who was the worst president ever?

#26
#26
rjd970 said:
The last three we've had haven't been great, that is for sure. Clinton benefited from a decent Congress, otherwise he would be in the W/Obama category.

Can't leave Carter off the list.
Click to expand...

Clinton is the best president in my lifetime.

Carter? I honestly can't think of what could possibly put Carter in the "worst" conversation. I know he isn't liked, but he didn't do anything nearly as bad as the Wilsons, FDRs, and LBJS, etc.
 
#27
#27
bamawriter said:
Pierce and Buchanan should receive the award together. Their decisions over 8 years pushed the country toward the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything that happened between 1789 and 1860 pushed us to war. I blame Lincoln, who ultimately pulled the trigger on war. I believe it should have been avoided.
 
#28
#28
nbakerld said:
Clinton is the best president in my lifetime.

Carter? I honestly can't think of what could possibly put Carter in the "worst" conversation. I know he isn't liked, but he didn't do anything nearly as bad as the Wilsons, FDRs, and LBJS, etc.
Click to expand...

Carter's economic policies were a disaster.

Clinton's presidency was solid, I agree. Clinton benefited from a good Congress though. He HAD to work with them. As it was, the Clinton/Newt combo worked fairly well. Given a progressive congress, the Clinton years would have been a disaster IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#29
#29
nbakerld said:
Clinton is the best president in my lifetime.

Carter? I honestly can't think of what could possibly put Carter in the "worst" conversation. I know he isn't liked, but he didn't do anything nearly as bad as the Wilsons, FDRs, and LBJS, etc.
Click to expand...

I Think it would be more accurate to call Carter ineffective than bad. He was just a terrible leader that got elected on the back of Watergate.
 
#32
#32
rjd970 said:
Carter inherited an economic disaster.

Clinton's presidency was solid, I agree. Clinton benefited from a good Congress though. He HAD to work with them. As it was, the Clinton/Newt combo worked fairly well. Given a progressive congress, the Clinton years would have been a disaster IMO.
Click to expand...

FYP

Carter had bad economic policy, but there hasn't been a president with good economic policy since......? Harding? Maybe Ike.

Carter mostly did nothing (which is better than doing a lot of bad ****). He did appoint Volcker to Federal Reserve Chair, and Volcker had a decent tenure, as that position goes.
 
#33
#33
nbakerld said:
Clinton is the best president in my lifetime.

Carter? I honestly can't think of what could possibly put Carter in the "worst" conversation. I know he isn't liked, but he didn't do anything nearly as bad as the Wilsons, FDRs, and LBJS, etc.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time putting Clinton above Reagan. Despite what he wants you to believe, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to most of his "accomplishments" and benefitted greatly from being President right after a recession and during the .com boom.
 
#34
#34
GAVol said:
I have a hard time putting Clinton above Reagan. Despite what he wants you to believe, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to most of his "accolishments" and benefitted greatly from being President right after a recession and during the .com boom.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is you gotta look at results. Reagan expanded the Federal Government more than Clinton did. Reagan inherited a debt that was 33% of GDP and left us with debt at 53% of GDP. Clinton took it from 65% down to 56%.
 
#35
#35
In my lifetime, Clinton and Reagan were both pretty good. But for different reasons.

And both certainly had their foibles. I just think overall they both did a pretty good job managing crises and left things in decent shape.

Carter was bad because he was indecisive.

I'd say that Bush I was okay. Just okay.

Bush II was a disaster, except for the days right after 9/11. I will always give him credit for that. Other than those few days, though, he was simply awful.

Obama -- honestly it is hard for me to judge because its so difficult to separate out as its going on what criticisms are legitimate and which are just partisan noise.
 
#36
#36
nbakerld said:
Bottom line is you gotta look at results. Reagan expanded the Federal Government more than Clinton did. Reagan inherited a debt that was 33% of GDP and left us with debt at 53% of GDP. Clinton took it from 65% down to 56%.
Click to expand...

A little context is useful. Reagan was clearly dealing with something that Clinton was not. I'd also argue that ending the Cold War along with Reagan economic policy is what created the environment where GDP could expand in the 90s and make that percentage look better for Clinton.
 
#37
#37
GAVol said:
A little context is useful. Reagan was clearly dealing with something that Clinton was not. I'd also argue that ending the Cold War along with Reagan economic policy is what created the environment where GDP could expand in the 90s.
Click to expand...

Clinton could've found a mortal enemy if he looked hard enough. We hadn't had a real scare from the Soviets since JFK.

I would say Reagan, with his small government rhetoric and big government policy, gave the GOP the green light to follow the course we've gone the last 25 years.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
In my lifetime, Clinton and Reagan were both pretty good. But for different reasons.

And both certainly had their foibles. I just think overall they both did a pretty good job managing crises and left things in decent shape.

Carter was bad because he was indecisive.

I'd say that Bush I was okay. Just okay.

Bush II was a disaster, except for the days right after 9/11. I will always give him credit for that. Other than those few days, though, he was simply awful.

Obama -- honestly it is hard for me to judge because its so difficult to separate out as its going on what criticisms are legitimate and which are just partisan noise.
Click to expand...

The last 3 presidents have been in the worst 10 category. Bush I was horrible, but didn't get 2 terms.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
In my lifetime, Clinton and Reagan were both pretty good. But for different reasons.

And both certainly had their foibles. I just think overall they both did a pretty good job managing crises and left things in decent shape.

Carter was bad because he was indecisive.

I'd say that Bush I was okay. Just okay.

Bush II was a disaster, except for the days right after 9/11. I will always give him credit for that. Other than those few days, though, he was simply awful.

Obama -- honestly it is hard for me to judge because its so difficult to separate out as its going on what criticisms are legitimate and which are just partisan noise.
Click to expand...

There was partisan noise for all the above.
 
#43
#43
theFallGuy said:
FDR.

Without FDR the modern socialist liberal party wouldn't exist as we know it. FDR basically created the welfare state. He also added more judges that would agree with his ways.

What was President Roosevelt's controversial court packing plan for the US Supreme Court

AFter FDR, I'd say Obama. Obama will go down as an absolute moron when compared to other Presidents.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all points, but I go with Wilson. Without Wilson I don't think FDR is possible.

I guess I could say the same for Lincoln enabling Wilson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
GAVol said:
I have a hard time putting Clinton above Reagan. Despite what he wants you to believe, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to most of his "accolishments" and benefitted greatly from being President right after a recession and during the .com boom.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree but atleast he went kicking and screaming.

Both I would take either again in a ny minute.
 
#46
#46
Worst is hard. My list: Lincoln, TR, FDR

Carter did some good things. He wasn't good, but it wasn't all bad. His deregulation of a couple of industries was a big contributing factor in the success of the 80s & 90s.
 
#47
#47
I would go as far as to say we haven't had a good president since the 19th Century. And James Polk is underrated.
 
#49
#49
I'm still not quite sure what to make of Lincoln.

On one hand, he guided the nation through its most trying time, and Reconstruction probably would have gone smoother and been more effective if he hadn't been assassinated. On the other hand, he orchestrated the forced subjugation of American states, leading to the death of 620,000 Americans. And then there's the whole suspension of habeas corpus thing.

It's a complicated subject. I can see no situation where the Southern states would have voluntarily re-entered the Union.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top