Planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3440 posts, RR: 5 Posted (9 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 646 times:
Alrite well. If you left anything out of his obituary thread for the sake of the man being dead, put it in here. We've all said our "goodbyes" (pffft) and should be ready to have this delicate discussion about his presidency, and our feelings towards it. Anything goes in this thread. I don't want to hear anyone say "Isn't there any respect for the dead" or anything like that. love him or hate him, lets talk about it right here!
Planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 634 times:
Here we go....
Ronald Reagan was the president during one of the worst recessions in the history of the United States. He inherited much of it from Jimmy Carter. However, Recessions don't usually take so long to recover (really, other than a few quarters of profits between 85 and 91, the economy DID NOT pick up to full strength until around 1993).
By the time the economy was in a full fledged recovery, many of Reagans "reforms" (as some of you im sure think of them as) had ended ( fore example, taxes were HIGH again at the time of the recovery).
Reagans years as president were some of the WORST years every for the working man and women. Unemployment was at an all time record high, the largest since the Great Depression, Unions were losing power, which in turn gave the workers less negotiating power for their rights as workers. The people who succeeded in the Reagan Years were the "yuppies" as they were known as at the time, and were the symbol of Reaganomics in a lot of peoples opinions.
For you Clinton detractors, im sure we'll hear a lot from you. And I am not going to convince any of you that it was President Clinton and not Ronald Reagan who was responsible for booming economy of the 90's. I don't know what argument to pick so im just gonna wait for some to come up and then refute as they come about. I am sure my liberal cronies will offer some insight as well.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 612 times:
He was an all right president all in all. I guess the helping-out-Afghan-militants thing really seemed like a good idea at the time, what with the twisted world view and all (for the common good really). And no, he did not bring the U.S.S.R. down, it was bound to happen and he just happened to be the guy in charge at the time. The one thing you can't put a good spin on however, is his days as an FBI informer in the 1950's (snitching on his fellow actors).
His greatness comes not from being a skilled leader, but because he truly tried to do his best to be one, well aware of his shortcomings.
L410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5411 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 591 times:
And no, he did not bring the U.S.S.R. down, it was bound to happen and he just happened to be the guy in charge at the time.
It would happen, sooner or later. But for sure it was Reagan's idea to accelerate the collapse by the incredible gamble of "arms race" at a pace the Russians just couldn't keep up. Lacking the technology and resources they had nuclear submarines and MIR though, while ordinary Ivan stood in a bread line with his rations ticket.