Ronald Reagan hurt America, more than he helped it.

I again apologize for the late response, I have been tied up. After refuting my openants major points in his previous argument, I'd like to crystalize on why the PRO side wins this round. "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. " I will agree that the United States' support for Israel did not start under Reagan, however mass foreign aid to countries in the Middle East did start under Reagan. These massive amounts of foreign aid to various countries starting in the early 1980's are what continued the interventionist policy of the United States. I'd also like to clarify that Reagan took US intervention to the extreme when he began interferring in Iran and Iraq, not for US benefits towards the destruction of communism (which was the only previous US interventions on a large scale) but convoluted our foreign policy afterward. "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. " (Your next paragraph is simply a continuation) There are two problems with this argument, a miscommunication, and a misinterpretation. First, the miscommunication, you are correct in the topic of the debate, and my final number should have been thousands, but this number is large nonetheless. Secondly, partially Reagan is responsible for the deaths in both Gulf Wars, and 9/11, but I'm not going to go that conspiracy. I'll instaed simply say that Reagan's policies have gotten the US further reliant on the Middle East, for oil trade, but mostly have harbored our foreign policy in the Middle East. Also, the policy of further interventionism spurred under Reagan further perpetuated US involvement in Kosovo, and Iraq. "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). " I don't argue with most of your economic analysis, for it is essentially true. The only major difference I'm talking about is the borrowing of foreign currency to pay of the US debt, greatly increased under Reagan. The approximately 35% of US debt is paid off by foreign currency, which weakens the dollar. This may not be the major cause of the weak dollar, but it adds to the problem. "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. " Again I agree that your analysis is comlpetely true. Partially tax revenues increased, but there were other problems with Reagans overall revenue policies. His immense spending outgrew any gained tax earnings, and the federal budget defecit grew, as the national debt grew. The impact of this is seen above. What this debate comes down to is essentially how everything equals out. We are now hated by many Latin American countries and aren't able to tap into their growing economy due to failed interventionist policies. (A major point ignored in this debate) We have further problems across the globe as the US expanded its' intervention policies. Finally, the Reagan policies that may have helped at the time, were not later adequately managed as spending went through the roof. Reagan was a great guy, he wasn't great for America.