The Best Presidents in My Lifetime

[Steve R]

I was born in 1943. Yeah, I'm old. But FWIW, this is how I would rank the presidents in my lifetime:

Eisenhower
Roosevelt
Kennedy
(big gap)
Bush 41
Ford
Johnson
Nixon
Carter
Clinton
Truman
Reagan
(big gap)
Bush 43
Obama

[dartman51]

I was born in 1943. Yeah, I'm old. But FWIW, this is how I would rank the presidents in my lifetime:

Eisenhower
Roosevelt
Kennedy
(big gap)
Bush 41
Ford
Johnson
Nixon
Carter
Clinton
Truman
Reagan
(big gap)
Bush 43
Obama

You've been around about 5 years longer than I have, and I agree with some of you assessment, but I am curious as to how you rate Carter above Clinton and Reagan? :ThmbUp:

[elysiantraveller]

Given your propensity for anti-imperialism rants how in the hell does Kennedy crack the top 3? Just curious.

[Greyfox]

I was born in 1943. Yeah, I'm old. But FWIW, this is how I would rank the presidents in my lifetime:

Eisenhower
Roosevelt
Kennedy
(big gap)
Bush 41
Ford
Johnson
Nixon
Carter
Clinton
Truman
Reagan
(big gap)
Bush 43
Obama

You've got the two at the bottom of the list right.:ThmbUp:

In the 1960's the media did not report any dark side of the Private Lives of Presidents.
Kennedy was always presented in a glowing light.
His assassination solidified that view and we felt terrible when that happened.
But the years since have seen more information forthcoming.
Kennedy wasn't just the golden haired navy hero that he was painted out to be. In fact, in some ways he was responsible for the American involvement in the Viet Nam war and ultimately it's increased escalation.
Nixon wasn't the pariah that he was depicted as by the media either.
I would rate Nixon higher on your list and Kennedy slightly lower.
Ford and Bush 41 were dumped by the electorate so they would be lower.
Carter would be right down there just above Obama and in a tie with Bush 43.

[elysiantraveller]

I'll play...

A List:
Roosevelt
Ike
Nixon
Reagan

B List:
41
Ford
Clinton
Truman
Johnson

C List:
Kennedy
Carter
Obama
43

[Steve R]

You've been around about 5 years longer than I have, and I agree with some of you assessment, but I am curious as to how you rate Carter above Clinton and Reagan? :ThmbUp:
All presidents have plusses and minuses. I put Clinton and Reagan below Carter because I believe they did more long-term damage. Carter was less effective to be sure. But IMO Clinton is directly responsible for setting in motion the policies that resulted in the near collapse of the U.S. economy almost a decade later, a situation we are still struggling with. In addition, he formalized the ultimately destructive concept of NATO as an international police force. I think Reagan's administration marks the introduction of dominating neoliberal power into government leading to enhanced militarism, an expanded policy of American hegemony and the initiation of the destruction of the American middle class.

[Steve R]

Given your propensity for anti-imperialism rants how in the hell does Kennedy crack the top 3? Just curious.
It's hard to even think of a president who wasn't an imperialist to some extent (hell, even Ike made the mistake of not allowing free elections in Vietnam after the fall of the French) but I was a young adult when Kennedy was in office and what I reflect on most, even more than specific polices, was his ability to make Americans feel good about themselves. He had an uncanny ability to make both Americans and foreigners admire the values and actions of the United States. And although I disagreed with his "Cuber" policy and growing involvement in S.E. Asia, I'm not convinced of the inevitability of how it went in the years after his assassination. Plus, his position on civil rights and the role of science and technology in America's future were inspirational.

[Tom]

Reagan
Kennedy
Bush I
Bush II
Eisenhower
Johnson
Howdy Doody
Buffalo bob



Nixon
Clinton
Ford
Carter


Mighty Mouse
Archie Bunker
Al Bundy


Obam.......naw, can't do it.
Scratch him.

Bozo the Clown
Sitting Bull (as opposed to Spreading Bull, Joe Biden)
Nikita

[Steve R]

[snip]...Ford and Bush 41 were dumped by the electorate so they would be lower...[snip]
The reason I have Ford so high is because the trauma of Watergate coupled with the inevitable failure in Vietnam was creating a loss of confidence in government and he, either by personality or blind luck, managed to steer the country through one of the most traumatic periods in its history. He didn't accomplish very much, but he did bring the stability to overcome a crisis of faith.

[BlueShoe]

Easier and longest would be the worst list:
Obama
Carter
FDR

Best:
Reagan

[Marshall Bennett]

Reagan
Bush II
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ike
Bush I
Ford
Clinton
Carter
Obama

All others were in office before I was born.

[whiptastic]

Kennedy wasn't just the golden haired navy hero that he was painted out to be. In fact, in some ways he was responsible for the American involvement in the Viet Nam war and ultimately it's increased escalation.


History disagrees with you. Refer to NASM 263 and public announcements of withdrawal in October 1963. Kennedy fully intended to get out of Vietnam before he was murdered.

A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Also, he had brown hair, not blonde.

[Greyfox]

History disagrees with you. Refer to NASM 263 and public announcements of withdrawal in October 1963. Kennedy fully intended to get out of Vietnam before he was murdered.



History does not disagree with my view that Kennedy's policy led to increased American involvement in Viet Nam.
It was sold as a training program with observers and snowballed from there.

[Greyfox]

Also, he had brown hair, not blonde.

Oh silly me. It was Marilyn who was blonde. :rolleyes:

[whiptastic]

History does not disagree with my view that Kennedy's policy led to increased American involvement in Viet Nam.
It was sold as a training program with observers and snowballed from there.

Will you agree that Kennedy sought a complete withdrawal by 1965? Will you agree that he sought an immediate withdrawal of 1000 troops by the end of 1963? Have you read NSAM 263? There is plenty of authorship available to indicate his intention to get us out of Vietnam.

[Johnny V]

I Like Ike.

[Greyfox]

Will you agree that Kennedy sought a complete withdrawal by 1965? Will you agree that he sought an immediate withdrawal of 1000 troops by the end of 1963? Have you read NSAM 263? There is plenty of authorship available to indicate his intention to get us out of Vietnam.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Marked increases in troop levels took place during the Kennedy era.

Year Troop Level


1959 760

1960 900

1961 3,025

1962 11,300

1963 16,300

[mostpost]

I was born in 1943. Yeah, I'm old. But FWIW, this is how I would rank the presidents in my lifetime:

Eisenhower
Roosevelt
Kennedy
(big gap)
Bush 41
Ford
Johnson
Nixon
Carter
Clinton
Truman
Reagan
(big gap)
Bush 43
Obama
I was born in 1941 and amazingly I have the same presidents on my list, but in a different order.
1. Roosevelt (FDR )
Positives: Led us out of the Great Depression. Established the social programs that bettered the lives of the elderly, the poor and the disenfranchised. Led us successfully through WWII.
Negatives. Tried to pack the Supreme Court. Was ineffective in dealing with Josef Stalin at the end of the war.
2. Truman:
Positives: Marshall Plan. Berlin Airlift. Integration of the military. Fired MacArthur.
Negative: Nationalized steel industry.

3. Clinton
Positives: Understood the economy and the role of taxation in it. Dealt with the situation in the Balkans with precisely the right amount of involvement to achieve our goals without risking our troops.
Negatives: Nafta. Personal issues.
4. Eisenhower:
Positives: Moderate for a Republican. Warning on the Military-Industrial Complex:
Negatives: There really weren't any except that he did not do much. He was probably just what we needed after two decades of war and economic disaster.
5. Johnson
Positives: Civil Rights Act. Medicare.
Negatives: Viet Nam. Used to hold staff meetings while sitting on the toilet. Ew!!!
6. Nixon.
Positives: Normalized relations with China. Supported the integration of schools. Supported the Clean Air act and OSHA.
Neatives: Watergate. Viet Nam.
7. Kennedy:
Positives:Handling of Cuban Missile Crisis. Peace Corps. Moon Landing Program.
Negatives: Bay of Pigs. His assassination. (Always a downer)

You could argue for Johnson, Nixon and Kennedy in just about any order. Johnson and Nixon accomplished several good things during their administration, but they were severely flawed personally and VietNam will always be a source of difficulty.

8. Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter was a great man, but an overall in effective president.
Positives: Camp David accords/.
Negatives: Hostages. Soaring inflation.
9. Ford: Did very little positive or negative during his two and one half years in office. I am ambivalent about his pardoning Nixon. I rate him below Carter because many of the problems faced by Carter began in Ford's term and were not addressed.
10. Bush 41
Positives:Measured response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Negatives: Continuation of bad Reagan policies.
11 Reagan:
Positives: Good with Chimpanzees.
Negatives: Supply side economics. Tax Policy. Anti union policy. Claiming to take down the Soviet Union when he was at best a mere spectator.
12. Bush 43
Worst President Ever. Failure at foreign and Domestic Policy. Did not keep us safe on 9/11. Usurped more Cicil Liberties than any President.

Incomplete: Obama

[whiptastic]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Marked increases in troop levels took place during the Kennedy era.

Year Troop Level


1959 760

1960 900

1961 3,025

1962 11,300

1963 16,300

Keep in mind the context and the time. There is no dispute about those numbers; however, by June of 1963 he became convinced that it was pointless and initiated a policy of withdrawal. I guess it depends on how one parses your initial assertion. If you just look at the "raw" numbers without intent of context, then sure he escalated our involvement. However, as I said, history shows that his demonstrated intent was to reverse that and complete the withdrawal by 1965. It's possible that he would have changed his mind, but I doubt it based on what I've read. Frankly, your argument seems a bit thin as a critique of his presidency given his stated intent to get us out of Vietnam.

[elysiantraveller]

History does not disagree with my view that Kennedy's policy led to increased American involvement in Viet Nam.
It was sold as a training program with observers and snowballed from there.

I for one find Kennedy is often extremely overrated.

[Steve R]

I was born in 1941 and amazingly I have the same presidents on my list, but in a different order.
1. Roosevelt (FDR )
Positives: Led us out of the Great Depression. Established the social programs that bettered the lives of the elderly, the poor and the disenfranchised. Led us successfully through WWII.
Negatives. Tried to pack the Supreme Court. Was ineffective in dealing with Josef Stalin at the end of the war.
2. Truman:
Positives: Marshall Plan. Berlin Airlift. Integration of the military. Fired MacArthur.
Negative: Nationalized steel industry.

3. Clinton
Positives: Understood the economy and the role of taxation in it. Dealt with the situation in the Balkans with precisely the right amount of involvement to achieve our goals without risking our troops.
Negatives: Nafta. Personal issues.
4. Eisenhower:
Positives: Moderate for a Republican. Warning on the Military-Industrial Complex:
Negatives: There really weren't any except that he did not do much. He was probably just what we needed after two decades of war and economic disaster.
5. Johnson
Positives: Civil Rights Act. Medicare.
Negatives: Viet Nam. Used to hold staff meetings while sitting on the toilet. Ew!!!
6. Nixon.
Positives: Normalized relations with China. Supported the integration of schools. Supported the Clean Air act and OSHA.
Neatives: Watergate. Viet Nam.
7. Kennedy:
Positives:Handling of Cuban Missile Crisis. Peace Corps. Moon Landing Program.
Negatives: Bay of Pigs. His assassination. (Always a downer)

You could argue for Johnson, Nixon and Kennedy in just about any order. Johnson and Nixon accomplished several good things during their administration, but they were severely flawed personally and VietNam will always be a source of difficulty.

8. Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter was a great man, but an overall in effective president.
Positives: Camp David accords/.
Negatives: Hostages. Soaring inflation.
9. Ford: Did very little positive or negative during his two and one half years in office. I am ambivalent about his pardoning Nixon. I rate him below Carter because many of the problems faced by Carter began in Ford's term and were not addressed.
10. Bush 41
Positives:Measured response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Negatives: Continuation of bad Reagan policies.
11 Reagan:
Positives: Good with Chimpanzees.
Negatives: Supply side economics. Tax Policy. Anti union policy. Claiming to take down the Soviet Union when he was at best a mere spectator.
12. Bush 43
Worst President Ever. Failure at foreign and Domestic Policy. Did not keep us safe on 9/11. Usurped more Cicil Liberties than any President.

Incomplete: Obama
Can't agree at all on Truman. He created and institutionalized the military-industrial complex and the permanent war economy, IMO the most disastrous American policy decisions since the end of WWII. We know Ike's position on that development. In addition, despite the spin, his militarily unnecessary decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan primarily as a show of strength against the USSR opened a Pandora's box that may yet destroy civilization as we know it. Ike was opposed to that decision as well. Maybe Truman was just naive and didn't understand the long-term consequences of his actions, but those actions have led the world down a very slippery slope.

And yes, there were great benefits from the Marshall Plan; however, it was profit driven by U.S. corporations in the same sense that Halliburton, et al, profited from "rebuilding" Iraq (although that didn't work out quite as well). I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done. I'm just suggesting the motivation was not as magnanimous as many would have you believe. The U.S. was the only European Theater ally or enemy left standing so it was the only one that could really do anything and it was ultimately for everyone's benefit and security. But if you think it was done out of good will rather than self-interest, I think you're fooling yourself. It was an opportunity that never would have been undertaken had there been no profit in it for American corporations. In a sense it was just another component of the emerging military-industrial complex. I'm not questioning the result, only the real motivation behind it.

[dartman51]

Can't agree at all on Truman. He created and institutionalized the military-industrial complex and the permanent war economy, IMO the most disastrous American policy decisions since the end of WWII. We know Ike's position on that development. In addition, despite the spin, his militarily unnecessary decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan primarily as a show of strength against the USSR opened a Pandora's box that may yet destroy civilization as we know it. Ike was opposed to that decision as well. Maybe Truman was just naive and didn't understand the long-term consequences of his actions, but those actions have led the world down a very slippery slope.

And yes, there were great benefits from the Marshall Plan; however, it was profit driven by U.S. corporations in the same sense that Halliburton, et al, profited from "rebuilding" Iraq (although that didn't work out quite as well). I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done. I just suggesting the motivation was not as magnanimous as many would have you believe. The U.S. was the only European Theater ally or enemy left standing so it was the only one that could really do anything and it was ultimately for everyone's benefit and security. But if you think it was done out of good will rather than self-interest, I think you're fooling yourself. It was an opportunity that never would have been undertaken had their been no profit in it for American corporations. In a sense it was just another component of the emerging military-industrial complex. I'm not questioning the result, only the real motivation behind it.

Truman also initiated U.S. involvement in the Korean Conflict(War), where we lost 36,516 soldiers, or 45 per day as opposed to 26 per day in Vietnam. Not to mention that his bombing of Japan to show strength to the Soviet Union, started the Cold War.:ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

Ike is a clear cut top.
Clinton balanced the budget and time were pretty good and certainly left the country in better shape economically than he inherited. He had a Mistress(es) but so did Ike.
JFK had his faults but at time of his death times were goods as I can remember. Nobody knows for sure what he would have done in Vietnam.
Obama get a nod because the mess he inherited. A lot people here seem to forget how bad things were at the end of 2008. If McCain would have won, I convinced that we would have had another 1930s style depression and God only knows how many wars we would be in. Obama grade is not complete yet because he gets another four years to improve things or screw them up.
Reagan gets some good marks, but the first two years of term were really rough on the farmers. His policies broke a lot of them. The last year I am not sure he even knew were he was. In between he did a pretty good job. All the Tax loopholes that he closed are now back open just as I thought they would be. they can't keep them closed and they never will be able to. The Cold War ended under him and he should get some credit but probably not all of it.
Bush 41 mostly because he did no harm. He won the first Gulf War and then got out. That is worth something.
The rest were so bad, it is pretty hard to choose from. I would say GWB was probably worst for there reasons. I got us in to a war that we didn't need to fight in Iraq. He also left the country in far worse shape economically than he inherited. I don't think he dealt with 9/11 very well. Asking the Telban to turn over Bin Laden instead of just going in after him right away was a big mistake. Then there was that whole side show at the UN with Colin Powell. I don't agree with the conservatives on much, but Asking the UN for permission before we do any thing militarily is one of them. We should do what we have to do and the UN be damned in those times.
Cases for the worst can also be made for Carter, LBJ and Nixon. Ford serve such a short period of time that it really hard to grade him, but I don't remember anything good about him and he did pardon Nixon.

[dartman51]

I for one find Kennedy is often extremely overrated.

IMHO, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama, fall in the same category. Not that they were all bad. Just in the fact that they all are perceived to be good, and people like them because of their charisma. As far as being President, I would probably put JFK and Clinton in the top ten. Obama would be at the bottom with Nixon and Carter. :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Too young to know what was going on thru Kennedy, here are my two cents:

1. Clinton - brightest president with the most charisma is hard to beat....Agree that NAFTA sucked but Clinton knew how to wheel and deal (aka compromise)....Bottom line is Clinton made me proudest to be an American....Monica affair means nothing IMO.

2. Gerald Ford - As Steve pointed out, Ford pardoning Nixon was the big thing. I believe the country really needed him to do it too. Ford also made it possible for draft dodgers to come back to the U.S. In addition, it's worth noting that I never trusted Johnson or Nixon because of Vietnam. Ford was the first prez I actually trusted.

3. At the time, I had disdain for the guy but that's because he was Reagan's VP. George the Ist did a lot of good - especially handling Kuwait and Iraq. Plus he had the guts to raise taxes. And the Oil Man renewed the Clean Air Act.

4. Johnson is only this high because of the competition....will always hold Vietnam against him - how he could have been so blind is beyond me....on the other hand Civil Rights and Medicare should have had him at the top of this list...

The rest is a race to the bottom. Nixon used Vietnam to get re-elected and I'm convinced he planned the withdrawal around his re-election. I always felt NASA was a huge money pit. Others cited a few positives for Nixon. I prefer not to....Carter couldn't seem to handle anything except make Reagan look good....Reagan made us feel better after Carter and that was huge. His second biggest accomplishment was hosting Death Valley Days on TV but that was before he entered politics....GWB was a nice guy way over his head. Still, he couldn't even choose decent advisors. Instead he listened to guys like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Biggest blunders included declaring war on Iraq while cutting taxes. The man was clueless.

Obama gets an incomplete at the moment. We'll see how he does the next four short years. ;)

[Capper Al]

The Best:

Clinton
Obama
LBJ
Kennedy

The Worst:

43 by far
Nixon

[Jay Trotter]

Obama
Kennedy
Clinton
Bush 41
Carter
Johnson
Ford
Reagan
Bush 43
Nixon

[Rookies]

Since I've been alive...

1) Truman
2) Eisenhower
3) JFK, Ronnie, Clinton

******************
6) LBJ
7) Obama
8) Bush 41
9) Nixon
10) Ford
11) Bush 43
12) Carter

[ElKabong]

Reagan
Bush II
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ike
Bush I
Ford
Clinton
Carter
Obama

All others were in office before I was born.

we're about the same age (from your posts) so....

Reagan
Bush II
Bush I
Nixon
Kennedy (too short a tenure, could have been higher)
Ike
Clinton (nafta, repeal of glass-steagal :ThmbDown: ) but not a complete failure as the bottom 3 were
Ford
Carter
Johnson
Obama

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm too young or wasn't even alive for almost half these guys on some of your lists... :lol:

Reagan
Nixon
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Ford
Carter

[Stillriledup]

I'm too young or wasn't even alive for almost half these guys on some of your lists... :lol:

Reagan
Nixon
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Ford
Carter

Bush 2 is better than Obama?

[PaceAdvantage]

Bush 2 is better than Obama?Sadly, yes.

[Stillriledup]

Sadly, yes.

:D ok, whatever you say.

[PaceAdvantage]

:D ok, whatever you say.Steve R despises both presidents, and even he ranks Obama as worse than Bush...so don't act so hot and bothered that this is some off-the-wall claim.

Obama has totally underwhelmed after being elected with such fanfare and promise. He has been the biggest presidential disappointment certainly of my lifetime (thus far). That's why he is worse than GWB.

You could see how poorly Obama has been simply by watching his campaign. He had nothing to run on except bin Laden and GM. And GM really isn't much to hang your hat on. The country has been stuck in a bog economically pretty much his entire four years, and he hasn't had one idea...one innovation...one spark of leadership to help push us into overdrive. There's no way on God's green earth that he deserved four more years after what he gave us. And if it weren't for a totally complicit media machine, we'd be saying farewell to him in a couple of months.

[Stillriledup]

Steve R despises both presidents, and even he ranks Obama as worse than Bush...so don't act so hot and bothered that this is some off-the-wall claim.

Obama has totally underwhelmed after being elected with such fanfare and promise. He has been the biggest presidential disappointment certainly of my lifetime (thus far). That's why he is worse than GWB.

You could see how poorly Obama has been simply by watching his campaign. He had nothing to run on except bin Laden and GM. And GM really isn't much to hang your hat on. The country has been stuck in a bog economically pretty much his entire four years, and he hasn't had one idea...one innovation...one spark of leadership to help push us into overdrive. There's no way on God's green earth that he deserved four more years after what he gave us. And if it weren't for a totally complicit media machine, we'd be saying farewell to him in a couple of months.

But Obama being a disappointment because of some hypothetical 'fanfare and promise' has nothing to do with his actual performance...that's on you for getting too excited.

In my opinion, i think that people didnt understand or remember the magnitude of what was left for Pres Obama to clean up......it SEEMS like there was not much change and things SEEM to be similar to what Bush left, but its only similar if you dont remember how bad it was and how bad it was headed.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/barack-obama-is-a-great-president-yes-great.html

[PaceAdvantage]

But Obama being a disappointment because of some hypothetical 'fanfare and promise' has nothing to do with his actual performance...that's on you for getting too excited.

In my opinion, i think that people didnt understand or remember the magnitude of what was left for Pres Obama to clean up......it SEEMS like there was not much change and things SEEM to be similar to what Bush left, but its only similar if you dont remember how bad it was and how bad it was headed.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/barack-obama-is-a-great-president-yes-great.htmlYes, I certainly was excited...lol...are you really a troll, like the sign says?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I find it highly flawed personally.

[Stillriledup]

Yes, I certainly was excited...lol...are you really a troll, like the sign says?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I find it highly flawed personally.

And i find your opinion flawed..so, that makes us even, right?

;)

[pandy]

My two cents, I don't see how anyone who follows politics can give a good rating to Clinton's Presidency. Yes the economy did well during his two terms but that was more because of another Bill (Gates) and the technical revolution. Clinton was also lucky because unlike Bush he did not have to deal with a major terrorist attack, and he did not have to deal with a brutal recession like Obama got stuck with. So he was pretty lucky. But here is a list of negatives that clearly bring down Clinton's rating:

1). Clinton took Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment act and put it on steroids in 2003, also pushing Fannie/Freddie to buy more sub prime loans, while his fed chief Alan Greenspan pushed interest rates lower. Greenspan has admitted publicly that this deregulation of the mortgage industry combined with low interest rates was a big mistake. This helped cause the housing bubble and thus the recession.

2). Outsourcing boomed under Clinton, who signed Nafta into law.

As for his ethics and morals, I think you can make a case that Clinton was pretty sleazy for a President.

A). He pardoned criminal Mark Rich and many liberal journalists took him to task for it. Mark Rich gave a lot of money to the Democratic party.

B). The Vince Foster suicide was suspicious. He was partners with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm. He knew everything about their business dealings and would have been called to testify against them in the Whitewater scandal. Foster's personal papers and documents were removed from his desk just after he was found dead.

C). Susan McDougal, a business partner of the Clintons, was asked under oath whether Bill Clinton lied in his testimony about Whitewater and she refused to answer and was arrested and sent to jail for 22 months. Clinton pardoned her.

[Tom]

what was left for Pres Obama to clean up.....


Not left for him - he sought it. He KNEW what was there, he SAID he could fix it. He SAID he would cut the deficit in half, not add 5 trillion to it. He SAID he would get unemployment under 8%. He SAID if he could not fix it in one term, he should not be re-elected.

Just keeping things real.

[Marshall Bennett]

My two cents, I don't see how anyone who follows politics can give a good rating to Clinton's Presidency. Yes the economy did well during his two terms but that was more because of another Bill (Gates) and the technical revolution. Clinton was also lucky because unlike Bush he did not have to deal with a major terrorist attack, and he did not have to deal with a brutal recession like Obama got stuck with. So he was pretty lucky. But here is a list of negatives that clearly bring down Clinton's rating:

1). Clinton took Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment act and put it on steroids in 2003, also pushing Fannie/Freddie to buy more sub prime loans, while his fed chief Alan Greenspan pushed interest rates lower. Greenspan has admitted publicly that this deregulation of the mortgage industry combined with low interest rates was a big mistake. This helped cause the housing bubble and thus the recession.

2). Outsourcing boomed under Clinton, who signed Nafta into law.

As for his ethics and morals, I think you can make a case that Clinton was pretty sleazy for a President.

A). He pardoned criminal Mark Rich and many liberal journalists took him to task for it. Mark Rich gave a lot of money to the Democratic party.

B). The Vince Foster suicide was suspicious. He was partners with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm. He knew everything about their business dealings and would have been called to testify against them in the Whitewater scandal. Foster's personal papers and documents were removed from his desk just after he was found dead.

C). Susan McDougal, a business partner of the Clintons, was asked under oath whether Bill Clinton lied in his testimony about Whitewater and she refused to answer and was arrested and sent to jail for 22 months. Clinton pardoned her.

D) If Bush had done the things with Monica that Clinton did and got caught, we'd still be hearing about it.

[OntheRail]

Reagan (Gate to Wire)



Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Bush 43, ... Ran to Par

Clinton... Rail Trip but showed little.

Carter. (Vanned Off)

Obama (Broke Down Out of the Gate)

[Marshall Bennett]

Always wondered what might have been, whether good or bad, if Kennedy had served 2 full terms. Unfortunately a *DNF".

[Steve R]

Can someone explain the conservative fascination with Ronald Reagan?

During his administration:

The average federal income tax rate for a median-income family of four was higher than at any point since at least 1955, maxing out at 12% compared to just under 6% in 2011.

At the same time, the top marginal tax rate decreased from 70% to 28%.

The national debt tripled and reached the highest level as a % of GDP in the 20th century to that time other than during WWII.

Federal spending as a % of GDP was the highest of any administration since WWII and higher than any administration in the 20th century prior to WWII.

Real average hourly wages fell from $17.00/hr to $16.50/hr.

The unemployment rate rose from 7.5% when he was inaugurated to 10.4% two years later, the highest at any point since at least 1948. It took 3 1/2 years to get back to 7.5% and another two years to settle below 7%.

Thirty-six months after taking office 447,000 non-farm payroll jobs were added. Eighty-four months after taking office the number was 94,000.

Why is this considered a successful presidency?

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe Reagan had the kind of backing from the mainstream media that Obama enjoys today.... :lol:

[Steve R]

Maybe Reagan had the kind of backing from the mainstream media that Obama enjoys today.... :lol:
Hey, even I rank Obama WAY below Reagan. How about a legitimate explanation of why a president with such a dismal economic record enjoys such adoration.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey, even I rank Obama WAY below Reagan. How about a legitimate explanation of why a president with such a dismal economic record enjoys such adoration.And I answered you. Maybe us Reagan backers have been brainwashed by the very same media machine that somehow was able to get Obama re-elected...how else do you explain it, given the devastating "facts" you just laid out before us.

[Tom]

Why is this considered a successful presidency?

He inherited a mess from Carter. :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

He inherited a mess from Carter. :rolleyes:

The difference is: Reagan Fixed it. So far, Obama has made it worse.

Here's my list of Presidents during my lifetime in order I rate them:

Reagan
Truman
Eisenhower
Nixon
Bush 1
Bush 2
FDR
Kennedy
Ford
Clinton
Johnson
Carter
Obama

[Steve R]

The difference is: Reagan Fixed it. So far, Obama has made it worse.

Here's my list of Presidents during my lifetime in order I rate them:

Reagan
Truman
Eisenhower
Nixon
Bush 1
Bush 2
FDR
Kennedy
Ford
Clinton
Johnson
Carter
Obama
Fixed it? How? By raising taxes on the middle class and lowering taxes on the wealthy? By decreasing real hourly wages? By increasing the deficit and national debt to levels unprecedented to that time outside the war years? By taking six years to bring the unemployment rate below the level he inherited when he took office? And these are fixes why?

And what does Obama have to do with it? You already know I think Obama is the worst president in my lifetime. That has nothing to do with Reagan's performance, and his adoration long precedes Obama's political career. Calling Obama worse doesn't explain anything.

[Buckeye]

I'll take Obama since I'm still alive.

Seriously though, the best President for now is what we got.

Optimal or not.

[Lefty]

SteveR, Reagan set in motion tax increases that spurred the economy for over 20 yrs. The Berlin wall came down. The Soviet Union backed down until now, where under Obama they are feeling brave again.

Obama chastised Bush for spending too much and called Bush unpatriotic.
He has spent more money in 4 yrs than Bush did in 8. He took a bad economy he promised to fix, spent a ton of money and made it worse.
He took over healthcare and GM and we have spent more on healthcare than when he took it over. And the worst is yet to come. He will offer a government plan to drive private Insurance out of business. And then we will be standing in long lines for simple things like Cat scans that we now take for granted.
Us old people will be advised to just "take a pain pill"
Lots of GM investers were pain pennies on the dollar for their bonds while the unions were rewarded.

Iran is making noise, China is making noise, Russia is making noise. We are less safe by a longshot than we were under GW Bush.
Obama is not done with his plans to make this a Socialist Country.
And that, is what Obama has to do with it.

[Steve R]

SteveR, Reagan set in motion tax increases that spurred the economy for over 20 yrs. The Berlin wall came down. The Soviet Union backed down until now, where under Obama they are feeling brave again.

Obama chastised Bush for spending too much and called Bush unpatriotic.
He has spent more money in 4 yrs than Bush did in 8. He took a bad economy he promised to fix, spent a ton of money and made it worse.
He took over healthcare and GM and we have spent more on healthcare than when he took it over. And the worst is yet to come. He will offer a government plan to drive private Insurance out of business. And then we will be standing in long lines for simple things like Cat scans that we now take for granted.
Us old people will be advised to just "take a pain pill"
Lots of GM investers were pain pennies on the dollar for their bonds while the unions were rewarded.

Iran is making noise, China is making noise, Russia is making noise. We are less safe by a longshot than we were under GW Bush.
Obama is not done with his plans to make this a Socialist Country.
And that, is what Obama has to do with it.
I'm the last person you need to convince that Obama is anything more than useless. And I addressed only Reagan's economic record. My main point was that he is idolized as a fiscal magician and is the spiritual leader of the fiscal conservatives and Tea Partiers. For me, the numbers just don't add up. So I'm looking at the CBO data on gross federal debt beginning with Carter. These are the % increases in debt by administration with the average annual increase in parenthesis.

Carter: 28.7% (7.2%)
Reagan: 161.4% (20.2%)
Bush 41: 39.5% (9.9%)
Clinton: 29.4% (3.7%)
Bush 43: 73.1% (9.1%)
Obama: 40.2% (10.1%)

If you convert the data to account for for inflation (based on 1982 dollars), the "real" numbers are as follows.

Carter: -5.4% (-1.3%)
Reagan: 100.1% (12.6%)
Bush 41: 23.3% (5.8%)
Clinton: 8.6% (1.1%)
Bush 43: 42.4% (5.3%)
Obama: 30.0% (7.5%)

Again. How do Reagan's tax and spending policies (doubling the federal tax on middle income earners and increasing the debt almost twice as much as any president since before at least Carter) qualify him as a fiscal hero of the conservatives? His record looks pretty crappy even compared to the last two losers in the WH.

[Lefty]

I am not trying to convince you of anything. You asked "What has Obama got to do with it"
I responded.
Most of Reagan's debt was incurred by building up our military. A very good investment. Now Obama is trying "peace through weakness" and gutting the military which even Panetta thinks is a big mistake. I prob spelled his name wrong but you know who I mean.

[dartman51]

Can someone explain the conservative fascination with Ronald Reagan?

During his administration:

The average federal income tax rate for a median-income family of four was higher than at any point since at least 1955, maxing out at 12% compared to just under 6% in 2011.

At the same time, the top marginal tax rate decreased from 70% to 28%.

The national debt tripled and reached the highest level as a % of GDP in the 20th century to that time other than during WWII.

Federal spending as a % of GDP was the highest of any administration since WWII and higher than any administration in the 20th century prior to WWII.

Real average hourly wages fell from $17.00/hr to $16.50/hr.

The unemployment rate rose from 7.5% when he was inaugurated to 10.4% two years later, the highest at any point since at least 1948. It took 3 1/2 years to get back to 7.5% and another two years to settle below 7%.

Thirty-six months after taking office 447,000 non-farm payroll jobs were added. Eighty-four months after taking office the number was 94,000.

Why is this considered a successful presidency?

Just curious, Steve, where you got your figures. I don't believe the AVERAGE hourly wage in 1981, was anywhere $17.00 pr hour. :ThmbUp:

[Steve R]

Just curious, Steve, where you got your figures. I don't believe the AVERAGE hourly wage in 1981, was anywhere $17.00 pr hour. :ThmbUp:
The data is CPI adjusted and came from the St. Louis Fed. The graph is attached.

[Marshall Bennett]

I only wonder when everything comes crashing down, and I believe within 4 years it will, will historians blame Bush? I think not.

[Steve R]

I only wonder when everything comes crashing down, and I believe within 4 years it will, will historians blame Bush? I think not.
Why would anyone blame Bush specifically? This scenario has been in play for over 30 years and every president along the path to collapse, in one way or another, has played his part in maintaining the momentum - Republican and Democrat.