Best president?

The lasting contributions of the Great Society and War on Poverty

The lasting contributions are not favorable, and this is what throws me.

The Great Society's promise of "abundance for all" is one that cannot be kept and will not be kept if we want our children to have the same standard of living that we enjoy today and the U.S.'s ability to be competitive on a larger scale will diminish.

The Great Society has saddled the U.S. with great economic liabilities that threaten this country at least as much as the foreign threat of terrorism.
 
Werbung:
It is interesting to note that, on Wikipedia's "Historical Rankings of United States Presidents" (I'll post a link below), Abraham Lincoln is number one...followed by FDR.

It should also be noted that James Polk, Lyndon Johnson, and Harry Truman are all higher than Ronald Reagan. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Well, honestly, what would you expect from Wikipedia? They're a bunch of statists.

The best President without question was Thomas Jefferson, because of his clear understanding of the original intent of the Constitution.
 
Well, honestly, what would you expect from Wikipedia? They're a bunch of statists.

The best President without question was Thomas Jefferson, because of his clear understanding of the original intent of the Constitution.

I'm a big fan of Jefferson too, but the economic policies he implemented late in his administration were disastrous. And he only managed to cut taxes the way he did because he more or less dismantled the armed forces (what there was of them in 1801, anyway).

I still think that Jefferson was closest to the spirit of the Revolution, probably closer to it than most of the revolutionaries (John Adams comes to mind) - either that or Jefferson was a maverick who attempted to make the Revolution mean what we today wish it had meant - freedom and equality for all.

Best president? Sorry. Most idealistically accurate, perhaps, but not "best." At least in my opinion.
 
I'm a big fan of Jefferson too, but the economic policies he implemented late in his administration were disastrous.

If they were so "disastrous" as you allege - why did Jefferson's Party win the next several Presidential elections? His administration was a very prosperous time for America. The country expanded and the national debt was reduced. Americans were quite well off compared to the rest of the world during this time.

And he only managed to cut taxes the way he did because he more or less dismantled the armed forces (what there was of them in 1801, anyway).

This is a clear lie on your part. There was no need to cut ANYTHING, since tariff revenues exceeded the previous tax and tariff revenues combined:

"By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."

Jefferson would have had available funds to increase the size of the military had he wanted to do so.

Best president? Sorry. Most idealistically accurate, perhaps, but not "best." At least in my opinion.

Your opinion is slanted by your failure to acknowledge and accept the truth of the matter.
 
If they were so "disastrous" as you allege - why did Jefferson's Party win the next several Presidential elections? His administration was a very prosperous time for America. The country expanded and the national debt was reduced. Americans were quite well off compared to the rest of the world during this time.
Because the Federalists had horse****ed themselves by implementing policies that were blatantly against the Constitution of the United States.

I mean, sure, the Democratic-Republicans managed to hold on to the Presidency in 1824 and 1828 - but only members of the Democratic-Republican Party were running.

The disaster to which I'm referring is the Embargo Act. Economic depression, widespread smuggling...yeah, that worked well.

This is a clear lie on your part. There was no need to cut ANYTHING, since tariff revenues exceeded the previous tax and tariff revenues combined:

"By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."

Jefferson would have had available funds to increase the size of the military had he wanted to do so.

More Wikipedia:
Jefferson attempted to eliminate the national debt because of his wish for small government. If there was no national debt, there wouldn't be any need for taxes. He also decreased the size of the military which would later come back to hurt the U.S. in the War of 1812.

Perhaps it wasn't done due to monetary reasons. It was still done.

Your opinion is slanted by your failure to acknowledge and accept the truth of the matter.

What opinion is that? That he wasn't necessarily the best? The only reason I say I don't believe him to be the best was because of the Embargo Act and the way in which he reduced our armed forces, which had a negative affect on our ability to make war in 1812. Other than that he's one of my favorites.
 
Because the Federalists had horse****ed themselves by implementing policies that were blatantly against the Constitution of the United States.

Or the American people were voting for candidates they actually wanted, rather than voting defensively, as many do today.

I mean, sure, the Democratic-Republicans managed to hold on to the Presidency in 1824 and 1828 - but only members of the Democratic-Republican Party were running.

And that was due to popularity and a general consensus among the people that the government was following the original intent of the Constitution. Not like today when the two major parties have all sorts of laws in place to limit their competition. Competition was completely free and open - no one bothered due to the fact that they felt Jefferson's party was doing its proper duty and defending the unalienable rights of the citizenry.

The disaster to which I'm referring is the Embargo Act. Economic depression, widespread smuggling...yeah, that worked well.

No, it didn't work. It was a hasty decision made due to war in Europe, and it was a mistake. But at least his intentions were to try nonviolent resistance first. And unlike other Presidents such as Bush, Jefferson actually admitted that it didn't work and signed the Non-Intercourse Act two days before he left office to effectively nullify the Embargo Act.

Jefferson made mistakes, I just think he made less than other Presidents.

Perhaps it wasn't done due to monetary reasons. It was still done.

The main issue with the War of 1812 was that we didn't lose. Therefore, whatever harm anyone claims was done to the military, did not affect the independence of the country. Our military wasn't set up to declare and wage an offensive war. Our national militia was a purely defensive measure.

Jefferson could have used the "bully pulpit" to prepare people for war earlier and urged all Americans to stockpile ammunition and make sure they were armed. He also could have urged for voluntary training measures and local drills. Madison could have done this as well after realizing Jefferson's embargo measures failed. I think they all had a sense the war in Europe could draw them in at any time.

But the fact remains - any private ship that enters into war zone takes full responsibility for doing so. And the government should have made this abundantly clear to people - that was another failure of Jefferson's. They should have put out constant notices to people telling them "you risk EVERYTHING if you send goods overseas during a war." The government has no obligation to protect private citizens or private goods that leave the country.
 
There's so many of them. My list of top 5.

1. Teddy Roosevelt
2. Ronald Reagan
3. FDR
4.Abraham Lincoln
5.Andrew Jackson tied with Woodrow Wilson, the Wizard of Oz.

The political doctrine of all of those presidents are so different that as whole that list makes no sense. It's big government, little government back and forth.
 
Werbung:
Not really. What's the purpose of a President? To implement and enforce the policies of the government. That's just my take on it.

I know, but it's what those policies are that determines the success of a certain president, in my opinion, not just the fact that they implement their own policies effectively.
 
Back
Top