Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
We were not talking about 'as a percent of GDP'. We were talking in terms of REAL dollars.
Ronald Reagan was a great man
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
We were not talking about 'as a percent of GDP'. We were talking in terms of REAL dollars.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You obviously don't know the meaning of the term "straw man".
Obama didn't inherit a "disaster". He inherited an economic downturn, and he did the exact opposite to fix it: he increased government intervention. Soon he will increase taxes. The next president will therefore inherit a disaster.
Reagan inherited an economic disaster, and he did exactly what he needed to fix it. He cut taxes and regulations. As a result, we had the longest peace time period of economic growth in US history.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
No, Republicans for the last couple of years got elected on fear based on exaggerations and lies. Remember, Daddy Bush was on board with supporting Hussein for 8 years until Hussein got the insane idea that he was actually in charge of his country and borders and could go to blows with Kuwait over bad loans and oil drilling rights! Daddy Bush intially called Ronnie Raygun's economic plans "voodoo economics"....until the powers that be told him he could kiss goodbye the Presidency if he didn't get on board. Then we got the "read my lips...no new taxes" lie. Then we got the Willie Horton scare story, then we got the Gulf War.
The fallacy of the Reagan Years is just that...fallacy which does not stand up under close scrutiny.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Are you shitting me? Star Wars didn't have to work? What the fuck is that....condoning countless millions wasted on a bogus defense program. As for the Soviets...they didn't spend what you think on radar improvement, because the old radar system COULD LOCATE STEALTH BOMBERS THAT ARE ONLY INVISIBLE TO THE MORE MODERN WAVELENGTH RADAR SYSTEM.
And what planet were you on in 1987? Reaganomics had fucked up the country and was NOT addressing the nearly 10% unemployment rate...if anything it exasperated it! Show me the numbers that say otherwise, and I'll show you were you're wrong using bonafide, documented facts.
You make a valid point regarding Volcker, but you leave out some important details:
Federal spending under Reagan was increased nearly 70% from what it was under Carter....the deficit over TWICE of Carter's $74 billion.
As for unemployment
http://mediamatters.org/research/200603210007
Also, remember that Reagans job growth rate 2.1 as opposed to Carter's 3.1 And remember, the old standby regarding unemployment rate was to NOT consider the people who's unemployment insurance ran out and were NOT eligible for more.
Also, there's this:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/6Economy.htm
In other words, you shouldn't accuse people of BS if you're just shoveling from a different pile.
Are you shitting me? Star Wars didn't have to work? What the fuck is that....condoning countless millions wasted on a bogus defense program. As for the Soviets...they didn't spend what you think on radar improvement, because the old radar system COULD LOCATE STEALTH BOMBERS THAT ARE ONLY INVISIBLE TO THE MORE MODERN WAVELENGTH RADAR SYSTEM.
And what planet were you on in 1987? Reaganomics had fucked up the country and was NOT addressing the nearly 10% unemployment rate...if anything it exasperated it! Show me the numbers that say otherwise, and I'll show you were you're wrong using bonafide, documented facts.
You make a valid point regarding Volcker, but you leave out some important details:
Federal spending under Reagan was increased nearly 70% from what it was under Carter....the deficit over TWICE of Carter's $74 billion.
As for unemployment
http://mediamatters.org/research/200603210007
Also, remember that Reagans job growth rate 2.1 as opposed to Carter's 3.1 And remember, the old standby regarding unemployment rate was to NOT consider the people who's unemployment insurance ran out and were NOT eligible for more.
Also, there's this:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/6Economy.htm
In other words, you shouldn't accuse people of BS if you're just shoveling from a different pile.
Last edited:
Socrtease
Verified User
I am going to call bullshit on this because defenders of Reagan used the "percentage of GDP" all the time to defend the deficits. If not valid now then not valid then
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I accused you of BS on your statement on unemployment. It was BS. Instead of posting some crap from mediamatters, look to the actual data I posted. I could care less if some other author got his/her facts wrong. The point is... unemployment was not 10% as you claimed.
As for how the unemployment rate is calculated... it has NOTHING to do with unemployment benefits. It is a SURVEY. Always has been. In the survey they ask... how many adults in the house, how many are working, out of those not working... are they seeking work.
That is how they get the unemployment number that is reported. It is the number who currently do not have a job that are ALSO currently seeking a job. If you don't even comprehend how the numbers are calculated, perhaps you should refrain from posting your BS on them.
I have already stated that spending under Reagan increased... that had nothing to do with your assertion on unemployment that I refuted.
As for the 'jobs growth' rate... please post a link to your data. I would be interested in looking at it. Especially given the fact that unemployment was essentially unchanged from the time Carter took office to the time he left. In January 1977 unemployment was at 7.5%... in January 1981... 7.5%.
When Reagan took office it was at 7.5%, when he left 5.4%.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well, that may be true, but I am not one of them. I hate that % of GDP crap. That said, I am a true fiscal hawk. I do not think we should run any sort of deficit spending while GDP growth is expanding. We should be paying down the debt in those years and using deficit spending in the recessionary time frames only (and even then only within certain parameters)
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That anybody can posit Reagan as a good president is just beyond belief, arguably he was suffering from pre-senile dementia for much of his presidency. Here is a excellent analysis of his actions and motives from 1999 by Robert Parry.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/112599a.html
Last edited:
Go bugger yourself. You don't get a vote, dick-wick,
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
If you had paid attention, you would have noted that media matters information was taken from legitimate gov't sources....like the Dept. of Labor. So the only one BS'ing here is YOU.
Yeah, 9.7% instead of 10%....I apologize for rounding off.
And you can hem and haw all you like, but the bottom line is that when a groups unemployment insurance runs out, that's it. They are OFF the radar and become a part of the guessing game all politicians use to puff up their ratings. Bottom line: the 5.4% is a dubious number at best, when all the other factors come into play....like how many jobs were ACTUALLY created. Hell, even over looking the party line bias, the comparisons are pretty blatant, and Ronnie doesn't come out looking so sterling.
http://www.dlc.org/upload_graphics/AbN9_chart3_400.jpg
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Dick wick, that's a new one? Did you just make that up? If you did then it's the first original thing you've said in five years.
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
The fact that Morris had to fictionalize a supposed authorized biography tells me what an empty suit reagan was. Maybe when Nancy dies somebody will finally have the cojones to write the real story of the actor and his curious, inexplicable hold on right-wing imaginations.
Morris himself said: "He was truly one of the strangest men who’s ever lived," ... "Nobody around him understood him. I, every person I interviewed, almost without exception, eventually would say, 'You know, I could never really figure him out.'"
Last edited:
Like I said, rightwingers have created a cottage industry to creating a mythological hero out of Reagan. There’s no one else movement conservatives can even plausibly put forth as a great American populist hero. Ayn Rand, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond are what they got.
It’s fascinating to see rightwingers beg us to concede how great Reagan was; they’re adoration of him appears to be mostly on an emotional level….. But when presented with the actual facts of Rayguns presidency they are reduced to responding on this thread with gibberish about how ”Clinton was just as bad as Raygun!!!”. Hilarious!
The emotional ties to Reagan and the myth of his presidency don’t comport with the facts. And people who were still in third grade when Raygun was president are probably unaware on any personal level of that era, and evidently not quite clear on the what went down.
Ronnie was a charismatic dunce, and had significant personal appeal, mostly to working class and upper class whites. Gay, blacks and minorities, in large measure, detested the guy.
The myth of Raygun’s popularity?? Made up out of whole cloth. His approval ratings were fair to middling, at best, when compared to other presidents.
His record high approval rating never even matched Clinton, Obama, or even Carter. And his average approval ratings were totally middle of the pack, to be charitable. He had charisma and personal appeal, but his policies were never popular. You can look at virtually every economic metric since 1980, and see what the Raygun theology of corporate deregulation, corporate “free trade”, and a blind faith in the magic of markets and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps has done to this country. You don’t even have to mention his abysmal fiscal management, his constitutional crimes, or his abhorrent ties to rightwing dictators and illegal wars on central Americans to know that the lasting legacy of Raygun is highly mixed (to be charitable), or alternatively has been an unmitigated disaster for America in the long run.
Yes, Ronnie was charismatic in a Hollywood dunce kind of way, he had personal appeal and likeability (especially among whites), and he trounced two of the absolute worst and weakest Democratic presidential nominees in the history of the country.
But, as you, Taichi, and Pendergast note, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Transient personal popularity, and emotional appeal does not mitigate the long term consequences and disastrous mismanagement of the nation the Raygun presided over.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Sure I do. You keep making misrepresentation after misrepresentation. It was Carter who inherited Nixon's stagflation mess and who made some real unpopular decision vis-a-vis Paul Volker to get a grip on the problem. That problem had all ready leveled out when Reagan exasperated it by cutting taxes for the wealthy at a time when we couldn't afford, he then turned around and raised taxes to stabilize the situation. So yea, your fantasy about Reagan never happened. Thus your argument is misrepresentation of what actually happened and is a strawman.
By any measure Obama inherited Bush's economic mess. Just one in many examples of Bush being asleep at the wheel. Only a blind partisan can't see that.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wow Mott you're really compounding your ignorance here. Not only have you demonstrated that you don't have a clue what a straw man is, you totally failed basic economics.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Like I said, rightwingers have created a cottage industry to creating a mythological hero out of Reagan. There’s no one else movement conservatives can even plausibly put forth as a great American populist hero. Ayn Rand, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond are what they got.
It’s fascinating to see rightwingers beg us to concede how great Reagan was; they’re adoration of him appears to be mostly on an emotional level….. But when presented with the actual facts of Rayguns presidency they are reduced to responding on this thread with gibberish about how ”Clinton was just as bad as Raygun!!!”. Hilarious!
The emotional ties to Reagan and the myth of his presidency don’t comport with the facts. And people who were still in third grade when Raygun was president are probably unaware on any personal level of that era, and evidently not quite clear on the what went down.
Ronnie was a charismatic dunce, and had significant personal appeal, mostly to working class and upper class whites. Gay, blacks and minorities, in large measure, detested the guy.
The myth of Raygun’s popularity?? Made up out of whole cloth. His approval ratings were fair to middling, at best, when compared to other presidents.
His record high approval rating never even matched Clinton, Obama, or even Carter. And his average approval ratings were totally middle of the pack, to be charitable. He had charisma and personal appeal, but his policies were never popular. You can look at virtually every economic metric since 1980, and see what the Raygun theology of corporate deregulation, corporate “free trade”, and a blind faith in the magic of markets and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps has done to this country. You don’t even have to mention his abysmal fiscal management, his constitutional crimes, or his abhorrent ties to rightwing dictators and illegal wars on central Americans to know that the lasting legacy of Raygun is highly mixed (to be charitable), or alternatively has been an unmitigated disaster for America in the long run.
Yes, Ronnie was charismatic in a Hollywood dunce kind of way, he had personal appeal and likeability (especially among whites), and he trounced two of the absolute worst and weakest Democratic presidential nominees in the history of the country.
But, as you, Taichi, and Pendergast note, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Transient personal popularity, and emotional appeal does not mitigate the long term consequences and disastrous mismanagement of the nation the Raygun presided over.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Reagan is the most Overrated President in American History
The Most Over-Rated US Presidents
Here's the core finding of our quest to discover the Most Over-Rated and Most Under-Rated Presidents in US history: history has pegged Herbert Hoover absolutely right. Hoover was the only 20th century president who did not receive a single vote in either category. Uniquely amongst modern presidents, Hoover draws no controversy. He is the rock* upon which our survey can be built, the constant, universal dividing line between those who are over-rated and those whom history has foolishly frowned upon.
There was, I'm pleased to say, a healthy response. Equally happily the voting sample was reasonably evenly divided between conservatives and liberals with a fair sprinkling of libertarians and non-Americans to keep matters honest and diverse.
Here then, are the results in the Over-Rated category. As you see there is a clear 1,2,3 followed by a pair at 4 and 5 and another couple at 6 and 7. You will also note that the top ten is in fact a top eleven. A reminder: ballots were scored on a 3,2,1 points system. If no order of preference was specified, each nominee was awarded 2 points. The results are given thus: total number of points collected, then, in brackets, each presidents' ranking in the Wall Street Journal's 2005 survey of historians.
THE MOST OVER-RATED PRESIDENTS:
1. 111 (6) Ronald Reagan
2. 92 (15) John F Kennedy
3. 67 (11) Woodrow Wilson
4. 45 (22) Bill Clinton
5. 41 (3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
6. 29 (10) Andrew Jackon
7. 23 (4) Thomas Jefferson
8. 17 (5) Theodore Roosevelt
9. 11 (34) Jimmy Carter
10. 9 (2) Abraham Lincoln
10. 9 (18) Lyndon B Johnson
Others: 12. 8 (1) George Washington 13. 7 (17) James Madison 13. 7 (8) Dwight Eisenhower 15. 6 (21) George HW Bush 16. 5 (19) George W Bush 16. 5 (7) Harry Truman 16. 5 (23) Calvin Coolidge 19. 3 (12) Grover Cleveland 19. 3 (32) Richard Nixon 21. 2 (14) William McKinley 21. 2 (13) John Adams 23. 1 (9) James Polk.
In other words voters have judged that Polk is the least over-rated over-rated President.
I should perhaps observe that Reagan's romp to victory was not the result of a liberal betting coup or court-packing conspiracy. Plenty of self-identified conservatives voted for him too, mostly on the not unreasonable grounds that Reagan's recent beatification over-estimates his ability to turn night into morning or cause walls to tumble with a single blast of his trumpet.
The reputations of JFK and Woodrow Wilson (ranked 4th in Arthur Schlesinger's original 1948 edition of this parlour game) have been sliding for some time, so it is not surprising to see them score well here. Wilson in particular attracted an impressively diverse barrage of scorn from voters of all political persuasion.
Of the rest, I had thought more voters might think that Harry Truman's reincarnation as a model Chief Executive might have led to him being over-rated. Perhaps his counter-evaluation still lies in the future, just as one would expect Clinton to fall down the rankings once the memory of his administration fades some more.
Many thanks to all of you who participated.
*Five other Presidents failed to trouble the scorers in either category: Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B Hayes, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce.
Posted on May 12, 2008 at 07:27 PM in Americana
The Most Over-Rated US Presidents
Here's the core finding of our quest to discover the Most Over-Rated and Most Under-Rated Presidents in US history: history has pegged Herbert Hoover absolutely right. Hoover was the only 20th century president who did not receive a single vote in either category. Uniquely amongst modern presidents, Hoover draws no controversy. He is the rock* upon which our survey can be built, the constant, universal dividing line between those who are over-rated and those whom history has foolishly frowned upon.
There was, I'm pleased to say, a healthy response. Equally happily the voting sample was reasonably evenly divided between conservatives and liberals with a fair sprinkling of libertarians and non-Americans to keep matters honest and diverse.
Here then, are the results in the Over-Rated category. As you see there is a clear 1,2,3 followed by a pair at 4 and 5 and another couple at 6 and 7. You will also note that the top ten is in fact a top eleven. A reminder: ballots were scored on a 3,2,1 points system. If no order of preference was specified, each nominee was awarded 2 points. The results are given thus: total number of points collected, then, in brackets, each presidents' ranking in the Wall Street Journal's 2005 survey of historians.
THE MOST OVER-RATED PRESIDENTS:
1. 111 (6) Ronald Reagan
2. 92 (15) John F Kennedy
3. 67 (11) Woodrow Wilson
4. 45 (22) Bill Clinton
5. 41 (3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
6. 29 (10) Andrew Jackon
7. 23 (4) Thomas Jefferson
8. 17 (5) Theodore Roosevelt
9. 11 (34) Jimmy Carter
10. 9 (2) Abraham Lincoln
10. 9 (18) Lyndon B Johnson
Others: 12. 8 (1) George Washington 13. 7 (17) James Madison 13. 7 (8) Dwight Eisenhower 15. 6 (21) George HW Bush 16. 5 (19) George W Bush 16. 5 (7) Harry Truman 16. 5 (23) Calvin Coolidge 19. 3 (12) Grover Cleveland 19. 3 (32) Richard Nixon 21. 2 (14) William McKinley 21. 2 (13) John Adams 23. 1 (9) James Polk.
In other words voters have judged that Polk is the least over-rated over-rated President.
I should perhaps observe that Reagan's romp to victory was not the result of a liberal betting coup or court-packing conspiracy. Plenty of self-identified conservatives voted for him too, mostly on the not unreasonable grounds that Reagan's recent beatification over-estimates his ability to turn night into morning or cause walls to tumble with a single blast of his trumpet.
The reputations of JFK and Woodrow Wilson (ranked 4th in Arthur Schlesinger's original 1948 edition of this parlour game) have been sliding for some time, so it is not surprising to see them score well here. Wilson in particular attracted an impressively diverse barrage of scorn from voters of all political persuasion.
Of the rest, I had thought more voters might think that Harry Truman's reincarnation as a model Chief Executive might have led to him being over-rated. Perhaps his counter-evaluation still lies in the future, just as one would expect Clinton to fall down the rankings once the memory of his administration fades some more.
Many thanks to all of you who participated.
*Five other Presidents failed to trouble the scorers in either category: Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B Hayes, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce.
Posted on May 12, 2008 at 07:27 PM in Americana
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You failed to provide a link, plagiarist.
George Washington has not been over rated.
George Washington has not been over rated.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
You failed to provide a link, plagiarist.
George Washington has not been over rated.
http://www.debatableland.com/the_debatable_land/2008/05/heres-the-core.html