ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics

last SG · 2007-07-19T09:34:50+00:00

Repeat after me monkey brain: "Ad Hominen attacks do not constitute an argument."

will4 SG

To u 800 is not many but to the govt, it is a serious problem. Remember the NAtional Day rally sppeech, the govt is worried about the people leaving

to other countries. Come to think about it, have u asked urself how come local want to leave? What is their reason for leaving? U 100% sure these foreigners come here want to settle here permanently?

will4 SG

+1 Laughing
It look like immiration agencies will see a surge in application among local

after reading ur opinion.

walesa SG

That's just what your warped notion of history's alleged role. It's only split in your view - as split as I'm certain as to your gender.

crazy monkey SG

you must be an expert on American politics to make such a sweeping comment. are you George Bush's political advisor ? Very Happy

walesa SG

What you've just posted is more than sufficient to debunk your initial drivel about your seemingly flippant stance on "the future foreign policy that needs attention will be coming out from Africa and the middle east".

So what would you rather have and which side of the fence would you rather be on now that you've done your belated research on the Clinton administration's efforts in Africa and the Middle East? Instead of conceding the Clinton administration actually not having done anything for Africa, you're now saying they just haven't done enough, eh? Laughing

So is Hillary's efforts still hindered by her association with a President who did more than any previous administrations since the second world war for a region you regard to be important as far as the next administration's foreign policy goes? Or are you unable to make up your mind and need further research to ascertain millions of Americans' fixation on a President who left office with the third highest approval ratings in history? Laughing

While his foreign policies were, broadly speaking, extensively all-encompassing, the degrees of his successes were invariably different. It's not rocket science it wouldn't be realistic every foreign policy endeavour he pursued would have resulted in success on the scale of the Good Friday Agreement he had in Northern Ireland, would it? Or is it too complex for you to understand, by the law of averages, policies would invariably yield different measures of success? Or is your world blinded by the excessive monochromes that you can't actually look past success and failure in absolute terms, and perhaps understand that policies that aren't totally successful are hardly abject failures?

walesa SG

Would you seriously expect to be considered a serious contender if you weren't looked at favourably and in a friendly manner?

I haven't got a clue what you're driving at with the above. Women and minorities form the core of the Democrats' support as much as any other group, so I don't see how Hillary needs to be in the "friendly" crowd to secure the support of this group - any Democratic candidate can reasonably expect to count on a sizable support from this group.

As a matter of fact, the primaries and caucuses are harder to win than the eventual presidential elections - I don't see how someone who can survive the primaries will actually worry about being a "target" of political opponents where "all dirty tricks will creep up". If anything, the baptism of fire in the primaries and caucuses would only do the eventual successful nominee a world of good when Election Day - by which time, he/she would no longer need to worry about detractors from his/her own party - comes around.

walesa SG

To do more good than your limited intellect will ever permit you to understand.

Yes, and I presume it still beats someone who is genuinely dumb and espousing a brand of drivel so removed from reality it'd appeal only to the palpably insane.

I bet the rift that started in Poland with Solidarnosc whose eventual impact extended to sparking off the domino-effect of de-satellisation across the Eastern Bloc, Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost & Perestroika with its ensuing economic woes and the differences between the reformists and the hardliners had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Union's collapse. Reagan's spending must have done it on its own, eh?

walesa SG

Are you seriously oblivious to the obvious or are you that intellectually-handicapped you can't see the picture?

As a matter of fact, Gorbachev was a realist. Glasnost and perestroika became necessities as soon as he held the helm simply because he understood the USSR had to reform its economy and way of life for regime survival. The eventual demise of the Soviets would, by all accounts, be traced to the economic and domestic woes that resulted from Gorbachev's glasnost policies, instead of the thrash you've been dishing out about Reagan outspending the Soviets.

In fact, that approach was not exclusive to the Soviets. The Chinese did the same a couple of years later to sustain an ailing regime that had limited experience of running a market economy, running into similar problems - from instability to inflation - that had confronted the Soviets. If anything, the Chinese' saving grace stemmed from Deng's high-handed approach in dealing with the ensuing unrest (most famous of which was the Tiananmen Massacre in '89) and, to some at least, Deng's prudence at not implementing both glasnost and perestroika simultaneously.

If anything, the Chinese and Soviet experiences are sound justifications used by the North Koreans for their refusal to open up their economy (or any other aspect of life for that matter) for fear of the regime's decimation.

walesa SG

That confidence was returned to the masses when Clinton was president, not Reagan.

Reagan did what was necessary in his time and rose to the challenges confronting him - and for that alone, he should very rightly be remembered as one of the outstanding Presidents of the 20th Century.

That said, as Fingolfin_Noldor has pointed out, Reagan's ill-advised economic policies led to a debt expansion that would - regardless of whether Reagan had realised it at the time - affect the impact of the economic policies he had put in place. Regan's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations had not cut unemployment, increased consumer spending or brought about economic recovery in the way he had hoped (as a matter of fact, unemployment was still on the rise right up to the final days of George HW Bush's term).

Ironically, it was through Clinton's fiscal policies where taxes were altered (favourably for some and harshly for others) in such a manner that the bulk of the American economy remain in the hands of the middle class, that the budget was balanced and eventually yielding record budget surpluses - and yes, unemployment declined and consumer spending increased too. That said, Clinton's achievements came at the expense of increasing the national debt too (although it was insignificant, compared to the scale of the national debt chalked up by Reagan and George HW Bush) - and that's a source of contention used by his critics and detractors trying to derail his economic achievements - but Clinton had succeeded in restructuring an economy whose growth could more viably sustain a national debt than the one George HW Bush had vacated when he left Office.

Mat Toro SG

some leave because they think Singapore is too stressed. That one no choice cos that is the only way we can survive. If they can't handle the competition, they can go.
I won't worry if i am the PM.

Mat Toro SG

Reagan did what was necessary in his time and rose to the challenges confronting him - and for that alone, he should very rightly be remembered as one of the outstanding Presidents of the 20th Century.

That said, as Fingolfin_Noldor has pointed out, Reagan's ill-advised economic policies led to a debt expansion that would - regardless of whether Reagan had realised it at the time - affect the impact of the economic policies he had put in place. Regan's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations had not cut unemployment, increased consumer spending or brought about economic recovery in the way he had hoped (as a matter of fact, unemployment was still on the rise right up to the final days of George HW Bush's term).

Now yu really showed you dunno US economics and politics.
The very Clinton policies were proven to be destructive as it resulted in a recession that was turned around soon after Bush jr. did his tax cuts. The taxes were the killer of the economy.

Mat Toro SG

In fact, that approach was not exclusive to the Soviets. The Chinese did the same a couple of years later to sustain an ailing regime that had limited experience of running a market economy, running into similar problems - from instability to inflation - that had confronted the Soviets. If anything, the Chinese' saving grace stemmed from Deng's high-handed approach in dealing with the ensuing unrest (most famous of which was the Tiananmen Massacre in '89) and, to some at least, Deng's prudence at not implementing both glasnost and perestroika simultaneously.

The North Koreans are wrong. Thats why they are starving and their people die like flies. Thats why they have 1oo - 200k suffering in political prisons today.

walesa SG

I wouldn't like to know a brand of American history fit for the insane and delusional, that's for sure. Apparently, if you can't distinguish public and personal misdemeanours, your drivel carries as much weight as your seemingly defunct intellect.

I never disputed the fact Reagan is indeed a celebrated figure in the US political arena. It's your problem your warped and distorted sense of "facts" precludes you from coming to terms with Clinton's economic legacy. Clinton doesn't need to search for a legacy, just as Reagan doesn't need you to sell him short by crediting him with the wrong things. Laughing

If the turnaround of the US economy had taken place as a consequence of Reagan's policies on tax cuts, would you like to explain how the two recessions under Reagan's presidencies came about?

Are you obssessed with pure figures that distort the statistical truth behind the real picture? If you'd been earning USD20, 000 per annum for 5 years, see a dip in the 6th to USD15, 000 before picking off with an average increase of 5% for the next 4 years, are you necessarily better off economically than someone who has been keeping a static USD20, 000 per annum wage for the same decade, averaging an increment of 2% per annum?

To qualify your point, In The New Republic (Sept. 2), Matthew Miller wrote, "The boom supply-siders love to tout, the 3.8 per cent annual growth between 1982 and 1989, came mainly because we were emerging from a deep recession that left jobless rates in double digits and much idle capacity." That, in essence is what provides you with the foundation of your "economic growth" without first taking into consideration the impact of the recessions on the Reagan administration.

Bold as the neo-conservatives would have you believe Clinton's economic legacy was a myth, I doubt I've seen anything as far-fetched as the bollocks you're painting on "interest rates, inflation, and unemployment under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency". You hardly need starker evidence to illustrate your stupidity - even taking aside Clinton's economic achievements, George HW Bush did better than Reagan on scores of inflation and unemployment (if anything, unemployment was lowest from the latter half of '91 to the summer of '92 during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush). The economic expansion under the Reagan administration was 32.8% even after accounting for the 2 periods of recession; Clinton's stood at 50%. The Clinton administration's unemployment rate stood at 4%, which was the lowest in 40 years.

I'm sure you limited intellect, for all its inadequacies, should have little trouble comprehending the following article.

Now that you've been found wanting in your valiant attempts to call a bluff, I'm indeed amazed how your limited intellect has actually got the capacity to weave up utopian notions that are so unrealistically romantic that would even put Hans Christian Andersen to shame.

The taxes were a killer to the economy in the minds of the insane and delusional, perhaps. Then again, for someone with a knack of painting distorted analysis and blatant lies as truth, I suppose George W Bush must be doing credit to the American economy by fighting senseless wars and expanding the national debt to astronomical proportions so as to enable his successor(s) to benefit from another maligned legacy of economic expansion, eh? Laughing

Now, I'd be amazed if what you claim to know could be classed as anything more credible than a figment of your own imagination.

walesa SG

Would the non-proliferation of the arms race adequately explain the unrest within the former Eastern Bloc and within the Soviet Union itself? I'm still waiting for you to cite me more credible sources to back up your "Reagan's spending brought the USSR to its end" garb.

It doesn't render Reagan's spendings as any more substantial than Gorbachev's reformist stance, Walesa and the Pope's disdain for communism, the Soviet's economic woes post-glasnost, Yeltsin's hidden ambitions or a million other domestic factors as legitimate reasons for the eventual demise of the Soviets. After all, the Soviet collapsed from within - and that's a domain beyond Reagan's control.

Wrong? By whose definition? Yours? Would it be wrong in the eye of Kim's regime who has at least sustained itself to this day?

maurizio13 SG

I thought during the Reagan years, there was a big increase in the budget deficit, probably due to increase military spending in SDI (Star Wars project). Research into SDI resulted in non conclusive outcome.

Following the economic recovery that began in 1983, the medium-term fiscal effect of Reaganomics was a soaring budget deficit as spending continually exceeded revenue due to tax cuts and increased defense spending. Military budgets rose while tax revenues, despite having increased as compared to the stagnant late 1970s and early 1980s, failed to make up for the spiraling cost.

In his first term, Reagan continued to demand increases to the defense budget of up to 10 percent a year. Congressional committees, meanwhile, investigated charges that the $1 trillion of U.S. military spending in Reagan's first term bought surprisingly little, pointing to alleged Pentagon mismanagement. In the 1980s, for example, nearly 50 of the largest U.S. defense contractors came under investigation for overcharges and other criminal malfeasance.

The 1981 tax cuts, the largest in U.S. history, also eroded the revenue base of the federal government in the short-term. The massive increase in military spending (about $1.6 trillion over five years) far exceeded cuts in social spending, despite wrenching impact of such cuts spending geared toward some of the poorest segments of society. Even so, by the end of 1985, funding for domestic programs had been cut nearly as far as Congress could tolerate.

In this context, the deficit rose from $60 billion in 1980 to a peak of $220 billion in 1986 (well over 5 % of GDP). Over this period, national debt more than doubled from $749 billion to $1,746 billion.

While deficit spending has value as an economic stimulus, and assisted the recovery in the post-1982 Reagan years, the dimension of the budget shortfalls of the 1980s left interest rates high and the dollar over-valued, causing investment and exports to suffer and, consequentially, increasing the U.S. trade deficit.

Since U.S. saving rates were very low (roughly one-third of Japan's,) the deficit was mostly covered by borrowing from abroad, turning the United States within a few years from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor. Not only was this damaging to America's status, it was also a profound shift in the postwar international financial system, which had relied on the export of U.S. capital.

Few ways to encourage growth, keynesian style, goverment spend more, then through the multiplier effects, the economy grows. Depending on spare capacity, there might be real output growth as opposed to inflationary growth.

Mat Toro SG

I already did twice, I'm still waiting for you to go read.

Reagan's policcies force the Soviets to reform and it led to the collapse.
Why do you hate Reagan?
Are you a communist? Do you love communism? You think communism works?

Wrong? By whose definition? Yours? Would it be wrong in the eye of Kim's regime who has at least sustained itself to this day?

Of course Kim is well fed. But not the populance of North Korea.
So how can NK by right? If NK is right, why don't the world want to follow them?

walesa SG

I'm still waiting for you to point me out to the part that categorically attributes the demise of the USSR to Reagan's spending.

Reagan's policies did not force the Soviets to reform - Gorbachev did so for long-term sustainability.

Are you stupid? Does your stupidity preclude you from coming to terms with the fact that Reagan's role was negligible as far as the Soviets' domestic matters, which ultimately led to its dissolution, were concerned?

So? Does that prove anything bar your stupidity? If Kim's regime's primary objective of not opening up the country was to sustain its regime and has done so successfully, is it still a failure that they've actually met their objectives?

Mat Toro SG

I'm still waiting for you to point me out to the part that categorically attributes the demise of the USSR to Reagan's spending.

I already did, you need to go and read.

Reagan's policies did not force the Soviets to reform - Gorbachev did so for long-term sustainability.

Thats right, change or die. They just can't keep up with Reagan's arms spending anymore. Thats how Reagam won the cold war against communists like you.

Are you stupid? Does your stupidity preclude you from coming to terms with the fact that Reagan's role was negligible as far as the Soviets' domestic matters, which ultimately led to its dissolution, were concerned?

Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union and set millions free.

If that pot bellied dog eating dictator is so good, why noot you go to NK?
I don't see anything succesful or great about running a dictatroship while starving millions.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Debating with Mat Toro, is akin to exchanging arguments with a petulant kid who simply goes on rambling the same thing again and again with no new arguments, no new anything. If by anything, the term "Republitards" fits him quite well, since constantly espouses neoconservative drivel and trivalises Clinton's legacy and efforts. All these are hallmarks of neocon bullshit.

If there is one thing that is certain, it is:

1. Mat Toro has no degree in economics, political science etc.

2. He cannot think critically.

3. He displays all the hallmarks of dishonesty, stupidity etc.

4. The only people who would listen to him and Republitards who obscure truth and celebrate Reagan like God.

5. He must surely be a PAP hack. Only a moron from NUS/NTU where they don't know how to write for nuts, excepting the humanities, and tries to pander to his political masters can only do this kind of thing.

qlqq9 SG

Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »