the entire analysis idiotically ignores the tax can he kicked down the road with the disastrous HC program he foisted upon us to be enacted at the end so the measurable impact falls on future administrations. That disaster and the timing was pure politics and the toll on employment doesn't go into effect for a couple more years. It's funny how people ignore his "largest" achievement in economic analysis of his admin. The one clear change he made that will have enormous financial impact and we ignore it. Ignoring it won't be an option for much longer.
You mean faded on "hope"? You forget the last few years where the Iran-Contra stuff dominated? Not much hope then. Reagan was a fraud from the time of the 1980 primaries when he was presented as the "tough" candidate and a real war hero, Bush, was considered "soft". I also fully expect that the credit for the end of communism will be given to those that actually brought it down, Gorbechev, Walesa, etc., i.e. the substance over the style of Reagan.
Negotiating with terrorists and giving anyone who doesn't feel like they should work everything they need to be comfortable hasn't been doing the country's moral much good lately. Not to mention he wants regulate and tax me every time I scratch my ass. Plus there's this article on Yahoo. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/majority-americans-already-consider-obamas-131117503.html
The economy was booming, people were richer than ever, and his vp got elected president in a landslide. if that's fading let me fade a little. yeah so the success of Reagan's administration and economy had nothing to do with communism being seen as a comparative failure and therefore forcing social change in the USSR? just a coincidence that gorby came to this conclusion in the 80s I guess? keep digging your hole.
I'm not a huge Reagan fan, but this seems like pure crazy talk. We're basically treading water and inflating the stock market.
the stock market talk is quite ridiculous given the fact that Obama's crash came at the beginning of his presidency and Reagans crash came at the end. of course the stock market would outperform under Obama. and it's not like his policies had anything to do with the stock market either. ben bernake gets the credit there.
I don't think its a good sign. Where else are you going to put money right now, and the feds keep throwing money into it.
yes you have multiples increasing, so it's not as though it's been based solely off of earnings growth.
Bush got elected in a landslide because Dukakis was a horrible candidate, yet Dukakis was leading in the summer of 1988. Probably that hope thing still lingering, right? You were mentioning something about a hole? Some people got rich, but it was also the beginnings of the great wealth disparity that has expanded since the start of Reagan's term. And, you are ****ing kidding me with "comparative failure" bullshit, as if the economy of the US didn't experience its greatest boom at the time of the height of the Cold War in the 50s and 60s? It is quite possible that people in the outside world acted independently of American influences. You can't seriously be suggesting that perestroika was instigated by the influence of Reagan, right? Reagan's impact is much like his "Tear Down this Wall" speech that you posted here, a lot of bluster, not much actual effect.
you said you're a history guy and acting like Reagan's arms race didn't impact the world is silliness. Tear down the wall was simply stagecraft, which, being an Obama fan, you should respect to the hilt.
funny that you didn't mention Obama winning against an atrocious candidate in the midst of a financial meltdown. Again, ignoring the long term impact of Obama's policies is silliness. Reagan's legacy was the boom of the 90s that his 80s tax policy spurred via investment capital. His policies actually created the equity fund world.
Why would I need to mention Obama winning against a flawed candidate (something I've stated before, as a matter of note)? I wasn't the one stating my preferred guy was going down in the history books the way Reagan supposedly is, according to droski, nor that the victory of Bush was on the coattails of the Reagan presidency.
Had an impact. Didn't end communism, for sure. He was still the president of the most powerful country in the world, so, certainly, he had some amount of global influence, but to credit Reagan with ending communism in the Eastern bloc is hagiographic absurdity. Reagan's presidency was full of stagecraft.
you seriously think George bush get's elected without Reagan? I'm not seeing a lot of dislike of Reagan at the end of that graph
you don't think even having an impact would make him go down as one of the most important presidents of the past 100 years? you are arguing he's going to be relegated to jimmy carterville
