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?

[polar]

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?

to address your assumption, i'd also have to make the assumption that the banks would have committed the same suicide loans if they'd known nobody was there to bail them out or buy the packages the next day.  and out of all the super stupid ppl i know who work in private lending, none of them would have acted the same.  they want to make money and continue to exist, not drive themselves out of business for an easy commission

[_Flame Trees_]

true in this instance, but i was more trying to ask whether you think deregulation would reduce fraud or any dishonest unscrupulous practices etc.

if so, how? i don't think companies who've broken the law (enron for eg) did what they did assuming the govt would come to their rescue

if not, then a potential for another gfc is still easily possible, seeing as banks all lend to one another an all. what then, seeing as you're opposed to bailouts, what would you propose? global economic collapse and bankruptcy across the board?

[polar]

true in this instance, but i was more trying to ask whether you think deregulation would reduce fraud or any dishonest unscrupulous practices etc.

if so, how? i don't think companies who've broken the law (enron for eg) did what they did assuming the govt would come to their rescue

if not, then a potential for another gfc is still easily possible, seeing as banks all lend to one another an all. what then, seeing as you're opposed to bailouts, what would you propose? global economic collapse and bankruptcy across the board?

good questions.  let's take for example Enron as you mentioned. which lost billions and pissed away a shitload of pensions.  Enron is a clear cut case of fraud and cooking the books and a ton of other illegal activities.  even in my dream land of libertarianism, we are still a nation of laws, and those responsible should face whatever punishment is legally heading their direction.

is it a shame what happened to those investors?  of course, but it's not government's job to protect your risky investments.  you can't expect the whole nation to bailout someone when they invest in a fraudulent company and put all their eggs in one basket.  if you give money to a con artist, no matter how slick they are or how big their office is, you are still responsible as an individual.

i don't believe in "too big to fail"   for argument's sake, let's suppose that we once again live in my libertarian dreamland.  and a bunch of banks like Bank of America and Citicorp or whoever all decide to start giving away mortgages like candy again.  and let's even say the world's largest insurance company, AIG, decides to cover their bets.  a few years pass, and MILLIONS of those mortgages default.  those banks lose their ass, AIG lose their ass.  Let's assume they weren't deceptive, just greedy and stupid.

Now what should happen?  should we spend a TRILLION dollars of my money and your money and everyone elses money to keep them in a job?  NO.  we let them fail.  we watch our economy stall and take a huge shit for however long it takes.  in the meantime, investors, and better business managers, pick up the pieces, reassemble them into a stronger entity, and life goes on.  this whole retarded depression we are in doesn't drag out for years and years.  the old unreliable system is replaced with a new and improved system, and we're stronger for the collapse.

[_Flame Trees_]

fair enough. i guess it's a case of learning the hard way, as it is it doesn't seem as if the culprits who cost every american over 2k (from memory) have learned a whole lot - other than that they'll be rescued and allowed to continue doing abhorrently selfish things

the other alternative, not that i would propose it, would be extra regulation, on top of everything else, to stop any sort of dangerous practice

[polar]

fair enough. i guess it's a case of learning the hard way, as it is it doesn't seem as if the culprits who cost every american over 2k (from memory) have learned a whole lot - other than that they'll be rescued and allowed to continue doing abhorrently selfish things

the other alternative, not that i would propose it, would be extra regulation, on top of everything else, to stop any sort of dangerous practice

it's impossible to legislate all the risk out of life.  not even counting my freedom argument, nothing can stop bad things from happening.  shit happens, the most you can hope for is the splash doesn't get on you.  but govt intervention not only sustains the turd, it makes sure everyone smells bad after

[aintitfun22]

nope. clinton wasn't one of the three worst ever.

[GGS]

nope. clinton wasn't one of the three worst ever.

Are you poor?

[aintitfun22]

Are you poor?

not especially.