Reagan ran up the deficit more severely, as a percentage of GDP, than Bush is doing.
No, Reagan never had a GOP House, and had a GOP Senate for six of his eight years. He never had the davantage Bush does in the federal legislature. He also awarded amnesty to illegals and bugged out of Lebananon at the first disaster.
He was wrong on both. I was wrong with him on Amnesty. Stupid me, I believed in a back-end promise from the political class. Won't happen again. I opposed the Lebanon deployment in the first place, given that our troops weren't allowed to put bullets in their weapons, thanks to the Democrats. In any event, President Reagan is retired and suffering from Alzheimer's, so I'm not sure what anyone should expect him to do out our current problems. He raised taxes, too, which Bush has not done.
Taxes are one of this President's strong points; I haven't suggested otherwise. Nobody's perfect, including presidents. It seems that there's a devoted cadre on FR who do nothing but carp on the negative, and wave the old "I'll never vote for him again" canard.
Yeah, that does get played overmuch. Folks ought to keep their powder dry. I can conceive of circumstances under which I wouldn't vote for him again, but they haven't occurred, as of this writing. I would also suggest that "malcontent," "unappeasable," "divisive," etc., are also played-out, rhetorical crutches, and nothing more. I suspect half of the "my-way-or-the-highway" types didn't vote for him the first time, and are trying to get some kind of bandwagon going for Howie Phillips, or Harry Browne, or some other no-name. It ain't workin', and it never does.
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that half is a bit high. Agreed on the long-term uselessness of third parties, though. Wastes of time, overall, other than the occasional protest vote.
|
