Were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton good Presidents?

[ronki23]

I like Ronald Reagan not only because we have similar first names, but because he helped the West win the Cold War. Additionally, he oversaw the longest post-war economic growth in American history. Although i've heard when he was Governor of California he also balanced the budget but through tax raises; an opposite to his Presidency where he cut taxes and increased spending. People say that he created huge deficits but the circumstances were such that there was a war with a Communist superpower. However, people say it wasn't the spending that defeated the USSR as Hitler also outspent the Russians and they still beat the Germans in war. There's also the Iran-contra affair but we traded arms for hostages; I think there's nothing wrong with that. Iran's not even that bad anyway.

Defending the Reagan Deficits

Academic Defense of Reaganomics

www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/20/reaganomics-a-defense/

As for Bill Clinton, he brokered peace between Israel, Jordan and Palestine (well, Yasser Arafat anyway). He also balanced the budget. However, some say this is a lie:

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus, Part II
Myth of Clinton Surplus Officially Dead

and some say even if he did balance the budget it's not necessarily a good thing

The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy

Is it possible to like both men? Because if Clinton was good for balancing the books, do we blame George HW Bush for increasing the deficit even further? Is that really fair because Bush only had 4 years to add to debt and a recession too whereas Reagan added a huge amount of debt but oversaw a boom.

I'm a 'Reagan Democrat'

 

[Quetzal]

I was not a big fan of Clinton's "War on Drugs" campaign. But he wasn't awful.

 

[Nietzsche]

Reagan lacked foresight. His economic policies allowed for large short-term gains, but they were simply impossible to maintain. That's why Bush sr raised taxes. He had no choice.

Reagan was not a bad president per-say, but his long-term policies were pretty awful. And his inaction on the AIDs epidemic is what led to it being an epidemic. So, yeah.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reagan lacked foresight.

Foresight eludes'm all.
Clinton didn't anticipate thousands upon thousands of petty criminals rotting in prison, & many wrongful arrests.
Reagan's Iran actions resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, the repercussions of which we still endure.

 

[Shrew]

From here (Europe) it looks like Ronald Reagan started that neo-liberal s**t that creates so much trouble for non-rich people.
Therefore I would say no, he was not a good president.
Americans of course seem to have totally different outlook on social matters.

 

[columbus]

Reagan lacked foresight. His economic policies allowed for large short-term gains, but they were simply impossible to maintain. That's why Bush sr raised taxes. He had no choice.

Reagan was not a bad president per-say, but his long-term policies were pretty awful.

I disagree with this part.
Many of Reagan's policy shifts were for the long term and did work out, eventually. The short term affect were unrealistically optimistic, and the taxes did have to get raised, because he wasn't into the fiscal insanity of the Contract with America people. And he did keep the pressure up on the Soviet Union until it collapsed. The "peace dividends" from not being at war was another long term benefit, even if he did take a lot more credit than he earned.
In fact, I would argue that the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years were the results of Reagan administration policies more than anything Clinton did. Clinton's biggest achievements were not mucking it up. Even NAFTA, maligned of late but popular then, was a Bush I administration effort that started under Reagan. The long term damage done didn't become apparent for better than a decade.

That said, lots of nasty things did happen under Reagan.

And his inaction on the AIDs epidemic is what led to it being an epidemic.

Reagan's Iran actions resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths,

So yeah, mixed bag.
Tom

 

[bobhikes]

I liked Ronald Reagan and Disliked Bill Clinton but I'm not republican

I liked Reagan, Bush 1 and Obama, I disliked Clinton and Bush 2. I don't think Trump is worthy of the title President and am still mystified so many people voted for him.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do people attribute the end of the Cold War to Reagan?

I was in my teens at the time, granted, and maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. But I sure don't remember his as a peacemaker. Frankly, he did not strike me as capable of being a peacemaker if he wanted to.

Now, Gorbachev...

 

[ronki23]

Foresight eludes'm all.
Clinton didn't anticipate thousands upon thousands of petty criminals rotting in prison, & many wrongful arrests.
Reagan's Iran actions resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, the repercussions of which we still endure.

Can you please elaborate?

 

[ronki23]

I disagree with this part.
Many of Reagan's policy shifts were for the long term and did work out, eventually. The short term affect were unrealistically optimistic, and the taxes did have to get raised, because he wasn't into the fiscal insanity of the Contract with America people. And he did keep the pressure up on the Soviet Union until it collapsed. The "peace dividends" from not being at war was another long term benefit, even if he did take a lot more credit than he earned.
In fact, I would argue that the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years were the results of Reagan administration policies more than anything Clinton did. Clinton's biggest achievements were not mucking it up. Even NAFTA, maligned of late but popular then, was a Bush I administration effort that started under Reagan. The long term damage done didn't become apparent for better than a decade.

That said, lots of nasty things did happen under Reagan.



So yeah, mixed bag.
Tom

How much was the debt added to via Bush I e.g. how big were his deficits? Because Clinton balanced the books. Is it possible to like Reagan for cutting taxes and Clinton for sorting out the economy? Or was it Reagan's fault?

 

[columbus]

Can you please elaborate?

During Reagan's presidency the USA launched a horrible proxy war against Iran, using Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I believe that Bush was really behind it. But Reagan was president at the time. Bush was VP, past head of the CIA. Iran took their country back under his watch and he has had a vendetta against them ever since.
Tom

 

[ronki23]

Reagan was a popular President; even his rankings were pretty good

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

His approval rating was pretty good too

Here's Clinton's

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you please elaborate?

The US aided Iraq (including WMDs) in its attack upon Iran,
who lost a million people in that war. This engendered lingering
resentment, especially since the CIA also deposed a democratically
elected leader there in 1953.

 

[ronki23]

During Reagan's presidency the USA launched a horrible proxy war against Iran, using Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I believe that Bush was really behind it. But Reagan was president at the time. Bush was VP, past head of the CIA. Iran took their country back under his watch and he has had a vendetta against them ever since.
Tom

The Iranian Revolution was 1979 though- under Carter I believe.

Anyway, I don't think Khomeini was that bad. I thought Iran started the Iran-Iraq war first anyway as they tried to assassinate Tariq Aziz

 

[ronki23]

The US aided Iraq (including WMDs) in its attack upon Iran,
who lost a million people in that war. This engendered lingering
resentment, especially since the CIA also deposed a democratically
elected leader there in 1953.

The Iranian Revolution was 1979 - under Carter I believe.

I thought Iran started the Iran-Iraq war first anyway as they tried to assassinate Tariq Aziz

 

[Revoltingest]

The Iranian Revolution was 1979 though- under Carter I believe.

Anyway, I don't think Khomeini was that bad. I thought Iran started the Iran-Iraq war first anyway as they tried to assassinate Tariq Aziz

Ref....
Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia

The Iran–Iraq War was an armed conflict between Iran and Iraq lasting from 22 September 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, to August 1988. The war followed a long history of border disputes, and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shi'ite majority, as well as Iraq's desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.

Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran's revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, it made only limited progress into Iran and was quickly repelled; Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.[43]

With apparent US encouragement, Iraq attacked during a moment of opportunity.
(The US was unhappy that their installed Shah was replaced.)
Oddly, the Iraqi WMDs which didn't exist were supplied by us (chemical & biological).
This set the stage for unnecessary long term conflict with Iran. Reagan committed evil.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Iranian Revolution was 1979 though- under Carter I believe.

And Reagan handled the follow-up.

Anyway, I don't think Khomeini was that bad.

We sure thought differently back in the 1980s. I still do. Not that his successors are all that much better, mind you.

I thought Iran started the Iran-Iraq war first anyway as they tried to assassinate Tariq Aziz

Not sure how that would figure in the analysis.

 

[columbus]

How much was the debt added to via Bush I e.g. how big were his deficits? Because Clinton balanced the books. Is it possible to like Reagan for cutting taxes and Clinton for sorting out the economy? Or was it Reagan's fault?

Your questions don't really make sense because you are leaving out the long term effects of various policies.
Clinton did not "balance the federal budget ". It came into balance, largely due to policies that were already in place. But he didn't mess that up either. His policy was fiscal sanity. As opposed to Bush II and the totally Republican congress who cut taxes and also spent money like drunken sailors.
It is easier and faster to ruin things than build them up.
Tom

 

[columbus]

We sure thought differently back in the 1980s. I still do. Not that his successors are all that much better, mind you.

Perhaps if we westerners hadn't ended democracy in Iran things would have turned out very differently.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps if we westerners hadn't ended democracy in Iran things would have turned out very differently.
Tom

To some extent I agree. The interventions in Persia/Iran were certainly ultimately disastrous.

Yet, let's not lose track of what a difficult conquest democracy truly is. It can't really long exist except when enough people have the drive and the wisdom to keep maintaining it.