A decade after his presidency, the effects of his policies hadn't come to fruition.
Sure, they had. By the year 2000, Reagan's legacy of military victory in the Cold War, and economic prosperity through tax cuts and reduced government spending/regulation, saw its fulfillment in the hands of a Democratic president who endorsed much of that conservative agenda by abandoning most of the loopier aspects of liberalism. Reagan's victory can be measured by Bill Clinton's 1996 State of the Union address in which he declared, "the era of big government is over."
Clinton didn't just say that line. He governed like it, too. Marginal tax rates were barely touched. Al Gore was put in charge of the reinvention of government, which was a way to cut down on regulation and make government more friendly to its citizens. And U.S. government spending as a percent of GDP touched its lowest point since the 1970s.
The boom hadn't given way to the bust yet.
His successor, George H. W. Bush, saw that bust, and it wasn't much. From 1982 to 2000, the U.S. had one minor recession that lasted only eight months (1990-91). That was unprecedented. By comparison, the previous decade before Reagan assumed office saw three recessions, two of them quite deep and painful.
Honestly, the best protector of his legacy came in the form of George W. Bush, who became a lightning rod for blame that belonged to Reagan's one-dimensional policies of deregulation and such.
George W. Bush was his own man, following his own set of big government policies. Spending, for example, increased heavily on discretionary domestic spending under Bush - not so under Reagan.
I'm not obsessed with partisan bickering, so I have no interest in the personality analyses of arbitrary ideology classifications. The "libtards are stupid, conservatives are stupid" shtick is generally reserved for people who don't understand public policy enough to think outside of that dichotomy. It just so happens that the persons who fall into that category of profound simpleness on this forum tend to align with one particular party.
Lol ! I would reassess my priors if I were you. I understand public policy very well - well enough to know that specialized knowledge frequently doesn't make a difference to the outcome of a particular policy.
No one doubts, for example, that Kissinger understood foreign policy and national security far better than did Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan was right and Kissinger was wrong about the Soviet Union. Kissinger counseled that Americans would just have to live with the Soviets. Reagan said we can spend them into oblivion because they can't keep up with us. We win; they lose.
That may sound crude, and it certainly shouldn't be a guide to every policy matter, but in this case Reagan's policy was the right one and Kissinger's was the wrong one. We won; they lost.
Also, where the fuck did you come from. I've only seen you recently but you've quickly risen to the top of the board's list of dip shits. If you're going to refuse to think critically and instead just be a partisan antagonist, at least do it like Lucas who tries to be a little entertaining.
I'm your worst nightmare. I'm the guy who actually knows what he's talking about in that way you try to pretend to know what you're talking about.
