• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ronald Reagan.... Good or Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Z3n

I invented Human Nature
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
287
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well I've studied him in school and for the most part I'm not impressed.

Reagan bombed Libya, was a brutal advocate of the War on Drugs, helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, lied under oath(To my knowledge I have no recollection-- or whatever), vetoed economic sanctions on the National Party of South Africa, and lied to the American people.

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:
 
I certainly disagree with a lot of what he said. the major ta cuts he implemented didnt help anything.

conservatives love to love what he was supposed to be, but he wasnt a great president.
 
I think that in some of the broad strokes, he was fine, I even voted for him, but overall, he started the modern "borrow and spend" trend that's bankrupted this country, he didn't understand fiscal responsibility and how to live within our means any more than any other Republican president has since his day.
 
conservatives love to love what he was supposed to be, but he wasnt a great president.

Well said, I agree. American conservatives have built up this huge cult of personality around their demi-god Reagan. It's the myths built up around him that make Reagan an ideal to many. The ultimate rose-tinted view.
 
Well I've studied him in school and for the most part I'm not impressed.

Reagan bombed Libya, was a brutal advocate of the War on Drugs, helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, lied under oath(To my knowledge I have no recollection-- or whatever), vetoed economic sanctions on the National Party of South Africa, and lied to the American people.

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

the problem with this is that it is selective. Reagan did a ton in office, and you pulled out just a handful. I don't think Reagan was that great a president, but your post paints him much worse than he is. If you want to actually talk about whether Reagan was a good or bad president, you need to look at what he did well, as well as what he did poorly.
 
the problem with this is that it is selective. Reagan did a ton in office, and you pulled out just a handful. I don't think Reagan was that great a president, but your post paints him much worse than he is. If you want to actually talk about whether Reagan was a good or bad president, you need to look at what he did well, as well as what he did poorly.

ok well all that are things he did poorly. Economics was his forte, mainly because of his hands off reaganomics approach(which can still be debated), but his foreign affairs, save the berlin wall, if you really want to attribute that to him, were not stellar at all.
 
Well said, I agree. American conservatives have built up this huge cult of personality around their demi-god Reagan. It's the myths built up around him that make Reagan an ideal to many. The ultimate rose-tinted view.

Just as a lot of liberals have done around Clinton and Obama. Same idea, different demi-gods.
 
Just as a lot of liberals have done around Clinton and Obama. Same idea, different demi-gods.

I agree with your critique of Obama, but to be honest Clinton was a solid president, not a whole lot outside of the Lewinsky Scandal you can point fingers at.
 
I can't comment on his foreign policy or anything like that, but I did read a great amount on his economic policy.

His stance on economics completely altered the direction the country was heading.
I don't think he implemented his original strategy correctly; but in theory, his economic policy was solid.

In developing his economic policy know as "Reaganomics" he brought his 'four pillars' of his economic theory back into the political arena.

For that reason I think it was vital for the country.
 
ok well all that are things he did poorly. Economics was his forte, mainly because of his hands off reaganomics approach(which can still be debated), but his foreign affairs, save the berlin wall, if you really want to attribute that to him, were not stellar at all.

Reaganomics was horrid. I point out again, I am not a fan of Reagan, but he did have his strengths. He did get things done, he did rebuild the military to an extent, he was effective as a president.
 
Repubs are great at saying Reagan was a great national security prez while attacking Clinton for failed strikes against OBL. What you never hear from them is the reason the Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed and who whose fault it was. Reagan's military experts warned him to not put the Marines in there, to base them offshore on a carrier, as they usually did in that part of the world. But, noooo he had to make a big stand and BOOM! Then he hurriedly evacuated the remaining Marines to... that carrier. Seems Reagan listened to his advisors about as much as Bush did.
 
Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan, raised taxes, presided over the largest growth of income inequality in the past 20 years, perjured himself, pardoned rich donors, instituted the brutal DADT policy, and did nothing to prevent Genocide in Rwanda.

All of those things are true, yet it would be foolish to claim that they offer a fair picture of the whole of Clinton's presidency.
 
I agree with your critique of Obama, but to be honest Clinton was a solid president, not a whole lot outside of the Lewinsky Scandal you can point fingers at.

There are plenty of things you can point your fingers at, whether he had his pants down is irrelevant to his presidency. That doesn't stop a lot of liberals from treating him as Democrat royalty though.
 
Just as a lot of liberals have done around Clinton and Obama. Same idea, different demi-gods.

I think the difference with Clinton is that he actually did things.

Reagan just kind of let a lot of things happen. He was very short sited with his tax cuts. he got the economy moving but he couldnt fix the deficit and made it worse.
 
I think the difference with Clinton is that he actually did things.

Reagan just kind of let a lot of things happen. He was very short sited with his tax cuts. he got the economy moving but he couldnt fix the deficit and made it worse.

If this thread is still about Reagan, my sense is that he was bad for the country. His large tax cuts and " supply side" economics started us down the debt road we will have a very hard time digging out of.
 
Just as a lot of liberals have done around Clinton and Obama. Same idea, different demi-gods.

I don't see that with Clinton so much, and it only happened with Obama during his campaign for Presidency, that honey-moon is over.
 
ok well all that are things he did poorly. Economics was his forte, mainly because of his hands off reaganomics approach(which can still be debated), but his foreign affairs, save the berlin wall, if you really want to attribute that to him, were not stellar at all.

So trying to keep Government out of economics which lead to getting us out of the Carter Malaise was not all that big a deal to you...

And the collapse of the USSR forced by Reagan, Thatcher and Co. isn't a success?

The hells is wrong with people?
 
If this thread is still about Reagan, my sense is that he was bad for the country. His large tax cuts and " supply side" economics started us down the debt road we will have a very hard time digging out of.

Actually, President's don't "make the budget". Congress does. And who owned all that from 1980-1988?

Yeah. Reagan worked with what he had, and he had a tax and spend House and Senate to deal with.

Nice try though.
 
So trying to keep Government out of economics which lead to getting us out of the Carter Malaise was not all that big a deal to you...

And the collapse of the USSR forced by Reagan, Thatcher and Co. isn't a success?

The hells is wrong with people?
how did Reagan force the USSR to collapse?
 
Reagan bombed Libya

Good.


, was a brutal advocate of the War on Drugs
Bad.

, helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras,
Good.

sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, lied under oath(To my knowledge I have no recollection-- or whatever), vetoed economic sanctions on the National Party of South Africa, and lied to the American people.

when Iran and iraq were fighting it was in our interest to help both sides.
 
Actually, President's don't "make the budget". Congress does. And who owned all that from 1980-1988?

Yeah. Reagan worked with what he had, and he had a tax and spend House and Senate to deal with.

Nice try though.

If you remember, the congress did not spend more money than Reagan requested. They did spend the money differently.

Nice try though.
 
If you lived through 1976-1988, and were old enough to have a stake in what was going on, you might see things a little differently.

In the 1970's, things were bad. The economy was way down, unemployment was up, inflation was skyrocketing, the Cold War was still hot and we were looking like the losers, there were gas lines and gas rationing and all kinds of crap. The news talked about "the misery index". We had no national pride on the whole; collectively we had a very negative view of America's future.

In the Iran revolution, the Ayatollah took hundreds of Americans hostage and held them for over a year, while we did virtually nothing. We looked weak to the world, and to ourselves.

Jimmy Carter was Prez. He gave away the Panama Canal, compromised away many of our potential strengths with the Soviets, and utterly failed to deal with the economy and the energy/fuel crisis. For most of a year he did nothing, NOTHING about the US hostages in Iran, then in the final months of his term he sponsored a rescue mission that was a dismal failure.

If you DIDN'T live through those years, you'll have a hard time understanding what an incredibly depressing period that was, and how negative people were. Predictions that The End Was Nigh were rampant. As a nation, we felt like we had lost our way entirely.

Then came Ronald Reagan, speaking of a vision, "a shining city on a hill", boldly talking of reclaiming American exceptionalism, turning around the economy, and putting the fear of America back into our enemies.

The economy improved. Jobs were created. Fuel costs went down. The 70's "Energy crisis" proved to be little more than fraud. The Iranians released our hostages: everybody said "They don't want to mess with Reagan!" We kicked some ass here and there that needed kicking.

Reagan stood up to the Soviets and made them believe that by God, they were not going to push America around.

There was a renewed sense of national pride, and a renewed belief in America's future. For those of you who did not live through it, I simply cannot explain to you what a huge difference Reagan made. It was like the difference between walking in darkness and then someone switched on the light. We could see a light at the end of the tunnel and it wasn't an oncoming train.

Reagan gave a nearly-beaten nation hope.

Was he perfect? No, of course not. But he will always be one of the great presidents of my lifetime, to me, because of the difference he made.

G.
 
If you lived through 1976-1988, and were old enough to have a stake in what was going on, you might see things a little differently.

In the 1970's, things were bad. The economy was way down, unemployment was up, inflation was skyrocketing, the Cold War was still hot and we were looking like the losers, there were gas lines and gas rationing and all kinds of crap. The news talked about "the misery index". We had no national pride on the whole; collectively we had a very negative view of America's future.

In the Iran revolution, the Ayatollah took hundreds of Americans hostage and held them for over a year, while we did virtually nothing. We looked weak to the world, and to ourselves.

Jimmy Carter was Prez. He gave away the Panama Canal, compromised away many of our potential strengths with the Soviets, and utterly failed to deal with the economy and the energy/fuel crisis. For most of a year he did nothing, NOTHING about the US hostages in Iran, then in the final months of his term he sponsored a rescue mission that was a dismal failure.

If you DIDN'T live through those years, you'll have a hard time understanding what an incredibly depressing period that was, and how negative people were. Predictions that The End Was Nigh were rampant. As a nation, we felt like we had lost our way entirely.

Then came Ronald Reagan, speaking of a vision, "a shining city on a hill", boldly talking of reclaiming American exceptionalism, turning around the economy, and putting the fear of America back into our enemies.

The economy improved. Jobs were created. Fuel costs went down. The 70's "Energy crisis" proved to be little more than fraud. The Iranians released our hostages: everybody said "They don't want to mess with Reagan!" We kicked some ass here and there that needed kicking.

Reagan stood up to the Soviets and made them believe that by God, they were not going to push America around.

There was a renewed sense of national pride, and a renewed belief in America's future. For those of you who did not live through it, I simply cannot explain to you what a huge difference Reagan made. It was like the difference between walking in darkness and then someone switched on the light. We could see a light at the end of the tunnel and it wasn't an oncoming train.

Reagan gave a nearly-beaten nation hope.

Was he perfect? No, of course not. But he will always be one of the great presidents of my lifetime, to me, because of the difference he made.

G.

I actually am able to remember this period as well. Reagan was an uplifting figure, and compared to Carter who preceded him was a breath of fresh air.

That being said, if you look at the polls from the time, Reagan was much more popular than his policies. Not very different from Obama today.

The hostages actually came home just as the inaugaration was going on. People said that there was a weapons for hostages trade as Iran was at war with Iraq.

Trickle down economics as the tax cuts that Reagan brought on did lift the economy. It was put us on an unsustainable glidepath to where we are today. We are up to our necks in debt, as no one can raise taxes for fear of being thrown out of office like the first Bush.

Lets not forget Lebanon where he essentially cut and ran when over 200 marines were killed.

The Soviet Union fell apart because it's economy just did not work. It is true Reagan kept the pressure on with defense spending, especially his Star Wars, or missle defense.

He was a nice man but many felt his policies did not help America.
 
I actually am able to remember this period as well. Reagan was an uplifting figure, and compared to Carter who preceded him was a breath of fresh air.

That being said, if you look at the polls from the time, Reagan was much more popular than his policies. Not very different from Obama today.

The hostages actually came home just as the inaugaration was going on. People said that there was a weapons for hostages trade as Iran was at war with Iraq.

Trickle down economics as the tax cuts that Reagan brought on did lift the economy. It was put us on an unsustainable glidepath to where we are today. We are up to our necks in debt, as no one can raise taxes for fear of being thrown out of office like the first Bush.

Lets not forget Lebanon where he essentially cut and ran when over 200 marines were killed.

The Soviet Union fell apart because it's economy just did not work. It is true Reagan kept the pressure on with defense spending, especially his Star Wars, or missle defense.

He was a nice man but many felt his policies did not help America.

the very idea that a centralized totalitarian style government could allocate resources correctly, especially while having a pretty aggressive military isnt sound.

the USSR would have collapsed one way or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom