Who was the best president of the last fifty years?

I have to wonder how here with the many Presidents on the list, as supplied, actually lived under them, studied them, or have actual knowledge of them.

Of the ones listed, I reiterate Reagan, with all of his foibles, was better, not great, but better than the others.

Obama is by far the absolute worse, but in fairness, he hasn't been responsible for the deaths of 620 Thousand, most American soldiers, an untold number maimed and mutilated, and an astronomical number of civilians murdered, raped, and pillaged. At least not yet.. Next was LBJ, a politician extraordinaire because of the dirt he held on so many people, as a Senator ( Landslide Lyndon ) Senate Majority Leader, Vice President, and then President. Nixon was the next worst, due to his unconstitutional criminal acts. Carter was a smart man, stupidity doesn't get you an officers commission aboard a nuclear sub, but basically inept as a President. The misery index was double digits for almost his entire term. I always believed he was too forgiving of people's follies in his dealings. Ford took over under terrible conditions and dismay and while he was not very persuasive, he did a fair job under the conditions. Clinton, except for his inability to play nice with folks and his penchant for extramarital infidelities, had the potential to be the absolute best. Bush One never knew what he was to believe or not believe- he was pro choice before becoming Veep, then maybe changed. Bush Two had one major drawback- he let the damned Neo-Cons define his Presidency and his liberalism got the best of him. Back in that mix was JFK who basically became President because Old Bootlegger Joe bought it for him.

As an extra added attraction, an honorable mention ( or dishonorable, as the case may be ) must go to Ike. Ike was a liberal at heart, giving the Chief Justiceship to Earl Warren, Invading Arkansas, getting hammered by Kruschev over Gary Powers and the U2. Let it be known the SCOTUS became completely liberal under Ike and we continue to pay the price today.

Now for Reagan. He was a moderate, at best, possibly a little above mediocre, the Great Communicator- his forte', tripled the debt, killed none of the programs he promised to kill, and grew government. Overall, still the best of the lot.

So, sue me- I went back sixty years. I left out Truman, another also ran and FDR, the worst behind Obama because he, like Lincoln, had FUBARRED the Constitution beyond all reasonable expectations or reason.

Flak jacket is on- awaiting incoming.

 

Let me add an additional two centavos here. Presidents, by the nature of the animal, in my estimation, can never be great. They can be either competent or incompetent with varying degrees in between. A few may rise to higher pinnacles, but in today's environment, that becomes very difficult. Some, like Obama, can plunge to new depths of arrogance, incompetence, and stupidity.

My personal all time favorite was Jefferson, but that is my preference. Much of what Jefferson wrote and espoused in the Declaration was taken from George Mason's Virginia Bill of Rights published in June of 1776.

 

So, you're saying that when Truman left office he took the buck with him?

JFK authorized the operation, JFK refused the air support. Doesn't get buckier than that.

 

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't worth (*)(*)(*)(*)?

The Only man in history to win both a Medal of Honor and a Nobel Peace Prize, the man who saved america from being a corporate run state, the man who once killed a mountain lion with a knife, and rode a wild moose bareback through a flooded river, the man who helped bring America's navy into the 20th century, and was a pioneer for civil rights and even made women's suffrage a campaign platform point during his second time running for reelection (while also being the only third party candidate to every have a serious chance of winning the white house), and was quite possibly our most well read president wasn't worth (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

If were going to include Ike in the list I would actually put him at the top.

Started NASA, created the ISHS, got us out of Korea without escalating it to a drawn out and unwinnable ground war with China, desegregated the military, provided federal protection to the Little Rock 9, and warned us to be wary of the military industrial complex in his farewell address. etc...

 

Jefferson is an interesting case. For all his talk about limited, weak government (especially the executive branch), he was the president who initiated the tradition of presidents authorizing military action without permission from Congress first. Ironically it was in dealing with Libya (or more precisely, the Tripoli Pirate State). During the first Barbary War Jefferson basically used the navy however the (*)(*)(*)(*) he wanted and Congress ended up only passing very vague legislation allowing him to do so (and after the fact in many cases).

 

Ike did run on getting us out of Korea. Of course we are still there, spending money and troops, but most of the fighting, except for the occasional skirmish on the DMZ.

Warren was his Achilles Heel. Totally inept as a Justice, a liberal PUB when liberal PUBS still were in attendance and had not co-opted other names. We had a completely liberal SCOTUS that used, under Warren, 'modern authority' ( a book written by Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish Socialist, in 1940, to make the decision in Brown vs Board of Education. They threw precedent and States Rights out the window. That should disqualify Ike as the best right there. He, against constitutional principles, invaded Little Rock, busting Posse Comitatus in the wazoo on the way by sending Federal troops, uncalled for by the state legislature and/or Oval Faubus, the Governor, and federalizing the Arkansas National Guard.

I would suggest the SCOTUS made bad law, and the Congress, pursuant to the Constitution, had passed no law and only the Congress can make law. The decision in Brown was the Law of the Case, not the Law of the Land.

We all know about Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896, but another decision upholding States Rights and segregation was made in Gong Lum vs Rice in 1927.

Was desegregation overdue? Most probably. Simply put, a Constitutional Amendment should have been passed outlawing segregation.

That is exactly why Ike was a poor President.

 

No.

The AMERICANS overwhelmingly support a smaller government that gets its fat fascist ass back inside the Constitution with smaller taxes needed only to support that smaller government.

Nobody that supports anything else is an American. Socialists, of course, aren't Americans, they're religious cultists bent on restoring slavery....even to themselves, because they're stupid religious cultists.

 

He recieved, and demanded, unilateral authority to declare lands "monuments", in direct violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. He's the first "Progressive" president, which automatically makes him a turd. His ego made him run the Bull Moose Party ticket, undeniably the most disastrous third party effort by any candidate in US history, since it gave the 1912 election to the racist Democrat (a redundancy) Wilson, undeniably the worst president in US history, including the present imposter.

King Obama won the Peice Prize. So did Arafat and Gorbachev. Clearly the Peace Prize means nothing.

Really? Stealing freedom was the only way to protect freedom?

This is important to you?

Yeah, those people that ride saddled mooses through flooded rivers are such wimps.

Actually, the calendar brought the Navy into the 20th Century.

The Bull Moose Party had no chance of winning the election, turd parties merely split the vote.

The MOST successful third party run was made by little Ralphie Nader, who chiseled off JUST ENOUGH votes from the RATs to save the United States from Al Bore.

 

He saved the Grand Canyon and many other natural treasures of the US from becoming overdeveloped and mined out messes.

Teddy won it back when it mean something. He mediated the end of the Russo Japanese war between Russia and Japan. A pretty impressive feat. And I see you didn't comment on the MoH which is impressive no matter how you look at it. (little known fact, he and his son, aside from the MacArthur's, are the only father and son recipients of the MoH. His son was not only in the first wave to it Omahah Beach, we was the oldest soldier there at age 56 (a veteran of WW1 too), and only general level officer to fight that day)

Steeling freedom from companies that were murdering their employees and even their families for trying to unionize?

Its definitely important. He was more of a macho true walk the walk man than any of the wannabee republican politicians today who think their hot (*)(*)(*)(*) just because they own a few guns.

Some smooth sarcasm there exlax.
Roosevelt was made Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897. 10 days after the Main exploded he was made Secretary of the Navy officially for four hours due to a fluke. In that time told the Navy worldwide to prepare for war, ordered ammunition and supplies, brought in experts, and went to Congress asking for authority to recruit as many sailors as he wanted. Because of his action the Navy was prepared for the Spanish American war the began several months later and began the American military policy of having a strong sea going naval force.

The Bull Moose party came closer to winning the presidency than any third party in history. they came in second by a good margin. Had the Republicans not desperately pumped so much money into the taft campaign (which Taft didn't even put effort into, he actually stayed home and didn't want to be president again), Teddy would have won.

And got us Bush 2. GG Nader.

 

Forgive the bad spelling. I typed that out on a phone.

 

If only President Obama, had the same opportunity's to Govern,like the other Presidents.History might say he was one of the best we've had as POTUS! IJS

 

On that I would agree.

 

Why Clinton, the man who disgraced the office so much it led to his impeachment? What exactly did he do to be a better President than all the others?

 

Poverty level went down the the middle class did quote well under both Reagan and Bush43.

What exactly shines about it?

And his shining achievement was cutting tax rates which boosted the economy, thought you opposed such policies.

 

Seriously, these little one shot factoids do nothing to help your case.
The statement was that the huge National Debt we have today is the legacy of Ronald Reagan.
And you think some vague reference to the middle class erases that.
Reagan ran up that debt by rejiggering the economy, so that taxes will fall short of spending nearly every year, which they have, which provides stimulus to the economy and a temporary boost to the middle class, but in the long run is unsustainable.
That's what really happened, it's not theory anymore, we have over 30 years of results from "trickle down economics".
We are still chained to the rate structure that Reagan imposed, and from the day he put it in place the share of America's wealth that the "Bottom 99%" own has declined, while the share that the top 1% own has ballooned, and it's destroying the economy, slowly but surely.
The best period, the best job growth, the best wealth creation that happened during the last 30 years, happened when we had the highest tax rates on the wealthy.
Why do you dodge the central issue?

 

Reagan's policies ruined the world eventually.
it made wall streeters billions, trillions?
His foreign policy enforced the American ideal that they need to police the world and butt in where they are not even threatened by attack.

Clinton was basically ok but had to comply with forces of the illuminatti....

 

Complete garbage.

 

That's what I like. A well worked out conservative argument, brimming with reason, nuance and insight.

 

Yes you start off talking a big fight. You're going to kick my arse right?

And then we get the Big Lie. Is that really all you've got?

Let me say it again. I know I said it before and your refusal to deal just shows how at sea you are here. But let's say it again and keep focused and try and avoid all the macho bravado and stuff:

Keynes believed that the budget be balanced over the economic cycle.

When you've digested that and understood it we may be in a position to continue with a discussion. Until then...it's all just trading insults isn't it?

 

Keynes had his head up his ass. He should have learned some GAAP.

 

Keynes should have learned some accounting principles? Who has their head up their arse? What are you talking about (I am an accountant BTW)?

The principle that the budget should be balanced over the economic cycle is a good one. When times are tough you borrow and when they are good you pay it back, thereby managing aggregate demand. Supply side economics are one thing, but when you defend a party (GOP) who borrow when times are good (Bush, Reagan) and attack Presidents who eliminate deficits when times are good (Clinton) then head uis truly well inserted up arse.

The thing is it is possible to manage the supply side and the demand side. The global economy was saved by Gordon Brown and George W Bush boosting aggregate demand and this was continued by Obama. Now the US is in full recovery and leading global recovery. tea Party crackpots have been proved to be crackpots. They are dead, but they never lie down. But it changes nothing regarding their financial illitracy and their stupid belief that the economy is like a household budget.

 

All Presidents can only be measured within the specific contexts of their times. FDR is head-and-shoulders above all who succeeded him by dint of overcoming the Great Depression, successfully prosecuting WWII, facilitating the emergence of a thriving middle class, and allowing the US to emerge as a superpower, economically and militaristically.

The most popular of his successors are Clinton and Reagan for the relative peace and prosperity of their tenures.

Whether one thinks sexual mischief or supplying terrorists with arms is the more egregious offense goes a long way in forming a preference.

 

Your empty statements do not constitute a rebuttal you know.

Actually the legacy of the Democrat congresses who created them the worst being the current one.

There was nothing vague about it it was a direct response.

Reagan request less spending every year he was in office that congress authorized, had those congresses accepted his budget proposals the deficits that last three years of his term would have fallen to under $100B, now compare that to Obama and the Democrat $1,400B and subsequent $1,000B deficits and tell me you have a left to stand on.

Which produced higher revenues and shift the tax burden more towards the higher earners, what is your objection?

There is no mystical line between the 1% and 99%, if you want your income to increase go out and do something about it.

I don't, get rid of the Democrats and Obama and institute policies to get the economy going again and then everyone's incomes will rise. But if you are going to wallow in your envy I have no sympathy for you.

- - - Updated - - -

As opposed to the bormide to which he was responding? ROFL

 

For a business perhaps but not for government as we have seen the last 5 years.

The worst deficit during the Bush/Republican control was $400B for one year. The tax rate cuts kicked in and the economy took off and revenues SOARED, suggest you look at what happened to capital gains revenues after rates were slashed. They then lowered the deficit the next three years to paltry $161B. Then the Democrats including Obama took over the budget and we see the huge mess they made of it with deficits as high as $1,400 and then three years of $1,000B and the worst unemployment we have had in decades, some numbers on record due to their failed Keynesian policies.

Bill Clinton came into office during the second year of a strong recovery, tax revenues were already on a strong upward growth curve. He then passed a tax increase and that rate of growth slowed and the rate of GDP increase slowed and he lost the next congress because of it. He also requested more spending each year than congress authorized so spare us the Clinton was a budget balancer. Gingrich and Kaisch forced him to sign tax rate cuts which got the economy back on that strong growth curve and tax revenues increases soared into double digits and then forced him to sign welfare reform and they, not Clinton, were able to balance the budget.

Government shouldn't be managing anything. It should take care of it's own business and get out of the way of the private sector.

ROFL we are no where near a full recovery the economy is barely keeping it's head above water and we have fewer and fewer percent of the workforce working and earning money and producing GDP and paying taxes.

I think your invective will come back to haunt you.