Best Presidident 1980-current

[Titanic]

I agree, he was brave from this point of view, but also the grat achivments of the comunist era where paid with many lives

And yes the EU is a shit hole, congratulations to the European contries that refused to join

The EU is one of the few things bringing real democratic and liberalising change to the Balkans and preventing another war or internal crisis in the region.

blah blah blah

says the Englishman sitting high atop his throne of ivory, wagging his finger and lecturing eastern Europe on what is best for them

Cyrenius - they just never learn, do they? The English trashed their own little island, now they want to do to Europe what they did to Britain.

Im not English, Im British. And I'm not lecturing anyone, its up to the prospective EU countries if they want to join or not, it is more benefitial for them then it will be for us. I am pro-EU, yes, and I think it has done wonderful things and is a great influence in the surrounding regions.

"The EU is so great, the EU is so wonderful, the EU is the best, rah rah rah!"

Save it for a football match.

What use is that in a football match?

[saxitoxin]

What use is that in a football match?

oh Titanic - you're cute but you're simple

[wercool]

obamas getting killed.

[Phatscotty]

obamas getting killed.

In all objective fairness, hes only been destroying for barely 2 years. He should better enjoy his last 2.

[Brunokappa]

Bill Clinton in my eyes but im Canadian so i dunno

[saxitoxin]

im Canadian so i dunno

in just these five words you have summed up the entire experience of being Canadian

kudos to you, sir

[Phatscotty]

im Canadian so i dunno

in just these five words you have summed up the entire experience of being Canadian

kudos to you, sir

[ViperOverLord]

Clinton, for not bringing USA into a massive debt.

You can thank the Republican Congress for that. Clinton tried to do his own version of Obama Care and was defeated. He was defeated on many spending measures. If only the Democrats would have done the same thing to W. But the truth is Dems are always going to be tax and spenders. The difference is they are 'thrifty' when Republicans block them and 'W is spending out of control' when they get what they want (well not all they wanted).

PATHETIC. FOLLOW THE NEWS DUDE.

[ViperOverLord]

Something tells me that this poll does not come close to representing what a true poll (either domestic or international) would represent. Yes I do believe that Reagan would lead the vote because he's pretty much the choice for most Republican and many Independents and even a few Blue Dog Democrats.

But Obama not beating Clinton? For all the hype he better be! If this was the case two years ago, he would have never even beat Shmillary I made a deal to be secretary of ineptitude Clinton in the primary. It's especially alarming when you consider that Presidents tend to lose popularity over time (though the 'historic' nature of Obama will likely make him a sentimental favorite even among some people that currently hate him).

But yea, maybe it's the economy or something. Because why else would everybody sing his praises and then vote for Clinton? Makes no sense. I guess people just can only admit to themselves when their hero's a d-bag lol.

[jefjef]

im Canadian so i dunno

in just these five words you have summed up the entire experience of being Canadian

kudos to you, sir

[Titanic]

Something tells me that this poll does not come close to representing what a true poll (either domestic or international) would represent. Yes I do believe that Reagan would lead the vote because he's pretty much the choice for most Republican and many Independents and even a few Blue Dog Democrats.

But Obama not beating Clinton? For all the hype he better be! If this was the case two years ago, he would have never even beat Shmillary I made a deal to be secretary of ineptitude Clinton in the primary. It's especially alarming when you consider that Presidents tend to lose popularity over time (though the 'historic' nature of Obama will likely make him a sentimental favorite even among some people that currently hate him).

But yea, maybe it's the economy or something. Because why else would everybody sing his praises and then vote for Clinton? Makes no sense. I guess people just can only admit to themselves when their hero's a d-bag lol.

Or, as many have said already, you can't compare someone 16 months into their presidency to people who have complete their terms. Obama should never have been an option in this poll.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I was around when Clinton was in office, not Reagen...Sooooo my vote goes to Clinton.

[Phatscotty]

I was around when Clinton was in office, not Reagen...Sooooo my vote goes to Clinton.

Have you ever considered studying Reagan and his politics?

[DirtyDishSoap]

I was around when Clinton was in office, not Reagen...Sooooo my vote goes to Clinton.

Have you ever considered studying Reagan and his politics?

No.

[CreepersWiener]

Ron Paul!

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul!

2012

[Phatscotty]

A question for those who chose Obama. Is this his economy yet? are his plans he implemented taking root? or is it still in the works and just beyond the horizon? Are we still suffering from Bush? Wondering what you guys think

[Baron Von PWN]

A question for those who chose Obama. Is this his economy yet? are his plans he implemented taking root? or is it still in the works and just beyond the horizon? Are we still suffering from Bush? Wondering what you guys think

To be honest I mostly chose Obama out of spite. I don't realy think he should be included in the poll as his Presidency is still in progress and there is still much he could do/fail to do.

On your other questions. I think Obama actualy did the right thing with the bailouts, it was unpopular but I think it prevented allot of market instability which could have done allot more dammage than we care to know. Is it "his" economy well he inherited a nosediving one which has started to level out somewhat, the downturn was a global one so it may very well be that the recovery has more to do with global trends than any one national policy. The dammage Bush did or didin't do is still too soon to tell ( I think more dammage than good), but I think that whatever was done so recently as three years ago would still be affecting the present day.

[Phatscotty]

A question for those who chose Obama. Is this his economy yet? are his plans he implemented taking root? or is it still in the works and just beyond the horizon? Are we still suffering from Bush? Wondering what you guys think

I think Obama actualy did the right thing with the bailouts, it was unpopular but I think it prevented allot of market instability which could have done allot more dammage than we care to know.

How did it prevent market instability? The market has been anything but stable.

Home foreclosures are up 44% in May with a prediction that another 5 million delinquent mortgages may end in foreclosure.

[Baron Von PWN]

If a bunch of banks collapse that would cause all kinds of intresting things to happen to the economy. As it was it kept things more stable without causing the upheaval several defunct banks would cause.

[Phatscotty]

If a bunch of banks collapse that would cause all kinds of intresting things to happen to the economy. As it was it kept things more stable without causing the upheaval several defunct banks would cause.

Interesting logic and and faith when you keep bringing that up, as if proving something that never happened but might have was ever the master stroke of any serious discussion. The government is never right about anything it says. Why would we believe that garbage concerning the scariest scenario possible. Banks collapsing.....

Oh my god! Maybe somebody else will start a new bank! What an idea!

[Phatscotty]

Reaganomics, and tax cuts/gov't cuts in general, work. Its simply been a generation since the last time we tried.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

[Baron Von PWN]

If a bunch of banks collapse that would cause all kinds of intresting things to happen to the economy. As it was it kept things more stable without causing the upheaval several defunct banks would cause.

Interesting logic and and faith when you keep bringing that up, as if proving something that never happened but might have was ever the master stroke of any serious discussion. The government is never right about anything it says. Why would we believe that garbage concerning the scariest scenario possible. Banks collapsing.....

Oh my god! Maybe somebody else will start a new bank! What an idea!

Last time something similar happened was the great depression, we all know how much fun that was. You're putting the same faith in something that never happened but might have, just from an opposite view point. Either side is mostly speculation however I think if you happened to be wrong the consequences would be worse.

[Phatscotty]

If a bunch of banks collapse that would cause all kinds of intresting things to happen to the economy. As it was it kept things more stable without causing the upheaval several defunct banks would cause.

Interesting logic and and faith when you keep bringing that up, as if proving something that never happened but might have was ever the master stroke of any serious discussion. The government is never right about anything it says. Why would we believe that garbage concerning the scariest scenario possible. Banks collapsing.....

Oh my god! Maybe somebody else will start a new bank! What an idea!

Last time something similar happened was the great depression, we all know how much fun that was. You're putting the same faith in something that never happened but might have, just from an opposite view point. Either side is mostly speculation however I think if you happened to be wrong the consequences would be worse.

I completely disagree the last time that happened was the great depression. A basic lesson on financial history could help you along the way to enlightenment though...
The previous recession was papered over, and recession's dont like to be papered over with stimulus money. We are already in "The Great Recession" I will call it the great double dip recession, AKA the gov't spending depression

[ViperOverLord]

Something tells me that this poll does not come close to representing what a true poll (either domestic or international) would represent. Yes I do believe that Reagan would lead the vote because he's pretty much the choice for most Republican and many Independents and even a few Blue Dog Democrats.

But Obama not beating Clinton? For all the hype he better be! If this was the case two years ago, he would have never even beat Shmillary I made a deal to be secretary of ineptitude Clinton in the primary. It's especially alarming when you consider that Presidents tend to lose popularity over time (though the 'historic' nature of Obama will likely make him a sentimental favorite even among some people that currently hate him).

But yea, maybe it's the economy or something. Because why else would everybody sing his praises and then vote for Clinton? Makes no sense. I guess people just can only admit to themselves when their hero's a d-bag lol.

Or, as many have said already, you can't compare someone 16 months into their presidency to people who have complete their terms. Obama should never have been an option in this poll.

I disagree. It is often said that the first two years of a presidency is when a president gets most of his agenda accomplished. We pretty much know what we are getting with Obama at this point. Naturally people will disagree with what that is. But the baseline of his presidency is laid.