Worst President of the U.S.?

Overrated.

William Harrison,how do you praise?
That guy was dead in 30 days!

Eh, okay you've redeemed yourself.

As if presidents don't frequently ignore what they say in campaigns. They'll say all sorts of things and kiss a lot of ass to get elected, but they still won't do it.

Once again, where are the figures to back up the "fact" that the economy got worse with FDR's New Deal?

He was probably the greatest president in our history.

That doesn't make it right or moral. Besides, politicians don't usually lie about economic policy.

Here's a graph of unemployment during the Great Depression. It only goes up to 1939 but yeah. As you can see, after Hoover screwed the economy (1929-1932) FDR presided over a recovery that was unbelievably slow. While every other recession the United States experienced up to that point lasted, on average, about 3 years, with the max being 5 years, FDR's policies made this recession last until 1945. Hell, there was another recession inside the Great Depression that started in 1938. Recessions don't last this long, FDR made it last this long.

If I had to choose a few of the worst, I'd go:
Ford/Carter (Both were pretty big balls of fail)
Harding
Grant (Lots of corruption in his admin.)
Pierce (probably the worst)
Hayes

They often do. Of course its not right or moral, but when was the last time you voted for a president because of his morals?

Thank you.

Of course, although it wasn't all him, it was also the spending habits of the American people. Americans have a tendency to blame others, but lets be honest, its often the fault of ourselves.

It was much faster than it is now.

Except this was a worldwide depression.

See above. Also, while FDR's policies were making the economy better, and probably eventually would have fixed it.

In summer 1937 Roosevelt cut spending because he feared an unbalanced budget. That summer, the nation plunged into a recession inside the depression, although it wasn't felt at first. It was felt in 1938 and then began to stabilize with a couple more of Roosevelt's new deal policies.

No....no he didn't.

I've only just registered. I won't vote for anybody that lies to my face, and neither should you.

What are you talking about?

Unemployment can only go down from 30%. We have some wriggle room.

Worldwide because of Hoover. I don't understand why you're putting emphasis on depression because it's purely a semantic issue. It could just as easily been called the Great Recession, or the Great Panic.

That sentence didn't really make much sense... but from what I gather you seem to be telling me that even you don't believe that FDR fixed the economy, and that it might eventually have fixed it if the economy hadn't fixed itself.

Source?

Yes, yes he did. No recession where the government didn't interfere lasted longer than 5 years. Then, in the first recession in US history where the government did interfere, we see sky-high unemployment and a 12 year long recovery. Just think about that. The government's intervention caused 15 years of recession. You can't say it wasn't caused by Hoover's meddling.

And that kids is why you wear a coat on a cold day.

He will forever be remembered for teaching us that lesson.

You can't spend more money than you have, sometimes you have to stop and say, that's enough.

No unemployment can't only go down from 30%, don't be silly. It can always go up.

Hoover did not singlehandedly sabotage the world economy, it was the people across the world. And a recession and depression are different, its not just semantics. And a "panic" is just a run on the banks, not anything really long term. A panic often leads into a recession or depression.

Sorry my computer cut something out. What I meant to say was that FDR's policies were improving the economy, and may eventually have fixed them, but WW2 was what really ended it, with all the military spending and new jobs.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Nope

1815-21 depression was 6 years.

It was also the biggest depression in US history, as shown here:

Hoover's meddling was much different from Roosevelt's.

Also, I'd like to share this:

@StephenColbert27
@slydessertfox
How many presidents do you think are overrated!?

I agree, tell the current US government this. I'm assuming you're trying to relate this to the people of the 20s. That doesn't really work because they, mostly, had the money to spend.

I meant naturally. In a completely free market, 30% unemployment has never happened. Only in an economy where the government intervened has 30% unemployment occurred. Unless FDR completely got rid of capitalism and shut down every business in the US could unemployment go over 30%

You're right actually. A recession is a less extreme version of a depression. You're wrong in that a panic is just a "run on the banks" though. It can include that, but also other things.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/441281/panic

No... just no. War is never good for an economy. EVER. Ever hear of the Broken Window Fallacy? Here's an article: http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy_3.htm
and a video:
In case you don't want to read/watch I'll go over the basics. A hooligan throws a brick into the baker's window. The community gathers round and decides that the hooligan helped stimulate the economy because now the glass maker will be paid money to fix the window, and then the glass maker can pay other people for other goods and services. The baker comes out and points out that they're all ignoring what he would have done with the money had the window not been broken. He was planning to buy a new suit the next day, and then the suit maker could have used that money to buy goods and services. Instead of the baker getting a new suit, all he has now is a window (which he had before) and less money. The baker has a net loss of wealth.

Not a particularly reliable looking website...

Still not nearly as long as the 16 year long depression under FDR and Hoover.

I'd have to be an idiot to disagree with you there, since it quite obviously was. Also, I can really read that graph too well but it seems to be GDP, right?

Hoover's meddling was much different from Roosevelt's.

Also, I'd like to share this:[/quote]

Not really. I've read some books/articles/etc. that called Hoover's policies the "New Deal Lite." Hoover spent a lot on public works, just like FDR. Hoover raised pensions, just like FDR. Hoover negotiated a deal with different corporations for them to raise wages, just like FDR. Although, FDR kinda forced businesses to do that, while Hoover asked them nicely. Whatever.

And to your big ol' block of text that shows GNP I say this, of course GNP would go up during periods of massive government spending. GNP records spending. If the government spends a lot, then GNP will go up.

Several.

like who (besides the obivious)

FDR, Truman, JFK, Polk, Reagan, off the top of my head.

Truman?, From where I live he's considered a mediorce president at best. Never really met anyone who considered him amongst the likes of TR, Lincoln, FDR, and Washington

Lets not go off on a side point. Honestly I didn't live then so I can't reliably tell you about how much people had to spend. I was just pointing out that a recession, depression, or panic, is usually more the fault of the people than the government.

There's no way for either of us to prove or contradict this. There is simply no way for unemployment to reach 30% in a developed and stable country. Not even Greece has gotten that high. So yes, I'll have to agree, but it also doesn't reach that high even with government interference. Even in the depression it only got to about 23%.

Same thing. They're all varying levels of economic turmoil. Recession can be an umbrella term though, I would imagine.

I have been unable to find reliable economic growth figures from World War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say the economy exploded, experiencing it’s greatest growth in U.S. history. Between 1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from $832 billion to $1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this occurred as deficit spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and unsuccessfully recommended to Roosevelt. War has always been good for the economy, unless you yourself are being invaded. But in the case of the US here, no one even really bombed us more than once (those silly raids by Japan over the mainland).

Read it. A lot of times the more unofficial ones are the best.

I wouldn't argue it ended in 1945, I would argue 1941. Which would make it 12 years, which yes is still a very long time. Unless we have another depression that is just as bad which the government does not intervene in (not likely) we will not know how it could go. Just because nothing before or after was as bad as it, we have no precedent.

GDP or GNP growth. I forget, I got it through a google search of all depressions and recessions in US history, just to make sure I wasn't giving you false data.

During Hoover's spending, the economy got steadily worse. During FDR's spending, the economy got steadily better. Care to explain why? Obviously the New Deal was a lot more efficient than Hoover's policies.

The graph got messed up. It was also recording Federal spending, tax reciepts, and unemployment rate. It then went on to say the GDP nearly doubled during WW2. Also, during Hoover's spending the GNP went down by a lot, and only began going up with FDR's spending. The more Hoover spent, the more the GNP declined. The more FDR spent, the more the GNP went up. GNP obviously doesn't go up with massive government spending, or at least not always.

I've seen some graphs that go as high as 30% for the Great Depression let's just settle on "way too fucking high"

GDP and GNP are ways of recording spending in an economy. If the government spends a lot, then GDP and GNP will go up because they both record government spending as well. I've always seen GDP and GNP to be horrible measures of how an economy is working because the government is always spending a lot.

The "unofficial" ones are websites that should be used to supplement information that you read from established websites. For all you know about that website, fascistpatriot could have written it.

Again, I've seen different sources say different things but I generally view 1945 as when the Great Depression really ended. Still though, it was way too long for any kind of economic turmoil beforehand and that has to be taken into effect.

I will explain. The economy naturally goes through booms and busts. When it busts, it, eventually, fixes itself. When the recession happened in 1929, it was shaped up to be another recession like any other. Then, Hoover spent and intervened and all the wretched stuff, and it drove the economy to new lows. By this time, the economy naturally starts to fix itself. This happens to correlate with FDR coming into office. Now, while the economy is fixing itself, FDR is passing all his New Deal stuff that is sabotaging recovery. The economy is still fixing itself, but instead of a recovery that would probably end in a few years, it takes much MUCH longer due to Roosevelt.

Hoover's presidency was caught on the downward swing of the economy, while FDR's was caught on the upward swing. Hoover, while he did spend a lot, didn't spend nearly as much as FDR. While all this is going on, the businesses in America are stopping spending when the economy is plummeting because it wouldn't make them money to invest. Conversely, when FDR came to power and the economy naturally began to fix itself, people started spending more.

Hoover's spending was working parallel to everyone else in America NOT SPENDING. GNP goes down as a result, even though Hoover spent, he was the only one spending. Roosevelt spent even more than Hoover while all the businesses in America started spending again as well. Thus, GNP went up under Roosevelt due to his massive spending, which correlated with America's natural recovery.