NationStates Jolt Archive

So living in the US as I do, and having a bit of a sense of history, I occasionally feel grumpy upon hearing conservatives idolizing Reagan. Given that even those conservatives are starting to become quite disappointed with Bush, I decided I'd try and compile a list of the top ten reasons why Bush II has been a better president than Reagan.

Unfortunately, I could only find eight. So, top ten reasons why the Bush administration is (so far) better than the Reagan administration:

1.) During Reagan's term in office, the national debt climbed by an average of 14% per year; in the six fiscal years since Bush took office, the national debt has had an average growth rate of only 8%.

2.) The Reagan administration funded and armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, armed religious extremists who later became the Taliban. The Bush administration has at least temporarily loosened the hold of the Taliban on the country and aided in an international effort to reconstruct the country, which has been in dire straits for a long time.

3.) The Reagan administration stepped up support for Saddam Hussein and Iraq, funding a military engine that the US army would fight during the next three presidencies.

4.) The Reagan administration tacitly condoned the use of chemical weapons by Iraq both against Iranians and Kurds. The Bush administration has expressed a low tolerance for chemical weapons use, condemning even the continued presence of old chemical agents that the Iraqis appeared to have accidentally misplaced during the Iran-Iraq or Persian Gulf conflict following the fall of Saddam Hussein.

5.) The Reagan administration actively armed both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. To my knowledge, the Bush administration has not supported both sides in any conflict.

6.) The Bush administration has tried to fight HIV/AIDS (mainly in Africa) and has been willing to throw billions of dollars at this deadly disease. The Reagan administration almost completely ignored the disease; studies went underfunded, and Reagan remained publicly silent on the issue until 1987.

7.) President Bush is known to exercise regularly and has made numerous public statements about child obesity. The Reagan administration attempted to classify ketchup and pickle relish as vegetables for the purpose of school lunch nutrition.

8.) The average unemployment rate has been close to two points lower during the Bush administration than during the Reagan administration.

Anybody have two more that actually are measures of comparison between Reagan and Bush II that both a sensible person like myself and a conservative pundit would accept as favoring Bush II?

Reagan's image got quite a makeover in the years after his presidency. He was one of our shittiest presidents, in my opinion.

9) He hasn't stolen anybody's cheese.

10) Reagen liked Margaret Thatcher. Bush Jr. has yet to express any feelings on the matter.

So living in the US as I do, and having a bit of a sense of history, I occasionally feel grumpy upon hearing conservatives idolizing Reagan. Given that even those conservatives are starting to become quite disappointed with Bush, I decided I'd try and compile a list of the top ten reasons why Bush II has been a better president than Reagan.

Unfortunately, I could only find eight. So, top ten reasons why the Bush administration is (so far) better than the Reagan administration:

1.) During Reagan's term in office, the national debt climbed by an average of 14% per year; in the six fiscal years since Bush took office, the national debt has had an average growth rate of only 8%.

2.) The Reagan administration funded and armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, armed religious extremists who later became the Taliban. The Bush administration has at least temporarily loosened the hold of the Taliban on the country and aided in an international effort to reconstruct the country, which has been in dire straits for a long time.

not all Mujahideen became Taliban infact our current allies in Afghanistan, the also Islamic northern alliance, is also lead by former Mujahideen

3.) The Reagan administration stepped up support for Saddam Hussein and Iraq, funding a military engine that the US army would fight during the next three presidencies.

4.) The Reagan administration tacitly condoned the use of chemical weapons by Iraq both against Iranians and Kurds. The Bush administration has expressed a low tolerance for chemical weapons use, condemning even the continued presence of old chemical agents that the Iraqis appeared to have accidentally misplaced during the Iran-Iraq or Persian Gulf conflict following the fall of Saddam Hussein.

5.) The Reagan administration actively armed both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. To my knowledge, the Bush administration has not supported both sides in any conflict.
kinda hard to arm both sides in a conflict when everyone is against you.
6.) The Bush administration has tried to fight HIV/AIDS (mainly in Africa) and has been willing to throw billions of dollars at this deadly disease. The Reagan administration almost completely ignored the disease; studies went underfunded, and Reagan remained publicly silent on the issue until 1987.
until 1987 HIV was killing less people per year then the common cold it would be a serious waste of money to research every thing that may well turn out to be nothing but a minor disease.
7.) President Bush is known to exercise regularly and has made numerous public statements about child obesity. The Reagan administration attempted to classify ketchup and pickle relish as vegetables for the purpose of school lunch nutrition.
the condiment as a vegetable proposal was in response to a congressional mandate to cut money from the school lunch program


8.) The average unemployment rate has been close to two points lower during the Bush administration than during the Reagan administration.
how was Reagan's unemployment compared to his predecessor ?
How is Bush's unemployment rating compared to his predecessor?
not to mention all the other factors.


Anybody have two more that actually are measures of comparison between Reagan and Bush II that both a sensible person like myself and a conservative pundit would accept as favoring Bush II?
Reagan came into a really crappy economy from Carter and turned it around. Bush II came into a great Economy of Clinton and turned it into what we have today ?

you should consider into the equation they served during different world conditions/years and what was/is going in the world during each presidency

The title makes me think of Alien Vs. Predator.

Whoever wins, we lose.

You can't really compare them very well due to the sheer difference in the geopolitical situation; the demise of the Soviet Union and its satellites as well as the Chinese reform have effectively destroyed the sole real alternative to global capitalism, producing huge structural shifts in the economy that were not present in the 1980's.

However, from a strictly domestic economic vantage point, Reagan's administration wins by a mile; the reason why unemployment was elevated in the 1980's was due to a huge increase in labor force participation, which combined with strong GDP growth, low inflation, and a strong stock market produced some of the strongest gains in household income in US history. Overall, people were considerably better off at the end of the 1980's than at their beginning. The policies of that period certainly played a role in the strong growth of the 1990's.

That being said, no President has the ability to really influence the economy; while their policies can certainly affect things, this is more the province and responsibility of Congress than the President.

not all Mujahideen became Taliban infact our current allies in Afghanistan, the also Islamic northern alliance, is also lead by former Mujahideen
Those allies are the more moderate elements in Afghanistan. Which part of arming religious extremists being a bad idea don't you get?
kinda hard to arm both sides in a conflict when everyone is against you. until 1987 HIV was killing less people per year then the common cold it would be a serious waste of money to research every thing that may well turn out to be nothing but a minor disease.
By late 1981 it was clear that HIV was not homosexual-specific.

By 1983 it was identified as a clear public health menace of great potential - incurable, inevitably lethal, and spreading quickly. By the time Reagan even acknowledged the existence of AIDs, it had been in the public eye for several years, thousands of people were known to have died from it, and infections were spreading exponentially.

Major vectors were already known to include unsafe blood transfusions and needle-sharing among drug addicts, and it was clear to experts that AIDS was a real problem. In the same year that Reagan made his first ineffectual proposals relating to AIDS, the WHO estimated that 5-10 million people worldwide had been infected with HIV.
the condiment as a vegetable proposal was in response to a congressional mandate to cut money from the school lunch program
It was a terrible idea.
how was Reagan's unemployment compared to his predecessor ?
The average unemployment rate in the eight years 1981-1988 was 7.54%. The four year span of 1977-1980 had an average unemployment rate of 6.53%, meaning under Reagan, unemployment slipped by one point.
How is Bush's unemployment rating compared to his predecessor?
not to mention all the other factors.
Bush's average unadjusted unemployment rate is actually pretty close to Clinton's.

Of course, the rate itself doesn't tell the full story. It's just one of the metrics that could be used to support the claim Bush II was a better president.
Reagan came into a really crappy economy from Carter and turned it around. Bush II came into a great Economy of Clinton and turned it into what we have today ?
GDP growth is one measure by which Reagan measures up better than Bush II.

I am not really convinced that the economy turned around because of Reagan.

I think a real problem with alot of Republican strategies is the fact that they come from "Reagan's Playbook" so to speak...Regardless of what you think of Reagan...There's no denying that things have changed since the 80s...

Honestly, you cant fight Global Terrorism with the same tactics of the Cold War, Al Queda and its knockoffs are not the Soviet Union and cant be fought the same way, which is what most Republicans seem to want to do...

And, You cant have an Economics plan in today's Global Economy using the same trickle down economics as Reagan, if you do, businesses go bankrupt, people lose jobs, and the Economy slumps, evidence by the current economic slide...

EDIT: also, how did you get an Avatar, the control never works for me, its stuck on 'do not use avatar'

Ketchup = vegetable.

If that's not reason enough, there's Iran-Contra and Reagan's cronies, including Attorney General Edwin Meese, then the nation's top law enforcement executive, who had FOUR separate special prosecutors unleashed on him during his tenure. Or David "the hitman" Stockman, North, Poindexter, Secord, the list goes on.

Reagen= better then Bush.

Reagen= Hypocrite.

Reagen and Bush= Republicans

Republicans= Fail.
:D

You can't really compare them very well due to the sheer difference in the geopolitical situation; the demise of the Soviet Union and its satellites as well as the Chinese reform have effectively destroyed the sole real alternative to global capitalism, producing huge structural shifts in the economy that were not present in the 1980's.

However, from a strictly domestic economic vantage point, Reagan's administration wins by a mile; the reason why unemployment was elevated in the 1980's was due to a huge increase in labor force participation,
Accounting for slightly higher average labor force participation, Reagan completely fails to have a greater fraction of the population actually employed than Carter.

Almost the exact same fraction of the population actually employed, it's just that slightly more of the population was looking for jobs. Increased supply of labor relative to population, unchanged demand of labor relative to population.
(Source: BLS.gov.)
which combined with strong GDP growth, low inflation,
Average real GDP growth adjusted for inflation during the Carter administration: 3.26%. (Total increase 14% from 1976 to 1980.)
Average real GDP growth adjusted for inflation during the Reagan administration: 3.4%. (Total increase 31% from 1980 to 1988.)
(Source: BEA.gov.)

1980 was a bad year, and it was an election year, so the Carter administration ended right there on a bad note. Thank the Iranian revolution, OPEC, and Iraq's sudden invasion of Iran for that.

1982, in the aftermath of Reagan's tax cuts, was an even worse year for real GDP growth - the worst since 1946. Thank... wait, oil prices were dropping big time. So why again?

Inflation - the real psychological shocker - stopped during Reagan's administration, but over the whole of his eight year administration, growth was closer to the Carter administration than the Clinton administration (3.71% - twice the difference). Bush I and II have both been spectacularly bad, which - in context - makes Clinton look like even more of an economic genius.
and a strong stock market produced some of the strongest gains in household income in US history. Overall, people were considerably better off at the end of the 1980's than at their beginning. The policies of that period certainly played a role in the strong growth of the 1990's.
Almost certainly not. The addition of an entire sector to the economy had a role. The 90's boom kicked off right after Clinton's tax hike... and after Bush I's recession. There is no question that Bush I's recession was at least as closely related to the Reagan administration's activities, including the infamous S&L meltdown.

Bush II applied the traditional Reagan remedy to the booming 90s economy - tax cuts - and killed it. Bush II has been a very fervent believer in Reaganesque policy - lots of military spending, high federal deficits, and tax cuts.
That being said, no President has the ability to really influence the economy; while their policies can certainly affect things, this is more the province and responsibility of Congress than the President.
Presidents have an enormous amount of power in determining what legislation is passed and how much spending takes place - much more than any individual congressperson. In the case of Bush II and Reagan, most of the flagship initiatives with an impact on the economy were initiated by the president - military spending programs, "tax relief" programs, et cetera.

Presidential appointees and administrative policies have pretty immediate effects. Right now, our current government - Bush and the Democratic congress - are trying to figure out what to do about the mortgage meltdown. Whatever they decide will have huge effects in the coming six months.

Accounting for slightly higher average labor force participation, Reagan completely fails to have a greater fraction of the population actually employed than Carter.

Almost the exact same fraction of the population actually employed, it's just that slightly more of the population was looking for jobs. Increased supply of labor relative to population, unchanged demand of labor relative to population.
(Source: BLS.gov.)

Average real GDP growth adjusted for inflation during the Carter administration: 3.26%. (Total increase 14% from 1976 to 1980.)
Average real GDP growth adjusted for inflation during the Reagan administration: 3.4%. (Total increase 31% from 1980 to 1988.)
(Source: BEA.gov.)

1980 was a bad year, and it was an election year, so the Carter administration ended right there on a bad note. Thank the Iranian revolution, OPEC, and Iraq's sudden invasion of Iran for that.

1982, in the aftermath of Reagan's tax cuts, was an even worse year for real GDP growth - the worst since 1946. Thank... wait, oil prices were dropping big time. So why again?

Inflation - the real psychological shocker - stopped during Reagan's administration, but over the whole of his eight year administration, growth was closer to the Carter administration than the Clinton administration (3.71% - twice the difference). Bush I and II have both been spectacularly bad, which - in context - makes Clinton look like even more of an economic genius.

Almost certainly not. The addition of an entire sector to the economy had a role. The 90's boom kicked off right after Clinton's tax hike... and after Bush I's recession. There is no question that Bush I's recession was at least as closely related to the Reagan administration's activities, including the infamous S&L meltdown.

Bush II applied the traditional Reagan remedy to the booming 90s economy - tax cuts - and killed it. Bush II has been a very fervent believer in Reaganesque policy - lots of military spending, high federal deficits, and tax cuts.

Presidents have an enormous amount of power in determining what legislation is passed and how much spending takes place - much more than any individual congressperson. In the case of Bush II and Reagan, most of the flagship initiatives with an impact on the economy were initiated by the president - military spending programs, "tax relief" programs, et cetera.

Presidential appointees and administrative policies have pretty immediate effects. Right now, our current government - Bush and the Democratic congress - are trying to figure out what to do about the mortgage meltdown. Whatever they decide will have huge effects in the coming six months.

The sweet, sweet ring of truth.

EDIT: also, how did you get an Avatar, the control never works for me, its stuck on 'do not use avatar'
I suppose it's a perk of being a [voluntarily] retired moderator.

They actually forced me to start using one way back when.

Without the heritage of Reagan, G.W. Bush wouldn't have been able to all those beautiful things that have made the world a safer and more peaceful place, also don't forget the current economic stability of the United States. Reagan and G.W. Bush: a match that was meant to be!

Without the heritage of Reagan, G.W. Bush wouldn't have been able to all those beautiful things that have made the world a safer and more peaceful place, also don't forget the current economic stability of the United States. Reagan and G.W. Bush: a match that was meant to be!
Please tell me that was satire.