Why do people like that dipstick Hoover?

[Richard]

He is basically a mini-FDR.  FDR mostly continued his economic policies.  That man Hoover was evil.  Pure evil.  His IQ is probably only slightly higher than the 21st prime number.

I need to know what people like about him so much.

[ag]

Until his unfortunate presidency Hoover was (justly) considered one of the century's great humanitarians. His relief work in post WWI Europe, coordinating US response, has saved numerous lives and did a lot to promote US image as a global force. He had shown himself a brilliant manager under difficult circumstances. In short, had somebody been searching for the nation's manager in a depression, Hoover's CV would have had no contest. But President is more than just a manager.

He was unfortunate in that he was the President at the start of the Great Depression and did not know how to respond: nobody did at the time, nor is it clear that we now know how to deal with something like this once it happens (prevention is another matter).  Still, he would have been an incredible asset as a cabinet memer under the circumstances, but he failed as the President: his biggest fault was, he failed to give the reassuring feeling that he was in control - something of great value that FDR did manage to convey. He was defined by his failure. I prefer to think of him pre-presidency - the great man he was.

He, obviously, wasn't FDR light: FDR is in a league to himself, no matter what you think about him.  Hoover was never a radical in any sense - FDR was defined by his willingness to be a radical when he believed necessary.

[Bono]

Beats me, since he effectively caused the depresions with his 'stabilization' policies.
I'm now waiting for a post containing an ad-hominem attack against my school of economics and an assertion that I'm obviously wrong becuase I don't know my 'econ'.

[Cubby]

He is basically a mini-FDR.  FDR mostly continued his economic policies.  That man Hoover was evil.  Pure evil.  His IQ is probably only slightly higher than the 21st prime number.

I need to know what people like about him so much.

Are you trying to get PBrunsel mad? I've learned before not to diss Hoover, or else the Man in Blue from Iowa gets mad, says Hoover was a "great humanitarian", etc. its not worth the arguement.

I'm glad you agree that Hoover was a bad president, but FDR is my favorite president. Its sad to see his legacy so derided today.

[opebo]

...but FDR is my favorite president. Its sad to see his legacy so derided today.

And mostly by people who owe any economic well-being they have to his policies - in other words workers, or anyone who had a working-class parent or grandparent since the 1930's.

Of course Richius is a racist self-hating homosexual - it should come as no suprise that his economics are masochistic as well.

[Yates]

Hoover's performance as President was undoubtedly lackluster, but he was truly a great man.  He was perhaps the kindest and most moral man ever to hold the highest office.  His humanitarian work seals him a great place in history, even though his presidency was filled with unfortunate events.

[PBrunsel]

Hoover overstepped boundaries, that is true. Smoot-Hawley was a HUGE mistake, so was his $50 pensions to 65 years or older Americans, as was the Farm Board.

But if a man who did not have Hoover's ability had taken office in 1929, how much worse could it have been? Hoover was able to keep ours and the World's economy afloat durring the worst years of the Depression. His moratorium on war debts, his tax cuts in 1930, and his generous of the Red Cross kept the economy going.

He made his mistakes, but who wouldn't have?

[PBrunsel]

BTW Richius, Hoover was an engineer, a job that takes considerable barins. So thanks asshole Richius for declaring one of the most brilliant, energetic, warm hearted, giving, thoughtful, competent, and and efficient men in World History an idiot. You obviously know nothing of history, or you would never have called Hoover an idiot.

(And I could have really lashed out, so consider yourself lucky.)

[Keystone Phil]

(And I could have really lashed out, so consider yourself lucky.)

Take this suggestion from a friend - Do it, PBrunsel.   

[Richard]

BTW Richius, Hoover was an engineer, a job that takes considerable barins.

Right.  Thats why no bridge has ever fallen down.  We all know ALL engineers are smart and that there is no such thing as a dumb engineer.

More on this later.  I don't have time to post now.

[PBrunsel]

C'mon Richius, Hoover led world wide famine relief, that takes considerable brains.

[??????????]

Now all we need is John to complete the Iowa trio, or Kevin.

[Erc]

Hoover was a smart man, a charitable man, a great man...but he didn't know what he was doing when it came to economics.

Not that many people did (the Fed board didn't, that's for sure), so it's not like Al Smith would have done any better.

[Cubby]

...but FDR is my favorite president. Its sad to see his legacy so derided today.

And mostly by people who owe any economic well-being they have to his policies - in other words workers, or anyone who had a working-class parent or grandparent since the 1930's.

Of course Richius is a racist self-hating homosexual - it should come as no suprise that his economics are masochistic as well.

I know, its annoying to see so many people diss Roosevelt's programs today w/o knowing just how desperate the situation was in the 1930's. Or in some cases, they know how bad it was b/c of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover but they try to avoid that part and just act like FDR and Truman proposed fixing problems for no reason.

And Richius is whatever he says he is, we don't need to force labels on him.

[opebo]

Hey history fools.

Oh I like that phrase so much!

I know, its annoying to see so many people diss Roosevelt's programs today w/o knowing just how desperate the situation was in the 1930's. Or in some cases, they know how bad it was b/c of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover but they try to avoid that part and just act like FDR and Truman proposed fixing problems for no reason.

What many upper-middle-class Americans - like most people on this board - fail to realize is that the reason they can afford to vote Republican is because of liberal Democratic policies. 

For example, many of their parents and grandparents were educated via various government loans, subsides, the GI bill, etc., setting them on the road to higher incomes.  The wage increases of those liberal years led to higher rates of home-ownership, the existence of the pension, etc.  Basically nearly everyone was a poor before liberalism, and even though we are returning to that situation slowly but surely, the more fortunate recipients of State aid are still doing fairly well.  Admittedly these are the people who 'did more' with what they got from liberal governance, but that doesn't change the fact that the seed of their well-being lay in welfare and redistribution, not in capitalist bootstrapping.