Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Forum Presidential Ranking: Economic Handling


vcczar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's do a forum-wide presidential ranking. We will average all of our votes equally. 

The first category is "Economic Handling." It's up to you to determine what the name of this category means. 

Copy+Paste the names of the president's below. If the president was better than average for "Economic Handling," then put an "*" by their name. If they were below average in this category, then put a # by their name. If they were approximately average, then don't mark them. 

Washington

J Adams

Jefferson

Madison

Monroe

JQ Adams

Jackson

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan

Lincoln

A Johnson

Grant

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison

McKinley

T Roosevelt

Taft

Wilson

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR

Truman

Eisenhower

JFK

LBJ

Nixon

Ford

Carter

Reagan

Bush I

Clinton

Bush II

Obama

Trump

Biden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Let's do a forum-wide presidential ranking. We will average all of our votes equally. 

The first category is "Economic Handling." It's up to you to determine what the name of this category means. 

Copy+Paste the names of the president's below. If the president was better than average for "Economic Handling," then put an "*" by their name. If they were below average in this category, then put a # by their name. If they were approximately average, then don't mark them. 

Washington *

J Adams #

Jefferson 

Madison *

Monroe *

JQ Adams

Jackson *

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk *

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce *

Buchanan

Lincoln

A Johnson #

Grant 

Hayes

Garfield #

Arthur #

Cleveland *

B Harrison 

McKinley *

T Roosevelt #

Taft *

Wilson #

Harding *

Coolidge *

Hoover #

FDR #

Truman #

Eisenhower

JFK *

LBJ #

Nixon 

Ford

Carter

Reagan *

Bush I *

Clinton *

Bush II

Obama #

Trump #

Biden #

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington *

J Adams #

Jefferson *

Madison *

Monroe *

JQ Adams 

Jackson #

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk *

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce #

Buchanan #

Lincoln 

A Johnson #

Grant *

Hayes *

Garfield

Arthur 

Cleveland #

B Harrison

McKinley *

T Roosevelt *

Taft 

Wilson *

Harding #

Coolidge *

Hoover #

FDR

Truman 

Eisenhower *

JFK

LBJ *

Nixon *

Ford *

Carter #

Reagan

Bush I #

Clinton *

Bush II #

Obama *

Trump 

Biden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington *

J Adams #

Jefferson *

Madison *

Monroe *

JQ Adams *

Jackson #

Van Buren #

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan

Lincoln

A Johnson

Grant

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland #

B Harrison

McKinley #

T Roosevelt *

Taft 

Wilson *

Harding #

Coolidge #

Hoover #

FDR *

Truman 

Eisenhower 

JFK 

LBJ *

Nixon *

Ford 

Carter #

Reagan *

Bush I #

Clinton *

Bush II #

Obama

Trump #

Biden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington 

J Adams 

Jefferson #

Madison 

Monroe *

JQ Adams *

Jackson #

Van Buren #

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan #

Lincoln 

A Johnson

Grant #

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland #

B Harrison #

McKinley 

T Roosevelt 

Taft 

Wilson 

Harding 

Coolidge 

Hoover #

FDR *

Truman *

Eisenhower * 

JFK *

LBJ *

Nixon #

Ford #

Carter #

Reagan 

Bush I #

Clinton *

Bush II #

Obama *

Trump 

Biden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the */# thing confusing so I'm gonna use +/-

Washington +

J Adams 

Jefferson + 

Madison +

Monroe +

JQ Adams -

Jackson +

Van Buren

WH Harrison 

Tyler 

Polk 

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan -

Lincoln

A Johnson -

Grant 

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland +

B Harrison

McKinley +

T Roosevelt

Taft +

Wilson -

Harding

Coolidge +

Hoover -

FDR

Truman

Eisenhower +

JFK +

LBJ -

Nixon

Ford

Carter -

Reagan +

Bush I 

Clinton +

Bush II -

Obama +

Trump +

Biden - (if his tax and economic policies pass)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington *

J Adams

Jefferson *

Madison *

Monroe*

JQ Adams #

Jackson *

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler #

Polk

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce 

Buchanan #

Lincoln

A Johnson

Grant

Hayes *

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland *

B Harrison *

McKinley *

T Roosevelt

Taft *

Wilson #

Harding 

Coolidge *

Hoover #

FDR

Truman

Eisenhower *

JFK *

LBJ #

Nixon 

Ford 

Carter #

Reagan *

Bush I 

Clinton

Bush II

Obama 

Trump *

Biden #

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @Dobs @Zenobiyl @WVProgressive @DakotaHale @ConservativeElector2

I notice that all but @vcczarand @Zenobiyl, above, gave Reagan positive marks for his economy. But, to debunk the, "Myth of Saint Reagan the Wise," Reaganomics are highly overrated and overpraised by so many. I mean, yes, it was good if you were already well-off, or become so, in that period. But, the middle-class actually shrunk, and toward the lower class, not the upper class. And real working class wages and job security really diminished due to the business environment, universal government support of business over employees, and hostile legislation toward unions and collective bargaining. Commodity and service prices also increased significantly (I remember clearly that they did here in Canada, too - "Mom, why is this Transformers toy almost ten dollars more this Christmas as last Christmas?"). And cuts in welfare and social safety nets,  - which were usually needed by those who lost their jobs due to economic downsizing, budget cuts, layoffs, mergers, etc., mostly to increase only profit margins of the companies, moreso than laziness, incompetence, or lack of company loyalty by employees - and including Reagan and members of his Administration mocking publicly those who needed such help - really made things tough as well. The Thatcherite UK was just as bad, because many of these disastrous and callous policies were shared and bounced off of each other by the two governments. And, need I say - trickledown didn't work - in fact, it was a sick, gallows-humour joke.

The reason I gave Reagan neutral marks was because despite the great economic success during his term, his economic policies in a vacuum were bad. Increased spending + decreased revenue just doesn’t work, as Perot or even Bush mentioned during those days. Still, he brought the nation out of stagflation and improved GDP so I gave him a neutral rating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patine said:

But, the middle-class actually shrunk, and toward the lower class, not the upper class.

This is empirically incorrect. The middle class shrunk into the upper class and the working class grew into middle. To quote Mrs. Thatcher, I think the honorable gentlemen would prefer the poor were poorer provided that the rich were less rich!

Thatcher revitalized her nation, performing an even more difficult task with just as much gusto. Whereas Reagan simply rejuvenated an already vibrant market economy, Thatcher took an ailing Britain off its Socialist life support, got it back on its feet, and transformed it for the markedly better. Were there side effects of ending decades of collectivization? Of course, but they were far better (and the long term benefits far outrun) the ruin that that period of British history did cause and would have continued to cause.

Edited by Dobs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, vcczar said:

Washington*

J Adams

Jefferson

Madison

Monroe*

JQ Adams

Jackson*

Van Buren#

WH Harrison

Tyler#

Polk

Taylor

Fillmore#

Pierce#

Buchanan#

Lincoln*

A Johnson#

Grant

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison

McKinley*

T Roosevelt*

Taft

Wilson*

Harding#

Coolidge

Hoover#

FDR*

Truman*

Eisenhower*

JFK*

LBJ*

Nixon

Ford#

Carter#

Reagan*

Bush I

Clinton*

Bush II#

Obama*

Trump*

Biden

 

Edited by Timur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Patine said:

"this can't be right. Manichaeanism, a Dualist religion that formally died in the 15th Century, MUST be the most followed and observed religion and worldview today, given how many people dig in their heels and mindlessly and nihilistically continue to engage in endlessly confrontational, binary socio-political thinking and activism where NO GOOD RESULTS CAN POSSIBLY COME OF THEM, AND ONLY ILL!"

This is a perfect case study in classic Freudian projection.

23 minutes ago, Patine said:

How wonder how successful you would have been preaching that at burgeoning '80's American and British unemployment office lines - especially the infamously maligned British miners and American airport workers. As I said, if you lost your job - and many did, often due to, "economic efficiency policies," (which boiled down to more profits for big corporations and to Hell with anyone else), it was a very cold and pitiless time. Higher homelessness, vagrancy, and crime-of-desperation rates rose drastically with unemployment. Those ubiquitous bad neighbourhood, rundown street scenes with prostitutes, street gangs, drug dealers, beggars, and deshelled, "bums," amidst seedy shop, shuttered small businesses, horrible tenements, and graffiti-covered and/or burnt-out buildings that were so often seen in '80's media were not based on some imaginary imagery of the zeitgeist - they were based (though sometimes exaggerated or parodied) on reality at the time. And, like so many other things you casually and callously use plutocratic, classist Conservative zingers for, you don't seem to understand what is truly entailed by the highly derisive and misleading - neigh, deliberately misphrased - terms like, "Socialist life support." I guess that analogy makes Reagan and Thatcher Dr. Kavorkian figures for so very many, eh - but without even the, "mercy," of that late medical activist. Like so many damned many in the modern day and age (you're nowhere near unique) a lot of elements of the socio-political discourse are just stringent, inflexible, ironclad, trenchline-thinking stereotypes, tropes, pounding endlessly on failed ideas as if they're going to magically start working - or declaring they have all along - and counter-productive, divisive, thoughtless, destructive, black-and-white thinking that is grinding the whole of civilization to utter and complete ruin!

These are just a bunch of multi-syllabic nouns and diversely rooted adjectives to express "I don't really have a substantive argument so I'm going to stir together rhetoric soup and see if it sticks."

I apologize for the late-breaking news but Capitalism does work and both Thatcher and Reagan left their respective nations more prosperous than they found them. Sometimes doing the right thing for one's people requires being unpopular for a little while and taking that hit because that's what leaders do. They do what is best for their people, what is right for their country. Even if it is the hard and unpopular option, the right option often is. And of course, taking those routes flushed Britain and America of their respective diseases and like the nurse that tells the patient to stand up and take a few steps every day after an operation, left Britain and America stronger than when they found them. 

It's not classist to suggest Socialism doesn't work for the working class, I am Free Marketeer precisely because I know it does work for not just the working class but for all classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Explain this! I am probably, along with @pilight, one of the only people on this forum frequently willing to call out the botches, failed policies, disasters, hypocrisy, and incompetence shown by, "both sides," if you will, and I specifically often go on about the destructive elements to society and governance of the current, braindead, trenchline, gridlock way of politics. So, please explain in a way that actually makes sense - not lame rhetoric or catchphrases - or humbly and publicly retract this insulting comment as, "an ill-thought-out statement made in the heat of debate."

49 minutes ago, Dobs said:

Digging in one's heels and engaging in endlessly confrontational activism is kind of your whole shtick. This should not come as a surprise.

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I do have substantive arguments. Using my colourful descriptives as a pitiful excuse to dismiss my points and say I have none is a pretty low-brow, but transparent tactic.

 

If you have substantive arguments I'd love to see them. Colorful descriptives are not a substitute for substantive arguments.

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Again, you ignore all the aspects I constantly point out - and run across day in and day out as a social worker, that belies this glowing review of stellar success. And you are also in denial that true Capitalism, as portrayed in the vaunted ideals, is dead anyways - as dead as Feudalism, Mercantalism, Colonialism, and Communism - and the superficially-appearing Corporatist Oligarchy has replaced it. It seems deceptively similar (that's part of the scheme), but it has a definite Neo-Feudal edge to it, especially in the conservation of the top small percentage of the population with the massive top percentage of wealth, and other than starting niche startup companies or getting really lucky, very few get rich unless they're in the Plutocratic Neo-Feudal Oligarch door from the start, or entering via doors prepared for and approved by this New Aristocracy. The Oligarchs practically control government through backdoor bribery (campaign donation and "gifts," and support from moneyed lobby and special interest groups), and they educate people like you to believe that all forms of Socialism (even Social Democracy, which is more moderate and meant to work within a democratic and mostly, but reasonably-regulated, market economy) are universally and completely the rapacious policies of Huns. But beating the ideal of the American Dream like a dead horse (and it is very dead under the new economic management), and a healthy dose of panem et circus, right from the Roman Emperor's playbooks, stops a lot of people from complaining or questioning TOO MUCH.

Anecdotes are also only a small fraction of a proper and well-supported substantive argument because are critically restrained by point of view- such as yours as an employee of the state.

I'm not in denial that true Capitalism is not the current way of the world. But I would argue that no ideology can be dead until it leaves the belief system of the last mind to practice it. It has not yet left mine nor has it left from millions of others who aim to breathe free.

Your claims of an oligarchic deep state that control the levers of electoral politics and the education system itself ring dangerously similar to those claims espoused by Trumpians. Change a few words and this doom-saying banner of the populist right could be your credo! I don't think that Social Democracy is universally or completely anything- I just think it doesn't work. Likewise, I think Socialism both doesn't work and is also a violation of inherent human rights. Sue me. 

I've never stopped complaining or questioning the issues of this country, I just also happen to have constructive proposals to solve them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I didn't use the Lyndon LaRouche-coined term, "Deep State," and saying that Trump is the first to notice or call out suspicious trends in the American electoral system, and that pointing these flaws and compromised situations is not only not difficult if you actually look, but saying it is not inherently, "Trumpian," a movement that hasn't even been active for a full five years, is a LOW BLOW, and even you should see that.

I'm aware you didn't use the term. I'm pointing out that you sound incredibly similar to the people who do- who you often criticize as kooks. Perhaps then you might take a look at some of those similarities.

Similarly, I didn't say that Trump was the first. I simply referenced the fact that this kind of conspiratorial fear-mongering is almost always used for highly negative purposes. I maintain that that poster I linked is just a mirror of some of your own tangents. I worry you've fallen into that trap by some of your more elaborate writings.

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Also, this Constitutional and Inalienable Rights purity you go on about to say that only Free Market Capitalism is supported, and any Socialistic thinking is aberrant, is completely and utterly the brainchild of 18th Century Western European and American Colonial educated, intellectual, wealthy, well-to-do, White male Burgueosis (sp), with no consultation - or care for the opinions or input, at all, of any, "working stiff." The thought, at the time, would have been downright preposterous!

I apologize that I believe in natural rights, but I do. I apologize that limited government and maximized liberty is the natural state of humanity, but it is. To breathe free is the inherent right of all people. And I recognize, of course, that there were social limitations for the enlightenment thinkers that popularized these ideas, but that's why we continue to fulfill them to their best today. Because Classical Liberalism works not just for your reviled "well-off", but also for the working class. Freedom works for everbody and yes, everbody has inalienable rights. I'm really not sure what you're attacking here but I'm not liking the sound of a broadside against enlightenment concepts as a whole. Western society is meant to be multi-cultural and economically diverse, the rights we talk about are given unto all people- regardless racial or economic background (or any other background for that matter).

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

And I remain unconvinced about your seemingly absolutist statements that, "Capitalism works, Socialism fails, period, full stop." I think you're missing a lot of the story.

That's fine, I don't expect to convince you. You are seemingly unconvinced of many true things and convinced of many untrue things. Fiercely so. All I can do is provide an appropriate defense for my beliefs and to say that yes- freedom works and control does not. These are general statements and they aren't an absolute. But I can absolutely say that it's true most of the time.  Anarchy, for instance, would be overshooting the mark of freedom because there must exist a state with which to engage a social contract in which said state will act as a guarantor of liberty.

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

Plus, on the first part, with the Freudian projection, you neither explained nor retracted your statement, you just changed tack disingenuously and tried to segwe what still remains a point of contention. Don't think I didn't notice.

It was the first thing I addressed, I would have hoped you did notice. I did not retract because I provided an explanation. You seem to indulge in the "Digging in one's heels and engaging in endlessly confrontational activism" of Manichaeist principles. That was my original point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a very courteous way of handling opponents.

44 minutes ago, Patine said:

Alright, congratulations, @Dobs! You've taken the award away from me for "high-minded, intolerant, and arrogant pronunciations in a paternal, belittling, and high-horse manner with complete derision and contempt for the competence and understanding of the one you're speaking to." Enjoy your trophy! It's well-earned! I fully concede the title bout...

 

Edited by Timur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Did you actually READ the post I was quoting and responding to? If you did, you would have to agree, with any sound mind, it was a deserved - and actually quite restrained and in good grace - response to such a post.

Yes, and it's more courteous than yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

How is a holier-than-thou, paternalistic, belittling, "all of your opinions on this issue are misguided and wrong in entirety, and it's too bad you don't believe what I do, because everything I believe is true, and my absolute beliefs are completely correct, and it's unfortunate you're so lost in the wood compared to my perfect wisdom on this issue," type spiel more courteous, other than maybe softening the terminology of being an arrogant, self-righteous jerk, if I may ask? Plus, my response was somewhat self-deprecating, because I admitted I had made such spiels in the past, in that I had, "the title and trophy," and it went to him because he beat me in, "a title bout." Being an arrogant jerk and ass in a high-minded, paternalistic, and lectorial way is not inherently more courteous than making a snide and sarcastic retort to it. Now, do you have any REAL gripes about this issue, or can it just be moved on from.

1.You sound really angry all the time.

2.It's hard to understand what you are saying. Seriously, I find sixteenth century writings easier to read.

3.Your post didn't look at all self-depreciating. Maybe you can find a better way to express yourself so as not to cause misunderstanding.

4.The end.

Edited by Timur
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on my phone so I cant weigh in too much but I gotta agree. The big words are hard to understand for my South Carolinian mind. I'm sure we're all making good arguments here but I find myself making more sense of the original King James Bible.

With that said, @Patine, why cant we just own up my guy. Cut out the big word crap. Like when I called you a boomer. I didnt go off on some large rant of how the oligarchic deep state grand regime has corrupted another's brain, or call someone disingenuous, presumptuous, blah blah.

It only takes a sentence. Just like the one I provided when you tried to lecture me on "centrist" Gordon Brown.

If Gordon Brown is a centrist with soft left tendencies or whatever, which is in your opinion, you might has well call me a true blue Thatcherite, maybe even a High Tory. Lol

Nuff said from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Now I'm going for a walk to cool down from an issue that would have been done if it weren't for your ill-informed and tenor-blind "sleuth work," to try to keep the issue exacerbated. And don't take too much pride in @Pringles's thanks - he seems as ill-informed about the long history of @Dobs' and my debates as you do, as is just as clueless on this matter.

Judging by the back forth arguments we've had I dont believe I'm very ill informed as I can only imagine what others have had to listen to for the past decade or whatever. 😐

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...