Presidential Legacies

[RightOfCenter]

Well done that.

Good rebuttal

He was indeed a great president, but General/President Eisenhower should have the WW2 US honour.

Jeeze, I left Ike off the list:doh . But you still haven't said how Clinton was better than him.

Reagan was an actor at best, not a president. He didnt end the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did, especially Gorbachev but also Chemenko. Gorbachev was a tragedy for the Soviet Union, and his government lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union through irresponsible financial politics.
We all know both Russia and the US had 10000 nuclear weapons ready, so the "militarization" you are talking at is irrelevant, the Soviet Union was brought down from the inside.

Brought down from the inside because they were spending all of their money on conventional weapons. Neither side wanted to a nuclear holocaust so they both scaled up their military spending, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Wow, if thats what he is remembered for, he sure didnt leave much of a legacy.

And Clinton is remembered for what?

A president dont have to lead you through war and conflict to be a great president. Clinton took over a bust US, with an economy in recession and high unemployment. Had it not been for Clinton, the US would have been in depression when Bush took office, and if they had been who know what would have happend. I would think third world war or something similar.

A president is judged by the mark they leave on history. Every president that is remembered has led our nation through moments of great peril, all of the others are simply relegated to the role of caretaker-president. I can make bullshit claims that Zachary Taylor prevented a third world war and depression too but it doesn't really prove anything.

Clinton brought back US confidence in themself, he revived the economy, turned the recession into progression, and made important reforms in the US, that had it not been for those Bush would have no cusion.
Had it not been for the long lasting effects of the Clinton administration that Bush is slowly ripping apart, the US would already have been in a depression a few years after Bush took office, guaranteed.

So did Taylor, Van Buren, and Taft I guess...

 

[RightOfCenter]

Reagan didnt do anything to bring down the soviet union, they managed that fine on their own..

Who cares about 1 or even 100 aircraft carriers when both nations have 10000 nuclear weapons?

Reagan brought increased military spending to the United States, the Soviet Union had to counter this spending to maintain a balance of power, fortunately the USSR couldn't cope with this spending and collapsed.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Reagan brought increased military spending to the United States, the Soviet Union had to counter this spending to maintain a balance of power, fortunately the USSR couldn't cope with this spending and collapsed.

Yeah, of course, the US and Reagan was responsible for the inside collapse of the Soviet Union, obviously.

This nice quote will demonstrate my point.
"In the United States, especially among conservatives, the politician most credited with predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union is President Ronald Reagan."

The left would probably say that Reagan was no more than an average actor, and a useless politician.

So where is the inbetween..

It would have to be that the soviet collapsed because of incompetent soviet leaders and incompetent economic policies, Soviets didnt have to increase budgets for military, and that was not the only reason for collapse.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Jeeze, I left Ike off the list:doh . But you still haven't said how Clinton was better than him.

For US policies and the US, Clinton has been better, if not for Clinton the US fall as a superpower would not have come with George W. Bush, it would have come with the president that was there instead of Clinton.

Brought down from the inside because they were spending all of their money on conventional weapons. Neither side wanted to a nuclear holocaust so they both scaled up their military spending, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Thats not the most important reason for the fall of the Soviet Union, nor is it one of the most important reasons.. The most important reason is incompetent Soviet Leadership after 1982.. SOme people might include Leonid Brezhnev as one of the incompetent leader since the economic decline of the Soviet Union started already during his presidency.

And Clinton is remembered for what?

Clinton is probably best remembered for the sex scandal even though his policies and what he did for America was so good its not even comparable to the damage for example Bush junior or Bush senior did.

A president is judged by the mark they leave on history. Every president that is remembered has led our nation through moments of great peril, all of the others are simply relegated to the role of caretaker-president. I can make bullshit claims that Zachary Taylor prevented a third world war and depression too but it doesn't really prove anything.

The last US president to leave a mark on history was Dwight Eisenhower, after that it has been mostly useless ones, with exception of John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton who left a mark on US history and society.

There had not been two world wars when Zachary Taylor was president, besides Millard Fillmore would not have been capable of starting a world war.


I would rank the presidents in categories of

Great Presidents, imparative for US history.

1 George Washington
2 Thomas Jefferson
3 Abraham Lincoln
4 Woodrow Wilson
5 Franklin D Roosevelt
and 6 Harry Truman

Very Important US presidents
1 Ulysses Grant(as General, not really as president)
2 Dwight Eisenhower(as General, not really as president)
3 John F. Kennedy
4 Bill Clinton

Other meaningful modern presidents(after 1900)
1 Teordore Roosevelt
2 Ronald Reagan

 

[RightOfCenter]

How did Clinton leave a mark? Yes the economy did well under his administration but did he leave any meaningful mark on our society? No! You claim that he kept us from depression, please please please prove this! Just saying something does not make it a fact.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

How did Clinton leave a mark? Yes the economy did well under his administration but did he leave any meaningful mark on our society? No! You claim that he kept us from depression, please please please prove this! Just saying something does not make it a fact.

Depression.. One more republican after George Bush senior would surely have left the US in a depression. Reagan and Bush had managed to crush the UK economy while in office.. When Clinton took over office he took over a bust US with 7.3% unemployment

The US had negative growth in the end of the Bush senior term, which turned back to postive again just before Clinton took office.

"It's also worth noting that the mean quarterly growth rate has declined each decade, except during the 1990s:
1950s 4.4%
1960s 4.4%
1970s 3.4%
1980s 3.1%
1990s 3.3%
2000s 2.5%"

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Clinton also brough down inflation rates.
PPI CPI
1985 -0.5% 3.6%
1986 -2.9% 1.9%
1987 2.6% 3.6%
1988 4.0% 4.1%
1989 5.0% 4.8%
1990 3.7% 5.4%
1991 0.2% 4.2%
1992 0.6% 3.0%
1993 1.5% 3.0%
1994 1.3% 2.6%
1995 3.6% 2.8%
1996 2.4% 3.0%
1997 -0.1% 2.3%
1998 -2.5% 1.6%
1999 0.9% 2.2%
2000 5.7% 3.4%
2001 1.1% 2.8%
2002 -2.3% 1.6%
2003 5.3% 2.3%
2004 6.2% 2.7%
2005 7.3% 3.4%

 

[RightOfCenter]

Depression.. One more republican after George Bush senior would surely have left the US in a depression. Reagan and Bush had managed to crush the UK economy while in office.. When Clinton took over office he took over a bust US with 7.3% unemployment

The US had negative growth in the end of the Bush senior term, which turned back to postive again just before Clinton took office.

"It's also worth noting that the mean quarterly growth rate has declined each decade, except during the 1990s:
1950s 4.4%
1960s 4.4%
1970s 3.4%
1980s 3.1%
1990s 3.3%
2000s 2.5%"

And which one of these decades started off with a major attack on US soil and the one of the most devastating natural disasters in US history?

 

[RightOfCenter]

Clinton also brough down inflation rates.
PPI CPI
1985 -0.5% 3.6%
1986 -2.9% 1.9%
1987 2.6% 3.6%
1988 4.0% 4.1%
1989 5.0% 4.8%
1990 3.7% 5.4%
1991 0.2% 4.2%
1992 0.6% 3.0%
1993 1.5% 3.0%
1994 1.3% 2.6%
1995 3.6% 2.8%
1996 2.4% 3.0%
1997 -0.1% 2.3%
1998 -2.5% 1.6%
1999 0.9% 2.2%
2000 5.7% 3.4%
2001 1.1% 2.8%
2002 -2.3% 1.6%
2003 5.3% 2.3%
2004 6.2% 2.7%
2005 7.3% 3.4%

The rise of the internet sunk those inflation rates, not Clinton.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The rise of the internet sunk those inflation rates, not Clinton.

Its funny to see how that producer price index has been constantly above 5% even above 7%(!!!) with Bush in office.. Exception, 2001 and 2002.

Meaning that any hope of the US exporting more than they do now is almost unthinkable. The US desperately need more exports to repair their economy, this seems to be a rather negative trend instead.

 

[Iriemon]

The rise of the internet sunk those inflation rates, not Clinton.

The "internet theory" of inflation? New one on me. Please explain.

 

[Iriemon]

Clinton took over a bust US, with an economy in recession and high unemployment. Had it not been for Clinton, the US would have been in depression when Bush took office, and if they had been who know what would have happend. I would think third world war or something similar.

Clinton brought back US confidence in themself, he revived the economy, turned the recession into progression, and made important reforms in the US, that had it not been for those Bush would have no cusion.
Had it not been for the long lasting effects of the Clinton administration that Bush is slowly ripping apart, the US would already have been in a depression a few years after Bush took office, guaranteed.

I disagree it is fair to give Clinton sole credit for these things. The economy was not in a recession when Clinton took office -- the recession had ended the year before and the economy was growing. It is pure baseless speculation to assert the economy would have been in a depression had it not been for Clinton.

Folks in general tend to give a president/government far too much credit or blame for what happens to the economy. While it is fair to say the administration can have some effect, and can mess it up, there are many other factors that have a greater effect on the economy that are not controlled by the US government. Just a few include the effect of the money supply and interest rates, the global economy particularly our trading partners, effects of shocks to supply and demand of key resources, population growth, political disruption in other countries, technological change, etc. etc.

It is true the economy grew strongly during Clinton's term. But to give him a large portion of the credit is just as incorrect as blaming the '01 slowdown on him or giving Bush all the credit for economic growth the last couple years. Unless the Govt really does something to screw things up, the economy is going to bounce along and other factors affect it far more than Govt fiscal policies. I think it is fair to say that at least Clinton and his policies did not screw things up.

On the other hand, it is fair IMO to give Clinton and the Democrats credit for taking a $340 billion deficit inherited from Bush1 and turning it around by the late 90s. A combination of a tax increase, controlled increases in spending, and a healthy economy combined to eliminate the deficits for an unfortunately brief period of time, until '01 when these factors were reversed by the Bush administration. You can give the Republicans who controlled Congress after '95 some credit as well, though their behavior after one of their own took power in '01 diminishes the credit they are due, in my mind.

You could make an argument that responsible fiscal policy under Clinton helped to promote confidence and business expansion in 90s. But it is pretty tough to prove that kind of thing.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

.

On the other hand, it is fair IMO to give Clinton and the Democrats credit for taking a $340 billion deficit inherited from Bush1 and turning it around by the late 90s. A combination of a tax increase, controlled increases in spending, and a healthy economy combined to eliminate the deficits for an unfortunately brief period of time, until '01 when these factors were reversed by the Bush administration. You can give the Republicans who controlled Congress after '95 some credit as well, though their behavior after one of their own took power in '01 diminishes the credit they are due, in my mind.

You could make an argument that responsible fiscal policy under Clinton helped to promote confidence and business expansion in 90s. But it is pretty tough to prove that kind of thing.

A lot of things are difficult to prove, I am just drawing logical conclutions from numbers here.

I could say that you cannot prove that Bush and the US cabinet was not involved or staged the 911, that doesnt mean they did it or didnt do it.

 

[Iriemon]

A lot of things are difficult to prove, I am just drawing logical conclutions from numbers here.

I could say that you cannot prove that Bush and the US cabinet was not involved or staged the 911, that doesnt mean they did it or didnt do it.

Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions. However it is fact that US Govt data indicates there were several quarters of postive GDP growth before Clinton took office, and the GDP growth had definitely slowed, with a couple small negative quarters, before Bush did.

The numbers are in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/469284-post86.html

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions. However it is fact that US Govt data indicates there were several quarters of postive GDP growth before Clinton took office, and the GDP growth had definitely slowed, with a couple small negative quarters, before Bush did.

The numbers are in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/469284-post86.html

That is a fact, but it is the economic performance _TREND_ and situation I am talking about.

 

[Iriemon]

That is a fact, but it is the economic performance _TREND_ and situation I am talking about.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/469892-post97.html

 

[Shayah]

I tend to agree with Current Affairs about a president's legacy. It takes archivists and biographers at least a decade to properly comb through personal presidential papers and official government documents. It also takes a certain amount of time for major historical events to fully play out and allow historians to settle on a consensus opinion.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I tend to agree with Current Affairs about a president's legacy. It takes archivists and biographers at least a decade to properly comb through personal presidential papers and official government documents. It also takes a certain amount of time for major historical events to fully play out and allow historians to settle on a consensus opinion.

George W.Bush and Tony Blair will go down as fools of history, the reasons that massive terrorism started, maybe even the reason for the third world war, who knows, even armageddon.

 

[RightOfCenter]

George W.Bush and Tony Blair will go down as fools of history, the reasons that massive terrorism started, maybe even the reason for the third world war, who knows, even armageddon.

George Bush and Tony Blair are the reasons terrorism started? Please prove that.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

George W.Bush and Tony Blair will go down as fools of history

What is your tool of choice for knowing the future? Tarot Cards or Crystal Ball?

Please read the original post.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

George Bush and Tony Blair are the reasons terrorism started? Please prove that.

I am not proving that, but terrorism was not really a world focus before, now it is and it only creates more terrorists OBVIOUSLY.. It breeds hatred, hatred makes and feed terrorists.

h=t
w-t=+h
+h=+t
wot=+fa=+t
+fa=+t

h=hate
t=terrorism
wot=war on terrorism
fa=focus and attention

 

[RightOfCenter]

I am not proving that, but terrorism was not really a world focus before, now it is and it only creates more terrorists OBVIOUSLY.. It breeds hatred, hatred makes and feed terrorists.

h=t
w-t=+h
+h=+t
wot=+fa=+t
+fa=+t

h=hate
t=terrorism
wot=war on terrorism
fa=focus and attention

So after 9/11 we should have what? Done nothing? Al Quaeda made terrorism a focus, but it is not new.

 

[WI Crippler]

Its always interesting that people credit/discredit our presidents regarding the American economy. If I recall correctly it is our congress that participates in this as well. So if you think Clinton was a great president, the best the US has ever had in the past 100 years, you should lend some credit to the republican congress that was in place for 6 of his eight years in the oval office.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

So after 9/11 we should have what? Done nothing? Al Quaeda made terrorism a focus, but it is not new.

Yeah, probably, that would have had the most fortunate outcome, or you could simply have focused on making your country more safe from the inside while not making it high profile. This would not have led to much more hatred and in turn would not lead to more terrorism.

But hey, you are wrong, Al Quaeda didnt actually make terrorism a focus, it was the American government who did that, Al Queda just made a large terrorist attack, but they have always made terrorist attacks.

How much easier do you think it is for Al Queda to get funding and find recruits now than it was before 911? How much easier do you think it is for them to do the same thing now with the reaction of the Americans, and how easy would it be with a more passive(increase security at home) policy from the Americans after 911?

 

[RightOfCenter]

Yeah, probably, that would have had the most fortunate outcome, or you could simply have focused on making your country more safe from the inside while not making it high profile. This would not have led to much more hatred and in turn would not lead to more terrorism.

Obviously you don't understand much about Americans, Maximus. If someone hits us we are going to hit the **** back. Afghanistan was a good idea, and, unfortunately for Bush, Iraq wasn't. We also have yet to kill Osama Bin Laden, another failure of the Bush administration, but he does have two more years. Off topic a bit, where exactly in Western Europe are you from?

But hey, you are wrong, Al Quaeda didnt actually make terrorism a focus, it was the American government who did that, Al Queda just made a large terrorist attack, but they have always made terrorist attacks.

But never a large one on American soil. The American public would be MUCH more pissed with Bush if he had done nothing then they are now with what he has done.

How much easier do you think it is for Al Queda to get funding and find recruits now than it was before 911? How much easier do you think it is for them to do the same thing now with the reaction of the Americans, and how easy would it be with a more passive(increase security at home) policy from the Americans after 911?

I wouldn't know, I'm not an expert on terrorist recruitment or Islam, but I would think that combined military, police, and intelligence actions are making it harder and harder for them every day. Also, just because our military is a focus right now doesn't mean that increased security at home isn't happening.