Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 115
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    It's certainly debateable, still, we never know what Reagan would have done in a third term, Reagan always had a decent idea of the economy, but if he had kept that team together it's likely things would have stayed pretty good.
    I'm not sure how different Bush I was than Reagan in terms of the economy. Both of them raised taxes when it was needed. And both of them reduced regulations when and where they could.

    Bush didn't really believe all that "voodoo economics" as he called it, but that didn't translate into a shift in policy at all.

    As far as foreign policy goes, both Bush and Reagan sought out areas where they could stamp out Communism. They both worked to expand our potential trade and defense alliances.

    After all, Bush was one of the big wigs in Reagan's team.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    First off it's Reagan, and not many presidents could win a cold war, end a recession almost as bad as this, and grow the economy. To top it off Roosevelt never came nearly as close to sweeping the electoral college as Reagan did.
    just curious wtf are you talking about in the electorial college thing

    roosevelt

    1932- 479 to 52 he only lost 5 states.
    1936-523 to 8 he lost 2 states

    in his next 2 elections he still got
    432 and 429 a piece in the elections if we recall obama in his massive win got 365

    reagan-
    489 to 49
    525 to 13 they are pratically the same in their primes so this argument is bogus

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jrice9 View Post
    just curious wtf are you talking about in the electorial college thing

    roosevelt

    1932- 479 to 52 he only lost 5 states.
    1936-523 to 8 he lost 2 states

    in his next 2 elections he still got
    432 and 429 a piece in the elections if we recall obama in his massive win got 365

    reagan-
    489 to 49
    525 to 13 they are pratically the same in their primes so this argument is bogus
    Reagan came one state short in 1988, the closest Roosevelt ever got was two, and that was before Hawaii and Alaska.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    That's a pretty lame argument.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus View Post
    That's a pretty lame argument.
    Whose arguing?




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ari1013 View Post
    I'm not sure how different Bush I was than Reagan in terms of the economy. Both of them raised taxes when it was needed. And both of them reduced regulations when and where they could.

    Bush didn't really believe all that "voodoo economics" as he called it, but that didn't translate into a shift in policy at all.

    As far as foreign policy goes, both Bush and Reagan sought out areas where they could stamp out Communism. They both worked to expand our potential trade and defense alliances.

    After all, Bush was one of the big wigs in Reagan's team.
    I think Bush's biggest downfall was raising taxes and increasing government spending in 1990 instead of cutting government spending to defeat the deficit. Reagan I imagine would cut spending first and if needed raise taxes later.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    Whose arguing?
    He means that it is lame to argue who was more dominant based on delegate count when the delegate difference was similar in both their first two elections

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    I think Bush's biggest downfall was raising taxes and increasing government spending in 1990 instead of cutting government spending to defeat the deficit. Reagan I imagine would cut spending first and if needed raise taxes later.
    Bush did exactly what Reagan did do!

    Reagan raised taxes more times than any president in my lifetime. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp
    The NRO (yes, that NRO) reports that Reagan raised taxes every single year of his tenure except for 1988!

    And spending? Reagan jacked up spending to record highs.
    He increased Federal spending by 25% in real dollars over the levels that Jimmy Carter had brought it up to.
    He increased the number of non-defense workers on federal payroll from 2.8M to 3.0M.


    Ironically, "big government" Bill Clinton cut the federal payroll back down to 2.68M, and shrank federal spending down to just 18.3% of GDP.


    There are plenty of reasons to like Ronald Reagan, but if you like him for cutting spending and taxes, you're thinking of the wrong guy.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jrice9 View Post
    He means that it is lame to argue who was more dominant based on delegate count when the delegate difference was similar in both their first two elections
    Citrus is a she, second, when I said he came the closest I was referring to states, he took 49 of 50 the closest FDR came was 46 of 48.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    thought Ragaen lossed a bigger state so its irrelevelant

    anyway my apologizies to citrus for confusing her sexuality

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Thanks jrice.

    And, Cubs -- you did say that FDR never came "nearly as close" as Reagan to sweeping the EC. I'd say that's a pretty lame argument. It was a one state difference.

    And, technically FDR came closer on a much broader level. The combined state EV that Roosevelt lost was 8 (Maine 5, New Hampshire 3), whereas Reagan's was 10 (Minnesota).

    FDR also took 60.8% of the national popular vote whereas Reagan took 58.8%.

    Although it's all moot (they were both incredibly dominate elections) -- to argue that Reagan's 1984 victory was much more impressive than FDR's in 1936 simply based on the fact that Reagan took all but one state and Roosevelt took all but two is kind of silly.

    And, it was only close in two states for Roosevelt -- New Hampshire had under a 2% vote differential -- Kansas was the next closest at 7.5 (Alf Landon's home state). Maine was certainly an outlier.

    There were far more states in play with Reagan. While he only lost Minnesota by < 0.25%, it was close in Massachusetts (2.8%), Rhode Island (3.7%), Maryland (5.5%), Pennsylvania (7.4%), and Iowa (7.4%).

    By looking at the states that were technically "in play" it would appear that Roosevelt had the more dominate election.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Np Citrus

    And yeah thats my point that Roosevelt arguabally did better than Raegan and you stated that Raegan was way more dominant

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,172
    vCash
    1500
    To all of you who think that Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are not the three greatest presidents, well, you are entitled to your opinions but when looking for guidence in this question I first went to the ever available Wikipedia where I found the following:

    General findings
    George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy have often scored very highly in popular opinion polls, but rank highly in only some polls of historians.

    The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership was a 1999 survey of academic historians (with self-selected responders). It found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan the worst.[5]
    I then realized that those of you of the GOP persuasion might find that the general findings in Wiki suspect or that C-SPAN might have a liberal bias, so I went to that bastion of conservatism, the Wall Street Journal. It in conjunction with the conservative Federalist Society ranked the Presidents as follows:

    Great:

    1. Washington
    2. Lincoln
    3. FDR

    The second tier or Near Great are listed as:
    4. Thomas Jefferson
    5. Theodore Roosevelt
    6. Andrew Jackson
    7. Harry Truman
    8. Ronald Reagan
    9. Dwight Eisenhower
    10. James Polk
    11. Woodrow Wilson

    A special note to BMD, the Federalist Society with the Wall Street Journal List Nixon as below average at 33.

    This survey was taken in 2000 so George W Bush was not included
    Last edited by cabernetluver; 02-11-2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason: forgot to wrap the quote in the quote box

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    I think Truman's a bit high. I'd switch his position with Ike (bumping up Ike to 7 and leaving RR at 8). I also noticed that Polk is the only single-term president on that list. I'd probably swap him and Wilson.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jrice9 View Post
    thought Ragaen lossed a bigger state so its irrelevelant

    anyway my apologizies to citrus for confusing her sexuality
    And he only lost it by three thousand votes, who cares about the size, one state is one state.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •