# Who was the worst President since the Depression



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

Who do you think the worst president since the Depression has been? I did not include Obama because his presidency is not over, so a true measure of his presidency can't be measured.

IMO, the worst President was Johnson. He greatly escalated the Viet Nam War, and his Great Society programs resulted (albeit unintendedly) in generational welfare and the downfall of the education system.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 30, 2011)

I tend to agree although I'm not sure how unintentional the consequences of the welfare system actually were. The escalation of the Viet Nam war wasn't so much the problem as the fact that he and McNamara were personally choosing/rejecting individual targets. Sending in troops and then setting up the ROE so that failure is almost certain is no way to run a war.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 30, 2011)

Was never into history let alone political history


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

Flyer_PE said:


> I tend to agree although I'm not sure how unintentional the consequences of the welfare system actually were.


I really do think they started off with good intentions, but failed to really think it through. And then no one had the political guts to address what problems did arise.


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 30, 2011)

I'm going with Carter, just because I have first-hand memory of what a bad president he was (dating myself here).

18% mortgage interest rates, high unemployment (well it seemed high; not by the Obama standard though), gas lines, recession, failed stimulus plans, and two politically defining moments for me: the myopic emphasis on "ending our dependence on foreign oil" (a resurgence of the isolationist movement from the first part of the century) and an unchecked Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disordered Congress as they ran wild, right over Carter, in their zeal to blow the budget.

Oh, and a weakened defense system - that's three politically defining moments for me.

But I credit Carter for bringing us Reagan, the antivenin. Maybe BHO will earn similar credit.


----------



## envirotex (Aug 30, 2011)

Nixon's administration irreparably damaged the credibility of the United States government to the American people. Not that it was that great beforehand, and not that it wouldn't have happened anyway, and not that all other American presidents before him weren't doing the same thing. Nixon just really pushed everything over the edge...

Also, I agree with everything that has been said about LBJ, but he (and Lady Bird) did a lot to advance the Civil Rights movement in the south with his campaign for the 1964 election...and he knew that signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was political suicide and he did it anyway.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 30, 2011)

I chose FDR because his mistakes directly led to an extension of the Great Depression. Not only that, but he took credit for eventually ending the Great Depression, so the tactics he employed are being used again to extend our current Recession.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

If you discount the Watergate scandal, which, in all honesty, you can't, Nixon did a lot of good things:

Ended the draft

Ended Viet Nam (albeit after he tried and failed to win it)

Started the EPA (which has become a monster now...so that can go either way, but it did do good things for a while)

First round of nuclear weapons reductions

Clean Air Act

Trilateral diplomacy

Opened up relations with China (another mixed bag)

CAFE requiremnts promolgated (Ford signed it into law)

Carter was pretty bad. If I had to rank the three worst, it'd be LBJ, FDR, Carter.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 30, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> If you discount the Watergate scandal, which, in all honesty, you can't, Nixon did a lot of good things:
> Ended the draft
> 
> Ended Viet Nam (albeit after he tried and failed to win it)
> ...


It still does good things!!!! Yes the policies and regulations are getting strict and unattainable and slight over reaching but there would be people still living in/next to/near toxic environments without them.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

snickerd3 said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > If you discount the Watergate scandal, which, in all honesty, you can't, Nixon did a lot of good things:
> ...


The bolded part is what I have a problem with today. And honestly, that's really only become that way since 2007 or so. Overall, the EPA has been a very good thing.


----------



## Slugger926 (Aug 30, 2011)

I went with Clinton, because his lack of ethics in leadership created a lack of ethics in multiple industries that created and collapsed a lot of bubbles from the Tech to housing.

LBJ would be a second due to his strategies in the Vietnam war. After touring Vietnam including the Cu Chi Tunnels, and studying their strategies versus ours in Corporate Strategy including one of our text books, I have come to the opinion that LBJ and all of the decision makers (generals and cabinet) during the war should be tried. They did not do any due diligence and had no real strategy compared to the innovative strategies of the Vietnamese. We forced the Vietnamese to take funds from the communists, and they shunned collectivism within two years of implementing it. They had a viable government alternative that we did not need to be involved with in the Vietnamese internal affairs. For lack of our due diligence, we built our base on top of the Vietnamese base in Cu Chi with the Vietnamese already hardened to their lifestyle of fighting the French for twenty years via underground tunnels.

Of course there is also Carter who created the Department of Energy to get us off of foreign energy. This department has grown tremendously wasting many tax dollars while we utilize even more foreign energy than ever before.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

Slugger926 said:


> I went with Clinton, because his lack of ethics in leadership created a lack of ethics in multiple industries that created and collapsed a lot of bubbles from the Tech to housing.


I'd say Nixon had him beat in the unethical department.



> They did not do any due diligence and had no real strategy compared to the innovative strategies of the Vietnamese.


I think they're real agenda was to prop up their donors in the military industrial complex. Eisenhower warned people about that, and they should have listened.



> Of course there is also Carter who created the Department of Energy to get us off of foreign energy. This department has grown tremendously wasting many tax dollars while we utilize even more foreign energy than ever before.


I believe Carter really did have good intentions, but no real solid grasp of the issues.


----------



## chaosiscash (Aug 30, 2011)

Slugger926 said:


> Of course there is also Carter who created the Department of Energy to get us off of foreign energy. This department has grown tremendously wasting many tax dollars while we utilize even more foreign energy than ever before.


Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## Road Guy (Aug 30, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> To me it's a toss up between Reagan and Bush II, but I had to go with Reagan, whose long term impacts resulted in the housing downfall of 2008...
> Bomb suit donned, let the comments start.



You are a lost soul for sure......


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> No, I actually don't truly feel that way, just wanted to stir the pot... I'm feeling feisty today.


Got to admit, you got me on that one. I was scratching my head saying "Reagan caused the housing bubble? What up?"



Major Highway said:


> I only really know about Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, since those are the elections I was allowed to vote in, before them it is a slow process of learning about the presidents from earlier years as time goes on.


Funny thing is I almost left Bush out, too. His Presidency is probably still to recent to get an unemotional evaluation of his time in office.


----------



## envirotex (Aug 30, 2011)

Let's also not forget that Nixon and the Watergate scandal help to create "modern journalism" if you want to call what we see today journalism...Really, a fine moment for our nation.


----------



## MA_PE (Aug 30, 2011)

envirotex said:


> Let's also not forget that Nixon and the Watergate scandal help to create "modern journalism" if you want to call what we see today journalism...Really, a fine moment for our nation.


It's my opinion that Nixon wasn't any more "covert", "sneaky", "immoral", or "unethical" tha another president before or after. Watergate was an abomination that I fully believe he had no part of other than to try to conceal that it ever happened. He was firmly in the lead in that election and there was no need to break into the DNC to get anything.

I'd expect any leader to protect his own people and not throw them under the bus without some sort of assistance first.

It's the mass media coupled with the poular readership that created "modern journalism". Garbage "news" exists because that's what "the people want".

If no one cared about these scandels then there wouldn't be constant "investgative" reporting about it.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 30, 2011)

IMO, a lot of what we see in politics, news coverage, and other junk on TV is simply a reflection of the current state of the culture in this country. I'm not depressed so much by the fact that some of the garbage I see on TV. What I find depressing is the number of people that seem to enjoy watching it. I'll just sit back and read a book.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

I think we'd be a lot better off as a society if TV had never been invented.


----------



## ALBin517 (Aug 30, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Funny thing is I almost left Bush out, too. His Presidency is probably still to recent to get an unemotional evaluation of his time in office.


Not to mention Bush gets worse every day, as Obama pins everything on him.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Aug 30, 2011)

Probably should of left W. Bush out, but in I think in 10 years his presidency looks worse rather than better. Almost the exact opposite of his fathers. We could wait to elect Clinton, but go back and look at Bush I record and he did an above average job.

My pick was a tie between LBJ and Nixon.

Say what you will about other presidents, but LBJ and Nixon made bad decisions consistently and intentionally. Other presidents had more to do with things outside their control, Great Depression, WWII, 911, Vietnam (ongoing).

Some presidents had a better opportunity for success than others. Clinton and Eisenhower probably had the best situation entering their terms.

here is a link to an interesting page, see the chart at the bottom, from your list consistently Hoover, Nixon, and W. Bush scored the lowest.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 30, 2011)

Here's a theme that I've seen develop over the last few elections:

The previous President is an idiot, the current President is an idiot, the next President will probably be an idiot too...


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 30, 2011)

Kephart P.E. said:


> here is a link to an interesting page, see the chart at the bottom, from your list consistently Hoover, Nixon, and W. Bush scored the lowest.


 James K. Polk consistently scores top ten?
Seriously? James K Polk?

I must have been sleeping during that module in elementary school Social Studies. Excuse me, I have wikipeding to do...


----------



## Slugger926 (Aug 30, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I believe Carter really did have good intentions, but no real solid grasp of the issues.


Yes, he did have good intentions. He is a family friend, and understand he had a lack of political power in the DC area. It is hard to get the right things done in DC if you are not a political insider, or don't understand the workings of that political machine. Carter lost his base trying to negotiate with the big machine in DC.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 30, 2011)

Slugger926 said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Carter really did have good intentions, but no real solid grasp of the issues.
> ...


The Georgia Mafia really alienated Congress, too. That didn't help him out any.


----------



## CbusPaul (Aug 30, 2011)

James K. Polk stated in his campaign that he was going to work to expand the country all the way to the Pacific. Manifest Destiny, I believe. He brought in Texas and Oregon Country. He accomplished this and several other campaign promises and did not run for a 2nd term because he had accomplished all of the goals of his presidency. In addition, one of his campaign promises was to only serve one term. Need more like him.


----------



## csb (Aug 31, 2011)

Yeah, the whole one and done probably made him pretty popular. Plus, he helped build the largest phallic symbol in the US Washington Monument!

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/presidents/wa...n_monument.html


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 31, 2011)

^Says the woman with a PE-ness.

Oh wait, isn't that someone else here...


----------



## Road Guy (Aug 31, 2011)

Nixon might have been "dishonest" but I dont think that makes him the "worst" I think most "good" presidents probably have to have a little dishonesty in them to function..


----------



## Slugger926 (Aug 31, 2011)

csb said:


> Yeah, the whole one and done probably made him pretty popular. Plus, he helped build the largest phallic symbol in the US Washington Monument!
> http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/presidents/wa...n_monument.html


That symbol reminds me of many very similar symbols all over Cambodia. The kids even carve their slingshots into the symbol. I almost bought a slingshot in Cambodia for my son, but decided not to. I didn't realize how they were carved until some of the women on the trip had bought one and showing it around on our tour bus.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 31, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> ^Says the woman with a PE-ness.
> Oh wait, isn't that someone else here...


I suspect there are a lot of women on this board with PE licenses. Oh wait, no, you were failing to be clever while talking about me. Seriously people, it's one (admittedly major) facet of me and my existence. What's the fascination? Isn't my license-without-degree more relevant to this board than a juvenile fascination of what's between my legs?

As for my choice, I'd say either Nixon or Johnson. Not sure which, but the reasons why are pretty well and why not outlined above. That's for Presidents from the Depression until 2000; Bush and Obama are still too recent to judge well in my opinion. Though I think Bush will, in the end, probably go down in history as a tremendous failure - deservedly or not.

Between a terrorist attack, the greatest legal intrusion on the rights of citizens since WWII (Patriot Act, wiretapping), the admitted torture (sorry, "enhanced interrogation") of enemies of the state, the utter failure of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at actually preventing future issues*, and the spiraling debt due to wars and ineffective tax cuts, he's in for some pain.

Of course, Obama's probably not going to do a lot better. He's accomplished very little, overall. But it's far too early to specify how little he's accomplished.

*Afghanistan's already in the process of going back to the Taliban, Iraq's more of a theocracy than it was to begin with, and our "ally" Pakistan is becoming more and more accepting of religious extremists in their military


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 31, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Isn't my license-without-degree more relevant to this board than a juvenile fascination of what's between my legs?


No. I really don't think anyone on this board cares about who does and does not have a special rubber stamp and / or embosser.


----------



## Road Guy (Aug 31, 2011)

Patriot Act was a bid deal during the Bush Admin. but you never hear of it anymore, Obama has had 3 years to overtun it??? All the big time liberals I knew used to get so mad they would spit when someone talked about the patriot act, now nothing??

We would be better off with 4 more years of Dick Cheney than 4 more years of Obama or Bush (II) IMO...


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 31, 2011)

Road Guy said:


> Patriot Act was a bid deal during the Bush Admin. but you never hear of it anymore, Obama has had 3 years to overtun it??? All the big time liberals I knew used to get so mad they would spit when someone talked about the patriot act, now nothing??
> We would be better off with 4 more years of Dick Cheney than 4 more years of Obama or Bush (II) IMO...


Well, maybe not 4 years of Cheney... but Obama's been doing his best to lose my support. Still, not sure who I'd vote for instead. I haven't seen a Republican I'd trust enough to vote for - Romney was close, but then he started backpedaling to appease the far right.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2011)

Road Guy said:


> Patriot Act was a bid deal during the Bush Admin. but you never hear of it anymore, Obama has had 3 years to overtun it???


He signed a four year extension of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/p...n_n_867851.html


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 31, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot Act was a bid deal during the Bush Admin. but you never hear of it anymore, Obama has had 3 years to overtun it???
> ...


Indeed. Makes me furious. It was a bad law to begin with; not only does it involve issues with making us closer to a police state, it's security *theater* that puts us closer to a police state. In other words, it's ineffective at doing anything except making us feel better about our security.


----------



## Jacob_PE (Aug 31, 2011)

It's been said that if the far-right became the dominant force of the GOP, then the GOP would be doomed. That wasn't the case with the house and senate victories of 2010. The 2012 election, in my eyes, will be the final verdict on the matter. If Bachmann and Perry have to keep appealing to the Far Right during the nomination process, it's going to be tough for them to get to the center enough to be favorable to the all imporatant independents on election day. I know unemployment is high and the deficit is astronomical, but everyone know's it's not all Barack's fault. He seems to be making an honest effort to make things better, despite the imperfect results. As long as the economy doesn't slide into another major recession, he's going to win a landslide victory.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 31, 2011)

Acknowledging that November 2012 is an eternity away from now in politics, I can't help but think that if you take your statement, replace "Perry" with "Reagan" and replace "Obama" with "Carter" you would pretty much sum up the conventional wisdom circa 1979.

Please note that I am not equating Perry with Reagan.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 31, 2011)

Jacob said:


> It's been said that if the far-right became the dominant force of the GOP, then the GOP would be doomed. That wasn't the case with the house and senate victories of 2010. The 2012 election, in my eyes, will be the final verdict on the matter. If Bachmann and Perry have to keep appealing to the Far Right during the nomination process, it's going to be tough for them to get to the center enough to be favorable to the all imporatant independents on election day. I know unemployment is high and the deficit is astronomical, but everyone know's it's not all Barack's fault. He seems to be making an honest effort to make things better, despite the imperfect results. As long as the economy doesn't slide into another major recession, he's going to win a landslide victory.


The other major site I go to - one with a far closer to center/politically well distributed, though somewhat younger, userbase than this one - it's generally assumed that the far right wing of the Republican Party will cost them the election, unless a major political shift happens between now and then. Most of the Republican candidates are openly mocked.

It should be noted that (according to RealClearPolitics) the President has a 42.8% approval rating - low. Congress has a *12%* rating - abysmal, 5% lower than it ever was last year, and down a whopping 16% since the Tea Party started throwing it's weight around in March or so.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 31, 2011)

Flyer_PE said:


> Acknowledging that November 2012 is an eternity away from now in politics, I can't help but think that if you take your statement, replace "Perry" with "Reagan" and replace "Obama" with "Carter" you would pretty much sum up the conventional wisdom circa 1979.
> Please note that I am not equating Perry with Reagan.


I'd prefer a truly Reagan-like politician to the crop we have right now. I might even vote for someone like that.


----------



## benbo (Aug 31, 2011)

> Congress has a 12% rating - abysmal, 5% lower than it ever was last year, and down a whopping 16% since the Tea Party started throwing it's weight around in March or so.


Yes, Congressional approval is at a historical low. It also seems to be one of the most worthless statistics around. I don't think Congressional approval averages above the 30%s, yet the vast majority of Congress members are always re-elected. Most people have some vague notion that they don't like politicians, which means congress. But they usually seem to think their Representative and Senators are okay.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2011)

benbo said:


> Most people have some vague notion that they don't like politicians, which means congress. But they usually seem to think their Representative and Senators are okay.


Oddly enough, I loathe one of my Senators, and think my congressman has been in there too long. Sadly, neither party can mount viable opposition to them, and I'm forced to vote for the lesser of two weevils (if I even get THAT choice).


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 31, 2011)

benbo said:


> > Congress has a 12% rating - abysmal, 5% lower than it ever was last year, and down a whopping 16% since the Tea Party started throwing it's weight around in March or so.
> 
> 
> Yes, Congressional approval is at a historical low. It also seems to be one of the most worthless statistics around. I don't think Congressional approval averages above the 30%s, yet the vast majority of Congress members are always re-elected. Most people have some vague notion that they don't like politicians, which means congress. But they usually seem to think their Representative and Senators are okay.


Well, in my defense, mine actually generally do an excellent job of representing me and my interests.

Peter Defazio &amp; Ron Wyden.


----------



## NCcarguy (Aug 31, 2011)

For me it was certainly Carter. Many times people get caught up in what a president really is capable of doing. The fact of the matter is a president is a figure head. He makes speaches, he kisses babies, and he pushes the red button on the bomb. I know I may be over simplifying here, but it's for affect.

Since Obama isn't a selection, and he would be by far the worst if we could add him....The Carter years were the most embarrasing years to be an American that I can remember. He just wasn't a leader, his ideas were over the top, we appeared to the world to be a weak joke. The one thing I remember MOST about the early Reagan years was how he brought back PRIDE in America.....THAT'S what a president does.

Most of the laws and regulation that many people gripe about have little to do with the president, it's congress and the Senate that make those things happen.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2011)

Carter was pretty bad, and I well remember those years. It was pretty miserable. Plus he killed the neutron bomb, the supersonic version of the B-1 (probably a good thing because that POS AC was a hangar queen of a high and aggravated nature), gave away the Panama canal, and killed the breeder reactors.

But, you see how quickly the nation recovered from his missteps. we're still reeling from the unintended consequences of LBJ's and FDR's.


----------



## benbo (Aug 31, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Carter was pretty bad, and I well remember those years. It was pretty miserable. Plus he killed the neutron bomb, the supersonic version of the B-1 (probably a good thing because that POS AC was a hangar queen of a high and aggravated nature), gave away the Panama canal, and killed the breeder reactors.
> But, you see how quickly the nation recovered from his missteps. we're still reeling from the unintended consequences of LBJ's and FDR's.


I do think Carter deserved more credit than he got for his part in the Camp David accords. which I think were reasonably successful.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2011)

benbo said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Carter was pretty bad, and I well remember those years. It was pretty miserable. Plus he killed the neutron bomb, the supersonic version of the B-1 (probably a good thing because that POS AC was a hangar queen of a high and aggravated nature), gave away the Panama canal, and killed the breeder reactors.
> ...


Yeah, that was overwhelmed in the news by all the news of domestic woes.


----------



## benbo (Aug 31, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Yeah, that was overwhelmed in the news by all the news of domestic woes.


I'm trying to be charitable. Were those gas lines and alternate gas days under Carter? I hated that. When you're a partying youngster with little money it was easy to run out of gas.

Edit: I think that was Nixon now that I think about it. Sorry Jimmah


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2011)

benbo said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that was overwhelmed in the news by all the news of domestic woes.
> ...


No that was the '73 shortage.


----------



## csb (Aug 31, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> ^Says the woman with a PE-ness.


It's got to be at least two inches in diameter. It's an impressive PE-ness.

I have to admit that part of the reason I voted for Obama was so that the country could quit bitching about Bush.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 31, 2011)

csb said:


> VTEnviro said:
> 
> 
> > ^Says the woman with a PE-ness.
> ...


Does it squirt ink or just sorta slowly leak and get it all over the plans?


----------



## Slugger926 (Aug 31, 2011)

I forgot about LBJ. I have a relic from his era from my grandpa when he worked for the Federal Government measuring cotton and peanut fields for quotas. Part of LBJ's gang would pay farmers to grow too much of the controlled crops in Oklahoma, and smuggle the goods into Texas to be sold as grown in hill country. My grandpa knocked one of his goons over the head with his 12 guage when they came to pressure my grandpa about changing records. Not many people have a bent shotgun that ties back to self defense from a crooked president's goons.


----------



## csb (Aug 31, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> csb said:
> 
> 
> > VTEnviro said:
> ...


It remains dry until put into action.

_______________________________________

My grandmother attended Nixon's inauguration.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 9, 2011)

Who voted Kennedy? I'm curious because I remember my parents telling me that they thought if he hadn't been assassinated, he would have gone down as the worst President in history and wouldn't have gotten re-elected. I've always been curious about that.

They also believe LBJ was behind the assassination.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 9, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> They also believe LBJ was behind the assassination.


So did Jackie O. Apparently J. Edgar had everybody in Washington DC wiretapped during his time at the FBI, and the Kennedy estate recently released some of the recordings made of Jackie Kennedy (Onassis). In some of them, she talks about LBJ being behind the assassination. Drudge also had a story posted about her thoughts on Martin Luther King.


----------



## MGX (Sep 9, 2011)

csb said:


> VTEnviro said:
> 
> 
> > ^Says the woman with a PE-ness.
> ...


That plan backfired. Its been all about Bush the last 3 years.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 9, 2011)

MGX said:


> csb said:
> 
> 
> > VTEnviro said:
> ...


The record needle got stuck.

"I inherited this mess from my predecessor click...my predecessor click...my predecessor click...my predecessor click...my predecessor click..."


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 9, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> The record needle got stuck.


Translation for the newer generations: "The CD was skipping."

Translation for the newest generation: "The CD from which the mp3 was ripped skipped during ripping."


----------



## csb (Sep 9, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Who voted Kennedy? I'm curious because I remember my parents telling me that they thought if he hadn't been assassinated, he would have gone down as the worst President in history and wouldn't have gotten re-elected. I've always been curious about that.
> They also believe LBJ was behind the assassination.


It might have been my grandmother from the grave. She attended the Nixon inauguration and thought Kennedy was awful. I don't remember her having a good word for any Kennedy, now that I think about it.


----------



## mrt406 (Nov 23, 2011)

CbusPaul said:


> James K. Polk stated in his campaign that he was going to work to expand the country all the way to the Pacific. Manifest Destiny, I believe. He brought in Texas and Oregon Country. He accomplished this and several other campaign promises and did not run for a 2nd term because he had accomplished all of the goals of his presidency. In addition, one of his campaign promises was to only serve one term. Need more like him.



Not to mention the fact that he purchased the Oregon Territory from the British and built an independant treasury.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 23, 2011)

^Which eventually led to Oregon Trail...


----------



## Supe (Nov 23, 2011)

Which eventually led to the sole reason I attended elementary school - to play Oregon Trail.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 23, 2011)

I wish we had another Ronald Reagan running this year.

It is no secret that I am one of the board's resident Republican/Conservatives, but we DO NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE worth his weight in shit this time around. And it scares me that BHO may get another 4 years by default, because he is horrible.

The far right is actually ruining the Republican party right now. I will agree to that. I think we need to find a candidate who doesn't march to the current beat. I think that we may possibly need to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. (Guess what is was under Reagan?, yup 20%)

As a small government conservative, I agree with the party that this spending spree on social programs needs to stop now. But to dig ourselves out of the hole, the top 1% will have to bite the bullet some, and that last statement is not popular amoung my party members.

I think Romney may be the candidate who currently comes closest, IMO, but has a long way to go to be desired.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 23, 2011)

Romney sucks...he IS Obama. But pretty much, they all suck.

The Reps need a fiscal conservative and social liberal.


----------



## engineergurl (Nov 23, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> I wish we had another Ronald Reagan running this year.
> 
> It is no secret that I am one of the board's resident Republican/Conservatives, but we DO NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE worth his weight in shit this time around. And it scares me that BHO may get another 4 years by default, because he is horrible.
> 
> ...



I really wish Giuliani and Palin would run together....


----------



## Exengineer (Nov 24, 2011)

It's a curious thing that some people think Kennedy was or would have been the worst President, and others have said he would have been the greatest of the past 50 years. I think it has much to do with his refusal to invade Cuba in 1961 after the Bay of Pigs disaster and his refusal to escalate in Vietnam. I suspect the people who worship militarism and intervention are the ones who hated him, and some of those are responsible for his death.


----------



## benbo (Nov 24, 2011)

> The Reps need a fiscal conservative and social liberal.


This is what most people think when they say libertarian..

This type of person might win but they wouldn't get my vote. I might vote for a social moderate - for example I could see voting for Mitch Daniels., but I would never have voted for Giuliani. A lot of Christians, a huge part of the Republican base, wouldn't vote for a social liberal. So it's tough to say how they would fare. Plus it depends on their specific positions on various issues, and what you consider a "social" issue. Social liberal can mean many things, and often they come in a package along with the candidate. For example, many so-called social liberals would favor gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, expansive hate crime legislation, restrictions on religious symbolism in public, environmental regulation or nanny state laws as long as they don't affect taxation or cost a lot.. Those are the kiss of death for many Republicans.

What people generally mean when they say they like a "social liberal" relates primarily to their positon on one issue - abortion.. THat makes very little diffence to the vast majority of people because for thirty years nothing has happened in that area but you have to be willing to lose that voting lock, which is large and involved, and hope you pick it up elsewhere. Or it could mean gay marriage, which is also a forgone conclusion IMO so anybody would be ridiculous to vote on that issue.

Frankly, I'm more in DVinny's camp. I thnk this dogmatic adherence to no increased taxation for anyone or eliminati0on of any deductions under any circumstances is silly. I primarily think it is for show anyway. It may or may not be a good idea during the current economic situation, but having this as an invilolable rule makes no sense to me. A tiny marginal increase in myu taxes, while I wouldn't like it, won't drive me to the poor house or affect my purchasing habits. I think people richer than I wold care even less.

in fact, because of the failure to reach an agreement, I may be seeing an increase when the payroll tax cuts expire.


----------



## Badger (Nov 26, 2011)

Great topic and discussion.

Here my 2 cents, if it is worth that:

I didn't like Kennedy, I didn't like his accent when I was little. Incidently I believe he basically got us into Viet Nam, the general's consensus wass to stay out of there, no win situation. We were involved enough unheard about conflicts at the time.

LBJ and Nixon had an unpopular war, and both made mistakes. Ford hit people with golf balls alot. The rich peanut farmer said it was okay to lust as long as we didn't act on it or something like that. He knuckled under to the unions.

I liked Reagan, even watch some of his old movies, but he approved taxing savings accounts.

George Busch years were okay, he should not have pissed Ross Perot off and he probably would have been elected.

Clinton, he was a cad. Whether he was worse than Kennedy or FDR in that respect, who knows, he got caught fooling around.He may end up looking pretty good in the future as he wasn't able to do much with the republican dominated congress.

George W was good for comedians and talk show monologs. Should not have been so quick to jump into the Iraq war, hould have listened to his dad.

Obamas bailouts will keep his place forever in our hearts, or is that heartburn?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 28, 2011)

benbo said:


> What people generally mean when they say they like a "social liberal" relates primarily to their positon on one issue - abortion.


Well, when I say social liberal, I mean if it isn't my business, it definitely isn't the government's business. So, yeah, I'm pro choice on abortion. But, that's also a wedge issue and really not an appropriate debate at the presidential level, IMO.



> For example, many so-called social liberals would favor gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, expansive hate crime legislation, restrictions on religious symbolism in public, environmental regulation or nanny state laws as long as they don't affect taxation or cost a lot...


Not true. All those fall under the fiscal conservative part. Less government intervention at the federal level is one of my main concerns (although I'm realist enough to know that won't happen).


----------



## benbo (Nov 28, 2011)

> Well, when I say social liberal, I mean if it isn't my business, it definitely isn't the government's business. So, yeah, I'm pro choice on abortion. But, that's also a wedge issue and really not an appropriate debate at the presidential level, IMO.


You mean libertarian, which is different from liberal.

So you would be against government funding for abortion, and against any government funding of a place like Planned Parenthood or stem cell research? Since those involve spending taxpayer money those are appropriate issues, albeit not really critical ones. All of that is private sector? Or do youu believe funding those things is the government's business, which is a pretty expansive view, IMO. Frankkly, that's about all that is realistically going to happen vis a vis this issue. Or possibly the overturn of Roe v. Wade which many people consider a Federal government intrusion into state's rights, but is also unlikely to happen. So it's not all that clear cut.

I think many or most social issues are wedge issues. For example, should gun control be part of the debate? I think that's a wedge issue.

I was mainly interested to see if what you meant was you would prefer a social liberal, or if you thought that was the best way to win. I don't think that's particularly clear. It doesn't seem like the Republican part has had too much trouble winning elections since Reagan consolidtated the fiscal and social conservatives and the military hawks.


----------



## benbo (Nov 28, 2011)

It is often difficult to tell what is they "libertarian" social position. Take gay marriage, which I'm fine with BTW. Obviously, telling gay people they cannot civilly marry is government intrusion. But so is government sanctioning of gay marriage or any other marriage for that matter. Marriage could be handled with contract law and religious recognition but historically the civil authorites have some reason for believing they have a stake in the institution. In reality, both federal and state governments already have their noses so far up the marriage issue it's virtually impossible to adopt a libertarian position on this that could realistically be implemented. You'd have to change property, parental, probate, and and tax law for starters, along with probably many other parts of the law to one extent or other..


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 28, 2011)

Lots of questions...I'll try to break it up.



benbo said:


> So you would be against government funding for abortion, and against any government funding of a place like Planned Parenthood or stem cell research?


I'm against government funding for abortion or planned parenthood. I support government funding for stem cell research provided the results of said research become public domain.



> I think many or most social issues are wedge issues. For example, should gun control be part of the debate? I think that's a wedge issue.


It is a wedge issue and shouldn't be part of the debate.



> I was mainly interested to see if what you meant was you would prefer a social liberal, or if you thought that was the best way to win.


I'm not positive its a better way to win, but I do think the Republicans would have a better chance at attracting more moderates if they'd drop opposition to certain issues like abortion based solely on a religious basis.



> It doesn't seem like the Republican part has had too much trouble winning elections since Reagan consolidtated the fiscal and social conservatives and the military hawks.


They've been hit and miss in the house, senate, and presidential elections since GHWB, and I'd say, with regards to the presidential candidates this year, they are a gigantic miss.



benbo said:


> It is often difficult to tell what is they "libertarian" social position. Take gay marriage, which I'm fine with BTW.


I'm fine with gay marriage if the call it a civil union or something. My sole objection to it is the use of the word 'marriage.' The concept I'm cool with.


----------



## Exception Collection (Nov 28, 2011)

Also breaking it up.



Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm against government funding for abortion or planned parenthood. I support government funding for stem cell research provided the results of said research become public domain.


How do you justify the support of stem cell research (I assume you mean fetal stem cell research, since adult stem cell research has continued unabated), while removing government funding for abortion? More importantly, how do you justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood, and organization that provides prenatal and preventative services to millions of Americans that are not seeking abortions? Sometimes they are the only way to get supplies (medicines etc) for those in need. (I should note - I'm pro-life, vehemently so)



Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm not positive its a better way to win, but I do think the Republicans would have a better chance at attracting more moderates if they'd drop opposition to certain issues like abortion based solely on a religious basis.


That'd be nice. I don't want to be dragged kicking &amp; screaming into a theocracy; I want good society-based reasons for laws, not religious.



Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm fine with gay marriage if the call it a civil union or something. My sole objection to it is the use of the word 'marriage.' The concept I'm cool with.


So, separate and unequal? Civil Uniions, as currently used, are missing a huge number of rights and benefits. More importantly from my perspective, it places gay &amp; lesbian couples into a separate class, regardless of the religious beliefs they follow. The Catholic Church is forced to recognize third and fourth marriages of divorcees against their canon law; why couldn't other churches?

Of course, my church (A Congregationalist/UCC church) *does* accept marriage equality - so defining it (legally) as something other than marriage strips my church from being able to have religious freedom.

UNLESS - and this is an argument I would be willing to accept - *ALL* relationships are called Civil Unions in the eyes of the law, and only Churches are granted the ability to marry. That I would support as equal (though not ideal).


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 2, 2011)

Exception Collection said:


> UNLESS - and this is an argument I would be willing to accept - *ALL* relationships are called Civil Unions in the eyes of the law, and only Churches are granted the ability to marry. That I would support as equal (though not ideal).


If anything ever does change about the topic, this ^^ will be the result.

It will be a shame IMO, but that's how it is.

Kind of like the "UNFAIRNESS" of insurance for a male and females going on in the UK this year. People bitched about how auto insurance was more expensive for a male than it was for a female... so what happened? The AUTO EQUALITY ACT,

They raised the ladies rates too.

A group will say that its unfair another group gets this and that, and soon enough, both groups are sitting in the shitter together.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 2, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> A group will say that its unfair another group gets this and that, and soon enough, both groups are sitting in the shitter together.


It's not feasible to bring everybody up to the higher standard, so everybody gets brought down to the lower standard. Lowest common denominator. Everybody is equally shitty.

It's the reason that the quality of public school keeps dropping. Nobody is allowed to fail, so they keep lowering the passing standard to the point where nothing is really learned.


----------



## Exception Collection (Dec 2, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> Exception Collection said:
> 
> 
> > UNLESS - and this is an argument I would be willing to accept - *ALL* relationships are called Civil Unions in the eyes of the law, and only Churches are granted the ability to marry. That I would support as equal (though not ideal).
> ...


Except that there's no reason except bigotry to deny LGBT couples the right to marry - we can have kids (via surrogates, donors, in vitro or adoption), we can raise kids (in some cases better than straight couples, according to a somewhat flawed 2010 study), and ... what other than that is suggested as a reason to not allow gay marriage? Oh yeah, religion and/or "We think they're disgusting" attitudes.

It *is* feasible to bring us all up to the higher standard when it comes to the legal rights associated with marriages - by either giving civil unions the same legal weight (and converting all legal marriages to civil unions), or by giving LGBT couples the right to marry. Personally, I prefer the first option; as someone that believes marriages are lifelong commitments I don't like people like my father and Newt Gingrich referring to themselves as married to their current legal partner. However, that isn't a socially acceptable option.


----------



## Exengineer (Dec 7, 2011)

It now appears whoever gets "selected" President will be the worst President ever, and then the next one will be the worst and so on until some type of Great Upheaval takes place in the U.S. and the current form of government gets swept away such as occurred in the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a form of government that is unsustainable and unsupported by the vast majority of its citizens.


----------



## MGX (Dec 7, 2011)

Ozengineer said:


> It now appears whoever gets "selected" President will be the worst President ever, and then the next one will be the worst and so on until some type of Great Upheaval takes place in the U.S. and the current form of government gets swept away such as occurred in the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a form of government that is unsustainable and unsupported by the vast majority of its citizens.


Your first point is spot on. Whoever is in the white house is always the worst president ever. Your second point seems a bit bonkers.


----------



## Exception Collection (Dec 7, 2011)

MGX said:


> Ozengineer said:
> 
> 
> > It now appears whoever gets "selected" President will be the worst President ever, and then the next one will be the worst and so on until some type of Great Upheaval takes place in the U.S. and the current form of government gets swept away such as occurred in the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a form of government that is unsustainable and unsupported by the vast majority of its citizens.
> ...


Indeed. The current form of government is probably ideal or near-ideal. Oh, it's by no means *perfect*, but it's a lot better than anything else that's been tried.

Speaking personally, I think it could be made much better by making the following (some very significant) changes:

-Redistribute Statehood to smaller areas (Example: split OR &amp; WA into a three or four "State" region), or abolish it entirely. A nation comprised of dozens of States made a lot of sense in the 1800's and 1900's - A single large government could not efficiently distribute resources to every region of the country; as we've developed technology to the point of instant communication and very fast travel - as well as larger cities - we've developed the need for better (more local) control over smaller areas or better (more centralized) control over all of them. Right now, the Fed is duplicating effort that a lot of States should be doing, and vice versa.

-End Corporate Personhood. Period. Corporations are imaginary constructs that can and should be allowed to own property and be treated as businesses for the sake of simplicity, but when it comes down to it there is no compelling reason a corporation needs the same rights as people do. Oh, and make corporate charters easier to revoke when malfeasance on the part of executives screws something up.

-Instant Runoff Voting. Let people vote for their true choice, then their second choice, then their third choice. It'll result in a much stronger multi-party system.


----------



## engineergurl (Jan 4, 2012)

^^^ that wouldn't fly, a lot of states wouldn't agree with you...


----------



## Exception Collection (Jan 11, 2012)

engineergurl said:


> ^^^ that wouldn't fly, a lot of states wouldn't agree with you...


True. How about we settle for #2 &amp; #3?


----------



## benbo (Jan 11, 2012)

^^

I don't even understand what #3 means.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 12, 2012)

^^That's because 'corporate personhood' is a term thought up by the PTB on the left to confuse people who have no idea what corporate laws mean, but have a pre-disposition to hate business. usually, when I see that term, i just dismiss the person and don't waste my time discussing the issue.

I do the same when I hear 'wage gap.'


----------



## benbo (Jan 12, 2012)

^^^

I understand corporate personhood. What I meant was I'm not sure what they're talling about with this "instant runoff process". Does this mean you number the candidates by prefernce and then apply some sort of of weighted addition formula or something to determine the winner? So, depending on how it's desinged, potentially nobody voring could get their first choice? And it doesn't matter if I support my #1 choice 98%, my number two choice 1.9%, and my third choice .1% - they just get numbererd 1,2 and 3.

I don't understand what the process refers to.


----------



## Master slacker (Jan 12, 2012)

PTB... Parent Teacher Board? :huh:


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 12, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> PTB... Parent Teacher Board? :huh:


Sorry. Powers That Be.


----------



## pbrme (Jan 12, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> PTB... Parent Teacher Board? :huh:


*Arnold voice* &gt; Peruvian Tank Benders, our motto: Don't wait for sippy cups to destroy you, farley comets will dingle rods past push palsy's.


----------



## benbo (Jan 12, 2012)

Prick ticklin' bimbos?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Apr 25, 2012)

Can we add Romney to this poll?

I'm sure he will be horrible, under the standard comment uttered for the last 15+ years: "this president sucks, the last president sucks, and the next one will probably suck too"


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 26, 2012)

Probably can.

At times, this place appears hell bent on its own destruction. Or, more honestly, the politicians seem to be hell bent on emptying our pockets and ruining our lives.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 26, 2012)

I truly believe Romney will be horrible as well. I don't think he'll be as horrible as Obama, just the lesser of the two evils.....which is still evil.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 26, 2012)

How does anyone still have faith in our system of government? We have senators introducing legislation at this moment to reform the post office because they "require government funds to bail them out of insolvency." At the same time, those same legislators are milking the post office's coffers dry by making them pay retirement benefits for future employees that will probably never be hired. This has been researched and published numerous times, but our elected officials are happy to ignore the facts and blatantly lie to our faces. Forget ideals...forget how it is_ supposed _to work. This system is broken.


----------



## Jayman_PE (Apr 28, 2012)

I voted Nixon. It was a tough decision. The argument certainly could have been made for Clinton (lies), or Carter (ineffective).

George W. is a hard one to to decipher yet. The jury is still out on Iraq. I did not vote for George W the first time, only voted for him the 2nd time because Kerry was an empty suit. Did not agree with his decision to go into Iraq. In hindsight I believe history will prove him right on Iraq. I always laugh when people bring up the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue. Ok, we did not find them, but where exactly did they go? As of 1998 the international nuclear commission concluded they were in Iraq's possession. If Hussein really did destroy them he would have opened the windows for the world to see. But nothing. So, where did they go? You see how things are changing in the middle east with the downfall of the Egypt and Libyan dicatorships, pushback against the long held Syrian regime. Sure they are not exactly warm and open democracies yet but certainly a turn for the better. The middle east was a festering hornet's nest for years before Bush decided to take the spray to it. It will take time, but I believe he will be proved correct decades from now. And our generation will pay for it.

Jason


----------



## Exengineer (Apr 28, 2012)

Johnson was bad because he pursued the Vietnam conflict far longer than he should have in spite of massive protests against it. However I would say Ronald Reagan was the worst President since the Depression because he presided over the beginning of the economic decline of the U.S. that is still going on. The U.S. lost many manufacturing jobs including the engineering that went into them during his years in office. When those jobs go, they don't return. Other major mistakes he made were arming the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and calling them "freedom fighters" and training the Muhajideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Contras were actually common thugs and terrorists and remnants of the Somoza family dictatorship trying to recapture their former fiefdom. Nothing good has happened in Afghanistan since the Soviets were kicked out thanks in part to the arms and training received by the Muhajideen (Taliban) from the U.S. Their tactics and training were later turned against the U.S. in the most recent war. Good job Ronald.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 31, 2012)

So... wait... Carter &gt; Reagan? :huh:


----------



## roadwreck (Sep 1, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> So... wait... Carter &gt; Reagan? :huh:


I was to young to remember the Reagan presidency, but one legacy that I do know he left us with was the beginning of deficit spending. Every president before Reagan had reduced the federal debt accumulated from WWII, Since Reagan every president, except Clinton, has presided during an increase in debt. That's not a legacy I'd want.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Sep 1, 2012)

^That analysis is just a little simplistic. Congress controls the spending and every budget Reagan proposed was DOA in Tip O'Neal's house.


----------



## engineergurl (Sep 2, 2012)

I remember a lot of cut backs in theat time frame... especiallyy in defense which was a driver for the economy where I grew up...


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Sep 2, 2012)

At that point, we were becoming less and less likely to end up in a full blown nuclear war with the Russians, so I assume that had to do something with the cuts.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2012)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^That analysis is just a little simplistic. Congress controls the spending and every budget Reagan proposed was DOA in Tip O'Neal's house.


It's simplistic, but it does show from a gross scale perspective that republicans have been deficit spenders.

It just doesn't seem to me that you can crow about being the party that will reign in government spending when your party has a clearly documented history of growing the deficit while simultaneously resource constraining government spend, namely domestic and social programs.

Just adding a little more fuel and ignition source for Sappers' earlier comments ....


----------



## Flyer_PE (Sep 2, 2012)

^It's an interesting dynamic. Reagan wanted to spend less than congress did. Those deficits also get blamed on the tax cuts at the time but actual revenue into the treasury doubled between the time those cuts were instituted and the end of Reagan's second term.

Clinton wanted to spend more than congress did following the '94 elections. The combination of a fantastic economy and some semblance of fiscal restraint in the '90s brought the budget into balance.

Once Bush got into office, he had half of the equation correct in that lowering marginal tax rates will encourage economic growth. The receipts to the treasury were actually higher following enactment of the lower rates than they were under Clinton. The half he didn't get right was the spending. I would say that he and his party spent money like drunken sailors but that would be a disservice to drunken sailors.

The problem with spending at these levels is that running deficits actually affects the economy much the same as higher taxes. One of the reasons the economy is still trudging along at 1.5-2.0% growth is that businesses look down range and know instinctively that all this borrowed money will have to be paid back through markedly higher tax rates down the road. All of their incentives are for taking defensive positions. Add to that the fact that the fed seems to think another round of QE (money printing/currency devaluation) will help with unemployment even though following QE1 and QE2, we've added 5 trillion to the debt and we still have between 8.3% and 15% unemployment depending on if you use the U3 or U6 number. The fed chairman actually stated the other day that through spending 2 trillion dollars, 2 million jobs were created. Somehow I don't think 1 million/job is anything to brag about.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 4, 2012)

roadwreck said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > So... wait... Carter &gt; Reagan? :huh:
> ...


i believe that chart actually shows the debt for that year, not the cumulative debt as a percentage of GDP. The only time the debt decreased (and that was really due to a change in accounting procedures involving social securty) was during Clinton's second term.

Deficit spending has been the natural spending habits of the gov since at least Roosevelt.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 16, 2014)

What's the above chart look like today?

(Have your "Thanks Obama!" gifs ready...)


----------



## Road Guy (Jun 16, 2014)

&amp; by most accounts Eisenhour was a pretty lackluster president...

I added in Obummer just for fun, he is basically done, he hasnt done jack shit since he was re-elected (by some of you folks!)


----------

