I like Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton, for different reasons..I think if you combined the two past presidents, we would have the best Leader ever.
We could call Him President Sax Skipper...
2007-03-13 07:33:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
On economic policies actually implemented they weren't that far apart.
Reagan deregulated transportation, Clinton deregulated the financial services sector - or, Rubin did.
Reagan cut personal income tax rates significantly. Clinton inched one rate up.
Reagan cut corporate taxes, so did Clinton.
Reagan spoke out about the need for welfare reform, Clinton finally was able to work with a Republican Congress and get it passed.
Reagan expanded free trade, so did Clinton.
The Democrat base is socialist and so Clinton had to give some loony speeches to some unions, and the Republican base includes business, so Reagan didn't give those same speeches, and arguably the sum of what both men WANTED to do would differ more, but what actually got passed was pretty similar.
And so were the results.
2007-03-13 07:36:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ronald Reagan was an actor, which is what the "powers that be" (that 2% of people who own 95% of the wealth in this country and in the world) want in a "leader". He seemed to be suffering fro Alzheimer's the whole time he was President, and Nancy had to keep a lid on it. Can't see where anyone thinks he was "good" as a leader...except that 2% of course.
Bill Clinton was "allowed" to become President because every so often it is good, in the eyes of the "powers that be" to allow the US citizens to THINK that they really have a choice, and that there is really a difference.
Boy! Am I cynical today...but that's how I really feel!
2007-03-13 07:41:54 · answer #2 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Reagen began the corporate government we "relish" on the instant, so he's out. Bush is a croney and is purely a front guy, he's out. the only element Clinton did incorrect become get head and lie approximately. Any guy might lie. My ex-spouse cheated and lied approximately it. Of all the cutting-edge presidents Clinton has completed the least durable injury to the country. Reagen no longer purely cut back W.I.C. and Head start to the bone ( the two courses have been shown to be fiscally benificial) yet he eradicated study into commerce potential materials. we could have been 25 years forward via now.
2016-11-25 00:48:17 · answer #3 · answered by lafayette 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would average as a mediocre President...
Reagan = Great Gipper
Clinton = the suck
Hell, Reagan was a better President than Clinton and he didn't even know his name his last four years in office.
2007-03-13 07:49:13 · answer #4 · answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As far as I'm concerned there was nothing good about Clinton. Combining Clinton with Reagan would only diminish Reagan.
2007-03-13 07:48:55 · answer #5 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No Reagan was fine without Clinton. By merging those two together would only belittle Reagan's accomplishments.
2007-03-13 07:54:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you leave the Bill Clinton part out you would have a great President!
2007-03-13 07:45:15 · answer #7 · answered by angelicsanto 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton was exactly the same as Regan - the only difference being that Clinton's peter still worked when he was in office.
2007-03-13 07:36:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ronald Reagan did more damage to Social security than any other President we've had
http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/bush_ss.html
2007-03-13 07:38:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, However I think Bill Clinton and a Buddhist monk would make a better combination.
2007-03-13 07:38:38 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋