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.
If facts are the case why do 13 different polls from 1948 - 2009 ALL claim Harding to be one of the worse presidents of all time? Please explain that to me. You have ONE BIASED link, I have 13 different polls.
Please provide me a link not from a conservative website. I'll gladly read it.
If I had to guess it was probably due to the scandals in his administration.
And how is something biased? All the article says is what the economic situation was when Harding took over, what he did and what the economic situation turned out to be and in what time frame. Nothing biased about that.
Anyway, you said economists say the revovery was due to the market correcting itself after WW1. It still only took 18 months. And we had less government in those 18 months. Under FDR and now Bush/Obama we had more government interference and longer recessionary periods.
If economists said the market corrected itself in 18 months in 1920-21 then why do the same economists turn around and praise FDR programs or Obama programs? if the market corrected it self in 18 months before then why can't it do that now? What's the point of a stimulus bill?
Nevermind, you already decided your opinion based on CSPAN polls. Until you get past that then there is zero point in discussing further.
Unfortunately for you, you miss a critical little point. It wasn't FDR who was president in 1929. It was Hoover who, by all accounts, instituted the very conservative policies you tout. He consciously chose to let the markets play themselves out and correct themselves - to not create jobs or regulate the banking system and to keep the government out of the way.
I gotta say - having this discussion makes me all the happier knowing Obama's following in the steps of Roosevelt rather than Hoover.
You miss a critical point. I was talking about Wilson and Harding. Not FDR and Hoover. And by the way, FDR continued Hoovers policies. All Hoover did was give us more government.
I was talking about Harding in 1920-21, not Hoover later on.
And your little post still doesn't change the fact that Harding got us out of a bigger mess we now have in 18 months. And he did the exact opposite of Obama. With quicker and better results.
Can someone tell me what the 1920's has to do with the current stimulus bill, which even the CBO admits may or may not be respondible for jobs? Did anyone here read the actual report which does not support the thread title?
You miss a critical point. I was talking about Wilson and Harding. Not FDR and Hoover. And by the way, FDR continued Hoovers policies. All Hoover did was give us more government.
I was talking about Harding in 1920-21, not Hoover later on.
And your little post still doesn't change the fact that Harding got us out of a bigger mess we now have in 18 months. And he did the exact opposite of Obama. With quicker and better results.
Stop slapping your face, child, and have an adult convesation.
I know who you were talking about. The fundamental argument you have been making ad nauseum is that the Great Depression lasted so long because of FDR and that the drop in 19-20 ended in 2 years.
I was simply pointing out, quite accurately, that Hoover oversaw the first 4 years of the Depression and enacted conservative policies which, by your extrapolation of what happened in 19-20, should have ended the Great Depression in 2 years.
It didn't.
Conservative policies of keeping government out of the markets exacerbated the Depression and FDR came in 4 years into it and had to take extraordinary action to correct it.
In short, the parallels you are trying to draw between Wilson and Obama are not there because, as Hoover proved a decade later, he could not correct the Depression with non-interventionist policies.
HMMMM why is it the economy was in worse shape when Harding took than when FDR took over. Yet, Harding had us out of a depression in 18 months and FDR had us out in 10 years?
Maybe the rankings are biased?????????????
Teapot Dome was certainly one but I think the biggest problem came from cutting federal spending and cutting the federal workforce by half. Imagine the outcry if Obama proposed cutting the federal workforce by half. Yeah, it would be the end of the world!
Quote:
Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.
With all that cut in federal spending no doubt some fat cats had their government teat dry up and we can't have non of that!
Imagine the rage if Obama allowed the largest banks and investment houses to fail along with AIG to fail which he should have done. No doubt it would have been a huge mess but in the long run we would have been better off for it. Now all we got are a bunch of government owned companies, see the history of the Soviet Union for how well these go, that can never be allowed to fail.
Basically Harding was a good man but maybe to good. He allowed friends to take advantage and they certainly did.
Quote:
Unfortunately, Harding's stunning success as a depression fighter was overshadowed by the Teapot Dome scandal that engulfed his administration after his death in August 1923. This resulted from "progressive" era conservation policies in which the government owned land known to have petroleum reserves— at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, and Elk Hills, California. Since the beginnings of recorded history, government involvement in the economy has led to corruption, and Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall accepted bribes for leases enabling private companies to extract the oil. There wouldn't have been a scandal if the reserves had been privatized, as more than 250 million acres of government land had been privatized during the previous century.
But then I have a special fondness for Harding.
Harding's campaign manager was a corrupt southern Ohio politician from Washington Courthouse, Ohio by the name of Harry Daugherty. Upon his election Harding presenting Daugherty with an autographed (Harding autographs are rare because while Senator he used a rubber stamp for his signature) photo of himself, the autograph is actually on the matting, in a beaded wood frame.
Today that photo hangs in my dining room wall. Hey, I know it is Harding but how many here on CD have the gift any US President personally gave to his campaign manager upon winning the election?
This is your favorite little argument now, huh? You push it into every thread you can.
Unfortunately for you, you miss a critical little point. It wasn't FDR who was president in 1929. It was Hoover who, by all accounts, instituted the very conservative policies you tout. He consciously chose to let the markets play themselves out and correct themselves - to not create jobs or regulate the banking system and to keep the government out of the way.
He and his conservatism would reign in the White House until 1933 when the American people were fed up and in horrific shape. They demanded a president who would take action - create jobs anyway he could, overhaul the financial system, and help them pull out of the crisis.
Sound familiar?
Your 2 year 1919-20 collapse and recovery was already twice as long and sinking when FDR took over and guided the economy back. So no, there are no parallels to be drawn and perhaps that's why you never hear about it.
I gotta say - having this discussion makes me all the happier knowing Obama's following in the steps of Roosevelt rather than Hoover.
No, Hoover believed in volunteerism.
Herbert Hoover: Father of Volunteerism (http://margarethoover.com/wordpress/?p=29 - broken link)
This is your favorite little argument now, huh? You push it into every thread you can.
Unfortunately for you, you miss a critical little point. It wasn't FDR who was president in 1929. It was Hoover who, by all accounts, instituted the very conservative policies you tout. He consciously chose to let the markets play themselves out and correct themselves - to not create jobs or regulate the banking system and to keep the government out of the way.
He and his conservatism would reign in the White House until 1933 when the American people were fed up and in horrific shape. They demanded a president who would take action - create jobs anyway he could, overhaul the financial system, and help them pull out of the crisis.
Sound familiar?
Your 2 year 1919-20 collapse and recovery was already twice as long and sinking when FDR took over and guided the economy back. So no, there are no parallels to be drawn and perhaps that's why you never hear about it.
I gotta say - having this discussion makes me all the happier knowing Obama's following in the steps of Roosevelt rather than Hoover.
One of the first things FDR did after becoming President was to bail out the banks. It was WWII that got America out of the Depression, not FDR.
Stop slapping your face, child, and have an adult convesation.
I know who you were talking about. The fundamental argument you have been making ad nauseum is that the Great Depression lasted so long because of FDR and that the drop in 19-20 ended in 2 years.
I was simply pointing out, quite accurately, that Hoover oversaw the first 4 years of the Depression and enacted conservative policies which, by your extrapolation of what happened in 19-20, should have ended the Great Depression in 2 years.
It didn't.
Conservative policies of keeping government out of the markets exacerbated the Depression and FDR came in 4 years into it and had to take extraordinary action to correct it.
In short, the parallels you are trying to draw between Wilson and Obama are not there because, as Hoover proved a decade later, he could not correct the Depression with non-interventionist policies.
And your problem is that Hoover was an interventionist. He also did the exact opposite of Harding.
All FDR was to continue and expand Hoover policies.
Sort of like all Obama has done is expand Bush policies. And given us more.
I say FDR and not Hoover with the Great Depression because FDR is associated with it more. But your correct. Hoover made things worse. With his big government policies.
Unless you can show me otherwise. With facts, not opinion.
One of the first things FDR did after becoming President was to bail out the banks. It was WWII that got America out of the Depression, not FDR.
Well, I won't argue with your point that significantly more government spending is what ultimately ended the Depression, but you can't argue with cutting the unemployment down below 15% from its high near 30%.
That's a pretty extraordinary feat for any president.
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.
