who was the greatest american president

[thegreekdog]

For all that you guys make fun of JJM, he knows more about US history than the rest of you combined.

[notyou2]

Perhaps he has subscribed to this new interwebs thingy.................

[JJM]

For all that you guys make fun of JJM, he knows more about US history than the rest of you combined.

Ty.

[Frigidus]

For all that you guys make fun of JJM, he knows more about US history than the rest of you combined.[/sarcasm]

Fixed it for you.

[muy_thaiguy]

For all that you guys make fun of JJM, he knows more about US history than the rest of you combined.

Debatable.

[Titanic]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over, but also because his and his wife's international ideology in terms of the UN and what was said at the Big Three conferences. Truly a great president imo, left the USA a hell of a lot better off then he started with.

Btw, I can't believe so many people have voted for Reagon. A huge amount of todays problems stem from the radical changes that he (and his counterparts internationally) brought in.

[JJM]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over, but also because his and his wife's international ideology in terms of the UN and what was said at the Big Three conferences. Truly a great president imo, left the USA a hell of a lot better off then he started with.

Btw, I can't believe so many people have voted for Reagon. A huge amount of todays problems stem from the radical changes that he (and his counterparts internationally) brought in.

Reagan is number five on my list. He did quite a great job. He brought an end to the cold war.

[Titanic]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over, but also because his and his wife's international ideology in terms of the UN and what was said at the Big Three conferences. Truly a great president imo, left the USA a hell of a lot better off then he started with.

Btw, I can't believe so many people have voted for Reagon. A huge amount of todays problems stem from the radical changes that he (and his counterparts internationally) brought in.

Reagan is number five on my list. He did quite a great job. He brought an end to the cold war.

The USSR was already rotting from inside before he came in, his actions imo did not end the Cold War. The Cold War only ended because the USSR conceded defeat after the Brelin Wall fell, which in itself was because of a mistake in a radio interview. In this theme, he boosted military spending by an incredible amount, but overall decided to reduce the tax rates (especially for the rich) which led to the deficit blowing out of proportion compared to what Carter left him (the debt clock was put up shortly after his administration finished). Also add to that the huge increase in partisan politics, the implementation of religion into politics (not the first president, but the first one to use god as a major political issue), an economic record which is frankly not good, and creating the new Republican brand (well, popularising more then creating) which means that elections are now between a democratic party which is centre right, and a republican party which has been taken over by its propaganda wing and extremist views.

Personally, I view Reagon just like I view certain actions that Thatcher took, short sighted. He rode high in the polls and had a good presidency at the time because he sold out the future to have a good time in the short term (on a individual level, similar to maxing out your credit card in one month but you then have to deal with the consequences for a long time to come).

[JJM]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over, but also because his and his wife's international ideology in terms of the UN and what was said at the Big Three conferences. Truly a great president imo, left the USA a hell of a lot better off then he started with.

Btw, I can't believe so many people have voted for Reagon. A huge amount of todays problems stem from the radical changes that he (and his counterparts internationally) brought in.

Reagan is number five on my list. He did quite a great job. He brought an end to the cold war.

The USSR was already rotting from inside before he came in, his actions imo did not end the Cold War. The Cold War only ended because the USSR conceded defeat after the Brelin Wall fell, which in itself was because of a mistake in a radio interview. In this theme, he boosted military spending by an incredible amount, but overall decided to reduce the tax rates (especially for the rich) which led to the deficit blowing out of proportion compared to what Carter left him (the debt clock was put up shortly after his administration finished). Also add to that the huge increase in partisan politics, the implementation of religion into politics (not the first president, but the first one to use god as a major political issue), an economic record which is frankly not good, and creating the new Republican brand (well, popularising more then creating) which means that elections are now between a democratic party which is centre right, and a republican party which has been taken over by its propaganda wing and extremist views.

Personally, I view Reagon just like I view certain actions that Thatcher took, short sighted. He rode high in the polls and had a good presidency at the time because he sold out the future to have a good time in the short term (on a individual level, similar to maxing out your credit card in one month but you then have to deal with the consequences for a long time to come).

I take it you must be a Democrat.

[Frigidus]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over, but also because his and his wife's international ideology in terms of the UN and what was said at the Big Three conferences. Truly a great president imo, left the USA a hell of a lot better off then he started with.

Btw, I can't believe so many people have voted for Reagon. A huge amount of todays problems stem from the radical changes that he (and his counterparts internationally) brought in.

Reagan is number five on my list. He did quite a great job. He brought an end to the cold war.

The USSR was already rotting from inside before he came in, his actions imo did not end the Cold War. The Cold War only ended because the USSR conceded defeat after the Brelin Wall fell, which in itself was because of a mistake in a radio interview. In this theme, he boosted military spending by an incredible amount, but overall decided to reduce the tax rates (especially for the rich) which led to the deficit blowing out of proportion compared to what Carter left him (the debt clock was put up shortly after his administration finished). Also add to that the huge increase in partisan politics, the implementation of religion into politics (not the first president, but the first one to use god as a major political issue), an economic record which is frankly not good, and creating the new Republican brand (well, popularising more then creating) which means that elections are now between a democratic party which is centre right, and a republican party which has been taken over by its propaganda wing and extremist views.

Personally, I view Reagon just like I view certain actions that Thatcher took, short sighted. He rode high in the polls and had a good presidency at the time because he sold out the future to have a good time in the short term (on a individual level, similar to maxing out your credit card in one month but you then have to deal with the consequences for a long time to come).

I take it you must be a Democrat.

My guess is he isn't from America, it's a rare American to call the Democrats center right. Also to spell center centre.

[Titanic]

Yer, I'm from the UK but study US politics as part of my degree course, but also do additional research because I find it very interesting. If I was American I would vote Democrat, but not because I agree with their ideology (I disagree on a LOT on areas), but because I am closer to them then to the Republican party.

[daddy1gringo]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over

FDR didn't get us out of the depression; Tojo and Hirohito did. Roosevelt's "alphabet soup" was having absolutely no beneficial effect on the economy. Things didn't improve until after the war.

[Frigidus]

I voted FDR because of how he sorted out the economic mess left over

FDR didn't get us out of the depression; Tojo and Hirohito did. Roosevelt's "alphabet soup" was having absolutely no beneficial effect on the economy. Things didn't improve until after the war.

once again the depression ended before the start of wwii, now please move to the back of the line

Just because you want something, doesn't make it true. I heard President Obama is setting aside $3 billion for re-education related to the Great Depression. Perhaps you are eligible for a cut?

Click image to enlarge.

Seriously, this post has gotten me so much mileage. Sultan sure is great with sarcasm.

[targetman377]

so did you notice somthing about that graph the gdp goes up in the resscsion inside the depression The fact of the matter is you cannot use just the gdp to tell you how good your economy is end of story any econonmics major will tell you that. lots of things go into it.

[InkL0sed]

so did you notice somthing about that graph the gdp goes up in the resscsion inside the depression The fact of the matter is you cannot use just the gdp to tell you how good your economy is end of story any econonmics major will tell you that. lots of things go into it.

dude, 1938 matches in both graphs. There is downward movement at the same time.

Not to mention how the GDP changes is kind of the definition of a recession or depression.

[JJM]

If you look at when Hoover took office on that chart you will see that the Economy was absolutely wonder full before he took office. It was know as the Roaring Twenties. That was when Calvin Coolidge was president so I would say that he is undoubtedly one of the best.

[thegreekdog]

For all that you guys make fun of JJM, he knows more about US history than the rest of you combined.[/sarcasm]

Fixed it for you.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I didn't say his opinions were correct, but the kid knows a lot more than most.

[jsholty4690]

If you look at when Hoover took office on that chart you will see that the Economy was absolutely wonder full before he took office. It was know as the Roaring Twenties. That was when Calvin Coolidge was president so I would say that he is undoubtedly one of the best.

I love Coolidge because he and me are one in the same personality wise (we talk only when we see the need to talk). Anyways, I don't think you can credit a president with a good economy or a bad economy. A lot of the factors that create a good or bad economy aren't caused by the current administration, but previous ones, the private sector, and the public as a whole.

[Titanic]

If you look at when Hoover took office on that chart you will see that the Economy was absolutely wonder full before he took office. It was know as the Roaring Twenties. That was when Calvin Coolidge was president so I would say that he is undoubtedly one of the best.

I love Coolidge because he and me are one in the same personality wise (we talk only when we see the need to talk). Anyways, I don't think you can credit a president with a good economy or a bad economy. A lot of the factors that create a good or bad economy aren't caused by the current administration, but previous ones, the private sector, and the public as a whole.

I think you can judge a president on economic performance upto a certain point. For example, it is totally wrong to say that Obama's economic leadership is bad because we have been in a recession for the duration of his presidency, but to say Bush's economic policy was disastrous is definitely valid as there are a huge number of indicators that point to this (inheriting a budget surplus, creating a huge deficit, increasing unemployment rate, median wage remaining stable etc..). The president has a huge say on the fundamentals of the economy and shifting the public/private ratio, as well as setting tax rates and deciding what they will be used for.

[thegreekdog]

I think you can judge a president on economic performance upto a certain point. For example, it is totally wrong to say that Obama's economic leadership is bad because we have been in a recession for the duration of his presidency, but to say Bush's economic policy was disastrous is definitely valid as there are a huge number of indicators that point to this (inheriting a budget surplus, creating a huge deficit, increasing unemployment rate, median wage remaining stable etc..). The president has a huge say on the fundamentals of the economy and shifting the public/private ratio, as well as setting tax rates and deciding what they will be used for.

This is really a fascinating view of the powers of the president. I agree that President Bush did not help the economy in a major way, but I do not think he is responsible for the current economic crisis. Nor do I think any particular president is responsible. Did President Bush increase the deficit? Absolutely. However, President Obama has since quadrupled, by many accounts, in one year what it took President Bush eight years to do. So, if increasing the deficit is bad for the economy, by your reasoning President Obama is four times as bad as President Bush.

We had first the housing market bubble bursting, which occurred, so we've been told, by bad mortgages given out by banks. I don't believe any particular president formulated such a policy. In any event, this started a snowballing effect.

The "increasing unemployment rate" and "median wage remaining stable" were not policies enacted by President Bush or any other president. They are simply factors that show whether an economy is good or bad. Look, I disliked President Bush as much as the next person (in fact I dislike most presidents), but I don't know that presidents have such a large effect on the econom.

[Titanic]

This is really a fascinating view of the powers of the president. I agree that President Bush did not help the economy in a major way, but I do not think he is responsible for the current economic crisis. Nor do I think any particular president is responsible. Did President Bush increase the deficit? Absolutely. However, President Obama has since quadrupled, by many accounts, in one year what it took President Bush eight years to do. So, if increasing the deficit is bad for the economy, by your reasoning President Obama is four times as bad as President Bush.

We had first the housing market bubble bursting, which occurred, so we've been told, by bad mortgages given out by banks. I don't believe any particular president formulated such a policy. In any event, this started a snowballing effect.

The "increasing unemployment rate" and "median wage remaining stable" were not policies enacted by President Bush or any other president. They are simply factors that show whether an economy is good or bad. Look, I disliked President Bush as much as the next person (in fact I dislike most presidents), but I don't know that presidents have such a large effect on the econom.

The two presidents who are most at blame for making this economic crisis inevitable are Reagon and Clinton because of their corporatist stances and granting the financial markets huge amounts of freedom and almost 50 years of strict regulation. These policy decisions they made led to the financial markets abusing their freedoms and making the breaking point in the market a matter of when, not if. I wasn't blaming Bush for the current economic crisis (although his administration was definitely negligent of the growing imbalances in the economy) but merely stating that his economic record itself is pretty awful. As for Obama deficit, the money he is spending is to clear up the mess that we are currently in. If you look at Clintons record is this aspect, it is very similar. He inherited a deficit, and increased it at the beginning but by the end of his term he was posting healthy surplus's. Also Obama is not 4x as bad as Bush because Bush inherited a good surplus and made awful economic decisions (increasing spending whilst cutting taxes), whilst Obama inherited an awful budget ($500b deficit continually for almost 6 years) and has to spend a lot to try and reverse the trend (hence my Clinton comparison).

The economic indicators I pointed out are some of the best measures of a countries true performance. The president has huge power to try and alter these indicators. If you look at the amount of jobs that were created under Clinton (11.5 million in each term), and then Bush (2 million in total, inc only 7,000 in his first term), you can instantly see that a president who knows what he is doing with the economy can make a huge difference. Add on to this that Clinton was the most successful president since Johnson in reducing national debt then to me it is clear that the man in charge has a huge say on the economic performance of the country. If they are caught in a bad situation (such as Obama, currently) then it is unlucky, but if they themselves make economic decisions which are harmful then they should take the blame.

[thegreekdog]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. President Clinton did not create jobs. In fact, President Clinton literally did nothing to affect the economy in any way. He did not significantly raise taxes or adjust the federal rates in any significant manner. Those, I believe, are the only ways in which the president can directly affect the economy (and some may argue that even these aren't direct effects).

I don't know if the current president's spending will work or not. If it does, kudos to him. If it does not, the United States is in even bigger trouble.

In terms of deregulation of economic markets, I'm not sure I know enough about the issue to discuss it intelligently. This does not stop most people from reporting on the subject as experts, but I really don't think I can do it.

[JJM]

If you look at when Hoover took office on that chart you will see that the Economy was absolutely wonder full before he took office. It was know as the Roaring Twenties. That was when Calvin Coolidge was president so I would say that he is undoubtedly one of the best.

I love Coolidge because he and me are one in the same personality wise (we talk only when we see the need to talk). Anyways, I don't think you can credit a president with a good economy or a bad economy. A lot of the factors that create a good or bad economy aren't caused by the current administration, but previous ones, the private sector, and the public as a whole.

Coolidge had the best economic policy of all. He would let everyone make there own money and let the government interfere as little as possible.

[jsholty4690]

If you look at when Hoover took office on that chart you will see that the Economy was absolutely wonder full before he took office. It was know as the Roaring Twenties. That was when Calvin Coolidge was president so I would say that he is undoubtedly one of the best.

I love Coolidge because he and me are one in the same personality wise (we talk only when we see the need to talk). Anyways, I don't think you can credit a president with a good economy or a bad economy. A lot of the factors that create a good or bad economy aren't caused by the current administration, but previous ones, the private sector, and the public as a whole.

Coolidge had the best economic policy of all. He would let everyone make there own money and let the government interfere as little as possible.

That's why I like him, he left everyone alone. He was a true American, he may not have been a flashy president, but he knew how to get a job done and knew how to do it without increasing the national debt. And I love how he declined to run for a second full term

I do not choose to run for president in 1928.

[Titanic]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. President Clinton did not create jobs. In fact, President Clinton literally did nothing to affect the economy in any way. He did not significantly raise taxes or adjust the federal rates in any significant manner. Those, I believe, are the only ways in which the president can directly affect the economy (and some may argue that even these aren't direct effects).

I don't know if the current president's spending will work or not. If it does, kudos to him. If it does not, the United States is in even bigger trouble.

In terms of deregulation of economic markets, I'm not sure I know enough about the issue to discuss it intelligently. This does not stop most people from reporting on the subject as experts, but I really don't think I can do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_creat ... tial_terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... tial_terms

Clinton created almost 23 million jobs, more then any other president in history. Also as I previously stated he sorted out the federal budget by turning a deficit that he inherited from Bush Sr. into a healthy surplus, drastically cut public debt in the USA during his time as president (so much so the debt clock was turned off) and also the economy grew continuously at a good rate throughout his presidency. By increasing taxes by a marginal amount and keeping rates at a constant rate it brought about a lot of stability which is what was needed after 12 years of reckless spending. His economic legacy is one of the best of modern US president, its just a shame that the small parts has unintended consequences many years later.