Who do you think are the worst presidents ever?

Could be. I think it's also part of the Reagan myth (he saved the nation from terrible times under the evil Carter).

Yes I think so.

The '80s weren't really a great party, though, were they? I'd have to double check, but I believe that both job growth and GDP growth were better in the surrounding decades. The stock market growth was also boosted a lot by inflation.

Forgive me but I was a teenager living in Beverly Hills during the Reagan administration (it's been a long, strange trip) so my perception comes from that perspective. Movies and music had a very positive vibe and overall despite certain realities wherever I went there was a general perception and attitude that the USA was a "shining city on a hill" fighting the "evil empire". It was all Bruce Springsteen, Rocky 4 and Rambo and we were #fucking1. In retrospect I of course realize how it was a fa
 
That's kind of the problem with Reagan. If you look at 1972 to 1979 it was a very bad time for united states. I think anyone with a heart beat who did decently would be seen as good.

Reagan was a good president but let's not forget this guy was old and would fall asleep at meetings all the time. He delegated a lot of authority. He also dumped a bunch of money into the military using taxes and debt. Maybe it beat the soviet union? That's the common thought. I personally think the soviets would have fallen after the afgan fiasco and glasnost.

Anyways Reagan I'd say was top 1/3 of presidents not much higher.
 
So you subscribe wholeheartedly to feminist theory in general, and that book in particular, or are you just being satirical?

Because this is kind of like taking the vote from men on account of them being manipulative pieces of shit, and justifying it by having browsed "The Game".

I am suggesting that Feminist ethics agrees with my opinion on women being less focused on rationality and justice, and thus ill suited for politics, than men.


How very current of you. Seeking out selected great European minds of past centuries will probably work pretty well to justify racial segregation as well.

Oh well, the on-topic discussion is kind of interesting. I'll read that part instead.

Kant actually opposed slavery, and Hegel said nothing racist I've ever come upon. Aristotle spoke of natural slavery, so I'll give you him.

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche would also concur with me.

I'm juts saying: There is a long tradition of amazing minds who do hold my opinion, so it isn't as if I am advocating a position with respectable proponents.
 
I don't get how (not saying you) one can talk about taxation without talking about the spending side of the equation. If all taxation is harmful for growth, absent debt (which over the longer term is really timing of taxation, although timing is important), does that mean all govt is harmful for growth?

The complete absence of functional government (see: all of Africa, parts of Asia) is actually just as bad, if not worse, than a despotic government. There was more economic activity in Maoist China than there is in Somalia today, although a hundred million died under Mao, so I don't know how much the living conditions were better.
 
I am suggesting that Feminist ethics agrees with my opinion on women being less focused on rationality and justice, and thus ill suited for politics, than men.

Couldn't we say the same about Southerners versus the rest of the country? What would you think of taking the franchise away from people who live in the regions that were under control of the Confederate traitors?
 
His dismissal of the importance of man's impact on the atmosphere might have been more persuasive if it weren't for the fact that the latter produced 300,000 times more sulfur dioxide than the former.

That was Reagan? I always wondered where the droolers got their Durr Volcanoze argument from. Makes more sense now. Another piece of his worthless legacy, along with going over the top with the idea that the richest should urinate on everyone. One day I'm going to dig him up and do some nasty things.
 
It might have been better for me to say, "there's no evidence that taxation affects growth much." People can come up with all kinds of stories, but they may or may not be correct. Deficit-funded tax cuts are by nature temporary (as we'll have to pay for it somehow), while tax cuts funded by spending cuts are pushing and pulling (and under normal circumstances, fiscal policy effects can be offset in either direction by the Fed). Different types of taxes will have different behavioral effects, which could affect growth, but it doesn't seem likely that they'd affect it much. So you have to look at the evidence, and when you do, you just don't see much of anything there.

I agree that is not a tremendous amount, but capturing billions of dollars from the economy certainly did nothing to help matters. The 50s remained prosperous in spite of the high tax rates, in large part because America was reaping the benefits of being the super power of the world, of having tremendous booms from war time expenditures, and having the most intact industrial base in the world. If we had not had WWII, and the tax rates were as high as they were, I think most economic theories would predict much, much less growth.

The real impact of taxes, and the reason they're the subject of so much heated discussion, is in distribution.

True. People do not like the purposes taxes are apportioned to.


If by "well-attested," you mean, "a lot of people say it," that is correct. But it's not apparent in the data. It's funny how the arguments always take the form of "the slowdown in growth that followed tax cuts weren't caused by the cuts" or "the rapid growth that followed tax increases weren't caused by those increases." I wouldn't actually make the opposite claim, but the case for tax rates having a noticeable impact on growth is weak to non-existent.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jskinner/documents/EngenSkinnerTaxEconGrowth.pdf

This economic paper agrees that the increase in economic activity is small, but the effects are noticable and profound.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

Gathers a strong literature review that contests the modest gains from tax cuts and seems to find a much more robust gain from tax cuts.

I am not suggesting taxation should be zero, there is a point where taxation should not be increased.

Again, you're just making a statement of faith. And making an argument of the form I mentioned earlier. Growth in the 1950s was about the same as growth in the 1960s, but you're saying you think that it would have been even better in the 1950s if the tax rates were lower and that it would have been even worse in the 1960s if not for the cuts. That's possible, but you know, where's the beef?

Certainly, it's speculative, but in line with the economic views addressed in the sources above, it would seem to follow. I mean, we cannot return to conditions of the 50s in order to test these hypotheses, especially as the 50s saw America alone in the world being non-destroyed. We aren't going to replicate that element anytime soon (and thankfully).
 
Couldn't we say the same about Southerners versus the rest of the country? What would you think of taking the franchise away from people who live in the regions that were under control of the Confederate traitors?

There is no evidence that Southerners are less rational and focused on justice. I am speaking about the psychology of the sexes, as espoused by the very advocates of Feminist perspectives in academy. I take it as a necessity for political participation that one is governed by rationality and justice in one's thinking as compared to "feelings", "caring", "knowing because it makes me feel good", and other such things that Feminist "ways" usually imply.

I had no problem with the measures taken to limit enfranchisement after the Civil War. The South were traitors and lost the full rights of citizenship for some time after the Civil War and that was reasonable.

I do not support a broad enfranchisement in general. I think the idea of universal suffrage is an absurdity that places us under the yoke of the despotism of dullards. Democracy has a place in the ideal polity, but it is one which has to be tempered by elements which are more monarchical and aristocratic in nature, if not in form (I am not suggesting we should be ruled by hereditary kings or nobility, but that the government reflect monarchy and aristocracy in equal parts to democracy).
 
Yes. I do not think women ought to have the right to vote. Women are not politically as engaged/involved as men on average, and generally don't think in terms of reason/justice as men do. I take this belief from Feminists, who speak of "women's ways" of knowing (see contemporary Feminist Ethics).

Looks like we won't be getting along after all. Shame.
 
Looks like we won't be getting along after all. Shame.

Consider my political opinion on this point to be something we can respectfully disagree about.

I am not here to primarily preach why I think women should not be engaged in politics.
 
Yes. I do not think women ought to have the right to vote. Women are not politically as engaged/involved as men on average, and generally don't think in terms of reason/justice as men do. I take this belief from Feminists, who speak of "women's ways" of knowing (see contemporary Feminist Ethics).

There are actually Feminist courses titled "Women's ways of Knowing" which talk about feelings and intuition as superior forms of reasoning compared to rationality and logic which are tools of evil white males.

Worst Presidents:

Obama

George Bush Jr.


From my understanding, the administration for both presidents have similar corporate ties. Goldman Sachs appears to have a huge influence on both presidents.
 
There are actually Feminist courses titled "Women's ways of Knowing" which talk about feelings and intuition as superior forms of reasoning compared to rationality and logic which are tools of evil white males.

Worst Presidents:

Obama

George Bush Jr.


From my understanding, the administration for both presidents have similar corporate ties. Goldman Sachs appears to have a huge influence on both presidents.

That is exactly what I've been pointing out, Atheist, in this thread. I even listed a book from Amazon.com on this point.

I am glad to see someone doesn't think I am entirely crazy for pointing this out.

Goldman Sachs is definitely not a wholesome company.
 
It's funny how Reagan won his second election by unbelievable numbers and had the nation pulled together, he restored faith and hope in all Americans yet revisionist have fooled people that weren't even alive or in diapers into thinking he was a bad president.
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of our generation.

Conservative policies will never be accepted by liberal institutions, history will judge that as well


08Reagan.jpg
 
I agree that is not a tremendous amount, but capturing billions of dollars from the economy certainly did nothing to help matters. The 50s remained prosperous in spite of the high tax rates, in large part because America was reaping the benefits of being the super power of the world, of having tremendous booms from war time expenditures, and having the most intact industrial base in the world.

Facepalm gif. You realize that you just undermined the whole case for capitalism, right? Other nations being in bad shape is not a positive for our economy. And the biggest problem (out of many candidates) with the "in spite of high taxes" argument is the Fed. Under normal circumstances (with interest rates not at zero), if the economy is overheating, the Fed slows it down, and if it's sluggish, the Fed speeds it up.

True. People do not like the purposes taxes are apportioned to.

That's not what I mean. Higher income taxes (for example), particularly on the top brackets, lead to a flatter income distribution. Some people like that, some don't. That's really what the tax debates are about. People will throw out bogus arguments about the effect on growth (in both directions, really--I think that lower taxes could lead to more volatility, but even that is far from certain), but the real argument is about who gets what.

If you remember, a couple of months ago, Republican hacks tried to make a big deal out of some comments by an economist who designed a model to project ACA costs. The substance of the comments, which were correct, were about the abstractness of fiscal categories. We could have 0% taxes or 100% taxes without any real change in the functioning of the gov't as long as we got creative (such as financing the gov't with money printing or credits that can be sold for money).

This economic paper agrees that the increase in economic activity is small, but the effects are noticable and profound.

There's also this:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

As far as the data goes, the debate is over whether tax rates matter a very little bit or not at all (granted that that is for realistic tax situations).

Certainly, it's speculative, but in line with the economic views addressed in the sources above, it would seem to follow. I mean, we cannot return to conditions of the 50s in order to test these hypotheses, especially as the 50s saw America alone in the world being non-destroyed. We aren't going to replicate that element anytime soon (and thankfully).

We can't turn back the clock on the growth we've had since then (though the last two quarters have seen 1950s-style growth), the technological progress or the demographic changes. But the point is that there's nothing in the data that suggests that tax rates matter much in ordinary circumstances (the cuts that were part of the stimulus were helpful, though not as helpful as the temporary spending increase, because we were in a situation where the Fed would not offset growth and could not spur it).

There is no evidence that Southerners are less rational and focused on justice.

I'm pretty sure there is. Like their entire voting history.

Democracy has a place in the ideal polity, but it is one which has to be tempered by elements which are more monarchical and aristocratic in nature, if not in form (I am not suggesting we should be ruled by hereditary kings or nobility, but that the government reflect monarchy and aristocracy in equal parts to democracy).

Because monarchy has such a great track record and liberal democracy has such a bad one? Or because monarchy fits with reasonable notions of justice? Or what?
 
Last edited:
The complete absence of functional government (see: all of Africa, parts of Asia) is actually just as bad, if not worse, than a despotic government. There was more economic activity in Maoist China than there is in Somalia today, although a hundred million died under Mao, so I don't know how much the living conditions were better.

then your prev statement is not correct. At a certain point or via certain approaches the growth provided from governemt is greater than any detriments imposed by taxation. Put another way the impacts on incentives from taxation as well crowding out of private sector investment is more than offset by public goods and even and/or improved set of incentives. Finding that point and / methods seems less clear cut than, all taxes = bad for growth.
 
Last edited:
I think obama is canning up the presidency position pretty well.
 
then your prev statement is not correct. At a certain point or via certain approaches the growth provided from governemt is greater than any detriments imposed by taxation. Put another way the impacts on incentives from taxation as well crowding out of private sector investment is more than offset by public goods and even and/or improved set of incentives. Finding that point and / methods seems less clear cut than, all taxes = bad for growth.

I never advocated a position of all taxation = bad. In fact, I said the purpose of government is (in part) to determine the rate of taxation that best suits the needs of the country while minimizing the harm that befalls the economy.

There needs to be some degree of taxation that won't hurt more than the taxation helps.

Above and beyond that point where taxation is necessary for the minimum needed for a state to function, it is an economic principle that is well accepted that taxation retards growth more than it may give growth by the public goods the taxation funds.

I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I do not believe there is no point of for a state. As a nationalist, non-libertarian conservative, I actually believe in a fairly decently sized state, that wisely taxes in ways least harmful to the polity and common weal.
 
Back
Top