Kawasaki Versys Forum banner

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
I am going with Ike (I was born in '57, so technically I can nominate him)

1. Ended the Korean War

2. Brown vs. Brown - While he did not necessarily support integration, he used federal troops to enforce the supreme courts order/decisions. Eisenhower ordered federal troops to stand guard in Little Rock and protect black students as they walked to school. He was the first president since Reconstruction to use federal troops to protect the rights of African Americans.

3. Created the Interstate Highway System.

4. His speech on the Military/Industrial Complex was quite remarkable given his military background.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,111 Posts
Politics & Religion..:badidea:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,111 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Since I was born in '66 I can't (unfortunately) say Ike. That leaves me with Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. (I purposely left out Obama as he has only been in office for 2 1/2 years.....I'll need to at least give him 4 years before I fully judge his presidency.)

No one of the people on my list impresses me greatly, but I'll single out Clinton as my favorite. Although his push to ratify the NAFTA and GATT treaties bothers me greatly, during his time in office the economy was good, the budget was balanced and the country was not at war.

I'm not so sure we'll ever see any of those things again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Honestly, I don't really feel there has been effective government leadership in either a president or congress in my 31 years alive. You want to understand how Rome fell? The United States is a current working object lesson.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
I have a very jaded opinion of politicians in general. It's like they can't stop spewing ideological BS and just make rational, pragmatic decisions. As an outsider commenting on this, all countries have their good and bad leaders, I think Bush 2.0 could be the single worst president of all time and the worst elected world leader of the 21st century.

1) He ruined the US economy and hurt the world wide economy.

2) He spent 2 trillion dollars on unnecessary wars. He unnecessarily started a very expensive war in Iraq that cost the lives of 10s of thousands of non combatants and thousands of US soldiers. He did this by knowingly putting forward false information with the help of the state department about WMD as more recent information coming out of the CIA and other intelligence agencies has shown. He unnecessarily started a war in Afghanistan to gain political popularity at home after 911. The issue of Al-Queda could have been dealt with militarily by the air force and special forces without a full and costly invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

3) He put through 1.2 Trillion in tax cuts at a time of severe economic shortfalls by borrowing money which harmed the US economy and will cost hundreds of billions in interest payments and harmed not just the US but the world economy.

4) It was a lack of government oversight during Bush's tenure that allowed the US banking industry's sub prime lending crisis that lead to the 2008 recession.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
So, Huey...

Did you start this discussion to find out what other people think, or so we could just hear what you think? Just asking...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
The economy was not anything he had the power to control. It was a bubble economy based on the Internet.

The budget was balanced because of legislation that was passed by Congress before he came into office, and he sent troops into Bosnia (The first illegal deployment in the history of this country...it violated the war powers act by deploying troops over 90 days without declaration of war).
You must not read newspapers or watch the news - or maybe just watch fox news. The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Internet - it was caused by the the US banking industry and the sub prime lending crisis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#High-risk_mortgage_loans_and_lending.2Fborrowing_practices
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Congress spends money, not a President. Congress could have refused to fund any wars. They also have the war powers act that only allows a Presient to deploy troops for 90 days without a declaration of war from Congress.

Again, not something "He" could do. Congress creates the laws. He signs them. However, tax breaks increase revenues, they do not harm the economy. We were in much better financial shape before the Congress during Obama administration started all of the bail outs and trippled the National debt.


I think you do not have a lot of your facts straight.
Huey your partisan slip is showing.

Fact: Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts reduced revenues that were wiped out by the 2 Wars that somehow were never entered into nation's checkbook.

Fact: Bush signed a 2002 farm bill that increased agricultural spending 76 percent over 1990s levels.

Fact: Bush signed the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill costing an additional $60 billion a year.

All three of these bills were deficit-financed. by a republican congress.

All three of these bills he could have vetoed.... but he chose not to.

Let me put it in layman's terms. Between the two of them, Bush and a republican congress put 2 wars (while reducing revenues via tax cuts), a farm spending bill and the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill on the lay-away plan and bailed on the check when it was time to write it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
The initial issue was the dot com bubble...which had already burst before Bush took office. The "creative" lending practices you blame on Bush were created well before Bush ever thought about running for President the 1st time.

The initial law started in 1980 with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA), and The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA) in 1982, and Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA). In addition to changes in the law, market changes also contributed to the growth and maturation of subprime loans.

In 1994, for example, interest rates increased and the volume of originations in the prime market dropped. Mortgage brokers and mortgage companies responded by looking to the subprime market to maintain volume. The growth through the mid-1990s was funded by issuing mortgage-backed securities (MBS, which are sometimes also referred to as private label or as asset-backed securities [ABS]). In addition, subprime loans were originated mostly by nondepository and monoline finance companies. All well before Bush.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf

This is a good read on the subject...and much better than relying on Wikipedia for your information.
WRT the sub prime lending crisis I have to agree somewhat with other posters. I've read a lot on this and what I've come to believe from what I've read is when the government first became aware of this during Bush's tenure, they choose to stand by rather than passing legislation to put a stop to this, primarily for political reasons. Passing legislation to prohibit this would have caused a market downturn, although not nearly as severe as the 2008 recession that resulted from inaction.

As for balanced budgets - you can't have tax cuts and fight very expensive wars at the same time and expect to be able to balance the budget even if you claim you are. The US federal government is currently in the red for 14 trillion dollars, or to put it another way $45,000 for every man, women and child living in the US, not a good time to be reducing the revenue stream by offering tax cuts. If this was our mortgage most of us would instead be trying to pay it down so we could save on interest - just common sense. In fact I believe it will be impossible to pay this off without some form of tax increase or elimination of tax shelters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Yep...2/3 of that at a very minimum is from the current administration, and their belief that you can grow an economy by creating debt...something that has never worked in the history of mankind.
Political discussions are more interesting if we avoid unsubstantiated "facts".

There is a chart showing how much each president borrowed during each term in office here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Bush increased the deficit by 7.1% during his first term and increased that to 20.7% during his second term. In contrast Obama increased the deficit by 9%. Clinton actually paid it down during both his terms in office.

I don't think it is fair to say Bush 1.0 deserves credit for the success of the first gulf war although the US military certainly does. Saddam threatened the world's oil supply and the political stability of the mid east after he invaded Kuwait as a way to recover from the financial straits Iraq was in after a prolonged war with Iran. Kuwait is of strategic importance for most western nations because of the oil it supplies and the fact it is a financial center. The response of nations that had a stake in this was to be expected. Saddam and his military were still in power but effectively neutered after the first gulf war. Invading Iraq a second time served no real strategic purpose and did not improve the quality of life there. It did cost a lot though and contributed to a massive loss of life.

As for best recent President it is a tough call as each administration has had to face a different set of issues. Obviously it is not Bush 2 and too early to judge Obama.

Clinton - paid down the deficit and avoiding making any mistakes with the economy or foreign policy. He did not pass any landmark legislation though and marred his image by sleeping with an intern ;)

Bush 1.0 - along with Mulroney passed the landmark US/Can free trade agreement (and which latter was expanded to NAFTA) which in hindsight has benefited both the US and Canada economically. It has also allowed me access to cheap US motorcycle gear sold online without having to pay exorbitant duties.


Carter - before my time so I cannot comment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
HueyDriver - if I'm not mistaken, according to you when a Democrat does something good they can't take credit because they're "only President". When a Republican does something wrong they can't be blamed because they're "only President". Sound about right?

You wanted to know my thoughts on the topic? Those who start political debates on motorcycle forums need to ride more and talk less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Your taking your stats from a republican web site that is set up for the explicit purpose to depose Obama. Aside from the fact they do not even closely agree with the figures from less partisan sources, that's like trying to get unbiased product "information" from a commissioned sales person. HueyDriver, your earlier claim that Obama increased the debit by 66% is far, far, far greater than even partisan sites like theobamadebt.com are claiming.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,111 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,762 Posts
This is a two part question:

In your opinion...Who is the greatest U.S. President of your lifetime?

What did he do that made him great in your eyes?
I recommend placing a disclaimer on your original post similar to the following:

Disclaimer: If you choose to offer your opinion, I will dispute any part of it that is not factually substantiated to a degree I approve of or any part that I disagree with. I will not leave your opinion on this thread unchallenged. Participate at your own risk!

:huh: You ask for peoples opinions yet you will not leave them unchallenged. Sound familiar to another thread?? You call it discussion, I call it disputing.

Opinion
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

You should not ask for political opinions and then quote them and explain why they are wrong. Opinions my not be factually correct but that is the nature of having an opinion. Opinions are very personal and formed over time and will not be changed by your replies.

Standing by to be quoted and blasted...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
I recommend placing a disclaimer on your original post similar to the following:

Disclaimer: If you choose to offer your opinion, I will dispute any part of it that is not factually substantiated to a degree I approve of or any part that I disagree with. I will not leave your opinion on this thread unchallenged. Participate at your own risk!

:huh: You ask for peoples opinions yet you will not leave them unchallenged. Sound familiar to another thread?? You call it discussion, I call it disputing.

Opinion
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

You should not ask for political opinions and then quote them and explain why they are wrong. Opinions my not be factually correct but that is the nature of having an opinion. Opinions are very personal and formed over time and will not be changed by your replies.

Standing by to be quoted and blasted...
Bullseye cap'n... ;)
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top