Simon,
Yes, an oversight on my part, Gorbachev must be included...but to say he was MOST responsible...can't go that far. It took a combination of all four of those figures...and Lech Walesa, and others too.
Ronald Reagan - Too good for the toadies of the international community
by Richie 36 Replies latest social current
-
-
Realist
can someone explain to me why the soviets were so stupid to join the arms race? for crying out loud one would assume that the first 1000 nukes would have been enough...why build another 9000 thereby ruining your economy.
not reagan but the stupidity and incompetence of these people brought the soviet union to a fall.
-
talesin
Richie
A question
William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
What is the "Cato Institute"? Who funds it? Why was it established? Does it have an agenda and if so, what is said agenda?
This report holds little meaning for me, until the above questions are answered to my satisfaction. As we are all aware (at least I hope so), anyone can write a report, can find and manipulate statistics to make what appears to be a good argument. Just as you feel the New York Times is liberally biased, so could the above authors be conservatively biased.
Yes, I do my own research, and make it a point to read the different sides of many issues. I read links and articles that are provided here as well.
Having said that, I really enjoyed your posts today. It's the first time this reader has seen you write at any length in your own words, expressing your opinion. Thanks, it made a difference in my understanding of your position. I look forward to reading more of your personal opinions, POV and interpretation of issues.
With regards to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I agree with SS and others. Gorbachev played a large part, it was his life's work imho. Reagan, Thatcher, Walesa and many others did their share, but let's not canonize any of them.
talesin
-
Richie
Talesin, tks for your post - about the Cato institute, I will copy some of the answers to your question:
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html
The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.
Cato's Mission
The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.
Cato's Publications and Events
The Cato Institute undertakes an extensive publications program dealing with the complete spectrum of public policy issues. Books, monographs, briefing papers and shorter studies are commissioned to examine issues in nearly every corner of the public policy debate. Policy forums and book forums are held regularly, as are major policy conferences, which Cato hosts throughout the year, and from which papers are published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal. All of these events are taped and archived on Cato's Web site. Additionally, Cato has held major conferences in London, Moscow, Shanghai, and Mexico City. The Institute also publishes the quarterly magazine Regulation and a bimonthly newsletter, Cato Policy Report.
How Cato Is Funded
In order to maintain an independent posture, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding or endowments. Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals. Other revenue is generated from the sale of publications. The Cato Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Cato's 2000 revenues were just under $13 million, and it has approximately 90 full-time employees, 60 adjunct scholars, and 16 fellows, plus interns.
How to Label Cato
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
I hope you'll enjoy their reports, as I find that they do not have a liberal or conservative agenda per se, but you could say they are neutral and stay on an independant course, which is refreshing.....
Richie :*)
-
talesin
Thank you, Richie.
Refreshing, indeed. I will take a hike back and read. : )
t
-
Yerusalyim
I agree with SS and others. Gorbachev played a large part, it was his life's work imho.
So, your proposition is that G joined the Communist Party and dedicated his whole life to it in order to bring down the Soviet Union? He was an agent provacatuer? Realist, I didn't expect that your brain would allow you to admit that any conservative did anything good. It's the stupidity of COMMUNISM itself that failed.
-
talesin
Actually, that was me, Yeru.
I remember it vividly. Kissinger's glowing remarks about Gorby. The world community's praises of his diplomacy. The social and financial problems that took place with the establishment of the new order. Gorbachev's illness and the fear that it produced, fear that if he was not around, war might break out. Yes, I remember it well.
It was a good example of diplomatic methods being successful, imho.
Even though I wonder if the citizens are much better off. It seems to me that the average joe on the street still has the same problems. At least they are not 'at war', not to my knowledge, anyhow.
Nice to see you, btw.
tal
-
Realist
yeru,
of course it was the stupidity of the communistic leadership that ruined the soviet union. had they not senselessly joined the arms race would their economy not have collapsed. if i remember it correctly the soviets spent 60% of their budget on defense. IDIOTS!
reagan did what is best for the US industry and strategic interests - very understandable - but not something he deserves any humanitarian award for.
-
bigboi
not reagan but the stupidity and incompetence of these people brought the soviet union to a fall.
Here, here! Reagan was a man who decided to play hardball with the Soviets at a time when he knew they were at a big disadvantage. He was a rhetoric-filled figurehead who ignored a lot of social problems at home, while running a somewhat successful foreign policy campaign.
-
talesin
Yeru
See? Now you've gone and done it, you've encouraged him! heheh Next time you start something up, check the poster name. I don't look like Realist at all. DOH
Realist
You had me fooled for a long time, but I woke up a few weeks ago.