Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The partisan breakdown of the poll is boring. Republican people will choose a Republican, and Democrat people will choose a Democrat.
What's more interesting is that clearly Reagan and Clinton are more preferred than Bush 43 and Obama, which is not surprising.
Of course- it shows partisanship.
However, if one objectively looks at the positives and negatives of an administration and its impact on the people, any objective individual would select Reagan.
Those who selected Clinton (I am always amazed by this) are the same ones who lament the decline of the middle class and the manufacturing sector. Clinton, with NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status, GUTTED the middle class and the manufacturing sector. China gained 30 years in military technology (by some miracle) during his administration, after Chinese supporters were seen often at the White House. Clinton HOSED the nation- wake up.
I have very little respect for what Reagan did even though I voted for him. HW and Carter were the most honest, Clinton for his economy, GW for honesty and efforts too keep us safe, Obama kept us together during turbulent times.
I used Carter, because he was president until Jan, 81
Clinton's presidency was made easy by what even he called the peace dividend created under Reagan. But of course he stated spending right again. Reagan and Clinton both knew that politics was the art of compromise. Nixon and Obama both came into office with enemies list on their mind more than leading thru compromise.
It's not possible to evaluate any administration without the benefit of substantial hindsight because actions have long range consequences.
Every president gets blind- sighted by his administration, some more so than others.
Focus on what did or did not happen on any given president's watch, while ignoring Congress also makes no sense. Bills are often veto -proof.
Let's look at the Reagan years:
Reagan promised to balance the budget. He did not. The national debt crossed the $Trillion mark and trebled during the Reagan years.
The Garn-St Germain Act of 1982, an Act to revitalize the housing industry substantially reduced lender regulation, enabled S&Ls to make risky loans and reduced capital requirements for S&Ls, seriously contributing factors to the S&L crisis that exploded in the late 80's. GHW Bush had the pleasure of presiding over a $400 billion ( expressed in today's values) bail out of the S&L industry, substantially more than the 2008 bank bailout.
The Earned Income Tax Credit ( EITC) was significantly expanded in the 80's and Reagan championed it as the best anti-poverty measure to come out of Congress. That low income families generally don't pay federal income tax can be attributed to this wholesale expansion.
The Iran-Contra Affair was some nasty business and Reagan claimed no knowledge.
The Immigration Reform Act of 1986 and blanket amnesty made it clear the federal government was going to get tough on employers of undocumented workers and increase border control.
By the end of Reagan's two terms 130+/- senior officials were convicted of crimes, including but not limited to:
Reagan's White House Press Secretary was convicted of illegal lobbying.
Reagan's Chief of Staff was convicted of illegal lobbying, lying to Congress and a Federal Grand Jury.
Reagan's Secretary of Interior was convicted of rigging low income HUD bids to favor Republican campaign donors and rewarding lobbyists and well as personally taking $500,000 in bribes.
Reagan's National Security Advisor was convicted of crimes related to Iran-Contra.
Some Iran-Contra convictions were vacated on appeal. Some were subsequently pardoned.
The Food Services and Retail sectors became the largest U.S. employers during the Reagan. Walmart ( part time-low wages) replaced IBM ( full time- professional wages) as the largest private sector employer during the 80's.
The number of federal employees expanded during the Reagan years and peaked in 1987 at 5300, about 1000 more than in 2012.
I think U.S. presidents generally do the best they can with the cards they are dealt. All presidents make mistakes.
Clinton's presidency was made easy by what even he called the peace dividend created under Reagan. But of course he stated spending right again. Reagan and Clinton both knew that politics was the art of compromise. Nixon and Obama both came into office with enemies list on their mind more than leading thru compromise.
So the deficit ballooned under Reagan, and shrunk under Clinton, but you give Reagan credit? Wow!
These poll results should disprove, once and for all, the perennial ultra-con lie about how this forum is dominated by Obama-worshipping liberals who are all on the OFA payroll.
(and no, before you cons leap to conclusions, I did not vote for him in the poll.)
There hasn't been a President since Reagan, we should think about electing somebody as good one of these days. In my lifetime there has only been 2 real Presidents, Truman & Reagan. The rest were just Party picks and useless.
If Reagan were alive today, the Grand Old Tea Party would deride him as a "RINO" for his willingness to compromise with the Ds on taxes, etc.
So the deficit ballooned under Reagan, and shrunk under Clinton, but you give Reagan credit? Wow!
Reagan's deficits were entirely due to military spending increases. Non-defense spending actually declined slightly under Reagan, a remarkable achievement w/ a D-controlled house during both terms. Federal receipts went up under Reagan ($1.2 trillion in 1980, $1.4 trillion in 1988 (inflation adjusted)), so that was not the cause of the Reagan deficits. It was all military spending.
What did we get for that borrowed money? We won the Cold War, freeing millions from totalitarian enslavement. If we had it to do over again, I'd hope we would follow exactly the same course.
These poll results should disprove, once and for all, the perennial ultra-con lie about how this forum is dominated by Obama-worshipping liberals who are all on the OFA payroll.
(and no, before you cons leap to conclusions, I did not vote for him in the poll.)
No because Reagan is now widely regarded as a great President. In fact the CD approval of Reagan as of now (62%) is slightly under what would be expected.
The great thing about Reagan was his capacity to go against the tide. In his excellent book, The Age of Reagan, author Steven Hayward opens with a story about the 'tear down this wall' speech. "Virtually the entire foreign policy apparatus" tried to stop Reagan from using the line, according to speechwriter Peter Robinson. He was told he'd look foolish and naïve by saying it. Most of his senior aides didn't like the line. George Shultz, and National Security Advisor Colin Powell both tried to talk him out of it.
On the flight to Berlin, the State Dept faxed a rewrite of the speech without the line. Reagan threw it in the trash. He made the speech and used the line, now widely regarded as the hallmark of his presidency.
Like any other great leader, like Washington, Lincoln, MLK, Reagan had that capacity to go against the tide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
