cont'd ...

Some will look at Reagan's increased bureaucracy to
higher deficits as a complete failure while others
might argue that Reaganomics saved Bill Clinton's
Presidency.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may-23/allan-ryskind-how-reaganomics-saved-bill-clintons-/

cont'd ...

Oooops. Sorry here's the link again:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/allan-ryskind-how-reaganomics-saved-bill-clintons-/

Reagan is a hero for Republicans not so for Democrats
Poor man fell foul of that illness we aged all fear, cruel way to go
Hope my view Trump may be in the early stages is wrong

Oh my goodness I continue to find Trump a hoot.

This is from his 4th of July speech yesterday;

“In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York … The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware, and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown. Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory.”

So in 1770 it took over the airports? Mankind did not start flying before the 1900s.

Ah priceless.

Foxy,

There are literally thousands of statistics put out by and about the US government each year. If one has an agenda (eg criticise Reagan) then its not hard to troll through those statistics and find some that show things weren't perfect. Then combine that with a little sleight of hand and economic illiteracy in the readership and hey presto, Reagan was a failure.

For example, the bureaucracy increased by about 10%. Seems significant until you note that the population did too. Why didn't the author mention that? Venal or ignorant?

Or the deficit increased. Whenever someone gives you the raw numbers on that type of issue, they are either too dim to understand what they're doing or utterly economic illiterates. With this author, maybe both. In fact, as a percentage of GDP the deficit remained basically unchanged.

The author sets up straw-men and even then has to fudge to knock them down.

Reagan is a hero to Republicans and to anyone who understands the latter 20th century for two reasons:

1. He (helped by Thatcher) resurrected free-market capitalism and the US economy with it. At the close of the Carter era, capitalism was utterly out of favour. It was generally assumed that Japan would surpass the US soon. People like JK Galbraith said the Soviet economy was overtaking the US. Cater talked of the the best years being behind the nation and decline was only to be managed. Reagan rejected that and revived US capitalism. By the end of his term, the US had gone from the moribund economy to the most dynamic economy on the planet.

/cont

/cont

2. He won the cold war. Ever since his 'Time for Choosing' speech he had determined to confront communism, not try to live with it. This cost money since his method was to bankrupt the Soviets. Again, at the beginning of his term, the US was still trying to live with defeat in Vietnam and humiliation by Iran. The Soviets were so confident of their position that they'd invaded Afghanistan. By the end of his term, the US was clearly the most powerful nation on the planet and the Soviets were on the brink of utter collapse.

Reagan was the most consequential leader post WW2 and ranks in the highest echelons of US presidents. Let's weigh that up. Defeat the Soviets and ended a 40 year cold war versus didn't reduce the size of the public service. Hard to choose which is more important...hard for some at least.