Is president Bush the worst US president ever?

[Malky]

The reason is probably FDR's social programs ( ).

I agree, getting us out of the Great Depression and furthering the advancement of civil rights and blacks in the United States was the biggest mistake any President could ever make.

 

[Pajari]

The reason is probably FDR's social programs ( ).

I agree, getting us out of the Great Depression and furthering the advancement of civil rights and blacks in the United States was the biggest mistake any President could ever make.

Not sure if you're criticizing me or him, but that's exactly what I was saying. If you got it, then my bad.

Also, as far as civil rights, 9066 anyone? The greatest human rights abuse in US history?

 

[Malky]

The reason is probably FDR's social programs ( ).

I agree, getting us out of the Great Depression and furthering the advancement of civil rights and blacks in the United States was the biggest mistake any President could ever make.

Not sure if you're criticizing me or him, but that's exactly what I was saying. If you got it, then my bad.

Oh, my bad dude. I thought you were agreeing with him, not just pointing out what you thought he meant.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

I actually think FDR and Wilson were worse presidents, personally. I can't decide who the worst EVER is, but those are the top three.

FDR? How did you come to that opinion?

FDR didn't lead the US to victory. It was basically inevitable and I've never seen in history any grand decisions that he personally made that change that fact. In fact, most of his economic decisions were absolutely deplorable. In my opinion he left this country a lot worse off after he was done.

Or even Wilson for that matter? I am a bit surprised as FDR did get reelected three times and led the country through depression and war.

Bush... for many many reasons.

Wilson... He was a liar and a hypocrite. He wanted Britian to win the war and did everything he could to further that agenda. He did his utmost to ensure that the US would enter the war in order to secure a seat for him at the bargaining table to propagate his ideals. WWI had nothing to do with the United States and I have nothing but contempt for this man who insisted on our entry, against popular opinion, and was as provocative to the Central Powers as he could be in order to ensure it.

 

[Pajari]

FDR didn't lead the US to victory. It was basically inevitable and I've never seen in history any grand decisions that he personally made that change that fact. In fact, most of his economic decisions were absolutely deplorable. In my opinion he left this country a lot worse off after he was done.

Well, that's not really true. Unemployment plunged, the GDP skyrocketed to its highest level in history (and would remain unchallenged for ~20 years, if I remember correctly), and the savings people generated under FDR led directly to the prosperity of the 50's.

As for the inevitable victory of the Allies, that's a fallacy. Hitler could have defeated Russia in 1941 or early 1942 if he had played his cards right, and who's to say that, if his scatterbrained strategy for the Luftwaffe over England hadn't undermined his mission, he couldn't have invaded England and denied America the convenient stepping stone into Festung Europa.

Wilson... He was a liar and a hypocrite. He wanted Britian to win the war and did everything he could to further that agenda. He did his utmost to ensure that the US would enter the war in order to secure a seat for him at the bargaining table to propagate his ideals. WWI had nothing to do with the United States and I have nothing but contempt for this man who insisted on our entry, against popular opinion, and was as provocative to the Central Powers as he could be in order to ensure it.

He entered the war to further his agenda of national self-determination, democracy, and the establishment of the League of Nations? What a bastard. Wilson was a visionary who was far ahead of his time, and he had the balls to make an unpopular decision to check Germany's aggressiveness and keep the balance of power on the Continent. And, if he truly had had his way at Versailles, he could have easily prevented WW2 by making the Versailles treaty less harsh.

 

[Bradylama]

And here I figured he would've pegged Wilson for being a racist.

Saying Roosevelt got us out of the depression is a little unrealistic, unless you think that Roosevelt's positioning us into a war and a war economy credits him with ending the depression.

Roosevelt's economic policies really were awful, and the only end to the Depression he brought came in the form of people's imaginations brought on by his charming little fireside chats.

I would say that the massive development of industry created by the war economy, the increased savings generated by limited access to consumables, and the generation of demand for previously inaccessible markets at the end of the war is what honestly got us out of the Great Depression.

Ultimately, I suppose the greatest legacy of the New Deal is that it created a safer economy as opposed to a better one.

If we were coasting on his domestic policies alone, then Roosevelt would look pretty awful, but one bad apple doesn't ruin a bunch, and Roosevelt's progressive foreign policy is ultimately what keeps him from being an awful president by any means.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Well, that's not really true. Unemployment plunged, the GDP skyrocketed to its highest level in history (and would remain unchallenged for ~20 years, if I remember correctly), and the savings people generated under FDR led directly to the prosperity of the 50's.

You mean the government employment of the New Deal somehow created private sector jobs? Please, show me how. He was also the progenitor of massive unchecked government spending.

As for the inevitable victory of the Allies, that's a fallacy. Hitler could have defeated Russia in 1941 or early 1942 if he had played his cards right, and who's to say that, if his scatterbrained strategy for the Luftwaffe over England hadn't undermined his mission, he couldn't have invaded England and denied America the convenient stepping stone into Festung Europa.

On the contrary. The Wehrmacht was already bled white by 1942, and historians widely agree that the turning point of the war (Alamein and Stalingrad) was '42. Even IF Hitler somehow defeated the Russians, would he not have to pursue them to at least the Urals to clear his rear flank? And he'd still have to account for an Anglo-American landing somewhere in his rear.

This is also not a discussion of what might have been. This is a discussion of what WAS, and what decisions were made by FDR's leadership that were significant to the war. I contend that there were few to none.

He entered the war to further his agenda of national self-determination, democracy, and the establishment of the League of Nations?

Does this change his duplicity? Does this forgive entering a nation into a war that did not involve it until that point?

What a bastard.

Yeah, I know.

Wilson was a visionary who was far ahead of his time, and he had the balls to make an unpopular decision to check Germany's aggressiveness and keep the balance of power on the Continent.

It wasn't his decision to make. He did everything he could to further the chances of ENTERING the war, which he was told specifically NOT TO DO by Congress. Read about it.

And, if he truly had had his way at Versailles, he could have easily prevented WW2 by making the Versailles treaty less harsh.

Ha. Read some more history and then come back. He was so bent on getting what he could out of it that he threw Germany to the wolves.

 

[Dabeav]

Yeah, both Bushs are down near the bottom of the pile. And how was Kennedy bad? Well, I guess it's all opinion thrown around here.

Besides the Bushs, here's some of my worst US presidents:

Lincoln: a warmonger, brought the first non-backed currency to the US (greenbacks), a false hero that a better man could've solved the differences in the civil war peacefully.

Wilson: Brought us the Federal Reserve, essentially selling out the U.S. and monopolizing currency, and leads us into a spiral of inflation. Also brought us the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which stripped rights like the PATRIOT Act does today. Finally, "passed" the 16th Amendment, which is still debated whether it was really passed or not, that imposed the income tax on us and forces 10-30% of out paychecks go to shit we don't use or don't like, whether we like it or not.

FDR: FDR served more terms than he should have, growing the government by leaps and bounds with his alphabet soup institutions, confiscated citizens' gold, slashed veteran's benefits while spending, spending, spending until an enemy came forth and a war-time economy turned us around, no thanks to this asshole's tenure.

 

[Montez]

Lincoln: a warmonger, brought the first non-backed currency to the US (greenbacks), a false hero that a better man could've solved the differences in the civil war peacefully.

Ha, are you serious? Give me an even slightly credible way in which it could have been solved peacefully with any desirable outcome.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Ha, are you serious? Give me an even slightly credible way in which it could have been solved peacefully with any desirable outcome.

I'll agree with that. Was he supposed to ask nicely?

 

[Corith]

"W" has done more damage to this country than any other president. In fact, he has done so much to ruin America, that it may never recover.

 

[John Uskglass]

"W" has done more damage to this country than any other president. In fact, he has done so much to ruin America, that it may never recover.

Are you American?

 

[Pajari]

You mean the government employment of the New Deal somehow created private sector jobs? Please, show me how. He was also the progenitor of massive unchecked government spending.

The government employment pumped billions into the economy, and that money fueled the development of jobs in the civilian sector (and, of course, gov't spending went into materials and equipment, which rejuvenated industry) And Keynes was the progenitor of deficit spending, and he advocated it to soften the blow of future economic downturns. Like it or not, it's because of Keynes and FDR's legacy that we haven't suffered as badly from subsequent economic downturns.

On the contrary. The Wehrmacht was already bled white by 1942, and historians widely agree that the turning point of the war (Alamein and Stalingrad) was '42. Even IF Hitler somehow defeated the Russians, would he not have to pursue them to at least the Urals to clear his rear flank? And he'd still have to account for an Anglo-American landing somewhere in his rear.

Hitler could have won in 1941, and he made his mistakes in Russia during that year, so I'll agree that the Wehrmacht was bled white in 1942 (the Red Army was barely coherent by that time, though). It's also irrelevant, because if Hitler had taken the oil fields or Moscow, he could have dealt the Soviets a crippling blow that they probably couldn't have recovered from.

Does this change his duplicity? Does this forgive entering a nation into a war that did not involve it until that point?

I'd argue that the Zimmerman telegram, u-boat warfare, and the fact that England and France were already strong allies is an excellent reason to go to war, wether the Kaiser was firing at us or not. Technically, England didn't have to go to war either.

It wasn't his decision to make. He did everything he could to further the chances of ENTERING the war, which he was told specifically NOT TO DO by Congress. Read about it.

Since when is Congress a paragon or reason and morality? They've been isolationist and reactionary for nearly the entire existence of the republic, and I hardly think they were doing the right thing by choosing to abandon England and France. Just because Congress says so doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Ha. Read some more history and then come back.

Alright dude. Thanks for the compelling argument.

He was so bent on getting what he could out of it that he threw Germany to the wolves.

Wilson's Fourteen Points would have forced Germany to give up Alsace-Lorraine, and that's it. The French and British took their pound of flesh and Wilson went along with it because he couldn't really blame them and also because he couldn't get the League without it.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

The government employment pumped billions into the economy, and that money fueled the development of jobs in the civilian sector (and, of course, gov't spending went into materials and equipment, which rejuvenated industry) And Keynes was the progenitor of deficit spending, and he advocated it to soften the blow of future economic downturns. Like it or not, it's because of Keynes and FDR's legacy that we haven't suffered as badly from subsequent economic downturns.

You've just demonstrated a failure to grasp basic economic theory. The government spent taxpayer money to employ individuals in public works projects that had no direct benefit to the economy (with a few exceptions). The only goal was to provide employment, and since that is government employment, it is effectively throwing money away. It is easily demonstrated that the impetus of rearmament, not the New Deal, was the kickstart to the American economic depression.

I won't argue with Keynes in any particulars. I just don't particularly agree that deficit spending is a wise system. Associsating FDR with Keynes, however, is a bit presumptuous. If I remember correctly, it was Hitler that more closely followed that economic model.

Hitler could have won in 1941, and he made his mistakes in Russia during that year, so I'll agree that the Wehrmacht was bled white in 1942 (the Red Army was barely coherent by that time, though). It's also irrelevant, because if Hitler had taken the oil fields or Moscow, he could have dealt the Soviets a crippling blow that they probably couldn't have recovered from.

He could not have won in '41. You are speaking from a perspective that says that SOMEHOW the Red Army would have collapsed without Moscow. He was NOWHERE NEAR Baku or Maikop in '41, and no operational plan could have possibly taken the Wehrmacht there in the first year of Operation Barbarossa.

I'd argue that the Zimmerman telegram, u-boat warfare, and the fact that England and France were already strong allies is an excellent reason to go to war, wether the Kaiser was firing at us or not. Technically, England didn't have to go to war either.

The public sympathised with France and Britain. That's all I will give to that argument. The INSANE demands of Wilson that Americans could have uninterrupted use of the waters of a DECLARED WAR ZONE was the first cause of any U Boat related outrages. Congress asked him to make an announcement warning Americans to travel only at their own risk in the North Sea and other areas at war. Wilson refused. He desired events that would drive public opinion away from neutrality, and did everything he could to further it. The Zimmerman telegram was rejected by Mexico, in case you didn't know, by the way. And it was a proposal for a defensive alliance, not an attempt to have Mexico declare war on the United States preemptively. Any nation would have undertaken attempts to safeguard their security. And of course, no forgetting that we had no alliances or treaties that in any way bound us to England or France.

Since when is Congress a paragon or reason and morality? They've been isolationist and reactionary for nearly the entire existence of the republic, and I hardly think they were doing the right thing by choosing to abandon England and France. Just because Congress says so doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

So who determines morality for the Republic? We don't have censors in the US (in the Roman sense of the word) and no one to govern our public mores.

By the way, speaking from a contemporary perspective to argue against the decisions made by a duly elected body over 80 years ago is really quite foolish. You are also suggesting a rather tired argument, that the President is somehow able to contravene dictates by the legislative body that he happens to personally disagree with. Neither of them hold any water. Try again.

Alright dude. Thanks for the compelling argument.

I said you're wrong. Need me to spell it? As I said, read some history, cogitate it and then talk about it.

Wilson's Fourteen Points would have forced Germany to give up Alsace-Lorraine, and that's it. The French and British took their pound of flesh and Wilson went along with it because he couldn't really blame them and also because he couldn't get the League without it.

You just agreed with me right there. And it doesn't matter if he "couldn't really blame them" he STILL threw Germany to the wolves for his precious league. And the result? WWII.

 

[welsh]

Aspects of this thread have gotten so silly that I am not going to get into it although strangely enough I think Pajari is correct. One need only look at what existed prior to the New Deal to see how significant it was in changing the nature of society.

Personally I have always thought the Zimmerman Telegram was a big fraud done by the British to draw the US into the war. It just strikes me as awfully foolish for Germany to make such a silly plot.

Wilson got reelected on a promise that he would not take the US to war. A few months later we were in it.

But its a good thing we did. By 1917 the French and Brits were in trouble and Britian was near bankruptcy. Without the US I doubt those countries would have won the war.

 

[Carib FMJ]

Bush isn't an evil man... He just isn't bright and I think there are other peoples interests that seem to matter then that of the American people.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Aspects of this thread have gotten so silly that I am not going to get into it although strangely enough I think Pajari is correct. One need only look at what existed prior to the New Deal to see how significant it was in changing the nature of society.

Oh it changed the nature of society. I just don't think it changed it to anything particularly good for the country.

Personally I have always thought the Zimmerman Telegram was a big fraud done by the British to draw the US into the war. It just strikes me as awfully foolish for Germany to make such a silly plot.

It wasn't. The German Foreign Minister, incredibly, confirmed that it was real. He also explained his reasons for sending it, but they didn't much care about that. The fact that the British intercepted it over what was supposed to be a secure diplomatic line is what I find somewhat outrageous.

Wilson got reelected on a promise that he would not take the US to war. A few months later we were in it.

But its a good thing we did. By 1917 the French and Brits were in trouble and Britian was near bankruptcy. Without the US I doubt those countries would have won the war.

They almost certainly would have stalemated after a few more years and signed a peace treaty. Neither side had the morale in the army or the numbers to achieve a total victory. If this had happened, no WWII could have taken place. Who knows how history would have changed? Could have been for the positive.

 

[Sander]

They almost certainly would have stalemated after a few more years and signed a peace treaty. Neither side had the morale in the army or the numbers to achieve a total victory. If this had happened, no WWII could have taken place. Who knows how history would have changed? Could have been for the positive.

Could've, should've, would've, useless speculation. World War 2 was an unforeseen consequence of the heavy penalty put on Germany. Interestingly, though, the USA never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, nor did they support it, so as such, the USA can't be blamed for it. Wilson had a hand in shaping the Treaty, but from what I know his involvement went along the lines of the Fourteen Points Adress, which does not involve punishing Germany to the extent that the Treaty did.

And a stalemate after a few years? No one wanted that war to go on for long. By the end, there were 15 million dead, more than in any war before that and it was devastating. If the war had gone on for longer, there would've been many more deaths.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

And a stalemate after a few years? No one wanted that war to go on for long. By the end, there were 15 million dead, more than in any war before that and it was devastating. If the war had gone on for longer, there would've been many more deaths.

Even ten milliomn more deaths, for a total of 25 million, is still better than the 50 million that would lose their lives a generation later. Victory failed to teach the lesson that a stalemate would have: An uneasy peace is preferable to total war.

 

[Pajari]

You've just demonstrated a failure to grasp basic economic theory. The government spent taxpayer money to employ individuals in public works projects that had no direct benefit to the economy (with a few exceptions). The only goal was to provide employment, and since that is government employment, it is effectively throwing money away. It is easily demonstrated that the impetus of rearmament, not the New Deal, was the kickstart to the American economic depression.

What basic economic theory are you talking about? The theory that increased government spending not only increases GDP directly but leads to higher growth in the private sector thanks to the goods and services the government buys? Also, many of the projects had a direct and appreciable benefit to the economy- the TVA, for instance, and the various hydroelectric dam projects and road systems in the West. The western United States got its first real economic boom from FDR's programs, and you can blame him for the unprecedented growth that section of the nation has experienced. It wasn't money "thrown away", especially when you consider that it kickstarted the economy.

He could not have won in '41. You are speaking from a perspective that says that SOMEHOW the Red Army would have collapsed without Moscow. He was NOWHERE NEAR Baku or Maikop in '41, and no operational plan could have possibly taken the Wehrmacht there in the first year of Operation Barbarossa.

First of all, you could argue that the Red Army pretty much did collapse in the opening months of Barbarossa.

The entire railroad transport system (the only way to move goods and troops in all weather conditions) was centered on Moscow, so it wasn't so much as a symbolic city as a vital transport hub. Without it, reinforcements and supplies wouldn't have been able to move quickly, if at all. And the Germans would have easily reached the oil fields within a year if Hitler hadn't frittered away his divisions and victories across a thousand-mile front instead of concentrating them on one sector and actually getting something back.

The public sympathised with France and Britain. That's all I will give to that argument. The INSANE demands of Wilson that Americans could have uninterrupted use of the waters of a DECLARED WAR ZONE was the first cause of any U Boat related outrages. Congress asked him to make an announcement warning Americans to travel only at their own risk in the North Sea and other areas at war. Wilson refused. He desired events that would drive public opinion away from neutrality, and did everything he could to further it. The Zimmerman telegram was rejected by Mexico, in case you didn't know, by the way. And it was a proposal for a defensive alliance, not an attempt to have Mexico declare war on the United States preemptively. Any nation would have undertaken attempts to safeguard their security. And of course, no forgetting that we had no alliances or treaties that in any way bound us to England or France.

Of course the Mexicans rejected it. They didn't want war with the US. Also, a defensive alliance at that point was patently a proposal for a mutual attack, since Mexico otherwise didn't have any reason to fear a US invasion. Also, the fact that we didn't have agreements with England and France is irrelevant. They were still our allies and our best trading partners, and we'd have been extremely shortshighted and self-centered to simply leave them to the wolves.

So who determines morality for the Republic? We don't have censors in the US (in the Roman sense of the word) and no one to govern our public mores.

Exactly. So nobody is right or correct in this situation, including Congress. So why say that Wilson was wrong because Congress said so?

By the way, speaking from a contemporary perspective to argue against the decisions made by a duly elected body over 80 years ago is really quite foolish. You are also suggesting a rather tired argument, that the President is somehow able to contravene dictates by the legislative body that he happens to personally disagree with. Neither of them hold any water. Try again.

By the way, you did the exact same thing when you critized a duly elected president who held office 80 years ago. Also, the president can "contravene dictates" by Congress in the realm of foreign policy, because that's become his unoffical domain. And it's a tired argument to say that he can't, because he has, dozens and dozens of times.

Also, cut the "try again" and "read history" bullshit. We're not here to look down our noses at other people or wag our supposedly huge intellectual wangs all over the place.

You just agreed with me right there. And it doesn't matter if he "couldn't really blame them" he STILL threw Germany to the wolves for his precious league. And the result? WWII.

No, I didn't agree with you. I said he didn't want to do it but he was powerless to stop it and let anything good come of the situtation.