Which of these presidents do you consider was the best for the US, and if you could which one would you wish would be become president again if those term limits were lifted? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't want to be a prick, but can we all explain a little why? I really find it rather interesting.
Carter. Nobody owned him. He had a brain. Iran's revolution and Desert One had nothing to do with Carter other than bad luck. Carter delayed the conflict now coming to a boil in the Mideast by at least 20 years.
I also voted Carter (I am not a American) but I know that Carter was a true democrat. He was the democrat that understood the issues of the workers of the US. The problem with the Carter administration as hype mentions is that of circumstance, his presidency was a victim of circumstance. He had some pretty forward looking proposals in the US at the time. For instance if his fuel efficentcy standards were to stay in place the US wouldn't have had to import any Middle Eastern oil! The world today would be markedly safer then that of the one we live in today. The militarization that followed Carter under Reagan was a bad omen for the future of man. The Reagan era is basically the pre-cursor to all the ills that the US suffers today, deficits, debts, militarization, and the key players all came from that administration. The religious right found it's voice in the moral realist which was Reagan. I think detente would have happened under Carter, and a generally more peaceful world.The Cold War would have ended eariler, and we wouldn't be facing the vacumm that we face today in a uni-polar world. Carter would have been a better president, but that is only my opinion.
Enough idiocy already. So Carter is the best just because he is a democrate? Give me fricken break. Carter is the most incompetant president in history of US. Most of his domestic policies were complete failures. US experienced doubled digit unemployment rate, inflation, and interest rate during his watch. His international policies are without any backbone. If he is that good, he would have been reelected.
US experienced doubled digit unemployment rate, inflation, and interest rate during his watch Which were inheirted from the former administrations economic policies. Also the mistake you make is that you assume Carter could have done much, the oil crises of the 70's was totally out of Carter's hands. The Kenyesian economy collapsed well before Carter ever came to power. His international policies are without any backbone. That is the problem with current American policy, backbone with no clear cut objective behind it. You must understand that Carter inheirted a broken country after Vietnam, he was going to plunge the country into another war. The US did not have the appetite for another war. Also Joeman, instead of attack Carter can you tell us who you voted for. I mean that was the whole point of this thread. P.S: So Carter is the best just because he is a democrate? DemoPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry I didn't know he was crate... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Carter. Very nice man. Very bad president. I voted 'other'. Washington specifically. No parties to affiliatiate with. A modern-day Cincinnatus. Stepped down after his second term, even though many encouraged him to run again (and he would have easily won), setting a tradition that would carry until FDR. Had no precedent to base his presidency on, literally had to wing it, and had to preside during arguably the most critical period in US history, outside perhaps the Civil War.
Was Carter really that bad of a president? As one can plainly see Carter may have done a little too little to help. The economic malaise of the country was not his fault. It was an inherited economic and political disaster from the previous administration. Carter was merely a victim of forces greater then the US, from oil to foreign unease. Reagan initiated the de-industrialization of the United States which today is starting to show its troublesome head.
I heard a rumor, not knowing if it is true. Something about George Washington being a King, and he turned it down?
I believe it was Adams who suggested Washington be called king, which others, including Washington, immediately squelched, knowing that wouldn't fly. But when the British Parliament decide after Yorktown to let the colonies go George III had at first threatened to abdicate, then quickly changed his mind, because he assumed that Washington would declare himself a dictator (as he would have and assumed anyone else would too), and the American people would decide they were better off back within the empire. When someone later told him that Washington was going to resign his post as CinC of the Continental army, George III said if he did that he would "be a great man indeed." Truly a CIncinnatus. Little known fact. In 1776 the Americans had the highest standard of living of any people in the West.
What is that based on? I would imagine records were not well kept or well done. I know that US GDP per capita did not exceed that of the UK until 1903. So what is it based on?
I honestly can't remember the original text I read that in, but I know it was based on somewhat on opportunities and land available for citizens, resources, taxation, and other things, as compared to citizens in England and the rest of Europe. I did do a quick Google search to see if I could find anything on the Net. It gives a short mention on the link below, if you scroll down to Economics In The Empire. I will check some more later to see if I can find other sites. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/13colonies.htm
I think FDR was good, but not great. I think his foreign policy was ok, but he misread Stalin badly and appeased the Soviet leader way too much, but his overall handling of the war was good. Domestically he did a pretty good job in a bad time, but I don't think the New Deal was any great success.
People tend to forget that Washington chaired the Convention that replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution as well as being the first president under the Constitution. He had some understanding of protecting the rights of the individual from mob rule while maintaining a strong central government. Hence his command of the troops during the Whiskey Rebellion.
The thirteen colonies in the Eighteenth century were probably the places with the highest standard of living in the world. Correct? Well it does sound impressive, nor do I deny that it is possible. The facts that I hold say that the 13 colonies were close to British standards, they did not exceede them: In 1700 the population of the US was 1 million, in the UK it was close to 9 million. In 1700 GDP per capita was $527 in the US, and $1,250 in the UK (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars) In 1700 GDP was $527 million in the US, and $10 billion in the UK. In 1820 the population of the US was 9.9 million in the UK it was 8.5 million In 1820 the GDP per capita was $1,257 in the US, and $1,706 in the UK. In 1820 the GDP was $12,5 billion in the US, and $36,2 billion in the UK. It was in 1872 that the US GDP finally exceeded that of the UK: USA: 106,360 million UK: 105,795 million. And in 1903 the GDP per capita was finally beat: USA:4,551 UK:4,440 So the numbers bare a different story, but I could see why the US could have been "possibly" the best. That is excluding the extensive British empire if we were to include them.
