Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/19/05 07:26 PM, Jimsween wrote:

FDR's Social security was perfect for its time, and needed, the problem is every president since has failed to update it.

Yeah, I liked FDR.

Ah, that explains it. You're insane. Let me guess, all that economic growth Clinton had was because of Reagan.

Well, if you're one who believes in the Economic Boom, then yes. I dont consider Clinton as worst mainly because he didnt do anything drastic and things remained steady over his presidency.

Bankrupted? Where has the US ever bankrupted? The New Deal cut unemployment by more than 50%, and if you look, FDR actually put very little into the national debt. FDR is not to blame for Social Security failing, FDR's Social security was perfect for its time, and needed, the problem is every president since has failed to update it.

Perfect for its time... But who paid for it? Your retirement is your problem. The New Deal was beneficial for his term, but what about after? Instead of saying people should update it, it is the president's job to look forward and see what could arise. Did he do that? If he did, it was a pretty bad job.

Ah, that explains it. You're insane. Let me guess, all that economic growth Clinton had was because of Reagan.

Clinton didn't have it. What did CLINTON do?

At 9/19/05 07:30 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Perfect for its time... But who paid for it? Your retirement is your problem. The New Deal was beneficial for his term, but what about after? Instead of saying people should update it, it is the president's job to look forward and see what could arise. Did he do that? If he did, it was a pretty bad job.

You are a moron, plain and simple. A president should NOT write bills thinking, 'will this apply in 50 years'. Thats just fucking dumb. Someone else can change it in 50 years if it doesnt apply. He can't be expected to assume that the next two generations would all be selfish and morons.

Clinton didn't have it. What did CLINTON do?

You don't NEED to DO anything to have economic growth, you just need to make sure you don't do anything to fuck it up or stop anything that will fuck it up.

At 9/19/05 07:28 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Well, if you're one who believes in the Economic Boom, then yes. I dont consider Clinton as worst mainly because he didnt do anything drastic and things remained steady over his presidency.

Exactly. That is at least the minimum we should expect out of a president. Thats why I have so little tolerance for Bush, you can't make mistakes as president. Your not just a civilian, your entire life needs to be put on hold, this is your life for the next 4-8 years. As long as you try hard the country will be fine, there are plenty of people who will do the really hard work for you, and your ideals don't matter as much, because in the end it only comes down to a 5% reduction or increase in taxes and welfare.

It's like when you get a scholarship, you can't just slack off and get B's, you were given this oppourtunity, it's a privelidge, you need to get A's.

You are a moron, plain and simple. A president should NOT write bills thinking, 'will this apply in 50 years'. Thats just fucking dumb. Someone else can change it in 50 years if it doesnt apply. He can't be expected to assume that the next two generations would all be selfish and morons.

Thank you. A GOOD president should do that, instead of looking myopically at ways to gain more popularity. In the long-term, it hurt us. Long-term is what matters, short-term is what FDR did. He needs to look at what consequences could arise and act accordingly. I am not asking him to predict 9/11, but if he did a thorough job, we should be able to go at least two decades without any major changes. If we can't even do that, what is the point in the first place apart from immediate gratification?

You don't NEED to DO anything to have economic growth, you just need to make sure you don't do anything to fuck it up or stop anything that will fuck it up.

Ah, I consider a good president to be one who takes action to make things better. Good is more than the absence of bad. Clinton was only the absence of bad, so he wasn't good. Lincoln took action. TR took action. Polk took action. Clinton sat there and performed with someone who he wasn't even married to. Why am I supposed to admire him?

Without a doubt, the greatest U.S. President is Harry S. Truman. What other President has had the honor to use a nuclear weapon in warfare?

At 9/19/05 07:43 PM, SSFSO wrote: Without a doubt, the greatest U.S. President is Harry S. Truman. What other President has had the honor to use a nuclear weapon in warfare?

Thank you, he is listed as one of mine as well. I am not sure if that is sarcasm. =/ I think he helped us...

At 9/19/05 07:43 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Thank you. A GOOD president should do that, instead of looking myopically at ways to gain more popularity. In the long-term, it hurt us. Long-term is what matters, short-term is what FDR did. He needs to look at what consequences could arise and act accordingly. I am not asking him to predict 9/11, but if he did a thorough job, we should be able to go at least two decades without any major changes. If we can't even do that, what is the point in the first place apart from immediate gratification?

NO! YOU ARE RETARDED!!!

FDR doesn't need to think in the long term, if he tries to do that he might hurt the long term. His bill was never meant to apply for the long term, which is a good thing. The chances of anyone being able to write a good social security plan that will apply 70 years later is almost zero. If you write yours only applying to the short term, you can't hurt anybody, because your plan only applies to the now. However, stupid politicians just renewed FDR's plan years later, that wasn't his fault, that was thiers. It would be like Bush renewing an energy plan from 1905, it's not going to work, and it's not the person who wrote it in 1905's fault, Bush is supposed to come up with something else. THATS HOW IT WORKS THE BEST.

Now choke and die you partisan hack.

Ah, I consider a good president to be one who takes action to make things better. Good is more than the absence of bad. Clinton was only the absence of bad, so he wasn't good. Lincoln took action. TR took action. Polk took action. Clinton sat there and performed with someone who he wasn't even married to. Why am I supposed to admire him?

Teddy took action yes, thats why he is the best president we have ever had. And I hope every president will live up to that standard, however that simply isn't true, does that make Clinton the worst? No, that makes him average, the worst are the ones that failed to even stop the bad things.

FDR doesn't need to think in the long term, if he tries to do that he might hurt the long term. His bill was never meant to apply for the long term, which is a good thing. The chances of anyone being able to write a good social security plan that will apply 70 years later is almost zero. If you write yours only applying to the short term, you can't hurt anybody, because your plan only applies to the now. However, stupid politicians just renewed FDR's plan years later, that wasn't his fault, that was thiers. It would be like Bush renewing an energy plan from 1905, it's not going to work, and it's not the person who wrote it in 1905's fault, Bush is supposed to come up with something else. THATS HOW IT WORKS THE BEST.

Now choke and die you partisan hack.

No need for threats. The short-term makes no difference in the long-term. It sounds stupid, but it is so blatantly true. Presidents need to help and protect our nation. By thinking only short-term, how can they take precautions or anything? For an extreme example, why would they want to beuild protections against hurricanes? After all, it isn't happening RIGHT NOW! Unless you think in advance, we will get nowhere.

Teddy took action yes, thats why he is the best president we have ever had. And I hope every president will live up to that standard, however that simply isn't true, does that make Clinton the worst? No, that makes him average, the worst are the ones that failed to even stop the bad things.

Agreed. But then why do people accredit him with the growth of the economy? And put him as the best? He wasn't good unless he DID something to become good. He didn't do anything, so he remains at a mediocre status.

At 9/19/05 07:56 PM, SmellyCat wrote: No need for threats. The short-term makes no difference in the long-term. It sounds stupid, but it is so blatantly true. Presidents need to help and protect our nation. By thinking only short-term, how can they take precautions or anything? For an extreme example, why would they want to beuild protections against hurricanes? After all, it isn't happening RIGHT NOW! Unless you think in advance, we will get nowhere.

Thats completely incorrect. Did you just ignore my example? When president Bush writes a budget, he doesn't think, hey, what if some idiot 50 years from now decide to use this again. Do you think that senators write thier traffic laws with the assumption that some day they will have to apply in space? NO!

Hes didnt write it for it to be unchanged for 70 years because he didn't want it to be unchanged for 70 years, if it went unchanged for 70 years it would be shit no matter how hard he thought about the future. It is much much better for it to be written to last for 10-20 years and for other people to update it to adjust with society. That is a fact. The problems with social security are not FDR's fault, they are the people from 1960-2005s fault for not doing anything. If you fail to maintain train tracks, it's not the builders fault for them breaking, its yours.

Agreed. But then why do people accredit him with the growth of the economy? And put him as the best? He wasn't good unless he DID something to become good. He didn't do anything, so he remains at a mediocre status.

People accredit him because he made sure nothing hurt the economy. Like, maybe, a war in Iraq. They accredit him because in thier mindset, fucking up is mediocre, and not fucking up is good, thats why people like Bush get elected and not flogged.

Did you notice I said it only needed ot last one or two decades? It didn't even work by that amount of time. And you are wrong. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am going to do what today's government does? What people do is different than what they should do.

And the mindset they ahve is because of all the corruptness, not just the incompetancy or Bush. People are getting more and more ignorant. If only they would realize that everything doesn't come to them immediately and all they have to do is not do anything...

At 9/19/05 08:11 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Did you notice I said it only needed ot last one or two decades? It didn't even work by that amount of time.

Where are you coming up with this? There were no problems by 1955, it was lasting fine until even after that.

And you are wrong. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am going to do what today's government does? What people do is different than what they should do.

I'm not sure at all what your talking about right here.

And the mindset they ahve is because of all the corruptness, not just the incompetancy or Bush. People are getting more and more ignorant. If only they would realize that everything doesn't come to them immediately and all they have to do is not do anything...

I agree. It's part of partisan politics, people are allowed to be incompetent just because of party loyalty.

This is what I was talking about...

"When president Bush writes a budget, he doesn't think, hey, what if some idiot 50 years from now decide to use this again. Do you think that senators write thier traffic laws with the assumption that some day they will have to apply in space? NO!"

They should be looking at that, although not necessarily of developments like that. Today, a great SS program could have lasted longer than 50 years... All they need to do is update the currency amounts and change technologies.

worst presidents:
George W. Bush (absolute worst)
Richard Nixon
Andrew Johnson

best presidents:
Bill Clinton (He was only one in 50 years to lower country's debt, and Lewinski had nothing to do with his presidency, the only one who should be mad is Hilary)
Thomas Jefferson (ABSOLUTE BEST)
Abraham Lincoln

and others, dont reply simply becuz u can, only if you acually know your facts.

Worst:
Nixon
Fucking Ford (the only President from my state. DAMN HIM!!!)
Bush Jr.
Bush Sr.
Hoover

Best:
FDR
TR
Clinton

Well, so far what we all can agree on is that Teddy was a good one.

Why is Clintont one of the best? What did he DO? Can anyone answer this? How did he help our country. Help is do more than what it is, not inaction. Instead of just saying those who do nothing are the best, look at the ones who do something good...

At 9/19/05 08:32 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Why is Clintont one of the best? What did he DO? Can anyone answer this? How did he help our country. Help is do more than what it is, not inaction. Instead of just saying those who do nothing are the best, look at the ones who do something good...

Because those who acually do something always seems to be what a little less than half the country hates.

With exceptions of RR and TR.

Because those who acually do something always seems to be what a little less than half the country hates.

With exceptions of RR and TR.

So there is no point in discussing this further... I am going to stop posting, especially since the creator just created it and left, even though he told us... Well, I have worst presidents, and I have best presidents. Bush is not on either list, but the president who I feel is the absolute worst is Carter. Well, bye-bye.

At 9/19/05 07:43 PM, SmellyCat wrote:

You are a moron, plain and simple. A president should NOT write bills thinking, 'will this apply in 50 years'. Thats just fucking dumb. Someone else can change it in 50 years if it doesnt apply. He can't be expected to assume that the next two generations would all be selfish and morons.

Thank you. A GOOD president should do that, instead of looking myopically at ways to gain more popularity. In the long-term, it hurt us. Long-term is what matters, short-term is what FDR did. He needs to look at what consequences could arise and act accordingly. I am not asking him to predict 9/11, but if he did a thorough job, we should be able to go at least two decades without any major changes. If we can't even do that, what is the point in the first place apart from immediate gratification?

Of course it was instant gratification. They were in the Great Depression. You know, that time when the stock market crashed and no one had any jobs? Oh, and then what happened? I remember! World Fucking War 2!!! I'm really tired of you thinking that he should have thought ahead. It's not worth thought. He did what he had to do and it worked. It was the largest economic boom in American history and you're still not satisfied because he didn't "think ahead?"

Well here's something for you. I think that Abraham Lincoln was a bad President. Why? Because all he did was free the slaves. He didn't try to take any steps to better their lives after the ending of slavery. He should have KNOWN that the slaves would have been mistreated for another eighty years! He should have forseen that they would be hosed down with firehoses and they would have been shot while trying to work on a railroad for half their lives! Oh wait. I forgot. He died. So he couldn't have seen those things. Just like FDR with the war, right? So shut the fuck up. He upheld the system throughout his tenure and didn't have time to fix it. Or maybe he thought that it wouldn't need to be fixxed. He figured that, if taxes for it weren't lowered, it would be ok. And he couldn't have forseen the baby boom, could he? I don't understand how you can say that FDR not finding out about these things with some sixth sense is his fault.

You don't NEED to DO anything to have economic growth, you just need to make sure you don't do anything to fuck it up or stop anything that will fuck it up.

Ah, I consider a good president to be one who takes action to make things better.

Then you must LOOVVEE FDR, right?

At 9/19/05 12:10 AM, Nomader wrote:

At 9/19/05 12:06 AM, Wyrlum wrote: JAMES KNOX POLK

He is under-recognized for his achievements.

Wasn't he the fattest President ever to hold office?

no, the fattest ass president was William Howard Taft. he was so fat his ass got stuck in the bathtub and he needed assitance to get out, lol.

At 9/19/05 08:32 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Why is Clintont one of the best? What did he DO? Can anyone answer this? How did he help our country. Help is do more than what it is, not inaction. Instead of just saying those who do nothing are the best, look at the ones who do something good...

as i said in a previous quote, Clinton was the ONLY and i mean ONLY president in the last 50 years to lower the country's debt, need i say more?!?

At 9/19/05 08:45 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote:

as i said in a previous quote, Clinton was the ONLY and i mean ONLY president in the last 50 years to lower the country's debt, need i say more?!?

Other than that, I dont think clinton did anything else that was helpful (nor very hurtful).

At 9/19/05 08:53 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/19/05 08:45 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote:

as i said in a previous quote, Clinton was the ONLY and i mean ONLY president in the last 50 years to lower the country's debt, need i say more?!?

Other than that, I dont think clinton did anything else that was helpful (nor very hurtful).

i agree with ya there. but what you have to realize is that, that is a very important thing.
then again since, Dubya (asshole Bush) took the position after him, and then relowered it and then lots more, it was pointless.

richard nixion

At 9/19/05 08:53 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/19/05 08:45 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote:

as i said in a previous quote, Clinton was the ONLY and i mean ONLY president in the last 50 years to lower the country's debt, need i say more?!?

Other than that, I dont think clinton did anything else that was helpful (nor very hurtful).

I'd like to take a look at Clinton's achievements while in office.

Clinton's achievements (source: http://www.australia..inton/eightyears.pdf

):
-Longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
-22 million new jobs
-Highest homeownership in American history.
-Lowest unemployment in 30 years
-Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education training investment
-Largest expansion of college opportunity since GI bill
-Connected 95 percent of schools to the internet
-100,000 more police for our streets
-Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
-Higher incomes at all levels
-Protected millions of acres of American land
-I can go on and on here.

At 9/19/05 09:28 PM, Dulnar wrote:

I'd like to take a look at Clinton's achievements while in office.

Like I said, he pretty much went with the flow and didnt do anything drastic.

At 9/19/05 09:31 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/19/05 09:28 PM, Dulnar wrote:

I'd like to take a look at Clinton's achievements while in office.

Like I said, he pretty much went with the flow and didnt do anything drastic.

Did you read the .pdf? He did a lot more than what I put up there. And sometimes doing something drastic can hurt the country more than help it. And since he, according to you, didn't need to do anything drastic, because the country was in pretty good straights, I'm guessing you should be thanking him heartily. Because the last time someone did something drastic, we landed ourselves in the worst national debt in history (not accounting for inflation). Yes, I'm talking about our current President.

At 9/19/05 09:34 PM, Dulnar wrote:

Did you read the .pdf? He did a lot more than what I put up there. And sometimes doing something drastic can hurt the country more than help it.

Would you feel better if I said he didnt do anything big?

At 9/19/05 09:36 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/19/05 09:34 PM, Dulnar wrote:

Did you read the .pdf? He did a lot more than what I put up there. And sometimes doing something drastic can hurt the country more than help it.

Would you feel better if I said he didnt do anything big?

Clinton was our best president ever, your obviously an ignorant Republican who if he ran over a 2 year old with a car, would blame the kids parents instead of yourself( i know this is off topic, but im proving a point here)