Rolling Stone: Bush Worst President Ever? - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Azure · 05-10-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As I just said in the other thread, I'm no economist. And anyway, I'm not sure how directly I think POTUS is responsible for economic prosperity or recession--there are a lot of factors beyond their control.

But no, I don't really think the US economy is doing ok. The dollar is getting hammered against all the major currencies, unemployment is high, the deficit is soaring, and housing bubbles are starting to burst all over the country because of decreased demand for new homes. How much that has to do with Bush, I don't know. Probably not much; but I have a suspicion that the US economy is in some trouble.

But "dispite" all that it is still chugging along. Thats my point.

Do I expect it to get worse? Of course I do. I don't see how a nation can survive long with such a massive deficit and debt. But I also think that if the US goes down a lot of countries are going down with them.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 05-10-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

But "dispite" all that it is still chugging along. Thats my point.

Do I expect it to get worse? Of course I do. I don't see how a nation can survive long with such a massive deficit and debt. But I also think that if the US goes down a lot of countries are going down with them.

By "a lot of countries" I assume you primarily mean us, the proverbial mouse in bed with the elephant.

But even if that happens, we can take solace in not having degenerated into a power-hungry fascist theocracy beforehand.

Nothing like the moral high ground to keep your belly full in the tough times

Bobblehead · 05-10-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

No, no. What I'm saying is, is that 9/11 didn't help the economy. I realize you can't blame the deficit on 9/11, just like you can't blame the debt competely on Bush.

Presidents have been making mistakes for the past 40 years regarding the debt. Bush has just magnified it.

At the end of Clinton's term, the gov't was running a surplus. I don't know what they were doing with the surplus (paying down debt, or planning to spend it) but the point it they were not increasing the debt.

Bush jr has has but cut taxes and massively increased spending.

I don't know that anyone is blaming the debt on Bush; there has been a US debt since the second world war. But the massive budget deficit can be laid squarely at his feet.

Edit: Interesting graph of Debt as a percentage of GDP through time

Azure · 05-10-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

By "a lot of countries" I assume you primarily mean us, the proverbial mouse in bed with the elephant.

But even if that happens, we can take solace in not having degenerated into a power-hungry fascist theocracy beforehand.

Nothing like the moral high ground to keep your belly full in the tough times

Yes us too. But that may be the only thing keeping the American economy going; fear of shutting down the rest of the world.

But like you said, I'm no economist.

Azure · 05-10-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

At the end of Clinton's term, the gov't was running a surplus. I don't know what they were doing with the surplus (paying down debt, or planning to spend it) but the point it they were not increasing the debt.

Bush jr has has but cut taxes and massively increased spending.

I don't know that anyone is blaming the debt on Bush; there has been a US debt since the second world war. But the massive budget deficit can be laid squarely at his feet.

Yes the deficit is his fault, entirely. I will certainly agree with that.

And even if Clinton was running surpluses, it wouldn't have done much to pay of the debt. The US needs to cut back on all their pork.

Dion_Iggy_Kipper!!! · 05-10-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

ok seriously people, Geroge W. Bush the worst president ever?!?!? I don't think so, the real question we should be asking is what Colbert asks:

George W. Bush, great president, or the greatest president?

Your kidding right???

George W. Bush is at least in the top 2 or 3 of the worst president's ever, if not number one, I'm not all up on my past american presidents so I can't say if he's #1.

Why you ask?
Because he started the war in Iraq because they had WMD's which may I say were never found. And will only be found when the USA can get them into Iraq without anyone noticing (Rick Mercer said this on Just for Laughs). And because he went after Saddam Husien (sp?) just because Daddy couldn't capture him (I am not saying what Saddam did was right, what he did was quite horrible). Also because he put the US so far into debt and I just can't stand him, he's so annoying.

CaramonLS · 05-10-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion_Iggy_Kipper!!!

Your kidding right???

George W. Bush is at least in the top 2 or 3 of the worst president's ever, if not number one, I'm not all up on my past american presidents so I can't say if he's #1.

Why you ask?
Because he started the war in Iraq because they had WMD's which may I say were never found. And will only be found when the USA can get them into Iraq without anyone noticing (Rick Mercer said this on Just for Laughs). And because he went after Saddam Husien (sp?) just because Daddy couldn't capture him (I am not saying what Saddam did was right, what he did was quite horrible). Also because he put the US so far into debt and I just can't stand him, he's so annoying.

Yes, he was kidding.

Azure · 05-10-2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion_Iggy_Kipper!!!

Your kidding right???

George W. Bush is at least in the top 2 or 3 of the worst president's ever, if not number one, I'm not all up on my past american presidents so I can't say if he's #1.

Why you ask?
Because he started the war in Iraq because they had WMD's which may I say were never found. And will only be found when the USA can get them into Iraq without anyone noticing (Rick Mercer said this on Just for Laughs). And because he went after Saddam Husien (sp?) just because Daddy couldn't capture him (I am not saying what Saddam did was right, what he did was quite horrible). Also because he put the US so far into debt and I just can't stand him, he's so annoying.

Put them soooooo far into debt? Thats a reason of why he's the worse President ever? Or even top 3 worst Presidents?

Bobblehead · 05-11-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Put them soooooo far into debt? Thats a reason of why he's the worse President ever? Or even top 3 worst Presidents?

Did you read the article in the OP? It lists many reasons why it thinks Bush jr is in the running for worst president ever. On top of turning a surplus into a massive deficit they list the diviciveness of his leadership, the grab for power, scandals,and more; and goes into detail for their reasoning. It is good article, and I'm sure all the points raised can be debated, but it is worth the time to read.

Hakan · 05-11-2006, 08:58 AM

Lets give Grover Cleveland his due. He was pretty bad.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 05-11-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakan

Lets give Grover Cleveland his due. He was pretty bad.

I think props should go to Taft as well. And Herbert Hoover.

And Truman. Andrew Jackson.

Actually, there were in some ways more bad ones than good ones. Bush is bad, but is he in "Warren G. Harding" territory? I don't really think so.

HOZ · 05-11-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakan

Lets give Grover Cleveland his due. He was pretty bad.

Was he the baddest because he didn't have enough badness to be the baddest?

Azure · 05-12-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Did you read the article in the OP? It lists many reasons why it thinks Bush jr is in the running for worst president ever. On top of turning a surplus into a massive deficit they list the diviciveness of his leadership, the grab for power, scandals,and more; and goes into detail for their reasoning. It is good article, and I'm sure all the points raised can be debated, but it is worth the time to read.

Clinton had scandels, Nixon had scandels, Reagen ran a deficit and a huge debt.

I did read the article, but Bush is far from the worst President ever. Saying that shows your blind hatred for him.

Apply logic, for once.

Bobblehead · 05-12-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Clinton had scandels, Nixon had scandels, Reagen ran a deficit and a huge debt.

I did read the article, but Bush is far from the worst President ever. Saying that shows your blind hatred for him.

Apply logic, for once.

Your responses make it appear that you have not read the article as it discusses all those specific points.

So logically speaking, if you wish to dispute the article, you should either counter the article's points, or bring up issues the article doesn't cover.

Maritime Q-Scout · 05-12-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion_Iggy_Kipper!!!

Your kidding right???

Azure · 05-12-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Your responses make it appear that you have not read the article as it discusses all those specific points.

So logically speaking, if you wish to dispute the article, you should either counter the article's points, or bring up issues the article doesn't cover.

Why should I counter the articles points when I agree with them?

Only thing I disagree with is using those points to refer to President Bush as the worst President ever. That is jumping to conclusions way ahead of time. Give it 20 more years, then we'll talk.

Vulcan · 05-12-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Why should I counter the articles points when I agree with them?

Only thing I disagree with is using those points to refer to President Bush as the worst President ever. That is jumping to conclusions way ahead of time. Give it 20 more years, then we'll talk.

Now, is as good a time as ever to take stock of Bush.
If the NeoCons are in power 20 years from now, Bush may be called the greatest President ever. We will know differently, but those in power write the history.

Azure · 05-12-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Now, is as good a time as ever to take stock of Bush.
If the NeoCons are in power 20 years from now, Bush may be called the greatest President ever. We will know differently, but those in power write the history.

Of course. Those in power write history; make history. Why is that such a big deal?

Surely the influence that Bush had on the United States and the world, during his 8 years as President, are not going to be part of a conspiracy theory by the "Neo-cons" to cover up history, right?

I mean, we know that faults of FDR, his weaknesses, his strengths. Therefore we can make our own assumptions of what kind of President he was. To me he did an admirable job, to you it might not be the same.

FireFly · 05-13-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Now, is as good a time as ever to take stock of Bush.
If the NeoCons are in power 20 years from now, Bush may be called the greatest President ever. We will know differently, but those in power write the history.

The repercussions to some of his policies will not be felt for a while. That's why you don't take stock of Bush right now.

Azure · 05-13-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

The repercussions to some of his policies will not be felt for a while. That's why you don't take stock of Bush right now.

Thank you Firefly, maybe they'll listen to you.