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.
However, if one objectively looks at the positives and negatives of an administration and its impact on the people, any objective individual would select Reagan.
Those who selected Clinton (I am always amazed by this) are the same ones who lament the decline of the middle class and the manufacturing sector. Clinton, with NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status, GUTTED the middle class and the manufacturing sector. China gained 30 years in military technology (by some miracle) during his administration, after Chinese supporters were seen often at the White House. Clinton HOSED the nation- wake up.
I'm a bit young to objectively rank all of the presidents in the last 30 years (I cared more about what Tonka truck I was playing with than politics during the Reagan years) so I'm not going to attempt to do so. Even during the Clinton years, I was 11-19. I have a general idea of what it was like, but my understanding of politics wasn't very good until late in Clinton's presidency.
So the only presidents I could evaluate are G.W. Bush and Obama. Both have done pretty poorly. They both seem to be nice guys. Bush has brought attention to Africa and some humanitarian needs, and Obama has been very helpful in regards to LGBT rights. But for the most part it's been depressing, and that's very much reflected in this poll.
I truly had high hopes for Obama. He had and has the charisma to accomplish great things but unfortunately he burns up all of his political capital pushing his partisan agenda and as a result he ends up being the most divisive president in living memory.
Obama has been a massive disappointment, but he (barely) prevented the economy from running off the rails. Reagan marks the point (sometime during his second term) that America began circling the drain. He would be dead last, if not for the disastrous presidency of W, who bankrupted our nation with two senseless wars that he didn't bother to fund.
They're all disappointments, but only two real disasters.
I'm a bit young to objectively rank all of the presidents in the last 30 years (I cared more about what Tonka truck I was playing with than politics during the Reagan years) so I'm not going to attempt to do so. Even during the Clinton years, I was 11-19. I have a general idea of what it was like, but my understanding of politics wasn't very good until late in Clinton's presidency.
So the only presidents I could evaluate are G.W. Bush and Obama. Both have done pretty poorly. They both seem to be nice guys. Bush has brought attention to Africa and some humanitarian needs, and Obama has been very helpful in regards to LGBT rights. But for the most part it's been depressing, and that's very much reflected in this poll.
Don't kid yourself about LGBT rights. Obama wasn't out there when it was unpopular and didn't show much leadership on the issue except when the polls told him it was "safe".
Amazing how a politicians views can evolve when it's safe for them to take credit with little repercussion.
Obama has been a massive disappointment, but he (barely) prevented the economy from running off the rails. Reagan marks the point (sometime during his second term) that America began circling the drain. He would be dead last, if not for the disastrous presidency of W, who bankrupted our nation with two senseless wars that he didn't bother to fund.
They're all disappointments, but only two real disasters.
I've pointed this out many times, but why not once more? Spending on the Iraq war was only about 3% of federal spending during the 8 years. Spending on Afghanistan was even less, and in any case was supported by most Democrats, including Obama. As for "didn't bother to fund," I'm guessing this is a reference to the Bush tax cuts. But these were rate cuts, not revenue cuts. Overall revenue was roughly flat during the W Bush era. It did go down in 2008, but that was due to the recession, not the Bush tax cuts.
In short, if we had not gone to Iraq nor Afghanistan, and not had the Bush tax cuts, the deficit meter would have moved only slightly. The problem under Bush was the spending. It was the Bridge to nowhere, almost doubling federal education spending, 'green jobs' programs, and a thousand other things.
I don't mind if you want to criticize W Bush; I criticize him myself. But get the criticisms accurate instead of parroting a meme from Kos.
It's irrelevant what % they are on total spending. It's more important how much they account for the debt. These war will ultimately cost between 4-6 trillion dollars. Two completely useless wars. It may seem a drop in the bucket to you, but I doubt Americans displaced during the economic recession would pshaw that kind of coin.
Sorry, what is 'Kos'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
I've pointed this out many times, but why not once more? Spending on the Iraq war was only about 3% of federal spending during the 8 years. Spending on Afghanistan was even less, and in any case was supported by most Democrats, including Obama. As for "didn't bother to fund," I'm guessing this is a reference to the Bush tax cuts. But these were rate cuts, not revenue cuts. Overall revenue was roughly flat during the W Bush era. It did go down in 2008, but that was due to the recession, not the Bush tax cuts.
In short, if we had not gone to Iraq nor Afghanistan, and not had the Bush tax cuts, the deficit meter would have moved only slightly. The problem under Bush was the spending. It was the Bridge to nowhere, almost doubling federal education spending, 'green jobs' programs, and a thousand other things.
I don't mind if you want to criticize W Bush; I criticize him myself. But get the criticisms accurate instead of parroting a meme from Kos.
It's irrelevant what % they are on total spending. It's more important how much they account for the debt. These war will ultimately cost between 4-6 trillion dollars. Two completely useless wars. It may seem a drop in the bucket to you, but I doubt Americans displaced during the economic recession would pshaw that kind of coin.
Sorry, what is 'Kos'?
Yes it is very much relevant. For example if the Iraq war had been 99% of spending, you would have a one helluva good case. If Iraq had been less than 1%, you would have had no case. As it happens Iraq spending was 3%. Which leaves you much closer to "no case" than "one helluva case."
Obama
Clinton
Reagan
Bush the second
Bush the first
Ever wonder why your rep ratio to posting ratio is so low?
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.