Posted on 08/12/2005 3:25:54 PM PDT by hang 'em
Who is/was the WORST U.S. PRESIDENT EVER? Carter? Clinton? Make your choice and state your reasons.
Who had his cigar and Johnson fully engaged while Osama was left to kill? He get's my vote!
We've got the winner....
Jimmah Cahtah was just an inept buffoon...Clinton was doing it on purpose...
Jimmah Cahtah was just an inept buffoon...Clinton was doing it on purpose...
Jimmah Cahtah was just an inept buffoon...Clinton was doing it on purpose...
"Carter because Clinton didn't do much to screw up a booming economy but Carter would have found a way."
The economy was in a bit of "uncertainty" (an understatement?) during the first two years of the Clinton White House. Upon the election of the 104th Congress (1994 elections, thank you Newt Gingrich), business picked up considerably. The Republican House and Senate counterbalanced the Clinton co-presidency.
Carter was basically an inept do-gooder. Yes, Carter did his damage. With the Clinton co-presidency the damage was deliberate.
What you talkin' about? "Fiscally"? How about 90% income tax rates? How about confiscatory "excess profits" taxes? How about being told who you can hire, how much you have to pay 'em, and when or when not you can fire them. Welcome to FDR.
Get a perspective. I won't defend present day Government excess, but I sure as Hell won't stand for your hyberpole and utter lack of perspective.
Facts.
Sh*t.
Clinton.
1. Selling nuclear secrets for campaign contributions
2. Involving the US in a war with no US interests (Kosovo)
3. Ignoring numerous signs of 9/11
4. Impeachment reasons
5. Doing nothing to advance this country despite a (false) economic boom)
6. Murder of enemies
7. Adultery
Carter was honest but grossly incompetent. FDR was a socialist liar but very talented. Johnson was a socialist and incompetent, but even he realized it and got out of office.
I bet Rosalyn said that when she looked at Jeff and Amy.
LOL
thanks :)
Hoover's role is debatable, however he's not w/o blame. Looking back on FDR's policies however, I might think that his "interventions" may have prolonged the depression. Harry Hopkins was probably the worst influence in his cabinet (a Soviet agent?).
LBJ is also among the worse. His welfare programs (War on Poverty) made things worse by encouraging dependancy. His SecDef McNamara was also one of his bad choices, contributing to the micromanagement of the Viet Nam War.
And thank you!
I vote for L. B. Johnson as the worst president by far.
Interesting that the most popular bad presidents seem to be since the first World War. I already mentioned Grant, and somebody else did, too. Grant could have cleaned up the Land Office and introduced some kind of control over the growing corporations so that socialism would never have gotten a foothold. Golden opportunity, the man in the right place at the right time, but he let it all slide.
AC5691, I REFUSE to call it a Civil War.........it was the War of Northern Aggression, plain and simple. Lincoln stood on the floor of Congress and stated that secession was legal and right. I think it was 1848 or 1849. He's been undeserving as one of our greatest presidents in preserving the Union.......bunch of bunk!
"Jimmah Cahtah was just an inept buffoon"
I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing. He has always hated America.
I think that has developed since he left the White House....
Just like Bob Taft in Ohio right now, the guy is so inept he probably has to have someone put his own pants on for him....
No, that is not true.
National Defense is one superfunction of the US Budget.
Human Resources (call it social welfare) is another superfunction.
When I say social spending or refer to socialism or call George Bush a fiscal liberal, I am refering to spending other than National Defense.
I crunch the numbers. I have the facts. You may have an opinion, but I have the facts. The facts are the OMB's Historical Tables for the US Budget. George Bush is a fiscal liberal. You will remain in denial, but those are the FACTS.
You lack facts.
The 1940 FY Budget, submitted before we entered WW II, had Human Resource (HR) spending at $4.139 billion. By 1945, FDR DECREASED HR spending to $1.859 billion, a DECREASE of 55.1%.
In 1940, 43.7 cents of every dollar went toward HR--$4.139 billion out of total spending of $9.468 billion. By 1945, FDR had CUT social spending to less than 0.002% (practically nonexistent)!
Contrast that to George Bush. Bush first budget, FY 2002, had HR spending (welfare) at $1.317 trillion. By 2006 FY, Bush has INCREASED social welfare spending to $1.675 trillion, an increase of 27.2%! During wartime!
In 2002, 65.51 cents of every dollars went to social welfare (compared to FDR's 1940 rate of 43.7 cents of every dollar). Also, we can compare this figure to Clinton's first budget of 59.47 cents of every dollar.
FDR CUT welfare spending during wartime. Bush has INCREASED welfare spending during wartime.
There are a number of programs that Bush has increased at rates of 100%, 150% and 200%, when normally we see increases near the inflation rate. Bush has initiated social welfare programs that FDR never dreamed of. In addition, global welfare spending is Bush's favorite hobby. FDR? Why don't you do something constructive and compare FDR's global welfare to Bush's. Your embarrassment would overwhelm you.
LBJ warped FDR's programs into the cesspool they are today. Bush has now taken LBJ's spending to unchartered waters.
FACT--the percent of the total budget devoted to social welfare spending DROPPED in the 1950s and DROPPED again in the 1960s. If FDR was such a "socialist", it certainly was not cast in concrete in our national agenda.
George Bush is such a liberal fiscally that he makes FDR look like Mr. Tightwad. Those are the FACTS.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, FY 2006 Historical Tables, Table 3.1, Outlays by Superfunction, 1940-2010.
I agree from a fiscal perspective.
From a national integrity angle, Scumbag has no peers. There never was and never will be any president that will top the scum meter record that Scumbag set.
Unless, of course, Scumbagette gets elected in 2008.
"Friends now? :)"
Yup!
Carter is an ignorant enigma. Assininely stupid. His words today prove even more so than when he first demonstrated the intelligence of a peanut.
In the mid-70's when he was POTUS another fellow and I were travelling in Georgia on business. We called on a man in Americus one morning. After we had completed our business this man asked if we had ever been to Plains. We hadn't. We got into his pickup and drove with him the 10 miles to Plains. On the way, he commented, "I use to have a lot of respect for the Presidency. But I know Jimmy Carter. I went to school with him. I have had business dealings with him. I have been on various committees with him. Jimmy is not smart. He is shady. I no longer have the respect for the office that I had before he became President." While in Plains we stopped in Billy's gas station. Had a look at his red "Redneck Power" pickup. Went into his gas station, where we were greated by many stacked sixpacks of Billy's Beer.
David Rockefeller picked this nobody from Plains because this nobody from Plains could be manipulated. David Rockefeller, Founder and Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission; Honorary Chairman of the Americas Society, the Council on Foreign Relations. With credentials like that, is it any surprise that David should like our man Jimmy? Is it any wonder that Jimmy still does the bidding of this man? David Rockefeller, one of only two men from this country who had anytime access to the Kremlin (Armand Hammer was the other).
And don't get me started on the Clintoons - this site might run out of bandwidth.
The facts...
Go read the text of the N.I.R.A. Then read just a few of the millions of pages of regulations, rules, and edicts it spawned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.