Ronald Reagan.... Good or Bad?

[Catawba]

I would agree if Bill Clinton wasn't ranked as number 7. I guess mostly women voted in the poll if Clinton was able to rise to top 7.

From what I am to understand, Clinton was able to rise most anywhere, or any place!

 

[VanceMack]

From what I am to understand, Clinton was able to rise most anywhere, or any place!

Except in the bedroom with his wife! :Oopsie

 

[soccerboy22]

Except in the bedroom with his wife! :Oopsie

Honestly do you blame him. I doubt even Reagan could rise to the occasion with Hillary.

 

[VanceMack]

Honestly do you blame him. I doubt even Reagan could rise to the occasion with Hillary.

Ya know...I was going to go there myself but thought...nope...too much...

 

[Catawba]

Except in the bedroom with his wife! :Oopsie

You are most certainly more knowledgeable about Clinton's bedroom than myself.

 

[VanceMack]

You are most certainly more knowledgeable about Clinton's bedroom than myself.

Lets see...Ive got a pretty clear picture of at least the public persona that is Hillary Clinton...and as for being with her sexually...hmmm...how do we put this delicately...

Ive never had leprosy...but I'm pretty sure it sucks...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Lets see...Ive got a pretty clear picture of at least the public persona that is Hillary Clinton...and as for being with her sexually...hmmm...how do we put this delicately...

Ive never had leprosy...but I'm pretty sure it sucks...

Unlike Hillary.

 

[American]

And scholars consistently (liberal and conservative) place Reagan below FDR.

List the scholars.

 

[American]

People consider Reagan the #1 greatest American.

The Greatest American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm disappointed that James Madison and Samuel Adams didn't make the list.

 

[Catawba]

List the scholars.

I already did, but for all the thread review impaired out there ~

Notable scholar surveys

"The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. of Harvard University.[2][dead link] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians; the results of this survey are given in the book The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents by William A. Degregorio. Schlesinger's son Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. conducted another poll in 1996, not currently on the chart below.

The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was ranked #22 in 1962, but was ranked #9 in the 1982 survey.

The Siena Research Institute of Siena College conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2002. The 1994 survey placed only two Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points, and placed two Presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.[3][dead link][4][dead link]

The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1989 to 1996 by William J. Ridings, Jr. and Stuart B. McIver, and published in the book Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included, and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies", as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the Presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:[6]

* "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%."
* "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?” Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose no opinion or not applicable."

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[6]

The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency"[7] who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009.[8][9] With some minor variation, both surveys found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison (to a lesser extent), Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan the worst."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States]Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Conservative]

I already did, but for all the thread review impaired out there ~

Notable scholar surveys

"The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. of Harvard University.[2][dead link] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians; the results of this survey are given in the book The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents by William A. Degregorio. Schlesinger's son Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. conducted another poll in 1996, not currently on the chart below.

The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was ranked #22 in 1962, but was ranked #9 in the 1982 survey.

The Siena Research Institute of Siena College conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2002. The 1994 survey placed only two Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points, and placed two Presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.[3][dead link][4][dead link]

The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1989 to 1996 by William J. Ridings, Jr. and Stuart B. McIver, and published in the book Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included, and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies", as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the Presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:[6]

* "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%."
* "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?” Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose no opinion or not applicable."

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[6]

The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency"[7] who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009.[8][9] With some minor variation, both surveys found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison (to a lesser extent), Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan the worst."
Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You sure put a lot of faith in Presidential Rankings but very little in actual results. Says a lot about you and how you swallowed the leftwing rhetoric. Your hatred for Bush and Reagan is misguided.

Tell me why information coming from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Treasury Dept. only matter when Clinton was in office but aren't credible for Reagan and Bush? That same data however is being totally ignored today which indicates that when information is good for a Republican or bad when it relates to Obama it is ignored but when good for a Democrat, Clinton, it is touted?

You can post all the blog sites or Presidential rankings but when you post data on Bush stating he has just completed 5 years in office you cite polls that have zero credibility.

When you ignore actual economic data and focus solely on blog information or leftwing sites or media reports you destroy your credibility because opinions are trumped by actual facts.

 

[Catawba]

You sure put a lot of faith in Presidential Rankings but very little in actual results.

The "actual results" are why Reagan consistently ranks lower than FDR among scholars.

 

[Conservative]

The "actual results" are why Reagan consistently ranks lower than FDR among scholars.

Actual results? I am still waiting for you to explain to anyone how BEA, BLS, U.S. Census, and U.S. Treasury got it wrong and especially how their data is accurate in describing the Clinton economy yet inaccurate in describing the Reagan or Bush economy?

Is it your contention that those non partisan sites are lying about the GDP Growth, Unemployment decline, govt. revenue increases, and personal income?

Maybe those so called scholars are a lot like you and didn't pay any attention to actual results

Since you believe so much in polls tell us why you believe FDR was such a great President and is ranked higher than Reagan? Much of the debt today is based upon FDR legacy but that doesn't seem to matter to you. Why aren't you blaming FDR for the ponzi scheme he created or don't you think present workers funding previous worker retirement benefits is a ponzi scheme?

For someone whose basic objection regarding Reagan, you totally ignore the FDR deficits and programs that are leading to the massive debt we have today. I call that partisanship.

 

[Catawba]

Maybe those so called scholars are a lot like you and didn't pay any attention to actual results.

Or, maybe they made scholarly assessments as to what was, and what was not, in the best long term interest of the country and its people.

Since you believe so much in polls tell us why you believe FDR was such a great President and is ranked higher than Reagan?

He pulled us out of the Great depression, established banking regulations to prevent it from happening in the future, which a later Republican Congress removed resulting in our current financial crisis. He created jobs for millions, and created a middle class through SS and Medicare, and he made the rich pay their fair share of the war effort.

Much of the debt today is based upon FDR legacy but that doesn't seem to matter to you. Why aren't you blaming FDR for the ponzi scheme he created or don't you think present workers funding previous worker retirement benefits is a ponzi scheme?

Wrong, Most of the debt today is for our unfunded wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The financial problems with SS and Medicare today are due to mismanagement of the trust funds, not the design of the programs.

 

[Conservative]

Catawba;1058555580]Or, maybe they made scholarly assessments as to what was, and what was not, in the best long term interest of the country and its people.

Is that what your history books taught you? It is the best interest of this country to implement a ponzi scheme and disguise it as retirement income?

He pulled us out of the Great depression, established banking regulations to prevent it from happening in the future, which a later Republican Congress removed resulting in our current financial crisis. He created jobs for millions, and created a middle class through SS and Medicare, and he made the rich pay their fair share of the war effort.

How is that working out for you? He didn't pull us out of the depression, the war did.

Wrong, Most of the debt today is for our unfunded wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The financial problems with SS and Medicare today are due to mismanagement of the trust funds, not the design of the programs.

[/QUOTE]

That is what misguided individuals think. The Social Engineering of FDR, the Great Society of LBJ, and the continued social engineering of Barack Obama have buried us in debt. How did we pay for WWII? How much did Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan cost? Please stop making a fool of yourself and actually get some facts.

 

[Catawba]

Is that what your history books taught you? It is the best interest of this country to implement a ponzi scheme and disguise it as retirement income?

Which party is proposing to cut SS that you claim is so obviously a ponzi scheme, and what percentage of the vote did thy get?

How is that working out for you?

It was working fine till Reagan came along and ended the Golden Era we had from 1950 on by drastically cut taxes for the top income brackets.

He didn't pull us out of the depression, the war did.

Correction, the spending during a time of depression did, just as our stimulus spending helped us recover from this recession.

How did we pay for WWII?

We taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate is how, instead of making the middle class bear more of the burden.

How much did Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan cost?

Our unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost more than Vietnam, and will soon have cost more than WWII.

 

[Conservative]

Which party is proposing to cut SS that you claim is so obviously a ponzi scheme, and what percentage of the vote did thy get?



It was working fine till Reagan came along and ended the Golden Era we had from 1950 on by drastically cut taxes for the top income brackets.


Correction, the spending during a time of depression did, just as our stimulus spending helped us recover from this recession.



We taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate is how, instead of making the middle class bear more of the burden.


Our unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost more than Vietnam, and will soon have cost more than WWII.

:rofl:spin::2wave::2wave:

 

[Catawba]

:rofl:spin::2wave::2wave:

Couldn't answer the questions or refute what I said once again I see. Big surprise there! LOL!

Very well I accept your concession.

 

[Conservative]

Couldn't answer the questions or refute what I said once again I see. Big surprise there! LOL!

Very well I accept your concession.

Of course you do, I just ran out of leftwing sites to go to and got tired of posting actual facts that you will ignore. Facts always confuse a cult follower and it serves no purpose to continue to give you the non partisan sites that refute your claims because you ignore them. Offering personal experience isn't of value either nor is offering you logic and common sense. Some people are just too far gone and you are one of them:2wave::2wave:

 

[Catawba]

Offering personal experience isn't of value either nor is offering you logic and common sense. Some people are just too far gone and you are one of them:2wave::2wave:

Still couldn't find anything to back up your half-baked opinions I see. :2wave:

 

[Conservative]

Still couldn't find anything to back up your half-baked opinions I see. :2wave:

You are right, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. Census only offer valid data when a Democrat is in the WH and the numbers are good. No sense using that information for you as you are far too smart and see right through the conspiracy theory to make Republican Presidents look good.

 

[winston53660]

You are right, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. Census only offer valid data when a Democrat is in the WH and the numbers are good. No sense using that information for you as you are far too smart and see right through the conspiracy theory to make Republican Presidents look good.

That is all you ever say but you never actually post your references. And when you attempt to they are nothing but dead ends. Your cred is about nill to zero.

 

[Conservative]

That is all you ever say but you never actually post your references. And when you attempt to they are nothing but dead ends. Your cred is about nill to zero.

Get someone to help you use your computer.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - bea.gov Home Page
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

As for my credibility in regards to you, I couldn't care less.:2wave:

 

[Catawba]

Get someone to help you use your computer.

Your first source shows this administration has improved the GDP over the last administration.

BEA : Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Graph

Your second source was to the same site as the first one.


Your third source shows that unemployment rose 3.7% during the Bush Administration from 4.0% to 7.7%. The unemployment rate under Obama started at the 7.7% under Bush and rose to a high of 10.2 % and is now down to 9.7%, a total of 2% increase in unemployment.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Your fourth source did not provide any historical comparisons that I could find.

As for my credibility in regards to you, I couldn't care less.

It is fortunate you feel that way! :2wave:

 

[Conservative]

Your first source shows this administration has improved the GDP over the last administration.

BEA : Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Graph

You really need some serious help, but this thread is about Ronald Reagan. Would be happy to discuss GW Bush and all the help he got from Obama as a Senator and a Democrat Controlled Congress if you want to start another thread.

Your second source was to the same site as the first one.

The second source takes you to the revenue section showing how govt. revenue grew during the Reagan and Bush years. You will see how it fell last year and so far this year. Learn to do some research.

Your third source shows that unemployment rose 3.7% during the Bush Administration from 4.0% to 7.7%. The unemployment rate under Obama started at the 7.7% under Bush and rose to a high of 10.2 % and is now down to 9.7%, a total of 2% increase in unemployment.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

In case you missed it this thread is about Reagan but Bush took the Unemployment rate down until the Democratic Congress helped put this country into recession.

And if you believe the unemployment rate is 9.7% I have some swamp land for sale and you are the right sucker to buy it. The unemployment rate dropped with an increase in the number of lost jobs? How can that be? could it be a frustrated country that has people dropping out of the labor force? Naw, no way, Obama is our savior.

Your fourth source did not provide any historical comparisons that I could find.

The fourth source requires you to do a little work. You can put whatever year you want but I have done it for you in a previous post on this thread. I suggest you learn to do some work yourself instead of being a typical liberal and requiring someone else to do it for you.


Now that you know how to use the charts I suggest you do some research. I expect someone will have to interpret the data for you however.