Bush = 7th worst president.

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

Good post. I was just about to start this thread. Here's the full list:
The first # is where they rank now. The second # is where they ranked in 2000. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson musta been shitty as hell to make it last on both lists.

Abraham Lincoln 1 1

George Washington 2 3

Franklin D. Roosevelt 3 2

Theodore Roosevelt 4 4

Harry S. Truman 5 5

John F. Kennedy 6 8

Thomas Jefferson 7 7

Dwight D. Eisenhower 8 9

Woodrow Wilson 9 6

Ronald Reagan 10 11

Lyndon B. Johnson 11 10

James K. Polk 12 12

Andrew Jackson 13 13

James Monroe 14 14

Bill Clinton 15 21

William McKinley 16 15

John Adams 17 16

George H.W. Bush 18 20

John Quincy Adams 19 19

James Madison 20 18

Grover Cleveland 21 17

Gerald R. Ford 22 23

Ulysses S. Grant 23 33

William Howard Taft 24 24

Jimmy Carter 25 22

Calvin Coolidge 26 27

Richard M. Nixon 27 25

James A. Garfield 28 29

Zachary Taylor 29 28

Benjamin Harrison 30 31

Martin Van Buren 31 30

Chester A. Arthur 32 32

Rutherford B. Hayes 33 26

Herbert Hoover 34 34

John Tyler 35 36

George W. Bush 36 NA

Millard Fillmore 37 35

Warren G. Harding 38 38

William Henry Harrison 39 37

Franklin D. Pierce 40 39

Andrew Johnson 41 40

James Buchanan 42 41

Dude, James Buchanan is the single biggest reason that America ripped in half in the Civil War. It was his being so vehemently pro-slavery that forced the hand of Lincoln a few years later. He also was president during one of the worst economic periods in history.

And Andrew Johnson came after Lincoln and is the single biggest reason we've had racial problems over the past say. . . . 140 years.

A little known fact is that Black people had initially recovered from slavery very well. There were hundreds of Black mayors, governors, and senators all over the south. Andrew Johnson, hated Black people soooo much that he not only considered us "savages", he empowered the angry rednecks who had just lost the Civl War to sabotage any progress that Black people had made. All the powerful Blacks were forced out of office by gunpoint and then Jim Crow was passed which stood until 1965.

He is literally, the worst human being to ever hold the office.

Bush is a bad guy, but even he couldn't get away with anything like that.

Washington shouldn't be top 5..........Lyndon B. Johnson should be higher

I agree, but Vietnam is his defining moment and he failed there. Plus, his "Great Society" cost lots and lots of money, and you know those fiscal conservatives only like government spending when it's making THEM richer and not empowering poor people and Blacks.

how you know were you alive back then. the historians that study this shit were not even alive back then so they are also just assuming. Just like Licoln is considered great because he signed a bill to free the slaves but there was already an agreement for it to happen anyway.

Um. . . not really. Buchanan was vehemently pro-slavery, and so was Johnson, the guy after Lincoln. If Abraham Lincoln had never been president, slavery might have continued on for a while, until it finally fell apart financially. Remember, there was a war fought about this.

Don't forget no attacks on american soil since 9-11. Oh and dethrowning Saddam Hussein and

First, lets list all of the Clinton Crap he's been dealing with.

1. Vetoed ANWR
2. North Korea's "secret" nuke program.
3. The Enron loophole.
4. The "wall" between the CIA and FBI preventing the sharing of intelligence.
5. Allowing Al Qaeda to strenghten under his watch.

oh.. and lets not forget..

Bill Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy.. The birth of the sub prime loan.

Now, since he's been cleaning up his messes, I will tell you that the Bush tax cuts generated the highest gov revenue EVER.

From tax Cuts ! It got the economy cooking after 911


Since he has been handed 29 plus major events other presidents have not had to deal with, I think he has done a great job. Never before has a president had terrorism or storms of this magnitude and loss to deal with. Does everyone forget the decision to go to war was supported by the majority of politicians on both sides. The president is a figure head and cannot make his decision alone. Have we forgotten it was Bill Clinton that ushered in NAFTA which has sent our jobs away. Have we forgotten that it has all gone down hill since Nancy Pelosi and her liberal congress has enacted and allowed the policies that have led to this meltdown. Wake up America, the blame game is led by a liberal media and those 50% or more that have never voted. Are you one? Will you vote for an inexperienced lawyer//Jr. Senator to lead us. The rest of the world adores him but hates America. You too Brute?

Get the hell out of here.

We weren't attacked for 8 years, while Clinton was in office too. People conveniently forget that. We were attacked a month after he got in office and never again until 2001, when BUSH was in office. Neither one is responsible for stopping terror. WE haven't been attacked again because the pattern is to attack during the first year of the new presidents term(oh shit, isn't this Obama's first year?). If you're gonna give Bush credit for keeping us safe for 7 years, then you have to give Clinton the same credit, and for stopping the Millenium bombing in 1999.

And let's not forget that it was the Republican Senate and Congress that passed the bill in 1999 that helped cause all this bullshit too.

It's equally the Democrats and Republicans fault of where we're at.

They let the Republicans send all the jobs overseas and commit fraud on Wall Street, while the Democrats were getting money from lobbyists who were getting paid and exploiting poor people.

To act as if Bush's catastrophic term was caused by Clinton, when it was Bush who started 2(count it) 2 highly expensive wars, while at the same time lowering taxes. Even George Bush Sr, was smart enough to know that you can't lower taxes in war time, unless you want big deficits, which is why he had to renig on his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" promise. If he had his son's mentality, the '90s would've been awful.

The bottom line is Bush spent more money than any liberal, violated civil rights, ignored international laws and treaties, and tried to punish anybody who didn't agree with him. For that reason, he belongs towards the bottom. Not at Johnson or Buchanan level, but close.

 

[THREAD_CRITIC]

Thank you! I swear there isn't anyone over the age of 25 in this thread. LBJ was not a friend of the Black man by any stretch of the imagination. LBJ voted against civil rights bills for over 20 years until political pressure as president forced him to sign the Civil Rights Act of '64. You young brothers are fortunate that you never had to see the realities of those times.

Political pressure in the 60's for black rights Dude didn't have to do shit if he didn't want to.......

 

[Jack Spade]

i have to disagree i think he should be lower

i give him props for being the dude whom really helped with the passing of civil rights laws, but that texas hick spewed ninja out of his mouth in oval office meetings more than deep south klan rallies.

qoute "yes invite MLK to our vacation house in texas, and tell him to bring his ninja wife too"

and there is that little vietnam thing too!



​

Truman was the same way, so was Andrew Johnson

 

[Bain316]

I have no problem with it cause the other 5 were racists and one died during inarguration.

 

[Mr.Still Fly]

He's the only President to ever balance the budget in office. He also strongly opposed and destroyed the central bank (Federal Reserve system) that the Globalist bankers semi-established through James Madison. I'm not saying the man is perfect, no man is, but seeing how the Federal Reserve system has practically destroyed the American economy as we know it and this is the only President to actually do something about it speaks volumes. Once again not saying the man was perfect but to get rid of the Central bank is HUGE.

You forgot Mr. Jackson started a spoiled system that got one President merked... and led the country to a deep recession at the end of his 2nd term... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Mr.Still Fly]

I disagree with the list but it's nearly impossible to have a perfect list because everyone has they're favorites.

Top 10 Best
1. Andrew Jackson
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. John F. Kennedy
7. James Madison
8. Theodore Roosevelt
9. Lyndon Johnson
10. James Polk

Top 5 Worst
1. George W. Bush
2. Woodrow Wilson
3. Jimmy Carter
4. Richard Nixon
5. Herbert Hoover

How in the fuck do you rank Jackson over Lincoln... in the words of ESPN NFL live...come on man... and Woodrow Wilson won't the manscript based of Public Admin today... how is he the worst? How the fuck is Nixon the worst.... watergate... come on man.

 

[malaki]

Washington shouldn't be top 5..........Lyndon B. Johnson should be higher

LBJ was horrible. mass murderer of millions and was so bad he couldn't run for his second term.

reagan was a joke. clinton didn't do jack shit either.

matter of fact damn near none of these clowns were good. probably lincoln was the best he really did some consequential things.

andrew jackson has to get some props for getting rid of the second central bank. he was a big racist though.

woodrow wilson was terrible too.

obama's shaping up pretty bad himself. letting wall street loot trillions, ramping up another vietnam type fiasco in afghanistan.

 

[Mastermind2002]

You forgot Mr. Jackson started a spoiled system that got one President merked... and led the country to a deep recession at the end of his 2nd term... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I didn't forget the "spoiled system" or any of the other negative things he did in office, I just strongly believe getting rid the central bank was the most important thing he could ever do for the country. If he didn't do that one thing he wouldn't even be in my top 10.

 

[SLY]

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

 

[Mastermind2002]

How in the fuck do you rank Jackson over Lincoln... in the words of ESPN NFL live...come on man...

To me getting rid of the Globalist banker central bank was the most important thing any president has ever done in office despite the man being racist.

and Woodrow Wilson won't the manscript based of Public Admin today... how is he the worst?

Woodrow Wilson fucked up America as we know it today by allowing and supporting the passing of the Federal Reserve act in 1913 which gave control of our currency to a small group of Globalist bankers. We are still paying the price today for Wilson's fuck up and that's why he's one of the worst presidents ever. He essentially sold the country out.

How the fuck is Nixon the worst.... watergate... come on man.

How the fuck can you ignore watergate? This motherfucker is a criminal of the worst kind with the shit he did. His worst sin was continuing to escalate the Vietnam war repeating the same mistake Lyndon Johnson did resulting in 15,000 additional Americans dead.

 

[Mastermind2002]

LBJ was horrible. mass murderer of millions and was so bad he couldn't run for his second term.

Exactly, the Vietnam War was his worst sin not to mention his involvement in the staging of the "Gulf Of Tonkin". He'll get credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was really JFK as well as the Civil Right movement who brought the whole thing to the table. JFK would have signed the Civil Rights Act into law if he wasn't assassinated.

reagan was a joke.

I still don't get all the praise for Reagan.

Clinton didn't do jack shit either.

You always hear stuff from Clinton supporters about how the economy was great and all of that when he was in office, but people forget that the country wasn't at war when Clinton was in office so naturally the economy is going to be in better shape. War in general destroys the economy because the government has to fund the war by borrowing money from Federal reserve bankers who lend that money out with interest.

matter of fact damn near none of these clowns were good. probably lincoln was the best he really did some consequential things.

True and I only have George Washington in my top 5 because he helped get the Bill of Rights ratified and found the country.

andrew jackson has to get some props for getting rid of the second central bank. he was a big racist though.

Exactly.

woodrow wilson was terrible too.

Among the worst. Sold the whole country out to Globalist bankers.

obama's shaping up pretty bad himself. letting wall street loot trillions, ramping up another vietnam type fiasco in afghanistan.

I personally won't judge Obama's presidency until after two years, but I agree it's not looking great thus far.

 

[Costanza]

Good post. I was just about to start this thread. Here's the full list:
The first # is where they rank now. The second # is where they ranked in 2000. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson musta been shitty as hell to make it last on both lists.

Andrew Johnson would definitely be last on my list... James Buchanan would be down there, too... Gerald Ford would be lower than Nixon on my list because the pardon was worse than the crime... I'd rank Andrew Johnson significantly lower because my list involves morality... Same for Reagan/Bush for executive powers and covert government works...

Lincoln might be the most overrated President over... I like the result of the Civil War as far as emancipation, but it was nowhere near his intent, he treated the Constitution like toilet paper, and his general philosophy I think was dangerously flawed..

As far as #1, I lean toward Truman over FDR and LBJ is up there, though it's a testament to our fucked up system that the guy who first used nuclear weapons can be considered the best, but he was better on civil rights than Mr. New Deal... And I'm tempted to embrace LBJ like thread critic but he was most responsible for escalation in Vietnam, it's really hard to have a favorite president.

 

[Mastermind2002]

it's really hard to have a favorite president.

Exactly, pretty much every President that has existed has had he's positives and negatives.

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

Thank you! I swear there isn't anyone over the age of 25 in this thread. LBJ was not a friend of the Black man by any stretch of the imagination. LBJ voted against civil rights bills for over 20 years until political pressure as president forced him to sign the Civil Rights Act of '64. You young brothers are fortunate that you never had to see the realities of those times.

Who said anything about "friend of the Black man". It's about WHAT he did as president.

And I consider cutting the poverty rate in half, due to the Great Society, starting Head Start for children, passing laws to outlaw discrimination in housing, voting, and society at large pretty big shit.

Hell, most of our presidents have been racist as hell. Lincoln hated Black people MOST of his life. Only at the END of his life did he have a change of heart. Hell, I believe it was Ulysses Grant who was sworn into the KKK in the oval office.

You kind of have to accept racism as a part of the first 200 years of this country's history, or you can't have a "best" president.

I mean George W. Bush hired Blacks more than anybody in some of the highest positions, but he sure as hell was worst for Black people overall than LBJ.

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

The American empire is falling down

Don't laugh




http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aggGh3XwVCto&refer=home#


U.K. Economy Shrinks Most Since 1980, in Recession (Update2)

By Jennifer Ryan

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. economy shrank more than economists forecast during the fourth quarter in the biggest contraction since 1980 as the financial crisis crippled the banking industry and mired Britain deeper in the recession.

Gross domestic product fell 1.5 percent from the previous quarter, the Office for National Statistics said in London today. Economists had predicted a 1.2 percent drop, according to a Bloomberg News survey. The economy has now shrunk in two quarters, the conventional definition of a recession.

The pound dropped against the dollar and U.K. stocks fell after the report. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that the government is using “every weapon at our disposal” to fight the crisis. Bank of England Governor Mervyn King says officials may start buying up securities soon as interest rates lose their potency to aid the economy.

“This is undeniably grim,” said Stewart Robertson, an economist at Aviva Investors in London, which manages about $230 billion in assets. “Two or three quarters more like this and you’re talking about depression, not recession. This should hasten activity to address the credit and money market issues.”

Service industries shrank by 1 percent on the quarter, manufacturing dropped 4.6 percent and construction fell 1.1 percent, the statistics office said. Business services and finance, accounting for 30 percent of the economy, contracted 0.5 percent and also slipped into a recession.

‘Not for Turning’

The last time the economy shrank so fast in a three-month period was in 1980. That October, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher responded to criticisms of a U-turn on the economy and her handling of labor unions by declaring that “the lady’s not for turning.” The next month, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in a landslide U.S. presidential election.

“We are building the foundation stones of a recovery plan,” Brown said on BBC Radio 4 today. “You need coordinated international action to deal with the global banking problems.”

Six polls published this year show Brown’s Labour Party trailing further behind David Cameron’s Conservatives. Brown pledged Jan. 19 to extend the bank rescue announced last year and boost the government’s stake in Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc to 70 percent. RBS may post an annual loss of 28 billion pounds ($39 billion), the biggest in British corporate history.

Conservative View

“What is completely lacking is public confidence in policy and international confidence,” George Osborne, a Conservative lawmaker who speaks on finance, told Sky News. “They are not commanding confidence and sadly that is what is lacking.”

The FTSE 100 index dropped below 4,000 to a two-month low. The pound fell as low as $1.3543 and traded at $1.3560 as of 9:48 a.m. in London. The currency’s slide to a 23-year low against the dollar this week signals investors are betting Britain will lose its AAA credit rating, Merrill Lynch & Co. strategists wrote in a report yesterday.

The European Commission forecasts the U.K. economy may contract 2.8 percent this year, the most since 1946 when Britain was in the grip of mass demobilization after World War II. The economy grew 0.7 percent in 2008, the least since 1992, officials said today.

“A pronounced contraction in spending and output is under way,” King said on Jan. 20. “In the first half of this year, the rate of contraction is likely to continue to be marked.”

Manufacturing Concern

U.K. manufacturing confidence fell to the lowest since 1980 in the past quarter, a survey by the Confederation of British Industry showed yesterday. TT Electronics Plc, the U.K. maker of car sensors for Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, said Jan. 21 it will cut 700 jobs to weather the automobile industry slump.

King, who has overseen reductions in the benchmark rate to 1.5 percent, the lowest since the bank was founded in 1694, is also planning alternative means to stimulate the economy. He said this week that officials may start buying corporate bonds and commercial paper within weeks to help the economy.

“The slowdown is much sharper than expected,” Lena Komileva, head of G-7 market economics at Tullett Prebon, said on Bloomberg Television. “The risk is that the right policy is not being administered quickly enough. The economy is falling off a cliff.”

Retail sales increased 1.6 percent on the month on a seasonally adjusted basis, the statistics office said. Officials said that the data should be treated with caution as they reassess their method of accounting for seasonal swings. They advised people to focus on the unadjusted data, which showed a 1.8 percent increase in December from a year earlier.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jennifer Ryan in London at Jryan13@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: January 23, 2009 05:26 EST

Print


Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Trademarks


growing difficulty for britain


http://declineandfallofwesterncivilization.blogspot.com/2009/01/growing-difficulty-for-britain.html

nicely surmised by doug noland:

The U.K. is in trouble. Today it was reported that the British economy contracted a much worst-than-expected 1.5% during the fourth quarter (not annualized!), the steepest economic decline since the dark days of 1980. Manufacturing activity sank a dismal 4.6%, while services contracted by 1%. Some forecasts now have the British economy this year suffering the most severe economic contraction since 1946. There’s now a strong case for using “depression” when describing this deepening financial and economic malaise.

The pound today traded at the lowest level against the dollar since 1985. This currency has depreciated 30% against the dollar over the past 12 months. Against the yen, the pound has collapsed 42% during the past a year. There is little room left for conventional monetary policy. At 1.50%, the Bank of England’s (BofE) base lending rate is today at the lowest level since 1694.

Curiously, the British pound has declined 6.5% against the dollar so far this month, while the dollar index has gained about 6%. I say “curiously,” as I would argue that in key aspects of financial and economic structuring, the U.K. provides a microcosm of our own systemic vulnerabilities. In a recent Bloomberg interview, Jim Rogers stated “The pound sterling is going to be under pressure. The U.K hasn’t got much to sell the world anymore.” His comments to the Financial Times were even harsher: “I don’t think there is a sound U.K. bank now, at least, if there is one I don’t know about it… The City of London is finished, the financial centre of the world is moving east. All the money is in Asia. Why would it go back to the west? You don’t need London.”

Following our direction, the U.K. over the past decade gutted their already shrunken manufacturing base as it shifted headlong into “services” and finance. While this finance and asset inflation-driven Bubble economy seemed to work miraculously during the boom, the post-Bubble reality is a severely impaired financial system and an economic structure incapable of sufficient real wealth creation.

I feel for British policymakers. Just five short quarters ago, overheated nominal GDP was expanding at about a 6% pace. And with inflation surging to the 5% level, the Bank of England pushed its base lending rate to 5.75% (summer of ’07). I’ll give the BofE Credit for trying to tighten financial conditions. It was, however, in vain, as Acute Global Monetary Disorder overwhelmed domestic policymaking. BofE tightening only widened interest-rate differentials, especially compared to near zero borrowing rates in Japan. Finance inundated the City of London in a finale of unwieldy speculative excess, setting the stage for a reversal of flows, de-leveraging and today’s collapse.

Yesterday, U.S. insurance company Aflac dropped 37% on concerns for its exposure to European “hybrid” securities - in particular preferred-type instruments issued by the large U.K. banks. According to research by Morgan Stanley (Nigel Dally), “When it comes to capital adequacy and investment portfolio strength, Aflac has historically been viewed as the gold standard across the industry.” Accordingly, the Street responded violently to the report highlighting the company’s potentially significant exposure to securities that have suffered huge losses in market value (Aflac rallied sharply today). According to the Morgan Stanley report, some of the hybrid securities issued by U.K. lenders Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), HBOS, and Barclays are now trading at between 15 and 45 cents on the dollar.

Not long ago during the boom’s heyday, these types of securities were viewed as low risk instruments. They were, after all, issued by major – and at the time well-capitalized –banking institutions. In the worst-case scenario, these institutions (and their hybrid securities) were viewed as too big to fail. In reality, these banks were issuing a most dangerous class of securities - higher yielding (“money-like”) instruments appealing to even the more conservative investors. Today, the entire U.K. banking system is enveloped in a vicious downward spiral. Tens of billions of securities that only a short time ago were perceived as safe are being heavily discounted for the possibility the issuing institution will be “nationalized.”

On Wednesday, troubled Royal Bank of Scotland promised to lend $8.7bn in exchange for various lines of government support. The market took the news as a huge leap toward nationalization and governmental control over the U.K. banking sector. Even RBS’s CEO was quoted as saying, “We’ll be one the first guinea pigs.” The markets now view that U.K. policymakers will have few available options other than borrowing hundreds of billions to recapitalize their banks and support the securities markets.

Ten-year government “gilt” yields spiked 29 basis points higher this week to 3.68%, with a 2-wk gain of 55 bps. On Tuesday, Britain reported a $20.5bn (14.9bn pounds) fiscal deficit for the month of December. Spending was up 6%, while tax receipts were down 5.5%. The European Commission is now forecasting the U.K. deficit to surpass 8% of GDP this year. After trading at about 20 bps this past June, the cost of U.K. Credit default swap protection has spiked to 147 bps (traded as high as 165bps Wednesday).

The U.K. gilt market seemed to lead global bond rates higher this week. As the scope of global financial sector capital shortfalls and forthcoming economic stimulus become clearer, bond market nervousness grows. U.S. 10-year yields ended the week 31 bps higher at 2.59%, about 110 bps below comparable gilts. There should be little doubt that our new Administration will move quickly and decisively to try to bolster the financial sector and stabilize the real economy.

I fully expect our Post-Bubble Financial and Economic Predicament to parallel that of Britain. At some point, our problems will likely be of much greater scope due to, among other things, our system’s larger size. So far, the U.K. has suffered a more acute crisis due to its inability to stabilize its troubled financial sector. For one, it is suffering through a more destabilizing outflow of speculative finance (unwind of carry trades). Also, the U.K. financial structure has traditionally been less government-influenced – leaving it today more vulnerable to a crisis of confidence. Outside of government debt instruments, confidence has faltered for large cross-sections of U.K.’s financial claims (“moneyness” has been lost).

Our system has to this point proved relatively more stable due primarily, I believe, to the instrumental role played by government and quasi-government institutions such as the FHA, Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The market’s perception of “moneyness” is retained for multi-Trillions of U.S. claims – a dynamic that bolsters the view that the U.S. dollar retains its “reserve currency” and safe-haven status. And as long as this confidence holds, faith in the government’s capacity for system “reflation” endures. But it all has the look of a fragile confidence game, and I fully expect the invaluable attribute of “moneyness” to be tested at some point.

There is absolutely no doubt that a massive inflation of U.S. financial claims is in the offing. One would suspect it is only a matter of when market perceptions of “moneyness” adjust. This week’s jump in gilt yields could portend a troubling new phase in the U.K. financial crisis. It could also be a harbinger of a more general crisis of confidence for global currencies and debt markets. The long-bond suffered its worst week since 1987 (according to Bloomberg). Gold was up $43 today and $56 for the week.



UPDATE: ben bittrolff points out how close britain has already come to a systemic collapse as a result of a run by foreign depositors on the banks. a run on gilts and the pound may have come quick on the heels of a compulsory nationalization.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127278/Revealed-Day-banks-just-hours-collapse.html

Revealed: Day the banks were just three hours from collapse

By Glen Owen
Last updated at 11:21 PM on 24th January 2009


The Bank of England

Narrow escape: The Bank of England was forced to contact RBS's creditors abroad to persuade them not to withdraw their funds

Britain was just three hours away from going bust last year after a secret run on the banks, one of Gordon Brown's Ministers has revealed.

City Minister Paul Myners disclosed that on Friday, October 10, the country was 'very close' to a complete banking collapse after 'major depositors' attempted to withdraw their money en masse.

The Mail on Sunday has been told that the Treasury was preparing for the banks to shut their doors to all customers, terminate electronic transfers and even block hole-in-the-wall cash withdrawals.

Only frantic behind-the-scenes efforts averted financial meltdown.

If the moves had failed, Mr Brown would have been forced to announce that the Government was nationalising the entire financial system and guaranteeing all deposits.

But 60-year-old Lord Myners was accused last night of being 'completely irresponsible' for admitting the scale of the crisis while the recession was still deepening and major institutions such as Barclays remain under intense pressure.

The build-up to 'Black Friday' started on Monday, October 6, when the FTSE 100 dropped by nearly eight per cent as bad news on the economy started to multiply.

The following day, Chancellor Alistair Darling began all-night talks ahead of an announcement on the Wednesday that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money would be used to pour liquidity into the system.


More...

* Knees-up at the Treasury as Britain plunges into recession
* £10,000 junket to Brussels for the Cabinet Sir Humphreys as dole queue hits 10-year high
* Scottish thrift? You must be joking
* Icelandic senior minister resigns as government becomes first global political casualty of the credit crunch

But shares continued to plummet, turning into a rout on the Friday when the FTSE crashed by ten per cent within minutes of opening.

Both Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS were nearing complete collapse - but Lord Myners, who built up his fortune during a long career in the City, said the problems ran far wider.

'There were two or three hours when things felt very bad, nervous and fragile,' he said. 'Major depositors were trying to withdraw - and willing to pay penalties for early withdrawal - from a number of large banks.'
Lord Myners

Lord Myners: 'There were two or three hours when things felt very bad, nervous and fragile'

The threat to the system was so severe that the Bank of England was forced to contact RBS's creditors in New York and Tokyo to persuade them not to withdraw their funds, but it is not known which other banks faced a run on their reserves.

'We faced the very real problem of how banks could stop depositors from withdrawing their money,' a Treasury source said yesterday.

'The banks themselves were selling their shareholdings, accelerating the stock-market falls, and preparing to shut up shop. Mortgages would have been sold on and savers would have been spooked, to put it mildly. It would have been chaos.'

After a weekend of crisis talks, which concluded at dawn on the Monday, it was announced that Lloyds TSB was taking over HBOS, supported by £17billion of taxpayers' money, and RBS would receive an injection of £20billion - prompting the resignation of RBS's infamous chief executive, Sir Fred 'the shred' Goodwin. Share prices at last started a small rally.

Ruth Lea, economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said last night that it was 'highly irresponsible' for Lord Myners to reveal the scale of the problems because it could serve to further wreck already fragile levels of confidence.

'We are not out of the woods yet,' she said. 'I fear for Barclays, after the fall in its share price, and Lloyds has been damaged by the HBOS takeover.'

She added: 'If it was panning out in that way, then the Government would have had no choice but to step in and nationalise the entire financial system.'

Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers Association, said: 'The issues related only to HBOS and RBS. To imply that all the banks would have gone under is wrong. It is complicated.'

Lord Myners also said that bank executives had been 'grossly over-rewarded' during the 'golden days' of big bonuses. 'They are people who have no sense of the broader society around them,' he said. 'There is quite a lot of annoyance and much of that is justified.'

Just keep laughin, beyotch

 

[ClementUT]

Who said anything about "friend of the Black man". It's about WHAT he did as president.

And I consider cutting the poverty rate in half, due to the Great Society, starting Head Start for children, passing laws to outlaw discrimination in housing, voting, and society at large pretty big shit.

Hell, most of our presidents have been racist as hell. Lincoln hated Black people MOST of his life. Only at the END of his life did he have a change of heart. Hell, I believe it was Ulysses Grant who was sworn into the KKK in the oval office.

You kind of have to accept racism as a part of the first 200 years of this country's history, or you can't have a "best" president.

I mean George W. Bush hired Blacks more than anybody in some of the highest positions, but he sure as hell was worst for Black people overall than LBJ.

Brother I simply made a remark in response to another poster about LBJ. You seem to be an intelligent young man so I won't engage in a back and forth argument, but I will address one point you made. To blindly say that G.W. Bush was worse for our people than LBJ shows a lack of perspective. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way because my experiences are different than yours and thus a different perspective. You did not have the benefit of living during LBJ's administration. It's easy to pull random facts about a president and say that because of his signature on a bill, he was arbitrarily better than someone else.

Those who only know LBJ's history as the president who signed the Civil Rights Act may or may not be aware that during his early career, LBJ sponsored and/or supported many bills in favor of segregation. In the 50's he went out of his way to crush bills in favor of civil rights. He was against bills aimed at outlawing lynching. He was groomed as a segregationist. He didn't support many of the bills that he signed, including those outlawing housing discrimination. This is what I meant in my statement about LBJ not being a friend of the Black man. Similar to Lincoln, he became more tolerant over the years, and his reputation improved over time (as evidenced by those who want to rank LBJ higher). He gets widespread credit for putting his signature on the CRA, but people are quick to dismiss who he was as a man.

Again, I'm not going to engage in a back and forth session, but hopefully you understand my point without the need for a contentious rebuttal. I like the fact that you are conscious of our history which is why I encourage you to dig deeper to get the full story.

 

[Mask]

7th, thats all?

like this sig kinfolk

 

[SuperGenius]

Among the worst. Sold the whole country out to Globalist bankers.

True. JP Morgan and the other bankers had Woodrow Wilson and his administration shook! He didn't want to end up like Abe Lincoln.

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States. In the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pursuasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

- President Woodrow Wilson, September 4, 1912

 

[sirjam1]

Worst president ever.

 

[balls]

Wasn't Fillmore the guy who put plumbing (TOILETS) in the White house? That should rank him above Bush. At least Fillmore didn't fill the place with more bullshit!
Bush SUCKS. I can't even put a ranking on my dissapointment in him.

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

Brother I simply made a remark in response to another poster about LBJ. You seem to be an intelligent young man so I won't engage in a back and forth argument, but I will address one point you made. To blindly say that G.W. Bush was worse for our people than LBJ shows a lack of perspective. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way because my experiences are different than yours and thus a different perspective. You did not have the benefit of living during LBJ's administration. It's easy to pull random facts about a president and say that because of his signature on a bill, he was arbitrarily better than someone else.

Those who only know LBJ's history as the president who signed the Civil Rights Act may or may not be aware that during his early career, LBJ sponsored and/or supported many bills in favor of segregation. In the 50's he went out of his way to crush bills in favor of civil rights. He was against bills aimed at outlawing lynching. He was groomed as a segregationist. He didn't support many of the bills that he signed, including those outlawing housing discrimination. This is what I meant in my statement about LBJ not being a friend of the Black man. Similar to Lincoln, he became more tolerant over the years, and his reputation improved over time (as evidenced by those who want to rank LBJ higher). He gets widespread credit for putting his signature on the CRA, but people are quick to dismiss who he was as a man.

Again, I'm not going to engage in a back and forth session, but hopefully you understand my point without the need for a contentious rebuttal. I like the fact that you are conscious of our history which is why I encourage you to dig deeper to get the full story.

I agree, that LBJ may have been no saint, but like I said ALL of our presidents for the first 200 years of this country's existence were racist, because Amerikkka itself has been racist.

And presidents are judged EXACTLY by what they legislate. That's why Lincoln's no.1 on the list, because of his signature on the Emancipation Proclaimation.

You can't judge what presidents do, based on what they are. The bottom line is. Nixon, who you got after LBJ, wouldn't have done what LBJ did ,and LBJ lost the south to the Republikkkans for 40 years, because of the fact that he signed those pieces of paper.

Even in 2008, Barack Obama did WORSE in the south than John Kerry did, so overall, the Democrats have not won The South in 44 years, and it was LBJ spitting in their face and signing those laws, ending legalized segregation, regardless of what his true intent was, that did it.

I respect your opinion, but I believe George W. Bush bankrupting the country with 2 expensive wars, while at the same time cutting taxes(even his father was smarter than that), is overall worst for Blacks, because he's worst for America overall, than LBJ, who like I've said, started programs that cut Black America's poverty rate in half.

Being the biggest reason behind "The Great Depression Part II" will be Bush's legacy. There's nobody who can top that.