Who do YOU think were the worst presidents of the US?

[kirksnosehair]

Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?

Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.

No president had more conviction and character than Regan.  He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.

Yes, awful.  One of the worst in history.  His administration, like most modern Republicans (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, who was a pretty honorable guy) was rife with corruption and graft as well. Please educate yourself with actual facts about Reagan's economy, <--that was written DURING the Reagan years, by a libertarian.  Read it, you might be surprised at what you learn.

I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about.   You can pretty much draw a straight line from the gigantic hole we're in now to Reagan convincing congressional Republicans - for the first time in the Post War era - to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

[El Barto]

Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?

Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.

No president had more conviction and character than Regan.  He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.

Yes, awful.  One of the worst in history.  His administration, like most modern Republicans (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, who was a pretty honorable guy) was rife with corruption and graft as well. Please educate yourself with actual facts about Reagan's economy, <--that was written DURING the Reagan years, by a libertarian.  Read it, you might be surprised at what you learn.

I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about.   You can pretty much draw a straight line from the gigantic hole we're in now to Reagan convincing congressional Republicans - for the first time in the Post War era - to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Huh.  Some good, some bad assessments.  I agree that Reagan sucked, and there was plenty of crookedness going on in his administration,  but I think he was a very honorable guy.  Bad president, good person,  much like his predecessor.  GHW was just as crooked, IMO.  Their dealings in the Middle East were pretty damned shady.  Personally,  I see it as having been more about making him and his cronies filthy stinking rich than benefiting America.  Furthermore,  the man appears to have no soul.  When he cried because people were calling his idiot son stupid was the first time he ever appeared remotely human.  Not a good guy at all. 

[kirksnosehair]

Fair enough, El Barto, I think we agree more than we disagree.

But on Reagan, we definitely disagree.   

I think he knew EVERYTHING about Iran Contra and in my book that makes him a felon.

[MasterShakezula]

I agree with you, kirk, on Reagan being rather shady in that respect.

There's also his arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets, these freedom fighters later becoming our adversaries. 

Also, this is more of a personal thought, but I don't feel that his active efforts against the USSR were completely necessary.  I mean, they probably resulted in it falling more quickly, but odds are, I bet they would have run themselves into the ground quite effectively, considering their financial predicaments in the 80s, which were actually hindered even more so for some time by Gorbachev's well-meaning attempts to implement a more capitalistic system.

Well, that's what I gather of it from high school.

[El Barto]

Fair enough, El Barto, I think we agree more than we disagree.

But on Reagan, we definitely disagree.   

I think he knew EVERYTHING about Iran Contra and in my book that makes him a felon.

Oh,  I agree,  but I don't think being a felon necessarily has any bearing on one's character.  Hell,  I'll probably commit more felony crimes during this calender month of October than Ronnie did in his entire life,  and I like to think I'm a pretty honorable guy.   

[Scheavo]

Fair enough, El Barto, I think we agree more than we disagree.

But on Reagan, we definitely disagree.   

I think he knew EVERYTHING about Iran Contra and in my book that makes him a felon.

Oh,  I agree,  but I don't think being a felon necessarily has any bearing on one's character.  Hell,  I'll probably commit more felony crimes during this calender month of October than Ronnie did in his entire life,  and I like to think I'm a pretty honorable guy.   

Being a felon may not say anything about one's character, but using Prisoners of War as a political tool, and arming a hostile faction in the process, sure does.

Because I'm going to guess that some of those felonies you're talking about are rather bullshit drug laws to begin with, and not, say, raping and killing people, or something truly harmful to other people.

[El Barto]

I guess where I'm drawing a distinction is that I think Reagan's transgressions were done with what he perceived to be noble intentions.  I suspect that he really thought he was doing the right thing for America.  As opposed to,  say,  selling us all out to the House of Saud for personal gain. 

[kirksnosehair]

I guess where I'm drawing a distinction is that I think Reagan's transgressions were done with what he perceived to be noble intentions.  I suspect that he really thought he was doing the right thing for America.  As opposed to,  say,  selling us all out to the House of Saud for personal gain.

I guess this is what we call "Pragmatic" then - well done 

[livehard]

Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?

Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.

No president had more conviction and character than Regan.  He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.

Yes, awful.  One of the worst in history.  His administration, like most modern Republicans (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, who was a pretty honorable guy) was rife with corruption and graft as well. Please educate yourself with actual facts about Reagan's economy, <--that was written DURING the Reagan years, by a libertarian.  Read it, you might be surprised at what you learn.

I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about.   You can pretty much draw a straight line from the gigantic hole we're in now to Reagan convincing congressional Republicans - for the first time in the Post War era - to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

This is an internet forum post.  Are you kidding? Anyways, I'm not conservative at all.  I dont want to keep virtually anythign the way it is now.

Firstly, are you disagreeing with his monetary policy? Do you disagree that the contraction of the money supply did not get us out of the record inflation?  Moreover, the debt as a % of GDP didn't rise that much, and his non mandatory spending was focused on military, which one could argue is a justified use of money.  He accellerated the end of the cold war, helped free tens of millions of people from communist rule.  I dont know about how the tax cuts etc.. effected the economy, and neither do you.  Its far to chaotic and nonlinear to be able to model the cause and effect of it.  However, although its not scientific, if you look at generally at the condition of the people when the that joke of a president carter left, versus how the country was when Regan left, you will find a huge improvement.  I don't really want to get into a reganomics debate as I'll probibaly get banned for going off topic meanwhile the mods will overlook your personal insults to me, but needless to say Regan pretty much solitified the theories of the supply side economists and monetarists (friedman, etc...).  Corruption was not rife during Reagan, you are being very dramatic. 

[livehard]

I agree with you, kirk, on Reagan being rather shady in that respect.

There's also his arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets, these freedom fighters later becoming our adversaries. 

Also, this is more of a personal thought, but I don't feel that his active efforts against the USSR were completely necessary.  I mean, they probably resulted in it falling more quickly, but odds are, I bet they would have run themselves into the ground quite effectively, considering their financial predicaments in the 80s, which were actually hindered even more so for some time by Gorbachev's well-meaning attempts to implement a more capitalistic system.

Well, that's what I gather of it from high school.

IT wasn't so much the idea that communism would have succeeded if not for Reagan, but I think a lot of people share my view in that his efforts affected how it failed, and that it occured in a peaceful manner.

[livehard]

By the way mods, is this allowed?
"I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about.   "

This seems to be harsher than those things I had said, but its being overlooked by the mods?  Please understand, I don't care what this kid says- most of its a joke, intellectually.  But you should have consistent philosophy concerning the banhammer.

[yeshaberto]

not any worse than saying that their posts are a joke intellectually.  in the future, please use the report button.  this helps me to know who posted it and when.  thank you

in any case, for all involved, please refrain from personal insults.  It doesn't help the discussion and only causes most posters here to lose respect.

[kirksnosehair]

By the way mods, is this allowed?
"I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about.   "

This seems to be harsher than those things I had said, but its being overlooked by the mods?  Please understand, I don't care what this kid says- most of its a joke, intellectually.  But you should have consistent philosophy concerning the banhammer.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, because maybe I'm confused here.

Me telling you that I don't think you know a whole lot about what you're defending:  BAD

You tell me that what I have posted here is "A joke, intellectually"  : Perfectly fine.


Also, I think that at 47 years old, I've moved on from being "a kid" but I appreciate the fact that you think I'm young 

[yeshaberto]

By the way mods, is this allowed?
"I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about.   "

This seems to be harsher than those things I had said, but its being overlooked by the mods?  Please understand, I don't care what this kid says- most of its a joke, intellectually.  But you should have consistent philosophy concerning the banhammer.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, because maybe I'm confused here.

Me telling you that I don't think you know a whole lot about what you're defending:  BAD

You tell me that what I have posted here is "A joke, intellectually"  : Perfectly fine.


Also, I think that at 47 years old, I've moved on from being "a kid" but I appreciate the fact that you think I'm young 

already noted in post above you...time to move on

[Orthogonal]

The worst presidents would be:

The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).

The Failures (in no particular order):
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Lindon B Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W Bush
Barrack Obama

[Ħ]

Lincoln is the US's best president.  Without him, there would BE no United States.  I don't know of any other president I could say that about. Even Washington was passive, just Hamilton and Jefferson's puppet.

[GuineaPig]

The worst presidents would be:

The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).

I'm sorry, but I would blame the Confederacy for this... seeing as they, you know, invoked an armed rebellion to maintain the right to own human beings.  Before Lincoln took office.

[rumborak]

I find it hard to separate the president's potential from the hand they were dealt. Lincoln had a simple yes-or-no question handed to him in the end. GWB had a carte blanche, with Clinton's surplus at his hands and 9/11 in his back. Obama was handed a really bad hand.

rumborak

[Ħ]

I find it hard to separate the president's potential from the hand they were dealt. Lincoln had a simple yes-or-no question handed to him in the end. GWB had a carte blanche, with Clinton's surplus at his hands and 9/11 in his back. Obama was handed a really bad hand.

rumborak

True.  But I think there's a bit more than simple yes-or-no questions handed to a given president.  There are many choices they can have.

It's also very hard to judge a president based on their long term effects.  Clinton, by the end of his presidency, would be what I call a "good" president (in other words, we were better off after his presidency than when he began; delta, basically).  But Clinton cut our fighting power, so GWB had to focus more of the budget on building up what Clinton broke down.  One could view it as ultimately Clinton's fault, but it goes on GWB's record.

My point: if you asked me in 2001 if he was a good president, I'd say yes.  But if you asked me again in the middle of GWB's presidency, I'd say no.  If you open that can of worms, judging a president based on long term effects, you are going to have an extremely complicated picture.  Presidents like Reagan and FDR could potentially move from being two of the best presidents to two of the worst (which posters here have claimed, as you can see).  That's how drastic that "long term" perspective can be.

[BMWWrstlr]

Of course, much of Obama's 'bad hand' was dealt him by Democratic policies that predecessor Dubya had nothing to do with...funny how Dems overlook that.

[El Barto]

Of course you're welcome to post specifics (although a little less condescension would make you a bit more credible),  but people are going to point out that Chimpy had a GOP House and Senate for his first 6 years,  where the overwhelming amount of that bad hand came from.  Democrats only managed to take back congress in '06 because Bush and his Congress had fucked things up so royally. 

[Scheavo]

I find it hard to separate the president's potential from the hand they were dealt. Lincoln had a simple yes-or-no question handed to him in the end. GWB had a carte blanche, with Clinton's surplus at his hands and 9/11 in his back. Obama was handed a really bad hand.

rumborak

True.  But I think there's a bit more than simple yes-or-no questions handed to a given president.  There are many choices they can have.

It's also very hard to judge a president based on their long term effects.  Clinton, by the end of his presidency, would be what I call a "good" president (in other words, we were better off after his presidency than when he began; delta, basically).  But Clinton cut our fighting power, so GWB had to focus more of the budget on building up what Clinton broke down.  One could view it as ultimately Clinton's fault, but it goes on GWB's record.

How would our conventional fighting power have done anything to prevent 9/11? How has increasing conventional fighting power done anything to address terrorism post 9/11? They're completely separate issues. Meanwhile, Clinton had persistent meetings regarding Osama, Al Quaeda, and what they were up to... Bush dropped these meetings, fired the expert (Richard Clarke), figured it wasn't an issue, and then lo-and-behold, we get attacked.

[Ħ]

We can debate about that specific example I used, but I really don't know enough about the situation to be able to.  Doesn't matter though, because my broader point still stands.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The worst presidents would be:

The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).

The Failures (in no particular order):
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Lindon B Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W Bush
Barrack Obama

Dude, Obama's term isn't even FUCKING OVER YET. How is it a failure?

[antigoon]

I mean...

[7StringedBeast]

lol out of that whole list you get upset over Obama being on it?

[Orthogonal]

The worst presidents would be:

The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).

The Failures (in no particular order):
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Lindon B Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W Bush
Barrack Obama (Provisional)

Dude, Obama's term isn't even FUCKING OVER YET. How is it a failure?

Fair enough, he's got another year to turn things around. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm sorry, but I would blame the Confederacy for this... seeing as they, you know, invoked an armed rebellion to maintain the right to own human beings.  Before Lincoln took office.

The whole situation is much more complex than either you or I have laid out, but in a nutshell. Lincoln was the first Mercantilist (Crony Capitalist) who pushed for special interests with the railroads and other big business at the time. If you read his personal writings, he had no interest in freeing the slaves, but they were a useful cause to push his agenda of federal government expansion.

Secession happens to be the only meaningful tool that a State has to limit the power and scale of the federal government. With the South threatening secession, Lincoln made sure to crush it and the notion of a "Union" with it. With his presidency we were no longer a Union, but a singular country. Freeing the slaves was a secondary notion. All other countries in the world freed the slave by purchasing them and setting them free. No bloodshed involved.

[Ħ]

Orthogonal, your list is weird. TR, Truman, and LBJ in the nation's worst presidents?  You can't be serious.

And Lincoln's motives don't matter.  It's just what he did.  In our history, most presidents were either atheist or pretentious Christians, but you don't see me saying that made them bad presidents. 

And while freeing the slaves was certainly a step forward in terms of civil rights, the reason most historians rank him at or near the top is because he saved the country itself.  Abolition was just a collateral issue.

[GuineaPig]

The whole situation is much more complex than either you or I have laid out, but in a nutshell. Lincoln was the first Mercantilist (Crony Capitalist) who pushed for special interests with the railroads and other big business at the time. If you read his personal writings, he had no interest in freeing the slaves, but they were a useful cause to push his agenda of federal government expansion.

Secession happens to be the only meaningful tool that a State has to limit the power and scale of the federal government. With the South threatening secession, Lincoln made sure to crush it and the notion of a "Union" with it. With his presidency we were no longer a Union, but a singular country. Freeing the slaves was a secondary notion. All other countries in the world freed the slave by purchasing them and setting them free. No bloodshed involved.

Uh... the first Confederate states seceded before Lincoln even took office.

[Orthogonal]

Orthogonal, your list is weird. TR, Truman, and LBJ in the nation's worst presidents?  You can't be serious.

And Lincoln's motives don't matter.  It's just what he did.  In our history, most presidents were either atheist or pretentious Christians, but you don't see me saying that made them bad presidents. 

And while freeing the slaves was certainly a step forward in terms of civil rights, the reason most historians rank him at or near the top is because he saved the country itself.  Abolition was just a collateral issue.

TR: Major push for progressive policies, further advanced Federal Reserve powers.
Truman: Authorized use of Atomic Bomb against civilians (twice)
LBJ: The disatarous Great Society and Vietnam War

Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?

[Orthogonal]

Uh... the first Confederate states seceded before Lincoln even took office.

And he crushed it, State sovereignty meant nothing to him. The expansion of the Federal government as a sovereign was his goal.

[Sigz]

Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?

  What exactly would you have done in his situation then?

[Ħ]

TR: Major push for progressive policies, further advanced Federal Reserve powers.

These are bad things?  Trust-busting?  Corporate regulation?

Truman: Authorized use of Atomic Bomb against civilians (twice)

And that is why he's one of the best.  Ended WWII.  Saved potentially 1,000,000+ lives.

LBJ: The disatarous Great Society and Vietnam War

He's not the greatest, but certainly not one of the worst.  Medicare? Medicaid? The civil rights movement, of which he was an active participant?

Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?

Never said that.  The lives lost were a collateral issue to the big picture.  You give a little, you get a little.  A lot, in his case.  War sucks, but look at the big picture.

[GuineaPig]

I think LBJ is the most underrated president.  Although Vietnam is a black mark, pretty much everyone at the time thought it was a good idea, and he wouldn't have gotten support for his other policies if not for deepening the U.S.'s involvement.

Besides Washington and Lincoln (and maybe FDR), no other American president has been more influential.  The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the war on poverty... he was arguably the most successful president in passing legislation, and he pushed some big things through.

[Orthogonal]

Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?

  What exactly would you have done in his situation then?

You let them secede, that's what you let them do. Perhaps you forgot, most people have, but the US was founded on the principle of secession, complete with a revolutionary war to escape a central power. The colonists were paranoid of a central authority and placed strict limitations on a federal government with the Constitution, but secession was still an acceptable principle. Membership in the Union has many benefits and a lot of risks for leaving, but it is the "get out of dodge" card from tyranny and oppression from a central authority and was a tool to keep the size and scope of the federal government in check. Without secession, what recourse do you have in the face of egregious violations? The Union was always meant to be a voluntary membership. Regardless of the motivations of the South for seceding from the Union, Lincoln had no right to stop them. By invading the South, he effectively abolished secession and set the foundation for a monumental increase in the size of the Federal government.

In a strange twist of irony, the Federal government today is far more oppressive than King George III in 1776.