Most over-rated and under-rated President

#76
#76
sjt18 said:
The tax cuts did not produce the deficit. The fact that spending increases outstripped revenue increases by a factor of 2:1 created the deficit.
Click to expand...

Every economist that has even had a by-line in the local Penny Saver magazine has confirmed tax cuts add to the deficit.
 
#79
#79
IPorange said:
Great list IMO, but would like sone explanation on Jackson. I see him as a villainous president.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I loved Jackson's stand for the common man and dismantling the National Bank.

He's pushed down on the list because of the way he treated the Indians on the trail of tears. I just think that the Indian situation, was going to be ugly regardless of who was President. Jackson adopted an Indian boy, obviously he wasn't prejudice. When you're a defeated people, you going to lose your land, and that's what happened. If they only had opened up some casino's back then.
 
#80
#80
You raise a strong point with the national bank. However, there is no justifying the removal of an integrated part of society like the Cherokees simply because of race
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#82
#82
IPorange said:
You raise a strong point with the national bank. However, there is no justifying the removal of an integrated part of society like the Cherokees simply because of race
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Simply put, to the victors go the spoils. The fact is that Americans wanted the land the Cherokees occupied, so it was only a matter of time before they were forced to move.
 
#83
#83
Vol_4_Life said:
Jackson was a great president. However, he expanded the powers of the president exponentially more than had any previous president.
Click to expand...
I'd say why he was able to accomplish so much. There's a reason his critics called him King Andrew.
 
Last edited:
#84
#84
Vol_4_Life said:
Simply put, to the victors go the spoils. The fact is that Americans wanted the land the Cherokees occupied, so it was only a matter of time before they were forced to move.
Click to expand...
Hitler's reason for invading half of Europe was he wanted more land, too.
 
#85
#85
Vol_4_Life said:
Simply put, to the victors go the spoils. The fact is that Americans wanted the land the Cherokees occupied, so it was only a matter of time before they were forced to move.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. They never fought a war in which to lose. They were Constitutionally American citizens, given that most were born within the territory of the United States (the elderly may have been born before the US existed, I suppose).

What was done was unconstitutional and immoral. No two ways about it.
 
#86
#86
Using a modern world view to hold early 19th century figures over the barrel is ridiculous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#87
#87
IPorange said:
That's ridiculous. They never fought a war in which to lose. They were Constitutionally American citizens, given that most were born within the territory of the United States (the elderly may have been born before the US existed, I suppose).
Click to expand...
I thought that just went into effect after the Civil War.
 
#89
#89
JTrainDavis said:
Using a modern world view to hold early 19th century figures over the barrel is ridiculous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The constitution is a modern world view?

Wrong is wrong. Whether the Trail of Tears or plague blankets, the way the 19th century US government handled their "Indian Problem" was sinister. I'm not saying there is anything that could be done about it now, but it's blind US homerism to act like there was any justification in their temporal context or not.
 
#93
#93
IPorange said:
The constitution is a modern world view?

Wrong is wrong. Whether the Trail of Tears or plague blankets, the way the 19th century US government handled their "Indian Problem" was sinister. I'm not saying there is anything that could be done about it now, but it's blind US homerism to act like there was any justification in their temporal context or not.
Click to expand...
Why was the whole thing necessary for expansion, anyways?
 
#94
#94
tvolsfan said:
Why was the whole thing necessary for expansion, anyways?
Click to expand...

The Cherokee were living in houses and wearing cotton shirts and trousers. They were overwhelmingly Christian. Culturally, they were the same as the European frontiersmen west of the Appalachians. I don't see how they stood in the way of expansion. They were never hostile, unlike their cousins the Choctaw, or the Seminoles.
 
#95
#95
IPorange said:
The Cherokee were living in houses and wearing cotton shirts and trousers. They were overwhelmingly Christian. Culturally, they were the same as the European frontiersmen west of the Appalachians. I don't see how they stood in the way of expansion. They were never hostile, unlike their cousins the Choctaw, or the Seminoles.
Click to expand...
Our treatment of natives wasn't really any worse than the way anyone else treated natives when colonizing. Everyone abused the people they took over. It doesn't mean it's okay to have done that, but it doesn't really make me think less of Jackson in the present day. I don't really consider him villainous.
 
#96
#96
IPorange said:
That's ridiculous. They never fought a war in which to lose. They were Constitutionally American citizens, given that most were born within the territory of the United States (the elderly may have been born before the US existed, I suppose).

What was done was unconstitutional and immoral. No two ways about it.
Click to expand...

What about the Indian Wars? Jackson fought in them, even Lincoln did as a young man.
 
#97
#97
tvolsfan said:
Why was the whole thing necessary for expansion, anyways?
Click to expand...


Americans were land-hungry in the 19th century. American settlers wanted the land the Cherokees occupied, not to mention the discovery of gold in said land. In removing the Cherokees, Jackson was just doing what eventually would have been done anyway.
 
#98
#98
IPorange said:
I just think their defeat was inevitable, and really had little to do with external pressure from the US.
Click to expand...

There is a documentary on the Military Channel called "Decisions that shook the World". Reagan's hand in the collapse of the Soviet Union was VERY significant.

In another episode in this documentary, FDR came "really close to breaking the law" (as said by Bill Clinton himself in the program) in the course of events leading up to WWII. He also secretly wire tapped suspected Nazi sympathizers (against the orders of the courts) ALA Bush and the Islamic terrorist.

I bet 99.999% of leftist don't know this about FDR, they would want him tried for war crimes if he had a R next to his name.
 
#99
#99
CSVol said:
Over: Reagan
Under: Ike

Do a little research on Ronnie and you'll find he increased taxes more than a couple of times in his 8 years. His ballooning of the deficit even with his tax increases makes Obama look like a penny pincher.
Click to expand...

yeah that's why the maximum tax rate dropped 30% during his presidency.
 
#100
#100
droski said:
yeah that's why the maximum tax rate dropped 30% during his presidency.
Click to expand...

Yeah..and he doubled the defecit of the combined previous 200 years.

Don't get me too wrong, I was a teen during his first term and was blown away by how proud it felt to be an American again. I just believe his image now as an icon of fiscal conservatism is a bit overblown.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top