American Presidents

[Classik]

Who is your favorite/best American President? Who is the worst American President? Your reasons (and pls no derogatory language) ;)

 

[Classik]

I like B.C

 

[Milk-Drops]

I'd have to dig to figure out the worst. But most bland would have to be Carter. He didn't really do anything.


The Best, in my opinion is Teddy.

Manly Mustache, Founded national parks, Invested in wildlife conservation, Broke up monopolies, fought Sasquatch :p, and kept giving a speech while shot. Not to mention a Republican back when that meant something.

 

[Mike S]

I'll stick with just the 20th century. The best President of the 20th century was Calvin Coolidge, the last President to truly respect the Constitution.

The worst was Jimmy Carter.

 

[farouk]

Among the best? How about FDR?

He was among the most influential; he was a successful war leader and he turned the country around after the Depression. He promoted the Good Neighbor Policy toward Latin American countries, and implemented Lend-Lease even before Pearl Harbor.

Not sure about the worst. Often Warren Harding is cited, but for good or for ill Coolidge and Hoover re-appointed his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, so he undoubtedly reflected the orthodox thinking of the day. He established the department of the Budget. His (later discovered) zipper trouble got his reputation into trouble in ways that Clinton's didn't. Some of his cronies went to jail, although there is absolutely no evidence that he was personally corrupt.

 

[Mike S]

Among the best? How about FDR?

He was among the most influential; he was a successful war leader and he turned the country around after the Depression. He promoted the Good Neighbor Policy toward Latin American countries, and implemented Lend-Lease even before Pearl Harbor.

Not sure about the worst. Often Warren Harding is cited, but for good or for ill Coolidge and Hoover re-appointed his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, so he undoubtedly reflected the orthodox thinking of the day. He established the department of the Budget. His (later discovered) zipper trouble got his reputation into trouble in ways that Clinton's didn't. Some of his cronies went to jail, although there is absolutely no evidence that he was personally corrupt.

FDR did not turn the country around after the depression, his policies made the depression worse, and kept the country in depression years longer than if he had done nothing at all.


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate - http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."




How Government Prolonged the Depression - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.

Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful.

So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.

 

[farouk]

Mark:

Umm ... Midwestern farmers were shooting themselves; banks were bankrupt; unemployment was huge; investor confidence was low. It's hard to say objectively that FDR didn't turn the country around. It's hard to argue that Midwestern farmers should have been left to their own devices, and the banks, too; while already tried policies had failed catastrophically.

FDR saved the capitalist system, by putting it to work again, and avoided revolution. This is widely accepted.

 

[Mike]

It's probably a product of my personal experience, having grown up through high school in the early 80's, but I would have to say Reagan. The country was in the throws of inflation and a feeling of low self esteem. We needed a leader who would reverse both and inject patriotism and stability in the economy, and Reagan emerged as the answer. He filled America with a purpose that unified and galvanized us. We now had a strong voice to stand up to communism. His didn't apologize for being conservative fiscally. He just went about his plan and doubters bought in. That's a leader!

I'll keep it positive and not mention the worst.

 

[farouk]

It's probably a product of my personal experience, having grown up through high school in the early 80's, but I would have to say Reagan. The country was in the throws of inflation and a feeling of low self esteem. We needed a leader who would reverse both and inject patriotism and stability in the economy, and Reagan emerged as the answer. He filled America with a purpose that unified and galvanized us. We now had a strong voice to stand up to communism. His didn't apologize for being conservative fiscally. He just went about his plan and doubters bought in. That's a leader!

I'll keep it positive and not mention the worst.

I think the '84 campaign summed it up.

The Mondale staffers put out a video of Reagan smiling optimistically, while the Mondale voice-overs kept expressing doubts. The effect: the doubts weren't listened too, and the smiling got the message across — with the unwitting help of the Mondale staffers!

 

[Mike S]

Mark:

Umm ... Midwestern farmers were shooting themselves; banks were bankrupt; unemployment was huge; investor confidence was low. It's hard to say objectively that FDR didn't turn the country around. It's hard to argue that Midwestern farmers should have been left to their own devices, and the banks, too; while already tried policies had failed catastrophically.

We'd be better off thinking about consequences rather than intentions. A false compassion with policies that only make things worse is no compassion at all. And, already tried policies had not failed catastrophically. Free markets correct themselves, if they're not interfered with by government policies. One thing that HAS to happen is that asset values have to fall until they reach a market clearing level, and then recovery can occur. Any government policy that tries to protect people from falling asset values simply prolongs the inevitable, prolongs the pain, and prevents recovery.

[video=youtube;xWAgt_YCNuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAgt_YCNuw[/video]

FDR saved the capitalist system, by putting it to work again, and avoided revolution. This is widely accepted.

[video=youtube;7QLoeehMw0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PL43CFBF101C58A01B&v=7QLoeehMw0w[/video]

 

[farouk]

We'd be better off thinking about consequences rather than intentions. A false compassion with policies that only make things worse is no compassion at all. And, already tried policies had not failed catastrophically. Free markets correct themselves, if they're not interfered with by government policies. One thing that HAS to happen is that asset values have to fall until they reach a market clearing level, and then recovery can occur. Any government policy that tries to protect people from falling asset values simply prolongs the inevitable, prolongs the pain, and prevents recovery.

[video=youtube;xWAgt_YCNuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAgt_YCNuw[/video]






[video=youtube;7QLoeehMw0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PL43CFBF101C58A01B&v=7QLoeehMw0w[/video]

mark:

So FDR should have left Midwestern farmers to continue to shoot themselves, left the banks bankrupt, etc.?

They waited and waited and waited from 1929 and nothing happened except it got worse.

It was similar up here in Canada.

PS: I don't want to sound too argumentative; I just couldn't think of any other way of expressing myself. Maybe I could have said: Wouldn't it have really mattered if Midwestern farmers had continued to shoot themselves, etc.

 

[Mike S]

mark:

So FDR should have left Midwestern farmers to continue to shoot themselves, left the banks bankrupt, etc.?

They waited and waited and waited from 1929 and nothing happened except it got worse.

It was similar up here in Canada.

PS: I don't want to sound too argumentative; I just could think of any other way of expressing myself. Maybe I could have said: Wouldn't it have really mattered if Midwestern farmers had continued to shoot themselves, etc.

farouk, everyone is compassionate, no one wants to see people suffer, but there is such a thing as pathological altruism. Being blind to the consequences may make us feel good in the short term about the few we help with interventionist policies, but how do you justify that if the policies themselves prolong pain for the many?

A similar - maybe easier to understand case - would be the massive aid we give to drought stricken African countries every few years. We may feel good about ourselves for the few starving people we help to survive for another year or so. But what are the long term consequences? Chances are good that massive free aid dumped in a troubled area has at least two longer term, very negative, consequences.

1. The "free" donated aid destroys local businesses and institutions that could be alternatives.
2. It makes it likely that enormously more people than can be realistically supported by the local resources continue living in the area, virtually guaranteeing future disasters with millions more dying.

I understand compassion, I work with volunteer missions for relief after natural disasters. But that is merely alleviation of pain, it doesn't solve long term problems, and, sometimes, it even makes them worse. Just so with government "help." It can alleviate immediate pain for a few, at the expense of extended pain for many others.

FDR's New Deal policies made rhe depression worse, and delayed recovery for years. Barack Obama's policieshave made our recession worse, and has alreay delayed recovery by years. There will not be a true recovery until Obama leaves office and his policies reversed.

 

[farouk]

farouk, everyone is compassionate, no one wants to see people suffer, but there is such a thing as pathological altruism. Being blind to the consequences may make us feel good in the short term about the few we help with interventionist policies, but how do you justify that if the policies themselves prolong pain for the many?

A similar case would be the massive aid we give to drought stricken African countries every few years. We may feel good about ourselves for the few starving people we help to survive for another year or so. But what are the long term consequences? Chances are good that massive free aid dumped in a troubled area has at least two longer term, very negative, consequences.
1. The "free" donated aid destroys local businesses and institutions that could be alternatives.
2. It makes it likely that enormously more people than can be realistically supported by the local resources continue living in the area, virtually guaranteeing future disasters with millions more dying.

I understand compassion, I work with volunteer missions for relief after natural disasters. But that is merely alleviation of pain, it doesn't solve long term problems, and, sometimes, it even makes them worse. Just so with government "help." It can alleviate immediate pain for a few, at the expense of extended pain for many others.

mark:

So you really mean that in the Depression starving, suicidal farmers and bankrupt bankers should have been left by the government to their own devices in case the farmers, bankers and unemployed experienced instead the negative effects of pathological altruism?

If this is your view, fine; but I've never heard it expressed quite in those terms before, anyway.

 

[Lewis]

I liked Ronald Reagan

 

[Mike S]

mark:

So you really mean that in the Depression starving, suicidal farmers and bankrupt bankers should have been left by the government to their own devices in case the farmers, bankers and unemployed experienced instead the negative effects of pathological altruism?

If this is your view, fine; but I've never heard it expressed quite in those terms before, anyway.

There are some people, maybe you're one, who can't NOT help people. That's admirable...with your own money and efforts. It's not admirable to use government programs for that, especially if those government programs make thing worse in the long term.

I can understand how you may not have heard of such thinking before, but it's not new. Other American Presidents understood it very well, that altruism - as a government policy - is counterproductive, as well as being unconstitutional.


Veto of the Texas Seed Bill - http://mises.org/daily/3627

In 1887, members of Congress wanted to help suffering farmers in the American West, but President Gover Cleveland rejected their bill, citing the limited mission of the general government and arguing that private charity and already-existing government programs should furnish the necessary aid.

This is his letter notifying Congress of his veto.



To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has, to some extent, already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional, to meet their remaining wants, will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of senators, representatives, and delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our senators and representatives.


If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.



Note: Grover Cleveland was a Democrat.

 

[Classik]

I'll keep it positive and not mention the worst.

;) .

 

[farouk]

Maybe FDR would have been the worst if he had sat on his hands during the Depression...

 

[Classik]

I like B.C

He's probably the most handsome. Dude has such a wonderful build.traces the look of Don Moen, sorta

 

[farouk]

Seriously, in some ways Bill Clinton was a very successful President. I know a lot of folk want to talk about his zipper trouble instead, but in terms of the economy what his Admin. did was far from insignificant.

He got along well will Canada's Jean Chrétien, too.

 

[Classik]

Seriously, in some ways Bill Clinton was a very successful President. I know a lot of folk want to talk about his zipper trouble instead, but in terms of the economy what his Admin. did was far from insignificant. He got along well will Canada's Jean Chrétien, too.

do you know King Solomon?