PDA

View Full Version : Best and worst Presidents?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 07:08 PM
Who do you guys feel were the best and worst presidents, both since the Post WWII era and in general?

Who are your favorite and least favorite?

I think these guys were the best of the Post WWII era, not in any order:

1) Richard Nixon--flawed man, known most for Watergate sadly but all of the good things he did--Like ending Vietnam in what seemed to be a honorable way at the time, starting the EPA, ending segregation for good, building the base of the Republican party, balancing the budget twice--are overshadowed by Watgate.

2) Eisenhower--Good man, good president, brave leader, guided the country through one of it's most prosperous eras while not dramatically increasing the debt, continued America's military supremacy and secured America's spheres of influence especially in Latin America by using the CIA.

3) Truman--Good guy, good leader, made brave but controversial decisions (like desegregating the Army, dropping the Bombs), helped establish American military supremacy, guided World War II to a victorious end, built a powerhouse economy through the Marshall Plan, which created America's economic hegemony over most of the world.

4) Lyndon Johnson--A good if naive man, a man who spent the rest of his days feeling the pain of his mistakes in Vietnam. He's great because of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Higher Education Act, Head Start, Public Broadcasting, NPR, 1964 Nurse's Training Act, the Space Program, and the Great Society--However, the scope of those programs in the Great Society have extended far beyond he ever intended them to.

5) Gerald Ford--While not a good president in terms of legislative or economic successes, I believe he was what America needed at the time--He was an honest, good intentioned man, not corrupt, who I believe did a lot to heal America in the aftermath of Vietnam, the '60s Assasinations, and Watergate. He wasn't a superb president in terms of leadership but in terms of spirit and demeanor he was what was needed at the time.

6) George Bushes--both--The father for showing the world the US could still fight a war and win after Vietnam, for the Clean Air Act of 1990, and for overall being a pretty good leader; Bush JR for keeping us safe for 8 years.

Meh:

Bill Clinton--I believe Clinton is one of the most overrated presidents ever. He deserves credit for presiding over a booming economy, and for balancing the budget and giving us a budget surplus, for sure, but his EXTREME deregulation of the banking and other industries helped create the financial mess we're in now. He also lied to the nation over Monica, and had a horrible, ineffective foreign policy and was pretty impotent when it came to combating terrorism--Leading to 9/11.

Reagan--Again, I believe Reagan is overated. Yes, he too did preside over a booming economy but again, his actions laid the seeds for future calamity. He propped up people like Saddam Hussein, and gave weapons to Iran; we now face these enemies years later. He began the trend of deregulating the economy which has brought us to where we are today. Yes he had a big role in the downfall of the USSR, but in the process he turned America from the world's largest creditor to the world's biggest debtor, and while he bankrupted the USSR in the '80s Arm's Race, he increased our debt moreso than probably any president except Obama thereby guaranteeing our eventual bankrupcy.

So yes, he garnered a big--and short term--victory over the USSR but in the process ensured our long term fall. He does get high marks for his personality, and for inspiring Americans to be proud of themselves after the Malaise of Carter.

HORRIBLE:

Jimmy Carter--A naive, stubborn, self righteous moron whose obsessive crusade for human rights as president ignored any sort of pragmatism and did a lot to anger our allies and enemies alike. He was an egotistical lightweight who couldn't organize or manage his White House well enough to get anything done right, spoke in terms of gloom and doom which only made Americans feel worse, and then tried to shift the blame for his economic failings to the American people in his 'Malaise' speech. Even now, he's egotistical, feeling free to criticize sitting presidents while his own presidency was a disaster that wrecked Americans' pride and faith in their country.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-18-2009, 07:22 PM
I personally think Reagan saved the free world AND his economic policies are the almost the only thing in the last 30 years that have lead to any significant job growth. (that includes the jobs gained under Clinton and W)

If you trace back the companies/ divisions of companies and industries that have provided the job growth, a very large percentage of them had their nexus in the Reagan tax cuts on investments.

Deregulating the economy is NOT what led to our current problems. EXCESSIVE regulation and interference is what CAUSED the problems. The housing crisis was set off by the massive increases in oil prices - these prices were the result of government refusing to allow private industry to explore and drill for our own oil ( we have enough oil in the Green River formation ALONE to meet current US demand for the next 100 years (actually even longer than that). Oil prices are the product of supply,demand and what the speculators believe will happen because of the supply and demand outlook. A decade or so ago there was a worldwide SURPLUS of 1 million barrels of oil per day. This was enough to provide for a cushion in case of a potential disruption in this supply (storms, uprisings, dictators cutting production etc). In the last few years, that daily surplus reversed itself so that in 2007, there was a SHORTAGE of 1 million barrels per day. This gave pricing power to the speculators that they did not have when there was a surplus. This meant that anything, no matter how insignificant it might have been 10 years ago, NOW became a source of panic - and the speculators rushed to buy oil futures at inflated prices - because they expected it to rise even higher. Any storm in an oil rich area, or any tin pot dictator who got a burr up his ass, sent prices skyrocketing as a result. ANWAR and Offshore sources ALONE would have returned us to a 1 million barrel per day surplus and thus would have avoided the oil price shock issue entirely.

NOW, the housing crisis, aside from being set off initially by the oil prices (which increased the cost of every consumer good out there as well as gasoline) and the squeeze this put on household budgets, was ALSO caused by government interference in the markets. It was not deregulation that caused it. Government regulations both encouraged and FORCED banks to make loans that they NEVER would have made if the government did not interfere. 2/3 of the securities that went bad had loans backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the securities themselves were backed by Ginnie Mae. If government had not backed those loans, there would NEVER have been the securitization of the bad assets, because the bad loans would never have been made in the first place. VIA these organizations and via several supposedly anti-discrimination laws, government FORCED bad loans and also made them (supposedly) risk free - inviting disaster.

Again, it was not de-regulation that caused the problem, it was the regulations that forced the above scenario that was the issue.

As for Iraq,

Reagan did not really prop up Saddam Hussein. If you look at it, we DID try to engage him diplomatically, and provided satellite reconnaissance during the Iran/Iraq war, but Rumsfeld's famous trips to Baghdad, were not the chummy affairs the left would have you believe - especially the second one in 1984. It was to deliver a message on his use of CW's.


The memos from the period confirm this. Reagan tried at first to constructively engage him,(1983 visit) and when that failed, he quickly fell out of favor as he refused to comply with our demands(1984 visit). Relations RAPIDLY deteriorated after the 1984 meeting and support for Saddam was withdrawn. That is why Bush '41 was already primed against him - he was in on the whole progression and simply picked up where Reagan left off.




Here are some of the memo's


" I made it clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq32.pdf


"bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq48.pdf

Jimmy Carter was hands down the worst President of the Century - although that is now changing (and rapidly so)

AlmostThere
11-18-2009, 07:30 PM
There are many points I'd like to refute but I'll settle for 2.

1) Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republicans who were in Congress at the time did.

2) You say Reagan's arms build up made us the world's largest debtor. That is laughable. Tell me, would we have been better off on ANY level if instead of defeating the Soviet Union, they had beat us instead? Because it was one or the other; either we won or they did. And if they won our way of life would have come to an abrupt end.

Big Guy
11-18-2009, 07:36 PM
I personally think Reagan saved the free world AND his economic policies are the almost the only thing in the last 30 years that have lead to any significant job growth. (that includes the jobs gained under Clinton and W)

If you trace back the companies/ divisions of companies and industries that have provided the job growth, a very large percentage of them had their nexus in the Reagan tax cuts on investments.



Jimmy Carter was hands down the worst President of the Century - although that is now changing (and rapidly so)

I agree, I didn't know there were still conservatives in Michigan, must be west or northern Michigan. :)

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-18-2009, 07:37 PM
There are many points I'd like to refute but I'll settle for 2.

1) Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republicans who were in Congress at the time did.

2) You say Reagan's arms build up made us the world's largest debtor. That is laughable. Tell me, would we have been better off on ANY level if instead of defeating the Soviet Union, they had beat us instead? Because it was one or the other; either we won or they did. And if they won our way of life would have come to an abrupt end.

1) Yes but he didn't exactly veto the budget either--I think Presidents and Congress both should get credit for budgets and whatnot. For example, I admit that the economic boom of the 1980s was Reagan's doing--I could've said it was the Democrats in Congress. But it was a combination of both in both cases.

2) It's true though. And I don't think that by the early '80s the USSR could've defeated us--they were already stagnating within. Their system was doomed to fail from the day it was instituted because Communism never works. Reagan greatly hastened their fall but it was not without GREAT cost to us in the long run. I never said it was a bad thing that he helped defeat them, only that it was a costly thing, and that the decisions made by Reagan ensured the USSR's fall in 1991 rather than say 1998 or 2000, but also ensured our eventual bankrupcy. Nothing comes without a price, the price of the '80s Arms buildup was becoming a huge debtor nation and a nation knee deep in debt. Reagan's successors only dug the nails in deeper, with Obama adding more nails in our economic coffin daily.

AlmostThere
11-18-2009, 08:18 PM
When Reagan came into office the public debt was about 1 trillion. When he left it was about 2.6 trillion. Of course along the way he defeated an enemy that had thousands of ICBM's with about 8000 nuclear warheads aimed at America. This same enemy had enslaved half of Europe and numerous other small countries around the world. Call me crazy but I think that's a pretty fair return for 1.6 trillion bucks.

The public debt went up about the same amount under Clinton. Started at 4 and ended at 5.5 trillion. What did Clinton give us for our 1.5 trillion? Clinton himself, not Clinton and the Republican Congress. (Reagan did it with absolutely no help from Congress).

Carter started at about 600 billion and ended at about 1 trillion. That bastard didn't give us shit for our bucks.

If this country survives Obama, NO American president will hold a candle to Obama as far as destroying the U.S. economy and getting us into debt.

I got my figures at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm.

What Reagan gave us for the bucks spent is probably the best spent money of the 20th century.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 08:21 PM
Reagen also had Democrat congress bastards to deal with. I wonder what he would have done with the opportunity Bush junior had?

AlmostThere
11-18-2009, 08:29 PM
Reagan with the Contract with America Republicans. :) Talk about a dream team.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 08:32 PM
Reagan with the Contract with America Republicans. :) Talk about a dream team.

Bush had the opportunity of the century and not only did he blow it he set us up for the situation we are now in!

patriot45
11-18-2009, 08:41 PM
My list!

Best:
#1 George Washington
#1 Ronald Reagan

Worst:
# last - Jimmah Carter
Worser #-1 The one and only 0bummer

AlmostThere
11-18-2009, 08:48 PM
Bush had the opportunity of the century and not only did he blow it he set us up for the situation we are now in!
If anyone would doubt what you say, they should consider that we have the opposing side with the same advantage right now and see what they are able to push through.

I will say this in Bush's defense. He did not have the caliber of Republicans in Congress that existed in the mid-late 90's.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-18-2009, 08:54 PM
I agree, I didn't know there were still conservatives in Michigan, must be west or northern Michigan. :)


I grew up in the Thumb - near Saginaw Bay. I currently live in central Michigan. We conservatives DO exist, we are just outnumbered currently by the brainwashed union masses (who have pretty much screwed themselves out of a job and their employers out of business.)

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 09:07 PM
If anyone would doubt what you say, they should consider that we have the opposing side with the same advantage right now and see what they are able to push through.

I will say this in Bush's defense. He did not have the caliber of Republicans in Congress that existed in the mid-late 90's.

There is no doubt about that. What a shame! If they would have had a strong leader though he may have gotten the best out of them.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 09:09 PM
What we are seeing now is the worst weakness of a democratic republic. We have the freedom to choose tyranny!

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 09:25 PM
I will say this in Bush's defense. He did not have the caliber of Republicans in Congress that existed in the mid-late 90's.

Right because most of the principled ones did a term or two and left - the rest were either corrupted by K Street or soul their souls for good press. Either way a TON of them bought the lie that it's better to compromise and win reelection. :mad:

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 09:27 PM
What we are seeing now is the worst weakness of a democratic republic. We have the freedom to choose tyranny!

Sadly - true. It's taken generations, but the progressives have corrupted education to the point that people now believe that black is white, up is down, and tyranny is freedom.

FeebMaster
11-18-2009, 10:12 PM
Best: William Henry Harrison. No contest.

Worst: Everyone else. Lincoln and Wilson take the cake. FDR is a distant third. Washington is definitely up there. So is Reagan.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 10:19 PM
Best: William Henry Harrison. No contest.

Worst: Everyone else. Lincoln and Wilson take the cake. FDR is a distant third. Washington is definitely up there. So is Reagan.

Are you The Anarchist? It says in the book of Revelations that you would come!

FeebMaster
11-18-2009, 10:22 PM
Are you The Anarchist? It says in the book of Revelations that you would come!

Sweet. I knew I should have paid attention in church.

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 10:23 PM
Washington takes the cake as the BEST ever - with Reagan taking second.

Worst has to go to FDR with Wilson taking a close second. Carter and Obama will have to be added later on. The legacy and impact of a president cannot be fully assessed for at least 50 years after their term in office. To do so prior is to judge them without pertinent facts.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 10:26 PM
Washington takes the cake as the BEST ever - with Reagan taking second.

Worst has to go to FDR with Wilson taking a close second. Carter and Obama will have to be added later on. The legacy and impact of a president cannot be fully assessed for at least 50 years after their term in office. To do so prior is to judge them without pertinent facts.

Now your being pc again. If you can't tell that Carter and Obama are both pieces of shit you are sniffing to much model airplane glue!

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 10:29 PM
Now your being pc again. If you can't tell that Carter and Obama are both pieces of shit you are sniffing to much model airplane glue!

Not at all. I'm being objective as a historian should be. I'm sure Carter is going to make the 'worst' list - but his place on the list is still to be determined. As for Obama - since the guy is still president and miracles can happen!:p

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 10:32 PM
Not at all. I'm being objective as a historian should be. I'm sure Carter is going to make the 'worst' list - but his place on the list is still to be determined. As for Obama - since the guy is still president and miracles can happen!:p

Objective my ass! You didn’t need fifty years to call Reagan the best and he is more recent then carter. By golly we better not offend Democrats!

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 10:33 PM
Your to easy. You better back off the cold medicine!

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 10:39 PM
Objective my ass! You didnít need fifty years to call Reagan the best and he is more recent then carter. By golly we better not offend Democrats!

Okay. I admit it. I'm biased towards Regan. :p

PoliCon
11-18-2009, 10:40 PM
Objective my ass! You didnít need fifty years to call Reagan the best and he is more recent then carter. By golly we better not offend Democrats!

You did notice that my two worst are two of their favorites? :rolleyes:

TxTenther
11-18-2009, 10:43 PM
Best: Ronald Reagan

Worst: Jimmy Carter but, Barry will wind up the worst president in history.

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 10:43 PM
You did notice that my two worst are two of their favorites? :rolleyes:

I won't notice for fifty years or so!

Rockntractor
11-18-2009, 10:47 PM
Best: Ronald Reagan

Worst: Jimmy Carter but, Barry will wind up the worse president in history.

I'm waiting for the time travelers to come back and reverse the primaries so that he never becomes president there by changing the course of history and preventing the catastrophic event that he is about to cause. Just sayin. Could happen. Maybe!

Teetop
11-18-2009, 10:47 PM
Best? There would be more than a few in that one...(Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Truman, Nixon and even Ford. Ford got shit on and did what he could..., then we got Jimmah.)

Worst? Carter, but the absolute worst is still in office.:rolleyes:

obx
11-19-2009, 11:01 AM
#1 Reagan. He restored my pride in being an American after the two worst Presidents in history,Nixon and Carter(tie). It is probably too early to tell about Obama but he may knock them out of first place on my worst list. Right now he is between them and LBJ with a bullet.
________
NEW JERSEY MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://newjersey.dispensaries.org/)

Rebel Yell
11-19-2009, 11:55 AM
Worst: Licoln ( if it wasn't for Lincoln, Obama wouldn't be MY president)

Best: Jefferson Davis (He tried to stop it from happening).

linda22003
11-19-2009, 11:59 AM
I'm surprised there has been no mention of Warren Harding, whose administration set unprecedented levels of corruption at the time. Harding himself said he was unqualified to be president and never should have been in the job.

linda22003
11-19-2009, 12:00 PM
Worst: "Licoln" ( if it wasn't for Lincoln, Obama wouldn't be MY president)



Meaning what? He'd be a slave instead? :p

PoliCon
11-19-2009, 12:01 PM
I'm surprised there has been no mention of Warren Harding, whose administration set unprecedented levels of corruption at the time. Harding himself said he was unqualified to be president and never should have been in the job.

Harding did set new standards for corruption - but then so did Jackson.

Rebel Yell
11-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Meaning what? He'd be a slave instead? :p

Beats him being President.;):eek:

linda22003
11-19-2009, 12:12 PM
Don't be too disappointed that slavery is over; you probably wouldn't have been able to afford them in any case.

NJCardFan
11-19-2009, 12:31 PM
4) Lyndon Johnson--A good if naive man, a man who spent the rest of his days feeling the pain of his mistakes in Vietnam. He's great because of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Higher Education Act, Head Start, Public Broadcasting, NPR, 1964 Nurse's Training Act, the Space Program, and the Great Society--However, the scope of those programs in the Great Society have extended far beyond he ever intended them to.

Wait. What? Do you not see the impact of these programs Johnson began? Not to mention that he's the nitwit who put us in Vietnam in the first place. But let's go piece by piece:

Civil Rights Act-Had it not been for the Republicans, this would have died in congress. Remember that the Dixiecrats led by none other than Al Gore Sr. filibustered this bill.

Public Broadcasting/NPR-And this is a good thing why? A liberal Democrat president helps create a decidedly liberal radio network all on the taxpayer dollar? Wow.

The Space Program-Was started under Eisenhower, not Johnson. Johnson only fulfilled promises made by Kennedy and we didn't get to the moon until Nixon.

The Great Society-Uh huh. And look at society since then. Crime took a tremendous leap since 1964. Welfare and Medicaid have become entitlements and not a helping stepping stone it was supposed to be. The Great Society has become the single biggest boondoggle perpetrated on the taxpayers of this country.

Johnson is a slight step above Carter on the worst list.

AlmostThere
11-19-2009, 12:34 PM
Harding did set new standards for corruption - but then so did Jackson.

Please share any scandal that you know of where it was proven with certainty that Harding was corrupt. If he set new standards in corruption there must have been plenty I'd imagine.

linda22003
11-19-2009, 12:45 PM
I should have said his administration. It was primarily the people around him.

PoliCon
11-19-2009, 12:47 PM
Please share any scandal that you know of where it was proven with certainty that Harding was corrupt. If he set new standards in corruption there must have been plenty I'd imagine.

Teapot dome.
Office of Alien Properties.
He had more criminals in his Cabinet than Barry. :rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
11-19-2009, 01:35 PM
Don't be too disappointed that slavery is over; you probably wouldn't have been able to afford them in any case.

What do you mean? All white people had slaves in the South. Haven't you ever seen a movie or read a textbook. And they were all beaten and raped repeatedly.:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, my great great grandparents ( i think) owned two. A husband and wife that were about to be separated. They lived in the house with them and they ALL worked in the field together. Paid 50 bucks apiece for them.

Molon Labe
11-19-2009, 01:46 PM
Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan.

Ike's farewell address is one of the most prophetic speeches since the founders.


Bush 2, LBJ and Clinton are the worst.
Obama might yet win this one out.

noonwitch
11-19-2009, 02:05 PM
Worst: Harding and Hoover. Nixon isn't on my list, because he did some good things in his time that get overlooked by the bad.

Best: Lincoln, FDR, and Ike.

I tend to agree with conservatives about LBJ and the utter failure of most of his ideas, except the Head Start program. He also was a racist, who only wanted to deliver the black vote to the democratic party. He didn't really want black americans to be treated equally to whites, he just wanted their votes. Goldwater would have probably been a better choice for the country, as long as he didn't use nukes in Vietnam, like everyone thought he'd do.

Malcolm X sort of endorsed Goldwater, because he thought LBJ was deceptive and he thought Goldwater was honest. He preferred the honest guy over the guy who was making big promises. It's probably one of the many reasons Elijah Muhammed had Malcolm killed. That, and Malcolm's awakening regarding the role of african tribal leaders in the slave trade.

Rebel Yell
11-19-2009, 02:34 PM
I tend to agree with conservatives about LBJ and the utter failure of most of his ideas, except the Head Start program. He also was a racist, who only wanted to deliver the black vote to the democratic party. He didn't really want black americans to be treated equally to whites, he just wanted their votes.


How does that make him different than all the Dems that came after him? How does Lincoln get to be in your best list, then?

noonwitch
11-19-2009, 04:25 PM
How does that make him different than all the Dems that came after him? How does Lincoln get to be in your best list, then?


There's nothing I can say about Lincoln that you are going to agree with me about. I'm a yankee, I was taught that he freed the slaves. That's a big thing for people in Detroit.

Rebel Yell
11-19-2009, 04:31 PM
There's nothing I can say about Lincoln that you are going to agree with me about. I'm a yankee, I was taught that he freed the slaves. That's a big thing for people in Detroit.


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

Yassir, baws, you luuuvs you some negro, don'tcha.

AlmostThere
11-20-2009, 02:43 AM
Not at all. I'm being objective as a historian should be. I'm sure Carter is going to make the 'worst' list - but his place on the list is still to be determined. As for Obama - since the guy is still president and miracles can happen!:p

Rock is right, you're hitting the glue, aren't you? :eek:

AlmostThere
11-20-2009, 03:09 AM
There's nothing I can say about Lincoln that you are going to agree with me about. I'm a yankee, I was taught that he freed the slaves. That's a big thing for people in Detroit.

Why would you think he freed the slaves? Unless he owned a few that he personally freed, I don't think he freed a single one. What is it you think he did that freed slaves? :confused:

A lot of people would say the Emancipation Proclamation did, but it didn't free anyone. If you asked most people they wouldn't be able to tell you it was actually a 2-parter. The first part said that slaves in any state that did not return to the Union by 1/1/63 were freed. That didn't free anyone. Whats more, any state that did return to the Union by the same date could keep it's slaves, with the exception of a couple states I think. It kind of sounds like the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to buy off the majority of Confederate States rather than freeing slaves.

Sonnabend
11-20-2009, 03:17 AM
Best: Lincoln, Bush 2 (a good man who is sorely missed) and Truman (who had the guts to order an atomic attack saving millions of lives

Greatest: Reagan, for facing down the USSR....a man they learned to fear.

Worst: Carter an ineffectual, spineless anti semite who allowed an ACT OF WAR to go unpunished, and whose gutless cowardice led to 444 days of shame for the US.

Worst in US and word history: Obama: a sniveling, mewling, useless coward who has done nothing but disgrace the US and demean the nation he is pledged to lead.

noonwitch
11-20-2009, 01:40 PM
Why would you think he freed the slaves? Unless he owned a few that he personally freed, I don't think he freed a single one. What is it you think he did that freed slaves? :confused:

A lot of people would say the Emancipation Proclamation did, but it didn't free anyone. If you asked most people they wouldn't be able to tell you it was actually a 2-parter. The first part said that slaves in any state that did not return to the Union by 1/1/63 were freed. That didn't free anyone. Whats more, any state that did return to the Union by the same date could keep it's slaves, with the exception of a couple states I think. It kind of sounds like the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to buy off the majority of Confederate States rather than freeing slaves.



I'm just pointing out that most people up here think he freed the slaves because we are taught that in school. The slaves were freed at the end of the Civil War, and he was the president through most of that time. He gets credit for it from K-12 teachers.

The Emancipation Proclaimation was an attempt to buy off the Confederate states and prevent an all-out civil war. Since only 4 slave states didn't secede, they were the only ones allowed to keep their slaves during the war. (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland were 3 of them, maybe W. Virginia was the 4th, since they seceded from Virginia at that time).

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-20-2009, 06:02 PM
Wait. What? Do you not see the impact of these programs Johnson began? Not to mention that he's the nitwit who put us in Vietnam in the first place. But let's go piece by piece:

Civil Rights Act-Had it not been for the Republicans, this would have died in congress. Remember that the Dixiecrats led by none other than Al Gore Sr. filibustered this bill.

Public Broadcasting/NPR-And this is a good thing why? A liberal Democrat president helps create a decidedly liberal radio network all on the taxpayer dollar? Wow.

The Space Program-Was started under Eisenhower, not Johnson. Johnson only fulfilled promises made by Kennedy and we didn't get to the moon until Nixon.

The Great Society-Uh huh. And look at society since then. Crime took a tremendous leap since 1964. Welfare and Medicaid have become entitlements and not a helping stepping stone it was supposed to be. The Great Society has become the single biggest boondoggle perpetrated on the taxpayers of this country.

Johnson is a slight step above Carter on the worst list.

Yeah, but Johnson still signed it--and it led to the Democrats losing the South for over 30 years (Remember, the whole south was called the "Solid South" as it was undeniably Democratic from FDR's time) and still to this day they haven't truly reclaimed the South. It damn near destroyed the Democratic Party. That's putting what's right over what's good for your party, and Lyndon should be commended for that. He could've easily toed the line of the Dixiecrats and vetoed it and kept the Democratic Party's HUGE nation wide majority. But he didn't and it led to the Democratic Party losing a great deal of their membership--Look at how the country had shifted from 1964 to 1972, comparing the landslides of LBJ to Nixon. The favt that there have only been 3 Democratic Presidents in the 40 years since the Civil Rights Act (compared to their 20 year dominance from the 30s to the 50s) says a lot. If you read books about Lyndon, yes, he was a very very political man, but he also did care a lot about people--when he was a teacher, for example, teaching mostly Mexican students who could barely speak English, most of his colleagues didn't really care about the students but he did and he pushed them hard to learn English and do well.

Public Broadcasting/NPR--I think both are informative (if you ever watch the documentaries on PBS, they're very good, very informative, they're a big part of what got me and I'm sure many others into history and studying culture.) They've made history and other subjects a lot more accessible to a much larger audience; having more people in this country know more isn't in any way a bad thing.

The Space Program--Was reluctantly started under Ike after the Russians beat us to the punch with Sputnik. If you read any history (of Ike's presidency), Ike thoiught the Space Program was a waste of time, and thought the moon mission was a foolish idea. It was Johnson who proposed the idea for the moon to Kennedy; Kennedy wanted something big to distract from his foreign policy failures. After Kennedy was killed, Johnson continued the program enthusiastically, as he was actually interested in it. The moon mission was done in July '69, only 7 months in Nixon's term--The project was pretty much mostly done when LBJ left office. Nixon also dramatically downsized the Space program; there were plans in LBJ's later years in office for a American space station as well as a manned mission to Mars; Nixon cut all of those and only accepted the idea of the space shuttle, which began production in 1973.

Great Society--Yes, they were mismanaged (particularly by Nixon, who added much more to the programs than LBJ had intended them to be.)
If you look at statistics, the rates of poverty was cut in half within a decade of the Great Society/War on Poverty being instituted. Medicaid, while abused, is a good program and has helped many deserving people--I know quite a few personally. And let us not forget that Medicare and Medicaid are not the whole of the Great Society--There was legislation like the Higher Education Act, which gave millions an opportunity to go to college who might not have before, the Nurses' Training Act of 1964, which gave grants to colleges to either enlarge or create nursing programs (there was a severe nursing shortage in the early 60s)--This program helped my mother afford to go to nursing school, where she got all A's. If not for it, she probably wouldn't have been able to afford to go to nursing school, as her family was poor (my grandpa was a bad gambler). Then there's other programs, like Head Start, which has pushed millions of disadvantaged children ahead, VISTA and other programs.

Also, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--Made school much more affordable for low income children, and introduced and funded a great many special education programs. I think those are great. Say what you want about ''hand outs'' but a young child or a disabled child shouldn't be deprived shouldn't be deprived of an education because of the faults or failures of his/her parents. Besides, education in this day and age= a greater chance of one succeeding and achieving the American dream.

Then you also have the Environmental aspect to the Great Society, such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, Endangered Species Act of 1966, Nation Trails Act of 1966, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1966, Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, National Preservation Act of 1966--All of these acts helped to maintain, protect and preserve many of the prettier areas of our country.

Then there was the Consumer Protection side of, which was the National Highway Safety Act, and created the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--Has probably served thousands of lives over the years and added greatly to the safety of the overall public.

Then there was the Cultural side of it--I don't agree so much with NEA, but NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) is a great program. Also, many of the museums in the national mall and around Washington were created as a result of the Great Society's increased funding for cultural centers. These musuems have led to not only a greater understanding of America's history, but also a greater appreciation of it, I would say. Plus the fact that they're good sources of tourism for Washington and the public enjoys them.

Could the Great Society be managed a LOT better, and made more cost effective? Definately, you won't get an argument there. But the programs do do a great amount of good, and have made millions' lives better.

AmPat
11-20-2009, 06:48 PM
There are many points I'd like to refute but I'll settle for 2.

1) Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republicans who were in Congress at the time did.

2) You say Reagan's arms build up made us the world's largest debtor. That is laughable. Tell me, would we have been better off on ANY level if instead of defeating the Soviet Union, they had beat us instead? Because it was one or the other; either we won or they did. And if they won our way of life would have come to an abrupt end.

A direct result of the worst President ever (Jimmah Carta), and 40 years of DUmbocRATS in Congress, allowing the military to degrade to a point where massive spending was necessary. Incremental spending would have kept Reagan from having to completely rebuild the military. This is a common DIMocRAT trend.

I figured it out. Jimmah loves O Blah Blah because he knows Obama is his only chance to move out of last place.

AlmostThere
11-21-2009, 03:10 AM
Teapot dome.
Office of Alien Properties.
He had more criminals in his Cabinet than Barry. :rolleyes:

I don't know the facts of the Office of Alien properties but I do know that Harding was not implicated in the Teapot Dome Scandal.

AmPat
11-21-2009, 10:46 AM
[QUOTE=CaughtintheMiddle1990;209205]
Great Society--Yes, they were mismanaged (particularly by Nixon, who added much more to the programs than LBJ had intended them to be.)
If you look at statistics, the rates of poverty was cut in half within a decade of the Great Society/War on Poverty being instituted.The statistics do not prove this. The rate of poverty up to the O Blah Blah era was 13%. It is (since O Blah Blah) slightly higher. This is the only real change in poverty since the Great Society's program to share other people's wealth.


Medicaid, while abused, is a good program and has helped many deserving people--I know quite a few personally. And let us not forget that Medicare and Medicaid are not the whole of the Great Society--
Agreed. While this is a program that helped people, at what cost? To what end? Where is this a Constitutional right? Why did we not need this in 1787 but it was necessary in the 1960's?

There was legislation like the Higher Education Act, which gave millions an opportunity to go to college who might not have before, the Nurses' Training Act of 1964, which gave grants to colleges to either enlarge or create nursing programs (there was a severe nursing shortage in the early 60s)--This program helped my mother afford to go to nursing school, where she got all A's. If not for it, she probably wouldn't have been able to afford to go to nursing school, as her family was poor (my grandpa was a bad gambler). No argument for the positives here eitherr. I still wonder what the net gain is compared to the net reward. We still have a nursing shortage. Wait until Universal Health Despair for real shortages. Of course we will fill those shortages with bodies like we do in Universal Education. The best and brightest they will not be. Think TSA for the picture of the quality of nurses you can expect.


Then there's other programs, like Head Start, which has pushed millions of disadvantaged children ahead, VISTA and other programs. Another entitlement of great expense with suspect results. What is the purpose of this expensive program and what return does our society get? I thought "head start" was the parent's job.


Also, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--Made school much more affordable for low income children, and introduced and funded a great many special education programs. Affordable for whom? The cost for each child is now over $10 K and rising yet the acheivement is going down. Special Ed is a good program that has been pushed into the regular classroom. We now include SP Ed to the detriment of the other students. We spend 100 time more for Spec Ed children who in large part will never perform significantly better than where they are when they began school, than we do for high acheivement children


I think those are great. Say what you want about ''hand outs'' but a young child or a disabled child shouldn't be deprived shouldn't be deprived of an education because of the faults or failures of his/her parents. You lost me. Special Ed children are not that way due to a failure of the parents. Lazy/failure parents are a different matter and those children get the same opportunities afforded to all US school children. SpEd is federally funded and I have witnessed that as a huge gov't boondoggle.

Besides, education in this day and age= a greater chance of one succeeding and achieving the American dream.It does help. The forced funding of all students (equally) has yielded a costly national program that has the US falling further behind nations. We should have better accountability of $$ spent and where. Money is not the answer according to historical evidence.

Then you also have the Environmental aspect to the Great Society, such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, Endangered Species Act of 1966, Nation Trails Act of 1966, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1966, Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, National Preservation Act of 1966--All of these acts helped to maintain, protect and preserve many of the prettier areas of our country.Again all good intentions. The gov't has a bad habit of mucking up even good programs. The abuses of land owners regarding "protected species" and wetlands protections come to mind.


Then there was the Cultural side of it--I don't agree so much with NEA, but NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) is a great program. Also, many of the museums in the national mall and around Washington were created as a result of the Great Society's increased funding for cultural centers. These musuems have led to not only a greater understanding of America's history, but also a greater appreciation of it, I would say. Plus the fact that they're good sources of tourism for Washington and the public enjoys them.All of which could have, should be, and historically were funded privately. Now my tax dollars go toward funding atrocities like the "feces Jesus" and pornography posing as art. No thank you.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2009, 12:05 PM
The statistics do not prove this. The rate of poverty up to the O Blah Blah era was 13%. It is (since O Blah Blah) slightly higher. This is the only real change in poverty since the Great Society's program to share other people's wealth.

It's remained 11-15% since the Great Society; Before the Great Society it was in the 19-25% range. Within a decade of it's institution it was down from 25% (the rate as of 1959) to 11%. While it hasn't eliminated poverty, decreasing the number by half is a pretty damn good statistic. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html. People say the War on Poverty made blacks more poor, but look at the statistics--Over half (55%) of blacks were poor in 1959; By 1975, a decade after the War on Poverty began, that number decreased by nearly 25% to be 31%. Even for whites, in 1960 (before the War on Poverty), 39% of whites were in poverty. By 1970, 28% were in poverty,


Agreed. While this is a program that helped people, at what cost? To what end? Where is this a Constitutional right? Why did we not need this in 1787 but it was necessary in the 1960's?

To what end? It's provided millions with health care who may not have had it otherwise, thereby increasing their health and possibly even their lifespans. Why did we need not need this in 1787? Much smaller population, people didn't live as long, faster spread of diseases (what with more cities and faster means of travel) than then, more poor people--Back then most were farmers, that was the basis of the economy and there was little less poor people as a result; it was a completely different time.
As to the Constitutionality, there is the Tax and Spending Clause, which says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Now there's two possible interpretations to the phrase "General welfare" given in the Federalist papers. One is the narrower Madisonian view (which a lot of conservatives seem to hold.)
In the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, that the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax;

whereas, the Hamiltonian view:
the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education.



No argument for the positives here eitherr. I still wonder what the net gain is compared to the net reward. We still have a nursing shortage. Wait until Universal Health Despair for real shortages. Of course we will fill those shortages with bodies like we do in Universal Education. The best and brightest they will not be. Think TSA for the picture of the quality of nurses you can expect.

I would say having more educated minds, particularly higher educated minds, as the Higher Education Act did, is a benefit to the nation. I would imagine there are millions who have benefited from this, I know I am, as I'm getting a Pell grant to go to college, and I'm excelling there, again all A's., with the aim of becoming a lawyer or going into politics. I probably would not have been able to afford it otherwise, as my parents are both retired and living on a small fixed income. I don't agree with Obama's Universal Health care program for many reasons, but that's a different story. And again, as far as nurses, besides my mother, all my aunts are nurses, all brilliant women who have saved lives--They wouldn't have been able to go to nursing school if not for the Nurse Training Act.



Another entitlement of great expense with suspect results. What is the purpose of this expensive program and what return does our society get? I thought "head start" was the parent's job.

It provides kids with experiences and opportunities that they may not have gotten otherwise, due to either their parents' failings or financial woes. I know kids who have been in Head Start, some of my sisters children in fact, they are better for it. Head Start should be the parents job in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world with perfect parents who do the best for their kids--Should the kids suffer for it?



Affordable for whom? The cost for each child is now over $10 K and rising yet the acheivement is going down. Special Ed is a good program that has been pushed into the regular classroom. We now include SP Ed to the detriment of the other students. We spend 100 time more for Spec Ed children who in large part will never perform significantly better than where they are when they began school, than we do for high acheivement children

Where is the cost for each child over 10 K? And again, as I said, I agree with the programs in principle, the way they were implemented was faulty, and a lot of the programs were pushed beyond what LBJ intended them to be. But as you said, Special Ed is a good program.



You lost me. Special Ed children are not that way due to a failure of the parents. Lazy/failure parents are a different matter and those children get the same opportunities afforded to all US school children. SpEd is federally funded and I have witnessed that as a huge gov't boondoggle.

When I said parents' failings I was referring more to disadvantaged students. There are kids who are born to fuck up parents, it's not their choice, should doors be closed to them solely because of their birth? And yeah, they get those opportunities because of programs like grants, financial aid, etc.



It does help. The forced funding of all students (equally) has yielded a costly national program that has the US falling further behind nations. We should have better accountability of $$ spent and where. Money is not the answer according to historical evidence.

Agreed. But I wouldn't say it's a failure of the system itself but of the bureacrats placed in charge of it. There's too many layers of bureaucracy in many of these programs (besides education) that it'd be good to decrease the level of employees and bureaucrats, but not destroy or decrease the programs themselves. Also reform of some of the funding practices, better management of money, etc. These programs are good programs, they just need to be run better.



Again all good intentions. The gov't has a bad habit of mucking up even good programs. The abuses of land owners regarding "protected species" and wetlands protections come to mind.

True, but there's always a line--I mean, I don't know of anyone who wants to live in an ugly, polluted US--part of America's uniqueness, besides it's people, is the beauty of many of it's areas, it's rivers, it's parks, it's mountains. Government imo is both a curse and a blessing--Blessing because the government is able to coordinate and has the resources to run a lot of these programs better than any small private business, and a curse in the form of bureaucracy and abuses that can result. The way to make these programs work imo is to greatly trim the layers of bureaucracy involved, get better oversight and (the word Obama often uses but doesn't live up to) transparency, and maintain budgets better. That can happen and still have the gov't in control of them, it just needs reform.



All of which could have, should be, and historically were funded privately. Now my tax dollars go toward funding atrocities like the "feces Jesus" and pornography posing as art. No thank you.

True, but should a few bad apples be allowed to spoil a good idea? The problem is, when you start putting limits on what art is and isn't, who is the judge of that? Everyone pays for stuff in their taxes they don't agree with. For example, pacifists pay for national defense, for the army to be supplied with guns and ammo--that's against a pacifists principles but still ultimately good overall.

AmPat
11-21-2009, 08:26 PM
I don't have the time to answer your lengthy response. I disagree with many of your positions. I understand your afmiration for some of these programs because you saw first hand and personally where your family benefitted. The overall cost versus the gain is my problem. I also don't like footing the bill for others as though they had some God given or Constitutional right to the fruits of my labor.

Education for millions has been a good thing except the quality of that education. We are still paying for professional leaches who have never left the campus and spew their liberal bias to all our children. The big problem is oversight. Too many liberals spending my money in ways I never authorized. I can expand on some things later if you're still around later. Please try to keep it shorter.:o

RobJohnson
11-22-2009, 02:34 AM
I'm just pointing out that most people up here think he freed the slaves because we are taught that in school. The slaves were freed at the end of the Civil War, and he was the president through most of that time. He gets credit for it from K-12 teachers.

The Emancipation Proclaimation was an attempt to buy off the Confederate states and prevent an all-out civil war. Since only 4 slave states didn't secede, they were the only ones allowed to keep their slaves during the war. (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland were 3 of them, maybe W. Virginia was the 4th, since they seceded from Virginia at that time).

I had 9 years of public school in Illinois, same deal, Lincoln freed the slaves! :D

Honest Abe was a great man, at one point in my life I was pissed off that he was on my license plates.

RobJohnson
11-22-2009, 02:38 AM
If the cost of each student is over 10k a year, how can churches, parents and private schools do it for so much less?