Which one of these was the worst president ever?

[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. 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

Yes. Of course. Spending is the problem! That's my point exactly.

I was refuting the notion that lower rates of taxation is the problem. It's not. Never was. rightwinger's got that all wrong, completely wrong, way wrong, several lightyears off the reservation wrong. He doesn't grasp the economic realities of "higher rates-smaller pie vesus lower rates-bigger pie".

Yes spending increased, but beyond military spending not nearly at the rate it would have had lefty been fully in charge. And as a result of lower rates of taxation, the growth in revenues began to outpace the growth in spending, during the 90s especially, and eventually overtook it, coupled with real reductions in the growth of spending. The Republicans controlled the House.

That's my point. Raising taxes is not the solution.

Of course spending is the ultimate problem, particularly where entitlements are concerned. Lowering taxes is part of the fix, not the problem. The other piece of the puzzle is entitlement-program reform.

That's my argument in a nutshell. Right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Yes. Which one of five, and most have been talking about the best/worst beyond those parameters in terms of recent conservative scholarship against the former leftist monopoly of the media.

But Lincoln did not expand civil rights. His efforts to hold the Union together and the aftermath of the war merely expanded access to extant civil rights not previously enjoyed by some. He was not a progressive in the modern sense at all. Yes way Obama is a "progressive", whereas Lincoln was not. It's not "a question of more or less". It's "a question of is and isn't". Lincoln was trying to hold the Union together, not collectivize rights at the expense of individual liberties, redistribute property or internationalize our constitutional Republic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

See ya, for the very last thing that should have been done is what you're talking about.

 

[Zona]

none of the above. Nixon shouldn't even be on that list.

Jim, there is an old vulcan proverb. Only NIxon could go to China.

(They are doing a Star Trek marathon this weekend.)

 

[Oddball]

Wilson, by far.

The rest of the little farts in the wind on that list don't add up to the massive turd that was the Wilson regime.

 

[Dr Grump]

Bush jnr....no contest....

 

[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.

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

Nonsense. Reagan cut taxes, and the economy took off like never before and revenues went through the roof, eventually overtaking growth in spending. Facts. There's no hoping about it. Simple economics. There was never any question that it would work just so. The government was spending too much and taxing too much. Reagan addressed the latter problem and rightly so, and defeated the Soviet Union along the way. You don't grasp the real-world implications of that period in our history at all. Over spending and over spending alone is the problem, not lower tax rates.

I'm giving you gold here. Gold. But I see that I might as well be talking to a fence post, the nuances beyond the black-and-white world in which you live don't sparkle in your mind. They just fade away and leave you clueless. Sad.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wilson, by far.

The rest of the little farts in the wind on that list don't add up to the massive turd that was the Wilson regime.

Yep. Ol' Woodpile was a disastrous president, a real white elephant.

 

[JimH52]

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.

I doubt very seriously that Obama will be able to bring the country to its knees nearing a recession, like W did Then he goes off the Texas to put his feet up and continue to fight alcoholism.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

none of the above. Nixon shouldn't even be on that list.

Nixon came up with bullshit drug laws and scheduled shrooms to be worse than PCP. What an idiot.


.

 

[JimH52]

Lincoln is the worst president ever. He destroyed a republic and turned it into an empire full of subjects rather than free citizens..

So, you're a racist also!

 

[rightwinger]

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

Nonsense. Reagan cut taxes, and the economy took off like never before and revenues went through the roof, eventually overtaking growth in spending. Facts. There's no hoping about it. Simple economics. There was never any question that it would work just so. The government was spending too much and taxing too much. Reagan addressed the latter problem and rightly so, and defeated the Soviet Union along the way. You don't grasp the real-world implications of that period in our history at all. Over spending and over spending alone is the problem, not lower tax rates.

I'm giving you gold here. Gold. But I see that I might as well be talking to a fence post, the nuances beyond the black-and-white world in which you live don't sparkle in you mind. They just fade away and leave you clueless. Sad.

Reagan borrowed his way to feed the economy to the point of tripling the debt. Daddy Bush was right......his voodoo economics led this country to the path of economic destruction

Who else would voluntarily cut revenue and the escalate spending?

 

[snjmom]

Since when does military spending not count as spending? FFS I could put any part of the budget off-budget and then claim a surplus.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Funny how it works huh? FDR = great yet he never accomplished a single goal in 12 years... Just like Obama... Maybe Obama can = one of the top 5 too, all he has to do is fail at every policy he does, so far so good then huh!?


You know what gets me, is "historians are just people with a bias opinion... They literally have to base nothing off of fact as "their fav" is just that, the guy they agree with the most.

Wow. "FDR never accomplished a single goal in 12 years"...

Now, that is some SERIOUS revisionist history. Way to illustrate my point though!

Maybe you can list them for me...

 

[Richard-H]

WTF?

Without a doubt LBJ was the worst President ever:

First, it doesn't take much to figure out that he was a conspiritor in the JFK assasination. An act of absolute treason.

Second, he was responsible for the massive excalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war, at a time that any intelligent President would have withdrawn.

Furthermore, he refused to allow the Air Force to bomb the SAM missiles while they were stacked on the piers, allowing them to be deployed.

AND

After the TET offensive, he refused to force the battlefield victory into a final political victory.

Why?

Perhaps every foreign government on earth, including the Soviet Union, knew within hours that LBJ was responsible for the killing of JFK. Once Johnson had commited U.S. troops to the Vietnam war...they let him know what they knew...and he was their BITCH.

Oh yeah...did I mention the Gulf of Tonkin?

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

Ford was the worst President. By pardoning Nixon, we never had truth and then we had Nixon II with all the lessons learned by the bad guys (Cheney & co) and it was much worse.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

Abraham Lincoln is a close follow up. He should have let the South go. 625,000 people dead was not worth it and the South has never been a truly patriot region of the country ever since--they representatives have always cared more about their state/region than the good of the country as a whole. Today, we support self determination for peoples around the world in similar cases of civil war. Yet we still revere Lincoln.

 

[bripat9643]

Reagan borrowed his way to feed the economy to the point of tripling the debt. Daddy Bush was right......his voodoo economics led this country to the path of economic destruction

Who else would voluntarily cut revenue and the escalate spending?

If that were true, then the economy should be booming right now.

No one's buying the liberal pig slop theories of economics after Carter and now Obama.

Keynesian economics is dead.

 

[Sallow]

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

Nonsense. Reagan cut taxes, and the economy took off like never before and revenues went through the roof, eventually overtaking growth in spending. Facts. There's no hoping about it. Simple economics. There was never any question that it would work just so. The government was spending too much and taxing too much. Reagan addressed the latter problem and rightly so, and defeated the Soviet Union along the way. You don't grasp the real-world implications of that period in our history at all. Over spending and over spending alone is the problem, not lower tax rates.

I'm giving you gold here. Gold. But I see that I might as well be talking to a fence post, the nuances beyond the black-and-white world in which you live don't sparkle in you mind. They just fade away and leave you clueless. Sad.

No actually that's nonsense. And mythmaking. Reagan cut taxes..then started spending like crazy..on absurd things like a Orbital Nuclear Platform (Star Wars). He then went on a deregulatory bonanza that caused the collapse of the Bond and Banking industries. Guess who picked up the check.

That's not even the worst of it. He committed treason by dealing with the Iranians..avowed enemies of the United States, to win an election. And with the money he got from selling them American gear..he funnelled that to the contras. In direct violation of the Constitution..for a second time.

He should have been impeached and removed from office. What he did was far worse then what Nixon, the sociopath, did in this regard.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan borrowed his way to feed the economy to the point of tripling the debt. Daddy Bush was right......his voodoo economics led this country to the path of economic destruction

Who else would voluntarily cut revenue and the escalate spending?

If that were true, then the economy should be booming right now.

No one's buying the liberal pig slop theories of economics after Carter and now Obama.

Keynesian economics is dead.

Come on lads.....let's hear it for trickle down theory