FDR versus Reagan - - - do they deserve to be considered equal?

Question

FDR inherited a problem that we now know to have been largely of the Fed's making and exacerbated by the imposition of tariffs. FDR tried new things and gave great speeches but the economy sustained near-zero growth for over a decade and third-world-level unemployment persisted until the dawn of WWII.

Reagan inherited problems that the conventional wisdom at the time did not understand. There were fuel shortages, there was high unemployment with high consumer price inflation, and militarily the USSR was gaining the upper hand. Reagan ended fuel price controls and within six weeks fuel shortages were gone. Reagan cut tax rates, allowing the economy to reinvest more of its earnings, which in turn allowed the Fed to not have to worry about growth and to focus instead of taming inflation, which to this day remains tame. Absolute economic mobility has also increased dramatically, and the USSR no longer exists.

They both talked a great game but only Reagan got results.

Answer 1

FDR is WAY overrated and Reagan gets most of the respect he deserves although the Weak Sisters will never acknowledge his accomplishments - much less the fact that they thought the Soviet Union was sorta, kinda just like us but with a different way of going about it.

At least, that's pretty much how that hero of the left, John Kenneth Galbraith, put it in 1984 (ironic timing, no?) when explaining away the left's lack of backbone vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. And then Bill Clinton gives him the Presidential Medal of Freedom - totally laughable!

Answer 2

It is laughable that people honestly think that FDR was a great President. He was among the worst three Presidents of the 20th Century. The mistaken belief that the majestic FDR carried the US through the Great Depression and World War II, and turned the United State into the most powerful country on earth is the contrivance of Historians and Journalists who overwhelming have viewpoints far left of center.

The fact of the matter is that in 1933 when Roosevelt took office the US was well on its way out of the Depression; and the Socialist, New Deal, programs he enacted did nothing but stagnate growth and mired the economy in Depression for an addionital 10 years.

All of the statements that Roosevelt led the US to victory during World War II is nothing but bunk. It would not have made a difference who was President the outcome would have been the same. The real credit goes to the men and women in the US Armed Forces. However, if you are looking to assign credit for victory certainly more of it belongs to Eisenhower, Leahy, MacArthur, King, Nimitz, Patton, and Halsey.

One last comment, most people seem to overlook one key fact when discussing Roosevelt’s Presidency, his power grab in direct violation of the US Constitution. When Roosevelt began to pass his New Deal programs, the US Supreme Court correctly and in accordance with US Constitution struck down these programs as unconstitutional, since every New Deal program is an overstep in power by the Federal Government. However, Roosevelt rather than accept that his Socialist Programs violated the Constitution, or at least propose amending the Constitution (something he knew he could never accomplish), he threatened to pack the Supreme Court with new Justices. If the Court continued to strike down his New Deal Programs he would appoint a new voting Supreme Court Justice for every Justice over the age of 70, which would have brought the total number to 15. Could someone please tell me how this does not violate the separation of powers defined in the Constitution? The Constitution defines the number of Supreme Court Justices to be 9, and does not give the President any leeway to appoint additional ones. So, do you still think Roosevelt was a great President? He could not legally turn the US into a socialized country, so he threatened to violate the Constitution to do it. Roosevelt definitely is deserving of the largest memorial on the National Mall.

I see yet another specious argument from the self proclaimed "Super Genius" Pip. Implying that since FDR was elected to four terms that makes him the better President. Well, I certainly hope a "Genius" such as him knows about the Twenty-second Amendment and that it was enacted because FDR did not follow the path of George Washington and every other great President and serve only two terms. Just to provide an overview, the Twenty-second Amendment prohibits all Presidents after Harry Truman from being elected President more than twice. However, he is correct about one thing it is a stretch to compare Reagan to Roosevelt. One was a great leader that led the US to victory against it greatest adversary and paved the way for economic prosperity, and the other was a socialist usurper of the Constitution whose failed programs we are still living with today and will cause economic disaster far into the future.

Answer 3

Reagan, terrible time for the "family" to make a living with all the "downs" in the job market, nope Ronnie was definitely a bumbling buffoon brought about by Hollywood wanna be politician's. FDR, a breath of fresh air for the time of "do nothing Hoover". Not at all comparable.

Answer 4

No. Reagan had get-go. He moved people when they didn't want to move. He protected America when our airplane's were being high-jacked by the terrorist Kadafi, by bombing his house, without the democratic Congresses approval. Go Ronnie! Unfortunately, Kadafi wasn't home, and the adopted-daughter was killed. But Kadafi stopped high-jacking our planes, and killing American soldier's, didn't he? Reagan did what he knew he had to do, for our safety. I thank God for him. Reagan was there, when America needed him, and he never acted like a coward. He made America laugh, when we were down. I don't think there was ever another president who loved his country more, than Ronald Reagan. I miss the old guy. I wish he were still here with us.
Franklin D. Roosevelt took too long to get into action. He sat on his butt, and thought too long, when Europe needed us during WWII.

Answer 5

In my opinion, Reagan should win over FDR. It is because of FDR the government is so big and so in your face. Reagan, yes got great results, and the American citizen had money in their savings accounts, and now government has gotten so big, that taxes are higher, and there a great non-trust government movement on the rise by kids who are my age, 34, because we saw good/great, then it went downhill, the Bush's drive me crazy, the Clinton's do too, and they are personal family friends.....but I am sick to death of government. Reagan wins in my book!

Answer 6

FDR defeated facism, brought democracy to hundreds of millions and made the US the most powerful nation in the world, ensured that elderly and sick would not be thrown out on the street, brough electricity (and thus) prosperity to much of the nation.

Reagan hurled slogans at the Russians, sold arms to our current enemies in Iran, supported third-world dictators (as long as they weren't communist) allowed cocaine and crack to ravage our cities (as long as our 3rd world dictator friends were making money, all was find) and slept through cabinet meetings.

Even Steven?

Answer 7

It is difficult to rate presidents. Look at all the idiots who think Bill Clinton was a great president. I think both men will go down as being among the best of the 20th century presidents.

Answer 8

FDR doesn't hold a candle to Reagan.

FDR was a closet socialist that used the depression to insinuate socialistic economic doctrines and entitlement programs in on the public.

Whatever SHORT TERM benefit the programs provided, they have LONG SINCE lived past their primes.

Answer 9

NO not equal or even close RR great FDR NOT great
Can't compare a socialist with a Conservative

Answer 10

REAGAN WAS ONE OF THE BEST. WHETHER THE NEO-DEMS WANT TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT.