Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Not to mention (as Dems would say) "The economy, stupid". All of that changed just as soon as Reagan took office.
|
LOL! Ah yes, it did -- for some. Those less affluent among us didn't get much trickle down from the "voodoo economics." (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) And of course, the federal deficit went out of the roof. That didn't change, of course, until President Scandal came along. (And then W went and blew it all.)
I respected President Reagan. I didn't ever vote for him -- always campaigned and voted against him, in fact. Like pretty much any president he did some good and some not so good. I thought, and in some instances, continue to think that many of his policies were not good for the country. And, no, I'm not a left-winger.
But I respected him, if for no other reason than because he was President. That alone demands my respect, even if the holder of that office is Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. I have little patience with those who place partisanship above simple repect for the person who holds the highest office in the country.
My opinion -- Congress should never consider placing a president on money unless (1) it has been at least 25 years since that person was president and (2) it has been at least 15 years since that person died. History does give some perspective, such as whether Reagan deserves to be on the $10 bill more than the author of the Federalist Papers, without whom we would not have constitutional system we have enjoyed for the last 200+ years.