Ronald Reagan
- Thread starter LucyDuke
- Start date
He cut the nation's misery in half.
Why is a linear addition of unemployment and inflation a good figure to measure misery? My policy prof would have a field day with an argument like this.
I have to assume this is a joke post that is missing its smiley.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Carter was affected by Carter-itis (a serious disease where nothing goes right for the infected person, regardless how good the idea is) and had a little issue called the OPEC embargo. If OPEC had decided to embargo us under Reagan he might have contracted a case of Carter-itis to.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I believe the term is "tax and spend", not "deficit spenders"... Obama is a unique case, having spent way more than anyone on record.
This is not true, some nations decline doesn't really stop.
He signalled a major shift... however, over the years, they have shifted far from his ideals... it just has been gradual so many "repubs" don't even realize it.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
He cut the nation's misery in half.
To clarify does this mean Truman is the greatest President of the last 60 years?
Spending more than your predecessor seems to be a goal of politicians these days.
Thus far, the USA is not one of those. We always recover after our falls.
Yes, he has the same status as FDR and Teddy, who also represented major shifts in thought. Arguably Lincoln and Jefferson too.
Oddly enough, these men are all considered our greatest Presidents besides Washington.
And my respect for economists has dropped again.
So, according to this garbage figure, we have the same amount of misery in an economy with 5% unemployment and 5% inflation as in an economy with 9% unemployment and 1% inflation? At least the wiki link mentions that people would weight these factors differently, although it seems incredibly subjective to pick any weighting factor.
Deflation is not necessarily a good thing either, but it's helpful according to this metric.
I bolded the most important phrase in that sentence. Complacency is not a good thing.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I've seen a different misery index before, that took other things into consideration, tax burden, etc...
I thought it was pretty cool.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032.html
Closer to the bottom of the page.
Income vs taxes...
It's a bit misleading to have NYC represent the USA, since it is so highly taxed compared to the rest of the country.
I thought it was pretty cool.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032.html
Closer to the bottom of the page.
Income vs taxes...
It's a bit misleading to have NYC represent the USA, since it is so highly taxed compared to the rest of the country.
I thought you were referring to the Barro index, which adds bank rates and GDP, but this is another animal entirely.
However, I have the same complaint: just because these numbers are percents doesn't mean they can be added. They measure different things, and a linear addition, or any other weighting factors selected, is incredibly subjective.
Also, the index you linked only adds the top marginal rate (i.e. top bracket) irrelevant of where that top bracket is. If I were to add a 99% tax rate on income earned over ten trillion dollars in the USA, it would have no real effect because no one actually makes that much money [or anywhere close to it]. However, the "misery index" in the US would shoot through the roof. How can something with no effect actually increase the amount of misery?
Effective tax rates on some "average" or otherwise comparable income would be superior because it wouldn't fall victim to this kind of manipulation.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Right, so still about the commies. And Cutlass's post about compromise, if Reagan was like that then I approve but it doesn't sound like anything today's GOP would celebrate. VR posted about national parks, which, same thing, that's good in my book but not something I'd expect the GOP to idolize for.
NOBODY HAS
NOBODY HAS
rollo1066
Warlord
I think FDR was a great President but he got elected 4 times because of WWII. This wouldn't have happened in peacetime.
Popular does not equal good. Conservatives don't have anyone else to make a hero out of. So Reagan gets it by default.
What cannot be changed is that the Reagan who lived is not much like the reputation his supporters claim he was.
Nixon was disgraced, and he started OSHA and EPA. Ford was a decent guy, but definitely in a time and place that was a no win situation.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I feel like I should weigh in as someone who doesn't follow politics as much as most people on this site. Meaning, maybe to represent to the general public who doesn't listen to talk radio, or watch political shows, but once in a while watches those Sunday Political Shows which were better before Tim Russert (sp?) died. That dude was pretty good at interviewing people.
So, here goes.
Reagan was pretty awesome. Clinton was better though. Bush Jr. sucked. Elder Bush was... there. Obama has been ok, though mostly disappointing, I guess.
There. That's the view from the general public, I think. fwiw.
So, here goes.
Reagan was pretty awesome. Clinton was better though. Bush Jr. sucked. Elder Bush was... there. Obama has been ok, though mostly disappointing, I guess.
There. That's the view from the general public, I think. fwiw.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
But WHY? WHY was Reagan pretty awesome? What did he DO?
