There are two ways to evaluate a president. First, do you agree with his values and policies? Second, was he effective - that is to say, did he have an enduring effect on the political situation in directions he desired?

I like Jimmy Carter for many reasons. When he was president more jobs were created every year than the number created every year under Reagan. Under Carter there was a brief, shallow recession, when the unemployment rate rose to 7.8%. Under Reagan there was a long, deep recession, when the unemployment rose to 10.8%. Yearly deficits were much lower under Carter. Carter was not responsible for the Iranian Revolution. He should not have attempted to prevent it. The inflation that began during the Iranian Revolution was due to increases in the world price of petroleum over which Carter had no control. The world price of petroleum began to decline after 1982, because of nothing Reagan did.

Finally, Jimmy Carter was, and is a better person than Reagan, and a far better person than Trump.



Reagan was effective in ways I dislike. He cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, while ordering increases in military spending. Those increases were unnecessary, and dangerously provocative. The United States was at peace. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan. Reagan taught Republicans that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, especially for the rich, and never a good idea to raise taxes. He taught Republicans to believe that deficits are only a problem when a Democrat is president.

 

obie was a glorified community organizer intent on "fundamentally changing America", he sure as shit did just that, just fucked up 8 years that could have been used to improve America,

 

Dang, for someone that never expected to live past 30 I have lived during every of the USA prez since WWII.
Go figure.

 

In Shooters opinion Reagan was the best, Nixon the worst, Obama the most divisive, Carter the least effective and Clinton the most ridiculous.
The jury is still out on Trump.

 

Nixon was just misunderstood

 

Reagan ended the cold war and might have avoided more senseless wars and death.

- shootersa

------------

If it was necessary to raise military spending during the Reagan administration it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it. From the end of the Second World War to the end of the Carter administration the top tax rate never got below 70% and was often much higher. During this time the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined from 114% in 1945 to 32% in 1980. The decline continued during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. It has only been because of the Republican delusion that tax cuts especially for the rich and increases in military spending are somehow fiscally responsible that the national debt rose to 106% in 2019.

*not_secure_link*www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

 

Reagan...helped Americans understand that when the intro is "we're the government and we're here to help" they aren't, they won't, and its a good time to be concerned.

- shootersa

----------

The tax revolt began with the passing of Proposition 13 in California in 1978. The tax revolt can be seen as a draft riot against the War on Poverty. By 1978 most Americans did not want their tax money to support the illegitimate children of men who would rather be "a sex machine with all the chicks" than a responsible husband and father. Nevertheless, the same Americans who favored deep, satisfying cuts in programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) insisted in keeping middle class entitlements, because they knew those programs benefited them. Reagan's sleight of the hand demagoguery never changed that.

It was never possible to cut taxes, raise military spending and balance the budget (like Reagan said it was) without cutting or eliminating domestic spending programs the vast majority of voters, including at least a plurality of Republican voters, insisted in keeping. This is why Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent, and why George the Greater was correct in naming it "Voodoo Economics."

 

And that $19 TRILLION debt Obama left us, and the (now) $23 TRILLION dollar debt, all in the name of a big, inefficient, expensive, ineffective federal government is what we have today.

How much more in debt should we go to prove your point, old dog?

 

President Obama's biggest mistake was in not raising the top tax rate soon after he was inaugurated. He had Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. His approval rate was 65%. For years popular opinion surveys have indicated popular support for a more progressive tax system. After raising taxes on the rich and corporations Obama should have hired people directly at government expense. This is what Franklin Roosevelt did. After two years the unemployment rate declined. The Democrats increased their majorities in both houses of Congress. This gave Roosevelt the power to do more to end the Great Depression.

 

Diversion attempt failed.

How much deeper in debt before you're satisfied?

 

If the rich get taxed as much as dispicables want, there wont be any rich...then what do democrats do,

 

Do not ask me. Ask Republicans who admire Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. I tire of posting the same fact based arguments again and again, but I will.

From the end of the Second World War to the end of the Carter administration the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) declined from 114% in 1945 to 32% in 1980. It declined during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. During this time the top tax rate never declined below 70%. Often it was much higher.

The national debt only became a problem when the Republican Party adopted the dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, especially for the well to do and corporations, and never a good idea to raise them. Acting on that dogma is the reason that in 2019 the national debt rose to 106%.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

 

Diversion attempt failed. Again.

How much deeper in debt before you're satisfied?

 

Doggo preaches these super high tax rates, but the truth is, no one and I MeAN NO ONE paid those kind of taxes.
Back then, I bet you could even write off toothbrushes. Higher taxes were lowered, but many write off's went away too.

You wrote off anything bought at a hardware store, including the mileage traveling back and forth. It was ridiculous.
You wrote off everything from a 2nd home. A 2nd home was considered anything with a flushable toilet. No shit.

Nah, no one paid taxes that high.

 

They cut the horrendous tax rate, but they eliminated the horrendous write off's too.
and when push came to shove, all were still paying the same percentages of their salary as they did before.

Now go away and buy some new panties...the wedgies you've been getting have soiled and torn your old ones.

 

I do not think the federal government should be in debt at all. If we kept taxing the best paid 20% heavily, like we did from 1944 to 1980, we would have paid off the national debt. We would have paid it off sooner by slashing the military budget.

Since 1981 the best paid 20% have become better paid, while paying lower taxes. The rest of the country has benefited little, or not benefited at all.



Meanwhile, the national debt, which Republicans only complain about when we have a Democrat president has grown because of Republican tax cuts for the rich.

 

A high top tax rate gives the government considerable control over the economic behavior of the rich. They still end up paying more, lots more.

 

Oh, so it turns out Trump isnt the root cause of everything evil, ...Reagan is, ok got ya

 

Reagan broke the illegal strike by air traffic controllers. This makes him bad for unions?