Who has been worst - Bush or Obama?

FDR’s New Deal was the beginning of socialist state control of the banking and industrial sectors. He was the great confiscator of gold at $20.67 and then turned around and reset its value at $35.00 after he had stripped the average citizen of every ounce they held resulted in stealing peoples labor and wealth through devaluation of the dollar.
Wilson, by his own admission had been the most destructive president to date to the American people.
"“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Obama when he pushed through the NDAA successfully reduced the constitution to ruble. When the system that the people have created takes over the right to detain anyone they chose without charges, for as long as they chose they have become tyrannical.

Anyone else think this is worth getting into?

Goldbuggery? No thanks. I at least prefer to engage people who have some basic understanding of how society & economies work.

However I will point out when a fabricated or misrepresented quote is being made:

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet but the Wiki page of Historical Rankings of Presidents lists a slew of scholar Surveys.

Most of them were done before either of them were in office long enough to be included, but the one survey that included Obama has him near the top third of all Presidents (15th out of 43) whereas Bush was included in six surveys with a high rank of 19th, a low of 39th and a median of 33.5.

The aggregate is a little convoluted since Obama was only in one survey, however in it, Obama finishes tied for 14th place (with James Monroe and LBJ) and Bush places 34th (between Benjamin Harrison and Zachary Taylor).

It’s also possible if not probable - that history will change how they are viewed. For example, Bush’s presidency has looked worse the farther away from it we’ve gone. His rankings have gone from 23rd and 19th in studies from 2002 and 2005 to 37th, 36th, 39th and 31st in the four polls since then.

However, Obama would have to either do something horrific or some policy of his would have to turn out to be a tremendous blunder (such as if the ACA falls apart in the manner many Republicans predicted a couple years after he leaves office) to reach the low level of Bush.

What would continuing reports of mismanagement and scandal from various government departments do to his rankings? I realize that historians tend to look at the broad sweep of history, but I don’t see how you can ignore the performance of a President’s basic constitutional duties in judging him.

Bush and friends went out of their way to make the government do as bad a job as possible, including actively sabotaging it in cases like FEMA and the response to Katrina. And they did a good job of driving out people who had any level of either competence or integrity. An inevitable result of putting blatantly corrupt, anti-government, incompetent people in power over the government.

Obama is a long, *long *way away from managing to do as bad a job as Bush.

Bush absolutely did those things. Yet problems are much more widespread now. What has President Obama done to return the government to pre-Bush levels of performance? I see no evidence that he’s been engaged on the issue at all, even after all the scandals. And there’s more to come. Seems like every month brings reports of a new part of the government falling down on the job.

It’s all well and good to blame the initial problem on Bush, but he’s had six years to work on the problem and has made zero progress that anyone can point to. Perhaps he’s just guilty of neglect whereas Bush was guilty of malice. But results matter, and the results are extremely poor in that respect. Given that the performance of the government affects citizens in their daily lives, it’s kind of an important issue on which to judge a President, even if it’s too boring for historians more interested in great sweeping change.

After years of the Republicans doing their best to do as much damage to the country as they can with the explicit goal of ensuring that everything that Obama does fails, regardless of the harm done.

As long as the people keep electing Republicans you’ll continue to see much of the govenrment flailing about doing damage, because that’s what they want. They want the government to fail, as badly and publicly as possible. Again; you can’t elect anti-government people to government positions and logically expect any other result.

Problem is, Republicans don’t control the executive branch. Democrats do.

Which doesn’t mean dick if you can’t be executiving the laws you’d like to, on account of the other side controlling the legislative and/or gumming up the works like it’s going out of style.

The executive branch has 240 years of laws giving it the power to do everything it needs to do to carry out the duties given to it by the Constitution and our nation’s laws. There is no new authority the President needed to make sure the IRS, HHS, CDC, VA, EPA, ATF, and INS are doing their jobs as directed by law.

In fact, I don’t think any new laws should be passed until the President can get his head around enforcing the ones we already have.

No they’re not. Not even close.

When it comes to Obama, you’re blind. Just accept it – you’re unable to see anything but bad from Obama.

I’m sure Hannity says this, but that doesn’t make it true.

Leadership doesn’t work the way the hacks on TV think… “just show leadership!” – it doesn’t really mean anything.

Never claimed it did. Besides, “Showing leadership” is actually something he’s good at. It’s the nuts and bolts of governing that he hasn’t quite figured out yet.

We’ve been over this many times before, so to avoid derailing this thread, let me just go back to the point that how a President does his basic tasks should be an important part of his legacy. Historians actually tend to reward Presidents who break the rules, like Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, and TR, which I think is a bit perverse. But that’s why they are historians, not constitutional scholars. Historians, like the media, love a good story more than they love the boring President who did his job effectively and where nothing bad happened. Historians seem to regard this as “luck”.

What “basic tasks”? There haven’t been any major scandals. There have been a scattering of minor ones… and the more they’ve been investigated, the more mundane they’ve turned out to be.

The ACA website thing was dumb. Obama and his team should have been more ready for that. But it was fixed pretty fast, and did no real long term damage to anything but the polling.

Benghazi was a non-scandal. It was a tragedy, but not a scandal in any fashion.

The VA hospital stuff was stupid and horrible. But how could it have been prevented, and not by some pithy “lead” answer? Maybe the only way would be to blow up the entire VA and start from scratch – that can’t happen, because it would leave veterans in the lurch. A problem of a huge bureacracy with paper recordkeeping.

Etc. A handful of minor screw ups, and legacy screw ups from long-term systemic problems. No failure to do the basic tasks of a presidency… whatever that means.

The VA problems were brought to the President’s attention long before they blew up in the media. He really didn’t have any excuse. Vets were complaining to their Congressmen, their Congressmen were writing to the President, and then he claims that he had no idea until he read it in the paper.

As for the rest of it, if the “minor” screwups are done for the most part, they shouldn’t affect his legacy. Anyone can go through a rough patch. But if the next two years involve several more headlines about agencies failing to do their jobs and the President being uninterested in finding that out for himself until it’s a huge media story, that should affect how history views him.

That’s true. In fact, the VA problems “stretch back decades before Obama took the Oval Office.”

I know you’ve heard this song before, but like a lot of things that he inherited, Obama got a VA that was already underfunded and dealt with a massive influx of veterans who needed assistance under his watch thanks to the influx of injured soldiers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan (something Obama didn’t do, you might recall).

This editorial was published in the final days of the Bush administration:

Again, please note that this synopsis was published before Obama was sworn in. So even if you do feel that the VA is a black mark on the Obama administration, it’s easy to show that his predecessor did an even worse job but (surprise, surprise) somehow escaped overwhelming criticism from the supposedly liberal media.

The VA certainly had problems. However, there are two reasons Obama deserves blame for the issue.

  1. He expanded eligibility despite failing to secure more funding. That worsened the backlog.

  2. The wait times fudging was first reported to his administration and was ignored until it hit the media.

But this isn’t the place to hash out the specifics of each government failure under his watch. Some of them are his fault, some of them aren’t. I just wanted to point out that if these things continue to occur over the next couple of years, history will regard him as incompetent. If the government performs about as well as usual over the next two years, then this period will just be seen as a rough patch.

There’s also the war against ISIS. If he gets us into a quagmire on the ground, then he’s basically LBJ. If he clears ISIS out of all the lands they control, then he’ll be considered a very good President. Then there’s legacy stuff beyond his control. What happens to ACA after he leaves office. If it’s repealed or scaled back, then it turns out that what he did wasn’t all that significant. What if a major recession hits in his last years? That’ll bring him way down in the rankings as well. Or we hit a major boom, unemployment drops to 3%, and he leaves office with a budget surplus.

I don’t think there’s any question that Bush has been worse if we go by what we know now, but Obama’s still got two years to match his infamy and plenty of opportunities to do it.

I may or may not have missed your answer in this thread. Do you believe Obama is a worse President than Bush the Younger?

Not at this point, but he could end up being. ALthough really, these things are hard to judge because a lot happens in eight years. Obama hasn’t lied us into a war. But he’s failed in other ways. Faith in our government institutions has never been lower. That’s really bad for the party of government.