Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Choose only 7, please.
George Washington 1789-1797 246 71.72%
John Adams 1797-1801 52 15.16%
Thomas Jefferson 1801-1809 203 59.18%
James Madison 1809-1817 35 10.20%
James Monroe 1817-1825 19 5.54%
John Quincy Adams 1825-1829 18 5.25%
Andrew Jackson 1829-1837 59 17.20%
Martin Van Buren 1837-1841 3 0.87%
William Henry Harrison 1841 1 0.29%
John Tyler 1841-1845 4 1.17%
James K. Polk 1845-1849 34 9.91%
Zachary Taylor 1849-1850 1 0.29%
Millard Fillmore 1850-1853 2 0.58%
Franklin Pierce 1853-1857 3 0.87%
James Buchanan 1857-1861 1 0.29%
Abraham Lincoln 1861-1865 260 75.80%
Andrew Johnson 1865-1869 2 0.58%
Ulysses S. Grant 1869-1877 26 7.58%
Rutherford B. Hayes 1877-1881 4 1.17%
James Garfield 1881 3 0.87%
Chester Arthur 1881-1885 6 1.75%
Grover Cleveland 1885-1889, 1893-1897 13 3.79%
Benjamin Harrison 1889-1893 1 0.29%
William McKinley 1897-1901 5 1.46%
Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1909 191 55.69%
William H. Taft 1909-1913 5 1.46%
Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921 29 8.45%
Warren G. Harding 1921-1923 4 1.17%
Calvin Coolidge 1923-1929 24 7.00%
Herbert Hoover 1929-1933 3 0.87%
Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-1945 215 62.68%
Harry S. Truman 1945-1953 84 24.49%
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 114 33.24%
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 99 28.86%
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-1969 29 8.45%
Richard Nixon 1969-1974 13 3.79%
Gerald Ford 1974-1977 9 2.62%
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 28 8.16%
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 142 41.40%
George Bush 1989-1993 17 4.96%
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 87 25.36%
George W. Bush 2001-2009 17 4.96%
Barack Obama 2009- 45 13.12%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 343. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-01-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,141 posts, read 13,160,095 times
Reputation: 10108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
I think the high Clinton count is a symptom of 3 or 4 factors,
such as:

1. Recent-memory effect
2. Better-than the two we've had since effect
2. Thinking Clinton was somehow responsible for a better economy effect
3. No credit to Republican congress (controlled both houses) effect
4. No credit to overarching societal factors (computer revolution) effect
5. Lingering charisma effect
6. Globalism was still young, hadn't exported our jobs yet effect
I agree with your points. Clinton IMO was more or less a average to maybe above average President, not one of the best but certainly far from the worst. The Cold War was over and the economy was booming so I always regarded the Clinton years as a missed opportunity to have real change in this country.

Anyway, I also think it is a generational thing. People who were kids in the 90s probably are more likely to think of Clinton in a very positive light. The same thing for Reagan for my generation and Kennedy for Baby Boomers. Its not that these were bad Presidents but they probably do not belong in the same category as Washington, Lincoln or the two Roosevelts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2013, 08:47 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,770,777 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by sargentodiaz View Post
I don't have links at hand but many economists believe FDR's programs actually lengthened the Great Depression.
And what exactly are they basing this claim of theirs on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,214 posts, read 11,273,221 times
Reputation: 20827
Quote:
Originally Posted by sargentodiaz View Post
I don't have links at hand but many economists believe FDR's programs actually lengthened the Great Depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
And what exactly are they basing this claim of theirs on?
Consider, for example, the National industrial Recovery Act (NIRA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...l_Recovery_Act

The idea behind this monstrrosity was esentially to restart the economy while holding the "status quo" among the previously-dominant players. (Of course, with all power now concentrated within the Federal bureucracy essentially one monstrous cartel, it would not have been long before the influence-peddling known today as "crony capitalism" took root).

It was the Supreme Court's invalidation of this grand scheme in May of 1935 that cleared away the fear of interference and paved the way for a true recovery led by independent entrepeneurship. That path, of course was, after some progress, further blocked by a number of forms of Federal intererence such as the Wagner Act (essentially, exemption from Antitrust of the legitimized cartels known as labor unions). The midterm elections of 1938 then turned out many of the most strident New Dealers. That sparked a rally in 1938-39 whih, in turn, was tempered by Roosevelt's determination to hold to higher income tax rates after the 1940 elections.

The process continued to run in cycles while the postwar economy eventually recovered and grew to a size sufficient to accomodate the "middle-class welfare" and "societal overhead". And it appears that "crony capitalism: is alive, well, and designated as the model for the current crop of influence-peddlers within the Beltway.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-02-2013 at 07:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 11:12 AM
 
643 posts, read 914,574 times
Reputation: 600
FDR, Teddy, Woodrow, Abe, Bill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,302,815 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by California831 View Post
FDR, Teddy, Woodrow, Abe, Bill
Which Bill--there are 3 of them.

Woodrow Wilson would definitely be on my list of 7 worst. Started the federal income tax, which of course was only supposed to apply to the super rich. Started the war on drugs (Harrison act of 1914). Started us down the path of America as police force for the world w/ WWI. Created the FBI, historically one of the most deleterious federal institutions. especially under Hoover. On his watch, people were jailed just for printing and distributing anti-war pamphlets (Schenk case). He was an outright bigot against blacks, and resegregated the federal work force, including the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 06:43 AM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,553,678 times
Reputation: 5664
I agree with wutititz, Wilson was among the worst.
Still aghast at Lincoln beating out Washington here.

If someone wants to start a 7-worst poll, just like this,
go ahead. My 7 worst would be:

- FDR
- Wilson
- LBJ
- Obama
- George W. Bush
- Truman
- Lincoln
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 06:53 AM
 
14,354 posts, read 14,165,853 times
Reputation: 45657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
I agree with wutititz, Wilson was among the worst.
Still aghast at Lincoln beating out Washington here.

If someone wants to start a 7-worst poll, just like this,
go ahead. My 7 worst would be:

- FDR
- Wilson
- LBJ
- Obama
- George W. Bush
- Truman
- Lincoln
When I get a list like this (with the possible exception of Obama) what I realize the poster is really doing is rejecting the modern world. These Presidents stood for values like an end to slavery, civil rights, an end to the evils of unregulated capitalism, and creation of international bodies to end or limit armed conflict. People who don't share those kinds of values are stuck in the eighteenth century or worse.

Do your math. You basically think that Presidents who served during 56 years out of the last 100 years were the "worst Presidents we had". Also, you conspicuously omit men like Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon from your list. I hope you realize just how far out of the mainstream that your views really are.

Last edited by markg91359; 12-03-2013 at 07:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,302,815 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
If someone wants to start a 7-worst poll, just like this,
go ahead. My 7 worst would be:

- FDR
- Wilson
- LBJ
- Obama
- George W. Bush
- Truman
- Lincoln
When I get a list like this (with the possible exception of Obama) what I realize the poster is really doing is rejecting the modern world. These Presidents stood for values like an end to slavery, civil rights, an end to the evils of unregulated capitalism, and creation of international bodies to end or limit armed conflict. People who don't share those kinds of values are stuck in the eighteenth century or worse.

Do your math. You basically think that Presidents who served during 56 years out of the last 100 years were the "worst Presidents we had". Also, you conspicuously omit men like Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon from your list. I hope you realize just how far out of the mainstream that your views really are.
Not really, this list could be easily be interpreted as reflecting a wish for rule of law, and a federal government restrained from overstepping its bounds to trample on states and/or individuals. Each of those 7 took major steps to loosen the bonds restricting Washington D.C. They got us to where we are today, where the D.C. area is now the richest region in the land, and people who speak their mind can expect to get audited by the IRS.

Anyway there is no need to try to read the poster's mind as to whether she/he had in mind a 'rejecting the modern world,' wish for rule of law, or whatever. We could just ask the poster what he/she had in mind with this list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,302,815 times
Reputation: 7990
and MarkG, what is your take on my post #75 on Wilson? It was Wilson more than anyone who marked the divide between 19th and 20th century America, between limited gov't (albeit for white males only) and leviathan gov't. Is it rejection of the modern world to oppose the federal income tax, the war on drugs, US as world police force, tossing people in jail over pamphlets, and Wilson's eugenics agenda?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 08:38 PM
 
14,354 posts, read 14,165,853 times
Reputation: 45657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
and MarkG, what is your take on my post #75 on Wilson? It was Wilson more than anyone who marked the divide between 19th and 20th century America, between limited gov't (albeit for white males only) and leviathan gov't. Is it rejection of the modern world to oppose the federal income tax, the war on drugs, US as world police force, tossing people in jail over pamphlets, and Wilson's eugenics agenda?
Well let's see. Wilson stood for:

1. The graduated income tax.
2. Direct election of senators
3. Women suffrage
4. The eight hour work day.
5. Laws against child labor.
6. The League of Nations (forerunner of the UN)
7. The Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products.
8. Tougher anti trust laws (Clayton Act)
9. An end to machine politics and party bosses.
10. Was willing to stand up to Germany when it tried to tell us if we traded with Britain it would sink our ships.

I could add the Federal Reserve System to this because I believe it was an accomplishment as well. Since the advent of the Federal Reserve this country has experienced fewer financial panics or recessions than before and they have been of shorter duration. The Federal Reserve is a controversial accomplishment to some. Its not to me.

Most of the parts of the Wilson Administration that involved "tossing people into jail" were a direct outgrowth of the war. This was a war that America didn't start. Did Wilson behave appropriately when he had Gene Debs prosecuted for sedition when he opposed the draft? No, he didn't. However, if that's the worst thing he did I can handle it.

The Wilson Presidency was a worthy follow up to the Teddy Roosevelt Presidency. It helps mark a time when America broke with its past and became a modern nation.

More constructive change was accomplished during the Wilson Administration that most people can imagine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top