U.S. President's Poll

[pvenne]

Just curious on people's opinions.. As usual I bet my own will be in the minority and that will make this all the more interesting now that the gay marriage poll has vanished. I voted Carter. I'll explain if anyone wants me to, but to sum it all up: the Camp David Accords.

[RiversideGator]

I voted Carter. I'll explain if anyone wants me to, but to sum it all up: the Camp David Accords.

That worked so well that now Israel and the Arabs are at peace.

In fact, Carter was the worst President of the 20th Century and his landslide loss to Ronald Reagan confirmed that the people had completely lost all confidence in him. Carter did set the economic record for having high inflation and zero economic growth - a phenomenon previously thought impossible. And, he gave away the Panama Canal. We will not fully appreciate the consequences of this until we have a war with the Chinese. In dealing with the Soviets, his congenital weakness emboldened them and caused the free world to lose ground to evil communist regimes while he was in office.

I voted for Reagan because he won the Cold War thereby relegating communism to the scrap heap of history, he restored America's confidence and he freed the US economy from the crushing overregulation and taxes and set the stage for the high growth throughout the 1980s.

[pvenne]

thanks for the reply, youre entitled to your opinion and reagan was not a bad president.

[pvenne]

he freed the US economy from the crushing overregulation and taxes and set the stage for the high growth throughout the 1980s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must remember, though, that Reaganomics, trickle-down, supply-side, whatever you wanna call it, didn't work as well in reality as it should have in theory...upon realizing this, I'm almost positive reagan raised taxes (something Bush will never get). lemme double check my history and I'll confirm with a source if you want...or if I'm wrong, I'll say so. But my point is that he "freed us" from the taxes so well that he had to raise them again...what an accomplishment.

[pvenne]

That worked so well that now Israel and the Arabs are at peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Israel has been a state for over 50 years and for the entirety of this time their has been regional tension between Jews and Arabs. Following the CDAs, however, this tension was no longer unified as it was beginning in the 1950s under Egypt's leadership, and particularly under the leadership of a fellow named Nasser. Signing peace agreements was always out of the question for most Arab nations due to the pan-arab nature of the region, which wouldn't allow one Arab nation to sign while the others were all still angered. Therefore it seems to me that the key would be for a powerful Arab nation to take the lead and put their @ss on the line by doing the unthinkable, signing peace with the Jews. Under president Anwar Sadat, Egypt did just this, and they did so without demanding Israel give any concessions to Palestinians. Why did Egypt, the leader of the Arab world, do this? The answer is because Carter refused to let either side leave Camp David until they arrived at an acceptable peace (which both sides wanted, but didn't want to seek on their own due to the possibility of losing face as a result of giving in to the other's demands). Carter may have been naive, but he sure made a dent in the middle east conflict (which claimed more lives than the cold war, I might add...even though much of it was fought because of the CW). The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was the first between Jews and Arabs, and if this is not at least as important as ending the CW, than what is?

[pvenne]

his landslide loss to Ronald Reagan confirmed that the people had completely lost all confidence in him.

[pvenne]

RiversideGator --

one more thing on reaganomics. If you are familiar with standard Macroeconomic models, take a look ath tis link (IS-LM curve reactions of the reagan tax cuts) and click to open the document entitled "why reaganomics failed". I'd be interested in your reaction. The conclusion is basically that regan raised output, then completely offsett that increase in real income in the opposite direction, and both times raised the interest rate (which puts a damper of capital investment) for the overall effect that the interest rates shot up and output remained the same. Is this the growth you meant?

[pvenne]

The high interest rates of the Reagn/Bush years were unprecedented...though not necessarily due to the budget deficit (which some people claim) since clinton pursued surplus and they still remained high (though dropping from the Reagan years substantially)...this is usually considered a bad economic indicator.

[pvenne]

I voted for Reagan because he won the Cold War thereby relegating communism to the scrap heap of history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2 things:

one -- time won the cold war. Although Regan certainly didn't futher communism, he was also in office during the general "time" the USSR would have almost certainly been on its last leg anyway. you can't go up to a rotten tree and blow on it then turn around and say you sawed it down youself when you had plenty of help from time.

two -- regan won election primarily because Carter couldn't get the hostages freed in iran. So what does he do when there are hostages taken by Islamic fundamentalists in Lebanon (i think it was lebanon)? He engages with a group classified as "terrorist" by the U.S. congress, and he then lies about doing so. This is how he "won" the cold war, by lying to Congress and to the public, what a moral thing to do for a man so religious. You know how he got away with it? He was an actor from hollywood and could convince people quite well. What a hero...he raised interest rates, and lied to congress, thereby tarnishing bi-partisan relations even more and raisng the deficit to new heights, all at the same time he single handedly saved the world from communism by coincidentally serving as U.S. president at the same time the USSR would have fallen anyway. WHat a guy.

[pvenne]

if anything, reagan was a hero not for what he did in office, but for what his image did for america: resotre stability and pride. His policies were mediocre at best, but his character was first class.

[GRDadof3]

I'm confused. Are you debating yourself?

[alon504]

No question, Ronald Reagan. He brought an end to the cold war. Many younger folk don't realize the significance of this event that changed world history forever...

[pvenne]

I'm confused.  Are you debating yourself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I am not debating myself. I was mostly responding to an earlier post, and I was highlighting a good aspect of RR so as not to seem as though I have any sort of a grudge against him in the personal sense...I am not republican, but I wanted to clarify that i do not think RR was a bad man, and I am not against him just because of political party differences, thats all....I tried to show this by saying why I thought he was a good president, and it wasn't because of his policies in office.

[pvenne]

No question, Ronald Reagan.  He brought an end to the cold war.  Many younger folk don't realize the significance of this event that changed world history forever...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I won't debate that..it is a far better reason alone than trying to tie it in with what a good economic package he put forth like someone did above (besides, this is about heroic achievements, actions, accomplishments, and I wouldn't argue that he is given the credit for being pres at the time the Cold War ended).

[GRS328]

I didn't vote the poll as I don't really consider any of those listed "heroes". They all made contributions to the world in some way, and they all were flawed in some way as well. I think I respect each of them in some way or another, but definitely wouldn't call any single one of them a hero.

With resepect to Reagan, I've always admired him and his years in office; however, I do agree with pvenne that he receives excess credit when it comes to ending the Cold War.

[pvenne]

I didn't vote the poll as I don't really consider any of those listed "heroes".  They all made contributions to the world in some way, and they all were flawed in some way as well.  I think I respect each of them in some way or another, but definitely wouldn't call any single one of them a hero.   

With resepect to Reagan, I've always admired him and his years in office; however, I do agree with pvenne that he receives excess credit when it comes to ending the Cold War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A respectful and level-headed answer; thanks for your reply. Do you consider any of the U.S. presidents that are not listed a hero (George Washington and on)? Just curious.

[Viper]

I too did not vote for either of them. Each did many great deeds and each goofed up pretty badly in their own right.

Kennedy was the closest president in recent times I'd call a hero. I listened to audio tapes of him during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Phenomenal. His vision of space exploration has not been touched by a president since.

[pvenne]

I too did not vote for either of them.

[RiversideGator]

You must remember, though, that Reaganomics, trickle-down, supply-side, whatever you wanna call it, didn't work as well in reality as it should have in theory

Perhaps you are not familiar with the massive economic growth of the 1980s which corresponded exactly with Reagan's tax cuts. And, to add evidence that tax cuts spur growth, we are seeing the same growth now. I think it is fundamentally obvious that tax cuts result in less money being used unproductively by the government and more money being invested by the private sector thereby creating jobs and growth. I really fail to see how anyone can not recognize this. As for the growth during Clinton's term, this was not really due to any policy of his but more to the business cycle (he inherited a rebounding economy and the introduction of the net and widespread use of PCs) and the fact that the budget was balanced by the Republican Congress in the mid 90s (which they should also do today).

The high interest rates of the Reagn/Bush years were unprecedented...though not necessarily due to the budget deficit (which some people claim) since clinton pursued surplus and they still remained high (though dropping from the Reagan years substantially)...this is usually considered a bad economic indicator.

I dont even understand what you are saying here. Interest rates were lowered during Reagan's Presidency and inflation was brought under control.

regan won election primarily because Carter couldn't get the hostages freed in iran.

And the day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released by Iran, because the Iranians knew that Reagan, unlike Carter, was not one to be messed with.

He engages with a group classified as "terrorist" by the U.S. congress, and he then lies about doing so.

The Contras (I assume this is what you speak of) were not terrorists but were fighting to liberate their country from a totalitarian communist dictatorship led by Daniel Ortega. Through their efforts and those of Reagan, all of Central America is free now.

time won the cold war. Although Regan certainly didn't futher communism, he was also in office during the general "time" the USSR would have almost certainly been on its last leg anyway. you can't go up to a rotten tree and blow on it then turn around and say you sawed it down youself when you had plenty of help from time.

The communist system was indeed rotten to the core, but its collapse was not inevitable. Under Carter, communism was expanding in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, et al. So, it was not dead but growing. Someone had to have the nerve to knock the evil tree over. This was Reagan. By the way, all of your liberal friends shrieked with fear and anger when Reagan was implementing policies which ended the cold war (such as supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, supporting Solidarity in Poland, invading Grenada, deploying nuclear missiles to W Germany, putting pressure on communist regimes around the world, etc, etc). To say that Reagan was in the right place at the right time and had little to do with ending the Cold War is simply to either misread history or to lie. Communism was indeed an evil empire which threatened the world for 80 years. Thanks to people like Reagan, people no longer have to worry about it.

[RiversideGator]

Do you consider any of the U.S. presidents that are not listed a hero (George Washington and on)?

Other great Presidents (other than Reagan) include Washington, Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.

I think Kennedy is perhaps the most overrate President. While he did handle the Cuban Missile Crisis well, he could have avoided the whole thing entirely had he supported the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba properly. He should have toppled Castro early on before their were Soviet missiles there.

[GRS328]

A respectful and level-headed answer; thanks for your reply.  Do you consider any of the U.S. presidents that are not listed a hero (George Washington and on)?  Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only one I could say without hesitation would be Lincoln. I unfortunately do not have enough knowledge, other than popular opinion, on Washington (or others) where I could comfortably say I'd consider them a hero.

As for Lincoln, his stoicism and humilty transcended his presidency. The more I learn about him, the more I come to admire him, faults and all. In fact, his recognition of his faults are what I think lead me to admire him most. His life really fascinates me.

[Viper]

Jefferson ranks up there with Lincoln.

[pvenne]

I dont even understand what you are saying here.  Interest rates were lowered

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if we left the economy alone and to the policies of "the rich get richer" reaganomics, interest rates would have risen, I mispoke, they did not rise...but this is because of several other factors. and in addition, regan borrowed heavily on the federal side by selling bonds so that he could pump that money into the economy (is it still unproductive government spending when a republican does it?)

[monsoon]

Of this lot to choose from the only President that has my respect is Jimmy Carter.

He never sold out to big business, put in sensible energy policy that if we had stayed the course would not be in an oil crisis now, and truely cared about the individual in this country.

As to the earlier comments about Reagan's economic policy, even Bush Sr. , referred to them as "Voodoo Economics".

[pvenne]

And the day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released by Iran, because the Iranians knew that Reagan, unlike Carter, was not one to be messed with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

now youve just lost it...the hostages were already freed, they were just staying in iran for political reasons. here, read this.

" REAGAN'S 1980 "OCTOBER SURPRISE" -- ARMS FOR HOSTAGES

In October 1980, nothing worried the Reagan campaign as much as

the possibility that the 52 hostages held by Iran might come home.

A "paramilitary wing" created by Reagan's campaign staff to prevent

such a possibility was largely unreported in 1987.

The revelations report that then campaign manager William J.

Casey headed an "October surprise"team engaging the services of both

retired and active military personnel.

During the course of the 1980 campaign, campaign leaders Richard

Allen, Edwin Meese, and Casey became concerned, almost to the point of

paranoia (according to journalists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover)

that Carter would get the hostages released thereby stealing away

Reagan's election momentum and assuring Carter of re-election.

Following is a brief overview of the reported activities of

Reagan's "October 1980 surprise" team:..."

full article

I wasn't even alive then, so how do I know more about this than you, oh wise one?