{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Vgnut:
1/14/2013 7:30:54 AM
11
George W. Bush is regarded as one of, if not the #1, worst presidents of all time. His time in office was so abysmal even ardent Republicans acknowledge he was a bad president. It is telling that there is hardly contention over his record. It's like Republicans to be taken seriously have to say "Well [i]I[/i] didn't support Bush."
So while President Obama's record is still being written I think it's safe to say his tenure will be judged as far greater than his predecessor.
English
-
Edited by MaximusPaynicus: 1/14/2013 5:27:32 PM[quote]George W. Bush is regarded as one of, if not the #1, worst presidents of all time.[/quote] James Buchanan (the one who let the civil war happen). Warren G. Harding. Andrew Johnson. John Tayler. Zachary Tyler. U.S. Grant. W. H. Harrison. Franklin Pierce. Millard Fillmore. Richard Nixon. G.W. Bush may be regarded as one of our lesser leaders (I sure as hell didn't vote for him), but c'mon.
-
Yes come on. You take a look at all the things he did and it is staggering. History will treat George W. Bush's legacy worse than what it's seen as now because we'll be able to see the lasting effects of his countless failed policies. Richard Nixon is a case of where history has maybe cleaned his legacy a tad because he actually did some great things policy wise. You're not going to be able to say that about Bush.
-
Don't be too sure of that...
-
I am not saying he will be regarded as the best president of all time or among the top ten because I don't know where history will ultimately see him placed because he is yet to even begin his second term. Having said that I'm pretty damn sure based on his record since taking office in 2009 that he's going to be regarded as a better president than George W. Bush. The bar isn't very high there.
-
I'll grant you Bush wasn't the best of presidents, but under Obama's administration, the deficit has increased more than under all previous presidents combined. That's kind of sad.
-
Edited by Vgnut: 1/14/2013 8:14:11 AMNot really for those that understand why it's increased. Deflated tax revenue, discretionary stimulus spending (so auto bailouts), and the increase in spending that came with unemployed drawing from employment insurance and other social welfare programs (blame the wealth gap on that too). If you actually compare spending increases under the two Bush is off the charts while Obama has made serious cuts. There is a much stronger case for blaming the debt, which is what you mean, buildup since 2001 on the actions President Bush's administration took. And to be fair the Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan administration where all these troubles originated share blame too.
-
It's late where I am, so I'm not going to argue, but wasn't the budget balanced under the Clinton administration thanks to bipartisan politics? He was a bad president for other reasons though.
-
Edited by Vgnut: 1/14/2013 8:27:41 AMIt was. Part of that credit goes to Clinton for being able to manage that. Part of it was a booming economy which means more tax revenue and fewer people drawing from social welfare programs. But Clinton did the right thing when he could easily have used high revenues to jack up spending and run deficits. What I'm alluding to is the deregulation of the financial sector that continued under Clinton. Government debt is not household debt. Never let anyone convince you otherwise. It is a much more complicated issue with many factors. If you have the belief that all budgets should be balanced and that there should be no debt and that this is the metric that presidents should be judged by then you're seeing these issues solely as an individual dealing with their own check book.
-
Bush took the car that was the US Economy, took it to the edge of a plateau (with an inclined plane for an edge) and drove it off. 10 feet into the very steep drop, Bush is replaced with Obama, who is now tasked with stopping the car before it hits the bottom. How is that his fault? Also, stop trying to defend Bush. He is objectively one of the worst, if not the worst.
-
Objective, are you? K. Obviously I will never be able to convince you of anything, so if you want to believe that the state of affair is still "the other guy's" fault, that is your prerogative.
-
Edited by CrazzySnipe55: 1/14/2013 11:42:33 AMI didn't say it was still Bush's fault. Obama could've done a lot more than he has, and has largely bent down to his Republican overlords who seem to want to continue to drive this economy into the ground, but by leaps and bounds George W. Bush was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. He started a war in the Middle East for no reason other than to protect oil prospects and rashly attack the general area of the world where the Taliban came from. Even when given several opportunities to capture Osama Bin Laden he never pulled the trigger. He even disbanded the team lookin for him at one point. Furthermore he sunk our economy into the ground by ignoring everything going on in the housing and banking industry that clearly needed to be addressed. He took away an incredible amount of US citizen's rights with the Patriot Act. And overall was a complete idiot former coke-head. My four year old cousin makes up words less than this guy did.
