The Greatest US Presidents of All Time

[partier9]

Who are your top 5 greatest presidents in US history and why?

1. Lincoln: got us through the civil war
2. Washington: the first and set the precedent for all other future presidents and warned us about the dangers of political parties
3. FDR: gave the country hope to get through the Great Depression and led us through WW2
4. Eisenhower: Forced China to agree to a ceasefire for the Korean War, ended new deal expansion, created the highways that we know and love
5. James K Polk: Did what he said he was gonna do and left, got to admire that especially with today's politicians

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Who are your top 5 greatest presidents in US history and why?

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson

 

[Civil1z@tion]

1. Lincoln (hard to argue with that)
2. Washington (again, hard to argue)
3. Eisenhower (didn't mess with the economy too much, built the interstate highway system, and wasn't afraid to side with blacks in Civil Rights)
4. Clinton (actually lowered government spending as a portion of GDP, got the US in a surplus for the first time in decades, and didn't mess up a well-functioning economy)
5. Jackson (except for the Indian Removal Act, did a good job of maintaining national unity and keeping government in check)

 

[FluffyNinja]

1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. George Washington
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Ronald Reagan

I'll tell you why later, as I am CERTAIN someone will eventually challenge my #5 :mrgreen:

 

[FluffyNinja]

1. Lincoln (hard to argue with that)
2. Washington (again, hard to argue)
3. Eisenhower (didn't mess with the economy too much, built the interstate highway system, and wasn't afraid to side with blacks in Civil Rights)
4. Clinton (actually lowered government spending as a portion of GDP, got the US in a surplus for the first time in decades, and didn't mess up a well-functioning economy)
5. Jackson (except for the Indian Removal Act, did a good job of maintaining national unity and keeping government in check)

Clinton #4, .....really? Bill Jeff Clinton.....same guy married to Hillary, right? Number 4? Uh,........................................ :boom

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Clinton #4, .....really? Bill Jeff Clinton.....same guy married to Hillary, right? Number 4? Uh,........................................ :boom

Really? I'm more shocked at his #5...

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Clinton got federal finances in the best shape they'd been in for decades, lowered federal spending as a percentage of GDP, expanded free trade, and even lessened some government regulations. The man was pretty good from a libertarian point of view, in many ways even better than Reagan.

As for Jackson, yea the Indian Removal Act sucked pretty hard, but this was also the man who was a Southerner and kept a lid on the first rumblings of secession in the South after the Tariff of Abominations. Also I have a hard time picking another president. FDR greatly expanded the role of government, Teddy Roosevelt was an unashamed imperialist and started the first rumblings of government intervention in the Progressive movement (trust-busting alone wasn't bad, but Taft did a better job of it frankly), Jefferson's embargo of both France and Britain was an economic disaster and failed to prevent war (which would come later in 1812), and Reagan ran up the deficit, played the god card too much, and failed to put a significant dent in government spending as a part of GDP. Some of these guys get fairly high up on my list but its hard to pick a number five without running into a serious flaw from my perspective.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Clinton got federal finances in the best shape they'd been in for decades, lowered federal spending as a percentage of GDP, expanded free trade, and even lessened some government regulations. The man was pretty good from a libertarian point of view, in many ways even better than Reagan.

Clinton signed NAFTA into law, paving the way for American Businesses to flee to other nations in search of cheap labor. He pushed through the largest list of military base closings in recent history, putting thousands of military personnel and govt. contractors out of work and helping to weaken our national defense. He cut healthcare benefits for miltary retirees, played the saxaphone on MTV ............oh yeah, AND got caught boffing the Whitehouse interns, lied under oath, cried about it on national TV,................oops did I forget to mention IMPEACHMENT TRIAL? LOL :lol:
BTW he didn't even know what the meaning of the word "IS" is???????? :screwy

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Clinton got federal finances in the best shape they'd been in for decades, lowered federal spending as a percentage of GDP, expanded free trade, and even lessened some government regulations. The man was pretty good from a libertarian point of view, in many ways even better than Reagan.

As for Jackson, yea the Indian Removal Act sucked pretty hard, but this was also the man who was a Southerner and kept a lid on the first rumblings of secession in the South after the Tariff of Abominations. Also I have a hard time picking another president. FDR greatly expanded the role of government, Teddy Roosevelt was an unashamed imperialist and started the first rumblings of government intervention in the Progressive movement (trust-busting alone wasn't bad, but Taft did a better job of it frankly), Jefferson's embargo of both France and Britain was an economic disaster and failed to prevent war (which would come later in 1812), and Reagan ran up the deficit, played the god card too much, and failed to put a significant dent in government spending as a part of GDP. Some of these guys get fairly high up on my list but its hard to pick a number five without running into a serious flaw from my perspective.

I see your point about succession, but the Trail of Tears, terrible economy, and the extensive use and encouragement of the spoils system make it hard for me to like him. There is a more detailed debate about this in the "Worst Presidents of All-Time" thread in the last few pages.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Clinton signed NAFTA into law, paving the way for American Businesses to flee to other nations in search of cheap labor.

Like I said he supported free trade (and given that the US did not experience a rise in unemployment your point about fleeing to cheap labor doesn't move me).

He pushed through the largest list of military base closings in recent history, putting thousands of military personnel and govt. contractors out of work and helping to weaken our national defense. He cut healthcare benefits for miltary retirees,

Like I said, he lowered federal spending. That's a good thing. Frankly in the aftermath of the Cold War we needed to reduce the size of our military. And to who exactly were we at threat from in the Clinton years? The military bases we closed under Clinton wouldn't have stopped 9/11 and frankly we haven't needed them. If there was any point in modern US history where it made sense to decrease the military's budget a lot it was the 90s so I don't see where national security was a real issue beyond paranoia.

played the saxaphone on MTV ............oh yeah, AND got caught boffing the Whitehouse interns, lied under oath, cried about it on national TV,................oops did I forget to mention IMPEACHMENT TRIAL? LOL :lol:

He was an adulterer and lied about it. Frankly so what. His impeachment trial was a joke. If he was raping someone sure that's a problem that deserves national attention but cheating on his wife is something that he and his wife should deal with not the Congress. His impeachment trial didn't screw up the economy, increase government intervention in our lives, start a war, piss off the international community, or really hurt anyone besides his own family. So I'm not even going to count that against him.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Like I said, he lowered federal spending. That's a good thing. Frankly in the aftermath of the Cold War we needed to reduce the size of our military. And to who exactly were we at threat from in the Clinton years? The military bases we closed under Clinton wouldn't have stopped 9/11 and frankly we haven't needed them. If there was any point in modern US history where it made sense to decrease the military's budget a lot it was the 90s so I don't see where national security was a real issue beyond paranoia.

this was the same attitude in the years prior to the US Civil War, World War I, and Vietnam....all three required unpopular Draft Laws to be instituted to build up our defenses (is this REALLY how we should go about bolstering our National Defense....in a REactive not a PROactive manner? Think about it long and hard before you answer)

He was an adulterer and lied about it. Frankly so what.

He lied UNDER OATH, during a Senate hearing. In our country this is called PERJURY, and it is was a Federal Offense. Did you know that according to federal law, if it can be shown that a defendant falsely testified in his/her own behalf ....... the court is required to automatically increase the sentence.......this means MANDATORY prison sentence. You can sweep it under the rug all you like, but what Clinton did under oath was no trivial thing.

One more question, what would have happened to you or I if we'd been caught giving false testimony and obstructing a Federal Investigation? Just wondering.

 

[German guy]

It's interesting to read this debate. Naturally, as non-American, I don't have so strong opinions (and certainly not the knowledge of the details) on the different Presidents to make such a list.

Although I'll say that of the US Presidents I personally remember, I think Bill Clinton was the best and G. W. Bush the worst. George Bush the elder seemed quite ok, and of course, as a German, I am especially fond of his support for German Reunification in 1990. Obama is a mixed bag so far IMHO ... much better than W. Bush, but he has by far not done enough yet. So I guess my list of the last 4 Presidents would be #1 Clinton, #2 Bush sr., #3 Obama and #4 Bush jr.

I have a question, though: How comes that an almost irrational hatred or praise seems to exist in America that's focusing on one, not very important detail of a Presidency, while ignoring the big picture? At least that's how it seems to me sometimes. Think of Carter: If you believe conventional wisdom, he was the worst President ever. But I wonder, what did he do so horribly bad, except messing up this hostage business? Apart from that, it seems he did an ok job, neither outstanding nor horrible, and he wasn't involved in dirty scandals. Which leads me to Reagan, on the other side, who is worshipped by many as a Messiah, which is just as difficult to understand for me. After all, he was involved in the Iran Contra affair, and true, he did cut taxes, but his economic policies were hardly that genious, for example he didn't cut spending as well. And the early 80s' recession was almost over all by itself when he entered office, yet it seems many believe he solved it. Clinton, on the other side, is responsible for the first budget surplus in decades and probably did an even better job on the economy than Reagan, at least if you believe the numbers. Yet everybody seems to remember this Lewinski scandal, which I fail to understand why it's supposedly important at all (what difference does it make for America where he puts his d*ck? It's not that he's married to the public).

Just wondering.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

I have a question, though: How comes that an almost irrational hatred or praise seems to exist in America that's focusing on one, not very important detail of a Presidency, while ignoring the big picture? At least that's how it seems to me sometimes. Think of Carter: If you believe conventional wisdom, he was the worst President ever. But I wonder, what did he do so horribly bad, except messing up this hostage business? Apart from that, it seems he did an ok job, neither outstanding nor horrible, and he wasn't involved in dirty scandals.

I don't think Carter was as bad as some people say but the important negatives during his Presidency was the oil crisis and economy, two pretty important things.

Which leads me to Reagan, on the other side, who is worshipped by many as a Messiah, which is just as difficult to understand for me. After all, he was involved in the Iran Contra affair, and true, he did cut taxes, but his economic policies were hardly that genious, for example he didn't cut spending as well. And the early 80s' recession was almost over all by itself when he entered office, yet it seems many believe he solved it.

Many conservatives like Reagan because they think he ended the Cold War (which is debatable on both sides of the issue) and helped the economy (which could definitely be argued in favor of since unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 5.3% and inflation dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%). It doesn't really matter if your economic policies are genious as long as they work. One thing I dislike about Reagan however was the War on Drugs.

Clinton, on the other side, is responsible for the first budget surplus in decades and probably did an even better job on the economy than Reagan, at least if you believe the numbers. Yet everybody seems to remember this Lewinski scandal, which I fail to understand why it's supposedly important at all (what difference does it make for America where he puts his d*ck? It's not that he's married to the public).

Just wondering.

There's a link in the 'General Political Discussion' thread about this, go check that out. The Lewinski scandal is important because he lied under oath, that's a pretty serious crime. I don't think the fact that he cheated on his wife is that terrible, it's just that he committed perjury.

 

[FluffyNinja]

It's interesting to read this debate. Naturally, as non-American, I don't have so strong opinions (and certainly not the knowledge of the details) on the different Presidents to make such a list.

Well that is quite obvious from the rest of your post.

I have a question, though: How comes that an almost irrational hatred or praise seems to exist in America that's focusing on one, not very important detail of a Presidency, while ignoring the big picture? At least that's how it seems to me sometimes. Think of Carter: If you believe conventional wisdom, he was the worst President ever. But I wonder, what did he do so horribly bad, except messing up this hostage business? Apart from that, it seems he did an ok job, neither outstanding nor horrible, and he wasn't involved in dirty scandals.

I think you would have had to have lived in America in the late 70's to understand. Gasoline rationing is no fun. That recession you talk about later, Carter's financial policies were pretty much the major cause of it.

Which leads me to Reagan, on the other side, who is worshipped by many as a Messiah, which is just as difficult to understand for me. After all, he was involved in the Iran Contra affair, and true, he did cut taxes, but his economic policies were hardly that genious, for example he didn't cut spending as well. And the early 80s' recession was almost over all by itself when he entered office, yet it seems many believe he solved it

.
He stood up to Communist agression and the Soviet Union when no one else would, not West Germany, not the UK, no one (except maybe the mujahadeen). Also, Reagan was elected in 1980, trust me the recession was still in full swing.

Clinton, on the other side, is responsible for the first budget surplus in decades and probably did an even better job on the economy than Reagan, at least if you believe the numbers. Yet everybody seems to remember this Lewinski scandal, which I fail to understand why it's supposedly important at all (what difference does it make for America where he puts his d*ck? It's not that he's married to the public).

Just wondering.

I really don't care where he sticks his "little willy" either. But that's not really the issue now, is it? See my previous post.......it's perjury, plain and simple, a Federal Offense in our country...and he got off scott free. I do give him credit for the budget surplus and do not believe he was one of our worst. I would classify his Administration as perhaps slightly above average. He just got a little too "cocky" :mrgreen:

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Well that is quite obvious from the rest of your post.


I think you would have had to have lived in America in the late 70's to understand. Gasoline rationing is no fun. That recession you talk about later, Carter's financial policies were pretty much the major cause of it.

.
He stood up to Communist agression and the Soviet Union when no one else would, not West Germany, not the UK, no one (except maybe the mujahadeen). Also, Reagan was elected in 1980, trust me the recession was still in full swing.

I really don't care where he sticks his "little willy" either. But that's not really the issue now, is it? See my previous post.......it's perjury, plain and simple, a Federal Offense in our country...and he got off scott free. I do give him credit for the budget surplus and do not believe he was one of our worst. I would classify his Administration as perhaps slightly above average. He just got a little too "cocky" :mrgreen:

Probably my second favorite quote on DP ever.

 

[German guy]

I think you would have had to have lived in America in the late 70's to understand. Gasoline rationing is no fun.

Sure. But it's not that Carter could do much about it. It was the oil states cartell that didn't leave much choice. But of course I understand leaders often get blamed for things they can't do much about it. For example, I think Bush received a lot of unfair blame because of that hurricane. So does Obama because of the oil spill.

That recession you talk about later, Carter's financial policies were pretty much the major cause of it.

Hm, I haven't heard that before, but then, I am hardly an expert on economics in general or this recession in particular. Maybe it's also common that in the sources I read about it here, the political implications and blame was not much of a topic. Naturally, Americans are more interested in this aspect, to know how they can judge the responsibility of politics.
.

He stood up to Communist agression and the Soviet Union when no one else would, not West Germany, not the UK, no one (except maybe the mujahadeen). Also, Reagan was elected in 1980, trust me the recession was still in full swing.

Yeah ok, but that was more show than anything else. And don't forget it was Germany's Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who came up with the idea of establishing new NATO mid-range rockets in West Germany, and used his full political weight to get it through.

In the end, it was not Reagan's approach that caused the USSR to collapse. It was because the East Bloc was economically rotten beyond repair anyway, then because of Gorbachev's policies -- but more than anybody else, the many courageous people in the East who went on the streets to push for freedom made it! Reagan did a good show, I give you that (like this "tear down this wall!"-speech, or the microphone test when he ordered a nuclear first strike, pure gold!), but in the end, his policy had only minor influence on the situation in the east. Maybe it even slowed down Gorbachev's attempts, by playing into the hands of the Soviet hardliners.

I really don't care where he sticks his "little willy" either. But that's not really the issue now, is it? See my previous post.......it's perjury, plain and simple, a Federal Offense in our country...and he got off scott free. I do give him credit for the budget surplus and do not believe he was one of our worst. I would classify his Administration as perhaps slightly above average. He just got a little too "cocky" :mrgreen:

Yes, I understand you are angry Clinton lied. I agree that's not what a President should do. But then, in comparison, Bush lied much more often, on a much larger scale, with much more extreme consequences (dozens of thousands of people died because of it). By that standard, Clinton's lie was relatively marginal. But of course, it was still wrong. I just think the good sides outweigh this bad side.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Sure. But it's not that Carter could do much about it. It was the oil states cartell that didn't leave much choice. But of course I understand leaders often get blamed for things they can't do much about it. For example, I think Bush received a lot of unfair blame because of that hurricane. So does Obama because of the oil spill.



Hm, I haven't heard that before, but then, I am hardly an expert on economics in general or this recession in particular. Maybe it's also common that in the sources I read about it here, the political implications and blame was not much of a topic. Naturally, Americans are more interested in this aspect, to know how they can judge the responsibility of politics.

Carter imposed higher taxes in an attempt to discourage energy consumption. That was his plan to combat the OPEC oil embargo. Coupled with the way he handled the hostage situation and taking into consideration that this was the only period of peacetime inflation in American history, I'd have to say Carter falls well short of the mark for even an average president. He did teach Sunday school classes though, and his brother liked the Libyans :lol:
.

 

[pragmatic]

For those that have not spent any time reading the details of what Washington accomplished it is worth your time to do so. He beat the odds to a degree that is genuinely unbelievable.

The world would truly be a different place that we live in had he not succeeded at what he set out to do....


.

 

[German guy]

Carter imposed higher taxes in an attempt to discourage energy consumption. That was his plan to combat the OPEC oil embargo. Coupled with the way he handled the hostage situation and taking into consideration that this was the only period of peacetime inflation in American history, I'd have to say Carter falls well short of the mark for even an average president. He did teach Sunday school classes though, and his brother liked the Libyans :lol:
.

Well, I guess I have to take your word on it. And yes, that does make him look pretty bad.

What about Iran Contra? For me, this looks at least as bad as Clinton lying under oath. But I guess it's normal that left-leaning people will rather forgive Clinton, but not Reagan, and right-leaning vice versa.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Well, I guess I have to take your word on it. And yes, that does make him look pretty bad.

What about Iran Contra? For me, this looks at least as bad as Clinton lying under oath. But I guess it's normal that left-leaning people will rather forgive Clinton, but not Reagan, and right-leaning vice versa.

Yes, you are correct. Living in a nation dominated by two-party politics, becomes so predictable at times, sigh..........

 

[Civil1z@tion]

this was the same attitude in the years prior to the US Civil War, World War I, and Vietnam....all three required unpopular Draft Laws to be instituted to build up our defenses (is this REALLY how we should go about bolstering our National Defense....in a REactive not a PROactive manner? Think about it long and hard before you answer)

We won didn't we (ok not in Vietnam but that wasn't because we had to rebuild the military, which had not been cut down as much as we normally did, remember we had a draft all through the 50s and 60s)? Besides there is a difference between decreasing the military and totally gutting it. The Clinton military was still the strongest on Earth and we still spent by far the most on our military as any country on Earth. The cutbacks were necessary and so far have not proven to have harmed us in any way. We still annihilated the militaries of both Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed were capable of eventually (mostly) neutralizing the Iraqi insurgency. No other military on Earth could have pulled off what we've pulled off so far in those two countries and Bush never brought the US military back up to pre-Clinton levels (though he did increase its funding some), nor did he reopen all the bases Clinton closed.

The military is necessary in the modern world but it is not the be-all, end-all of the American government. We've got lots of better stuff to spend money on (or to not spend money on in government form and instead to cut taxes so we the people can spend our own money) when there is no real threat to American hegemony. Keep a strong navy and a good central core of the Army to build around and you'll have hit upon the formula that has kept the continental US safe from war since the Civil War. I accept a somewhat larger military than that because of our obligations to our allies (some of which we should probably phase out like in Europe where the Soviets are gone and Putin's Russia isn't up to the task of conquering the place). But the Clinton cuts did not stop any of that.

The military is here to serve us not the people to serve them, and thus when the military is not needed as much it should be decreased. The Soviets never significantly cut back their military after WW2 and look at the good that did them.

He lied UNDER OATH, during a Senate hearing. In our country this is called PERJURY, and it is was a Federal Offense. Did you know that according to federal law, if it can be shown that a defendant falsely testified in his/her own behalf ....... the court is required to automatically increase the sentence.......this means MANDATORY prison sentence. You can sweep it under the rug all you like, but what Clinton did under oath was no trivial thing.

One more question, what would have happened to you or I if we'd been caught giving false testimony and obstructing a Federal Investigation? Just wondering.

You seem to give Reagan a pass on your list despite lying about Iran-Contra, which was an issue that actually pertained to Reagan's performance as president as opposed to Clinton's investigation which was just a tabloid-esque circus about his sex life.

As for what would happen to you or me, we wouldn't be under federal investigation for adultery because adultery is not a federal crime. None of these women were claiming rape which leads to the question of why would you have this investigation in the first place (sure it started over a legitimate issue with Whitewater, which the president was never convicted of, but that's not the point that Clinton perjured himself at). If the Congress was going to make a mockery of the law by having a legal investigation into something that is not even a crime at their level of jurisdiction, then I have no problems with a president or anyone making a mockery of the investigation by lying to it.

 

[FluffyNinja]

You seem to give Reagan a pass on your list despite lying about Iran-Contra, which was an issue that actually pertained to Reagan's performance as president as opposed to Clinton's investigation which was just a tabloid-esque circus about his sex life.

As for what would happen to you or me, we wouldn't be under federal investigation for adultery because adultery is not a federal crime. None of these women were claiming rape which leads to the question of why would you have this investigation in the first place (sure it started over a legitimate issue with Whitewater, which the president was never convicted of, but that's not the point that Clinton perjured himself at). If the Congress was going to make a mockery of the law by having a legal investigation into something that is not even a crime at their level of jurisdiction, then I have no problems with a president or anyone making a mockery of the investigation by lying to it.

You really SHOULD get your facts straight. Reagan was never under oath, nor was it proven during a hearing or trial that he lied about anything. Clinton WAS NOT under investigation for adultery nor was he impeached for it, rather for WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. Seems to me that you are the one believing the tabloid-esque left-wing talking points. Defend Clinton all you'd like, but if you or I were put on trial for obstructing a federal investigation and were then caught perjuring ourselves on the witness stand, I really doubt either of us would get a pass.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

He didn't get a pass, he will forever be remembered for getting impeached, but did he deserve to get kicked out of office for it? No; but if he lied about something policy-related then you would have a great case for kicking him out of office.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

You really SHOULD get your facts straight. Reagan was never under oath, nor was it proven during a hearing or trial that he lied about anything.

Given that Clinton never got convicted in the Senate that technically means his charges never got proven.

Clinton WAS NOT under investigation for adultery nor was he impeached for it, rather for WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.

An investigation into what? HIS SEX LIFE!

Seems to me that you are the one believing the tabloid-esque left-wing talking points. Defend Clinton all you'd like, but if you or I were put on trial for obstructing a federal investigation and were then caught perjuring ourselves on the witness stand, I really doubt either of us would get a pass.

And I still doubt we'd be under investigation for the reasons Clinton was. The right wing talking points are really legalistic and focused on the lying to an investigation rather than what the investigation was about in the first place. Ultimately it was a meaningless partisan attack.

 

[Mensch]

1) George Washington
2) Abraham Lincoln
3) Thomas Jefferson
4) John Adams
5) James Madison