03-12-2001 02:49									#91
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: served as a fine and honest president

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

	03-12-2001 03:12									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	03-12-2001 03:18									#93
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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

	03-12-2001 03:27									#94
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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).

	03-12-2001 03:31									#95
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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.

	03-12-2001 03:33									#96
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	03-12-2001 03:34									#97
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	03-12-2001 03:35									#98
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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 *******.

	03-12-2001 03:38									#99
	Got spare money?

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.

quote: quote: 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...

quote: quote: 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.

	03-12-2001 03:44									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	03-12-2001 03:48									#101
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	03-12-2001 03:48									#102
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	03-12-2001 03:57									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	03-12-2001 04:02									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

	03-12-2001 04:13									#105
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	03-12-2001 04:24									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Results are the best measure of competency.

	03-12-2001 04:27									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Then by that measure of competency Stalin must have been the most competent leader ever, because damn if he didn't get results

	03-12-2001 04:29									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Then by that measure of competency Stalin must have been the most competent leader ever, because damn if he didn't get results

If he didn't get his results, he would send one million more to die...

	03-12-2001 04:42									#109
	Remove this text

No, David, your logical fallacies won't work for this one

When I say I look at results as a good measure of a president, I do not mean whether he got everything that he wanted or not, I mean what did he accomplish. Did FDR do things that alleviated poverty and misery? You bet. Did FDR win a war? You bet. He did alot to address the problem this country faced, and he wasn't just a mouthpiece, he did what was needed. Pull yourself out of the 18th century

	03-12-2001 04:48									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Then by that measure of competency Stalin must have been the most competent leader ever, because damn if he didn't get results

Not the most competent, but still pretty good. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to kill 50% of Red Army's officer corp and still led his country to a super power after 4 years of war.

Same with Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and Hitler: they were competent, too, but very nasty.

Competency alone doesn't guarantee a great and benevolent leader. But a great and benevolent leader always needs competency. That's why Jimmy Carter failed.

	03-12-2001 04:49									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Hoek No, David, your logical fallacies won't work for this one When I say I look at results as a good measure of a president, I do not mean whether he got everything that he wanted or not, I mean what did he accomplish. Did FDR do things that alleviated poverty and misery? You bet. Did FDR win a war? You bet. He did alot to address the problem this country faced, and he wasn't just a mouthpiece, he did what was needed. Pull yourself out of the 18th century

Correction: FDR's the New Deal did not take the US out of depression, WWII did.

	03-12-2001 04:52									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Transcend Competency alone doesn't guarantee a great and benevolent leader. But a great and benevolent leader always needs competency. That's why Jimmy Carter failed.

Jimmy Carter's presidency was just a curse. Everything failed. 1979 was a big failure for him.

	03-12-2001 05:00									#113
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

Again, I'm taking "pro-business" to mean pro-all businesses, not simply individual firms.

	03-12-2001 05:10									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

--"Because domestic business doesn't have to compete. Making more money (less into R&D)."

Imram, I'm surprised at you. Surely you haven't forgotten opportunity cost or efficency. Protective tarrifs allow domestic companies to operate more inefficently than they otherwise would have, which is a long-term problem economically. Why else has the US steel industry had so many problems over the years?

--"FDR at least got stuff done."

See the tagline. Sorry, but the ends never justify the means.

--"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."

Because the "worst ravages" weren't caused by capitalism, but by the government standing in the way of capitalism. It's amazing how easy it is for the government to create a giant mess and then blame it on something else and then get credit for partially fixing what it broke in the first place.

--"while FDR was elected 4 times"

Reagan was re-elected as well, and if not for a little term limitation problem probably wouldn't have had a whole lot of trouble with another term or two. You sure you want to use this as the basis of a sucessful Presidency?

You should also note that this just goes to show my point. FDR was power-hungry, not a great statesman.

--"If it wasn't then why are domestic businesses the ones supporting it?"

Because domestic businesses are very lazy. They don't like to do work they don't have to, like upgrading their smelters to efficent ones. Instead they use government, when they can, to stamp out their competition and keep coasting along.

--"Did FDR do things that alleviated poverty and misery?"

Nope. His policies help extend the Great Depression by several years.

--". Did FDR win a war?"

It's a bit much to give him credit for that. Hasn't this been repeatedly covered in the numerous "The US saved your ASSES!" threads?

Wraith
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves"
- William Pitt

	03-12-2001 06:08									#115
	Put an end to popups!

Yet another joke that people think I was serious about, re: the Stalin thing

If I make a 2 line post in a thread like this, as a general rule, I'm probably either trolling or kidding

	03-12-2001 06:18									#116
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Imram, I'm surprised at you. Surely you haven't forgotten opportunity cost or efficency. Protective tarrifs allow domestic companies to operate more inefficently than they otherwise would have, which is a long-term problem economically. Why else has the US steel industry had so many problems over the years?

I haven't forgotten, but a tariff, allowing business to operate inefficiently, is a pro-business measure! Business support tariffs in order so that they can continue inefficiently.

To be efficient requires costs that businesses don't want to do.

	03-12-2001 06:22									#117
	Inflate your Upload Space

It's a pro-certain businesses measure, not all businesses.

	03-12-2001 06:39									#118
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Regardless of semantics, tariffs are poor economic policy.

Though WWII brough us out of the depression, FDR's New Deal still did alot of good for alot of people. If it hadn't been for America, does anybody doubt that Britain and Russia would have lost?

	03-12-2001 07:01									#119
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't know if anyone is claiming tarriffs to be anti business, but if so, it simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

David Floyd, though speaking in jest, brings up an important point. Just because a person accomplishes a lot of what they want to accomplish doesn't mean that they are a great President. And even still, you ignore the means of how that change came about. FDR alone was NOT responsible for bringing us out of the depression. Hoover alone was NOT responsible for getting us into it. Both played minimal roles in the situations. Make sense?

quote: Originally posted by Hoek Regardless of semantics, tariffs are poor economic policy. Though WWII brough us out of the depression, FDR's New Deal still did alot of good for alot of people. If it hadn't been for America, does anybody doubt that Britain and Russia would have lost?

I believe Nazi Germany would have had to many internal problems to continue, yes. I can't see them taking Britain...I really can't...though Japan would have done extremely well without the US opposition...

	03-12-2001 07:56									#120
	Tired of ads?

I would say Lincoln, he was president during America's greatest war. He did a good job overall during that time, many other presidents would have cracked. He also issued 3 of the most important ammendmants to the constitution.