Do you think Bush is the worst president ever?

Ok, you want to examine his domestic policies? Fine. How about the. . .

National Debt

Deficit

Unemployment

Americans living in poverty

Gas Prices

All total failures under the Bush administration. I won’t bother looking for charts showing his disastrous “policies” regarding education, housing, healthcare, social security, corporate accountability, the environment, and so forth, as all reasonable minds should agree they’ve been disasters as well.

So Mother Theresa, I am curious. How do the US figures (deficit and debt) compare with the enlightened nations that you would like to hold us up to? And given that historically debt and deficit were “Democrat” inspired, are you proud of the Democrats new fiscal responsibility and will you therefore oppose any further increases in spending that so characterized many past Democrat administrations? And looking at Bush’s budget deficits which I hate by the way, where is most of the money going? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? IF so, how much? And were these wars not approved in both cases by the US Congress including the vast majority of Democrats? Finally, is it not true that most of the deficit comes from social programs beloved of the Democrats including the prescription drug bill and expanded medicare and medicaid coverage? How do you think we should handle these expenses? Cut them? Raise taxes? and if the latter, why then are nations around the world actively reducing tax rates to remain more economically competitive or do you dispute my views and those findings?

:roflmao: I thought a moment ago you wanted to examine the US in isolation. Now you want to compare it to others. No matter. No country owes the tiniest fraction of the amount of money owed by the US. Besides, the question was whether Shrub is the worst US president ever, not the worst leader in world history.

Oh, were they? That’s not what the first chart (and many others out there just like it) depicts. The immense national debt is attributable overwhelmingly to Reagan, Bush and Shrub. And, while Clinton helped build a huge budget surplus, the Shrub quickly eliminated that and built a large deficit. Do you dispute that?

President Clinton* created the false image of a budget surplus. It mysteriously vanished on or around the 1st of Feb 2001.

My vote for worst US President would most likely be President Carter. The damage he does to the US continues with his actions today.
The intrigue dealt to the US by the Clinton* regime is still being actualized by its provocateurs his cabal put into place. The PRC made huge long term gains under Clinton* and his minions. So I do not think the full scope of his damage can yet be assessed - i.e., Sandy Berger and his document theft/destruction.

And there we are, folks. Still split predictably along party lines. :laughing:

Next topic? :smiley:

No charisma, lies, denies, has no clear view, finds excuses wherever needed, name it.
f’course he is atleast one ,or the worst I ever noticed since I came to this world and started to understand a bit of American politics.
I remember the day he was elected how much I wanted him to be shot as soon as possible.
Al Gore should have taken the presidency.

I read that Lincoln was not such a great president. The country needed a figure to promote national pride after the destruction caused by the civil war. Now he’s on coins, bills and has a monument, oys are named after him, he’s on Mt. Rushmore. He’s “Honest Abe”, etc.

Did any presidents do anything that wasn’t already going to be done? It’s probably all situational.

Maybe the answer is that there are no great presidents and no worst presidents. Only bad governments, or children with access to money and power, with ideas or, I don’t know, ideals? Strategies?

Do they want to protect America? Does Bush? Most likely. Protecting himself, his friends’ interests, and their friends’ interests probably most likely adds up to protecting America’s interests. Or so he/they might think.

The best defense is a good offense.

His personality filled me chock full of pessimism, I remember.

Highly debatable. The way I see it, the credit goes to Gorbachev’s policies.

Indeed.

I think the cheerleaders/lynch mob should hold off judgement for about 10 years.

 I grew up with during Reagan's term. That man was hated and loved. I also remember what it was to be amongst the working poor and how a college degree became your ticket to bigger and better things salary wise. I think we forget how tightly regulated the American economy was before, so much so that Alan Greenspan testified that capitalism was under threat. People tend to take a view of things in a very small frame. I grew up around welfare and had friends with cash. 

 So I suggest that you sit back and wait, because honestly, we don't know how this all will play out. The debate hasn't really changed from "how little we can lose" to "how can we win this" yet.

Cheers,
Okami

PS Carter is the worst president hands down and is working on making that worst ex-president as well.

I guess nobody picks on Millard Fillmore anymore?

Yes, they are. Our civil liberties have been eroded.
[/quote]

Mine seem intact.[/quote][/quote]

Yes, but how long have you been a resident in the United States since September 11, 2001? And no, a few days here and there during visits don’t count.

I do have to give him the fact that unlike Harding, he isn’t alleged to be a member of the Klan. But he’s not doing much better.

AT least all former bad Presidents could at least put some form to their diction. Mind you they probably wouldn’t have to wind it out so much as a modern Prez.

So i guess he breaks about even.
Yet it’s still difficult to watch a man with such weighty responsibility hardly able even to master a teleprompter.

His image points would go up if :

  1. hie learnet Englishey
  2. he fired Cheney.
  3. He brought the 6 +2 formula into Iraq. Which means dropping 1979/80 sanctions vs Iran as a show of goodwill. Then hammer home the nuclear issue. Carrot & stick.
  4. he stopped blinking and/or grinning inanely like Alfred E. Neuman.

Yes, they are. Our civil liberties have been eroded.
[/quote]

Mine seem intact.[/quote]

Yes, but how long have you been a resident in the United States since September 11, 2001? And no, a few days here and there during visits don’t count.
[/quote][/quote]

I am in pretty close contact with friends and family in NY and not a one of them has ever said, “I believe my Rights are being trampled on and my civil rights eroded.”

I do not believe me and my family being searched at the airport customs counter as an example of an erosion of civil rights either. Nor do I believe that, if for some odd reason, the NSA has read my email, that my rights have been denied or squished.

[quote=“Dragonbones”]
Our civil liberties have been eroded.[/quote]

I was minding my own business and Bush bitch-slapped me.

Want to talk bad, don’t forget that bloodthirsty tyrant who murdered over 600,000 Americans, Lincoln.

[quote=“Andrew Sullivan”]The damage the conduct of this war has done to America strategically is profound. But to my mind, by far the deepest damage has been to the idea of America, to the decency of America, and its reputation for responsibility in world affairs. From authorizing torture to the acquiescence in mass murder, this president has stained the honor of this country and the West. “Stuff happens,” Rumsfeld said days after the invasion, as the chaos first emerged. Wrong. In a country with a serious government or occupying power, stuff doesn’t happen. And it is a total abdication of morality and responsibility to say it does.[/quote] Well, that’s taking it a bit far. Stuff always happens, but serious individuals take responsibility for it (and accept the consequences). I don’t think 5, 10, or 50 years are needed to check on the consequences of this administration’s actions, but we may well wait forever before its chief members learn the meaning of responsibility, let alone shoulder it.

What about the wire tapping and 'Patriot Act"? Or going after the NYT for publishing materials the felt was ‘in the interest of national security’ even though it was in the public domain?

Mother Theresa:

We can look at only Clinton’s term if you like and the Republican Congress (which ironically then was a bastion of fiscal conservatism) but why leave out all the previous Democrat administrations?

We can look at the US figures in total, but why not compare percentage of debt and deficit to GDP since our economy is so much larger? Then, I think you will find that many interesting things emerge.

We can look at the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan but the Democrats voted for that in vast majorities. Why now then criticize Bush?

We can look at deficits but NOT the very expensive prescription drug bill? medicare? medicaid? All widely supported by Democrats? the tons of money that Bush is throwing at education? and getting no credit from the Dems while pissing us Republicans off?

Do you disagree that most nations are liberalizing, deregulating and lowering taxes to create economic growth? Is Bush wrong to engage in these policies? Or would you support higher taxes to pay for these social programs? And what makes you think that these higher taxes will lead to better economic growth in the US? or this time? despite the history of NOT doing so?

Chris:

When even the Soviets and the Eastern Europeans credit Reagan, I think that YOUR view might not be the most relevant one.

Carter sucks. He always did and he always will and while some temporary cash (and lots of it) thrown at lobbying and PR to rehabilitate his name may lead to a temporary blip, as soon as the man dies and the cash is no longer there, he will increasingly be seen as an irrelevant blip in our history at best or one of the worst presidents (revolutionary) in seeing a massive erosion of our influence in the Middle East as well as contributing to a massive destabilization there. Ironically, even Reagan was not able to “revolutionize” the Middle East and that has fallen to Bush. Agree or disagree with Bush but the man has clearly shaken things up. Now, the old failed order is out. More pressure on Iran and Syria would push the process even further but make no mistake, like past “revolutions” this one is going to cause pain and dislocation. The question is: is it worth it? was it avoidable? would something better have been possible? To which I would answer: yes, no, maybe.

This just in.[quote]
“The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration’s shift in approach.[/quote]

[quote]
Last year a federal judge in Detroit ordered the Bush administration to stop the surveillance because it violates Americans’ civil rights.

The Bush administration has appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court, where the case is pending. The administration immediately told the court of Bush’s decision. [/quote]

So, really the whole issue of “illegality” was/is still up in the air.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_ … ce_bush_dc

This just in.[quote]“The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration’s shift in approach.[/quote][quote]
Last year a federal judge in Detroit ordered the Bush administration to stop the surveillance because it violates Americans’ civil rights.
The Bush administration has appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court, where the case is pending. The administration immediately told the court of Bush’s decision. [/quote]So, really the whole issue of “illegality” was/is still up in the air.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_ … ce_bush_dc[/quote]
JDS -
This is a very poorly written story. You missed the money quote.

[color=blue]
“Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.”[/color]

Its all about what happens behind the scenes. Now lets see who leaks the info regarding this “secret court approval” ruling.

This just in.[quote]“The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration’s shift in approach.[/quote][quote]
Last year a federal judge in Detroit ordered the Bush administration to stop the surveillance because it violates Americans’ civil rights.
The Bush administration has appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court, where the case is pending. The administration immediately told the court of Bush’s decision. [/quote]So, really the whole issue of “illegality” was/is still up in the air.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_ … ce_bush_dc[/quote]
JDS -
This is a very poorly written story. You missed the money quote.

[color=blue]
“Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.”[/color]

Its all about what happens behind the scenes. Now lets see who leaks the info regarding this “secret court approval” ruling.[/quote]

I was trying to offer up some hope. :smiley: