As for arguing against Bush lets see

1. The economy. Besides the obvious struggles we have today lets look at some things that took a dip during Bush's tenure. Median Household income decreased, poverty levels increased, National Debt increased by 100%, unemployment went from 4.2% in 2001, all the way up to 7.2% by the end of his tenure. The US lost 2.8 Million jobs in 2008. This is the worst federal disaster since the great depression. Not all Bush's fault of course, but nothing he did helped.

2. Education. No Child Left Behind. Do I need to say more?

3. Hurricane Katrina. Yes, it was a natural disaster, but things were not handled properly there. Bush didn't respond to the warnings and had poor judgment in trying to send help down there.

4. Handling of the Iraq War. We know what it's really about.

5. The environmental damage he allowed to happen.

6. Attempt to cut food stamps. I know people misuse them sometimes, but most that are on them need them. I do not think anyone, especially a child should have to starve. Had Bush had his way plenty would have.

7. Embarrassment to the United States. It looks real professional for our President to say things like "Bring it on" to Al-Queda. Bush was a laughing stock everywhere in the world, really looks great for America. Just had to throw that in.

 

 

That's just random things I could throw in. Basically, Bush is the worst because he made so many mistakes in the PRESENT. We have Centuries of American history, research, new policies, and he still couldn't get it done. Sure, take a shot at FDR. FDR was dealing with a sudden market crash, because we as the human race didn't understand exactly how the economy worked. We know now! We have the tools to better our surroundings and lifestyle, but Bush not only didn't maintain the great lifestyle we had going but completely took us in a 180 the other way. Bush's tenure is worse because it is in the present day mixed with all of his other problems, plain and simple. JMO.

Cats, what environmental damage do you mean specifically?

Jimmy Carter, US Grant, and James Buchanan would be at the bottom of my list.

While Jefferson was not the worst, he did manage to do a thing or two that could have easily led this country to cease to exist.

 

When he sent the Navy and Marines to Tripoli to take out the pirates that had been enslaving American merchant sailors he fell in love with the small gunboat. These ships were small, fast and lightly armed. Sounds okay in theory? Well in practice this "mosquito fleet" as it was called was not only a waste it was a disaster for the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy was not and would not be the equal to the Royal Navy for some time(the 20th century to be precise) but this fleet of gunboats that he endorsed be built led to the complete inability of the U.S. to stop the British fleet from having its way with the U.S. Navy and the coastal settlements during the War of 1812. If it hadn't been for some brilliant actions on the Great Lakes the British would have transferred the Duke of Wellington to the states to lead the invasion of the U.S. As it was, because of Perry's actions on the Lakes, Wellington refused to lead the British Army here because they didn't control the inland waterways.

 

The mosquito fleet was useless against the ships of the Royal Navy and there are a few instances where they were simply rammed or pushed out of the way by British Frigates(not ships of the line, frigates). Worthless and nearly cost us our country.

Thanks for the post. While I don't think that either of the things you listed compare to the grave disrespect that FDR had for the Constitution, which he swore to protect, I appreciate that you took the time to formulate a legitimate post.

 

First, let me say that this is a very interesting thread and thanks for starting it cch.

 

As to your response about Jacksonian efforts, I think the issue about Jackson is more important than you give it credit for. It's about precedent. You stated that FDR's handling of things created the "atmosphere" or "precedent" of today. It could be stated that Jackson may have set the precedent that FDR capitalized upon or expanded.

 

Jackson didn't just "move the Cherokeee" but instead used the military arm of the Federal government to do his bidding even AFTER the Courts told him he could NOT do it. In fact Jackson was quoted as saying that the Courts can rule all they want but let's see them back it up with military might.

 

Of course Jackson did similar threats when the Secession of South Carolina came up. He threated the Federal military to march on South Carolina and hand John C. Calhoun in the public square. What's more, he meant it.

 

Jackson used his power to do as much damage to his political enemies as he could (see Henry Clay and the gang) and to that end he dissolved the National Bank (not arguing it's merits just pointing out what he did) as much for spite as for conscience and principle.

 

He repeatedly pushed abolishing the Electoral College, mainly because of that cause derailing his 1824 election. His cabinets were in a spin because anyone who opposed his ideas met subsequent dismissal throughout his eight years.

 

Is Jackson as bad as FDR? Probably not in your eyes. But he is as much responsible for being the first clear tyrant of a President in our history.

Let me preface my post by saying that I am NOT a W fan, but this is in comparison to FDR:

As for arguing against Bush lets see

1. The economy. Besides the obvious struggles we have today lets look at some things that took a dip during Bush's tenure. Median Household income decreased, poverty levels increased, National Debt increased by 100%, unemployment went from 4.2% in 2001, all the way up to 7.2% by the end of his tenure. The US lost 2.8 Million jobs in 2008. This is the worst federal disaster since the great depression. Not all Bush's fault of course, but nothing he did helped.

Bush's worst unemployment mark was 7.2%.....as noted, in 1940 (after 8 years of FDR and 11 years after the crash) we were still at 14.2%. Where is the comparison here?

 

2. Education. No Child Left Behind. Do I need to say more?.

Agreed. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and should be reserved to the state.

3. Hurricane Katrina. Yes, it was a natural disaster, but things were not handled properly there. Bush didn't respond to the warnings and had poor judgment in trying to send help down there.

I have a hard time blaming Bush for this one. I'm not sure what more he was supposed to do. I think this was more of a local/state gov't issue.

4. Handling of the Iraq War. We know what it's really about.

5. The environmental damage he allowed to happen.

6. Attempt to cut food stamps. I know people misuse them sometimes, but most that are on them need them. I do not think anyone, especially a child should have to starve. Had Bush had his way plenty would have.

You'll have to be more specific with these. As for the last one, at least I am rating people on what they got done, not on people's theories on what they intended. Or else I'd have a whole new set ideas for FDR.

 

FWIW, you left out the one Bush policy that, IMO, is the worst- the Patriot Act. This is as unconstitutional as they come.

 

Alas, I A) don't see the economic conditions being comparable B) don't see the blatant disregard for the US Consitution (besides the Patriot Act) and C) think it is too early to label as the worst.

 

But I do appreciate the post!

First, let me say that this is a very interesting thread and thanks for starting it cch.

 

As to your response about Jacksonian efforts, I think the issue about Jackson is more important than you give it credit for. It's about precedent. You stated that FDR's handling of things created the "atmosphere" or "precedent" of today. It could be stated that Jackson may have set the precedent that FDR capitalized upon or expanded.

 

Jackson didn't just "move the Cherokeee" but instead used the military arm of the Federal government to do his bidding even AFTER the Courts told him he could NOT do it. In fact Jackson was quoted as saying that the Courts can rule all they want but let's see them back it up with military might.

 

Of course Jackson did similar threats when the Secession of South Carolina came up. He threated the Federal military to march on South Carolina and hand John C. Calhoun in the public square. What's more, he meant it.

 

Jackson used his power to do as much damage to his political enemies as he could (see Henry Clay and the gang) and to that end he dissolved the National Bank (not arguing it's merits just pointing out what he did) as much for spite as for conscience and principle.

 

He repeatedly pushed abolishing the Electoral College, mainly because of that cause derailing his 1824 election. His cabinets were in a spin because anyone who opposed his ideas met subsequent dismissal throughout his eight years.

 

Is Jackson as bad as FDR? Probably not in your eyes. But he is as much responsible for being the first clear tyrant of a President in our history.

:eek: I wasn't aware of all of those egregious offenses against the Constitution. I've always thought highly of Jackson's president (because he was the last President to reduce the National Debt to 0). Perhaps I need to think differently. Thanks...

Let me preface my post by saying that I am NOT a W fan, but this is in comparison to FDR:

 

Bush's worst unemployment mark was 7.2%.....as noted, in 1940 (after 8 years of FDR and 11 years after the crash) we were still at 14.2%. Where is the comparison here?

 

 

Agreed. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and should be reserved to the state.

 

I have a hard time blaming Bush for this one. I'm not sure what more he was supposed to do. I think this was more of a local/state gov't issue.

You'll have to be more specific with these. As for the last one, at least I am rating people on what they got done, not on people's theories on what they intended. Or else I'd have a whole new set ideas for FDR.

 

FWIW, you left out the one Bush policy that, IMO, is the worst- the Patriot Act. This is as unconstitutional as they come.

 

Alas, I A) don't see the economic conditions being comparable B) don't see the blatant disregard for the US Consitution (besides the Patriot Act) and C) think it is too early to label as the worst.

 

But I do appreciate the post!

 

Well I said besides the obvious.

 

Bush mishandled Katrina. In a round about way he's admitted it. As for the worst, like I said, he is the worst because he ignored history. We have the resources to not be in the shape we are in, he just didn't do the job.

 

I'm not comparing him to FDR either. I don't think FDR was that bad. Without out him and some of his policies I don't think we recover as a Nation, maybe ever. Sure not all of his policies were good or even constitutional but it gave Americans hope which led to us eventually fixing the economy, IMO.

As for the specifics, I'm just going to leave those like they are. I'm not going to get into the Iraqi War or things like that in detail.

Doesn't social security come from money we as citizens put in? Therefore if we put it in, shouldn't we be able to get it back? How is that a hand out?

 

Then take it out of the governments hands and let me decide where to put it to grow.

I wouldn't call it a handout, but it is forced redistribution. I'd have less problems with it if it was optional, and if it wasn't running at a tremendous deficit right now.

 

It might be running at a tremendous deficit because the presidents since FDR didn't do anything to improve it.

It might be running at a tremendous deficit because the presidents since FDR didn't do anything to improve it.

I blame FDR for starting the unsustainable idea. Other Presidents didn't do anything, but it is mainly his fault. Heck, the first recipient, Ida May Fuller, put a grand total of $24.75 into the system, and took out $22,888.92. Now how the heck was that supposed to work? Who does that fall on?

My vote is yes. I have a few reasons why. For anyone who votes no, I want actual contributions to the thread- I want you to tell me which President was worse, and why.

 

1. The National Industrial Recovery Act. The NIRA was an act that allowed and promoted monopolies and cartels in order to keep prices and wages high, as well as restricted output. Not only is this highly unconstitutional, but keeping nominal prices and wages artificially high only results in higher unemployment. Furthermore, many defenders of the New Deal are also opponents of supposed big business in oil and other industries. How can you defend this program of encouraging monopolies?

 

2. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Another policy of restricting output and keeping prices high, as millions of Americans were out of work and going hungry, the federal government plowed 10 million acres of crops, slaughtered 6 millions pigs, and left fruit to rot.

 

3. Misuse of executive orders. FDR issued more executive orders than those from Truman to Clinton combined, for a grand total of 3,723. These orders ranged from seizing private business during strikes to putting our fellow Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps.

 

4. Perhaps the worst of these, and the most insulting to Americans, was his court-packing scheme. Some of the horrible, unconstitutional acts by FDR were eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. However, this was inconvenient for FDR's agenda, and he had a convenient solution. FDR proposed that for each Supreme Court justice that did not retire by the age of 70, he could add another Justice (up to 6). This was because Supreme Court Justices had been making statements in response to New Deal programs such as, "It is not the province of the Court to consider the economic advantages or disadvantages of such a centralized system. It is sufficient to say that the Federal Constitution does not provide for it," (Justice Charles Evan Hughes) and, "The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people." (Justice Owen Roberts). So FDR decided to try to pack the court as a way to circumvent the Constitution and the respect that the SC was showing it.

 

In conclusion, FDR's disrespect for the constitution and our founding fathers led to groundwork for the corruption and insanity that goes on in Washington today. He changed the culture of DC, into one that believes that nothing can be done without the government and it's full taxing and legislating authority stepping in. If not for his actions 80 years ago- his encouragement of monopolies, his essential imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, and his disrespect for the Constitution- I submit that America would vastly different today, and for the better.

 

I don't know enough about our presidents to say whether he was the worst or not, but he's definitely one of the worst. It's amazing that he's viewed as one of the best.

 

The bolded...what he did regarding our Supreme Court is the #1 reason why I think, of the presidents that I have a little knowledge on, that he's the worst. Additionally, he gets too much credit for "ending the depression", when in reality, WWII did that. His plans to end the depression didn't work. But, to be fair, he deserves some credit for being a leader during that time, uniting the people and getting them to believe.

 

But, overall, I don't like him. I think he's vastly overrated, to say the least.

 

JMO

Jimmy Carter would have to be up there.

I blame FDR for starting the unsustainable idea. Other Presidents didn't do anything, but it is mainly his fault. Heck, the first recipient, Ida May Fuller, put a grand total of $24.75 into the system, and took out $22,888.92. Now how the heck was that supposed to work? Who does that fall on?

 

Like I said, I think the idea of creating social security was a good idea. I think it could have been improved upon though.

 

Regardless, I don't think FDR was anywhere near the worst president in the history of the United States.