Worst President of the U.S.?

Nixon was Paranoia 101.

That was his downfall.

Pretty much



A scene from Oliver Stone's Nixon. Say what you want about Stone and the accuracy of this film, but I thought it captured Nixon's rampant paranoia quite well.

Who was the guy who was agreeing with Nixon's every word?

That's H. R. Haldeman, the Chief of Staff during the Nixon administration. He was quite infamous in his own right.

I would have to say either Hoover for putting the Great in Great Depression or FDR for sabotaging recovery until 1945 and lying to get into office.

Well it wasn't his fault, and I doubt there was a correct way to handle it. It was the first depression in America's history. There had been recessions, but this was a depression.

Can you expand on this?

It really was his fault. This would have been a recession, or "panic" as they were called, as any other, like the one that happened in 1920 that ended after 2 years. Hoover responded with massive government spending and, most damaging, passed the Smoot-Hawley Act that raised tariffs so high that there was no foreign trade at all. His spending on public works further drove the economy into the ground. It's called the Hoover Dam because he's the one who ordered it built, along with other similar projects across the country.

He sabotaged recovery but spending even more than Hoover, basically. Granted, part of the reason that the economy didn't fully recover until 1945 was because of WW2 but prior to that, he really ballsed it up. I suppose "sabotage" is the wrong word, since it implies that he wanted the economy to get worse but whatever.

He lied to get into office because his original campaign in 1933 ran on the platform of cutting spending, cutting pensions, etc. These were things that Hoover, his opponent was doing the opposite of. People voted for FDR on the promise that they wouldn't get more of what Hoover was doing, and instead they got an even more spend-happy president.

FDR was overrated, in my opinion. He didn't fix the economy. World War II did.

He's overrated, yes, but war is never good for the economy. You're changing industry from stuff that is economically useful and raises living standards to stuff that is made to lower living standards and lives.

In that case, it was good. We suddenly had a massive need for various materials and machines, which meant we needed factories, which meant we needed workers, and we needed soldiers, sailors, and airmen, so actually it was good for the economy.

You're missing the point. We produced things, yes, but just producing doesn't make the economy better. The economy needs to produce things that are economically useful. Building a battleship doesn't help anybody, least of all the people it's killing. Building a tanker to transport goods, however, is quite good for the economy.

Well, my point is that the war created a massive amount of jobs.

Yes, but so did FDR. The problem is those jobs were a waste of resources that could have been spent on something useful. For instance, FDR made a job program that hired people to chase down tumbleweeds in D.C.. Those jobs didn't help, and neither did jobs making battleships or guns.

Duke, I'm beginning to suspect you're a pacifist? And do you have actual figures to back up your claim that the economy didn't get better until 1945?

Define pacifism. Obviously, if I'm punched in the face then I'm going to defend myself but other than that, I don't believe in violence. I always thought it was common knowledge that the Great Depression ended in 1945. Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

But it began to improve much before 1945. It began to improve even before 1941.

Also, I just meant pacifism as against war which I understand is a pretty loose definition. By what you were saying it made it sound like you were a pacifist (once again following my loose definition) and that was confirmed by this statement. There's nothing wrong with pacifism, I'd rather talk to a pacifist than some nationalist militarist person.

My stance on war is, "don't do it." For example, I believe the US's intervention in WW1 was completely forced and not in "self defence." WW2, on the other hand, is legitimate in that we were actually attacked. War of 1812, sure. Mexican-American war, bullshit.

The economy improved since 1933, that doesn't mean that the Great Depression ended in 1933.

Fair enough.

But you said recovery, not the end of it.