16 Feb 2014 1:54 pm
I'm saying exactly what I said. Reagan was innovative in ways that Carter wasn't. Reagan came into office with an economic theory burning a hole in his pocket. He loosed it on the economy right out of the gate. He was forced to reconsider his theoretical economic policies a few years later and managed to scramble together a plan to get himself out of the hole he created without losing face. Carter had his own economic policies of course, though they were far less impactful and far reaching. Both failed, though Carter's failed within his Presidency. Reagan's were a slow, accumulating failure so far removed from the origin, some tend to forget that he was the creator.crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:59 pm » wrote: So, are you saying that we would have been better off with Carter? If so, how do you think he would have changed history.
Carter fades into oblivion, the poor sap who left behind gas lines, a recession and hostages in Iran. Reagan left office with credit for rescuing the hostages (a double edged sword considering the arms for hostages fiasco) ending the cold war (deserved or not) an economy that was holding its own and a string of economic policies that he managed to weave into the fabric of American consciousness and policy for years to come.
Who changed history? Reagan did. So much so, we still remember him as we attempt to crawl out from under the tax policies he instituted. Carter is barely a blip on the radar. Give me a hundred Carters who do no lasting harm than a single Reagan who **** up the whole enchilada for decades.