Why do Republicans more often claim to be the "Party of Reagan" than the "Party of Lincoln"?

I have never been able to figure that out because -- - Reagan presided over the wholesale dismantling of our industrial infrastructure for short term profits for the very wealthy, who were already making record profits, and to destroy the unions. Millions of people were thrown out of work, and the remaining workers were told to work twice as hard. Our productivity increased +45%, but wages for working people remained frozen.

We were encouraged to borrow money until household debt was nearly 100% of GDP. Personal bankruptcies went up +610%. Incarcerations went up +355%.

Anti-Depressants went up +305%. Health care costs went up +78%. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay went up +649%.

- "Trickle-Down" worked exactly as intended, to benefit the wealthiest at the expense of working class Americans. It increased economic inequality and shifted most of America's wealth to the top. - Republicans then went after education – doing away with civics classes and making education another brass ring that could be grasped only by accumulating massive debt.

Debt served to create a society of indentured servants who may think they work for XYZ Company, but really work for the bank. - One of the last pieces of this recipe for Oligarchy was to deregulate the media. Reagan did away with media ownership laws as well as the Fairness doctrine, which made propagandists like Rush Limbaugh possible.

The airwaves were then flooded with pro-corporate, anti-worker Republican propaganda to keep the people stupid enough to vote Republican. - Inequality grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. - As governor, Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history.

Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office. - As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%. Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress.

The number of federal workers rose 61,000 under Reagan, as opposed to Clinton who cut 373,000 jobs. - Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people. - The foreign policy of Ronald Reagan did more to impoverish and kill the poor and helpless humans of the world than any world leader before or since - with the possible exception of GWB.

He was going to defeat communism (which was already falling of its own weight) and he didn't care how many children were burned alive or how many people starved to death on the way. - In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

(In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP.) - Reagan raised taxes twice in 1982, and then raised them again in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. In spite of all those tax hikes, Reagan didn't grow his way out of the deficits caused by his 1981 tax cut. - It took an eighth tax hike from George Bush Sr.

In 1989, a ninth in 1990, a tenth from Bill Clinton in 1993, and then another economic boom to erase Reagan’s deficit. Sure, a strong economy helped, but without all those tax increases the deficit would never have disappeared.

I was a Democrat before Reagan. I sat in the car in the 70's and waited in line for gas with my parents and supported Carter for President. Then when my father was given a promotion and transferred to Illinois at the end of 1979 I realized how bad the economy was.

We bought a house for $120k with an 18% mortgage. When Reagan took over, Iran was holding 56 American hostages, the Interest rates were over 16%, the unemployment rate was over 10% and the USSR had just invaded Afghanistan. There was no housing market because the interest rates were so high.

I laugh at the rationale that Reaganomics didn't work because at the end of his 2nd term we had a stock market crash. I focus mainly on the facts that by the end of his 2nd term interest rates were back below 10%, the unemployment rate was back below 6%, the budget was balanced, the USSR had collapsed and the economy was growing at 3.5% per year. Furthermore, Reagan set the table for the prosperity that happened in the next 12 years.

Now I will address the Stock Market crash in 1987. When Reagan took over the stock market was at about 850 when he left office the Stock Market was about 2000 after the high of about 2700 or more than triple the value. When your buddy Clinton was in office all he had to do was babysit the economy, it was on cruise control.

So how did the Stock Market perform under Clinton, A mini crash around Thanksgiving 1994, a crash in October 1997 and as he was leaving office the entire tech sector crashed. The market went from about 3400 to 11000. Who was better, the market tripled under both presidents but one was given a good economy and one was given crap.

Why do I defend Reagan, I will let you tell me based on the facts.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.