100% agree. In less than 6 months he took our prosperity and put us in the hole.. Even other countries are saying "thank god I am not a citizen of the US".

Absolutely. I was almost afraid he'd get some appraisals.

Time will tell but I feel that they are right but it takes years to really know, but He's got a good case for not being a good one. I'm really being nice for the dipsh*t.

I support Bush. I will be sorry to see him hand the torch to Obama.

Absolutely!

if he was so bad he wouldnt have been reelected in 2004. who told you that, was it anyone with any credibility i doubt it.

No :)

LOL no. I think just the opposite will happen. Seriously, where do people get their facts about prosperity. Look closely to congress for recent troubles, not Bush! He went thru 9/11, hurricanes, etc and the economy survived..........UNTIL congress messed it all up!

I disagree. I think Bush is a total tool and i am glad to see him go, but I disagree with the premise of the question itself. However , as much of a douche as i think Bush is, he was not the sole cause of the economic downturn. The nation was heading towards a downturn regardless of who won in 2000. Granted, his decisions made the downturn worse than it would have been,but Bush's legacy is likely linked to the long term fate of Iraq. ironically if things go well for Obama in that area, it may actually help his legacy.

Absolutely, but the country's long nightmare is almost over.

Depends entirely on who is going to write the history. Winston Churchill taught us a lesson or two on that. He wrote the 'History of World War II'. He was a master craftsman of letters . Highly knowledgeable with first hand experience of the times but not totally unprejudiced in his assessments. And where did all the credit go?

Your question lacks a valuable component; Credibility. Who's book is he going into? Jimmy Carters?

It doesn't matter one iota, because after the first year of Obama everyone will wish we had Bush back again!

I think the question is basically flawed. When he came in, the tech bubble was just about to pop -- but when you look at that bubble, it was bad when it popped, but afterwards we still had the internet and Google and Amazon (and AB), all of which pretty much changed the world. Where he screwed up economically was a completey insane tax policy (bitch all you want about wealth redistribution, but Bush policy has been wealth concentration -- middle-class finances have been stagnant), coupled with lack of funding for new technology (if you want to build a wind farm you have to buy your equipment in Germany), and a refusal to pay attention to warning signs, let alone do anything about it. Ok, so Katrina was probably impeachable criminal negligence, Iraq could be seen as a war of aggression, and his administration has taken a massive dump all over the Constitution. But what makes him the worst president in history is that the guy just never really seemed all that interested in doing a good job. Forget about actually trying to do a good job. We're poorer, the world doesn't think we're the bomb any more, we're a lot less safe, and 40% of the population hates and distrusts the rest of us.

Would a simple yes suffice? :)

No I do not agree with that.

So, just who did you talk to that's writing these history books? Oh, a friend said his teacher said. That really had a lot of credibility.

I could see that being a possibility.

Not according to the sociology professor I had in college long before Bush ever thought of being president. According to that extremely liberal Democrat professor (who forced us to watch Roger and Me for a grade), our economy goes through cycles, no matter who is in power. A new technology comes out and everyone races to buy it. This causes the economy to boom. Or we have a war, and the increase in wartime production causes the economy to boom. Whatever the cause of the boom, eventually everyone has bought everything they want, need or can buy and the economy slows and tanks. Another thing to consider is that it was Clinton who signed NAFTA into law, despite his wife's campaigning on the need to change that law. And it was Clinton who signed much of the bank and energy deregulation.

We might not really know until years down the road.

He may very well go down as the worst to date,but then Obama hasnt taken office yet has he.

Depends on your historical perspective and point of view. As of today, he may not look like one of the best leaders in America, but one hundred years from now he could look like a saint. I believe economies are cyclical. To dump blame or criticism on one individual or political party is wrong. Many factors and currents come into play. Very few people will stand up and say " This country and the people who lead and represent it are the result of our choices". Now, everyone knows that if you choose to call the tune, you eventually have to pay the piper.

He gave us 8 years of economic downturn because he has spent far too much invading Iraq while ignoring our real enemies in Afghanistan. The situation is eerily similar to how the economy was in the late 1970s after massive deficit spending in Vietnam.

I think there will be bigger and better reasons!

I am sick of people who don't bother to understand how government works! Policies are NOT INSTANT! It takes years , and sometimes decades for policies to show results. Now watch, some of the things that happened during the Bush term are going to yield results for Obama, who is going to take the credit. That is how government works. Slow gradual changes, that the proper president barely ever gets recognition for. Not saying that bush was the greatest, but alot of the BS that has happened during his terms in office is fallout from dumb decision Clinton made.Just the same as Clinton took alot of credit for results of policies from the previous Bush administration, and remnants of Reagan's presidency.

He was not perfect but definitely not that bad. Terrorism has flourished during his presidency and it was something new that he had to deal with. I agree that his administration has done some mistakes in dealing with the issue. But this is always the case when you had to deal with something new. Right?

No. He's going to go down in history much better than anyone else thinks I believe. All I know is that there WASN'T another terrorist attack like so many believed.

I disagree. He deserves to go down in the history books as the worst president to date because he has earned that title and not by giving us 8 years of economic down but because he became a president twice by fraudalent means. He then allowed 9/11 to happen which caused a whirlwind of wars, civil and human rights violations to the citizens of the US and the world, blatant and endless violations of the Constitution, tyranny, lies, fear-manipulation, greed, rampant mismanagement, theft, embezzlement, more opression of the working class and more liberties and a free for all environment for the corporations, all of which, eventually caused the entire economy of the country to collapse, in turn, putting in jeopardy the economy of the world

You asked in an aside, did Malbutlikker seriously believe that Bush did a good job. If I may answer that. In my personal opinion, Yes. He was handed a situation that was already underway (9/11 was planned and prepared before he got in there) and did a great job of responding to it. Did he capture Osama? No. Do I excuse him for that? No. He wanted to stay friendly with Pakistan. I'd have told them to hand him over or they'd get the stick. But, did we get any further attacks? NO! Good job, Mr. Prez. Did we take out a guy who was guilty of genocide? Yes. Good job Mr. Prez. Did he try to cover up by having stuff planted and then “discovering” it so that he could justify himself? No! Could he have? Absolutely! Good job, Mr. President! Did he debase the Office of the President of the United States by fornicating with the senate aides? No! Did he debase the Office of the President of the United States by committing perjury or any other crime? No! Good job, Mr. Bush.

He didn't score below Clinton so he isn't the worse but pretty close.

A lot of people think he is the worst because they blame him for things that he had no control over (9/11, Katrina) which is ridiculous. He is a great president and does not get the respect that he deserves.

I can't agree, Nixon is on the table after all. Bush might be the number one bad president on the 2006 Quinnipiac University poll, but that's mainly because he's a fresh disaster. He will not outdo Nixon in the long run.

When he took office, the budget was in the green for the first time in years. In less than a year we were in one of the biggest deficits ever, which has continued to swell.

Simple. Ask this question: Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?

Hmmm, pretty good thread. You've succeded in getting people discussing instead of arguing, at least for the most part. Based on the original question, though, people need to realize that CONGRESS holds the purse strings, not the president. Economies DO run in cycles, but in terms of government spending, the administration can propose things and has the power of the veto, but that's all. It's true that the president sets policy, too, but congress doesn't have to go along - they can do what they want. The point is that all government spending (federal), no matter what it's for and no matter what it's effect on the economy, has to be approved by congress. Actually, it's kind of fun to look at the economy based on which side is in power in congress instead of in the White House. Not taking sides here or trying to place blame - just pointing out that it's a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface.

It's a given!

4-30-2017 The president is about like the figurehead on the bow of a ship. He has no say in where the ship of state goes, but he is always the first person on the scene when it gets there.