It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: Bush worst president in 61 years

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   



Bush Tops List As U.S. Voters Name Worst President, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Clinton Top List As Best In 61 Years

Strong Democratic sentiment pushes President George W. Bush to the top of the list when American voters pick the worst U.S. President in the last 61 years. Bush is named by 34 percent of voters, followed by Richard Nixon at 17 percent and Bill Clinton at 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Leading the list for best President since 1945 is Ronald Reagan with 28 percent, and Clinton with 25 percent.

President Bush is ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats, 35 percent of independent voters and 7 percent of Republicans, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Best ranking for Reagan comes from 56 percent of Republicans, 7 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independent voters. Among American voters 18 - 29 years old, Clinton leads the "best" list with 40 percent.

Among young voters, 42 percent list Bush as worst. Clinton tops the "worst" list among white Protestants - 24 percent, and white evangelical Christians - 29 percent.

More...



Illuminating? Not really... But, an interesting read nonetheless.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Very interesting indeed. I absolutely adore Ronald Reagan. The man was a great president. I have a room in my house dedicated to the man. Sounds a bit obsessive I know but I feel I know greatness when I see it. And Reagan in my opinion was greatness incarnate.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Of the ones I can remember serving, GW is my favorite president of my lifetime. I didn't much care for Ronald Reagan when he was in office, but time has proven me wrong in my assessment. I think time will prove GW to be much better than he is currently judged.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think time will prove GW to be much better than he is currently judged.



You gotta be kidding, right?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
An essay on Reagan, from Juan Cole



Reagan had an ability to project a kindly image, and was well liked personally by virtually everyone who knew him, apparently. But it always struck me that he was a mean man. I remember learning, in the late 1960s, of the impact Michael Harrington's The Other America had had on Johnson's War on Poverty. Harrington demonstrated that in the early 1960s there was still hunger in places like Appalachia, deriving from poverty. It was hard for middle class Americans to believe, and Lyndon Johnson, who represented many poor people himself, was galvanized to take action.



Mod Edit: Please don't quote whole articles -- it's rude to the people who own the copyright and rights to the text -- and is against ATS policy.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
From Aelita's source:




In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary.



What an amazing statement. It was the Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan, remember? And it was "guest workers" in Grenada that tried to topple the local government and set up a communist state. The SU's sponsoring of Cuba, and Cuba's sponsorship of communist movements Nicaragua, Columbia, Angola, Namibia, Zambia show that the assertion that the Soviet Union was "on its last legs anyway" is not only wrong, but shows a heartless disregard for the millions of subject peoples who longed to throw off the yoke of communist tyranny.

But then, reducing human suffering (when inflicted from the left) is "simply unecessary."






The argument that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s.



But the ultimate ruble figure spent on defense doesn't prove or disprove the argument. The author is setting up a "straw man," in order to knock it down. If flat expenditures are a sign of health, then howabout this: When I lived as a homeless person, my daily expenditures on Schlitz Malt Liquor were flat throughout the period. Does thisprove I wasn't going bankrupt, either?

The fact is, a lot of things changed in America while Reagan was president. Maybe you cannot remember a 21% inflation rate under the glorious Carter regime, but some of us still can.


It's funny that Bush gets the "worst president of all time" award, especially in view of America's other tinpot invasions, such as in Guatemala in 1920, 1954 and 1966-67. Comparatively speaking, the economy is far better off today than at most points in US history. But that doesn't matter if the target is someone the left doesn't like.

I breathlessly await the next survey results from Quinnipiac University, as they offer more insights into America's views (as well as the views of various ATS members)
.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Comparatively speaking, the economy is far better off today than at most points in US history. But that doesn't matter if the target is someone the left doesn't like.


Please educate me at what point in the US history the national debt and trade deficit were at the levels we are unfortunate enough to witness today? Huh?

We mortgage our kids' future for the neocons agenda, and you think it's dandy.

I myself am by no means "left" or anything, but Bush's "leadership" has been greatly detrimental to our country. In the end, we get what we deserve for being uneducated infantile spoiled brats we collectively are. Our standards are low. We are being lied to and somehow we've come to think it's OK. Our borders are wide open which is a clear danger to our country's security and somehow we believe it's OK. We don't enforce or own laws and that's dandy, too. What times...



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   


Please educate me at what point in the US history the national debt and trade deficit were at the levels we are unfortunate enough to witness today? Huh?


As far as the national debt goes, I'm completely against it. So how is that Bush's fault? Article one, section eight of the Constitution gives Congress the power:



To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


So if you have a problem with the national debt, maybe we should be discussing public approval ratings of Congress, instead of a given presidency. . . .


When it comes to the trade deficit, maybe you could use some education. Can you name times when a country has run a trade surplus? How about Japan in the early 1990's, when it hit the worst recession since WWII. Or the United States, during the Great Depression. A trade deficit merely shows that we imported (and paid for) more objects than we sold to foreigners. Developed nations with expanding economies always run trade deficits. When states have a trade surplus, they are either colonies, or are rapidly industrializing (and selling to more developed nations). China runs a trade surplus; but I'd argue that their economy is in far worse shape than the US's---and much closer to political collapse, as well. Generating those surpluses have driven the Chinese people relentlessly to self-sacrifice in the name of "national greatness," that has only been possible inside a police state. And now, the Chinese government is desperately trying to pave over the fact that the Yuan is hopelessly overvalued, literally putting off disaster for another few months or years, and letting the problem grow progressively worse. And all for the glory of a positive balance of trade . . .


There are some other numbers that you didn't bother to ask about, but here they are anyway:

Unemployment: 4.7%
Inflation rate: 3.55% (compare with 1969-1980! or 1917-1921)
Fed funds rate at 5%---and that's the highest level in years!

These numbers affect the cost of buying a car or renting an apartment, or buying groceries more than the national debt and trade deficit do. But keep looking; I'm sure you can find a big black ominous cloud for every silver lining.


.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Don't try to say congress is the problem for the debt. This is a republican party run country for now. He is the undisputed leader of it.

George Bush is respsonisble for massive spending and massive tax cuts. (which we got a couple hundred dollar check ooooowwwww wowwwwww, and the real tax cut went to the rich.) Which equals massive debt. At least Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible, and we has record surpluses. I thought that was the Republicans job not to spend.

George Bush is responisble for invading Iraq under, how do we say, very cheesy lies. But blames it on faulty intelligence....Well that he wanted created.

So because of that three of my family members have been to Iraq.

We have a vice president who shot someone in the face in a hunting accident. And because he was the vice president, he did not have to take a breathalizer test for booze until the next day. He said he had one beer. Come on.....If we all get pulled over by a police officer we always answer. "I only had one."

I feel George Bush had an opportunity to be a great president, and he blew it. George "the decider" Bush has been the worst president in my lifetime.

I can see why he invaded Iraq, to change the dymanics of the middle east to seed it with democracy, but democracy by the gun seems not the way to go. And be honest about it.

His father was a much better president.

Bill Clinton was almost impeached for the Monica Lewinsky stuff. Come on a perk of being president is chicas. Yet to lie to go to war is not worse.. ha ha ha!

And George Bush gets to invade a country with no exit strategy. Bush could of used Collin Powell for advice, but marginalized him as secretaty of state and did not include him.

So George Bush is a Warren Harding type president in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   



George Bush is a Warren Harding type president in my opinion.



Granted. And I respect every person's right to her or his opinion. I also realize that no person can change your mind, except you. If you've decided a person is a waste of meat, well, then no one can talk you out of that position if you aren't interested in hearing any other opinions.




Don't try to say congress is the problem for the debt. This is a republican party run country for now. He is the undisputed leader of it.


That's odd. The republican 'leadership' in Congress are pretty sure that they are the ones in charge. They certainly haven't followed Bush's lead on a whole range of issues, from the Dubai Portsworld deal to Social Security. So, he is very much the "disputed" leader of the Republican party. Look at McCain, one of the most recognizable members of Congress; he's hardly "lock-step" with anybody.




George Bush is respsonisble for massive spending and massive tax cuts.


Not according to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. If he's getting away with something nefarious, it's only because Congress is letting him.




(which we got a couple hundred dollar check ooooowwwww wowwwwww, and the real tax cut went to the rich.)


My family got SIX HUNDRED BUCKS. Just like millions of other Americans. Which is a darn sight more than any other politician ever gave us. And ALL of them tax the snot out of us. IF you think "a couple of hundred bucks" is no big deal, then maybe you're actually one of those "rich" that you are so horrified by.

Let me enlighten you just a bit. Do you know how many millionaires there are in the USA? Only about 2 million. Which means, if you CONFISCATE all of their money, you still couldn't balance the budget of the US government for more than a couple of years. And then, whom would you tax?

See, the wealthy have a nasty little habit of re-investing their money. In fact, this is the single facet of their lives that sets them apart from the majority of Americans: most millionaires live below their means. In other words, despite what you see on TV, they don't buy fancy cars or clothes. They buy stock, they lend their money to companies that provide services---all of which creates jobs. So, in a very real sense, you can judge an economy by its millionaires. Where lots of new millionaires are appearing, a nation is doing well. Where the millionaires are moving away, tyranny is sure to follow. Think of German in the 1930's. . . .

And so, while you may hate the rich, the fact is, their existence provides economic incentive to produce, to work, to strive. When you try to tax millionaires to death, do you know what they do? They hire accountants to help them move their money overseas.

Do you know what foreign nation is the most heavily invested in the USA? It's England. You know why? Because for a generation, the top tax rate in the UK was 90%. So people like the Rolling Stones and John Lennon and whatnot moved to America . . . You know what the 2nd and 3rd place contenders are? France, followed by Germany. For exactly the same reason. They aren't fleeing political oppression--they are fleeing economic tyranny, in the shape of confiscatory taxes. And to hide their money, they invest in American stocks. If those 3 countries became more competitive tax-wise, america would lose a sizeable chunk of its upper class.



and the real tax cut went to the rich. . . . Which equals massive debt.


Why? Why do tax cuts equal massive debt? SPENDING causes debt, not tax cuts.




At least Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible, and we has record surpluses.


Hardly. Congress gladly help him cook the books so that it would look good for a few years. But even Clinton himself admitted that the surplusses wouldn't last five years. And he acheived this how? By gutting the military, and closing many of America's largest Naval and Army Bases (i.e. Subic Bay). Domestic spending for entitlemenst was RAMPED UP under his administration---and you can only gut the military once; after that, it's gutted, and won't produce any more paper "windfalls." His euphemism was "Peace Dividend."



George Bush is responisble for invading Iraq under, how do we say, very cheesy lies. But blames it on faulty intelligence....


No argument there. If he had stuck to the REAL reasons for going to war, the world would laud him today, instead of vilifying him. We went to war because Saddam surrendered in 1991, and agreed to arms inspections as part of the terms of surrender. By refusing the inspections he had agreed to (specifically US inspectors) he nullified the surrender, and returned Iraq to a state of war with the US.

Clinton was bold enough to say this; he just never did anything about it, except lob a few missles at Iraq. Bush stupidly listened to Carl Rove, who told him that "Merkins would never understand all this 'rules of war' crap and we should just invade." That lack of faith in the US (and world) led us into the position of watching Colin Powell "sell" the war to the UN, which support they would instantly withdraw as soon as American troops had any success, which is exactly what happened. Had Bush trusted people to understand that Saddam was a threat, not because of weapons, but because of his intent, the whole situation in Iraq would be much different.



So because of that three of my family members have been to Iraq.


A risk they took by serving their country. Certainly, after Vietnam, every American volunteer knows you might be compelled to serve in a war you don't personally approve of. Any adult can see that.



I feel George Bush had an opportunity to be a great president, and he blew it. George "the decider" Bush has been the worst president in my lifetime.


Again, I can understand that you see things that way. Personally, I'll take 4% inflation over 21% any day. Carter was the worst in my lifetime. No one else even close; Nixon maybe.


.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Finally, someone with common sense and some real evidence to back what they say.



You have voted dr_strangecraft for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


BTW, i also wonder why is it that "the left" doesn't specify "that many of the tax cuts don't benefit the rich". Such as the child tax credit relief, single and married people earning more than $200,000 do not get this tax break. The "Marriage penalty" also gives a tax break of 10% and up to $3,000 of the first $30,000. So the rich do not get more from these tax cuts, and nothing at all from other tax cuts.

But of course, when some people have an agenda to sell they have to change the facts here and there, exagerate and even lie.

BTW....if president Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Saddam's regime, so did most of the world.... But that's another point that "the left" doesn't like to discuss, or just dismiss it, just like the evidence which did show Saddam was not only breaking the sanctions, but he had tons of documents which dealt with wmd, and things such as "empty chemical warheads ". Not the mention the "banned" scuds and other missiles which his regime fired at the coalition before the war started, and which they were not supposed to have...

But as i was saying, when some people have "a political agenda to sell", they like to dismiss anything which contradicts their agenda.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Ok you are busting me on economics.

Let me put it this way. I feel if you are rich in this country you should pay a little bit more in taxes. I'm not saying anywhrer near the 90% you quoted. Just a fair amount. I'm not talking socialist, but fair.

Look if you are rich you get to get thru all the special interest loop holes in the tax system to pay the absolute lowest in taxes with accountants. The regular joe out there is at a disadvantage with the complexity. If you are rich you get better health care, perks in life, better schools in your community, etc.

So for your first class life you should be paying first class taxes. Just like airplane tickets

I don't think wealthy people should be able to pay coach fair taxes for first class flight thru life.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Am I better off now than I was 5 years ago? Gas and oil prices have greatly increased. Gas companies have been making unpresidented profits. More and more jobs have gone overseas and are being replaced by part time jobs with little or no benefits. The Fed believes it is reining in inflation by raising the interest rates for 17 or 18 consecutive months as my childrens college loans go skyward. More and more companies are defaulting on their pension plans and GW says thats alright the gov'n will step in and pay you .15 or .20 cents on a dollar. How does one teach the value of one's word when multinationals have no rules. People who get health care as a benefit are decreasing and millions are not covered at all. The executive branch has broken the law more times than I can count with no end in sight. The people no longer have any right to look at new historical documents, its all about national security. History is rewritten everyday. The tax payers have paid millions, probably billions to produce propaganda to deceive and rule and regulate us. We are spied on by our own side, they track our phone calls cause Osama could be anywhere. I'm pretty sure they don't hate us for our freedoms because they have been whittled down considerably over the last 5 years. The gap between the rich and non-rich in America is at an all time high. This administration has made it clear that what I think, John Q Public, doesn't mean a damn thing. How much money have these theives made on the war in Iraq. Who pushed through no bid contracts and then went to Halliburtan? I'll give you a hint he's back. Please don't tell me I'm eating a roastbeef sandwich when I know damn well its composed of fecal matter.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbob

Let me put it this way. I feel if you are rich in this country you should pay a little bit more in taxes. . . . . I'm not talking socialist, but fair.



Let's explore that for a minute. Do you think some people should be charged more for a gallon of milk than what other people pay? Would that be "fair?" What if some people, because of a group they were born into, got milk and other groceries a cheaper price than the rest of us. Would you call that equitable?

That's actually what you are postulating. As a matter of fact, more Americans are born into poverty than are born into millionaire-status. Yet you are suggesting that some people, purely because of their social status, pay a different price for government protections and services. How can it be "FAIR" to charge people different prices for the same service. In other words, if it is unfair for some people (rich ones) to get cheap services, why isn't it unfair for other (poor) people to get a free price, either????

Fair used to mean that you treated each person exactly the same. Same protections, same burdens under the law. But what it advocated by even the republicans is the exact opposite of fair. All progressive taxes by neccesity create a caste/heirarchy system.

If you think I'm twisting words and values, imagine this: you are almost a millionaire. But because you are taxed at a higher rate, the government keeps enough of your money so that you cannot ever cross that threshhold. Meanwhile, the Super-dee-duper rich can afford to pay the higher rate. See, as a nascent millionaire, you're wealth (statistically speaking) comes from starting a thriving business, or investing wisely. And practically ALL of your financial gains are taxable. Yet if you are super-dee-duper-rich, you have all your money in T-bills, so that your dividends are not counted as income and thus NOT TAXED. This is EXACTLY why the elites like Heinz-Kerry and Kennedy can scream "tax the rich!" They know that their families will never pay the taxes that you will if you ever do manage to get rich. They've created a caste system so that, even if you do "make it," you'll never rise to their level. With the tiered tax system, they've closed the door on the kind of wealth and power that propelled the Kennedys, DuPonts, and Morgans to global power. Still think the Democrats are on your side?????

Regardless of your own personal income level, anyone who advocates any system besides a completely flat tax with no loopholes is trying to hose you, citizen. That person, regardless of party, does not believe in opportunity OR equality, and doesn't want you personally to participate in the American dream.

It really is that simple.

Look, I'm not picking on you. I'm advocating an economic viewpoint here that has practically gone extinct in the U.S. I found this viewpoint by deciding that I had had enough of being homeless and abused, and that it was up to me to liberate myself, and that everyone was against me. Luckily, I also discovered that most of the people blocking my path were also sleepwalking through their own lives as well. In the process, I discovered economic truth, and a career in the bargain.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
dr strangecraft although I do not beleive some of what you say I do wholeheartedly agree with the flat tax. Why doesn't that get more serious consideration? I am totally sure however that I am not as well off as I was 6 years ago. Our whole economy is very fragile and could easily crash, especially if our benefactor the Chinese pull the carpet out from undeneath us.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I'm advocating an economic viewpoint here that has practically gone extinct in the U.S.


I completely agree.




You have voted dr_strangecraft for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


A similar discussion here: Estate Tax...More Windfalls for Big Oil Execs



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbob

And your trickle down economics is not good. Trickle down economics is wealthy parents trickling down to their children.



Did you know that the vast majority of US millionaires (near 80%) are First Generation millionaires? In other words, "the rich" in this country don't inherit their money. The vast majority of them MAKE IT THEMSELVES. Less that a tenth of all millionaires had millionaire grandparents. Most millionaires are the children or grandchildren of immigrants to this country, and not blue-blooded descendents of European nobility.

But don't believe me. Read this excellent book, by a couple of marketing professors:

"The Millionaire Next Door"

What you'll discover is, most of the children of millionaires fall back into the middle class by the time they are in their 50's---precisely because they try to live off of the family trust fund instead of founding a new business, the way dad did. (Are we still talking about Bush here? You tell me. . .)

Regardless of your opinion of my politics or economics, you owe it to yourself to read the above cited book. Applying it could mean the road to financial independence for you and your family.

.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
BEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Wrong.

"BTW....if president Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Saddam's regime, so did most of the world.... But that's another point that "the left" doesn't like to discuss"

Australia for one, had nothing on Iraq until the US pushed it in there faces.

The world didnt see Japans president, Australia's president. or even the UK president MAKING THE original case for war.

Bush told them what was needed, he showed them the SAME evidence he showed his own people.. and simply told them it was the entry piece for the war

The other countries DIDNT LIE!
They simply amplified the lie from Bush.

the world didnt create this mess,
the USA created this mess.

why do the USA's people feel the need to blame everyone for something they followed THERE leader into.

everyone else accepts there countries were duped.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
What you'll discover is, most of the children of millionaires fall back into the middle class by the time they are in their 50's---


I'm not sure where you got that statistic, but I would have guessed much earlier than that... for the vast majority of the 2nd generation I would have thought more like in their 30's.

Of course, I think the problem with discussions like this is that the definition of "wealth" is so subjective.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

for the vast majority of the 2nd generation I would have thought more like in their 30's.

Of course, I think the problem with discussions like this is that the definition of "wealth" is so subjective.


I'm using the definition of wealth used in The Millionaire Next Door. Which is a household with a net value of one million dollars or more.

While "Next Door" is all about how to help your kids surpass your level of wealth, there was an article in a business mag about 4 years ago about how people "abuse a trust fund." Basically, most trusts cannot be tapped until after the parents' death, which happens when the oldest child is late 40's early 50's.

I'm not a millionaire (yet), but I'm setting things up so the kids can have as much affluence as they aspire to. But here's what I'm NOT doing:

1. No help with cars.
Nobody ever bought me a car. My dad couldn't afford his own car, much less a car for each (or any) of his teenage sons. If I have to buy MY OWN vehicle, then so do my kids. And you know what, I've noticed that people who get a car from relatives never check the oil, or have it maintainenced. No respect for a gift.

2. Limited help with college.
OK, I and Frau Dr. are still negotiating this one. Other than stu-loans and scholarships, no one helped me with college. Nobody was there to pay my way. So how come my Dad only had to pay for HIS OWN degree, while I am expected to pay for my own plus for each kid's??? That's a crock. Frau Dr. says we should help them some, so they won't be as bitter as their old man. But I'll be D****D if I'm going to pay for some kid to get high and get laid for four years on my dime. I say, if they really want to go, they'll get good grades and plan for it, or they'll go to a trade school. My brother did trade school, and makes more than I do.

3. No inheritance, other than family keepsakes.
Other than some antique furnature and paintings, and a set of china granny brought from "ze alt country," there's no inheritance for them. It goes to charity. Because every child of money I know is setting on his or her tuckus, waiting for Aunt Edna to die so they can waste the money. The poor kids, the ones with no pot at the end of a rainbow (remember what I said about children of immigrants??) are the ones who don't wait for a fortune, but go out and make their own.

I wish John Stoessel would do a special report on this. His work is really creative, and he argues in a way that doesn't alienate people.

Wish I could do that.


Gotta scoot, I have a plane to catch. I'll be out of contact for a couple of weeks.

au revoir.

.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join