I would say that he had a hand in letting OPEC assrape us for several years, which sure didn't help things. It was largely the fault of the Democratic Congress, though. It is always more Congress's fault than the President's when the economy goes south (just as the debt of the '80s is largely that Democratic Congress's fault, although it is usually blamed on Reagan, even though he actually tried to spend less than they wanted). You mean that nearly decade-long 'recession'? "Divorce it from everything else"??? Gee, thanks for putting words in my mouth, sporto. I repeatedly said in this thread that the economic state of the USSR was a major factor in their downfall. I have saimply said that it is not the only factor, and many of the other factors can be directly attributed to Reagan's actions. I think it's funny how you can boi it down to a single factor, and divorce that factor from the entire context of the Cold War. Yeah, real funny.
Along with the fall of the Soviet Union Reagan can be said to have precipitated the fall of the union movement in the US. A former democrat, Reagan fired the entire air traffic controllers union rather then submit to their demands. Union strenght in America has been declining ever since. Market competitivness can be argued either way but I believe the stock of the factory worker in the US is worse without unions. They have had to give up their benefits to the bottom line while the descision makers of industry have continued the obscene upward spiral of their compensation. The notion that the managers add more value or take more risks and therefore deserve more compensation has been taken to the extreme. The pay scales are set by the incestuous good ol boys network with very little basis in there real measure. The idea of maintaining a strong consumer base by compensating the masses seems to be lost on our partrician rulers, all the the godchildren of Reagan and his Conservative revolution.
You mean that nearly decade-long 'recession'? http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls US GDP in the 1970's grew by 37.3% in real dollars. In the 1980's, it grew by 34.5%. (The 1990's were 59.8%.) During Carter's term, it grew 20.2%. Reagan's first term totalled 4.4%. Reagan's second term was 19.1%. (Bush Sr. was 9.2%, Clinton's two terms were 13.0% and 17.4%) Two years in Carter's presidency, 1976 and 1978, saw the 2nd and 3rd highest annual GDP growth rates from the period 1974-2000. (1984 was 1st.) This is actually a bit surprising to me because I always worked under the assumption that the 70's were a financial mess, but the numbers don't seem to bear that out. I'm curious what causes the discrepency here. It was largely the fault of the Democratic Congress, though. It is always more Congress's fault than the President's when the economy goes south (just as the debt of the '80s is largely that Democratic Congress's fault, although it is usually blamed on Reagan, even though he actually tried to spend less than they wanted). By this standard, the growth in the 80's and 90's were the results of a Democratic Congress, while the economic weakness today is connected to the Republican Congress. Interesting.
Your lack of military knowledge is shocking treeman--- US forces have always been vastly superior to the Soviets in all areas. Yes I would say we had a slight edge in regards to carriers since the Soviets never had single carrier that functioned properly. Helicopter pads on tankers do not count as "aircraft carriers" super or otherwise. Also when are you going to apologize to Glynch for calling him a liar and admit that we sold chemical and bio weapons to Iraq? Unless you are calling 5000+ veterans liars for making the same claim----
It was largely the fault of the Democratic Congress, though. It is always more Congress's fault than the President's when the economy goes south (just as the debt of the '80s is largely that Democratic Congress's fault, although it is usually blamed on Reagan, even though he actually tried to spend less than they wanted). By the way, the Senate was Republican-controlled from 1980-1987. If it was the Democrat's fault, then the Republicans are pretty bad leaders. They controlled the Senate and the Presidency, but the Democrats determined the budget?
Who controlled the house? The Democrats. Its interesting that when two of the three bodies that have to approve the budget are Republican, its the fault of the Democrats that the deficit went crazy (never mind that Republicans were powerful enough to get taxes cut and get military spending approved).
treeman, I don't see anything here that contradicts my post and plenty I disagree with. Oh wow. Let's see, I've got people calline me naive, a liar, stupid... All because I posted events that happened under various Presidents' watches? I hope that wasn't directed at me, because that is something I didn't do. Frankly, I don't understand your "JFK got us into Vietnam without a strategy or adequate force to win, and the Democratic Congress ensured defeat when they refused to allow US troops to aid them in '75. JFK sent in some advisors to Vietnam. Nowhere have I read a credible source that shows JFK having any plans to move major forces or make a major commitment to war in Vietnam. It can be argued that he would never had gone about it the way LBJ did. On the contrary... it's my belief that he would have made a decision to either go in with overwhelming force or pick another place to fight... something LBJ would have been wise to do. But I'm not an academic. I'm just a "civilian" who's read and had a love for history for over 40 years. As for the Democratic Congress in '75 ensuring the defeat of South Vietnam, I would argue that 2 key provisions of the '73 Paris Peace Accords were instrumental in ensuring that defeat... certainly as much as Congress 2 years later severely cutting funds to S. Vietnam... they were (1) allowing the 160,000 or so regular NVA troops to remain in the South and (2) specifying the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops within 60 days after the signing. Of course, that's my opinion. And do you seriously think the American people, in 1975, were going to support us sending back a massive military force to combat the North's invasion? I certainly don't. And treeman, saying "We had surrendered half of the fu*king planet by the time Reagan came in." is unworthy. We fought Communism around the globe for those 50 years, under Democratic and Republican administrations, without managing to have a catastrophic nuclear war. I would say that was quite an accomplishment by all those administrations.
Major: Are you aware that if a President fails to spend all of the money that Congress authorizes, then he can be held in contempt of Congress and thrown in jail? And that President Reagan several times attempted to do so? Just throwing it out there. As for the 70s being a rosy economic time - have you ever heard of stagflagion? And do you have any idea what impact it has on GDP values? And there is still the little issue of OPEC's assreaming... Which promptly ended when Reagan took office (maybe the Ayrabs, like the ****tites, thought he wouldn't be as wussified as Carter was?) ... At any rate, the original question her was whether or not Ronald Reagan was a good President. The answer to that will depend on whether or not you are a liberal or conservative (it does not break down by Repub/Dem lines accurately, as many moderate and conservative Dems liked him too); liberals think that he was the antichrist, conservatives think he was a God. I would just say that in virtually every single way, he was the anti-Clinton. Here are a few links that you can read if you want to learn a little more about him: http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/40preag.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html http://www.presidentreagan.info/ http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ http://www.reagan.dk/ (Reagan and the Soviets, good one) http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/reagan.html http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/rrpubpap.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/ http://www.taxpolicy.com/reagan.htm http://usconservatives.about.com/cs/ronaldreagan/ http://www.reaganranch.org/best/bestof.htm Some of these sites are decidedly pro-Reagan, some are completely neutral, and only give facts. I'm not going to bother with any hatchet-job links, they are just garbage. There's a little bit of everything in these to contradict what has been slandered against him here and elsewhere. Not that anyone will actually read any of them, of course.
Deckard: Oh really? "Some advisors"? Try 16,300 "advisors" in South Vietnam by 1963. http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm Actually, I personally think that had Kennedy lived and gained another term, he would not have tied the military's back (or allowed Congress to tie it), we would have eventually built up a large force, invaded the North, and probably won the war. But he never got the chance, of course. But we are pretty much in agreement on that one. All we can say now is that LBJ just continued Kennedy's policy at the time of his death. Didn't turn out too well. As for the Paris accord - they were garbage, and everyone knew it. That does not change the fact that Congress again tied the President's hands (not that anything would really have gotten done, I agree with you on that). Keep in mind that even as junk as the Paris accords were, we never would have even gotten that far had Nixon not bombed the North into submission. He went on the offensive (although not enough - anything short of invasion was not enough, a mistake he is guilty of also) and brought the North to the table, which is alot more than anyone before him had dared to do. We *fought* it? We fought it in Korea and Vietnam. We pissed away China. We pissed away Russia at the start. We pissed away all of the middle eastern client states who went to the Soviet side (we're paying for it now). We pissed away much of Africa. There was no fight for Eastern Europe - It was given away at Potsdam. Fighting two battles and running away from fifty does not make you a fighter. At least not one worthy of the title. Had we *fought* Communism, we would have done it right after WWII, and we wouldn't have had to do it all over the globe. A few generals and politicians wanted to do this at the time, but the American public was tired of war and the Democrats were in charge. Once they popped off their first nuke it was too late.
Are you aware that if a President fails to spend all of the money that Congress authorizes, then he can be held in contempt of Congress and thrown in jail? And that President Reagan several times attempted to do so? Just throwing it out there. Yes. I'm also aware that the President has the option to veto a budget if he actually is against the spending - an option that virtually every President uses. And given the Republican Senate, the veto would have held up. To blame the Democratic House on something that the Republican President and Republican Senate agreed to is maybe the most ridiculous thing I've heard on this BBs. As for the 70s being a rosy economic time - have you ever heard of stagflagion? And do you have any idea what impact it has on GDP values? Stagflation has no effect on the <I>real GDP</I>, which is why I used those GDP values. Stagflation basically involves inflation and recession simultaneously. Inflation is irrelevent because that's discounted out of the real GDP values. The recession is the part that is oddly not shown in the economic numbers for the 1970's. Like I said, I'm not sure the explanation behind it.
Reagan was a very likeable President. I voted for him in 1980, since he touted himself as a fiscal conservative. This turned out to be a very big lie. I did not vote for him the second time round. The things in particular that marred the Reagan's presidency were deficit spending, Iran-Contra and the S/L crisis. Reagan never presented Congress with a ballanced budget. This clearly was never his priority. As noted earlier the national debt dramatically grew during his eight years in office. Fiscal conservative? I think not. Iran-Contra should have got Reagan impeached, plain and simple. Dealing with the terrorists and the rogue nation Iran went against his own stated public policy, but was not necessarily against the law. I actually admired Reagan for bringing the hostages home, since it show where his heart was at. Funding "freedom fighters" aka terrorists did break laws and go against the will of the American people. It is also very likely that Reagan lied under oath about his direct knowledge of Iran-Contra. (If he did not lie, then we all must agree that he was completely incompetent.) The S/L bailout eventually clocked in at about one half trillion dollars. The Reagan Whitehouse (and Congress) knew that this was a problem in 1984 and did nothing about it during his second term, leaving Bush Sr. the joy of cleaning up that mess. (The prosecution record for the S/L fraud was laughable, but that was the Bush Sr Admin fault.) Outside of the Reagan's first two years in office, the economy and stock market did well. Inflation was also under control, due to a tighter monetary policy. These are good things. Overall, I would say that Reagan was a likeable but average to below average President.
No Worries,...my grandfather was a close liuetenant and my Mom's uncle was a commanding General for the then President Samosa for years (later assainated)...These "contras" were militia-type rebels resisting the invading communist-like Sandanistic overthrowers...(I'm half-anglo, half- hispanic) In fact, you had many Nicaraguans come here because of the overthrow...Reagan made this easier for the people to do so... After the military overthrow of the former regime, you obviously had people who resisted the engaging communistic nature of the newly created government...In history, there has been a tide from former Presidents to halt within means the spread of communinistic type governments...The contras were basically displaced former soldiers of the Samosa government or those opposed to the forced government change...I'm sure several if not many of these rebels committed atrocities against human targets, but the pursuit was aimed at political change...Because of this nature, I wouldn't call them "terrorists"... Now today, Nicaragua has free elections...still my Mom is fearful to go back because of the fact, she has close related ties to Samosa's military officers... To this day, acquaintences of my Mom still living there do not know why or how my Grandfather's grave has been escavated and destroyed... maybe I'm biased, but Reagan did pretty good for the relatives on my Mom's side...
My mom is from Nicaragua too. My grandfather, may he rest in peace, was a retired officer at the time of the takeover. They had lived a comfortable life with a nice spread of land and a big house. The way my mom talks about the respect my grandfather got arround town, it's like he was Vito Corleone or something, hell, most people referred to him as Don Fanor, of course that is totally unrelated, just a culture thing. Anyways, my uncle, who married into my mom's family, was involved with the contras along with his brother, according to my cousin. I guess they would sneak in and meet with them. One thing I am sure of, my Uncle's brother was shot down while flying a single engine plane into Nicaragua. I don't know if there was any cargo on board. I don't like to bring up Iran/Contra too much though because I'm obviously torn on the contras. They were fighting against communism in my country, freaking communist who allowed terrible things to happen to my family's home. It became a brothel for a time. Now, some squaters are living there and I've never had a chance to see it in person. Still, atrocities did happen and it sucks ass that the world isn't easily split in a good vs evil way.
...Wow,..I thought I would be the only one with ties to this,...My Mom says Corn Island was a paradise to behold at one time...My Mom's uncle died during the takeover, but my grandfather died in his 50's in 1976 or 1977 from a heart attack right before the chaos...In fact, I almost died there as an infant during the great earthquake of 1972...Another reason I admire hall of Famer Roberto Clemente's humanitarian aid effort, but unfortunately tragic plane crash going there...
Reagan did have a hand in ending the cold war. To say he won it is ridiculous since Gorby was reform minded from the get go, and that had nothing to do with Reagan's policies. Reagan was smart enough to pull the Marines out of Lebanon(too bad they were there to begin with). Reagan did cut income taxes and hike up the national debt, but, unlike GW Bush he raised other taxes to make up for it at least somewhat. The taxes he raised were ones that hurt the less economically fortunate more, but Reagan did understand that money had to come from somewhere. Reagan - Foolishly vetoed sanctions against South Africa in the days of Apartheid. Luckily Congress overrode that ignorant and cruel move. Reagan talked a good game about America not dealing with Terrorists. It made people proud. Of course at the same time he was dealing arms to Iran, working with Osama and his group in Afghanistan, helping out Saddam, etc. Reagan also mined the harbors of Nicaragua and funded the remnants of a brutal dictatorship there. Nicaragua had no plans nor capability of attacking the U.S. but Reagan broke international law anyway and mined their harbors and continued to fund rebels to overthrow the govt. there. Reagan invaded Granada for no good reason. It did cost lives but we were able to win that 'war' so people loved it. Reagan cut back on school programs for poor children, changed nutrition standards for school children for the worse etc. By writing billions of dollars in bad checks he made the country appear prosperous. Sadly we are stuck with that bill today, and the intrest on what he and Bush sr. did cost us 14% of govt. spending. In return for that govt. spending we get no programs, no tax cuts, nothing.
