Replies

I don't know if you were alive during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, but you're either ignorant of historical facts or down right stupid. I'm gonna spell this out for you one more time, so listen up, you just may learn something.

You called the decisions made by PresReagan, irrelevent. The opposite is true. They were highly relevent. Pick up an honest history book and get educated.

The current set of economic circumstances that PresBush faces --- a mild recession & economic slowdown, exacerbated by 9-11 and a cooling of a hyper inflated stock market --- is still nothing compared to what PresReagan faced in economic terms, when he entered office. I gave you the hard facts and yet you're still as blind as a bat. In 1981, the US economy was headed into a deep hole and eventual collapse was just around the corner. Reagan's leadership was instrumental in the economic recovery that immediately followed and which led to the 20 years of good times the American people enjoyed.

In 1981, the Cold War was still a serious problem to the national security of the US and the entire world. The evil empire of the Soviet Union was America's deadly enemy. Over a 36 year period, the US encountered the USSR on the Cold War battlefields around the globe, from Korea, to VietNam, to Afghanistan. There were literally thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles pointed at American cities. For the first time we had a President who didn't use appeasement or detente as the main avenue to bring peace between the US and the USSR. With the determination of the ultimate "cold warrior", PresReagan rebuilt the US military and stood face to face with the Soviet communists. Reagan submitted the final death blow to Soviet communism and the US won the Cold War.

The 9-11 attacks on the US, have been met with the power and force of the US military. PresBush has done a fine job leading as CIC and deserves credit for protecting and defending the homeland. Bush`s tax cuts, military buildup and missile defense came right out of Reagan's playbook. And the events of Reagan's and Bush`s first three years in office, are similiar in nature and highly comparable.

However, there are a few areas where Bush doesn't follow Reagan's political agenda. Bush has been unwilling to hold the line on discretionary spending, as Reagan did. Total federal spending under PresBush`s first three years has increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under PresReagan. This includes adjustments for inflation. And while Reagan reduced non-defense discretionary spending by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent in discretionary spending. That's a huge 32 percent difference between the two men. Those are the facts.

Reagan also used his veto pen on numerous occasions. Bush hasn't employed his veto power once since taking office. I expect things to change in a second Bush term, but for now we'll have to live with Bush`s weak effort at controlling waste, fraud and abuse in the federal bureaucracy.

And for your information, just as with PresBush, PresReagan was called a cowboy and a dummy by the liberal establishment throughout his Presidency. Democrat's continually underestimated PresReagan and said he would start WWIII. They were wrong then and they're wrong today.

Geesh, you are impossible. Too bad you don't have any of Reagan's charm. I did not intend to call his accomplishments irrelevant and I so corrected myself earlier. My intention was to say that the entire landscape was far different, and I stand by that regardless of how you condescending you wish to become.

For your information, while I was young during the Reagan years, I am not misinformed or blind as a bat. I happen to know several people who worked in the Reagan administration, two of whom have been involved in the Bush administration. They often compare Bush to Reagan, in the most favorable of terms. They would also tell you how different times are now from the political hostility in Washington, to the margin of victory Reagan had in his first term as compared to Bush, to the global realities.