Bush worst president of modern era, fifth worst in US History; Obama 15th best

[Dos Equis]

Obama at 15th?  These scholars must have smoked peyote before voting.  

238 presidential scholars: Bush worst president of modern era, fifth worst in US history
By John Byrne
Thursday, July 1st, 2010 -- 4:56 pm

It's one thing for a coterie of liberals at a late-night Washington soirée to say that George W. Bush was the worst president in their lifetimes.

It's another thing when the same is said by the nation's 238 leading presidential scholars, who have been polled annually for the last 28 years.

President Bush ranked worst among modern presidents -- and the fifth worth in history, according to the poll by the Siena Research Institute. Ranking first? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who led the country from 1933 until his death in 1945.

President Roosevelt served four terms, the longest of any president in history. US presidents became limited to two terms after US states ratified the 22nd Amendment to the US constitution in 1951.

President Barack Obama, who hasn't yet served a full term, rated 15th.

. . . .


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0701/nations-leading-presidential-scholars-bush-worst-president-modern-era-5th-worst-history/

[pro nitrousADRL]

i think dictator obama would be more fitting, and a better definition for what he is aiming for 


yes that horrible bush and his 4% u.e. rate and his evil 52 strait months of job growth    (dam him) 

[240 is Back]

that horrible bush and his 4% u.e. rate and his evil 52 strait months of job growth    (dam him) 

bush inherited it at what, 3.97%

I hate clinton, but he sure did get the economy cooking.

Bush left things in a pretty shitty state.  Obama borrowed a lot of money - which hurt things long term - but there are a ton of people getting paid STIM dollars right now.  I think his actions are going to do a lot of long-term damage, but for the last year, we've been blessed that it stopped at 10%.... anyone have that jobless claim charrt of OBama vs Bush?  Bush left it at the bottom and even if you poo-poo it, we're back at positive growth.

[pro nitrousADRL]

the democratic house and senate that took control left it pretty fucked up,  bush didnt have much say so after 2007 when dems took house and senate,  but how soon people forget that lil tidbit

[240 is Back]

the democratic house and senate that took control left it pretty fucked up,  bush didnt have much say so after 2007 when dems took house and senate,  but how soon people forget that lil tidbit

what did they do to destroy things?


It looks to me a lot like we'd had a shitload of spending going on for the last 5 years, and the world was tired of propping it up.


Are you saying - if the dems had never won congress, there would have never been a 2008 economic collapse?

[Soul Crusher]

bush inherited it at what, 3.97%

I hate clinton, but he sure did get the economy cooking.

Bush left things in a pretty shitty state.  Obama borrowed a lot of money - which hurt things long term - but there are a ton of people getting paid STIM dollars right now.  I think his actions are going to do a lot of long-term damage, but for the last year, we've been blessed that it stopped at 10%.... anyone have that jobless claim charrt of OBama vs Bush?  Bush left it at the bottom and even if you poo-poo it, we're back at positive growth.

GMAFB 240.  Even you dont believe that nonsense. 

[pro nitrousADRL]

Are you saying - if the dems had never won congress, there would have never been a 2008 economic collapse?

240  why dont you look up the date that fannie and freddie started to have major major issues and collapsing, before you make yourself look even worse

[240 is Back]

fannie and freddie - what do you mean?  Did Bush veto anything the dems put forth from 07 til end of 08? 

What does their date of collapse have to do with the price of apples in china?  Please tell us what the dem congress did, which led to the collapse.  And why Bush didn't stop it.  Maybe youre right - maybe there was some awesome repub legislation they didn't do in the first 6 years, that needed to be done in the last 2 years... what was it?

yes, fannie/freddie collapsed when the dems had control of the congress - but what specific actions did they do?

[drkaje]

No matter how it's sliced, republicans just plain spent too much once they had the majority.

[240 is Back]

I'm sure obama's longterm spending is gonna cripple us down the road.

I'm just saying in 2009... many of those stim dollars did go to paying a lot of salaries.

[Fury]

You're still justifying this stim bill? Give it up. It has been an absolute failure to this point.

[pro nitrousADRL]

fannie and freddie had a ton to do with it,  like i said man  and no disrespect meant at all   but seriously  read up on that and do some digging before you dismiss fannie and freddie,  maybe you will find the link to them and AIG if you do some real reading,  i am not defending bush by any means ,  however the last 2 years of his term were run by democratic union officials, and democratic special interest groups.  and then put that together with when the financial collaspe actually started ,  not when it finally made head line but when it actually started

[240 is Back]

You're still justifying this stim bill? Give it up. It has been an absolute failure to this point.

read again.

I said it'll cripple us long-term.

however, judging by the # of governors asking for a STIM II because they aren't getting a second shot of $ to pay their teachers and firefighters this year...

Yes, I think we'd be worse than 9.8% UE without the stim bill.

Granted, it sure as fvck was highway robbery, giving a shitload to the banks, yada yada.  I'm not "justifying" it.  Wasn't worth it.

However, did it pay a shitload of salaries in 2009 that would have been layoffs otherwise?  Sure.  It's not kneepadding to admit obama traded 50 years of financial weakness for 2 or 3 years of inflated job numbers. 



pro- I agree the dems are as guilty as Bush is, and that fannie/freddie "give every dropout a home" was total BS.  I'm just saying I'm tired of hearing "we'd still be at 14k DOW and 5% UE, if the dems hadn't won congress in 2006.

We were borrowing til the world cut us off - the crash would have occured no matter who was in congress.  We were out of $, it's that simple.  our banks, our govt, our states, etc.

[pro nitrousADRL]

The stim should have never happened,  if a business crashes let it crash or be bought by someone who can run it properly. All the stim did was send the messege that these guys can keep fucking up and the feds will have their back.  What reason have they been given to clean their act up? None.  As long as this keeps up dont ever expect these companies to start looking better, and making responsible choices with our tax dollars. And obama is fine with that,he is proving it over and over.  Are you??

[MM2K]

what did they do to destroy things?


It looks to me a lot like we'd had a shitload of spending going on for the last 5 years, and the world was tired of propping it up.


Are you saying - if the dems had never won congress, there would have never been a 2008 economic collapse?

If the Republicans would of had a super majority in 2005 (like the Dems had up until about 3 or 4 months ago) there is a real chance that we would not have had the kind of collapse that we had in the housing market. The Republicans tried to put more regulations on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in 2005 when Alan Greenspan and some other people foretold problems with the housing market. Dodd and Frank blocked it. After that fateful moment in 2005, Fanny and Freddy's portfolios went through the roof. They are the real problem, and this Administration has done NOTHING to shrink thier portfolios. And please stop pointing towards Bush's spending. Conservatives were the only ones complaining about Bush's spending while he was doing it. You "independents" and liberals were only bitching about "tax cuts for the rich". Bush's spending and lack of tax cuts on the income side kept the expansion from being as robust as it could have been, but the debt and spending was MANAGABLE, and we had a pretty solid economy. Also, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Im not blaming Clinton, but Bush didnt inherit a growing economy. He inherited a crashing stock market, which foretold a recession. I give Clinton credit for agreeing to the Republicans' proposals, but he was delt a very good deck of cards.

[pro nitrousADRL]

If the Republicans would of had a super majority in 2005 (like the Dems had up until about 3 or 4 months ago) there is a real chance that we would not have had the kind of collapse that we had in the housing market. The Republicans tried to put more regulations on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in 2005 when Alan Greenspan and some other people foretold problems with the housing market. Dodd and Frank blocked it. After that fateful moment in 2005, Fanny and Freddy's portfolios went through the roof. They are the real problem, and this Administration has done NOTHING to shrink thier portfolios. And please stop pointing towards Bush's spending. Conservatives were the only ones complaining about Bush's spending while he was doing it. You "independents" and liberals were only bitching about "tax cuts for the rich". Bush's spending and lack of tax cuts on the income side kept the expansion from being as robust as it could have been, but the debt and spending was MANAGABLE, and we had a pretty solid economy. Also, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Im not blaming Clinton, but Bush didnt inherit a growing economy. He inherited a crashing stock market, which foretold a recession. I give Clinton credit for agreeing to the Republicans' proposals, but he was delt a very good deck of cards.

nobody wants to discuss that though!  its soooo much easier just to blame bush  rather than accept the blame that is due his own party

[MM2K]

nobody wants to discuss that though!  its soooo much easier just to blame bush  rather than accept the blame that is due his own party

They just want to mindlessly blame Wall Street. Even though Wall Street just acted as any rational minded person would given the incentives by government and Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. If you dont like Wall Street, or if you are "angry"  at them, then maybe you shouldnt invest in them, or maybe you shouldnt buy from businesses that got started from investments by Wall Street. Or maybe you shouldnt buy from businesses that pay their employees with short term loans from Wall Street. Oh, gee, you mean you really cant do that? Yeah, I guess you cant. Then maybe you really cant be so "angry"  at them. Maybe you should focus your anger at the leaches who caused the mess.

[drkaje]

I'm sure obama's longterm spending is gonna cripple us down the road.

I'm just saying in 2009... many of those stim dollars did go to paying a lot of salaries.

Banking salaries, LOL!

You do realize the government could have literally given each taxpayer $100K and spent less than they did on missiles the first two days in Gulf War I?

[Soul Crusher]

Banking salaries, LOL!

You do realize the government could have literally given each taxpayer $100K and spent less than they did on missiles the first two days in Gulf War I?

They don't want us to have our own money. 

Biden made that very clear. 

And the longer out we go, the better Bush is looking. 

[drkaje]

They don't want us to have our own money. 

Biden made that very clear. 

And the longer out we go, the better Bush is looking. 

Bush can only look better if someone likes different rhetoric or prefers him on abortion. Beyond that, he spent like a drunken sailor and then yelled 'tax cuts' so middle class felt a little better.

I would have respected tax cuts, no occupation/war and decreased spending while there was a surplus. But don't spend us from surplus to deficit and then pretend tax cuts and more spending will force the economy to rebound.

Before you ask..... yes, I do realize much of the alleged surplus was fuzzy math due to Clinton refinancing our debt with the Chinese.

If it makes you feel any better we agree on one point: gridlock may be the only thing that keeps these idiots from passing more bad legislation.

[Eyeball Chambers]

I think it's a toss up between Bush and Obama, than again I've only been around since Regan.

[Soul Crusher]

Bush can only look better if someone likes different rhetoric or prefers him on abortion. Beyond that, he spent like a drunken sailor and then yelled 'tax cuts' so middle class felt a little better.

I would have respected tax cuts, no occupation/war and decreased spending while there was a surplus. But don't spend us from surplus to deficit and then pretend tax cuts and more spending will force the economy to rebound.

Before you ask..... yes, I do realize much of the alleged surplus was fuzzy math due to Clinton refinancing our debt with the Chinese.

If it makes you feel any better we agree on one point: gridlock may be the only thing that keeps these idiots from passing more bad legislation.

Oh I am not disagreeing.  Bush was reckless and committed malfeasance in office on many issues, especially the drug bill. 

Obama, however, has taken the worst of bush and x it by 1,000

[drkaje]

Oh I am not disagreeing.  Bush was reckless and committed malfeasance in office on many issues, especially the drug bill. 

Obama, however, has taken the worst of bush and x it by 1,000

The Titanic would've still sank if they changed captains after hitting the iceberg.

I'm guessing Obama is working from a very isolated perspective. I don't believe the guy is stupid, evil, the anti-Christ, or even Marxist for that matter. Just someone with a painfully academic view on how things work that has surrounded himself with like-minded sycophants who are isolated from the real world.

Rodney Dangerfield did a movie 'Back to school', I think. Anyways, the professor was explaining how a professional office building could be built for $100K and Rodney (being an actual businessman) mocked him relentlessly for teaching bullshit and having no clue about the real world or how things work.

[Soul Crusher]

The Titanic would've still sank if they changed captains after hitting the iceberg.

I'm guessing Obama is working from a very isolated perspective. I don't believe the guy is stupid, evil, the anti-Christ, or even Marxist for that matter. Just someone with a painfully academic view on how things work that has surrounded himself with like-minded sycophants who are isolated from the real world.

Rodney Dangerfield did a movie 'Back to school', I think. Anyways, the professor was explaining how a professional office building could be built for $100K and Rodney (being an actual businessman) mocked him relentlessly for teaching bullshit and having no clue about the real world or how things work.

This would be a conversation between myself and Obama. 

[Grape Ape]

I hate clinton, but he sure did get the economy cooking.

Do you really believe this?

The internet got the economy cooking.