Jump to content

U.S. President's Poll


pvenne

Which of the following United States executives was the biggest hero and why?  

53 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following United States executives was the biggest hero and why?

    • George W. Bush
      2
    • Bill Clinton.
      18
    • George H.W. Bush
      1
    • Ronald Reagan.
      25
    • Jimmy Carter
      9


Recommended Posts

An interesting perspective about spending.  I like looking at the numbers.

When Clinton left office, he left it in a state where the government had a surplus and could start paying down the federal debt.  In contrast, wild spending by Reagan, Bush Sr, led to much of that debt in the first place.  And now, the complete orgy of spending by Bush Jr. threatens to dampen our economy for the forseable future due to the enormous debt he is adding to the country.  Even members in his own party are alarmed by the national debt. 

Reagan republican's like to claim they fiscally conservative, but the reality is quite different.  Maybe that is why Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics.  Borrow today, because you can blame it on a Democrat in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually when Clinton left Office we where already sliding into a recession. Clinton lived off of Reagan and George Bush Sr. policies in place. What most people don't realize is that is takes years before the bills actually evolve. You now see what Clinton has done since he left office. Clinton took credit for two other presidents bills and policies that have been in taking effect. The economy started to take a dump a year before Clinto left office and alot people didn't realize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It takes years for a president's policies to affect the economy?

Well, then most certainly the uptick in the economy in the last 2 years has been because of Bill Clinton! I can only imagine what the country will be like in a few years when Bush Jr.'s policies start to affect us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes years for a president's policies to affect the economy?

Well, then most certainly the uptick in the economy in the last 2 years has been because of Bill Clinton!  I can only imagine what the country will be like in a few years when Bush Jr.'s policies start to affect us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess people forgot about 9-11. That is the biggest attack on American soil, besides Pearl Harbor, and it hit us hard on our economy. It would have been curved if Clinton took care of Bin Ladden after the first attempt of blowing up the WTC. Actually the economy is doing alot better since he started pulling us out of Clintons screw up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  But, I would guess that you would support these programs anyway (as did Ted Kennedy).  I wish Republicans would start acting like conservatives (note that these two are not always the same).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually don't support social welfare except for the elderly and the handicapped. Otherwise any able bodied person should be required to earn their living regardless of how many children they bring into this world.

As you pointed out, the Republicans have controlled the congress for most of the last decade, and Bush has been President during the last 5. During this period, the # on the welfare rolls has started to grow again (It went down during the Clinton years). I also find this very disappointing with the current government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually when Clinton left Office we where already sliding into a recession. Clinton lived off of Reagan and George Bush Sr. policies in place. What most people don't realize is that is takes years before the bills actually evolve. You now see what Clinton has done since he left office. Clinton took credit for two other presidents bills and policies that have been in taking effect. The economy started to take a dump a year before Clinto left office and alot people didn't realize that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no i realize that, but i dont think clinton lived off of the reagan and bush sr policies...that is a bit unfair to say, regardless of perspective. Bush jr doesnt realize how long it takes for policies to take effect either, obviously, or else he would have enacted a tax cut that (theoretically) would have had its largest impact at the time needed, not afterward. thats all im going to say, the facts are out there,...read this book to anyone who knows how to "contours of descent: u.s. economic fractures and the lanbdscape of global austerity" it will clear up any misconceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find it interesting that you didn't list a single president that is actually worthy of being called a hero.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well thats because i wasnt interested in all presidents, but rather, i was interested in those i mentioned, thats why i listed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, but Bush's pro-growth policies have taken effect:

Federal tax revenues have surged in the first eight months of this fiscal year by $187 billion. This represents a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut. Once again, tax rate cuts have created a virtuous chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits, and finally more tax receipts.

This Laffer Curve effect has also created a revenue windfall for states and cities. As the economic expansion has plowed forward, and in some regions of the country accelerated, state tax receipts have climbed 7.5% this year already...Many of President Bush's critics foolishly predicted that states and localities would be victims of the Bush tax cut gamble.

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/002106.html

And see http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_23_05_AS.html

And the economy continues to boom:

Real disposable personal income has grown by over 12 percent since the end of 2000. The U.S. Department of Labor recently reported that more than 200,000 new jobs were created in July, and two million over the past year.

Growth, too, may be stronger than expected, remaining above 3 per cent. Unemployment? Some forecasters now believe it will dive deep into the mid-4 per cent range.

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_22_05_JK.html

The bottom line is the fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and actually result in increased tax receipts by government is now really beyond doubt. I am surprised really that anyone still argues about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GW Bush!! I think that if we are looking for a conservative heroe, then it would be the so famous unsuccesful actor, Ronald Reagan. At least he accomplished what he was fighting for. I am a great oposer of Reagan, yet I understand the reasons for him to be considered a heroe. Bush, in the other hand, thinks they "misunderstimated" and "miscalculated" him as a leader.

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I always find it amusing when people credit Reagan for ending communism. Actually, Pope John Paul II was more important in this process and even then was not the main factor. The Soviet Union was in economic collapse for years and the main factors in its fall were internal.

So why was communism expanding under Jimmy Carter just before Reagan took office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why was communism expanding under Jimmy Carter just before Reagan took office?
Got some sources to back that up? Anyway, go tell the Chinese that Reagan ended communism.

The bottom line is the fact that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and actually result in increased tax receipts by government is now really beyond doubt. I am surprised really that anyone still argues about this.

It's not whether the effect exists or not, it's which types of cuts promote growth the most, and whether the government funds you lose otherwise would've been better spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got some sources to back that up? Anyway, go tell the Chinese that Reagan ended communism.

Yes. The following communist expansion took place under President Jimmy Carter:

Communist Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 and established a communist dictatorship in place of another (the Khmer Rouge which killed over 20 percent of the populace or 1 million plus people). Carter actually supported the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

In 1978, communist rebels took over Nicaragua. War also broke out in El Salvador between communist rebels and the government. Other communist insurgencies appeared during this time as well. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_E...in_the_Cold_War

Also during the reign of Jimmy Carter, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (December 24, 1979), murdered all the leaders, and established a communist dictatorship. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan ended communism? Well yes and no, to say he ended it totally would be similar to trying to "end" racism or the plague, it won't ever totally go away. What Reagan DID do was end the Cold War and the communistic threat on the U.S. and our allies. If you doubt that ask a senior soviet official, almost to a man they agree that the summitt in Iceland Reagan put a steak in the heart of the Soviet-bloc threat.

So relatively speaking Reagan did end communisms threat to the homeland. I do agree though that Pope John Paul II did do a tremendous amount to set the stage for it as well, unfortunately the Pope has as little real power as he does a huge bully pulpit, his contribution is immense, but impotent unless a western power took his block and gained yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always flabberghasted by people who would re-write history to somehow say that Reagan ended communism or the cold war. If anything he caused it to last longer. The Soviet Union was going to implode on its own weight and it was the actions of Mikeal Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltson that caused it to end as a democratic state. Any suggestions that Reagan had something to do with this is laughable revisionist history to prop up the state of an otherwise unremarkable President.

Communism is not dead BTW. The Commies still contol over 1/4 of the world in China, Vietnam, N. Korea, and our nearby neighbor Cuba which we still dont have relations with. This little fact seems to be missed too when people want to pat Reagan on the back.

What else do we have.

Under Reagan, interest rates rose to 17% causing economic disruption and forcing people to forgo buying houses, cars, etc. They could not afford them. But there were tax cuts for the rich were to trickle down to everyone else.

Under Reagon, to appease the conservative zealots in his administration, he completely ignored the AIDs epidemic which hit the country in 1980, and refused to even say the word in public until 1986 in acknowledgement that his actor friend Rock Hudson died from it. By this point the cat was out of the bag and nothing could be done to contain the disease and millions have died since due to the early inaction of this disease.

Under Reagan, deficit spending on the military increased the federal debt that we are all paying now. 1/3 of all of the federal taxes you pay go to pay on the interest on this debt. This is the real Republican tax cut. Borrow, Borrow, Borrow, then blame future tax increases needed to pay for it on Democrats. Sound Familiar? Reagan invented the scheme.

With Reagan's support, Saddam Hussein solidified his power in Iraq, gained the technology and infrastructure to produce chemical weapons and was encouraged to use these weapons against our then enemy Iran. What in the hell are we doing giving this technology to a dictator?

There are more, but government based on idealogy instead of science and common sense began under Reagan and the USA has been in decline ever since. We had a nice break from this under Clinton, but idealogs went on a taxpayer paid witch hunt to destroy Clinton's career then used the federal court to stop a state recount which handed the currenty presidency to their next puppet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much hero's, but who I admire the most:

1. Reagan

2. Clinton/Bush 41

4. Bush 43

5. Carter

G-dub could be one of my most admirable Presidents, or he could be one of my most forgettable, depending on how the Iraq "situation" and his foreign policies play out in the next 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always flabberghasted by people who would re-write history to somehow say that Reagan ended communism or the cold war.  If anything he caused it to last longer.  The Soviet Union was going to implode on its own weight and it was the actions of Mikeal Gorbachev, and  Boris Yeltson that caused it to end as a democratic state.  Any suggestions that Reagan had something to do with this is laughable revisionist history to prop up the state of an otherwise unremarkable President. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What history book is this? Maybe I'm reading mine wrong. Every senior Soviet official on record (including Gorbachev) during the 1980's and early 1990's attributes Reagan's Reykjavik stand and Berlin wall speech, as the moments the Soviet Union and the Cold War met its demise.

Reagan ended the cold war, and ended communisms threat on the west, as I said above discussing the end to an idea or disease like the plague or racism is moot, you never get rid of communism entirely, only its threat. History is open to interpretation but to not include first-person accounts from world leaders would qualify for the fiction shelves.

Reagan was in no way "alone" on ending the cold war, but he was the most instrumental, wether this was due solely to his talents or the fact that he was in charge of the only other super power is up for discussion. His convinction that it could be done though, even to his adversaries, is not in doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What history book is this?  Maybe I'm reading mine wrong.  Every senior Soviet official on record (including Gorbachev) during the 1980's and early 1990's attributes Reagan's Reykjavik stand and Berlin wall speech, as the moments the Soviet Union and the Cold War met its demise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to see some proof that Gorbachev and Yeltson said that Reagan was responsible for ending the Soviet Union and the cold war. The Russians bristle at this suggestion made by Republican zealots that Reagan ended the cold war. It is revisionism at its worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.