Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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: Who Was Better?
FDR 67 54.47%
Ronald Reagan 56 45.53%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2011, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Denmark
657 posts, read 697,286 times
Reputation: 378

Advertisements

Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents of the 20th century, so this is an easy vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2011, 02:38 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,986,524 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by liebknecht View Post
Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents of the 20th century, so this is an easy vote.
Well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,508 posts, read 33,300,433 times
Reputation: 7622
Quote:
Originally Posted by liebknecht View Post
Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents of the 20th century, so this is an easy vote.
Apparently, you don't know much about Ronald Reagan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,508 posts, read 33,300,433 times
Reputation: 7622
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
Well said.
You don't, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 02:45 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,986,524 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
You don't, either.
That doesn't make any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 04:09 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,440,479 times
Reputation: 4070
I voted for Reagan both times. And I think he was an effective as well as popular president. But in terms of greatness, he's well behind FDR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 06:33 PM
 
3,283 posts, read 5,206,260 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
It was mainly due to two things:

1. An uprecedented increase in federal spending (on armaments).

2. A massive government jobs program (military draft).

the sheer number of people who actually believe this nonsense, is living proof that the dept of education is marvellously successful in its primary aim: mass indoctrination. i don't know how anyone can suggest that an activity which robs an economy of so many of its resources both human and material, can be a good thing for that economy.

yes, ww2 ended unemployment. the FACT that economically, peoples lives still sucked, means that the depression did not end. only after the war when all of those resources were put to use to give consumers the products that THEY WANTED, did the depression end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2011, 08:51 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,440,479 times
Reputation: 4070
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
the sheer number of people who actually believe this nonsense, is living proof that the dept of education is marvellously successful in its primary aim: mass indoctrination. i don't know how anyone can suggest that an activity which robs an economy of so many of its resources both human and material, can be a good thing for that economy.

yes, ww2 ended unemployment. the FACT that economically, peoples lives still sucked, means that the depression did not end. only after the war when all of those resources were put to use to give consumers the products that THEY WANTED, did the depression end.
Were the formerly unemployed then gainfully engaged in the war effort and earning incomes in excess of what they had prior to the Great Depression?

We both know the answer, loath though you are to admit it.

Beware the trap of being so idealogically biased that twisting reality to fit misconceptions becomes second nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 03:19 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,856,305 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
Were the formerly unemployed then gainfully engaged in the war effort and earning incomes in excess of what they had prior to the Great Depression?

We both know the answer, loath though you are to admit it.

Beware the trap of being so idealogically biased that twisting reality to fit misconceptions becomes second nature.
skoro
You fell into the trap of not looking at efficiency. Tons of things can be accomplished if enough money is thrown at it. Our economy was not efficient during the war.
Since when does the scout team produce as well as the first string? Most of the best workers were fighting. This wasn't the 2nd team coming in either. The people that replaced them, women and minorities were in no way capable of coming close to the standards of the ones who left. This was the 1940's. Education and work experience for those two groups was sub par.

Speaking of earning compared to the Depression, look at all the neat things you could purchase. Powdered eggs or powdered milk anyone? The materials used to make items was sub par. You had rationing. The free market mantra is simple, "a good product for a fair price". Good products were hard to find during the war.

Could the argument be made people were slightly better off, maybe. But being up to your knees in garbage compared to up to your waist isn't something I would refer to as better. Especially considering the cost of lives. You cannot put a price on losing a loved one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 04:46 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 5,206,260 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
Were the formerly unemployed then gainfully engaged in the war effort and earning incomes in excess of what they had prior to the Great Depression?

We both know the answer, loath though you are to admit it.

Beware the trap of being so idealogically biased that twisting reality to fit misconceptions becomes second nature.

there is something quite perverse about a people who believe that war is good for the economy and promotes growth. by that logic, we should gear up, build another 50 aircraft carriers, load them with planes and send them to the south pacific. at the same time we should negotiate with another country in economic trouble and get them to do the same. perhaps japan, though their recent earthquake is going to be a boon for their economy, they might not need this stimulus. perhaps britain then. anyway we meet in the south pacific and blow each others ships up. economically that would be splendid, think of all the jobs
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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