James K Polk was the most efficient president in the history of the United States of America

You made some very good points. I will first address your rebuttal toward my points before addressing yours. http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tariff Yes the Federal Government at Polk's time was much smaller, and FDR himself did a lot to expand his own abilities as president. Polk's tariff reduction was moderate, however the important part was that it worked. He may not have had the lowest tariff in US history, however he didn't have to in order to create an effective tariff rate. Trade was stimulated and the treasury gained significant revenues as a result of the increased tariff(1). An important factor in determining efficiency is effectiveness, and the tariff was effective for its time. And to say that the tariff was not an important issue compared to today's "massive machine" is not necessarily true. We must keep in mind that the scope of government changed greatly between the administrations of James K Polk and FDR. However, for its time, tariffs were an economic issue which helped to create a divide between the industrial north and the agrarian south and west. It carried a good amount of significance for the economic state of the United States. 2) Independent Treasury The Treasury System was flawed upon its inception, you are correct. However, there had been numerous problems with the previous National Banks which preceded the Treasury System. For starters, it can be argued that the National Bank was an unconstitutional expansion of government power(2) (Mculloch v Maryland affirmed the bank's right to exist, however this was the decision of the Marshall court, and Marshall was an avid supporter of federal supremacy). The treasury wasn't perfect but at least it was significant nonetheless. 3) Territorial expansion Yes the East has more than the West in regard to population and industry. However this fact does not mean that the West is not an important area. Many Western cities are vibrant economically and in terms of population, including Seattle, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, etc. True he did little to develop this new land, but considering he was fresh off a major war and that he had only a year left, this is not surprising or lazy on his part. And the merits of Manifest Destiny in this debate are irrelevant. All that truly matters is what Polk gained for the United States, which is the entire Southwest and the Pacific Coast Term I disagree that his one term is irrelevant. When comparing his presidency to anyone else, especially a president who served 3 full terms, he is at an obvious disadvantage if all that is counted is a list of accomplishments. What Polk did was remarkable considering the time span. One could only imagine what he would have done if he had had the lifespan and the desire to serve the same time as Franklin Roosevelt. FDR Franklin D Roosevelt was a good president in his own right, however to say he was the most efficient in history may be a result of a certain historical "hype", so to speak. 1) Depression it is unquestionable that FDR's New Deal offered some assistance to the failing economy, but by how much? The unemployment rate did drop from 23% when he first took office, but after that it flat lines at around 10%(3), which is still an uncomfortably high number. He also provided many temporary relief jobs in his New Deal, the operative word being temporary. Did it help? Unquestionably. But it didn't save us from the depression. For that we ought to thank World War 2. The New Deal was also extremely costly, totaling at 50 million dollars.(4) (That was when 50 million dollars was a lot of money for the government to spend) The New Deal was at best a temporary fix to a bigger problem Banking and Securities 2 and 3 I will not argue the validity of these points. They are valid, as I am not arguing that FDR had a poor presidency. He did enact some important pieces of legislation, these two being prime examples. I will concede these two 4) War Simply avoiding war does not truly count as doing anything. He simply did not get us involved in a European conflict, other than passively supporting England via Lend-Lease. FDR was more concerned with domestic affairs rather than the turmoil in Europe at the time of his presidency. His delaying of the war was the result of America's isolationist tendency of the time, bringing about the Neutrality Acts(5) which simply declared Neutrality in the face of growing world conflict. 5) Summary of presidency FDR is not by any means a "bad president". He had several reforms which made impacts in their own right and helped to ease the depression. However, there is another side to this action. FDR's New Deal is a large amalgamation of federal intervention to solve a depression. Some programs created temporary and at times useless jobs, such as the CWA.(6) Many other portions ran into significant battles with the Supreme Court. Almost every piece of legislation was questioned by the court(7), and many pieces, including the AAA and the NIRA(8), were declared unconstitutional. FDR even at one point attempted to pass a bill adding 6 justices to the Supreme Court, a gross violation of America's values on checks and balances. FDR did many things under the New Deal, however the actual effectiveness of these reforms is questionable. Unemployment dropped, the economy improved, but only at smaller increments until the outbreak of World War 2 for America. The New Deal was also a large bill to pay for the US, one that it still hasn't fully paid off(4).The fact is that while FDR managed to pass some good legislation as president, his record is awash in honestly mediocre results and unconstitutional proposals. Some even theorize that the New Deal in fact prolonged the Depression through such massive government regulation. (A side note: He is found on several lists as one of America's most overrated presidents.(9)) Also, FDR had a massive term of 12 years. In regard to his efficiency, he spent most of that time with a stuttering economy which could only be considered successful when compared to the complete failure that his predecessor created. I am hard pressed to say that he was very efficient in his policies as president. Many of his acts didn't even pass the Supreme Court. That said he deserves much credit for being a public figure around which America could unite. But that is more about appearance and press coverage than his actual actions. I think he was definitely a good president in his own right, with some landmark pieces of legislation. However, in terms of efficiency, Polk has him covered. It is important to note the difference in the executive office between these two presidents. At Polk's time, the position carried much less influence and power as it did with FDR. FDR increased his own power greatly. This puts FDR at a historical advantage in terms of accomplishments. Considering what Polk had to work with, I would contend that he was more efficient than FDR. (or anyone else for that matter) Thank you again for taking this debate. 1)http://en.citizendium.org.... 2)http://eh.net... 3)http://fraser.stlouisfed.org... 4)http://www.forbes.com... 5)http://en.wikipedia.org... 6)http://www.asdk12.org... 7)http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu... 8)http://en.wikipedia.org... 9)http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://dailycaller.com... http://www.dailykos.com... http://brandon7221.blogspot.com...