Worst US President of the last 50 years (2 Viewers)

[ffldrew]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

He's criminal, but at least he didn't initiate a needless war causing 4,000 American deaths and between 30,000-100,000 Americans wounded.

Perhaps you need to look up the word Cambodia

 

[kentric]

Carter.

If you break down by Domestic/Foreign Policy then Carter/Johnson.

 

[FUBAR]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

He's criminal, but at least he didn't initiate a needless war causing 4,000 American deaths and between 30,000-100,000 Americans wounded.

Perhaps you need to look up the word Cambodia

perhaps you need to contemplate the difference between a Campaign/Invasion/Incursion lasting a few months and a eight+ year war.

and I might just not remember it, but did Nixon blatantly lie about Cambodia?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Just think, by the time this is done we'll have had 16...SIXTEEN...years of historically bad "Presidenting".

And then if we elect Hillary...

 

[Greggity]

Obama and Carter, no question about it....

 

[Politician Spock]

Just think, by the time this is done we'll have had 16...SIXTEEN...years of historically bad "Presidenting".

And then if we elect Hillary...

We will have had 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Obama.

But as long as Survivor keeps having new seasons and new Spiderman movies keep getting released, the majority of the country is happy and will keep voting for them.

 

[Jeff Vader]

One thing's for sure, Bush and Obama have set the record out of reach for worst back-to-back 2-term presidents in history.

Honestly the media has been progressively worse due to technology over the last 3 decades. In the same way we see more about our sports athletes and micromanage everything they do, politicians are under the microscope more than theyve ever been. Bush and Obama really havent been that much worse than past presidents. If FDR tried the New Deal today he would be vilified just as Obama was for Obamacare. Hoe would Pearl Harbor have been handled with the internet? How much scrutiny would FDR have come under for not doing enough to prevent it and then using it to get America into a war we didnt belong in? Lincoln was one of the most reviled presidents in US history. Both his own party and opponents at times hated him. The war powers he took during the Civil War would have liberals today literally frothing at the mouth.In the grand scheme, Obama and Bush have been pretty average. They just served in an extraordinary technological age.

Sorry, Bush was nowhere near average. I'm not going to blame the guy for 9/11. But the rest of his 'accomplishments' in office have been generally awful for our country.

Iraq

Bush tax cuts

Intrusion on privacy

Foreign relations

And I'm not even getting into the Great Recession.

He's the worst in my lifetime by a country mile.

Soonerman has a point about the media, Lincoln and FDR would have been lambasted by today's media. But I also think history would have judged them much the same as heroes.

I can't say that for Dubya. He will go down as an epic failure. Not a bumbling Taft failure, but an epic worst-decisions-ever type of cluster####.

As for Obama, my near-sighted opinion is he's fairly average as a president, at times bad (NSA, refusal to give up enhances executive powers, naive politics early on), at times good (Obamacare, his work to reestablish a measure of foreign confidence in America). But he'll be remembered positively for being the first black president. His work in office didn't screw up that legacy, IMO. That's about the best I can say.

(disclosure: was an Obama supporter in 2008, and quickly came to dislike the guy. IMO he's a terrible disappointment)

Seeing Obamacare as anything but a failure is a biased view. This is our Social Security except it was not needed and theres no way to float it nearly as long.

Clearly you never worked a crappy full time job that didn't offer healthcare, or offered such pathetic coverage at such exorbitant prices that it might as well not have bothered. And so you kept working, praying to effing god that you never had a serious accident walking home on the winter ice because it would set you back so far as to be almost impossible dig yourself out, still working, praying for a promotion or a better job to come around that would take into consideration your experience and hire you, and perhaps, hopefully, it offered semi-reasonable healthcare that would one day deny you essential care due to a preexisting condition or some other nonsense the insurance's lawyer-nukes could come up with. I know. I worked that job and years later became friends with a lawyer-nuke who was basically "forced" into that very job because his law school debt was so outrageous. He confessed to me that some of the stuff he had to do haunted him (such as finding ways to deny single mothers with cancer their treatment, even though they legitimately deserved it).

The biggest problem with Obamacare is he let congressional opposition neuter it before passage. Which is partly what I was referencing when I spoke of Obama's "naive politics."

 

[Insein]

One thing's for sure, Bush and Obama have set the record out of reach for worst back-to-back 2-term presidents in history.

Honestly the media has been progressively worse due to technology over the last 3 decades. In the same way we see more about our sports athletes and micromanage everything they do, politicians are under the microscope more than theyve ever been. Bush and Obama really havent been that much worse than past presidents. If FDR tried the New Deal today he would be vilified just as Obama was for Obamacare. Hoe would Pearl Harbor have been handled with the internet? How much scrutiny would FDR have come under for not doing enough to prevent it and then using it to get America into a war we didnt belong in? Lincoln was one of the most reviled presidents in US history. Both his own party and opponents at times hated him. The war powers he took during the Civil War would have liberals today literally frothing at the mouth.In the grand scheme, Obama and Bush have been pretty average. They just served in an extraordinary technological age.

Sorry, Bush was nowhere near average. I'm not going to blame the guy for 9/11. But the rest of his 'accomplishments' in office have been generally awful for our country.

Iraq

Bush tax cuts

Intrusion on privacy

Foreign relations

And I'm not even getting into the Great Recession.

He's the worst in my lifetime by a country mile.

Soonerman has a point about the media, Lincoln and FDR would have been lambasted by today's media. But I also think history would have judged them much the same as heroes.

I can't say that for Dubya. He will go down as an epic failure. Not a bumbling Taft failure, but an epic worst-decisions-ever type of cluster####.

As for Obama, my near-sighted opinion is he's fairly average as a president, at times bad (NSA, refusal to give up enhances executive powers, naive politics early on), at times good (Obamacare, his work to reestablish a measure of foreign confidence in America). But he'll be remembered positively for being the first black president. His work in office didn't screw up that legacy, IMO. That's about the best I can say.

(disclosure: was an Obama supporter in 2008, and quickly came to dislike the guy. IMO he's a terrible disappointment)

Seeing Obamacare as anything but a failure is a biased view. This is our Social Security except it was not needed and theres no way to float it nearly as long.

Clearly you never worked a crappy full time job that didn't offer healthcare, or offered such pathetic coverage at such exorbitant prices that it might as well not have bothered. And so you kept working, praying to effing god that you never had a serious accident walking home on the winter ice because it would set you back so far as to be almost impossible dig yourself out, still working, praying for a promotion or a better job to come around that would take into consideration your experience and hire you, and perhaps, hopefully, it offered semi-reasonable healthcare that would one day deny you essential care due to a preexisting condition or some other nonsense the insurance's lawyer-nukes could come up with. I know. I worked that job and years later became friends with a lawyer-nuke who was basically "forced" into that very job because his law school debt was so outrageous. He confessed to me that some of the stuff he had to do haunted him (such as finding ways to deny single mothers with cancer their treatment, even though they legitimately deserved it).

The biggest problem with Obamacare is he let congressional opposition neuter it before passage. Which is partly what I was referencing when I spoke of Obama's "naive politics."

So instead of fixing the bureaucracy that causes those inequities, Obamacare creates a new super bureaucracy that has an infinite amount of oversight, punishes those that dont buy into the system both individually and as a business and then exempts the select few from having to use it. So I take it back. Obamacare is not a failure for what it was intended. Its purpose was to expand the government to heights it has never even dreamed of. Mission Accomplished.

 

[Todd Andrews]

GW Bush was the ClownPresident.

 

[Norman Paperman]

Technically, Kennedy does not belong on this list anymore

 

[jon_mx]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

 

[FUBAR]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

Our collective memory of Ike is enhanced by his pre-presidency success.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I vote for Jamie Dimon, President, JP Morgan Chase Bank - Rumor has it he eats baby fetuses instead of energy bars.

 

[FUBAR]

I vote for Jamie Dimon, President, JP Morgan Chase Bank - Rumor has it he eats baby fetuses instead of energy bars.

do they provide high quality electrolytes?

 

[glock]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

Our collective memory of Ike is enhanced by his pre-presidency success.

Well- that and your not having been born yet.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I vote for Jamie Dimon, President, JP Morgan Chase Bank - Rumor has it he eats baby fetuses instead of energy bars.

do they provide high quality electrolytes?

IDK, but supposedly the live babies didn't so he made the switch.

 

[kentric]

I vote for Jamie Dimon, President, JP Morgan Chase Bank - Rumor has it he eats baby fetuses instead of energy bars.

do they provide high quality electrolytes?

Not sure, but Brawndo does.

 

[grateful zed]

george w is the worst, but i still hate nancy for perpetuating the war on drugs.

 

[flapgreen]

One thing's for sure, Bush and Obama have set the record out of reach for worst back-to-back 2-term presidents in history.

Honestly the media has been progressively worse due to technology over the last 3 decades. In the same way we see more about our sports athletes and micromanage everything they do, politicians are under the microscope more than theyve ever been. Bush and Obama really havent been that much worse than past presidents. If FDR tried the New Deal today he would be vilified just as Obama was for Obamacare. Hoe would Pearl Harbor have been handled with the internet? How much scrutiny would FDR have come under for not doing enough to prevent it and then using it to get America into a war we didnt belong in? Lincoln was one of the most reviled presidents in US history. Both his own party and opponents at times hated him. The war powers he took during the Civil War would have liberals today literally frothing at the mouth.In the grand scheme, Obama and Bush have been pretty average. They just served in an extraordinary technological age.

Sorry, Bush was nowhere near average. I'm not going to blame the guy for 9/11. But the rest of his 'accomplishments' in office have been generally awful for our country.

Iraq

Bush tax cuts

Intrusion on privacy

Foreign relations

And I'm not even getting into the Great Recession.

He's the worst in my lifetime by a country mile.

Soonerman has a point about the media, Lincoln and FDR would have been lambasted by today's media. But I also think history would have judged them much the same as heroes.

I can't say that for Dubya. He will go down as an epic failure. Not a bumbling Taft failure, but an epic worst-decisions-ever type of cluster####.

As for Obama, my near-sighted opinion is he's fairly average as a president, at times bad (NSA, refusal to give up enhances executive powers, naive politics early on), at times good (Obamacare, his work to reestablish a measure of foreign confidence in America). But he'll be remembered positively for being the first black president. His work in office didn't screw up that legacy, IMO. That's about the best I can say.

(disclosure: was an Obama supporter in 2008, and quickly came to dislike the guy. IMO he's a terrible disappointment)

Obamacare is a success?

 

[johnnycakes]

Anyone who voted for George W Bush over Jimmy Peanut... probably wasn't alive in the 1976-1980 timeframe.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

Our collective memory of Ike is enhanced by his pre-presidency success.

Well- that and your not having been born yet.

True probably the further people get away from a president in time the better they look. Perspective does that. Look where Nixon is in this poll, incredible really that he's not running away with the "worst" title IMO.

However, Ike:

• Kept peace with the USSR at an extremely rough and dangerous time. He really deserves a huge credit for this.
• Did put advisers in Vietnam but did not ramp up the full military presence, JFK did that.
• The economy was great.
• Ended the Korean War and did it well.
• Pretty much didn't screw up once. Maybe Mosadegh/Iran, but I'm not sure that's on him, really that was Churchill.
• Huge popularity and yet was restrained in the exercise of his power while at the same time creating a rubric for world leadership and cooperation. Guided the USA and the whole world in a Pax Americana out of the post WW2 era and created a modern world structure that to some extent still exists today, with some exceptions.
• Maybe the one knock is he brought in Nixon as VP but supposedly IIRC didn't exactly endorse him in any kind of really helpful way.

 

[grateful zed]

Anyone who voted for George W Bush over Jimmy Peanut... probably wasn't alive in the 1976-1980 timeframe.

you might change your vote if you ever got drunk on billy beer.

 

[Jeff Vader]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

Our collective memory of Ike is enhanced by his pre-presidency success.

Well- that and your not having been born yet.

True probably the further people get away from a president in time the better they look. Perspective does that. Look where Nixon is in this poll, incredible really that he's not running away with the "worst" title IMO.

However, Ike:

• Kept peace with the USSR at an extremely rough and dangerous time. He really deserves a huge credit for this.
• Did put advisers in Vietnam but did not ramp up the full military presence, JFK did that.
• The economy was great.
• Ended the Korean War and did it well.
• Pretty much didn't screw up once. Maybe Mosadegh/Iran, but I'm not sure that's on him, really that was Churchill.
• Huge popularity and yet was restrained in the exercise of his power while at the same time creating a rubric for world leadership and cooperation. Guided the USA and the whole world in a Pax Americana out of the post WW2 era and created a modern world structure that to some extent still exists today, with some exceptions.
• Maybe the one knock is he brought in Nixon as VP but supposedly IIRC didn't exactly endorse him in any kind of really helpful way.

Don't forget the interstates!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Obama has been disappointing in a lot of ways but he hasnt been "bad" really either.

George W's bad decisions are still impacting us though. Not that obama did much to mitigate the damage, but W's wars were bad situations no matter what really. W just was a total disaster. 9/11, bad wars, bad economy, lack of science funding, poor judge appointments. Just really set the US back 15-20 years imo.

 

[Jeff Vader]

One thing's for sure, Bush and Obama have set the record out of reach for worst back-to-back 2-term presidents in history.

Honestly the media has been progressively worse due to technology over the last 3 decades. In the same way we see more about our sports athletes and micromanage everything they do, politicians are under the microscope more than theyve ever been. Bush and Obama really havent been that much worse than past presidents. If FDR tried the New Deal today he would be vilified just as Obama was for Obamacare. Hoe would Pearl Harbor have been handled with the internet? How much scrutiny would FDR have come under for not doing enough to prevent it and then using it to get America into a war we didnt belong in? Lincoln was one of the most reviled presidents in US history. Both his own party and opponents at times hated him. The war powers he took during the Civil War would have liberals today literally frothing at the mouth.In the grand scheme, Obama and Bush have been pretty average. They just served in an extraordinary technological age.

Sorry, Bush was nowhere near average. I'm not going to blame the guy for 9/11. But the rest of his 'accomplishments' in office have been generally awful for our country.

Iraq

Bush tax cuts

Intrusion on privacy

Foreign relations

And I'm not even getting into the Great Recession.

He's the worst in my lifetime by a country mile.

Soonerman has a point about the media, Lincoln and FDR would have been lambasted by today's media. But I also think history would have judged them much the same as heroes.

I can't say that for Dubya. He will go down as an epic failure. Not a bumbling Taft failure, but an epic worst-decisions-ever type of cluster####.

As for Obama, my near-sighted opinion is he's fairly average as a president, at times bad (NSA, refusal to give up enhances executive powers, naive politics early on), at times good (Obamacare, his work to reestablish a measure of foreign confidence in America). But he'll be remembered positively for being the first black president. His work in office didn't screw up that legacy, IMO. That's about the best I can say.

(disclosure: was an Obama supporter in 2008, and quickly came to dislike the guy. IMO he's a terrible disappointment)

Obamacare is a success?

7 million more people with health coverage is not insignificant. But he pooosed out and let congress pass such a neutered version of his plan. That's the real failure, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Hendrik Voerword was a pretty awful guy.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta be Robert Mugabe though- hard to think of a worst President in the last 50 years.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So:

W

Carter

Nixon

Lbj

Ford

Obama

Reagan

HW

Ike

Jfk

Clinton

 

[The Z Machine]

Man, in hindsight, invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was such a great idea...

 

[Rove!]

I think thye O era has been a failure on every front, except for perhaps socail change, which he didn't lead. You can't assign all of the blame to him, but ut has been a dismal era....

 

[NutterButter]

I think thye O era has been a failure on every front, except for perhaps socail change, which he didn't lead. You can't assign all of the blame to him, but ut has been a dismal era....

Don't forget the slight increase in the stock market

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I think thye O era has been a failure on every front, except for perhaps socail change, which he didn't lead. You can't assign all of the blame to him, but ut has been a dismal era....

I'm quite surprised you would think that.

 

[Soonerman]

Worst to best:

LBJ

Carter

Nixon

Bushama

Ford

GHWB

JFK

Clinton

Ike

Reagan

 

[Johnnymac]

Reagan and it's not close.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Just think, by the time this is done we'll have had 16...SIXTEEN...years of historically bad "Presidenting".

And then if we elect Hillary...

We will have had 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Obama.But as long as Survivor keeps having new seasons and new Spiderman movies keep getting released, the majority of the country is happy and will keep voting for them.

Thanks God we have intelligent people like you. Without your kind, the rest of us slow-witted, easily distracted numbnuts would be reduced to drooling piles of Hollywood spoonfed drones who vote for the candidate who holds up the shiniest object.

 

[Todd Andrews]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

Our collective memory of Ike is enhanced by his pre-presidency success.

Well- that and your not having been born yet.

True probably the further people get away from a president in time the better they look. Perspective does that. Look where Nixon is in this poll, incredible really that he's not running away with the "worst" title IMO.

However, Ike:

• Kept peace with the USSR at an extremely rough and dangerous time. He really deserves a huge credit for this.
• Did put advisers in Vietnam but did not ramp up the full military presence, JFK did that.
• The economy was great.
• Ended the Korean War and did it well.
• Pretty much didn't screw up once. Maybe Mosadegh/Iran, but I'm not sure that's on him, really that was Churchill.
• Huge popularity and yet was restrained in the exercise of his power while at the same time creating a rubric for world leadership and cooperation. Guided the USA and the whole world in a Pax Americana out of the post WW2 era and created a modern world structure that to some extent still exists today, with some exceptions.
• Maybe the one knock is he brought in Nixon as VP but supposedly IIRC didn't exactly endorse him in any kind of really helpful way.

Don't forget the interstates!

Ike was a great President.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I think thye O era has been a failure on every front, except for perhaps socail change, which he didn't lead. You can't assign all of the blame to him, but ut has been a dismal era....

I'm quite surprised you would think that.

If you half pay attention to anyone's posting history, there isn't a surprising response in this whole thread.

 

[Todd Andrews]

• [SIZE=10pt]Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations[/SIZE]

 

[kentric]

1. Nixon - the worst - I have no idea how people are ranking presidents as worse than him, no idea

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

3. LBJ - he practically resigned

4. Ford - Pardoned Nixon, yikes, but then he did manage to calm the country after a tough stretch

5. GWB (Jr.)

6. JFK - obviously having less than a full term affects things

7. GHWB (Sr.) - Basically Reagan II

8. Clinton

9. Reagan

10. Ike

(I think BHO will land somewhere in that 4-5 tier, but obviously incomplete right now).

Ike was not all that good. I would rate him behind JFK.

Our collective memory of Ike is enhanced by his pre-presidency success.

Well- that and your not having been born yet.

True probably the further people get away from a president in time the better they look. Perspective does that. Look where Nixon is in this poll, incredible really that he's not running away with the "worst" title IMO.

However, Ike:

• Kept peace with the USSR at an extremely rough and dangerous time. He really deserves a huge credit for this.
• Did put advisers in Vietnam but did not ramp up the full military presence, JFK did that.
• The economy was great.
• Ended the Korean War and did it well.
• Pretty much didn't screw up once. Maybe Mosadegh/Iran, but I'm not sure that's on him, really that was Churchill.
• Huge popularity and yet was restrained in the exercise of his power while at the same time creating a rubric for world leadership and cooperation. Guided the USA and the whole world in a Pax Americana out of the post WW2 era and created a modern world structure that to some extent still exists today, with some exceptions.
• Maybe the one knock is he brought in Nixon as VP but supposedly IIRC didn't exactly endorse him in any kind of really helpful way.

Don't forget the interstates!

Ike was a great President.

And a snazzy dresser.

 

[kentric]

• [SIZE=10pt]Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations[/SIZE]

Just what are you implying here. Please stop being so subtle and say what's on your mind. I hate you closet Republicans.

 

[Greggity]

Obama has been disappointing in a lot of ways but he hasnt been "bad" really either.

George W's bad decisions are still impacting us though. Not that obama did much to mitigate the damage, but W's wars were bad situations no matter what really. W just was a total disaster. 9/11, bad wars, bad economy, lack of science funding, poor judge appointments. Just really set the US back 15-20 years imo.

How was 9/11 Bush's fault? Thats a ridiculous jump!! Invading Iraq wasnt a good move looking back but given the information that was given to him by so called "experts" you make the best judgement you can. He was given authority to invade by Congress to do so so the dems AND republicans in office take some responsibility as well. Thats a point that is often over looked.

 

[igbomb]

• [SIZE=10pt]Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations[/SIZE]

Those are terrific links and all but one more to the source may not be a bad idea.

 

[Greggity]

• [SIZE=10pt]Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations[/SIZE]

Those are terrific links and all but one more to the source may not be a bad idea.

i am pretty sure Obama has added quite a bit to the national debt. He made GWB looked like he was a bench warmer on the JV squad when it comes to spending....

 

[igbomb]

• [SIZE=10pt]Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations[/SIZE]

Those are terrific links and all but one more to the source may not be a bad idea.

i am pretty sure Obama has added quite a bit to the national debt. He made GWB looked like he was a bench warmer on the JV squad when it comes to spending....

You actually believe that? Good Lord.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

 

[Soonerman]

• [SIZE=10pt]Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=10pt]The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations[/SIZE]

Hoover and Bush were laissez faire? Seriously?

 

[cstu]

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

5. GWB (Jr.)

SMH.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

5. GWB (Jr.)

SMH.

I took a running jump shot at a full ranking, but I will say that the only intervening presidents I have are LBJ and Ford.

I don't know where Ford ranks, I just slotted him at 4 because he had a short term and he pardoned Nixon. He did hold the country together though. So that leaves LBJ.

People who are ranking GWB Jr. as No. 1 or No. 2 based on what he did with/to/before the Iraq War have got to back up and compare the Iraq War vs the Vietnam War and what was done there.

JFK/LBJ/Nixon & Vietnam War - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (makes the Iraq runup look like a model of transparency and debate), War Deaths 57,000+, and 150,000+ War casualties

vs.

GWB & Iraq - Full Senate authorization and long debate, with the current Demo VP & 2 SOS's voting for, 4400+ war deaths (3500 under GWB, 900 under BHO)

Rank Carter however you want but Iraq cannot hold a candle to Vietnam in terms of damage done, the lies told (especially by LBJ & Nixon) and the effect on this nation.

If you're looking at the economy also though you have to bring Carter back into the conversation.

 

[dparker713]

Just think, by the time this is done we'll have had 16...SIXTEEN...years of historically bad "Presidenting".

And then if we elect Hillary...

For all the prosperity of the times, the policies of Clinton were largely the root cause of the housing crisis, so you can certainly make an argument to extend the timeframe beyond 16 years.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, Vietnam had a bigger impact on the political culture of this nation and on our trust in our leadership. It also cost us many more American lives than Iraq did, although that is at least partially due to medical breakthroughs between then and now.

However, in terms or our status in the world, Iraq was by far the bigger blunder. What ultimately happened in Vietnam had little effect on us long term. What ultimately happens in Iraq will.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

It also cost us many more American lives than Iraq did, although that is at least partially due to medical breakthroughs between then and now.

WTF are you talking about?