Smasharoo wrote:
What do you think about it in retrospect? And if you're not busy, how would you compare Clinton's 8 years
I realize that you're interested in Joph's opinion, but here's what any rational person is likely to conclude:
Both administrations accomplishments have been blown wildly out of proportion by partisans. Regan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, Clinton has nothing to do with a booming stock market. The economic recovery under Reagan began under Carter, the tax policies put in place crippled the economy for future generations and led to an increasingly wide rich/poor gap. The decision not to fund AIDS research directly led to more deaths than Al Queda could ever hope to achieve. Clinton sold out the Democratic Party on more issues than I have time to enumerate while damaging it almost irrevocably in the minds of "value voters" because of his poor choice of trim. If it'd been Sharon Stone blowing him, Gore would have won in a landslide.
Hmmm...interesting. I was lookin there where you said the tax policies crippled the economy for future generations.
From what I've heard (not read or researched) the tax cuts stimulated the economy help prevent or reverse a recession and actually contributed more revenue for the national budget than if a president had raised taxes.
Now the rich/poor gap I won't disagree with because I see that with my own eyes but how did the tax thing cripple the ecomony?
Wasn't the country doing well through Regan
and with clinton? Or have I not heard about the dark days of Regan? Because I know I've heard about the good days of Clinton.