Who Is The Smartest?

[Bfgrn]

In another thread, our friend Jillian suggested “maybe if you picked smart people???”

In the context of the post, and in the usual parameters of the USMB, this means ‘my side is smart, yours not so much.”

So, I thought we should discuss what ‘smart’ means…

1. First, let’s dispense with the usual claim by the left that their pols are brilliant…case in point: Jimmy Carter. His IQ is regularly quoted to be 175. Based on his performance as President, and since, either IQ is meaningless, or his number is bogus: brother Billy was the savant in that family.

2. Bill Clinton is considered way up there as well…and I find little to quibble with there…But I would place Clinton in…to coin a phrase, the “Political Arista,” (In New York, we call our school honor society ‘Arista.’) based on his acquiescence to the wisdom of the people, his use of ‘Triangulation.”

3. Some choose to define smart based on insufficient data, and superficial characteristics…such as speaking ability, or lack thereof. This and the previous administration will be seriously re-evaluated as time and distance from them increases.

My criterion for admission to the Political Arista centers on these three individuals, their vision for the country, within the context of history.

4. FDR, a master politician, who left his mark on our nation, in many propitious directions. But one glaring error diminished FDR...

a. FDR, in trying to apply the equality voiced by the Constitution to economics, had to modify the free-market system: capitalism, with its focus on individual wealth, not equality of wealth.

b. The two views: the rights of man vs. the rights of men. FDR fought for the latter.

5. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for me, the smartest Democrat ever elected. A self-described ‘birthright Democrat,’ and deep thinker in social policy, many of the problems we face today could have been resolved had Democrats absorbed Moynihan’s ideas. See Daniel Patrick Moynihan | The Economist

6. And, the smartest politician….Ronald Reagan, the most brilliant based on vision and an understanding of history…

a. Reagan saw the Cold War as the pivot of history: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” Ronald Reagan, “Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches,” p. 26.

b. “Look, I am the President of the United States…If we don’t have our security, we’ll have no need for social programs. We’re going to go ahead with these [defense] programs.” Peter Schweitzer, “Reagan’s War: The Epic Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism,” p. 139-140

So, who’s your ‘smartest,’ and why?

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." ... Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

OR...

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

Thank You Mr. President: Ronald Reagan

Hey, BoringFriendlessGuy, your response is pretty pedestrian, from the lefties, and reminds me of the one they said in praise of Obama, "if he walked on water, they would say he couldn't swim..."

Applies here, as well.

President Reagan changed the course of history, focused the power of America on the 'Evil Empire,' and freed countless millions suffering under the communist heel...

The Great Man saw the larger picture, but I don't expect that from you or the other lefties...

But if you need some chicken feed, how about

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
Sorry this isn't in cartoon format, as that seems to be your preferred reading mode.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'


Yes PC, President Reagan changed the course of history. He focused the destructive power of America on the middle class and poor. The United States, for all practical purposes, was a plutocracy from 1869 to 1901. The progressive era bravely began the needed changes to return America to a democracy. Ronald Reagan began the changes to reverse those gains. Today, the wealth disparity is the same as it was during the Gilded Age. Reagan began the dismantling of programs and vehicles that really made America 'exceptional'. The liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was the age of the common man. It was an era with huge economic growth, shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and above all, the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era and the Democratic Party died at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. Conservatives have built nothing, they have only destroyed, torn down and made immoral 'lawful'. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in dubious categories like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist in American history, the pied piper on the road to serfdom. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

Reagan: The Great American Socialist

Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." ... Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

OR...

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

Thank You Mr. President: Ronald Reagan

Hey, BoringFriendlessGuy, your response is pretty pedestrian, from the lefties, and reminds me of the one they said in praise of Obama, "if he walked on water, they would say he couldn't swim..."

Applies here, as well.

President Reagan changed the course of history, focused the power of America on the 'Evil Empire,' and freed countless millions suffering under the communist heel...

The Great Man saw the larger picture, but I don't expect that from you or the other lefties...

But if you need some chicken feed, how about

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
Sorry this isn't in cartoon format, as that seems to be your preferred reading mode.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'


Yes PC, President Reagan changed the course of history. He focused the destructive power of America on the middle class and poor. The United States, for all practical purposes, was a plutocracy from 1869 to 1901. The progressive era bravely began the needed changes to return America to a democracy. Ronald Reagan began the changes to reverse those gains. Today, the wealth disparity is the same as it was during the Gilded Age. Reagan began the dismantling of programs and vehicles that really made America 'exceptional'. The liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was the age of the common man. It was an era with huge economic growth, shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and above all, the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era and the Democratic Party died at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. Conservatives have built nothing, they have only destroyed, torn down and made immoral 'lawful'. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in dubious categories like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist in American history, the pied piper on the road to serfdom. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

Reagan: The Great American Socialist

Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

So...saving the world, the whole world, from the yoke of totalitarian oppression counts for naught?

It has been my experience that the left is neither able to prioritize nor see the results of its policies....

You certainly haven't disabused me of that conclusion.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey, BoringFriendlessGuy, your response is pretty pedestrian, from the lefties, and reminds me of the one they said in praise of Obama, "if he walked on water, they would say he couldn't swim..."

Applies here, as well.

President Reagan changed the course of history, focused the power of America on the 'Evil Empire,' and freed countless millions suffering under the communist heel...

The Great Man saw the larger picture, but I don't expect that from you or the other lefties...

But if you need some chicken feed, how about

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
Sorry this isn't in cartoon format, as that seems to be your preferred reading mode.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'


Yes PC, President Reagan changed the course of history. He focused the destructive power of America on the middle class and poor. The United States, for all practical purposes, was a plutocracy from 1869 to 1901. The progressive era bravely began the needed changes to return America to a democracy. Ronald Reagan began the changes to reverse those gains. Today, the wealth disparity is the same as it was during the Gilded Age. Reagan began the dismantling of programs and vehicles that really made America 'exceptional'. The liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was the age of the common man. It was an era with huge economic growth, shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and above all, the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era and the Democratic Party died at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. Conservatives have built nothing, they have only destroyed, torn down and made immoral 'lawful'. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in dubious categories like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist in American history, the pied piper on the road to serfdom. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

Reagan: The Great American Socialist

Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

So...saving the world, the whole world, from the yoke of totalitarian oppression counts for naught?

It has been my experience that the left is neither able to prioritize nor see the results of its policies....

You certainly haven't disabused me of that conclusion.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism. It always has been and it always will be. Reagan brought that yoke to bear on the people of this nation. And it's really ironic, you bring up the Soviet Union PC, because we saw that totalitarian oppression of conservatism manifest itself in that same Soviet Union in the late '80's. When Mikhail Gorbachev tried to create a more democratic government, it was Soviet conservatives; the Stalinists, who vehemently opposed him and yearned for a return to more authoritarian ways. They formed their own 'tea party'...speakers called out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and campaign leaflets decried ''liberal yellow journalists''. The conservatives were an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups like Pamyat, who viewed Gorbachev's efforts as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

 

[uscitizen]

All I know is I fit in better on here when I am on morphine and hydrocodone

 

[Samson]

All I know is I fit in better on here when I am on morphine and hydrocodone

Can you share with rdean?

 

[uscitizen]

All I know is I fit in better on here when I am on morphine and hydrocodone

Can you share with rdean?

Nope that is illegal and I don't think he would want to pay the price that I am paying.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

James Madison as far as pure intellect, but even with that intellect he made a couple glaring mistakes.
Nixon was also brilliant, but plagued by inner demons that imprisoned his mind and reduced him to a fearful, spiteful tyrant.
Reagan and Clinton I consider to be equal in intellect and common sense. But obviously two very different personalities that guided the intellect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'


Yes PC, President Reagan changed the course of history. He focused the destructive power of America on the middle class and poor. The United States, for all practical purposes, was a plutocracy from 1869 to 1901. The progressive era bravely began the needed changes to return America to a democracy. Ronald Reagan began the changes to reverse those gains. Today, the wealth disparity is the same as it was during the Gilded Age. Reagan began the dismantling of programs and vehicles that really made America 'exceptional'. The liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was the age of the common man. It was an era with huge economic growth, shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and above all, the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era and the Democratic Party died at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. Conservatives have built nothing, they have only destroyed, torn down and made immoral 'lawful'. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in dubious categories like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist in American history, the pied piper on the road to serfdom. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

Reagan: The Great American Socialist

Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

So...saving the world, the whole world, from the yoke of totalitarian oppression counts for naught?

It has been my experience that the left is neither able to prioritize nor see the results of its policies....

You certainly haven't disabused me of that conclusion.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism. It always has been and it always will be. Reagan brought that yoke to bear on the people of this nation. And it's really ironic, you bring up the Soviet Union PC, because we saw that totalitarian oppression of conservatism manifest itself in that same Soviet Union in the late '80's. When Mikhail Gorbachev tried to create a more democratic government, it was Soviet conservatives; the Stalinists, who vehemently opposed him and yearned for a return to more authoritarian ways. They formed their own 'tea party'...speakers called out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and campaign leaflets decried ''liberal yellow journalists''. The conservatives were an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups like Pamyat, who viewed Gorbachev's efforts as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

"...totalitarian oppression is conservatism..."

As usual, the ignorance that you evince is jaw dropping...but I have the capacity to see the bright side. You open the door to education of any passing readers who might erroneously believe that the left has an iota of intelligence.

The Red Banner Youth Brigade

The Kwan family met the Youth Brigade in their living room, which had shrunk to the size of a prison cell due to the number of shouting youth surrounding the family. They gazed at the youth in bewilderment unable to understand the evil that they had done.
“Do you repent? Do you confess to clinging to the old values?”
“Confess and seek reeducation and we will spare you!”
“You are guilty of old thought, old culture, old values…”
“You have built a lackey’s empire on the backs of the people!”
Kwan and his wife, along with their twelve-year-old son were bound and defenseless.
“You are part of the old…”
The tall leader of the cadre engages in a furious dialectic, spittle flying from his mouth.
“You are part of the old! Do you repent?”
With every line he spoke, he swung the black baton, heavy as a cricket bat.
“You will reform your decadent ways!”
“The old ways are a threat to the collective good of the people!”
“You will die if you retain your old beliefs!”
“Repent! Reject the old! Admit you have been seduced by unbeneficial and decadent thought!”
It continued for endless minutes- until the blows the student rained down stole the life from the family. The iron-tipped baton left bloody forms at his feet as he recited the catechism the students thirstily sought to hear.

From “The Stone Monkey,” by Jeffery Deaver

Now, Deaver writes novels, but lest one believe that the above is not based on fact:


Through 1966, secondary schools and colleges closed in China. Students -- many from the age of nine through eighteen -- followed Maoist directives to destroy things of the past that they believed should be no part of the new China: old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking -- the "four olds." In a state of euphoria and with support from the government and army, the students went about China's cities and villages, wrecking old buildings, old temples and old art objects. To make a new and wonderful China, the Red Guards attacked as insufficiently revolutionary their parents, teachers, school administrators and everyone they could find as targets, including "intellectuals" and "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party.
Filled with righteousness, the power of their numbers, and support from Mao, the campaigns for revolutionary change became violent. People seen as evil were beaten to death. Thousands of people died, including many who had committed suicide.
Mao's China

So, we have a glimpse into the 'new world of the Progressives'!


And, the above verifies the following:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

 

[rightwinger]

How about Teddy Roosevelt?

He out-Reaganed Reagan in appealing to the masses. He understood the political process and was strong enough to bully big business

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How about Teddy Roosevelt?

He out-Reaganed Reagan in appealing to the masses. He understood the political process and was strong enough to bully big business

Popularity has more to do with personality and character than intellect.
Teddy was an ambitious freight train of a man. Sometimes that ambition led to good things, sometimes foolhardy disasters.

I would not rate T.R. as one of the intellectual Presidents.

 

[uscitizen]

In another thread, our friend Jillian suggested “maybe if you picked smart people???”

In the context of the post, and in the usual parameters of the USMB, this means ‘my side is smart, yours not so much.”

So, I thought we should discuss what ‘smart’ means…

1. First, let’s dispense with the usual claim by the left that their pols are brilliant…case in point: Jimmy Carter. His IQ is regularly quoted to be 175. Based on his performance as President, and since, either IQ is meaningless, or his number is bogus: brother Billy was the savant in that family.

2. Bill Clinton is considered way up there as well…and I find little to quibble with there…But I would place Clinton in…to coin a phrase, the “Political Arista,” (In New York, we call our school honor society ‘Arista.’) based on his acquiescence to the wisdom of the people, his use of ‘Triangulation.”

3. Some choose to define smart based on insufficient data, and superficial characteristics…such as speaking ability, or lack thereof. This and the previous administration will be seriously re-evaluated as time and distance from them increases.

My criterion for admission to the Political Arista centers on these three individuals, their vision for the country, within the context of history.

4. FDR, a master politician, who left his mark on our nation, in many propitious directions. But one glaring error diminished FDR...

a. FDR, in trying to apply the equality voiced by the Constitution to economics, had to modify the free-market system: capitalism, with its focus on individual wealth, not equality of wealth.

b. The two views: the rights of man vs. the rights of men. FDR fought for the latter.

5. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for me, the smartest Democrat ever elected. A self-described ‘birthright Democrat,’ and deep thinker in social policy, many of the problems we face today could have been resolved had Democrats absorbed Moynihan’s ideas. See Daniel Patrick Moynihan | The Economist

6. And, the smartest politician….Ronald Reagan, the most brilliant based on vision and an understanding of history…

a. Reagan saw the Cold War as the pivot of history: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” Ronald Reagan, “Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches,” p. 26.

b. “Look, I am the President of the United States…If we don’t have our security, we’ll have no need for social programs. We’re going to go ahead with these [defense] programs.” Peter Schweitzer, “Reagan’s War: The Epic Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism,” p. 139-140

So, who’s your ‘smartest,’ and why?

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." ... Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

OR...

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

Thank You Mr. President: Ronald Reagan

Hey, BoringFriendlessGuy, your response is pretty pedestrian, from the lefties, and reminds me of the one they said in praise of Obama, "if he walked on water, they would say he couldn't swim..."

Applies here, as well.

President Reagan changed the course of history, focused the power of America on the 'Evil Empire,' and freed countless millions suffering under the communist heel...

The Great Man saw the larger picture, but I don't expect that from you or the other lefties...

But if you need some chicken feed, how about

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
Sorry this isn't in cartoon format, as that seems to be your preferred reading mode.

And what did the national devt do under Reagan?
As I recall it was about 660 billion when he took office. And around 1.4 trillion when he left office.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." ... Obama has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.
Charles Krauthammer

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

OR...

THIS Ronald Reagan...?

Thank You Mr. President: Ronald Reagan

Hey, BoringFriendlessGuy, your response is pretty pedestrian, from the lefties, and reminds me of the one they said in praise of Obama, "if he walked on water, they would say he couldn't swim..."

Applies here, as well.

President Reagan changed the course of history, focused the power of America on the 'Evil Empire,' and freed countless millions suffering under the communist heel...

The Great Man saw the larger picture, but I don't expect that from you or the other lefties...

But if you need some chicken feed, how about

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
Sorry this isn't in cartoon format, as that seems to be your preferred reading mode.

And what did the national devt do under Reagan?
As I recall it was about 660 billion when he took office. And around 1.4 trillion when he left office.

Perceptive, and correct.

1. Ronald Reagan attained the presidency following the most inept President in my lifetime, James Carter. Confronting real problems in the areas of foreign and domestic policy, and possibly the most palpable, the economic situation. “Reaganomics” was his plan to fight slow growth and high inflation. The four elements of the plan:
a. A restrictive monetary policy to stabilize the dollar and end inflation.
b. A 25% tax cut to all income levels.
c. A promise to cut domestic spending to balance the budget.
d. An easing of government regulation.

2. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981. Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

3. As for the last two parts of Reaganomics…not so much. While there were four Presidents who convinced the Congress to cut taxes to spur growth, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush43, only Coolidge followed up with spending cuts.

a. Over eight years the national debt was up 104%...because Reagan ran deficits every year!

4. To some extent, Reagan deserves credit for trying to slow spending.

a. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, from the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act, set specific deficit reduction targets, and would have required drastic slashing of defense and domestic spending programs by 1990…except that Congress re-wrote the bill. John Samples, “The Struggle to Limit Government: A Modern Political History,” p. 139.

b. “Ronald Reagan sought- and won- more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last [forty-five] years to cut inflation adjusted nondefense outlays, which fells by 9.7 percent during his first term.” Veronique de Rugy, “President Reagan: Champion Budget-Cutter,” AEI - Papers

c. But…over his two terms, total federal spending increased 22% faster than inflation. On the other hand, if you consider it as a percentage of GDP, since he grew the economy, spending actually decreased from 22.2% to 21.2 %. Historical Tables | The White House

 

[midcan5]

Bfrgrn, the cartoon sums up the Reagan myth well.

When you read a bit of the history of the times you realize how ineffective Reagan was and how he has contributed to the collapse of the nation today through excessive and wasteful military spending and deregulation of the very structures that provide prosperity and peace. The Cold war may have even ended sooner after Stalin had our leaders the guts to communicate. History is mostly a fantasy when it comes to Reagan.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Communism-Archie-Brown/dp/0061138797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Rise and Fall of Communism (9780061138799): Archie Brown: Books[/ame]

"Whereas in Eastern Europe after 1968 pressure for change came from below (succeeding only after Gorbachev renounced the use of force), change in the Soviet Union came from educated people within the system. These "within-system reformers", as Brown calls them, were for many years his special area of study. This knowledge gives him a particularly deep understanding of the complex years of change under Gorbachev and of the partly similar and partly different path taken by Chinese reformers. Brown rightly punctures the pernicious neo-con myth that President Reagan won the Cold War by rattling his rockets and outspending the Soviet Union on arms.

The roots of change in the Soviet Union went much deeper, and Reagan's initial hostility merely strengthened the hawks in the Kremlin. What brought the Cold War to a peaceful end was Reagan's readiness to defy his own hawkish advisers and engage in constructive negotiation with Gorbachev, who was thus able to gain more freedom of manoeuvre at home. It was Reagan the dove, not Reagan the hawk, who deserves credit for easing the path to the end of that debilitating conflict. " http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...all-of-communism-by-archie-brown-1702692.html


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."

 

[jillian]

In another thread, our friend Jillian suggested “maybe if you picked smart people???”

In the context of the post, and in the usual parameters of the USMB, this means ‘my side is smart, yours not so much.?

See... this is what we mean when we say you make up things about what you *think* other people believe and then reassert them as "fact". you're not the only person (on either side) to do that, btw...

hint: the above is untrue.

hint: sarah palin stupid...
mitt romney smart

hint: sharron angle stupid
chris christie smart

hint: glenn beck stupid
joe scarborough smart

getting it now?

and happy thanksgiving to you and yours.

(and i guess when i voted for rudy and pataki i must have mixed up their party affiliation)

 

[Douger]

I am. I'm the guy standing on the top rail of the fence that separates the two species of brainwashed assholes.

 

[editec]

Assuming that one subscribes to the theory of 7 forms if intelligence (I happen to think there's probably hundreds of unique types of intel, but that's another thread) then it is very easy to understand why someone of very high IQ measured intelligence might be an utter failure in life or why someone who has a bearly functional IQ can do so well in society.

The OTHER five types of intell count too.

In fact in the case of how one does generally in life, and relationships, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences are, I believe, FAR MORE IMPORTANT in outcomes than just one's reading and math intelligence.

While it is clear that you are superior in all seven forms, I believe that this thread is specific to our political leaders...

could it be that your avatar hides a banner elected position?

Actually when it comes to interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence I doubt I'm even of normal intelligence. Based on outcomes in the real world, I suspect I'm fairly stupid when it comes to those intelligences.

My point here is that one cannot really tell how smart our POTUS's were.

They each faced unique problems, so evaluating how well they did in comparison to the others is mostly an exercise in partisanship.

If I told you that if another POTUS had been in office when Carter or Regan was in office, and I thought that the other person would have done about as well or poorly as those two did, would you believe me?

You might if you are not a partisan.

AFter all, every POTUS has only a limited amount of power, and really given that, each must deal with the problems, and enjoy the benefits that comes with the time.

If a REpublican had been in office during the Carter years, we'd have still had STAGFLATION.

If DEM POTUS had been in office when Bush I was in office, the Soviet Union would still have fallen apart.

Some things just happen on people's watch. They don't make these things happen, they just get blamed for them.

Praising them OR faulting them for things which are so obviously beyond their control is just silly.

That WHY I don't entirely blame BUSH II for the depression, or Obama for failing to solve all the problems stemming from it.

Not that I admire either of them much, (I really don't) but because I realize that much of what they faced they had absolutely no control over.

Intelligence had nothing to do with it.

 

[zzzz]

The country is like a ship at sea.
The President is the Captain who tells the steersman which direction to go.
Congress makes up the engines and the rudder which provide the power (laws and money) and direction.
The sea represents the events that neither have control over and the storms can push the ship in another direction or sink it.

The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power, namely the King of England. That is why Congress and the Judiciary have powers. But it is the President who provides direction and that is why the people who are elected President need to be communicators. To lead you need to be able to communicate, persuade and compromise. Reagan did all of this and that was why his programs were instituted.

But the world has a way of intruding on a Presidents agenda and usually how a President respnds to these events are what defines a presidency. Bush II had Katrina, Carter had Iran, Reagan had the USSR, Bush I had Iraq, FDR had WWII, Lincoln had the war between the states, and LBJ had the Vietnam conflict. Sure there were other big issues involving these Presidents like Bush II warmongering, FDR and the Depression, Carter and the ecomony.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The country is like a ship at sea.
The President is the Captain who tells the steersman which direction to go.
Congress makes up the engines and the rudder which provide the power (laws and money) and direction.
The sea represents the events that neither have control over and the storms can push the ship in another direction or sink it.

The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power, namely the King of England. That is why Congress and the Judiciary have powers. But it is the President who provides direction and that is why the people who are elected President need to be communicators. To lead you need to be able to communicate, persuade and compromise. Reagan did all of this and that was why his programs were instituted.

But the world has a way of intruding on a Presidents agenda and usually how a President respnds to these events are what defines a presidency. Bush II had Katrina, Carter had Iran, Reagan had the USSR, Bush I had Iraq, FDR had WWII, Lincoln had the war between the states, and LBJ had the Vietnam conflict. Sure there were other big issues involving these Presidents like Bush II warmongering, FDR and the Depression, Carter and the ecomony.

Z, I think I could find pretty huge disagreement with you in the sense that you seem to be implying that the folks in the presidency are interchangeable, and events would continue to determine the course of history...

But let me limit this post to your statement "...The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power,..."

This has not been true since the start of the Progressive Era...

1. "The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice. " Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com

2. "Nevertheless, in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same." Ibid.

3. "Theodore Roosevelt also recoiled from the socialist movement. But in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, he said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." Ibid.

4. "To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature." Ibid.

5. "Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. " Ibid.

6. "Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era." Ibid.

In summary, Z, I would only wish that the Constitution was still the instruction manual for our government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In another thread, our friend Jillian suggested “maybe if you picked smart people???”

In the context of the post, and in the usual parameters of the USMB, this means ‘my side is smart, yours not so much.?

See... this is what we mean when we say you make up things about what you *think* other people believe and then reassert them as "fact". you're not the only person (on either side) to do that, btw...

hint: the above is untrue.

hint: sarah palin stupid...
mitt romney smart

hint: sharron angle stupid
chris christie smart

hint: glenn beck stupid
joe scarborough smart

getting it now?

and happy thanksgiving to you and yours.

(and i guess when i voted for rudy and pataki i must have mixed up their party affiliation)

I certainly didn't mean to upset you so!

Nor did I think I was insulting you in that quote...and I appreciate your informing that you choose your candidate carefully...rather than on a party basis. Perhaps I am wrong, but your post seemed to read as I stated it..

And, "this is what we mean when we say you make up things about what you *think* other people believe and then reassert them as "fact"."????

Is it possible that the error is directly attributable to the manner in which you posted it...or can you give other examples of me making things up?
I don't believe you can.

So, let's start over. The reason for the OP is that MOST folks on the board see things in black and white...smart vs. dumb, and I think this is the function of a debate...otherwise it would be pretty boring.

I thinks that some of your 'hints' would be excellent fodder for debate.

But, I appreciate "and happy thanksgiving to you and yours" and wish the same to you, and to all of our board-friends!

 

[Samson]

But the world has a way of intruding on a Presidents agenda and usually how a President respnds to these events are what defines a presidency. Bush II had Katrina, Carter had Iran, Reagan had the USSR, Bush I had Iraq, FDR had WWII, Lincoln had the war between the states, and LBJ had the Vietnam conflict. Sure there were other big issues involving these Presidents like Bush II warmongering, FDR and the Depression, Carter and the ecomony.

"how a President respnds to these events are what defines a presidency," is ALWAYS the way a president, or anyone else is "defined."