Who do you think are the worst presidents ever?

[Red Dragoniop]

jimmy carter no doubt in history is the worse

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Cool. You are both quite intelligent and I look forward to reading your exchanges. I vaguely recall disagreeing with your point of view fairly often but hey, different strokes. Good to see you back.

Thank you.

Hmm...interesting. I'll admit I was a bit taken aback by your position on women's suffrage and don't agree with it but it would be entertaining to say the least to see you defend yourself on this position. Start a thread maybe?

In a few days, perhaps. I am not really up for a huge debate on it right now.

In fact, I think I probably won't make a thread on it anytime soon. I'd like to debate the matter, but I frankly think it would end up turning into a shitstorm at this point. Maybe if I can figure out an interesting point that I think might have more influence than I expect my normal arguments to have here. I quite believe in my position, but it is another thing to debate it publically and cause an interesting thread that does not devolve into a Wasteland thread pretty damn quick.

I mean, look at the responses here so far. Full retard would make for a poor thread.

To the thread subject, what about Carter? His administration was a disaster on many levels but I think it could be argued that much of this was due to circumstances beyond his control. Opinions?

Carter was a very, very unsuccesful president who didn't do much of anything good. He is up there with the do-nothing-good presidents of the 19th century.

 

[Octavian]

It's funny how Reagan won his second election by unbelievable numbers and had the nation pulled together, he restored faith and hope in all Americans yet revisionist have fooled people that weren't even alive or in diapers into thinking he was a bad president.
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of our generation.

Conservative policies will never be accepted by liberal institutions, history will judge that as well

Reagan was atrocious and sadly gave rise to so much of the destructive conservative politics currently running amok in Washington. He also gave rise to / empowered the religious right which does so much to set back science, women's rights and general progress in humanity with its backwardness.

How about war on the poor?
How about how under Reagan our homeless and mentally ill were cast out into abject poverty?
How about giving rise to the uber-elite Wall St. culture?
How about denying AIDS?
How about setting back Social Security?
How about destroying the federal budget with a disastrous tax cut that unfairly benefited the wealthy?
How about encouraging religious right cuckoos to get into politics?
How about appointing Antonin Scalia, who has done so much to destroy a one prestigious office... possibly one of the worst, most venomous, fraudulent and brazenly politicized judges ever to serve.

So many of our current problems rise out of Reagan's era and the rise of the Neocon and Religious right... Homelessness, poverty, wealth gap, lack of properly funded regulation agencies, aversion to smart regulation in general, budget deficits, disgusting worship of wealthy elite, Wall St.'s unbridled power and ability to affect politics.

He was a catastrophe not to mention likely suffered moderately from alzheimers by at least half way through his presidency... a complete joke that he was in charge with a brain like that.

 

[Octavian]

jimmy carter no doubt in history is the worse

Carter's time in office and hardships were as much a result of countervailing forces out of his control than anything else. How was he supposed to fight the price of oil? That, in itself, was a catastrophe for the American economy... that's not to be leveled on Carter's head.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We interacted here as well, but not that frequently.

Amusingly, I probably won't contribute much to MMA debates as MMA has bored me so badly as of late. I can't be bothered with half of the matches the UFC puts on nowadays. I'm growing out of the sport, I fear, for want of any interesting fights.

I was super jazzed about Jones/Cormier, and there's some good stuff coming up soon, but, yeah, my interest isn't generally what it used to be.

We probably could've grown out of it even more effectively with a lower rate of taxation. Not to say that the 50s were a time of economic stagnation - they hardly were! - but I can't imagine that American prosperity would've been substantially higher at JFK's level of taxation v. Eisenhower.

There's really no reason to think that tax rates make much of a difference in terms of growth, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Gotcha. As I said to Dr., your future exchanges should be worth the read.

Cool. I like him so far, though he was talking about things that he knew nothing about earlier.

To the thread subject, what about Carter? His administration was a disaster on many levels but I think it could be argued that much of this was due to circumstances beyond his control. Opinions?

I'm not really sure why Carter is so hated in some circles. His record looks pretty good, though he left on a bad note.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

I was super jazzed about Jones/Cormier, and there's some good stuff coming up soon, but, yeah, my interest isn't generally what it used to be.

Cormier/Jones was compelling but the actual fight was a let down. There are few matchups and fighters I am that interested in anymore, although I will most certainly watch when/if Gus faces Jones again. I do think that kid has the capacity to beat Jones, especially after Jones will be broken down for his drug rehabilitation.

There's really no reason to think that tax rates make much of a difference in terms of growth, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Taxation decreases the available funds for investment and expansion. This slows growth. Taxation having a negative effect on growth is a well attested phenomena in economics. There are very few taxes which do not hurt, in some way, growth. As taxation is necessary, it is the duty of politicians to determine which taxes hurt the least for the most amount of good produced. A lowering of taxation in the 50s would have done as much good for the economy as it did in the 60s, that is, a fairly good boost.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Taxation decreases the available funds for investment and expansion.

It might have been better for me to say, "there's no evidence that taxation affects growth much." People can come up with all kinds of stories, but they may or may not be correct. Deficit-funded tax cuts are by nature temporary (as we'll have to pay for it somehow), while tax cuts funded by spending cuts are pushing and pulling (and under normal circumstances, fiscal policy effects can be offset in either direction by the Fed). Different types of taxes will have different behavioral effects, which could affect growth, but it doesn't seem likely that they'd affect it much. So you have to look at the evidence, and when you do, you just don't see much of anything there.

The real impact of taxes, and the reason they're the subject of so much heated discussion, is in distribution.

This slows growth. Taxation having a negative effect on growth is a well attested phenomena in economics.

If by "well-attested," you mean, "a lot of people say it," that is correct. But it's not apparent in the data. It's funny how the arguments always take the form of "the slowdown in growth that followed tax cuts weren't caused by the cuts" or "the rapid growth that followed tax increases weren't caused by those increases." I wouldn't actually make the opposite claim, but the case for tax rates having a noticeable impact on growth is weak to non-existent.

There are very few taxes which do not hurt, in some way, growth. As taxation is necessary, it is the duty of politicians to determine which taxes hurt the least for the most amount of good produced. A lowering of taxation in the 50s would have done as much good for the economy as it did in the 60s, that is, a fairly good boost.

Again, you're just making a statement of faith. And making an argument of the form I mentioned earlier. Growth in the 1950s was about the same as growth in the 1960s, but you're saying you think that it would have been even better in the 1950s if the tax rates were lower and that it would have been even worse in the 1960s if not for the cuts. That's possible, but you know, where's the beef?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

lol at Reagan being ranked with the worst. Libtards gonna libtard.

Why he's a garbage president and corrupt to the max

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

George bush jr easily....the most destructive president imaginable....one would think he actually worked for our enemies.

 

[second sight]

Here, this list will help:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

it won't help many of the posters in this thread

 

[Jack V Savage]

it won't help many of the posters in this thread

Funny you'd say that when your answer here was (paraphrasing) "Derp, derp, the current guy is the worstest ever. Derp."

 

[Joe_Armstrong]

W is one of the worst

 

[second sight]

Funny you'd say that when your answer here was (paraphrasing) "Derp, derp, the current guy is the worstest ever. Derp."

Ronald Reagan was close to the top of just about every poll in there, the only category obama lead was the worst president

Best president since World War II

Ronald Reagan (35%)
Bill Clinton (18%)

Worst president since World War II

Barack Obama (33%)
George W. Bush (28%)

 

[Sycho Sid]

Ronald Reagan was close to the top of just about every poll in there, the only category obama lead was the worst president

You should really look at that again, especially the largest set of stats.

 

[chardog]

clinton repealed glass steagall, doesnt that put him on the list of worst president ever rather than best?

 

[Final Rehab]

I'm not really sure why Carter is so hated in some circles. His record looks pretty good, though he left on a bad note.

I think Carter is reviled my some because the "mood" of the nation was so bad during his tenure. We had the Iran hostage crisis with the failed rescue attempt, gas lines, Olympic boycott, Three Mile Island accident, stagflation, etc. I'm pretty darn sure Carter can't be directly blamed for much of that.

Carter was, however, the only President to be interviewed by Playboy magazine and he deregulated the beer industry to allow home brewers to create the microbrewery industry we enjoy today. Hespect to that.

He also deregulated the commercial airline industry to remove government control; what conservative wouldn't like that?

I think he's just an easy punching bag for those who want to point to the general vibe of the nation as an indicator of Presidential competence.

Reagan, on the other hand, has been a recipient of undue praise because in addition to being an excellent cheerleader (he was an actor, after all), the nation swelled with nationalistic pride and well, the 80's was a great party. That's a different subject I guess.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think he's just an easy punching bag for those who want to point to the general vibe of the nation as an indicator of Presidential competence.

Could be. I think it's also part of the Reagan myth (he saved the nation from terrible times under the evil Carter).

Reagan, on the other hand, has been a recipient of undue praise because in addition to being an excellent cheerleader (he was an actor, after all), the nation swelled with nationalistic pride and well, the 80's was a great party. That's a different subject I guess.

The '80s weren't really a great party, though, were they? I'd have to double check, but I believe that both job growth and GDP growth were better in the surrounding decades. The stock market growth was also boosted a lot by inflation.

 

[Gandhi]

I was super jazzed about Jones/Cormier, and there's some good stuff coming up soon, but, yeah, my interest isn't generally what it used to be.



There's really no reason to think that tax rates make much of a difference in terms of growth, except in extraordinary circumstances.



Cool. I like him so far, though he was talking about things that he knew nothing about earlier.



I'm not really sure why Carter is so hated in some circles. His record looks pretty good, though he left on a bad note.

I don't get how (not saying you) one can talk about taxation without talking about the spending side of the equation. If all taxation is harmful for growth, absent debt (which over the longer term is really timing of taxation, although timing is important), does that mean all govt is harmful for growth?

 

[Johntreksmith]

Harrison
Polk
Harding
Buchanan
W Bush

right now obama will go down in the top 10 best if the stats follow till the end of his term.

 

[Irenaeus]

http://www.amazon.com/Womens-Ways-Knowing-Development-Anniversary/dp/0465090990

So you subscribe wholeheartedly to feminist theory in general, and that book in particular, or are you just being satirical?

Because this is kind of like taking the vote from men on account of them being manipulative pieces of shit, and justifying it by having browsed "The Game".

I am joined in my opinion by Kant, Hegel, and Aristotle (amongst other political philosophers).

How very current of you. Seeking out selected great European minds of past centuries will probably work pretty well to justify racial segregation as well.

Oh well, the on-topic discussion is kind of interesting. I'll read that part instead.