Board Thread:Watercooler 2.0/@comment-6198648-20130228045108/@comment-6191693-20130710174255

Lots of things to address in the debate taking place on this page.

In response to your list,

1. No matter what preconceptions you have about social health care, it is simply a fact that Obamacare has actually saved money when compared to the old plan, rather than increased spending, as you (and the likes of Fox News) claimed. That is not to say that I support it -- the mandate alone (which, by the way, was a Republican addition to the original bill) is enough to ruin it for me, but at least it's better than what we had, which was terrible. Obama has also decreased spending when compared to the previous administrations -- I think I read somewhere that Obama's spending, when adjusted for inflation, is the lowest since Truman or Eisenhower or something like that (whoever it was, it was something like 40+ years ago). If you're that interested, I can see if I can find a source, or you can look for it yourself.

2. Reagan was a terrible president. People love to praise him for the strong economy and overall prosperity in the early '80s, but what they don't realize is that it was Cater's policies which pulled us out of the recession of the late '70s, but which didn't really begin to take effect until Reagan came to power. They also seem to forget all about the other recession and housing market crash in the late '80s after deregulation of the banking industry and restructuring of the tax scheme (sound familiar? no wonder it's been conveniently forgotten).

While we're on the new tax scheme, it was "simplified" in a way that only really benefited the wealthiest Americans ("trickle-down economics," a theory that has been proven over and over again to not work).

He is also the reason why you and me will likely never get to enjoy the luxury of social security when we're old -- until then, social security money was kept in a separate account and could not be used for anything other than what it was intended for. Then Reagan came along and said "Oh, we'll just make it so we can borrow some money from the social security fund." What conservatives never tell you is that we actually have a massive social security surplus; it's just that the money has been "borrowed" for other things and not put back. They also like to call it an "entitlement," despite the fact that we've paid into it our entire working lives. Thanks, Reagan.

He also restructured our education system to focus more heavily on standardized testing, which has backfired miserably.

He massively increased spending. You said it was for war with the Soviets -- what war? By that time, the Cold War was barely even a thing, MAD had already been achieved many times over. Much of that military spending was instead directed towards places like Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Colombia, all places where we had no business being except to protect American private and corporate interests, like the Chiquita banana plantations (which we paid known terrorists a ton of money to protect).

While we're on Central America, let's not forget that his administration sold arms to the Iranians and used the money to finance Nicaraguan terrorists and also facilitated the massive influx of cocaine the US saw in the '80s.

I could go on and on about that awful man. These are all just a few key points you can feel free to research.

3. Maybe you forgot, but we're tied up in two of the most expensive wars in American history that weren't even started by the president you're blaming for the debt. Reagan, on the other hand, only had a few small skirmishes that he started himself and a big Red bogeyman; he also cut taxes on the wealthy to pay for it, because that makes sense...not.

4. I pretty much agree that all the presidents on your top 5 list suck (there have really been more bad presidents than good ones, so it's really kind of hard to rank them), but your "honorable mentions"...really? I don't agree with any of them.

FDR -- This is one of my favorite presidents. Sure, he increased peacetime deficit spending, but look at the hand he was given. Never before had the United States experienced an economic downturn of that magnitude; there was no precedent on which to base a decision and it was pretty much all guesswork. When he was elected, we had been tied up in that depression for almost half a decade, something had to be done, and things like the WPA and the New Deal seemed like good ideas at the time (and you can still argue that they were). Even if it was true that his policies "dragged out the depression" (I'm not so sure about that -- the economy was slowly improving towards the end before the war came along and fixed everything), you can't really blame him for it. Without even considering his leadership in the war, the legacy of his depression-era policies that protected the working man and civil rights which still stand today are more than enough to forgive any mistakes he made. It's just a shame that his "Second Bill of Rights" never made it to Congress before he died.

Lincoln -- There are a number of things he and his administration did that I don't necessarily agree with, and I agree with you that his suspension of Habeas Corpus was almost despicable. That being said, no one is perfect; you're not going to agree with everything anyone said or did. You also have to take into consideration that, like FDR, he was dealt a shitty hand -- the worst hand in American history, in fact, as the nation he was elected to lead was literally falling to pieces. He was sort of in panic mode and did what he felt he had to to preserve the Union. His suspension of Habeas Corpus is the only big caveat that keeps him out of my list of favorite presidents.

Carter -- You're blaming him for giving the Panamanians back their rightful territory, which, by the way, we pretty much stole from Colombia? And you're using that and the Hostage Crisis as a basis for considering him one of the worst presidents ever? Carter's administration was far from perfect, but he had a royal mess to clean up left by JFK, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford, and when it wasn't all magically fixed within a four-year span, it was somehow his fault. Sort of like Obama with the debt, except Carter actually had good intentions. He wasn't my favorite, but I like Carter.

Harrison -- Really? The guy dies before he can really do much of anything, and you hold that against him? Hard to tell, but it seems like you're making the case that he had bad judgement by not listening to medical advice, but you have to remember also that medicine at the time was barely more than medieval and a lot of people didn't take doctors or their medical advice seriously.

--And now onto the next post--

Syria vs. Libya -- Think about it. What does Libya have a lot of that Syria doesn't? I'll give you a hint: it's black and expensive and very important. Humanitarianism and opposition to an oppressive regime have not been political motivators in war since WWII.

That's really all I have to add to that post.