Best: Truman, for saving Europe from starvation and the Soviets, for the broadly shared prosperity and for advancing civil rights.
Worst: George W. Bush, for invading the wrong country and catastrophic economic collapse.
I will say Truman too as the best.... but so is Regan.
Worst..... Carter and the current one. Only time will tell how bad some of the laws and bills he signed will effect our nation. We have yet to see how the ACA (Obamacare) will turn out because many of the stipulations in the bill have yet to gone into effect. Or the figures to come out are not yet collected or correct.
People who say Bush was the cause of economic collapse... FALSE. Things presidents did before him is what caused the collapse... loosening of bank regulations for loans (Clinton signed those into effect), Wall Street guidelines.... were not his bills or regulations. He was just the president at the time the shit hit the fan. But invading the wrong country... yep on him.
Best: Reagan -- America was teetering and self-loathing (thanks to numerous crisis under Carter) and brought us back.
Worst: Obama -- seems to loath American dignity and strength (thanks to him, Carter isn't the worst)
Best: Clinton. He got things done and knew which battles to fight as far as legislation goes. I made the most money in my life during his administration. Reagan is a close second for winning the cold war without a shot fired. But Regan had congress spend way too much money and recession was the result.
Worst: George W Bush by far. He fought a senseless war (Iraq) and put it on a credit card, wrecking the economy for Obama to clean up. W should have insisted on a tax bill to fund it...and then see how much Americans were willing to fight it. We love war far too much in America and we should have to pay as we go for the ones we fight; not borrow.
Best: A tie between Truman and Eisenhower. The dance Eisenhower had to do between factions for 8 years to not get us in a war with the Soviets was just amazing. He never gets the credit he deserves.
Worst: Its hard to decide between Nixon and Carter. I lean to Nixon only because Carter was a good man in beyond his depth. Nixon was just a bad man
For those that think Reagan was the best you kind of have to define best. He was a good salesman, everyone in the US was down on themselves and he sold us on being great again. He didn't do things to make us great, he actually did a lot of dumb things but with the attitude he gave it didn't matter. This is why even though I supported Obama I'm so disapointed in him, he had the chance to do something similar and he squandered it by being way to much in love with politics.
I must say I am surprised given the right right leaning members here that the consensus is W. was the worst. I totally concur, but surprised so many of our brethren agree.
Leaving what the media did that makes many even mention "W", and what they still do to others, and acting as cheerleaders for their guys, out of the process, and only dealing in facts, it is relatively easy.
Best: Reagan for keeping us speaking English an not Russian!
As motor said. "Harry Truman for having the guts to end World War 2 the way he did. " gets an honorable mention for Best.
Worse: obama. As for the why, take your pick of anything we has done and what he should do and hasn't or won't do.
As GACA for Dishonorable mention , The peanut man for most everything he did!
nagic,
Why would it surprise you about "W"? The "media" beat him like a red-headed step child! Remember the bogus Dan Rather story as an example? What I find amazing is that even with the "media" cheer-leading for obama, he even obtained a lower approval rating then did "W".
^^^^^ Pretty much agree .......
Notice that as soon as Obama thinks the economy is better, the first thing that comes to his mind is tax and spend more like a dummy. Will not increase revenues but he doesn't care. Its "fair". Just ignores what the hell is happening in the world.
The way the question is phrased seems to rule out Truman.
Best: Clinton. Moderate who genuinely Reached across the aisle and got shit done, helped the middle class without fucking the poor.
Worst: probably Reagan. Fucked up the biggest health crisis of the century. Today's income and poverty problems are the side effects of trickle down Reaganomics. Not totally his fault; he was senile his second term. Carter, ford, and GW were all pretty bad. War on drugs was a colossal failure.
Best... Reagan by far, he propped up small businesses which employee the majority of Americans and created a machine that even a dumbass like Clinton could not mess up.
Worst... By far the current administration. There are far too many things to list as to what he has done. As a business owner myself, my healthcare costs have more than tripled since he took office. He can claim no new taxes but his actions have led to a greater loss in my wallet than any stripper ever took. My E&O insurance has doubled. total increase in expenses for me is around 120 thousand a year without adding employees... then he wants to tax me more to be fair... Fuck Obama. the only people who like him are freeloaders or just plain stupid
Dad,
You, state, "the only people who like him are freeloaders or just plain stupid" in reference to obama, but you could pretty much apply that to any modern day liberal president.
Interestingly, JFK, were he alive today with his same ideology, would likely be an establishment Republican.
Best: Reagan for reviving the economy after the 70s doldrums and for defeating the Soviets in the Cold War
Worst: Until the current clown came along, I would have said Carter. Now six years of "fundamental transformation", i.e. weakening the U.S., taxing the productive, and subsidizing the unproductive make Obama the worst president not only since World War II but possibly ever.
My vote for worst president: Jimmy Carter, hands down. Have most of you forgotten the huge inflation numbers? The sky high prime rate? The Iran hostage crisis? A good man out of his depth indeed!
Best ex-president: Jimmy Carter as well. His work for Habitat for Humanity has been exemplary.
Best president: In my opinion that man is George H.W. Bush. He served his country with distinction from WW2 right through his presidency. Bill Clinton benefited from the actions that Bush took during his administration even knowing the potential cost to his career. And lest we forget, the only reason that he still didn't win a second term was Perot, whose third party campaign cost Bush a lot more votes than it did Clinton. Also, there was the first Iraq war which was the example of what an international coalition should be.
When you try to be objective about it I think Nixon really was the worst.
Coin flip on Truman and Eisenhower for best, anyone who says otherwise doesn't know enough about their presidencies. Reagan is probably a close third.
So much of a presidency is dependent on what kind of situation they inherit, people tend to forget that when it doesn't suit their politics.
As usual with politics, no one is objective. If you're a right winger you go with the right winger as the best president, and the left winger as the worst president. If you're a left winger you go with the left winger as the best president, and the right winger as the worst president. It's as simple as that.
Interesting discussion topic.
Hands down the best president since WWII is Truman. The guy was a serious shit kicker in the artillery in WWI and as president he had balls the size of cannonballs and the brains to make seriously good decisions. He also didn't fuck up the boisterous economic boom taking place in USA after the end of WWII.
The only Republican president since WWII worth even a pail of warm piss was Eisenhower....mostly because he was so bored with the job that he didn't really make any serious decisions as president. He golfed a whole bunch.
No argument that Carter was the worst Dem president since WWII. Kind of amazing since he probably had the highest IQ of all presidents since WWII. On this scale Nixon was probably #2 on the post-WWII IQ scale and he was a total unmitigated disaster as president (as well as being a paranoid crook).
Bush #1 and Bush #2 were completely beyond the pale as presidents. Those grotesque silver spoons stuck in their mouths made them totally incapable of connecting with a typical American taxpayer. That is why Bush #1 was a one-termer. Without 9/11 Bush #2 would have been another failed one-termer. Unhappily, 9/11 gave that idiot a second term, just long enough for him to crater the stock market and the broader economy, handing the biggest poisoned chalice to Obama since the festering economic mess that Hoover passed on to FDR.
Kennedy and LBJ were both tarnished by the Viet Nam fiasco, probably the biggest foreign policy fuck-up of USA since WWII. LBJ was partly redeemed by the great social legislation that he forced through Congress during his presidency.
Reagan was the most over-rated post WWII president. Look at the numbers of his presidency. Reagan did not balance one single budget during the 8 years of his presidency. In fact, in percentage terms, he increased the USA national debt by a bigger number than any other non-war president. He was a happy personable guy but he was also a moron who was suffering from dementia for most of his second presidential term.
Clinton was (and is) an absolute political genius. Since WWII, USA has seen no campaigner the equal of Clinton. He was also a seriously crafty guy when it came to getting things done. What made Clinton so great as a politician is that he really didn't believe in anything. He was a member of the Church of What's Happening Now and conducted his presidency as a confirmed believer of that church's philosophy. Seriously good economy under Clinton: unemployment collapsed; rock and roll stock market; government budget surpluses for fuck's sake. Clinton will be well judged by history.
Obama has 2 years left in his presidency.......too soon to make any judgments about him.
^^^^ JFK did not wage war in Vietnam, He sent about 15,000 military advisors, not combat troops, he wanted some of those pulled out before he was killed. The unbelievable amount of troops sent there was pretty much LBJ
^^^^^
15,000 military advisors?......those boys were unarmed?......carried only books interpreting von Clausewitz's theories of warfare?......gave lectures to small Viet Namese peasants about growing Borlaug's new varieties of rice?
What planet do you live on, mikeya02? Have you ever read a book of history?......instead of just watching pathetic John Wayne propaganda pieces?
Please stop with your bullshit word games farmer. What i said is history. Military advisors, not combat units. Of course they are armed. Nice try at being witty .
So there you go farmer. JFK sent 15,000 military advisors to train and support a collapsing S.Viet Namese army. That's It. Please explain JFK's fiasco.
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. In fact although they may talk I think there is about zero differenece between them. Even if you are naive enough to believe their talk their is still about zero differenece between them.
Then there are Libertarians who are the biggest bozos of them all. Then there is TUSCL which is essentially a massive Lubertarian circle-jerk.
I have a hard time deciding who the best is. Bush 43, however, is not only the worst President since WWII, but the worst ever and it's not even close. Essentially, 9-11 happened and Bush and Cheney (and it's a good thing Bush didn't get killed in office, for Cheney would have been the worst President ever) essentially decided to go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with it and besides, Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.
Reagan is definitely most overrated. He drove up the debt faster than any other President, he had that stupid Iran-Contra scandal, basically doing an end run around Congress in the process, and in general, supported many regimes in many countries which were undemocratic. Not to mention the fact the guy liked to sleep with his finger on the button. He was also a bad actor.
I think Art largely hit it on the head, with the exception of Nixon. Yes, Nixon was an amoral paranoid nutjob and his legacy will always tarnished by Watergate (which only showed the inner Nixon to the world).
However, he actually did a fair number of reasonable things. Admittedly, many domestic successes early on can be traced Daniel Patrick Moynihan's influence, but there were successes.
Nixon is a tragic figure. A man of intelligence who wanted to achieve true greatness for posterity brought down by the simple fact that he was...well...an amoral paranoid nutjob.
To answer Londonguy's question:
Best -- Clinton for the reasons Art articulated
Worst -- tossup between Bush II and Reagan. In addition to the second term dementia (which, to be fair, he couldn't help) he was responsible for setting us on the road toward the polarized politics of today.
Two things that need to be mentioned and considered. When "rating" a president, many factors have to be considered. Two major ones, what went on in the world during their term(s) and who was in Congress.
I think people give Presidents FAR too much credit for both good and bad stuff that happens during their presidency. Come on, most Presidents are a product of their staff and advisors, and incredibly limited by Congress and political bullshit, and for the most part, can have little effect on the economy, legislation, the world situation, and a whole bunch of other stuff. People actually think that Presidents make a lot of shit happen that they in fact have little or no control over.
Yeah, in a 4 year term they can push like a bastard for one or two major issues (Obama Care...), and MAYBE they'll get lucky and have it happen.
Personally, I think the majority of Presidents are unqualified for the job, and when they enter office they have NO CLUE what they're facing. Some are smart, some have good advisors, some are idiots, some have bad advisors.
All Presidents have good and bad, just like anyone else. I'm a conservative Republican (I guess...) but I have a ton of respect for all Presidents. Even Obama. Fucking toughest job on the planet.
Clinton was absolutely brilliant, great politician. I have huge respect for him, even though I don't necessarily agree with his policies. I had great respect for Reagan, mainly because of his love of this country, and how he was a great LEADER, in that he inspired people to be Americans. Not many leaders can inspire people. Obama is the opposite, he apologizes for this great country. That's why I have so little respect for him. Aside from the fact that he was the most unqualified President in memory. But "he", or his administration, has done some good things.
Truman was great, partly because he had the opportunity to be great with WWII. Kennedy and LBJ were stuck with an impossible Vietnam fiasco. But they both did some very good things, if you like their policies. Kennedy stood up to the Soviets in Cuba. That took balls.
Carter was a good, honest guy, but incompetent as President.
So there really is no best or worst. Maybe you can tally up all of the wins and losses of each administration, but even then a lot depends on the climate they were in at the time.
@zipman68,
I will never be convinced that Nixon was anything but a sleazoid. He acted like a weasel during WWII as opposed to all those presidents who manned up heroically during that war, or during WWI (in Truman's case). His cynical 'commie' bashing was unedifying as was his grotesque money grubbing. He was a liar. His psyche was so severely damaged that he probably should have had a lobotomy.
I forgot to mention Ford in my post. The mere fact that Ford is so forgettable is comment enough on the merits of his presidency.
"I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. In fact although they may talk I think there is about zero differenece between them. Even if you are naive enough to believe their talk their is still about zero differenece between them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too cynical, even for you Dougsteer. Huge differences exist. Something like 90% of GOP in Congress doesn't believe in climate change. The evangelical wing doesn't believe in evolution. The GOP is the party of fact-denial in general-- and they revel in their ignorance.
Ok, they disagree on things like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Does it make any difference when there is a matter involving actual dollars and cents at stake?
I agree with 95% of FarmerArt's long post. I give Reagan a little more credit than he does, although I think Bush Sr. got a raw deal because of Regan's fumbling of the economy. I forgot about Eisenhower...in retrospect he wasn't bad at all. Ford also would have been an interesting President had he won a second term; his legacy was tarnished by Chevy Chase though. Ford was even more liberal than Obama even though the haters might disagree.
I didn't put Nixon below W and Carter even though it's tempting. But so many good things happened under his administration: the Clean Water act, opening China, civil rights bills....no excuse for the Watergate cover up but I already mentioned W and Carter really wrecked the economy with stagflation.
Agree Obama gets an 'incomplete' still, but I think history will be very kind to him and in 20 years may rate up with Clinton and Reagan in popular opinion.
@Dougster: There's a big difference between the two parties in their rhetoric but there's more similarities in practice. The Republicans say they fear government and don't want our personal lives legislated, then they turn around and use the ballot box to ban gay marriage and restrict abortion, and even make birth control expensive. In Europe birth control pills are cheap and OTC! WTF? And they are truly the party of the rich even though they try and pretend that saying that is "class warfare". Really?
The Democrats also like personal freedoms but like the Republicans tend to vote for a "nanny state" like banning fois gras, keeping pot illegal, and all kinds of stupid laws aimed to "protect" the lowest common denominator in society.
The biggest difference between the two parties is style points. I'm a liberal so I do tend to support Democratic candidates, but that's mostly due to social issues.
^^yes, it makes a difference. Duh! For example, if you lose your job and get cancer, you would probably prefer the party that champions universal health care and a system that does not deny for pre-existing conditions. Pre Obamacare you go bankrupt and then die.
Clinton was my favorite, but Jerikson makes a valid point about conditions outside the control of the prez. Clinton was lucky to be in office when the dot-com boom juiced the economy. Obama had to deal with near-depression conditions.
Least favorite was Bush Jr. & Reagan.
umissedaspot sez: "Worst: George W. Bush, for invading the wrong country and catastrophic economic collapse."
Dude, seriously, if you think Bush caused the economic collapse, or that any President could cause something like that, you're dreaming. It's a ridiculous idea, and clearly a sign that you're either biased against a particular President, or you just believe what you want to believe.
Sorry, but you need to change your mind on that one. Maybe read a book about what really happened and caused it. And stop believing all the crap you hear on TV.
By the way, since londonguy is presumably a Brit, I have one word of caution for all here....
NEVER argue with a Brit about history of either Britain or the US. NEVER. Those guys know their history like you can't imagine. And they know US history that will put us to shame.
I met a Brit in Rio once, and over a beer we started discussing history. My jaw dropped at the detail he know about US history. Made me feel ashamed.
W was the reason we spent billions of dollars in Iraq while killing 5,000 soldiers (and many times that Iraqi soldiers and civilians). Or should I say Cheney, but W was stupid enough to listen to him and not Powell.
Interesting replies to my post, thanks to all for your input.
Jackslash, as far as PM's are concerned. Best was Maggie Thatcher because she got the country back on it's feet, took on the unions and kicked the Argies out of the Falkland Islands (I served during her term). Worst is Tony Blair, that lying, self serving, sanctimonious asshole will get what's coming to him one day. Closely followed as worst was James Callaghan, he was useless, weak and gave in to the Unions constantly, I '78 we couldn't even bury the dead.
Jerikson, I am not so sure about that, you must have met an exception to the rule.
There you go Londonguy, we are all in agreement...lol........except for one thing
Farmer -5 for calling John Wayne movies " propaganda" I guess he meant he doesn't like them.
@josh: didn't the Republicans champion Romney-care. Never could figure what the big difference between that an ObamaCare was. In any case, Che made a good observation on ObamaCare before. Wall Street wanted it, so Wall Street got it. Which will happen on any issue of significance. Those boys know better than to leave big money decisions to politicians and it really makes no different which party is in power at the moment on big money issues.
i see farmerart has been combining his two favorite hobbies of America bashing and revising history again. well let me see what my handy dandy history book says about US presidents and Vietnam which farmerart called “the biggest foreign policy fuck-up of USA since WWII”.
hmmmm, this is interesting. it says here that the first president to commit the US to the Indochina conflict was a guy called H.S. Truman when in May 1950, he authorized a program of economic and military aid to have the french contain the spread of communism in Indochina after he, Truman, lost China to the communists. wow is that the same Truman that farmerart said was “Hands down the best president since WWII” and who he credited with having “the brains to make seriously good decisions”? not very good decisions if you ask me but at least he didn’t send US troops.
let’s see, yeah here it is, that distinction goes to some guy called Eisenhower. it says after france signed the Dien Bien Phu accords in 1954 giving the communist Vietminh control of Indo-China north of the 17th parallel, AKA North Vietnam that Eisenhower found this unacceptable. he PERSONALLY developed the domino theory, increased military aid and SENT MILITARY ADVISERS to the non-communist South Vietnam government. that sure doesn’t sound like farmerart’s Eisenhower who he said “was so bored with the job that he didn't really make any serious decisions as president”. nah expanding on the Truman Doctrine and sending American troops to “the biggest foreign policy fuck-up of USA since WWII” doesn’t sound like a serious decision at all.
maybe you should try picking up and reading something other than mao’s little red book sometime art.
I can see Dems listing Bush as the worst president and I lean Repub. What are you smoking thinking Obama is the best?
Obama, Bush, and Carter. Emphasis on Obama for eroding the middle class.
Che, I am too young to remember the Wilson years, are you referring to one or both of his terms as PM? No matter, I wouldn't disagree with you because he was a Labour PM.
This is how it goes in U.K. Labour fuck up the economy and unemployment, they get dumped at an election. The Tories then have to put measure in place to put everything right and in doing so make themselves unpopular and then lose an election, and on it goes. Last time we had a coalition, I am praying for outright victory on May 7 this year. The Libdems (our third party) are a bunch of tossers.
^^^
Coo-el. I knew the tin foil hat crowd would show!!! Welcome to the discussion DoctorPhil and Che.
Psssst...I wanted to tell you guys that I just designed a new mind control ray that penetrates even the thickest tin foil hats. If you don't watch out I'll mail the design to George Soros. I'm sure he'll send his flying monkeys to install it on the international space station!
You wouldn't want that, would you? I can the headlines now..."Man wearing only tin foil hat arrested in FloriDUH. Claims Jennifer Lawrence is 'Atomic Communist from Zeta Reticuli' that plans to enslave all conservatives"
@Londonguy, pay no attention to Che. He appears to define "leftist" and "fascist" as "anything Che doesn't like". Mind you, he doesn't like genuine liberals so he uses the term "leftist" correctly in those cases. However, that is more of a "even a broken clock is right twice a day" situation than any genuine perception of reality on Che's part.
Indeed, the satirical headline I wrote above might not be too far off the mark. I actually would not be surprised if Che started a thread on here asserting that we shouldn't look at the hacked images of Jennifer Lawrence's butthole because she had mind control tattoos on her ass in ultraviolet ink. In fact, Che probably believes shit that is even crazier than that!
Josh43,
I will assume you know that clinton was a part of the "near-depression conditions." obama took on. Remember he WANTED them!
Also, I would hope you are informed enough to know there has never been a "Bush Jr." as President.
"I will assume you know that clinton was a part of the "near-depression conditions." obama took on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@Clubber: I think we are on the same page, here, but not sure. Agree that the Clinton administration laid the seeds for the financial collapse.
...and let me first say that Dougsteer has been exceedingly rude to me lately, implying that I have a low IQ, implying that I'm incapable of independent thought, and stating that I'm a partisan "parrot." At one point, he even implied that I have a vagina. All this makes me want to cry -- like John Boehner did on 60 minutes (one of Dougsteers fav shows).
So I should emphasize that I am not partisan and that I blame the Clinton administration and specifically Robert Rubin for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That allowed banks to construct fucked-up things like mortgage-backed securities and CDOs that ultimately tanked the economy. Rubin then got a job at Citigroup (after we bailed them out) and made a cool $120M. What a scumbag.
So, yes, Clubber it was the Clinton admin that tanked the economy.
That's why we need more politicians with BIG balls (like Liz Warren).
I think that Arthur C. Clarke said it best in "Songs of a Distant Earth". When discussing the political systems of the colony and Earth it comes out that the President is chosen for a single ten-year term by lottery which includes every citizen unless he or she is excused by specific application.
"How can this possibly work?" asks the supply ship captain. "It works very well," is the reply, "It costs much less without expensive campaigns, nobody owes anything to special interests, and we seem to get people who are at least as qualified. Besides, why would we want anybody who would WANT that job?"
Josh43: " That's why we need more politicians with BIG balls (like Liz Warren)."
Well she can certainly talk. And she's even got some stuff done. Not too bad, not too bad. Would be interesting to see her in the fight. A couple of problems though:
she does not appear to have the balls to run
I think her talk would only go on for so long. She's getting close to the point of being filthy rich herself (i.e. $10 million net worth is my definition) and certainly is smart enough to know better than to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I want to call the worst president as a 3 way tie. Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Their policies combined created more debt than we've ever had and that we might not be able to pay back. Our economy has gone downhill in relation to other countries and so has our infrastructure and education system. We became hated around the world and terrorists became common. Their free spending ways and socialist policies created the runaway conditions and lack of oversight over the banks and the great recession. Under these presidents we are now required to pay for health insurance or face fines, you can be arrested and be locked away without a trial if our government uses certain excuses and we now live in a police state where the police feel free to block the road and question everyone.
Best president. Ronald Reagan. He temporarily got the communists in Russia to admit defeat and join our side. Obama seems to be reversing that trend.
Josh,
Not just clinton. It was the whole "force banks to lend money to anyone that wants a house even if there is no way they can pay for it" plan. The Community Reinvestment Act was implemented in 1977 under carter. I am not sure about all the others, except clinton who pushed hard and Bush 43 that sounded warning flags and there is the some what famous "speech" of barney frank saying all is well!
Clubber: "Also, I would hope you are informed enough to know there has never been a "Bush Jr." as President."
You do know that "Junior" is just a nickname, right?
Under Clinton the US made money, one of the very few who managed that. How soon we forget the Republican bleating about that being a BAD thing!!
Obama's stock will rise dramatically with time, much to the dismay of conservatives. We forget how Truman was hated right when he left office, yet now he's mentioned as 'near great' in some circles. So it takes time to really see the impact of a president's term.
The truly bad presidents in my life were Carter, W and Nixon, and Nixon only because of Watergate. The rest were okay even if I disliked them, like Johnson. The top tier includes Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. Obama will likely join that group in 20 years.
rock,
Really?? "...Nixon only because of Watergate."
"...top tier...Obama will likely join that group in 20 years."
Those two, really??
obama has done fewer legitimate things by 100 fold then above board. Some of his transgressions kill people!
"How soon we forget..." should be your motto!
I mean, once again, REALLY??
Yes Clubber, really. Reagan had the Iran Contra affair which was as bad as Watergate, but he was never directly linked. So don't talk about 'methods', only talk about policies.
Nixon was behind the Clean Water act, lots of civil rights legislation and opened China. These are 3 important accomplishments.
Obama will be remembered for bringing health care to the poor, saving the economy, opening Cuba, higher minimum wages and likely some immigration and tax reform. While not all people today may not be in favor of these things, when people reflect back on them they will be seen as positives by many groups: The poor will remember getting health care and more economic opportunity. The rich will remember corporate profits and the booming stock market. The middle class will remember the payroll tax that was reduced Jan 1st.
Obama's shortcomings are really his style. He has never mastered Clinton's ability to work with Congress and he's created a lot of haters as a result. The Whitehouse press releases have bungled a lot of reports. And Obama never toots his own horn on his accomplishments; people only hear the bashing. I see why even among liberals he's not universally liked, but I also can see why history will be kind to him. Oh, and he's the first black president, least we forget!
Even Carter had his moments. The Camp David accord between Begin and Sadat was really pretty amazing. His biggest problem was that he had no ability to delegate and consequently he did a lot of stupid things and the job damn near killed him.
I'm seeing a trend among economists that study that sort of thing opining that the President has little to no effect on the economy, he hardly matters at all. Congress? Yes, but not the President.
^^^
I have to disagree with the comment that the US constitution was a stellar document, except possibly as an example of "democracy 1.0".
Worldwide, presidential systems have not been as stable as parliamentary systems. The US has been the exception, but it is who knows how long that will last. A parliamentary system with a strong independent judiciary would have the advantage of protecting individual rights while still preserving accountability. When there is split government in the US the congress can blame the president and the president can blame the congress. Voters sympathetic to the presidents party believe him and those sympathetic to the legislative minority believe them.
The parliament should have districts drawn by non-partisan committees or proportional representation (or both, perhaps in a bicameral form). Proportional representation minimizes pork barrel spending.
As is, we're saddled with an anachronistic 18th century document and a government further hampered by gerrymandered legislative districts, endless election seasons, and too much money in politics overall. Why else would congress have an approval rating lower than pubic lice but an incumbency reelection rate in excess of 95%?
Clubber wrote: " It was the whole "force banks to lend money to anyone that wants a house even if there is no way they can pay for it" plan. The Community Reinvestment Act "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Clubber: Didn't see your post about the CRA until now.
I used to follow the housing market obsessively. In fact I was so convinced that we had a housing bubble that I sold a property before the crash and picked up a nice custom home in late 2009 for pennies on the dollar.
That the CRA caused the housing crash is a right-wing fantasy that comes up over and over. It never seems to die no matter how many times it is debunked. I can't count how many BS articles like that appeared in the WSJ editorial page. Blaming government support for the poor is what the GOP stand for. Something like 85% of bad mortgages were issued by private brokers, not Fannie & Freddie. Something like 85% of loans made to poor people were also issued by private brokers. It was the financial services industry -- the slicing and dicing of mortgages into securities -- that brought down the economy.
@zipperhead68 “I have to disagree with the comment that the US constitution was a stellar document”
of course you do. haters gonna hate, progressives gonna goose step, zipperhead68’s gonna keep on sucking george soros’ hate filled progressive nazi dick
84 comments