Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (42999)	4/29/2010 12:27:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

His "legacy" was a continuing Republican mantra of LESS taxes and LESS regulation If that was true, he would be an even better president than I give him credit for being. But as soon as he finished with his last tax cut taxes started going up again (even before he left office, he raised them himself, than Bush did, then Clinton did, Bush II cut them back, but not as much as the previous increases, now Obama's started increasing them again), and taxes started to get more complex (undoing the progress of tax reform), and regulation started growing again, and is now much more extensive than it was after Reagan's deregulation (also Carter's, later in his term, deregulation, he doesn't often get credit for that anymore, but that's one of the good things he did, well that and appointing Volcker). If Carter had been re-elected, and had kept taxes high, we might possibly have had lower deficits, but we would very likely have had much less economic growth, and by now we might be receiving less tax revenue even with the much higher marginal rates. He certainly would have made the military more efficient. No certainty about that at all. But its likely the military would have been less capable. Carter was the guy that wanted the "free market" to play a bigger role in our military spending With a near monopsony buyer a market can function but it has some difficulties and typically won't function as well. When that buyer's decisions are largely political and subject to frequent change (esp. but not only with new elections), you have more problems. To the extent a market can function in military procurement it generally has been. Not perfectly, there is plenty of room for improvement at the margin, but there isn't real room for night and day improvement. And to the extent there is improvement there is little reason to think Carter would have made such improvements (or that if he did they would have been durable. Carter probably would have ended the cold war earlier. Very unlikely. At best it would have been no later. But later is certainly possible with the less powerful and assertive US that would have existed without Reagan. He was the guy that actually got Sadat to GO to Israel, No that was Sadat. I'm not saying that Carter played no role, but peace happened because the two countries decided they are ready for peace. Put Carter in as president 10 years earlier and nothing would have happened. Make him president now (either the current Carter, or Carter as he was when he assumed office) and he would be very unlikely to achieve any real gains in terms of peace in the Middle East.

To: RMF who wrote (42999)	5/6/2010 12:33:40 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The main thing I don't like about Reagan is that he made such a BIG point about how high our national debt was in 1980 then he allowed Tip O/Neil to go on this big spending spree . That is a pretty big chip for allowing the Speaker of the House to waste money like it was water. Based on this metric you must really dislike Obama. He said he was going to CUT government spending but O'Neil INCREASED it dramatically. Voters didn't take control of the House from democrats. He also cut regulations which led to the biggest government "bailout" up to that time of the savings and loans. Of course the Keating Five didn't have anything to do it in your revisionist version of history. The savings and loan crisis was caused by decades of investment decisions. S&Ls held fixed rate mortgages with low rates in an era that required higher interest PAYMENTS. It is a guaranteed disaster. President Reagan had nothing to do with that. Oops, sorry to burst your revisionist bubble. If Carter had been reelected he would have been one of the most HIGHLY respected Presidents of his generation. ... Do you write comedy skits for late night TV? That is a hoot. The only thing that could have happened to remove Carter from the title of worst President in history was Obama. Do you remember your first statement? The main thing I don't like about Reagan is that he made such a BIG point about ... Carter ran on the misery index, yet it was much worse four years later. Thus if you were being consistent you would dislike Carter for that.