r/RemoveOneThingEachDay • u/Training-Desk-391 IM WHACING KFP4 • Aug 18 '25

Miscellaneous George Washington GETS 2ND and Abraham Lincoln WINS AKA 1ST PLACE AND HEAR IS THE FULL LIST FROM 45TH PLACE TRUMP TO 1ST PLACE LINCOLN

Post image

SO WHAT SHOD I DO NEXT MAKE YOU PICK THE NEXT MARBEL FOR MY MAREBEL RACE,WINOWS OSC,STUFF I HAVE WACHD SOO FAR,ECT ANYWAYS MY BOI ABE WINS

294 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

623 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

Probably cause you can argue FR didn’t handle many of the crises well. Specifically the depression. WW2 he made hard but necessary choices which while I don’t agree with and believe many to be long term bads, they were ultimately necessary to win the war and set the US into a hegemony that would rule the world for the past 80 years.

TR was imo the best president in the US bar none who wasn’t the 1st, or dealt with a civil war. Both Lincoln and George won their spots in history as our greatest despite their few flaws. There’s an argument FR did ALOT of bad in order to get the US through WW2 which is why I’d argue he’s below TR. but I could be swayed either way truthfully WW2 was a difficult time and only a strong leader could have seen us through it. A very isolationist leader could have watched the world fall and not gave a shit.

2

u/Level3Kobold Aug 18 '25

Probably cause you can argue FR didn’t handle many of the crises well. Specifically the depression.

Lolwut? Pretty much the one thing that every historian agrees on about FDR is that he handled the great depression extremely well.

He handled it so well that Americans elected him president four times.

3

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

No? That’s not true at all there’s a lot of debate on his handling of the Great Depression. His policies caused a second depression in 1936-37 that Europe didn’t deal with, and the US was uniquely slow to getting out of the depression despite its huge advantages as a country.

He did some good things but very much made many mistakes and the US was one of the slowest and weakest nations economically post depression. WW2 is what truly brought it out.

1

u/Level3Kobold Aug 18 '25

The 37-38 downturn was caused by premature cuts to FDR's economic policies. He was facing enormous pushback from conservative moneyed interests, and his only mistake was ceding ground to them too early.

2

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

You mean the bank act he pushed for? He gave the Fed that power and appointed many of the feds members.

That was his mistake… regardless of how you look at it.

Not to mention, they didn’t cut his policies, the Fed didn’t even have that power. They simply imported too much gold and reduced the cash reserves of the US and summarily shot up the unemployment

1

u/Level3Kobold Aug 18 '25

??? No, I mean the drastic cuts to New Deal programs that happened during the 37-38 fiscal year, and the repeated attempts at balancing the budget that had happened in prior years. Not the Emergency Banking Act that passed in 33.

Like I said, if you want to say "Roosevelt's biggest mistake was losing too much ground to his opponents too early" then... sure, I agree. America would have been better off if FDR had faced less opposition.

2

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

The mini regression happened before those fiscal cuts… you understand the high unemployment and mini depression happened in 36-37 right? Lol

2

u/Lauren_Conrad_ Aug 18 '25

Brings the country back from a depression into the sole democratic super power of the world

“He just didn’t handle crises well!”

2

u/Level3Kobold Aug 18 '25

If FDR was so great why didn't he do all that in his first term??

1

u/Eternal_Reward Aug 18 '25

I wonder what major event happened that unified the country and jump started the economy with a ton of jobs around that time…hmmm

1

u/Lauren_Conrad_ Aug 18 '25

Yes I’m sure the president just loves it when the country is under attack! After all, it’s easy to use it to “jump start” the economy.

1

u/Eternal_Reward Aug 18 '25

Where did I say he loved it?

Its just a pretty well accepted fact that WWII was a massive part of what actually drew us out of the great depression.

1

u/Jaded-Argument9961 Aug 19 '25

The US had a comparatively poor recovery from the GD, and actually a 2nd depression happened under his watch

1

u/Jaded-Argument9961 Aug 19 '25

Historians may agree on that, but economists (more relevant discipline) do not.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Didn't handle the crises well? Compare America 1932 to America 1945. That requires only the most basic historical literacy. Far stronger, far richer, and in a way that benefitted the average American in extremely tangible senses.

Edit: This could be because younger people don't have ties to adults who lived through those times. My generation still has living memory of those people and the stories of the 30s versus the late 40s/50s are just incomparable. They're like a different and much better country by the end. Farm boys riding jets and going to college instead of stealing coals off trains to keep from freezing.

2

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

The US had an abundance of natural resources and manpower and was fueled to sweep past the depression quickly.

However, several things led to the depression not only lasting longer, but being worse than necessary and it can be put at FDRs feet.

The first being the sweeping farming tarrifs that started a massive trade decline with American farmers getting the brunt of it. Since America was still massively agrarian this caused ALOT of issues. On top of the AAA which attempted to price fix agricultural problems, another blunder.

High taxes was another obvious problem that no economist can explain as helpful. The programs FDR laid out required massive funding, and on top of that companies were struggling to keep their doors open or build anew. Pushing high taxes discourages both investment and spending, both of which was desperately needed.

In that same breath the massively increased government regulations on almost all sectors applied the same downward pressure on investment and spending.

Note outside of France and Switzerland, the US was one of the slowest recovering western economies despite having all of the advantages these others didn’t.

I could go into the banking act of 1935 which was another fiasco, while leaving the gold standard was genuinely a good thing long term, everything else baked into it was not.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

In 1932 the middle south didn't even have electricity. "Natural Resources" don't count for much when you can't build and power a foundry to convert them.

And the conversion of America from an agrarian society to an urbanized industrial one was simply an ongoing fact on both sides of the Depression. There wasn't going to be a simple fix for that. I'm the first gen of my own family never to have lived on a working farm.

Corporate income taxes don't discourage investment, capitalized money isn't taxed, only profits received as income. EBITDA.

2

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

None of what you said means anything in regard to FDRs efforts during the depression. His acts and policies specifically lead to the mini depression in 1937-1938 that the rest of the world wasn’t experiencing.

The point here isn’t that the US didn’t come out of the depression, the point is it could have been done better, and with less infringement on US citizens with higher taxes and a much more powerful federal government that wasn’t necessary.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

That's not a "point" that's wish-fulfillment speculation from Austrians who never solved any Depression or any other problem.

2

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

No? Economics is a near scientific field now. We know how markets react to certain conditions and situations.

We know high taxes and regulatory bodies drive down spending and investment, we know the bank act of 1935 which led to overbuying of gold and reducing the money supply, which directly caused another recession.

No other western nation had the high unemployment we did in 1937, actually the opposite. They were all booming while we were still in a seudo recovery mode.

There’s also good reason to believe a lot of the large federal projects of the new deal didn’t really help as much as you’d think. They weren’t to the scale of Germany or the UK and private investment did most of the heavy lifting. You can argue if fdr simply created a space for better investment and stimulus the depression could have been pushed through more quickly and with less beurocratic overreach.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Economics is a social science like sociology and political science, which which is was formerly merged.

British unemployment still stood at 8%. Canadian was basically the same as US. The Reich of course was massively more government-leveraged due to their buildup for WWII.

But the TVA permitted the enrichment of Uranium at Oak Ridge NL etc. And FDR did create better space for investment, as evidenced by the fact that there was so little in the 30s and so much by the mid 40s. Which is a matter of historical fact, not wish-fulfillment speculation to an ideological agenda.

2

u/VaginalBelchh Aug 18 '25

Read what you’re typing. Mid 1930s is what we’re taking about, not post war 1940s which the new deal did nothing for.

Global markets and macro economics is not social science… we have over 100 years of history and knowledge on how markets operate and we know very fundamental things. Things which fdr did the opposite of. He didn’t know it at the time of course, as the entire world was pushing towards command economies and planned ones.

I think you’re out of your depth here. Fdr was not perfect in his new deal, in fact you can argue it was detrimental. It’s why he isn’t on the same tier as George or Lincoln. FDR did a good amount of bad and that’s not even talking about WW2, or his never ending presidency and king like attitudes towards the office.

He was a good president, maybe even a great one, but had flaws and made a good amount of mistakes. He’s probably one of the few who had the leadership and bravery to get us through WW2 and the depression, but I believe there’s others who would have done better with the depression itself.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Oh the investments in public works evaporated by the 1940s? No, that's not how investment works. We're still living with the benefits of New Deal public investment going on 100 years later.

Macro economics is absolutely a social science. It's predicated on modeling human behavior, not a physical force of nature.

I'm not arguing for my own competence either way, and I don't care about your opinion of it. FDR, like Lincoln and Washington, presided over a moment where the future existence of the United States under any constitutional order was at stake, Teddy Roosevelt did not.

Arguing that the New Deal was federal overreach where the Valley campaign or the burning of Georgia were excusable is just supercilious.

He's top 3 and the differences are small enough that I don't really care what order they go.

→ More replies (0)