Both ways?
Isn't the conservative doctrine that communism is a flawed economic theory which CAN'T work? Didn't I read that somewhere?
If so, wasn't the former Soviet Union doomed to collapse economically from the moment it started?
What would Reagan have to do with that?
Or is communism viable, and Ronnie spent the money of us, our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, etc., on "defeating" it?
And the US had to wait for Bill Clinton to become economically viable again?
Whichever, the US had to wait for Bill Clinton to have anything approaching a surplus.
Or is it both? Ronnie was a brain-dead genius, an idiot-savant, who single-handedly crushed a faulty Soviet Union.
Arf