<p>Actually nahrafsfa, Reagan's economic policy of supply side (or trickle down theory) destroyed the lower class as the gap between rich and poor expanded at an alarming rate. </p>
<p>Yes, he did develop relations with the Soviet Union, but that primarily was because Gorbachev instituted his policies of Perestroika and Glasnoft.</p>
<p>The deficit created, as well as the Iran-Contra affair, put him at least as a middle of the road President, and possibly one of the worst (in my opinion at least).</p>
<p>Why do people consider Jefferson one of the top presidents? He is obviously one of the most famous and well known of the founding fathers, but what did he do from 1801-1809 that was particularly impressive? He got bogged down in partisan politics, especially over judicial nominations (i.e. Marbury vs Madison). And who can forget the disasterous trade embargo he got passed for the last two years of his term, which banned international trade to and from the US? While he is far from the worst president, he is far from the best.</p>
<p>And Cassiodorus, how can you put Garfield as one of the worst presidents when he was only in office for 6 or so months before getting shot? He really didn't do anything worth judging, either good or bad.</p>
<p>He discovered the first political party...he realized that they were essential to the survival of a government like the United States'...it's a way to organize the masses to effectively create and implement policy, rather than have 200 different views kill every bill in Congress...ppl look down on partisan politics, but it is "a necessary evil."...the United States would not be have the nation it is without parties...biggest contribution of ANY president....if anything he should be 1</p>
<p>really, so I guess saving the country from civil war or ending legalized racism or pulling the country out of its greatest depression are less important that a bunch or partisan hacks like Focus on the Family trying to derail government</p>
<p>it wasn't a social contribution, it was a political contribution....without such partisan organization, such civil rights contributions made by LBJ, Kennedy, Lincoln, etc. would be a dream...groups supporting such a cause wouldn't be able to influence legislation to the extent they did...civil rights is a social contribution...it doesn't directly deal with the structure of governemnt, aside from teh fact that now ppl of every race/ethnicity are allowed to participate...political parties serve as the foundation for modern government...without them, Washington would be in absolute chaos</p>
<p>Worst
Carter
Van Buren
Most presidents between Abe and teddy</p>
<p>I debated if i should put Washington as one of the worst presidents but opted aginst it. He was a great man in the revolution, but during his presidency he couldnt control his cabnet. This caused problems after his presidencys such as the hamalton burr afair.</p>
<p>I dont like President Reagan because when President he left office in 1989, the national debt tripled during his watch, from $914 billion in Fiscal Year 1980, to $2.7 trillion in FY 1989, and that large annual budget deficits were accepted as the norm. This occurred despite the fact that Reagan had promised in 1980 to balance the federal budget in four years. The Republican Party had been a party of balanced budgets, but by the end of the Reagan presidency many Republicans were sounding more Keynesian than Keynes himself.</p>
<p>"WOW...some ppl are SERIOUSLY overrating GWB....he's a HORRIBLE president....he's murdered the economy,"</p>
<p>actually the economy had started to decline under CLinton before BUsh was even in office so thats completely a liberal spin.</p>
<ol>
<li>Woodrow Wilson</li>
<li>George W. Bush</li>
<li>George Bush Sr.</li>
<li>LBJ (I dont care if he was a "liberal" he was a pretty kick ass guy)</li>
<li>Richard Nixon (until the scandal)</li>
</ol>
<p>"actually the economy had started to decline under CLinton before BUsh was even in office so thats completely a liberal spin"</p>
<p>yeah, we'll when you're in a bread line maybe it'll just be the liberals trying to fool you.</p>
<p>Dubya took the biggest surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit. He is an idiotic drunk frat boy in office toying with our treasury and spending us bankrupt. Most of his spending goes to his buddies and campaign donors. Iraq is a big money pit.</p>
<p>Iraq is a big money pit and the fact is that Bush hasn't declined one spending bill. 66 cents of every dollar goes to the Pentagon and people wonder why our healthcare system is going down the tubes.</p>
<p>The fact that Bush and his cronies want to take away the power to fillibuster as well as destroy the judiciary (the one branch of government that is not supposed to be subject to congress).</p>
<p>Can i point out jaug1 that you like FDR who tried to undermine the judicial system by adding judges to the supreme court (Im not saying Bush is or anything)</p>
<p>"Most of his spending goes to his buddies and campaign donors."</p>
<p>yeeeeaaaaahhhh riiight so he just gives government funds out willy nilly.</p>
<p>About Iraq being a money pit.....they will be a huge ally in the middle east against the war on terror and Im sure that it will pay off after we get them off the ground. It is definitely worth it to do what we are doing in Iraq</p>
<p>Do you want to know how they are going to be a huge ally? We control their country!!! I found it truly hysterical that we didn't see any problem with the elections in Iraq when we were occupying the nation, but that voting in the former Soviet states while the USSR was in control and occupation was outragous.</p>
<p>Nixon was a wonderful president....great cheif legislator/diplomat....he increased relations with China and the Soviet Union...he increased federal trade substantially...the only reason he's looked down upon is because of the Watergate scandal (it was projected that he'd win the election by a landslide anyways so that was a mistake on his part)</p>
<p>what? you blame clinton for 9/11?...that's absurd! the U.S. wasn't prepared for the attacks!...actually...within the Nixon era, the CIA had projected that the United States would come under attack by use of large commercial transport carrier lached with explosives (i.e. Jet with thousands of gallons of fuel), but the neither the bureacracy nor Congress took any heed of such threats...they thought it would be sensless to respond to a threat that could potentially be nothing since it was projected to come along far in the future.</p>
<p>"I found it truly hysterical that we didn't see any problem with the elections in Iraq when we were occupying the nation, but that voting in the former Soviet states while the USSR was in control and occupation was outragous."</p>
<p>You are being ridiculous, you cant relate those two things. Thats like comparing the Peace Corp and the Nazis. The Soviets elections were rigged ours were elected by the people 100%!!</p>
<p>"However, Bush can be blamed for escalating the risk for another attack."</p>
<p>Thats even worse....If you think that then you are truly narrow-minded. </p>
<p>Why should clinton not have? Suicide bombings and car bombs and all that have been going on in the middle east for so long. He should've been alert then and if not why should Bush have been alert? (the 1991 wtc bombings were a failure)</p>
<p>Thats even worse....If you think that then you are truly narrow-minded. </p>
<p>Ever since Bush initiated the war on terrorism, there has been an increase in the number of Islamic fundamentalists (ie. terrorists), and there are tensions that these fundamentalists may initiate another terrorist attack. On the other hand, Dubya has neglected the hunt for Bin Laden. Result? he's probably still alive, sending tape threatening an attack "greater than that in Manhattan (transation of his last threat tape). " Countries like Iran and North Korea are still working on nuclear weapons. This war on terror is far from over, and Bush made a big mistake invading Iraq. If you think terrorism is at an all time low and that American has won the war on terror, you are dead wrong and it shows YOUR narrow-mindedness.</p>