Best Presidident 1980-current

[Phatscotty]

I would say the President and the executive are the single most important person and office in determining the state of the economy. Through the budget they propose, the influence they have in businesses, society, lawmakers and internationally they are far and away more powerful then other players in the game.

100% disagree, 1000%.....

Case to point, GWB had awful economic ideas and he created a huge deficit, .[/quote]



Yeah, that bush deficit was HUGE! when did bushes economic ideas start? 2009?

the GDP grew every year 2000-2008. I am not making realities here, just observing them. care to join me for once?

[thegreekdog]

Greek, I think its your job to prove that trickle down economics does work. You can't just throw something out and say prove this doesn't work.

Btw, he did more for the economy then any of the other presidents? Clinton maintained a pretty damn solid economy throughout his tenure (he created 22m jobs during his time vs Reagans 16m) and Obama has had to rescue an economy in its worst state in 80 years. Believe me I think Reagan was a good president and did some great stuff, but it seems everyone who adores him points to the same soundbite stuff which doesn't stand up to the facts.

I'll take your second point first - I do not believe Presidents can actually affect the economy unless they direct the regulation of the economy through various regulatory bodies (that are under the executive branch's control) or unless they direct proposals in Congress. So, if we take someone like President Clinton - I think he actually let everything be from the prior administrations; if I recall correctly he did not direct much in the way of economic legislation, although I cannot recall whether he directed regulatory bodies to do anything differently. I would say the same thing about President Bush I, except that he directed Congress to raise taxes, which (per your first point) would hurt the economy. I think President Obama's direction of policies will have a great effect on the economy. We'll see whether that will be a good effect or a bad effect. I predict bad (although I did like his State of the Union).

Now to the first point - trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is not so much a theory as reality. We talk a lot about how companies pass through their costs to consumers. They also pass through their taxes, fines, fees, and the like. You know I like examples, so I'll give one here.

In a vacuum, Company X makes approximately $1,000,000 in receipts and charges $1 for each widget it sells. It has 10 employees and pays each $20,000 ($200,000), so Company X's profit is $800,000 (assuming it gets its raw materials for widgets for free). Company X has 100 shareholders.

A union comes along and renegotiates salaries to $40,000 for each employee. Now Company X's profit is $600,000, which is fine with the owners of Company X.

Company X's shareholders demand a greater share of profits, so they get a dividend of $1,000 each for each year. Now, with the union and the dividends, Company X's profits are down to $500,000 a year.

The federal, state, and local governments come in and imposes a tax of 50% (aggregate) on all of Company X's profits ($250,000). So now Company X is making $250,000.

The federal government passes a new law requiring that widgets be made with environmentally friendly materials. This costs Company X $100,000 in extra fees when it purchases its widgets. Now Company X is making $150,000.

Finally, the federal government raises taxes on oil fuels, which causes Company X to pay an additional $150,000 to cover those taxes. So Company X now has $0 of income.

The Company X union comes in and demands another salary increase. What can Company X do?

(1) Fire 1 or more employees, which reduces production.
(2) Stop paying dividends, resulting in a sale of stock and possibly dissolution.
(3) Stop paying taxes, resulting in penalties, fines, and jail time.
(4) Stop making environmentally friendly widgets, resulting in penalties, fines, and jail time.
(5) Stop buying oil, resulting in reduction in production.
(6) Raise prices on widgets to $2 a piece.

Which one does Company X pick? #6.

So, Company X raises its widget prices. Now, Company Y, which buys widgets from Company X, has to raise it's price on televisions (which, as everyone knows, uses widgets). Now consumers (me, you, and Phatscotty) have to pay more for televisions and have less money to spend on other things.

Based on this illustration, I would say that trickle down economics is reality. Now, this is a simplistic version of events, I realize that. However, with more money, companies can do a variety of things - they can invest the money (the money will get spent on something in the economy, boosting GDP), they can spend the money (boosting GDP), they can hire more employees (always a good thing), they can give more money to shareholders (who will spend the money, boosting GDP), or they can donate money to charity. There are any number of things a company can do with more money that will assist in the health of the economy. With less money, a company does less. Rich people and business owners are always going to take care of themselves. If the government squeezes them enough, they stop buying nice shit, which negatively affects the economy, or they will fire employees, which negatively affects the economy. There is a balance between taxation and free market, but trickle down economics is a real thing.

[Juan_Bottom]

You want reasoning, I'll provide reasoning. He was a better president than Presidents Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. He did more for the economy of the country. He did more for the foreign policy of the country.

Ok, you say this and then you say;

Please do. But, make sure you tell us why you believe douchebag. And if you give reasons why he is a douchebag, make sure you give reasons behind the reasons he is a douchebag. For example, if you say "he cut taxes for the rich" or "trickle down economics don't work," please provide the whys.

TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE. You didn't follow through on your reasoning. You just threw broad stuff out there.

Frankly, I don't think "he invaded a peaceful country (which I do not acknowledge Grenada to have been) and lied about it" is good reasoning for voting for someone else.

This is a direct violation of the Constitution, and basically a "f*ck you, wont do what you tell me" to Congress. As I already stated, he violated the War Powers Act. He then lied about why he attacked them. And frankly, when a president violates the Constitution he is sworn to protect & invents an excuse to attack a nation that isn't threatening anyone, he can't really be called a good guy anymore.
Furthermore, your lack of an acknowledgment isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. You're not adding or taking away anything from the conversation, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalalaalalala."
Oh, there's an emotcon for that:



Reason's Reagan sucked:

Anti-Labor
In 1981 he fired 13,000 striking traffic controllers and destroyed their Union.
He later placed people who opposed unions into government agencies that were supposed to protect workers rights.
His administration allowed employers to fire workers who were trying to organize or join unions.
His administration did not enforce laws which sought to stop employers from replacing full-time employees with "temporary" employees; This way, they didn't have to provide benefits.

Reagan appointed three of five members of the National Labor Relations Board, all were anti-union. The NLRB's legal duty is to protect worker rights, and settle cases between workers and employers. After these appointments, which included the chairmen, the NLRB settled about half of the complaints against illegal firings as had all the other previous administrations since it's creation.
Of these cases which were settled; employers won 3/4ths of the time. That was also a record. Under Reagan, a case took about 3 years to be ruled on.

Under Reagan, employers could permanently replace any worker who went on strike.

The Labor Department, under Reagan, saw a decrease of funding by about 10%. But saw an increase in it's budget of 40% for legal actions to break up unions. Unions were also required to file any and all paperwork that was required by law. Employers who hired "consultants" were not forcibly required to file such paperwork.

Environmental issues
*once said trees cause pollution
*lax at enforcing antipollution laws (when he did)
*opened up public land to private corporations, for mining, drilling, ect
*politicized environmental agencies as a way to achieve his agenda by filling positions with loyalists
*Ignored warnings of Global Warming
*shrunk the size the president's environmental advisory groups, and their budgets
*asked for complete scientific consensus before being willing to discuss how to fix an environmental issue... Like Acid Rain or Global Warming.

Other items of interest
*tried to lower minimum wage for younger employees
*scaled back job training programs, especially for unemployed
*eased enforcement of sweatshop laws
*eased enforcement of child labor laws
*laxed (majorly) enforcement of affirmative action
*created the system of "voluntary compliance" for employers with regards to existing safety issues

*closed 1/3 of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices
*cut the staff of Occupational Safety and Health Administration by more than one-fourth
*decreased the number of penalties that could be taken against employers by almost three-fourths.


Terrible policies
*Star Wars
*Afghan military AID without the knowledge or permission of Congress; the Iran/Contra Affair
*Sold Weapons to Saddam Hussein
*Deregulation of banking industry
*Slashed income taxes on the wealthiest Americans (supply side economics) (which actually increased the deficit)
*Helped Pakistan develop the bomb in exchange for sending aid to the Afghanistan rebels
*Created an aura of resentment in Latin America for constantly interfering with politics (not the only president to do so)
*Supported Nicaraguan insurgents (then never paid Nicaragua the reparations that the world court ordered us to)
*Supported Angolan insurgents
*Helped father the Neoconservative movement and Uniform Executive Theory (imperial presidency)
*His legal team created the idea of "wedge issues" to divide the public
*Drug use among youth climbed during his presidency
*His economic policies lead in part to jobs shifting over seas
*Deregulation of Wall Street
*More than doubled the amount of money a corporate CEO could earn in a years time (and then doubled that before leaving office) (that's about 100X the average salaried employee)
*Eased executive-branch accountability to the Legeslative branch and to itself since the Executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws
*Issued "secret executive orders" (these were just actual executive orders that were not to be made public)

Yeah, that bush deficit was HUGE! when did bushes economic ideas start? 2009?

They started with Reagan. At least, that's where his ideas allegedly came from.
You're also skewing how to interpret the GDP, and the continued effects of Bush's policies.

[saxitoxin]

Obama has had to rescue an economy in its worst state in 80 years.

Oh, the economy has been rescued! Great news!

Hey gang - the economy has been rescued, stop worrying, Obama rescued the economy. Tell those Greeks to get back in their huts and those Americans on unemployment to get off the dole and the Yorkshire teen moms on milk rations to hit the town - the problem's been solved!

Great!

Now, what's next on the agenda?

[saxitoxin]

You want reasoning, I'll provide reasoning. He was a better president than Presidents Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. He did more for the economy of the country. He did more for the foreign policy of the country.
Ok, you say this and then you say;
Please do. But, make sure you tell us why you believe douchebag. And if you give reasons why he is a douchebag, make sure you give reasons behind the reasons he is a douchebag. For example, if you say "he cut taxes for the rich" or "trickle down economics don't work," please provide the whys.

TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE. You didn't follow through on your reasoning. You just threw broad stuff out there.

Frankly, I don't think "he invaded a peaceful country (which I do not acknowledge Grenada to have been) and lied about it" is good reasoning for voting for someone else.
This is a direct violation of the Constitution, and basically a "f*ck you, wont do what you tell me" to Congress. As I already stated, he violated the War Powers Act. He then lied about why he attacked them. And frankly, when a president violates the Constitution he is sworn to protect & invents an excuse to attack a nation that isn't threatening anyone, he can't really be called a good guy anymore.
Furthermore, your lack of an acknowledgment isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. You're not adding or taking away anything from the conversation, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalalaalalala."
Oh, there's an emotcon for that:



Reason's Reagan sucked:

Anti-Labor
In 1981 he fired 13,000 striking traffic controllers and destroyed their Union.
He later placed people who opposed unions into government agencies that were supposed to protect workers rights.
His administration allowed employers to fire workers who were trying to organize or join unions.
His administration did not enforce laws which sought to stop employers from replacing full-time employees with "temporary" employees; This way, they didn't have to provide benefits.

Reagan appointed three of five members of the National Labor Relations Board, all were anti-union. The NLRB's legal duty is to protect worker rights, and settle cases between workers and employers. After these appointments, which included the chairmen, the NLRB settled about half of the complaints against illegal firings as had all the other previous administrations since it's creation.
Of these cases which were settled; employers won 3/4ths of the time. That was also a record. Under Reagan, a case took about 3 years to be ruled on.

Under Reagan, employers could permanently replace any worker who went on strike.

The Labor Department, under Reagan, saw a decrease of funding by about 10%. But saw an increase in it's budget of 40% for legal actions to break up unions. Unions were also required to file any and all paperwork that was required by law. Employers who hired "consultants" were not forcibly required to file such paperwork.

Environmental issues
*once said trees cause pollution
*lax at enforcing antipollution laws (when he did)
*opened up public land to private corporations, for mining, drilling, ect
*politicized environmental agencies as a way to achieve his agenda by filling positions with loyalists
*Ignored warnings of Global Warming
*shrunk the size the president's environmental advisory groups, and their budgets
*asked for complete scientific consensus before being willing to discuss how to fix an environmental issue... Like Acid Rain or Global Warming.

Other items of interest
*tried to lower minimum wage for younger employees
*scaled back job training programs, especially for unemployed
*eased enforcement of sweatshop laws
*eased enforcement of child labor laws
*laxed (majorly) enforcement of affirmative action
*created the system of "voluntary compliance" for employers with regards to existing safety issues

*closed 1/3 of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices
*cut the staff of Occupational Safety and Health Administration by more than one-fourth
*decreased the number of penalties that could be taken against employers by almost three-fourths.


Terrible policies
*Star Wars
*Afghan military AID without the knowledge or permission of Congress; the Iran/Contra Affair
*Sold Weapons to Saddam Hussein
*Deregulation of banking industry
*Slashed income taxes on the wealthiest Americans (supply side economics) (which actually increased the deficit)
*Helped Pakistan develop the bomb in exchange for sending aid to the Afghanistan rebels
*Created an aura of resentment in Latin America for constantly interfering with politics (not the only president to do so)
*Supported Nicaraguan insurgents (then never paid Nicaragua the reparations that the world court ordered us to)
*Supported Angolan insurgents
*Helped father the Neoconservative movement and Uniform Executive Theory (imperial presidency)
*His legal team created the idea of "wedge issues" to divide the public
*Drug use among youth climbed during his presidency
*His economic policies lead in part to jobs shifting over seas
*Deregulation of Wall Street
*More than doubled the amount of money a corporate CEO could earn in a years time (and then doubled that before leaving office) (that's about 100X the average salaried employee)
*Eased executive-branch accountability to the Legeslative branch and to itself since the Executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws
*Issued "secret executive orders" (these were just actual executive orders that were not to be made public)
Yeah, that bush deficit was HUGE! when did bushes economic ideas start? 2009?
They started with Reagan. At least, that's where his ideas allegedly came from.
You're also skewing how to interpret the GDP, and the continued effects of Bush's policies.

I disagree.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'll take your second point first - I do not believe Presidents can actually affect the economy unless they direct the regulation of the economy through various regulatory bodies (that are under the executive branch's control) or unless they direct proposals in Congress.

Bush II certainly did. He filed the executive branch (always against the law or against Congress's original intentions) with party loyalists. He also issued something like 6 vetoes during his entire presidency. Instead, he would issue executive orders after a bill was passed that would say which lines he interpreted as violating the Constitution or infringing upon the separation of powers, so he would not enforce the law. He also used this on laws written before his rise to power. This is how he got around the McCain Torture Ban. And the Geneva Conventions. And government regulations for the economy.
Reagan issued an Executive Order declaring that all law-making bodies in the Executive Branch (created by Congress) to send a written proposal to him before they could create a new law. Though this was quite arguably unconstitutional,.. he did it so he could stop regulatory departments from going against his agenda. Bill Clinton expanded this by requiring the agencies to explain what problem the laws were intended to fix. Unlike Reagan, Bill Clinton never oppossed a law. He actually used his system to announce new laws that would be enacted, as a way to take credit for all the work done in his executive branch. Bush II however, used this to deny shitloads of laws, including new laws that would help regulate/slow bank lending and the housing market.

He also pretty much got everything he ever wanted from Congress.

I disagree.

Sh!t.

[thegreekdog]

Reason's Reagan sucked:

Anti-Labor
In 1981 he fired 13,000 striking traffic controllers and destroyed their Union. - So? Do you know why he did this?
He later placed people who opposed unions into government agencies that were supposed to protect workers rights.So? President Obama has placed a whole host of opposition people in government agencies where they don't belong. Ask me how the current DHC chairwoman is doing
His administration allowed employers to fire workers who were trying to organize or join unions.So? Read President Obama's stance on secret union ballots.
His administration did not enforce laws which sought to stop employers from replacing full-time employees with "temporary" employees; This way, they didn't have to provide benefits.Yeah, this is a bad one. I'll agree on this.

Reagan appointed three of five members of the National Labor Relations Board, all were anti-union. The NLRB's legal duty is to protect worker rights, and settle cases between workers and employers. After these appointments, which included the chairmen, the NLRB settled about half of the complaints against illegal firings as had all the other previous administrations since it's creation.
Of these cases which were settled; employers won 3/4ths of the time. That was also a record. Under Reagan, a case took about 3 years to be ruled on.FDR packed the Supreme Court.

Under Reagan, employers could permanently replace any worker who went on strike. Yeah, I don't think this is true.

The Labor Department, under Reagan, saw a decrease of funding by about 10%. But saw an increase in it's budget of 40% for legal actions to break up unions. Unions were also required to file any and all paperwork that was required by law. Employers who hired "consultants" were not forcibly required to file such paperwork.I don't believe this one either.

Environmental issues
*once said trees cause pollutionAs of early 2010, breathing apparently causes pollution. Obama once said there were 58 states. Bush said, "No new taxes." President Obama believes Wall Street is evil, yet will not give any campaign donations back that he took from them.
*lax at enforcing antipollution laws (when he did)Bush I and Bush II did the same thing.
*opened up public land to private corporations, for mining, drilling, ectGood.
*politicized environmental agencies as a way to achieve his agenda by filling positions with loyalistsBecause no other presidents ever do that, right?
*Ignored warnings of Global Warming
*shrunk the size the president's environmental advisory groups, and their budgetsGood.
*asked for complete scientific consensus before being willing to discuss how to fix an environmental issue... Like Acid Rain or Global Warming.Good.

Other items of interest
*tried to lower minimum wage for younger employeesGood.
*scaled back job training programs, especially for unemployedThis is bad, I'll give you that one.
*eased enforcement of sweatshop lawsAlso bad, I'll give you this one.
*eased enforcement of child labor lawsAnd bad.
*laxed (majorly) enforcement of affirmative actionGood.
*created the system of "voluntary compliance" for employers with regards to existing safety issuesDefinitely bad.

*closed 1/3 of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field officesProbably needed to be done, but I'll say bad.
*cut the staff of Occupational Safety and Health Administration by more than one-fourth Same as above
*decreased the number of penalties that could be taken against employers by almost three-fourths.Same as above.


Terrible policies
*Star WarsWe didn't know this was terrible at the time.
*Afghan military AID without the knowledge or permission of Congress; the Iran/Contra AffairAgain, see Clinton, Bill for a comparison.
*Sold Weapons to Saddam HusseinYep... why did he do that?
*Deregulation of banking industryGood.
*Slashed income taxes on the wealthiest Americans (supply side economics) (which actually increased the deficit)Good.
*Helped Pakistan develop the bomb in exchange for sending aid to the Afghanistan rebelsYep... why did he do that?
*Created an aura of resentment in Latin America for constantly interfering with politics (not the only president to do so)Okay.
*Supported Nicaraguan insurgents (then never paid Nicaragua the reparations that the world court ordered us to)Okay.
*Supported Angolan insurgentsOkay.
*Helped father the Neoconservative movement and Uniform Executive Theory (imperial presidency)HA! Okay.
*His legal team created the idea of "wedge issues" to divide the publicYeah, President Obama doesn't do that now...
*Drug use among youth climbed during his presidencyBecause he told kids to use drugs?
*His economic policies lead in part to jobs shifting over seasNo, unions did that.
*Deregulation of Wall StreetGood.
*More than doubled the amount of money a corporate CEO could earn in a years time (and then doubled that before leaving office) (that's about 100X the average salaried employee)No, he actually can't do that.
*Eased executive-branch accountability to the Legeslative branch and to itself since the Executive branch is supposed to enforce the lawsI think FDR started this one my man. And it's not like any president since FDR has not taken advatnage of this.
*Issued "secret executive orders" (these were just actual executive orders that were not to be made public)Yeah, so?

See my comments in bold above. Some of them I agree with. Some of them I think are based on specious fact. Some of them I think are good things. Some of them President Reagan had no control over.

However, and I'll say this again, the bad stuff he did compares favorably with the bad stuff other presidents did. For example, you deride him for military actions without the approval of Congress, secret orders, and empowering the executive branch. I say, name some presidents who didn't and don't still do that stuff. I'm saying, of the choices above, he's the best. From a domestic standpoint, in my mind, he's a top 10 president. From a foreign standpoint, he's top 5.

If I have time tomorrow, I'll provide a list of the good things he did (or, rather the things I liked... because, really, your list has more to do with things you don't like and has little to do with bad things).

[thegreekdog]

Obama has had to rescue an economy in its worst state in 80 years.

Oh, the economy has been rescued! Great news!

Hey gang - the economy has been rescued, stop worrying, Obama rescued the economy. Tell those Greeks to get back in their huts and those Americans on unemployment to get off the dole and the Yorkshire teen moms on milk rations to hit the town - the problem's been solved!

Great!

Now, what's next on the agenda?

Most Greeks do not live in huts.

[thegreekdog]

Bush II certainly did. He filed the executive branch (always against the law or against Congress's original intentions) with party loyalists. He also issued something like 6 vetoes during his entire presidency. Instead, he would issue executive orders after a bill was passed that would say which lines he interpreted as violating the Constitution or infringing upon the separation of powers, so he would not enforce the law. He also used this on laws written before his rise to power. This is how he got around the McCain Torture Ban. And the Geneva Conventions. And government regulations for the economy.
Reagan issued an Executive Order declaring that all law-making bodies in the Executive Branch (created by Congress) to send a written proposal to him before they could create a new law. Though this was quite arguably unconstitutional,.. he did it so he could stop regulatory departments from going against his agenda. Bill Clinton expanded this by requiring the agencies to explain what problem the laws were intended to fix. Unlike Reagan, Bill Clinton never oppossed a law. He actually used his system to announce new laws that would be enacted, as a way to take credit for all the work done in his executive branch. Bush II however, used this to deny shitloads of laws, including new laws that would help regulate/slow bank lending and the housing market.

Good God man! All presidents do that shit! President Clinton populated the White House and every federal regulatory body with his buddies from Arkansas. Clinton tried to get a line-item veto! A LINE ITEM VETO!!!! Dude, seriously, you're drinking too much blue Kool Aid.

As an aside, while Bush II certainly did not help the economic crisis, I urge you to look towards certain members of Congress that may or may not be retiring from public life and who, as far as I can see, are Democrats.

[jefjef]

You actually have the nerve to try to demonize one of the greatest champions of America and freedom?

We and the world still benefit from his efforts to this day.

[nietzsche]

And why is this relevant?

[jay_a2j]

I'm gonna need to know why people would ever pick Reagan. He boosted our economy by removing worker and environment protections. He also made several power grabs that G.H.W.Bush was able to use later to advance his goal of an Imperial Presidency.

The 80's Economic Boom! was huge. And he proved less taxes drives the economy.


This will be quite evident once the 2010-12 Economic Collapse is complete.

[Titanic]

Greek is you want a proper economic debate on trickle down economics vs keynesian I will be more then glad to have it in another topic.

On note, I can't beleive you think that Presidents don't play a key role in the economy. Reagan used his position to push through all the lassez faire laws and to cut taxes by a substancial amount and to carry out all his other policies. Bush used his presidency for roughly the same thing but to greater effect (and eventually disaster). Obama has used his power to push through the bailouts and stimulus and healthcare and hopefully a lot of the other stuff that he promised.

The president generally sets the tone for the economic shape of the country and then argues with congress about exactly how it will be shaped. Also with all the people the president appoints to economic boards, labor boards and so on these people play a real role in the creation and implementation of legislation.

[thegreekdog]

Greek is you want a proper economic debate on trickle down economics vs keynesian I will be more then glad to have it in another topic.

On note, I can't beleive you think that Presidents don't play a key role in the economy. Reagan used his position to push through all the lassez faire laws and to cut taxes by a substancial amount and to carry out all his other policies. Bush used his presidency for roughly the same thing but to greater effect (and eventually disaster). Obama has used his power to push through the bailouts and stimulus and healthcare and hopefully a lot of the other stuff that he promised.

The president generally sets the tone for the economic shape of the country and then argues with congress about exactly how it will be shaped. Also with all the people the president appoints to economic boards, labor boards and so on these people play a real role in the creation and implementation of legislation.

Presidents play a key role probably, but a good or bad president does not make a good or bad economy. I used to think that small businesses had the greatest effect on the economy; now I think it's banks (unfortunately).

EDIT - I can't do a proper debate because I simply don't have time to do research. Perhaps in a couple weeks?

[Juan_Bottom]

You actually have the nerve to try to demonize one of the greatest champions of America and freedom?

We and the world still benefit from his efforts to this day.

Firstly, I put most of my support behind Liberal Policies, but I favor a Conservative approach to implementing and controlling them. I am somewhat in the middle in this regard, and I disagree strongly with party politics. Your loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to a party or a man.

Secondly, I am not demonizing him. I argued that he was a douchebag.

Thirdly, you are wasting my time. You're not responding to anything that I am saying, nor have you apologized or admitted that you may have been wrong about Reagan attacking Grenada.

And he proved less taxes drives the economy.

Here we go, thank-you Jay.
See, now I wont disagree. But I don't think that a strong economy is necessarily the only factor in deciding what is best for the American people. Reagan didn't just drive back taxes, he also rolled back safety regulations, opened up public lands to private businesses, waged a war on collective wage bargaining(unions), and removed environmental protections to stimulate business growth. All of that was bad.

[Juan_Bottom]

and greekdog,
I didn't realize that you were doing a parody of Reagan until now. So, you got me good. Cool Story Bro.

[oddzy]

Countries other than the US have had presidents (or "presididents") in the time period 1980-Current.

Ol' Sax votes for Nicolae Ceauşescu, former President of Romania (1974-1989).



During his many years as leader of the Romanian people, Ceauşescu served as intermediary between the U.S. and China that resulted in Nixon's historic visit to Beijing and he helped Carter negotiate lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. During the ill-conceived Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, both Romania and the DDR refused to participate and withheld their military forces. He ideated and oversaw the construction of the Romanian parliament building, which has been subsequently called a wonder of modern architecture. Ceauşescu was a fiscal eagle - by the time he left office in 1989 the national debt of Romania was US$0. (Today it is US$75 billion.)

GREAT 3-minute music video on Ceauşescu's accomplishments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyjhQapJthQ

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't his policies on population growth for romania lead to fairly disasterous results down the line? as in hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of children being left/abandonded in sorely understaffed orphanages? i worked with dr. charles zeanah, one of the foremost experts in the world on attatchment disorders and infant/toddler mental health. he spent considerable time in romania in the late 1990s/early 2000s helping the government triage children from 0 to 18 who were profoundly mentally damaged by living in group situations that make the kentucky fried chicken poultry farms look humane. i saw footage that literally made me ill.

there's more than one way to permanently scar a child in horrific ways besides what the catholic church has done... and he masterminded one of them.

[Titanic]

Greek is you want a proper economic debate on trickle down economics vs keynesian I will be more then glad to have it in another topic.

On note, I can't beleive you think that Presidents don't play a key role in the economy. Reagan used his position to push through all the lassez faire laws and to cut taxes by a substancial amount and to carry out all his other policies. Bush used his presidency for roughly the same thing but to greater effect (and eventually disaster). Obama has used his power to push through the bailouts and stimulus and healthcare and hopefully a lot of the other stuff that he promised.

The president generally sets the tone for the economic shape of the country and then argues with congress about exactly how it will be shaped. Also with all the people the president appoints to economic boards, labor boards and so on these people play a real role in the creation and implementation of legislation.

Presidents play a key role probably, but a good or bad president does not make a good or bad economy. I used to think that small businesses had the greatest effect on the economy; now I think it's banks (unfortunately).

EDIT - I can't do a proper debate because I simply don't have time to do research. Perhaps in a couple weeks?

Cool my exams will be over then, I'll have time to do it as well.

[thegreekdog]

and greekdog,
I didn't realize that you were doing a parody of Reagan until now. So, you got me good. Cool Story Bro.

I'm not doing a parody.

Perhaps this:

Thirdly, you are wasting my time. You're not responding to anything that I am saying,

You're not arguing that any particular president is better; you're arguing that a particular president is not as good as people say. Which may be true. However, the vehemence with which you argue that President Reagan was a poor president indicates something other than political partisanship. If it was simply political partisanship, I would chalk it up to that. So, if it is... if you don't like him because you're a Democrat or liberal, fine. But to me it sounds like your main problems with him are:

(1) He invaded a country without authorization of Congress. To which I reply, Bosnia, Vietnam, and Somalia.
(2) He appointed his cronies and people who agreed with his ideas to positions in federal government. To which I reply, all other presidents.

If you can demostrate how President Reagan was "worse" than other presidents with respect to these two things, perhaps you'd win this argument. But you haven't. And you won't. So I win.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not doing a parody.

Oh, well I thought that you were because you are using a Reagan technique in the discussion. When Reagan would be asked a question that he did not want to answer, he would deflect it and make it appear like he had said something. Or when talking abut a specific policy, he wouldn't actually talk about it. He would also circle words to make it appear like the person criticizing him was acting un-American. His administration was also pretty accomplished at setting up Democrats to look like they were weak on economic and.... well all issues.

Like these here:

Wait... wait... Reagan lied? I better go back and change my vote to one of the presidents who didn't lie. Hmm... which one to pick?

Other "wars" - The First Iraq War, intervention in Bosnia, intervention in Somalia, invasion of Afghanistan, Second Iraq War. Which ones of those had Congressional approval and who was president?

If you're going to criticize, at least be consistent in your criticism.

Here, you rebuffed by making it look like I was arguing about Congressional approval, which I wasn't particularly. Though I did cite which law he broke, in violation of the Constitution.

Good God man! All presidents do that shit! President Clinton populated the White House and every federal regulatory body with his buddies from Arkansas. Clinton tried to get a line-item veto! A LINE ITEM VETO!!!! Dude, seriously, you're drinking too much blue Kool Aid.

I wasn't arguing for Clinton, but your response made it appear that I was. Then you accused me of being crazy (un-American) for not believing in Reagan.

I urge you to look towards certain members of Congress that may or may not be retiring from public life and who, as far as I can see, are Democrats.

Here, you blame Democrats for Bush's power trip. Republican's controlled both houses for 6 years while he was in office. They marched lock-step with everything the President wanted. After Democrats regained control, they still didn't have enough majority to override imperialistic legislation.

See my comments in bold above.[/color]
And this was not a response to any of my points. Mostly you just said yes and no.
So you can see where I thought you were parodying Reagan. And actually, I wasn't even the one who saw it.

You're not arguing that any particular president is better; you're arguing that a particular president is not as good as people say.

He was a douchebag.

However, the vehemence with which you argue that President Reagan was a poor president indicates something other than political partisanship.

The "vehemence" was a response to you challenging me, like I wouldn't know what I was talking about. I realize you expected me to say all the same token things, like trickle economics, but oh well. I would get a lot more specific on several issues, but I don't want to start taking books off the shelf just to get yes and no responses.

(1) He invaded a country without authorization of Congress. To which I reply, Bosnia, Vietnam, and Somalia.

No, not exactly. I believe the legislation says that he was required to get permission only if the action lasts more than thirty days, if he is actually protecting US citizens. However, the facts show that Regan lied about why he needed to invade peaceful Grenada. He killed people.

(2) He appointed his cronies and people who agreed with his ideas to positions in federal government. To which I reply, all other presidents.

It's not just how he implemented his ideas by circumventing laws established by Congress, it's the laws that he broke. He violated workers rights on multiple issues, supported insurgents/terrorists, and basically gave corporations a free hand to pollute, ect ect. I don't care what his policies are specifically, I care about what they really cost us. I also care about his human rights violations.

This is quite a different story than the one told by the more conscientious historians at Covert Action Quarterly, also published in DC. In the fall 1997 issue, John Pilger writes that the US funneled $86 million in support of Pol Pot and his followers from 1980 to 1986. In addition, the Reagan administration schemed and plotted to have Khmer Rouge representatives occupy Cambodia's UN seat, even though the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in 1979. This was a sad effort to grant Pol Pot's followers international legitimacy.

Pilger also informs us that the US applied pressure to the World Food Program to ensure that $12 million worth of food targeted elsewhere in an international rescue effort would be handed over to the Thai army to be passed on to the Khmer Rouge. In addition, Washington set up the Kampuchean Emergency Group (which later morphed into the Kam- puchean Working Group), whose unspoken mission was to direct food to Khmer Rouge bases.

This helped restore the Khmer Rouge as a fighting force based in Thailand, which destabilized Cambodia for more than a decade, much like the US-backed Contras did in Nicaragua during the same period.

Of course, it should go without saying that the Reagan and Bush administrations covertly channeled weapons to the Khmer Rouge by using Singapore as a middleman. As with "Iran-Contra," Bush's military aid to the Khmer Rouge violated a law passed by Congress in 1989 that expressly forbade it.

The Khmer Rouge only killed like 1.7 million people though. And I don't think that any were Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

The Contras is a label given to the various rebel groups opposing Nicaragua's FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional) Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction government following the July 1979 overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle's dictatorship. Although the Contra movement included a number of separate groups, with different aims and little ideological unity, the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN) emerged as by far the largest. In 1987, virtually all Contra organizations were united, at least nominally, into the Nicaraguan Resistance.

From the mid-1980s, as the Reagan administration and the rebels sought to define the movement as the "democratic resistance," members started describing themselves as la resistencia.

The Sandinista government, its supporters, and outside groups such as Americas Watch frequently accused the Contras of indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The Contras and their backers, especially those in the Reagan administration, dismissed these accusations as a propaganda campaign and accused the Sandinistas of the same crimes against humanity.

The Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as "Progressio"), a human rights organization which identifies itself with liberation theology, summarized Contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."[11]

An influential report on Contra atrocities was issued by lawyer Reed Brody shortly before the 1985 U.S. Congressional vote on Contra aid. The report was soon published as a book.[12] It charged that the Contras attacked purely civilian targets and that their tactics included murder, rape, beatings, kidnapping and disruption of harvests. Brody's report had been requested by the Sandinista government's Washington law firm Reichler & Applebaum and the Sandinista government had provided facilities in Nicaragua for him.[13] In a letter to The New York Times,[14] Brody asserted that this in no way affected his report, and added that the newspaper had confirmed the veracity of four randomly chosen incidents.

A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian stated that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural outpost:

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.[15]

Americas Watch - which subsequently became part of Human Rights Watch - stated that "the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war."[16] It accused the Contras of:

* targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination.
* kidnapping civilians.
* torturing civilians.
* executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat.
* raping women.
* indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses.
* seizing civilian property.
* burning civilian houses in captured towns.[17]

US news media published several articles accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. It alleged that Americas Watch gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses and systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the major human rights abuses on the Sandinistas.[18]

In 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission for Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"[19]

In 1984, Sandinista-run Nicaraguan government filed a suit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States (Nicaragua vs. United States), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United States, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua, through such actions as the placement of underwater mines by CIA operatives and training, funding and support for the guerrilla forces. The court concluded that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956." Regarding human rights violations by the Contras, however, the court stated that the United States could be held accountable only for acts the Contras committed in connection with the United States, and therefore the "Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them." The Court found that the United States "has encouraged the commission by them [the Contras] of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America" The United States was ordered to pay reparations.[21]

The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the Constitution of the United States and argued that the court did not seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, whose intervention the court would not accept. The latter argument was affirmed by the primary dissenting justices—notably U.S. Judge Schwebel, who claimed that "Nicaragua does not come before the Court with clean hands." [1] Nicaragua then took its case to the UN Security Council, where a resolution supporting the ruling of the ICJ was vetoed by the United States. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly, which passed a resolution supporting the ruling of the ICJ 94-3.

Direct military aid by the United States was interrupted by the Boland Amendment, passed by the United States Congress in December 1982. The Boland Amendment was extended in October 1984 to forbid action by not only the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency but all U.S. government agencies.

Administration officials sought to arrange funding and military supplies by means of third-parties. These efforts culminated in the Iran-Contra Affair of 1986-1987, which concerned contra funding through the proceeds of arms sales to Iran. On February 3, 1988 the United States House of Representatives rejected President Reagan's request for $36.25 million to aid the Contras. According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North, an important official in the Iran-Contra affair, had been in contact with Manuel Noriega, the military leader of Panama later convicted on drug charges, whom he personally met.

The issue of drug money and its importance in funding the Nicaraguan conflict was the subject of various reports and publications. The contras were funded by drug trafficking, of which the USA was aware.[22]. Senator John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems." [2] On the other hand, the 1989 book, Kings of Cocaine, alleges Sandinista involvement in cocaine smuggling. Barry Seal, a Medellin cartel pilot took photos which allegedly showed a high ranking Sandinista official unloading cocaine shipments at a Sandinista military airport.

The Reagan administration's support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, alleging that the contras contributed to the rise of crack cocaine in California. [3] [4] Webb's controversial and highly damaging revelations were disputed at the time, but later revelations confirmed some of his findings."

Reagan increased Drug use in America, and killed civilians.... to stop a communist plot that he invented. But that's ok, because rich people will trickle money down to you... And that's what America is all about.....

If you can demostrate how President Reagan was "worse" than other presidents with respect to these two things, perhaps you'd win this argument. But you haven't. And you won't. So I win.

You haven't even attempted to show how Reagan was best. All you've done is made a post about Trickle-Economics. Remember when you said:

If I have time tomorrow, I'll provide a list of the good things he did (or, rather the things I liked... because, really, your list has more to do with things you don't like and has little to do with bad things).

[saxitoxin]

Countries other than the US have had presidents (or "presididents") in the time period 1980-Current.

Ol' Sax votes for Nicolae Ceauşescu, former President of Romania (1974-1989).



During his many years as leader of the Romanian people, Ceauşescu served as intermediary between the U.S. and China that resulted in Nixon's historic visit to Beijing and he helped Carter negotiate lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. During the ill-conceived Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, both Romania and the DDR refused to participate and withheld their military forces. He ideated and oversaw the construction of the Romanian parliament building, which has been subsequently called a wonder of modern architecture. Ceauşescu was a fiscal eagle - by the time he left office in 1989 the national debt of Romania was US$0. (Today it is US$75 billion.)

GREAT 3-minute music video on Ceauşescu's accomplishments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyjhQapJthQ

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't his policies on population growth for romania lead to fairly disasterous results down the line? as in hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of children being left/abandonded in sorely understaffed orphanages? i worked with dr. charles zeanah, one of the foremost experts in the world on attatchment disorders and infant/toddler mental health. he spent considerable time in romania in the late 1990s/early 2000s helping the government triage children from 0 to 18 who were profoundly mentally damaged by living in group situations that make the kentucky fried chicken poultry farms look humane. i saw footage that literally made me ill.

there's more than one way to permanently scar a child in horrific ways besides what the catholic church has done... and he masterminded one of them.

First off, ol' Saxi was just going to say "CORRECTED!" and leave it at that (J/K! ), however, you have just piqued ol' Saxi's very heightened interest that you have worked with Chuck Zeanah! I just friended you! Do you work in mental health? (OL' Sax is just an old, retired country doc with nothing near Chuck Zeanah's credentials.)

As for Rumania, I'll just note that PCR demographic programs may have - in the short term - resulted in a lot of unwanted children. It's difficult to measure the efficacy of any long-term program that is terminated prematurely, however.

That said, the PCR government of Rumania did, IMO, a remarkable job taking care of orphaned and abandoned children. Ceauşescu resigned the presidency in 1989. If Dr. Zeanah was working in Rumania in the '90's and '00's he was witnessing the horrors of capitalism. Ol' Sax is the lone-star progressive here on the CC forums, though, so will admit that my opinion on that point may be in a minority of one!

[thegreekdog]

Juan, give me until Sunday or Monday. I'll make a list of why I think he is better than the other presidents from 1980 to the present day.

By the way, party control of Congress by year:

1981-1983 - Republican controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1983-1985 - Republican controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1985-1987 - Republican controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1987-1989 - Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1989-1991 - Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1991-1993 - Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1993-1995 - Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House
1995-1997 - Republican controlled Senate, Republican controlled House
1997-1999 - Republican controlled Senate, Republican controlled House
1999-2001 - Republican controlled Senate, Republican controlled House
2001-2003 - Split Senate, Republican controlled House
2003-2005 - Republican controlled Senate, Republican controlled House
2005-2007 - Republican controlled Senate, Republican controlled House
2007-2009 - Split Senate, Democrat controlled House
2009-2011 - Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House

[Phatscotty]

Ronald Reagan, hands down. Bill clinton is more responsible for the economic crisis today than Bush ever could be. Clinton signed the repealing of glass-steagal before Bush was even exploring an exploratory committee for a bid for the republican nomination. Yes, the financial companies ran rampant under Bush JR, but this was only possible because of Clinton signing Dodds bill repealing said glass- steagal

[Titanic]

Ronald Reagan, hands down. Bill clinton is more responsible for the economic crisis today than Bush ever could be. Clinton signed the repealing of glass-steagal before Bush was even exploring an exploratory committee for a bid for the republican nomination. Yes, the financial companies ran rampant under Bush JR, but this was only possible because of Clinton signing Dodds bill repealing said glass- steagal

Just to be picky:

In June 1999, while Governor of Texas, Bush announced his candidacy for President of the United States.

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

Oh and really, Clinton was more responsable than Bush? Was Bush held at gunpoint for 8 years and forced to do absolutely nothing but liberalise the market even more and remove legislation and oversight?

[saxitoxin]

Ronald Reagan, hands down. Bill clinton is more responsible for the economic crisis today than Bush ever could be. Clinton signed the repealing of glass-steagal before Bush was even exploring an exploratory committee for a bid for the republican nomination. Yes, the financial companies ran rampant under Bush JR, but this was only possible because of Clinton signing Dodds bill repealing said glass- steagal

In June 1999, while Governor of Texas, Bush announced his candidacy for President of the United States.

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

I'm just curious as this seems to be a trend in your comments. Do you have a difficulty in understanding colloquial speech? This is a diagnostic symptom in adult autism. I don't support "treatment" of autism but it should be managed to better acclimate the autistic individual into society and help them achieve a high-level of day-to-day functionality. Many people move into adulthood without being aware they are autistic. Have you been checked-out? I'm not trying to flame you or anything but it might be worthwhile just popping into the doctor for a check-up. It can't hurt, anyway. Just a thought.