It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who was the last US president who stood for the people's interests?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tom goose
 


Hey now I voted for Jackson




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzerBarack Husein Obama.
Now before my conservative friends shoot me, and my liberal friends try to hug me let me explain.

People's interests change from year to year, generation to generation. Obama won the vote. He won. The majority WANT an entitlement president. And by golly, that is what they got.


This brings to mind a couple things:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." — Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville

These are pretty much spot on and we are living on borrowed time...

It is a classic Grasshopper and the Ant - the few ant's in our society are reaching the point where they are sick of doing the right thing so that the grasshoppers can come in and live off of thier proceeds.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Wouldn't Ronald Reagan come to mind? He seemed to be a genuine guy that truly cared about your country. He had a grand vision and tried to implement it. He fixed your country from the waning years of the 70's. He seemed like a true patriot that put his countries interest (not his own) first.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by wolveseyes
it was abe lincoln and george washington lol george didnt even want to be the face of america


Actually, Lincoln is the biggest traitor the Constitution ever had....

U.S. Federal Authority is martial law

He did what was necessary to preserve the Union. You can't fault him for that.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ultraman2011
 

My closest friend was involved in black ops under him,I like him most but he too was crooked.
as to who is best ,it's hard to tell, my IQ is 115 and I have trouble deciphering the lies we are fed but I'd say...Ron Paul.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Andrew Jacskson,,,from him on the sitters/posers have been power/money/political influence geebs....looking for their place in history



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
there hasn't been one ... EVER


you should read the real history



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7thcavtrooper
reply to post by Ultraman2011
 

My closest friend was involved in black ops under him,I like him most but he too was crooked.
as to who is best ,it's hard to tell, my IQ is 115 and I have trouble deciphering the lies we are fed but I'd say...Ron Paul.


Ron Paul to me, is the evolution of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Wasn't Ronnie the one that coined the phrase "Government is not the solution to your problems, government is the problem." Different times in history bring out different responses. If Ronnie was around today, he would probably be a supporter of Ron Paul.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Re your question "Who was the last US president who stood for the people's interests?"
I would say NONE.

Now if your question was "Who was the last US president who stood for the elite's interests?"
I would say ALL.

Of course, each president, during their term, NEEDED to do something that appeared to be in the best interests of their supporters to stay in favor of their supporters. I see this as a political move and not a "for the people" move. It wasn't a choice, yet a requirement to keep the masses content and at bay.

Most past presidents did just enough to avoid having an angry mob throw them out of the white house (or impeach them). I see presidents using so many coercive psychological tactics to maintain an acceptable approval rating.

A can't name even one president that truly put their personal or political interests aside and dedicated their entire presidency for the best interests of the general public.

Of course there can be worse presidents - yet then again - how would they get elected and reelected?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by balon0
Who was the last US president who stood for the people's interests?

Was John F Kennedy the last TRUE American president? Every other president after him were some how tied to the Illuminati / secret societies / NWO?

Would there ever be another American president who would try to

Reduce taxes
Increase Jobs
Expose the Illuminati / Secret Societies
Create a non-federal reserve currency




The problem with your litmus test is that reducing taxes at a certain point enters into the area on the curve of diminishing returns. We have passed that point long ago. Eisenhower tax rates is about where the peek of the curve is. The Laffer curve which is a law of diminishing returns curve is out dated. Before so called "free trade" it worked at a different level of optimum efficiency than it does today. Today when big companies and top5% wealth holders are given tax breaks they export their capital, investment capital, over seas at a faster rate causing jobs and stored capital within the U.S. to decrease.

Exposing secret societies is good, but the secret societies, fraternities, of old have been for the most part replaced with negative liberty social networks for the sole purpose of promoting mutual economic benefits. Unless you are attempting to obtain a good paying government job such networks such as being apart of Masonic relationships just is not going to promote any real advantages, and they are having less and less influence in government by the day. Positive liberty, a non-monetary gain emotional feeling, feelings of patriotism for instance, which Masonic organizational structures heavily relied on to function are are being replace by total monetary gain emotions which are emotions connected with negative liberty.

Creating a non Federal Reserve currency? What type are you talking about? A central banking currency be it publicly or privately owned has to be able to function. It can only function if most raw materials are traded in it on the open market, the currency whatever type of currency it would be, or how the ownerships of the currency is structured has to have upstream demand placed on it. The only way to do that is to have raw material producers mainly energy producers agree to trade their raw products on the open market in the currency. They have to have an incentive and that right now is protecting their positions of ownerships of raw material productions and storing their wealth, or protect their stored wealth rather which is stored currency in the form of IOUs that we use and agree to owe them as we buy and sell using the USD as an accounting tool to do so. So it does not matter what type of currency is functioned in the economy it has to have upstream demand pulls placed on it in order for it to work, have value. That means no matter what that raw material producers will always own the currency as IOU notes and we will always be the party that owes because after they sell their products in USDs they then take most of that money and deposit those moneys in the 12 member FED banks where they are the depositors who purchase the most bank bonds making them majority owners of the USD. With a national bank it still functions where they would simply buy T-bills and we would then create a national currency, but the USG would simply be a proxy in name only for the same system of currency ownership. If you allowed independent private banks to operate their own independent currencies they same people would own the currencies. A single national currency and independent national banks what we had before 1913, and the same people own the currency. You see their is no way out unless you nationalize all or most raw material productions.

I know some Ron Paul-er or Glen Beck-ster pseudo economists will try and correct me stating falsely that the IOU- USD is made out to the everyday user, and that's not true unless the everyday user owns at least one CD issued by a member bank. It's not their fault. They are not lying. They just have been provided the wrong information by the ignorant and are simply repeating falsehoods in the form of grossly misunderstood concepts.

And Jimmy Carter probably was the last U.S. President who truly had the people's interests at heart, but OPEC made energy too expensive and thus created a stagflation economy where ever time OPEC cut production and the price of oil rose people would run out and spend as much money as possible trying to beat the rate of inflation even though their wages were stagnate and in some cased decreasing adding to inflationary pressures that was not Carter's fault. There was not he could do about it. Advocating the raising of taxes was designed to control stagflation insanities. When Reagan came along the Iran and Iraq war began and they had to pay for their war and pumped oil like going out of style. That caused the economy in the 80's to boom. It had nothing to do with such things as implementation of Laffer curve tax policies for instance.

JFK? He road the coattails for a genius, Eisenhower, by inheriting the effects of Eisenhower policies.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Change "conservative" to "free peoples" and I agree with you Neo.

The OP has framed the debate though with his line of questioning in regards to what they see as "for the peoples' interests".

My opinion, no president or leader of government has truly fought for the inclusive rights of the people. One, the only thing that ever did was the Constitution. Two, the Federal Government, including the president really shouldn't be the one to do so.

But I live in a pipe-dream world where contracts are upheld.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Abraham Lincoln.

Since then, whoever is in office just tells the people what they want to hear and claims to be standing for their interests when in fact they are just in there for their own. People may believe that the POTUS is there for their interests ... but that's just because they have been bamboozled.

Again .... Abraham Lincoln.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Maybe Andrew Jackson. I dont think Kennedy. The cold war was a sham. Ask people to join you and they give you the finger. Ask people to join you, to protect against the evil fascists or the communists who want to take your monies and over time you have assimiliated a host of nations under the control of either Russia or America and by the time they forgot they stood on their own once, they live in a world where you are either with Nato, a close ally of Russia or a target.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Maybe Andrew Jackson. I dont think Kennedy. The cold war was a sham. Ask people to join you and they give you the finger. Ask people to join you, to protect against the evil fascists or the communists who want to take your monies and over time you have assimiliated a host of nations under the control of either Russia or America and by the time they forgot they stood on their own once, they live in a world where you are either with Nato, a close ally of Russia or a target.


People keep mentioning Jackson, but he forgot to nationalize resources such as prime timber lands and the whaling industry. Teddy Roosevelt did more, but again in his day he forgot to nationalize the oil industry. If key national resources are nationalized then with that comes direct control over banking by the people through their government. Jackson never understood that. My mother's side of the family a few generations back benefited from Jackson because they and some others got great land deals from the Indian Removal Act on land in North East Georgia. Since my mother's side of the family know Jackson's mother before the revolutionary war who lived just on the other side of the River in South Carolina he never forgot the people who helped his mother who was a struggling widow and mother to two boys. With that said, "Yeah, Jackson was for the people." My people, not anyone else really who are using this site. He believed in promoting prosperity for Americans and not for the Rothschild's royal clients, the Crown of England, so I guess he was in general for American prosperity, but that included American New England elites. Pointing this out if "people" means the common citizen.

To note: My family is a rare historical case in the story of America. They were just middle class farmers until they got all that Cherokee land for next to nothing. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of other Americans didn't make out so well from the Jackson administration.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LadySprings
 


He opposed the Federal Bank though. I think thats a strong sign. I would add Jimmy Carter to the list, although he didnt get much done. The fact that he took his role as commander in chief over the nuclear arsenal seriously makes me suspect he wasnt in on the cold war sham, unlike other presidents, who were fully aware there would never be a hot war with their partners in crime.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
My vote would be James A Garfield who opposed the greenback and instituted several non-whites into office. As you can see he was killed because of his views. I am not saying that he was the greatest president as he took considerable power into the executive branch,BUT he went against the post office, and was against another entity such the case as the fed-resserve from attempting to get the monetary system of the U.S.

Just my .02 cents



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 


Barack Obama.

Flame on.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Really need to define what "people" you are referring, the people who pay into the system or the people who take from the system. If your defintion is the former I vote for Andrew Jackson, if the latter I'd say Franklin Roosevelt.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
OK guys, why not Ike?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Washington, Jefferson, or Jackson...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join