[MegaSilver]

For the record (and to my mind), FDR was the worst President in history.

I tend to agree. However, someone pointed out to me that the GDP grew at unprecedented rates during his tenure in office.

I know there's ammunition against that argument; I'm assuming it's because most of that growth went into the hands of the aristocracy. Could someone confirm/clarify this?

[Check_Your_Premises]

Keep in mind, government expenditures are included in GDP figures. So the economy might suck, all things being equal, but if the government spends a bunch of cash...

...(which causes it's own growth, but not as efficiently because choices are made politically vs. economically)...

...it will manifest itself in a larger GDP.

Clear as mud?

[Williams]

Germany declared war on the United States immediately after Pearl Harbor, saving Roosevelt from whatever controversy might have existed about going after Germany whereas only Japan attacked us. Therefore, the use of the Germany example by conservatives is misplaced. Frankly, in many of the other examples we weren't directly attacked but an ally was.

In terms of good/bad presidents though, most people don't realize Truman did not seek reelection because Korea was going so badly. Ike concluded it quickly. Nixon got us out of Vietnam, not in. One does wonder how good roosevelt and even lincoln were. They are so immersed in the enormous events of their times it's hard to be objective.

[TN4Liberty]

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that "growth rate" is going to be larger when you start at a very low point (the depression). We had been in a period of negative growth, so the good old concept of regression to the mean take hold. Simply put, any growth would be large when measured as a percentage because it started with a horribly small GDP.