Janeway was way worse

Reagan!

The worst president cant really be calculated. Each president has had their own set of challenges to face and I believe that Bush has had his fair share. The fact that his foreign policy is nonsensical is one reason why he might be voted for worst president ever. The sad fact is that people will vote him to be worst president ever is for his economic policy and i believe that is tragic. Nothing he did really injured the economic policy. The home prices have been inflated since the clinton years when he approved of the bill to increase loans for low-income home buyers.

I cant comment on any other president because i dont really remember them.

No, JFK was smart, and we weren't even close to a nuclear war. It's just fashionable to call it that. In truth, based on the circumstances the USSR was guaranteed to concede. The US also made some concessions as well. The reason is that nuclear war was too costly for a petty diplomacy dispute.

I vote for Andrew Jackson. That fool put us in a recession because of his principles. On the other hand, he was a gifted general.

This vote is hard though. And Woodrow Wilson, Reagan and others were also pretty poor. Wilson was far more idealistic than pragmatic, and so was Reagan. Though little bad came from Reagan's presidency other than American business becoming more cartel-like, he upset the balance of power when he could have prevented it. Upsetting the balance of power like he did had potentially grave consequences, and we're fortunate there were no immediate ones.

"it was the only time when it was believed that american children could expect a lower standard of living then their parents."

Like nowadays?

Lincoln, tyrant and gravedigger of the american revolution.
Franklin D. Roosevelt,a closet socialist and warmonger who killed millions of people.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "it was the only time when it was believed that american children could expect a lower standard of living then their parents."

Like nowadays?

Yes that can be true if Obama does what he says and repeats history.

"You need to redistribute wealth, or your economy simply collapses... So taking money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor is only self-preservation. It's odd that the more the pure capitalist gets in trouble, the harder people cling to it..."

FDR tried that and so did Carter and all it did was prolong the crisis not fix it.

> You need to redistribute wealth, or your economy simply collapses... So taking money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor is only self-preservation. It's odd that the more the pure capitalist gets in trouble, the harder people cling to it...

There's a joke about the busiest day for drug-dealers being April 15th, day for welfare payments. Can you guess why?

Anyway, I would have to go for Carter on this one. At no other time besides the Depression was there such a malaise in the country. Some of it resulted from the defeat in Vietnam, the rest was from the economic crisis which Carter only inflamed further by having ridiculously high tax rates. Even Obama realizes that tax cuts are necessary in this situation.

"There's a joke about the busiest day for drug-dealers being April 15th, day for welfare payments. Can you guess why?"

Not all unemployed people are thugs Cowmasta...

I hope Obama won't be the worst pres. He got 4 years of office whether we like it or not. Annyway, dunno the worste, but one of the bests is Roosevelt.

Einstein,

But there is that class of wealthy, the super rich, who are given their position because of birth (not merit) and are allowed to screw things up because their companies have a competitive advantage in their reputations, control of resources, and networks with the right political organizations and people.

Here's a good example. At present Chelsea Clinton earns $250,000 working at a financial firm. She's in her middle twenties, has a degree in history, and her parents are well connected and wealthy.  In your opinion, Flint, does Chelsea Clinton owe her position to her incredible merit or her family?

Now personally, I have nothing against taking away from the super rich. But because of practical limitations, it usually ends up where the lower rich are the ones who get screwed and then that eliminates potential competitors to the super rich. So ultimately, it only reinforces the problem it's intended to solve.