reagan was a bad president

A) The majority of the debt we are in is because of China. If I borrow from a bank, that doesn't mean the debt is "because" of the bank, so much as because I choose to accept the money. China is essentially our bank. Your arguments about China's fear of cashing in on the debt, is really non sequiter, as it has nothing to do with the fact that we borrowed the money from them in the first place. B) The Debt that's caused doesn't define what a bad and good president is. The national debt was extremely high during Lincoln's era. Perhaps he should be criticized for his debt too, that doesn't mean Reagan should get off too. Plus, Lincoln had other things goig for him.... and if your argument ist that Reagan had other things goig for him, then it was non sequiter to argue that Lincoln had high debt as an argument in iself as you did, instead of the other things he had going for him. Contention I: President Reagan's economic policies stimulated the economy. If I borrow money, and because of that reason my business increases, which is analogous to the gov and economy, that doesn't deflect the fact taht now I am going to have to pay it all back with interest. The economy largely takes care of itself, capitialism works generally, and only needs a little push here and there by interest rate manipulation for optimality. So i'll accept the premise that Reagan was responsbility for some of it, but most of it is questionable, given the ecnomy takes care of itself. A little borrowing might not have been bad either... but look at that graph I gave you, and see how exponentially the debt acculated. If I borrowed a crap ton of money, and have a little activity to show for it, and am still paying for it twenty years later, as we are with his exponential debt, then that little activity is not good when it happened, given the total costs. If the economy will take care of itself mostly, we're esstnailly getting a ton of interest for nothing. Even if we assume that the principal does good things for us, the interest exceeds the principal, and we're in over our heads, at the rate of borrowing Reagan did. This is essentially, a matter of finding the right poit of cuts and such, a loffer or bell curve.... but look at how much was borrowed, and consider how little there was to show for it, if most can even be attributed to the cuts. The degree of debt is what is important here. It's not bad judgment to think a modest degree of tax cuts are okay sometimes in some situations, . It's bad judgment to think without mroe than you've given that the degree of borrowing that occurred is wise. you can yell overand over the good stats you show, bt for it to be good judgment, you have to show how that justifies the enormity of trillions in debt we were are and will continue to pay for it. Contention II: End of the Cold War "A direct reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was the economic suffering felt by the USSR and its people because their government overspent on developing new technology to keep up with the US and the strengthened free market under Reagan. " This is an unfounded claim. Everyone knows communism doesn't work well, simply because of its own dynamic, and everone knows the russians were having infighting and debts despite paying for their weopons. To think, that their weopons debt made the whole country collapse is sensational, simplistic thinking. If their country were otherwise okay, they could have survived something as measely as borrowing for weopns,,,, that their country couldn't do something so simple, shows that their structure was altogether bad to ebgin with, and bound to fail anyway. At any rate, the burden is on the person saying something so extreme to prove their point. the presumption shuld be taht what you sad is merely rhetoric, espeically as you've given no facts.