Why do Republicans make such awful Presidents?
ronald reagan - had over 10% unemployment 2 year after becoming president; tripled the national deficit; armed trained and funded Osama bin Laden and his fellow Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists; supplied mustard gas to Saddam who later gas thousands of his own people; sold arms to Iran illegally; armed, trained and funded the 'death squads' of Central America who murdered tens of thousands of civilians.
george HW bush - gave Saddam Hussein $300 Million in loans extending his hand in friendship, 2 years after Saddam had gassed thousands of his own people; lied about "read my lips, no new taxes!" then raised taxes; sent 50,000 US soldiers to Somalia with promises to bring them back by Clinton's inauguration but didn't and left the mess to Clinton.
george w bush - worst president in US history...... ignored CIA warnings of hijackings cause he was too bush taking a month long vacation; manipulated gas prices back in 2002 by buying 50 million barrels of oil off the market and then invading Iraq; gas prices more than tripled; USD lost 50% of value due to his overspending; caused the real estate crash by passing such laws at "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003"; Wasted $4 Trillion and 5000 US soldiers lives by invading an unarmed Iraq; LOST 4 MILLION jobs from 2007-2008; created 2 recessions; Left with the LOWEST approval rating in history with 23%.
Compared to Democratic Presidents.....
Bill Clinton - created 23 MILLION jobs; created 8 years of record economic growth; defeated the Serbs with 0 US combat casualties; captured the LAX bomber; left office with the first ever budget surplus of $300 BILLION, which Bush quickly squandered; Left office with the highest approval rating of 69%.
Obama - created 2 MILLION jobs in the past year; saved GM & Chrysler with bailout; saved the auto industry with "Cash 4 Clunkers"; saved Wall Street from collapse; killed bin Laden; killed Gaddafi; ended war in Iraq; Healthcare for 50 million uninsured Americans.
So why do republicans make such awful presidents while Democrats make better leaders?
- Joe BTGSPLKLv 78 years agoBest Answer
Wait a minute. Spinning that much phony rhetoric you must be a conservative. That is exactly what liberals would want us to believe. Even most liberals are smart enough to realize that you are only conservative troll trying to make liberals look bad, It isn't necessary though, because they do a fine job of that all by themselves.
- AndyLv 78 years ago
Neither side has good presidents.
Clinton is responsible for this disaster of an economy when he repealed parts of the Glass-Steagal Act. That surplus was from "borrowing" from Social Security. How's that working out? The economy had NOTHING to do with him, there was this "new" thing called the internet, an entire industry that just exploded with growth over night. Thank NASA and the DoD of the 60's for that, NOT Clinton.
Obama's Cash 4 Clunkers didn't do anything but take decent used cars off the market. People just moved up the date for when they were going to buy cars. They traded a year of below average sales for 2 months of amazing sales and 10 months of crap sales. Total vehicles sold would have been around the same. The bailout for Chrysler and Government Motors is a joke, they should have gone under so other (better run) car companies could take their places at the top. That's how our system works, unless you buy off a politician.
All you did was take the negatives from the Con presidents without any positives and compared them to Dem presidents without looking at any negatives.
BOTH sides suck, BOTH sides make terrible presidents, BOTH sides are corrupt, and NEITHER side is the right choice in the next election. It's lose/lose.
- The WarlockLv 68 years ago
Well, let's see...a president's term is 4 years and normally reflects a great deal of the policies from the previous president. Common sense can tell you this, but many liberals don't have any these days!
(1) Ronald Reagan inherited the unemployment and high tax rates from Jimmy Carter. Had it corrected and changed in 3 years towards major prosperity throughout his terms.
(2) Bush, Sr. raised taxes as a result of an agreement with Democrats.
(3) Bush, Jr. inherited a recession from Clinton, turning it into a record growth period.
(A) Clinton inherited Bush policies that helped spur the growth experienced in his first term, while his own helped the implosion that happened in his second term...
* "Defeated the Serbs"? - silly statement
* First President impeached since the Civil War
(B) job creation is result of manipulation and not valid. Cash 4 Clunkers was a failure. Continued bailouts which were not right to begin with. Did not kill bin Laden, SEALs did. Did not kill Gaddafi as the US was not formally in that conflict, unless through the illegal moves of Obama--he gets credit, he has to take the blame. Did NOT provide healthcare, passed an act through trickery that will not take effect until 2014. Continues to blame Bush for his own violations of his promises. Loves tax cheats for his advisers
- SocratesLv 78 years ago
Why do they make such "awful" presidents? Because you have been spoon-fed a diet of half-truths, misconceptions, situations taken WAY out of context and falsehoods (I won't go as far as calling them lies since that requires knowing that the accuser knows the truth in the first place) some ignorant and laughable. Here's what you haven't been told.
Reagan rode into town with an economy locked in stagnation. The Carter Administration (I noticed you didn't mention him as a "better leader") was resigned to making little tweaks to best balance unemployment and inflation. There was a malaise over the country thinking that it's best days were behind it. He and Paul Volcker (of the Fed) implemented a strategy of reigning in the dollar, strengthening it. This exacerbated a recession and yes, raising the unemployment to 10.4%. However, like an addict going through detox and coming out sober ready to face a bright new day, so did the country. The Reagan tax cuts also help get over this by lowering the highest income tax rate from 70% to 28% in two stages. In 18 months (fall '81 - June '83) the recession was over and the economy was experiencing a sharp recovery, growing at 6%. Unemployment kept dropping throughout the rest of his presidency to a low of 5% in the Bush (41) term.
The economy was in fundamentally worse shape than it is now. The cure took guts to administer but it resulted in a new, solid economic foundation that supported an economic boom that lasted the next 17 years. It was strong enough to shrug off the S&L bailout and '91 recession without a sweat.
I think you mean the national debt. Yeah, it increased by about $1.8 trillion. The point is, this was manageable. NO ONE was complaining about the debt. It wasn't on anyone's radar. Reagan opened a new front in the Cold War, the economic battlefield. That's where this spending went. He spent money (perhaps loosely) on a full-court press on Soviet expansion and weapon systems. All this forced the Soviets to spend HUGE amounts to counter them. This help push them over the edge. When they went belly up, they were spending 50% of their GNP (GNP was the measure back then) on the military.
This spending did support Saddam Hussein. That's because the big boogie man was the USSR and Hussein was a bulwark against it, in the same way the Soviets and the US were uneasy allies against Hitler in WWII. That did not include supplying mustard gas though.
As far as Osama Bin Laden, please spare me the 20/20 hindsight. Bin Laden and others like him were part of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets (part of that full-court press) with funding by the US. The Taliban didn't come into existence until later and, even though Al-Qaeda technically started in 1988, Osama didn't get pissed off at the US until the Gulf War, with non-Muslims being on sacred Saudi soil and not exactly happy with the Saudis for allowing it.
As for Iran-Contra, he never got tagged with that although he took responsibility for it. The Contra rebels were an insurgency against the Communist regime in Nicaragua. Again, part of that full-court press, although an over-zealous one. They were brutal, but so was the Sandinista government. This was a more ugly side in the fight of Communist expansion.
Over all, Reagan took the fight to the economy and Communism, winning one both fronts, the latter in a partnership with Michael Gorbachev.
I'm going to run out of space to comment on the Bushs, Clinton and Obama. This is one of the worst twisting of presidential history I have ever seen, all to force an image of what you want (or need) to believe. I will be MORE than happy to comment further if you and your political self-esteem can handle it. Maybe we can get down to why you need to see history this way. So, in answer of your main question, because you want (or need) to believe they do.
The attached video will give you a little education on supply-side economics, monitarism and Fed policies used during the Reagan revolution.Source(s): http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=247... http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Mujah...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Bot JohnsonLv 78 years ago
"saved the auto industry with "Cash 4 Clunkers"
That might be the funniest thing I have ever heard! That's like saying I saved the window industry by breaking all the windows in my house, then making insurance pay for them! Ever heard of the "broken window fallacy"? Maybe you should educate yourself on how economics work before you go ranting about a bunch of meaningless talking points. The worst things to happen to our economy in the 20th century were Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, which helped us get into the mess we are in now. 0bama is right in line with these 3, and a second term by him may spell the end of our Republic.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Republicans are greedy and want to continue to help big business
Democrats feel bad for shxting on american ppl so they give out welfare, medicare and other crap to keep us happy during there tenure
really..all presidents have sucked,, that being you can not include Lincoln and JFK those are the two greatest,,the rest are bigots and hypocritesSource(s): history
- Tom RLv 78 years ago
love your question but i think you were light on them the problem with bad presidents is that we forget some of the bad stuff they do.
i think it all boils down to philosophy. they think government doesnt solve problems it is the problem. so their election is putting someone in office that professes that they cant solve any problems. should we be surpirsed when someone with this belief creates problems?
i would add that they also had a philosopjy of overspending to break social programs. the starve the beast plan. again reagan likened medicare to an apocalypse . any surprise that he would do something destructive to try to stop it. its a refusal to see reason of follow the will of the people . the people like these plans but they want to take them away
- coldfuseLv 78 years ago
You really are clueless about Reagan, aren't you? Did no one in your family benefit from the 16 million new jobs created during his administration?
- LisaLv 68 years ago
Obama created 23 million jobs? You lie. Source?
- Anonymous8 years ago
Republicans appeal to crazy religious zeal in America. They simply want power and don't care what they do to the country which gave them opportunities. The people that vote for them hope for a white christian america. Democrats are for the people and try to make policies which bring people out of poverty and stop class warfare.