Where do you think he ranks as a president?

 

I honesly think he is one of the worst in American history. A struggling economy through nearly all of his presidency. A botched war on Terrorism. A war we didnt need in Iraq that has cost us thousands of innocent lives. A refusal to put a time table of removal of soldiers from Iraq. A presidency stained with conservative policy which oppresses civil liberties.

 

The president that follows him will be put in Coach G's shoes; having the follow a leader who left it in shambles.

How does he compare to James K. Polk in terms of economy? How does his domestic programs rank in relation to what Grover Cleveland and William Harrison did?

You asked the wrong person about Presidential information...

 

How does he compare to James K. Polk in terms of economy?

 

Polk's fiscal policies were highly successful. He reduced tarrifs substantially. He persuaded congress to pass the abandonment ad valorem tarrifs which were strict tarrifs but on property which was backed by the tax-happy whigs. He was also instrumental in restoring the Independant Treasury system which established the national treasury deposit ensuring more stability in national economics.

 

How does his domestic programs rank in relation to what Grover Cleveland and William Harrison did?

 

William Henry Harrison was only president for a month before he died - so there is no way to compare the two on their policies as president.

 

Cleveland was quite successful domestically. He signed the Interstate Commerce Act and he is most known domestically speaking for running one of the most efficent governments in the history of the country. His administration was quick to get rid from over spending and policy abuses.

Very Nice. You are worthy of ranking the presidents based on their accomplishments. Too many times we see rankings on here and people admit they know nothing about some of the teams they rank.

 

As far as the question goes, I'm thinking bottom 10 without doing too much research. The Iraqi War will be his legacy. I ask myself how much better off am I personally than I was eight years ago. I'm paying less taxes, that much I know.

 

Worst of all time seems like a stretch. Ford and Carter didn't do much in consecutive terms. Can't see how Bush is worse.

As far as the question goes, I'm thinking bottom 10 without doing too much research. The Iraqi War will be his legacy. I ask myself how much better off am I personally than I was eight years ago. I'm paying less taxes, that much I know.

 

Worst of all time seems like a stretch. Ford and Carter didn't do much in consecutive terms. Can't see how Bush is worse.

 

I agree fully with your post. I did say that he "was one of the worst" which top 10 of 43 (42 actually, considering Cleveland was elected twice) would put him comfortably in the "one of"bracket.

 

Ford and Carter are good examples. We have really only had two presidents since Kennedy was assinated that I would give passing marks to - Reagan and Clinton - and they both of course had more than enough things that would keep them from being "great."

I agree on Reagan and Clinton

Of the Presidents I've lived through (only since Reagan), I'd say he's the worst. He doesn't seem to put forth much effort in uniting the people in partisan politics. He's a Republican's President, and doesn't seem to care at all what the rest of the nation thinks.

 

We're all in this together. But so often you sure can't tell.

I don't think he can be accurately ranked until we see what happens as a result of the overthrow of Saddam. If a US friendly government stays in power for awhile and helps stabilize that area, than he moves up the list. But we won't know that for awhile.

 

At the same time, I don't think that has to happen for the next 50 years, as the following Presidents could have actions to destabilize any Middle East success that might come out of these actions.

 

Me, I am better off presently, than I was at the end of the Clinton term.

 

Also, there are a lot of children that are better off than they would have been under Clinton. He vetoed the partial birth abortion bill. Bush signed it and it withstood a Supreme Court decision to stand in as law. Many children that would have been partially born and then killed under Clinton's watch are alive today under GW. I don't think they would rank him as one of the worse Presidents ever as under Clinton, they would simply be dead.

 

Also, I think the Supreme Court makeup is the best it has been for awhile. High marks in that regards.

 

I have been thoroughly disappointed on his fiscally policies and overspending. Very low marks from me there.

 

I think he wanted to get rid of paritisan politics, look at No Child Left Behind, with Mr. Liberal himself, Ted Kennedy. But he had no other takers on the Democrats side. Instead of working with him, they were more interested in defeating him in 2004. When that did not happen, Bush took it as a mandate and then didn't care about working with them anymore.

Off the top of my head, I would proffer the Pierce, Grant, Hayes, and Hoover presidencies as among the worst ever. The Nixon-Ford-Carter string was quite uninspiring as well.

 

I also reject the claim that the economy has been struggling under the Bush presidency; it has been quite formidable in my opinion, though we are on our way (if not already) to a recession. I’m more concerned with the future economy when the mounting debt has to be paid.

 

Unfortunately for Bush, having the terrorist attacks of 9/11 placed on his lap was a burden no other President had faced. He initially handled it well and seemed to fulfill his promise to unite the country. However, the blunder of invading Iraq will forever haunt his legacy. No matter its eventual result, the invasion was a specter that crushed his credibility, loosened his power, and opened the flood gates of criticism on all of his policies and actions. Bush has also had a deaf ear for criticism and doesn’t seem to posses the tact needed to deal with many of the pressing issues of our time.

 

As Vice President, Dick Cheney was a Svengali (I read that word in a sports column today!) who wielded an inordinate amount of influence and encroaching power in all aspects of the administration. If you are going to rank Bush as among the worst Presidents, Dick Cheney must also be mentioned.

 

I personally wouldn’t consider him the worst President ever, and I personally won’t preface his name with “among the worst President’s ever.” Many other Presidents have enjoyed tenure in office without a September 11th. Although many other Presidents may have also handled it better (or worse) so I must factor that into my evaluation as well.

 

I personally wouldn’t consider him the worst President ever, and I personally won’t preface his name with “among the worst President’s ever.” Many other Presidents have enjoyed tenure in office without a September 11th. Although many other Presidents may have also handled it better (or worse) so I must factor that into my evaluation as well.

 

I would be interested if you could give me some examples. Who do you think could have done worse than totally shifting attention to a war we had no right to be in?

Where do you think he ranks as a president?

 

A struggling economy through nearly all of his presidency.

 

 

Check out some actual facts on the gao and cbo websites about the "struggling" Bush economy. No doubt Bush deserves criticism, perhaps a lot of it, but the economy during his presidency has held up quite well.

Not in my Bank Account. Our Business is suffering along with so many more that we deal with in KY, OH, and WV. The economy is bad, and not going to get any better anytime soon..

Check out some actual facts on the gao and cbo websites about the "struggling" Bush economy. No doubt Bush deserves criticism, perhaps a lot of it, but the economy during his presidency has held up quite well.

 

It has?

 

During Bush's administration the Real GDP has only grown at an annual rate of 2.5 percent; far below the average growth from 1949-2000. Unemployment rose more than 2 percent during his presidency. As of August, Bush was preciding over a $9 Trillion dollar deficit. When he came into office, we had an $86 billion surplus. Household incomes have been flat while the poverty rate has greatly increased.

 

Mix that in with fast rising tuition, gas, and enegry prices and I don't see how you can even say the economy under Bush was even fair, much less held up "quite well."

I personally know of no person that has taken education seriously and worked to put themselves in a position to be a contributor to society, that is worse off than they were 8 years ago.

 

Now, I know a lot of people that felt education was unimportant and are struggling.

I know a lot of people who think they are entitled to a great job without working hard for it, that are struggling.

 

That does not mean that they are not out there, just I don't know any.

It has?

 

During Bush's administration the Real GDP has only grown at an annual rate of 2.5 percent; far below the average growth from 1949-2000. Unemployment rose more than 2 percent during his presidency. As of August, Bush was preciding over a $9 Trillion dollar deficit. When he came into office, we had an $86 billion surplus. Household incomes have been flat while the poverty rate has greatly increased.

 

Mix that in with fast rising tuition, gas, and enegry prices and I don't see how you can even say the economy under Bush was even fair, much less held up "quite well."

 

What is your source for those numbers? Unemployment is at 4.8% currently, up from 4.5% earlier this year, which is quite low. It's disingenuous to suggest that it is up from 2.6% as you assert.

 

Clinton left office with a $5.7 trillion debt. Certainly Bush has been a bigger spender, especially with Iraq, but Clinton did not pay off the national debt. Perhaps you mean he left a budget surplus during a fiscal year, but our national debt has always been staggering.

 

The annual GDP growth rate was 3.7% in 2000 and was 3.3% as of 2006 while the GDP has risen from $9.8 trillion to $13.4 trillion in 2006. Here is a chart documenting it since 1980.

 

 

Inflation was also 2.2% in 2000 and rose to 2.9% in 2006. Currently it is trending downward. Again I’ve attached a chart to show its trend since 1980.

 

 

When have tuition and energy prices ever decreased?

 

Those are certainly not the dour figures you have claimed. Not to mention our, and the world’s, financial center was hit with a debilitating terrorist attack during this time. Without question in my mind the economy was better under Clinton, but it hasn’t exactly nosedived as you are implying. titletownclown's opinion is not off base.