• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst 20th Century President

Worst 20th Century President


  • Total voters
    112
i think it's because bush's complete failure transcends time and space.
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, considering anyone can either edit or enter false information on this site. Currently Woodrow Wilson is ranked the worst, for this type of judgement to be passed, usually takes about 10 years or more.
 
I didn't know JFK was a Michael Jackson fan.

And shame on JFK, how many endangered elephants were killed to build that ivory tower?

Yeah, JFK was one of the more incompetent presidents, but there's so many to choose from, he's not the worst.
He was responsible for the lose of lot of good Men. Many of them my friends. ---then he changed us from a Majority rule society, to a minority rule society---which is just backwards.
 
He was responsible for the lose of lot of good Men. Many of them my friends. ---then he changed us from a Majority rule society, to a minority rule society---which is just backwards.

I thought you were about 40 or so...
 
Of course it's Clinton.

He policies and decisions led to our current situation - and tossed our livelihoods into the toilet in the process.

I think there comes a point at which you have to not mull over the past - say, after 50 years - but his presidency was recently enough where we're still feeling the direct results.
 
Of course it's Clinton.

He policies and decisions led to our current situation - and tossed our livelihoods into the toilet in the process.

I think there comes a point at which you have to not mull over the past - say, after 50 years - but his presidency was recently enough where we're still feeling the direct results.

Well, you are wrong. It was Bush's home ownership policies that led to the financial collapse and the destruction of the banking system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

“The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs,” Mr. Snow said in an interview. “But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.”

For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security. The housing market was a bright spot: ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.

Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”

Remarks by the President on Homeownership - HUD

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.)

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.)

The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can't find a house that's affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.)

The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words. (Laughter.) There's too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he's going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership.

It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder. And in order to do so, we've got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people -- obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We've got people who have newly arrived to our country, don't know the customs. We've got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren't really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan.
 
Last edited:
Why isn't Reagan on this list since he started us down the path that is causing our current economic problems?
 
Why isn't Reagan on this list since he started us down the path that is causing our current economic problems?

People seem to forget that, and all of the other terrible things he did as President. Deregulation started with him. Since then, WH Bush, Clinton, and Bush all continued in the path that he started.

Seems that time has been good to Reagan... I'm hearing stories that as President, he lept tall buildings in a single bound.
 
People seem to forget that, and all of the other terrible things he did as President. Deregulation started with him. Since then, WH Bush, Clinton, and Bush all continued in the path that he started.

Seems that time has been good to Reagan... I'm hearing stories that as President, he lept tall buildings in a single bound.

Yeah, they forget about the savings and loan collapse and bailout, the Iran contra affair, the 240 marines murdered in Lebanon, the October surprise, and all the indictments and convictions of Reagans officials.
When something is repeated often and long enough people believe it.


And it was Reagan that popularized deficit spending and he invented "the bailout"

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls aka thrifts). A Savings and Loan is a financial institution in the United States that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the US government—that is, the US taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts[1]—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s..
 
Last edited:
Let's not mischaracterize. Deficit spending has been around for much longer than the history of this country. As for bailouts, it's so convenient of you to ignore Chrysler. What Was The Chrysler Bailout? - Political History: The Chrysler Bail Out

The Chrysler bailout was nothing compared to the saving and loan bailout.
The Chrysler bailout was just a government loan guarantee of private money. It cost taxpayers zero. The S&L bailout cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Do you see the difference? I do believe it is you that is mischaracterizing.
 
Last edited:
The Chrysler bailout was nothing compared to the saving and loan bailout.
The Chrysler bailout was just a government loan guarantee of private money. It cost taxpayers zero. The S&L bailout cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Do you see the difference? I do believe it is you that is mischaracterizing.

Just because something makes a profit does not mean that it is no cost to us.
 
Just because something makes a profit does not mean that it is no cost to us.

No government money changed hands. The government just guaranteed private loans to Chrysler. It cost us nothing. Zero Nadda.
 
No government money changed hands. The government just guaranteed private loans to Chrysler. It cost us nothing. Zero Nadda.

No, the government gave Chrysler money. That means during that time we had capital goods sent to a failing company instead of to a succeeding company. That's the cost, even if it did turn a profit.
 
No, the government gave Chrysler money. That means during that time we had capital goods sent to a failing company instead of to a succeeding company. That's the cost, even if it did turn a profit.

No, the government gave no money to Chrysler during the first bailout in the 70s. Private lenders lent Chrysler money and the government guaranteed those loans. That's all the government did was guarantee the loans. The lenders made a profit on those loans and it cost the government nothing.
 
No, the government gave no money to Chrysler during the first bailout in the 70s. Private lenders lent Chrysler money and the government guaranteed those loans. That's all the government did was guarantee the loans. The lenders made a profit on those loans and it cost the government nothing.

That's not no cost. That's still capital going to Chrysler because the government guaranteed the loan. It's basically the same thing as if government had made the loan itself. A loan that otherwise would not have gone to Chrysler went to Chrysler because of government intervention.
 
Yeah, they forget about the savings and loan collapse and bailout, the Iran contra affair, the 240 marines murdered in Lebanon, the October surprise, and all the indictments and convictions of Reagans officials.
When something is repeated often and long enough people believe it.


And it was Reagan that popularized deficit spending and he invented "the bailout"

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls aka thrifts). A Savings and Loan is a financial institution in the United States that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the US government—that is, the US taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts[1]—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s..

Yes, yes, but you missed the point. He conquered Granada!:roll:
 
That's not no cost. That's still capital going to Chrysler because the government guaranteed the loan. It's basically the same thing as if government had made the loan itself. A loan that otherwise would not have gone to Chrysler went to Chrysler because of government intervention.

So? It's private capital that turned a profit for the lenders. It was only a billon or so anyway and banks made money. They were happy. Reagan's S&L crisis cost taxpayers over 180 billion. You can't see the difference?
 
So? It's private capital that turned a profit for the lenders. It was only a billon or so anyway and banks made money. They were happy. Reagan's S&L crisis cost taxpayers over 180 billion. You can't see the difference?

Yes I can see the difference, but it doesn't mean that the Chrysler bailout wasn't a waste of money.
 
I don't remember who it was, but they said Bush was the worst, so I thought we had this all settled.
 
Yes I can see the difference, but it doesn't mean that the Chrysler bailout wasn't a waste of money.

The first bailout(loan guarantee) was not a waste of money. In fact it generated tax revenue for the last thirty years. The government collected billions of taxes from Chrysler after the loan guarantees. It turned out to be a great deal for everyone and it didn't cost the government a penny.
 
The first bailout(loan guarantee) was not a waste of money. In fact it generated tax revenue for the last thirty years. The government collected billions of taxes from Chrysler after the loan guarantees. It turned out to be a great deal for everyone and it didn't cost the government a penny.

Instead of letting the companies that were doing well (aka producing the things that people want) get bigger. Makes total economic sense. :roll:
 
Instead of letting the companies that were doing well (aka producing the things that people want) get bigger. Makes total economic sense. :roll:

Chrysler restructured, retooled and built and sold things people wanted. The Auto makers thrived in the 80s and 90s.
 
Chrysler restructured, retooled and built and sold things people wanted. The Auto makers thrived in the 80s and 90s.

Someone always pays. This is basic economics.

"In the course of our study, also, we have rediscovered an old friend. He is the Forgotten Man of William Graham Sumner. The reader will remember that in Sumner’s essay, which appeared in 1883:

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X suffering is, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always pro- poses to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. . . . What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the For- gotten Man. . . . He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him.

It is an historic irony that when this phrase, the For- gotten Man, was revived in the nineteen thirties, it was applied, not to C, but to X ; and C, who was then being asked to support still more X’s, was more completely for- gotten than ever. It is C, the Forgotten Man, who is al- ways called upon to stanch the politician’s bleeding heart by paying for his vicarious generosity."

Read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt because you don't seem to be able to understand this simple concept.
 
Back
Top Bottom