Who is the best US President, in your opinion?

[Ramo]

Considering the pressure that was on JFK to just go in and bomb Cuba, I think he did pretty well. There could have very well have been a coup if JFK had done less than he did.

JFK turned the Missile Crisis into a publicity stunt, scaring the **** out of everyone. He also initially caused the Missile Crisis by forcing Castro to get Soviet protection by bombing Cuba ever since the revolution (Eisenhower shares a lot of the blame for that, though), the Bay of Pigs invasion, etc.

Socialism seeks to place the government in charge of most of the economy, and is decidedly anti-private enterprise.

I'm really sick of everyone using Marx's definition of socialism. Socialism seeks to place the workers, not the state, in charge of the means of production.

Nice deficit. It was horrible. The democrats really messed up the US with a nice deficit, that gave Eisenhower hell to decrease. And although Reagan increased the deficit, it would inturn decrease because of economic growth.

Not that I think the Democratic presidencies were significantly better than the Republican ones, but if you look at your own data from the Truman to Clinton presidencies the public debt as a percentage of the GDP increased only during Republican presidencies (Ford, Reagan, and Bush). Egads, do you even look at what you post?

Did Hoover lower tariffs only for them to be raised again under Smoot/Halley?

Huh? Hoover lowered tariffs? If I'm not mistken, Smoot-Hawley was the only tariff bill under Hoover's watch.

It's my understanding that the Federal Reserve caused the crash by tightening the money supply.

That's another reason for the crash. But it wasn't the only reason. Protectionism wreaked havoc upon the post-War economies. The trade wars largely provoked by the Fordney McCumber tariff helped to practically shut down international trade after 1929, making a bad depression into an unbearable one.

As for the tariffs, I didn't know he favored high tariffs,

That's historically been one of the Republicans' main issues (barring the modern era - high trade barriers have since become part of the bipartisan consensus). And Coolidge (edit: wrote Hoover for some reason) was no exception.

but then again, I didn't say he was a libertarian, only that he stemmed the tide of government growth.

He also had an imperialistic adventure in Nicaragua, and supported extraordinarily high immigration barriers.

I'd have to see what the tariffs were before he was prez and after -

He used political clout to get the Fordney McCumber Tariff bill passed during the Harding administration, and strongly opposed reduction in duties during his presidency.

The Fordney McCumber Tariff at the time, had the highest duties in US history. There was a 25% increase on duties for industrial goods. The biggest increason was on the emerging chemical and pharmacutical industries after WWI.

he may have been too pro-business...

Protective tariffs aren't pro-business. They're pro-rich domestic industrialists (or pro-rich farmers). They undermine, not promote, competition.

served as a fine and honest president

I would hardly characterize someone who mass-murdered Filippinos as "fine and honest."

[Imran Siddiqui]

JFK turned the Missile Crisis into a publicity stunt, scaring the **** out of everyone. He also initially caused the Missile Crisis by forcing Castro to get Soviet protection by bombing Cuba ever since the revolution (Eisenhower shares a lot of the blame for that, though), the Bay of Pigs invasion, etc.

Exactly! JFK could have handled it much better without scaring the bejesus out of everyone! It was one of those things that we should have never heard about.

Again, I think Hoover did more than people give him credit for. He really did try, it's just, who was going to vote him back in after '29?

Yup. The New Deal was based on Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Commission. A decidedly un lassiez-fair thing to do.

Protective tariffs aren't pro-business. They're pro-rich domestic industrialists (or pro-rich farmers). They undermine, not promote, competition.

Didn't you contradict yourself there? Protective tariffs undermine competition and thus ARE pro-domestic business.

[Ramo]

If you look at the short term. In the long term, protective tariffs undermine innovation. Not pro-domestic business.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And your point is? Stifling innovation because of less competition IS pro-business. Why is their less innovation? Because domestic business doesn't have to compete. Making more money (less into R&D).

[orange]

Hoek - I think the problem is, you look only at the results and not at the means of how things came about. In that light, it's easy to blame Hoover for the crash and praise JFK for solving international conflict. The issues are much deeper than that, however, as pointed out by other posters as well as myself.

[Ramo]

Less competition means less innovation. Consumers lose out. Businesses related to the protected business lose out. Like I said, it's good for the domestic firms that are protected, but it's bad for everyone else. It's bad for business, in general.

Besides, I was originally referring to business, not domestic business.

[Hoek]

FDR at least got stuff done. The reason he was the best president of this century is that he was pragmatic and understood what was needed and did it. He was willing to abandon old and unworkable theories in favor of pragmatism. What makes a president good in my book is if he is able to rise to the challenges that face him in office. If welfarist measures are needed for the country at a given time, so be it. And beyond that, I don't see why a democracy should not try to help the people. I don't see why a government that is supposed to be for the people and of the people should not try to alleviate some of the worst ravages of laissez-faire capitalism.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by orange
You think John Kennedy is the greatest leader ever? You don't even know what you're quoting! You just want to come off as disagreeing with everything I say! You are a moron!

I didn't say that ****ing jackass, I said Reagan was the greatest leader ever. Kennedy was a ****ing *******.

[orange]

Go back and look at what you quoted you little ****.

Here, I'll make it nice and simple for ya...I know you can't handle complex tasks.

And who said JFK is the best president?

Not I. I personally think the man was one of our lower presidents, I agree with what Imran said on the subject...so why exactly are you yelling at me for it?

at which point you quoted my response and said this...

Not I. I personally think the man was one of our lower presidents, I agree with what Imran said on the subject...so why exactly are you yelling at me for it?

Well I think he is the best leader ever. My opinion.

Now bug off.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by orange
Now bug off.

I thought you were talking about Reagan, you little punk. I hate JFK because first he had: scandals that no body knows about and he royally screwed up during the Cuban missle crisis.

[Hoek]

What's wrong with looking at the outcome? Can you deny that it was JFK's leadership that was the single most important factor in stopping Nuclear war? It was as much Kruschev trying to test a president as anything else.

If you aren't interested in results, you say you are interested in the process. If a president can't achieve anything, he doesn't deserve my respect. Hoover was like you guys, because he stuck to his theories far too much. Lets not forget that Hoover was a one-term president, while FDR was elected 4 times. The American people liked him for the same reasons I do.

[orange]

about JFK: I AGREE

That's my point. From the second you saw that it was me arguing, you automatically decided I was wrong...

Stop arguing posters and start arguing posts.

[orange]

Originally posted by Hoek
What's wrong with looking at the outcome? Can you deny that it was JFK's leadership that was the single most important factor in stopping Nuclear war? It was as much Kruschev trying to test a president as anything else.

Yes, I do deny that. JFK's leadership was not crucial in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Did JFK even have leadership?

What the Soviet intentions were is a trivial point. The soviets had legitimate claims as to why they should be able to have their missiles in Cuba, and we simply said "take them out or it's WW3". If Kennedy had, instead, used diplomatic intelligence and bargaining to work something out, I'd respect him much more. I respect Kruschev for saying "it's not worth WW3 for this" and pulling out. THAT was a difficult decision to make.

If you aren't interested in results, you say you are interested in the process. If a president can't achieve anything, he doesn't deserve my respect. Hoover was like you guys, because he stuck to his theories far too much. Lets not forget that Hoover was a one-term president, while FDR was elected 4 times. The American people liked him for the same reasons I do.

Examine why that is...

As pointed out many times earlier, Hoover set up some of the ideas for the New Deal. He disposed of many of his party's beliefs and ideals for the good of the nation, but when you get handed the septer and the nation falls apart moments later, you're NOT getting reelected. The Democrats could have nominated anyone and they'd get elected. Now, what did FDR do? He immediately set his new deal into action. While it accomplished very little, it was showing the people that the government, and more importantly, the President, was doing everything possible to get the nation in motion. All those programs, all those government groups, all those jobs...it wasn't that big of a deal. He got elected to a 3rd and 4th term because of the crisis in Europe and the brewing of World War II, as well as the people who still needed leadership. Remember, there was no law that said a man couldn't be elected to a 3rd term at this time. It was simply an unpresidential thing to do before FDR...

the man has some good characteristics, but claiming he is 'brilliant' based on the New Deal and pulling us out of the depression is innacurate, as is saying Hoover was incompetent.

[Ramo]

Actually, I would say that Hoover was incompetent, due to supporting Hawley-Smoot during a depression.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Less competition means less innovation. Consumers lose out. Businesses related to the protected business lose out. Like I said, it's good for the domestic firms that are protected, but it's bad for everyone else. It's bad for business, in general.

Besides, I was originally referring to business, not domestic business.

Ramo, do you know anything about economics? Tariffs have ALWAYS been a pro-business measure. If it wasn't then why are domestic businesses the ones supporting it? It is a very, very pro-business idea. To say otherwise just seems crazy.

And I totally agree with orage, with respect to Hoover and JFK.