American Politics

[JustTK]

Nope, that is not what I meant. I meant if you are going to accuse the USA of bad things, find an example where we have done something wrong. There are tons of examples: USA / Iran 1953, USA / Guatemala 1954, USA / Chile 1970's.

However, you were talking like the USA is in danger because BRICs nations are going to quit using the dollar when the dollar is the strongest currency the world has known for centuries.

My example of Colombia and El Salvador was to show you that the working middle class / poor were far better off keeping their savings in evil USA dollars than their wonderful native currencies. I showed you that all those BRICs currencies have went to shit.

Then you misrepresent my position. I gave you several examples of USA doing smthg wrong. Tiny gave you some others. There are more examples every week.

I never said BRICS was going to stop using dollar. I explicitly said they would come up w a an alternative and not a replacement.

I also didn't say the dollar was evil. I say the US govt is evil. I have no issue w countries using the USD if they freely prefer to do so.

The dollar was the dominant currency before OPEC had any real power. The notion that oil is paid for with dollars meaning anything is negligible because those dollars can instantly be changed into any other commodity or currency. In fact, the Saudis have smartly learned to convert those dollars into shares of corporate stock to get even more money. You once again are showing your financial naivete.

Gold was the dominant currency. Then once WW2 destroyed most of the West, the USA had an open playing field. Elvis, it seems your the one that does not understand the importance of the petro dollar. There are countless articles on it. Here is one: https://www.avatrade.co.za/education...he-petrodollar.

As for "those days being over", you miss the two larger points. And who dominates the shipping insurance industry?

I know very little about insurance. I am sure there are several business sectors where the USA maintains hegemony. But those will decline as US petro hegemony declines.

As for "those days being over", you miss the two larger points. And who dominates the shipping insurance industry?

I know very little about insurance. I am sure there are several business sectors where the USA maintains hegemony. But those will decline as US petro hegemony declines.

Then there is the USA navy and piracy.

What? You cannot be serious? Show me some evidence please that the US Navy is a major preventer of acts of theft from Captain Pugwash adn Long john Silver.

I cannot believe you went to Venezuela and believed all the hogwash about the USA. Venezuela should be as rich as Saudi Arabia....

Haha Elvis. You have mentioned this countless times. WTF does it have to do w this discussion? I have answered this several times anyway, and it is not relevant to a discussion of threats to the US dollar.

[EihTooms]

Exactly. A Republican and a Democratic president could sign the same legislation into law and you'd praise one and criticize the other. If Clinton hadn't been president when the capital gains tax was cut to 20%, I'm sure you'd criticize the cut.

That's just not true as to the tax rate cuts that occurred under Bush and Trump. In percentage terms, the total tax on ordinary income paid by people in lower brackets reduced more than those in higher brackets. Overall the USA Has the most progressive tax system in the developed world, when you include VAT, sales taxes, property taxes, federal and state income taxes, and the employee's share of social security and Medicare CONTRIBUTIONS.

The overall level of taxation and government spending is what's much more important than the progressivity of the system though. The USA and Ireland have very progressive tax systems. Hong Kong has very regressive taxation. Yet all three of these countries (using the term "country" loosely for Hong Kong) overall have among the lowest government revenues and spending (as a % of GDP) and the highest levels of GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power. The key is smaller, ideally more efficient government. If the government takes a smaller piece of the pie, that means the private sector takes a larger piece. And the private sector is the engine of jobs and growth. A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses.

And that's where the current crop of Democrats, unlike Kennedy and perhaps Clinton, have it wrong. They want to make the USA into Europe. And if they're successful, the prosperity of the country will suffer.

But the tax policies enacted by Clinton and his Dem Congress of 1993 and 1994 led directly to the historic economic expansion and jobs creation of the years that folliwed. Until GW Bush took over with his Repub Congress, got his Repub way and Crashed the economy. And that was despite Nude Grinbitch and his House Repubs trying everything possible to Crash it under Clinton but failing to do so.

So, what was there to criticize about Clinton's economic stewardship? There was no Repub-style economic disaster resulting from it. But Repubs of his day sure warned us there would be. LOL. Pretty much the same way you and other current Repubs say the current crop of Democrats "have it wrong. ".

You think those ancient history Repubs in Kennedy's day weren't telling us the world will come to an end if he gets his way economically? The same for FDR? And most certainly for Clinton, Obama and now Biden?

Your beloved Repubs are ALWAYS wrong about how Dem economic policies and stewardship will destroy the world while theirs are superior. Always. And in the most polar opposite way. Obviously and according to any data and record of results you've got.

"A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses. ".

Lololol.

Except when Repubs like Coolidge / Hoover, Reagan, GW Bush and Trump decide who gets to keep more money in their hands and who gets to leave it to them. Then the country plunges into historic Great Depressions / Great Recessions and Massive Job Losses in the Millions.

Lolol.

[EihTooms]

Exactly. A Republican and a Democratic president could sign the same legislation into law and you'd praise one and criticize the other. If Clinton hadn't been president when the capital gains tax was cut to 20%, I'm sure you'd criticize the cut.

That's just not true as to the tax rate cuts that occurred under Bush and Trump. In percentage terms, the total tax on ordinary income paid by people in lower brackets reduced more than those in higher brackets. Overall the USA Has the most progressive tax system in the developed world, when you include VAT, sales taxes, property taxes, federal and state income taxes, and the employee's share of social security and Medicare CONTRIBUTIONS.

The overall level of taxation and government spending is what's much more important than the progressivity of the system though. The USA and Ireland have very progressive tax systems. Hong Kong has very regressive taxation. Yet all three of these countries (using the term "country" loosely for Hong Kong) overall have among the lowest government revenues and spending (as a % of GDP) and the highest levels of GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power. The key is smaller, ideally more efficient government. If the government takes a smaller piece of the pie, that means the private sector takes a larger piece. And the private sector is the engine of jobs and growth. A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses.

And that's where the current crop of Democrats, unlike Kennedy and perhaps Clinton, have it wrong. They want to make the USA into Europe. And if they're successful, the prosperity of the country will suffer.

The Repub cuts for all but the super wealthy and corporations under Trump were set to expire within the next couple of election cycles but those for the super wealthy and corporations were not. Consequently, Trump's jobs creation record was crap, especially when you factor in the cost of them, even before he created Trump's Pandemic.

Biden and the Dems' extention of the middle and lower tax cuts are, by definition, Dem Tax Cuts.

And, as usual, they have worked to expand the economy and create millions upon millions of jobs.

GW Bush's Treasury Dept's total lack of attention to anything other than celebrating their unnecessary tax cuts just for show crashed the economy well and surely enough without worry over who got the most tea and cookies before Bush's Titanic sank.

Those pesky details again.

[Tiny 12]

Agree with everything you wrote. As for the examples I chose. Sure, there are better examples. But Elvis was showing a short memory and seems to think I never have any examples. So I choose from the past week.

I think the USA has overthrown fewer governments recently simply bcos it is not capable. It is not for the want of trying.

A couple of other examples came to mind. Impounding the foreign dollar reserves of Iran and Russia, taking assets away from Russian citizens, and imposing an embargo on Cuba were not ideal ways to win friends.

[Tiny 12]

Dem Tax Cuts Good. Repub Tax Cuts Crap.

Exactly. A Republican and a Democratic president could sign the same legislation into law and you'd praise one and criticize the other. If Clinton hadn't been president when the capital gains tax was cut to 20%, I'm sure you'd criticize the cut.

If course the dragging, poor jobs-creating Eisenhower economy took off after Kennedy's tax cuts. That is one of the main reasons I vote for Dems and have said so many times; I LOVE their tax cuts because they WORK to produce jobs and expand the economy, unlike Repub tax cuts that work quite well to produce Great Depressions / Great Recessions and destroy jobs by the millions.

Here's the deal: Kennedy's tax cuts were not Repub-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts disproportionately high for the top income margin and paid for by everyone else. Far from it. The percent of cuts to the middle and lower income margins was greater than the percentage for the top margin, particularly when you factor in the allowances in the tax code.

That would be the OPPOSITE of what Repubs celebrate and congratulate themselves for with their disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy.

LOL. Repubs and Bothsider / Neithersider Repubs always point to Kennedy's cut for the top margin from 90% or so to 70% or so, never mention the rest of it and try to bamboozle anyone who will listen into swallowing that as proof that their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy is the way to create jobs and expand the economy like FDR did, Truman did Kennedy / LBJ did, Carter did, Clinton did, Obama did and Biden has by just putting more money into the pockets of wealthy people and nothing about the far more difficut work on all those other devilishly complicated details.

That's just not true as to the tax rate cuts that occurred under Bush and Trump. In percentage terms, the total tax on ordinary income paid by people in lower brackets reduced more than those in higher brackets. Overall the USA Has the most progressive tax system in the developed world, when you include VAT, sales taxes, property taxes, federal and state income taxes, and the employee's share of social security and Medicare CONTRIBUTIONS.

The overall level of taxation and government spending is what's much more important than the progressivity of the system though. The USA and Ireland have very progressive tax systems. Hong Kong has very regressive taxation. Yet all three of these countries (using the term "country" loosely for Hong Kong) overall have among the lowest government revenues and spending (as a % of GDP) and the highest levels of GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power. The key is smaller, ideally more efficient government. If the government takes a smaller piece of the pie, that means the private sector takes a larger piece. And the private sector is the engine of jobs and growth. A country is more prosperous when more money is left in the hands of its people and its businesses.

And that's where the current crop of Democrats, unlike Kennedy and perhaps Clinton, have it wrong. They want to make the USA into Europe. And if they're successful, the prosperity of the country will suffer.

[Tiny 12]

I made my points, which were also intended to be in part satirical. I see they had the intended effect hehehe! And by the way, those same Democrats were the ones who eventually got onboard with the civil rights movement and passed significant civil rights legislation. This is why the majority of African Americans identify with the Democratic party today. And the southerners who still objected they turned to the Republican party, the party of Lincoln. How ironic. Things, including political parties, can and do change. And truth can be stranger than fiction.

OK, Cane, you got me. As to the bold print, that's not necessarily true, or at least not where I live. See this, my reply to PVMonger.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2787118.

The world is very different today than it was 60 or 70 years ago. I believe most people in the USA are not racist. I'd contrast the USA to Thailand, Japan and Argentina, and ask Tooms to weigh in if I could catch him in a nonpartisan mood. But this is better not discussed here, as I believe the moderators rightly prefer we stay away from race as a topic.

[Elvis 2008]

But Elvis was showing a short memory and seems to think I never have any examples. So I choose from the past week.

Nope, that is not what I meant. I meant if you are going to accuse the USA of bad things, find an example where we have done something wrong. There are tons of examples: USA / Iran 1953, USA / Guatemala 1954, USA / Chile 1970's.

However, you were talking like the USA is in danger because BRICs nations are going to quit using the dollar when the dollar is the strongest currency the world has known for centuries.

My example of Colombia and El Salvador was to show you that the working middle class / poor were far better off keeping their savings in evil USA dollars than their wonderful native currencies. I showed you that all those BRICs currencies have went to shit.

And when you say this, you still do not get it.

About the dollar bing a strong currency and others being weak. All of this was bcos of the petrodollar.

The dollar was the dominant currency before OPEC had any real power. The notion that oil is paid for with dollars meaning anything is negligible because those dollars can instantly be changed into any other commodity or currency. In fact, the Saudis have smartly learned to convert those dollars into shares of corporate stock to get even more money. You once again are showing your financial naivete.

US economy and dollar has been supported by US bullying of other countries in to mandaory use of dollar to buy oil. Its nothing more than that. But those days are over. Now Saudi is, France, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, 20 countiries are all chooisng to ditch the dollar. So that USA can no longer bully them.

If Saudi Arabia is paid in Euros, can it change those Euros instantly into USA dollars? If so, why does it matter what they are paid in? And ultimately, a currency means a storage of value. I just showed you where holding currencies other than the USA dollar has been a fool's game. Again, you do not get it.

As for "those days being over", you miss the two larger points. Are you going to move a supertanker without insurance? And who dominates the shipping insurance industry? Argentina and Venezuela typically cannot get insurance for their cargo, and you can see where their economies have gone. This insurance issue has been quite the problem for Russia trading with China.

Then there is the USA navy and piracy. We the American taxpayer are paying for safety on the seas. World piracy is negligible because of the USA navy.

And that is where you are missing the point. People have to have faith the USA dollar will not go to shit. They have to have faith an insurance company will pay if disaster hits. And they have to have faith their cargo is not going to be seized by pirates.

You can do all the financial engineering you want. At the end of the day, the USA dollar, insurance industry, and Navy have been trustworthy, and you cannot get that faith and trust with a cheap financial engineering trick.

I cannot believe you went to Venezuela and believed all the hogwash about the USA. Venezuela should be as rich as Saudi Arabia if Venezuela were as trustworthy. The Venezuelan culture unlike the Arab culture and culture in Chile is one in which stealing is okay. Because of that, I would not buy anything in Venezuela that can easily be stolen, and they have earned that lack of faith.

I do not think you understand how important faith is when it comes to financial institutions.

[JustTK]

In general terms, I agree. I would have used different examples, like imposing FATCA on every financial institution in the world. And placing sanctions on China and Iran that affect every country. I'd mention Russia, but the EU's sanctions are possibly more stringent than the USA's.

As to violence and mayhem, the USA may have gotten better in the last decade or so. It's not as inclined to overthrow foreign governments as it has been historically. Or maybe it's just better at covering its tracks. Or maybe we'll forget the lessons of Iraq, like we forgot the lessons of Vietnam. When you've got a military budget larger than the next nine highest countries put together I guess you're inclined to throw your weight around.

Agree with everything you wrote. As for the examples I chose. Sure, there are better examples. But Elvis was showing a short memory and seems to think I never have any examples. So I choose from the past week.

I think the USA has overthrown fewer governments recently simply bcos it is not capable. It is not for the want of trying.

[Tiny 12]

But Tiny, God damn, your missing the entire point! Its not about whether you think USA Govt position is right or wrong. Its about them trying to enforce what they want on other soveriegn nations. What right do they have to dictate in this matters? Since WW2 they think they have some god given right, or exceptionalism that permits them to do it. But that IS BS. It is just bullying might is right mafia big boss tactics.

In general terms, I agree. I would have used different examples, like imposing FATCA on every financial institution in the world. And placing sanctions on China and Iran that affect every country. I'd mention Russia, but the EU's sanctions are possibly more stringent than the USA's.

As to violence and mayhem, the USA may have gotten better in the last decade or so. It's not as inclined to overthrow foreign governments as it has been historically. Or maybe it's just better at covering its tracks. Or maybe we'll forget the lessons of Iraq, like we forgot the lessons of Vietnam. When you've got a military budget larger than the next nine highest countries put together I guess you're inclined to throw your weight around.

[JustTK]

I agree with you on "2".
I disagree on "3".
I'm not sure about "1.

But Tiny, God damn, your missing the entire point! Its not about whether you think USA Govt position is right or wrong. Its about them trying to enforce what they want on other soveriegn nations. What right do they have to dictate in this matters? Since WW2 they think they have some god given right, or exceptionalism that permits them to do it. But that IS BS. It is just bullying might is right mafia big boss tactics.

[EihTooms]

Who cares. Eisenhower is ancient history. Saying he's representative of the modern Republican Party makes about as much sense as saying the Democrats who held back Civil Rights reforms in the 1950's and 1960's are representative of the Democratic Party today. Maximum marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, for goodness sake. The economy, coincidentally or not, did take off when Kennedy cut tax rates, to 70% for the top bracket. While I wasn't alive when Eisenhower was president, I suspect he didn't do a bad job compared to the others. According to the history books, you can attribute the recessions to Fed policy, not the fact that the president was a Republican.

In my book the only great president during our adult lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and Clinton during his second term was the only good one. Again coincidentally or not, GDP grew more during their terms than other modern Presidents. But it's their policies and their abilities to work across the aisle that set them above the rest. George H. W. Bush wasn't bad either. He was handicapped by when he came to the office in relation to the economic cycle.

If course the dragging, poor jobs-creating Eisenhower economy took off after Kennedy's tax cuts. That is one of the main reasons I vote for Dems and have said so many times; I LOVE their tax cuts because they WORK to produce jobs and expand the economy, unlike Repub tax cuts that work quite well to produce Great Depressions / Great Recessions and destroy jobs by the millions.

Here's the deal: Kennedy's tax cuts were not Repub-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts disproportionately high for the top income margin and paid for by everyone else. Far from it. The percent of cuts to the middle and lower income margins was greater than the percentage for the top margin, particularly when you factor in the allowances in the tax code.

That would be the OPPOSITE of what Repubs celebrate and congratulate themselves for with their disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy.

LOL. Repubs and Bothsider / Neithersider Repubs always point to Kennedy's cut for the top margin from 90% or so to 70% or so, never mention the rest of it and try to bamboozle anyone who will listen into swallowing that as proof that their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy is the way to create jobs and expand the economy like FDR did, Truman did Kennedy / LBJ did, Carter did, Clinton did, Obama did and Biden has by just putting more money into the pockets of wealthy people and nothing about the far more difficut work on all those other devilishly complicated details.

[The Cane]

Cane, PLEASE READ. And perhaps look up the definitions of "satirical", "spurious correlaton" and "cause and effect" if you don't know what those mean. I said, "I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans. " I don't know how I could have been clearer.

I made my points, which were also intended to be in part satirical. I see they had the intended effect hehehe! And by the way, those same Democrats were the ones who eventually got onboard with the civil rights movement and passed significant civil rights legislation. This is why the majority of African Americans identify with the Democratic party today. And the southerners who still objected they turned to the Republican party, the party of Lincoln. How ironic. Things, including political parties, can and do change. And truth can be stranger than fiction.

[Tiny 12]

Yours is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posts that I have read in a long, long time. Let's have a look at the 10 deadliest wars in American history:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ars-2014-05-23

1. American Civil War = Republican President: and to say that it doesn't count because it was a different Republican party from a long time ago is a bunch of malarky!

2. World War 2 = Democratic President: America was sucker punched by Japan and Hitler was running amuck around Europe and North Africa. If ever there was a war worth fighting this one was it!

3. World War 1 = Democratic President: we should have dealt with the Hun more appropriately then (was too punitive a peace towards Germany), and had we, then we could have headed off the rise of the Nazis.

4. Vietnam War = Republican President: to be fair this tragic war spanned a number of administrations, but it was a Republican who got us into it (Eisenhower) and a Republican who oversaw our shameful withdrawal in defeat from it (Nixon).

5, Korean War = Republican President: Vietnam wasn't enough no sir so the GOP dragged us kicking and screaming into another east Asian war (excuse me "police action" that would be).

6. Mexican-American War = Democratic President: this war of aggression against Mexico goes even further back than the American Civil War so, if in your view the latter doesn't count against a changed Republican party, how in the world can you hold with a straight face that this one should count against a Democratic party that too has changed over time?

7. Iraq War (there were actually two) = Republican President: need I really say more (the GOP started this mess in search of weapons of mass destruction mission accomplished)?

8. Revolutionary War = Non-partisan President: no comment other than this one goes way, way back!

9. Spanish-American War = Republican President: the GOP was in the White House when this "yellow journalism" fueled war allowed one of the most disgusting Republican war mongers of all time Theodore Roosevelt to rise to fame and eventually seize the Oval Office himself.

10. Afghanistan War = Republican President: well old Georgie boy was at it again, and Donald Chump left Biden standing there holding a stinky bag of shit!

What say ye now my fellows?

Cane, PLEASE READ. And perhaps look up the definitions of "satirical", "spurious correlaton" and "cause and effect" if you don't know what those mean. I said, "I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans. " I don't know how I could have been clearer:

And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

Again, if you're going to illogically hold the modern day Republican Party responsible for the Civil War, then it's only fair that you illogically hold today's Democrats responsible for slavery, Jim Crow and repression of Civil Rights. And it's a little ridiculous to hold Eisenhower responsible for 58,000 deaths in Vietnam, when he was only around for 9 of them. The icing on the cake is that then you criticize Nixon for getting us out of the same war that Eisenhower allegedly got us into!

Vietnam was a bipartisan war, and like I said, I don't see the logic in calling LBJ the responsible party when only two members of the Senate and House voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Please note that the Korean War went from June, 1950, when Truman was president, to July, 1953. Eisenhower took office in January, 1953. FYI, Truman was a Democrat.

Also please note my spurious correlation that showed over 95% of American military deaths in the 20th and 21st centuries were attributable to Democratic Presidents would only apply to wars fought after 1900. If you’ve got a problem with that, please take more time to understand what “spurious correlation” means.

[Tiny 12]

I have no data to back it up? Back what up exactly? TBH I have no idea what you are talking abot there.

Colombia v El Salvador. Again, no idea what claim you are trying to make. Just a random story without any clear purpose.

About the dollar bing a strong currency and others being weak. All of this was bcos of the petrodollar. US economy and dollar has been supported by US bullying of other countries in to mandaory use of dollar to buy oil. Its nothing more than that. But those days are over. Now Saudi is, France, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, 20 countiries are all chooisng to ditch the dollar. So that USA can no longer bully them.

"Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong" - you serious? Whch week? Just this past week I can name 3.

1 USA bulying Mexico bcos govt wants to buy operate state owned power plants. USA wants the Mex energy industry open to US corporate exploitation.

2 USA bullying Saudi bcos Russia and China have brokered peace deals with Syria and Iran. USA does not want peace, it wants constant militray oppression of Iran and Syria.

3. USA bullying UN Sec Council not to open investigation in to casue of Nord Stream pipeline terrorism. Its obvious why USA doesn't want this bcos it committed a gross terrorist action against soverign infrastructure and caused huge environmental and financial damage.

Its every week. It seems ever clearer that the USA is a sinking ship, no different to any other fallen empire. Its is getting desperate to hold on to power, that is clear in its ever more belligerent and authoritarian stance, both domestically and internationally. Yet it can do nothing to change it. The tide has turned. Thank goodness.

I agree with you on "2".

I disagree on "3", as based on what I've read, I believe Ukrainians are responsible for the action against the pipeline. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the USA is covering for the Ukrainians.

I'm not sure about "1. " Normally I'd say that nationalizing Mexican power plants is stupid, especially given how Pemex (the inefficient, corrupt national oil company) has turned out. It's a basket case. But crony capitalism is rampant in Mexico. Look at Cemex and Carlos Slim, who gouge consumers. I suspect it's a bad move on AMLO's part, as the power plants are owned by private Spanish interests, which probably operate more efficiently and in the long run will deliver electricity at cheaper prices than the Mexican state. Unlike the Mexican crony capitalists and the narcotraficantes, the Spanish probably aren't buying off the politicians and bureaucrats. Yes, it does seem like this is a matter for the Mexicans and the Spanish. A little off topic, I believe U.S. investment in Mexico has benefited both countries. Most here would probably disagree with me.

[Tiny 12]

Now, the only thing I recall you providing that suggested those Happy Days under Ike were good for the working man was some opinion piece where the dude who wrote it said so without any linked data to substantiate that opinion.

By stark contrast, I provided links showing the USA suffered through three, not one, not two, but three Recessions during Ike's 8 years in office, that his economy produced one of the worst jobs creating records in the past century and that the working man in America was so opposed to him and his Party that every major labor union in the country endorsed his right hand man's Dem opponent in 1960.

You got anything to refute the actual data, the verifiable record of results and the historical facts about that yet? Or do you only have your recommendation to watch a couple of episodes of Happy Days to see how much fun it looked like Ritchie and The Fonz were having at the time?

Who cares. Eisenhower is ancient history. Saying he's representative of the modern Republican Party makes about as much sense as saying the Democrats who held back Civil Rights reforms in the 1950's and 1960's are representative of the Democratic Party today. Maximum marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, for goodness sake. The economy, coincidentally or not, did take off when Kennedy cut tax rates, to 70% for the top bracket. While I wasn't alive when Eisenhower was president, I suspect he didn't do a bad job compared to the others. According to the history books, you can attribute the recessions to Fed policy, not the fact that the president was a Republican.

In my book the only great president during our adult lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and Clinton during his second term was the only good one. Again coincidentally or not, GDP grew more during their terms than other modern Presidents. But it's their policies and their abilities to work across the aisle that set them above the rest. George H. W. Bush wasn't bad either. He was handicapped by when he came to the office in relation to the economic cycle.