Who was the best president of the last fifty years?

Why do you assign the spending of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to Bush which includes 2008?

Bush had a Republican Congress for 6 years and the total deficits were $1.5B, even if we take out the surplus for 2001 his total deficits were $1.7B. The last two years were Democrat Budgets, full supported by and voted for by Senator Obama and it was President Obama who signed into law the 2009 budget so for those 6 years the total deficits were $6.7B. And there was not one double digit spending increase under Bush/Republican.

Except those were Democrat budgets and Democrat spending which he opposed.

Who taught you that Presidents decide who much will be spent and that they alone control the budget?

 

Which ones?

 

Bush was president in 2008.

If you include SS surplus payments, exclude the costs of his wars, and thanks to inheriting a surplus from Clinton, which Bush and the Republicans soon squandered.

Reagan was all for the military buildup and star wars.

Where did I say that?

 

This is true... After 6 years under Bush and a Republican Congress, we had 40.5% debt growth. Two additional years added 36.1% under a Democratic Congress, for a grand total of 76.6%. Funny how important that Congressional leaning is. Had things continued with a Republican Congress, it's possible we would have seen his final tally at 53.3% which is actually quite Conservative and in-line with his Father's spending (still more than under Clinton, though).

Don't forget that he still needs to sign the budget, though, Bluesguy. He could vary well have vetoed spending bills he didn't agree with.

This is the fault of the Republicans who always compromise. Reagan did his share of negotiating with lying Democrats, too. Such was the case with Amnesty and the budgets.

 

Energy? Education? Economy? Foreign?

 

And Clinton inherited a still growing economy from Reagan's economic policies, lest we forget.

 

I'm not familiar enough with them to give an opinion and don't feel like researching it. I do know that he appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed to tame inflation, which probably cost him the 1980 election. Economic performance was in the historically slightly average range, better than Reagan's first term and better than all three Bush terms. He had deficits but they were small and the debt shrank as a percentage of GDP. He was involved in the Israel-Egyptian peace agreement which was a major accomplishment.

 

The economy went into recession in 1991, if you want to attribute it to Reagan's policies. Unemployment was at 7.8% when Clinton took office. Because Reagan's policies had quadrupled the size of the debt in 12 years, Clinton substantially reverse a major tenant of Reagan's policies and passed a large tax increase, largely falling up the richer.

Despite claims by many conservatives that Clinton's tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs, we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, 22 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

 

People who can vote Democrat are't very good at that "comprehension" thing, and they have the memory capacity of a VIC20 computer, with the power off.

 

The recession of 1991 was Bush's fault. Only in Obama-la-la-land does the previous president always carry the blame for the current president's failures.

And NO ONE ever said that supply side economics was recession-proof. He raised taxes, he imposed fascistic regulatory scams, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Stealing Swamps From Americans Act. The actions of the DemocRATS in damaging the Savings and Loan banking industry was bearing fruit, as well.

Cycles (*)(*)(*)(*)ing happen in the economy, they're inescaple, just like the sun terminated the global warming phase it initiated and it's now causing a global thermopause that is most likely to result in global cooling.

Clinton is the luckiest rapist in the world. Not only did he have the medea going to bat for him in 1992, covering up his disgusting past, but the Americans won the Cold War and created a "peace dividend" for the incoming rapist, the Internet that Al Bore did not invent was finally coming into it's free-market fruition, and the growth phase of that industry was phenomenal, but the government bailout that of the S&L industry that put so much money into the Clinton coffers was phasing out. And, besides which, much of what you describe was the result of....the aftermath of Reagan's supply side successes. You'll be happy to note that the Rapist left office with the nation in recession.

And, after the Rapist left office, the nation's record longest perior of economic recovery was caused by the supply-side policies of GW Bush, who would have been a good president if he wasn't such a liberal. If KIng Obama's policies are so wonderful, why is are they such failures?

 

What cost Carter the 1980 election can be summed up as two things:

His (*)(*)(*)(*)wad response to the hostages held by Iran.

His "Economic Malaise" speech that summer, in which he said he didn't have a clue what was wrong with the US economy, Americans would just have to learn to do with less, that their children were going to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

Of the two, the second was more damaging., though his gross incompetence, unmatched in American historical annals until the election of King Obama by truly stupid people, in all arenas, including foreign policy, would have terminated his presidency all by itself. Back then even the DemocRATS expected their president to be effective. Today's DemocRATs, of course, don't demand the impossible of their president. They're so stupid they don't care what that person does, so long as there's a (D) after their name.

Their president can take a nap while his ambassador is being murdered in Benghazi. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

Their president can blame the murder of his ambassador in Benghazi on a funny video, which was a blatant lie. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

Their president can take a nap and an unelected flunky orders the troops preparing to succor a beleaguered ambassador in Benghazi to stand down. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

Their president can order the IRS to terminate the First Amendment for Americans seeking tax-exempt status as a non-profit group. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

Their president can LIE for THREE YEARS about his insurance destruction plan called O-BAAA-MACare. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

People will soon start dying because the RAT's president's lies cost them their insurance policies. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

Their president can unconstitutionally back-door amnesty for millions of illegal alien criminals, while tens of millions of Americans are out of work. The stupid RAT voters don't care.

The list is long, just let the record show that most of the people stupid enough to vote DemocRAT will remain stupid enough to vote DemocRAT...stupid is apparently permanent..

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Why do you assign the spending of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to Bush which includes 2008?

Nice trivia but what does it have to do with what I said? Bush's budget proposal was DOA and after several veto's to lower the spending in 2008 had finally had to sign the Democrats budget to keep the government funded or are you going to go on record and state you would have supported a government shutdown?

We are talking the budgets as they are passed and calculated year to year, not your attempts to dodge and weave.

So what, his budgets still called for less spending than the Democrats spent.

Me>> Who taught you that Presidents decide who much will be spent and that they alone control the budget?

"Bush was president in 2008. "
"Reagan is the undisputed champ in this category. A 181% increase over 8 years."

 

Yes after the sustained period of growth we were due for a slowdown recession.

7.3. He came in on a recovery that had started 6 month early and unemployment, a trailing indicator peaked 5 months later.

Reagan requested less spending than the Democrats authorized every year of his term.

But hilarious how you try to attribute the Democrat budgets of 12 years to him even those when he was not even in office.

Prove that the growth of tax revenues increased and that the highest earners paid a larger share of taxes. Give us the numbers for 1991,1992,1993,1994,1995, 1996,

Yes they underestimate the resilience of the American economy but in fact his tax rate increase slowed that increase in the rate of growth.

Thanks to the tax rate cuts he was forced to sign which kicked us into high gear.

 

No President can be that great. After all, our government is set up to get rid of them after their term(s) in office. I find it interesting that a former actor (Reagan) and a philandering, lying guy with a first lady on a power trip (Clinton) are currently voted to be the best.

It is We The People who are 'great' which is why America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth today.

 

Obama is the best.

 

Now I understand why I have only 3 green reputation things.

 

Obviously the majority of members here are conservative. Ronald Reagan is by far not the best president ever......just in the minds of conservatives. It will be a cold day in hell when Reagan is considered better than Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and FDR. Only in the minds of conservatives is he ranked as the best....that's laughable.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-l...&fr=aaplw&p=2015+President+considred+the+best

 

Fifty years? The last fifty years begun in 1965 ... we are in 2015. So why is JFK in the list? The list is about the President of the last 55 years ...

 

Alucard has a habit of resurrecting old topics and posting a response. When this thread was started in September 2013 JFK would have come within the 50 years.

 

Only when accompanied by Mr. TelePrompTer, and only in giving bull(*)(*)(*)(*) speeches.

 

I was born right after WWII and personally did not experience Truman. Eisenhower to me was the best president in my lifetime. I would follow him with JFK, Reagan and Clinton. But with JFK I may be seeing what might have been instead of what was. Hope and optimism died that day in Dallas.

I will carry this a little further now that I listed whom I think were the best president of my lifetime. The worst would be Carter, Ford, Bush the second and Obama. The rest fall somewhere in the middle. Yes, I would rate those four even worst than Nixon.

 

I would say Clinton is the best with Obama a close second - most patriots will readily agree.

 

Reagan teleprompter troubles:

[video=youtube;PFcNbfp7wig]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFcNbfp7wig[/video]




Palin uses portable hand teleprompter:

 

Can't be anyone but LBJ. Choosing any other is just ridiculous partisanship and dumbassery running amuck. Pushed through the most sweeping civil rights and education legislation, crushed the Viet Cong in Viet Nam, and set the stage for bankrupting the Soviet Union and shutting down the Khrushchev/Brezhnev Doctrine in most of the rest of the world, took over from the French in backing Israel, beat Goldwater out of the Presidency, instead of being just another hack focused on their own popularity and re-election.

- - - Updated - - -

Both neo-liberal scum who sold out the U.S., with Obama being a virulent racist to boot. Most real patriots and liberals would agree.

 

Well, Reagan had problems with TelePrompTer, and Obama without it. I'll go with someone who does not need a crotch.