Who was the better president: Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan?

[Big Abraham]

Each won the two largest landslides of the twentieth century. Curious how OSR would vote on this one.

[John Dule]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

[Calthrina950]

Franklin Roosevelt, who is generally considered to be the second-greatest president, after Abraham Lincoln and before George Washington.

[Big Abraham]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

A good contender for the least libertarian president of all time.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

The man who steered us to victory during WWII. FYI, Brezhnev cost the Soviets the Cold War, not Raygun.

[TheReckoning]

Why do people still parrot the lie that the New Deal ended the Great Depression? Or that FDR was somehow crucial to winning the 2nd World War?

It’s also funny how people say Reagan was too harsh on communities of color with his anti-drug policies, yet dismiss FDR sending 100,000+ people to prison for their ethnicity.

I voted FDR, but he was no savior.

[President Johnson]

Are you a Democrat or Republican?

Obviously Franklin Roosevelt. He was a top 3 president, objectively perhaps even the best.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Objectively : FDR

Which president I like more : Reagan

[OSR stands with Israel]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

[😥]

FDR, obvioulsly

[John Dule]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

[TDAS04]

FDR by far.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

[John Dule]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

I said in raw dollars. FDR grew the debt by $236 billion, equivalent to $1.08 trillion in 1980 dollars. Reagan grew it by $1.86 trillion-- almost $800 billion more than Roosevelt. Focusing on the percentage-of-debt figure is unfair because Roosevelt's spending at the time was without precedent. But that makes sense given the circumstances he found himself in. Again: What is Reagan's excuse?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

I said in raw dollars. FDR grew the debt by $236 billion, equivalent to $1.08 trillion in 1980 dollars. Reagan grew it by $1.86 trillion-- almost $800 billion more than Roosevelt. Focusing on the percentage-of-debt figure is unfair because Roosevelt's spending at the time was without precedent. But that makes sense given the circumstances he found himself in. Again: What is Reagan's excuse?

Uh Reagan also had a major economic crises to deal with even if it wasn’t as big as FDR’s and his policies did get us out of that mess and started arguably the best 15 year economic period in our history .

Also like I said Reagan also had to deal with the fact that post Vietnam detente had left our military weaker and allowed the communists to make un checked gaisn in nearly every region of the planet . Most of the Reagan’s deficits were from fixing that mess as well

[President Johnson]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

I said in raw dollars. FDR grew the debt by $236 billion, equivalent to $1.08 trillion in 1980 dollars. Reagan grew it by $1.86 trillion-- almost $800 billion more than Roosevelt. Focusing on the percentage-of-debt figure is unfair because Roosevelt's spending at the time was without precedent. But that makes sense given the circumstances he found himself in. Again: What is Reagan's excuse?

Uh Reagan also had a major economic crises to deal with even if it wasn’t as big as FDR’s and his policies did get us out of that mess and started arguably the best 15 year economic period in our history .

Also like I said Reagan also had to deal with the fact that post Vietnam detente had left our military weaker and allowed the communists to make un checked gaisn in nearly every region of the planet . Most of the Reagan’s deficits were from fixing that mess as well

I don't think Carter left the military in such bad shape. Of course some capabilities were lost in the 1970s because they were no longer needed after the Vietnam War ended.

I know that Reagan's massive increases in defense spening are often credited for bringing down the USSR, but that's pretty much a myth in my opinion. The USSR collapsed for domestic reasons primarily and the West just played a moderate role (the biggest issue here being the lack of economic cooperation for the Soviets).

Reagan increased the deficit so much because he cut taxes too much while increasing defense spending. While it had an economic impact, the boom of the Clinton years and even during and after Obama's second term lasted longer. To his credit, Bush senior realized he needed to agree to tax increases in 1990, laying the groundwork for the successful Clinton years.

[John Dule]

Uh Reagan also had a major economic crises to deal with even if it wasn’t as big as FDR’s and his policies did get us out of that mess and started arguably the best 15 year economic period in our history.

Also like I said Reagan also had to deal with the fact that post Vietnam detente had left our military weaker and allowed the communists to make un checked gaisn in nearly every region of the planet . Most of the Reagan’s deficits were from fixing that mess as well

"Reaganomics" has become synonymous with short-term success and long-term failure for a reason. Reagan's misguided policies marked a turning point in our economy, and since his presidency America has become increasingly inequitable. I have said before that I don't really care about income/wealth inequality, and that's true to a point-- but if the system appears so rigged that people no longer believe they possess social mobility, then the economy is no longer efficient. You say the 15 years around Reagan's presidency were the best economic period in our history, but you are ignoring the structural flaws in that economy (largely introduced by his policies) that have precipitated class division, cronyism, and abhorrent tax policies ever since. Who benefitted from those 15 years? Poverty in inner cities grew. Homeownership rates fell. The income gap increased. Wages for the average worker fell. Homelessness grew exponentially.

You can call Reagan efficient because of his tax cuts all you want, but cutting back taxation only works if you cut back spending as well. The military spending you apparently support was abominably wasteful and was not at all balanced out by cuts in other departments. I don't know how much money was sunk into SDI during that period, but what do we have to show for it?

This is not even mentioning the war on drugs, the Crime Control Act, AIDS, or any of the innumerable idiotic decisions he made while governor of California, the ramifications of which we are still living through.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

I said in raw dollars. FDR grew the debt by $236 billion, equivalent to $1.08 trillion in 1980 dollars. Reagan grew it by $1.86 trillion-- almost $800 billion more than Roosevelt. Focusing on the percentage-of-debt figure is unfair because Roosevelt's spending at the time was without precedent. But that makes sense given the circumstances he found himself in. Again: What is Reagan's excuse?

Uh Reagan also had a major economic crises to deal with even if it wasn’t as big as FDR’s and his policies did get us out of that mess and started arguably the best 15 year economic period in our history .

Also like I said Reagan also had to deal with the fact that post Vietnam detente had left our military weaker and allowed the communists to make un checked gaisn in nearly every region of the planet . Most of the Reagan’s deficits were from fixing that mess as well

I don't think Carter left the military in such bad shape. Of course some capabilities were lost in the 1970s because they were no longer needed after the Vietnam War ended.

I know that Reagan's massive increases in defense spening are often credited for bringing down the USSR, but that's pretty much a myth in my opinion. The USSR collapsed for domestic reasons primarily and the West just played a moderate role (the biggest issue here being the lack of economic cooperation for the Soviets).

Reagan increased the deficit so much because he cut taxes too much while increasing defense spending. While it had an economic impact, the boom of the Clinton years and even during and after Obama's second term lasted longer. To his credit, Bush senior realized he needed to agree to tax increases in 1990, laying the groundwork for the successful Clinton years.

I do think the west did play a huge part in winning the cold war as the cold war did put pressure on the Soviets and forced them to spend a lot of money their economic system couldn't handle. The problem with post-Vietnam Detente is that we kinda let the Communists make gains in every region of the world without much pushback .

Reagan when he became President implemented a policy which not only ended detente but brought back a policy that we more or less hadnt done since the 1950s which is instead of just defending the noncommunist world from the communists, we actively tried to roll back communism where it existed. Doing so forced the Soviets to spend money to actually defend their territory and that exposed problems in their economic system as well

[OSR stands with Israel]

Uh Reagan also had a major economic crises to deal with even if it wasn’t as big as FDR’s and his policies did get us out of that mess and started arguably the best 15 year economic period in our history.

Also like I said Reagan also had to deal with the fact that post Vietnam detente had left our military weaker and allowed the communists to make un checked gaisn in nearly every region of the planet . Most of the Reagan’s deficits were from fixing that mess as well

"Reaganomics" has become synonymous with short-term success and long-term failure for a reason. Reagan's misguided policies marked a turning point in our economy, and since his presidency America has become increasingly inequitable. I have said before that I don't really care about income/wealth inequality, and that's true to a point-- but if the system appears so rigged that people no longer believe they possess social mobility, then the economy is no longer efficient. You say the 15 years around Reagan's presidency were the best economic period in our history, but you are ignoring the structural flaws in that economy (largely introduced by his policies) that have precipitated class division, cronyism, and abhorrent tax policies ever since. Who benefitted from those 15 years? Poverty in inner cities grew. Homeownership rates fell. The income gap increased. Wages for the average worker fell. Homelessness grew exponentially.

You can call Reagan efficient because of his tax cuts all you want, but cutting back taxation only works if you cut back spending as well. The military spending you apparently support was abominably wasteful and was not at all balanced out by cuts in other departments. I don't know how much money was sunk into SDI during that period, but what do we have to show for it?

This is not even mentioning the war on drugs, the Crime Control Act, AIDS, or any of the innumerable idiotic decisions he made while governor of California, the ramifications of which we are still living through.

I believe the Reagan foreign policy was a major reason why we won the Cold War so I do credit the spending there. Also what you are saying is just not true :





Real Median Incomes skyrocketed from 1983 onwards


People also miss the fact that his 1986 tax reform was revenue neutral , it was the 1981 bill that wasnt and that cut was needed to get our nation out of the 1970s mess . The post 1986 code is far far better than the pre 1986 one

[TheReckoning]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

I said in raw dollars. FDR grew the debt by $236 billion, equivalent to $1.08 trillion in 1980 dollars. Reagan grew it by $1.86 trillion-- almost $800 billion more than Roosevelt. Focusing on the percentage-of-debt figure is unfair because Roosevelt's spending at the time was without precedent. But that makes sense given the circumstances he found himself in. Again: What is Reagan's excuse?

And you don’t think that creating this new precedent was problematic?

[John Dule]

Real Median Incomes skyrocketed from 1983 onwards

People also miss the fact that his 1986 tax reform was revenue neutral , it was the 1981 bill that wasnt and that cut was needed to get our nation out of the 1970s mess . The post 1986 code is far far better than the pre 1986 one

What metrics does that graph use? Is it adjusted for inflation? This is what I was referring to. Mind you, I guess I was wrong about the median wage. It appears to have flatlined; regardless, that doesn't change the fact that wages hollowed out in the lower earning brackets.

And you don’t think that creating this new precedent was problematic?

"Problematic?" My, my! What a lot of new words we're learning!

In all seriousness, unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. I am no FDR fan, and I think many of his policies caused serious damage to this country. But at no point do I think he acted with malintent-- something I most definitely ascribe to Reagan.

[TheReckoning]

But at no point do I think he acted with malintent-- something I most definitely ascribe to Reagan.

Then you clearly don’t know Reagan- or FDR- that well.

If sending 120,000 people to prison for their ethnicity isn’t “malintent” then I don’t know what is. And the main reason why Reagan was such a unifying force (even among those whom vehemently disagreed with him) was because everyone at the time thought that he was acting in the best interest of everyone.

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

[John Dule]

But at no point do I think he acted with malintent-- something I most definitely ascribe to Reagan.

Then you clearly don’t know Reagan- or FDR- that well.

If sending 120,000 people to prison for their ethnicity isn’t “malintent” then I don’t know what is. And the main reason why Reagan was such a unifying force (even among those whom vehemently disagreed with him) was because everyone at the time thought that he was acting in the best interest of everyone.

I was talking exclusively about the realm of their economic policies. If you'd like to compare their records on race, I guess Reagan comes out as the slightly better-smelling turd.

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

The "scholars" also think Woodrow Wilson was a top-ten president. I have learned to not pay attention to a single thing they say.

[TheReckoning]

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

The "scholars" also think Woodrow Wilson was a top-ten president. I have learned to not pay attention to a single thing they say.

Don’t let your superiority complex get too ahead of you, John.

I don’t think they rank Wilson in the top 10, but upper half, yeah. Although if you’re just gonna say FDR won us WW2, you might as well say Wilson won us WW1, so.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Real Median Incomes skyrocketed from 1983 onwards

People also miss the fact that his 1986 tax reform was revenue neutral , it was the 1981 bill that wasnt and that cut was needed to get our nation out of the 1970s mess . The post 1986 code is far far better than the pre 1986 one

What metrics does that graph use? Is it adjusted for inflation? This is what I was referring to. Mind you, I guess I was wrong about the median wage. It appears to have flatlined; regardless, that doesn't change the fact that wages hollowed out in the lower earning brackets.

Its real median wage so it is adjusted for inflation.