USN: 10 Worst Presidents in US History...

[Chicken Fried]

You have to put some of 9/11 on every President since and including Reagan. They all knew what we were doing in terms of funding Saudia Arabia and what they were doing in terms of funding fundamental Islam and did nothing about it.

But we were funding fundamentalist Muslims, at least in Afghanistan, to hep them defeat our enemy, the Soviets. I don't think we ever imagined those actions would create the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they are today.

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 09:40 PM ----------

Well, let's just say that both history and the people of that time disagree with both of you. FDR is without question one of our greatest Presidents.

Not trying to be an ass, but that's a pretty weak response to two, what appear to be, valid points.

[Barney B]

Jimmy Carter was a bad president, no doubt. But he was simply too ineffectual to have been a truly terrible president. If he'd had any leadership skills at all, he might have accomplished some really noteworthy catastrophes.

As it was, he didn't do anything that coudn't be undone within Reagan's term.

[PeterMP]

But we were funding fundamentalist Muslims, at least in Afghanistan, to hep them defeat our enemy, the Soviets. I don't think we ever imagined those actions would create the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they are today.

I don't mind the Afghanistan intervention much.

First, it isn't at all clear how much interaction we had with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda there. There were other groups fighting there, and Afghanistan did have a pretty moderate pro-western government before the Soviet invasion. In addition, our resources there weren't going to teaching a hate for the west.

I think the degrees of separation there are enough that it is hard to blame those that constructed the policy, especially in the scope of the near time positive affects with respect to the cold war.

I think the Saudi situation is different. These were suppossed to be allies and people we were supporting in a number of different ways, and over a period of decades they were running schools and giving money to organizations that were teaching a very anti-west and hate the west version of Islam. Here, I think that it didn't take a genius to see that might end up being a problem over time.

That we allowed this to go on for that long w/o a serious alteration (or even a serious effort to great a situation where we could reassess that relationship) in our relationship with the Saudis I think is a pretty massive lack of foresight.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I think the Saudi situation is different. These were suppossed to be allies and people we were supporting in a number of different ways, and over a period of decades they were running schools and giving money to organizations that were teaching a very anti-west and hate the west version of Islam. Here, I think that it didn't take a genius to see that might end up being a problem over time.

That we allowed this to go on for that long w/o a serious alteration (or even a serious effort to great a situation where we could reassess that relationship) in our relationship with the Saudis I think is a pretty massive lack of foresight.

I blame the British for the Saudis - they allowed that god damn stupid fundamentalist crap to grow because the Wahhabis/Saudis agreed to fight against the Ottomans during WWI on the side of the British and led to the Arab Revolt. The United Kingdom agreed in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that it would support Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans.

The Saudis waited for the Ottomans to take the train down from Syria and then they would ambush them - the Ottomans actually had the chance to completely wipe them off the map back in the early 1800s, but Pasha Muhammad Ali's son Tusun let them off the hook after he had been asked to do something about them by the Ottoman sultan Mahmud II. Tusun did ransack their headquarters in Riyadh, but he allowed them to regroup and take over Arabia after WWI with help from the British.

So, in conclusion - thanks alot England for ****ing the world over. Also, **** you Saudi Arabia and your stupid extremist causing religious beliefs.

I feel better now

[SkinsHokieFan]

I blame the British for the Saudis - they allowed that god damn stupid fundamentalist crap to grow because the Wahhabis/Saudis agreed to fight against the Ottomans during WWI on the side of the British and led to the Arab Revolt. The United Kingdom agreed in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that it would support Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans.

The Saudis waited for the Ottomans to take the train down from Syria and then they would ambush them - the Ottomans actually had the chance to completely wipe them off the map back in the early 1800s, but Pasha Muhammad Ali's son Tusun let them off the hook after he had been asked to do something about them by the Ottoman sultan Mahmud II. Tusun did ransack their headquarters in Riyadh, but he allowed them to regroup and take over Arabia after WWI with help from the British.

So, in conclusion - thanks alot England for ****ing the world over. Also, **** you Saudi Arabia and your stupid extremist causing religious beliefs.

I feel better now

I am impressed. What a blunder of a decision. And then those Wahabists ended up on top of oil, were able to get rich and export their violent backwards thinking across the globe and here we are today.

The further I get from the Bush II era, the worse he looks in my eyes. And I voted him twice. No doubt in 20 years he will be in the top 10 list, when we see the legacies of his failures, which the current President is only doubling.

[Chicken Fried]

I don't mind the Afghanistan intervention much.

First, it isn't at all clear how much interaction we had with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda there. There were other groups fighting there, and Afghanistan did have a pretty moderate pro-western government before the Soviet invasion. In addition, our resources there weren't going to teaching a hate for the west.

I think the degrees of separation there are enough that it is hard to blame those that constructed the policy, especially in the scope of the near time positive affects with respect to the cold war.

I think the Saudi situation is different. These were suppossed to be allies and people we were supporting in a number of different ways, and over a period of decades they were running schools and giving money to organizations that were teaching a very anti-west and hate the west version of Islam. Here, I think that it didn't take a genius to see that might end up being a problem over time.

That we allowed this to go on for that long w/o a serious alteration (or even a serious effort to great a situation where we could reassess that relationship) in our relationship with the Saudis I think is a pretty massive lack of foresight.

Yeah, I can't say I really disagree. At the same time, the situation there is and was so complicated that I could imagine it would be very difficult to pick the right side to ally with. It's not a capitalism vs. communism debate. It has politics, religion, and tribal influences involved. If you're implying we should maybe have not gotten involved with the Saudis, I might agree. I'm much more familiar with the Afghanistan situation than I am with Saudi Arabia. Didn't bin Laden and al-Qaeda get their start in Saudi Arabia? I do know that the Taliban contributed to their rise.

[Enzo]

WWII was the only reason any of his plans worked. After the war, Europe was decimated...and guess who had efficient factories all ready to pump out products to rebuild Europe - the US.

Wrong, the U.S. was pulling out of the Depression before we entered the war. The unemployment rate was 33% when he took office & was down to 10% by 1937. What caused the Great Depression was 12 years of republican leadership & trickle down economics. Of course I do agree that the war helped the economy greatly but to say it was the reason FDR's policies worked is factually incorrect.

[Sticksboi05]

Wrong, the U.S. was pulling out of the Depression before we entered the war. The unemployment rate was 33% when he took office & was down to 10% by 1937. What caused the Great Depression was 12 years of republican leadership & trickle down economics. Of course I do agree that the war helped the economy greatly but to say it was the reason FDR's policies worked is factually incorrect.

The unemployment rate does not solely prove that the economy was actually making a comeback. Giving people thousands of McDonald's jobs in 2008 now would not justify saying this recession is was over.

[Seabee1973]

I didn't say it was purely his fault. The very post of mine you quoted I even said "but the entire blame doesn't go to him of course."

This thread is about worst presidents, I don't want it to get derailed into pro- v. anti-Bush crowds, I was merely listing MY reasons why he's the worst ever. But, Katrina being a failure on all levels does not excuse it, nor Bush waiting 5 days before sending National Guard relief in. If you get reports saying a terrorist who bombed one of your ships previously is determined to hijack a plane, you respond by tightening up airport security and screening for items that can be used as weapons, such as box cutters. But hey, I'll just drop that point, and let the other 17 stand on their own.

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 06:40 PM ----------

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-08-09/politics/bush.transcript_1_adult-cells-cell-lines-cell-research?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/09/politics/100days/domesticissues/main4853385.shtml

"Mr. Bush limited the use of taxpayer money to only the 21 stem cell lines that had been produced before his decision. He argued he was defending human life because days-old embryos - although typically from fertility clinics and already destined for destruction - are destroyed to create the stem cell lines."

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 06:42 PM ----------

didn't blame just him, I even said so in my post clear as day. but to excuse him of any blame is just as stupid, IMO, as putting full blame squarely on his shoulders.

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 06:52 PM ----------

They had warnings of such, airport security didn't change, and the warning were about a guy who's group had already attacked on of our ships and bombed one of our embasies. I blame those who did the attacks of well, who wouldn't? "Let's just blame those who did the attacks" seems like escapism and not wanting to hold anyone accountable for a massive security failure.

Only 1% of crates coming in through US docks are actually searched. Illegal immigration did not recede under Bush administration. To be fair, I didn't mention internal security because we did improve that, but the borders and docks were not really effectively increased in security.

I said global image, not just Europe. Good foreign relations are essntial in the world today, whether you want to admit it or not, specially with how much this country outsources and imports now. When one reason why people dislike us around the world is for ignoring the UN and going to war with Iraq based on faulty and fraudlent evidence, then you do have to worry about the decision, and you should at least take into consideration what others are saying.

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 07:02 PM ----------

FDR also did a lot for worker's rights, safe and secure workplace, child labor laws, disability rights and services, etc. His improvements for the "average person's life" are significant to why he was elected 4 times. The point about the internment camps during WWII is a fair one, IMO, and it is something that his hard, if not imposible, to excuse, and since you claim your area is still effected negatively by such, sean_e_b, I can't fault you for your opinion on FDR.

National guard being called in falls squarely on the governor they are states military not federal. There had been warnings since at least since 98 of terrorists groups flying planes into building. FDR was actually looking to get us into WW2 earlier than what we did but there was strong opposition to it. With todays press WW2 would have been a disaster. I personally believe we should allow more business to fail it is what makes a good capitalistic society. FDR had some good points but he expanded the federal government hugely

[Sebowski]

Interesting to read that about Harding after just watching the Boardwalk Empire finale

[Veretax]

1) They would have found them by now.

2,3) Bush never vetoed a single piece of Republican legislation that hit his desk.

4) Horrible handling of Katrina situation

5) Only acting fast when the matter concerned his party, like Terry Shiavo and the rapid response legislation.

6) Pushed gov't interference with marriage, denying rights of Americans based solely on sexual orientation

7) Banned stem cell research simply because of it's source

8) Ignored Korea's real attempt at compiling WMDs

9) Ushered in a new Red Scare era by politicizing any dissent as assisting terrorists, simultaneously dividing Americans and completely blundering one of the best opportunities in American history to unite more or less the entire population.

10) The Patriot Acts

11) Gitmo

12) torture

13) warrantless wire tapping

14) most vacation days by a President ever

15) 9/11, despite several warnings ahead of time from government intelligence offices. (happened on his watch despite the warnings, failed to react immediately (stayed in school reading to kids), but the entire blame doesn't go to him of course)

16) In the aftermath, never actually did anything to improve border security nor dock security

17) Annoucing war victory way, way prematurely in Iraq

18) Allowing global image and foreign relations of US to deteriorate to abysmal levels

..... and that's without even mentiong the corruption within his own party, which led to loosening restrictions in mortgage and stock industries and the financial district, which in turn led to near-economic collapse. Grant gets balmed for the corruption f his party and his complicity, so too does Bush.

2. I agree that Bush never vetoed a single Republican bill (that I can recall). He should have, however, the lsat 2 years found congress in democratic control. Did he veto anything then either? Nope not really

4. I still say that the Mayor of New Orleans + Governor at the time whatever her name was, are responsible. States are soverign in our constitution as an entity (see definition of state in the Law of Nations). And because they drug their feet ineptly and waited too long to ask for aid, that's why things ended up how they did. I don't blame bush for that. Heck other states didn't seem to have that problem.

5 -> I'm not sure exactly what you expected him to act fast on. The President's pen can only do so much in our form of government.

6. Oh so you are going to pin on Bush that HOmosexual Unions were not recognized as marriage under his watch, when its been that way since the found of our country? Wow, get some perspective.

7. He banned embryonic stem cell research, and as of todate they've not found 1 line of Embryonic stem cells to work, but have found a bunch from other types.

8. I agree with you on this, and add Iran to the list.

9. Was this bush? Or was it republicans in the media? There were some democrats who went along with it after 9/11 too, so I'm not sure who is exactly innocent of that stupid stuff.

12. I still disagree with peoples definition of torture, but I can understand why some are upset at it. (and assume it wasn't going on before bush)

13. Agreed.

14. Watch out Obama's trying to break his record!

15. 9/11 Falls upon Bush, and Clinton IMO it was a colossal failure of our government no way about it.

16. I don't know abotu Dock Security, but yeah border security is still laughable.

17. (I still say the mission accomplished thing was mischaracterized by the media. The mission of defeating saddam was over, they were now entering a different kind of conflict. How many times has that happened in history, and people missed it?)

18. I don't give one rats about what the world thinks.

19. : Banks see Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, oh and the sweet heart deals so many in congress got. I hold congress just as responsible, as I do Janet Reno and others threatening banks for not lending to minorities who were not qualified for mortgages.

But that's just a tip of the ice berg.

[Burgold]

Not trying to be an ass, but that's a pretty weak response to two, what appear to be, valid points.

Had mostly to do with the time of day and with having done this argument quite a few times. If you look at the unemployment and economic trendlines, FDR's programs had an impact even before the war. It's pretty clear that his programs worked, were effective, and were appreciated.

This is my problem with the Republican revisionism. It misses a very, very basic, but important point. There's a reason laws or living. Things change. Social Security is/was a great program, but it was designed to work within a certain context and setting. That it's lasted as long as it has without much rejiggering is a great testament to those who built it, but it the lifespans, medical realities, and circumstances have changed. That doesn't make the law bad. It means that times are different today. A very basic truth... there are times when the liberal philosophy is superior and needed. We needed FDR to get us out of the Depression... the conservative and Republican constructs were making things worse and got us into the worst of messes via deregulation and cutting taxes... this is what mostly led to the Great Depression (in an over simplified way) At the same time, there is a time when the Conservative ideology is needed. After Lyndon Baines Johnson, we needed a Nixon. After Carter, we needed a Reagan.

FDR was a great President. That doesn't mean Conservatives are wrong or stupid. What FDR saved both the Union and the world. As a citizen of the U.S. you should take ownership and pride in that as well. But everything shouldn't go through one filter, and eventually even well intentioned ideologies go too far and create damage... and that's why you see the constant turning of the pendulum. We need both.

A major reason I don't need to defend FDR as hard is because his work stands for itself. What happened before him, what happened because of him, and what happened afterwards is the case for FDR. Other Presidents have been left surplusses or been given the U.S. in great shape and then through benign neglect or throw active works made things worse. FDR left us in such a state that for forty years we were preemininent. That speaks incredibly well of him and how well his works worked and about the legacies they had and have.

[JMS]

1) WMD: I cannot believe that a country that had used WMD in the past simply ran out. They had them whether you want to believe it or not.

Certainly Iraq had WMD. We know they did because international arms inspectors after the first gulf war presided over them being destroyed.

But when Condiliza Rice advocated going to war because the alternative was to "wait until mushroom clouds appeared ocer American cities" the administration was promoting the idea Iraq was months away or already had nuclear weapons. Which was entirely fiction.

For the longest time I could not understand how Dick Cheney a man who made his career on pragmatism, could fly off the handle so far and basically ignore all the facts he was being given in favor of making up his own. I got the answer in the book, Legacy of Ashes, about the history of the CIA. After the first gulf war the United States including Cheney as Sec Defense was shocked to find out Saddam was only a year away from building is first nuclear bomb. The CIA was clueless. Cheney essentially never trusted them again. When Cheney came back to the federal government as VP, he never believed Saddam had been disarmed via the decades long inspections.. ( He had). Chey just knew if they were a year away in 1990, they must have them in 2003. Then set about manufacturing the case to support his conclusion... He was entirely wrong.

2) Banks: The banks did not want to hand out loans like they were candy, they were forced to by congressional regulation.

How do you force a bank to make loans? IF Obama knew how to do that the economic down turn would be over by now... This point is entirely wrong...

The reality is from 2000 - 2006 the global pool of investment dollars doubled. In 2006 the federal reserve, conduit to the largest debtor in the world ( greenspan) anounced he was only going to pay about 1% interest on new T-Bills. This sent the large money managers scurring around looking for a new investment vehicle for all their money. The vehicle targeted were subprime morgages. But before they could sink billions / trillions into them; they needed to create the infrastructure in order to sell these loans and package them up in a way they could consume. So they lobied congress to do so.

Which congress did in a bi partisan way. ( Relax regulations against subprimes, Relax regulations against investment and savings banks, include these loans under federal protections ).... The GOP supported it because they had never met a gov regulation they didn't want to relax and because business wanted it and business is always right. The Dems supported it because if sucessful it mean more opprotunities for low income and minorities to buy homes.

3) Deficits: Compare deficits from 1st six years of his admin to last two years. (The difference was the party leadership in the Congress)

In bush's first budget he turned a 200 billion dollar surplus into a 200 billion dollar deficit. In eight years he grew both the domestic and military spending in every year except 1. Bush doubled the national debt and was a record spender even if you leave off his last budget which was a new personal and historic record for spending.

In general Bush was a social conservative. He was never a fiscal conservative although fiscal conservative leaders entirely supported Bushj's disasterous economic policies.

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 07:57 AM ----------

Hard to take this list seriously without GW Bush on it. The man started a war thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Oops. Stood idly by while banks handed out loans like they were candy. Incurred massive budget deficits.

Bush is too controversial. Personally what I think lands Bush on the list of poor presidents is his jobs creation record. While prosiding over record spending in his first four years, He nearly became the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net negative jobs creation record... His second term in office wasn't much better either..

Still I wanted to focus on the historical because folks will argue pro or con bush more on the emotional.

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 08:03 AM ----------

Top Presidents?

George Washington

Andrew Jackson (besides the trail of tears)

Jackson was a top general. No doubt about that. Jackson' was also one of the most important and influencial Presidents. However not many folks would claim Andrew Johnson was one of our best Presidents.

I think our Greatest Presidents were....

1. Washington
   
2. Lincoln
   
3. Teddy Roosevelt
   
4. Franklin Roosevelt
   

These men all had great strife duing their administrations, and way exceeded expectations in the performance of their duties.

Our Great Presidents.. Not among our greatest, but well above above averate..

1. Truman
   
2. Ronald Reagan.
   

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 08:06 AM ----------

If Carter didn't make the cut the list is bs.

Carter was not a good president. Perhaps the second worst president in my lifetime.. But he wasn't as bad as Herbert Hoover. Not nearly. And Hoover was 9th on their top ten.

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 08:14 AM ----------

I'd say that G W Bush was the worst U.S. President in my lifetime for three reasons.

His actions

his inactions (which let events get out of hand and may have been worse than his actions)

Where he left the country once he left office (The results of his stewardship will not be undone for decades)

He is worse then Carter because he left the country in a worse position than Carter.

Let's also not forget the shape of the country when he took over.... in a mild recession but with a surplus or micro deficit; and actually having the potential to pay off the national debt if he chose to make it a priority.

I also don't think you can discuss how poor a president GW was without mentioning his spending, and jobs creation record. He was a record spender who more than doubled the national debt, while also narrowly missing being the first president since Herbert Hoover who failed to create any new jobs in his FIRST term in office. His second term wasn't much better for jobs creation..

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 08:20 AM ----------

Well, let's just say that both history and the people of that time disagree with both of you. FDR is without question one of our greatest Presidents.

There is no case that can be made not entirely based upon ideolocy or fantasy that FDR wasn't one of the greatest Presidents... He took over the country in a historically poor economic time and dealt with it decisively in what historians still reffer to as the most efficient first 100 days of any presidentcy. His next crisis was even larger and again he re-wrote the rules to come up with an optimal solution....

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 08:28 AM ----------

WWII was the only reason any of his plans worked. After the war, Europe was decimated...and guess who had efficient factories all ready to pump out products to rebuild Europe - the US.

That's a Glenn Beckism.. Which is to say it's entirely false. Only 1 economic indicator was not in recovery/growing after FDR's first complete year in office in his first term.

• Banking forclosures.
  
• GDP
  
• GNP
  
• unemployment
  
• employment
  
• Imports
  
• Exports
  
• durable goods
  
• factory output
  
• New homes starts
  

All were growing again after 1933... All had continued to decline from 1928-1932 under Herbert Hoover.....

The only economic indicator which did not recover under FDR was the DOW Jones.. which recovered to it's 1928 level in the mid 1950's under Eisenhower.

[LD0506]

It can be difficult to make a honest assessment of some of these without considering the context of their presidencies and the long term effects of their actions, not just what happened at the time but those consequences that arose directly from their policies and activities.

FDR has to be held accountable for his naivete about the Soviets and muzzling Churchill's very valid concerns about the long term effect of giving half of Europe to Stalin. The Cold War was a direct result of FDR's starry-eyed views of convincing Uncle Joe to play along.

People still get a hardon for Reagan's presidency but there was an awful lot of damage to the national infrastructure and social fabric that is still being played out today. You can't just cherrypick those flag waving moments that warm your heart and ignore the rest.

This will probably go over like the Hindenburg but IMO the president that caused the most damage internationally in the last century was ole Roughrider Teddy. He has morphed into this iconic figure of tough, no nonsense Americanism getting it's hands dirty, but the reality was far different. The internment camps during WWII were not at all concentration camps but the ones in the Philippines were. It is utterly revisionist to decry the Japanese for their actions in the 40s while completely ignoring the fact that we taught them how to brutalize a subject people in the Philippines, Teddy screwed the Russians to get credit for stopping the Russo-Japanese War because he wanted the Japanese to limit Russian expansion towards the Pacific, then turned around and screwed the Japanese out of any reparations or honorable terms at the peace conference (seriously pissing them off in the process), all the while touting the Japanese as "honorary Aryans" that should establish an Asian Monroe Doctrine sphere of influence to "civilize" the Chinese for the sake of Western business interests. Their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a direct outgrowth of what they were shown and told and millions of dead in the Pacific resulted from Teddy's short-sighted "aryans following the sun" beliefs.

You know all those old sepia-toned pics of Teddy on a horse, out hunting, etc., looking all "carry a big stick" and manly and ****? Staged, he was the first great actor president, he kept a vast wardrobe of costumes for his public image and threatened more then one newsman at the time about mentioning that he played a lot of tennis (not the image he wanted).

There are a lot of similarities to Reagan, people bought the spin doctor's carefully managed image because they wanted to, because it was easier and because it plucked some atavistic reflexes about Americans being so superior to everyone else.

[JMS]

No, the pre-war led to us getting our **** in order with the factories since we were supplying Europe with our products too...once the war was over and the boys were home from war, our factories were moving like well oiled machines. Prior to Peal Harbor, the unemployment rate was above 15% - the war created jobs and the result was an industrial surge.

Yeah like three years prior. In 1941 prior to perl harbor the unemployment was closer to 10%. Also let's not forget when FDR took over it was 22%.

And of coarse your claim that FDR didn't create military manufacturing capacity during WWII is fantastical. He imposed rationing and committed the entire economy to manufacturing for the war effort. We had a military about the size of Belguim in June of 1941... FDR grew that to what 18 million at the time of his death 4 years latter?

FDR had the genius of mass production Henry Ford working on figuring out how to mass produce planes. Detroit didn't make a new model car for the duration of the war, because FDR had them building tanks, planes and boats.

What's really interesting about that is it shows the complexity and dicotomy of FDR. FDR spent the first two terms of his administration making enemies of industry leaders. After Pearl Harbor he got all those guys on his boat and organized them into an economic model which outproduced all the other combatants of WWII combined on both sides.. excluding the US.

Trivia..

Congress in 1941 before pearl harbor defeated a bill to dispand the military on the eve of WWII by 1 vote..

[December90]

Well, let's just say that both history and the people of that time disagree with both of you. FDR is without question one of our greatest Presidents.

Well considering that there are people in this very thread questioning FDR's presidency, your last sentence is 100% false.

FDR laid the groundwork for the monstrous deficits that we have today. There are experts on both sides who reach conclusions that are vastly different. I for one fall in the camp of those who believe that FDR's economic policies lengthened the Depression in order to gain more governmental control. Others think that his socialization of major portions of the economy shortened the depression.

Once WWII was over it would have virtually impossible for the US to not have strengthened economically. At that time we were the only industrialized nation that was not rebuilding from the devastation that was WWII. We had no foreign competitors for the goods we were producing.

[HighOnHendrix]

Well, let's just say that both history and the people of that time disagree with both of you. FDR is without question one of our greatest Presidents.

Yes, he was. But in my view it was his handling of the war and the run-up to the war that gives him that stature. Who else could have engineered Lend-Lease, the destroyer deal, or had the balls to have a secret correspondence with Churchill in a climate of isolationism?

By having the government buy things the factory made or give people money to buy the things that the factories made?

Wait, that's what he was trying to do.

Except pre-war was make-work and the build-up to the war/push during the war was for a purpose. Also, presidents in general get too much credit for the economy. There is only so much they can do to affect it; Congress has much more power over it. And even then, it's a cyclical thing. If the current economy stays in the crapper for two more years and we elect someone new, then lots of people will give credit to the new guy when there's an upturn six months or a year later.

[JMS]

Well considering that there are people in this very thread questioning FDR's presidency, your last sentence is 100% false.

Considering FDR was elected to 4 terms in office it's pretty clear the people of his time credited him with ending the great depression.... In addition economics is not a soft science, rather it defines its terms, and as any intro to economics student can verify for you FDR did end the depression in 1933 based upon the definition of that term. That was his first year in office of his first term.

As for the people of this thread the only accurate critism of FDR is his use of detention camps after Pearl Harbor for Japanese Americans. I haven't heard anybody make an accurate critism of FDR's economic policies...

The only such critism possible of his economic policies are grounded in the fact that they didn't improve things fast enough; not that they didn't improve things. This however is commical argument coming for the Republican party who's own President Hoover had 3.5 years to work on the Depression and made it quantitatively worse in each of those years.

It is true that with modern economic theory and models developed with super computers and the historical data which resulted from FDR's era; FDR could have done a better job... He certainly made a big mistate in trying to balance the budget in 1936 for example.. plungeing the economy back into recession while still recovering from the depression...

However I would argue that FDR was making this stuff up as he went. He was charting a new course never navigated before, largely because conventional economic wisdom had failed. I think that gives him sufficient leway.

FDR laid the groundwork for the monstrous deficits that we have today.

?, He borrowed too much money in defeating Hitler's Germany and saving the free world? That's your critism?

He also left the United States as not only the pre-eminent super power in the world, but the pre-eminent economic super power too... A vastly superior position from the one which he inherited from Hoover.

There are experts on both sides who reach conclusions that are vastly different. I for one fall in the camp of those who believe that FDR's economic policies lengthened the Depression in order to gain more governmental control. Others think that his socialization of major portions of the economy shortened the depression.

There are not experts on both sides of that argument. There are experts on one side, and politcal hacks on the other.

A Depression has a formal definition. It is thus unquestionable that FDR ended the depression in his first year of office. That is beyond debate. It is a qualifiable fact. The moment the GNP started to grow again, the depression was over. FDR did in months what Hoover could not in years. Fact.

Another broader fact is not only GNP but every economic indicator except 1 was in recovery after FDR's first complete year in office of his first term. Can't argue that... it's fact...

Coarse the arguments against FDR aren't based in fact. They are based in ideolology.. To Glenn Beck it's really less important what FDR's policies resulted in and more important what party FDR belonged too...

Once WWII was over it would have virtually impossible for the US to not have strengthened economically. At that time we were the only industrialized nation that was not rebuilding from the devastation that was WWII. We had no foreign competitors for the goods we were producing.

? Gee, I wonder then why the United States didn't become an economic and miltary super power after WWI then. Everything you are saying about the US after WWII was true of WWI. We had the industrial based in tact, and Europes was desimated...

Couple of differences were. (1) After WWII we didn't return to an isolationist policy which had been US policy since George Washington's days, rather we followed a path FDR had set out which called for global engagement. (2) After WWII the United States took a more active role in rebuilding Europe, ( Marshal Plan).

It is not accurate to say WWII set the nation up such that it could not be screwed up economically. The policies which FDR established (engagement) were in fact so sucessful. that even Ike when he took over the Presidency as a Republican continued these policies.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Yeah like three years prior. In 1941 prior to perl harbor the unemployment was closer to 10%. Also let's not forget when FDR took over it was 22%.

And of coarse your claim that FDR didn't create military manufacturing capacity during WWII is fantastical. He imposed rationing and committed the entire economy to manufacturing for the war effort. We had a military about the size of Belguim in June of 1941... FDR grew that to what 18 million at the time of his death 4 years latter?

Congress in 1941 before pearl harbor defeated a bill to dispand the military on the eve of WWII by what 1 vote..

Where did you get the idea that I said FDR 'didnt create military manufacturing capacity'? The women took over the factory jobs that men had left to go join the war.

Why do you think the unemployment rate was dropping? WWII started in 1939, so because we were funding the Allies with weapons,etc, it created more of a demand for labor in the factories, therefore creating more jobs. Look at the graph and youll see the drop right around the start of WWII.

I dont know why we are trying to turn this into a Republican/Democrat debate - I just think FDR is overrated.

[Burgold]

When did the U.S. join in WWII certainly not in 39. Heck, even most of Europe didn't join in on WWII until after Poland which was about halfway through 1939.

[JMS]

Except pre-war was make-work and the build-up to the war/push during the war was for a purpose. Also, presidents in general get too much credit for the economy. There is only so much they can do to affect it; Congress has much more power over it. And even then, it's a cyclical thing. If the current economy stays in the crapper for two more years and we elect someone new, then lots of people will give credit to the new guy when there's an upturn six months or a year later.

(1) FDR did make work projects.. He also inserted himself in private manufacturing in terms of wage controls.

(2) As for "Presidents in general get too much credit for the economy"? Hoover three and a half years of spiraling down GNP, GDP, and employment.. FDR grows GNP, GDP, and employment in his first year in office after what historians call the most efficient first 100 days of any Presidency...

FDR get's credit for the economy because he was myopically focused on it and moved the earth on it's axis in order to effect change.

As I have said... The GOP can make the case FDR's policy didn't help things fast enough or the resulting economy wasn't strong enough. Statesments so mirred down in nuance that one can not disprove them or address them in any scientific manor. What the GOP can't say to anybody who cares to look into it, is FDR did not improve the situation, and do so almost immediately upon gaining office by ending the Great Depression.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

When did the U.S. join in WWII certainly not in 39. Heck, even most of Europe didn't join in on WWII until after Poland which was about halfway through 1939.

They joined after Pearl Harbor - we were funding the Allies with weapons - in 1939, Congress revised the Neutrality Act allowing the sale of arms to the United Kingdom on a cash-and-carry basis

FDR’s second State of the Union Address, The Four Freedoms, used both of these legislative acts to set the basis for the Lend-Lease Act. The Four Freedoms speech called upon Congress to appropriate and authorize funds to counter our enemies. These funds were set aside for manufacturing additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds for nations which are in actual wars, with aggressor nations (Roosevelt, 1941).

Later that year, the Lend-Lease Act (1941) was passed by Congress. The Lend-Lease Act provided legal means for the United States to subsidize its allies during WW II. This act allowed the President of the U.S. to authorize the manufacturing of defense articles and to “sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of” any article to any country whose defense was vital to the United States

per - GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LOGISTICS AND ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDoQFjAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afresearch.org%2Fskins%2Frims%2Fq_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153%2Fq_act_downloadpaper%2Fq_obj_722e2b8a-aceb-411d-9394-845dfcc06f61%2Fdisplay.aspx%3Frs%3Dpublishedsearch&rct=j&q=foreign%20military%20sales%20in%201939&ei=rJj_TKP4GYX6lwe6zsS3CA&usg=AFQjCNErWiKhUbAY2nu-zRm3zMCI6hgbZA&cad=rja

[JMS]

Why do you think the unemployment rate was dropping? WWII started in 1939, so because we were funding the Allies with weapons,etc, it created more of a demand for labor in the factories, therefore creating more jobs. Look at the graph and youll see the drop right around the start of WWII.

(1) you said unemployment was 15% before Pearl Harbor. I pointed out accurately that it was actually closer to 10%in 1941 before the attack down from 23% when FDR took over.

(2) As for your new claim unemployment dropped because of WWII not because of FDR's policies... I would argue that your own graph shows unemployment growing each year under Hoover and turning around sharply in FDR's first year in office.

I dont know why we are trying to turn this into a Republican/Democrat debate - I just think FDR is overrated.

There is no crisism of FDR outside fo the Republican / Democratic Debate. Their is no critic of FDR being excluded from the list of Greatest Presidents not grounded in partisanship.

Revisionism sourounding FDR is rampant, but it does not stand up to even cursury investigation. At the depths of the Great Depression. FDR's combination of optimism and activism contributed greatly to reviving the national spirit and disposition.

[HighOnHendrix]

When did the U.S. join in WWII certainly not in 39. Heck, even most of Europe didn't join in on WWII until after Poland which was about halfway through 1939.

Germany invaded Poland in September of 39.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

(1) you said unemployment was 15% before Pearl Harbor. I pointed out accurately that it was actually closer to 10%, down from 23% when FDR took over.

(2) As for your new claim unemployment dropped because of WWII not because of FDR's policies... I would argue that your own graph shows unemployment growing each year under hoover and turning around sharply in FDR's first year in office.

That's because you don't know what you are talking about, and at some point you were likely exposed to revisionism which is rampant about FDR.

1) yes - before Pearl Harbor meaning the years before Pearl Harbor - look at the graph, 1939 at the start of WWII, the unemployment rate looks to be around 15.5% and starts dropping once the US started funding the Allies - by 1940/1941, you see it drops even more because of the foreign military sales programs due to the increased factory production due to the increased factory demand due to the demand for more labor. :pfft:

2) How come unemployment rose after both the first and the second New Deals in 1936?

3) stop it.

4) I am hungry, I might go get something from subway...or I might go home early and finish writing a paper. I dont really know. I am tired