Worst President in history ?

[The Redneck]

You complain about high taxes? I say at least he got us into a surplus that was needed. You either have to cut spending(which was not going to happen) or you raise taxes.

Herein, I disagree--and I believe the facts support me. You lower taxes--the people, now free to spend their own money without having it confiscated, don't lock it all in a vault so they can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck when they're feeling blue but put it back into the economy so they can make more money. The economy improves, and with a larger pool to draw money from revenues grow.

While the national debt grew during Reagan's term, it was because spending spiralled out of control (Reagan's budget proposals were proudly anounced Dead On Arrival in the Democrat-controlled Congress), not a lack of revenue--in fact, revenue more than doubled during that eight years. Revenue has likewise grown after Bush's tax cuts (although, unfortunately, so has spending), and after JFK's tax cuts.

Good lord, man... Are u an American or a Confederate. Or do u just forget the rapage of the African-American people the Confederates fought so hard to defend.

Sorry, but this is completely false. The Confederates did not, in any way, shape, or form, fight to defend slavery--a fact which both sides were well aware of at the time. General Lee, for example, had inherited slaves but set them free long before the war began--while General Grant refused to set his free even after the war. Lincoln made it clear that he South would be his property--if he had to free all the slaves to do it; if he could do it without freeing any slaves, or if he had to free some slaves but could keep others enslaved--and Grant said that if he thought for a moment the war was about slavery he would resign his commission and give his sword to the other side. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in areas "in a state of rebel insurrection"--Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky, for example, didn't have to give theirs up until 1865 when it was added to our Constitution.

... Wasnt it his policies that brought of out of the depression, wait u dont have to answer that because i know if u talk to any economist its yes.

Actually, the economists I've heard from say he only made it worse, and that it's flatly obvious World War II brought us out of the depression.

h, and social sercurity that was horrible, set us back 10 years, huh...

Actually, he set in place a program wherein the government takes money from one person by force and gives it to another. This set us back significantly more than 10 years--and the system itself is on its way to collapse.

I'd also like to point out that after FDR and Truman, we were already well on our way out of the Depression, well before Reagan.

Wha-huh? If I gave the impression that Ronaldus Maximus got us out of the Great Depression, than I apologize. However, he did get us out of a situation that may indeed have spiraled into another depression--interest rates in the 20's, inflation in the double-digits, "stagflation", the "misery index"--it warn't pretty.

Captain--
Interesting poll, but I don't know how they came up with McKinley, who probably did more to allow/encourage the Depression than anyone else involed with it, as a "high average" or Jackson, who was without a doubt the most corrupt president in history, as "near great", while Reagan lingers behind Bush.

First of all, CSA was never officially a seperate nation. It was a rebellion.

The CSA was officially a seperate nation as of March 11, 1861--by which time they had formed a government, elected leaders, and adopted a constitution.

nd quite frankly I can think of many worse "rapes of nations than Reconstruction.

So can I--which is why I said "most" rather than "any" or even "almost any". If I gave the impression that the rape and desecration of the South suffered via Sherman and Reconstruction were singular events, I apologize.

Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender.

Which required the burning of homes, the murder of civilians, theft on a widespread scale, rape, and grave-desecration? "Suicide" bombers and Iraqi "insurgents" claim a noble cause too--that doesn't mean that their actions are excusable or even that their cause really is noble.

At any rate, Lincoln was dead before Reconstruction, so any fault would lie with Andrew Johnson.

Thus, "ushered in" rather than "presided over". You're not the only one to get a little confused over that, judging by the other posts, so next time I'll make sure to look over it again and make sure I'm sayin' what I think I'm sayin'.

[fire_of_avalon]

He didn't pass it, but it was still his bill. Bloody bastard.

Oh, another bad one: Rutherford B. Hayes, who bribed the South to get him elected. "Hey, South, elect me and I'll remove the last vestiges of order from the south and you'll be left to your own devices. Now, slavery's illegal now, so don't be taking advantage of those poor black fellows. I'm not actually going to pay any attention, so it'll be on your honor. Have fun trying to rebuild all by yourselves! I'll be busy up here doing sod all."

Kinda like Andrew Johnson, but more political and double-talking. He wasn't as spiteful as Johnson, though.

He had my vote next. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]

[edczxcvbnm]

You complain about high taxes? I say at least he got us into a surplus that was needed. You either have to cut spending(which was not going to happen) or you raise taxes.

Herein, I disagree--and I believe the facts support me. You lower taxes--the people, now free to spend their own money without having it confiscated, don't lock it all in a vault so they can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck when they're feeling blue but put it back into the economy so they can make more money. The economy improves, and with a larger pool to draw money from revenues grow.

While the national debt grew during Reagan's term, it was because spending spiralled out of control (Reagan's budget proposals were proudly anounced Dead On Arrival in the Democrat-controlled Congress), not a lack of revenue--in fact, revenue more than doubled during that eight years. Revenue has likewise grown after Bush's tax cuts (although, unfortunately, so has spending), and after JFK's tax cuts.

You mean kind of like now...wait. That isn't what is happening. What you said about lower taxes works only in theory and has yet to actually work. While what you say isn't exactly false, it also isn't true either. There needs to be a balance. You can't have low taxes all the time. If you do then your debt will spiral out of control like it did during Regan and both Bushes. Usually this leads to inflation and a weaker currency. A weaker currency can be nice but if it is also an unstable currency then it is bad for the economy in general as Foriegners will be less likely to invest. Having high taxes doesn't really encourage spending but it can help combat inflation and a weak currency. It also helps to make a currency a bit more stable as people are confident in it. It also gives you the ability to lower taxes to a nice rate and still keep everything balanced. Also if any big disasters occur it can help out a lot by not increasing a deficit or debt due to the surplus.

In the end it is a good idea to have a mix of both and to know when to use low taxes and high taxes to help move the economy and country in a stable and correct direction.

Clinton's high taxes were a good move because of how the economy was booming. They wanted to let it grow but not get out of control. High taxes gives people less to spend and thus really wouldn't be doing tons of investing. Despite high taxes over investment still occured. He did the right thing to try and prevent another stock collapse but it just was inevitable(if this was his intention or not, it was still the correct thing to do).

[lordblazer]

Forgive me if i sound like an ignorant forigner but I think they worst president you Americans have had is Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. oooo boy Watergate...
I liked Kennady the best.

He did worse things than waergate.I hate him too i also hate Bush.

[The Redneck]

You mean kind of like now...wait. That isn't what is happening.

Actually, it is. Revenue is growing, like as a result of Reagan's tax cuts--and like during Reagan's administration, spending is growing even faster. Revenue more than doubled during Reagan's administration--the problem wasn't that our government didn't have enough money to work with, it's that they they still managed to spend way too much.

Reagan, on one hand, had a Democrat-controlled congress that cheerfully announced his budget proposals DOA as soon as they hit the floor. Bush, on the other hand, should have it fairly easy as far as reducing spending, and hasn't even tried. The average president vetoes five bills a year--Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill, which is getting the conservatives who voted for him rather pissed off.

Clinton's high taxes were a good move because of how the economy was booming. They wanted to let it grow but not get out of control.

It's a good idea to confiscate more of people's money so that the economy doesn't grow quickly?

[eestlinc]

Coolidge.

Damn you foa for stealing my answer. Coolidge was almost certainly the worst President (except maybe WHH who got pneumonia from speaking so long in the rain at his inauguration and promptly died.) Coolidge's policies had much more to do with the great Depression than Hoover, who basically inherited an economy headed south. It's also ironic to note that Coolidge was Reagan's favorite President.

The CSA was officially a seperate nation as of March 11, 1861--by which time they had formed a government, elected leaders, and adopted a constitution.

The CSA was only deemed an official nation because countries in Europe still wanted to weaken the US and of course agreed to honor the Confederacy. Of course, they did do the constitution, elect a government, have coinage, etc.

Andrew Johnson, he totally mishandled the reconstruction of the south, and practically patted the KKK, Jim crow laws, and the slavery then known as share cropping on the back.

But he (or at least Seward) purchased Alaska during his tenure in office, so that's one positive.

Forgive me if i sound like an ignorant forigner but I think they worst president you Americans have had is Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. oooo boy Watergate...
I liked Kennady the best.

While Watergate tarnished his legacy and lost him the office, Nixon had some great achievements like opening diplomatic relations with China. I consider Nixon more of a flawed but good President than a bad President.

Herein, I disagree--and I believe the facts support me. You lower taxes--the people, now free to spend their own money without having it confiscated, don't lock it all in a vault so they can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck when they're feeling blue but put it back into the economy so they can make more money. The economy improves, and with a larger pool to draw money from revenues grow.

Except that when the very rich, who already have more money than they need, suddenly get even more because their taxes are cut, they go spend it on yachts and Maybachs and other superluxury items that never trickle down to the workforce because these are items sold with huge profit margins basically for the purpose of giving rich people something to spend their money on. This extra money just circulates between the hands of various ultra-wealthy. While cutting taxes on lower and middle income earners does positively impact the economy, sweeping cuts off the top (like George W Bush has implemented) do nothing to stimulate the economy at all.

[edczxcvbnm]

You mean kind of like now...wait. That isn't what is happening.

Actually, it is. Revenue is growing, like as a result of Reagan's tax cuts--and like during Reagan's administration, spending is growing even faster. Revenue more than doubled during Reagan's administration--the problem wasn't that our government didn't have enough money to work with, it's that they they still managed to spend way too much.

Reagan, on one hand, had a Democrat-controlled congress that cheerfully announced his budget proposals DOA as soon as they hit the floor. Bush, on the other hand, should have it fairly easy as far as reducing spending, and hasn't even tried. The average president vetoes five bills a year--Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill, which is getting the conservatives who voted for him rather pissed off.

Clinton's high taxes were a good move because of how the economy was booming. They wanted to let it grow but not get out of control.

It's a good idea to confiscate more of people's money so that the economy doesn't grow quickly?

This economy is barly recovering and it is not due to his tax cuts. His tax cuts have done nothing to help out our economy right now. As a matter of fact one could argue they hurt the economy due to massive deficits and an alarmingly weaker currency. The economy is not even to the level when he took office yet or is just barly over that level. This is the natural cycle of the economy and the president does not have a great deal of control over it. The pres can help here and there but the Pres does not make or break the economy. That is the Fed's job(Al Greenspan pretty much).

They spent way too much during Regan because of him. He expanded the government and created way too much buracracy.

As for Clinton. Yeah. He should have done that so the economy doesn't grow to quickly. As a matter of fact it grew so quickly it imploded to some extent even though taxes where high. As I said before, the Pres really doesn't have a great deal of control over the economy. It has its cycles, up and down.

Add what Eest said because that is also true. Sorry but the rich don't need a tax cut. If you make more than $200,000 a year you are more than well off.

[The Redneck]

Except that when the very rich, who already have more money than they need, suddenly get even more because their taxes are cut, they go spend it on yachts and Maybachs and other superluxury items that never trickle down to the workforce because these are items sold with huge profit margins basically for the purpose of giving rich people something to spend their money on.

Actually, there was a time when Congress believed the same--so they put up a huge luxury tax, and several thousand people were put out of work when the yacht industry went through the floor.

Meanwhile, sweeping cuts at the top have the most effect, because that's where most of the taxes are collected. The top 1% of wage-earners fund 17% of the government. The "very rich" didn't get that way by blowing money on superluxury items, they got that way by carefully investing their money--these are the folks that get things built and people hired, which is why whenever you "soak the rich" you end up screwing the little guys.

Edczx, I'm not sure where you get the idea that confiscating less of people's money has no effect on the economy. If the federal reserve controlled it, then it would have gone through the roof when Greenspan dropped the hell out of the interest rates.

They spent way too much during Regan because of him. He expanded the government and created way too much buracracy.

Well, I'll bite--where did Reagan expand the government and create beaurocracy?

Add what Eest said because that is also true. Sorry but the rich don't need a tax cut. If you make more than $200,000 a year you are more than well off.

Excuse me? Where do you get off telling someone "you've got enough money, you don't have a right to any more"? "The Rich" get flat-out screwed under our tax system, and if we're going to reduce the amount of money which the government takes from its citizens by force, than it's morally imperative that we reduce the robbery most where it's taking place most.

And taxes are robbery. You pay it, or someone comes to your house with a gun to collect it. Taxes (although not income tax) are a necessary evil. but that doesn't make it a good thing. On the contrary, it's a bad thing, and as such should be done as little as possible.

[DeBlayde]

Andrew Jackson was the worst. You want imperialist aggression, lookit this guy who evicted an entire nation from their homes at night at gunpoint and gave the land to greedy other people who had no claim to it in the first place.

[The Captain]

And yet, he's still on the $20 dollar bill. Go figure.

Take care all.

[nik0tine]

Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender.

That doesn't make it okay.

Excuse me? Where do you get off telling someone "you've got enough money, you don't have a right to any more"?

He never said that. He said that if you make enough money you don't deserve a tax cut. Not "If you make enough money you don't have the right to any more" Those are two completely different statements and you completely twisted his words.

The Rich" get flat-out screwed under our tax system, and if we're going to reduce the amount of money which the government takes from its citizens by force, than it's morally imperative that we reduce the robbery most where it's taking place most.

I disagree. We should reduce the robbery where it is doing the most damage. The rich may pay alot of taxes, but they will always be well off. Cutting taxes for the poor before cutting taxes for the rich is the morally right thing to do.

[Itsunari 2000]

uh, thankyou everyone ... also , do you think Al Gore would make a good President ?

[eestlinc]

A luxury tax is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts does not help the little guys because it basically gets handed from one rich person to another.

If you think the income tax is robbery (and I know more than a few people do) then you should go move to a country that taxes at a very low rate and in return provides almost no government. You might like it better there, if you can find such a place.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender.

That doesn't make it okay.

Well, in my mind it was the same kinda thing as the decision to nuke Japan in WW2. If they had to invade and concour all of the Japanese islands at the end of WW2, the war could have lasted another 10 years, and killed another couple of thousand American troops. A general (or whoever else is in charge of the war) is charged with winning the war with as few of his soldiers dead as possible. If it were possible to get the same results with lesser means, then that's what should have happened. I suspect that without Sherman's March, the civil war may have lasted another 5 or so years, and the results would have been the same South is returned to the US, the only differnce is that more soldiers on both sides die.

[edczxcvbnm]

I'll be back with research tomarrow...maybe I will even make a new thread. What I have found so far is pretty interesting.