@
AUz Reaganomics, not Bushonomics. Fauj is right. But by the end of Reagan years, USA had an economic crisis at hand precipitated by proliferation of 'Junk Bonds' and risky investments by Savings & Loan institutions. That is the down side of every 'easy money' expansionary policy.
Reagan is considered a good / successful president and yet his policies directly contributed to Democrat win with Clinton in presidency,
Thank you Mr. Bamu.
Just some minor additions and updates.
S&L was an issue but nowhere comparable to the crash of banks like few years ago or the one in 30s.
Reagan's party survived that and Bush senior was elected (thus your statement that Reagan's policies lead directly to Clinton is incorrect).
Bush senior lost his charm when he did the "read my lips" and "no taxes" trick. Republicans ditched him and Clinton was elected.
However Clinton continued Reaganomics.
In some form those policies continue till today with second term Prez Obama.
Don't mean to start a flame war with you, just putting the facts straight.
Comparing NS with Reagan is a bit far fetched. NS infact is more comparable to gulf sheiks, and distantly related to Singapore's Lee, and S, Korea's 2nd prez Yun Bo-seon (served: 1960–1962), or the 3rd prez Park Chung-hee (served: 1963–1979) or perhaps India's Vajpai.
However Pakistani nation is too lazy @rsed, and too violent to support NS the way Singaprean, or Koreans, or gulfians or Indians supported their leaders as listed above.
So sadly speaking, our march towards self destruction will continue albeit slowly during NS period.
peace