Friday, September 23, 2011

The Five Greatest Presidents in U.S. History IMHO

5) Teddy Roosevelt (trust-busting, conservation, "speak softly but carry a big stick")............. 4) Harry Truman (strong anti-Communist, pro-business, "the buck stops here")............. 3) John F. Kennedy (the Cuban missile crisis, cut taxes, "ask not what your country can do for you......")............. 2) George Washington (yes, he was a slave-holder but he also founded the damned country).............1) Abraham Lincoln (the Emancipation Proclamation, saved the union, "four score and seven years ago......").


w-dervish said...

No 1: FDR

No 43: George W. bush
No 44: Ronald Reagan

Teddy Roosevelt for trust busting? I'd thought you'd be in favor of that. Was it bad in TR's time and good today? I say this because I know dmarks would strongly oppose trust busting... and it seems you agree with him a lot.

btw, JFK didn't cut taxes... or, at least, that is a far to simplistic take on what he actually did. He lowered the rate while closing loopholes. The overall effect was to increase revenue.

George Washington didn't found the country. He is ONE of a group of people referred to as the founders. He wasn't one of the principal authors of the Constitution.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

What trust would you like busted, wd? Walmart? Certainly not the over-bloated federal government.......Lowering rates while closing loopholes is exactly what Reagan did in 1986. Hm, who's the simpleton now, joker?......FDR the best President ever? You do know, don't you, Mr. "please don't harm the civilians" wd, that FDR ROUTINELY targeted population centers in Germany and Japan throughout WW2 (I don't necessarily have a problem with it but you should - if, that is, you had any sort of moral consistency).......Washington was the general of the colonial army and a superior leader early in our country's history. I have zero problem putting him on the list.

w-dervish said...

Excuse me, I meant to say that I thought you'd be against trust busting. And it appears as though I thought right, because you correctly guess I'm in favor of breaking up Walmart, but clearly you are not.

So why did you say trust busting is a reason why TR is one of the five greatest presidents?

Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about RR. He may have closed some loopholes, and he was forced to raise some taxes, but he drastically cut the top marginal rate, and revenue fell as a result. Which is why the national debt ballooned under his incompetent tenure. This isn't what JFK did!

I am opposed to targeting areas where there are civilians. FDR was a great president, but I never said I am in 100 percent agreement with everything he did.

In any case, I would not classify WWII as a war of choice, as was the case with Afghanistan and Iraq... wars where I do criticize bush for civilian deaths.

w-dervish said...

Unless you're talking about the Pentagon, I do not believe the federal government is "over bloated". I think there are a lot of areas where we need to increase spending. A single payer health insurance program would be one example.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

WE WERE ATTACKED BY AL QUAEDA, you idiot. And these miserable sons of bitches were (and probably still are) trying to get weapons of mass destruction. We had every right to go in there and annihilate both them AND their damned terrorist compounds.......And, NO, I'm not wrong about "RR". If you knew even a little bit about what I was referring to, you'd know that the Tax Reform Act (a BIPARTISAN and revenue-neutral piece of legislation) of 1986 lowered rates AND eliminated loopholes, just like President Kennedy did.......And, NO, I wouldn't break up Walmart, not as long as there are K-Marts, Targets, etc. around. I seriously doubt that Mr. Roosevelt would have, either.

w-dervish said...

When Ronald Reagan took office the top marginal rate was 70 percent. When he left office the top marginal rate was 28 percent. He did not close loopholes and make up the difference. This is why Reagan left us with a huge debt.

Ronald Reagan didn't do anything "just like President Kennedy". You are totally and completely 100 percent wrong about this.

Also, we were NOT attacked by Afghanistan. We were NOT attacked by Iraq. These were wars of choice... and completely illegal under international law. George bush is a war criminal.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The first tax-cut WAS a tax-cut. But the second one you are absolutely and provably wrong. Look it up, for Christ sakes! The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered rates but also closed numerous loopholes. It was a BIPARTISAN and revenue-neutral piece of legislation. You cannot rewrite history.............And the second piece of garbage that you just jotted down is a total red herring. I NEVER said that Afghanistan attacked us AND I opposed the mission-creep that eventuated (this, as opposed to the idiotic Democratic Party which supported it vociferously) from the military action. I also strenuously opposed the Iraq War FROM DAY ONE. I thought that it was an idiotic misadventure and I've consistently praised the 22 Senators who stood up to the Bush administration. So, there, smoke that, Mr. "I'm even to the left of frigging Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy" wd.

w-dervish said...

The top tax rate under Reagan went from 70 to 28. Are you denying this? This fact is in no way Kennedy-like. I say you're the one rewriting history (or, more accurately, you're going along with the totally false Republican version of it).

As for Afghanistan, if they didn't attack us, then why did we attack them? Don't forget that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over! My comment contained no "red herrings", only the truth.

YOU SAID I was an idiot for being against the Afghanistan war because al Qaeda attacked us. I'M THE IDIOT? It appears as though you don't know the difference between al Qaeda and Afghanistan!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

NO, it did go down from 70% to 28%, but second reduction that went from 50% to 28% WAS PART OF THE 1986 TAX REFORM ACT!!!! And that act DID include the closing of loopholes that made it revenue neutral (how in the hell else do you think that it got such bipartisan support? HELLO!!!!!). What part of this do you not comprehend?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, yes, idiot, I know the difference between al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Once again, very slowly, I was FOR the attacks on the al Qaeda training camps and the killing of as many of these miscreants as we could possibly kill. I was AGAINST the occupation (this same occupation and war that the idiotic Democrats so idiotically supported) that the mission eventually morphed into. Again, what part of this do you not comprehend?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

As for your other laughable suggestion (which we've already discussed ad nauseum), I vociferously reject any notion of a) the turning over of "evidence" to the Taliban and b) the turning over of bin Laden to some kangaroo court with nary a single Democratic nation amongst it. Face it, dude, you're in the one percent of the one percent on this one.

w-dervish said...

Will, my blogger ID is "w-dervish", not "idiot".

Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, says, "I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks".

I don't understand why you think he's wrong. I suggested before that it might have something to do with your prejudices, but you dismissed that suggestion... even though you've offered up no proof that their court would have been "kangaroo" in nature.

What I believe is laughable is your rejection of a solution that would have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody without us going to war (and having to wait almost 10 years to finally get him)... for absolutely no rational reason. The only reason you give is that you don't trust Muslims.

Will: but [the] second reduction that went from 50% to 28% WAS PART OF THE 1986 TAX REFORM ACT!!!!

So what???? Are you saying that the reduction from 70 to 28 percent was a good thing? Is that what you're saying?

As for the Tax Reform Act of 1986 being "bipartisan"... I still think it was a bad bill. Because it lowered the top tax rate from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was RAISED from 11% to 15%.

By the way, regarding the Democratic sponsors of the bill... Dick Gephardt is now a consultant for Goldman Sachs and Bill Bradley has worked as worked as a corporate consultant and investment banker. Neither is or was progressive.

"Bipartisan" means squat to me if we're talking about agreement between corporatist Republicans and corporatist Democrats.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's a bald-faced mischaracterization. My protestations have NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! whatsoever to do with religion. My issue is that this supposedly "moderate" (what, now you suddenly like moderates now LOL) council had amongst its members people like the mullahs from Iran, Assad from Syria, Gaddafi from Libya, Arafat from the Palestinian Authority and many, many, other thugs and dictators from that region- including Saudi Arabia where bin Laden and 19 of the hijackers came from. None of these countries are a Democracy and none of them have a justice system that I would trust for even a milisecond (you complain about OUR justice system and give carte blanche to bunch of countries where you're guilty period and shot in the back of the head). And it wasn't just bin Laden that we wanted. We needed to take out that entire (or as much as we could) terrorist network cleanly and gotten out. And no negotiations with the frigging Taliban, either. Giving them our evidence - give me a break.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

If reducing the rates from 50% to 28% was accompanied by a corresponding closing of loopholes and was revenue neutral, then I could thoroughly give a rat's ass. Doe that sufficiently answer your question?......And I totally resent your implication that I'm anti-Muslim. I'm not anti-anybody (well, except for maybe partisan stooges) and you really need to be a lot more careful with that shit, fellow.

dmarks said...

"Bipartisan" means squat to me if we're talking about agreement between corporatist Republicans and corporatist Democrats."

Neither group really exists.

Will: The "moderate" council you mention was nothing but a conclave of terrorists and genocidal dictators.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I say this because I know dmarks would strongly oppose trust busting..."

Actually, I oppose trustsAnd in the exact same spirit, I oppose government monopolies on industries such as health insurance.

These are at least as bad in the public sector as private.

Will asked: "What trust would you like busted, wd? Walmart? "

That's a good question. So many things that people call "Trusts" or monopolies aren't at all. Like Clear Channel. They own about 10% of all radio stations (not even remotely close to a slim majority) and even in markets where they have a few stations, they are greatly outnumbered by non-Clear Channel.

Walmart's just one of thousands of retailers out there.

Standard Oil, one of the actual trusts busted, was indeed a monopoly. So was AT&T. I do indeed favor policies to discourage and break up actual monopolies.

dmarks said...

WD said: "And it appears as though I thought right, because you correctly guess I'm in favor of breaking up Walmart, but clearly you are not."

Walmart's not a trust. Let the people decide its fate, not the fascist hand of government. Walmart serves its workers AND customers quite well. And it has only gotten big through doing well at these. It's no trust. If it fails to serve anyone (like K-mart did), it will shrink and wither.