Retrospective approval rating

[Mint]

Unfortunately Eisenhower was probably our last truly decent President. Maybe Kennedy too although he made a lot of boneheaded moves Foreign Policy wise and he did have his share of idiotic economic proposals (sort of like Johnson-lite). Obviously I agree with a lot of Reagan's policies but looking at the deficits, the long list of scandals and the S&L meltdown at the end of his term I find it hard to really say 'approve.' On the whole we've had fairly terrible leaders the last fifty or so years.

[Mint]

Truman: Disapprove (Korea)
Eisenhower: Disapprove (highway system, Military Keneysianism)
Kennedy: Narrow approve (tax cuts and space program; points off for Bay of Pigs)
Johnson: Narrow approve (for Voting Rights Act; massive points off for Vietnam and domestic suppression)
Nixon: Massive disapprove (self-explanatory)
Ford: Neutral
Carter: Approve (we tend to forget that he led the way in deregulation)
Reagan: Massive disapprove
Bush I: Neutral-to-narrow-disapprove
Clinton: Narrow approve (for his economic policies and promotion of the Internet; points off for Iraq and Kosovo)
Bush II: Massive disapprove

And you accused me of ideological gymnastics? ROFL

[Mint]

Truman: Disapprove (Korea)
Eisenhower: Disapprove (highway system, Military Keneysianism)
Kennedy: Narrow approve (tax cuts and space program; points off for Bay of Pigs)
Johnson: Narrow approve (for Voting Rights Act; massive points off for Vietnam and domestic suppression)
Nixon: Massive disapprove (self-explanatory)
Ford: Neutral
Carter: Approve (we tend to forget that he led the way in deregulation)
Reagan: Massive disapprove
Bush I: Neutral-to-narrow-disapprove
Clinton: Narrow approve (for his economic policies and promotion of the Internet; points off for Iraq and Kosovo)
Bush II: Massive disapprove

And you accused me of ideological gymnastics? ROFL

Uh, yeah. Clinton's welfare reform led directly to the massive bull market of the late 90s, and no individual ought to be subject to a poll tax - or are your stupid-blinders strapped that tightly to your hollow little skull?

Get your facts straight before you talk down to me. Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... The latter of which Congress has continually borrowed from, which coupled with the tax increases explains a lot of the surplus. None of that, let alone his foreign policy, you should approve of as a supposedly principled 'libertarian.' Now of course I give Clinton credit for the cuts to welfare he finally did make, NAFTA, and a host of other policies. But a lot of those were really just Republican ideas he co-opted after much of his original agenda wound up crashing and burning alongside the Democratic Congress by 1994.

But even putting all of that aside, how in the world can you claim to be libertarian then give Johnson the thumbs up after Urban Renewal,' the Great Society, and his horrendous foreign policy? Almost all the criticisms you could apply to Nixon extend to Johnson, and vice versa. And likewise, despite his own prejudices and coded racism Nixon did in fact press for affirmative action and accept continued desegregation while president too. To me it just seems like you're giving him the go-ahead because he has a D near his name.

[Mint]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

The point is how he did it, which largely amounts to a lot of tax raises and slight of hand like borrowing from social security. Balancing a budget doesn't really mean much if in order to do so you raise taxes on the 'rich,' capital gains, social security and then some.

And even if I did agree with you on the budget issue how do you justify his policies on guns, drugs, various nations, etc. alongside some of his more infamous statements while condemning the Republicans for those same things? You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, because the Voting Rights' Act single-handedly negates all of that. Of course you support a "States' right" to a poll tax, so I shouldn't be surprised. It would be asking too much of you not to be a massive hypocrite in any area that might make your theofascist masters uncomfortable. [/quote]

Nice ad hominems.

Anyway, I agree with almost everything SPC said in response to this nonsense so I feel no need to really elaborate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already criticized Reagan and Nixon on this thread. Get a clue.

[Mint]

So? Taxes are secondary to balancing the budget, dumbass; "low taxes" is a supply side mantra, not a libertarian one. If taxes must be raised to keep the nation out of debt, then raise them as much as necessary. It's preferable, but by no means necessary, to keep taxes low - but hardly at the expense of the deficit.

Low taxes and low spending are a libertarian concept, at least in the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Clinton had ample opportunity to actually cut entitlement spending when the GOP congress was talking about cutting medicare and similar programs. He didn't because a) it was unpopular and b) he had no interest in doing so as a typical Democrat. Not only that but again, a lot of the budget 'surplus' was actually financed by taking money from social security. Congress has been doing that trick for decades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, where did I say anything positive about Reagan on this thread? I said I approved of some of his policies then gave him low marks for the deficits, financial meltdown and other scandals which happened during his term. I've made it clear multiple times I have no love for the man, I just view him as better than the proven failure of Carter/Mondale. And if you're allowed to vote on someone being 'not as bad' on social issues (really pretty much just abortion, if you look at Clinton's record) what invalidates my decision to vote on other issues be they economic or otherwise? You're just as guilty if not more so than I am.

Bottom line: The last 45+ years pretty much just produced mediocre-to-horrible presidents as far as I'm concerned.

[Mint]

BTW: LOL @ you thinking I'm partisan Republican. I've voted for and donated to Democratic candidates several times. In fact when Cicilline declined to run for Governor I was very disappointed because he was far more effective than most of the clowns in this state. I consider party 'loyalty' of any kind to be absolutely retarded in case the avatar didn't tip you off.

[Mint]

No, dumbass, low taxes is not the core theme of libertarian economics. Hard money and a balanced budget, on the other hand, are. Without solid backing for the dollar it will go into freefall; and without a balanced budget we'll undergo hyperinflation. Friedmanite monetary policy is aimed at both stemming off either a devaluation or inflation - low taxes are entirely secondary to the goal of a stable fiscal policy. Libertarians emphasize stability (and sustainability), not growth. You are confusing supply-side with Friedmanite economics.

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But he didn't HAVE to have the sort of tax rates he implemented. I already explained to you that in the mid-90s the Republicans were proposing steep cuts to Medicare and similar programs. After much initial compromising he put his foot down. That helped his approvals recover and he painted them as heartless extremists. That's a good political maneuver for a career politician like Clinton, but it should be anathema to anyone actually serious about reducing the size, scope and cost of government. You're the one being a hack here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, because Obama had a great record on FISA and the Patriot Act. Oh wait...

Look, I'm not totally happy with my vote. McCain did a lot to piss me off between the bail outs and amnesty and a lot of the other establishment crap he supported. But after looking at Obama's economic agenda, foreign policy, past associations and the reality that he also supported almost all the parts of McCain's platform I didn't care for the lesser of the two evils was obvious.