Yeah but the Fed would have done that regardless of who was in office.
Is there a site one can go to to see how many military and civilian deaths (on both sides preferably) were caused by president’s military actions?
Obama has and will spend more money in his first 100 days in office than Bush Junior possibly could in two years.
He has to deal with Bush’s mess. As I’ve said before, it’s Hoover and Roosevelt all over again. Only worse, considering America is already involved everywhere and spends gazillions on military.
**^**And people have credit cards and unemployment and welfare keeps people from working, and all the obligations of fdic and bailouts. Plus entitlement costs. Student loan debt for young people and even established people in 100ks. Commercial real estate, failing landlords have more taxes obligations then before.
Yeah, the 30s would be cake compared to a real collapse now. At least those pennies you found were worth something.
As a foreigner, I oppose you guys’ hatred against Truman. Think about how many East Europeans he saved from Soviet Totalitarianism.
Obama #1, FDR #2, Bush & Wilson #3
Not a damn one.
Think of how many Japanese civilians he distegrated to save the Japanese from totalitarianism. Or how many US Citizens he drafted and killed to save half of Korea from totalitarianism.
Kill some Japanese for the indirect undetermined sake of some Soviets? Surely cause of praises.
I think without the two A Bombs, the war will persist at least some months longer with more and more Chinese died.
Sorry, but there would be many people fell into Stalin’s sphere of influence. If Truman did not act then the British probably would withdraw with no reinforcement for Greece. Moreover, the Truman Doctrine did make the Red Tsar back down a little bit. He made concessions on Turkey and due to his misconception that the capitalist powers would destroy each other, (in this case Stalin was in fact expecting the British would fight the Americans. Some words in Truman’s speech to “scare the hell out of the American people” seemed to confirm Stalin his false belief) he did not make big moves until Marshall Plan was confirmed to him.
Furthermore, if the Americans did not intervene into Europe, really Stalin would someday take advantage of this vacuum.
The japanese military was killing people in china, so the solution is to nuke a bunch of japanese civilians? Great stratagy.
Sounds like typical statist rationale - we need a monopoly gang to violate rights in order to prevent the violation of rights. The only organization that can prevent theft must steal to exist. Murdering civilians is necessary to prevent the murder of civilians. War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.
I like Parsidius’ list, although I’d be fine with Bush II in place of Clinton, or tied. Mainly because he did much of the same stuff Clinton did-- times a factor of 5 or 10.
That is funny how they have a pattern isn’t it? The least Obama could have done was think of a NEW buzzword, instead of recycling “New Deal”… but I guess green recycling trends are “in” nowadays huh?
He could have even combined “New Deal/Great Society” and called his program “New Society” (i.e. a socialist and fascist one) or “Great Deal” (for all his friends, political allies, and special interests).
(Edit: Oh wow, 5 pages huh? Guess I’m late! [:P])
The worst president:
Jefferson
Uh, why?
He was like Ronald Reagan, wonderful rherotic, horrible application.
Fair enough I guess, but I’m still gonna have to go with the likes of FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, etc.!
But we expect that from statists. I feel it is much more devastating for a ‘libertarian’ to become a ‘statesman’ then a statist.
Didn’t Lincoln have a lot of libertarian rhetoric?