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

JFK because a member of TPTB he was using what he knew and had experienced to stop as many draconinan measures cold. Everyone else has been a plant courtesy of them. He was intially put up to destroy this nation and when he did just the opposite he was killed.

Other than the slavery and Native American removal issues I would say, Andrew Jackson.

George Washington

reply to post by balon0


Plutocracy USA

"Americans have not had anything resembling prosperity in several decades"

Unfortunately America has become a Plutocracy and not for the poor or middle class. it has become a socialist system that protects the wealth and interest of the rich. This is a very good discussion explaining how the system can be/ is hi-jacked and manipulated. Why only the rich and powerful were bailed out. Interesting talk and worth a listen. Peter Lavelle asks his CrossTalk guests whether the only thing left of the modern welfare state is socialism for the rich.

Originally posted by Cassius666
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.

You mean a privately owned central bank?

Cater got a blame for a lot of things he did not deserve any blame for. He was the victim of an oil embargo in full swing. He raised taxes to try and curb stagflation as people were blowing their personal savings on buying everything and anything before prices increased even though their wages were not in creasing. Their consumer habits were not helping job growth because they were buying mostly Japanese made products exporting capital and jobs overseas. At least the USG could spend extra tax money on infrastructure. The problem was he needed to barrow mass quantities of cash to really make that plan work. He was unwilling to do that. Also he was unwilling to spend on the military. Like the B-1 bomber which was obsolete and he argued that the cruse missile could do the same job more effectively, but he didn't borrow the money to splurge on the cruse missile program. Also the mass unemployment problem of the time where the you 18 to 25 year olds were hit the hardest, by increasing the ranks of the military he could have sponged up a lot of unemployment. He didn't want to uh, "give the wrong signs to the Russians" by doing so. Even though Brzezinski advised him to the contrary. That the Russians aren't stupid and paranoid like so many thought, but Cater wanted the love and admiration of the "hate the military" baby boomer generation conditioned during the Vietnam era experience. He could have created a humanitarian corp developed out of a much larger model of the Peace corp, but he wanted the love and admiration of the UN who think of that area of work as their very own monopoly. Like he could coordinated something in their name while increasing the federal ranks. However Carter lived in a bubble shaped by the previous decade that dictated some peace and love hippie idea of what America should be. He was growing government for the benefit of educated professionals, but he forgot about the rank and file. He didn't understand the importance of taking a steel or auto working and shifting them into infrastructure work. At least later Bill Clinton understood that importance. probably from studying Carter's mistakes.

All and all he was for the common people more so than a lot of other presidents, but he lived in that bubble I just described. Reagan would had been a one term president too if it wasn't for the Iran Iraq war that busted the embargo as they needed to pump more oil than the embargo allowed to pay for their war. Cheap oil, energy, not related to a slow down in demand always means massive economic growth. Plus Reagan borrowed money once the Republican gained control of the Senate in 82, and Tip in the House went along for the ride because he and his Dem buddies could go hog wild with all sort of pork projects back home.

Carter could had made the same deal. One that Tip even encouraged him to pursue. However no one, not even the people closest to him, could pop that bubble carter lived in. It's an Georgia genteel bubble, apart of a much larger global philosophy, based on globalism, the same one people like Ted Turner live in. They believe in some Free Masonic utopia land that does not exist. If you are at least moderately educated and a minimum of being upper middle class it makes sense. It would make sense if everyone was moderately educated and middle class. They can't grasp that part of the missing equation because Albert Pike who wrote a lot on the philosophy based some of his ideology on the the idea of minimizing the "surplus value" (a Marxist term) Two hardware stores in town divides market share and and wastes resources. People as long as you are a member of the fraternity in power should be able to monopolize any and all markets, charging maximize price for whatever is beings sold so the money can be redistributed for the endeavors of world peace. A French Masonic model. If other people are allowed accesses to the same opportunities then the fraternity as a whole could lose their status of power and control thus their collective agenda to create their version of "Heaven on Earth. That's Georgia genteel internationalism, Cater and Turner style. We know best. I'm not sure if that is a philosophy based on any philosophy of maximizing opportunities for the common collective prosperity of everyone down stream. Sounds more like a philosophy of limiting competition by keep the rest of the people down. A noblemen system of power and control. That's why Reagan kept saying, he believed in Americans to think and do for themselves without be told whats best for them. That sort of line which I paraphrased, creative composite of the type of things he would say, Reagan repeated periodically, not only stating such as an anti USSR cold war hoopla bit, but against the Carter's fraternally influenced personal philosophy of how to view the world and its future. One based on in short with all frankness regarding its furtherance, if one doesn't think like his ilk, Carter's fraternity, the person must be ignorant, darkened form all truth (as they see it) and due to such darkness the person therefore needs to be managed like lil school children in a class taught by an adult "enlightened" teacher who knows best. That's not for the people. That's all about being for your fraternity's fascist philosophies based on one particular elite perspective of what is good and bad and enlightened. FDR played along with the same program, but his wive was sold on the whole order's philosophies like cater. Stare eyed cultified. A cult that preaches liberty and prosperity for their members only and everyone else needs to be kept down and controlled who do not share the same like mindedness for the sake of the survival of the cult, the composition of it, sold, in the name of world peace.

Woodrow Wilson
(secretly trying to find who loves Glen Beck around here :lol