Roosevelt's Lessons For Future Presidents

[Larry]

(Removed post.)

[luckydevil]

Left wing ideologues do the same thing to Ronald Reagan, utterly denying any value to his presidency. Both understand that controlling history is vitally important to shaping the long term views of the electorate.

I also want to address this part. I am glad that left wing "ideologues" are challenging Ronald Reagan history. He was easily the most overrated president of the 20th century. Are you sugggesting that left wingers should just sit back and let conservatives historians spew nonsense about how Reagan ended the cold war. The notion that increased military spending is what brought down communism is laughable and should rightly be mocked.

[Riggo-toni]

Again, The depression for America ended in Roosevelt’s first year in office. The country was officially in recovery because GDP stopped going down and started rising. Depression and recovery have formal definitions so these statements are not debatable given the statistics I've already quoted.....

Hoover literally was letting the economy run it's course, with disastrous results. FDR was actively intervening in the economy from the moment he took the oath.

7 years later, and unemployment was STILL at 17%. I have no interest in arguing semantics. Technically you can claim there was some kind of recovery/upswing, and that by definition that means the depression ended in 32, but there were still soup kitchens and a large segment of the population out of work for a length of time unprecedented and unsurpassed in American history. I STRONGLY disagree with the legend that Hoover was "letting the economy run it's[sic] course" - he raised income taxes by 120% and started a trade war. This is what caused the Depression. My contention is that if FDR had REVERSED Hoover's policies and cut taxes back to the levels they were during the Harding/Coolidge years, and negotiated trade deals, the recovery would've been considerably faster and far more complete. Instead he raised taxes further, and instituted withholdings, leading to the massive expansion of government. He regulated manufacturing wages, which stunted the growth of employment. There were a number of bubbles and crashes in preceding ages in American history, but since they happened before Wilson made federal income taxes constitutional, each was truly forced to run its course....and none was ever so severe as the economic crisis of the 1930s, not even close.

We can debate this back and forth forever, since I can't prove what I believe would have happened, since such policies were never pursued, but take a good look at recent Presidents who were clueless enough to raise taxes and spending during an economic downturn: Reagan and Bush I. Reagan's first term was consequently marred by the deepest post-war recession, and Bush 39 ended up with the longest post-war recession.

[Predicto]

I also want to address this part. I am glad that left wing "ideologues" are challenging Ronald Reagan history. He was easily the most overrated president of the 20th century. Are you sugggesting that left wingers should just sit back and let conservatives historians spew nonsense about how Reagan ended the cold war. The notion that increased military spending is what brought down communism is laughable and should rightly be mocked.

That's not what I said. I agree that it is a joke to claim that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that left wing idealogues find it necessary to attack EVERYTHING about Ronald Reagan because Reagan is The Conservative Icon. Meanwhile, conservatives give Reagan credit for curing the common cold, and try to name every government facility in the land after him, while at the same time totally denigrating FDR and his accomplishments. It is efforts to remake history by both sides.

[JMS]

7 years later, and unemployment was STILL at 17%. I have no interest in arguing semantics. Technically you can claim there was some kind of recovery/upswing, and that by definition that means the depression ended in 32, but there were still soup kitchens and a large segment of the population out of work for a length of time unprecedented and unsurpassed in American history.

That's misleading.. four years after Roosevelt took office unemployment was down to 10%. Fact is in 38 the country fell back into recession. And it's not that "technically I claim" there was "some kind of recovery/upswing". As I've shown there were many economic indicators which demonstrated this. Most importantly GDP.

As for soup kitches and unemployment, that's more indicative of where the economy was when Roosevelt took office than it is to the job Roosevelt did in office.

I STRONGLY disagree with the legend that Hoover was "letting the economy run it's[sic] course" - he raised income taxes by 120% and started a trade war. This is what caused the Depression.

I guess those are good examples of Hoover doing something. It still doesn't change the fact that Hoover basically left the economy to run it's coarse. I guess your point is he didn't do nothing. And you did make that point.

This isn't just a matter of symantics. A Recession is defined as a decline in any country's GDP, or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters. An economic depression is defined as a severe recession. The Great Depression started is some countries as early as 1928.

It can not be said that Smoot Howley tarrif act of 1930 caused an event which predates 1930. I would agree with you that Smoot Howley made the depression worse.

My contention is that if FDR had REVERSED Hoover's policies and cut taxes back to the levels they were during the Harding/Coolidge years, and negotiated trade deals, the recovery would've been considerably faster and far more complete.

And I don't think you are being realistic. We can't get mutual trade agreements with countries today much less in 1933. Also cutting taxes is irrelivent when 25% of your people are unemployed and 150 billion dollars has evaporated from your economy. Remember in 1933 international trade was not what it is today. Today our economy is interdependent upon any number of countries and major trading partners. In 1030's Germany France and England who weer proximal to each other really didn't share interdependent economies at all, much less America. That's one of the thing that made the war possible.

Roosevelt didn't make a mistake when he put more money in the hands of the people, and increased money in the economy. His mistake was he didn't do more deficite spending.

Instead he raised taxes further, and instituted withholdings, leading to the massive expansion of government. He regulated manufacturing wages, which stunted the growth of employment.

You're claiming he stunted employment growth from what you think it could have been. Fact is employment grew across the board almost immediately when Roosevelt took office.

There were a number of bubbles and crashes in preceding ages in American history, but since they happened before Wilson made federal income taxes constitutional, each was truly forced to run its course....and none was ever so severe as the economic crisis of the 1930s, not even close.

Now we are getting off Roosevelt.

What you say is true but it's true because the economy wasn't nearly as prosperous/developed before Wilson and WWI. We largely had an agrarian economy before WWI, money itself wasn't as necessary because so many people made their living with their hands working the farms. Even the industry workers before WWI didn't make a decent wage, nor did they have a decent living.

I mean if you are arguing for an end to income tax then more power to you. But just so agree, we wouldnt' have won WWI, WWII, or the Cold war without income tax. Hell we likely wouldn't even have a standing army.

I don't know what you are aguing here for. A return to the dawn of the industrial age when there were no protections for the workers? 2% of the people holding 80% of the wealth?

We can debate this back and forth forever, since I can't prove what I believe would have happened, since such policies were never pursued, but take a good look at recent Presidents who were clueless enough to raise taxes and spending during an economic downturn: Reagan and Bush I. Reagan's first term was consequently marred by the deepest post-war recession, and Bush 39 ended up with the longest post-war recession.

I'll give you Bush I.. that was a long recession. Again, Bush didn't pass an economic bill for almost a year after the recession hit. But Reagan's economy was never as poor as Jimmy Carters economy which preceeded him and which Reagan inherited. Raising taxes isn't the worst thing in the world. Clinton raised taxes. It was his ( and Newt's ) ability to hold on spending which balanced the budget and created the great economies of the 1990's.. I'd much rather have had that than Bush II's cutting taxes while increasing spending and coming close to bankrupting the country.

[rincewind]

That's not what I said. I agree that it is a joke to claim that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that left wing idealogues find it necessary to attack EVERYTHING about Ronald Reagan because Reagan is The Conservative Icon. Meanwhile, conservatives give Reagan credit for curing the common cold, and try to name every government facility in the land after him, while at the same time totally denigrating FDR and his accomplishments. It is efforts to remake history by both sides.

Naming an airport after Reagan is one of the biggest slaps in the face to the working class I can think of. Guess it was his last big :finger: to communism.

[JMS]

I also want to address this part. I am glad that left wing "ideologues" are challenging Ronald Reagan history. He was easily the most overrated president of the 20th century. Are you sugggesting that left wingers should just sit back and let conservatives historians spew nonsense about how Reagan ended the cold war. The notion that increased military spending is what brought down communism is laughable and should rightly be mocked.

I don't think Reagan was among our greatest Presidents. But I do believe he was in the next teir of great Presidents. Greatest President in my lifetime anyway.

Since WWII who would you say was better than Reagan?

• Eisenhower? Perhaps... but no He inherited so much ( economy) and didn't really solve any problems ( did end Korea, via slight of hand.. ). If you are knocking Ronnie because he spent to much money, you can't then like Eisenhower who spent more just because the country could afford it better during his terms in office.
  
• Kennedy, wasn't in office long enough.
  
• Johnston, great legacy, poor President. one term Vietnam.. nuf said.
  
• Nixon, Discraced the office more than any other President with the possible exception of Bill Clinton.
  
• Carter.......... Our greatest Ex President, was one of our worst Presidents. Total failure economically, foreign policy was principled but ultimately a disaster. The best thing you can say about Carter is he didn't declair war on anybody while lieing about his justification for it.
  
• Ronnie... Inherited a bad economy, made it better. Inherited a bad foreign policy, made it better. Inherited a country demoralized and doubting itself and reassured it and made it proud again. I do give Ronnie credit for ending the cold war as he did. Did he over spend. What's a world without the soviet union worth? Ronnie spent less and the country got more out of Ronnie's spending than Bush II's spending.
  
• Bush I, Great foreign policy guy, poor on domestic issues.
  
• Clinton, Maybe our greatest caretaker of the country ( economy). total failure as moral leader.
  
• Bush II, Maybe our worst President in the history of the country.
  

Personally, I would go

1. Reagan
   
2. Eisenhower
   
3. Clinton ( could be 2, likely will be in a few years.. left office in 6th or seventh place, Bush II has made Clinton look like a peach. ).
   
4. Kennedy ( shouldn't really be in the pole just not in office long enough, but I'm Catholic and opinionated so he goes 4.. )
   
5. Johnston ( Not a good president, but did some amazing things like the civil rights bill. Huge balls.. )
   
6. Nixon ( could go anywhere from 4-7) I'm opinionated cause I lived through water gate and the 1960's, so I'm likely scoring him too low. Still pissed at him for vietnam. Ran on a end the war campagn and then more soldiers died while he was in office than all the other Presidents combined. He ended the war, but he took his dammed time about it. He was slick willy before slick willy. Still hate the ****. Did open up china so he get's some points for that.
   
7. Bush I ( good man, likely a better president than a polititian, Wasn't bad at anything, but just wasn't quite good enough on the economy, was great at foreign policy ).
   
8. Carter ( good man, ahead of his time by a decade on foreign policy, economic desaster, could not deligate, over all poor president )
   
9. Bush II ( idiot in a clown nose ).
   

[Henry]

Since WWII who would you say was better than Reagan?

Truman?

[JMS]

Truman?

Clearly Truman was a truely Great President. One of our top five..But he was President during WWII and is thus out of the running.

Greatest Presidents Ever...

• Washington
  
• FDR
  
• Lincoln
  
• Teddy
  
• Truman
  

[Henry]

Clearly Truman was a truely Great President. One of our top five..But he was President during WWII and is thus out of the running.

Fine. Be that way.

Greatest Presidents Ever...

• Washington
  
• FDR
  
• Lincoln
  
• Teddy
  
• Truman
  

Not exactly my list. But pretty close.

[JMS]

Fine. Be that way.

I'm always that way!!

Not exactly my list. But pretty close.

Don't be coy. Who do you leave off? Who would you add? Jefferson? Had a good first term, but poor second term...

[Henry]

Don't be coy. Who do you leave off? Who would you add? Jefferson? Had a good first term, but poor second term...

Well, just because it's getting off topic and the last thing we need is another thread where everyone starts listing their top five whatever, but since you asked:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1227077&postcount=63

1. Washington

2. Lincoln

3. FDR

4. Truman

5. Jefferson/Adams (tie)

I give the last spot to Jefferson and Adams because they had the almost impossible task of succeeding Washington, and they both managed to shape and maintain the integrity of the office despite the fact that they were not larger-than-life the way Washington was.

That said, TR's a good choice for the top five too.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Greatest Preisdent ever is James K Polk

He did what he said he would in his campaingn, increased the size of the nation, then after 4 years left the White House. Nobody did more in less time, and actually kept his campaign promises then James K Polk. And to boot, he left office after he did what he said he would do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk

James Knox Polk (November 2, 1795 – June 15, 1849) was the eleventh President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1845 to March 4, 1849. Polk was born in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, but mostly lived in and represented the state of Tennessee. A Democrat, Polk served as Speaker of the House (1835–1839) and Governor of Tennessee (1839–1841) prior to becoming president.

A firm supporter of Andrew Jackson and his beliefs, Polk was the last "strong" pre-American Civil War president.[1] Polk is noted for his foreign policy successes. He threatened war with Britain then backed away and split the ownership of the Northwest with Britain. He is even more famous for leading the successful Mexican–American War. He lowered the tariff and established a treasury system that lasted until 1913. A "dark horse" candidate in 1844, he was the first president who retired after one term and did not seek re-election. He died three months after his term ended.

As a Democrat committed to geographic expansion (or "Manifest Destiny"), he overrode Whig objections and was responsible for the largest expansion of the nation's territory. It exceeded the Louisiana Purchase. Polk secured the Oregon Territory (including Washington, Oregon and Idaho), then purchased 1.2 million square miles (3.1 million km²) through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican–American War. In the end, Polk completed the acquisition of most of the current contiguous 48 states.

The expansion re-opened a furious debate over allowing slavery in the new territories. The controversy was inadequately arbitrated by the Compromise of 1850, and only found its ultimate resolution on the battlefields of the U. S. Civil War. Polk signed the Walker Tariff that brought an era of near free trade to the country until 1861. He oversaw the opening of the U.S. Naval Academy and the Smithsonian, the groundbreaking for the Washington Monument, and the issuance of the first postage stamps in the United States, introduced by his Postmaster General Cave Johnson. He was the first President of the United States to be photographed frequently while in office.[2] Scholars have ranked him 8th to 12th on the list of greatest presidents for his ability to set an agenda and achieve all of it.

[chomerics]

it's always fun when history buffs and economists get into arguments

:munchout: