US Economy grows at fastest rate since 1984!!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-31 12:20am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy wrote:This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion(1963 dollars) will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends--induce more investment, production, and capacity use--help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year--and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.
Kennedy seemed to support cutting the tax on the wealthy and felt it would help tho poor through economic development. and wait! it did. The Kennedy 1963 tax plan was brilliant. Did imention Kennedy's support of supply side economics? The 60's were quite prosperous. too bad Johnson and Nixon had to go and fuck shit up.

Nitpick: Kennedy cut taxes across the board. It was Reagan who relied solely on the trickle-down theory. Kennedy's tax plan was based off the Full Employment Budget, which showed that the budget then was contractionary; Reagan disliked the FEB and refused to use it, and his combination of tax cuts and increased spending were directly responsible for the extreme increase in the debt in the early 80s (IIRC, 1982 was the last time the budget ran a real surplus). I don't know if Bush has used the FEB or not.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 12:53am

The Dark wrote:Reagan disliked the FEB and refused to use it, and his combination of tax cuts and increased spending were directly responsible for the extreme increase in the debt in the early 80s (IIRC, 1982 was the last time the budget ran a real surplus). I don't know if Bush has used the FEB or not.

The increased spending during the Reagan administration was not only a function of military buildup but also a function of Pork that was pushed through the legislature in large amounts to buy off Democrat legislators to support the tax cuts; in that sense the tax cuts sank themselves to be created. However, the two are not directly interlinked.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-31 05:06am

It's a common 'fact' that Reagan's spending policies bankrupted the Soviet Union. I would like to see some reasoning on this other than assertion from "after this therefore because of this". This is actually a subject of historical debate, not rock solid fact that can be used to prop up pro-Reagan spending arguments.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-10-31 05:58am

Ha ha! Now the Democrats have to stand in front of the cameras and pretend they didn't want to see the economy tank for another year!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-10-31 07:49am

The Dark wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy wrote:This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion(1963 dollars) will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends--induce more investment, production, and capacity use--help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year--and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.
Kennedy seemed to support cutting the tax on the wealthy and felt it would help tho poor through economic development. and wait! it did. The Kennedy 1963 tax plan was brilliant. Did imention Kennedy's support of supply side economics? The 60's were quite prosperous. too bad Johnson and Nixon had to go and fuck shit up.
Nitpick: Kennedy cut taxes across the board. It was Reagan who relied solely on the trickle-down theory. Kennedy's tax plan was based off the Full Employment Budget, which showed that the budget then was contractionary; Reagan disliked the FEB and refused to use it, and his combination of tax cuts and increased spending were directly responsible for the extreme increase in the debt in the early 80s (IIRC, 1982 was the last time the budget ran a real surplus). I don't know if Bush has used the FEB or not.

The Kennedy plan cut taxes in the higest tax bracket from 90% to about 60%. in actual dollar ammounts that heavily favored the upper class because Kennedy knew those were the people most likely to spend it. Granted, everyone got a sizable tax cut, but the effect was most felt by the wealthy. Regarding Reagan, his administration pushed for increased defense spending. The Democratic controlled congress led by Tip O'Neil forced the increased domestic spending down Ronnie's throat.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-31 10:05am

Col. Crackpot wrote:The Kennedy plan cut taxes in the higest tax bracket from 90% to about 60%.

As I've already said here, 91% to 70%. In common terms, it went from punitive to acceptable.

in actual dollar ammounts that heavily favored the upper class because Kennedy knew those were the people most likely to spend it.

I disagree. I think he cut the top rate because the 91% was an unfair relic of the WWII years. The fact that it greatly benefitted most of his political cronies, his family and friends, and him personally can't be ignored either.

Granted, everyone got a sizable tax cut, but the effect was most felt by the wealthy. Regarding Reagan, his administration pushed for increased defense spending. The Democratic controlled congress led by Tip O'Neil forced the increased domestic spending down Ronnie's throat.

True dat.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-31 10:11am

Vympel wrote:It's a common 'fact' that Reagan's spending policies bankrupted the Soviet Union. I would like to see some reasoning on this other than assertion from "after this therefore because of this". This is actually a subject of historical debate, not rock solid fact that can be used to prop up pro-Reagan spending arguments.

I think it has much more to do with the Truman-Eisenhower anti-Soviet policies, the tendency of the USSR's military to overreach and try to hold too damn much, and the steady decay of the Soviet political base. Is it entirely coincidental that the collapse happened shortly into the tenure of the first Premier in 50 years who wasn't a WWII-era idealogue? A person who suggests that Reagan singlehandedly brought down the USSR has to show that nobody would have implemented the policy of glasnost which was in fact the immediate cause of the political disintegration.

The whole "Reagan won the Cold War" bit is based on oversimplistic reasoning and is something like suggesting that Truman singlehandedly won the Pacific War.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-31 10:17am

Pablo Sanchez wrote: The whole "Reagan won the Cold War" bit is based on oversimplistic reasoning and is something like suggesting that Truman singlehandedly won the Pacific War.

Actually, Truman did win it; he gave the order for the 509th Composite
Bomb Wing to begin "special operations".

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-10-31 10:36am

MKSheppard wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote: The whole "Reagan won the Cold War" bit is based on oversimplistic reasoning and is something like suggesting that Truman singlehandedly won the Pacific War.
Actually, Truman did win it; he gave the order for the 509th Composite
Bomb Wing to begin "special operations".

causing the Japanese to promptly shit themselves and surrender....which they would not have done if without the use fat man and little boy.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-31 10:57am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The Dark wrote:Reagan disliked the FEB and refused to use it, and his combination of tax cuts and increased spending were directly responsible for the extreme increase in the debt in the early 80s (IIRC, 1982 was the last time the budget ran a real surplus). I don't know if Bush has used the FEB or not.
The increased spending during the Reagan administration was not only a function of military buildup but also a function of Pork that was pushed through the legislature in large amounts to buy off Democrat legislators to support the tax cuts; in that sense the tax cuts sank themselves to be created. However, the two are not directly interlinked.

No, of course not. I'm sorry if my post made it seem that way. The problem was that the benefit of the tax cuts to the economy was reduced (if not negated) by the increased government spending. Neither one was directly linked, but the two had effects on the overall economy that caused it to tank, since the increase in government spending would crowd out investment spending, slowing the rate of growth of the economy. At the same time, the tax cuts would attempt to increase that rate of growth, but at the cost of decreased government revenues. Overall effect is a drop in revenue and a drop in investment, leading to a tendency for a deficit and declining future economy.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-31 11:23am

Col. Crackpot wrote: causing the Japanese to promptly shit themselves and surrender....which they would not have done if without the use fat man and little boy.

Actually, we didn't A-Bomb them. We just tested Fat Man and Little Boy
on them, see, we never classified those two as bombs, because we weren't
sure if they'd work.

At least not until 1991 or so when the guys at Oak Ridge told a group
of Visiting Japanese scientists about that; they raised a stink, so the USG
reclassified Little Boy and Fat Man as bombs.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-10-31 02:20pm

Nitpick: Kennedy cut taxes across the board. It was Reagan who relied solely on the trickle-down theory. Kennedy's tax plan was based off the Full Employment Budget, which showed that the budget then was contractionary; Reagan disliked the FEB and refused to use it, and his combination of tax cuts and increased spending were directly responsible for the extreme increase in the debt in the early 80s (IIRC, 1982 was the last time the budget ran a real surplus). I don't know if Bush has used the FEB or not.

Another Nitpick: It was 1960 when the debt actually went down, and there was a surplus.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-31 04:34pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:causing the Japanese to promptly shit themselves and surrender....which they would not have done if without the use fat man and little boy.

Most contemporary Japanese sources indicate that the only sticking point in Japanese surrender was their fear of what might happen to the Imperial Institution. The idea of A-Bomb apologists that the Japanese would fight to the death is an overestimation of bluster from fanatical IJA officers.

Sheppard:
Truman may have signed the specific orders, but saying that the Japanese would otherwise have not been defeated... that's a little silly.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-31 05:14pm

most contemporary Japanese sources indicate that the only sticking point in Japanese surrender was their fear of what might happen to the Imperial Institution. The idea of A-Bomb apologists that the Japanese would fight to the death is an overestimation of bluster from fanatical IJA officers.

Most contemporary sources are also wrong. The use of the atomic bombs was essential to Allied victory.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-31 05:42pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: Truman may have signed the specific orders, but saying that the Japanese would otherwise have not been defeated... that's a little silly.

Go read "Operation Downfall" by Norman Polmar. Very Scary. What the
fuck do you expect Truman to do? Ask the Japs pretty please to surrender
or else we'll invade the home islands?

Coronet and Olympic were a Go, and they would have been fucking bloody
as fuck.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 06:54pm

Summary of the argument on why Reagan won the Cold War:

Reagan pushed through large-scale spending on high-technology military programmes. The Soviet Union was doing fine until these programmes came along; the SU's military-industrial complex was capable of outmatching the west in sheer bulk of "steel" if you will, lower-technology mass-produced military hardware. However, the system was not designed for and was incapable of the production of high-technology--to simplify, microchips--systems needed for the new-type weapons that Reagan had the U.S. military field enmasse (many were pioneered in the Carter administration but all mass production was ordered by Reagan).

What this meant was that the USA could now match the Soviets conventionally by using technology to make up for the manpower/equipment weight gap. That was bad--very bad. The Soviets started looking for a solution. IIRC the SU at this time was capable of supporting only a single microchip factory; their whole infrastructure couldn't field enough technicians and enough high-tech resources to provide for anything more. They simply couldn't keep up the pace with us at the rate to produce these weapons which were needed to maintain their edge.

So Gorbachev proposed the reforms purely as a measure to create in the Soviet Union a climate whereupon a sufficient technical community would be fostered that could allow the SU to match the USA in the new advanced military technology based on computer systems. This, however, was discovered to require vast reforms of the entire structure of the state--huge economic drawdowns of the older military programmes and shifting of resources to other fields, and a general liberalization of the climate to foster creative thinking, etc.

Then along came SDI and the Soviets were in an even bigger bind--this would require even more high-tech to match. They would need even greater reforms, even more money put into research, to match SDI. As it turned out SDI was only a long-range planning project, but there was a massive amount of money going to it, and money going to other "black" projects in the US military which the KGB interpeted as going to SDI; and the Soviets thought it was possible and soon. This gave Gorbachev the leverage for more reforms. Too many; the reforms gained their own strength and proved unstoppable and the whole system crumbled.

The reason that Reagan won the Cold War, I contend, is because he took advantage of this new technology that the Soviets could not match and put it into mass production for our military. In their attempt to counter it they destroyed themselves. This is a classic example of winning without fighting.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-31 07:01pm

Or at least convinced the Soviets that we were going to put it into effect. Fortunately for us, the Soviets weren't bright enough to realize that SDI was a gigantic billion dollar pipe dream that would have failed utterly if we tried to do anything with it in the 80s because we didn't have anywhere near the technology to make it work (and we still don't, on any sort of large scale). That bluff could have easily failed if any of the Soviets bothered to rub two neurons together and thought about the problem.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-31 07:05pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Fortunately for us, the Soviets weren't bright enough to realize that SDI was a gigantic billion dollar pipe dream that would have failed utterly if we tried to do anything with it in the 80s because we didn't have anywhere near the technology to make it work (and we still don't, on any sort of large scale).

Nike-Zeus worked and was an effective ABM defense......in the 1960s.

Bzzzt, try again.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 07:10pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Or at least convinced the Soviets that we were going to put it into effect. Fortunately for us, the Soviets weren't bright enough to realize that SDI was a gigantic billion dollar pipe dream that would have failed utterly if we tried to do anything with it in the 80s because we didn't have anywhere near the technology to make it work (and we still don't, on any sort of large scale). That bluff could have easily failed if any of the Soviets bothered to rub two neurons together and thought about the problem.

Just like the one around Moscow doesn't work so well that the Russians were sufficiently confident in it that they didn't launch a nuclear retaliatory strike against the west after detecting that sounding rocket launch from Norway but waited until they cleared the false positive? The Soviets knew the concept could work because they had their own already operational--the difference is that the SDI that was proposed was far, far more advanced and effective. And that technology is now coming on line.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-31 07:12pm

Lets not talk about the hidden ABM role of many of the later generation
soviet SAMs

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-31 09:47pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Just like the one around Moscow doesn't work so well that the Russians were sufficiently confident in it that they didn't launch a nuclear retaliatory strike against the west after detecting that sounding rocket launch from Norway but waited until they cleared the false positive? The Soviets knew the concept could work because they had their own already operational--the difference is that the SDI that was proposed was far, far more advanced and effective. And that technology is now coming on line.

There is a difference between 'hit-to-kill' interceptors and 'mass' defense systems like the one around Moscow. As to the technology now coming online, there is no indication that the current system will be worth a damn whatsoever. It's actually going to be quite rudimentary, colossal waste of money that it already is.

Link

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-31 09:48pm

Sam Or I wrote:
Nitpick: Kennedy cut taxes across the board. It was Reagan who relied solely on the trickle-down theory. Kennedy's tax plan was based off the Full Employment Budget, which showed that the budget then was contractionary; Reagan disliked the FEB and refused to use it, and his combination of tax cuts and increased spending were directly responsible for the extreme increase in the debt in the early 80s (IIRC, 1982 was the last time the budget ran a real surplus). I don't know if Bush has used the FEB or not.
Another Nitpick: It was 1960 when the debt actually went down, and there was a surplus.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

True, but that in itself shows the budget in 1960 was contractionary, slowing the growth of the economy. Any time a budget runs a surplus, that's money siphoned off that could potentially be invested for development of the economy, leading to a greater GDP later. Kennedy's tax cut returned the Full Employment Budget to a balance, meaning that it was neither contractionary or expansionary. That part of economics is counter-intuitive: when you're running a real (i.e. Full Employment) surplus, you need to raise taxes. If you're running a deficit, cut taxes, even if it means deficit spending instead of an apparent surplus. Hoover tried raising taxes when the economy started to tank, in order to maintain government spending, and increased the severity of the Great Depression.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-11-01 12:14am

@#&*(#$. I had a response to this and my internet connection futzed out, taking the post with it.

Vympel wrote:There is a difference between 'hit-to-kill' interceptors and 'mass' defense systems like the one around Moscow.

Spartan was capable of hit-to-kill (in addition to taking out a good number of other warheads with its 5MT warhead) and that was a rather old ABM. Nike Xena couldn't, but it wasn't supposed to either (neither was Spartan, for that matter).

As to the technology now coming online, there is no indication that the current system will be worth a damn whatsoever.

Why not? We've been hitting targets. Yes, there have been some failures relating to faulty interim boosters and in one case, bad plumbing, but nothing that says it won't work. Delays? Entirely possible, indeed probable.

It's actually going to be quite rudimentary, colossal waste of money that it already is.

IOC in 2004 is going to be rudimentary; the timetable has the US continually improving capablities afterwards. One target, IIRC, is 150 interceptors based in California, Alaska and North Dakota.

Link

The article only indicates that the ACA would prefer to see more testing before deployment (in addition to the false dillemma at the end - we can put up a basic system ASAP, then improve on it).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-11-01 03:41am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Just like the one around Moscow doesn't work so well that the Russians were sufficiently confident in it that they didn't launch a nuclear retaliatory strike against the west after detecting that sounding rocket launch from Norway but waited until they cleared the false positive? The Soviets knew the concept could work because they had their own already operational--the difference is that the SDI that was proposed was far, far more advanced and effective. And that technology is now coming on line.

Now you are talking out your ass. They were confident that could shoot down that one missile. However, that does not mean that their missile system would have prevented the absolute destruction of Moscow in the event of a nuclear war. They didn't have the technology to build the SDI program that Reagan was talking about in the 80s, no one did. Read transcripts and speeches from Reagan and his people on the matter. He was talking about a space based system that wouldn't just shoot down one or two missiles, but actually defeat any attack that the Soviets could throw at the United States thus, in his own words from his 1984 speech, "rendering ballistic missiles impotent and obsolete". The problem is that the technology at the time did not exist and still doesn't. No amount of EKVs in the United States possession would have made a dent in the nuclear attack that Russia would have launched, and his idea for a system that was space based! That's a science fiction pipedream then (and still is, SBL has serious technical problems that they haven't resolved yet) and the media was right in labelling it "Star Wars". Likewise, the missile system around Moscow wouldn't even have slowed the city's incineration. Even with todays technology, we couldn't do what Reagan was proposing then. I suppose you think the ability to shoot down a few missiles constitutes a missile shield? In terms of the nuclear war between the United States and Russia in the 80s, that's like getting sprayed with 50 machine guns and bragging that one bullet was deflected. So stop trying to purposely mislead about Reagans SDI program being feasible. I know that is hard for you to do, since you practically worship the man, but at least make the effort. Or at the very least, stop trying really obvious lies like claiming that Moscow had a fully operation SDI system.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-01 03:58am

phongn wrote: Why not? We've been hitting targets. Yes, there have been some failures relating to faulty interim boosters and in one case, bad plumbing, but nothing that says it won't work. Delays? Entirely possible, indeed probable.

It's been hitting targets in entirely scripted scenarios that in no way represent real world conditions- therein lies the call for more testing, and instead, they're slashing testing and simply redefining what 'capability' means to let the system pass muster.

e.g. " The ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system, as it is now called, has not shown that it can hit anything other than missiles whose trajectory and targets have been preprogrammed by missile defense contractors to eliminate the surprise or uncertainty of battle. Nor has it proven that it can hit a tumbling target, perform at night, or find ways to counter the decoys and countermeasures that a real enemy would use to throw a defense off track. Tests so far have all been conducted at unrealistically low speeds and altitudes, and it is not clear that the system will be able to track and identify the warhead it is supposed to destroy.

Such criticism is not partisan in nature. Bush?s new testing schedule lags not only the comprehensive tests planned by the Clinton administration, but even the testing objectives of Bush?s first two years. Indeed, the Pentagon?s current missile defense plan marks a radical shift from a half-century of military testing carried out under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. "

The article only indicates that the ACA would prefer to see more testing before deployment (in addition to the false dillemma at the end - we can put up a basic system ASAP, then improve on it).

The question is whether it can be improved on (i.e. will the thing work in realistic conditions, which has never been tested), and for what cost- this is why realistic testing is required *before* you make the decision to field a system that doesn't even meet the goals. I despise the entire 'buy before you fly' system- and this is just the most blatant version of it. It's part of the massive problems that have practically engulfed the US defense establishment: put yourself down for an order before you know if the thing works, watch as the contractor puts down deep sub contractor roots all over the country, and then when the system balloons in cost (and fingers crossed that it works at all), you are totally helpless to kill it, however badly you want to, because the contractor has spread out so many jobs in so many congressional districts they can just lobby to keep it.