Historical Rankings of Presidents

[Wry Catcher]

Coming from someone who cannot engage in serious debate.

Anyway, we could go through the domestic programs and detail how each one served to deepen and prolong the Depression but the main change is: FDR was the first president to say it was government's jobs to solve problems that had previously been solved privately, by families, communities and charities.
This resulted in an entitlement mentality that is sadly with us today. We see it everyday, even on these boards.
That is the problem.

The problem is Rabbi, you offer simple explanations to complex issues. All things economic were not going so well before FDR, or did you rewrite history again?

that's it? "They weren't going so well"? That's your argument??
In fact the U.S. achieved a world class level of industrialization from the end of the Civil war to the 1920s. Off hand I do not know what the growth rate in GDP was but I would bet phenomenal.
After FDR that rate slowed dramatically. Things appeared fine because we were the lone industrial power after WW2. But once the Germans and Japanese rebuilt their infrastructure we were at a competitive loss.
We still have a taxation and social welfare system that discourages productivity, earning, and risk taking and rewards the opposite.

Are you intentially obtuse? ALL things economic. Did the working class live the life of leisure or even have a secure retirement and a home of their own? Did the children of working class Americans have college as an option, or was the 8th grade sufficient for them to go to work.
Is that the world you and other reactionaries hope America becomes, a return to the 19th century, where coal polluted our air and water and working Americans were treated less well than the horse? Where men worked until they died and their widows lived in poor houses (evidence, do a little research and review the census from the late 19th century).

 

[Mini 14]

Carter anywhere near the top half is a joke. Easily one of the worst Presidents we've ever suffered through.

There is a poll out there that will give you whatever result you are hoping for, which is why I think polls are complete folly, with extremely few exceptions.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem is Rabbi, you offer simple explanations to complex issues. All things economic were not going so well before FDR, or did you rewrite history again?

that's it? "They weren't going so well"? That's your argument??
In fact the U.S. achieved a world class level of industrialization from the end of the Civil war to the 1920s. Off hand I do not know what the growth rate in GDP was but I would bet phenomenal.
After FDR that rate slowed dramatically. Things appeared fine because we were the lone industrial power after WW2. But once the Germans and Japanese rebuilt their infrastructure we were at a competitive loss.
We still have a taxation and social welfare system that discourages productivity, earning, and risk taking and rewards the opposite.

Are you intentially obsuse? ALL things economic. Did the working class live the life of leisure or even have a secure retirement and a home of their own? Did the children of working class Americans have college as an option, or was the 8th grade sufficient for them to go to work.
Is that the world you and other reactionaries hope America becomes, a return to the 19th century, where coal polluted our air and water and working Americans were treated less well than the horse? Where men worked until they died and their widows lived in poor houses (evidence, do a little research and review the census from the late 19th century).

I would ask whether you are really that stupid. But I already know the answer.
The standard of living in the U.S. rose dramatically from post Civil War to 1920. People had a level of comfort and security in 1920 that their grandfathers could barely dream about. Comparing that even to today is ludicrous. Saying the economy was bad because it didn't make everyone millionaires is just stupid. Even for you.

 

[rightwinger]

that's it? "They weren't going so well"? That's your argument??
In fact the U.S. achieved a world class level of industrialization from the end of the Civil war to the 1920s. Off hand I do not know what the growth rate in GDP was but I would bet phenomenal.
After FDR that rate slowed dramatically. Things appeared fine because we were the lone industrial power after WW2. But once the Germans and Japanese rebuilt their infrastructure we were at a competitive loss.
We still have a taxation and social welfare system that discourages productivity, earning, and risk taking and rewards the opposite.

Are you intentially obsuse? ALL things economic. Did the working class live the life of leisure or even have a secure retirement and a home of their own? Did the children of working class Americans have college as an option, or was the 8th grade sufficient for them to go to work.
Is that the world you and other reactionaries hope America becomes, a return to the 19th century, where coal polluted our air and water and working Americans were treated less well than the horse? Where men worked until they died and their widows lived in poor houses (evidence, do a little research and review the census from the late 19th century).

I would ask whether you are really that stupid. But I already know the answer.
The standard of living in the U.S. rose dramatically from post Civil War to 1920. People had a level of comfort and security in 1920 that their grandfathers could barely dream about. Comparing that even to today is ludicrous. Saying the economy was bad because it didn't make everyone millionaires is just stupid. Even for you.

Make everyone millionaires? Are you really that dense?

Working Americans don't expect to be millionaires. They want what all Americans have wanted.....a home, the ability to take care of your family, assurance that if you get sick you will be taken care of, security in their old age.

You want to return to 1920? You worked your whole life till you could no longer work. Retirement was unheard of, no vacations, no weekends. If you were injured on the job, you and your family starved. Your retirement program was your children. If you didn't have family to take care of you you went to the poor house

This is the society Conservatives want to return to

 

[Wry Catcher]

Carter anywhere near the top half is a joke. Easily one of the worst Presidents we've ever suffered through.

There is a poll out there that will give you whatever result you are hoping for, which is why I think polls are complete folly, with extremely few exceptions.

So post these polls, and the source. Also, what does Stagflation mean to you? Have you ever heard of the word?

 

[Wry Catcher]

that's it? "They weren't going so well"? That's your argument??
In fact the U.S. achieved a world class level of industrialization from the end of the Civil war to the 1920s. Off hand I do not know what the growth rate in GDP was but I would bet phenomenal.
After FDR that rate slowed dramatically. Things appeared fine because we were the lone industrial power after WW2. But once the Germans and Japanese rebuilt their infrastructure we were at a competitive loss.
We still have a taxation and social welfare system that discourages productivity, earning, and risk taking and rewards the opposite.

Are you intentially obsuse? ALL things economic. Did the working class live the life of leisure or even have a secure retirement and a home of their own? Did the children of working class Americans have college as an option, or was the 8th grade sufficient for them to go to work.
Is that the world you and other reactionaries hope America becomes, a return to the 19th century, where coal polluted our air and water and working Americans were treated less well than the horse? Where men worked until they died and their widows lived in poor houses (evidence, do a little research and review the census from the late 19th century).

I would ask whether you are really that stupid. But I already know the answer.
The standard of living in the U.S. rose dramatically from post Civil War to 1920. People had a level of comfort and security in 1920 that their grandfathers could barely dream about. Comparing that even to today is ludicrous. Saying the economy was bad because it didn't make everyone millionaires is just stupid. Even for you.

Your response is further evidence that you're ignorant and a liar. I suspect you never passed an American history class, or maybe you're not even an American and never needed to study our nation's history.

A quick google search reveals:

Roaring Twenties

 

[DiamondDave]

Re:
DiamondDaveNah.. when a middle class or upper middle class person has a total taxation burden close to, at, or above 50%, the governmental system and reach is not too big (sarcasm)

Who pays 50%?!

With regard to the military, I think our soldiers should be equipped as well as possible. I'm just guessing that it wouldn't cost $400,000 per soldier to do that if our government made the most intelligent decisions. I also don't think we'd need 1,500,000 active duty and close to 1,000,000 reservists if we weren't into military adventurism and spreading the good word. Our military is a much bigger expense that could be more efficient and less expensive and have equal effectiveness and save us a fortune, relative to the minimal, relative expense that unearned entitlements equates to. I understand that our government has a responsibility to protect us and the military is a necessary expense. We should and could have the best military in the world with the best, most well equipped soldiers as we do today and yet it cost a whole lot less.

Are you that fucking dense??

Income tax.. property tax.. state tax... sales tax... county tax... local tax... fuel tax.. commodities tax.... SS tax... Medicare Tax... luxuries tax... telecommunications tax... capital gains tax.. cigarette tax... dog license tax... restaurant tax... liquor tax.. inheritance tax.. rental vehicle tax.. and oh so many others you pay out in any given year....

Yes.. the actual earning person is many times paying near, at, or above 50% of their income in taxes... FACT... whether you wish to see it or not.... HOW MUCH DOES THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT NEED?? How big does it have to fucking be??

Idiot

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you intentially obsuse? ALL things economic. Did the working class live the life of leisure or even have a secure retirement and a home of their own? Did the children of working class Americans have college as an option, or was the 8th grade sufficient for them to go to work.
Is that the world you and other reactionaries hope America becomes, a return to the 19th century, where coal polluted our air and water and working Americans were treated less well than the horse? Where men worked until they died and their widows lived in poor houses (evidence, do a little research and review the census from the late 19th century).

I would ask whether you are really that stupid. But I already know the answer.
The standard of living in the U.S. rose dramatically from post Civil War to 1920. People had a level of comfort and security in 1920 that their grandfathers could barely dream about. Comparing that even to today is ludicrous. Saying the economy was bad because it didn't make everyone millionaires is just stupid. Even for you.

Your response is further evidence that you're ignorant and a liar. I suspect you never passed an American history class, or maybe you're not even an American and never needed to study our nation's history.

A quick google search reveals:

Roaring Twenties

You rely on a Google article to cover your lack of education and I am the ignorant one? LOL!
Your article did nothng to even address my point. I doubt you are capable of addressing the point. I said initially you are unable to debate, lacking both debate skills and any base of knowledge to work off of.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would ask whether you are really that stupid. But I already know the answer.
The standard of living in the U.S. rose dramatically from post Civil War to 1920. People had a level of comfort and security in 1920 that their grandfathers could barely dream about. Comparing that even to today is ludicrous. Saying the economy was bad because it didn't make everyone millionaires is just stupid. Even for you.

Your response is further evidence that you're ignorant and a liar. I suspect you never passed an American history class, or maybe you're not even an American and never needed to study our nation's history.

A quick google search reveals:

Roaring Twenties

You rely on a Google article to cover your lack of education and I am the ignorant one? LOL!
Your article did nothng to even address my point. I doubt you are capable of addressing the point. I said initially you are unable to debate, lacking both debate skills and any base of knowledge to work off of.

Google wrote the article? Wow, how did I miss that. So, whenever I google I get something written by a google employee. Maybe it would be best if you simply annotated your 'facts' and posted a bibliography, then I wouldn't suspect you're a liar and make shit up.

 

[McDowell's]

I'm a Reagan hater, so I can understand going against popular sentiment. I think Reagan could be the catalyst to our downfall if we're not careful. Some of you seem to think, FDR falls into that category.

No specifics mind you. If you want to get specific I'll be happy to address. I assume you're referring to entitlements? What happens at theses tea parties? Does everyone point out policies that FDR, LBJ, Carter, and Obama pushed, espoused, and had passed under their leadership and then declares they're the worst thing to happen to America?

I wonder what specific policies enacted under FDR lead you folks to look down on him as President. Anyone care to get specific?

You have excited the echo chamber, ElephantMcDonk, and asked a question. In my experience you've invited highly caustic attacks on your character and the question will go unanswered. The echo chamber understands as much about what they write as the cliff does when a loud whistle bounces off its walls.

So let me see if I follow Wry Catcher, cause I'm a little slow. Are you acknowledging that I keep giving them an opportunity to either attack me or answer my question and they attack me every time because they're uncapable of answering my questions with reasoned explanations?... because they don't know what they're talking about...

If so, thanks

Wait, someone presents a legitimate gripe - social security - about FDR and your highly substantive response is "you don't know what you're talking about." Yet, somehow, every person that disagrees with you engages only in personal attacks while you are a fount of wisdom?

Social Security is the epitomy of passing the buck. A short sighted solution which has and is continuing to develop into one of the greatest problems our nation is facing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well Rabbi's gribes are rarely legiitimate. Most are based on lies and half-truths, he hasn't the integrity or demonstrated the ability to look beyond the pathos of right wing propaganda. The consequences of ther right wing agenda are never posted, examined, considered; it is an ideology of simple solutions to complex problems.
For example, Meg Whitman's 'plan' was to shrink the state government by terminating 40,000 state employees in her first year as governor.
Great plan? I think not. Shrinking government over the long term, by attrition may make sense - depending on what jobs are eliminated. But what would be the consequences of Meg's policy?
Home mortgages unpaid, more foreclosures?
Small business losing customers - sandwhich shops, coffee shops, dry clearners, gas stations, child care providers, movie theaters, etc.
Less tax revenue for the state and more demand for services including UE insurance, demands for healthcare at county run clinics, potentially more cases of larceny, battery, alcohol abuse and domestic violence, impacting LE, the courts and corrections; more demand for food stamps, general assistance/welfare and mental health counseling from the newly uninsured.

A simple solution to a complex problem - the tea party way.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well Rabbi's gribes are rarely legiitimate. Most are based on lies and half-truths, he hasn't the integrity or demonstrated the ability to look beyond the pathos of right wing propaganda. The consequences of ther right wing agenda are never posted, examined, considered; it is an ideology of simple solutions to complex problems.
For example, Meg Whitman's 'plan' was to shrink the state government by terminating 40,000 state employees in her first year as governor.
Great plan? I think not. Shrinking government over the long term, by attrition may make sense - depending on what jobs are eliminated. But what would be the consequences of Meg's policy?
Home mortgages unpaid, more foreclosures?
Small business losing customers - sandwhich shops, coffee shops, dry clearners, gas stations, child care providers, movie theaters, etc.
Less tax revenue for the state and more demand for services including UE insurance, demands for healthcare at county run clinics, potentially more cases of larceny, battery, alcohol abuse and domestic violence, impacting LE, the courts and corrections; more demand for food stamps, general assistance/welfare and mental health counseling from the newly uninsured.

A simple solution to a complex problem - the tea party way.

You are totally out of your depth, assuming you have a depth at all. Your response to any pos that disagrees with you is "you lie" or "you are a rightwing simpleton". I think I nailed it on my first response to you.
Your hypothesis is simplistic and childish. In fact you have no freaking idea what the effect of losing 40k state employees would be. CA is bankrupt now, how would this make anything worse? And 40k workers in an economy the size of CA is next to nothing. Think how many have been put out of work by their employers moving to more tax and regulation friendly states like TX.