Reagan, yes. Bush, no.
I've rebutted your lies before with the facts, but you don't seem to take the facts seriously.
Reagan reduced the top federal income tax rate from 70% to 28%. Currently under Bush, the top federal income tax rate is at 35%. Faced with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression and in order to hold down rising deficits, Reagan did raise gas taxes and later corporate taxes. He called them revenue enhancers. Reagan never even talked about raising individual income taxes. Bush never faced the same economic conditions Reagan faced. Bush inherited a strong economy, with historic lows in interest rates, inflation and unemployment.
>>>>Reagan was cowed by terrorists....
News to me. Maybe you'd like to elaborate on that one.
>>>>Reagan granted amnesty to illegals, Bush has not.
We all know Reagan signed off on the IRCA of 1986 that granted amnesty to 2.6 million illegal immigrants. But the Feds never enforced the employer sanctions, thereby undermining this one time only amnesty deal. Bush has promoted amnesty since he took office. If Bush gets his way, he'll be signing off on the Senate's immigration bill. The "McKennedy" bill would have Bush granting amnesty to 15 million illegals, and maybe more.
>>>>Reagan nominated two liberals to the Supreme Court, Bush has not.
Ridiculous. Reagan didn't nominate any liberals to the SCOTUS. Rehnquist and Scalia were solid conservatives. O'Conner and Kennedy were considered moderate conservatives. Ginsberg and Bork were conservative judges. No POTUS can be sure how his nominees to the SCOTUS will turn out 10-20 years down the road. That goes for Roberts and Alito too.
O'Conner and Kennedy were considered moderate conservatives.
You can squirm any way you want. The FACT is that Reagan raised taxes, twice, and nominated two squishes to the Supreme Court.
I find it hilarious that you are willing to cut Reagan slack in any number of instances, but you won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt on anything.
Anyway, it's been clearly demonstrated that Reagan had feet of clay just as big, or bigger, than Bush's. You won't admit it because you have a vested interest in keeping Reagan on a pedestal.
If Reagan's presidency had been evaluated exactly at this point in his presidency, he wouldn't look any better than Bush does.