Who would be better? Regan or Roosevelt?

[Goldsaver]

Social Security was signed into law by FDR; its current state is irrelevant to this discussion, as is the current state of unions.

Slow down there, sport. It is very current. He created a program that is now a mess. Regardless of how you feel about him and SS, it is very relevant.

The state of the program currently isn't entirely relevant, as he didn't have anything to do with the budget policies that caused SS to become what it is.

[TerraPublica]

Roosevelt, but where's the obvious flamebait button?

[Herskerstad]

Eh, Roosevelts biggest failing was giving Stalin such a monstrously good post WWII deal. Both him and Churchill's 'naughty document' completely misread the soviet state's capabilities. Looking at some museum of war documents, they were freaking terrified that Finland would initiate a counter war, in which case their logistics would be very slow and sluggish to respond.

I am not aligned with Roosevelt's politics, but some of his less orthodox American policies came at the right place at the right time. Oh, but he did nothing magic to help the job situation. What better way to solve huge unemployment with a war of biblical proportions? He would also probably identify Muslim terrorists as 'enemy combatants' chew on that modern democrats.

I got no real distaste for Roosevelt, but he would have made a poor all-peace time president in my humble opinion. Reagan, also had to do some bad in order to do much good. He robbed the treasury to finish off the evil empire and reverse the crippling inflation left by the previous administration. His programs for jobs also had a very strong effect, momentous in efficency compared by today's stimulus.

I think both would be prepared militarily and run a completely different show than what Obama is doing, but I guess due that Reagan has a more classic American financial approach I'd go with him.

[Caninope]

Regan, obv. The sure way to fix this economic problem is to raise taxes on the poor and middle class while lowering them on the wealthy, so that big business can afford more workers in China.

Reagan didn't raise taxes on the poor, herp derp.

[Altruistic Paladins]

Neither.
My vote goes to Zombie Theodore Roosevelt.

Put him on the ballot and I'll be torn between the Roosevelts, both did very similar and great things, maybe the Bull Moose Party will even usurp the Republican Party in this two party system.

[Kubra]

Man why not Teddy Roosevelt
America wouldn't even need a military budget

[Goldsaver]

Roosevelt, and THIS is why.

Yoiu're talking your news source from a satire website?

No, he wasn't serious.

[Lackadaisical2]

They've both served the maximum number of terms, so neither.

I don't think that applies to FDR since that rule came in during Truman. His would probably start from scratch again (his count).

Nope, the amendment doesn't seem to mention any backses on the term count if they were president before ratification, only during.

[Lackadaisical2]

I am not aligned with Roosevelt's politics, but some of his less orthodox American policies came at the right place at the right time. Oh, but he did nothing magic to help the job situation. What better way to solve huge unemployment with a war of biblical proportions? He would also probably identify Muslim terrorists as 'enemy combatants' chew on that modern democrats.

Not to mention all American Iraqis and Afghanis too

[Herskerstad]

I am not aligned with Roosevelt's politics, but some of his less orthodox American policies came at the right place at the right time. Oh, but he did nothing magic to help the job situation. What better way to solve huge unemployment with a war of biblical proportions? He would also probably identify Muslim terrorists as 'enemy combatants' chew on that modern democrats.

Not to mention all American Iraqis and Afghanis too

Well, one thing I very much doubt Roosevelt would do is to let the US get so crippled by ungrateful oil companies that artificially bump up the prices to around six or seven fold. He'd probably nationalize that within the day. Depending on how much he would hardball the middle east, I'd say it would be very possible that he would nationalize assets owned by certain regions, or even individual property from certain regions. If anyone has read up on the pre American-Japanse war then you will know he did not mess around. If he had a high deficit I would not be surprised if he sold Iraq to the highest oil bidder, which would then provide so to so much free oil for the price of liberating it. Rather than the modern tactic which is simply giving it away to people that are rather hostile to the US in general, and probably will merge/become a puppet of Iran the moment the US have fully pulled out.

Most modern democrats love Roosevelt, but they would hate his guts on civil rights issues.

[Maurepas]

Oh FDR, by far. There would be none of this cutting deals and bending over backwards for the republicans, there would be, "You'll vote the way I like, or you'll have a few extra new congressmen in this chamber, and you'll goddamned like it."

Yeah it's instead it's "lets pack the supreme court with my justices because my liberal policies failed to do anything about the depression". It took ww2 to bring america back from that.

Actually, the Supreme Court challenge was at the beginning, so, it had nothing to do with whether it was effective or not. Further, all those armaments in WWII? Bought and paid for by the US Government, directly. Sounds pretty socialist to me.

In order for it to've not been "liberal" they should've just waited to see if the Free Market dictated for tanks to be built or not.

[The Parkus Empire]

Regan, obv. The sure way to fix this economic problem is to raise taxes on the poor and middle class while lowering them on the wealthy, so that big business can afford more workers in China.

Reagan didn't raise taxes on the poor, herp derp.

"The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

[The Parkus Empire]

He robbed the treasury to finish off the evil empire

You mean the USSR? Yeah, calling it "the Evil Empire" is about as stupid as calling the U.S. that.

Please explain why it was necessary to fuck over America and plunge us into debt just so we could alter thr Russian government, which was inevitably going to change anyhow.

[Maurepas]

He robbed the treasury to finish off the evil empire

You mean the USSR? Yeah, calling it "the Evil Empire" is about as stupid as calling the U.S. that.

Please explain why it was necessary to fuck over America and plunge us into debt just so we could alter thr Russian government, which was inevitably going to change anyhow.

If we didn't the terrorists win?

[Soviet Haaregrad]

FDR. Even if I was casting a movie I'd pick FDR first.

[Mike the Progressive]

Slow down there, sport. It is very current. He created a program that is now a mess. Regardless of how you feel about him and SS, it is very relevant.

The state of the program currently isn't entirely relevant, as he didn't have anything to do with the budget policies that caused SS to become what it is.

What are you talking about? The nature of the system is to pay back less every generation. It began to do so when it went into effect.

[Maurepas]

The state of the program currently isn't entirely relevant, as he didn't have anything to do with the budget policies that caused SS to become what it is.

What are you talking about? The nature of the system is to pay back less every generation. It began to do so when it went into effect.

Well, they actually taxed the rich back then. When you massively lower taxes every few years or so, it's hard to say whether FDR's plan was a bad one, if we still taxed at the rates we did in the 40s and 50s, there's a good chance it'd be solvent.



I also think there's a nice correlation to the 20s-30s = Depression, Bush= Recession.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

What are you talking about? The nature of the system is to pay back less every generation. It began to do so when it went into effect.

Well, they actually taxed the rich back then. When you massively lower taxes every few years or so, it's hard to say whether FDR's plan was a bad one, if we still taxed at the rates we did in the 40s and 50s, there's a good chance it'd be solvent.

Actually, looking back on real income of the US government, America has always been corrupt and slanted toward the rich. Our governments have been buddy-buddy with the top 1% since the beginning, because the government has essentially been the top 1% since forever. We need to raise tax rates to 2001 levels, obviously, but we need to also step up and actually enforce these rates on everyone, which is something that has not been done historically.

[Maurepas]

Well, they actually taxed the rich back then. When you massively lower taxes every few years or so, it's hard to say whether FDR's plan was a bad one, if we still taxed at the rates we did in the 40s and 50s, there's a good chance it'd be solvent.

Actually, looking back on real income of the US government, America has always been corrupt and slanted toward the rich. Our governments have been buddy-buddy with the top 1% since the beginning, because the government has essentially been the top 1% since forever. We need to raise tax rates to 2001 levels, obviously, but we need to also step up and actually enforce these rates on everyone, which is something that has not been done historically.

Oh, I agree, there's no reason at all GE should've been allowed to pay no taxes and claim a refund, none at all.

[Mike the Progressive]

Reagan didn't raise taxes on the poor, herp derp.

"The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

Two things. I thought the deal with the Democratic controlled congress was to close gaps (reduce the number of breaks and deductions) in return for lowering the rates for the entire bracket. That is did they abolish and severely cut the value of deductions which resulted in those being taxed 11% to fall under the 15% rate, or did they actually raise the rates?

Which brings me to my second, though considerably more direct point: Isn't congress the body which decides if taxes are raised or dropped (it is, I'm going rhetorical right now) and wasn't it the Democratic controlled congress under Speaker O'Neil which passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986?

My point is, I'd like to know why Reagan is receiving the credit or blame, for a piece of legislation that was passed by the Democratic controlled congress which rose the rates for the poor and reduced them for the rich? Aren't the Democrats just as guilty/responsible as the Republicans in this debate?

[Trotskylvania]

Probably FDR. I like Reagan and I'd be more aligned with him than FDR policy-wise, but FDR was able to give hope back to a country at its knees. Reagan was pretty close (Carter's poor management skill embarrassed the nation, like it or not, get over it, that's how it was). But a war and economic depression? I'll give him that.

Nonetheless, I like Theodore Roosevelt the best. And I have more respect for Harry Truman than his predecessor.

FDR did nothing but prolong the Great Depression.

Only in the fantasy land where macroeconomics doesn't exist.

[Mike the Progressive]

What are you talking about? The nature of the system is to pay back less every generation. It began to do so when it went into effect.

Well, they actually taxed the rich back then. When you massively lower taxes every few years or so, it's hard to say whether FDR's plan was a bad one, if we still taxed at the rates we did in the 40s and 50s, there's a good chance it'd be solvent.



I also think there's a nice correlation to the 20s-30s = Depression, Bush= Recession.

Eh. There is a difference. The Great Depression occurred in 1929, and they rose taxes, increased tariffs, and restricted the money supply...only making it worse. Whereas during Bush they cut taxes early on and didn't raise them when the market started spiraling downward. Real shocks are a normal thing in the market (new technologies are introduced, one business falls a couple others will too and so on), they are usually intensified though with poor and/or slow actions by the Feds.

With maintaining FDR's rates, I don't know. Unemployment didn't get better with the New Deal and increased in '39. GDP grew, but that was because government spending, not the private sector, and inflation and debt are factors not considered or just ignored.

[The Parkus Empire]

Two things. I thought the deal with the Democratic controlled congress was to close gaps (reduce the number of breaks and deductions) in return for lowering the rates for the entire bracket. That is did they abolish and severely cut the value of deductions which resulted in those being taxed 11% to fall under the 15% rate, or did they actually raise the rates?

Which brings me to my second, though considerably more direct point: Isn't congress the body which decides if taxes are raised or dropped (it is, I'm going rhetorical right now) and wasn't it the Democratic controlled congress under Speaker O'Neil which passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986?

My point is, I'd like to know why Reagan is receiving the credit or blame, for a piece of legislation that was passed by the Democratic controlled congress which rose the rates for the poor and reduced them for the rich? Aren't the Democrats just as guilty/responsible as the Republicans in this debate?

Unlike you, I don't think in partisan terms (though I'm technically a Republican); my two favorite Presidents are Nixon and Clinton.

"The Democratic controlled congress under Reagan" isn't being evaluated in this thread. If you want to start on a thread on them, feel free, because like RR, they certainly did their part to fuck over the middle class and the poor while plunging us into a shitload of debt. If you're asking to me to be soft on Reagan because Democrats played a major part in his dumbfuckery, you can forget it.

Also, according the article the taxes were "raised", and there's a fine source there.

[Hathradic States]

Reagan.

We need somebody who is capable of dealing with the Reds.

[The Parkus Empire]

Reagan.

We need somebody who is capable of dealing with the Reds.

Not sure I get it.