Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Which Presidents Were Good For The Economy?

November 5, 2012 by  

Which Presidents Were Good For The Economy?

Tomorrow’s election is an election about the economy, and it isn’t the first Presidential election in which economics have played a key role.

With all of the rhetoric and promises spouted about the economy during Presidential campaigns of the past, it is hard to say definitively which Presidents did the best job of delivering a good economy during their tenure in the White House. But a new study from researchers at Georgia Tech seeks to grade past Presidents on an economic performance report card.

The study by the Georgia Institute of Technology analyzed 220 years of data to estimate an economic “grade point average” for Presidents who served from 1789 to 2009. The research appears in the October edition of PS Political Science & Politics.

According to the researchers, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding and Rutherford B. Hayes preformed the best in an economic sense, all receiving an A+. Chester Arthur, Herbert Hoover and Martin Van Buren receive failing grades for their economic undertakings.

Rounding out the study’s top five high economic achievers were William McKinley and Millard Filmore with grades of A-. Founding father George Washington trailed behind the top five in the study, but still achieved a grad of A- economically speaking. John Adams, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy rank slightly lower in the A-/B+ range. And the most recent Presidents to receive high marks were Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan with a satisfactory B.

Presidential ranking systems tend to be clouded by partisan bias, subjective judgments and other aspects of Presidential performance, but the Georgia Tech researchers claim to have modeled their economic ranking system on objective, statistical data to gauge Presidential economic performance without partisan bias.

The methodology also produced some — and some that free market advocates would say not so –surprising results, such as:

  • Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson — often considered hero Presidents — each receive a D for poor economic performance.
  • Presidents with below average economic performance often belong to parties that are relatively pro-farmer, pro-laborer or pro-consumer.
  • Presidential economic performance did not correlate with the pre-political career, birth order, historical “greatness” or whether the President was a “dark horse” versus a well-vetted President.
  • Presidents who performed well tend to belong to pro-business political parties, have a Congress in which only one house is dominated by their party, serve during wartime and were raised in middle-class environments.

Citation: Mark Zachary Taylor, An Economic Ranking of the US Presidents, 1789-2009: A Data-Based Approach, PS: Political Science & Politics (October 2012)

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Which Presidents Were Good For The Economy?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • eddie47d

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both served our nation well yet with different methods. Each had their faults and each left a positive legacy overall. Governing is sticking to your principles yet making sure the economy moves forward whether Liberal or Conservative.

    • John L. Haigh

      Bill Clinton could not get the clearance that it takes to fly Air Force One because of his personal habits, which would deny members of the military their clearance, therefore he was not worthy to be Commander and Chief.

      • eddie47d

        Why would any President be flying Air Force One?

      • s c

        John L Haigh, you are FAR too kind. As Bubba Klinton said recently, ‘no one wants a prez who LIES all the time.’ Somehow, that blurb slipped by a lot of people – especially the psychotic utopians who jockstrap Obummer.
        In Klinton’s case, if he hadn’t pretended to be a centrist [he's NOT], he couldn’t claim to be someone who managed to have a decent economy. Reagan “inherited” Peanuts Carter’s MESS. Reagan, however, almost erased the b s that Peanuts Carter gave America.
        Obummer is a socialist, communist, Alinskyite, utopian hybrid. The only way he could get a good economy is if he could be in the White House for 100 years and human corruption on this planet was somehow eradicated. So tell me, John. If Obummer gets another 4 years, I wonder if he will have the GUTS to claim that he’s inherited a MESS. Klinton, blah. FDR, el stinko. Obummer, Ponzi-in-Command.

    • ChuckS

      Bill Clinton benefited from the end of the Reagan boom. Also, he didn’t do a lot of big liberal things. Hillarycare didn’t make it, and tehn Newt and the republicans kept him from doing anything really big. He raised taxes early on, but they were still much lower than the 70% in effect before Reagan. He also cut capital gains taxes and went along with welfare reform, which helped the economy. Clinton “only” raised government spending $500 billion vs Bush and Obama $1 trillion each. IN some ways, Clinton was more conservative than Bush.

      Ranking presidents is problematic. Their policies are a factor, but their policies don’t start until some time after they took office, or not at all. Their policies continue until the next president implements other policies, which he may not be able to do.

      Some republicans and democrats are much more liberal that others. Correlating conservative or liberal presidencies would be more meaningful than dem or repub. Also, the makeup of congress has a big effect.

      Also, other factors can have a big effect. Porter Stansberry has recently said that big oil prosperity surges helped both Roosevelts. He also said that we’ll have a big prosperity boom from oil and gas, which Obama will take credit for if he’s reelected.

    • The Christian American

      Reagan never vetoed a spending bill. Ron Paul left the republicans because of Reagan’s spending.

      • Vigilant

        Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party. Where do you get such nonsense?.

  • Truth

    What about the roaring 20′s, that was a very good A+ economic time. Why no love for the President who cut spending by 50% and taxes by 50% thus creating the roaring 20′s

    • Larry KING

      Come on now you mean the results that followed as a after effect of the roaring 20′s your not taking into consideration?

    • Steve E

      That would be Warren G. Harding.

    • Rob

      There isn’t alot of “love” for Harding or Coolidge because they were basically unknown. They weren’t extremists nor did they rally around some sort of government program or policies that would greatly impact the econmoy. They did what was necessary to maintain the positive track that America was on and there was no reason for them to try to fix something that wasn’t broke. That’s why you don’t hear much.

  • http://yahoo Missy

    still w romney ?

  • jopa

    Romney would be devastating to the Americas economy with his plan of actually doubling down on the Bush policies that got us into this mess.We have been doing this trickle down nonsense for twelve years and it is not working so good is it.The Bush tax cuts have to expire and get more money in the hands of middle class Americans to create more demand for products.Most of the billionaires are rich today for overcharging people on their bank statements, mortgages,ATM transactions, interest on loans that could actually be called loan sharking or just about any financial transaction to screw the public.And then they try and say they earned that money.Sorry but I don’t buy that crap.Our only chance to get back this ill gotten gain is to tax it and put that money back in the pockets of Americans to get this economy rolling.We have to have a strong middle class to have a strong America.Romney wants to be the King and you the peasants because he thinks it’s his turn.

    • Larry KING

      Jopa i agree trickle down economics only appears to feed the rich and is a flawed theory. But what your describing about taxing the rich more and using it to help those with far less is SOCIALISM. You want equality for all then tax all at the same rate with no deductions and cut back on our over regulated business atmosphere and what you desire becomes more obtainable with out taking from another and giving to those that did nothing to earn it.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Larry manages to work a lot of the same old and tired “sound bite”nonsense into his brief comment—socialism, flat tax, over-regulation, and “taking and giving”—those things that seem to crank up the ill informed and hopelessly biased—well done, Larry!. Hardly a serious rebuttal of JOPA’s excellent remarks, though.

        JOPA needs no help from me in fending off Larry so i will move on to the slight bias I detect in Rolley’s reporting of this study. Most glaring is the complete absence of the name of GEORGE W. BUSH in Rolley’s article. I encourage all to access the actual study and look at it. At first glance the study appears to be unbiased and worthy of a closer reading. I always look first for the data in things like this so that I can better judge the validity of whatever conclusions the study may put forth. Upon doing so, I found George W. Bush ranked among the VERY WORST of ALL the presidents and the worst since Hoover. As an aside, the data perhaps should have been organized into two or more sets, one for the Washington-Madison-Monroe era when the population was perhaps 5 million, and another for the modern industrial era. That would allow us to more clearly see how W did the most damage to the economy of any modern president since Hoover (that’s in the last 80 years, if anyone is counting).

        My point? As JOPA points out, Romney wants to double down on the same failed Bush policies. He is a man who wants to be all things to all people but is really only concerned about the 1% and enabling their continued greedy pursuit of wealth at the expense of the 99%. If elected, Romney’s no-details plans will likely put his name on the list next to Hoover’s when the study is updated in ten years. Considering that Bob L signs his paycheck, Rolley may be excused for this omission and “twist” in his reporting, but everyone really needs to be reminded of what’s going on TODAY and what dangers we face if we put a Republican in the White House.

        I would also take small issue with Eddie47d’s evenhanded treatment of Reagan and Clinton. Reagan may appear saintly in many ways when compared to W, but he was the originator of “trickle down” and began the era of “borrow and spend” that W continued so disastrously for the country. When one looks at the fact that Clinton ran budget surpluses rather than deficits AND that under his administration, many more jobs were created than during the 16 years of Reagan and George W Bush COMBINED, Clinton’s economic legacy is far superior to Reagan’s (except for his unfortunate lapse in allowing Glass-Steagall to be repealed).

        We also need to remember that more jobs were created under EVERY Democratic president than under ANY Republican president (and that goes back to Hoover). In fact, Clinton’s ~23 million jobs created almost equals the total jobs created by ALL the Republican presidents since Hoover. (George W. Bush created ~1.5 million jobs).

    • Edith

      Jopa, Get yourself a Job, Vote for the 9Rs
      Romney-Ryan Resolution
      Relative Risk Reduction
      Road-map to Recovery & Revenue for The People
      From a True American
      San Francisco California 11052012

      Under Obama’s regime of Abomination, the only “Good Economy” was for the Government, with a workforce augmentation from 4% to over 15%. Enough of that!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        It would be nice if you told us what those 4% and 15% numbers mean and where they come from—or are they PFTA (that’s Plucked From Thin Air) to support some political belief that is not reality based? You surely must know that the size of the federal workforce has actually decreased under Obama, as have the sizes of the state and local government workforces. Here are just a few numbers for you to chew on—not PFTA but plucked from data provided by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). You might check out the website for some nicely done compilations of data from reliable sources on various topics and some nice graphic displays of that data.

        •Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.
        •Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.
        •Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.

  • jopa

    I forgot to mention the billionaires at the oil companies that have also been doing a little overcharging at the pump and home heating fuel.

    • Larry KING

      Jopa being as there was no reply available for your great defender right brain thinker i’ll use your oil companies beliefs to respond to both of you. First off if you understood markets which i even profess is a personal weakness the prices we pay at the pump are based on demand and our weakened dollar.Every thing we buy is effected by what i said. As for Right thinkers comment about jobs under democrats to that i can not speak as i always thought jobs were reliant on needs of employers and not excusing George W even with him being every liberals scape goat the fact is Clintons results as president were manufactered information and once you dig into it they becoome very apparent so much that one can use the oriental term paper tiger. Clintons policies are what along with Bushes tax cuts that led us down the road were on.

    • ChuckS

      Are those billionaires behind drilling restrictions in the US that keep supplies tight and prices high?

      Incidentally, I think big businesses generally like big government – big government hurts their smaller competitors more than them, and therefore gives them a competitive advantage.

    • ChristyK

      The government makes a lot more off of every gallon of gasoline than do the oil companies. If we really want gas prices to go down, maybe we should cut gasoline taxes since it is a much higher percent of the price of gas.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Don’t know where you got the idea, but taxes are NOT the major component in determining gasoline prices. In actuality, the various taxes on gasoline account for only about 12% of the cost on average for the whole country—i.e., about $.50 if a gallon costs $4.00. The tax burden in some states is higher and that can account for why gas is so much more expensive in those states. Since the tax is included rather than added on like other sales taxes, the effective tax rate is higher but still only around 14% on average. The price of crude oil accounts for nearly 70% of the cost, and the oil companies about 20% for refining, marketing, and distribution. (These figures are nearly 18 months old but probably haven’t changed much in that time).

  • TIME

    Dear Sam,

    The answer is, ~ “Not a single one as of yet.” So your point is ~ what again?

    Look people do yourself a big favor look into “Eustace Mullin’s” for any of you that want the fast track ~ look for his youtube video called:
    Not for the immature! Zionist Antichrist will rule the NWO ~~

    Learn a little something about what’s real and what’s not.

    If you question his work, then ~ the question is why is that?

    Mr. Mullin’s has a batting average of 100% on every topic he has written about, { or the special criminal class ruling the world ~ would not have nearly driven him into the ground.}

    From the late 1940′s to now Eustance ~ was telling people what they just didn’t want to hear nor know. The intel has all been out there yet saddly very few wanted to know the TRUTH. Now thats bloody sad!

    So in fact the American Sheeple have no excuse’s at all. for the last 60 plus years Mr Mullin’s has been telling all of us what was broken and what was going on, yet the American people have sat around saying, { ” It can’t happen here.” }

    Well it did,

    Peace and Love be with you.

    • Dorian Douglas


      Excellent points.

      I’ve written an article further down. Neither of us will make much of a dent today, because the Progressive educational system has spawned morons since the 50′s, but what we say will resonate with a few, who may then be inspired to seek the truth on their own.

      Dorian Douglas

  • Joy Duffy

    Mrs. 75 here. Really all you pundits and ‘dems’? Evidently you have not been to counties devastated by the last 6 years. Righto!. The democrats were in control of both houses after ’06. President Bush went to the joint economic commission with Frank, etc. in control and told them that the nation could not withstand the current fiscal plan. Did they listen….not no, but hell no!. Do not give the blame on GWBush for the failure in this country. We are always pushing for more, more, more. Greed is our, yes our own failure. So, own up to your stupid or ignorant ideas and ‘shut the front door’.

    • eddie47d

      Greed is not good no matter what Wall Street pundits say. Its nothing more than code for thievery and taking more from one pot and putting it in another. Few see the slight of hand until after their deeds are done. Then it is impossible to prosecute because the paper trail is too deep,expensive and confusing. Honesty and fairness is not an American creedence within some segments of society and especially with the financial segment. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty yet please don’t say G Bush wasn’t involved for he encouraged those home loans like the rest of them. That was a big part of the economic collaspe and loss of value to the middle class.

      • Sol of Texas

        eddie —

        I especially agree with you regarding the perceived success of Clinton as the result of philosophically divided legislative and executive branches.

        I think Rubin, Paulson, and Geitner were/are all awful Treasury Secretaries. They have aided their business acquaintances in looting the public treasury. Don’t get me started on the shenanigans of the Federal Reserve Bank. Much of this can be directly attributed to the unfair and byzantine income tax codes, which punish the productive and assist the wealthy in reducing their taxes through credits and deductions. A fairer tax would be consumption based, but no professional politician wants to give up the power they have through the tax code. Most of the populace cannot imagine life without an income tax – that’s how conditioned the masses are. There are several examples of states that fund their government operations effectively and without reliance on a state income tax. Texas is one example. There is no reason the same cannot be achieved at the national level.

        Theft by force or fraud is immoral. If you label that greed, then I understand. I prefer that people behave with enlightened self-interest.

        I do not want government enforced “charity” as a means of redistributing wealth – I prefer voluntary charity. There are many people who continue to honor this tradition regardless of tax incentives. (BTW, many “charitable” foundations have been instituted to protect family fortunes. When a foundation is dissolved, the amassed wealth is returned to assigned beneficiaries, often the original beneficiaries being surviving family members. Few people realize this.)

        I do not want government or laws dictating my choices when in doing so I do not infringe upon the rights of others. That’s the basis of self-government – aka “The American Dream”.

      • ChristyK

        Just remember, greed is not limited to the rich. There are many dirt poor peopl that are so greedy that they would rather nobody had anything than that someone who worked hard their whole life be successful.

  • roger gunderson

    The worst president in all categories was George W. Bush.

  • ssgrick

    Okay this entire so-called research is a bunch of [expletive deleted]. Any time you give FDR an A+ for the economy then end your article by saying that the party who does best economically are “pro business” all I can say is read the book about FDR (FDR: New deal or Raw Deal) where he’s called among other things by his own people ignorant about business and as having a hatred of business. FDR started several businesses and each of them resulted in failure. Also when looking at FDR and the depression most economists today have said that his policies added ten years to the depression and therefore hindered the recovery. Sort of like what we’ve got today. An incompetent fool trying to run the largest economy in the world without having enough intelligence to run a lemonade stand and turn a profit. Hell obaMAO couldn’t run a business if he had someone doing it for him. Why you may ask do I say this, well it’s because he’s said time and time again that he’s better at everything even better than any expert in any given area, it doesn’t matter this arrogant fool thinks he can run the world with no help. The man is a fool and we all know it. I just hope the vote PROVES it once and for all.

  • ssgrick

    @Right Brain Thinker I would put absolutely no faith in anything you say especially since you claim that Reagan/Bush held the WH for 16 years Reagan served two terms and G.H.W. Bush served one term.
    The so-called surpluses never materialized they were projections. And those projections wouldn’t have been possible if Congress lead by Newt Gingrich hadn’t demanded all the items they did. Welfare reform republican idea clinton took credit he had to have it shoved down his throat but when it worked he took credit. Had it not been for the ’95 election of republican control of the House and Senate none of clintons success would have been possible. Face it you damn democrats spend too much, tax too much, and regulate way way way too much. If you democrats would just pack up all the communists in your party and go live with castro or chavez renouncing your citizenship in the process America would be better off.
    So what do you say commie will you leave and go live in a real commie Country or not? We REAL Americans don’t want to live in a dictatorship but you people seem to want to so just move to a commie Country and you should be happy.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      WHOA! ssgrick is in such a hurry to spout left-brain BS and attack me that he has misspoken in his very first sentence. Reagan served two terms and George W Bush served two terms. It’s third grade math but one term = four years and four terms = 16 years—yes? GHW Bush was W’s DADDY, and I never mentioned him at all. If I were to do so, it would be to compliment him on being a good man who served his country with honor in many ways and realized that “no new taxes” was not the best policy for the country. He had the courage and honesty to take that back, thereby probably losing the election. Compared to his son, he was a great president.

      Slow down a bit, SS, and try to understand and respond to9 what we thinking commenters are saying rather go screaming out to the end of your chain like a half-starved junk yard dog in your misguided efforts to chew on our legs. You can break your neck doing that.

      There is no need to address the rest of ssgrick’s comments about commies, etc other than to say that he may need to talk to his doctor about upping the dosage on some of his meds. And I don’t mean to say that unkindly and suggest that he’s mental, maybe it’s just his blood pressure that needs watching.

      I would briefly reference SS’s separate comments about running a business. Does not SS recognize that “running a business” and “governing a country” are two very different things? Romney appears not to understand that and he went to Harvard. Yet Romney would ask us to trust him just because he says “I know how to do it”, even though he really can’t tell us how he would get it done. The fact of the matter is that Obama HAS had successes (as Colin Powell, a REPUBLICAN, has pointed out in his recent endorsement of Obama). Let’s hope that the voters give Obama majorities in the house and senate so that the obstructionists can’t keep him from getting more done in his second term.

      PS Exchanges like this get right brains swirling. Does anyone here think that SS is qualified to define “REAL American”? And how does he determine that I am a Democrat? And, even if I am, how does that translate into being a commie? And why has SS turned this exchange into a mindless rant full of the same old, same old when the election is only ONE day away? Is he like the traffic cop who has to fill his ticket quota on the last day of the month? Is Carl Rove paying him by the column inch to make these comments on blogs? The Koch brothers? The latest version of the RNC “plumbers” of old? Too many questions, not enough time.

      • joe1cr

        F D R 16 YEARS ?
        This position was not created by right-wing pundits. It is based off research from a couple of UCLA economists. Who apparently actually know how to research.
        “The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” [Harold] Cole [Economics Professor, UCLA] said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
        Cole and Ohanian have done their homework. If they didn’t even look hard enough to find their study, they obviously failed on theirs.
        Let me end with a good quote from these two scholars:
        “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
        Sound familiar?
        PS: check out their article in the WSJ:

        But that doesn’t give a free pass to FDR and the New Deal. If anything, FDR is certainly not above criticism because the New Deal was anything but utopian… and failing to recognize the mistakes of the New Deal and being honest about what didn’t work, or just ignoring those facts because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions… all the while demonizing business and calling for a “New New Deal” is unlikely to really achieve anything.
        Is this the same New Deal that ordered orange crops burned – knowing that people were starving – under the false premise that destroying crops would make prices go up?
        Is this the same New Deal that went after small poultry companies and tried to put them out of business over one “bad chicken”?
        Is this the same New Deal that fired workers at Casa Grande simply because they suggested that hand milking cows wasn’t the most efficient thing to do?
        That said, if massive deficit spending were the key to prosperity like Krugman and Bernanke say then poverty would’ve been eliminated a long time ago…

        Because unemployment was still very high by ‘37 – ‘38, around 17%… and I’m not sure where that Berkeley economist is getting his 9 -10% growth figures… unemployment was 23% in ‘33, 21% in ‘34, back to 23% in ‘34, 21% in ‘35 and down to “only” 15% in ‘36/‘37… so FDR’s first term can hardly be called a spectacular success in that regard.
        Herbert Hoover was the original malefactor because his instinct was also to prop up the boom economy when instead he should have allowed it to pass into recession. Recession is the cure (not the malady)for what ails an overheated boom economy. Together Hoover and FDR resisted the cleansing and curative power of recession for close to a decade, which certainly caused the economy to stall for the duration.
        Also, WWII did not end the economic depression. Contrary to popular opinion, war is not an economic stimulus. The only real economic stimulus is activity that creates wealth, wealth that come from creating goods and services that free people will purchase willingly. The war was a distraction that put people to work killing other people. The economy recovered after the war, in part, because FDR and New Dealism both were dead.

  • Dorian Douglas

    It always amazes me that people with no economic sense or background think they are adept at economic discussions. I am an economist, and economic historian.

    It also amazes me that almost no one (including ECON PROFESSORS, who teach our students like those of Ga Tech) understands that tax policy and spending policy are 2 separate but equally important parts of government economic policy, which in turn influences as well as being a part of the nation’s economic well-being. Specifically, tax RATES and tax REVENUE have an INVERSE relationship. Raising rates lowers revenues, and vice versa.

    Since 1900, Wilson was the 5th worst economic pres, devastating us with the “progressive income tax”, and causing the depression of 1920 (remember that???).

    It took Harding just 2 months to get us out of that in 1921, so he’s one of the best.

    I’m amused that Hoover was determined to be one of the worst “economic” presidents (he was, 3rd worst since 1900), while FDR was called “one of the best” (he wasn’t, 2nd worst since 1900). FDR campaigned against Hoover’s policies in 1932, then put Hoover’s policies on steroids in 1933; the result took a recovering economy, and gave us (in 1936-37) the first and only depression within a depression ever recorded anywhere in human history (before FDR, there had never been a depression longer that 5.5 years IN HISTORY). Of course, he followed Keynes’ theories, who despite being a brilliant economist, misread his own models and formulas, and didn’t see that we had a debt problem instead of a money problem back then. (Sound familiar to current problems???)

    In my life-time, Kennedy got us out of the Truman/Eisenhower recession with tax RATE cuts, but Johnson started us down the Nixon/Ford/Carter recession path.

    Reagan was truly the best since 1900, Bush 41 was inept at economics (excellent world leader, tho).

    Clinton is unjustifyably getting credit for the late ’90′s growth, with which he had nothing to do; Y2K caused the growth (Bill does get credit for not stupidly screwing it up, and for welfare reform & cutting capital gains tax, the latter providing $$$$ for investment & a one-time boost in tax revenues to balance the budget.) However, Clinton’s policies of forcing banks to make NINJA loans, and policies on Fannie & Freddie, sowed the seeds for the economic meltdown in 2007-2008, making him 4th worst. (Amazing that Obama wants to go back to those policies, even tho he falsely blames the policies on Bush!)

    Bush 43 got us out of the recession of 2001 (not Clinton’s fault, Y2K again) with his first tax rate cuts, and those cuts helped us thru the 9/11 economic kick to the gut. Then his 2nd round fueled the growth in federal tax income that gave us 2 successive years of record revenues. But his unwillingness to cut spending costs him points in the “best vs worst” category. He does get credit for warning us about the impending Fannie/Freddie crisis, even tho he was unable to get congress to act in his first 6 yrs.

    But the worst economic president since 1900 is Obama, he who never took an economics course or ran any business. He campaigned against fixing Fannie & Freddie in 2001 & 2004, and led the filibuster when he got to the Senate in 2005. And unlike FDR & Keynes, who misread the “debt vs Money” problem, Obama (with willing co-conspirator Bernanke) deliberately put FDR’s devastating policies on steroids. His policy of “tax the rich” will result in the rich investing elsewhere, depriving us of both investment capital, and in needed tax revenues (see recent similar tax policy & results in NY, IL, and CA!!!). Obama care is already a disastrous drain on jobs , and it will be infinitely worse when the program is fully implemented in the next year (there is now an entire book about the multitude ways it destroys us). And his nazi regulatory policies, especially in energy & EPA, are devastating to the economy, and to the country’s well-being. We don’t want dirty air & water; so gov’t can & should safeguard us, without deliberately crippling us.

    It will take 20 years or more to undo Obama’s mess (especially the debt & ACA), if we start tomorrow.

    There is no hope if we don’t start tomorrow.

    Dorian Douglas

    • Sol of Texas

      Dorian —

      Well put!

      As I recall, an item that contributed to the “imagined” Clinton budget surplus (which I think was claimed for just one year – either 1999 or 2000, his last year in office) was the sale of some federal assets. I don’t remember if it was land sales or crude oil sold from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Dorian. I was willing to overlook some of your interesting but biased “takes” on the economic history of the country but you blew much of your credibility with the use of the word NAZI near the end, especially when you talked about “energy and EPA” in the same sentence in which you used NAZI.

      Where do you live in this great country, Dorian? Perhaps not in the East where Sandy has just left us (and Irene visited a year ago?). Perhaps not in the MidWest where unprecedented drought continues. Perhaps not in the Mountain West where unprecedented wildfires have occurred. Perhaps in your great economic wisdom you can tell us what the economic impact will be from storms like this every year (or twice or more every year) and these other climate difficulties we are having? The insurance companies are certainly starting to speak out.

      Are you a climate scientist and climate historian as well as an economic expert? Did Richard Nixon seek to “deliberately cripple us” when he established the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts into law? If Obama can be faulted for anything regarding energy and the EPA, it is for not doing enough as he tried to work with the Party of No in the mistaken belief that bipartisanship could still be alive.

      When coupled with your comments about “the progressive education system producing morons” (that’s morans to tea-partiers—remember the iconic sign?) and the smugness and self-righteousness of “It always amazes me that people with no economic sense or background think they are adept at economic discussions…I am an economist, and economic historian”, you have really lost my having much confidence in what you say..

      As the saying sort of went back in my childhood many years ago in FDR’s time, “being an economist and economic historian and having a nickel will get you a cup of coffee—without the nickel, no coffee”. (The “free markets” now have the price of a cup of coffee closer to five bucks, by the way.) I myself like Krugman’s economic thinking, especially in his latest—End this Depression Now—do you agree with any of what he said? I may not be “an economist and economic historian”, but I flatter myself to think that education and broad reading, good thinking and reading skills, good “crap detectors”. and, above all, common sense count for much in figuring out this complicated world. Certainly more than just blindly accepting “Vote for me because I know how to do it—I was a success in business” and the opinions of bought and paid for experts, especially those that begin a comment with an assertion of their superiority.

    • TIME

      Dear Dorian,

      Thanks for ~ A very interesting story, ~ saddly with hardly any truth other than self precieved within the context of your post. Thus I will say this yet again, ~ Americans have never known the TRUTH, and will never know it, thus ~ spinning it your way is not making a truth.

      When your ready to open your mind ~ only then will you be able to see the truth, again as I noted in my post ~ google the below to start your trip to the awake land,
      Caution ~ ONLY ~ if you so dare to wake from your slumber.

      { Not for the immature Zionist Antichrist will rule the NWO }

      An interview with Eustance Mullins, where he lays out all from the Files found within the Libary of Congress, ~ thus its not opinion’s ~ its only facts based on what has been done.

      We don’t have Presidents, we have CEO’s of a Corporation known as the UNITED STATES. Thats the first major flaw within your post, its also the major flaw within the blog.

      Peace and Love be with you. Got your bus tickets yet?


    I Agree SSgrick-Lbj,nixon,Carter BushJr.,Bush Jr.Weren’t very good,with Nixon,And LBJ being the worst!!!!Other than Ike,Kenndey,and Reagan,rest of the President we’ve had weren/t good at all!!!Clinton takes to much credit for helping the Nation,But If you dig deeper into what he did,it becomes clear that he was and is part of the problem we face today!!!!So Giving Clinton a ”B”is okay by me,only if the that”B”stands for somthing else ,and not a grade !!!!!!!!!!!!O-BOMB-a however is the worst!!!!!!!!

  • TwinleTOES

    Talldarkandhandsome-I Dis agree,Our great president Obama has done more for this nation than most Presidents have Done!!!!This nation was in one hell of a mess(thanks to bush and the republicians)when President Obama took office,Do you think that he could clean this mess up in just 4 years?,FDR couldn’t do it,so why do so many blame OBama for not being able to do so?Most of you people who have made statements against Obama should feel ashame of yourselves!!!!!!So don’t be a bunch of Programed dumba#ses,get real… for Obama!!!!!!!!

    • Sol of Texas

      Twinle —

      By any economic measure we’re worse off now. By any personal liberty assessment we’re worse off now.

      Obama (and W Bush) didn’t stave off economic disaster but they salvaged wealth for some influential investors, Goldman Sachs and many investment banking firms, over-leveraged insurance companies, troubled foreign and American banks like Bank of America, high risk “green energy” companies, and the Auto Workers labor union pensions.

      What is great about that? If Obama and Congress had not interfered with the economy it might have recovered significantly by now. There is nothing the man has done that qualifies as great.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Well said, Sol—-at least up to the point that you threw in green energy companies and auto worker union pensions. Not going to bother to look up the figures or accuse you of bias, but I am pretty sure that it’s safe to say that those two things are very small potatoes compared to the wealth that Goldman Sachs alone likely stripped out of the pockets of the average American.

        And have you given any thought to what might have happened if Obama and Congress had NOT “interfered”. Virtually all economists seem to agree that the “interference” saved us from what might have turned into the Greater Depression. Maybe Dorian can help those of us with “no economic sense or background” become more adept at understanding all this?


    TWINLE TOES;your comment came up just after I Posted mine!!You talk about most of the people being programed Dumba+s#s ,you should go take a look in a mirror,and I don’t feel a bite ”ashamed” for stating what I know is Truth,Something that you and your ”Great President ”Greatly Lack!!!!If he is so dam good,why doesn”t he un-seal his Records,and let the american people look at them???

    • Right Brain Thinker

      In case anyone didn’t notice, TD&H has just told us he is a left brain thinker by saying “I don’t feel a bit ”ashamed” for stating what I KNOW IS TRUTH”. PLEASE tell us how we can find and know such TRUTHS—I for one am going nuts looking for them amongst all the stuff that certain folks throw against the wall in hopes that it will stick.

      And we’re back on the “unseal the records” bit? It is NOBODY’S business what Obama’s college transcript or passport applications etc look like and they’re NOT relevant to the campaign. He is no more required to release such data than you or I. Just more of the same old “find any reason or excuse to attack Obama” crap.

      What IS highly relevant to the campaign are Romney’s tax records, which records ARE typically released by presidential candidates. Romney’s father released many years worth when he ran and The Mittster himself released a number of years worth back during the 2008 campaign.

      Why won’t he do so now? Anyone looking for answers should look into Delphi—an auto parts company hacked to pieces by the hedge fund vultures. There is evidence that the hedge fund investors made over $10 back for every $1 they each put in, that Romney (through his wife’s blind trust) invested nearly $10 MILLION and made OVER $100 MILLION in profits. That would have showed up on his 2009 return, the one that NOBODY has ever seen. He is right to think it would be a great embarrassment if it were public knowledge, and any other games he played with foreign bank accounts and tax dodges would probably be evident in there also.

      After all, when you make $100 million by destroying the jobs and retirements of 30,000+ Americans, you are squirrel every penny of that away rather than pay honest taxes on it. Isn’t that what the rich folks in the 1% do for a “living” while half of the rest of us are “moochers”?

      • The Christian American

        What’s $100 million? When reality hits it will cost you that to ride the subway. The country is Chapter 7 bankrupt. The only reason the dollar is still being used as the medium of exchange is we’re pushing “Might makes right” on everybody, domestic and foreign.

  • MrHoggLegg

    I Hate All You Freakin Commies! You All Know Who You Are! Just Look Into Your Freakin Commie Mirrors!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      I Can’t Resist Replying To A Comment In Which All The First Letters Of The Words Are Capitalized! Since That REAL American SSgrick Sort Of Suggested Earlier That I Was A Commie, I Went And Looked In My Mirror And Just Saw The Same Old Face I’ve Been Looking At For 70+ Years (????). What Was I Supposed To See, MrHL? What Does A “Commie” Look Like Anyway?

      • MrHoggLegg

        Commies are anyone that don’t know the difference between Progressives and Progressives! They are so Stupid they Think the Bushes are Conservatives! They are so Stupid that they Think John McCain is a Conservative! They are so Stupid that they Think Mittens is a Conservative! All that is required to know the difference is to use Some Common Sense! But the Progressives has Blinded the Truth and have convinced everyone that the problem is with Democrats v. Independents v. Republicans! When the truth is Conservatives v. Progressives! Hope this explains my FRUSTRATION! God Bless You Right Brain Thinker! I know that you are Not A Progressive!

  • The Christian American

    Did I read FDR was good for the economy? He was an out and out socialist if not Communist. He dragged America into WW2 to help get us out of our depression, a depression he helped to create. Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the likes of them were good for the economy. They were good because they stayed out of it and let the free market work. Has all sense of reality left us with the government indoctrinating us in their schools? With the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments the economy has gone down. It started like a snowball rolling down hill and now it’s an avalanche coming down on America. A planned economy is a failed economy. Now-a-days we’re not talking about saving the economy. This generation is just interested in saving themselves and to hell with our children, literally.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      You do realize that the 14th amendment was about protecting the citizenship of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”-

      Also how is the amendment governing number and terms of senators affect the economy.

      And as to the 16th. I ask you Christian American without taxes how would we pay for roads and bridges-our infrastructure. How would we pay for our national defense. What about our police and fire departments, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other essential services. Even if you have disagreements with what is taught what about our public schools, how would we pay for them and ensure an education for our countries children.

      With the utmost respect Christian “A planned economy is a failed economy.” Since when has having a plan been a problem. Isn’t it a good idea to have a strategy when managing your budget and allocating resources. Is it not a good idea to consider which companies to invest in instead of just blindly gambling. How is planning bad I would like to know.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        You asked “Also how is the amendment governing number and terms of senators affect(ing) the economy(?)”.

        I would surmise that TCA thinks we should go back to the way it was before the 17th. Amendment took effect. Before that, Senators were NOT elected by popular vote but were elected/appointed by the state legislatures—that’s the most important part of the 17th. Amendment and the part that TCA is objecting to.

        Look at section 3 of Article I if you want to see what the founding fathers thought was a good way to put some more checks and balances in there. It apparently worked well enough until the Gilded Age and the rise of the Robber Barons, at which time the perception grew that Senators and state legislatures had became bought-and-paid-for servants of the plutocracy and the corporations. The old way also raised questions of the selection of Senators not representing the popular will because of the corruption and imbalance between urban and rural areas in many state legislatures.

        In line with his other ranting, TCA apparently thinks that we should go back to the days when the “free market” determined who should sit in the Senate. The Koch brothers would like that, I’m sure.

        • MrHoggLegg

          As I stated before I know you are Not a Commie … Because you have proved to be in the Know!

  • momo

    Andrew Jackson got rid of the Bank of the United States, forerunner to the Fed. He was also the last president who had ZERO public debt.

    • The Christian American

      You’re right and he’s the last President to carry his glove so he’d be ready to challenge anybody to a duel.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Its interesting that Franklin Roosevelt who is often decried as a socialist who pushed big government should do better then Ronald Reagan who is so often hailed as the hero of anti government pro small business people. Perhaps government is not the problem. Perhaps it can be part of the solution.


    Right Brain(Or no Brain?) his birth certificate proves to be a fake-Truth!!!Most of his friends are commies-truth!!! When anyone who runs for a public office,the public(the people)has a right to request any information they wish to know about any canidate !!Ever wonder why he had his records sealed in the first place?was it because he was thinking with only a part(right/Left)of his brain,or,maybe he was just feeling cute when he had them sealed,or maybe,just maybe he has something to hide ????,But Don’t take any ones advice off the inter-net,do your own research ,and you’ll find the Truth,and the truth shall set you free,it may even help you find that part of the brain that your missing(left/right)!!!!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      First off, you need to do a little research into what “left brain-right brain thinking” is all about—you would then avoid looking quite as foolish and uninformed in your comments about “brains”. Google it—Google “foxes and hedgehogs” also.

      To give you a head start and simplify, there is considerable research that shows many people tend to use one side of the brain more than the other and that there ARE differences in thinking processes between them. Left brainers tend to rely more on belief and are more inflexible and rigid in their thinking—they tend to resist things that do not agree with what they believe. Right brainers tend to look at things more broadly and from many directions—they want to see data and facts before they accept something as truth. There is not necessarily a “right” or “wrong” way of thinking to this—they’re just different and each way is more useful than the other in some things.

      For our purposes, it IS interesting to note that the left-brain folks tend to be much more conservative in many ways (including in their political thinking) and are much more susceptible to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance—those are just fancy ways of saying they come from a position of “don’t bother me with the facts, I KNOW what I want to believe and what the TRUTH is”.

      That’s why the discussions on these blogs go the way they do. Somebody who is left-brained says “the birth certificate is fake” because he wants to believe it—-somebody else who is right-brained replies “you can’t prove that—it’s untrue” and away we go. Good and “real” Americans, all of them, but too many left brainers unfortunately rely on wing nut websites, Faux News, and Rush Limbaugh for the false and misleading information that they later pass on as “truth”. And too many left-brainers also tend to do more name-calling and do more gratuitous insulting of those who don’t agree with them, as we can see in these exchanges. Those of us who are right-brainers look at things like the birth certificate and sealed records business and just say “nonsense”. It escapes me how that makes us “commies” or “commie lovers”.

      • Vigilant

        I would suggest two things to Right Brain Thinker:

        (1) Get your myths straight.

        From : “This myth holds that a right-brain person is generally creative, intuitive, artsy, while a left-brain person is more of a problem-solver, more linear, logical.”

        That has always been the myth, not the polar opposite as you seem to enjoy misrepresenting.

        The myth is actually validated by your “creative” handling of the “truth.” And by your own reckoning, Conservative thinkers would necessarily be left-brainers, as they are more capable of processing facts and figures dispassionately.

        Believe me, if you wish to have credibility in any logical argument, best to dispense with the advertisement that you are a right-brainer.

        (2) Check for scientific updates once in a while. From the same source:

        “Brain Myth #2: A person’s personality displays a right-brain or left-brain dominance.

        “Fact: The two sides are intricately co-dependent.

        “The myth arose from genuine science, but new imaging technology has shown that the brain is more interdependent than once thought.”

        P.S. Talk about being loose with the facts: you state “too many left-brainers also tend to do more name-calling and do more gratuitous insulting of those who don’t agree with them, as we can see in these exchanges.” OK, Mr. Actual Factual, cite me JUST ONE scientific source to validate that false claim.

  • TIM

    i Agree TDAH-Taking your time and doing your own research pays for itself in the long run!!!Your right about a person who chose to run for a ”public”office almost ,every thing he,or she,has ever done,may become public knowledge!!!!

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Thanks to Vigilant for demonstrating some typical left-brain thinker behavior for us. First and foremost, left-brainers typically attack those who point out their failures of logic. They attack the message that goes against their deeply held BELIEFS as well as the messenger. They look for some evidence to support their “attack”, but don’t go too deeply into the subject. They Google and find a nice little popular website for the popular audience that talks about “brain myths”. They cherry pick a few lines that sound good to them and twist them enough to make them feel that they have defined truth. They then send that definition of truth out to the world. Predictable. In his rush to blindly attack , Vigilant has apparently missed my use of the words “simplify” and “tends” (FIVE times) as I try to lay out some things that he should try to understand and explore further. It is also predictable that left-brain thinkers do that often, i.e., ignore certain words and act as if they weren’t even there.

    Vigilant needs to get beyond his left-brain confirmation bias-driven need for quick answers that make him feel good and be a bit more right-brained. Look for more information on sites that are not for the general audience. There is much info out there. In fact this is a major area of interest for the business community and also the intelligence agencies like the CIA, DIA, DARPA, and IARPA, who have spent MANY millions of dollars exploring thinking styles in an attempt to improve their forecasting and risk analysis performance. Google “Which one are you Dyer” for an interesting piece on foxes and hedgehogs as they relate to the intelligence community.

    A new book just came out titled “The Republican Brain” (by Chris Mooney). It.explores the relationship between left brain thinking and political behaviors on the right. I am reading it now but so far I have found it to agree with other things I have read. Mooney also wrote “The Republican War On Science”, another good read for truth seekers. While we’re talking good reads, let me also suggest “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule” and “Winner Take All Politics” as sources of enlightenment.

    Vigilant also needs to become more familiar with the left-brain right-brain literature so that he can avoid making such errors as stating “Conservative thinkers would necessarily be left-brainers, as they are more capable of processing facts and figures dispassionately”. I will leave it to him to discover which half of that statement is in error.

    Vigilant says in closing “….you state ‘too many left-brainers also tend to do more name-calling and do more gratuitous insulting of those who don’t agree with them, as we can see in these exchanges.’ OK, Mr. Actual Factual, cite me JUST ONE scientific source to validate that false claim”. Although Vigilant has not been as much of a “junk yard dog” as some other posters on this thread, it IS ironic that he would call so gratuitously me MR. ACTUAL FACTUAL as he takes me to task for suggesting that he might be a name-caller. Love the irony of that and would suggest that he reread what I said—the only “scientific source” anyone needs to consult is their own two eyeballs (and note one of my FIVE “tends” in there). Go back through this thread and you will also find the following—-abomination, ObaMao, sheeple, damn democrats, Obomba, fool, freakin commie, communists, and the all-time winner NAZI. Examine the messages within which these words are used and you will find that the authors are using them in the context of conservative thoughts almost 100%. Connect those dots with the evidence that conservatives TE#ND to be very left-brained and you get VIola! I rest my case.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Pardon some typos and transposed words in the last paragraph of my post I always seek clarity in my writings and offer no excuse but that I DID stand in line for quite some today in order to vote—couldn’t get to sleep last night either—-I plead fatigue.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.