How would you rank Ronald Reagan's presidency on a scale of 1 to 10?

You actually came back to double down on your ignorance, LOL? Your new reply was even stupider than your previous one. You're the one who faceplanted by claiming I hadn’t mentioned "protesters" after I had discussed the Polish Solidarity movement, the key protesters in ending the Cold War, and its leader Lech Walesa (a Nobel Peace Prize recipient back when that award still meant something) by name. 😄 You clearly don’t even know what the Solidarity union was or you wouldn’t have made that snarky “protesters” comment, douchebag. As for that heroic leader here’s what he has to say on the topic:

Lech Walesa: ”When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.”

http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP070204lech.html

"I wonder whether today's Poland, Europe and world could look the same without president Reagan," Walesa said. "As a participant in those events, I must say that it's inconceivable."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/poland-unveils-statue-of-ronald-reagan-in-warsaw

“He did not mention ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, in power from 1985 to 1991, and far less well-regarded in Moscow's former stamping ground than in Western Europe. Mr Gorbachev also worked to temper Cold War tensions, and his reforms included giving satellites more say – but they also remember four decades of Soviet domination.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8904456/Ronald-Reagan-statue-unveiled-in-Warsaw.html

Perhaps you feel those erecting statues to Reagan in Eastern Europe are simply starting with a “because Reagan” thesis and straining to “invent a cause for an effect”, you partisan clown.

Of course I know how the USSR system worked, and you failed to even make a point about the General Secretary, moron. It's like you started with a half baked idea and lost your train of thought.

You have poor reading comprehension and can't maintain a logically coherent argument.

I laid out several specific policies Reagan enacted that ramped up pressure on the Soviet Union on a variety of fronts, and you just ignore that evidence. Your thesis is "Reagan bad", and you cover your eyes and ears and repeat that thesis like a chant in lieu of an actual argument. Reagan ramped up military spending not primarily because we were losing ground to the Soviets, but to force them into a more intense arms race they couldn't keep up in due to their inferior system, a strategy he had been advocating since the 1960s. This isn't ex post facto. Reagan predicted the Soviet empire would collapse if his strategy was implemented, his (mostly leftist) critics disagreed (why I quoted the Samuelson quote as an example, which you of course completely ignored), and Reagan was proved right. Reagan's vision passed the empirical test of reality. Leftist experts' didn't. I educated you on Afghanistan because you pulled that simple minded Democrat stunt of tying "Bin Laden" (and implicitly the 21st Century War on Terror) to the Mujahideen. While Bin Laden was technically (and peripherally) involved in the war, so were lots of other factions from around the world and that doesn't mean we created Al Qaeda (let alone the Taliban), that aiding the rebels wasn't worth it to take down the Soviet empire, or that the 1990s events in the country that led to the Taliban rising and the 9/11 attacks were a necessary consequence of the 80s rebellion. It's more directly a result of the US abandoning Afghanistan in the 90s, at least to the extent Washington has any blame.

Carter began Afghan funding in 1979 with $630k, pitiful even then. Reagan ramped it up to over $600 million by the climax. The first stinger missiles, by far the most decisive weapon in that effort, were delivered by the Reagan administration in 1986. Pretending Reagan was just continuing a Carter program is comically dishonest.

I’m not sure if they’ve ever erected statues to Jimmy Carter in (post communist) Eastern Europe, LOL.

As for your screeching stupidity and dishonesty on our debt exchange, what I really said was you couldn’t exempt the Democratic Congress from blame too, or just blame tax cuts for what’s really a spending problem. In fact tax revenue did increase after the tax cuts just as the Reagan team predicted. The deficits were larger than before because the Democrats controlled Congress and prevented Reagan from pairing his military spending increases with domestic spending cuts. Both sides got the spending they wanted, which eclipsed the revenue gains from the tax cut-fueled booming economy. No administration is perfect or gets everything it wants, but, as your posting helpfully illustrates, it’s hard to competently argue against the reality that Reagan was amazingly successful on the primary issues.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Reagan sucked...Trump lowered them again which is why the economy fluctuates continuously.

Reagan was awesome but your understanding of economics sucks. Not even leftist economic theories argue that tax cuts hurt the economy.

Obama raised taxes, posted record shattering deficits, and entitlement programs were still on their course toward insolvency even back then because of the big demographic changes since the FDR era (apart from Obamacare raiding Medicare funding). The problem is those programs were sold even by FDR as temporary. Since then we've gone from about 12 or so workers per retiree to around 3 workers per retiree as the population's average age has increased. Heck, originally the retirement age was above the average life expectancy.

Social Security and Medicare are anachronistic, big government programs born from mid 20th Century thinking that should have been replaced long ago. Poison pills threatening to fiscally wreck the US long term. But don't mention reforming the "third rail" programs, even in ways that would greatly improve returns and let low income families accumulate wealth, or the Democrats and leftist media attack dogs whine and raise their pitchforks.

The deficit was growing by the beginning of the 2000s regardless of the Bush tax cut (which was mostly phased in for later years), if you're trying to imply otherwise, especially (but not only because) of 9/11. Clinton and (I'm fair) Gingrich scrapping the US military in the 90s, while enjoying an internet, capital gains tax cut-fueled boom, benefiting from the post Cold War "peace dividend" (thanks Reagan!), and Republicans blocking Clinton's big spending agenda led to a temporary deficit shrinkage, but that was already poised to reverse with the economic downturn starting in 2000, and non-discretionary domestic spending blowing up into a higher percentage of the budget. Meanwhile the inept foreign/military policy of the 90s led directly to 9/11 and the disastrous threats we had to deal with this century.

reply share

add reply

formatting help