• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst 20th Century President

Worst 20th Century President


  • Total voters
    112
Well...depends how you look at it.

Hoover turned a recession into a depression. He did not start the recession.

Raising taxes and cutting spending dramatically was pretty boneheaded.

Cutting spending worked for the recession at the beginning of the 1920s.
 
I'm a little surprised I'm one of only 2 people to name Johnson at this point, between his ill-fated war on poverty and Vietnam.
 
I'm a little surprised I'm one of only 2 people to name Johnson at this point, between his ill-fated war on poverty and Vietnam.

I went to summer camp with LBJs grandson. His name is Ted Nugent.....no kidding....and yes we all joked about it.
 
I'm a little surprised I'm one of only 2 people to name Johnson at this point, between his ill-fated war on poverty and Vietnam.

Johnson is out of the running for me because he can't top Wilson, who got us into a war that we had no business being in and also started up another central bank which is disastrous for growth. He started a progressive income tax, farm subsidies, instituted the draft, instituted many fascist programs (like controlling the railroads and supervising food production, though these may have been necessary for the war), and established a policy of "internationalism" instead of neutrality.

It's hard for me to vote for Wilson though. Wilson was a big push toward the big government that we have today, but Harding and Coolidge did bring it back somewhat. Hoover and FDR really sealed the deal though. For me, it's between Wilson and FDR and I just can't single out one as being worse.
 
Last edited:
Johnson is out of the running for me because he can't top Wilson, who got us into a war that we had no business being in and also started up another central bank which is disastrous for growth. He started a progressive income tax, farm subsidies, instituted the draft, instituted many fascist programs (like controlling the railroads and supervising food production, though these may have been necessary for the war), and established a policy of "internationalism" instead of neutrality.

It's hard for me to vote for Wilson though. Wilson was a big push toward the big government that we have today, but Harding and Coolidge did bring it back somewhat. Hoover and FDR really sealed the deal though. For me, it's between Wilson and FDR and I just can't single out one as being worse.

Well, lets look at that. Hoover essentially destroyed our economy. FDR essentially saved our economy.

Hoover faced the very beginning of the events that lead to WWII.

FDR faced, and won WWII.

Hmm.....
 
Well, lets look at that. Hoover essentially destroyed our economy. FDR essentially saved our economy.

Hoover faced the very beginning of the events that lead to WWII.

The Federal Reserve destroyed our economy and FDR would not allow a correction. He lengthened the depression by a great deal.

FDR faced, and won WWII.

Hmm.....

That's quite an oversimplification don't you think?
 
The Federal Reserve destroyed our economy and FDR would not allow a correction. He lengthened the depression by a great deal.



That's quite an oversimplification don't you think?

I simplified it all because I don't want to get into a lenghty debate.

The Fed Reserve only has so much power. While their incompetence can do plenty of damage, you need other incompetent people in high places to reach a disaster measuring up to the Great Depression.

The way I see it, WWII started with FDR, and it ended (at least in Europe) with FDR. Truman only had to drop bombs to end it in the Pacific.
 
I simplified it all because I don't want to get into a lenghty debate.

The Fed Reserve only has so much power. While their incompetence can do plenty of damage, you need other incompetent people in high places to reach a disaster measuring up to the Great Depression.

Yeah, you also need Hoover and FDR mucking things up and not allowing a correction to occur. They thought that high wages brought prosperity. They had it backwards.

The way I see it, WWII started with FDR, and it ended (at least in Europe) with FDR. Truman only had to drop bombs to end it in the Pacific.

Lol, the fact that it started with FDR is a bad thing.
 
Well, lets look at that. Hoover essentially destroyed our economy. FDR essentially saved our economy.

Hoover faced the very beginning of the events that lead to WWII.

FDR faced, and won WWII.

Hmm.....


FDR didn't win WWII. FDR was the President at the time and had a hand in it, but it was the Generals and Soldiers that won WWII
 
Yeah, you also need Hoover and FDR mucking things up and not allowing a correction to occur. They thought that high wages brought prosperity. They had it backwards.

Lol, the fact that it started with FDR is a bad thing.

Oh, yes the market would have fixed itself without FDR helping. It just would have taken...40 or 50 years, thats all. Yeah, I can imagine some poor politician saying, "In the long-run, you'll all thank me!"

The fact that the seeds of strife were planted with Hoover, and sprouted during FDR's strife with the economy says enough.
 
FDR didn't win WWII. FDR was the President at the time and had a hand in it, but it was the Generals and Soldiers that won WWII

Yeah...FDR just appointed all the top leaders, like Eisenhower. FDR also played a big hand in coordination with the British and Soviets, which was absolutely necessary to win the war. FDR wasn't fighting or commanding troops, I'll give you that, but he was the man behind the commanders. There is a reason the President is known as the CINC.
 
Yeah...FDR just appointed all the top leaders, like Eisenhower. FDR also played a big hand in coordination with the British and Soviets, which was absolutely necessary to win the war. FDR wasn't fighting or commanding troops, I'll give you that, but he was the man behind the commanders. There is a reason the President is known as the CINC.

FDR appointed which Military Commanders? And I do believe it was Eisenhower who did most of the Negotiating with Stalin and Soviet High Command. Just because one in CINC doesn't necessarily mean anything. Clearly Bush and Obama are contemporary examples of this.
 
Of course.

Reagan led the recovery from Carter's Disaster Area, whupped the Soviet Union without a major war, and showed the nation that socialism isn't necessary.

Naturally the Left hates him unreservedly.



Reagan also increased the debt more than any other president in history, besides for FDR in relation to the time. But of course roosevelt had the great depression and world war 2 to deal with, Reagan had Nicaragua. :roll: Reagan funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against a crumbling Soviet Union. He funded Saddam against Iran. He deregulated the economy, and that trend of deregulation continued until 2008 and caused the financial crisis. In fact Reagan was a trend setter, he was an advocate of both deficit spending and deregulation, which are both at the root of all our economic problems today.


And last but not least, the idea that reagan whupped the Soviet Union is idiotic. The Soviet Union was a diseased and crumbling state when Reagan took office. Even at the height of it's power, the Soviet Union was held together through force and the threat of force. What caused the collapse of the Soviet Union was Gorbachev removing that threat of force. When he did so, the Soviet Union fell very quickly. The collapse of the Soviet Union had very little to do with Ronald Reagan, and had very much to do with the fact that the Soviet system was terrible from the beginning.

So knowing that the idea that Reagan's great claim to fame, that he brought about the collapse of the soviet union, is a load of crap. What are we left with? A president whose policies created the taliban and Al Qaeda. A president who funded Saddam Hussein. A president whose economic policies have proven disastrous over time. Even if you reject my claim that his economic policies led to failure, there is no denying the other things I said. Which means Reagan was at best an average president, and at worst a bad president(though I don't think the worst president).
 
Oh, yes the market would have fixed itself without FDR helping. It just would have taken...40 or 50 years, thats all. Yeah, I can imagine some poor politician saying, "In the long-run, you'll all thank me!"

The fact that the seeds of strife were planted with Hoover, and sprouted during FDR's strife with the economy says enough.

What recession lasted 40 or 50 years?

Explain the early 1920s recession. Go.
 
What recession lasted 40 or 50 years?

Explain the early 1920s recession. Go.

I wasn't talking about the recession. I was talking about how the Great Depression's affects on our economy would have lasted a hell of a lot longer if FDR hadn't instilled confidence in the banking system, if he hadn't implemented countless agencies, plenty of which are still around, to help the people out, and on top of all that, WWII allowed FDR to tell companies to start making war-time goods, like Shermans, and Garands.

If nothing had been done, like plenty of conservatives advocated, then the effects would have lasted far longer, and our economy would be considerably weaker today. On the other hand, if FDR's measures had failed, then you could have said, "I told you so." But, they didn't.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about the recession. I was talking about how the Great Depression's affects on our economy would have lasted a hell of a lot longer if FDR hadn't instilled confidence in the banking system, if he hadn't implemented countless agencies, plenty of which are still around, to help the people out, and on top of all that, WWII allowed FDR to tell companies to start making war-time goods, like Shermans, and Garands.

If nothing had been done, like plenty of conservatives advocated, then the effects would have lasted far longer, and our economy would be considerably weaker today. On the other hand, if FDR's measures had failed, then you could have said, "I told you so." But, they didn't.

Ha, you ignored it, funny. Explain the early 1920s recession.
 
Ha, you ignored it, funny. Explain the early 1920s recession.

The fact that we were tied into the world economy means we went down along with it. Europe hurt us, since it's economy was devastated by WWI. We were pretty lucky to have our industry on the other side of the Atlantic, or we would have had a lot more damage done to our economy. Anyway, since we were tied into Europe's economy, when they started experiencing economic growth, around 1926 or so, we were well out of the recession.
 
The fact that we were tied into the world economy means we went down along with it. Europe hurt us, since it's economy was devastated by WWI. We were pretty lucky to have our industry on the other side of the Atlantic, or we would have had a lot more damage done to our economy. Anyway, since we were tied into Europe's economy, when they started experiencing economic growth, around 1926 or so, we were well out of the recession.

The Fed also signifcantly raised interest rates. Thanks to Harding's hands off approach, the market mostly recovered by 1923, years before Europe
 
Why is it politically correct for you to claim political correctness when you don't agree with somebody not glamorizing and giving American policy a mythological status it doesn't deserve?

I don't know about it being "pollitically correct" but I believe America, after 40 years of standing in front of the Soviet Union, deserves a bit of credit for forcing it into the situation that brought the Berlin Wall down. Denying Middle Eastern oil? Aiding Asian militaires? Aiding Afghani fighters? Beating the influential race in the Middle East? Denying them access in the South Americas? Embarrasing them over the Cuban Missle Crisis? Glamorizing has nothing to do with it.

But groveling to the opinions of international feelings about how America is supposed to be denied any credit is politically correct, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of reasons the Soviet Union fell apart, and Reagan's policies where a part of it, .....but not the largest part, and most likely it was going to happen no matter who was president at the time. While the US certainly deserves credit for winning the cold war, the Soviet Union is also largely responsible, due to their own problems. It's not "political correctness" to want to be accurate.

BS. 40 years of denying the Soviets their party is exactly what saw them overburdened and at an end. Reagan was the icing. "Politicial correctness" has people seeking anything that will agree with international anti-American cheers these days.

Tell you what....you take America out of the equation going back to 1945 and consider where the Soviet Union would be in 1989.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom