Best U.S. President of All Time?

[16mach1]

What is clear from this thread is no matter what the facts are people will keep spewing their talking points to make themselves feel smart and the other side dumb. So there is really no sense in posting.We can all choose to believe what we want and even better vote for what we believe. It is just sad how blinded people can be.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

I can only comment on presidents that have been in office during my adult life. I can say who the worst has been and without a doubt that was Barack Obama followed by Jimmy Carter who was a nice guy but very ineffective. To say the best at this point would be Ronald Reagan. Trump still has a way to go but what I will say is that Trump has done more to keep his promises than any other president I have ever seen. How it all turns out at the end of his term Still Remains to be seen

I have said in this thread that I think Trump is the best, but after reading your post and considering it I have to agree with you that Trump's legacy still remains to be seen. He already signed one tax bill that he never should have.

Reagan had the guts to shut down the government multiple times. I really love him for that. In my opinion, anyone who is a conservative will cheer if the federal government gets shut down. The longer the shut down the better. Obviously there are (few) very important positions that need to be staffed, but hundreds of thousands of swamp dwellers are useless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Condor1970]

^^^ The first thing affected by a shutdown, should be the paychecks of our Congressman....along with a proportionate cut in pay for every 1% of spending above the total revenue we collect every year.

I've learned the ONLY way to get Congress to do their jobs, is to hit them in the pocket book.

 

[Timeless]

^^^ The first thing affected by a shutdown, should be the paychecks of our Congressman....along with a proportionate cut in pay for every 1% of spending above the total revenue we collect every year.

I've learned the ONLY way to get Congress to do their jobs, is to hit them in the pocket book.

Problem is that the people making these decisions are the ones you are hoping get affected.

Thus they protect themselves from anything negative (shut downs, health care, retirement, etc).

 

[Condor1970]

Problem is that the people making these decisions are the ones you are hoping get affected.

Thus they protect themselves from anything negative (shut downs, health care, retirement, etc).

They do protect themselves, which is the problem. It's proof they don't give a rats butt about anybody but their own power and income. It's become totally corrupt.

 

[Timeless]

Lol, first time I think I've agreed with this nut job: http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=144393

 

[IPOGT]

Anyone who really believes any established politician on either side has any real economic association with the average general public is a fool.
Every day politicians flip parties and it usually isn't because they suddenly changed their mind about everything.
You do what you need to do to remain part of the club. When the only spot is on the other side, what the hell. Local politicians do this even more frequently. Common stuff.

 

[95CobraR]

Best: Ronald Reagan

Worst: Barry Obama

 

[jaja6009]

When the shit hits the fan like in '08 the last thing a president should do is increase regulations and do things that squash progress which is exactly what Obama did. The bail out money that propped up unions while doing nothing for non union workers was a disgrace. As far as going down in history as great...that ship has sailed and he's proven to be a pure socialist failure. We could have pulled out of that mess much quicker with the right policies. We are at 4% GDP right now which is unheard of in modern times. Obama said those days were over.

Actually it was Bush who passed TARP to bail out the banks and then used that money quasilegally to bail out the auto industry. Obama continued those policies and some would say took credit for it. A collapse of the auto industry would of destroyed what was left of Detroit, led to a domino effect of parts suppliers and contractors going belly up and made the Great Recession worse. I hate when people use rheyoric and not facts. The outcome of TARP and the auto bailouts and what could of happened is opinion, but fact is that Bush initiated them and he could since he was a lame duck president.

 

[95CobraR]

The best all-time.

 

[GreenS550]

Actually it was Bush who passed TARP to bail out the banks and then used that money quasilegally to bail out the auto industry. Obama continued those policies and some would say took credit for it. A collapse of the auto industry would of destroyed what was left of Detroit, led to a domino effect of parts suppliers and contractors going belly up and made the Great Recession worse. I hate when people use rheyoric and not facts. The outcome of TARP and the auto bailouts and what could of happened is opinion, but fact is that Bush initiated them and he could since he was a lame duck president.

 

[GreenS550]

Many of these comments are incorrect, some correct and most opinnion.

Some facts: Obama violated multiple securities laws to "bail out" GM. A publicly traded company is owned by the common stock holders. However their financial liability is limited to the price of their stock. As GM's liabilities exceeded their ability to pay expenses, common stockholders seeing the impending demise of the company sold. More sellers than buyers and the stock price goes down. In GM's case, the stock went to about 0. Because publicly traded companies must fully disclose their finincial issues publicly as a way of communicating to stockholders (owners).

The savior Obama comes in and DICTATES to the board of this bankrupt company how it's going to be. Make Volts, start battery companies, etc, or they won't get the $$. Bad business decisions, for sure. But GM is desperate for "other peoples' money"

The bondholders should have taken control of the company. They were NOT ALLOWED to. This is a federal violation of the securities laws in the U.S. But, they were made whole (many pension companies, 401K, etc held their bonds, but then they also lost big bucks on GM's stock).

If GM were to have gone bankrupt properly, they would not have disappeared. Get that down. They had ASSETS, which included model names, property, etc. A re-formulated company (by the bondholders) would have been lean and mean with only stuff that made sense. Suppliers would have been hurt somewhat, true, but that is the price of capitalism.

For all the union people reading this, remember that GM pressured the companies that had contractual deals to "re-nogotiate" them. In, essense being able to produce cars for LESS than Ford. This was dictated to their suppliers. Ford pays about $1,000 more per automobile for a similar product since they DIDN'T go bankrupt.

Capitalism has winners and losers. GM was, and is a loser. They still have not paid back $10.2B to Uncle Sam (that's us). Their debt is BBB- which is that lowest rating before "Junk".

"collapse of the auto industry"? I don't think so. That is nonsense perpetuated by those that are either ignorant or brainwashed by the media/Democratic/Republican party.

BTW, how many "publicly traded" auto companies were there in the U.S. in 1920, the heyday of the auto industry? I am referring to companies whose stocks were traded on the exchanges like NYSE, ASE, PSE, etc.? 421. You read that correctly, 421.

Now, how many? 2. And one of them is a ward of mother government.

Every time government intervention occurs we lose personal liberties. I paid tax dollars to bail out GM. I know exactly how much.

Then there is the issue that occurred in 2008 about U.S. bonds. What led the massive declline? Remember FNMA, FHLMC, etc,? Not corporate bonds firstly. Oh, no, moronic federal rules about loaning to people with "no doc" loans. That effected Washington Mutual (the largest S&L in the country), Wachovia, BAC, Wells, etc. Read about the government's wonderful mandate that banks not require proof of employment, assets and even residency to borrow money to buy a home. That's called the inmates in charge of the asylum. This happened with TRILLIONS of dollars.

Representatives of our government have no clue how to manage money, and we should thank them for their botched attempts which are driving our country in to bankruptcy? I don't think so.

Now, this next part is pure speculation and experience being a financial guy. GM will either declare bankruptcy or run into serious financial hardship within the next 5 years. We shall see. A leopard doesn't just change its spots. They have serious corporate issues. Just look at the other "great" companies in the U.S.: GE, Sears, Kmart, MCI, etc. No, leave them alone and let the genius of entrepreneurs some up with a better mouse trap.

I trust the kid flipping hamburgers more than the so called "experts" any day.

 

[ctandc72]

Lincoln did things no man ever did like putting an end to a disgusting tradition that most southern white men used to fuel the depression of entire race of people.

Learned history can be a tricky thing. While slavery is painted as the main reason the Southern states seceded - and it certainly played its part - it's only later that we thought "the war was about slavery". Lincoln in fact argued before he was POTUS that states DID have the right to secede. The South were not the first states to talk about seceding from the Union....states in NE came close. Do you think that was about slavery too?

In fact initially, the press and major voices of the day basically said "let the South go away - we don't need them". Problem was the vast majority of raw materials came from the South and the vast majority of factories and businesses that turned these raw goods into finished goods were in the North. Tariffs existed to keep the South from selling its raw goods at HIGHER prices to other countries. Without these tariffs and the raw materials from the South, the North's economy would have tanked.

Read newspaper headlines from those first days after SC seceded. The issue was pushed when Lincoln blocked the Southern ports.

In fact it was only later, when the war had been going very bad for the North (mainly because of really bad leadership - the North had a huge advantage in manpower, resources etc) that Lincoln used Slavery - and the absolution of slavery to make the war a moral cause. There were plenty of Northern politicians and leaders who begged Lincoln not to make the war about slavery.

Slavery is horrible. But to pretend it's the only reason the war happened is simply ignorant. Much like WWI and WW2, without a "cause" to unite the populace behind a war effort - the end result is almost never positive (see the Vietnam War).

As for immigration and Trump's views on immigration - I find it a bit ironic that the 1996 Democratic party platform (Clinton's re-election) relied HEAVILY on stricter immigration controls at the Southern border.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1996-democratic-party-platform

There's a video somewhere of a guy reading Clinton's speech on immigration to college students. The students overwhelmingly attributed the speech to Trump. When they were confronted with the truth their reactions were amusing to say the least.

As for "keeping all non-whites out" that's absolutely ridiculous. Over a MILLION LEGAL immigrants every year. Go visit a Federal courthouse near you and watch a naturalization ceremony. Talk to these people. People of all colors, all religions. Then ask them their views on illegal immigration - you might be surprised at what they tell you.

The literal shit coming out of DC nowadays would be amusing if most people didn't buy it hook, line and sinker. If a wall at the border (hint we already have one in many places along the Southern border) is so 'immoral' how come the same Dems that oppose it now - voted for it in '06, '09 and '13?

My point? If your entire political view is "Fuck Trump" I can guarantee you there are things you haven't opened your mind to and things that you don't know.

While our "leaders" in DC get paid (They passed the bill to fund the Legislative branch in Sept with 2 No votes) they do their best to keep half the country pissed at the other half, meanwhile 'business as usual' in the Capitol.

Trump ran on an almost identical platform as Clinton did in '96 and they won the same group of voters - and it got them the electoral votes needed both times. Seriously, listen to some of Clinton's campaign speeches.

The hard truth - until term limits are passed - nothing will change. Meanwhile, I personally know people who HATE Trump - people who have voted Dem their whole life who can't believe some of the newly-elected Dems and can't stomach how far left the Dems seem to be moving as a whole. The ironic part? The "classic" liberal would be more likely to vote Republican today.

 

[Hack]

The hard truth - until term limits are passed - nothing will change. Meanwhile, I personally know people who HATE Trump - people who have voted Dem their whole life who can't believe some of the newly-elected Dems and can't stomach how far left the Dems seem to be moving as a whole. The ironic part? The "classic" liberal would be more likely to vote Republican today.

I think we need more than term limits. We also need to stop the bribes that include future jobs, jobs for family members, bribes for family members, etc. etc. It's amazing how many schemes our politicians have come up with for accepting money.

I think the president should have line item veto power. That could go a long way to improving how our government functions, as the president can't hide in a big group like the members of congress do.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Trump best. By far.

Sponsored