Thread: Final assessment of Bush presidency

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Which in this case is 4.4 somewhere etween lackluster and abysmal.

Which in this case is a 5, abysmal.


Which in this case is also a 5, abysmal.


No, based on this data set it appears his performance was abysmal.
4.40 ± 0.995 (CV=22.6%, n=20), actually looks pretty accurate.

Sorry, the boobs posting on this poll don't count. The population of the statistical sample is the 44 presidents.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Bush did not inherit a recession, sorry.

Yes, he did.

Not sorry.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Here is your problem, when someone is determining how well a president did, the Constitution is not the rubrick, their results are. You can say that they are connected though. All of your "Average" presidents have also broken the Constitution by using illegal federal power.

You're not allowed to use the Constitution as your standard of measurement until you can demonstrate you support the Constitution in your political arguments.

So, before we go further:

Are you one of the 23% of Obama supporters that voted against allowing homosexuals the same freedoms you enjoy?

Are you one of the 100% of Obama supporters that voted to steal from the rich for no good reason whatsoever?

Are you one of the 100% of Obama supporters who think that since the Constitution does not allow the federal government to provide health care that the federal government should provide health care to everyone?

Are you one of the 100% of Obama supporters who think that since the Constitution does not allow the federal government to provide funding for education that the federal government should expand it's education budget?

If you can answer yes to any of the above, you're not allowed to sully the Constitution by pretending to use it in support of one of your arguments.

Bush is a mediocre president.

Period. I know you children have emotional attachments to hating the man, but I don't care about him either way. My real objectivity trumps your programmed emotional responses every day of the week.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

You're not allowed to use the Constitution as your standard of measurement until you can demonstrate you support the Constitution in your political arguments.

So, before we go further:

Are you one of the 23% of Obama supporters that voted against allowing homosexuals the same freedoms you enjoy?

Are you one of the 100% of Obama supporters that voted to steal from the rich for no good reason whatsoever?

Are you one of the 100% of Obama supporters who think that since the Constitution does not allow the federal government to provide health care that the federal government should provide health care to everyone?

Are you one of the 100% of Obama supporters who think that since the Constitution does not allow the federal government to provide funding for education that the federal government should expand it's education budget?

If you can answer yes to any of the above, you're not allowed to sully the Constitution by pretending to use it in support of one of your arguments.

Bush is a mediocre president.

Period. I know you children have emotional attachments to hating the man, but I don't care about him either way. My real objectivity trumps your programmed emotional responses every day of the week.

ok.... you just completely ignored my reasons why Bush did a poor job and he didn't even have some accomplishments like the other "Average" presidents. ok, I am satisfied with my argument and your responce then.

Anyway... after Bush's wiretaps and bailouts under his administration, and unConstitutional spending, even if we would determine how well a president did on them following the Constitution, then Bush would still get a below average rating.

And... as I have said many times, which you seem to constantly forget... I am not an Obama supporter, and therefore that is not the reason I am arguing against Bush. It is called being objective.


He did large amounts of harm, he didn't accomplish anything of any value, and he broke the Constitution more then most (besides FDR and Wilson of course)

Originally Posted by Nerv14

ok.... you just completely ignored my reasons why Bush did a poor job and he didn't even have some accomplishments like the other "Average" presidents. ok, I am satisfied with my argument and your responce then.

Anyway... after Bush's wiretaps and bailouts under his administration, and unConstitutional spending, even if we would determine how well a president did on them following the Constitution, then Bush would still get a below average rating.

And... as I have said many times, which you seem to constantly forget... I am not an Obama supporter, and therefore that is not the reason I am arguing against Bush. It is called being objective.


He did large amounts of harm, he didn't accomplish anything of any value, and he broke the Constitution more then most (besides FDR and Wilson of course)

You have to weigh those against....24 quarters of positive economic growth, (don't know the exact number), no domestic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, successful operations in Iraq (yeah, I used the right word), preventing Pakistan from going to Al Qaeda, dealing with the disaster called N. Korea, reining in the EPA, and others.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

You have to weigh those against....24 quarters of positive economic growth, (don't know the exact number), no domestic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, successful operations in Iraq (yeah, I used the right word), preventing Pakistan from going to Al Qaeda, dealing with the disaster called N. Korea, reining in the EPA, and others.

Many other presidents had long periods of economic growth. Even if Bush did have one of the best economies for a while, that doesn't mean that much now with the rescession. (which was partially his fault)

We can get into a discussion if invading Iraq was the right thing to do in another thread, but I think most people would consider his "operations in Iraq" as a failure. Has there been a thread like that?...

The other accomplishments are all good, but they aren't very long run, whereas the Mexican American War and Eisenhower's public work projects were. Bush may get one line in a history book for those accomplishments.

I could of named other smaller mistakes that he made, but it is about the big effects that he made.

But what he did with N. Korea was a very good job. He should get points for that.

However, it still doesn't make up for his other mistakes, and still puts him in a loss.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Whatever, I don't even care. My point is that Bush is way below average and he objectively has done a horrible job.

Not if you compare him to Clinton which you did. And compared to Carter and even compared to his father.

Clinton may of messed up for healthcare (but Hillary was susppose to be doing that, so what can you exspect?)

And after that he never took on any big issues. He "talked" about issues but he had no great accomplishments.

But his economic policy of fiscal responsibility and lowering the spending to GDP level was smart.

Except, as has been fully documented to you, he had no policy of fiscal responsibilty and never proposed lowering spending, he proposed higher spending each and every year and congress denied him the levels of spending he requested.

Bush on the other hand DID propose lower descretionary spending and in fact the growth in such spending has been realtively flat the last three years.

A surplus is the government's decision, Bush chose to not have a surplus early on because of tax cuts,

Wrong again, the tax cuts brought in MORE revenue as was pointed out to Obama in the debates.

But he messed up by setting us up for the housing crisis though by deregulation in some areas and too much regulations in others.

Which had nothing to do with it.

He also had a good Iraq policy of confronting them... but not invading Iraq.

He failed to confront them. He never carried out the dictates of the ILA which he got passed and made it the official policy of the US to remove Saddam.

So he still did fine, much better then Bush anyway, and that is what the thread is about.

Not by any stretch. Bush actually accomplished things, Clinton got in the way of things. Clinton never addressed the terrorist threat other than hand slaps and big talk, Bush did. Clinton never did anything about health care, Bush did. Clinton never did anything about education, Bush did.

This is an interesting discussion.

I would like to add a slightly different thought into this stream:

You know, we've talked about Bush screwing the People, and we've talked about him screwing his Party, but here's a thought that's been coming to me lately:

The entity he screwed more than ANYTHING else, is the Government of the United States.

Think about it. Our tax money, derives mostly from large corporations, and now, many of those will be "going away". FOREVER. Our currency in the realm of international politics and foreign affairs, depends LARGELY on our economic strength, and now that TOO is going away. The currency of the government with the People of the United States, depends on a mutual relationship whose standard is the Constitution, and that TOO has been violated.

Our government has been SCREWED by this guy Bush, and that is not a good thing at ALL!!! Governments who feel insecure, tend to do very crazy stuff!!!

Originally Posted by Stinger

Not if you compare him to Clinton which you did. And compared to Carter and even compared to his father.



And after that he never took on any big issues. He "talked" about issues but he had no great accomplishments.



Except, as has been fully documented to you, he had no policy of fiscal responsibilty and never proposed lowering spending, he proposed higher spending each and every year and congress denied him the levels of spending he requested.

Bush on the other hand DID propose lower descretionary spending and in fact the growth in such spending has been realtively flat the last three years.



Wrong again, the tax cuts brought in MORE revenue as was pointed out to Obama in the debates.




Which had nothing to do with it.



He failed to confront them. He never carried out the dictates of the ILA which he got passed and made it the official policy of the US to remove Saddam.



Not by any stretch. Bush actually accomplished things, Clinton got in the way of things. Clinton never addressed the terrorist threat other than hand slaps and big talk, Bush did. Clinton never did anything about health care, Bush did. Clinton never did anything about education, Bush did.

omg Stinger... I have certain points that I have said to you so many times.

Clinton reduced the spending to GDP level. Are you disagreeing with that? I have evidence that I have showed you before.

Congress proposed more tax cuts then Clinton proposed spending increases. Are you disagreeing with that? I have evidence that I have shown you before.

The only reason decreased income tax rates increase revenue, is when they are 70%. You are using Reagan as an example, and there was extremely high taxes which were counter productive before him.

I am just trying to use common sense for that.

I have evidence in that the percentage of taxes paid by the rich decreased under Bush's term after the tax cuts. Fair huh?

Still have to go back and read this thread. Just some links I found extremely interesting:

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace - WSJ.com
Michael Gerson - The Decency of George W. Bush - washingtonpost.com

Why I'll Miss President Bush - WSJ.com