I have to agree with JohnT here… what did the government do? I was one of those people “fixing” legacy code for my company. But it was a company directive, not a govermental one. Even then it was a small portion of my time. We (the company I work for) knew it was an overinflated threat. We fixed it anyway, since it only affected a small part of our codebase.
I’d rather thing that the Y2K crisis was a fabrication from the media and nothing to do with presidential policy.
From your own link:
I think you meant to say that Washington’s actions in 1783, after retiring as a military commander but before the Constitution was enacted and before he was elected president, prevented the banana republic etc. etc.
A remarkable number of programs and policies begun under Eisenhower’s terms have had long-ranging, positive effects for the US and the world. People generally think of the Kennedy Administration as being a kind of turning point for the US being involved in world affairs and a strong defensive posturing against (genuine) Communist incursion in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, but Ike set up a lot of ducks for Kennedy and successors to line up. Eisenhower was suprisingly prescienct regarding the danger of military adventurism, the “military-industrial complex”, and the role that space technology would take in preeminence in the world economy. But he wasn’t flash–he definitely liked to work in a low-key environment–and so gets overlooked by many despite his manifest accomplishments in coping with the post-WWII world stage and Truman-era blunders like Korea.
Sorry, even with your qualifications this one made me laugh aloud. Reaganomics was balderdash, an economically and socially destructive philosophy which pumped the American economy on a short term to result in several waves of recession. Conflating Reaganomics with Volcker’s strict control of interest rates doesn’t serve to boost the accomplishments of Reagan’s campaign promise economic policy. Reaganomics was, and I quote George H.W. Bush here, “voodoo economics”.
Reaganomics may have looked like an improvement in comparison to previous fiscal US policy–after Nixon’s floundering efforts and elimination of the gold standard, Ford’s “deer in the headlights” approach, and Carter’s “we’re just hoping the oil crisis is over and we can all get back to the good old days” philosophy, any definitive and principled plan of economic policy seemed like brilliance on a stick–but it turned out to be an evicerating gut-slash. This, combined with massive overspending on military and business develolpment, resulted in the kinds of problems that lamentedly sank GHWB’s attempts to bring the economy under control.
Clinton, of course, gets massive and largely undeserved props for the great, booming tech-sector economy that occured under his aegis, even though he did very little to actually support it. Just a spin of the wheel, a roll of the dice, a shooting star in the sky.
Stranger
Well, that was the sum total effect of his eight years in office. It wouldn’t belong on a list that enumerates specific acts or decisions.
Carter initiating the idea of human rights being an integral part of US foreign policy
W’s increase in humanitarian aid for Africa and AIDS
Kenney and the creation of the Peace Corps
FDR and the new deal
And Bush disastrously operationalizing it in Iraq? 
I’ve checked out the other thread on Presidential bungling, and I have to say it’s refreshing to now “look on the bright side of [White House] life” in this thread.
My nominations, in chronological order:
Washington virtually inventing the Presidency, preserving American neutrality during the Anglo-French wars, and willingly giving up power after two terms
John Adams appointing John Marshall as Chief Justice
Jefferson completing the Louisiana Purchase (even though it flew in the face of his views about the Federal government’s enumerated powers), and sending out Lewis and Clark
Jackson staring down South Carolina nullificationists
Lincoln preserving the Union (I know, that covers a lot of ground, but part of his genius was his thoughtful, across-the-board approach to the crisis), signing the Emancipation Proclamation, and signing legislation for the transcontinental railroad and land-grant colleges
Theodore Roosevelt building up the U.S. Navy while adroitly conducting foreign policy (mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War, sending out the Great White Fleet, working behind the scenes to end the Venezuela crisis)
FDR’s First Hundred Days, reassuring the country and preserving democracy in the depths of the Great Depression
Truman deciding to confront North Korean aggression
JFK skillfully handling the Cuban Missile Crisis; many of those on ExComm would have led us into nuclear war, if they’d been in charge
LBJ throwing the full weight of the Federal Government in favor of civil rights (building on Truman’s and JFK’s work, I acknowledge)
I’ve seen this statement made many times on this board, and yet if I look at what actually took place during Carter’s administration I see no evidence at all of such a thing. His administration happily cozied up to any number of dictators. And if his administration did apply some policy here I just happened to miss, I see no evidence that it lasted for a second past the moment his administration ended.
You are right that he wasn’t a great promoter of rights.
But Carter did also abandon some dictators due to human rights.
I don’t see how the US abandoned human rights as part of its foreign policy after Carter. Human rights have been a point of all preceding presidents. Carter initiated the idea that human rights should be a part of US foreign policy which is something about 80-90% of americans support.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v18/ai_4262005