The Worst 3 Presidents in one picture

[DrRedFox]

[polar]

i don't see truman or FDR in that photo

[nemo]

I don't think Clinton really deserves a slot in there.  Not great, but by no means a terrible president.

And with hindsight I imagine Barry will end up pulling himself up a few notches on your rankings.

[polar]

i don't think barry soetoro is gonna be doing so well in opinion polls after inflation hits.  look at the cost of food now, and we haven't even hit inflation... i also heard he's calling for QE3 to make up for what happened in japan... this guy's an utter failure

[mooney]

I don't think Clinton really deserves a slot in there.  Not great, but by no means a terrible president.

NAFTA, genocidal sanctions on Iraq - 1 mill dead including 500,000 children? And weren't the guys who are now in charge of the economic recovery (is it Summers and someone? Rubin? i can't recall) the same ones who started the ball rolling during the end of the Clinton administration? He's gotta be top 5, for sure...

[polar]

NAFTA, genocidal sanctions on Iraq - 1 mill dead including 500,000 children? And weren't the guys who are now in charge of the economic recovery (is it Summers and someone? Rubin? i can't recall) the same ones who started the ball rolling during the end of the Clinton administration? He's gotta be top 5, for sure...

clinton caused the entire financial crisis by allowing derivatives and letting ACORN and the community reinvestment act go crazy.  this is what happens when you let a govt have influence on the economy, they have 0 clue about what the fuck they're doing.  then, after clinton caused the bubble, bush interfered with the market and bailed out the banks that clinton fucked up in the first place.  now, obama thinks he'll spend his way out of the hole the other 2 retards dug.  drredfox has a point that those 3 are the cause of the shitty economy we're in, but even with all that, they're still not the top 3 worst of all time.

[dman1991]

Dont really think any person in this forum can reasonably judge the success of any president, for a couple reasons.

1 We really dont know shit about waht they do, we only know what is public or what happens after the fact, no one really gets inside the inner dealings and gets a first hand look at what the president actually does.

2 No president is ever really in charge, there is a line of people telling them what to do, I cannot really think of any recent president that has boldly acted out of his own judgement. The only name that comes to mind is JFK.

3 For these presidents in particular it is too early to tell exactly what they have or have not accomplished. Everything seems like shit now, but everything has always seemed like shit to someone.

Very suprised that nobody mentioned LBJ or Herbert Hoover.

[polar]

well nobody is mentioning anyone except for the op and myself.  if you want to mention them, feel free

and yes, i can and do judge presidents.  it's your duty as an american.  if you're happy with the status quo, enjoy your bliss

[dman1991]

well nobody is mentioning anyone except for the op and myself.  if you want to mention them, feel free

and yes, i can and do judge presidents.  it's your duty as an american.  if you're happy with the status quo, enjoy your bliss

I do too, as I mentioned Hoover N LBJ, just saying I dont know shit, I think I do, I try make sure I do, but really I dont know the criteria for judging a good president, because I dont know 99% if what they do or the circumstances that cause their decisions.

[_Flame Trees_]

clinton caused the entire financial crisis by allowing derivatives

polar, can you please help alleviate my ignorance by explaining to me how deregulation is considered govt intervention?

[polar]

polar, can you please help alleviate my ignorance by explaining to me how deregulation is considered govt intervention?

no problem.  he deregulated rules for the Federal reserve and changed rules for FDIC, 2 examples of interference in the free market.  a case can be made for fractional reserve banking i guess if you try really hard, but without getting into glass steagall and the gramm act and a ton of other bullshit way out of line for a gnr forum, the case is EASILY made that govt interference caused the current financial crisis

[_Flame Trees_]

cheers. were private banks not also freed to engage in the same destructive practices?

[polar]

cheers. were private banks not also freed to engage in the same destructive practices?

they were for a very specific reason, to give mortgages to the poor that didn't have means or credit.  and fannie and freddy were lined up specifically to buy every single bad mortgage the bank sold so they could repackage them and sell on the secondary market.  the govt didn't have the infrastructure in place to execute their social justice, they had to do something.

i can't believe anyone still argues that capitalism failed at this point

[_Flame Trees_]

assuming government had not encouraged and was not an accessory in selling mortgages that had no chance of being repaid, then bundling them together and repackaging them deceptively, couldn't private companies - if deregulated like they were - not do the same thing themselves, govt aside?

you seem to think, if government played no role in the economy, that no company  will attempt any kind of fraud. surely this could potentially happen in  a free deregulated market without government interference?