Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

Originally posted by pavil

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.

Russia was the one thing he did right. He pooled large amounts of capital with other countries to destroy their currency. In this he succeeded. The problem is that the capital was never returned to the USA. Instead it has been used by dark elements in our goverment to promote their criminal dealings. There has been enough stolen from these funds over the years to solve all our current fiscal problems but the dark side won't let go of it. Hopefully one day this will all see the light of day but I sure wouldn't hold your breath.

Those that actually lived thru his era, went to college and either were making their way up the social ladder from poverty or actually being the first one in their family to go to college and got to see the programs that got affected that would aid the disadvantaged cut to no end and actually witness the buffoonery of the Reagan years all will have a much different memory of president Reagan.

What astounds me is the legendary almost godlike fiction that has been allowed to grow after his death and the farce fed to generations that know nothing of Reagan except all of the good things amplified to no end, instead of the much larger hill of negative things.

Yes I was a soldier in the U.S Army during his reign also, and was part of the history of the wall coming down, we all know that the wheels were set long before he came into office, he happened to come along just at the right time to see the Soviet Union economically implode and make a speech that held those powerful words that even without them would happen.


What is most shocking is in Washington DC, the airport is named after him, there is a huge Federal building dedicated and named after him and countless other things, I want the world to remember all of these things, and see how they were made possible without any pushback or the voice of anyone that was severely affected in a negative way because of his policies, Ronald Reagan or Raygun blundered in Lebanon, allowed the U.S. Marine Barracks to be destroyed killing many Marines with almost no repercussions, let Ollie North be the fall guy and countless other scandals during his presidency.

I wish they could tell everything, not just the so called good things when mentioning this president , we all know he was an ok actor for his time that happened to become president and was doing what came naturally, ACTING like he was president.

Originally posted by grover
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.

No, I am not. Yes the Soviets were fragile, Carter certainly didn't send them into collapse, now did he? Reagan made it happen far quicker with his policies, or do you dispute that as well?

The Soviets had to up their % of GDP for the Military from 22% to 27% due to Reagan's rearmament program. That basically froze their public consumption GDP to 1970's levels which contributed to their fall. SDI was the straw that broke their back, they fully realized that they could not compete in such and arms race when Reagan rolled out SDI.

Reagan basically put the Soviets in a position economically, where they couldn't compete. He hastened the Fall (Yes, I agree the Soviets would have fallen eventually) by decades with his concerted actions.

Originally posted by grover
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

No ... that title would have gone to the king of bad - JIMMY CARTER - except that Obama is on his way to overthrowing Carter for the title.

As far as complaining about Reagan goes .... he was only really president for the first term. The second term his dementia was kicking in and others were running the country. Bush41 was VP in the second term and therefore I'd have to say that he actually had two terms as POTUS and not just the one term that he officially has as far as history goes ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No ... that title would have gone to the king of bad - JIMMY CARTER

I always hear conservatives go on about Carter, yet they dont cite why. The only reason Iv heard thus far was his handling of the Iranian revolution, which he obviously had no business and no power changing. It was an event that occured in a foreign nation.

Now, when Carter left his $600 billion debt, Reagan ended his presidency off with $1.6 trillion, with more people depending on "socialist" programmes than previous administrations. You know the man also increased corporate taxes? This fiscal conservative? And yet somehow Carter is the worst president, and yet I dont hear anything more.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No ... that title would have gone to the king of bad - JIMMY CARTER

I always hear conservatives go on about Carter, yet they dont cite why. The only reason Iv heard thus far was his handling of the Iranian revolution,

Stagflation! I Mean the Carter Administration...

Carter's administration suffered from inexperience in politics: Carter paid too much attention to detail, was quick to retreat under fire, seemed indecisive, and did not define his priorities clearly. He seemed uninterested in working with other groups, or even with Congress controlled by his own party, which he denounced for being controlled by special interest groups.[44] Though he made efforts to address many of these issues in 1978, the approval he won from his reforms did not last long.

When Carter ran for reelection, Ronald Reagan's nonchalant self-confidence contrasted to Carter's serious and introspective temperament. Carter's personal attention to detail, seeming indecisiveness and weakness with people was also accentuated by Reagan's charm and easy delegation of tasks to subordinates.[44][46] Ultimately, the combination of the economic problems, Iran hostage crisis, and lack of Washington cooperation made it easy for Reagan to portray him as an ineffectual leader, causing Carter to become the first president since 1932 to lose a reelection bid, and his presidency was largely considered a failure.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yes most of the issues here cited are regarding the fact conservatives dont think he was a strong enough leader (big surprise). As for the economic argument, the financial crises of the 70s started out and could be directly traced back to Richard Nixon and continued on by Ford. This is why Ford lost in 76', because of the mans handling of the financial crises, and Carter failed to fix it during his administration. Evidently Carter didnt solve the issue, but he didnt start it either. The oil crises could also be traced back to the conservative administration of Nixon.

The main issues conservatives cite is Carters none-military action on Iran during their revolution (yes folks he didnt pull an iraq on us) and the oil crises that occured on foreign soil that the US cannot be held accountable for. Also conservative at the time were all hard ball over his non-aggressive stance over the Soviet Union, but thats really it.

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

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Yes most of the issues here cited are regarding the fact conservatives dont think he was a strong enough leader (big surprise).

Wrong, Crash and Burn

If you had lived through those times you would have understood why everybody "Both" Sides of the isle were ready for a change.

Just look at his approval ratings when he left office again from both sides of the isle. 34% To give you some perspective that's the same as what Bush left with 34% That alone should give you an idea of how both sides felt.
Source

[edit on 6-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

double post


[edit on 6-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by phinubian
Those that actually lived thru his era, went to college and either were making their way up the social ladder from poverty or actually being the first one in their family to go to college and got to see the programs that got affected that would aid the disadvantaged cut to no end and actually witness the buffoonery of the Reagan years all will have a much different memory of president Reagan.

That describes my experience of the Reagan years to a T.

reply to post by pavil


Reagan or no Reagan the Soviet Union would have collapsed from its own weight. After 20+ years retrospection that should be obvious.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
If you had lived through those times you would have understood why everybody "Both" Sides of the isle were ready for a change.

May have been young but certainly remembered the oil crises of 79'. Although I wasnt much into politics during the time (forgive me). I know of the financial crises during his administration, although I could recall the same for Ford and Nixon. The financial crises didnt pop up during the Carter administration, it started with Nixon and over time folks got frustrated and voted all three presidents of the 70s out (Nixon for obvious reasons). For you to put blame of the entire financial crises on Carter, despite it having started in the Nixon administration, is just a matter of throwing rocks across partisan lines. Thats not how history shows it.

Just look at his approval ratings when he left office again from both sides of the isle. 34% To give you some perspective that's the same as what Bush left with 34% That alone should give you an idea of how both sides felt.
Source

I never denied to man had low approval ratings, neither did Nixon or Ford. That still doesnt explain why his the worst president, neither does it counter my posts regarding an analysis of his and Reagans presidency. Your just telling me he wasnt a strong leader, and that his the worst president. No analysis into what he actually did and how he compares.


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

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
yet they dont cite why.

Off the top of my head -

All those lies in his book ... and his continued brown nosing with communists.

Iran. Weak with foreign countries. Weak with the military.

Pathetically handled the hostage crisis. Gas lines ...

He gave N. Korea millions and trusted them.

Appointed Secretary of State Andrew Young who said "the United States keeps political prisoners in its jails".

Stopped research and implementation of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

Bought into Leonid Bezhnevs lies. 1980 Olympic boycott.

Pardoned the draft dodgers. Restored full citizenships ....

His pathetic line about Reagan - "a Reagan presidency would set black against white, rich against poor, and young against old." Making people fear race riots ... etc

Mariel Invasion - inviting all the Cuban criminals to the USA.

12% inflation rate economy.

The prime lending rate hit 21.5% in December 1980

Cut the defense budget by $6 Billion ... which was even more back then then it is today.

Salt I and Salt II

Increased the payroll tax for Social Security

He gave away the Panama Canal.

Jimmy Carters trail of disasters

Jimmy Carter - America Basher

Carter lies in book


And I admit it - I voted for this guy - because he was 'nice' :shk:

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Fair enough...

But you don't see the Irony?


History is repeating itself...

Carter would not engage on foreign policy. People were worried about Japan becoming the next economic super power. We had major issues in the Middle East. He had an approval rating of 34% people wanted "Change" Reagan came in and started with huge deficit spending and started to engage on foreign policies.

Bush would not engage on foreign policy had a unilateral stance. People are worried about China becoming the next economic super power. We have major issues with the Middle East. He had an approval rating of 34% People wanted "Change" Obama comes in and starts huge deficit spending and starts to engage on foreign policy.



[edit on 6-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
All those lies in his book ... and his continued brown nosing with communists.

Iran. Weak with foreign countries. Weak with the military.

Again with Iran? Weak? How so? Iran was going through a revolution, how the hell did you expect him to do anything? Oh I see problem, he didnt invade Iran and spend $200 million a day keeping our troops there like Iraq. What the heck is the matter with you? Your blaming him for not policing the world? we had no business in their affairs

This is exactly why we find ourselves in such a mess with the middle east. Because it conservatives who feel the need to go all cowboy of foreign matters. Damn straight he didnt do anything, he had no business, neither does any other administration, we are not the police of the world.

Pathetically handled the hostage crisis. Gas lines

Again foreign affairs. The hostage crises of 79' came about due to americas meddling in the affairs of the middle east, which you actually blame him for not doing. As far as the crises go, he had little influence in the matter, that was dealt by negotiators.

He gave N. Korea millions and trusted them.

Reagan gave millions to Iran, Pakistan and Iraq during the 80s. The Bush family had strong relations with the Bin Laden family. Really now, im not justifying it, but iv seen conservative presidents do alot worse sorry.

Appointed Secretary of State Andrew Young who said "the United States keeps political prisoners in its jails".

The real issue with the rightwing and Young was the fact he called Israel "stubborn. Damn straight he did, had the balls to say it at the time and was the only one. The zionists fell off their chair at that one, they cant handle actual opposition.

Bought into Leonid Bezhnevs lies. 1980 Olympic boycott.

Purely Soviet-US games. Nothing much different from the administrations prior and proceeding it.

Pardoned the draft dodgers.

Because they chose not to fight in a war based on political and ideological lines. Because they chose not to compete in the cold war where we lost 50,000 lives in a war that could not be won. Damn straight.

His pathetic line about Reagan - "a Reagan presidency would set black against white, rich against poor, and young against old." Making people fear race riots ...

I agree that line was uncalled for.

12% inflation rate economy.

Which was a gradual effect originating from both the Ford and Nixon administrations. Carter could be blamed for not stopping it, but the source of the issue could be traced back to 73' under the Nixon adminstration.

Cut the defense budget by $6 Billion ... which was even more back then then it is today.

Because lord knows we only spend a third of the worlds military expenditure at the time. What was it our duty to compete with the soviet Union, or actually spend our money where it was actually needed.

Increased the payroll tax for Social Security

Under the reagan administration the number of people on payroll for social security increased by 61,000 following Carter, it decreased by over 300,000 into the Clinton administration.

He gave away the Panama Canal.

Because it was not ours. Because we are not the police of the world and we have no business in the affairs of other nations.

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

I am going to be true to my conspiracy theorist roots here and assert that there has only been one President since 1972 and his name is…George Herbert Walker Bush, Sr.

ATS is due for a new poll…who actually believes the President of the United States is the person in charge?

For the record I liked Regan in the roll of a Kinder, Gentler America. We only dropped bombs on Kaddafi’s tent and sand dunes in those days. Talk about a soft target! I thought some of his stuff was real Oscar quality work during his White House run days.

the worst president will be decided by which person you talk to next.
If it's a conservative, they'll say FDR (only as of recently, of course, since Rush Limbaugh started saying it anyways)

If you ask a liberal, they'll likely say it was someone like GwB.

That's because for a lot of people, FDR did wonderful things.
For a lot of people, GwB did wonderful things.

There really are people out there who think borrowing money to pay off debt is a wonderful thing

There really are people out there who think invading innocent countries to spread democracy is a wonderful thing.

Personally, i think' they're both stupid.
I have found something i like about every U.S. president in history, and can find many things that i absolutely hate.

What i hate more than anything, however, is the political divide that pits average joe against average joe.

My friend the other day was telling me about how i should be worried about an Obama piece of legislation that they're trying to enact that will penalize you if you make a lot of money in the stock market.

But guess what? I don't play the stock market. I don't give a damn.
And neither does he. He has no idea what he's talking about, but he heard it on some lard asses radio show, so it must be something evil.

The bastardization of this country by the quadrennial stupidification of the moronic masses is absolutely astounding. It really came about from the internet. Everyone has their own opinion about things now, which is great. It's just sad that all too many of them have no idea why they have the opinion that they do.

My post isn't aimed at the OP, quite the contrary. It is, however, aimed at the people who responded by saying "My dad's bigger than your dad! My Dad's bigger than yours!"

Grow up and get a clue.
Your ignorance is making THEM rich, and YOU a sucker.

Originally posted by grover
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...

No, the "partisan presidency" goes much further back than Reagan. The early leaders of our country, from Washington and Adams and Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln and so on, held office during some of the most politically charged and partisan periods in American history, and while a portion of the population was proud to claim these presidents as their own, another sizable portion of the population would have soon seen these fellows tarred and feathered or assassinated rather than call them "my president"...

Opponents of Thomas Jefferson, for example, took the political mudslinging to extremes unmatched even today, publicly accusing one of our nation's Founders of being a murderer and his dead mother a whore — vile accusations that actually reduced Jefferson to tears.

More recently, you'd better believe that the nation was divided under the administration(s) of Franklin Roosevelt — while he was solidly backed by socialist Democrats, the Republicans in America thought the man was a nightmare on wheels (pun intended) with his social safety net (which turned into one of the biggest nightmares of our time, Social Security) and his notions of using taxpayer dollars to finance the Welfare State (another crippling debacle for America). Even those under his immediate command in the Executive Branch — specifically, in the Defense Department — thought FDR was an anti-American hack. Some still do.

My late father, a WWII veteran, told me that FDR was the butt of depraved jokes throughout the military, and he even told me a few such jokes, which don't bear repeating here. Pretty damned funny, though, and as partisan as you can imagine.

So... Every generation has its own idea of who "The Worst President" was or is.

From a standpoint of popular endorsement, George W. Bush was actually more successful as president than was his father or Jimmy Carter. GWB was elected twice in spite of an increasingly unpopular war and a hail of liberal propaganda (which continues to this day). As badly as Bush's performance ratings declined, even at their lowest level they were 2X better than the performance ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress during his administration.

In reply to the OP, no way was Reagan anywhere near being "the worst"... He was twice elected, survived assassination, endeared himself to the public, had a plethora of marvelous soundbites, as well as some legendary accomplishments (coincidental or not) that will certainly outlive whatever negative critique is leveled on his presidency.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, will be forever known as "Only the Second President in American History to be Impeached"... For dividing the country, wasting our time and trying our patience, I personally would give "Worst" to William Jefferson Clinton.

— Doc Velocity

I can't decide.

Reagan: Star Wars scared the bejesus out of Russia and they
gave up wining the cold war.

Nixon: Nam War
Bush: WMD War

Truman: Saucer War
Kennedy: Moon War

I'd say Truman is the worst due to selling our scientists short.

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.

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.

My family was not Rich, my friends were Minorities, and women, and yet I never witnessed any worsening occurrences taking place in their daily lives due to President Reagan. As for your claim that he "Couldn't care less", how would you know?

As for the "Lower classes desire to be Upper Class", you state such in a belittling fashion. Shall I ask, what should the "Lower Classes" aspire to be, Poor, Uneducated, and Desperate?

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...

President Reagan did reign in "Government", while he still managed to build up and secure our National Security. Why do you think that so many tout President Clinton as a prime example of an Economically Victorious President? The answer is that President Clinton CONTINUED President Reagan's policies, minus of course the Defense/National Security aspect, and due to such he became known as enormously productive Economically speaking, while he was a miserable failure in terms of National Defense/Security. President Clinton was not a fool, and even he realized that President Reagan's policies were right on track. If that is not a stark recognition behind the validity and success of President Reagan's Administration, then I have no idea what is (Again, minus the Collapse of the Soviet Union perhaps).

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.

This sounds rather absurd, given the fact that President Reagan had more than a massive load of Democrats voting for and supporting him, both before and throughout his Presidency, even though he was a Conservative Republican. A very large percentage of those who supported President Obama during the 2008 Campaign did in fact support President Reagan in the 1980's, and an even larger number of Senator McCain supporters were such likewise Reagan proponents. If anything, President Reagan brought together Republicans AND Democrats like no President since possibly President Eisenhower.

I truly do not understand your last statement, because as an individual who was born and raised in Washington, D.C. during his Presidency, and as an individual whose family met the Reagans, I have always had a great amount of insight into both Politics, and President Reagan in specificity, and your last statement could not seem further from the truth.