Quote:
|
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?
|
You'd also need to eliminate a Harrison and a Johnson. And it probably wouldn't work since prior to 1913 (when the income tax was made legal) the tax structure used to fund the federal government was very different. In the last half of the 19th century a president's policy on inflation was probably just as important as their tax policies (industrialists tend to be anti-inflation while agrarians tend to be pro-inflation). Also over the course of the last century the Democrats and Republicans have essentially swapped sides in the political spectrum (Republicans used to be the "reformers" and "progressives" while Democrats were conservatives).
If you only count two term presidents and throw out matched names then the only presidents to be elected twice and serve two full terms are Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the century then you can add Woodrow Wilson and FDR to the list.
As for the tax cut GC posted to I can't really roll my eyes harder as it is an exercise in stupidity. Why not just headline it "Analysis shows that cut in investment taxes benefits primarily those with lots of investments." Tomorrow they can run an article that covers the controversial topic of how "Increase in candy bar prices disproportionately impacts those who eat candy bars." There are, of course, very important issues* raised by this particular tax cut that are worthy of discussion but the article doesn't mention them.
* Such as "Has this cut created a real increase in tax burden for others" or "Should taxes be cut in a time of increasing governmental spending obligations" or "Even if actually beneficial to the overall economy does it make political sense to pass a tax cut that is so likely to be used as a political tool against you and then reversed."