61 replies to this topic

[xanadu]

I've read that the Harding administration was the most corrupt and voted the worst presidency in history by historians but that was a while back. Clinton was more corrupt than Harding by far. Bush is about an order of magnitude more corrupt, inept, incompetent and destructive than Clinton. I think he should win the prize. Here are a few of the major blunders of his time in office

1. He lead us into an unwinnable war on the basis of lies
2. Routinely violates the constitution with signing statements, illegal detentions and other violations of law
3. Gutted the bill of rights with the patriot act and other abominations.
4. Spied on americans, intercepted mail and all forms of communications without a warrant.
5. Illegal detentions at Guantanamo including an american citizen J Padilla.
6. Bankrupted the usa with deficit spending and insane trade policies.
7. Gave big business a free hand to rob the american public
8. Relaxed FDA, EPA, OSHA and other regulations that protect the public.

And I'm sure I left out several other major things he did. Perhaps someone could add to the list? If you don't think Bush is the worst president in history, tell us who you think is the worst.

[Karomesis]

yes. he makes nixon look like abe lincoln [:o]

and he's also a complete and utter moron as well. My 7 year old daughter composes better sentences than him.

[biknut]

Jimmy carter was the worst president of the last 50 years.

Aside from Iraq, what's so bad about Bush? We have low unemployment. Low interest rates. Lower taxes. These things have a positive effect on most peoples lives.

[jaydfox]

My 7 year old daughter composes better sentences than him.

better than he.

[tung]

We have low unemployment. Low interest rates. Lower taxes. These things have a positive effect on most peoples lives.

With the exception of the taxes (maybe), those things were Bush's accomplishments how?

[biknut]

With the exception of the taxes (maybe), those things were Bush's accomplishments how?

Well, a good economy comes from low taxes. People have more money to spend. Low capital gains tax leads to more jobs because company's invest more in expansion and equipment. Then they need more employees.

Interest rates are complicated. I don't think the president has a lot of control over them, but if they're high he gets the blame so if they're low he ought to get the credit for that too.

[kgmax]

Bush is indeed the worst president since I have been alive.
I am unsure where you get the figures for lowest unemployment from but I must dispute that claim. The climbing yet low interest rates stem from 9/11 and have caused their own problems. The low taxes have yet to boost the economy substantially and are a far cry from helping the middle class.

[lunarsolarpower]

A thread about bad presidents and nobody's mentioned "Guns and Butter" LBJ?

[vortexentity]

I think a President should work for the people not special interest. I am a Utopian dreamer of course. I do not think this president works in the interest of the people. I think he works for the interest of the very powerful oil interests, and the military industrial complex. Every action he takes makes them a lot more money but not really anyone else. I think follow the money. Who has benefited from his work? Certainly not the average American that voted for this boob. If you are in the business of oil in any way you made money during this president's tenure. Also if you sell bombs or any other type of armor or ordnance you benefited also but really no one else in the US has really had any benefit from this presidency.

Support alternative energy and peace in the world and everyone else will profit.

[jaydfox]

To be fair on the economy and interest rate issues, these have largely had nothing to do with Bush. First there was the dot-com bubble burst, which dragged the markets down, and then there was 9/11. Interest rates dropped to support the economy and prevent housing prices from collapsing. To a certain extent, interest rates were artificially lowered to jack up housing prices*, allowing people to refinance their homes and extract cash that they couldn't otherwise earn at work, and that extra cash prevented the economy from crashing. The problem is, interest rates can drop quickly but can only rise slowly; otherwise, housing markets crash and people have to declare bankrupcy.

Anyway, Bush largely had nothing to do with the changes in the economy. His tax breaks were rather insignificant compared to the shifts in interest rates, and he didn't effect those.

* lower interest rate = lower payment for a given loan. People base housing prices on the payment, so prices artificially rise in response to the lower monthly payment.

[JMorgan]

You might not like where we are now with Iraq and such, but I take objection to the notion that he lied to get us there. He used the SAME intelligence info that Clinton had and if you go back, Clinton and the other Democrats were all saying that Saddam's nuclear program would yield results within the next few years. There was also a considerable fear that Saddam was moving things around between inspections and that weapons were transferred to Syria. That particular link has never been followed up because of the fear of starting a war with the whole Arab world. (The scariest scenario would be if Bush and Clinton's intel was RIGHT and the weapons WERE transferred to Syria. That would be far worse than the situation we're in now.)

Immediately after September 11, everyone was asking "Why aren't we going to war? What's taking so long?" If you remember, Colin Powell initially said we would go into EVERY country that could be linked to terrorism in any way. (Though of course, that meant we'd be going to war with like 60 countries.) We've been pretty good at diversifying: Iraq and Afghanistan using the military; Pakistan and Libya using diplomacy; the Philippines and Somalia by providing support for their own troops to do the job. Everything has gone well except for Iraq and if Bush and Congress can agree on a solution, we may yet see a favorable outcome there.

[Ghostrider]

My main gripe is that he has allocated a trillion dollars or so into a war that we never had a really good reason to go into. That is a trillion dollars that could have gone to other uses such as stem cell research which he is limiting. I think much more people could have benefited if this money had been invested into stem cell research rather than a war, but I am preaching to the choir here...

My claim that he is one of the worst presidents in history, but not necessarily the worst, is based on the potential positive impact that he could have made, but blocked based on his personal dogma. There is no other time in history where we have had the potential technology to help so many people. This technology and the hope of millions are being forfeited for the sake of a pro-death war.

[DJS]

Of course he is.

[biknut]

I think a lot of peoples liberal bias must be blinding them to the facts. Unemployment is near record lows. Employers cannot find enough applicants to fill high pay skill jobs.

I also beg to differ about the lower taxes not having much effect on the middle class. I'm very middle class. I'm saving over a $1000 on my taxes. I consider that to be a significant amount.

Also the lowering of the capital gains tax has had a very significant effect on the economy and jobs.

IMO a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, and whether it's his fault of not Bush gets the blame. It's easy to see mistakes after they happen. Try to do a better job is a lot harder. Clinton didn't have the guts to do anything about terrorism as is the case with most Democrats. I feel safer with someone trying to do something about it than just ignoring the danger and pretending it will go away if we just leave them alone.

[jaydfox]

I'm very middle class. I'm saving over a $1000 on my taxes. I consider that to be a significant amount.

My house, which I sold for $147,000 in 2003, was appraised at over $320,000 by the person I sold it to, just 18 months after I sold it to them. The interest rates, combined with the depressed economy in Silicon Valley, made my buyer over $170,000 in capital gains in 18 months, an APY of about 70%. I know lots of people in California who made hundreds of thousands of dollars due to increased equity, due in no small part to the artificially low interest rates, rates due in no small part to the depressed economy and 9/11. Your tax savings of $85/mo is enough to pay one or two bills, but I lost out on nearly twice my gross earnings rate: my former house appreciated nearly $10,000 a month!

And anyway, the President can't really take credit for the economy, unemployment rates, interest rates, or any of that. He can take credit for tax cuts to a small extent, and he can take a lot of credit for Iraq and the resulting problems at home and abroad. His track record on upholding Constitutional rights is pathetic, and his ability to usurp power from the other branches of government appalling (though also fascinating). He has been one of the most powerful presidents in a long time, but unfortunately, he is also hands down one of the worst in terms of his policy decisions.

[jaydfox]

As to the poll question of this thread, I am somewhat ignorant of many of the Presidencies before the second half of the 20th century, so I can't adequately judge if he's the worst president in history. (There's also the open question of whether we're restricting ourselves to U.S. Presidents, but now I'm just being pedantic.)

However, out of the last 60 years' worth of presidents, I would have to vote Yes. So just to humor the intent of the poll, I'll cast a vote of yes in the poll as well, but I'll leave my former qualifications on the record.

[Aegist]

Clinton didn't have the guts to do anything about terrorism as is the case with most Democrats. I feel safer with someone trying to do something about it than just ignoring the danger and pretending it will go away if we just leave them alone.

Do something?

Do something?

Just because there are big explosions, lots of news coverage, and massive overspendings of billions of dollars of money doesn't necessarily mean that something is being done. I recall something about Clinton actually getting isreal and palestine on talking terms... now THAT is something. Since Bush got back into power, the first thing he did was put a woman in charge of middle easter affairs! What a f***in fool. Like it or not, women are not respected by traditional middle eastern traditions...sending a women in there to negotiate, no matter how good or qualified or whatever she is, is like sending OJ Simpson to negotiate with the KKK. Its just a bad idea.

Do something... thats a laugh. The things he did, were what he wanted to do for his own agenda, and he went and did them, regardless of the safety of the rest of the world.

[Ghostrider]

IMO a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, and whether it's his fault of not Bush gets the blame. It's easy to see mistakes after they happen.

Of course he should be blamed, he is the one who sold the war. The war has been going on longer than WWII, over 3k Americans alone have died because of it...but that is just the tip of the iceberg when considering the modern state of medicine and those soldiers who have been seriously injured, but survived, leaving them with ruined lives. So what has it accomplished? Give me one significant positive benefit of the war. Like it or not, Saddam held that country together...the people ultimately get the government they deserve. Saddam has come and gone, but there will be another who takes his place. Democracy is scarce in the Arab world because the people there are simply different.

[Aegist]

Speaking of selling a war, and imposing democracy on Arabs.... I think this clip from the daily show, although it is funny as hell, also highlights that Bush has even gone against what he originally claimed to believe..


Debate: Governor Bush vs President Bush

[JMorgan]

Let me present a hypothetical:

Let's say that Iraq went well and now we've got a flourishing new Arab democracy smack in the middle of the region where nobody thought it possible. The ripple effects of that drastically alter the lives of the people in the neighboring countries to the point where Iran's student population rise up and overthrow their regime, Saudi Arabia concedes and begins respecting women's rights and Syria suddenly feels squeezed between pro-Western states on all sides, leading to renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

If that had happened, everyone would have sung Bush's praises and said he was a genius. Why then, do people continue to doubt and obstruct that vision when that is exactly the goal here? Bush clearly doesn't have the foresight to see his vision come to pass properly, but now that he's received plenty of advice from all sides and outlined a clear strategy for creating this scenario, Congress wants to cut off funding and force us out before the job is done.

[biknut]

I recall something about Clinton actually getting isreal and palestine on talking terms... now THAT is something.

Those talks failed too.

Since Bush got back into power, the first thing he did was put a woman in charge of middle easter affairs! What a f***in fool. Like it or not, women are not respected by traditional middle eastern traditions...sending a women in there to negotiate, no matter how good or qualified or whatever she is, is like sending OJ Simpson to negotiate with the KKK. Its just a bad idea.

Madeleine Albright was the Secretary of State under Clinton. I think she was a woman

[biknut]

Of course he should be blamed, he is the one who sold the war.  The war has been going on longer than WWII, over 3k Americans alone have died because of it

We lost hundreds of thousands of men in WWII. Based of those numbers, Bush must be doing a good job fighting this war.

So what has it accomplished?  Give me one significant positive benefit of the war.

The main thing we should care about is Iraq occupies the terrorists and give them a place to kill Americans that's not in America, and visa versa. For now no one has a better idea.

Does doing nothing and sitting around waiting for some big nasty bomb the go off in a shopping mall in America sound like a good idea? I like the idea of fighting the terrorists over there somewhere, (anywhere really) than over here. Iraq is a great POS place for this purpose.

If don't go over there to kill them they're (the terrorists) going to come over here to kill us. What part of that don't you understand?

[biknut]

Actually I've thought almost all of the Presidents in my lifetime have been pretty bad.

Reagan is the only one I really liked. This is my list best to worse.

Reagan improved the economy, brought down the Berlin wall
JFK lowered taxes
Bush 1 didn't do anything
Bush 2 lowered taxes
Clinton passed a bunch of republican initiatives
Ford didn't do anything
Nixon started a dialog with China
LBJ started a lot of welfare, and lost Vietnam
Jimmy Carter he fucked everything up

[xanadu]

So Jimmy Carter is the neocons choice for worst president ahead of Bush? That is really a laugh. What did Carter do that was so bad? He was kind of a wimp, he had good intentions but never followed through. Bush has bad intentions and follows through to the bitter end and beyond. I'll take Carter over Bush any day.

JMorgan, you say he had the same info Clinton did. Why then didn't Clinton call for an invasion of Iraq? Because for one thing Bush invented much of the info he had. The documents on yellowcake purchases were forgeries. Bush has the world's top experts at his beck and call who can spot a forgery in an instant. The documents weren't even good forgeries so he had to know they were false or he made no effort to verify them. Was he a liar or just incompetent? You tell me.

Congress wants to cut off funding and force us out before the job is done.

The job is impossible. Lets hope congress succeeds in it's efforts. Bush is deaf to the voice of the people. You want to know why Bush is so adamant in staying in Iraq? Because his bosses told him to do it. His bosses in Israel want Iraq pacified and they control the media in this country and through the media and rich PACs they control the politicians. Why do you suppose the media has put a positive spin on everything Bush has done? Why has the movement to impeach him gotten no ink? But that is another subject altogether. Bush does not represent the us public at all. Their benefit is of no interest to him whatsoever.

[jaydfox]

Was he a liar or just incompetent?

He's both, but in this case, all the evidence I've seen points to "liar".

As for pulling out of Iraq, I'm conflicted. I don't think we should have gone in, but I don't think we can just walk away either. But what we should do is probably beyond the resolve of either party right now. Much like the only workable solutions to the Medicare and Social Security crisis are ones that neither party has the resolve to address.

[biknut]

Under Carter interest rates were 18% for car loans. 21% for credit cards. 30 year home loans were about 15% or higher.

I did have a 1 year CD that payed 18% interest. I liked that.

Unemployment was very high.

It's pretty hard to find anything to brag about from most of our presidents. I'm not trying very hard to defend Bush. I just don't think any of the others have done much better.

I think the best president would be one that doesn't do anything, and blocks everything congress tries to do. With the exception of lowering taxes. That's the main thing good about Bush. Clinton lied about lowering taxes in his first campaign then promptly reneged as soon as he was elected.

[jaydfox]

Under Carter interest rates were 18% for car loans. 21% for credit cards. 30 year home loans were about 15% or higher.

The oil crisis. You're going to blame Carter for the high interest rates? And give Bush credit for the low interest rates?

At any rate, you're forgetting inflation. With inflation at similar double-digit rates, those interest rates weren't that bad (if you were a debtor), and they weren't that good (if you were an investor).

Get real.

[biknut]

Actually I should place Clinton higher on my list based on his acomplishments, except they weren't his ideas.

He cut welfare. Republican initative
He passed NAFTA, Republican initavite
Signed the Iraq Liberation Act
http://en.wikipedia...._Liberation_Act

His own ideas,
Let gays in the military (don't ask don't tell)
Close off public lands to the public
Poke cigars up female aids butts in the oval office. (this could be fun maybe)

[biknut]

The oil crisis. You're going to blame Carter for the high interest rates? And give Bush credit for the low interest rates?

At any rate, you're forgetting inflation. With inflation at similar double-digit rates, those interest rates weren't that bad (if you were a debtor), and they weren't that good (if you were an investor).

Get real.

Did he try to do one thing to improve the situation? Reagan did.

[DukeNukem]

I doubt if any of us know all the presidents well enough to answer this question, but IMO, Bush is a net negative president (I voted libertarian -- as much to send a message against the two existing parties as any other reason).

I implore everyone to read the book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman. This is the book that will set you free of the matrix, and show you why and how the USA is the new Roman Empire, taking over the resources of so many economically not-so-well-off countries. Iraq is merely another domino, to help set us free from Saudi Arabia. Anyone see the news a few days ago that Exxon, Shell, and BP will control Iraqi oil for the next 30 years? Is this any surprise to anyone? I sure hope not.