worst presidents

[goldenponderbob]

Tyler was certainly a contrary guy, but allowing Polk to not have to deal with
the political fallout stemming from Texas annexation (way controversial at the time) was gutsy and perfectly in keeping with his independent nature.

Bush is certainly right at the top among decision-makers whose actions got lots of American citizens killed over issues that could have been handled with less violent results, but my choice will always be Pierce. He gave in to the pro-slavery radicals and signed the law (Kansas-Nebraska) that set off a horribly bloody civil war in that state that turned into a much bigger one a few years later.

Nixon's case is simple. He wanted to be President, period! He had no ambition or agenda beyond that. He had no reason to believe that anyone would take seriously his "secret plan to end the war" which turned out to be "Vietnamization" (suspiciously similar to "Iraqi security forces"). Johnson and the democrats had this stinking mess on their hands and needed a patsy to hand it off to; Nixon just happened to show up. In my mind he became, almost in fact auditioned for the role of "fall guy", and took the powder when his usefulness in that singular capacity ended, almost on cue as it were". And all because he simply wanted to be President!

I don't see how you could go wrong with Pierce, Bush and Nixon, but you could also make a pretty good case for LBJ (which I blame mostly on one party rule over too long a period). In case anyone is looking, we're headed back to one party rule again . . . It always seems to coincide with the time when one of these major duds shows up.

For my money, I'll take the last six years of Clinton, even with the scandals.
Hey, when these bozos have something like that going on, in seems the whole world of mayhem and madness slows down to watch.

Or maybe that's just coincidence.

[Thorgrim]

Unfortunately Nixon did a lot of amazing things and overall was a tough leader, he did more since Truman to win the Cold War, excluding some of his Vietnam actions

In my book, Truman and then Nixon did the most to end the Cold War, the rest did pretty much nothing (JFKs gamble was just that, a gamble, I don't give people credit for risking billions of lives for a victory that wasn't particularly huge), after Truman it would take a real blunder for the economic powerhouse of the US to lose the cold war, Nixon really started to exploit the problems with Soviet diplomacy and by the 1970s the Soviet Union had hit a wall and were falling, it was only a matter of guessing how many decades they had left, but in the end the straw that broke the camels back was not some speech in Germany but in all revolutions it was the people and food [lines]

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Jimmy Carter has to be up there, horrible President was much better after he left office

Carter didn't do much. There were huge inflation problems, but a good portion of that was caused by a phony oil crisis that drove the price of gas to numbers we had never seen before. Iranians took some hostages, but Carter also didn't trade weapons for their release, aka he didn't negotiate with terrorists.

I don't think Carter was a horrible president, and I don't think he was a good president, but I do think he was a political victim to events of the time which made him look worse than he actually was.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Carter didn't do much. There were huge inflation problems, but a good portion of that was caused by a phony oil crisis that drove the price of gas to numbers we had never seen before.

Then he made a bad situation worse by that idiotic idea of gas rationing.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Carter didn't do much. There were huge inflation problems, but a good portion of that was caused by a phony oil crisis that drove the price of gas to numbers we had never seen before. Iranians took some hostages, but Carter also didn't trade weapons for their release, aka he didn't negotiate with terrorists.

I don't think Carter was a horrible president, and I don't think he was a good president, but I do think he was a political victim to events of the time which made him look worse than he actually was.

He tried a rescue operation that he did not personally plan, he left that up to the military, and if you've ever read about it you'll see it was basically impossible to continue after so many problems happened

There is still curiosity if, for part of the Iran-Contra Reagan wanted to do, his campaign contacted the Iranians he would sell arms to and told them not to release the hostages yet, again the Democrats decided against impeaching Reagan so we'll never know the full level of it

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He tried a rescue operation that he did not personally plan, he left that up to the military, and if you've ever read about it you'll see it was basically impossible to continue after so many problems happened

There is still curiosity if, for part of the Iran-Contra Reagan wanted to do, his campaign contacted the Iranians he would sell arms to and told them not to release the hostages yet, again the Democrats decided against impeaching Reagan so we'll never know the full level of it

I think more of that had to do with G.H.W. Bush than Reagan, though I am not defending Reagan. GHWB being the former head of the CIA and such probably had those types of connections. I think Reagan was more of a spokes person or puppet than a policy maker. PNAC started gaining their positions of power, such as Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, etc. They had their ideas for policy and it was his job to go sell it.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Then he made a bad situation worse by that idiotic idea of gas rationing.

I am not sure the idea was that idiotic. When they say "you will be out of oil soon" it is kind of a good idea to start rationing out what you have while you can find another alternative.

[RMNIXON]

It took 21 Posts before I even received consideration!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I don't think Carter was a horrible president, and I don't think he was a good president, but I do think he was a political victim to events of the time which made him look worse than he actually was.

I think he is damn lucky he didn't have to handle events that were at lot worse!


I would gladly trade the Vietnam War for fighting off some inflation and Gas shortages.

[Mookieisms]

Warren Harding.

[Rouger2]

Ronald Reagan belongs at the bottom. He sold us out to the Japanese his favorate saying was everyone was bashing the Japanese. He didn't care about them not letting us trade with them to allow fair trade. So we have ended up with this huge trade deficit with them and they own all our tire companies and much more. To show their appreciation they gave him a million dollors after he left office. I can see why we still have a huge trade deficit with them and they are buying more of our country. He was also the most partisan of any president that I know of and the rift between the left and right that he caused has been growing and growing he loved it, and it showed. Although later in his presidency he tried to be friendly with dems everyone knew how he felt. He is the one who really started getting us in debt to the Japanese and now we also have the same large debt with the chinese. What a great President ha. We need no mediocre minds as president like Reagan and Bush.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think he is damn lucky he didn't have to handle events that were at lot worse!


I would gladly trade the Vietnam War for fighting off some inflation and Gas shortages.

I would prefer to ride a bike to work than be shot at for some political agenda.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am not sure the idea was that idiotic. When they say "you will be out of oil soon" it is kind of a good idea to start rationing out what you have while you can find another alternative.

We were never in that situation. Production dropped less then 5%

Carter just panicked and sunk the economy even worse.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Ronald Reagan belongs at the bottom. He sold us out to the Japanese his favorate saying was everyone was bashing the Japanese. He didn't care about them not letting us trade with them to allow fair trade. So we have ended up with this huge trade deficit with them and they own all our tire companies and much more. To show their appreciation they gave him a million dollors after he left office. I can see why we still have a huge trade deficit with them and they are buying more of our country. He was also the most partisan of any president that I know of and the rift between the left and right that he caused has been growing and growing he loved it, and it showed. Although later in his presidency he tried to be friendly with dems everyone knew how he felt. He is the one who really started getting us in debt to the Japanese and now we also have the same large debt with the chinese. What a great President ha. We need no mediocre minds as president like Reagan and Bush.

A trade deficit is not the worst thing in the world.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thomez

A trade deficit is not the worst thing in the world.

no wai

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by thomez

A trade deficit is not the worst thing in the world.

Yea debt colossal debt is just fine and that is what we are talking about. That huge trade deficit that we have each year is debt and the insane thing just keeps getting bigger year after year. If we were a third world country who would trade with us no one, but since we are the great USofA with all our assests they trade with us and we borrow the money from them to run our government all that money our great politicians are spending so freely each year is borrowed money from China, Japan Saudi Arabia. Yea trade deficits are just great because they allow us to have this great and growing economy. We can buy our SUVs, many from the Japanese,and waste all that gasoline all on borrowed money. Hey but we are living high on the hog so who cares.

[thomez]

I don't think you understand the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit, they are not the same. I also think that we've been over this before.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by thomez

I don't think you understand the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit, they are not the same. I also think that we've been over this before.

They both took off starting with his administration. While trade deficit on its face is not necessarily a bad thing, what it does mean is that we are importing more goods. That typically means that we are no longer making those things here in the USA, meaning those jobs (typically decent paying skilled labor) are lost here in the united states. Decent paying skilled labor is/was a foundation to an established and stable middle class.

What this also means is that our alledged enemies, such as china, are making a killing off it. Their economies are starting to take off and with that money they are building more nuclear weapons, adding more to their armies, etc.

The national debt and budget deficits are ridiculous also. They were caused by massive tax cuts without massive spending cuts. Also known as fiscal irresponsibility. When the free market economy starts to slow down the government puts forward pork barrel spending, such as 6200 items on the highway bill after 9/11. These projects create jobs that the free market wasn't creating because there was no demand to create said jobs. Who wants a fucking indoor rain forest in the middle of Iowa? Not me, and Iowans are confused as to why they are getting it. They are financing our economic recovery and tax cuts. The are putting that shit on credit. Now to the tune of 8.7 trillion dollars and they are stealing a lot of money from social security and wondering why it is going broke.

This shit started on a large scale with Ronald Reagan and his 'voodoo' economics.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They both took off starting with his administration. While trade deficit on its face is not necessarily a bad thing, what it does mean is that we are importing more goods. That typically means that we are no longer making those things here in the USA, meaning those jobs (typically decent paying skilled labor) are lost here in the united states. Decent paying skilled labor is/was a foundation to an established and stable middle class.

What this also means is that our alledged enemies, such as china, are making a killing off it. Their economies are starting to take off and with that money they are building more nuclear weapons, adding more to their armies, etc.

The national debt and budget deficits are ridiculous also. They were caused by massive tax cuts without massive spending cuts. Also known as fiscal irresponsibility. When the free market economy starts to slow down the government puts forward pork barrel spending, such as 6200 items on the highway bill after 9/11. These projects create jobs that the free market wasn't creating because there was no demand to create said jobs. Who wants a fucking indoor rain forest in the middle of Iowa? Not me, and Iowans are confused as to why they are getting it. They are financing our economic recovery and tax cuts. The are putting that shit on credit. Now to the tune of 8.7 trillion dollars and they are stealing a lot of money from social security and wondering why it is going broke.

This shit started on a large scale with Ronald Reagan and his 'voodoo' economics.

Great post. This is a great thread. Everyone has said very interesting and informative things.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They both took off starting with his administration. While trade deficit on its face is not necessarily a bad thing, what it does mean is that we are importing more goods. That typically means that we are no longer making those things here in the USA, meaning those jobs (typically decent paying skilled labor) are lost here in the united states. Decent paying skilled labor is/was a foundation to an established and stable middle class.

Because you have a trade deficit with one country does not automatically mean you have an overall trade deficit - you just need to sell more to other countries where you will have a trade surplus. A trade deficit with China is not the end of the world, the protectionism to avoid that trade deficit will almost certainly do more harm. The ideal solution is to find products that you can sell to China and everywhere else that China, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc etc either cannot produce or cannot produce cheaper (at the same quality). In the United States, with the standard of living we expect, etc ... this means innovation, technology, investment, and overall specialization. We aren't going to make money producing certain things in the US anymore, that is just a fact. We need to accept that fact and find other things that we can do better than other places and import them goods.

Even at that, an overall trade deficit is still not the end of the world.