Eisenhower (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

cloudboy -> Eisenhower (4/8/2012 8:39:45 PM)

The NYRoB reviewed two new books out about Dwight Eisenhower. In 1962 his 8 years as President were not highly regarded by those taking stock of 1952-1960. During his tenure national problems included: (1) The USSR pressuring the West to give up Berlin; (2) The North Korean War; (3) Enforcing Brown v. The Board of Education; (4) The French asking for help in Indochina (Vietnam) and other conflicts.

The reviews plug Eisenhower as exceptionally good at foreign policy. No one would have convinced him that: (1) 1,000 armed rebels could overthrow Castro; (2) more soldiers in Vietnam would make a difference; (3) forcing the Taliban into the Mountains signified victory; (4) a small force of men and a limited amount of time, say less than year, would wrap up regime change in IRAQ.

Why? As stated by the reviewer, Eisenhower understood that war was a protracted, expensive, endeavor that would not end decisively unless given a full commitment (financial and manpower) to see it through to the end. Eisenhower expected opposing leaders to see this as well. Hence, he negotiated an end to the Korean War, didn't get drawn into Indochina, and did not escalate matters over Berlin (he sought out a conference with Kruschev.) He also thought it important to keep the US solvent, a goal at odds with protracted, expensive warring.

When negotiating, he would stake out defensible US positions, and not back down from there -- and he would generally seek positions that were also in the interests of his opponents -- such that war could be avoided.

In sum, Eisenhower was no fool about American power or about going to war. Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon were not so wise. GWB botched two wars. The tail end of these administrations left the USA in a damaged economic and foreign policy position. Going forward, I imagine we will likely see a turn back to the policies of Carter-Reagan-Bush I-Clinton, i.e. seeing war as a last resort.



SoftBonds -> RE: Eisenhower (4/8/2012 8:45:13 PM)

He also warned us that if war became a business, or making war machines became a business, we were doomed to economic ruin.
How much did the US pay Halliburton when all was said and done???



JeffBC -> RE: Eisenhower (4/8/2012 8:51:03 PM)

Heh... what are we in now, 4 concurrent wars?

The war on drugs
The war on terror
Afghanistan
Iraq

And we're eyeing Iran and Syria. I wonder what other "actions" are going on here and there also... there's just got to be a few.

Not only did we allow war to become a business, but we handed over control of the country to the businessmen. We've all heard our leaders talking about the military as "jobs"... and we can't make military cuts because we'd be cutting jobs. There it is. Plain as day. Killing people is now a "job". Does that make our largest export death?



SilverBoat -> RE: Eisenhower (4/8/2012 9:35:21 PM)

Dang, was Eisenhower one of those pesky paleo-conservatives? ... Yanno, the kind of conservative who actually had a rational world view instead of paranoid-delusive sociopathies? ...



erieangel -> RE: Eisenhower (4/8/2012 9:54:23 PM)

Eisenhower also oversaw some of the highest federal income taxes ever--as well as some of the best economic growth this country had ever seen. Oddly, the only reason he was able to begin building the interstate highway system was to tout the military need for it. Today, even that doesn't fly with the republicans.




cloudboy -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 6:12:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Eisenhower also oversaw some of the highest federal income taxes ever--as well as some of the best economic growth this country had ever seen. Oddly, the only reason he was able to begin building the interstate highway system was to tout the military need for it. Today, even that doesn't fly with the republicans.




The only current Republican similar to Eisenhower post 1980 has been Colin Powell. 1952-1960 was a blessed time for the USA b/c all economic competition had been decimated by WWII or stifled by communism. American Corporations operated without significant competition and with wide open markets seeking American goods.

What we see now in the Republican party is an angry backlash over civil rights, the woman's movement, receding American exceptionalism, and the realities of the Vietnam War. The hubris of neo-cons in IRAQ war was to reestablish American power and exceptionalism (on the cheap) in a region with inherently hostile and different from the West. The whole plan was thought up in a bubble.

This tradition has now been picked up by Romney, who thinks we can increase military spending and make the US treasury more solvent at the same time.

Rather than embrace realism, the base still prefers fantasy and ideological purity (Santorum, Palin, The Tea Party, et. al.)



Musicmystery -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 6:37:35 AM)

quote:

What we see now in the Republican party is an angry backlash over civil rights, the woman's movement, receding American exceptionalism, and the realities of the Vietnam War. The hubris of neo-cons in IRAQ war was to reestablish American power and exceptionalism (on the cheap) in a region with inherently hostile and different from the West. The whole plan was thought up in a bubble.


And an angry backlash against the New Deal.

The Teas aren't so well versed--they just believe cutting taxes will solve all our problems.



Moonhead -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 6:57:28 AM)

Sadly, that isn't just the teabaggers: there's other elements of the GOP massive who seem convinced of the very same fallacy.



SoftBonds -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 8:34:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

What we see now in the Republican party is an angry backlash over civil rights, the woman's movement, receding American exceptionalism, and the realities of the Vietnam War. The hubris of neo-cons in IRAQ war was to reestablish American power and exceptionalism (on the cheap) in a region with inherently hostile and different from the West. The whole plan was thought up in a bubble.


And an angry backlash against the New Deal.

The Teas aren't so well versed--they just believe cutting taxes will solve all our problems.


Amusingly, there may be some justification to the laffer curve, it is just that folks forgot about the economic science behind it and decided all tax cuts were good.
What the laffer curve said was there was a tax rate that maximized tax revenues, and that a higher tax rate lowers revenues by discouraging growth. However, we are far below that rate, so tax cuts will lower tax revenues, and drive us deeper into debt. That debt will suck capital out of the system, which will depress economic growth, which will further lower tax collections-deadly spiral.
Once our economy is humming, letting the bush tax cuts expire will add about 100 billion a year in tax collections, which will reduce the deficit and provide more capital to the market, which will stimulate growth...
If your tax rate is on the left side of the optimum on the graph of the laffer curve (taxes too low), the solution is just as obvious as it is when your rate is on the right side of the graph (taxes too high).

Now of course the question is, where is the optimum on the laffer curve? Well, the answer to that question is actually best answered by psychology. At what tax rate do YOU stop earning money out of a desire to spite the government? More seriously, looking at the current market, is it lack of consumers or lack of capital which is slowing the economy? Given that the capital market is investing in derivatives and commodities rather than in expanding companies, I think that answer is obvious. As long as companies are not complaining about lack of access to capital, tax rates on the rich are not slowing economic growth...



mnottertail -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 8:42:46 AM)

The laffer curve is a find an area under the curve min-max proposition from calculus.

We have no data points, no understanding of how to lay in the ranges.

It is an idea as pristine as the god particle.  

There would in reality have to be a laffer curve for every range, and that range may be every dollar of every income, The laffer curve may actually cause a significant raise in taxation among some groups.   And of course none of these groups are homogenous so the timelines would be different, and change in each stage of an economy.

Nobody in politics has the patience for that. they are going to go the, bottom line, rule the world, we dont need no stinking facts.  

   



Musicmystery -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 8:54:51 AM)

That's it exactly. Reagan's assumption was that we were past the midpoint.

We weren't. Even his own financial people admitted their policies had failed.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 9:32:54 AM)

I wonder what the TEAbaggers would say about Ike.



Exidor -> RE: Eisenhower (4/9/2012 10:41:52 AM)

Now go read Eisenhower's "Crusade In Europe". In his own words, "Ike" comes across as a total asshole, and a smarmy and self-centered one at that. If you've ever read any comments about Eisenhower being promoted beyond his abilities as theater commander in Europe, his own account will remove all doubt. He didn't even know the Allied chain of command, and apparently didn't realize that he was accountable to anyone other than the President. I wondered if his staff protected him from minor details like that, but the giant swinging ego oozing off the pages eventually won out.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625