Worst President Post WWII

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The worst president post WWII has to be either Carter, or Johnson.

Carter was the one that allowed terrorism to take root, and Johnson was almost single handedly responsible for the escalation of Viet Nam.

Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran could be rated one of the blackest marks against ANY president. Betraying a man who’s trying to bring his people out of the 7th century into the 20th…that is beyond forgiveness.

HH

Please don’t forget that wonderfully conceived and executed “hostage rescue” mission. [/quote]

I guess no one will be confusing that with the hostage rescue that President Reagan pulled off on the Isle of Grenada.

But then he was a GREAT President.

42

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
(2) His tax cuts have produced an excellent, sustained, economic recovery with plenty of job growth and income growth.

What planet do you live in? Do you actually know what you’re talking about?

Hspder, this is the same guy who once told me that the country was getting more Republican simply because of how many states are red on the map. Apparently, he forgot about that “population” thing.

So I’d say “no”, he doesn’t.

Irish,

Please quote me correctly if you are going to quote me.

I said that the vast majority of the nation’s COUNTIES when you look at the Electoral vote county-by-county is overwealmingly red. The reason I said this is because it is!

Hard to kick against the facts insn’t it?
[/quote]

And I pointed out that those COUNTIES are not full of PEOPLE, therefore your “red counties” must have alot to do with clay in the soil.

I don’t know…is there a reason you didn’t post on the politics forum for a couple months after that one? Because you were dead wrong, as always, and your lack of common sense and any kind of reason is hysterical.

Pull up the thread and let people decide for themselves.

Hard to kick the facts isn’t it genius?[/quote]

43

[quote]ZEB wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The worst president post WWII has to be either Carter, or Johnson.

Carter was the one that allowed terrorism to take root, and Johnson was almost single handedly responsible for the escalation of Viet Nam.

Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran could be rated one of the blackest marks against ANY president. Betraying a man who’s trying to bring his people out of the 7th century into the 20th…that is beyond forgiveness.

HH

Please don’t forget that wonderfully conceived and executed “hostage rescue” mission.

I guess no one will be confusing that with the hostage rescue that President Reagan pulled off on the Isle of Grenada.

But then he was a GREAT President.
[/quote]

Zeb,

No one with more than a functional brainstem would compare Reagan and jimmy “I’m withdrawing from the Olympics if you invade” carter.

Reagan restored the pride that was destroyed by jimmy.

But, he’s a crusader for peace now…!!!

I saw that clown sitting proudly next to michael “3 more months” moore at the dnc convention.

Those two have equal credibility.

JeffR

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
A lower dollar is not a bad thing in and of itself.

The lower the dollar - the more competitive American farmers can be in the world market.

May not mean much to a bunch of city slickers, but it’s my bread and butter. When Farmers make money - I make money.

Hate to burst your bubble but Wall Street will have more of any effect on you that ADM.

The crash of 2000 - 2001 had little, if any affect on farming. That’s not to say that some of my clients stuck in aggressive growth funds didn’t take a bath - but that is a different animal.

I’m talking about my little corner of the world where everything that is ‘bad’ for the economy is inversely ‘good’ for the farmers.

High interest, moderate inflation, and a devalued dollar means higher relative commodity prices for my farmers. Which means they make more money and keep farming. When they keep farming, I get to keep doing their books. [/quote]

Good for you!

The economy going south actually is good for my company too. When the equity markets falter, like they are now, institutional investors run to us for or products.

How did you parlay selling the farmers their supplies into being their accountant?

45

[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
(2) His tax cuts have produced an excellent, sustained, economic recovery with plenty of job growth and income growth.

What planet do you live in? Do you actually know what you’re talking about?

As we speak, we’re experiencing a tremendous economic slowdown. We are getting plenty of economic data showing that we’re entering a very dangerous period of stagflation – characterized by inflation without GDP growth.

I’ve explained this billions of times – what Bush, much like your idol RR, was inject billions of dollars in debt into de economy, creating “virtual growth” – growth that is driven quite simply by debt.

It’s like getting a new credit card and thinking you’ve suddenly become richer.

It’s simply moronic.

[/quote]
furthermore the “economic recovery” if you want to call it that, had nothing to do with the tax cuts. After 9/11 the fed dropped the federal funds rate to 1% to entice consumers and businesses to spend money…trust that had nothing to do with George Bush, republican, democrat, ect…it does have everything to do with common sense.
However since then the fed has raised rates 16-17 times (to curb inflation), and I agree with hspder we are on the verge of a slowdown, I would’t put that in the accomplishment category.

interest rate preassure, inflation fears, trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, do not create Economic expansions…I’m just saying…

46

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Good for you!

The economy going south actually is good for my company too. When the equity markets falter, like they are now, institutional investors run to us for or products.

How did you parlay selling the farmers their supplies into being their accountant?[/quote]

I have always been their accountant since I started theis business. I have never sold anyone anything. I really don’t have the salesman gene.

I just meant that when they make money - they will come to me in a better mood, and perhaps drag their brother-in-law to visit with me - and in that sense I make money.

47

[quote]cram2012 wrote:
interest rate preassure, inflation fears, trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, do not create Economic expansions…I’m just saying…
[/quote]

Yet the economy is growing, personal incomes are up 9%, and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.

Damn tax cuts. They work every time they are used.

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FYI - Dallas is hardly part of Texas what with all the immigrants from the lesser states coming here to live the dream.[/quote]

It’s quite amazing how easy it is to bait you… Thank you for that, that is exactly what I expected you to say, and you fell for it quite nicely.

Thank you!

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Can we come to Stanford and pass judgments about you, based on the people we see in the street? If there are homeless people milling about, for ex, can we conclude that ‘all you Stanford libs’ just talk a lot and don’t help anyone? So on and so forth, Prof?[/quote]

Yes you can. I tell you what – if you come here and are actually able to find a homeless person anywhere in Stanford, Palo Alto, Menlo Park or Atherton, I’ll send you and that homeless person a $100,000 check (each) the next day.

I’m also willing to bet that everybody will be extremely kind to you, listen attentively (and disagree politely) to everything you have to say, AND nobody will cut you off or be overly aggressive while driving.

You might even call us boring.

50

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yet the economy is growing,[/quote]

… at a slower pace than the public debt…

[quote]rainjack wrote:
personal incomes are up 9%,[/quote]

… but not the GDP, which basically means an exploding inflation…

[quote]rainjack wrote:
and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.[/quote]

The BUDGET deficit is diminishing. Public Debt continues to increase. That’s like being happy because the Titanic is sinking a little bit more slowly than expected. It’s still sinking, and faster than the economy is growing.

51

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Let me boil your lib plan for you:

Tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, “soak the rich,” “soak the rich,” …failed policies of the past.[/quote]

You have just showed how much of a mindless bigot you are – by reaching the conclusion you WANT to reach, completely independently of what I said.

If you actually had a functioning brain between your ears, you would realize that none of the things I proposed require more taxes, an increase in expenditure, or “soaking the rich” (whatever that means). If you had a semi-functioning brain, you would have in fact done the search and found out that I defend lower overhead.

But since you have a non-functioning mass posing as brain matter, you just said what you have been programmed to say, and will always say independently of any correlation to reality.

Very predictable…

52

[quote]rainjack wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
interest rate preassure, inflation fears, trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, do not create Economic expansions…I’m just saying…

Yet the economy is growing, personal incomes are up 9%, and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.

Damn tax cuts. They work every time they are used. [/quote]
my point wasnt to get in a pissing fight about what economic figures I can come up with to favor my take.
I am asserting that we are on the verge of an economic slowdown, as indicated by this quarters earnings reports, and RECENT economic news, not last quarters.
As a result of INFLATION you would expect income to increase it’s a natural cause and effect situation.
I agree that the economy has performed well over the last few years. But often times what a president does during his presidency has a lasting effect long after he departs

53

Steveo, you do realize the consequence of arguing that Bush and Rummy can’t be held responsible for anything that goes wrong during their administration is that they don’t get personal credit for the hard work of the FBI or the CIA or more locally based authorities.

Sorry, keeping America safe is the job of the various subunits of the Department of Homeland Security. Bush really has very little to do with such day to day operations, does he?

If he does, I’m sure you’ll agree that he is personally responsible for the behavior at Abu-Graib.

Drop the pom-pom’s nancy-boy, nobody is buying it.

54

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Yet the economy is growing,

… at a slower pace than the public debt…

rainjack wrote:
personal incomes are up 9%,

… but not the GDP, which basically means an exploding inflation…

rainjack wrote:
and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.

The BUDGET deficit is diminishing. Public Debt continues to increase. That’s like being happy because the Titanic is sinking a little bit more slowly than expected. It’s still sinking, and faster than the economy is growing. [/quote]

And higher taxes will fix all this?

You have been preaching the same sermon since you arrived.

We have had a public debt since we went to France for a loan to by bullets during the revolutionary war.

Some would say that a national debt is more secure for the country than being debt free.

I agree we need to address the debt, but a lower deficit is a pretty good starting point. And it has been achieved through lower taxes - which flies in the face of your theories.

Like I said - lower taxes: it works every time it is tried.

55

[quote]cram2012 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
cram2012 wrote:
interest rate preassure, inflation fears, trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, do not create Economic expansions…I’m just saying…

Yet the economy is growing, personal incomes are up 9%, and the deficit is diminishing at a much quicker pace than was expected.

Damn tax cuts. They work every time they are used.
my point wasnt to get in a pissing fight about what economic figures I can come up with to favor my take.
I am asserting that we are on the verge of an economic slowdown, as indicated by this quarters earnings reports, and RECENT economic news, not last quarters.
As a result of INFLATION you would expect income to increase it’s a natural cause and effect situation.
I agree that the economy has performed well over the last few years. But often times what a president does during his presidency has a lasting effect long after he departs
[/quote]

I think the fed has worked too hard to manage inflation - particularly Greenspan. No one wants to see a return to the Carter-like inflationary days, except farmers.

A president has little if anything to do with the economy. The fed, and the market has much more play in that.

56

[quote]rainjack wrote:
And higher taxes will fix all this?[/quote]

And there you go again. Where did I ask for “higher taxes”?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You have been preaching the same sermon since you arrived. [/quote]

I’m pretty sure you can understand why, considering what I do for a living and all…

[quote]rainjack wrote:
We have had a public debt since we went to France for a loan to by bullets during the revolutionary war.

Some would say that a national debt is more secure for the country than being debt free.[/quote]

I’m not disagreeing with any of the above. But, as any loan officer will tell you, it’s all about debt RATIOS. To be more precise, the ratio between debt and income. I have no problem with it being above 0 – I do, however, a problem with it being at the level it is now - US$8.4 trillion dollars of debt, which is about $28,150 dollars per US resident.

Considering that the US Government income is only about US$2.1 trillion per year that means that our debt to yearly income ratio is actually 400%, which is much higher than any other developed country (except Japan).

Furthermore, the National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.71 billion per day since September 30, 2005.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I agree we need to address the debt, but a lower deficit is a pretty good starting point. And it has been achieved through lower taxes - which flies in the face of your theories.[/quote]

Even if I believe, for one moment, that the reduction in deficit was “achieved through lower taxes” – which I don’t – again, the reduction was fairly minimal compared to what we need to achieve, and it will not last – considering the latest economic data, it’s pretty obvious that it will barely make a dent long term, since, again the debt is still increasing at a rate of $1.71 billion per day. The ship is still sinking…

It’s like saying that smoking a joint before an exam is a great idea. Yeah, you feel great, and the exam might feel like it went much better than previous exams, but when you later get the grade you realize that you were, well, smoking pot, and not only your grade still sucks, your killed a few precious brain cells in the process.

57

[quote]rainjack wrote:
A president has little if anything to do with the economy. The fed, and the market has much more play in that. [/quote]

Although you are right in a (simplistic) way, what you are neglecting to think about is the INFLUENCE the president and his administration has in what the Fed and the Market does. For example, the Fed started increasing interest rates right about the time the tax cuts started trickling in. Why is that? Well, that much free money pouring into the economy creates inflationary pressures – and the Fed needs to react to that by taking the free money out by increasing interest rates.

On a side note, the amazing thing is that Republicans seem to prefer to give their money to bankers than to the Federal Government. Whatever…

Anyway, the market also reacts to the president’s actions; as many things in life, the market is about perception (not reality) and confidence and a strong leader with a clear plan builds confidence, while an unpopular leader that has no idea what he’s doing tends to shatter the market’s confidence.

So, directly, yes, it is mostly the Fed and the Market, but the Administration’s influence is pivotal, like it or not.

Believe me, I WISH you were 100% right.

58

[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Let me boil your lib plan for you:

Tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, “soak the rich,” “soak the rich,” …failed policies of the past.

You have just showed how much of a mindless bigot you are – by reaching the conclusion you WANT to reach, completely independently of what I said.

If you actually had a functioning brain between your ears, you would realize that none of the things I proposed require more taxes, an increase in expenditure, or “soaking the rich” (whatever that means). If you had a semi-functioning brain, you would have in fact done the search and found out that I defend lower overhead.

But since you have a non-functioning mass posing as brain matter, you just said what you have been programmed to say, and will always say independently of any correlation to reality.

Very predictable…
[/quote]

I asked you in my post to explain what you meant by the government providing for the people, or whatever you said. I did accuse you of asserting the failed lib policies of the past, but all that is requried is for you to explain how you are going to acheive your objectives without a tax increase.

What did you offer? Personal insults. What kind of “functioning brain matter” does that take? I think people can decide for themselves who has the brain and who is just a mindless windbag. Oh, but I won’t lower myself to your low level.

Get out of the gutter and have some intelligent debate. Easy to insult others on the internet isn’t it? Bet you don’t do this to other people to their faces.

59

[quote]vroom wrote:
Steveo, you do realize the consequence of arguing that Bush and Rummy can’t be held responsible for anything that goes wrong during their administration is that they don’t get personal credit for the hard work of the FBI or the CIA or more locally based authorities.

Sorry, keeping America safe is the job of the various subunits of the Department of Homeland Security. Bush really has very little to do with such day to day operations, does he?

If he does, I’m sure you’ll agree that he is personally responsible for the behavior at Abu-Graib.

Drop the pom-pom’s nancy-boy, nobody is buying it.[/quote]

Listen you Bush haters will blame him for everything, give him no credit for anything, and bash him without end. However, Bush has kept America safe – the last time I looked, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. is under the {b] Executive Branch [/b] of which he is the head. As Truman said, “the buck stops here.”

I don’t expect you libs (especially you socialist Canadian libs) to like Bush, but frankly most of America could care less what you guys in moose country thinks anyway. Your country is just another Europe, except it is part of North America.

Bush has done an excellent job in the face of enormous opposition and incompetence especially in the U.S. Senate. I say he has done a great job. Is he perfect? Of course not, but he has kept us safe and that is his main job.

60

[quote]hspder wrote:
… But, as any loan officer will tell you, it’s all about debt RATIOS. To be more precise, the ratio between debt and income.[/quote]

That’s not true - at least not in the way you present it. The banker wants a positive net worth - to have more stuff than you owe against. More importantly - the banker wants to know if the loan you are wanting will cash flow.

According to you - the only way we would be able to get a loan is if we first have enough money to pay the note off before getting the loan.

You would have a very safe loan portfolio were you to get a real job at a bank. But it would only be safe because your portfolio would be empty.

The debt is at 8 trillion - not a good thing, but I think the US owns about 9-10 times that amount in assets. Someone walks into my office with a balance sheet that has a 9-1 asset to devbt ratio, and he will get a loan just about anytime he wants one - which is why we have so much foreign investment in this country.

Japan has limited resources - they can’t own as much stuff as we do - their debt will naturally be less and their revenues higher because of exports to…the U.S.

That wouldn’t have anything to do with Katrina, would it?

You refuse to believe it because you would have to admit that tax cuts work as a revenue builder.

Doesn’t matter to me if you think tax cuts work or not. The proof is in the numbers.

I don’t think anyone is jumping up and dopwn and pretending that the debt is not a problem. But the ship started sinking long before Bush was President.

Seems the left loves to make a big deal about the debt when a republican is in office, but we never heard dick about the debt for 8 years prior to Clinton.

Politics? Nah - not the left.