PDA

View Full Version : Grade every president since FDR


The_Joker
05-16-2013, 07:01 PM
Harry Truman: B+ (An extension of the awesome FDR)
Dwight Eisenhower: B (A Republican who actually balanced the deficit? AND built roads! Get out!)
JFK: B (He had good ideas before he got shot... other than the Bay of Pigs)
LBJ: C (Vietnam was horrible, but he was a decent economist who continued JFK's ideas.)
Nixon: C (He actually was a good diplomat, but a so-so economist. Also, watergate shattered trust in Washington)
Gerald Ford: D (Bleh. Beggining of the end for the elephants)
Jimmy Carter: D+ (Awesome diplomat. Sucky... well everything else)
Reagan: C- (Spent too much, too fast.)
HW: C (Broke his tax promise, but it was for the greater good. Also finished his wars quick unlike his son.)
Clinton: B+ (Awesome economist and diplomat when he wasn't sticking his pee pee in his assistents and banning guns)
W: F (Fucked all our shit up. Enough said)
Obama: C (When he's not banning guns or bowing to Mansanto, he has good ideas that just don't get past Congress)

Vis
05-16-2013, 07:07 PM
I for incomplete. Every one of them

SteelCityMom
05-16-2013, 08:31 PM
I wanna know the rationale behind giving Bush II an F and Obama a C, when Obama has done nothing but expand on Bush II policies. (I am not standing up for Bush II by the way...I would just give both him and Obama big fat F's.)

FDR was a TERRIBLE president. Not only did he not stop the Great Depression...he extended it. FDR didn't end the depression...war did. Read FDR's Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Let's also not forget that he decided it was prudent to put Americans in internment camps. And there's always the looming question of whether or not he knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand. FDR gets a big "F you" from me. Thanks for the nanny state politics.

Truman will forever = atomic bombs. Period.

The rest basically get a "meh" from me. They're politicians, what do you expect. Even Lincoln was a shit president when you do enough digging. I just hate in particular the love fest for FDR.

The_Joker
05-16-2013, 08:52 PM
I wanna know the rationale behind giving Bush II an F and Obama a C, when Obama has done nothing but expand on Bush II policies. (I am not standing up for Bush II by the way...I would just give both him and Obama big fat F's.)

FDR was a TERRIBLE president. Not only did he not stop the Great Depression...he extended it. FDR didn't end the depression...war did. Read FDR's Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Let's also not forget that he decided it was prudent to put Americans in internment camps. And there's always the looming question of whether or not he knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand. FDR gets a big "F you" from me. Thanks for the nanny state politics.

Truman will forever = atomic bombs. Period.

The rest basically get a "meh" from me. They're politicians, what do you expect. Even Lincoln was a shit president when you do enough digging. I just hate in particular the love fest for FDR.

1. Obama has done less stupid shit, so he gets a half decent grade. And no, he's only continued some of Bush 2's stuff.

2. Geez, you read a book. Your statement must be true.

SteelCityMom
05-16-2013, 08:57 PM
1. Obama has done less stupid shit, so he gets a half decent grade. And no, he's only continued some of Bush 2's stuff.

2. Geez, you read a book. Your statement must be true.

I've read a lot of books. Don't dismiss it until you actually research the topic beyond your poorly written history book.

Less stupid shit??? :sofunny: Suuuuure. I guess expanding the Patriot Act, Drone warfare, and more wars than you can shake a finger at is 'less stupid shit'. That's not even getting into the economic side of it. They are/were both shit presidents. Nothing but corporate puppets.

harrison'samonster
05-16-2013, 09:02 PM
FDR was a great President, especially compared to the worthless trash that was in office leading up to and during the beginning of the Depression. As far as I understood, he knew that Japan had plans to attack the US, and I would assume the leaders of the military knew it as well. They just underestimated the strength Japan would use.

Truman is always going to be blamed for the bomb, but if we had to invade Japan, we estimated that our casualties would have been over 1 million. He wasn't qaulified to make that decision.

LBJ gets a bad rap for Vietnam, but that had a a lot to do with existing US policies and I believe the French are more to blame for our involvement in Vietnam -- but he was pretty good. Eisenhower was good as well. People dislike Nixon but he was pretty good in a lot of ways.

Ford I'm not too familiar with. Carter was great. Reagan I really dislike. the First Bush is a great man, disagree with him on some stuff, but he was a pretty good President.

Clinton was great in some ways, but overall average as President. Bush II I dislike a lot. Obama I'm still not too happy with, but in my opinion he isn't bad.

SteelCityMom
05-16-2013, 09:27 PM
FDR and Wallace were also convinced that falling prices were slowing economic recovery. Their solution? Order the destruction of "excess" livestock, food crops, cotton and pretty much anything else American farmers produced, thereby succeeding in raising prices on food and clothing at a time when a great many people were underfed and wearing rags.

Also note that the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) did not help in recovery in any way and left up to 2 million sharecroppers and farm laborers unemployed and the rest of the nation a little bit poorer and hungrier.

After the Supreme Court struck down the AAA and several other New Deal programs as unconstitutional, FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in a move that would have allowed him, via age discrimination, to immediately appoint 6 new justices and expand the size of the Court to 15. (this failed)

FDR also refused to integrate the military (Truman did it in '48), provoked his way into WWII and, despite poor performance, maintained strong popular support by scapegoating his predecessor (sound familiar?).

The unemployment rate for non-agricultural (urban) workers under FDR never dropped below 20% (the overall rate actually rose after Phase II) and there really is a good deal of evidence that the New Deal only served to prolong the Depression by 5-7 years.

He could have saved millions of Jews during the holocaust, by allowing more than 20k children in (though not all were allowed in anyway) or just simply bombing the tracks to Aushwitz.

harrison'samonster
05-16-2013, 09:34 PM
I agree that WWII ended the depression and not FDR. And I've also always been glad his attempt to take over the Judicial Branch failed. That would have destroyed the consitution.

he could have saved millions of Jews? Superman could have, not the President of the United States.

SteelCityMom
05-16-2013, 09:51 PM
I agree that WWII ended the depression and not FDR. And I've also always been glad his attempt to take over the Judicial Branch failed. That would have destroyed the consitution.

he could have saved millions of Jews? Superman could have, not the President of the United States.

To be fair, it wasn't just FDR that did this...but he did take part in refusing asylum to Jewish refugees. They also failed to give orders to bomb the railways leading into Auschwitz (after being pleaded to by the Union of Orthodox Rabbi's of the United States and Canada as news of mass deportations of Hungarian Jews began to reach the States.

Former U.S. Senator George McGovern piloted a B-24 Liberator in December 1944, and his squadron bombed Nazi oil facilities less than five miles from Auschwitz. In 2005, he said “There is no question we should have attempted ... to go after Auschwitz. There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the Earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens.”

Some argue that the reason they didn't do it was because they figured the Nazi's would just shoot the Jews instead of sending them to camps...but there was never a good enough reason not to if you ask me. Couple that with the unwillingness to give asylum, and the internment of US citizens, and FDR becomes just another good orator.

SteelCityMom
05-16-2013, 09:53 PM
They all have their skeletons to answer for though. Except Carter...Carter was basically too inept to do anything really wrong. :chuckle:

harrison'samonster
05-16-2013, 10:02 PM
They all have their skeletons to answer for though. Except Carter...Carter was basically too inept to do anything really wrong. :chuckle:

NOOOOOOO! Not Carter! he's my hero. :chuckle:

You make a great point though, they're all career politicians, none of them is perfect and none are in reality what we would like them to have been. Except Teddy Roosevelt and John Adams. They would have made a great wrestling tag-team. undefeated champions of the ring they would have been.

SteelCityMom
05-16-2013, 10:13 PM
Even Teddy has his hate crew...but few are manly enough to come forward and say why. :chuckle: All in all they are minor, as he became a bit too progressive (pushed hard for federal income tax)...but his goods far outweighed his bads.

Didn't mean to focus on FDR so much, but the basis of the thread seemed to be giving grades based on FDR's performance, and so therefore his policies need mentioning as well. I find much of what he did to be deplorable to be honest.

harrison'samonster
05-16-2013, 10:17 PM
Teddy Roosevelt was the James Harrison of US Presidents for sure.

EDIT: Sadly I should edit that now that he's with Cincy. I'd have to say Teddy Roosevelt was the Mean Joe Greene of US Presidents

Atlanta Dan
05-16-2013, 10:32 PM
Teddy Roosevelt was the James Harrison of US Presidents for sure.

EDIT: Sadly I should edit that now that he's with Cincy. I'd have to say Teddy Roosevelt was the Mean Joe Greene of US Presidents

George Will disagrees - Wilson and TR are the serpent-presidents in the Garden of American Democracy for some on the right

Time was, progressives like the president 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson, had the virtue of candor: He explicitly rejected the Founders’ fears of government. Modern enlightenment, he said, made it safe to concentrate power in Washington, and especially in disinterested executive branch agencies run by autonomous, high-minded experts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-irs-scandal-carries-echoes-of-watergate/2013/05/13/78f03660-bbf1-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

John McCain, like many Americans who should know better, extravagantly praises Theodore Roosevelt. He is a kindred spirit of the impulsive Rough Rider, but the visceral McCain is rescued from some of TR's excesses by not having TR's overflowing cupboard of ideas.

In "Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness," Joshua David Hawley, 28, a former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, demonstrates that TR, far from being, in Henry Adams's acerbic description, "pure act," was a man of many complex ideas. Some were admirable; many were repellent....

This dark vision of progress through strife made him advocate concentrated national power to serve his agenda, which was radically more ambitious than the Founders' vision of limited government maintaining order, protecting property and otherwise staying out of the way of individual striving.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-10-05/opinions/36789780_1_region-of-mass-effects-saddle-of-collective-purposes-tr-mood

MasterOfPuppets
05-17-2013, 01:25 AM
I've read a lot of books. Don't dismiss it until you actually research the topic beyond your poorly written history book.

Less stupid shit??? :sofunny: Suuuuure. I guess expanding the Patriot Act, Drone warfare, and more wars than you can shake a finger at is 'less stupid shit'. That's not even getting into the economic side of it. They are/were both shit presidents. Nothing but corporate puppets.
your arguing with a person who isn't even old enough to vote ....

2. Geez, you read a book. Your statement must be true.
quack what exactly are you basing your grades on ? what you've read ?

quack what were you , like 3 when bush2 was first elected ? :coffee:

Vis
05-17-2013, 04:50 AM
Didn't mean to focus on FDR so much, but the basis of the thread seemed to be giving grades based on FDR's performance, and so therefore his policies need mentioning as well. I find much of what he did to be deplorable to be honest.

The Securites and Exchange Commission,

The FDIC,

Social Security

Tennessee Valley Authority

The Public Works Assoc

Ended child labor

Indian Reorganization act

Repealed Prohibition

He propped up Britain in WWII before we entered



Which of these things would you want never to have happened? Then we'll get into the consequences.

Vis
05-17-2013, 05:02 AM
FDR was a TERRIBLE president. Not only did he not stop the Great Depression...he extended it. FDR didn't end the depression...war did. Read FDR's Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Let's also not forget that he decided it was prudent to put Americans in internment camps. And there's always the looming question of whether or not he knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand. FDR gets a big "F you" from me. Thanks for the nanny state politics.
.

You're relying on Jim Powell, that Cato guy who would have us a loose confederation of strong states. Sounds good to people until one considers that it would have prevented the superpower thing in America. And it would have not prevented it in the USSR so they would have been unchecked. Without the FDR transformation of the federal government, the road project of Ike and the space program of Kennedy could not have happened.

Add to that the shanty towns that would exist even in good times because we would allow them to exist. We'd be like Mexico in that regard. Is that a better picture for this country?

The_Joker
05-17-2013, 05:52 AM
Even Teddy has his hate crew...but few are manly enough to come forward and say why. :chuckle: All in all they are minor, as he became a bit too progressive (pushed hard for federal income tax)...but his goods far outweighed his bads.

Didn't mean to focus on FDR so much, but the basis of the thread seemed to be giving grades based on FDR's performance, and so therefore his policies need mentioning as well. I find much of what he did to be deplorable to be honest.

No, the basis of this thread is to grade all presidents since 1945.

Only one person has done that.

Vis
05-17-2013, 07:59 AM
I'm jumping back in support of FRD an A+ President to post the text of Executive Order 8802. Imagine if Wendell Willkie were President instead...


Executive Order 8802

Reaffirming Policy Of Full Participation In The Defense Program By All Persons, Regardless Of Race, Creed, Color, Or National Origin, And Directing Certain Action In Furtherance Of Said Policy

June 25, 1941

WHEREAS it is the policy of the United States to encourage full participation in the national defense program by all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin, in the firm belief that the democratic way of life within the Nation can be defended successfully only with the help and support of all groups within its borders; and

WHEREAS there is evidence that available and needed workers have been barred from employment in industries engaged in defense production solely because of considerations of race, creed, color, or national origin, to the detriment of workers' morale and of national unity:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes, and as a prerequisite to the successful conduct of our national defense production effort, I do hereby reaffirm the policy of the United States that there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and I do hereby declare that it is the duty of employers and of labor organizations, in furtherance of said policy and of this order, to provide for the full and equitable participation of all workers in defense industries, without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

And it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. All departments and agencies of the Government of the United States concerned with vocational and training programs for defense production shall take special measures appropriate to assure that such programs are administered without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

2. All contracting agencies of the Government of the United States shall include in all defense contracts hereafter negotiated by them a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

3. There is established in the Office of Production Management a Committee on Fair Employment Practice, which shall consist of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by the President. The Chairman and members of the Committee shall serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to actual and necessary transportation, subsistence and other expenses incidental to performance of their duties. The Committee shall receive and investigate complaints of discrimination in violation of the provisions of this order and shall take appropriate steps to redress grievances which it finds to be valid. The Committee shall also recommend to the several departments and agencies of the Government of the United States and to the President all measures which may be deemed by it necessary or proper to effectuate the provisions of this order.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
The White House,
June 25, 1941.

SteelCityMom
05-17-2013, 09:59 AM
You're relying on Jim Powell, that Cato guy who would have us a loose confederation of strong states. Sounds good to people until one considers that it would have prevented the superpower thing in America. And it would have not prevented it in the USSR so they would have been unchecked. Without the FDR transformation of the federal government, the road project of Ike and the space program of Kennedy could not have happened.

Add to that the shanty towns that would exist even in good times because we would allow them to exist. We'd be like Mexico in that regard. Is that a better picture for this country?

I'm not solely relying on Powell. Just because I listed the name of one book, doesn't mean that's my only source.

We never needed to be THE superpower on Earth (plenty of other countries don't need that). We just needed a military that would be ready to defend itself.

What is your basis that without the near dictatorship of FDR, that none of what you mentioned wouldn't have (or would have in the case of shanty towns) happened without FDR? Why the hate for the free market deciding?

FDR was the pioneer of presidential abuses, and the Supreme Court (which he tried to pack) agreed.

SteelCityMom
05-17-2013, 10:04 AM
I am just not down with the whole idea that the federal gov't should be so domineering. That's what it boils down to for me.

Vis
05-17-2013, 10:15 AM
I'm not solely relying on Powell. Just because I listed the name of one book, doesn't mean that's my only source.

We never needed to be THE superpower on Earth (plenty of other countries don't need that). We just needed a military that would be ready to defend itself.

What is your basis that without the near dictatorship of FDR, that none of what you mentioned wouldn't have (or would have in the case of shanty towns) happened without FDR? Why the hate for the free market deciding?

FDR was the pioneer of presidential abuses, and the Supreme Court (which he tried to pack) agreed.


Is that how you feel now about the military? Should we be isolationists again?

Would the USSR have stopped growing and then collapsed without the US as a superpower? There's no reason to think it would have.

FDR created the safety net. Every modern country has one. Many impoverished developing countries have one. They are invaluable despite the propaganda against them.

FDR created the country into which you were born. There were 3 stages, the founding, Lincoln's stand and FDR's strengthening of the federal gov't. Without it we would be a nothing country. Some other country would have all the scientific discoveries and the resulting technological lead (which we are losing as we go backwards on science thanks to the GOP)

And yes, some of the changes were forced on the country by his bully pulpit but those changes are what made us great. That's why all western democracies followed (and improved on) his changes.

Whatever your other sources, I guarantee they are from arch conservatives who just want to pick at his record. They never deal with all the things we take for granted which would never have happened without the strong federal structure in place.

Vis
05-17-2013, 10:32 AM
Now that we've staked out the two extremes on FDR, let's talk Billy Beer.

Buddha Bus
05-17-2013, 11:11 AM
Now that we've staked out the two extremes on FDR, let's talk Billy Beer.

I, for one, am of the mind that it does in fact taste as advertised.... exactly like yeasty liquid goat.

Vis
05-17-2013, 11:19 AM
I, for one, am of the mind that it does in fact taste as advertised.... exactly like yeasty liquid goat.

http://www.rustycans.com/Graphics/A-B/Billy.GIF

SteelCityMom
05-17-2013, 11:21 AM
Is that how you feel now about the military? Should we be isolationists again?

Would the USSR have stopped growing and then collapsed without the US as a superpower? There's no reason to think it would have.

FDR created the safety net. Every modern country has one. Many impoverished developing countries have one. They are invaluable despite the propaganda against them.

FDR created the country into which you were born. There were 3 stages, the founding, Lincoln's stand and FDR's strengthening of the federal gov't. Without it we would be a nothing country. Some other country would have all the scientific discoveries and the resulting technological lead (which we are losing as we go backwards on science thanks to the GOP)

And yes, some of the changes were forced on the country by his bully pulpit but those changes are what made us great. That's why all western democracies followed (and improved on) his changes.

Whatever your other sources, I guarantee they are from arch conservatives who just want to pick at his record. They never deal with all the things we take for granted which would never have happened without the strong federal structure in place.

Nowhere in my statements did I even allude to wanting to be isolationist. I would even wager to say that I didn't like how isolationist FDR was lol. He only entered into the war because of attacks on the US (Neutrality Acts), and then proceeded to imprison US citizens and deny asylum. Not very noble. The war machine also coincides with the end of the depression. I am against overextending our military. All we need is a strong military that is able to defend itself, and I suppose I should have added is able to help others in times of major atrocity (NOT trying to change their forms of government).

Would the USSR have collapsed or expanded? I don't know. We aren't doing the most bang up job of being a world superpower though, so there's no reason to explain why we HAD to go that route.

I don't see big government as anything great.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/fdr-s-policies-prolonged-depression-5409.aspx

We basically just have different political opinions. You don't like the ones from small government conservatives, and I don't like the ones from big government liberals. The difference however arises when teaching people about FDR's presidency (especially at the high school level). You only ever get to hear about the rainbow and ponies version of FDR there. I know you've at least researched both sides of the topic and come to your own conclusions.

Vis
05-17-2013, 11:26 AM
I only know anything substantive about 6 presidents before my time. Had to jump in on one of those.

SteelCityMom
05-17-2013, 11:32 AM
I only know anything substantive about 6 presidents before my time. Had to jump in on one of those.

Yeah, that's basically the same here. I could spout off just as easily about Reagan though lol. I honestly don't know much (or haven't researched much) about LBJ, Ike, Ford, and only a little on Truman. Nothing really beyond basic college history courses. That's why I give most of them a "meh".

Vis
05-17-2013, 12:50 PM
Yeah, that's basically the same here. I could spout off just as easily about Reagan though lol. I honestly don't know much (or haven't researched much) about LBJ, Ike, Ford, and only a little on Truman. Nothing really beyond basic college history courses. That's why I give most of them a "meh".

Ford is before you time? Now I feel old.

Jefferson is outside the thread but I can go on for days.

If we grade ex-Presidents, Carter gets the A. He did something to help.

SteelCityMom
05-17-2013, 02:15 PM
Ford is before you time? Now I feel old.

Jefferson is outside the thread but I can go on for days.

If we grade ex-Presidents, Carter gets the A. He did something to help.


Yeah...was born in '80. I basically consider Reagan to be before my time as well since I was so young. I didn't really start paying any attention to politics at all until the first Iraq war.