Ronald Reagan hurt America, more than he helped it.

The United States has been a hyper-interventionist country since World War II. At present the United States has a military presence in 135 different countries. Very few of those bases were created under Reagan. The American presence in the Middle East, namely its support of Israel and (Paradoxically) Egypt plus Pakistan was well-established when Reagan entered the scene. You are correct that Reagan can be indirectly be placed some blame for the deaths of Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, etc (Though those conflicts would have been rather bloody regardless of how many American dollars were flowing in) but, remember, we are debating about whether Reagan hurt the United States, not the world. The number of Americans who died as a direct result of Reagan's policies were the 265 Marines lost in Lebanon during a peacekeeping mission during their civil war (An intervention that I believe was unwise, but one that could be argued for on humanitarian grounds). Like I said before, the 400 Americans who died in the Gulf War and the 3,000 that died on 9/11 are the not the responsibility of Reagan. After all, there was no pre-existing obligation that made it necessary for the United States to fight the First Gulf War. It was a regional dispute that could have been handled by the countries in the region (Iraq could not have fought off an Arab coalition, or the Israelis). George H.W Bush did not have to send in American troops. At the same time, Iran is only a menace to the United States because of the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's support of Hezbollah and their supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons is more of a threat to Israel than the United States. What I'm saying is that while Reagan's Middle Eastern foreign policy was not a positive step forward for American interests, it did not make the subsequent interventions that did result in dead Americans inevitable. Those deaths are the responsibility of others. I'm going to address your domestic concerns in reverse order. The weakening of the dollar is the inevitable result of a centrally-planned fiat monetary system. As the laws of supply and demand tell us, when you increase the supply of a good (dollars), its price decreases. As more dollars are printed, its worth decreases. The Federal Reserve has interest rates at 1% following 9/11, thus greatly increasing the money supply. It's not a surprise, therefore, that the American dollar is decreasing in value. The housing bubble can be explained too by these dramatically low interest rates which fueled the orgy of insane loans. I encourage you to read up on Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Here's a good overview: http://www.mises.org... Anyway, my point is that Reagan's budget deficits have not resulted in the present day woes of the American economy. Reagan's policy successes, namely deregulation and tax cuts, strengthened the American economy immensely. If you want an idea of what the American economy would be like without Reagan's reforms, take a look at stagnant Germany and France with their high taxes, high unemployment, crippling regulations and faltering welfare programs. That was the America before Reagan (Plus a great deal of inflation). Finally, a quick note on taxes. I have not yet read Greenspan's book, so I have to take your word that he made such an analysis. What Greenspan is describing is a situation where federal revenues decrease. Federal revenues actually increased because of Reagan's tax cuts. This can be explained by the Laffer Curve; at a certain point raising taxes will decrease tax revenue because such high rates will make it unprofitable to expand a business, hire new employees, comply with tax regulations, etc. Lowering such high rates will encourage compliance and expansion, thus widening the tax base. Obviously, if taxes are low enough (Say 5% of income) then lowering them will also lower revenue. I think it's pretty logical that 70% was a high enough rate for the Laffer effect to occur.