. I do not respect him for doing that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:37 PM |
"He made plenty of peoples life miserable"
This includes my mom's. (A USA Citizen) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:39 PM |
@Des
Transforming a totalitarian centrally-planned single-party dictatorship into a constitutional republic is not at all as simple and peaceful as you pretend it to be. And to be honest, the USSR was almost failing even before Reagan came into office. Reagan pushed the USSR along to its logical conclusion - a failed state with a dead economy. But yet, for his works in containing the USSR wherever its rotten paws tried to reach, he deserved to be rewarded. Tearing down the Berlin Wall, for instance. Negotiating nuclear arms decreases with the USSR.
The USSR was not a viable concept. It was a forcefully centralized state that subjugated non-Russians to its will and imprisoned/executed dissidents. This is not the sort of regime people will allow to exist if given the option. So the USSR's collapse was both natural and justified.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:41 PM |
"totalitarian centrally-planned single-party dictatorship"
Implying USSR was totalitarian.
It was more Authoritarian. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:42 PM |
> He made lives miserable
Pretty much every president did. Lincoln made the southerners' lives miserable. FDR made the Japanese Americans' and the businessmen's lives miserable. George Washington made life miserable for the loyalists.
But for every life "ruined" by Reagan, he improved 10 other lives - whether by creating the conditions for them to get jobs, or get rich, or get a good education, raise a family, etc. Reagan's years were generally considered very prosperous, especially compared to the Carter years. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:43 PM |
Transforming a totalitarian centrally-planned single-party dictatorship into a constitutional republic is not at all as simple and peaceful as you pretend it to be. And to be honest, the USSR was almost failing even before Reagan came into office. Reagan pushed the USSR along to its logical conclusion - a failed state with a dead economy. But yet, for his works in containing the USSR wherever its rotten paws tried to reach, he deserved to be rewarded. Tearing down the Berlin Wall, for instance. Negotiating nuclear arms decreases with the USSR.
The USSR was not a viable concept. It was a forcefully centralized state that subjugated non-Russians to its will and imprisoned/executed dissidents. This is not the sort of regime people will allow to exist if given the option. So the USSR's collapse was both natural and justified. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "At the end of Communism we had a feeling that rights and choices were finally secured to us, and suddenly that a possibility of social change might happen. But today now there is less and less of a feeling that choice and rights are actually related to social change" - Renata Salecel |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:46 PM |
From the Free Dictionary:
Totalitarian:
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.
I would argue that this would apply to the USSR as the state was highly centralized and had near total control over the economy, political life, culture, and media, at the very least until 1985 and probably at latest 1989. Perhaps this improved to authoritarian under Gorbachev. But still, my point still stands - you can't take an authoritarian regime and make it democratic, without expecting some difficulties and suffering. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:46 PM |
But for every life "ruined" by Reagan, he improved 10 other lives - whether by creating the conditions for them to get jobs, or get rich, or get a good education, raise a family, etc. Reagan's years were generally considered very prosperous, especially compared to the Carter years. -------------- No the entirety of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus etc went BANKRUPT. Their lives were not improved by Reagan. Russia was improved by Putin not Reagan. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:52 PM |
I would argue that this would apply to the USSR as the state was highly centralized and had near total control over the economy, political life, culture, and media, at the very least until 1985 and probably at latest 1989. Perhaps this improved to authoritarian under Gorbachev. But still, my point still stands - you can't take an authoritarian regime and make it democratic, without expecting some difficulties and suffering. ------------- The USSR had forced optimism that was its biggest issue. It is also the USA's current issue both also suffered from the fact that few believed in communism but they believed in the belief of a belief of others. Also you do not need democracy. The majority of people are always wrong. E.g. We had Bernie Madoff people were putting their life savings with him and buying houses during the housing crises. The majority is almost always wrong. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:54 PM |
There was an entire website dedicated to when Margaret Thatcher would die.
Also, Ronald Reagan was a right to lifer even though he supported the South American death squads. About 200 or so people in his administration broke the law, especially his Attorney General, Edwin Meese da turd. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:54 PM |
Oh no, the totalitarian state is bankrupt! Quick, let's send it tons of money and be really nice to it so it can continue being totalitarian!
But seriously, life for people in the former USSR (ESPECIALLY THE BALTICS!) is much better than it was under the USSR. They have higher incomes, more goods to buy, higher GDPs, etc.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 03:57 PM |
Oh no, the totalitarian state is bankrupt! Quick, let's send it tons of money and be really nice to it so it can continue being totalitarian!
But seriously, life for people in the former USSR (ESPECIALLY THE BALTICS!) is much better than it was under the USSR. They have higher incomes, more goods to buy, higher GDPs, etc. ----------------------- You don't need to send money. But crashing the lives down on millions of people is not helping and I despise him for it. There are better ways to end a regime than to kill off peoples life savings. How could you support that at all? And all this is thanks to not him. None of that was done by him. It was done by the leaders who came up in the restructuring era. Reagan caused the economic problem he didn't solve it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 04:00 PM |
Alright, fair enough. You are the President of the U.S. and it is the late 1980s.
The Soviet Union is clearly crumbling. It is very weak. How do you propose you save the USSR's economy and simultaneously bring Western-style liberal democracy to them?
I'm genuinely curious in your answer; this isn't a rhetorical question. I might be overlooking some obvious solution that would save the USSR but also free them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 04:08 PM |
The Soviet Union is clearly crumbling. It is very weak. How do you propose you save the USSR's economy and simultaneously bring Western-style liberal democracy to them? ------------------------- You offer the Soviet Union a deal where you buy Soviet products via stimulating their economy for the time being in exchange for the ability to broadcast radio to the Citizens in the Soviet Union and the right to publish a news paper thereby opening up the citizens to Western Ideals on two fronts much like how RT shows Russia's opinion on US matters to US citizens. It may take a while but if citizens truly desire democracy they will get it and dissolute the Soviet Union if they don't then it shall reign. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 28 Jan 2014 04:14 PM |
Funnily enough, your idea was tried, at least partially. The US government published a Russian language magazine called Amerika to Soviet citizens as part of a deal with the USSR (while the USSR published a magazine about USSR in America.) USSR citizens loved the magazine and there were long lines when each issue came out to get it, but unfortunately it never got anywhere and the people remained governed by a totalitarian government. So you're basically saying that because the people didn't overthrow the government after reading the magazines, then they didn't want democratic government and therefore Reagan shouldn't have touched the Soviet Union?
From Wikipedia:
"Amerika (Russian: "Америка") was a Russian-language magazine published by the United States Department of State during the Cold War for distribution in the Soviet Union. It was intended to inform Soviet citizens about American life.[1] Amerika was distinguished among other Soviet publications by its high-grade paper, bright printing and numerous photos. The magazine has been described as "polite propaganda" and featured high-quality photography and articles about everyday life in the United States, as well as profiles of famous American people and institutions."
"In 1944 the State Department began circulating 10,000 copies in the Soviet Union. The magazine was instantly popular and sold out all of its copies virtually overnight. In June 1947, the Soviet Union authorized an increase to 50,000 copies.[3] By the late 1940s, the State Department began to feel that radio and the Voice of America would be more effective propaganda tools and, in 1952, publication of Amerika was suspended.[4] However, in 1956, the American and Soviet governments agreed to exchange magazines and Amerika was reborn and published in return for distribution of The USSR in the United States.[5] The magazine was again an immediate success, selling out quickly.[6] The goal, as explained in the first issue, was that "the Soviet reader could see the many-sided American life, reflected in it."
In his study of the propaganda of the era, University of Akron history professor Walter L. Hixson writes that Amerika was wildly popular among Soviet readers and notes that long lines would form when the magazine went on sale. Because the magazine sparked discussion among the Soviet intelligentsia and because each issue was widely shared, Amerika had impact and influence beyond its circulation of 50,000. The U.S. government felt that the magazine made a valuable contribution to better understanding of America by the Soviet people and was an effective counterpart to Soviet propaganda." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|