Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

www.consortiumnews.com

There’s been talk that George W. Bush was so inept that he should trademark the phrase “Worst President Ever,” though some historians would bestow that title on pre-Civil War President James Buchanan. Still, a case could be made for putting Ronald Reagan in the competition.

Granted, the very idea of rating Reagan as one of the worst presidents ever will infuriate his many right-wing acolytes and offend Washington insiders who have made a cottage industry out of buying some protection from Republicans by lauding the 40th President.

But there’s a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan’s presidency. There’s also a grudging reassessment that the “failed” presidents of the 1970s – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter – may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-6-2009 by grover]

I was never enamored with Reagan or his portrayal of a President.

He was great if you were a rich white male or wanted to be... and by playing off of the lower classes desire to be upper class... is how he got to the oval office.

But if you were poor, a minority, a woman, had AIDS or were somehow part of the margins of society, he couldn't care less.

His promises to reign in government was totally hollow and we had a larger government and a bigger deficit than we did when he entered office...

Still I wouldn't call him the worst president but he was the first of what has become an ugly mantra of the current political situation in our nation...

He was the first partisan president as opposed to a national president... by that I mean that he was the first for whom someone could say depending on their political leanings that he's my president or he's not my president as opposed to our president regardless of party...

An ugly fact that has carried through since with both Bushes, Clinton and now Obama.

www.consortiumnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-6-2009 by grover]

WRONG the starting point for everything goin to SH*T in this country was FDR's decision to borrow from the future to get out of the depression. Well guess what? THAT future is NOW, and payment is DUE...

[edit on 6-6-2009 by mostlyspoons]

reply to post by mostlyspoons

We've had several balanced budgets since FDR including the one Clinton left bush minor... but even with that you are wrong because the government has been running periodic deficits since the beginning of the nation.

The irreversible decline in the United States was entirely due to changes made under the Wilson presidency.

It's been one turd after another - some are just larger than others.

In case you didn't notice I actually disagreed with the article.

reply to post by grover


Part of the reason we got such huge deficits under Reagan was because ever since Nixon abolished the Gold Standard we could print money how ever much we liked and it just kept growing and growing ever since. Also the 80's is where America started to focus on consumerism more and outsourcing. You can't solely blame that on Reagan, sure he gets way too much credit amongst conservatives, but he probably was one of the better republicans this country has had in a long long long time.

You can't nesisarily pin point where America had a lot of it's problems, heck this country was born with problems, but financially you can see them start with Woodrow Wilson then to Herbert Hoover and FDR, then to Lyndon Johnson & Nixon (to name the biggies).

In a word ...yes.
GWBush comes in a close second.
They both have destroyed the dream of the United States and the rights of man.
Way to go Gipper!

As far as I am concerned Reagan's biggest fault is that he really had no serious grasp on the issues that confronted him. He was hired to portray a president which he did faultlessly but all the strings were being pulled by the men behind the curtain... in many ways the same could be said for bush minor...

That is in essence the biggest differences between Reagan and bush minor... and Bush senior, Clinton and Obama... They had/have substance while RR and jr. were all show.

reply to post by grover


Reagan did so many awful things to the US. But he started and was able to hide the borrow and spend policies of the Right and couch this policy in patriotism. Ugghhhh



He made dumb ass Americans feel good about their stupidity! What a dangerous man he was. A dagger into the heart of our republic!

Obama . . . substance?



Soory. There is no substance with Obama.

Originally posted by grover
As far as I am concerned Reagan's biggest fault is that he really had no serious grasp on the issues that confronted him. He was hired to portray a president which he did faultlessly but all the strings were being pulled by the men behind the curtain... in many ways the same could be said for bush minor...

That is in essence the biggest differences between Reagan and bush minor... and Bush senior, Clinton and Obama... They had/have substance while RR and jr. were all show.

I whole heartily disagree. Reagan was very aware of the "big picture", which in his case, was the fall of the Soviet Empire. He knew that the Soviets could barely keep their country going and that the arms race was a way to bankrupt them into collapse and then into serious negoatiations.

Take a look at at all his unpopular stances ie (Reykjavík, Medium Range missiles in Europe, Star Wars) and his risky decisions (supporting Solidarity, Afghanistan). They were all targeting his major goal, the defeat of the Soviet Union. It wasn't happenstance, it was a grand design. Reagan knew what outcome he wanted and worked towards that goal. Each one of those decisions were his. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous. You may not like the man but you have to admit his Presidency changed the world more than any President since.

reply to post by pavil

The Soviet Union was DOA before Reagan was elected.
That is a simple fact. 2nd line.

reply to post by pavil

Right after the fall of the Soviet Union it actually came out that the CIA and the American intelligence agency was surprised at how fragile they were so no you are wrong... all during the 70's and 80's we thought they were actually stronger than they were.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Huh? The Soviets and their proxies were expanding their sphere of influence in Carter's four years just prior to Reagan. Without Reagan's initiatives, the Soviet Union would have lasted far longer then it did.

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
WRONG the starting point for everything goin to SH*T in this country was FDR's decision to borrow from the future to get out of the depression. Well guess what? THAT future is NOW, and payment is DUE...

[edit on 6-6-2009 by mostlyspoons]

I Fully Agree...WE are still paying off his debt because our Government thinks it's a bright idea to KEEP borrowing

Reagan was not a good president, despite the major drive the immortalize the man back in the late 90s. He tripled the debt Carter left, he lowered taxes but in place of that towards the end of his presidency other taxes such as welfare taxes and certain product taxes increased.... Reagan also raised corporate taxes by $120 billion in total. The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan, compared to a decrease in over 300,000 under Clinton. He also agreed to $165 billion bail out of social security.

There was a short boom during the 80s under Reagan that many conservatives continue to reference, however this was an artificial boom, that would suffer the consequences for time to come. What this boom left was a nation triple in the amount of debt, more folks depending of "socialist" programmes than the previous administration and another rightwing presidency to once again double that debt.

I'll say this time and time again. Reagan played the part of president well. He was an actor nevertheless.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by pavil


Everything Panned out exactly the way our Government wanted it too...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
and another rightwing presidency to once again double that debt.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Southern Guardian]

seems as though he should of known this before he did it..I wonder why No one tried to stop him? hhmm

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fffe8653c31.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by grover
I was never enamored with Reagan or his portrayal of a President.

He was great if you were a rich white male or wanted to be... and by playing off of the lower classes desire to be upper class... is how he got to the oval office.

He was the first partisan president as opposed to a national president... by that I mean that he was the first for whom someone could say depending on their political leanings that he's my president or he's not my president as opposed to our president regardless of party...

Strapping on my asbestos Undies. I'm going to get flamed. But So What.
The problem with that opinion is that some tend to forget who voted him in and then who reelected him.

Reagan Democrat

Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election. The term can also be used to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security and immigration.

The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, the unemployed, African Americans, and other groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the "malaise" of the Carter administration. They also supported Reagan's strong stance on national security and opposed the 1980s Democratic Party on such issues as pornography, crime, and taxes.[1]

As far as I am concerned Reagan's biggest fault is that he really had no serious grasp on the issues that confronted him. He was hired to portray a president which he did faultlessly but all the strings were being pulled by the men behind the curtain...

Google Video Link

Soviet Union? Who? What? When? Oh yeah Never more!

I say what good is a balanced budget if we all went up in a Nuclear Holocaust.