Be It Resolved: Pres. Obama, Worst US President in History?

[Virgil Showlion]

A blogger by the name of "George Washington" makes his case.

Oddly enough, he doesn't mention the TTP, PPACA, or Pres. Obama's more questionable EOs, and he starts off his article with the disclaimer "Bush was a horrible president. At the time, I thought he was the worst president in American history."  However, he goes on to make his case for why the damage wrought by Pres. Obama exceeds even that of Pres. Bush.

He rests his argument on two major points: a list of ten "firsts" under Pres. Obama--dark milestones unprecedented in US history--and a list of five major sins of prior administrations that have persisted or deteriorated during Pres. Obama's tenure (see below).

Extensive supporting arguments are provided for each (in the form of hyperlinks), but briefly:

In addition, Obama has presided over:

• The greatest inequality of any president
• The first time in its history that America is viewed as the world's greatest threat by the people of the world
  
• One of the largest net changes in debt in American history
• Perhaps the most corrupt government ever in the U.S.
  

And as the New York Times notes this week, Obama has been at war longer than any president in history.

After reading about Pres. Obama sending (yet more) troops into Iraq this week, and the scathing indictment in the European press of how Russia "accomplished more in three weeks" in Syria than Pres. Obama's administration did through years of fomenting revolution, I find it hard to fault Mr. Washington's arguments. As execrable as the Bush presidency was, the US government--all factors considered--has caused as much or more damage during Pres. Obama's tenure. Not only that, the damage is still actively underway today.

The major variable is where the Bush administration stopped and the Obama administration began. Functionally it's very hard to tell. We're faced with the dilemma: if terrible policies or trends are initiated by one president but perpetuated by another who promised to undo them, who is more to blame for the resulting damage?

This isn't an endorsement of Republicans or a criticism of Democrats. As most of you know, I consider the two major US parties indistinguishable and whichever holds power irrelevant. Nor do I consider Pres. Obama responsible for the majority of what's happened under his watch. In many cases he's just the man they put up in front of a teleprompter to sell it to an increasingly skeptical public.

While I don't expect Mr. Washington's missive to change anyone's mind about Pres. Obama vs. Pres. Bush, I do hope his article serves as a sobering reminder of what the US has lost over the past 8 years, and this under the purview of a president who promised to transparify government, reign in Wall Street, fight corruption, end the US's futile 'war on terror', restore decency to government, and unite the country.

8 years of hope and change. You can only hope for less change under the next regime.

[djAdvocate]

it would be a better case if any of these were true:

i moved this post a few down to overcome Virgil's objection.  for the record, Virgil- i thought you were quoting the original article, in which case i would not have been raising point by point objections to YOU, but to George Washington.  my apologies for mistaking the original article for your own work, though i think they are almost identical, so i could be forgiven for that, right?

[djAdvocate]

to summarize: NONE of the "firsts" for Obama are firsts.  he could not even get ONE point right.  utter....nonsense.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 10:25:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to summarize: NONE of the "firsts" for Obama are firsts.  he could not even get ONE point right.  utter....nonsense.

Single two out and let's debate them.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 10:24:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it would be a better case if any of these were true:

In addition, Obama has presided over:

The greatest inequality of any president

false.  that took place under Cooledge, who was a much worse president than Obama.

The first time in its history that America is viewed as the world's greatest threat by the people of the world

doubtful.  this either took place just after ww2, or under Bush, depending on who you believe.

One of the largest net changes in debt in American history

at least he got that right.  Obama does not stand out in this respect.

Perhaps the most corrupt government ever in the U.S.

absolute rubbish.  i could name 10 administrations that were more corrupt than Obama, starting with Harding, who is the only president worse than Bush in the last century.

Obama is sort of an average president.  nothing spectacularly good or bad.  Bush, on the other hand, was the worst president in 3 generations.

You're breaking your own inane rule about no inline quotes, DJ. ...again. What is this? The 7th time?

Did you even read the literature supporting his claims. For example, on wealth inequity, he bases his argument on wealth concentration and the rates of change in wealth concentration. Those seem like very reasonable measures of wealth inequality (if not, argue why) and they are indeed worse today than in any previous time in US history.

On America being viewed as the greatest threat to the world, he opens with a HuffPo article:

There’s really no way to sugarcoat it: The rest of world believes that the United States is the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace, beating out all challengers by a wide margin.

This is the conclusion of a massive world opinion poll conducted by Win/Gallup International and released at the close of 2013. The poll, which was first conducted in 1977, asked over 66,000 thousand people across 65 countries this year a variety of questions about the world, including which country they would most like to call home, whether or not the world is becoming a generally better place and which country poses the greatest threat to world peace.

The U.S. was voted the biggest threat by far, garnering 24 percent of the vote. Pakistan was a very distant second with 8 percent, followed by China (6 percent) and Afghanistan (5 percent).

You're suddenly the "poll dancer". You suddenly don't give a toot about the results of massive worldwide polls?

On the issue of "most corrupt government in history", Mr. Washington lists what must be well over a hundred major contentions on the extent of government corruption--many of them plainly unprecedented in scale--which I'm guessing you also didn't bother to read.

Is this who you are now? You don't even bother reading what it is you're rebutting? You just toss in a few sound bites and declare hundreds of pages "absolute rubbish" based on nothing?

You need to get your head out of the sand, my friend.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 10:34:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 10:25:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to summarize: NONE of the "firsts" for Obama are firsts.  he could not even get ONE point right.  utter....nonsense.

Single two out and let's debate them.

um....i already did that, Virgil.  see my first response.  there is actually nothing to debate.  facts are facts.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 10:41:11 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Um, no. Ridiculous assertion.

Is way to early to sort it out now (he's not even finished- he could still feed the world or start WW3)

In the end though he will probably be about middle of the pack.

Ridiculous assertion based on what?

Is it too much to ask that you actually read the articles, read the supporting materials, and come up with a factual criticism more expository than "Um, no."?

I'm not saying Mr. Washington is absolutely right about every single point, but he rests his arguments on many points of contention, he defends each one, and his work deserves better than "Um, no."  Can you give me a specific point where he's wrong and explain why?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 10:50:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 18, 2016 10:34:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Single two out and let's debate them.

um....i already did that, Virgil.  see my first response.  there is actually nothing to debate.  facts are facts.

Your first response isn't worth the photons pumping it through the fiber optic lines. See my first response.

[djAdvocate]

here are the list from the original article- to overcome Virgil's objection:

In addition, Obama has presided over:

The greatest inequality of any president

false. that took place under Cooledge, who was a much worse president than Obama.

The first time in its history that America is viewed as the world's greatest threat by the people of the world

false.  this either took place just after ww2, or under Bush, depending on who you believe.

One of the largest net changes in debt in American history

i'll grant him this one, but FDR and Reagan were #1 and #2 on that list, and they are regarded as good presidents- so how would this qualify Obama for "worst"?

Perhaps the most corrupt government ever in the U.S.

utter nonsense.  Harding's administration was way more corrupt than Obama would ever dream of being.  Reagan's administration engaged in far more criminal conduct.  Nixon's was far more secretive.

this guy is full of crap.  he has no sense of history.  since we have no idea who he is, we can't guess as to whether he is any more qualified to comment on this than i am.  so, i am guessing he isn't. 

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 10:47:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 10:24:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it would be a better case if any of these were true:

i deleted this to overcome your first objection.  happy?

You're breaking your own inane rule about no inline quotes, DJ. ...again. What is this? The 7th time?

Did you even read the literature supporting his claims. For example, on wealth inequity, he bases his argument on wealth concentration and the rates of change in wealth concentration. Those seem like very reasonable measures of wealth inequality (if not, argue why) and they are indeed worse today than in any previous time in US history.

On America being viewed as the greatest threat to the world, he opens with a HuffPo article:

There’s really no way to sugarcoat it: The rest of world believes that the United States is the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace, beating out all challengers by a wide margin.

This is the conclusion of a massive world opinion poll conducted by Win/Gallup International and released at the close of 2013. The poll, which was first conducted in 1977, asked over 66,000 thousand people across 65 countries this year a variety of questions about the world, including which country they would most like to call home, whether or not the world is becoming a generally better place and which country poses the greatest threat to world peace.

The U.S. was voted the biggest threat by far, garnering 24 percent of the vote. Pakistan was a very distant second with 8 percent, followed by China (6 percent) and Afghanistan (5 percent).

You're suddenly the "poll dancer". You suddenly don't give a toot about the results of massive worldwide polls?

On the issue of "most corrupt government in history", Mr. Washington lists what must be well over a hundred major contentions on the extent of government corruption--many of them plainly unprecedented in scale--which I'm guessing you also didn't bother to read.

Is this who you are now? You don't even bother reading what it is you're rebutting? You just toss in a few sound bites and declare hundreds of pages "absolute rubbish" based on nothing?

You need to get your head out of the sand, my friend.

i am familiar with wealth disparity, Virgil.
my reply has nothing to do with "polling", just facts.  have you looked up the data for the Bush admin?
re: corruption- did he look at Harding?  no.  he didn't.
i not only read the article, Virgil, i know the facts.  when you know the facts, it makes this sort of reply much easier.

if we are in the advice business today:

you need to stop regarding anonymous posters on ZeroHedge as having more authority over this issue than presidential historians, Virgil.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 10:55:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

here are the "firsts" from the original article- to overcome Virgil's objection:

In addition, Obama has presided over:

The greatest inequality of any president

false. that took place under Cooledge, who was a much worse president than Obama.

The first time in its history that America is viewed as the world's greatest threat by the people of the world

false.  this either took place just after ww2, or under Bush, depending on who you believe.

One of the largest net changes in debt in American history

this isn't even a "first", by his own admission. 

Perhaps the most corrupt government ever in the U.S.

utter nonsense.  Harding's administration was way more corrupt than Obama would ever dream of being.  Reagan's administration engaged in far more criminal conduct.  Nixon's was far more secretive.

this guy is so full of bullshit it doesn't really merit further comment, imo.

This isn't the list of "firsts", it's the list of "presided over"s.

If you're not going to take your "no inline quotations" rule seriously, neither am I.

You're breaking our latest agreement with your last statement.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:04:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 10:55:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

here are the "firsts" from the original article- to overcome Virgil's objection:

In addition, Obama has presided over:

The greatest inequality of any president

false. that took place under Cooledge, who was a much worse president than Obama.

The first time in its history that America is viewed as the world's greatest threat by the people of the world

false.  this either took place just after ww2, or under Bush, depending on who you believe.

One of the largest net changes in debt in American history

this isn't even a "first", by his own admission. 

Perhaps the most corrupt government ever in the U.S.

utter nonsense.  Harding's administration was way more corrupt than Obama would ever dream of being.  Reagan's administration engaged in far more criminal conduct.  Nixon's was far more secretive.

(edited per request of Virgil)

This isn't the list of "firsts", it's the list of "presided over"s.

If you're not going to take your "no inline quotations" rule seriously, neither am I.

You're breaking our latest agreement with your last statement.

i never said that i won't comment inline- only that i won't respond inline TO YOU.  this is from the original article, and falls outside our agreement.

as to your second objection, i corrected it, with apologies.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:00:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 18, 2016 10:47:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're breaking your own inane rule about no inline quotes, DJ. ...again. What is this? The 7th time?

Did you even read the literature supporting his claims. For example, on wealth inequity, he bases his argument on wealth concentration and the rates of change in wealth concentration. Those seem like very reasonable measures of wealth inequality (if not, argue why) and they are indeed worse today than in any previous time in US history.

On America being viewed as the greatest threat to the world, he opens with a HuffPo article:

There’s really no way to sugarcoat it: The rest of world believes that the United States is the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace, beating out all challengers by a wide margin.

This is the conclusion of a massive world opinion poll conducted by Win/Gallup International and released at the close of 2013. The poll, which was first conducted in 1977, asked over 66,000 thousand people across 65 countries this year a variety of questions about the world, including which country they would most like to call home, whether or not the world is becoming a generally better place and which country poses the greatest threat to world peace.

The U.S. was voted the biggest threat by far, garnering 24 percent of the vote. Pakistan was a very distant second with 8 percent, followed by China (6 percent) and Afghanistan (5 percent).

You're suddenly the "poll dancer". You suddenly don't give a toot about the results of massive worldwide polls?

On the issue of "most corrupt government in history", Mr. Washington lists what must be well over a hundred major contentions on the extent of government corruption--many of them plainly unprecedented in scale--which I'm guessing you also didn't bother to read.

Is this who you are now? You don't even bother reading what it is you're rebutting? You just toss in a few sound bites and declare hundreds of pages "absolute rubbish" based on nothing?

You need to get your head out of the sand, my friend.

i am familiar with wealth disparity, Virgil.
my reply has nothing to do with "polling", just facts.  have you looked up the data for the Bush admin?
re: corruption- did he look at Harding?  no.  he didn't.
i not only read the article, Virgil, i know the facts.  when you know the facts, it makes this sort of reply much easier.

if we are in the advice business today:

you need to stop regarding anonymous posters on ZeroHedge as having more authority over this issue than presidential historians, Virgil.

Cite a presidential historian. Make your case. I'd love to see it.

We'll make a game out of it. Bring up as many points as you want about Pres. Harding and the damage caused by each of his corrupt acts, and I'll top each one with something of greater magnitude in the past 8 years. Does that sound fair?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:08:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 18, 2016 11:04:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This isn't the list of "firsts", it's the list of "presided over"s.

If you're not going to take your "no inline quotations" rule seriously, neither am I.

You're breaking our latest agreement with your last statement.

i never said that i won't comment inline- only that i won't respond inline TO YOU.  this is from the original article, and falls outside our agreement.

The agreement is over. You've contrived exceptions and abused my goodwill for the last time.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:08:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 11:00:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am familiar with wealth disparity, Virgil.
my reply has nothing to do with "polling", just facts.  have you looked up the data for the Bush admin?
re: corruption- did he look at Harding?  no.  he didn't.
i not only read the article, Virgil, i know the facts.  when you know the facts, it makes this sort of reply much easier.

if we are in the advice business today:

you need to stop regarding anonymous posters on ZeroHedge as having more authority over this issue than presidential historians, Virgil.

Cite a presidential historian. Make your case. I'd love to see it.

We'll make a game out of it. Bring up as many points as you want about Pres. Harding and the damage caused by each of his corrupt acts, and I'll top each one with something of greater magnitude in the past 8 years. Does that sound fair?

no, i don't want any games.  if you want me to cite historians, i can, but i am not going to go blow for blow with you.

your OPINION of how things have gone in the last 8 years is utterly immaterial to the discussion.  you lack all perspective on this.  so, no, i would rather you cite historians, as well, and that is a very tedious argument.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:10:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 11:08:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i never said that i won't comment inline- only that i won't respond inline TO YOU.  this is from the original article, and falls outside our agreement.

The agreement is over. You've contrived exceptions and abused my goodwill for the last time.

if you won't abide by the agreement, i am done with this board, Virgil.  your choice.

i corrected my mistakes.  please forgive me and move on, or this is it for me.  i can't take the endless point by point discussions.  it takes too much time and effort.  i am TRYING to play by the rules.  i just forget sometimes.

PS: i was not "contriving exceptions".  i agreed to not do point by point replies to YOUR POSTS.  not to someone else's.

[Opti]

Sigh. Men.

Obama is not the worst President in history. Regular people don't know enough about Presidents and cause & effect to judge properly.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:14:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 18, 2016 11:10:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The agreement is over. You've contrived exceptions and abused my goodwill for the last time.

if you won't abide by the agreement, i am done with this board, Virgil.  your choice.

i corrected my mistakes.  please forgive me and move on, or this is the end for me.

If you care about the rule enough that you're going to hold a proverbial gun to your head to inspire me to follow it, would you kindly stop pulling exceptions out of thin air?

If we're replying to each other's posts, we do not quote inline, under any circumstances. That was our express agreement. That's the agreement I've been careful to uphold.

This isn't worth you quitting, hence you win. I'll persist in the agreement.

[djAdvocate]

Virgil: here is a refutation of point #2:



this number was actually higher in 2004, but i can't find the data.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:21:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 11:14:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you won't abide by the agreement, i am done with this board, Virgil.  your choice.

i corrected my mistakes.  please forgive me and move on, or this is the end for me.

If you care about the rule enough that you're going to hold a proverbial gun to your head to inspire me to follow it, would you kindly stop pulling exceptions out of thin air?

If we're replying to each other's posts, we do not quote inline, under any circumstances. That was our express agreement. That's the agreement I've been careful to uphold.

This isn't worth you quitting, hence you win. I'll persist in the agreement.

no, that is not it at all.  the whole point of the rule is to avoid the tedious seventeen point replies.  i was spending (not kidding here) HOURS per day responding to them, and i don't have that time.  i don't want to go back there.  this would be a personal decision for me.  i can't afford the time, therefore i can't post here.

the other option, i suppose, WOULD be to put you on ignore.  but i don't think i can do that with you as an admin.

i was not replying in line TO YOUR POST.  i took that from the original article.  if your post and the article are identical, then i am sorry about that (i didn't even check to see, honestly), but again, i didn't do what you thought i did.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:18:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sigh. Men.

Obama is not the worst President in history. Regular people don't know enough about Presidents and cause & effect to judge properly.

Again, give me an example and we can do point/counterpoint.

Remember that we have to look at presidencies holistically. Pres. Obama doesn't have to be the worst president in every single respect to be the worst president overall. And while I agree that there have been some spectacularly bad US Presidents, in terms of total damage caused, total liberties lost, total laws subverted--in toto--I think there's a very reasonable case that Pres. Obama takes the cake or comes very close to it.

Even so, maybe you're right. That's one of the wonderful things about debate.

That's what I want here. An actual debate. Not just dismissive comments.

Unfortunately I've run out of time for now, but later this evening I'll be happy to address anything you deem worthy of submission.

[djAdvocate]

refutation for point #4:

beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/top-10-most-corrupt-presidents-in-u-s-history-2941790.html
mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Administrations.html
www.quora.com/Which-presidents-administration-was-the-most-corrupt-in-US-history

Grant, Harding, Nixon, Bush, Reagan appear on these lists.

now, mind you, Obama still has 8 months to go.  he might beat them all.....but i doubt it.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:22:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil: here is a refutation of point #2:



this number was actually higher in 2004, but i can't find the data.

It refutes the "first time" aspect of the claim. Still, fair enough. Thank you for some actual data.

[djAdvocate]

so, i offered refutations for 1, 2, and 4, and i actually agree with #3- but add that we judge the two other contestants in this race to be SUPERIOR presidents, so why not Obama?

Obama has plenty of failings.  enough to disqualify him from being a top tier president.  but his failings are no match for Bush43.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:31:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 11:22:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil: here is a refutation of point #2:



this number was actually higher in 2004, but i can't find the data.

It refutes the "first time" aspect of the claim. Still, fair enough. Thank you for some actual data.

 i want to add something here, and i hope you will respect and appreciate it.  but if you don't, that is fine.

i happened to KNOW about each of the points made in the article that you cited.  i didn't need to look it up, because i have looked it up so many times that i just KNEW it.  so i could just skim the article (WHICH I DID) and see that it was full of holes, and i quickly responded to it.

it APPEARED to you that i was shooting from the hip, but i wasn't.  none of those points are correct.  the "corruption" one is a matter of opinion, but it is an opinion that is not widely shared, and i knew that, as well.

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:26:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 11:18:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sigh. Men.

Obama is not the worst President in history. Regular people don't know enough about Presidents and cause & effect to judge properly.

Again, give me an example and we can do point/counterpoint.

Remember that we have to look at presidencies holistically. Pres. Obama doesn't have to be the worst president in every single respect to be the worst president overall. And while I agree that there have been some spectacularly bad US Presidents, in terms of total damage caused, total liberties lost, total laws subverted--in toto--I think there's a very reasonable case that Pres. Obama takes the cake or comes very close to it.

Even so, maybe you're right. That's one of the wonderful things about debate.

That's what I want here. An actual debate. Not just dismissive comments.

Unfortunately I've run out of time for now, but later this evening I'll be happy to address anything you deem worthy of submission.

 i apologize the dismissive comments, but we have had this debate DOZENS of times on this board.  not exaggerating.  i kinda felt like this was one too many.

forgive my lack of patience.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:27:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

refutation for point #4:

beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/top-10-most-corrupt-presidents-in-u-s-history-2941790.html
mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Administrations.html
www.quora.com/Which-presidents-administration-was-the-most-corrupt-in-US-history

Grant, Harding, Nixon, Bush, Reagan appear on these lists.

now, mind you, Obama still has 8 months to go.  he might beat them all.....but i doubt it.

ibid.:

Benjamin Harrison served as President between 1889 and 1893. He was cold and humorless. He came into office with a pledge to compensate Civil War veterans with bonuses that the incumbent President Cleveland refused to do. Once elected, he made good on his electoral promises and provided the veterans the funds. But that was the only good thing he did while President.

He was not well liked by the populace and for good reason. He imposed the McKinely Tariff, which enforced historic protective trade rates and the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibited certain business activities that the government found to be anti-competitive. He also created National forests by amending the Land Revision Act of 1891. In terms of foreign policy, he strengthened the Navy and conducted an active foreign policy. With the imposition of the aforementioned Tariffs, the federal government was able to run a surplus. Instead of using the surplus to help the people, Harrison would use it to increase federal government spendings, namely on himself. These spendings are what led to his defeat in the 1893 elections.

He spent too much money on himself? You're seriously putting this up against this? Better still: why don't we get out the figures on how much the US taxpayer spends supporting Pres. Obama's galas, tours, golf outings, dinners, etc. and compare that in inflation-adjusted terms with Pres. Harrison's excesses. Do you want to make a gentleman's bet right now about which figure is bigger?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2016 11:33:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, i offered refutations for 1, 2, and 4, and i actually agree with #3- but add that we judge the two other contestants in this race to be SUPERIOR presidents, so why not Obama?

Obama has plenty of failings.  enough to disqualify him from being a top tier president.  but his failings are no match for Bush43.

You offer a partial refutation of 2. I'm looking into 4. Where's your refutation of #1?

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:18:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sigh. Men.

Obama is not the worst President in history. Regular people don't know enough about Presidents and cause & effect to judge properly.

oh sure.  like you WIMMINZ never do this! 

[djAdvocate]

May 18, 2016 11:37:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2016 11:27:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

refutation for point #4:

beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/top-10-most-corrupt-presidents-in-u-s-history-2941790.html
mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Administrations.html
www.quora.com/Which-presidents-administration-was-the-most-corrupt-in-US-history

Grant, Harding, Nixon, Bush, Reagan appear on these lists.

now, mind you, Obama still has 8 months to go.  he might beat them all.....but i doubt it.

ibid.:

Benjamin Harrison served as President between 1889 and 1893. He was cold and humorless. He came into office with a pledge to compensate Civil War veterans with bonuses that the incumbent President Cleveland refused to do. Once elected, he made good on his electoral promises and provided the veterans the funds. But that was the only good thing he did while President.

He was not well liked by the populace and for good reason. He imposed the McKinely Tariff, which enforced historic protective trade rates and the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibited certain business activities that the government found to be anti-competitive. He also created National forests by amending the Land Revision Act of 1891. In terms of foreign policy, he strengthened the Navy and conducted an active foreign policy. With the imposition of the aforementioned Tariffs, the federal government was able to run a surplus. Instead of using the surplus to help the people, Harrison would use it to increase federal government spendings, namely on himself. These spendings are what led to his defeat in the 1893 elections.

He spent too much money on himself? You're seriously putting this up against this? Better still: why don't we get out the figures on how much the US taxpayer spends supporting Pres. Obama's galas, tours, golf outings, dinners, etc. and compare that in inflation-adjusted terms with Pres. Harrison's excesses. Do you want to make a gentleman's bet right now about which figure is bigger?

i don't know about Harrison enough to comment, but i didn't mention him in my reply.

edit: when i think of corruption, i think of showing malfeasance and favoritism.  if lavish parties are the standard, then i think we should look at Kennedy (who, again, is regarded as one of our BETTER presidents).

you familiar with the Teapot Dome Scandal?