Is Obama the worst president ever?

[SirJosephPorter]

Bush new how to cut taxes and then bloat the military budget beyond all previous presidents since WWII. I think he even outspent Reagan on the military, even taking inflation into account, if I'm not mistaken.

No you are not mistaken. And not only the military, Republicans increased spending in almost every category when they were in power. The only category they may have cut funding was for contraception and sex education. Other than that, they increases the budget every year, even after accounting for inflation.

Fiscal conservative my ass.

But that is what 'fiscal conservative' means these days, it means borrow and spend. I stopped calling myself a fiscal conservative a while ago. I consider myself a fiscal centrist. I support balanced budget and spending cuts and tax increases, if necessary to balance the budget.

 

[Machjo]

SJP, what you just defined as a fiscal centrist is what I consider a fiscal conservative. Anyway, a rose by any other name...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A couple days warning that "one of the strongest hurricanes ever seen is about to hit"... Where were the state officials on this? How about the opposition in government ringing the alarm bells?

You've applied the sole responsibility to this on Bush based on the presumption that he and his government absolutely knew what was to come and then made the decision to not take pre-emptive action.

Doesn't really make that much sense, does it?

No doubt there was plenty of blame to go around. However, Bush, as the man in charge gets most of the blame.

 

[AnnaG]

I think it's obvious that the President has to know about disasters. Any political leader of that status should. I don't see how anyone can seriously dispute that.

I don't think anyone can seriously think a president can deal with disasters better than experts. Presidents aren't disaster experts even if they can expertly cause disasters.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That scenario didn't start with Bush.. If you seek to represent any objectivity on the financial melt-down, place the blame equally on all the American leaders that contributed to the crash.

What you have stated is blind partisanship.

It is nonsense to blame the past presidents (I assume you are blaming the past Democratic presidents, like Clinton, Carter, FDR etc., and not past Republican presidents like Reagan, Nixon or Ford).

It happened under Bush's watch, it is his fault. If some legislation was deficient, or some law needed to be passed or repealed in order to stave off the meltdown, why didn't Bush do it? He had a rubber stamp, Republican Congress, he could have repealed the law of gravity if he had so wished.

As the man in charge, ti was his job to anticipate the meltdown and to pass appropriate legislation to prevent it. He failed miserably in his duty.

Bush and the Republicans deregulated on a massive scale, they haven't come across a regulation they have liked. What little regulation there was on the statute book, they did not enforce it, they let the Wall Street run amok. The meltdown was the result of that.

Trying and doing are two separate things

Not at all, a president can only propose the legislation, he doesn't have the power to pass any legislation. All he can do is try. He may succeed sometimes (as in health care), not other times.

 

[AnnaG]

No you are not mistaken. And not only the military, Republicans increased spending in almost every category when they were in power. The only category they may have cut funding was for contraception and sex education. Other than that, they increases the budget every year, even after accounting for inflation.

But that is what 'fiscal conservative' means these days, it means borrow and spend. I stopped calling myself a fiscal conservative a while ago. I consider myself a fiscal centrist. I support balanced budget and spending cuts and tax increases, if necessary to balance the budget.

And yet you support the patronisation of rich friends, support scams, support the undermining and/or destruction of essential services in order to balance a budget. You are definitely not fiscally conservative.

BTW, the general definition of a fiscal conservative is;
"a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance." from Wiki
The Conservatives of Canada and the Republicans of the USA are not fiscal conservatives. Neither are the Liberals or Democrats, by all appearances.

A fiscal centrist is one who advocates good maintenance of essential services within the best budgetary guidelines. Basically to enact the most efficient & effective solution in the interest of the people. Corruption and undermining of services does not particularly do that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I hope he and his government knew what was to come because anyone watching TV that weekend before Katrina struck knew what was coming.

It makes perfect sense to say, "The buck stops at the President". In fact, it was a President that said this. Just trying to deflect blame on others, or trying to take down others along with you, is hardly the courage needed in a person who is up to the job of POTUS.

But that was a Democrat, Icarus (president Truman), not a republican. Republican motto is, the buck stops with the Democrats, unless it is something good. Then the buck stops with the Republicans, they get the credit for it.

Harry Truman was wise, he realized that anything that happens during the watch of a president, the blame or the credit goes to him. Hence his motto. But Republicans don't live by the same motto. Anything good happens, Republicans get the credit, anything bad happens, Democrats get the blame.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You Bush haters just can't let go can you? Again I ask what did he do wrong, did he create Katrina, did he delay calling for or requesting federal aid sending any response teams, was he the one who kept the bus's in their parking lots. Again, how did Bush do anything wrong, except thinking that the mayor and governor would have started a proper disaster response. It is unconstitutional for a President to interfere with states without the governor requesting their help or the state goverment has collapsed.

According to Republicans, Bush never did anything wrong. But unfortunately for the Republicans, American people didn't see it that way. They blamed Bush for Katrina, for ruining the economy and for ruining the foreign policy (Iraq war).

 

[AnnaG]

But that was a Democrat, Icarus (president Truman), not a republican. Republican motto is, the buck stops with the Democrats, unless it is something good. Then the buck stops with the Republicans, they get the credit for it.

And it's the reverse motto for the Democrats.

Harry Truman was wise, he realized that anything that happens during the watch of a president, the blame or the credit goes to him. Hence his motto. But Republicans don't live by the same motto. Anything good happens, Republicans get the credit, anything bad happens, Democrats get the blame.

And to the Democrats, anything bad happens, it's because of the Republicans and anything good happens, it's because of the Democrats. Typical partisans, piffling absurdity.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Every reponsible President I know of (indeed actual Presidents; Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford) would have been in Baton Rouge two days before Katrina struck, directing FEMA and the Corps of Engineers about what to be doing.

It is pretty egregious that Bush even has anything close to defenders on this. The logic of the defense is literally claiming that one doesn't know what obviously should be done. Bush comes off as so inept and ignorant in the defense, that it's insane.

I think I can guess why Bush did nothing. Katrina happened in 2005. By then Republicans had controlled the Congress for 11 years, presidency for 5 years, Bush had just won the reelection. Republicans appeared invincible; Carl Rowe was confidently talking of permanent Republican majority, lasting for decades.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Bush considered himself and Republicans to be invincible as well. Republicans were going to be reelected no matter what, why bother with Katrina? After all Katrina occurred in Louisiana, one of the most solidly Republican states. Surely it won’t matter if Bush did anything there?

But I think Katrina was the beginning of the end for Republicans. After the Katrina fiasco and the bungling by Bush, people finally started turning against Bush and the Republicans.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP, what you just defined as a fiscal centrist is what I consider a fiscal conservative. Anyway, a rose by any other name...

That is what fiscal conservative used to mean in the past. It meant support for balanced budget, opposition to running the deficit, supporting whatever needs to be done to balance the budget (spending cuts, tax increases etc.). I remember in the old days Republicans used to push the balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

But I think that is outmoded definition. These days it is extremely rare to find a conservative who supports a balanced budget, they all support tax cuts no matter what the consequences. I think support for a balanced budget is more accurately described these days as fically centrist, not fidcally conservative.

 

[ironsides]

Army Corps of Engineers who built those faulty dikes in the first place. If the dikes had held Katrina would have just been another hurricane.

 

[Slim Chance]

It is nonsense to blame the past presidents (I assume you are blaming the past Democratic presidents, like Clinton, Carter, FDR etc., and not past Republican presidents like Reagan, Nixon or Ford).

You assumed wrong...

It happened under Bush's watch, it is his fault. If some legislation was deficient, or some law needed to be passed or repealed in order to stave off the meltdown, why didn't Bush do it? He had a rubber stamp, Republican Congress, he could have repealed the law of gravity if he had so wished.

As the man in charge, ti was his job to anticipate the meltdown and to pass appropriate legislation to prevent it. He failed miserably in his duty.

Gee... How come Obama didn't rubber-stamp legislation outlawing the recent volcanic eruptions in Alaska?. All that evil CO2 and sulphur.... Under his watch and likely predictable from the Alaskan geologic services and all that rot... Why no presidential action to repeal a natural disaster?

Bush and the Republicans deregulated on a massive scale, they haven't come across a regulation they have liked. What little regulation there was on the statute book, they did not enforce it, they let the Wall Street run amok. The meltdown was the result of that.

Carter is ground zero on this issue.. Your grudge against Bush on this issue is childish.

Not at all, a president can only propose the legislation, he doesn't have the power to pass any legislation. All he can do is try. He may succeed sometimes (as in health care), not other times.

A weak president that doesn't have the support of their own party while having control of both houses cannot pass legislation

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Army Corps of Engineers who built those faulty dikes in the first place. If the dikes had held Katrina would have just been another hurricane.

As I said before, there is plenty of blame to go around. However, as the president, as the man in charge, Bush gets lion's share of the blame.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Gee... How come Obama didn't rubber-stamp legislation outlawing the recent volcanic eruptions in Alaska?. All that evil CO2 and sulphur.... Under his watch and likely predictable from the Alaskan geologic services and all that rot... Why no presidential action to repeal a natural disaster?

What could Obama do about the volcanic eruptions in Alaska (I am surprised you don't blame him for volcanic eruptions in Iceland). The test would have been how well did Obama look after the people, if there had been any suffering, loss of property, loss of life as a result. Evidently there was none, so Obama was not put to the test. Bush was, and he failed miserably.

Carter is ground zero on this issue.. Your grudge against Bush on this issue is childish.

Carter is ground nothing. As I said before, if any legislation was inadequate, Bush could have corrected it, with a rubber stamp Republican Congress. As the president, it is his job to anticipate economic meltdowns and at least try to do something about it. He did nothing.

A weak president that doesn't have the support of their own party while having control of both houses cannot pass legislation

Oh, Obama has the support of the Congress all right. But there is such a thing as Republican filibuster. Republicans instinctively filibuster everything Obama proposes, as they have threatened to filibuster the Wall Street reform bill. So, as long as Republicans have 41 seats in the Senate, nothing gets done.

But I think there is hope on that front. Next time Republicans win control of the Senate, very likely they will get rid of the filibuster (they nearly did that the last time they were in control). That will benefit the Democrats next time they control the Senate, there will be no more filibuster.

 

[ironsides]

Bush should not be mentioned for anything that happened after 100 days into the Obama reign, especially with the majority he has.


PS: Even with that democratic majority he cannot get his way. Does not look good for him.

 

[JLM]

Army Corps of Engineers who built those faulty dikes in the first place. If the dikes had held Katrina would have just been another hurricane.

That is a good example of why assigning blame in about 99% of situations is absolutely pointless and futile. Literally thousands of things that weren't done by the country, the state, the county, the city all added up to the extent of what the disaster turned out to be. Why not blame the weatherman, I'm sure if he have given 24 hours additional notice, the damage would have been cut in half.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Bush should not be mentioned for anything that happened after 100 days into the Obama reign, especially with the majority he has.

Sez you. Bush is to blame for the current economic meltdown. It does not magically become Obama's fault as soon as he assumes office (or even before he assumes office, Republicans started blaming Obama for the current meltdown in November, even before he had taken the office).

The economic meltdown happened under Bush's watch, he is solely to blame for it.

PS: Even with that democratic majority he cannot get his way. Does not look good for him.

He cannot get his way because 41 Republicans filibuster anything that Obama wants to do. Indeed, that is the Republican strategy. Filibuster anything and everything Obama wants to do and then blame him for not doing anything.

 

[AnnaG]

As I said before, there is plenty of blame to go around. However, as the president, as the man in charge, Bush gets lion's share of the blame.

So it's ok for you to blame a past president but not ok for anyone else.
There are reasonable cases that show the crisis could have originated back to the early 80s. Other say back to about 2000. So Bush might only have aided what had already started. You're just following your SOP of blowing partisan flatulence.

 

[JLM]

So it's ok for you to blame a past president but not ok for anyone else.
There are reasonable cases that show the crisis could have originated back to the early 80s. Other say back to about 2000. So Bush might only have aided what had already started. You're just following your SOP of blowing partisan flatulence.

It's no use Anna, the cells just aren't there. I guess if someone dies in a hospital late at night when their is only one doctor present, then it's his fault as it happened under "his watch"..............................the utter ridiculousness................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: