I wondered about the statement Romney made in last nights 2d Debate, about how Reagan handled the down turn in the economy, and why President Obama didn’t point out that during Reagan’s term there was not 2 costly wars to deal with, or so many of the Radicals in the Arabic area roused( possibly by the Iraq war).
There is also a connection with the economy and the use of birth control, one need just look to Haiti, and countries that frown on, or do not furnish Birth Control to the poor women who would want to limit their families. If a poor person cannot support 1 or 2 children, they won’t be able to support 4, 5, or more.
And of course if Romney should be elected, and his plans don’t work out, he can always say,“I was wrong!”
Yes, Romney compared the situation that President Obama had for the economy and how different Reagan handled the down turn in his administration.There was no cpmparison.
Perhaps I didn’t make my self clear,but Romney tried to show how Reagan solved the down turn in the economy, differently than Obama, and there was a big difference in how he handled a whole different situation. Reagan had no where near the problems that Obama inherited. Perhaps you were too young to (be alive) or understand the Reagan administration when his trickle down economics were being critized on the TV and Press. I, by the way Voted for Reagan! Fair is fair. Just to Critize Obama for not handleing the situation he was voted into, is far from what Reagan had to deal with!
We were still fighting the Cold War when Reagan took office. If you’re going to say there is no comparison, you need to spell that out quantitatively. That is, what % of GDP was the federal budget? And you might also note that Obama doubled down on one of those wars, which he didn’t have to do. I can’t see there is much to show for that doubling down, either.
Under Obama, nearly all US troops are out of Iraq, and our official participation in that war is over. There are, as I recall, a relatively small number of our troops still there to help provide security to US State department personnel and facilities. A similar end will come to our involvement in Afghanistan in 2014. How do deep reductions in troop deployment represent doubling down?
Oh, I get it - you’re talking about the “surge” in Afghanistan. I think that stabilized things a little. I agree we don’t have enough to show for our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, but after 8 years in Iraq and 11 in Afghanistan there comes a point where you get out, or stay forever. Staying forever was a poor choice in both those cases.
Just to be clear, the OP is bemoaning the fact that Obama was stuck with 2 costly wars, but in fact one was winding down (as you say) and he chose to ramp up the other one. I consider that ramping up a mistake-- it just delays the inevitable, and caused more US casualties. But I won’t even quibble about the policy part. The point is that Obama is not some victim here, and I don’t see that the comparison to Reagan is invalid because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the comparison is bunk, the OP hasn’t proven it so.
I don’t think the wars have much, if anything, to do with the relative weakness of the recovery.
It has much more to do with the deepness of the recession, the fact that it was primarily a finance-market-driven recession, and the large differences in workforce makeup between now and the Reagan recovery - which was, of course, 30 years ago.
To put it more bluntly, the Reagan recovery was much closer to Neil Armstrong landing on the moon than it is to today. The world has changed.
The cold war did not have anywhere near the lives or money involved, and what was spent was for defense, the Iraq war was not necessary at the time, and the reason Bush Sr’ didn’t go into Baghdad was that he was counciled that it would arouse all the fanatics in the area, and that is what happened when Jr. decided he knew best. The advice given to Sr. Bush came true. The cost of lives, which can’t be even mentioned in terms of money, and the money spent every week was in it self more costly than the cold war!
Instead of going into Iraq, the ramping up should have been done in Aphganistan before going into Iraq, a lot of money could have been saved as well as lives. Perhaps even going into Aphganistan to begin with was a mistake, terrorists will always be here in this world. Even in the USA some wacko takes a gun and shoots people he doesn’t even know, there is not much any president can do about that. People even kill their own families. It would be nice if some law could stop the killing, if one dies by a terrorist(even like McVeigh) they are just as dead! Terrorists don’t care about their lives or anyone else’s!
As I undersood it, the head of the armed forces felt we needed more troops in Aphganistan, and made the case for it!
Should Romney win the election then we can talk about how he made the world a safe place for all people, made everyone rich, solved all crime, and etc. I don’t expect that to happen.
Reagan had an opposition party that wanted what was best for the nation. Democrats were willing to give Reagan a chance and try things his way. Tip O’Neill didn’t have a radical wing of his party that would stab him in the back if he cut a deal with Reagan. And perhaps most importantly, the economy that Reagan inherited was infinitely more robust than the one that Obama did.