Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Assigning a single letter grade without explanation is silly.
You'd have to break it down into various areas..
Handling of Economy (Debt/Trade we could include with this)
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
Legacy (Appointments to Supreme Court, Federal Judges, etc)
Those are just four that I can think of, which could then be broken down alot more. Then you have to weigh them properly. Which is more important, and that can change from president to president.
We can talk 'overall', but.. Nixon's Foreign Policy, I think most would call an "A".. His Legacy.. Pretty low because of watergate.. Does that automatically make it an F? He did pretty well with Supreme Court assignments. I think he did pretty well with his VP appointment of Ford. But then does Nixon's legacy grade weigh higher than say Carters? Because Carter's legacy is almost an incomplete.. Not much of one.
Ike and the heart attacks.. He was forthcoming about those.. It's not like it was any big secret. Someone wants to run for president and they've had a heart attack.. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. It's a factor that might weigh on my decision of whether to vote for them or not. If they're HIDING that fact, then I have a problem.
I'd agree with you on LBJ, but I have to give him credit for his Great Society programs. But foreign policy was a disaster.
Very odd. By most measures, Great Society programs were disastrous failures. Unconditional War on Poverty? By every measure a complete failure. The War on Drugs? Complete failure. Elementary and Secondary Education Act? Failure. Medicare? From a cost/benefit perspective, a total failure. The list goes on.
On the other hand, he was known to just unzip his fly and urinate outdoors on the grounds of the White House, asking the rhetorical question, "My God, have you ever seen such a big penis?" (except he did not use the anatomically correct name).
The thing LBJ did do was to sign into law (February 1964) the tax cuts proposed by President Kennedy, three months after the latter's assassination. Johnson's tax cut measure triggered what one historian described as "the greatest prosperity of the postwar years."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassTerp94
Clinton signed all our jobs away, but at least he kept us out of any wars.
The housing bubble that burst with the 2008 recession was launched during the 1st Clinton administration, specifically under Henry Cisneros (HUD) and Roberta Achtenberg (undersecretary of HUD for Equal Opportunity).
And Bill gets credit for kow-towing to North Korea which responded by developing The Bomb.
And, of course, he fired off some Cruise Missiles at mud huts used by Osama bin Laden for training, making sure to wait until there was no one present.
I'd agree with you on LBJ, but I have to give him credit for his Great Society programs. But foreign policy was a disaster.
If ever a president epitomized the phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," Lyndon Johnson would be it.
When the Great Society programs got underway, the poverty rate in this country was about 12%. Trillions upon trillions of dollars and an alphabet soup of agencies later and the poverty rate in this country is about 15%. In other words, the massive expansion of the bureaucracy and government debt has had only a trivial effect on poverty in this country. In fact, if you chart the decline in poverty rate from 1950 to 1965, one could argue that the Great Society program actually arrested the decline of poverty in this country or, at best, achieved incremental gains.
Meanwhile, we saw the decay of the inner cities and soaring crime rates, not to mention the general erosion of trust in government caused in large part by Johnson's continued lying about the escalation of hostilities in Vietnam.
In short, I've always felt that Johnson was a buffoon, and a dishonest one at that. And Robert Caro's masterful biographies have done nothing to dissuade me of that.
George Washington : A+
John Adams: B
Thomas Jefferson: C-
James Madison: B+
James Monroe: B+
John Quincy Adams: B+
Andrew Jackson: C+
Martin Van Buren: D
William Henry Harrison: N/A
John Tyler: D-
James K. Polk: B
Zachary Taylor: C
Millard Fillmore: C
Franklin Pierce: F
James Buchanan: F
Abraham Lincoln: A+
Andrew Johnson: D
Ulysses S. Grant: B
Rutherford B. Hayes: C
James A. Garfield: N/A
Chester A. Arthur: B
Grover Cleveland (1st term): B
Benjamin Harrison: B
Grover Cleveland (2nd term): B
William McKinley: B
Theodore Roosevelt: B
William Howard Taft: B
Woodrow Wilson: F
Warren G. Harding: B
Calvin Coolidge: A-
Herbert Hoover: D
Franklin D. Roosevelt: D
Harry S Truman: B-
Dwight D. Eisenhower: A
John F.Kennedy: B
Lyndon B. Johnson: D
Richard M. Nixon: C-
Gerald R. Ford: B-
Jimmy Carter: D-
Ronald W. Reagan: B+
George H.W. Bush: B-
William J. Clinton: D
George W. Bush: B-
Barack H. Obama: F
LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama rank below Nixon? What about Watergate and Nixon's resignation just prior to his impeachment? I'd grade him an automatic F and rank the others above. Prosecutable criminal behavior gives him about 50 points off the presidential litmus test in my view.
Whether one likes a president or not is not the point. Even as a Democrat, I view Cater as a failure as a president, although he's certainly been a great ex-president. George Bush II also pretty much a failure. Nixon's crimes must be a part of how he is judged, but not the sole criteria.
I read a long book detailing every moment of the IKE Presidency. One can only imagine what you and others would say if Obama did 1/10th as much in perceived graft.
For example, IKE had scads of "billionaire" friends (they were millionaires then, but would be billionaires now) and they built him a super-duper Vacation Home on the Masters Course in Augusta, GA.
IKE spent almost every spare moment there. 100's of rounds per year.
Can you answer honestly as to what you would think if one of Obama's suitors bought him a house on the Masters course...and he spent that kind of time there? I don't think you can.
IKE had at least two heart attacks..and perhaps a stroke...while in office. Again, I wonder how folks like you would feel about someone who had a bad heart attack running for POTUS a second time (IKE did).
Lots of other goodies in the book. I'm not saying he was a bad President. But I am saying that people tend to excuse things from their "heroes" while not applying the same meter to others.
History (scholars - people that know) will likely regard Obama as a C+ or B- POTUS. IKE is probably a B. Each has to be judged in their time.
BTW, there was also a period where IKE favored using nuclear weapons en masse in Asia (Korea). If it was Obama sitting in his place, IKE would have been accused of "cutting and running" in Korea by losing to the Chinese/Koreans.
My only point here is that...this is why "we" are not Presidential Scholars and will not be the people who determine the standing of former Presidents. If we laid out a chart with ALL the same ideals...like:
1. Did they take personal money and gifts from their supporters - how much?
2. Did they support nuclear war?
3. Was their health up to the job?
Oh, speaking of IKE and health, he was on a cocktail of pills that today we'd call "happy sauce" - consisting of uppers and downers. He was addicted to sleeping pills. So was a LOT of his white house staff. This is not fake news or rumor...just an honest look at a guy who was too old and sick to do the job in the fashion we expect today (2nd term).
You say each has to be judged in their time, but then, with Ike, you do just the opposite.
Nixon was a madman. A smart madman, but still. A criminal who was dangerous to the entire country and world. He did some good things....but, were they really good? How did the trade with China turn out?
Given the good things he actually did, I'd give him a D - and I think historians put him about that. What low standards we have! Ideally, he would be "unfit" given his temperament and his crimes. But, measured against the other idiots, he rises up.
Very odd. By most measures, Great Society programs were disastrous failures. Unconditional War on Poverty? By every measure a complete failure. The War on Drugs? Complete failure. Elementary and Secondary Education Act? Failure. Medicare? From a cost/benefit perspective, a total failure. The list goes on.
On the other hand, he was known to just unzip his fly and urinate outdoors on the grounds of the White House, asking the rhetorical question, "My God, have you ever seen such a big penis?" (except he did not use the anatomically correct name).
The thing LBJ did do was to sign into law (February 1964) the tax cuts proposed by President Kennedy, three months after the latter's assassination. Johnson's tax cut measure triggered what one historian described as "the greatest prosperity of the postwar years."
The housing bubble that burst with the 2008 recession was launched during the 1st Clinton administration, specifically under Henry Cisneros (HUD) and Roberta Achtenberg (undersecretary of HUD for Equal Opportunity).
And Bill gets credit for kow-towing to North Korea which responded by developing The Bomb.
And, of course, he fired off some Cruise Missiles at mud huts used by Osama bin Laden for training, making sure to wait until there was no one present.
No. Notice anything about who you're criticizing? All Democrats. The purpose of this thread is to make some judgements not based on radical political perspectives.
If ever a president epitomized the phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," Lyndon Johnson would be it.
When the Great Society programs got underway, the poverty rate in this country was about 12%. Trillions upon trillions of dollars and an alphabet soup of agencies later and the poverty rate in this country is about 15%. In other words, the massive expansion of the bureaucracy and government debt has had only a trivial effect on poverty in this country. In fact, if you chart the decline in poverty rate from 1950 to 1965, one could argue that the Great Society program actually arrested the decline of poverty in this country or, at best, achieved incremental gains.
Meanwhile, we saw the decay of the inner cities and soaring crime rates, not to mention the general erosion of trust in government caused in large part by Johnson's continued lying about the escalation of hostilities in Vietnam.
In short, I've always felt that Johnson was a buffoon, and a dishonest one at that. And Robert Caro's masterful biographies have done nothing to dissuade me of that.
You must not read charts the way that I do. I read that chart to say that in 1964, the year that the Great Society Programs began, poverty was at over 16% of the population. The year your chart ends (2009, I believe) it was about 11%. That's about a 40% reduction in poverty. However, that comparison is a dishonest one. The year 2009, was the height of our last great recession. If you look at 1999, during the end of Bill Clinton's presidency when no business cycle was going on the poverty rate was well below 9%.
The poverty rate will always vary depending on the business cycle. The business cycle is a characteristic of the economy.
No one thought when the War on Poverty was begun that all poverty would magically be eliminated. The concept was to create a framework that would bring as many people out of poverty as possible. This was to be done by providing both job training programs along with economic assistance to the poor. There is a certain amount of poverty that is incorrigible and is hard to eliminate. People with mental disease and some disabilities are unlikely to benefit from most programs that are created. On the other hand, creating educational opportunities and eliminating discrimination may have widespread positive effects for people able to seize those opportunities. I would say a good 33% to 40% of poverty has been eliminated by the WOP programs. Eradication of poverty is difficult simply because are poor for many different reasons. My father was poor as a child because he lived in a large family (11 kids) in rural Idaho during the Great Depression.
There is a narrative in this country today though that ignores facts. It contends that these programs have done no good. Analysis of data reveals that they did do good. Its just not as much good as some had hoped for.
With reference to Johnson, he may have been a buffoon and he was certainly dishonest about any number of things. He also was the only President who systematically set out to eliminate both discrimination and poverty through legislation. All you have done is to show that he didn't eliminate as much of it as some would like. LBJ will always be the President who obtained passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Many people went to college today because of student loan programs initiated during his administration. He was a buffoon, but he was much more than that. In the end, he was complex man who did much good for this country.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-07-2017 at 10:36 AM..
You must not read charts the way that I do. I read that chart to say that in 1964, the year that the Great Society Programs began, poverty was at over 16% of the population. The year your chart ends (2009, I believe) it was about 11%. That's about a 40% reduction in poverty. However, that comparison is a dishonest one. The year 2009, was the height of our last great recession. If you look at 1999, during the end of Bill Clinton's presidency when no business cycle was going on the poverty rate was well below 9%.
The poverty rate will always vary depending on the business cycle. The business cycle is a characteristic of the economy.
No one thought when the War on Poverty was begun that all poverty would magically be eliminated. The concept was to create a framework that would bring as many people out of poverty as possible. This was to be done by providing both job training programs along with economic assistance to the poor. There is a certain amount of poverty that is incorrigible and is hard to eliminate. People with mental disease and some disabilities are unlikely to benefit from most programs that are created. On the other hand, creating educational opportunities and eliminating discrimination may have widespread positive effects for people able to seize those opportunities. I would say a good 33% to 40% of poverty has been eliminated by the WOP programs. Eradication of poverty is difficult simply because are poor for many different reasons. My father was poor as a child because he lived in a large family (11 kids) in rural Idaho during the Great Depression.
There is a narrative in this country today though that ignores facts. It contends that these programs have done no good. Analysis of data reveals that they did do good. Its just not as much good as some had hoped for.
With reference to Johnson, he may have been a buffoon and he was certainly dishonest about any number of things. He also was the only President who systematically set out to eliminate both discrimination and poverty through legislation. All you have done is to show that he didn't eliminate as much of it as some would like. LBJ will always be the President who obtained passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Many people went to college today because of student loan programs initiated during his administration. He was a buffoon, but he was much more than that. In the end, he was complex man who did much good for this country.
LBJ was not my favorite president but one thing I like is that he was an Arm Twister of Congress and he got what he was after legislatively or the congress critter's arm was hanging at a weird angle. Plus I liked Lady Bird. I also liked that Ronald Reagan went around congress to get his agenda the first term anyway.
My consistency is I like a President who gets things done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
