Who was better, Reagan or Clinton
Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were known as presidents that helped the economy. The question is, which one was the better president?
Reagan
Side Score: 2
Winning Side! |
 |
Clinton
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Let me just set this straight: 1. Neither Reagan or Clinton caused the financial collapse, the was George H Bush. 2. Clinton had more foreign involvement than any other president before him. 3. The debt that Reagan "created" was not made by him, that would be the democratically controlled house and senate, you can blame O'Neill for that. Side: Reagan
I use to be a Republican because of Reagan. He was just a flat out good president, a strong leader and he was very charismatic. Clinton did pretty good as well. But he didn't had to face nearly all the challanges that Reagan had to put up with. Reagan face a high unemployment rate, high inflation, a cold war that just had peaked with Russia. And some how he got the job done. He had all the true qualities of a great leader. He won by a landslide in both election years. Clinton did good as well as he transformed the democratic party. But nonetheless i am going to give the edge to Reagan on this one. Side: Reagan
|
Regan's terms were awful for the economy. He increased the deficit at a faster pace than any president before him, the only reason his unemployment numbers went down is he put in place a horrible new way of counting who's unemployed, and rollbacks in oversight over financial institutions lead directly to both the housing bubble and the financial collapse. He was a disaster of a president, and wasn't really in charge. He was an actor who's role was to be presidential while special interest groups passed their pet projects. Prior to his presidency the ups and downs of the market that people now refer to as "natural corrections" did not exist, it was deregulation which made these drastic "corrections" necessary. Side: Clinton
|
