Greatest US President - Page 10 - History -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

LirvA · 07-13-2012, 04:52 AM

C.C.C. - you fail to mention segregation and discrimination

Quote:

The total of 200,000 African-American enrollees were segregated after 1935 but received equal pay and housing. Black leaders lobbied to secure leadership roles.[24] Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes pressured Director Robert Fechner to appoint prominent African-Americans to supervisory positions such as education directors in the 143 segregated camps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...rps#Minorities

Quote:

In February, 1935, Rober Fechner, the national Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, in correspondence concerning the occasional placement of a few blacks in camps which were for white enrollees, stated that such a breach in the policy of racially segregated camps was permissible and workable "because of the natural adaptability of Negroes to serve as cooks." A few months later fechner reiterated his views on this matter asserting that "in cases of this kind the small group of Negroes will be assigned to kitchen police or similar camp duties." The attitude reflected in these statements was a dominant feature of the C.C.C. operation, and segregation and/or discrimination against blacks occurred throughout the nine years of the Corps' existence. These circumstances prevailed in spite of the fact that the law establishing the C.C.C. forbade discrimination "on account of race, color, or creed...."

Discrimination against Negroes in regard to leadership positions in the C.C.C. was one aspect of the operation of the agency which brought forth numerous protests from a number of blacks and their supporters. One of the protestors, Edgar G. Brown, did gain a limited administrative post in the Corps, in large part because of backing from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but his difficulties in the agency were a reflection of the overall struggle of blacks in their efforts to secure executive spots in the C.C.C.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...47699130300317

Journal of Negro History - Calvin W. Gower

LirvA · 07-13-2012, 04:59 AM

A.A.A. 1933

"Dealt effectively with overproduction."

I think an individual farmer would be better at dealing with any over or under production he may have as opposed to a bureaucracy. Furthermore, they paid farmers to destroy their "over produced" product? Hey, here's an idea. Instead of destroying something of value like that in an economic mess, maybe allow the farmer to decide to give some away as charity or not! What a novel ****ing idea!

You're on the right track here, but you fail to mention that that subsidization was at the cost of tax payers.

LirvA · 07-13-2012, 05:02 AM

I'm about to crash so won't comment any further tonight.

Overall the charts look good. Thx for posting them.

Turn Prophet · 07-17-2012, 04:54 PM

Thread has officially crossed into politard territory. Banishment I say!

Username_ · 07-17-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

lol what???

Yeh I realise that's a pretty bold statement to be making but I just put it in as I thought it would be a good quote to use in an essay arguing for/against Roosevelt's effectiveness. Can't recall if it was an historian who said it or if it was just in the textbook.

Username_ · 07-17-2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

A.A.A. 1933

"Dealt effectively with overproduction."

I think an individual farmer would be better at dealing with any over or under production he may have as opposed to a bureaucracy. Furthermore, they paid farmers to destroy their "over produced" product? Hey, here's an idea. Instead of destroying something of value like that in an economic mess, maybe allow the farmer to decide to give some away as charity or not! What a novel ****ing idea!

You're on the right track here, but you fail to mention that that subsidization was at the cost of tax payers.

The general problem with farmers trying to fix it themselves was that they could not be sure that all other farmers were going to co-operate and would therefore risk losing even more money

I mention it briefly here - "6 million piglets were killed whilst many people were starving."

NiceHandDonk · 08-07-2012, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newbster

Abe Lincoln was the best and its not even close... just ask Bill O Reilly

It really annoys me how the conservative party in this country gets to call itself the party of lincoln. Can we take the tongue from being implanted in the cheek when we let this slide!

justmarketing · 08-07-2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WunderlustKing

Lincoln FTW!!! mutthafuka killed vampires and ****

you saw too many movies dude lol

Spree8nyk8 · 08-18-2012, 09:57 PM

Clinton, balanced the budget, that's all I need.

BoredSocial · 08-19-2012, 10:03 AM

Alexander Hamilton

Navas596 · 09-11-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spree8nyk8

Clinton, balanced the budget, that's all I need.

Just budget isn't a big factor for a state.I think the leader who lead the country and what he done for the country should be deserve for being memorable and i think Abraham lincon deserve this respect cause he was the real hero of US.

mrbaseball · 09-11-2012, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navas596

Just budget isn't a big factor for a state.I think the leader who lead the country and what he done for the country should be deserve for being memorable and i think Abraham lincon deserve this respect cause he was the real hero of US.

Clinton was pretty much of a luckbox. He took over just when the economy was starting to turn. Then the internet bubble took off full speed giving a huge revenue boon to the governement and a congress that forced him to balance things at a time when they could. Of course it all blew up at the end of his term

And some of his decisions lead to future problems (Glass/Steagal, expanding Freddie and Fannie etc.).

But aside that Clinton was very good economically and paid attention to issues of growth. But he fell into one of the sweetest sweet spots any president ever did.

smokesx · 09-13-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoredSocial

Alexander Hamilton

not sure if srs.

Navas596 · 09-23-2012, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaseball

Clinton was pretty much of a luckbox. He took over just when the economy was starting to turn. Then the internet bubble took off full speed giving a huge revenue boon to the governement and a congress that forced him to balance things at a time when they could. Of course it all blew up at the end of his term

And some of his decisions lead to future problems (Glass/Steagal, expanding Freddie and Fannie etc.).

But aside that Clinton was very good economically and paid attention to issues of growth. But he fell into one of the sweetest sweet spots any president ever did.

I have no idea about that.

raradevils · 09-25-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

Not so. In 1941, the US had one of the largest navies in the world (roughly comparable to the British Navy), and had been anticipating the Pacific conflict since the early 20th century. Roosevelt actually deployed the fleet to Pearl Harbor from San Diego to show the Japanese that the US were serious about halting the Japanese advance, having cut off supplies to them after the invasion of Indochina. However, the aircraft carriers were not housed in the docks there during the December attack, in part because they would have been too vulnerable to attack. One of the only reasons that the US was able to turn the tide of the Pacific War so early (Midway) is that they had anticipated both the scope and nature of the conflict--now, this wasn't all FDR's doing, but he definitely accepted the reality that war was an inevitability in 1939-1940.

I think people dwell far too much on the European theater when they talk about US readiness for WWII. True, they didn't have a bunch of tanks just lying around (why would they?), but the US was well aware that there would be a struggle with Japan sooner or later, essentially since the Russian defeat in the 1905 war.

Please don't underscore the importance of the silent service in the pacific theater.