best and worse USA presidents

brianlux

petejm043 wrote:

I agree with both of you. We need to raise taxes a bit but there is also alot of useless spending.

I agree and would add that we need to move some of the spending around. For example: less on military/endless-useless war-- more on education, and addressing climate change.

Byrnzie

ComeToTX wrote:

petejm043 wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

Reagan grew up on welfare and then turned his back on the less fortunate. Reagan was the president of a union and then turned his back on unions. Reagan had the chance to do something about aids before it became an epidemic. He did nothing.

The current hero to the GOP is a guy who raised taxes in 7 of his 8 years in office. Go figure.

There are times to raise taxes and times to lower taxes. I read somewhere they other day that in the 80's, 85% of Americans paid income tax. Today only 51% pay income tax. Something is wrong with this picture. Also Americans on disabilty as gone from around 3 million in 91 to 9 million today. Without tax revenue increasing, there is no way we can sustain the system.

I'm for raising taxes. It's the only way to pay for shit.

Yep, let's debate Reagan's stance on taxes, and let that determine whether or not he was a President worthy of admiration, or otherwise.

Never mind the fact that he carried out genocide in Latin America, that saw hundreds of thousands murdered by U.S-backed death squads, who wiped out thousands of villages, raping women - including Nuns - and killing children.


As it happens, Hitler and the Nazis did a great job with the German economy during their time in power. Following the logic of many posters here, maybe it's time to re-evaluate their legacy too? :?

Byrnzie

Bill Hicks on Ronald Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7INABbOnLI

petejm043

There are times to raise taxes and times to lower taxes. I read somewhere they other day that in the 80's, 85% of Americans paid income tax. Today only 51% pay income tax. Something is wrong with this picture. Also Americans on disabilty as gone from around 3 million in 91 to 9 million today. Without tax revenue increasing, there is no way we can sustain the system.[/quote]

I'm for raising taxes. It's the only way to pay for shit.[/quote]

Yep, let's debate Reagan's stance on taxes, and let that determine whether or not he was a President worthy of admiration, or otherwise.

We can also debate what lead to U.S. intervention in Latin America. The Sandinista's backed by the Soviets and Cuba was spreading. I am not going to be naive either and say that the government's that were in place before were any better. But the goal of those countries backed by the Soviets in 70's and 80's were put in place to not only diminish the U.S. but the long term goal was to possibly to do away with the U.S. as it was our goal to do away with the Soviets.

Byrnzie

petejm043 wrote:

We can also debate what lead to U.S. intervention in Latin America. The Sandinista's backed by the Soviets and Cuba was spreading. I am not going to be naive either and say that the government's that were in place before were any better. But the goal of those countries backed by the Soviets in 70's and 80's were put in place to not only diminish the U.S. but the long term goal was to possibly to do away with the U.S. as it was our goal to do away with the Soviets.

They were opposed to the U.S using the region as their own backyard sweatshop.

Are you honestly suggesting that the survival of the U.S was under threat from these popular resistance movements?

Do you have any evidence that the goal of the popular Nationalist governments in Latin America was to 'do away with the U.S'? Or is that just a convenient invention you use to excuse the genocide carried out in the region?

Byrnzie

petejm043 wrote:

We can also debate what lead to U.S. intervention in Latin America.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Choms ... _Cuba.html
A Century Later: Cuba , the Caribbean, and Latin America
by Noam Chomsky

'...The case of Cuba is [...] instructive. Arthur Schlesinger, reporting the conclusions of a Latin American study group to President Kennedy in early 1961, described the Cuban threat as "the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands;" a serious problem, he elaborated, when "[t]he distribution of land and other forms of national wealth [in Latin America] greatly favors the propertied classes ... [and] ... The poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." "Meanwhile, the Soviet Union hovers in the wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the model for achieving modernization in a single generation." In public Schlesinger now describes the problem faced by Kennedy as Castro's "troublemaking in the hemisphere" and "the Soviet connection."
From the origins of the Cold War eighty years ago, such "troublemaking" and the "Soviet connection" were perceived in a similar light by Washington and London. High level U.S. planning documents identify the primary threat to their global plans as "nationalistic regimes" that are responsive to popular pressures for "immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses." These tendencies conflicted with the demand for "a political and economic climate conducive to private investment," with adequate repatriation of profits and "protection of our raw materials."
At a hemispheric conference in February 1945, the U.S. called for "An Economic Charter of the Americas" that would eliminate economic nationalism "in all its forms." Officials recognized that it would be necessary to overcome the "philosophy of the New Nationalism [that] embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses." Latin Americans, the State Department warned, "are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country's resources should be the people of that country." Given power relations, the U.S. position prevailed -- the first beneficiaries were to be U.S. investors and domestic elites. Latin America was to fulfill its service function without "excessive industrial development" that would encroach on U.S. interests.

riotgrl

Byrnzie wrote:

petejm043 wrote:

We can also debate what lead to U.S. intervention in Latin America. The Sandinista's backed by the Soviets and Cuba was spreading. I am not going to be naive either and say that the government's that were in place before were any better. But the goal of those countries backed by the Soviets in 70's and 80's were put in place to not only diminish the U.S. but the long term goal was to possibly to do away with the U.S. as it was our goal to do away with the Soviets.

They were opposed to the U.S using the region as their own backyard sweatshop.

Are you honestly suggesting that the survival of the U.S was under threat from these popular resistance movements?

Do you have any evidence that the goal of the popular Nationalist governments in Latin America was to 'do away with the U.S'? Or is that just a convenient invention you use to excuse the genocide carried out in the region?

And let's not forget what our foreign policy goals have been since after the Civil War. We have done everything in our power to become a global power. We were too late to imperialize Africa so we claimed we needed to "protect" Latin America - that it was our sphere. This just eventually led to our involvement in other areas of the world and we kept shifting our foreign policy to allow us to continue to do that. TR continued the policy in Latin America, WIlson did it to make the world safe for democracy (justification for WWI), FDR did it, then every president who fought the cold war did it as well. Our war on terrorism is the same today as Cold War policy; only now we are fighting an enemy we helped create because of our foreign policy during the Cold War. Global political and economic power has been our goal for a very long time!

Jason P

Don't forget that the US partnered with Stalin during WW2. That means FDR and the US was responsible for tens of millions of deaths in Soviet controlled territory.

:fp:

Why doesn't the US ever get blamed for Canada?

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

Don't forget that the US partnered with Stalin during WW2. That means FDR and the US was responsible for tens of millions of deaths in Soviet controlled territory.

:fp:

Why doesn't the US ever get blamed for Canada?

First of all, what 'millions of deaths' between 1941 and 1945 in Soviet controlled territory are you talking about?

Secondly, what do you mean by 'blamed for Canada'?

riotgrl

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Don't forget that the US partnered with Stalin during WW2. That means FDR and the US was responsible for tens of millions of deaths in Soviet controlled territory.

:fp:

Why doesn't the US ever get blamed for Canada?

First of all, what 'millions of deaths' between 1941 and 1945 in Soviet controlled territory are you talking about?

Secondly, what do you mean by 'blamed for Canada'?

I assumed (correct me if I'm wrong Jason P) that he was referencing the Gulag labor camp system. Although tens of millions passed through, roughly 1 million died while there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Jason P

riotgrl wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Don't forget that the US partnered with Stalin during WW2. That means FDR and the US was responsible for tens of millions of deaths in Soviet controlled territory.

:fp:

Why doesn't the US ever get blamed for Canada?

First of all, what 'millions of deaths' between 1941 and 1945 in Soviet controlled territory are you talking about?

Secondly, what do you mean by 'blamed for Canada'?

I assumed (correct me if I'm wrong Jason P) that he was referencing the Gulag labor camp system. Although tens of millions passed through, roughly 1 million died while there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

It was in jest, but I was actually supporting your opinion that the US strives to be a world economic power. That pretty much ensures that which ever country is vying for being a world leading power is going to be involved and traced back to everything. In WW2 we signed a deal with Stalin to take on Hitler. Which led to the USSR and communist block countries, the cold war, Stalin massacring his citizens, etc.

The Canada reference was to point out there are a good number of countries that have good relations with the US that don't commit genocide on their own people, for whatever reason.

Byrnzie

riotgrl wrote:

I assumed (correct me if I'm wrong Jason P) that he was referencing the Gulag labor camp system. Although tens of millions passed through, roughly 1 million died while there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

And what relation did Stalin's gulags have with the U.S?

None.

So I fail to see any analogy with direct U.S funding, training, and public support for Latin American dictatorships and death squads during the 1980's.

riotgrl

Byrnzie wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

I assumed (correct me if I'm wrong Jason P) that he was referencing the Gulag labor camp system. Although tens of millions passed through, roughly 1 million died while there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

And what relation did Stalin's gulags have with the U.S?

None.

So I fail to see any analogy with direct U.S funding, training, and public support for Latin American dictatorships and death squads during the 1980's.

No, Stalin had no connection with the US, I was just making a guess at what JasonP referenced but he explained what he meant. Obviously my guess was wrong.

Byrnzie

riotgrl wrote:

No, Stalin had no connection with the US, I was just making a guess at what JasonP referenced but he explained what he meant. Obviously my guess was wrong.

The only connection the U.S had with Stalin was in their combined effort to defeat the Nazis. The deals that were signed with Stalin to take on Hitler did not lead directly to the cold war, or 'Stalin massacring his citizens' (not sure what massacres he's referring to here. Maybe he can enlighten us?).

And I'm pretty sure that the Russians would have fought, and defeated, the Nazis with or without any deal with the Americans.

Either way, the analogy he made with the above and with direct U.S support for Latin American counter-revolutionary movements and death squads, was totally redundant.

cincybearcat

Hey Byrnzie... who's your top 3 BEST USA presidents?

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey Byrnzie... who's your top 3 BEST USA presidents?

Someone asked me that question on a similar (or identical) thread before.

I have no idea.

Isn't this like asking a Miami Dolphins fan who their favourite 49'rs player is?

:think:

What U.S politicians have done the least damage to the World?

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey Byrnzie... who's your top 3 BEST USA presidents?

Someone asked me that question on a similar (or identical) thread before.

I have no idea.

Isn't this like asking a Miami Dolphins fan who their favourite 49'rs player is?

:think:

What U.S politicians have done the least damage to the World?

Ok, it was worth a try.

brianlux

I still insist Pat Paulsen would have been a great president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHYQ0XiMB34

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey Byrnzie... who's your top 3 BEST USA presidents?

These kinds of people just really don't feature that highly in my scheme of things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9qCTCzO ... re=related

VINNY GOOMBA

worst: all of them
best: none of them



Woodrow Wilson has to be up there as one of the worst: WWI, The Federal Reserve and the IRS. George W. was pretty horrible. FDR, despite him reppin' the Hudson Valley of NY is also very low on my list.

Best president in my lifetime: Slick Willy. I still am no fan of him.