Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not surprisingly, historical rankings of Presidents are not solely limited to the question: How did the economy do?
True, I'm no expert on American history but it makes sense for Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington to be at the top considering they had to cope with some of the toughest situations of any US president. I bet somebody like Bill Clinton is glad he had some of the easiest times possible and he never had to deal with half the stuff Obama has to face up to.
The wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan were not cold. The USSR traded with North Korea, China, and North Vietnam. The United States traded with Afghan rebels. Once again, since you missed it the first time, both countries traded with their enemies. Neither declared war on the other or started sinking ships at sea.
Haiphong Harbor was mined by the USA.
It was also heavily bombed.A naval blockade was put in place as well.
Even though my favorite Pres is in the top 10 according to the article, I don't put too much into sturdies or polls, nor would I think it is fair to judge a person who has only been out of office 2 years. This is not saying I loved Bush or thought he was a great President, I just don't put much into these polls.
Decent ideas? He became Pres in 1932. We weren't out of the depression until 1946. His only idea that worked for a little while was Social Security. That has been broke on at least 3 different occassions. Looks like it is now a complete failure.
The ideas of the Soviet Union held up longer than most of FDRs.
I said decent ideas that have become a burden, some of which isn't his fault. The economy was saved by the war though, his ideas didn't really work in fixing that but some of his ideas did put people to work for a while.
He is a top 10 president but I'd put him around 9 or 10. One is way too high and is a spot that should be reserved for Washington or Jefferson.
You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the British system. They do not have a single document which is called a "constitution". The British constitution is enshrined in the laws which have been duly passed by parliament.
Laws passed in Parliament may be undone by Parliament. Our written constitution may only be altered if three quarters of the States give their consent. (Look how easy it was to take the right to self defense with a handgun away from the law abiding in the United Kingdom.) A written Constitution forbids infringement on individual rights in the heat of the moment. A written Constitution stops government from acting rashly and it forbids the central government from overriding the sovereignty of the several States. Without a written Constitution in place your rights are only what the government says they are.
You should read your history. We took a million or so young men between the age of 18 and 30 and shipped them overseas. These are the people that make the economy. Especially at that time.
There was rationing of food and other goods and services. That means the economy was bad. If the economy is good you can get those things rather easily.
We can have all the full employment we want, doesn't mean the economy is good. Making stuff to blow people up is not exactly beneficial. We have to produce stuff that people want in order to have a good ecoomy.
We could pass a law today that says everyone that is unemployed must go out and dig ditches. We would have 100% employment. Does that mean we would have a great economy? Or we coould make a law outlawing the use of tractor trailers. All goods must be shipped via cargo van. That would create millions of new jobs. Wouldn't help the economy though. (Unless you produced vans).
And if war is the best thing for the economy than why isn't the economy booming right now? We are in 2 wars. Why wasn't the economy during Vietnam great?
We got out of the depression because the Supreme Court threw out a lot of FDRs programs. And Truman got rid of many more. This allowed business to start producing again.
War is by far the most destructive thing ever invented. But it helps the economy? LOLs. Let's make a law that says we should blow up our own cirties and start killing males between the age of 18-30 for no particular reason. Then we can have a good economy.
Anyone that thnks killing people and destroying cities is good for the economy is naive, to say the least.
The War pumped tons of money into the economy, put people back to work and money in their pockets. It created demand on a massive scale, since most of Europe was crippled after the war the demand was still there for US goods and across the world since most of Europe had to rebuild.
War is never good, I'll agree with that but that doesn't mean you can ignore the economic impact it has.
so fdr, who set us on the road to socialism, and delayed the end of the depression, and was so greedy he had to go for a 3rd term..is ranked number1....go figure that one
He also tried to, in effect, take over the Supreme Court by adding to the number of Justices sitting and appoint only those that would add to his imperial presidency. FDR isn't as far down my list as Carter, but he's close.
Laws passed in Parliament may be undone by Parliament. Our written constitution may only be altered if three quarters of the States give their consent. (Look how easy it was to take the right to self defense with a handgun away from the law abiding in the United Kingdom.) A written Constitution forbids infringement on individual rights in the heat of the moment. A written Constitution stops government from acting rashly and it forbids the central government from overriding the sovereignty of the several States. Without a written Constitution in place your rights are only what the government says they are.
Laws have to be passed in both houses first. And if they aren't working, you can always just amend them again. Pros and cons to both systems.
There have been discussions around having a written UK constitution, however.
(There was public support at the time for changing the gun laws - the initial reports suggested that to do so would be a reactionary measure.)
We'd be MUCH BETTER OFF as society, that's for damn sure
If Europe is better off than we are (a risible assumption if you ask me) maybe it helped that we picked up the tab for their defense during the Cold War. Pretty easy to have cradle to grave nanny statism when someone else is paying your defense bills.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
