Which one of these was the worst president ever?

[Shooter]

From that list Carter takes the crown. But if Obama doesn't change course he could take it from him in the second-half of his presidency.

 

[Sallow]

Kinda torn.

LBJ - Started the real shooting war in Vietnam that was responsible for the deaths of millions.
Nixon - Kept it going.
Reagan - Committed treason, crashed the economy.
GW Bush - Started an illegal war, crashed the economy.

Not sure.

 

[Flopper]

Historian, Arthur Schlessinger who conducted many presidential poll rankings over a 50 year period listed in 1948 what he believed were the characteristics shared by great presidents:

1) each held the stage at a critical moment in history and by timely action attained timeless results;

2) each took the side of liberalism vs. the status quo;

3) each was not only a constructive statesman but also a realistic politician;

4) each left the executive branch stronger and more influential than they found it;

5) each offended vested economic interests and long-standing popular prejudices;

6) each (with the exception of Lincoln) came from the upper social strata of society; and

7) most (exceptions being Washington and Wilson) were not good administrators---believing the ends of policy more important than the machinery for achieving them.

I think most these are as true today as were 62 years ago.,

http://homepages.udayton.edu/~aherndaw/schles.htm

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Especially since the two most progressive presidents in US History, Abraham Lincoln and FDR were ranked in the top 3 on both sides of the spectrum.

Revisionist history seems to have had an effect over the last 3 decades.

You're merely changing the parameters. For example, I limited the range of consideration to the presidents since 1900. And most of us are also thinking in those terms.

While Lincoln took extraordinary measures, the goal was to hold the Union together. He was not a progressive in the sense that the term is used today.

The most progressive presidents are FDR, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and Barack Obama.

As for your other idea: revisionist history or access to the best of recent scholarship from the conservative perspective? Lefty no longer monopolizes the dissemination of information in the media. That's what's changed in the last three decades.

You're also using terms like "popular", "least popular".

Was FDR a great president in terms of accomplishment and influence? No doubt. One of the very greatest. Was he among the best? Not in my opinion.

If you were to ask me who the greatest presidents were since Washington, i.e., in the sense of those who actually served to advance the Republic's welfare, as opposed to those who harmed it, the list would look quite different:

Greatest
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Ronald Reagan
James K. Polk
Teddy Roosevelt
Dwight Eisenhower

Good presidents: Cleveland, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Taft, Coolidge, Hoover.

Worst
James Buchanan
Woodrow Wilson
Andrew Jackson
Barack Obama
LBJ
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter. . . .

FDR is an historical enigma: he was both great in the best sense and one of the worst in another sense, but right or wrong, unlike most "progressives", he genuinely loved America and respected its people.

 

[rightwinger]

Taxing the wealthiest Americans is not going to solve our spending problem.

It will solve our revenue problem

There is no revenue problem.

Nope. There is a spending problem. First thing you do is stop the spending and then revise the tax code. Obama needs to stop the lobbying like he promised, a promise that has fallen by the side like so many other empty promises from this lying hack.[/QUOTE]





There has been a revenue problem since Reagan arbitrarily cut our taxes while raising spending. We have not recovered since.....nor have we learned

 

[rightwinger]

History don't lie


Bush screwed the pooch

 

[Douger]

None of the above.
GHW Bush was not only the worst pResident but may very well be one of the most evil crime bosses that ever walked the planet.
If there were really a creature called Satan, he'd fit the bill.
I know. You want links and reasons because you see nothing. You never looked.
Go wave your flag and watch Rachel cook. You're already dead.

 

[Vast LWC]

You're merely changing the parameters. For example, I limited the range of consideration to the presidents since 1900. And most of us are also thinking in those terms.

While Lincoln took extraordinary measures, the goal was to hold the Union together. He was not a progressive in the sense that the term is used today.

The most progressive presidents are FDR, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and Barack Obama.

As for your other idea: revisionist history or access to the best of recent scholarship from the conservative perspective? Lefty no longer monopolizes the dissemination of information in the media. That's what's changed in the last three decades.

You're also using terms like "popular", "least popular".

Was FDR a great president in terms of accomplishment and influence? No doubt. One of the very greatest. Was he among the best? Not in my opinion.

If you were to ask me who the greatest presidents were since Washington, i.e., in the sense of those who actually served to advance the Republic's welfare, as opposed to those who harmed it, the list would look quite different:

Greatest
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Ronald Reagan
James K. Polk
Teddy Roosevelt
Dwight Eisenhower

Good presidents: Cleveland, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Taft, Coolidge, Hoover.

Worst
James Buchanan
Woodrow Wilson
Andrew Jackson
Barack Obama
LBJ
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter. . . .

FDR is an historical enigma: he was both great in the best sense and one of the worst in another sense, but right or wrong, unlike most "progressives", he genuinely loved America and respected its people.

The title of this thread, and the poll attached, is:

"Which one of these was the worst president ever?"

So, no, I was not changing the parameters.

And there's absolutely no way that Obama was more progressive than Lincoln.

Lincoln arguably did more to strengthen the power of the federal government, limit state's rights, and extend civil rights in this country than any other president before or after, except for FDR, and I'd say that they were pretty close in level of "progressiveness".

Obama doesn't even come close.

And the poll I quoted was job approval rating. The term I used: "most popular", was probably confusing, but I simply meant "Most popular answer" by it.

 

[KissMy]

I voted Carter as worse. His embargo of food to Europe caused them to goto Brazil for their food needs because the USA could no longer be trusted.

Brazil cut down their "Rain Forest" for farm land & the USA has been forced to subsidize our farmers every since. Farm land prices in the USA fell & lead to massive "Urban Sprawl". This has drastically increased our dependence on transportation fuel.

That Grain Embargo had to be the stupidest move ever by a US president in my lifetime.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There has been a revenue problem since Reagan arbitrarily cut our taxes while raising spending. We have not recovered since.....nor have we learned

Nonsense. It's you who hasn't learned anything.

Reagan put the country right. Mostly stopped excessive growth in spending, and the Republican Congress of the 90s carried on his legacy. The result: the first surplus in decades, the beginning of paying off the debt. You're confounding the increased spending on the military with general spending. Initially the deficit went up in the face of this increased spending and an economy still lagging behind the reforms that addressed the stagflation of Keynesianism. But in just over two years the economy kicked in, full steam ahead, and so the greatest expansion of the Republic's economy began, lasting for nearly three decades. And what was happening during that same period? Revenue! More revenue than the government had ever realized before poured in.

Some of you will never get it. A small percentage rate of taxation levied against a large economic pie gives more revenue against real spending than a large percentage rate against a small economic pie. High rates of taxation shrink economies and, beyond a certain threshold, diminish the amount of revenue the government actually collects. Low rates of taxation grow economies and the influx of revenue.

We need to cut taxes even further, say, to 20% top bracket, 10% lower bracket. Stop taxing income twice altogether. End the inheritance tax, capital gains tax. We need to cut spending as well, for sure. But the only lasting solution for that, beyond cutting taxes, is tort reform, universal competition among healthcare insurers and providing for the private ownership of the funds derived from payroll taxes. In other words, you have to also prevent the government from spending the surplus of economic growth by way of expanding entitlements that the people should own and control.

Problem solved.

But lefty wants to control your life. You've bought into his lies about taxation and revenue. That's sad.

 

[The Rabbi]

There has been a revenue problem since Reagan arbitrarily cut our taxes while raising spending. We have not recovered since.....nor have we learned

Nonsense. Reagan put the country right. Mostly stopped excessive growth in spending, and the Republican Congress of the 90s carried on his legacy. The result: the first surplus in decades, the beginning of paying off the debt. You're confounding the increased spending on the military with general spending. Initially the deficit went up in the face of this increased spending and an economy still lagging behind the reforms that addressed the stagflation of Keynesianism. But in just over two years the economy kicked in, full steam ahead, and so the greatest expansion of the Republic's economy began, lasting for nearly three decades. And what was happening during that same period? Revenue! More revenue than the government had ever realized before poured in.

Some of you will never get it. A small percentage rate of taxation levied against a large economic pie gives more revenue against real spending than a large percentage rate against a small economic pie. High rates of taxation shrink economies and, beyond a certain threshold, diminish the amount of revenue the government actually collects. Low rates of taxation grow economies and the influx of revenue.

We need to cut taxes even further, say, to 20% top bracket, 10% lower bracket. Stop taxing income twice altogether. End the inheritance tax, capital gains tax. We need to cut spending as well, for sure. But the only lasting solution for that, beyond cutting taxes, is tort reform, universal competition among healthcare insurers and providing for the private ownership of the funds derived from payroll taxes. In other words, you have to also prevent the government from spending the surplus of economic growth by way of expanding entitlements that the people should own and control.

Problem solved.

But lefty wants to control your life. You've bought into his lies about taxation and revenue. That's sad.

Federal revenue rose during and after Reagan's term. But spending rose much faster. Ergo the problem.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[bripat9643]

History don't lie


Bush screwed the pooch

History doesn't lie, but historians do. In fact, that is generally their function when they are on the government payroll, and almost all of them are.

 

[Big Hoss]

How the hell was Lincoln a great president? He was a tyrant of the worst kind. My favorite president ever is Andrew Johnson

 

[rightwinger]

There has been a revenue problem since Reagan arbitrarily cut our taxes while raising spending. We have not recovered since.....nor have we learned

Nonsense. It's you who hasn't learned anything.

Reagan put the country right. Mostly stopped excessive growth in spending, and the Republican Congress of the 90s carried on his legacy. The result: the first surplus in decades, the beginning of paying off the debt. You're confounding the increased spending on the military with general spending. Initially the deficit went up in the face of this increased spending and an economy still lagging behind the reforms that addressed the stagflation of Keynesianism. But in just over two years the economy kicked in, full steam ahead, and so the greatest expansion of the Republic's economy began, lasting for nearly three decades. And what was happening during that same period? Revenue! More revenue than the government had ever realized before poured in.

Some of you will never get it. A small percentage rate of taxation levied against a large economic pie gives more revenue against real spending than a large percentage rate against a small economic pie. High rates of taxation shrink economies and, beyond a certain threshold, diminish the amount of revenue the government actually collects. Low rates of taxation grow economies and the influx of revenue.

We need to cut taxes even further, say, to 20% top bracket, 10% lower bracket. Stop taxing income twice altogether. End the inheritance tax, capital gains tax. We need to cut spending as well, for sure. But the only lasting solution for that, beyond cutting taxes, is tort reform, universal competition among healthcare insurers and providing for the private ownership of the funds derived from payroll taxes. In other words, you have to also prevent the government from spending the surplus of economic growth by way of expanding entitlements that the people should own and control.

Problem solved.

But lefty wants to control your life. You've bought into his lies about taxation and revenue. That's sad.

Reagan set the country on the path of record deficits.

borrow now to make your short term economy look good and hope for an economic upswing

Then take credit for it

 

[rightwinger]

History don't lie


Bush screwed the pooch

History doesn't lie, but historians do. In fact, that is generally their function when they are on the government payroll, and almost all of them are.

Oh...I forgot

You are a Republican

Historians are out to get you
Scientists are out to get you
The media is out to get you

If you don't like how history portrays you.......make up your own history

Then force the schools to buy your textbooks

 

[MaggieMae]

Feel free to discuss why you picked them.

I'll put up 5.

I'm going with Nixon because, brilliant though he was, thought he was above the law. He really did.

 

[MaggieMae]

I said Obama because the country really didn't need a third Bush term. Many liberals here claim Obama saved the country yet it is still going downhill when you look at the country without the partisan blinders. The fact that Obama plans on spending over a billion to get re elected is also dangerous, now he is out of the closet about being the absolute most bought politician in history and yet still some cheer him on.

Over this last year I admit that I have seen an “awakening” on these boards from many on the left about just how bad of a President Obama is.

The stimulus is great if you don’t compare it to anything (get that, anything) that it claimed it would do at the start.

I would say FDR was the worst tho.

This is why these kinds of threads no longer hold my interest. If you still don't understand the immediacy of the economic meltdown and that injection of federal money into the private sector was the only thing that would patch it up temporarily, then you have my sympathy.

So count me out of here.

 

[Salt Jones]

Reagan

 

[Che]

If you don't like how history portrays you.......make up your own history

You do that very good, making up your own history. We understand fully though. You're a liberal dipshit.

Then force the schools to buy your textbooks

They would be better off reading any other type of textbook you were educated on. Chump.


LBJ has to be the worst president in the last century. He and McNamara gave us the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Wonderful. Jimmy Carter is right behind him. It's not fair for Obama to be on that list but it sure looks like his admin will go down as being one of the worst as well. Liberals don't get it because they don't really pay attention that well.

 

[mudwhistle]

Warning: This is not a scientific study because Jimmy Carter only got 9 votes.