Is Bush The Worst President Ever?

[Judge Smails]

100% correct, the reputation of the USA over here in Europe has been thoroughly ruined by Bush and his harebrained actions (Or non-actions like his 'response' to Katrina). He's seen as a warmonger, a religious fanatic and a moron over here.

Here too with the exception of an ever dwindling population of neo-con apologists and when they show up at the front door we all just nod our head and hope they will go away. We let 'em flap their gums for the amusement value now. It's rather fun to watch them race in circles.

 

[MizBlu]

I am a middle of the road kid of guy. Not very into politics and always give whoever is President the right amount of respect for leading the country.

However, George W. really is the worst I have ever seen. I'm 41 and I really can't remember another President who has screwed up things as bad as Bush. I don't personally dislike him, but from the beginning I felt he just wasn't ready for prime time.

When he talks he just dosen't seem intelligent at all. I don't have confidence in him as a President but I did feel like he surrounded himself with smart people. However, I'm starting to see maybe he didn't even do that right. God Help us - and God Help this country. I personally don't think we can take another 3 years with this guy in the drivers seat.

The thing that bugs me is I know a lot of conservative people who still things he is a great Pres. I don't get that at all. Republican or Demorcrat, this guy is a LAME DUCK.

George Bush is a dry drunk, and at this point, I'd bet he isn't so "dry" anymore. Years of alcoholism and reported drug abuse (reported by those who really knew him) have taken their toll as they would on anyone. Add to that mixture the fact Bush has never accomplished anything that didn't piggyback on the name Bush, and what you see is what you get. Bush was born on 3rd base, but the spin doctors and the apologists pretend that he hit a triple.

Bush hasn't changed one damned bit. The only thing that's changed is the perceptions and that change is a year too late.

 

[hokiefan33]

You're very lucky and in the minority. Most of us are worse off than when Bush was first elected. The company I work for is over 100 years old. They never had to downsize (even during the Depression) but there have been 2 downsizings in the last 3 years. I haven't had a raise since 2001 and I used to average 6-10% raises in the past. We used to get 4 weeks salary as a bonus, now we're lucky if we get 1 week. I won't go into gasoline prices since I don't drive a car, but my commuting costs have gone up 2 times in 2 years. (and that's because federal subsidies have gone down). I could go on and on, but that's enough.

So yeah, maybe Bush isn't the worse President ever, but he's one of the worse I've experienced.

How do you know I'm in the minority, unless you've asked everyone and received a definitive reply? I made a comment about my own personal situation - you're making a comment about everyone's situation. What data do you have to make such a speculation? You say "most of us", but how do you know for sure?

And how exactly is Bush to blame for your company's performance? We'd have to know the company you work for to analyze it further. Could it be management changes? Earnings pressure? Foreign jobs? NAFTA (passed under Clinton, by the way)? How do you link your company's, and hence your own, problems singularly back to Bush?

 

[hokiefan33]

Can you honestly and thoughtfully review what this president has done here and abroad and project that 20 years from now your child will say yes also to GWB policies?

Can anyone say for sure about anything in 20 years? If you'll kindly lend me the crystal ball you're using, I'll check.

 

[eclectics]

Can anyone say for sure about anything in 20 years? If you'll kindly lend me the crystal ball you're using, I'll check.

Sorry, Scooter is using it to see how much time he's going to get.

 

[hokiefan33]

Wow, so let me get this right. You are saying that your Republican Congress and your Republican Senate does not represent you? Then whom do you suggest we have in our government?

Look again. I said Congress, not MY REPUBLICAN Congress or MY REPUBLICAN SENATE. I didn't vote for EVERY member of Congress, only the ones from my state, who may or may not have won. So can I say that Congress as a whole represents me? No, b/c I don't have everyone in there I would like to, and there are some in there who I'd rather not have in there. So by my standards, they don't necessarily represent me or my views. Back to what I said - Bush is the ELECTED President, so he MUST be representative of all of us as a nation, right? If just one person disagrees, then that statement isn't true, and since I think at least one person will disagree, then by association you can say the same thing about Congress.

 

[jimmiej]

How do you link your company's, and hence your own, problems singularly back to Bush?

It's just simpler that way, hokiefan!

 

[hokiefan33]

I'm glad that you appreciate the fact that I think I have decent presidential knowledge, but I know I do. And I never said that worst was a definition because it is in fact an opinion. An opinion which is the basis of this thread, so I was just contributing a little.

I never directly said Bush was the cause of my bills either, but the economy is. And he is very much in control of America's economy. It's fantastic that you haven't suffered at all, but that doesn't go for everybody. And that doesn't mean that years down the line, people aren't going to suffer. We, as a country, are not in a good place right now, whether you choose to see it or not.

President Bush is the head of our country. He creates the image people see of America. And right now our image is full of lies, deceit, and ineptness. It's going to be a tough job for whoever steps into the Presidency next to rectify all that Bush has done.

You didn't directly say it, but you sure implied it, didn't you? Isn't Alan Greenspan as much in control of the economy as Bush? What can Bush do to ACTUALLY & MEASURABLY influence the economy so it suits everyone, and is at the same time possible to do? As to years down the line, nobody knows what kind of shape we will definitely be in then, so any talk of that is just speculation.

 

[hokiefan33]

It's just simpler that way, hokiefan!

Exactly. Can't blame ourselves, or the stock analysts, or a greedy corporate America, or a greedy society, or any Democrat, so it MUST be George's fault!

 

[eclectics]

or a greedy corporate America,

I'm glad to hear one of you finally admit it ! Let's give them even more tax breaks (I believe George has a little say in that) so they can make more profits. With the extra money, I'm sure they will be happy to give us a break on prices, keep their pension plans intact, and not outsource our jobs to India.

 

[hokiefan33]

I'm glad to hear one of you finally admit it ! Let's give them even more tax breaks (I believe George has a little say in that) so they can make more profits. With the extra money, I'm sure they will be happy to give us a break on prices, keep their pension plans intact, and not outsource our jobs to India.

Why are jobs getting outsourced to India? It's not the indirect breaks they get here, it's because of the direct breaks they get through lower payroll and benefits costs in India (i.e. why pay someone here $10/hr. to do work that can be done in India at $0.50/hr.?). And why are they worried about paying $10/hr. vs. $0.50/hr.? B/c of the almighty dollar. And whether a Republican or a Democrat is in office, the almighty dollar will still rule decisions.

 

[eclectics]

Why are jobs getting outsourced to India? It's not the indirect breaks they get here, it's because of the direct breaks they get through lower payroll and benefits costs in India (i.e. why pay someone here $10/hr. to do work that can be done in India at $0.50/hr.?). And why are they worried about paying $10/hr. vs. $0.50/hr.? B/c of the almighty dollar. And whether a Republican or a Democrat is in office, the almighty dollar will still rule decisions.

The administration sets the tone concerning American industry. Bush claims to be disturbed by all the American jobs being lost to overseas countries, yet continues to want to give big business every break and loophole possible to fatten their coffers, knowing full well these jobs are never coming back. The CEO's don't give a darn. Their goal is to squeeze every penny of profit they can and they have a administration that gives them the green light and a high five. Why does this administration want to reward these companies that have dubious scruples? The more money the big companies have, the more money goes into the wallets of those privileged enough to own pieces of them. Who are these people? The majority are well heeled Republicans that Bush owes big time for bankrolling his, and other Republicans elections. I can't for the life of me understand those that don't believe this party is the party of the privileged and that they give a darn about the working middle class.

 

[hokiefan33]

The administration sets the tone concerning American industry. Bush claims to be disturbed by all the American jobs being lost to overseas countries, yet continues to want to give big business every break and loophole possible to fatten their coffers, knowing full well these jobs are never coming back. The CEO's don't give a darn. Their goal is to squeeze every penny of profit they can and they have a administration that gives them the green light and a high five. Why does this administration want to reward these companies that have dubious scruples? The more money the big companies have, the more money goes into the wallets of those privileged enough to own pieces of them. Who are these people? The majority are well heeled Republicans that Bush owes big time for bankrolling his, and other Republicans elections. I can't for the life of me understand those that don't believe this party is the party of the privileged and that they give a darn about the working middle class.

Gee, do you think if we DON'T give big business every break and loophole, that they will be MORE likely to keep jobs here? I don't see how taking away those breaks will keep jobs from going overseas and make our economy better. You're right - the CEO's don't care, they're just worried about...there's that word again...the almight dollar!

Republicans aren't the only owners of pieces of big business, by the way. There are many Democrats with sizable shares of large companies, who also contribute to their party.

 

[eclectics]

Gee, do you think if we DON'T give big business every break and loophole, that they will be MORE likely to keep jobs here? I don't see how taking away those breaks will keep jobs from going overseas and make our economy better. You're right - the CEO's don't care, they're just worried about...there's that word again...the almight dollar!

Republicans aren't the only owners of pieces of big business, by the way. There are many Democrats with sizable shares of large companies, who also contribute to their party.

They can sit down with these CEO's as other administrations have done, and try to work some plan out. Instead of giving them carte blanche, how about getting tough and saying "we better start working something out or maybe the free ride is going to end". If they are going to outsource every blue collar job anyway, what does our economy have to loose? If all that's going to be left here in the US is their corporate headquarters and a couple hundred VP's living off the fat of Guatemalan workers making .10 a hour, I say build a new HQ in Malaysia and get the %$# out. Giving them the moon certainly isn't doing any good. I say get tough. And yes, there are some very wealthy Dems but the core philosophy of their party comes into play, I'm sure, with how they use their wealth in the long run.

 

[hokiefan33]

They can sit down with these CEO's as other administrations have done, and try to work some plan out. Instead of giving them carte blanche, how about getting tough and saying "we better start working something out or maybe the free ride is going to end". If they are going to outsource every blue collar job anyway, what does our economy have to loose? If all that's going to be left here in the US is their corporate headquarters and a couple hundred VP's living off the fat of Guatemalan workers making .10 a hour, I say build a new HQ in Malaysia and get the %$# out. Giving them the moon certainly isn't doing any good. I say get tough. And yes, there are some very wealthy Dems but the core philosophy of their party comes into play, I'm sure, with how they use their wealth in the long run.

Nice ideas. But easier said than done. Most ideas look fantastic on paper. Implementing them is another story entirely.

 

[eclectics]

Nice ideas. But easier said than done. Most ideas look fantastic on paper. Implementing them is another story entirely.

I know. We can hope though. Btw, thoughtful mini debate. I might not agree with you, but I enjoyed hearing your points of view

 

[MossMan]

OK, OK hokiefan33. We get the idea. You don’t believe that George W Bush is the worst President of all time. You don’t have to belabor the point. If that’s your opinion then so be it.

Just one question though: If Bush isn’t the worst President ever, would you put him second worst or the third worst?