Quote:
Originally posted by Phasad1913
I have a degree in Political Science and will soon begin working on my JD so I don't know too much, other than the basic level that the students at Chicago receive, about economics and to be honest, most American's don't. What MOST Americans DO know about is everyday life and I know that everyday people in large numbers in this country (like my parents) were not happy during his administration. So you and ktsnake can talk all day long about providing proof, researched data etc. and while I, too, respect those qualifyiers when talking about history and other parts of society, I also feel that peoples' general livelihoods determine whether or not a pres. is "good" or successful. If you and your's prospered during the "Reagan Revolution" great, but that does not mean every other section of the nation did as well and you shouldn't talk to or treat people who had differing experiences or memories badly just because you feel the way that you do.
|
Let me see if we can't define what we're disagreeing over. Are you trying to say that Under Reagan/Bush, the economy was worse off than it was during Clinton?
If not, what exactly, specifically do disagree on as far as saying that Reagan's tenure was good for America? In just about every measurable area, it was good for America -- you might have a difficult argument to prove here unless you just want to talk about subjective BS.