Darth Tater Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave What New Deal policies extended it? I thought that the New Deal created tons of jobs (so did WWII, but that's a different issue) and basically gave people money that they never would have had. No government policy can, in net, create jobs except a policy of staying out of the markets. Price and wage floors cause resources to continue to flow to inefficient processes. Such policies cause misallocation of resouces away from fixing these processes and/or creating new industries, at best. At worse, such policies cause reduction in employment. An example of failed policy was the destruction of agricultural products to maintain prices while allowing many Americans to go hungry. His public works programs destroyed many more jobs than were created and many of the jobs were only make-work jobs. Most of the job creation going on was the result of market forces which cannot totally be suppresed even though may be desire of some (especially by those in power). This is not to say that he might have saved the country. We humans love actions that at least appear to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear WOW, bet your saying our season is over too gloom and doom ... Absolutely not, but I am also not going to ball wash the situation and say everything is just grand and rosey. Terrorism has Decreased under Bush... Outside of the Warzone where has it increased? Madrid because it worked and they buckled? You are absolutely wrong. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the Goss hearings on intel have you:doh: According to Goss, terrorism has NOT decreased, in fact he points out to factors in Iraq which actually Increase terrorism. Read about it here. http://intelligence.senate.gov/0502hrg/050216/witness.htm America's standing in the world increased: Didnt a guy totally against the U.S. in Syria post a paper on how even he can see the Berlin wall falling in Iraq? I guess you missed the 12,000 Germans protesting Bush when he met in Germany, or how about all of the Russians protesting Bush, hell every where Bush goes, there are at LEAST 10,000 people who are protesting his visit!!! This has NEVER happened to a standing US president in the entire history of the US, to actually sit there and to say that the US's standing in the world has increased shows how truly misguided you are. You may be right but i'm not feelin it... I am right, and you will not feel it because you are surrounded by propaganda telling you the opposite. BTW Bear, tell me how many Iraqi's have been killed since we invaded? Do you think this is a bit of information we should know about? Why don't you come back with an answer on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave What New Deal policies extended it? I thought that the New Deal created tons of jobs (so did WWII, but that's a different issue) and basically gave people money that they never would have had. Shhhh, don't upset the ballwashers. They think ANY democrat was bad, even Roosevelt. BUT. . . there is economic debate about how we came out of the depression, and how our policy could have been better during this time. He got us out of it, it just wasn't fast enough for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 He can potentially be a top 5 Prez if certain events and policies bear fruition. Peace Between the Palestines and Israel diffuses alot of drama in the middle East. His version of the martial plan in Iraq and Afghanistan should have a domino effect as far as freedom & democracy in the mid east Partial privatizing of Social security which should change the peoples behaviour on taking care of them selves instead of expecting stepdaddy government when they age Right now I say up to now he is top 10 and thats with the backstabbing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Tater No government policy can, in net, create jobs except a policy of staying out of the markets. Price and wage floors cause resources to continue to flow to inefficient processes. Such policies cause misallocation of resouces away from fixing these processes and/or creating new industries, at best. At worse, such policies cause reduction in employment. An example of failed policy was the destruction of agricultural products to maintain prices while allowing many Americans to go hungry. His public works programs destroyed many more jobs than were created and many of the jobs were only make-work jobs. Most of the job creation going on was the result of market forces which cannot totally be suppresed even though may be desire of some (especially by those in power). Although I don't necessarily disagree with you here, you are promoting the job creation as a bad thing. During the era, and using all of the economic knowledge that was available to him at the time, I think he did a remarkable job. Was it the best way to do it? No, but it did work, it did create jobs, it did help us get out of the depression and it did create some of the greatest places on the face of the earth. To just say he was wrong isn't looking at the entire picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by NavyDave His version of the martial plan in Iraq and Afghanistan should have a domino effect as far as freedom & democracy in the mid east Or it'll have domino effect of terror and hatred. That's yet to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave When you think what Dubya has done so far is enough to warrant a top 5 ranking, I have every right to put your views down. Especially when you haven't put together anything close to a coherent defense of your opinion. Hmm...maybe you cant read....i havent put together a coherent defense eh??...well let me copy and paste it for you since you seem to refuse to hear my reasoning: Originally posted by footballhenry My ranking of Bush is what I beleive he WILL rank eventually. Of course this isnt exact but I honestly do beleive that Bush has EARNED that ranking of 4 in my eyes. Now instead of attacking you, and your reasoning (as youve done to me for no reason), Ill tell you WHY I believe Bush will be regarded highly long after hes gone. -His leadership after 9/11. This subject tends to be rehashed alot, but I want everyone to go back to that day. To that moment. It was the single worst moment in U.S. history and this man lead us through it. Even his most critical opponents applaud Bush for his leadership. He did not waver one bit, and went after justice for those that died and their families. What would have happened if Gore had been president? Noone knows for sure, but what if someone else was president instead of Lincoln, FDR, even Washington? My point is I believe things may happen for a reason, in all honesty, and their is no doubt that Bush was the right man to handle the greatest tragedy in US history. I honestly believe this period alone earns him top 15. This is not blind partisanship, this is an honest american opinion. So quit berating my opinions as anything less. -War on Terrorism. His resolve and steadfastness in both economy and policy. Now his economy record is split, and I really dont think thats where his legacy will be decided (noone does im sure). Bush knows evil, and is not afraid to go against popularity. This is ESSENTIAL. We have had too many presidents afraid to do what is right. -War in Iraq & Afghanistan. Humor me for sec. What if both of these countries become stable free democratic countries? Do you even realize the true significance of this? And also, someone correct me if I am wrong but isnt Bush the first president, either ever or in a long time, to publicly agree with a Palestinian state while of course supporting Israel? So Bush wont warrant near the top of all great presidents even if: Iraq=democracy Afghanistan=democracy Israel-Palestine=Peace Terrorism=significantly hampered (aka Al Qaeda) ChopperDave, you sir are a victim of your own criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Shhhh, don't upset the ballwashers. They think ANY democrat was bad, even Roosevelt. BUT. . . there is economic debate about how we came out of the depression, and how our policy could have been better during this time. He got us out of it, it just wasn't fast enough for them. psst most democrats of old make republicans look like liberals now... nice attempt at a cheap shot though.. please try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Tater No government policy can, in net, create jobs except a policy of staying out of the markets. Price and wage floors cause resources to continue to flow to inefficient processes. Such policies cause misallocation of resouces away from fixing these processes and/or creating new industries, at best. At worse, such policies cause reduction in employment. An example of failed policy was the destruction of agricultural products to maintain prices while allowing many Americans to go hungry. His public works programs destroyed many more jobs than were created and many of the jobs were only make-work jobs. Most of the job creation going on was the result of market forces which cannot totally be suppresed even though may be desire of some (especially by those in power). This is not to say that he might have saved the country. We humans love actions that at least appear to work. When the government broke up AT&T, did that create net jobs? When they broke up Standard Oil? You can't make a blanket statement like "No government policy can, in net, create jobs." The government can and has intervened to reinforce the market. Capitalism doesn't magically run itself, and government is often required to grease the wheels of capitalism. Enforcing strong corporate law, breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting fraud are all essential governmental functions that create net jobs. Nobody knows what would have happenned if FDR just sat around and did nothing. One thing is for sure, he wouldn't have been reelected. Whether or not you agree with his economic policies, you have to admit that he kept the patriotic spirit alive in America over a decade and when it came time to mobilize for WWII, we were well-prepared. Also, a lot of the money pumped into government projects came straight from the deficit, which is borrowing from the future for present gains. The free market can never do that to the extent the government can, so the kind of allocations FDR was making during the Great Depression could not possibly be matched by private industry. In the end, America came out as the leader of the free world and the largest economy by far, so I don't think FDR's policies would fit under any definition of the word "failed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by footballhenry Hmm...maybe you cant read....i havent put together a coherent defense eh??...well let me copy and paste it for you since you seem to refuse to hear my reasoning: ChopperDave, you sir are a victim of your own criticism. Again, your reasoning is nothing more than "I like what he's doing, therefore he should be top 5, and it's my opinion, so I'm smart." As far as the little non-defense of your's actually being coherent, that's up for debate. Let's just meet half way and agree it's coherent for the average 12 year old. And the phrase "victim of your own criticism" is the exact lack of coherence that I'm speaking of. You're really in no position to comment on or judge my reading skills or intelligence, so just give it up while you still have a shred of dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by footballhenry So Bush wont warrant near the top of all great presidents even if: Iraq=democracy Afghanistan=democracy Israel-Palestine=Peace Terrorism=significantly hampered (aka Al Qaeda) Additionally, I doubt that I need to remind such a great and knowledgeble thinker such as yourself that we don't know if Afghanistan and Iraq will work out in the end. Also, Bush hasn't significantly hampered terrorism, just shifted its center, and there's been little progress with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I'm not arguing that he couldn't be top 5. But unless the four things you listed above happen, along with a few other great accomplishments, he won't make #4. Besides, I'm not criticizing you because you feel he COULD be top 5. I'm criticizing you because you said that you currently feel that he's top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Additionally, I doubt that I need to remind such a great and knowledgeble thinker such as yourself that we don't know if Afghanistan and Iraq will work out in the end. Also, Bush hasn't significantly hampered terrorism, just shifted its center, and there's been little progress with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I'm not arguing that he couldn't be top 5. But unless the four things you listed above happen, along with a few other great accomplishments, he won't make #4. Besides, I'm not criticizing you because you feel he COULD be top 5. I'm criticizing you because you said that you currently feel that he's top 5. How many times do I have to tell you that I feel he WILL be top 5. Yes I put him there because I do believe he has/will do enough to warrant that spot. What dont you get? Originally posted by footballhenry My ranking of Bush is what I beleive he WILL rank eventually. Of course this isnt exact but I honestly do beleive that Bush has EARNED that ranking of 4 in my eyes. I am sick of your childish putdowns. You insult my intelligence. I am better than you for not repeating your namecalling, and will refrain from discussing this with you again. If anyone else wants to chime in, go right ahead. I am done, you sir are classless, blinded, and hateful. Three things I am proud to say I am not, regardless of what you may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 OK guys, time to take this to PMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted February 26, 2005 Author Share Posted February 26, 2005 alright chopperdave...you and i are done.....now back to great presidents....i would love for some of you to enlighten me on the lesser known "great" presidents that I keep reading about on this forum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Originally posted by footballhenry alright chopperdave...you and i are done.....now back to great presidents....i would love for some of you to enlighten me on the lesser known "great" presidents that I keep reading about on this forum.... El Presedente'? Luis Tiant, now there was a great President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Originally posted by footballhenry alright chopperdave...you and i are done.....now back to great presidents....i would love for some of you to enlighten me on the lesser known "great" presidents that I keep reading about on this forum.... How about: John Hanson (1781), Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788)? Loosely Presidents of our "country" while maybe not of the "United States". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.