Lincoln #1, FDR #2,… Why not George W. Bush #3?

Most of the time when historians rank President’s I ignore it. Like back in 2009 when U.S. News reported:

“President George W. Bush is near the bottom of the heap in the latest survey of historians on presidential leadership.

Bush received an overall ranking of 36 out of 42 former presidents—in the bottom 10.Click here to find out more!

The five best presidents, according to the historians, were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order. Rounding out the top 10 were John F. Kennedy at six, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Reagan.

The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes.”

So all “its too recent for history to tell” aside, let’s look at the rankings a little closer. So some of the top picks are Abraham Lincoln and FDR, which unlike Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, and some of the lower ranked Presidents, governed over very traumatic periods of American History.

Abraham Lincoln faced the Civil War and the south trying to leave the union. FDR faced the Great Depression and World War II. President George W. Bush also faced these types of experiences with September 11th and the ongoing wars in the middle east. So when it comes to ranking Presidents by historians they must take more into account then just their “difficulties” they faced in office.

Maybe its how they handled them. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus and jailed thousands of southern sympathizers. FDR creates massive government bureaucracies and sends thousands of italian, japanese, and german immigrants for basically being from countries in which the United States was at war with. Bush instead used Congress to help enact the Patriot Act which allowed law enforcement to bend the rule of law to “suspend suspected terrorists” indefinitely.

So why is it that Bush does not rank up there with Lincoln and FDR?

I would suggest that he wasn’t enough of a tyrant. Who are the most remembered and liked individuals? Brutus, Cato or Caesar? Napoleon or the people that exiled him? Everyone, of course, always remembers the tyrant and rewrites history to make them seem more like a saint.

If George W. Bush really wanted to become a top ranked President by historians, he should have made the Patriot Act and executive order and suspended more of American’s rights.

This is by no means a defense of George W. Bush, nor is it an attempt to say that it is unjust or unfair that he isn’t ranked higher. The point here is that historians enjoy the dictators and tyrants of society and they look down on the Presidents that did little or nothing. When, in fact, it was the founders’ intent for the federal government to be restrained. And yet, we reward the very men who begin its downfall from limited government to massive controlling government with the finest statues and monuments to be remembered forever.

So do I think George W. Bush should be ranked #3 as one of the greatest President’s? Absolutely not. Should historians? Absolutely and there is no reason for them to not to. My personal list is almost a complete reversal with FDR and Lincoln on the bottom as being two of the worst. Now if they would only let me decide who’s faces would be on our currency. Oh wait…


Words as Signals and Nothing Else

The old saying goes “A man is only as good as his word.” Wrong, the correct saying is “A man is only as good as his actions.”

Words are simply signals for action. If someone acted like your mortal enemy but said I love you, which side would you err on?

If someone said they were sorry and they did it to you all over again, which side would you err on?

Think of this in a different context: Man asks cute girl on a date. Cute girl says that she will be at coffee shop ‘A’ at 11 am. Man shows up and hours upon hours tick away. The man can see the whole store, so when the girl says later “Oh, I was there. Where were you?” It would’t hold.

Saying that you are somewhere doesn’t make you there and the same goes for love and apologies.

When thinking about politics the key is to say the right things. “Hope, Change, Political Correctness, etc.” But this is completely backwards compared to the rest of society. The whole problem with everything else in the world is getting people to live up to what they say. Or in other words, make people follow their words through with action.

Why is it that human society has based their politics based upon what people said and not what they do? And do not go off yet, it is on both sides.

If someone stated that Congressman Joe Wilson who shouted “you lie” when President Barack Obama stated that his health care plan wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants had in fact supported a previous bill that did, would many of Wilson’s supporters know the real answer?

And I understand that people are rational ignorant when it comes to politics. But why is the equlibrium at what they say? Why isn’t it at zero? Could it be possible that no listening to a politician at all would give people a better chance at guessing what policies they promote? For example, if you ran the experiment, two citizens in 2001. George W. Bush is elected and now we are in 2002. By the end of his administration, who has a better chance of predicting if George W. Bush will support Medicare expansions? The guy who watched the news and listened to the speeches or someone who paid no attention at all?

The obvious answer here is the person who paid no attention at all. Why? Well, Bush expanded Medicare with part D while claiming to be a fiscal conservative.

There you have it, I support rational absolutely ignorance over rational speech listening only ignorance.

I mean how else are we going to stop the Barack Obamas and the Nancy Pelosis of the world from talking about a bill that hasn’t been finalized… I mean you wouldn’t trust a car salesman who had never seen the car, would you?


Tea Party Crasher



The Obama Arbitrary CEO Pay

Let me first give an introduction to this piece I am going to talk about. This was written for Slate Magazine by Eliot Spitzer. Yes, the former Governor of New York that was involved in the prostitution scandal. He writes a column once and a while for Slate and they are usually pretty good. This article is on the Obama CEO salary-cap of $500,000. This has been something I wanted to discuss. First, let’s start out with a quote:

“What should really be done about executive pay? First, let us acknowledge that the $500,000 bar is arbitrary. It will be way too low in some circumstances and way too high in others; it affects too few executives; it can be easily avoided through alternative pay techniques; and it injects the government into a sphere where it is uniquely inept—setting private-sector wages.”

This is an important point the reader should take away. That is this is a arbitrary number that has been imposed upon people with absolutely no calculation. This is a key problem to socialism. As in because we can only ballpark the wage, which was solely decided upon by looking at other markets, we have no clue if $499,999 is the right amount or $500,000. The main reason for a CEO’s wage is to attract the best and brightest, while not putting all your eggs in one basket. When the government takes over a business the incentive for them to take off and run away with the money is huge. This is not a small detail to be missed. This is a huge problem when creating policy, when you talk about social justice it is all arbitrary. For example the progressive income tax, the rich should be taxed 33%, 45%, 56%? Pick one and tell me why. Now this is where Governor Spitzer goes wrong:

“If we are to stop outrageous pay, the objective should not be to match the foolishness of the Bush ideological embrace of wild-eyed libertarianism masquerading as capitalism with an equally foolish “government knows best” approach that ignores the market. We must create a genuine market for CEO services, generating meaningful competition and socially acceptable results.”

He then goes on to describe how he would set up a corporation with checks on CEO’s pay. First, Bush was no where near libertarianism and he definately did not ignore the market. He has made some of the larges moves towards socialism by messing with the markets we have ever seen since FDR. Then there is the major fallacy, he makes. He decides to come up with is own corporate system and acting like it is a policy prescription.

If you do this then you are making the best possible case for central planned socialism. So sure, maybe he does have some points and you can read those in the link below, but he needs to pitch these to corporations not to the American people. If they adopted his plan and it was superior then all investment would flood this business and CEO would be begging for a job.

The rest is here.


Published in: on February 25, 2009 at 1:15 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Barack Obama continuing an AbortionTradition

This from USA Today:

“President Obama on Friday quietly ended the Bush administration’s ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option.

Liberal groups welcomed the decision, while abortion rights foes criticized the president.

Known as the “Mexico City policy,” the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.”

On this issue people get mixed up in Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, which has nothing to do with this debate at all. This is an issue of fiscal responsibility. This is a decision whether to spend valuable taxpayer money in a way that the government was never entitled to. This is not a job of the government. This is not something that the market is not allocating any money to. We know there are a demand for abortions. We have seen this when it was illegal. One of the arguments of the Pro-Choice people is that it would allow it to be safe since there is a demand for it. If this is true then why do we need to fund it?

Let’s take another look at it. I like to smoke cigars. I believe it is a right that I have. I do not need the government subsidizing me or the local tobacco shop of what I want to do. This is because it works fine as is. I pay for the cigar. They give me the cigar. End of transaction. There should be no difference when it comes to abortions, guns, meat, or any marketable item.

The rest is here.


Published in: on January 25, 2009 at 7:22 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Goodbye 2008, Hello 2009…



Published in: on December 30, 2008 at 12:59 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Bush-Obama Biased Media? Never…



Published in: on November 22, 2008 at 9:18 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

George W. Bush is FDR or Hoover?

This is a great letter to the editor from the Chair of the school of Economics at George Mason University”

“Dear Editor:

Your equating George W. Bush with FDR is spot-on (“Franklin Delano Bush,” October 20).  Both presidents recklessly increased government’s role in the economy – a move that proved (in FDR’s case) and will prove (in Bush’s case) to do nothing but saturate the economy with such uncertainty as to frighten away entrepreneurs and investors.

But popular history will almost surely remember Bush, not as a second FDR, but as a second Herbert Hoover.  The myth will be made that Bush was a staunch free-marketeer who was succeeded in the Oval Office by a charismatic saint whose hyperactive interventions saved the economy (even though precious little evidence of economic salvation will appear in the data).  History will forget Bush’s interventions just as it has forgotten Hoover’s – as it has forgotten that Hoover signed the largest tariff hike in U.S. history; as it has forgotten that Hoover tried to create jobs by deporting hundreds of thousands of Mexicans; as it has forgotten that Hoover signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; as it has forgotten that, with the Revenue Act of 1932, Hoover raised the top marginal tax rate on personal incomes from 25 percent to 63 percent (in addition to raising the corporate-tax rate).

History will repeat itself, blaming capitalism for a problem caused and intensified by government interventions.

Donald J. Boudreaux”

This is why I am having a hard time voting for a Republican in this next election. It is voting for this partial Republicans that make Capitalism turn rotten. To the average American person, if you asked them who the party of free marketeers are they would say Republicans. In platform, this is probably true. In practice it is not. The Republican party has only produced a few Presidents who were free-market leaning and even the most recent one was plagued with national security spending.

When FDR took over the White House and started his socialistic policies an advisor was quoted in saying that the policies that they are doing are just like the ones Hoover did. Hoover was a progressive, he was the creation of people trying to pick the better of the two evils. So in short, we are screwed in this next election.


Published in: on November 3, 2008 at 12:06 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Karl Marx vs. George W. Bush


Published in: on November 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

The 2000 Election Bailout?

Almost anyone who was anyone remembers the Florida recount after the Presidential election in the year 2000 between Former Veep Al Gore (now beloved Nobel Prize Winner and Activist) and Former Governor George W. Bush (now President).

When you think about government and like I, was reading Plato’s Republic on democracy and tyrants, you begin to wonder about how were we able to so peacefully transition with a contested election. Had this been a Roman election there would have been blood or the very least mysterious deaths. When Plato mentions what it takes to get a democracy, which he believes is revolution, he also mentions what it takes to get a dictator. This is what Plato has to say:

“When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.”

With current bailout, we treat Wall Street like a bunch of drunken fools “too deeply of the strong win of freedom.” We allow Secretary Paulson to rise and “calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.”

But is it democracy that is becoming a bunch of drunken fools who have taken their freedom to regulate us and regulate these industries that need to be called out and punished? I would say yes, very much so.

That begs the question that no one will ever answer and no one will ever ask. Lucky for you, I will. Do we need a tyrant to kick down the door and tell Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, and others to get out of the way? Had Bush or Gore been a tyrant and seized power would we be in this situation today?

Of course, my answer is no. We do not need a tyrant but we do need a leader. We need someone who will stand up to the American people and stop playing games of politics and actually do what is right. We need someone who knows economics and believes in small government.

We must do it through the means that are necessary, which is without government. Will that lead us to ruin? Maybe, so. No, democracy has lasted forever and there is a reason for that. It has something to do with tyrants who take over for the good and turn. But it also has something to do with the people.

Back to the 2000 election, did the Supreme Court act as a bailout of our democracy? Had all the votes been counted, we would have had Bush still. But the Supreme Court intervened and we stayed peaceful, not that there was a threat of the opposite. It was just insuring the just in case moment. Of course, Gore is a lot more popular than Bush now a days.

It is just funny to think the American people have been burned by a dictator not so long ago, but yet we forget what small government was like and we have become much bigger than the government in which we broke away from. Democracy can be just as corrupt as a dictator.


Published in: on October 8, 2008 at 11:25 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , ,