Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
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.
|
As I said, I don't have all the intricate information regading the economy that would be required to do the comparison. I was/am speaking as a "lay" person, so to speak. I have, however, heard varying accounts of the ecomony and it's viability during both administrations and I think it's safe to say that it (the verdict on that) could go either way.
My reference point was as an average American citizen who, while young, can remember my family discussing things over dinner and recall my parents having hard days trying to deal with Reagan's decisions and policies. I do remember the Clinton years vividly and remember lots of communities improving and people being very happy and prosperous during his administration.
Have whatever views you wish about social programs and assistance, but those who badly needed some help in any form at that time was able to get it and their lives improved. THAT was hard data!
In the couple years since completing my undergrad education, I worked in the field of Adult education and saw a lot of information about public assistance, welfare, education, child care, etc. etc. etc...all these areas that "conservatives" and republicans (at the risk of generalizing) get a bad taste in their mouths when hearing. My mom also works in this field (actually she has been in this field for over 30 years and has a Master's in it). She told me, and I consider her as a pretty reliable and unbiased source since she's lived through many presidencies, that it was the Clinton administration who really made some feasible changes in the welfare system. He made it where it wasn't even possible for women (the very women Reagan referred to as welfare queens) to sit around and collect a check. They couldn't receive any form of aid unless they were either working or looking for work. Their children were cared for while doing so, so that THAT wouldn't be an excuse either. Under Clinton, the welfare rolls decreased somewhere around 70%. This actually, in my opinion, was great for the economy in my limited knowledge of how everything ties together in this country. Because these women (and other individuals) were being mobilized to work and investments were made in them and their children at that time, there were eventually going to be fewer dependant woman later, which is what happened.
Also, what do you mean, "good for America"? Is America not simply a compilation of millions of different people, including you and me? If I say Reagan was not a very good president for ME or MY FAMILY, how can you say he was and feel thawt your opinion is more valid? As I said, if you prospered, great, but don't impose your views onto me.
"In just about every measurable area, it was good for America --"
That's one heck of a generalization.
" you might have a difficult argument to prove here unless you just want to talk about subjective BS"
I'm not trying to prove anything, AS I SAID BEFORE ( reread my initial response, I'm not like others on here who don't mind repeating thelmselves...I WON'T do it) I am stating my opinion.