Posted on Jun 14, 2014
Which President had the most challenging term of office?
26.1K
129
79
5
5
0
Take a look back at the short history of the U.S. Out of all of our nations leaders, who do you think had to deal with the most challenging set of issues and how did they do? What challenges did they deal with and why do they stand out to you? I left the question intentionally broad to see what everyone considers the most relevant issues directly effected by federal policy.
Note: The question is about any President... not just the ones in the photo.
Note: The question is about any President... not just the ones in the photo.
President
Government
History (Major)
United States
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 38
13
13
0
I don't really think you can pin point just one President having "the most challenging term". They each faced issues based on the time in which they served.
Think about it, George Washington served when this country was just a baby; trying to find it's place and figure things out. Lincoln served when this country was torn in two by the question of individual freedoms. Franklin D Roosevelt took this country in the second World War. John F Kennedy led us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lyndon B Johnson was behind the desk during the Vietnam War. Ronald Regan was there during the transition from our long standing Cold War with Russia. George W Bush of course was in command of the country when we suffered our largest attack by terrorist on our own soil and Barack Obama took office while we were in the deepest recession our country has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Each of these men faced numerous challenges. There is no way to say which one of them would have handled any of the other's situations differently. Putting aside your political views, all you can do is just look at the person currently in the office and hope they are capable of handling whatever might come their way.
Think about it, George Washington served when this country was just a baby; trying to find it's place and figure things out. Lincoln served when this country was torn in two by the question of individual freedoms. Franklin D Roosevelt took this country in the second World War. John F Kennedy led us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lyndon B Johnson was behind the desk during the Vietnam War. Ronald Regan was there during the transition from our long standing Cold War with Russia. George W Bush of course was in command of the country when we suffered our largest attack by terrorist on our own soil and Barack Obama took office while we were in the deepest recession our country has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Each of these men faced numerous challenges. There is no way to say which one of them would have handled any of the other's situations differently. Putting aside your political views, all you can do is just look at the person currently in the office and hope they are capable of handling whatever might come their way.
(13)
(0)
7
7
0
Obama, most definately. I mean Bush left him with EVERYTHING in the whole world screwed up (and still IS). He has to find out everything from the media because nobody tells him anything. The darned racist conservatives won't let him do anything he wants. And lets not forget all those lonely golf courses that keep beckoning.
(7)
(0)
Sgt Larry Gordon
Not that good in math apparently, LT. obamacare has yet to ring in the numbers spent by the two wars we have yet to pay for. Let's also account for the tax cuts that created incredibly gaping holes in the economy. Much of which also accounts for the loss of 200,000 jobs a month during the majority of the previous administration. Also lets not completely negate the millions Obamacare ass actually helps. But I doubt any one of you would even be willing to acknowledge in order to support your narrative. The truth is the economy is getting better, more people are working by the millions since the recession which by this administration is no more, most of the people having problems with the ACA are experiencing these problems in states refusing the expansion. Then let's account for the complete disrespect of the president by congress and political officials around the country before he was even voted in office
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Actually, good enough at math (and accounting) to know not to plug in numbers before they're in. Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented (notice the legally-questionable delays in enforcement), nor has everyone even bought into it yet - hence the delays in assessing the "tax penalty" (there's an Orwellian construction for you). Year-for-year (unless you think it makes sense to compare less than a year under Obamacare with twelve years of two wars... in which case it's not even worth bothering with you), Obamacare's projections have the actual costs for the wars beat. And, considering that projections always fall short...
And that's even excluding the uncounted costs of increased premiums.
On top of that, that's just ONE spending program - funny how you whittled "things like Obamacare" down to just Obamacare.
Beyond that, you talk about tax cuts creating holes in the economy... that doesn't even make sense from a language standpoint. You can talk about spending cuts creating holes in the economy (but Bush didn't exactly cut spending, hence the ire directed towards him from the right), but not tax cuts doing so. That dog don't hunt.
As far as those who Obamacare helped - first of all, it hasn't been millions. Very few of those who signed up were without insurance previously. That's right, the bulk of the number of those "helped" by Obamacare were actually already insured (surely that's not dishonest, is it?) and most were insured at a lower cost. Some "help." But, IF you're going to talk about them, you don't mind me talking about the larger number who actually lost insurance or lost jobs due to Obamacare, do you?
But again you come out with your whiny, passive-aggressive swipe of " But I doubt any one of you would even be willing to acknowledge in order to support your narrative." Again, you show your own partisanship while trying to place it on us. Let's face it, you have your narrative of us clinging to our own narrative. That's pathetic. At least stand up like a man and defend your views without wussing out to our taaaaaalking pooooints (sob sob sob).
Also, your "complete disrespect of the president by congress" crap is cute. Evidently, you weren't paying attention to the entire history of politics before the current President was elected. Maybe you should look at the disrespect Bush took at the hands of the Democrats in congress. Frankly, the Republicans in congress have been downright civil to the President. Have they given him everything he wants? Of course not - they're on different sides of the political spectrum and believe what he wants is harmful for the country, just like he believes what they want will be harmful to the country.
Only a simpering, snivel of a git or a hard-core partisan could find disrespect in that.
Which is it?
And that's even excluding the uncounted costs of increased premiums.
On top of that, that's just ONE spending program - funny how you whittled "things like Obamacare" down to just Obamacare.
Beyond that, you talk about tax cuts creating holes in the economy... that doesn't even make sense from a language standpoint. You can talk about spending cuts creating holes in the economy (but Bush didn't exactly cut spending, hence the ire directed towards him from the right), but not tax cuts doing so. That dog don't hunt.
As far as those who Obamacare helped - first of all, it hasn't been millions. Very few of those who signed up were without insurance previously. That's right, the bulk of the number of those "helped" by Obamacare were actually already insured (surely that's not dishonest, is it?) and most were insured at a lower cost. Some "help." But, IF you're going to talk about them, you don't mind me talking about the larger number who actually lost insurance or lost jobs due to Obamacare, do you?
But again you come out with your whiny, passive-aggressive swipe of " But I doubt any one of you would even be willing to acknowledge in order to support your narrative." Again, you show your own partisanship while trying to place it on us. Let's face it, you have your narrative of us clinging to our own narrative. That's pathetic. At least stand up like a man and defend your views without wussing out to our taaaaaalking pooooints (sob sob sob).
Also, your "complete disrespect of the president by congress" crap is cute. Evidently, you weren't paying attention to the entire history of politics before the current President was elected. Maybe you should look at the disrespect Bush took at the hands of the Democrats in congress. Frankly, the Republicans in congress have been downright civil to the President. Have they given him everything he wants? Of course not - they're on different sides of the political spectrum and believe what he wants is harmful for the country, just like he believes what they want will be harmful to the country.
Only a simpering, snivel of a git or a hard-core partisan could find disrespect in that.
Which is it?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Larry Gordon
So your math is that good? And the ACA is projected to cost more than the both wars? Whatever right wing infomercial you got that from is lyng to you because the cbo predicts the cost of the ACA is 74 billion less than it's original estimate of under 200 billion in 10 years, whereas the wars have already cost us over 2.4 trillion. Let's not mention he did indeed spend more and the tax cuts according to the cbo increased the debt, due to lack of revenue. And the jobs bleeding out during Bush's second term compounded the debt due to the fact that the US economy is 65-70% consumer base along with housing bubble bursting. And how about we check that "Obamacare losing jobs" myth at the door. It holds no water because unless it's been opposite day for the last 6 years, the jobs numbers have increase over 4 million with a steady addition of approximately 200,000 jobs added monthly. So if Obamacare is a job killer you and others say it is, it's grossly overstated and extremely over embellished. Being that by 2010 we were at 10% unemployment, now being at 5.5 in four years. And the disenfranchised workers stopping looking for jobs explanation is shakey being the fact the labor participation exaplantions suspect being that the majority of the labor losses are mostly due to retiring baby boomers, medical retirees, and the rise of college students bypassing the worker force to persue there education only to delay their job search. The workers not looking anymore is a distant factor that is trumped by the rise of actual additions to payroll employment. Your explanation of my partisanship is suspect as well. For one, I can actually look up these numbers and vet them as well as the factors and causation of them. In turn you show more partisanship being that you refuse to even acknowledge the numbers out for public view as no more than propaganda rather than official proof. That right there is the very definition of such. If you don't want Obama to do well, in your narrative and mind, he won't, regardless of the actual outcome. I don't agree with everything he does. As a matter of fact, much I protest, but it is true that his administration is indeed experiencing a good bit of success within their policies. Being objective is not the same as being partisan. If someone is doing well, give that person their due. To do otherwise is the textbook definition of partisanship. And let's compare Bush's disrespect to Obama's... They said Bush was an idiot. The night Obama got elected, twitter and facebook counted record numbers of racial slurs and death threats. Bush was called on being a war mongerer. Obama was called a Muslim socialist, communist, terriorist sympathizer bent on tearing down the US as revenge for colonialism. Obama is being investigated for an embassy attack by many many committees in which all committees, all sponsered by his oppostion, could not find and concluded no wrongdoing. Under Bush, 13 embassies were attacked and 60 people were killed. Bush and Cheney stopped looking for bin Laden to persue Saddam Hussein. Obama was questioned on the legitimacy of the actual death of bin Laden and denied credit because he "didn't pull the trigger". Bush we know is US born. Obama was scrutinized about his birthplace despite the fact having proof of his citizenship. Again, Bush was called an idiot and the anti-christ. Obama was called the foodstamp president though foodstamps were residual effects of the last administration, called racial slurs by ELECTED OFFICIALS, has had his wife and kids disrespected by officials and right wing media, told he wasn't a Christian, blocked on over 500 bills and proposals out of 800, despite the fact many of those same bills were regularly voted in accord rather than opposition, lied on about is travel expenditures and outside "tax spending", called an elitist because he likes grey poupon on his burger, scrutinized for his exercise regimine, AND called the antichrist. Yeah, I would definitely say, by proof and soundbite, not by speculation, that Obama has been disrepected much more than the last presidents. If you think that's pettyfogging, then you are showing your partisanship.
(0)
(1)
LCDR (Join to see)
You lost me at your continuous references to my right-wing infomercial or whatever other story you keep telling yourself to be able to ignore my points. If you can't even have the respect for your fellow commenters to keep your "right-wing indoctrinate" meme off these pages, you don't deserve my time.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
Washington and Lincoln. Washington, becouse he had to continue to form this nation. Lincoln, because he had to keep this nation, one nation, under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all.
(7)
(0)
SFC(P) (Join to see)
Great choices top, I want to wait for more responses before I humbly add my two cents.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google