Worst American president in history?

[Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un]

Reagan, he is a pinko commie liberal.

[Carto-Geography]

Worst Dead Presidents
1. James Buchanan
2. Andrew Jackson
3. Andrew Johnson
4. James Madison
5.Woodrow Wilson

Best Dead Presidents
1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Ronald Reagan
4. James Polk
5. John F. Kennedy

[Ievonovich]

Ronald Reagan most probably

[Kamchastkia]

Harry Goddamn Truman

[New Educandi]

I will probably get yelled at but Eisenhower. Crushing the freedom of Vietnamese, South Americans and Cubans in the name of capitalism.
Runners up: Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.

we must be the same person, except eisenhower. i think he was ok, but like every one, he has some stuff to be desired.

[Kathmandue]

FDR, FDR, FDR.

FDR got the US outta the Great Depression, because of him, the 50's up to the 80's were good economically.

[WRIF Army]

Many of the policies responsible for the recession were in place before Bush became president: Fed induced artificially low interest rates, mortgage interest deduction, GSE insured home loans and the most important factor, moral hazard created by the revolving door between Wall St and Capitol Hill. I think all presidents deal with 'a recalcitrant Congress', including Clinton and Reagan who both got things done while being investigated or impeached. Reagan inherited an economy with negative GDP and 17%, no walk in the park. One thing is certain, he didn't spend a lot of time blaming Carter, he worked with Congress and the Fed to raise interest rates, cut discretionary spending and won the Cold War that allowed Clinton the freedom to cut defense spending and reduce the deficit.

All of those economic policies worked well during the boom time of the Clinton years. I agree with the lobbyist issue, though. And neither of the Presidents you mentioned had to deal with the sort of obstructionism that Obama has faced. Seriously. History quiz: Which Congress used the filibuster more than any other in all of history?

I think the fly in the ointment that corrupted policies and agencies that previously had operated without problems was the Fed distorting the markets with artificially low interest rates that spurred investment in interest rate sensitive industries, like housing. Also, the Community Reinvestment Act loans skyrocketed in the period leading up to the housing collapse, not surprising.

Since you asked, I guess this Congress (republicans) have used the filibuster more frequently than all other sessions of Congress, at least on judicial appointments. In defense, it can be argued that Obama has been the most socialist president and the least effective at reaching across the aisle. It can also be argued that passing one of the most sweeping and consequential laws in history without a single bi-partisan vote, the ACA, has contributed to the animus in Washington. But I really don't have a problem with the Senate changing their own rules, they are entitled under the Constitution. However, I think that liberal democrats should be concerned about this change since it may come back to 'bite them in the ass'. I for one, don't want any simple majority (either democrat or republican) imposing its will over the American people without some measure of bi-partisan support.

[Pravengria]

For my country, I'd say Putin, I supported him at first because I think we needed a strong leader to grip and pull the country out of the old time, however recent incidents such as the homosexual banning as well as fueling things along with the church, and the harsh putting down of those who oppose him through out my hopes of achieving a more liberal Russia.

As for the US, George Bush has it hands down for me, I can understand the reasoning of invading Iraq, it resulted in the removal of Sadam but I never could trust the actual motives and saw it more as a ploy to control the Middle East for oil, keeping Iran in check and ensuring the safety of Israel. Not exactly bad goals no, but the fact of it being a decade since the war, and Iraq is in a bad state; a little better yes, but not to hopes that I thought could have been achieved and also the fact that not much has been actually reached in terms of ending the war in Afghanistan, makes me think otherwise.

[Mozzissey]

Anyone who is not Emperor Norton.

Hey, Emperor Norton the 1st was pretty badass.

[The Black Forrest]

Of this era; the shrub by far. He was a hand puppet.

The op should break the time range into groups. Peoples viewpoints and "moral" systems change.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

All of those economic policies worked well during the boom time of the Clinton years. I agree with the lobbyist issue, though. And neither of the Presidents you mentioned had to deal with the sort of obstructionism that Obama has faced. Seriously. History quiz: Which Congress used the filibuster more than any other in all of history?

I think the fly in the ointment that corrupted policies and agencies that previously had operated without problems was the Fed distorting the markets with artificially low interest rates that spurred investment in interest rate sensitive industries, like housing. Also, the Community Reinvestment Act loans skyrocketed in the period leading up to the housing collapse, not surprising.

Since you asked, I guess this Congress (republicans) have used the filibuster more frequently than all other sessions of Congress, at least on judicial appointments. In defense, it can be argued that Obama has been the most socialist president and the least effective at reaching across the aisle. It can also be argued that passing one of the most sweeping and consequential laws in history without a single bi-partisan vote, the ACA, has contributed to the animus in Washington. But I really don't have a problem with the Senate changing their own rules, they are entitled under the Constitution. However, I think that liberal democrats should be concerned about this change since it may come back to 'bite them in the ass'. I for one, don't want any simple majority (either democrat or republican) imposing its will over the American people without some measure of bi-partisan support.

Emphasis mine.

You used the word "socialist" to describe the center-right Obama, a man who stocked the Treasury with Wall Street types, and introduced a major giveaway to giant insurance corporations as his health plan rather than single payer.

This shows me that you have absolutely no clue what socialism is. Hell, I'm to the left of Obama, and I'm not even a socialist.

[Bojikami]

Reagan, Bush, Eisenhower or Woodrow Wilson.

[Gauthier]

I think the fly in the ointment that corrupted policies and agencies that previously had operated without problems was the Fed distorting the markets with artificially low interest rates that spurred investment in interest rate sensitive industries, like housing. Also, the Community Reinvestment Act loans skyrocketed in the period leading up to the housing collapse, not surprising.

Since you asked, I guess this Congress (republicans) have used the filibuster more frequently than all other sessions of Congress, at least on judicial appointments. In defense, it can be argued that Obama has been the most socialist president and the least effective at reaching across the aisle. It can also be argued that passing one of the most sweeping and consequential laws in history without a single bi-partisan vote, the ACA, has contributed to the animus in Washington. But I really don't have a problem with the Senate changing their own rules, they are entitled under the Constitution. However, I think that liberal democrats should be concerned about this change since it may come back to 'bite them in the ass'. I for one, don't want any simple majority (either democrat or republican) imposing its will over the American people without some measure of bi-partisan support.

Emphasis mine.

You used the word "socialist" to describe the center-right Obama, a man who stocked the Treasury with Wall Street types, and introduced a major giveaway to giant insurance corporations as his health plan rather than single payer.

This shows me that you have absolutely no clue what socialism is. Hell, I'm to the left of Obama, and I'm not even a socialist.

The clueless use of "socialism" is just an example of how Luntzified the word has become to right wingers, used to infer anything so much slightly left of center is somehow inherently communist or outright Stalinist.

[Richie Rich]

Worst was by far FDR, he gave those damn poor a teat to suck on!

[UED]

Worst was by far FDR, he gave those damn poor a teat to suck on!

lol

[America Libertaria]

Woodrow Wilson.
In addition to being racist and pro-segregation He promoted & signed;
*The Federal reserve act; thus re-instituting the central banking & fractional reserve systems eradicated by Jefferson..
*The ratification of the sixteenth amendment; Thus allowing the federal government to impose a general tax on Income during peace time.(an admittedly rare state these days...).

The Federal Reserve is necessary tbh. I also don't have a problem with the 16th as long as its a low flat tax.

[WRIF Army]

I think the fly in the ointment that corrupted policies and agencies that previously had operated without problems was the Fed distorting the markets with artificially low interest rates that spurred investment in interest rate sensitive industries, like housing. Also, the Community Reinvestment Act loans skyrocketed in the period leading up to the housing collapse, not surprising.

Since you asked, I guess this Congress (republicans) have used the filibuster more frequently than all other sessions of Congress, at least on judicial appointments. In defense, it can be argued that Obama has been the most socialist president and the least effective at reaching across the aisle. It can also be argued that passing one of the most sweeping and consequential laws in history without a single bi-partisan vote, the ACA, has contributed to the animus in Washington. But I really don't have a problem with the Senate changing their own rules, they are entitled under the Constitution. However, I think that liberal democrats should be concerned about this change since it may come back to 'bite them in the ass'. I for one, don't want any simple majority (either democrat or republican) imposing its will over the American people without some measure of bi-partisan support.

Emphasis mine.

You used the word "socialist" to describe the center-right Obama, a man who stocked the Treasury with Wall Street types, and introduced a major giveaway to giant insurance corporations as his health plan rather than single payer.

This shows me that you have absolutely no clue what socialism is. Hell, I'm to the left of Obama, and I'm not even a socialist.

You forgot that Obama also voted lockstep with Bush to bailout Wall St.

My point regarding socialism is the propensity of socialist government to reward rent seekers at the expense of a peaceful, competitive, dynamic and voluntary marketplace. Obama and liberal democrats have used government to bail out and reward cronies with food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage increases, grants to alternative energy cronies, bail outs to Wall St., bail outs to big unions, bail outs to GM/Chrysler, tax breaks to health insurance providers, coercive government managed health care exchanges.......

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives consider these policies repulsive, destructive and indicative of government meddling in the economy, and socialist. Certainly, not 'center-right', but perhaps our disagreement is more semantic.

[Richie Rich]

Emphasis mine.

You used the word "socialist" to describe the center-right Obama, a man who stocked the Treasury with Wall Street types, and introduced a major giveaway to giant insurance corporations as his health plan rather than single payer.

This shows me that you have absolutely no clue what socialism is. Hell, I'm to the left of Obama, and I'm not even a socialist.

You forgot that Obama also voted lockstep with Bush to bailout Wall St.

My point regarding socialism is the propensity of socialist government to reward rent seekers at the expense of a peaceful, competitive, dynamic and voluntary marketplace. Obama and liberal democrats have used government to bail out and reward cronies with food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage increases, grants to alternative energy cronies, bail outs to Wall St., bail outs to big unions, bail outs to GM/Chrysler, tax breaks to health insurance providers, coercive government managed health care exchanges.......

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives consider these policies repulsive, destructive and indicative of government meddling in the economy, and socialist. Certainly, not 'center-right', but perhaps our disagreement is more semantic.

This ^

Perfect! While it is true Neo-cons support protectionism, subsidizing businesses, especially the military industrial complex, and corporate welfare for the economic interests of a nation, they are clearly commie liberals.

[Threlizdun]

Emphasis mine.

You used the word "socialist" to describe the center-right Obama, a man who stocked the Treasury with Wall Street types, and introduced a major giveaway to giant insurance corporations as his health plan rather than single payer.

This shows me that you have absolutely no clue what socialism is. Hell, I'm to the left of Obama, and I'm not even a socialist.

You forgot that Obama also voted lockstep with Bush to bailout Wall St.

My point regarding socialism is the propensity of socialist government to reward rent seekers at the expense of a peaceful, competitive, dynamic and voluntary marketplace. Obama and liberal democrats have used government to bail out and reward cronies with food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage increases, grants to alternative energy cronies, bail outs to Wall St., bail outs to big unions, bail outs to GM/Chrysler, tax breaks to health insurance providers, coercive government managed health care exchanges.......

So your criticism of Obama, along with entirely false statements, is that he supported the capitalists by subsidizing major industries at the expense of the common worker? That is an argument in the opposite direction of the one you're trying to make.

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives consider these policies repulsive, destructive and indicative of government meddling in the economy, and socialist. Certainly, not 'center-right', but perhaps our disagreement is more semantic.

Any sensible libertarian would support government regulation of the economy and expansion of social safety nets if capitalism could not be immediately abolished. All libertarians favor socialism however. You appear to have confused American classical liberal, paleoconservative, and Objectivist tendencies with the radical leftist philosophy of libertarianism somehow.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Emphasis mine.

You used the word "socialist" to describe the center-right Obama, a man who stocked the Treasury with Wall Street types, and introduced a major giveaway to giant insurance corporations as his health plan rather than single payer.

This shows me that you have absolutely no clue what socialism is. Hell, I'm to the left of Obama, and I'm not even a socialist.

You forgot that Obama also voted lockstep with Bush to bailout Wall St.

My point regarding socialism is the propensity of socialist government to reward rent seekers at the expense of a peaceful, competitive, dynamic and voluntary marketplace. Obama and liberal democrats have used government to bail out and reward cronies with food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage increases, grants to alternative energy cronies, bail outs to Wall St., bail outs to big unions, bail outs to GM/Chrysler, tax breaks to health insurance providers, coercive government managed health care exchanges.......

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives consider these policies repulsive, destructive and indicative of government meddling in the economy, and socialist. Certainly, not 'center-right', but perhaps our disagreement is more semantic.

Bailing out high finance types after they wreck the economy in pursuit of short-term profit is not socialist.

Tell you what: find the definition of socialism, quote it, and tell me how it applies to any of the actions you're taking issue with.

[WRIF Army]

You forgot that Obama also voted lockstep with Bush to bailout Wall St.

My point regarding socialism is the propensity of socialist government to reward rent seekers at the expense of a peaceful, competitive, dynamic and voluntary marketplace. Obama and liberal democrats have used government to bail out and reward cronies with food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage increases, grants to alternative energy cronies, bail outs to Wall St., bail outs to big unions, bail outs to GM/Chrysler, tax breaks to health insurance providers, coercive government managed health care exchanges.......

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives consider these policies repulsive, destructive and indicative of government meddling in the economy, and socialist. Certainly, not 'center-right', but perhaps our disagreement is more semantic.

This ^

Perfect! While it is true Neo-cons support protectionism, subsidizing businesses, especially the military industrial complex, and corporate welfare for the economic interests of a nation, they are clearly commie liberals.

I concede, Obama is not a socialist and Neo-cons are not conservative libertarians. Both are crony capitalists who offer favors to special interest voters, businesses and industries in exchange for campaign contributions and votes. Obama = Bush = Christie = Reid = Pelosi = corrupt, inefficient & wasteful govt.

[WRIF Army]

You forgot that Obama also voted lockstep with Bush to bailout Wall St.

My point regarding socialism is the propensity of socialist government to reward rent seekers at the expense of a peaceful, competitive, dynamic and voluntary marketplace. Obama and liberal democrats have used government to bail out and reward cronies with food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage increases, grants to alternative energy cronies, bail outs to Wall St., bail outs to big unions, bail outs to GM/Chrysler, tax breaks to health insurance providers, coercive government managed health care exchanges.......

So your criticism of Obama, along with entirely false statements, is that he supported the capitalists by subsidizing major industries at the expense of the common worker? That is an argument in the opposite direction of the one you're trying to make.

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives consider these policies repulsive, destructive and indicative of government meddling in the economy, and socialist. Certainly, not 'center-right', but perhaps our disagreement is more semantic.

Any sensible libertarian would support government regulation of the economy and expansion of social safety nets if capitalism could not be immediately abolished. All libertarians favor socialism however. You appear to have confused American classical liberal, paleoconservative, and Objectivist tendencies with the radical leftist philosophy of libertarianism somehow.

I support peaceful and voluntary exchange. Government has a necessary role protecting life, liberty and private property impartially, certainly not plundering Paul, to pay Peter in exchange for votes or bribes. I would call this minarchism.

[Threlizdun]

I support peaceful and voluntary exchange. Government has a necessary role protecting life, liberty and private property impartially, certainly not plundering Paul, to pay Peter in exchange for votes or bribes. I would call this minarchism.

You cannot support peace and voluntary exchange while supporting private property, which depends upon coercion to survive. Minarchism is a useless term. Anyone who advocates the minimal amount of government they deem necessary is a minarchist. Anyone from an anarchist to a fascist could apply the term minarchism to their beliefs as long as they believe they are advocating the minimal amount of government they deem necessary. That is illustrated quite well with your advocacy of a government which only acts as a violent entity and does nothing to actually help the populace or promote sentient wellbeing.

[WRIF Army]

I support peaceful and voluntary exchange. Government has a necessary role protecting life, liberty and private property impartially, certainly not plundering Paul, to pay Peter in exchange for votes or bribes. I would call this minarchism.

You cannot support peace and voluntary exchange while supporting private property, which depends upon coercion to survive. Minarchism is a useless term. Anyone who advocates the minimal amount of government they deem necessary is a minarchist. Anyone from an anarchist to a fascist could apply the term minarchism to their beliefs as long as they believe they are advocating the minimal amount of government they deem necessary. That is illustrated quite well with your advocacy of a government which only acts as a violent entity and does nothing to actually help the populace or promote sentient wellbeing.

I prefer private property among citizens equally protected under the law, to surrendering these rights to a government, politician and bureaucrat.

[WRIF Army]

I support peaceful and voluntary exchange. Government has a necessary role protecting life, liberty and private property impartially, certainly not plundering Paul, to pay Peter in exchange for votes or bribes. I would call this minarchism.

You cannot support peace and voluntary exchange while supporting private property, which depends upon coercion to survive. Minarchism is a useless term. Anyone who advocates the minimal amount of government they deem necessary is a minarchist. Anyone from an anarchist to a fascist could apply the term minarchism to their beliefs as long as they believe they are advocating the minimal amount of government they deem necessary. That is illustrated quite well with your advocacy of a government which only acts as a violent entity and does nothing to actually help the populace or promote sentient wellbeing.

Government should only use coercion to adjudicate disputes between citizens, otherwise politicians and bureaucrats have no business meddling in the voluntary and peaceful exchange of adults.