What do BHO fans think about him now.

[_richardMdBorn]

Better than FDR? Psshhh. I think you folks lived during the good 80s years and that makes you think kindly of ole Ronnie. I won't deny that he's probably one of the Top 3-5 of the 20th century [I think both Roosevelts were at least as good] but I have a feeling that as the years pass people will realize that he isn't the "greatest President ever" as I've seen in some polls.

Here is the real dope:

1. Abe Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman

.

It's hard for me to see how you could rate Teddy R. ahead of Reagan. The economy rebounded under Reagan and the cracks in the Soviet Union were becoming evident.

[_richardMdBorn]

3) Outspent McCain - broke his promise about public financing and raised a lot of illegal money

How much of Obama's $750m do you estimate was from "illegal" contributions?

It could easily be $150M between foreign contributions, which are forbidden, and the lax controls which would have allowed US individuals to exceed the $2,300 cap.

Interesting report about FannieMae and Freddie Mac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

[_Bond James Bond]

It's hard for me to see how you could rate Teddy R. ahead of Reagan. The economy rebounded under Reagan and the cracks in the Soviet Union were becoming evident.

I believe the cracks in the Soviet Union were always evident. The US was always ahead of them on economy and infrastructure and work force [particularly coming out of WWII when they were absolutely exhausted after the German Barbarossa offensive]. The Soviet Union was a danger because of its conventional strength [nukes were a wash imho, mutual assured distruction] and because of the implied ideological fear of communism, not only as an economic alternative to capitalism but also the "godlessness" of it.

Yeah the economy rebounded under Reagan, but it also began the unmitigated spending and deregulation which has put us where we are today. Short term success led to long term problems.

As to Teddy Roosevelt, I like:

1) his start of regulation on economic trusts/monopolies [something we need to immulate today]
2) his conservation policies [don't we all love our natural wonders?]
3) his foreign policy [he began to take the US out of its' isolationist policies. he also won a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a peace on the RUsso-Japanese war, which delayed WW1 a few years.]
4) his domestic policies such as the Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act which provided food inspection [can you imagine a world before those? Yikes!]
5) a corollary to #3 was his increase in the navy with his "great white fleet"

[_richardMdBorn]

It's hard for me to see how you could rate Teddy R. ahead of Reagan. The economy rebounded under Reagan and the cracks in the Soviet Union were becoming evident.

I believe the cracks in the Soviet Union were always evident.

I wasted a class in college in the mid 70s on microeconomics. The textbook by Paul Samuelson made a comment that while communism had its problems, it was a powerful force for economic development. The Austrian economics were predicting the doom of the Soviet Union. The CIA missed it even in the mid 1980s.

Yeah the economy rebounded under Reagan, but it also began the unmitigated spending and deregulation which has put us where we are today. Short term success led to long term problems.

The Democrats are responsible for the debacle at FannieMae and FreddieMac. These GSEs were a major source of today’s problems. They passed the Community reinvestment act. They cried racism at any attempt to reign in FM and FM.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_t ... ollar.html

As to Teddy Roosevelt, I like:

]1) his start of regulation on economic trusts/monopolies [something we need to immulate today]

The PR for TR’s actions here is strong but the effects were often pernicious.

Only recently have economists looked at the empirical evidence (what has happened in the real world) to see whether the antitrust laws were needed. The popular view that cartels and monopolies were rampant at the turn of the century now seems incorrect to most economists. Thomas DiLorenzo (1985) has shown that the trusts against which the Sherman Act supposedly was directed were, in fact, expanding output many times faster than overall production was increasing nationwide; likewise, the trusts’ prices were falling faster than those of all enterprises nationally. In other words, the trusts were doing exactly the opposite of what economic theory says a monopoly or cartel must do to reap monopoly PROFITS.

The recent era of antitrust reassessment has resulted in general agreement among economists that the most successful instances of cartelization and monopoly pricing have involved companies that enjoy the protection of government REGULATION of prices and government control of entry by new competitors. Occupational licensing and trucking regulation, for example, have allowed competitors to alter terms of competition and legally prevent entry into the market. Unfortunately, monopolies created by the federal government are almost always exempt from antitrust laws, and those created by state governments frequently are exempt as well. Municipal monopolies (e.g., taxicabs, utilities) may be subject to antitrust action but often are protected by statute.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Antitrust.html

3) his foreign policy [he began to take the US out of its' isolationist policies. he also won a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a peace on the RUsso-Japanese war, which delayed WW1 a few years.]

We were not isolationist under his predecessors. How did the peace delay WW1? I don’t see much of a relationship there. Japan was doing well on the battlefields in 1905 but was being crippled economically. The average Japanese person was unaware of this and resented the fact that Japan did not get more out of the peace.

Van Norman was prophetic. In 1906, Roosevelt became the first American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize due to his efforts in facilitating the peace between Russia and Japan. It might be assumed that peaceful relations between the United States and Japan would continue to grow, but the opposite happened. Some Japanese blamed Roosevelt whose interference, they said, prevented Japan from receiving a Russian indemnity. Racial tensions were high in the United States, especially in California, because of the influx of Japanese and Chinese immigrants. Secretary of State Elihu Root and Ambassador Takahira prepared an agreement to resolve differences. Both countries pledged to maintain the status quo in the Far East; recognized China’s independence and territorial integrity and to continue to support the open door policy; and agreed to consult with each other in the event of Far Eastern crises. Also understood was Japan’s annexation of Korea and dominance in Manchuria. Japan continued to expand its influence in China that was opposed by the United States. Japan and the United States began a long competition in their relationship as they became the dominant powers in the Pacific, a competition that ultimately resulted in World War II.

http://portsmouthpeacetreaty.org/process/legacy/index.html

[_richardMdBorn]

Here's a funny song by Arlo Guthrie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAG0XMRty5Y

More about your assertion

I believe the cracks in the Soviet Union were always evident.

I was born in 1955, so I lived through that period. Many people did NOT see the cracks in SU. I just found an article in Forbes with some questions for Paul Samuelson:

Question: In the 13th edition of Economics, as Arnold Beichman has also noted, you offered up this assertion: "[T]he Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and thrive." The same year that version of Economics was published, the Berlin Wall fell. Two years later, the Soviet Union itself became defunct.

Far from having demonstrated the ability to "function and thrive," we soon learned, the communist economies had been more backward and poorer--much poorer--than the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies had estimated?

Question: "Everyone," you claim, "understands ... that there can be no solution without government." Are you aware that Harvard economist Robert Barro called the Obama stimulus package "garbage?" "This is probably the worst bill," Barro insisted, "since the 1930s."
Had you noticed that Stanford economist John Taylor has warned against responding to the crisis with a government intervention? "[P]olicy makers," Taylor wrote recently, "should rethink the idea that frequent and large government actions and interventions are the only answer to our current economic problems."
Are you aware that nearly 300 economists signed a petition opposing a federal stimulus? "Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians," the petition declares, "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/19/milton ... elson.html