Because I know you are all facinated with economics..Follow

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/08/reaganomics/index.html

J. K. Galbraith on Regans economic legacy.


But let's talk economics. It is not too early to contradict those who would elevate Reagan above Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, or even Bill Clinton, on this score. Yes, Reagan did change the course of history. But his economic legacy was mainly destructive, and especially so for the world's poor and our own working class.

Among postwar administrations, who had the best record on economic growth? The answer is Kennedy-Johnson (49 percent over eight years), followed by Clinton (34 percent), followed by Reagan (32 percent). Among postwar two-term presidencies, Reagan beats out only Eisenhower (21 percent) and Nixon-Ford (24 percent). Call him the best of the Republicans, if you want.

Click on "free day pass" and watch the silly movie. I can't help it if you don't subscribe to all the liberal e-magazines!!

I think you are exactly right, sir.

Rock the Vote d00000d

i've never seen this many ppl agree at the same time in any of these forums. what happened to ppl voting me down, come on now!!!

since no one will disagree, i will

FDR is rated one of the best president's because he did some stuff during the war by himself, same w/ washington,truman, lincoln. they used the war powers to put certain measures into effect that may not have passed otherwise, but were/are a good idea. so it is not always the band-wagon crap. TR was far too intelligent to just sit back and let ppl tell him what to do/say, if he didn't understand an issue, he tried his hardest, because he not only wanted what's best for the country but what's best for him after he left the "cushy" job they call the presidency

yeah 100 posts

Old Fdizzle to the Rizzle busted out with a little somethin somethin known as the Nizzle Dizzle, yo! That's his legacy. It didn't have anything to do with the war. The war just solidified him as the most important and greatest president in American History.

I just want the childrens to LEARN.

Sheesh. Lighten up and get that chip off your shoulder. You're just gong to get really frustrated in the long run...


I don't think a raw measurement of economic growth during a presidents term is the best indicator of that Presidents economic saavy (or ability to listen to advisors as mentioned above). You are looking at stats in a vaccum when you do that. Economic "growth" is by definition a relative thing. Thus, what came before, and what comes afterwards is just as important as what happened during the years a president is in office.

Also. Economic trends dont follow the same 4 year cycles that presidential terms do, so a president could take office during any part of a trend. Additionally, actions taken while the president is in office tend to take 3-5 years to have their full effect on the economy. You don't just fiddle a few bits and see an immediate change. You look at what's going on right now, then you come up with a plan to change something. Then you implement that change via budget/tax proposals. Then you wait a year for that change to take effect (generally changing of taxes and budgeting). Then you wait at least one more year to see what effect it had.

Economic growth during a 1 term presidency is far more likely to have something to do with what the previous administration was doing, and the other economic factors of the time, then any action that president took.

What's telling is when a president takes office during a recession, and how quickly he turns it around. What's also telling is where a recession starts and how long it runs.


When I see those economic trends, and assuming we were to give full credit/blame to the presidents (which is not really correct anyhow), then the trend I see is that when the economy starts to fall, we elect a Republican. That Republican makes the needed changes and the economy turns around. Once that starts and there are "good times", people elect a Democrat (cause there's plenty of money, so why not feed the hungy and cloth the poor and all the other liberal causes). That Democrat then enjoys several years of prosperity, but eventually runs it into the ground, starting another recessionary period. Then a Republican is elected and we repeat the process.


The way I see it, Repubicans know how to take an economy that isn't working and make it work, and Democrats know how to take an economy that is working and break it...


But that's just my opposition view (cause folks were complaining about the lack of disagreement).