Which one of these was the worst president ever?

[DiamondDave]

Carter.. with Obama nipping on his heels

 

[The Rabbi]

My two aren't even on the list....

1. Herbert Hoover- The man ignored all the warning signs that led to the Great Depression. He then mismanaged it when it did hit. Look up "Hoovervilles" on the internet.

2. Ronald Reagan- This one hurts me personally, because I believed in the man. But 30 years of "trickle down Economics have all but destroyed our country by letting Big Business rule the Republic instead of the people. I am not sure this is how he wanted it, but this is the way it happened. Ever since "Reaganomics" have been the norm, our Debt has been ever increasing, businesses keep getting richer and more powerful and our people keep losing in the deal.

Here's the thing... Much like the idea of Communism(everyone working and living for each other), the idea of "Trickle Down" only works in a perfect society with perfect people.

But in real life, People are greedy. In Communism, there will be people within the Government(that runs everything) who want more than their "Fair share" and hoard and do for themselves instead of for the collective.

Similarly, in order for "Trickle Down" to work... Trickling can't be voluntary. There are too many greedy Businessmen who chose to hoard the wealth instead of trickling down. So then the Federal Government keeps trying to get them to "trickle down" by spending money on them... lowering their tax rates, giving them big government contracts, privatizing services... None of it works... for the everyday people... it works for Big business just fine. But it puts our government in huge debt and screws the Middle Class.

Just take a look at how the deficit has exploded under the Reaganomics model. Look at the Deficit level before Reagan and after Reagan.

That is the madness of the "Trickle Down" Model. It is entirely for the benefit of the Conglomerate and has little to do with actual "trickling".

Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.

 

[Steelplate]

Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.

Hey... look at the statistics of "we the people" vs. Big business. I think it speaks for itself.

 

[rightwinger]

My two aren't even on the list....

1. Herbert Hoover- The man ignored all the warning signs that led to the Great Depression. He then mismanaged it when it did hit. Look up "Hoovervilles" on the internet.

2. Ronald Reagan- This one hurts me personally, because I believed in the man. But 30 years of "trickle down Economics have all but destroyed our country by letting Big Business rule the Republic instead of the people. I am not sure this is how he wanted it, but this is the way it happened. Ever since "Reaganomics" have been the norm, our Debt has been ever increasing, businesses keep getting richer and more powerful and our people keep losing in the deal.

Here's the thing... Much like the idea of Communism(everyone working and living for each other), the idea of "Trickle Down" only works in a perfect society with perfect people.

But in real life, People are greedy. In Communism, there will be people within the Government(that runs everything) who want more than their "Fair share" and hoard and do for themselves instead of for the collective.

Similarly, in order for "Trickle Down" to work... Trickling can't be voluntary. There are too many greedy Businessmen who chose to hoard the wealth instead of trickling down. So then the Federal Government keeps trying to get them to "trickle down" by spending money on them... lowering their tax rates, giving them big government contracts, privatizing services... None of it works... for the everyday people... it works for Big business just fine. But it puts our government in huge debt and screws the Middle Class.

Just take a look at how the deficit has exploded under the Reaganomics model. Look at the Deficit level before Reagan and after Reagan.

That is the madness of the "Trickle Down" Model. It is entirely for the benefit of the Conglomerate and has little to do with actual "trickling".

Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.

JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.

Hey... look at the statistics of "we the people" vs. Big business. I think it speaks for itself.

You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?

 

[The Rabbi]

My two aren't even on the list....

1. Herbert Hoover- The man ignored all the warning signs that led to the Great Depression. He then mismanaged it when it did hit. Look up "Hoovervilles" on the internet.

2. Ronald Reagan- This one hurts me personally, because I believed in the man. But 30 years of "trickle down Economics have all but destroyed our country by letting Big Business rule the Republic instead of the people. I am not sure this is how he wanted it, but this is the way it happened. Ever since "Reaganomics" have been the norm, our Debt has been ever increasing, businesses keep getting richer and more powerful and our people keep losing in the deal.

Here's the thing... Much like the idea of Communism(everyone working and living for each other), the idea of "Trickle Down" only works in a perfect society with perfect people.

But in real life, People are greedy. In Communism, there will be people within the Government(that runs everything) who want more than their "Fair share" and hoard and do for themselves instead of for the collective.

Similarly, in order for "Trickle Down" to work... Trickling can't be voluntary. There are too many greedy Businessmen who chose to hoard the wealth instead of trickling down. So then the Federal Government keeps trying to get them to "trickle down" by spending money on them... lowering their tax rates, giving them big government contracts, privatizing services... None of it works... for the everyday people... it works for Big business just fine. But it puts our government in huge debt and screws the Middle Class.

Just take a look at how the deficit has exploded under the Reaganomics model. Look at the Deficit level before Reagan and after Reagan.

That is the madness of the "Trickle Down" Model. It is entirely for the benefit of the Conglomerate and has little to do with actual "trickling".

Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.

JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts

So JFK is now a Republican?
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity so I can have it only if you don't?

 

[Steelplate]

You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?

How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.

If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Obama. And my reasoning. He stated everything that was wrong during his campaign. So he obviously knew, and that's why I voted for him. But he has proceeded to do just the opposite on almost everything. He get's my vote as the worst because he knew and did nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you think wealth is a limited commodity and I can only have some by you not having it?
That would be your first mistake.

JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts

So JFK is now a Republican?
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity so I can have it only if you don't?

Why of course not.

But I also believe that the rules of the game can be changed to make it easier for some groups to gain and protect wealth

 

[BenNatuf]

You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?

How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.

If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.

clueless.

 

[Steelplate]

You're deflecting.
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity and the only way I can have it is by you not having it?

How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.

If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.

clueless.

Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.

 

[BenNatuf]

How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.

If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.

clueless.

Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.

Wealth is a measure of more than money. Wealth is a measure of all property.

As the economy grows the amount of goods and services it produces grows, money is valued according to the ammount of goods and services it represents, hence, when there are more goods and services more wealth is available. When the economy grows faster than the money supply new wealth is created, someone gains it, but no-one else has any less wealth for it.

Do you think our nations wealth is equivalent today to what it was in 1776? 1850? 1975? The money supply grows almost every year as more goods and services become available in an ever expanding economy (with the occassional correction). Wealth is not finite. There is no upper limit beyond which you cannot go.

Bill Gates having 40B hasn't made one person poorer.

BTW, printing money in and of itself does not create wealth... it creates inflation and steals wealth.

 

[DiamondDave]

JFK had an economic theory that a rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the rising tide has only lifted the yachts

So JFK is now a Republican?
Do you think that wealth is a limited commodity so I can have it only if you don't?

Why of course not.

But I also believe that the rules of the game can be changed to make it easier for some groups to gain and protect wealth

Some groups... hence your support for selective equal treatment by government... got it

 

[The Rabbi]

How much money is there printed at this moment in time... that's our wealth. You cannot "Create" more out of thin air. If you are collecting it, you are taking it from someone else.

If you sell something at a profit, you are taking someone else's money and adding it to yours in exchange for a product/service.

clueless.

Ok... care to explain? There is limited dollars printed, so unless we print more... or take it in Yen, Rupees, Pounds Sterling, etc and add it to our pile... It's not created, it's taken.

Youre joking, right? This si the extent of your knowledge of economics? No wonder you're an Obama voter.
If I own 10 apartment buildings and have $100 cash, does that mean my wealth consists of $100?

 

[Steelplate]

I liked the other guys explanation better, Rabbi.

However, let me ask you both this question... Is that what you feel is happening now? The decline of the Middle Class, and the further impoverishment of our working poor has NOTHING to do with the huge gains that the rich has received?

 

[BlindBoo]

RayGun by far. The Grandfather of the Pseudo-conservative movement.

 

[BenNatuf]

On wealth.

Consider you have a property appraised at 100K.
I buy it from you.
We have exchanged 100K in cash for 100K in property. The exchange is equal and nobody has gained "wealth"

The soil is sandy and I build a glass workk to make handblown glass ornaments which I sell for $10 each. Each ornament I sell is an exchange of $10 in cash for property worth $10. It's an equal exchange and no-one loses any wealth (I may gain some from my labor, but the buyor hasn't lost any)

Suppose some giant cororation decides my glassworks could earn 10M over the next 5 years and I sell it to them for 2.5M. Again we have an equal exchange with me getting 2.5M in cash (the immediate value of the property and business) in exchange for that company recieving this immediate value in property in anticipation of future earnings. Again, no-one lost any wealth, but I have created 2.5M for myself from the initial 100K investment. Did you lose any wealth in the bargain? Did they? Did I? Did anyone else?

 

[The Rabbi]

I liked the other guys explanation better, Rabbi.

However, let me ask you both this question... Is that what you feel is happening now? The decline of the Middle Class, and the further impoverishment of our working poor has NOTHING to do with the huge gains that the rich has received?

Your question is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that people are poorer. That is not so. Every class has experienced an increase in income. The wealthiest have experienced the highest rate. That is probably because their skill set is more in demand in a global economy than a machine operator's.

 

[rightwinger]

I liked the other guys explanation better, Rabbi.

However, let me ask you both this question... Is that what you feel is happening now? The decline of the Middle Class, and the further impoverishment of our working poor has NOTHING to do with the huge gains that the rich has received?

Your question is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that people are poorer. That is not so. Every class has experienced an increase in income. The wealthiest have experienced the highest rate. That is probably because their skill set is more in demand in a global economy than a machine operator's.

Sure they did....They EARNED it


Paying off all those lobbyists costs money

 

[oracle]

I said Obama because the country really didn't need a third Bush term. Many liberals here claim Obama saved the country yet it is still going downhill when you look at the country without the partisan blinders. The fact that Obama plans on spending over a billion to get re elected is also dangerous, now he is out of the closet about being the absolute most bought politician in history and yet still some cheer him on.

Over this last year I admit that I have seen an “awakening” on these boards from many on the left about just how bad of a President Obama is.

The stimulus is great if you don’t compare it to anything (get that, anything) that it claimed it would do at the start.

I would say FDR was the worst tho.

That's fake non-partisanship at best. Your agenda is transparent.