if 2000-2008 would have been under RR, and not Bush, things would be totally different. Bush doesnt even deserve to be in the history books as POTUS next to Reagan.
Would 9/11 have happened? Most likely yes.
You do realize that just cutting out the Iraq war alone saves us a ton of
and assets. So RR focuses entirely on Al Queda after 9/11.. instead of all this other mess.. Afghanistan wouldnt nearly be in the mess it is now without the Iraq war.
On the Economy? RR was an economic master. Bush an economic moron.
Do you understand the differences of the economy in the 80's when Reagan entered, to when he left?
Reagan cut taxes and also DOUBLED the total federal revenue at the same time!!
Here are some more facts:
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
so yes.. I truely believe it would have been a world of difference.
07-20-2010, 05:06 PM
Threaded Mode