Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 119
Thanks Tree114Thanks

Thread: Best President In Your Lifetime And The Winner Is: Obama

  1. #71
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,702
    Thanks
    36252

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    Reagan raised taxes.
    Cut them too deep, then raised them 11 times.
    Thanks from Friday13, BigBob and Panzareta

  2. #72
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,702
    Thanks
    36252

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    This is kind of a BS poll just in its design. It asks people living today who is the best president of their lifetime, but those lifetimes started in maybe 1925 and the youngest were born in 2000. Those are different lifetimes. Not that many people can say FDR anymore. The Bushs' absence from the list is notable, though.
    I did. The reason no one mentioned the Bush Family is because the first one was only in for one term. The second cut taxes for the wealthy, Lied us into a war we are still in and gave us the worst Recession since the Depression.
    Thanks from Friday13, Minotaur, BigBob and 1 others

  3. #73
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,930
    Thanks
    2657

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    of course...

    Bill Clinton came in second and Reagan came in third.

    Poll: Obama tops list ranking best president in Americans' lifetime
    I'd put Clinton ahead of Obama.

    I think Obama rightly gets credit for having a much higher degree of difficulty. Although Clinton inherited a depressed economy with high unemployment, it was at least growing again, whereas the economy was in freefall when GW Bush left office. Both men inherited then-record high reliance on deficits, but they were proportionally worse when Obama came to office. And although Clinton inherited some terrible social problems (record high violent crime and teen pregnancy, etc.), Obama had it worse in inheriting active bloody quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. As ugly as the situation was that the Republicans left Clinton to fix, it was far, far uglier for Obama.

    So, I definitely see why many would put Obama ahead of Clinton. And there's also the fact that a huge number of voters wouldn't even remember how bad things were in the early 1990s or how good they'd gotten by 2000. Even the oldest of Millenials were only teenagers when the Clinton presidency ended, and younger millennials have no recollection of that time at all.

    Still, I'd put Clinton ahead, just because his time was almost unprecedented in American history, in terms of improvement being almost across-the-board and robust. We had record deficits turn to record surpluses, unemployment and murder rates drop to levels not seen since the 1960s, etc. GDP grew strongly throughout his presidency, stock markets surged, social problems receded, and so on. And it was a time of peace. There's hardly a measure of social or economic well-being where his numbers don't put Obama's to shame (along with every other president after LBJ). I also dock Obama a few points for being worse for civil liberties and the rule of law -- e.g., the indefinite, lawless detentions at Gitmo, the widespread warrant-free assassination campaign with drones, etc. And I give Clinton a few points for the Northern Ireland peace, which you could argue was the biggest diplomatic coup since Carter's Camp David Accords.

    After Clinton and Obama, it's slim pickings for the past several decades. Trump and GW Bush each have a serious claim on worst president ever. GHW Bush and Ford were ineffectual single-termers mostly noteworthy for their abuse of the pardon power on behalf of the crooks in the prior administration. Reagan wasn't awful, overall, but was responsible for a vast acceleration of wealth inequality, as well as a reversal of decades of progress in bringing down federal debt as a share of GDP. He also set the stage for the race-baiting politics of the right in subsequent years, and the extremist takeover of the GOP. Carter was well-meaning but presided over the worst economy of any modern Democrat. Nixon was so corrupt that it took Trump to usurp his throne in that regard. LBJ was really good in a lot of ways, but it's hard to look past Vietnam, arguably the nation's biggest blunder in a century. And Kennedy would be remembered quite poorly if he hadn't had the good luck of getting killed in office. His foreign policy was especially horrible -- taking us right to the edge of nuclear war through sheer incompetence.
    Thanks from Minotaur

  4. #74
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,036
    Thanks
    30468

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by GoaTlOver View Post
    Quick question here. The "Great Recession" officially ended in June of 2009, about six months after Pes. Obama took office. Was that because of actions that he took, or was it related to actions that were taken before he became the president?
    There was a HUGE surge in Consumer Confidence (as measured by the University of Michigan Consumer Confidence Index) after the passage of ARRA in February of 2009, which makes perfect sense, because roughly a million public employees SUDDENLY knew that they were NOT going to immediately lose their jobs, as many had feared. State and local tax revenues were simply PLUMMETING in the wake of the Great Recession, and teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants were being laid off in DROVES, and then ARRA quite suddenly brought about an end to that trend. Think of the dramatic effect that had on all those households.
    Thanks from BigBob and MaryAnne

  5. #75
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,036
    Thanks
    30468

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I'd put Clinton ahead of Obama.

    I think Obama rightly gets credit for having a much higher degree of difficulty. Although Clinton inherited a depressed economy with high unemployment, it was at least growing again, whereas the economy was in freefall when GW Bush left office. Both men inherited then-record high reliance on deficits, but they were proportionally worse when Obama came to office. And although Clinton inherited some terrible social problems (record high violent crime and teen pregnancy, etc.), Obama had it worse in inheriting active bloody quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. As ugly as the situation was that the Republicans left Clinton to fix, it was far, far uglier for Obama.

    So, I definitely see why many would put Obama ahead of Clinton. And there's also the fact that a huge number of voters wouldn't even remember how bad things were in the early 1990s or how good they'd gotten by 2000. Even the oldest of Millenials were only teenagers when the Clinton presidency ended, and younger millennials have no recollection of that time at all.

    Still, I'd put Clinton ahead, just because his time was almost unprecedented in American history, in terms of improvement being almost across-the-board and robust. We had record deficits turn to record surpluses, unemployment and murder rates drop to levels not seen since the 1960s, etc. GDP grew strongly throughout his presidency, stock markets surged, social problems receded, and so on. And it was a time of peace. There's hardly a measure of social or economic well-being where his numbers don't put Obama's to shame (along with every other president after LBJ). I also dock Obama a few points for being worse for civil liberties and the rule of law -- e.g., the indefinite, lawless detentions at Gitmo, the widespread warrant-free assassination campaign with drones, etc. And I give Clinton a few points for the Northern Ireland peace, which you could argue was the biggest diplomatic coup since Carter's Camp David Accords.

    After Clinton and Obama, it's slim pickings for the past several decades. Trump and GW Bush each have a serious claim on worst president ever. GHW Bush and Ford were ineffectual single-termers mostly noteworthy for their abuse of the pardon power on behalf of the crooks in the prior administration. Reagan wasn't awful, overall, but was responsible for a vast acceleration of wealth inequality, as well as a reversal of decades of progress in bringing down federal debt as a share of GDP. He also set the stage for the race-baiting politics of the right in subsequent years, and the extremist takeover of the GOP. Carter was well-meaning but presided over the worst economy of any modern Democrat. Nixon was so corrupt that it took Trump to usurp his throne in that regard. LBJ was really good in a lot of ways, but it's hard to look past Vietnam, arguably the nation's biggest blunder in a century. And Kennedy would be remembered quite poorly if he hadn't had the good luck of getting killed in office. His foreign policy was especially horrible -- taking us right to the edge of nuclear war through sheer incompetence.
    See post #24----if you haven't already----for why I downgrade Bill Clinton and rank him below Obama. And Clinton INHERITED that era of peace. The Cold War had already ended by the time he took office, and GHWB had already told the American public that we could expect a 'peace dividend'.

  6. #76
    New Member BigBob's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    426
    Thanks
    398

    From
    My house
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Cut them too deep, then raised them 11 times.
    Someone who remembers!!!

  7. #77
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,930
    Thanks
    2657

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    See post #24----if you haven't already----for why I downgrade Bill Clinton and rank him below Obama. And Clinton INHERITED that era of peace
    Lots of presidents inherit peace. Preserving it is another matter. GW Bush inherited peace and yet got us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. His father inherited peace, too, but we had a middling conflict in Iraq on his watch, as well as using force in Panama. If Clinton had been bloodthirsty like the younger Bush, he had plenty of opportunity to start some shit. For example, he inherited a minor military engagement in Somalia which went ugly with the "Black Hawk Down" event. In theory, that could have been a "Gulf of Tonkin": he could have done something stupid by pivoting to regime change after that, but instead we wisely cut our losses and moved on. He also inherited the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Iraq, and wisely maintained that status quo rather than looking for excuses to invade. Likewise he inherited a situation where there was an ongoing ethnic cleansing situation in Yugoslavia. He could have used that as an excuse for major military involvement, but instead navigated that inherited crisis in a way that ended the ethnic cleansing without getting us sucked into a quagmire.

    So, I think it would be a mistake not to recognize Clinton's role in that peace.
    Thanks from Tedminator and BigLeRoy

  8. #78
    Senior Member BoiseBo's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    10,743
    Thanks
    8683

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    I think this exposes age differences. The older retired people may have split their vote between Bush and Reagan for conservatives. Middle age may have gone more for Clinton and Obama. The younger ones polled for Obama at over 60%.

    The key is that they rated within their own lifetime. Interesting poll.
    In that case, it's especially funny that Donnie Dumpster only ended up with 19%

  9. #79
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,281
    Thanks
    1220

    From
    Maryland USA
    I tend to agree with those that suggest the President's of their lifetime have their good points and their bad points, their successes and their failures. In many cases, I think they did a good job, but could have done a better job. Additionally, I think we place too much blame on the Oval Office when things go bad and too much credit when things go good. The dot com bubble didn't just bust over night, the real estate bust did happen over night and the banking crisis didn't happen over night. In each case, they developed over time, sometimes overlapping the tenures of the respective Presidents. Perhaps, the exception is going into military conflicts.

    Unfortunately, during my lifetime, I don't think one of the best administrations was allowed to happen, when President Kennedy was assassinated. Had he been a two term President, I think our Country and its current issues would be significantly different. Would the history of the 60s have been the same. While my lifetime continues to get shorter, I would hope that the best President of my lifetime is yet to be. But I am not optimistic, because we now politically operate in the theater of extremes. It will take an individual that understands compromise and that reasonable people can find reasonable solutions.
    Thanks from Minotaur, Blues63 and Sparta

  10. #80
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,930
    Thanks
    2657

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    I will downgrade Bill Clinton for three primary reasons: (1) He really did tarnish the Oval Office with his unseemly behavior with Monica Lewinsky.
    I don't see how that would tarnish the Oval Office. Why would anyone care who the president is screwing around with, so long as it's consensual? He had a mistress, like any number of other presidents, and probably the majority of powerful men in history. What's the big deal? Treating that as if it were a stain on his presidency strikes me as a childish kind of prudishness. I'd treat it as on par with finding out a president swore a lot behind closed doors, or that he loves Nickelback.... not exactly dignified, but hardly worth discussing.

    Towards the end of his Presidency, Clinton took some unwise financial actions that helped to set the stage for the massive financial bubble that developed in the 2000's
    Meh. Although with 20/20 hindsight, some of the financial deregulation doesn't look like a good idea, it also doesn't seem to have factored into the meltdown of 2008. For example, it's not like the financial contagion passed between investment banks and retail banks (the vector that the repealed regulations were meant to prevent). Instead, it spread by way of exotic investments that hadn't been regulated in the first place. It wasn't about deregulation in the 90s, it was about a failure to create the right new regulation in the '00s when the scope of the problem was becoming clear. What we needed is something that would keep mortgages from being transformed into synthetic investments, or something to impose some rigor around the investment grading and insurance practices associated with those investments.

    Plus, even if the Clinton-era deregulation had led to a meltdown many years down the road, it would be strange to hold Clinton responsible for that, since there were so many years to see and react to what was happening, to avoid the problem.

    Here's a way to think about it, as a parable. In 1998, your doctor recommends you reduce your fat intake and eat more carbs, to improve your health -- consistent with standard (albeit probably erroneous) views of nutrition at the time. Your health improves for a few years after that, and in 2001 you start going to a new doctor. Over the subsequent years, though, your weight starts creeping up as does your blood pressure. Your new doctor never advises you to cut back on your carbs, even as new research and data comes out suggesting high-carb/low-fat diets are actually problematic for your heart. In 2008, you suffer a heart attack. Is it the fault of your old doctor, because of his advice many years previously?

    I'd say no.

    (3) his non-actions during the horrific Rwandan genocide of 1994
    What should he have done, exactly? That wasn't a situation like the Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing, where a relatively small force with a big advantage in weaponry was victimizing a large group of people. In a situation like Yugoslavia, limited intervention can be pretty successful -- all you need is some air power to neutralize the artillery/tanks advantage of the victimizers, and you can greatly improve the situation. But in Rwanda it was a matter of the large Hutu majority murdering the Tutsi minority, mostly with machetes and the like. Air power would be entirely beside the point. So, what do you do? It's a nation of 11 million people. How do you police what is effectively door-to-door violence? Do you put a million America troops on the ground, in the middle of a civil war, patrolling the streets? Do you take out the popular government and try to impose a new puppet regime to keep the peace?

    I honestly don't know that any other course of conduct would have been better. It's quite possible that it would have been worse -- that the US would have wound up in the middle of a bloody hostile occupation, in the face of determined resistance by the Hutu majority, that would see us as acting on behalf of an unpopular economic elite. It's possible that our neo-colonial intervention could have sucked other Hutu populations into a regional war involving Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    I can see no clear way to have intervened in Rwanda to prevent the genocide, especially given the time-table (nearly all the killing happened within just about 100 days, which means it already would have been mostly over before any sizable number of American troops were there -- by 100 days after 9/11, for example, we still just had 2500 troops in Afghanistan).

    I believe the whole thing could have been STOPPED COLD with a single battalion of Marines
    Then I suggest you read up on it. A battalion consists of 300 to 800 people. The Rwanda genocide was carried out by enough people to kill something like 10,000 people per day, despite them mostly being limited to small arms. Here's a bit from the Wikipedia entry:

    "Most of the victims were killed in their own villages or in towns, often by their neighbors and fellow villagers. The militia typically murdered victims with machetes, although some army units used rifles. The Hutu gangs searched out victims hiding in churches and school buildings, and massacred them."

    A few hundred marines might be able to enforce a peace on a village or two, as long as they stayed there in force. They couldn't have done a damned thing in the rest of the country, and as soon as they moved on, hell would be unleashed in their wake. There were UN forces there, and they were ineffectual.
    Last edited by Arkady; 12th July 2018 at 11:37 AM.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Future President Winner Will Be...
    By Minotaur in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 16th July 2015, 06:24 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14th December 2013, 10:00 AM
  3. Obama the big winner
    By Thumpernovember in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 6th February 2008, 02:06 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed