CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:...why do you believe that Reagan was a 'horrible' president?
Let's see - realized more than anyone the Carter Doctrine regarding Middle East policy - which has had direct negative implications since Reagan left office; ballooned national debt; supported the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan; needlessly expanded Carter Doctrine-esque policy to Central Asia; expanded bureaucratic government by about 5%; supported positive relations with a number of ruthless dictators, including Saddam Hussein...I could go on.
To quote Andrew Bacevich, who uses neocon Norman Podhoretz-type reasoning, "Reagan-era exertions undertaken to win WWIII [the Cold War] inadvertently paved the way for WWIV [Global War on Terror], while leaving the United States in an appreciably weaker position to conduct that struggle.
You think he was a good Pres? Tell me why.
Don't forget about reversing the economic collapse handed to him, the boom of the 80s-early 2000s, end of the Cold War, deregulation of telecommunications, travel, and other key industries (NOT the financial industry, btw).
Don't worry about all that stuff. Just focus on the non-tangibles.
I won't worry- because Spaulding asked me why I thought he was a horrible president. That's why I quoted his post - I thought it was easier for other people to see what/who I was addressing.
The PC and technology revolution - and said boom (which Reagan was not responsible for; if anything it was WW2 and immediate postwar spending that led to that) stimulated the economy, not Freidman-championed tax cuts.
Reagan contributed to the end of the Cold War by outspending the Russians, that's about it. Bad Soviet management of assets, land, and differing ethnic groups led to the end of the Cold War - they were more responsible for their own downfall than Reagan.
Telecom deregulation happened under Clinton, Airlines under Carter.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-10-25 16:02:00)