I don't know if I'd rank W that low, but he's definately towards the bottom half. During the Clinton administration, the economy was flourishing, we were out of debt, at peace with nearly everyone, no wars. How could anyone say he was overrated?

 

No, we were not. As to the other points, they've been hashed and rehashed over and over.

I don't know if I'd rank W that low, but he's definately towards the bottom half. During the Clinton administration, the economy was flourishing, we were out of debt, at peace with nearly everyone, no wars. How could anyone say he was overrated?

I agree with the statement of no wars under Clinton but that is still true today. As far as I know we haven't officially declared war on anyone. And yes the economy was good under Clinton but there is the belief that it was all falsely propped up and what we are experience now started under Clinton.

Believe this or not....there is actually a teacher in our high school (I won't say where) who teaches children that Lincoln was a homosexual and that he was a slaveowner. Now, I know he was forced into being an abolitionist, but a slaveowning homosexual... Can anyone confirm this lunacy???

FDR, Clinton, Kennedy

 

When you look at the long-term effects of a presidency, how many of the policies that any of them enacted were great successes? Further, name a great policy accomplishment of any of them.

 

FDR helped move us toward socialism.

Clinton signed NAFTA effectively ending America's dominance as an industrial power.

Kennedy couldn't even handle Cuba.

His New Deal wasn't such a "good deal" for the US. It probably extended the Great Depression by another 5-8 years. It definitely laid the grounds for "big" government intervention into capitalism.

 

The US had a similar depression in 1920. The president at that time did nothing. The economy fixed itself within a year or two.

 

Everything was good until the "panic" of 1929.

 

I'm curious, is there any data as to the unemployment rates in that Depression of 1920? One of the things that seemed to create "the Great Depression" was the huge unemployment rate coupled with the economic collapse.

I'm curious, is there any data as to the unemployment rates in that Depression of 1920? One of the things that seemed to create "the Great Depression" was the huge unemployment rate coupled with the economic collapse.

 

Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

 

With Harding's tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million— a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force— in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.

Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

 

With Harding's tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million— a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force— in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.

 

Thanks for the data.

 

I am still curious about the unemployment rate at the height of the 1920 depression. My reasons aren't to defend or discredit actions taken by Hoover or FDR but wondering if it was less difficult for the market to correct and economy to rebound then compared to 1930 to '37.

 

To me the market and GNP are but one part of the problem. What was the labor force doing or not doing and what type of jobs were there? One of the things I've long been worried about in our current climate is that manufacturing has consistently put America back to work. Unskilled, simple, manufacturing. However many if not most of those jobs are now gone to other countries and what will be the manufacturing jobs that will employ us now if the economic picture does get better?

I'm curious, is there any data as to the unemployment rates in that Depression of 1920? One of the things that seemed to create "the Great Depression" was the huge unemployment rate coupled with the economic collapse.

 

From what I know of the great depression, most of it was because that too many people were borrowing money from banks, etc with loans and investing in bad/high risk stocks where they virtually lost all their money and then couldn't pay back the loans. Eventually, the banks couldn't loan anymore money and went bankrupt and there was no more money then flowing into the economy as people virtually lost all the money they had saved up/accumulated in the banks.

For the historians out there, how did they calculate unemployment rates in the pre-depression era? With the large number of self employeds and agriculture workers combined with a lack of reporting capability I don't know how it was done/

I don't know if I'd rank W that low, but he's definately towards the bottom half. During the Clinton administration, the economy was flourishing, we were out of debt, at peace with nearly everyone, no wars. How could anyone say he was overrated?

 

Is THAT so? I seem to recall that the only president to leave office without a National Debt was Andrew Jackson.

You can't have FDR the #1 president due to the fact he had numerous affairs. Teddy Roosevelt is #1 because he brought America to become a world power after he and the "rough riders" conquired San Juan Hill to defeat the Spanish and win the Spanish-American war. He is also the main president of the progressive movement, started Boone and Crocket club, and what would bluegrasspreps be without the NCAA, which Teddy created. I'll finish with 1 of his famous quotes "It will take more than a bullet to kill a bull-moose" (Teddy created the bull-moose party..aka. Progressive Party):thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb: :deadhorse:

 

Except of course the whole San Juan Hill thing was a staged publicity stunt.

I agree with the statement of no wars under Clinton but that is still true today. As far as I know we haven't officially declared war on anyone. And yes the economy was good under Clinton but there is the belief that it was all falsely propped up and what we are experience now started under Clinton.

 

 

Last war declared by Congress was in 1941.

 

Since Congress is the only one that can actually declare war everything else has been a temporary approval for the president to deploy the troops.

FDR's New Deal was supposed to get people back to work. Basically Keynesian economics rely on that idea- that if the government spends on money on various projects, it will get people back to work, and the multiplier effect takes place- the workers will have income, and they will spend that, which will go to someone else's income, which will be spent, etc.

 

Beyond the debt racked up (which, ironically, FDR fan Paul Krugman think should have been more), the New Deal hardly got people back to work:

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.

 

Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office.

(The actual study is here Figure 1, Table 49

 

As the above article (from the Wall Street Journal says), the New Deal had some good things. However, some things were terrible, such as the NIRA. The National Industrial Recovery Act allowed industries to collusively raise prices so long as they shared the wealth by substantially raising wages. Basically, the NIRA threw out a lot of antitrust laws. Now, of course this turned out well for anyone who had a job, but it just increased unemployment and decreased production. FWIW, these policies continued even after they were found to be unconstitutional in 1935.

 

Basically, the reason that recessions happen is because prices and wages have become higher than the economy sustain. The economy depresses and decreases prices down to a more accurate level. Today, we are in a recession (and have had two minor recessions in 7 years) because, as HHSDad noted, we lived way beyond our means in the 1990's. So a policy that encourages artificially raising wages and prices can only prolong the problems.

Pure speculation...but if JFK would've lived out his term...he wouldn't be viewed near as favorably as he is.

hoopboy

 

"I don't know if I'd rank W that low, but he's definately towards the bottom half. During the Clinton administration, the economy was flourishing, we were out of debt, at peace with nearly everyone, no wars. How could anyone say he was overrated?"

 

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

 

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

 

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility.

 

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training.

 

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

 

We may not have been at war with anyone, but they sure were with us.