Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FDR provoked Japan needlessly, and knew exactly when and how
they would attack Pearl Harbor on Dec 7. 1941. He intentionally
sacrificed the lives of US soldiers. See interviews and book by
Robert Stinnett.
That, and many other things, makes him one of, if not THE worst
president in US History.
Another terrible president who rarely makes these lists is none other
than Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln ignored the Constitutional rights of the States,
and needlessly caused the deaths of more Americans than any other president
combined. Slavery was already near its end. The cotton gin was only a few years
away, ending the need for negro labor on plantations. Education of negroes
and sentiment of white population would have been successful in peacefully
bringing an end to slavery in the US.
I watched the movie - Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, a few months ago. Entertaning movie, and I think about as historically accurate as your statements above. Start a new thread and we in the history forum will tell you why.
Seems that good and bad presidencies come in cycles. We had Roosevelt (The War President, not the Depression President), Truman and Eisenhower. Men who created sound doctrine and really laid the foundation for the long-term ascendancy of America in foreign affairs.
Then we were afflicted with Johnson, Nixon, and Carter (I omit Kennedy and Ford because their terms were too short).
Then we had Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton. Their combined policies really created prosperity and the America, the HyperPower.
Now we have Bush43 and Obama. Two awful, awful presidents. Total failures, both of them. Bush43 is responsible for the wholly unnecessary invasion of Iraq, a failure to address the looming housing bubble, and the creation of an entirely new entitlement program when entitlements are in desperate need of trimming. Obama, while he inherited a tough economic situation from Bush, has actually managed to make it worse by ineffective governance, choosing national healthcare over economic growth, and actually allowing Congress to choke off capital to business when it was needed most with the Dodd Frank legislation.
While I'm politically neutral (When somebody informs me that they vote straight ticket for either party, I begin looking for their lobotomy scars), I am hoping Romney pulls this election out, chiefly because he appears to be the more competent of the two candidates at a time when competence in the Oval Office is what this country needs most.
FDR provoked Japan needlessly, and knew exactly when and how
they would attack Pearl Harbor on Dec 7. 1941. He intentionally
sacrificed the lives of US soldiers. See interviews and book by
Robert Stinnett.
That, and many other things, makes him one of, if not THE worst
president in US History.
Yes. Japan's invasion of China, their attack on the USS Panay, attacks on our allies, occupation and enslaving of Korea, etc. was a long-standing history of their non-interventionalist, benign and peace-loving non-militaristic monarchist leadership. Pearl Harbor never would have happened had we just not had any boats there.
Quote:
Another terrible president who rarely makes these lists is none other
than Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln ignored the Constitutional rights of the States,
and needlessly caused the deaths of more Americans than any other president
combined. Slavery was already near its end. The cotton gin was only a few years
away, ending the need for negro labor on plantations. Education of negroes
and sentiment of white population would have been successful in peacefully
bringing an end to slavery in the US.
Yep yep... if the negroes had just sat tight for another few years, they surely would have gained all their rights and personhood My god, do you actually believe this crass gibberish? Who do you think would have been operating the cotton gins, smiling white farmboys getting paid a fair wage? Jesus.
Interesting point about hoover. It seems history doesn't pay him much attention. Taft paved the way for Wilson. How often does a presidency become measured but performance of the economy? The 20s were roaring, then the markets tanked in 29. Hoover became preident in 29. Bush 1 in 89, obama in 09. In those years they were leading up to recessions and depressions. It has made two or the three a one term president. Will it be 3 for 3? We will see in a month.
Back the economy being a legacy of a president... Are the two related? If so to what extent? It appears that it is something the voters associate when making their decision.
I think the thing about the Great Depression is how easily people are willing to indulge in facile myths. For example, the popular myth is that the Stock Market Crash caused the Great Depression and that Herbert Hoover sat on his hands throughout the rest of his presidency doing nothing until FDR won the election, put America back to work and saved the day. Let's take these on one at a time.
Stock market crashes in and of themselves do not cause depressions. If so, we would have had one lulu of one in 1987, when the stock market lost 22.8% of its value in one trading day. Instead, the Great Depression caused the Stock Market Crash, not vice versa. Sure, it's a convenient benchmark. But a careful examination of the economy shows that there had been a wholesale credit collapse in the United States prior to October, 1929.
Hoover didn't sit back and do nothing. While he did indeed reject the idea of direct individual welfare payments, a number of his other actions were anything but laissez faire economics in action. He signed into law the Hawley Smoot Tariff Act, which severely damaged international trade when the country needed it most, his Revenue Act increased the highest taxation rates from 25% to 63%, estate taxes were raised 15%, Federal debt increased from 20% to 40% of GDP, Federal spending was increased roughly 50%, and generally created the foundation for Roosevelt's New Deal. In fact, in a supreme irony, Roosevelt's campaign of 1932 attacked Hoover for spending too much, incurring too much debt, and leading the country down the path to socialism. And they had a point, because Hoover's policies were destroying the country's investment climate.
Meanwhile, everybody credits FDR for rescuing the country from the maw of the Great Depression, when in fact it can be argued persuasively that his programs prolonged it. After all, unemployment in 1938 was almost as high as it was in 1933 when he took office. In fact, the only respite during the Great Depression was around 1937 before Roosevelt sought to increase taxation again, thereby plunging industrial production 30% and increasing unemployment back up to 19%. If there's a world leader that saved the United States from the Great Depression, then it was Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.
Now, FDR as a war leader was a completely different story.
I think the thing about the Great Depression is how easily people are willing to indulge in facile myths. For example, the popular myth is that the Stock Market Crash caused the Great Depression and that Herbert Hoover sat on his hands throughout the rest of his presidency doing nothing until FDR won the election, put America back to work and saved the day. Let's take these on one at a time.
Stock market crashes in and of themselves do not cause depressions. If so, we would have had one lulu of one in 1987, when the stock market lost 22.8% of its value in one trading day. Instead, the Great Depression caused the Stock Market Crash, not vice versa. Sure, it's a convenient benchmark. But a careful examination of the economy shows that there had been a wholesale credit collapse in the United States prior to October, 1929.
Hoover didn't sit back and do nothing. While he did indeed reject the idea of direct individual welfare payments, a number of his other actions were anything but laissez faire economics in action. He signed into law the Hawley Smoot Tariff Act, which severely damaged international trade when the country needed it most, his Revenue Act increased the highest taxation rates from 25% to 63%, estate taxes were raised 15%, Federal debt increased from 20% to 40% of GDP, Federal spending was increased roughly 50%, and generally created the foundation for Roosevelt's New Deal. In fact, in a supreme irony, Roosevelt's campaign of 1932 attacked Hoover for spending too much, incurring too much debt, and leading the country down the path to socialism. And they had a point, because Hoover's policies were destroying the country's investment climate.
Meanwhile, everybody credits FDR for rescuing the country from the maw of the Great Depression, when in fact it can be argued persuasively that his programs prolonged it. After all, unemployment in 1938 was almost as high as it was in 1933 when he took office. In fact, the only respite during the Great Depression was around 1937 before Roosevelt sought to increase taxation again, thereby plunging industrial production 30% and increasing unemployment back up to 19%. If there's a world leader that saved the United States from the Great Depression, then it was Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.
Now, FDR as a war leader was a completely different story.
The crash of 29 was the starting point. It wasn't the singular point that caused the depression. There were several things led to the depression.
Stock market tanked, banks started to fail, the dust bowl started... Those three factors at the same time were responsible.
The market takes down turns from time to time. The weather gets really dry from time to time, it was longterm and wide spread. The dustbowl was a result of tillage practices of the time.
All the warmongers: Jackson, Polk, McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, both Bushes.
You might want to do a little more research. McKinley was by no means enthusiatic over the prospect of war with Spain which, BTW, Congress consented to, with considerable cheering by Theodore Roosevelt and the Hearst newspapers.
And ir was Kennedy, as well as Johnson, who started us down the slippery slope into the morass that was Vietnam.
But in fairness, the world has required a policeman from among the ranks of the civilized nations since the decline of feudalism; that role was assumed, in succession, by Spain, France, and Great Britain, and weakened all of them, and we can all be thankful that Germany and Soviet Russia were thwarted in their attempts to sieze it.
We appear to be taking the first slow steps toward identifying and subjugating the truly criminal regimes, but we have a long way to go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My god, do you actually believe this crass gibberish? Who do you think would have been operating the cotton gins, smiling white farmboys getting paid a fair wage? Jesus.
