Arguably attributable to Reagan's supply-side "Voodoo" economic initiative.

A GOD.

Ok, without reading this whole thread, I don't even see how you have a debate that doesn't start:
1. Lincoln
2. FDR

After that I think it's all personal opinion, but I'd say:
3. TJ
4. TR
5. William Jefferson Clinton

Yail has forgotten more about being a king hell monster than you people will ever understand, so his Truman comments are right on the money. Being president in good times is easy, its when they say things like:
"HEY, GAR! I know like 11 years ago you were MAKING MEN'S SUITS IN INDEPENDANCE MISSOURI, and THE MOST POPULAR PRESIDENT IN HISTORY IS DEAD, and YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS MASSIVE WHOPPER OF A CIVILIZATION DESTROYER WE'VE BEEN COOKING UP, but we need to know RIGHT NOW, if you wanna use it."

and you people CANNOT FATHOM what a bug-a-boo McArthur was for a dude like Truman, because like Borg you wish FDR had never replaced Henry Wallace, and that we were all swearing loyalty to the Supreme Soviet, and saluting the Supreme Soviet.

Yeah, he hated COMMIES

The fucker studied in Moscow, and was a puppet of their regimes. Anything to the contrary is revisionist and wishful thinking, just like the people who think Kennedy was set to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

He looked KRUSHKEV in the eye and K BLINKER on Cuba, you think a guy playing from a position of strength is suddenly going to give up the ghost on the Viets??

Do you people know anything about history?

There is considerable debate over whether FDR's programs did what they purported to do while he was in office, and plenty of evidence that they've been less than awesome since. The man spun mighty rhetoric, and 4 terms is quite a feat, but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and few would lap up FDR's pudding as greedily as you, Loog.

When did he study in Moscow?

between 1921 and 1935[/url]

I love these threads. Same people arguing the same shit repackaged.

LooGAR is James Carville in Andre The Giant's body.

I believe that the Soviet system was fatally flawed, but you're vastly underestimating how long the system could have survived. No one really knows what would have happened abscent Reagan, but I would guess he sped it up by decades not years. The Soviet economy had been performing horribly for most of the century. The peacetime implosion of a "great" political regime is extremely rare. Food shortages, technological backwardness typically aren't enough to cause the destruction of a large empire.

What people seem to forget is that Reagan was virtually alone in predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even most of his supporters just viewed such statements as rhetoric.

I personally enjoyed the "pimp daddy" Clinton days as much as anyone else, but I'm really curious as to how one can honestly think he's top 5 material (over, say, George Washington)

The same way someone can pick say an 80's or 90's stones album as the album of the year -- blind loyalty clouding reason.

The New Deal programs didn't necessarily end the Great Depression (WWII spending did that, essentially turning the country into a command-economy), but it gave the elderly, the unemployed, and poor children a right to live, which is sort of a big deal.

It gave them a statutory scheme of compensation that has not proven very effective. You can create as many "rights" as you want, but if you can't pay for them, you might be doing more harm than good.

i guess that is big, can you flesh this out more?

Yeah, the programs didn't do much in terms of GDP - people didn't understand the concept of deficit spending to drag an economy out of a gutter - but it did give people a purpose until we were able to pull ourselves out of the doldrums. And make no mistake - 90% of what makes Washington and FDR so great was their cult of personality and their leadership skills. Literally EVERYONE looked up to those guys back in the day.

Well, I understand that you know very little about practical politics, and whether you believe in his programs or not (and if you seriously don't I have a can of Krylon and a Doritos bag waiting for you) you have to understand that the whole "Get America Moving Again," et al gave people HOPE. And you can never underestimate what that did for people at that time, or would do even now...Lord knows Bush's popularity post 9/11 had more to do with that anything he actually DID.

the answer to this question, for all intents and purposes, is yes. George Bush is the worst president ever. Sure Harding or some of those other dudes way back were pretty bad what the fuck do I know about Millard Fillmore's economic policy. From what I know - GW is the worst.

90% of what makes every president great is leadership skills.

Well I understand that you don't truly break with even your party's most ridiculous delusions, but if you think the administrative monstrosity that FDR spun is the best he could have done, then... you're exactly what I thought you were. You realize that you're essentially saying that "hope" is more important than workable policy. That's just laughable. Of course it was important for people to see a way out, but looking back, it seems more and more like they were duped.

it's always hard to argue hypotheticals, but i think the explosion in communications technology (satellite tv, the internet, cell phones, etc.) in the 90s would have hastened the end of the soviet union event absent reagan. but you're right, the collapse of an empire in peace time is very unusual. my argument is that its the result of an incredibly complex chain of causality, and saying that "reagan being tough on the soviets lead to the collapse of communism" doesn't even begin to explain it. i'm willing to bite and say that reagan had something to do with it--but can you answer my question, what would mondale have done differently that would have meant the soviets held on to power for another decade or two?

This is what got Hitler at the helm, btw. **I am NOT drawing any direct comparisons.** Inflation was monstrous, morale was below the shitter, and AH saw an opportunity. Give people something to rally behind, get them working / spending / believing, and problems work themselves out. What you then choose to do with that machine is another question entirely. But those who say that image / motivation / cult status is important as a trait in a pres are very, very right. One of the (if not THE) biggest tools in the toolbelt.

I think you probably forget that FDR was pretty adamant about making sure that all of the things that the other side now slings at these programs (welfar queens, government waste) would not become a factor.

Also, policy most of the time comes from the legislative branch, and the president only sets that agenda...I would say that putting together a 60 year working coaltion of disparate beliefs from disparate parts of the country trumps almost any 'workable policy' anyway,,,and these people had to be doing SOMETHING to keep getting elected.

You wanna post some proof that FDR's programs didn't work, BTW?

I'm not as big on FDR as the senator, but "duping" is a pretty good trick, and one worth noting if it facilated believing again. Also, don't kid yourself pretty much any wide sweeping program on that scale is gonna be a "administrative monstrosity." But I agree that WWII had more to do with recovery than FDR's programs. But aren't we underscoring FDR's role in the SINGLE MOST FORMATIVE EVENT to modern society? I mean everything we've discussed in thread begins with that little skirmmish.

Any explanation for wide-scale economic shifts is going to fall short of proof, but here's one theory:



The idea that FDR ended the depression essentially goes:

P1: There was a depression
P2: FDR put programs into place to end the depression
P3: The depression ended
------------
C: FDR ended the depression

So where's your "proof"?

At least this thread got Haq posting again.