Worst American president in history?

[American Union]

lol k.

Wow, what a productive post! I've never seen such a post of such quality before. I tip my hat to you, sir, your clearly stated argument has greatly moved me.

Are you mocking me because it is a struggle to take you seriously?

[WRIF Army]

Didn't Coolidge advocate policies that let the people who earned the money, keep it? Do you have a fair and balanced source to support your statement?

Your loaded question is loaded.

So I'll simply respond with simple facts, something Austrian economics doesn't deal in.

Let's start with the obvious: Trickle down economics does not work. It hasn't, nor has it ever, brought an era of continued prosperity. Trickle down economics is if anything a showing of the true colors of the so-called "libertarian" cadre, as it's a practice whose roots came not from capitalism, but from feudalism. The idea that if the nobles are wealthy, the peasants will reap the benefits is the very lie that was used to keep serfs in line for hundreds of years.

The backbone of an economy is not in the wealthy, it is in the producers. It has been proven, time and again, by credible economists, that the strongest economic booms stem from the prosperity of the working class, not the upper class. When you do things like Coolidge did, cut taxes too deep to provide a social safety net while deregulating markets to passively allow them to create coercive and exploitative practices that damage the prosperity of the working class in favor of the upper class. When this happens, a bust is inevitable. It happened after Coolidge, it happened in the 70s, it happened during the Reagan/Bush years, and it happened during the GWB years. Austrian voodoo and Nostradamian predictions mean little when you look at the sheer data.

Furthermore, Coolidge made the childish blunder of shrinking government too quickly as the nation was growing rapidly.

This is a thing even the Austrian economists realize is a blunder:

Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market.
Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982

I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy.
Hayek, New Studies

Even the broken clocks are right sometimes, it seems: Coolidge was a failure and a clown for attempting to shrink government during a boom period. He brought the bubble's burst upon himself. A self-fulfilling prophecy in every sense of the word.

Further empirical evidence of this can be seen in the Bush era: After the Clinton Era's age of prosperity and unheard of growth, Bush 43 unwisely cut taxes and social programs. And like all who learned not from history, when the housing bust began (a product of deregulation allowing exploitative and coercive tactics), the safety net wasn't there, and history was repeated. If Bush 43 had not made this blunder, or at the very least undid his changes when the economy started to crumble in 2004, the recession would have been minimalized if not averted.

Of course, that's not the Koch's false narrative, so I doubt you'll do anything but handwave my empirical data.

EDIT- Also, "let them keep what they earn" is a very, very transparent appeal to emotion. I'd accuse you of being AuSable but even he wasn't that bad at using loaded non-logic.

You called Coolidge a rapist, but he believed that those that earn their money, should keep it. What do you call a president (Bush), a senator (Obama) and a party (democrats) who bailout Wall St. with Main St. wealth?



Also, you stated that workers are the key to growth. Fair enough, it that was the case, why do workers put up with management or capitalists or whoever else you think is exploiting them? If they contribute all the brains and sweat, what is keeping them from jettisoning the greedy and corrupt dead wood?

And finally, if government is so effective and brilliant, why must they maintain a coercive monopoly in the industries in which they predominate? If government bureaucrats and politicians were as magnificent as you claim, if their 'products and services' where so beneficial to individuals and society, why don't they compete on an even playing field with free market participants without all the guns and coercion and simply run the greedy, corrupt and buffoonish capitalist dogs out of business?

[European Socialist Republic]

(Image)

Real wages have been stagnant since the 70's.
http://richardbrenneman.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/blog-21-november-graph.jpg
This has nothing to do with Obama or the bailouts.

[Calimera II]

FDR, FDR, FDR.

Wtf

[The Blaatschapen]

Al Gore is the worst American president. He was so bad that he didn't even get the job.

[Conscentia]

Al Gore is the worst American president. He was so bad that he didn't even get the job.

Electoral College's fault. He won the popular vote.

[The Blaatschapen]

Al Gore is the worst American president. He was so bad that he didn't even get the job.

Electoral College's fault. He won the popular vote.

So he couldn't convince the EC, where the rest could. Damn, he sucked at it

[Calimera II]

Al Gore is the worst American president. He was so bad that he didn't even get the job.

I hoped he would have won.

[Crolacia]

Al Gore is the worst American president. He was so bad that he didn't even get the job.

I hoped he would have won.

Me too.


Worst president- Boy George (George W. Bush)

[European Socialist Republic]

I hoped he would have won.

Me too.


Worst president- Boy George (George W. Bush)

Worse than Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan and Johnson?

[Nervium]

Al Gore is the worst American president. He was so bad that he didn't even get the job.

Electoral College's fault. He won the popular vote.

More the reason to abolish it.

[Kelinfort]

Out of all the presidents I've analysed, James Buchanan was the most incompetent, ineffective, and indecisive as they come.

[Conscentia]

Out of all the presidents I've analysed, Andrew Buchanan was the most incompetent, ineffective, and indecisive as they come.

Do you mean Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan? Both were terrible. There was no US president called Andrew Buchanan.

[European Socialist Republic]

Out of all the presidents I've analysed, Andrew Buchanan was the most incompetent, ineffective, and indecisive as they come.

Do you mean Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan? Both were terrible. There was no US president called Andrew Buchanan.

Maybe Andrew Johnson?

[Kelinfort]

Out of all the presidents I've analysed, Andrew Buchanan was the most incompetent, ineffective, and indecisive as they come.

Do you mean Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan? Both were terrible. There was no US president called Andrew Buchanan.

James Buchanan sorry

[Crolacia]

Me too.


Worst president- Boy George (George W. Bush)

Worse than Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan and Johnson?

Yeah.

[Blakk Metal]

When you do things like Coolidge did, cut taxes too deep to provide a social safety net while deregulating markets to passively allow them to create coercive and exploitative practices that damage the prosperity of the working class in favor of the upper class. When this happens, a bust is inevitable. It happened after Coolidge, it happened in the 70s,

Really?

[WRIF Army]

(Image)

Real wages have been stagnant since the 70's.
http://richardbrenneman.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/blog-21-november-graph.jpg
This has nothing to do with Obama or the bailouts.

According to the leftwing Huffington Post, inequality increased far more under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Also,banks made more money in two years under Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the previous eight years under Bush. This is not surprisingly since centralized government or command economies is another name for privileged oligarchy.

[European Socialist Republic]

Real wages have been stagnant since the 70's.
http://richardbrenneman.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/blog-21-november-graph.jpg
This has nothing to do with Obama or the bailouts.

According to the leftwing Huffington Post, inequality increased far more under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Also,banks made more money in two years under Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the previous eight years under Bush. This is not surprisingly since centralized government or command economies is another name for privileged oligarchy.

I wasn't aware that America had suddenly become a planned economy. Source?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Honestly, pick up an American History textbook, and you'll see that Coolidge's shitty economic policies caused the depression.

argumentum ad populum

Also, most economic historians are liberals. Something to do with government subsidies to education that increases their pay beyond what a peaceful and voluntary free market would offer them.

No, that's appeal to authority if anything, and even then, school textbooks are generally considered reliable sources. However, you are committing an ad hominem against the source by claiming that most economic historians are liberals, and implying that due to their political beliefs, their perspectives cannot be trusted, while not bothering to provide data to back either point.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Real wages have been stagnant since the 70's.
http://richardbrenneman.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/blog-21-november-graph.jpg
This has nothing to do with Obama or the bailouts.

According to the leftwing Huffington Post, inequality increased far more under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Also,banks made more money in two years under Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the previous eight years under Bush. This is not surprisingly since centralized government or command economies is another name for privileged oligarchy.

The first year of which was under the Bush budget from the previous year.

The second year of which saw little change due to GOP obstructionism.

Your selective cherrypicking of data (or total ignorance of how these things work, pick one) is causing me to feel less and less motivated to actually respond to what you seem to think are valid arguments.

[Crolacia]

Real wages have been stagnant since the 70's.
http://richardbrenneman.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/blog-21-november-graph.jpg
This has nothing to do with Obama or the bailouts.

According to the leftwing Huffington Post, inequality increased far more under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Also,banks made more money in two years under Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the previous eight years under Bush. This is not surprisingly since centralized government or command economies is another name for privileged oligarchy.

Well, yeah, economic inequality is highest in USA in years.

[WRIF Army]

argumentum ad populum

Also, most economic historians are liberals. Something to do with government subsidies to education that increases their pay beyond what a peaceful and voluntary free market would offer them.

No, that's appeal to authority if anything, and even then, school textbooks are generally considered reliable sources. However, you are committing an ad hominem against the source by claiming that most economic historians are liberals, and implying that due to their political beliefs, their perspectives cannot be trusted, while not bothering to provide data to back either point.

Yumyumsuppertime,

From the leftwing Washington Post, 'College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds'. Textbooks are almost exclusively written by academics, it is no surprise that leftwing academics would make fallacious claims against a conservative administration. I don't know where you are getting your information, perhaps leftwing academia

[WRIF Army]

According to the leftwing Huffington Post, inequality increased far more under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Also,banks made more money in two years under Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the previous eight years under Bush. This is not surprisingly since centralized government or command economies is another name for privileged oligarchy.

The first year of which was under the Bush budget from the previous year.

The second year of which saw little change due to GOP obstructionism.

Your selective cherrypicking of data (or total ignorance of how these things work, pick one) is causing me to feel less and less motivated to actually respond to what you seem to think are valid arguments.

Your wrong, the leftwing Huffington Post article is very specific:

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up....Saez, who's known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

Bush was president for less than a month in 2009. Also, Pelosi and Reid controlled the purse strings from 2007 to 2011. Senator Obama and a strong majority of progressive democrats voted with Bush to bail out Wall St. And consistent with my argument that Obama is the worse president, you play the obstruction card despite the fact that progressive democrats had a super-majority in the House, near super-majority in the Senate and Obama in the White House.

Seriously, it is common knowledge that Obama, Bush and progressive democrats all voted to bail out Wall St, so naturally these banks and financial concerns would profit over this crony capitalist arrangement. I don't know why or how you can deny this.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

[Haafingar and Hjaalmarch]

I will probably get yelled at but Eisenhower. Crushing the freedom of Vietnamese, South Americans and Cubans in the name of capitalism.
Runners up: Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.

Whoa, my friend.

Listen, I'm a leftist but I acknowledge that domestically Eisenhower was goddamned awesome.