• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Ronald Reagan the best President all time?

Was Ronald Reagan the best President of the all times?

  • I'm a right leaning American, yes

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • I'm a right leaning American, yes and the United Statss needs a President like him now

    Votes: 9 9.9%
  • I'm a left leaning American, yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a left leaning American, yes and the United States needs a President like him now

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • I'm a right leaning American, no

    Votes: 23 25.3%
  • I'm a left leaning American, no

    Votes: 41 45.1%
  • I'm not from America, yes

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • I'm not from America, no

    Votes: 14 15.4%

  • Total voters
    91
In capitalism supply side is the only side.

lol-wut.jpg
 
I think if more Conservatives read the Federalist Papers (1-10 in this case), they'd think differently of some of their deeply held views. Because to be perfectly honest, much of what they ushered in would be viewed as tyrannical by many of the Founding Fathers they claim to support and emulate.

Without question. Maybe, just maybe, they would see that the Founders themselves didn't perceive what they were saying as absolute truth or dogma.
 
Reagan was one of the best modern US presidents primarily because he expanded government (primarily Defense Spending) more than FDR while at the same time indirectly and directly by doing so fueled the private sector.


Reagan was the greatest American Socialist (and socialist period) of human history. He spent more on government than Stalin, Hitler and FDR combined. He literally doubled or even tripled the size of US defense spending which essentially fostered the private sector advancement as well through that spending. This is something the average person totally misunderstands though both on the left and right.
 
In capitalism supply side is the only side. The cold war was over until a very weak administration allowed lesser powers to restart it. Smart foreign policy understands the proper use of power, both politically and economically. The last seven years have been a text book lesson in what not to do with power.

Yeah, who needs demand for product and services? They look just great on the shelves and magazine pages. There is no cold war: don't forget how GW Bush jumped in a fighter jet to deal with Russia when they invaded Georgia... And let's not forget how Ronald Reagan himself waved the flag and sent troops into Lebanon after 200 servicemen were killed in their sleep by a truck bomb: he tucked tail and ran...

The last seven years has the Dow at 18,000 and unemployment at 5.6%, and health care to those who didn't have it, so yeah, nuthin much.

As for Russia today, the one thing that Putin does not want to do is piss US off. Hitler was the last one to do that and it didn't work out so well for'em.
 
Reagan was one of the best modern US presidents primarily because he expanded government (primarily Defense Spending) more than FDR while at the same time indirectly and directly by doing so fueled the private sector.


Reagan was the greatest American Socialist (and socialist period) of human history. He spent more on government than Stalin, Hitler and FDR combined. He literally doubled or even tripled the size of US defense spending which essentially fostered the private sector advancement as well through that spending. This is something the average person totally misunderstands though both on the left and right.

Much of what you said is true. The big problem with Reagan is that the industrial sector he promoted and subsidized, defense, was already too big, has too much political power, creates products that do meet the needs of the people, wastes resources on a lot of unecessary products, and puts too many resources into a sector that is not as efficient at creating jobs as almost any other industry.

He raised taxes without providing any observable benefit to most people, helping to increase hostility towards all government spending and taxation.
 
Yeah, who needs demand for product and services? They look just great on the shelves and magazine pages. There is no cold war: don't forget how GW Bush jumped in a fighter jet to deal with Russia when they invaded Georgia... And let's not forget how Ronald Reagan himself waved the flag and sent troops into Lebanon after 200 servicemen were killed in their sleep by a truck bomb: he tucked tail and ran...

The last seven years has the Dow at 18,000 and unemployment at 5.6%, and health care to those who didn't have it, so yeah, nuthin much.

As for Russia today, the one thing that Putin does not want to do is piss US off. Hitler was the last one to do that and it didn't work out so well for'em.


Commerce depends on supply and demand but that's not what supply side is about. Supply side economics is about reducing barriers to production and services and making capital investments. It's true supply needs customers because nothing works in a vacuum but economic growth relies on employment and employment increases when production increases. In addition, money doesn't flow from where it's not to where it is.

There was a cold war, it ended with the end of the Soviet Union. It's coming back and the marker was Clinton's Russian reset.

I was listening to Bernie Sanders the other day and he claimed the real unemployment rate was 13%. That's the only thing I agree with Bernie about. He arrived at that by taking the number of unemployment claims and adding the 92 million that are able bodied and out of the labor market in the labor participation rate.

Obamanomics is good for Wall Street. It involves the Fed printing money every month and an unreasonably low interest rate. Does that sound like it will end well to you?

Putin pisses us off every week. We will never have a physical altercation with them because of mutually assured destruction however NATO does have some clout in our relationship.
 
Much of what you said is true. The big problem with Reagan is that the industrial sector he promoted and subsidized, defense, was already too big, has too much political power, creates products that do meet the needs of the people, wastes resources on a lot of unecessary products, and puts too many resources into a sector that is not as efficient at creating jobs as almost any other industry.

He raised taxes without providing any observable benefit to most people, helping to increase hostility towards all government spending and taxation.


Oh I don't agree.


8/10 govt. AND private sector workers today owe their incomes to the defense spending of Ronald Reagan. The defense tech that is now in use in IT is tech that was developed through such spending. Many private companies today owe their existence to defense contracts from the Reagan era. The defense sector is actually a highly productive, if not the most productive and beneficial sector for the US economy both directly and indirectly.


Anti-war types and Liberals simply don't like this reality so they try to paint it as somehow invalid.



The average person though doesn't understand the hard bolts of politics and economics. They inject emotions into it where there should be none. They simply will never understand how the world actually functions on the ground and the poll is evidence of this. Most people do not understand the concept of cumulative results and direct and indirect impacts. Such concepts to the average person are mere conspiracy. They don't have the IQ's to process them.
 
Last edited:
I'm gong to assume that you are intelligent enough to know what I was talking about. Should I not give you that much credit?

I'm going to assume that based on this post, you are saying we should take nothing you say at literal face value
 
Commerce depends on supply and demand but that's not what supply side is about. Supply side economics is about reducing barriers to production and services and making capital investments. It's true supply needs customers because nothing works in a vacuum but economic growth relies on employment and employment increases when production increases. In addition, money doesn't flow from where it's not to where it is.

There was a cold war, it ended with the end of the Soviet Union. It's coming back and the marker was Clinton's Russian reset.

I was listening to Bernie Sanders the other day and he claimed the real unemployment rate was 13%. That's the only thing I agree with Bernie about. He arrived at that by taking the number of unemployment claims and adding the 92 million that are able bodied and out of the labor market in the labor participation rate.

Obamanomics is good for Wall Street. It involves the Fed printing money every month and an unreasonably low interest rate. Does that sound like it will end well to you?

Putin pisses us off every week. We will never have a physical altercation with them because of mutually assured destruction however NATO does have some clout in our relationship.


considering the population of the usa is ~320M, 92M would equate to at least 25% unemployment, regardless of being added to anything.
 
I'm going to assume that based on this post, you are saying we should take nothing you say at literal face value

You are free to do what you wish.
 
Last edited:
last chance to retract your comment

What, that I heard Bernie Sanders say the unemployment rate was 13% and that he said the difference was the labor participation rate? Why would I retract that? That's what he said.
 
He acted as president, ended the cold war, maintained a stable currency, saved lots of trees by not printing tons of currency.

Reagan did not end the cold war. The cold war ended on his watch. The country and eight presidents fought the cold war. Ronald Reagan was a disaster to this country and the 1%'s thug.
 
Reagan did not end the cold war. The cold war ended on his watch. The country and eight presidents fought the cold war. Ronald Reagan was a disaster to this country and the 1%'s thug.

You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your own facts. You may not believe the words but there is a picture that might be your speed. The End of the Cold War
 
There were good and bad with Reagan. He was effective at changing the government from that which was created by the New Deal and he played a major role in ending the cold war. He also began the move toward consolidation of wealth at the top of the economic food chain, and changed the Anti-Trust law environment that has led to corporate consolidation and a drastic reduction in competition in the marketplace. Like any other President; some good and some bad.
 
You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your own facts. You may not believe the words but there is a picture that might be your speed. The End of the Cold War

Your implication that Reagan won the cold war is - at best - hyperbole. It's like saying Truman won WWII.
 
Your implication that Reagan won the cold war is - at best - hyperbole. It's like saying Truman won WWII.

Yea, OK. Picture wasn't good enough.
 
Jimmy Carter was a far better president. No, I'm not joking.

that is one of the funniest things I have ever heard

The only president who rivals Carter in my lifetime for fail is Obama

the misery index was through the roof under Carter

HIs fascist actions towards our Olympic team was beyond disgusting: he almost ruined the games single handedly

His inept failure to deal with Irani banditry set the stage for future attacks by Fundi-islamists
 
TurtleDude, I agree with you about the size of government. It is way too large and is totally inefficient. However, back when I was a small boy and this nation was number one, after WWII, those high 90% tax rates were only imposed on the highest portions of income, in a progressive manner. Adjusted for inflation, if Reagan had not succeeded in eliminating those highest rate levels, today's billionaires would still be billionaires, but the taxes on the middle class would have been much less of a burden, and those of us in the middle class would be better off relatively. The troublesome widening divide between the super rich and the rest of us would not be quite so horrific. Sorry I did not make his point originally.

undertaking the middle and lower classes is why so many in the middle and lower classes want more and more and more government, and the people making between about 400K and 5 million are the most taxed (in terms of percentages) in the USA. I am in that group and I tire of being told I need to pay more and more so the middle class can have more and more handouts. AND I tire of being told that makes me part of the "super rich". when 300K or more puts you in the top tax bracket, its idiotic

and I totally oppose any progressive taxes. The rich pay more anyway under a flat tax. Its the death tax and the progressive income tax that insulates the super rich
 

You have the whole internet at your disposal. You are free to find websites that agree with you and websites that don't. Educate yourself. Reagan is widely credited with ending the cold war and facilitating the end of the Soviet Union. Others with Reagan derangement syndrome claim that Gollum took the ring and jumped into the fire in Mordor and suddenly the cold war was over. You are free to believe as you wish.
 
You have the whole internet at your disposal. You are free to find websites that agree with you and websites that don't. Educate yourself. Reagan is widely credited with ending the cold war and facilitating the end of the Soviet Union. Others with Reagan derangement syndrome claim that Gollum took the ring and jumped into the fire in Mordor and suddenly the cold war was over. You are free to believe as you wish.

It is ridiculous to credit any President for ending the cold war. The end came from within and Levi Jeans and Charmin have more to do with it than Star wars.
 
It is ridiculous to credit any President for ending the cold war. The end came from within and Levi Jeans and Charmin have more to do with it than Star wars.

Sure and Henry Ford didn't build the model A because he had a whole factory of guys. Torture your logic as much as you wish. Water board it for all I care.
 
You have the whole internet at your disposal. You are free to find websites that agree with you and websites that don't. Educate yourself. Reagan is widely credited with ending the cold war and facilitating the end of the Soviet Union. Others with Reagan derangement syndrome claim that Gollum took the ring and jumped into the fire in Mordor and suddenly the cold war was over. You are free to believe as you wish.

if reagan gets credit for ending it (via his proxy war funding of the mujahadeen), he also gets blamed for making OBL viable.


sure you want to put him down for that?
 
Reagan was Reagan. He was indeed something special... not perfect (his presidency had several serious faults) but the right man at the right time.


If you didn't live through the Carter years, or you weren't old enough to understand what a bleak time they were and how hope for the future was dying like drought-withered grass, then you'll never understand what Reagan was or why so many people loved him so.



Perfect? No. Greatest Prez of all time? Probably not. The man we needed in the moment we needed him? Hell yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom