NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears to me that these two will go down as the benchmarks for the two parties for years to come as both were extremely popular within party ranks, and universally disliked within opposing party ranks. They seem to even personify what each party is reaching for. Reagan with his charismatic everyman approach, kind of a fatherly, I'm here to keep you safe image. And Clinton with his true politician approach, trying to play the role of a president as perfectly as he possibly could. One rescued his party from the travesty of Nixon and Ford, while the other saved them from the ineffectiveness of Jimmy Carter.

I decided to include a poll just to see if I am right about the polarization of views regarding these two presidents.

It's too early to ask this question.

Do it fifty years from now when people will get less hot under the collar about it and will have more perspective. Plus a lot of stuff we still don't know will have come out then. (And maybe someone will actually: a) understand iran-contra by then; and, b) figure out why Bill Clinton allowed the sale of missile technology to china - against the advice of the DoD - and no-one gave a fuck. Especially what with the whole chinese money scandal thing.)

By then we'll have their "secret" oval office tapes so we'll know the answers to these and other questions and actually be able to make a rational decision.

I also predict that thread will turn into Bushsux/Kerrysux.

Yeah, too early for me to really be able to vote accurately, but a well posed question.

I'm not so sure we will need history in this situation. Like I said in the post, public views to these two presidents are much more tied to party lines than their actions in office. Both are more revered for being an extremely popular president than being an extremely good president.

With the present state of politics in the US, I'm am hesitant to think that any amount of historic data will cause either side to turn on either of these two presidents.

And I don't know if any moderators will or can help me out here, but could you delete any post with any mention of Bush or Kerry that does not pertain to their relationship to Clinton or Reagan.

Personally, I would be too biased for Clinton, because I don't a bad taste for democrats like people who have lived through bad democrat presidents have. I do have that for Republican presidents, even though I believe deeply in many conservative ideas. The bad parts of the Regan presidency shine through, while I don't see those same things or relatable things from Clinton. I think I might just not have been paying attention to current event during Clinton though. I would need to have more information before I made this choice, meaning I need to do more research and study recent history more.

Calvin Coolidge was tremedously popular while he was in office -and for quite some time afterwards. Coolidge is now considered a joke. Truman was almost universally reviled by the end of his administration - to the point that he did not even bother to run for another term, which he could have done. Truman is now highly respected. LBJ’s reputation as a president has considerably improved in the past ten years. We are still to close to know if either Clinton or Reagan were zeros or heroes in the long run. Not enough is actually known about them, and there is not enough perspective.

It’s also an unfair comparison in that Reagan’s presidency has been over for relatively much longer than Clinton’s, so the effects of his policies are better understood.

However you question is thought provoking, so I'll say this. It seems as if Reagan's stature is growing with time. He was lampooned considerably when he was in office for his lack of intellect, and for many years afterwards. Now most people seem to esteem him. I wonder if the same can be said for Clinton in ten years. I suspect Clinton will be remebered for the lewinsky thing more than anything.

And I don't know if any moderators will or can help me out here, but could you delete any post with any mention of Bush or Kerry that does not pertain to their relationship to Clinton or Reagan.

Just report it and they'll probably delete it.

The national debt tripled under Reagan, while Clinton balanced the budget and managed a surplus at the end of his time in office.

Reagan was an incompetent fool, who was probably better at acting, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was also too old to become president, because he suffered under his old age. Especially because Mr. Alzheimer introduced himself to him during his presidency.
Clinton was a lot younger, and you could see that because of his economic policy.

The national debt tripled under Reagan, while Clinton balanced the budget and managed a surplus at the end of his time in office.

But historically no-one cares about those types of things. As long as the country isn't a financial wreck a la Hoover at the end of the presidency then usually people ignore things like the national debt and balanced budgets.

Plus in any historical discussion of this, it should be noted that clinton actually resisted balancing the budget for two years. Shut down the government when he refused to sign a balanced budget. Further, the final two years of his administration where the budget balanced were because of unprecedented tax revenues, owing to a bubble economy based on unsustainable levels of private sector borrowing. Likewise the $5 trillion "surplus" was predicted upon unsustainable levels of growth. So no, he didn't balance the budget.

Clinton also presided over the nation during a period where there were more corporate scandals than since the twenties. Enron = big donor to Clinton. Global Crossing etc.

Calvin Coolidge was tremedously popular while he was in office -and for quite some time afterwards. Coolidge is now considered a joke. Truman was almost universally reviled by the end of his administration - to the point that he did not even bother to run for another term, which he could have done. Truman is now highly respected. LBJ’s reputation as a president has considerably improved in the past ten years. We are still to close to know if either Clinton or Reagan were zeros or heroes in the long run. Not enough is actually known about them, and there is not enough perspective.

It’s also an unfair comparison in that Reagan’s presidency has been over for relatively much longer than Clinton’s, so the effects of his policies are better understood.

However you question is thought provoking, so I'll say this. It seems as if Reagan's stature is growing with time. He was lampooned considerably when he was in office for his lack of intellect, and for many years afterwards. Now most people seem to esteem him. I wonder if the same can be said for Clinton in ten years. I suspect Clinton will be remebered for the lewinsky thing more than anything.

Kennedy is well known for his promiscuity, I'm not sure if it was proven or not, but Jefferson had a child with one of his slaves (sorry if I have my story wrong). So I think that history will let this story linger but more as a back pages type story.

But I also agree that Reagan's image has improved since he left office. But I have a feeling that had more to do with sympathy for his illness and his death than true reflection on his presidency.

Reagan was an incompetent fool, who was probably better at acting, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was also too old to become president, because he suffered under his old age. Especially because Mr. Alzheimer introduced himself to him during his presidency.
Clinton was a lot younger, and you could see that because of his economic policy.

If you are going to debate in this thread, don't suck at it. Reagan was obviously not an "imcompetent fool". And I am pretty sure I have never seen a scientific link between youth and economic policy. Valid points please.

I neither, but I was a democrat in the times of raegan. I think that he was better, but not by much. Just goes to show, democrats can be moderates.
I think he was the last of the true conservatives, before we fell into the pits of neoconservatism.

Clinton also presided over the nation during a period where there were more corporate scandals than since the twenties. Enron = big donor to Clinton. Global Crossing etc.

More scandals than Bush?? how very unlikely it seems...

Reagan, but I'm sure that history will treat both of them favorably.

Personally, I would be too biased for Clinton, because I don't a bad taste for democrats like people who have lived through bad democrat presidents have. I do have that for Republican presidents, even though I believe deeply in many conservative ideas. The bad parts of the Regan presidency shine through, while I don't see those same things or relatable things from Clinton. I think I might just not have been paying attention to current event during Clinton though. I would need to have more information before I made this choice, meaning I need to do more research and study recent history more.

That is a interesting point. Im a fierce conservative republican but i'll fill you in on some stuff to "balance" things out for you. Clinton took us to five wars in eight years. I call them the forgotten wars because people are to busy bashing Bush on two wars they dont care about the five Clinton took us to. Somolia, Kosovo, Uzbekistan (sp), iraq (ironic aint it), Bosnia, and the chechen civil war against russia. See now, all five of these wars, we lost or accomplished nothing. What's even more ironic is when Clinton went to iraq, he was bombing Al-Qaeda bases as well as the bathist party. Osama Bin Laden was not happy needless to say which is why people democratic and republican alike say Clinton let Bin Laden slip through his fingers. We lost thousands of US soldiers in these wars. Somolia no doubt was the worst, where our dead soldiers were mutalated and dragged through the streets and instead of becoming more aggressive and bringing these sadists to justice Clinton sends our troops home in shameful defeat. To add to the failure of that war, all Somolians who supported US troops were murdered in mass genocide for treason against warlord Aidid.

They say Clinton was good at foreign policy which is true to an extent. He was well respected among the UN and could deal with them effectively. This however is because he was not a leader, he was a follower. He tagged along with the decisions of the world and didnt take charge. See the difference, when you define a position and demand the world to follow, you will "always" get people that dont want to. However, if you let them decide and give in to a watered down, lack of conviction stance, there is room for slack making it a more comfortable situation for the weaker countries. Clinton did this often as proven with his war campaigns. So he is excellent at chit chat but i wouldnt trust Clinton with my life. At the end of his second term, Clinton suffered a quick and hard recession, he lied under oath during his affair with Monica. He lied to America outright under oath, something not taken lightly. You lie under oath in court, you are talking A LOT of jail time. It is a federal offense.

Unfortunately, i see a lot of the same characteristics in Kerry, when i see Kerry, i see a lack of character, a lack of morals, a walking fake ESPECIALLY involving his faith. I pray the pope ex-communicates Kerry because god knows Kerry deserves it. I am a Catholic, a hispanic catholic. Like Kerry professes, i was a alterboy myself and i believe that a man with conviction would stand up for his faith no matter what! Like me, Kerry believes that a baby is born at conception, meaning he believes that in its fetus stage, the baby is alive and yet he says "i will not impose my beliefs on others", which means even though he believes those children that are being aborted are living beings, he wont do anything to save them because he wants more votes. Pathetic and disgraceful when a man wont stand up for his beliefs even when he brags about his faith and beliefs every chance he gets.

When i see Bush, i see a stuttering, passionate, strong willed, with maximum conviction, gun-slinging texan midjet. But i would trust him with my life any day. He's a good man, a strong willed man, a honest man, a dim-witted man, but a better leader then Kerry. He will not set aside his beliefs for personal gain. Iraq is a hard fight, no one ever said it would be easy, no one said it would be short, but we are far from losing. Kerry says "its the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time", i would like Kerry to say that to a iraqi child, i would like him to tell an iraqi child who has suffered severe trauma "your freedom and life isnt worth fighting for because you are not american", that IS what he is telling people with his anti-war speeches. Kerry is a disgrace of a man and i wont vote for him. Bush may be a poor-speaking idiot, but he is a man of conviction and morals. I can count on Bush to pull us through the hard times. I didnt see Kerry standing at the rubble of the towers, people talk about the major deficit and the loss of jobs, they get annoyed when we bring up 9/11 as a cause but note that during the week of 9/11, we lost more money then the country of Germany has, with all the money we lost that week, we could of literally bought the country of Germany and paid off its debts. Thats a fortune, its more money then we have spent in iraq and Afghanistan combined.

I doubt there are enough people on here that actually remember Ronny's administration.

If you are going to debate in this thread, don't suck at it. Reagan was obviously not an "imcompetent fool". And I am pretty sure I have never seen a scientific link between youth and economic policy. Valid points please.

Can you tell me some things Reagan has done, except plundering the treasury (like every Republican president) and stumbling at debates? There were many occasions in which he didn't know what to say, because he was DEMENTED!
Okay, maybe there's not always a link between youth and economic policy, but in this case there is, because a dement old president cannot handle the mightiest country in the world. And after all, Democrats perform a lot better on economic issues (just like FDR).

Kennedy is well known for his promiscuity, I'm not sure if it was proven or not, but Jefferson had a child with one of his slaves (sorry if I have my story wrong). So I think that history will let this story linger but more as a back pages type story.

It wasnt promiscuity that caused such a ruckus. It was the whole way it was handled. It was also the circumstances of the event and Clinton's behaviour after.

19 yr old fat intern?
cigar sex in the Oval Office?
blue dress with "stains"
depends on the definition of "is"

The whole thing was just pathetic and cheap and cheesy.

Kennedy on the other hand banged Marylin Manroe. Makes him a better president in my eyes. Also makes you wonder if his wife didnt have something to do with his death..woman scorned and all that.



But I also agree that Reagan's image has improved since he left office. But I have a feeling that had more to do with sympathy for his illness and his death than true reflection on his presidency.

No, I think it has to do with people understanding the magnitude of the consequences of his vision and actions.

It appears to me that these two will go down as the benchmarks for the two parties for years to come as both were extremely popular within party ranks, and universally disliked within opposing party ranks.
Not true. Reagan was probably the most popular Republican president among Democrats ever. In 1984 he won 60% of the popular vote. "Reagan Democrats", anyone?

Clinton on the other hand was less popular among Republicans. I am neither Democrat or Republican or even American, but I don't see what was so bad about Clinton (besides the pharmaceutical factory missiles and Kosovo bombing).

I have a pretty unfavourable view of Reagan though. Mainly for his illegal sponsorship of terrorism in Central America and his slimy deals with Iraqi and Iranian fanatics.

More scandals than Bush?? how very unlikely it seems...


Well the scandal's came to light when Bush was in office but, here's the important thing, the law was broken when Clinton was in the oval office. Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, etc. did not fail in a day.

Also Clinton's SEC did a terrible job. Pump and dump IPOs were rampant, and a lot of IPOs should never have got SEC approval, yet a blind eye was turned because it was all part of the bubble economy.

But this thread is not about bush. See above.

Somalia no doubt was the worst, where our dead soldiers were mutalated and dragged through the streets and instead of becoming more aggressive and bringing these sadists to justice Clinton sends our troops home in shameful defeat.

Lebanon, 1983, anyone?

He was well respected among the UN and could deal with them effectively. This however is because he was not a leader, he was a follower. He tagged along with the decisions of the world and didnt take charge.
Ah, the classic Republican - agreeing with th UN is always a bad thing. For the record, Clinton defied the UN in bombing Kosovo.

Bush ...... a dim-witted man
US politics must be in a pretty sorry state where you support a "dim-witted man" to manage one of the biggest countries in the world. In wartime.

Reagan ended the cold war! And set the stage for the economic growth of the 90's. Yea Reagans', military spending contributed to the debt.

Clinton, hmm what was accomplished in his 8 years? Balanced the budget some say? IMO, that was the Republican congress.

Reagan was liked by many democrats, clinton was hated by 99% of republicans.

Not true. Reagan was probably the most popular Republican president among Democrats ever. In 1984 he won 60% of the popular vote. "Reagan Democrats", anyone?

Clinton on the other hand was less popular among Republicans. I am neither Democrat or Republican or even American, but I don't see what was so bad about Clinton (besides the pharmaceutical factory missiles and Kosovo bombing).

I have a pretty unfavourable view of Reagan though. Mainly for his illegal sponsorship of terrorism in Central America and his slimy deals with Iraqi and Iranian fanatics.

ah..yes, the Iran-contra affair...those of us living aroundthe equator at the time will not forget anytime soon...

Reagan ended the cold war! And set the stage for the economic growth of the 90's. Yea Reagans', military spending contributed to the debt.

Clinton, hmm what was accomplished in his 8 years? Balanced the budget some say? IMO, that was the Republican congress.

Reagan was liked by many democrats, clinton was hated by 99% of republicans.
well..republicans do tend to be a little more extreme... I think thats mainly the reason.

The national debt tripled under Reagan, while Clinton balanced the budget and managed a surplus at the end of his time in office.
And gave away our security and caused 9/11. So it's a tossup.

Can you tell me some things Reagan has done, except plundering the treasury (like every Republican president) and stumbling at debates? There were many occasions in which he didn't know what to say, because he was DEMENTED!
Okay, maybe there's not always a link between youth and economic policy, but in this case there is, because a dement old president cannot handle the mightiest country in the world. And after all, Democrats perform a lot better on economic issues (just like FDR).

Well it's his foreign policy. Although he did end over a decade of economic maliase too. If it hadn't been for reagan, then the 90s boom could never have happened.

As to raiding the treasury, it was his little democrat friends in the congress who did that; although I agree he should have veoted some of the budgets that were sent to him. The convential wisdom is however is that he did not wish to sacrifice his foreign policy initiatives over internal doemstic spenging squabbles.

He is most remembered for being the first president to really engage the soviet union from a position of strength. Also, his massive defence build up, along with a more agressive posture with key NATO allies is credited with bankrupting the Soviet Union as they struggled to keep pace with the west's millitary strength. This is why he is remembered as incompetent and unintelligent, because at the time this policy was highly controversial and at complete odds with the ideas held by "educated" people.

He said that playing video games is good for you. Science has since proved him right. The man was a genius.

Ronald Reagan was the best politician of the second half of the century.

He was responsible for economic growth, the fall of Soviet communism, and strong American pride.

Before Reagan came to power, inflation was becoming a growing issue in the country, when Ronny left office, this was no longer a problem. During his first term, inflation plummeted, during his second it averaged only 3 percent. Interest rates fell all the way to single digits. Gas prices dropped and the oil crisis ended. After the recession of '82, the economy jumped into a seven year period of growth, the largest expansion in peacetime American history. Nearly 20 million jobs were created between 1983 and 1989. At a growth rate of 3.5 percent, the gross national product increased by a third. The stock market more than doubled in value. Poverty and unemployment dropped off sharply. During Reagan's two terms, the US reaffirmed it's position as the world's most powerful economy.

"In 1992, well known economist Robert Barro issued an economic report card for presidents, based on who did the most to boost the economic growth and reduce inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. Of eleven presidents from Truman to Bush, Reagan ranked both first (for his first term) and second (for his second term). Objectively, Reagan's record on this score is the best of all the postwar presidents, including Clinton."

- Taken from Dinesh D'Souza's Ronald Reagan along with many of the numbers seen in this post.

Reagan also is remembered as the man who brought Soviet communism to an end, although many Democrats argue that this is not true. However, if you read the following stats you will see that the Soviet Union was quite powerful.

For the first time, in the 1970s, the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal surpased that of the US. The Soviets created hundreds of long-range SS-18 missiles, all targeted at the US, as well as the SS-20s targeted at Western Europe. Between 1974 and 1980, while the US was mourning the loss in Vietnam, nine countries feel to the Soviets-South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Grenada, and Nicaragua, followed by Afghanistan in '79.

However, when Reagan became President all of this changed.

"Dictatorships in Chile, Haiti, and Panama fell. Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1982), Argentina (1983), Grenada (1983), El Salvador (1984), Uruguay (1984), Brazil (1985), Guatemala (1985), and the Philippines in 1986. Fewer than one-third of the countries in Latin America were democratic were democratic in 1981; more than 90 percent of the region was democratic by 1989."

- Taken from Dinesh D'Souza's Ronald Reagan

To go along with this, the Soviet Union agreed in 1987 under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to dismantle and destroy it's SS-20 missiles.

The next year, The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the first time that the Union had ever withdrawn from a puppet regime. Soon after, Poland held free elections, and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.

All of this under Ronald Reagan's terms.

Before his terms, President Nixon and many politicians came to believe that the Soviet Union would never fall and that the US would have to learn to co-operate with it. Three presidential terms later, it was dead.

To compare Clinton to Ronald Reagan is laughable.

Bill Clinton believed that Reagan had little impact in American politics. He believed the the US should move to more of a socialistic style of living. He and his wife Hillary campaigned hard for a healthcare plan, completely going against Reagan's style of small government. His big government dreams soon fell apart as his healthcare plan was [b]voted down.[b]

Clinton's socialist healthcare plan which he had strongly advocated in 1994 fell apart before his eyes as he realized that Reagan had completely changed American politics. He spent the rest of his time under a more Reaganistic style of governing and having oral sex with an intern.

Bill Clinton believed that Reagan had little impact in American politics. He believed the the US should move to more of a socialistic style of living. He and his wife Hillary campaigned hard for a healthcare plan, completely going against Reagan's style of small government. His big government dreams soon fell apart as his healthcare plan was [b]voted down.[b]


How does that make him different than any other democrat of the last 30 years?

Reagan was liked by many democrats, clinton was hated by 99% of republicans.

Total popularity was not in my argument. I meant solely within the party. While I agree that Reagan was much more liked by democrats than Clinton was liked by Republicans (the hatred of Clinton was mainly for things that weren't presidential), they are both borderline worshipped within their own parties.

Lebanon, 1983, anyone?


Ah, the classic Republican - agreeing with th UN is always a bad thing. For the record, Clinton defied the UN in bombing Kosovo.


US politics must be in a pretty sorry state where you support a "dim-witted man" to manage one of the biggest countries in the world. In wartime.

I like the paraphrasing. Dim-witted in effect that he doesnt send his message across that well in a heated situation such as a debate. However, i dont care what he says, i care about what he does. Kerry's senate record shows no evidence that he will do anything he is saying beyond raising taxes and condoning abortion.

Kerry has no backbone, he has no moral standing, he only pretends to with his alterboy speeches. Well im a former alterboy and i just want to kick his ass everytime he brags about it. I dont care if he brags about being a alterboy, i care if he will stand up for his faith or set it aside for more votes. Shows his lack of strong character. I've yet to see a reason to trust him.

Bush's conviction is strong and its proven as he wont back down from a cause no matter how unpopular or popular it is, he will stay the course. Democrats call it the wrong course, i see no wrong is giving an oppressed people a chance to reclaim their freedom. I didnt see the european's protest the US coming to their aid in WWII when they were oppressed by Hitler. Saddam Hussein committed as much genocide as Hitler did during the Holocaust on the Jew's. Hitler committed the Holocaust all over europe however, Saddam matched an equivalent body count to match the holocaust in his country alone. That is a horrorfying thought, but the european nations show no mercy and no pity for the iraqi people.

Without the US involvement, the Iraqi people would never have the opportunity to fight for their freedom, that was proven after the Gulf War when we signed the cease fire, all of the Iraqi rebels against Saddam were found and executed resulting in the genocide of thousands of US supporting Iraqi's. We should be happy after that, that they trust us at all after such a catastrophic loss, when they were willing to fight beside us, because of UN involvement, we signed a cease fire and left them behind to fight Saddam alone against impossible odds for them. The UN was formed to keep internation relations strong AND prevent crimes against humanity. I think the largest amount of mass genocide since Hitler would be considered crimes against humanity yet i didnt see the UN say "hey, we have to stop this warmonger", in fact they ignored him AND some major UN countries accepted bribes from him. The UN is pathetic because they no longer stand for the principles it was created on.

DeaconDave was right, it is degenerating into Bushsux/Kerrysux.

Imagine a world without partisan, reactionary flamebaiters.

I like the paraphrasing. Dim-witted in effect that he doesnt send his message across that well in a heated situation such as a debate. However, i dont care what he says, i care about what he does. Kerry's senate record shows no evidence that he will do anything he is saying beyond raising taxes and condoning abortion.

Kerry has no backbone, he has no moral standing, he only pretends to with his alterboy speeches. Well im a former alterboy and i just want to kick his ass everytime he brags about it. I dont care if he brags about being a alterboy, i care if he will stand up for his faith or set it aside for more votes. Shows his lack of strong character. I've yet to see a reason to trust him.

Bush's conviction is strong and its proven as he wont back down from a cause no matter how unpopular or popular it is, he will stay the course. Democrats call it the wrong course, i see no wrong is giving an oppressed people a chance to reclaim their freedom. I didnt see the european's protest the US coming to their aid in WWII when they were oppressed by Hitler. Saddam Hussein committed as much genocide as Hitler did during the Holocaust on the Jew's. Hitler committed the Holocaust all over europe however, Saddam matched an equivalent body count to match the holocaust in his country alone. That is a horrorfying thought, but the european nations show no mercy and no pity for the iraqi people.

Without the US involvement, the Iraqi people would never have the opportunity to fight for their freedom, that was proven after the Gulf War when we signed the cease fire, all of the Iraqi rebels against Saddam were found and executed resulting in the genocide of thousands of US supporting Iraqi's. We should be happy after that, that they trust us at all after such a catastrophic loss, when they were willing to fight beside us, because of UN involvement, we signed a cease fire and left them behind to fight Saddam alone against impossible odds for them. The UN was formed to keep internation relations strong AND prevent crimes against humanity. I think the largest amount of mass genocide since Hitler would be considered crimes against humanity yet i didnt see the UN say "hey, we have to stop this warmonger", in fact they ignored him AND some major UN countries accepted bribes from him. The UN is pathetic because they no longer stand for the principles it was created on.


Thats very nice, but has nothing to do with either Regan or Clinton

DeaconDave was right, it is degenerating into Bushsux/Kerrysux.

Imagine a world without partisan, reactionary flamebaiters.

I'm sorry, but I did warn you *sigh*.

It actually was a nice idea for a debate though. Maybe you should try again after the election.

I like the paraphrasing. Dim-witted in effect that he doesnt send his message across that well in a heated situation such as a debate. However, i dont care what he says, i care about what he does. Kerry's senate record shows no evidence that he will do anything he is saying beyond raising taxes and condoning abortion.

Kerry has no backbone, he has no moral standing, he only pretends to with his alterboy speeches. Well im a former alterboy and i just want to kick his ass everytime he brags about it. I dont care if he brags about being a alterboy, i care if he will stand up for his faith or set it aside for more votes. Shows his lack of strong character. I've yet to see a reason to trust him.

Bush's conviction is strong and its proven as he wont back down from a cause no matter how unpopular or popular it is, he will stay the course. Democrats call it the wrong course, i see no wrong is giving an oppressed people a chance to reclaim their freedom. I didnt see the european's protest the US coming to their aid in WWII when they were oppressed by Hitler. Saddam Hussein committed as much genocide as Hitler did during the Holocaust on the Jew's. Hitler committed the Holocaust all over europe however, Saddam matched an equivalent body count to match the holocaust in his country alone. That is a horrorfying thought, but the european nations show no mercy and no pity for the iraqi people.

Without the US involvement, the Iraqi people would never have the opportunity to fight for their freedom, that was proven after the Gulf War when we signed the cease fire, all of the Iraqi rebels against Saddam were found and executed resulting in the genocide of thousands of US supporting Iraqi's. We should be happy after that, that they trust us at all after such a catastrophic loss, when they were willing to fight beside us, because of UN involvement, we signed a cease fire and left them behind to fight Saddam alone against impossible odds for them. The UN was formed to keep internation relations strong AND prevent crimes against humanity. I think the largest amount of mass genocide since Hitler would be considered crimes against humanity yet i didnt see the UN say "hey, we have to stop this warmonger", in fact they ignored him AND some major UN countries accepted bribes from him. The UN is pathetic because they no longer stand for the principles it was created on.

Although I agree with most of what you say, I think calling Bush "dim-witted" is unfair. He may not be a good public speaker or debater, but he is certainly an intelligent man.

Although I agree with most of what you say, I think calling Bush "dim-witted" is unfair. He may not be a good public speaker or debater, but he is certainly an intelligent man.
noo...its cuz he has Cheney's hand up his ass making all the moves. if you hear a bushism, thats a signal that dick slipped up.

Thats very nice, but has nothing to do with either Regan or Clinton

Sadly, it does, as of now Clinton is running all over america talking about how much Kerry is like him. Shows the character of these men, on the other hand, republicans use Reagan a lot to side with Bush, there is a link whether we like it or not, which is why a lot of people are saying that it is to early to do something like this. "Wait 50 years" that kind of thing. Clinton is just marching around as Kerry's advocate "in my opinion, stealing Kerry's publicity a little bit". So, there is a link because Kerry is a replica of Clinton, except more liberal and worse.

Although I agree with most of what you say, I think calling Bush "dim-witted" is unfair. He may not be a good public speaker or debater, but he is certainly an intelligent man.

No, not at all, dim-witted doesnt mean stupid, means he's absent minded when put on the spot. He's very intelligent, no doubt there, unfortunately for him, his intelligence doesnt show in his debate skill. He is lacking the "wit" or "thinking process" to get his message across effectively on the spot. However i give him credit in that, he is more realistic, we expect an average person to stumble around in such a publicized situation. Kerry on the other hand is like a trained dog or robot. He even keeps his rythm with his hand movements thats how trained he is. He has a certain rythm, if you break him off that rythm you will see him stutter or stumble. An example was his global test remark, he stuttered before he said that and stuttered more after he said it. Its natural for everybody and worse for others, but it doesnt make anyone stupid but it is a good skill to be articulate.

Clinton was obviously better than Reagan and it shows. The independents who voted Clinton outnumber the independents, repubs and dems who voted Reagan put together.

i wouldnt be surprised if thats the case because, Clinton is more recent, his successes are more fresh in the minds of people where as Reagan is A) dead and B) was president over a decade ago. His successes arent as fresh as Clintons. My post obviously dont favor Clinton, "but" i do admit Clinton has had his bright moments in the administration, but i however do see his failures and am disturbed by them, whereas some people like the person i responded to dont know Clinton's failures. Its to early, people wont look into it as of now. You can find many great works of Reagan if you took the effort that would make him look great compared to Clinton and vice-versa. However, Clinton's lying under oath ruined his image permanently to me. Lying to the american people about a sexual affair under oath gets you thinking about what else he lied about. If he lied about that, what about matters far more serious to the country. That's treading dangerous ground and i see that same personality trait in Kerry.

Clinton was obviously better than Reagan and it shows. The independents who voted Clinton outnumber the independents, repubs and dems who voted Reagan put together.
Yes, because an anonymous online poll at an internet forum means something, idiot.

Saddam Hussein committed as much genocide as Hitler did during the Holocaust on the Jew's. Hitler committed the Holocaust all over europe however, Saddam matched an equivalent body count to match the holocaust in his country alone.
Do you know that Hitler killed 12 million people in the Holocaust? Saddam sure was evil, but he didn't kill that many people.

I'm a Democrat, and I've always liked Clinton, and voted for him on this poll. However, I think Reagan was a good president too, overall. The reason for this is because of his accomplishments in bringing about an end to the Cold War. However, economically, I think he was terrible, BUT that can partly be excused because of the fact that by spending so much, forcing the Soviets to try to keep up, is what hastened the end of Soviet Russia.

Lying to the american people about a sexual affair under oath gets you thinking about what else he lied about.
Didn't Reagan lie about the Iran hostage crisis, and about the Iran-Contra affair? Supporting terrorism after his administration had been banned from doing it by Congress sounds near treasonous to me.

Do you know that Hitler killed 12 million people in the Holocaust? Saddam sure was evil, but he didn't kill that many people.

Actually, the son of a bitch killed over 20 million people. Read, for example, Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel, an excellent, scholarly, meticulously researched book that drew from over a thousand sources and examines virtually every 20th century dictator, on both ends of the political spectrum.

I dont think it was Reagen, i could be wrong so dont rush me at it but i believe it was President Carter that lied about the Iran hostage situation. "I think" so if you could prove it was Reagen i'll accept it, just show me non-biased proof, but i believe it was Carter.

Didn't Reagan lie about the Iran hostage crisis, and about the Iran-Contra affair? Supporting terrorism after his administration had been banned from doing it by Congress sounds near treasonous to me.

Agreed.

Do you know that Hitler killed 12 million people in the Holocaust? Saddam sure was evil, but he didn't kill that many people.

Very true, but that death count is tallied up all over europe, from Poland to France. Saddam Hussein killed millions in his own country alone, nowhere else, such brutality couldnt even be matched by Hitler. Hitler had a much bigger death count overall but country to country Hitler was no contest for Saddam. If you put Saddam in Hitler's position and he ran all of europe the death count would be double of Hitlers in europe. See what im saying? Statiscally speaking.

I'm a Democrat, and I've always liked Clinton, and voted for him on this poll. However, I think Reagan was a good president too, overall. The reason for this is because of his accomplishments in bringing about an end to the Cold War. However, economically, I think he was terrible, BUT that can partly be excused because of the fact that by spending so much, forcing the Soviets to try to keep up, is what hastened the end of Soviet Russia.


Horrible Economically? Did no one read my post?

Taken from my post:

Before Reagan came to power, inflation was becoming a growing issue in the country, when Ronny left office, this was no longer a problem. During his first term, inflation plummeted, during his second it averaged only 3 percent. Interest rates fell all the way to single digits. Gas prices dropped and the oil crisis ended. After the recession of '82, the economy jumped into a seven year period of growth, the largest expansion in peacetime American history. Nearly 20 million jobs were created between 1983 and 1989. At a growth rate of 3.5 percent, the gross national product increased by a third. The stock market more than doubled in value. Poverty and unemployment dropped off sharply. During Reagan's two terms, the US reaffirmed it's position as the world's most powerful economy.

"In 1992, well known economist Robert Barro issued an economic report card for presidents, based on who did the most to boost the economic growth and reduce inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. Of eleven presidents from Truman to Bush, Reagan ranked both first (for his first term) and second (for his second term). Objectively, Reagan's record on this score is the best of all the postwar presidents, including Clinton."

Didn't Reagan lie about the Iran hostage crisis, and about the Iran-Contra affair? Supporting terrorism after his administration had been banned from doing it by Congress sounds near treasonous to me.

Excuse me, the Iran hostage crisis was over before Reagan took office. The hostages were released on Reagan's innaugaration (sp?).

Hmm, regarding the poll, Clinton seems to be no match for Reagan. I think Reagan is popular only in Poland and some other half democracies.

Before Reagan came to power, inflation was becoming a growing issue in the country, when Ronny left office, this was no longer a problem. During his first term, inflation plummeted, during his second it averaged only 3 percent.

Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy, but Presidents have absolutely nothing to do with controlling inflation. The reason why inflation was so high to begin with was because of Fed chairmen who shouldn't have been Fed chairmen (Arthur Burns, et al). Paul Volcker (appointed by democrat Jimmy Carter, by the by) stepped in and wrangled inflation by jacking up short-term interest rates. Paul Volcker set the stage for the economic expansion during the 80's, not Ronald Reagan. If you truly think that Reagan was the sole reason for the economic expansion, well, you're delusional.


PS, ask any economist, supply side economics does not work.

PS, ask any economist, supply side economics does not work.

Alright then, I will.

"Milton Friedman, nobel prize winning economist, do supply side economics work?"

Milton's answer: "Yes. Yes they do. Very well."

Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy, but Presidents have absolutely nothing to do with controlling inflation. The reason why inflation was so high to begin with was because of Fed chairmen who shouldn't have been Fed chairmen (Arthur Burns, et al). Paul Volcker (appointed by democrat Jimmy Carter, by the by) stepped in and wrangled inflation by jacking up short-term interest rates. Paul Volcker set the stage for the economic expansion during the 80's, not Ronald Reagan. If you truly think that Reagan was the sole reason for the economic expansion, well, you're delusional.


PS, ask any economist, supply side economics does not work.


You sure about that?

Jimmy Carter in his 1976 campaign against President Gerald Ford developed a concept known as "misery index", basically the sum of the inflation and unemployment rate, to show how far the economy had plummeted under his administration.

However, Carter faired even worse. The "misery index" rose from about 13% under President Ford to more than 20% under Carter. The misery index fell by more than half under Reagan, less than 10 percent.

You said that Paul Volcker, appointed by an economic failure Carter, set the stage for economic growth? I think not.

And yes, supply side economics do work.

Alright then, I will.

"Milton Friedman, nobel prize winning economist, do supply side economics work?"

Milton's answer: "Yes. Yes they do. Very well."

Friedman has aknowlidged himself that he was wrong on this, just like he was when he said that a big deficit is good fo the US... :rolleyes:

Friedman has aknowlidged himself that he was wrong on this, just like he was when he said that a big deficit is good fo the US... :rolleyes:


Then you can find the quote where he says this himself right?

Then you can find the quote where he says this himself right?

Hmm, "Two Lucky People" (his memoirs) page 102 in the Dutch translation :)

Hmm, "Two Lucky People" (his memoirs) page 102 in the Dutch translation :)

Dutch translation? You'll have to excuse me but I'm not bi-lingual, could you post the quote please?

Dutch translation? You'll have to excuse me but I'm not bi-lingual, ?

Euh me neither, but, since you like to quote him, I would say: buy the book in your own language. But I think it will be a disapointement for you.

Euh me neither, but, since you like to quote him, I would say: buy the book in your own language. But I think it will be a disapointement for you.

I wasn't the one who quoted him.

Ok, so you said that Mr. Friedman admitted that he was wrong about his former support of supply side economics but can't provide an English translation where he admits this?

Sorry but I'm not buying it.

Regan, although a very nice, was a puppet. A complete puppet. Not much else needs to be said.

Clinton was (and still is in many cases) an excellet speaker (very charming, many say), handled the economy perfectly, had a great personality, had unharmed and tight relations with other countries and so much more! Plus, he was made fun of better on SNL! :D

They were both great... but I think Clinton was more spectacular in the economy department, and Reagan maybe glided on his popularity too much. Granted, he had to do something for that landslide popularity, but I don't agree as much with his policies as I do with Clinton.

I am independent, by the way.

As a Canadian I can only observe the US elections, but it seems to me that neither economists nor historians elect Presidents. The people do. Both Reagan and Clinton were able to carry States that traditionally lean towards the other party. In both cases they faced long shots in their re-election bids. Love them or hate them, they were both the men their Country needed at that point in time. Perhaps the debate should be why they were the person needed?
I would say that Reagan was the Elder Statesman the country needed after the embaressment of Nixon and the soft almost timid approach of Carter. The country needed a strong, conservative leader.
Clinton was also the right man at the right time. After 12 years of Reaganomics (Bush Sr. really was only a continuation of the Reagan Presidency) America needed a more liberal and compassionate leader.
There is no right or wrong, it just is.

I wasn't the one who quoted him.

but can't provide an English translation where he admits this?

.

Try reading a post, like said, the book is a Dutch translation. To you to find the original one in English. Jezus, the guy is even translated in Russian.

Do we ask you to give the quotes in Russian/ Chinese/ Dutch or any politician / writer from there that you are talking about? No,so, you have a rather strange approach.

Learn the language (I can give his quote in Dutch) or buy the book.

Friedman has aknowlidged himself that he was wrong on this, just like he was when he said that a big deficit is good fo the US... :rolleyes:

Didn't friedman perform empirical studies that supported supply side though?

I find it very hard to believe that he said it was flat out wrong.

I can buy that he said the way it way implemented was wrong though.

Nevertheless there is no reason why supply side is any more or less effective than a traditional keynesian approach. And both require deficits.

Nevertheless there is no reason why supply side is any more or less effective than a traditional keynesian approach. And both require deficits.

I've never counterspoken that.
I only made the guy attentive to the fact writen in his memoirs.

They were both great... but I think Clinton was more spectacular in the economy department, and Reagan maybe glided on his popularity too much. Granted, he had to do something for that landslide popularity, but I don't agree as much with his policies as I do with Clinton.

I am independent, by the way.

The President has very little that they can actually do to effect the economy. That being said, Reagan got the nation out of Carter's stagflation with his aggressive tax cut policy and the 80's was overall a very prosperous time. Clinton's economy was largely based on the stock market bubble, driven by artificially lowered interest rates, which burst at the end of his term. To be fair, Clinton did very little for the economy either negatively or positively. However, if you want to give the President responsibility for the economy that happens under his watch then you've got to blame Clinton for the recession that started during the last few months of his term, and also blame Bush for the 90's boom which began as he left office (it was Bush's policies that actually instigated the artificially low interest).

I've never counterspoken that.
I only made the guy attentive to the fact writen in his memoirs.

Well I think his point was really that there are economists that support supply side economics. Which there are.

I've never read freidman's memoirs and only really looked at his early work.

What happened? Did he back away from the whole deficit as stimulus deal? I can believe that because, from a theoretical standpoint, he never seemed all that convinced that it was a good idea.

I'm sure if I rooted round though, I could find a couple of economists who believe in supply side.

You said that Paul Volcker, appointed by an economic failure Carter, set the stage for economic growth? I think not.

And yes, supply side economics do work.

Yes, Paul Volcker set the stage for economic growth. Without Paul Volcker, rediculously high inflation rates would have persisted. Volcker's actions, in raising the Federal Funds rate, helped bring inflation down to a manageable level. It wasn't anything magical that Reagan did, it was Volcker raising the Federal Funds rate, plain and simple. As a result, the economy started to take off, the restraints of inflation cast off.

And no, supply side economics does not work. You cannot generate sustained demand through supply side economics.

The best Statesman of the 20th Century and accurate economist!

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"

Guess Who?

The best Statesman of the 20th Century and accurate economist!

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"

Guess Who?

Winston Churchill

Yes, Paul Volcker set the stage for economic growth. Without Paul Volcker, rediculously high inflation rates would have persisted. Volcker's actions, in raising the Federal Funds rate, helped bring inflation down to a manageable level. It wasn't anything magical that Reagan did, it was Volcker raising the Federal Funds rate, plain and simple. As a result, the economy started to take off, the restraints of inflation cast off.

And no, supply side economics does not work. You cannot generate sustained demand through supply side economics.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't alter the captial gains tax scheme so he must have been a supply sider.

And no, supply side economics does not work. You cannot generate sustained demand through supply side economics.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Very good post, the stats showed proof of economic gains under Reagan.