Reagan

[uh Clem]

Okay John, you personally weren't beaten and depressed then. I always forget how touchy Republicans are; love to dish it out, etc...

But if you remember the inflation of the '70s, then remember the guy who killed it. No, not Carter, and certainly not Reagan (with those deficits, are you kidding?).

It was Paul Voelker, Carter appointee to the Fed, who strangled inflation and damn near killed the US economy in the process. Stagflation was endemic throughout the decade (it started under Nixon). In the late 70s, Voelker decided to deal with it once and for all by raising interest rates as high as they'd go. The result was the worst slump in the economy since the 30s, but it worked. Sort of how Russians clear minefields, by marching through them...

a DJIA that went from 1,000 in 1972 to (iirc) 550 in 1979?

Well, in this instance, you don't remember correctly. The Dow basically went sideways under Carter: up-down-up-down, etc. The big drop was under Ford, hitting the low point in 1974. Nothing since has been anywhere near that bad.

But it's interesting that you take the DJIA as an indicator of Presidential performance. I wouldn't have taken you as being such a fervent admirer of Bill Clinton.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
While I credit him with bringing pride back to America, I only give him very slight credit for the Soviet collapse. It was a rotting house just waiting for a freak wind to blow it down. If it wasn't that wind it would have been another. And a lot of you naysayers at least seem to believe that Reagan blew.

Talk about blowing a political leader out of proportion of his actual accomplishments.

As if Americans never had pride in their country before Reagan.

[Japher]

I have a friend who just found out that I am a republican. I don't come off as one, my mom says I am somewhat "granola" in appearances and in social tastes (music, parties, etc). So, a lot of people think I am a democrat or green. Yet, she was super shocked that I was a republican.

She went on a tirade on how I could be republican. I wasn't in the mood for arguing, so I just kept my mouth shut. I did, however, say that I am republican mainly for fiscal reasons, and she said "Yeah, Bush has done such wonders for the economy" alluding to the economic disparity we are in. I didn't respond, but

But it's interesting that you take the DJIA as an indicator of Presidential performance. I wouldn't have taken you as being such a fervent admirer of Bill Clinton.

would of been a good response

I won't say that Bush has done anything to help the economy, but to say he ruined it is absurd. Terrorist attacks, natural disasters, war, tech. collapse (energy deregulations), etc... were not ALL in his control, and these things cost money...

Economic policy is not entirely up to the president. Though certain legislation can lead to how an investor invests (i.e. no taxes on dividends we have right now). Still, to rate a president on current states of the economy is silly since economies change slower than presidents ussually do, and thus presidents don't ussually get credit for their efforts, secsessors usually do.

Anyway. I though Reagan was a good pres. probably an 8. I remember the 80s, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of domestic concerns... At least not like we have now (thanks Clinton)...

[JohnT]

I am an admirer of Bill Clinton. Sorry to disappoint, but I think the man was a pretty effective President regardless of his faults. He was also entertaining as hell, which accounts for a lot too.

The point is, Clem, is that the person in charge gets to take the credit for when the times are good, just as they are hit on when times are bad. Reagan was President when a lot of things went right for America (especially compared to the decade prior to that) and he gets a chunk of the credit.

Okay John, you personally weren't beaten and depressed then. I always forget how touchy Republicans are; love to dish it out, etc...

And again, be a man and drop the insults. They do nothing for your position except undermine it.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun


Talk about blowing a political leader out of proportion of his actual accomplishments.

As if Americans never had pride in their country before Reagan.

What does the word, "return", mean?

You are really letting your misapprehension of one aspect of his presidency cloud your judgement. I'm disappointed.

[rah]

Originally posted by MrFun

Talk about blowing a political leader out of proportion of his actual accomplishments.

As if Americans never had pride in their country before Reagan.

I willing to bet you weren't very old the decade before Reagan. There were so many negative feelings after VietNam. The economy sucked. Worldwide, the US was seen as weak and ineffective. Ford and Carter were portrayed as wimps. "killer rabbit" still makes me laugh. People weren't feeling good about their country. The same can't be said for when Reagan left office. While a president can only do so much, and should only be credited for so much, he was quite responsible for a lot of the change in attitude. He was quite the charismatic speaker. Previous posters have said that they thought they feared worldwide destruction while he was in office. Guess what, our enemies did too and that had some positive outcomes. The US regained it's strut. Whether that was good or bad, optimism and good feeling returned to a lot of people. Perception becomes reality. As said before, his presidency was defined by "leadership".

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sava
So... Carter was a bad president... that doesn't mean Reagan was a good one.

Don't go bashing Carter now. Carter may have been a bad president, but thats mostly because his cabinet sucked big time.

Carter had heart, and I respect him for that. I don't think Carter ever did anything to intentionally undermine the country or its people. He just didn't have a lot of help during his presidency.

[-Jrabbit]

I gave him a 2...

Reagan's economic and foreign policies were ineffective at best, near-disastrous at worst.

He had a solid group of core Republican advisors, but not the ability, the desire, or the will to question their direction.

He was an excellent mouthpiece. Best performance of his acting career -- by far. It is for this ability to inspire the positive in the face of an intensely negative reality that I raised him to a 2.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


What does the word, "return", mean?

You are really letting your misapprehension of one aspect of his presidency cloud your judgement. I'm disappointed.

You're right -- and maybe I should appreciate some of Hitler's accomplishment in spite of the Holocaust.

Extreme example -- but one that immediately comes to mind.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah


I willing to bet you weren't very old the decade before Reagan. There were so many negative feelings after VietNam. The economy sucked. Worldwide, the US was seen as weak and ineffective. Ford and Carter were portrayed as wimps. "killer rabbit" still makes me laugh. People weren't feeling good about their country. The same can't be said for when Reagan left office. While a president can only do so much, and should only be credited for so much, he was quite responsible for a lot of the change in attitude. He was quite the charismatic speaker. Previous posters have said that they thought they feared worldwide destruction while he was in office. Guess what, our enemies did too and that had some positive outcomes. The US regained it's strut. Whether that was good or bad, optimism and good feeling returned to a lot of people. Perception becomes reality. As said before, his presidency was defined by "leadership".

Raegan was ignorant on environmental issues (thought that trees caused pollution), he worshipped the upper class at expense of middle class America, he neglected to take action against the early AIDS crisis, IN SPITE of the information that the Cancer Development Center had compiled, and Raegan has taken credit for overthrowing the USSR, when it was economic factors, and the Russians themselves that overthrew communism.

[rah]

You didn't address my point that he made Americans feel good again through his perceived leadership. Which was my only point. I admit that he made mistakes. I'm just saying that the feel good thing was really important to the country at the time, and unless you were around, you probably don't realize how important it was.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
well, if you wish to believe that.

the fact is that by the time gorby came into power, the soviet system had already suffered from at least twenty years of dry rot from within. unable to match the growing technological and economic might of the west, gorby tried to modernize soviet russia to compete. it was a bold gamble, trying to allow some free reforms in order to help breed a new generation of scientists and thinkers to create the same miracle in the eastern bloc. what he failed to realize was that democracy is a contagious thing: glasnost and perestroika, once they gave a voice to the people, brought down the soviet empire from within.

it wasn't reagan, ned. it was the people who put the final blow to communism. it was the freedom-loving citizens of the democratic west using their drive to outpace their stalinist and communist eastern brothers. reagan was just one man in it, who just happened to be in charge of america at the time.

Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.

[Alexander's Horse]

anyone remember "reaganomics"?

[Japher]

I'm not going to debate trickle down again...

[Alexander's Horse]

oh go on Japher - you know you want to....