I always hate the hate for Reaganomics. It gave us one of the most prosperous eras in the 20th century as the deregulated businesses boomed in the 90s as a direct result of Reaganomics. His tightening of the money supply to increase the worth of the dollar was also very admirable and highly beneficial in the worth of money. The idea that Reaganomics was "horrible" is a liberal-Democrat idea that has to do more with hating a Republican than an evaluation of the facts.
For John Adams, well I am torn about him. I LOVE Adams personally. During the Revolution if Jefferson was the hands, and Franklin the brain, then Adams was the heart. He was pushing, pushing, pushing for independence long before many others were. And he was so stubborn he never gave in, even when to his political advantage. His Presidency has one great thing and one horrible thing. The good is that Adams knew the limits of the US and did everything he could to keep us out of war with France and also honest during the XYZ Affair. It cost him his political career to do so in the long run as it turned his own party (who were eager to go to war) against him, but he did it anyway. I wish more politicians today were willing to sacrifice their careers to do what is right.
On the other hand you have the Alien and Sedition Acts, a set of bills that gave the President the power to limit speech and deport foreigners. These were heavy violations of the Constitution. Adams deserves the scorn he gets for passing them. He should have vetoed them from the beginning but he did not. Though I think it should be mentioned that Ron Chernow has shown in his book "Alexander Hamilton" (on page 668) that Adams wasn't the last President to use the powers granted in the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans did as well, against powerful Federalists after the election of 1800. My point being that while Adams has the black mark of having passed the Acts, he isn't the only President who deserves a mark against him for using them.