The Worst President Ever?
262 RepliesJump to last post
No dummy, that would be Andrew Johnson the 17th President. You should remember that he took office when Lincoln was murdered in 1865 and served until 1869. He was the first president to be impeached. My 6 year old daughter knows the presidents better than you. Sad......… eh, would that be Lyndon Baines Johnson, or Andrew Jackson?
I vote for Jimmy Carter. Not because he is a douchbag, but he was literally the worst president ever (as far as having a clear objective, working with congress, etc.).
lmao at myself … I can’t believe I frigged that up. Oh well. Funny thing? My first degree … US History major. Oh sheesh … never post at the end of long weekend.
Yeah, Noggin ... very, very sad.[quote=LockEDJ]lmao at myself … I can’t believe I frigged that up. Oh well. Funny thing? My first degree … US History major. Oh sheesh … never post at the end of long weekend.
Yeah, Noggin ... very, very sad. [/quote] I have been there too.....it's always the question in your area of expertise that trips you up....Get me another Ronald Reagan. Strong defense, conservative fiscal spending policy, don’t f’ with us attitude, and the ability to deal with leaders around the globe. Personally, I think GWB tried to emulate Reagan, but fell short with his over-the-top “war-monger” persona, and failure to actually cultivate conservative fiscal discipline.
Shania, you screwed up. You had me almost convinced with your lone-wolf GOP macho man routine. And then you link to … Luke? Luke??
Real men link to Solo. As an evil Republican you can link to Bobba Fett. But Luke??
Next you’ll tell us you have Ewok bedspreads!
[quote=LockEDJ] lmao at myself … I can’t believe I frigged that up. Oh well. Funny thing? My first degree … US History major. Oh sheesh … never post at the end of long weekend.
Yeah, Noggin … very, very sad. [/quote]
history major- funny
ronnie=God
such a nice man. read his love letters to nancy.
true leader
balls of steel
supply sider
american hero
More govt cluster fukc failure. goes on and on. govt sucks ate everything. period.
this GD healthcare entitlement nightmare might send the USA to the pink sheets
Postal Service Cuts List of Branches for Closure (Update1)
Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) – The U.S. Postal Service, which has said it may lose $7.8 billion this year, cut the list of facilities it’s evaluating for closure by 30 percent to 168.
The agency today reduced the number of stations and branches it may shut from a list it issued last month. Since earlier this year, the Postal Service has pared the number slated for possible closure from an initial 3,600 of the agency’s almost 37,000 post offices, branches and stations under review.
“Reducing over-capacity in retail and delivery operations is a smart business move,” Senior Vice President of Operations Steven Forte said today in a statement. “Every effort is being made to maintain and improve customer access to postal services.”
The Postal Service, looking to save money amid a drop in mail volume, is considering closing or consolidating its facilities in urban and suburban areas. The agency has said it won’t eliminate post offices in towns served by only one facility.
Today’s list of potential closings includes six locations in New York City, with three in the Bronx and one at LaGuardia airport.
[quote=Shania Twain]dont change the subject nyc
get long
come from the dark side.
pull up a weekly on SPX
sept-oct 08 gap. 1250ish soon and quick
the force with u brother.
come on over.
LukeSkywalkerESBV3Wallpaper.jpg800×600
[/quote]
I just read this. Made me laugh. Very funny Shania. I like that you have a sense of humor. Can’t take all this sh*t too seriously.
I still disagree with your market views though. Very happy to hold cash right now. I’m absolutely murdering it on my dollar strengthening call, carry trade unwinding, so I’m not losing money there. My puts are under water, but not for long…
Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options. Please hit 7 to hear more options.Indy,
you are just telling me what you ‘believe’ but you provide no evidence.
I agree that the CRA is part of a general process from all parties that pushes, probably more than is convenient, for home ownership. Although if that’s your worry the tax treatment of mortgage interest is a much bigger issue. But nobody here has provided any data whatsoever supporting the idea that that led to lower underwriting standards. And that’s something that is easy to measure. Banks keep close track of what they charge and what the default rates are. If the risk/return balance is bad, where’s the evidence?
More importantly, neither you nor anyone else has provided much to support the idea that the CRA is behind the subprime crisis. You’d need to explain how a law from 1977 only managed to have an Impact 30 years later.
The reality is much simpler. The subprime crisis hit many different parts of the world at the same time. There’s a common cause. And it ain’t CRA.
Finally, this whole post started when Shania ignorantly revealed he has no clue that Democrats in the White House have a better economic track record than Republicans. (God bless his ignorant retail-selling heart! ) And that remains true, no matter what you think about the CRA.
No evidence? I was on the inside and I know what I saw. Just because I didn't waste hours pulling up various studies for your amusement doesn't mean they don't exist. CRA in 1977 was toothless...and more or less ignored. Only roughly 20 years later did CRA command any respect. A decade after that, we have a mess. I think that timeline works just fine. You won't convince me that CRA didn't play a big part in what ultrimately transpired and I don't have time to educate you. Suffice it to say that when congress allowed CRA to become a club for community activists, they put the first nail in the coffin for the financial industry's meltdown. I'm fine with saying that CRA wasn't the only cause, but you're in denial if you think there's no cause/effect there.Indy,
you are just telling me what you ‘believe’ but you provide no evidence.
I agree that the CRA is part of a general process from all parties that pushes, probably more than is convenient, for home ownership. Although if that’s your worry the tax treatment of mortgage interest is a much bigger issue. But nobody here has provided any data whatsoever supporting the idea that that led to lower underwriting standards. And that’s something that is easy to measure. Banks keep close track of what they charge and what the default rates are. If the risk/return balance is bad, where’s the evidence?
More importantly, neither you nor anyone else has provided much to support the idea that the CRA is behind the subprime crisis. You’d need to explain how a law from 1977 only managed to have an Impact 30 years later.
The reality is much simpler. The subprime crisis hit many different parts of the world at the same time. There’s a common cause. And it ain’t CRA.
Finally, this whole post started when Shania ignorantly revealed he has no clue that Democrats in the White House have a better economic track record than Republicans. (God bless his ignorant retail-selling heart! ) And that remains true, no matter what you think about the CRA.
NBC POLL: PUBLIC SOURS ON HEALTH REFORM
Posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:00 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Polls
From NBC’s Mark Murray
As the Senate sprints to pass a health-care bill by Christmas, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that those believing President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea has sunk to its lowest level.
Just 32 percent say it’s a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it’s a bad idea.
In addition, for the first time in the survey, a plurality prefers the status quo to reform. By a 44-41 percent margin, respondents say it would be better to keep the current system than to pass Obama’s health plan.
By comparison, in September’s and October’s NBC/Journal polls, the American public preferred changing the system to the status quo, 45 to 39 percent.
The poll was conducted Dec. 11-14, and has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
The full survey will be released tonight at 6:30 pm ET on NBC Nightly News and MSNBC.com.
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer
WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.
Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.
The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.
It's a funny thing; when I was in my teens (1970s), all my parents could talk about were the good old days of Eisenhower (and segregation, and mom's staying at home, etc.). I never thought I'd look back wistfully as they did at a world that no longer can exist. Our position, militarily, hasn't changed really. But what has continued to evolve is the world economic stage and it continues to move away from the United States. The power of India, China, of the Muslim expansion into Europe that eats away at our allies ... it cannot be denied. GDub failed because the rest of the world looked at him gesticulating and said, "feh" - ok, there were many reasons. If Barack has a saving grace and I pray he does, it's that he understands we no longer have the imperial economic imperitative. "Most favored status" doesn't mean squat anymore.Get me another Ronald Reagan. Strong defense, conservative fiscal spending policy, don’t f’ with us attitude, and the ability to deal with leaders around the globe. Personally, I think GWB tried to emulate Reagan, but fell short with his over-the-top “war-monger” persona, and failure to actually cultivate conservative fiscal discipline.
[quote=NYCTrader]
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer
WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.
Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.
The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.
[/quote] You found the one poll where Obama's in positive numbers. Here's the rest; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html[quote=NYCTrader]
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer
WASHINGTON – His marks for handling the
8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.
[/quote]
Three months to decide on a strategy… hmmmm.
This is why the American people are stupid. Or ignorant. Battles do not exist in a vacuum. Decisive action should be taken swiftly and should be adjusted as needed, also quickly.
Military strategy is not something that gets to kind of hang out. It is a constantly evolving thing. Sometimes, a new direction is needed. But three months to make a decision that should have taken less than a week? Preposterous!
Bush took too long as well. Although he did listen to his advisors.
[quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=NYCTrader]
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer
WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.
Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.
The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.
[/quote] You found the one poll where Obama's in positive numbers. Here's the rest; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html [/quote]Actually, the only poll I see on Real Clear Politics that has a significant negative opinion on Obama is from Rasmussen, which normally skews right. So I'm not sure I see your point.
I'm not saying Obama is wildly popular. However, he is not "done" as others on this board have concluded. His approval ratings track Reagan's first term numbers pretty closely. Both inherited major economic problems. It remains to be seen whether Obama's policies will right the ship, but Reagan had terrible numbers early in his presidency when it came to favorability ratings (bottoming out at 35% in 1983).
[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]
Really? If you were such a great analyst yourself you would have probably realized there is a lag between laws and policies being put in place and the affect on the economy. Clinton signed the lax lending standards for sub prime in 1998 but Bush gets the blame 10 years later from all the welfare taking lazy first time voters in 2008![/quote]
Wow, that's really bad! I mean, what 'lax lending standards' are you talking about, that Clinton supposedly signed?
I get it that you are a salesman but still, this is not that hard.[/quote] Those lax lending standards were actually put into place in 1994 with the Community Reinvestment Act. Signed by Clinton, but written by Barney Frank. Please tell me you know about this CRA of 1994 before you speak about the subject. Also remember Glas-Steagall was repealled in 1998 and it helped create the 'too big to fail' institutions like Citi"we're the financial shopping mall that tries to do everything"Bank. There is a reason that the Investment banks like GS and MS didn't need tarp money (although they took some under pressure by the Administration and paid it back as soon as they were ALLOWED to) and the beneficiaries of the repealled Glas-Steagall like BofA, Citi, Wells had to wait much longer and with substantial secondary equity offerings (which GS and MS did not have to raise).