I'll openly admit that I'm a registered Democrat and I lean more to the left than to the right. But I honestly believe that George Bush is on the verge of becoming the most disastrous president in all of American history.
Even if you agree with the war in Iraq, even if you oppose gay marriage, even if you support the privatization of social security, I don't see how you can stand by what is happening with our national economy.
It's all but assured that despite the fact that his administration is cutting funding to a myriad of departments and programs (some I agree with, some I don't), the national debt is going to increase in 2005. To a lot of Americans, understandably, the national debt is a vague concept that has no apparent bearing on life. I know it was to me for much of my life. But the truth is, the national debt is one which is owed largely to foreign nations and must be repaid.
We, as a nation, stand on the brink of an economic disaster that would make the Great Depression insignificant by comparison if our debt grows so large that we are no longer respected as a world borrower. It is a fair question to wonder at what dollar value this may occur, and of course I don't have the answer. But with a record debt that is expanding, we are in uncharted territory.
Greenspan himself has said all of this in so many words, but of course he is a political being just like all the names we see on CNN, and he can't be expected to make claims such as these without certainty.

I believe that history will not look fondly upon the presidency of George W. Bush.

Agreed. It's hard to compare presidents of different era's because so much has changed. But as for the job he has done so far compared to how it could be otherwise, I'm pretty certain history will look back and be ashamed.

You assume there will be anyone around to write the history of the early 21st century...

--PunkDavid

I can't provide an unbiased commentary...

I hate his fucking monkey guts.

My brother is currently dating a woman whose godparents are none other than George Senior and Babs...if I saw them at my brother's wedding, I would want to ask them:

How can you stand by and let this happen?

How can you let your SON ruin the coutry you love so much?

I'd be thrown out of my own brother's wedding, I am sure.

Why does this post make me laugh.

I don't know...was it the mokey guts thing or the bizarre guests that could be at my brother's wedding?

A little of both I think.

This thread is all wrong.

The worst president always has been, and always will be, William Henry Harrison.

[/end thread]

Why? How much damage did he do to the country?

The only problem is that the majority of Americans disagree with you, and elected him to another term.

I would like more information (sources and such) speaking about the national debt. In all fairness, I do not know as much about it as other things, and am interested in learning more. While I am skeptical of the "doomsday" comments of some on the subject, I also have a feeling that there is some truth to the fact that debt is never necessarily a good thing (common sense would declare). But it also may not be the "end of days" as some suggest.

As for me? I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal, and of course this administration has done things quite the opposite of both philosophies on many occasions. I am not a Bush "honk" by any stretch of the imagination, but I also do not think that he is the "worst" president in history.

I still go with Harrison, and it really is not his fault that he was. But when you fail to accomplish anything in office (good OR bad) because, well, you died before you started, that is a far worse record.

In other words, a .000 "batting average" for a president is worse than Bush's "low average".

But that is in my opinion, one in which is not based on blind hatred of a party and a president, but rather on the facts. Doing such a rating scientifically, if such a thing can be done, and based on performance, Harrison would always finish last as he simply was dead.

Dead men do nothing but rot.

When you subtract the emotion from the argument, things are a bit clearer. The world has not ended with Bush's second term, and I do not expect it to. It also would probably not have been Utopia had Kerry won.

The truth is, major change (good or bad) takes longer than eight years.

*Voting Americans

That is what counts, unfortunately or fortunately depending on how one feels about it.

Wait...counts for what? It counts for voting him into office, sure. But it certainly doesnt count for historical perspective.

I predict that history will not look very kindly back at Mr. Bush's presidency. He's been a very divisive person and the divisiveness has filtered down through society. He favors some at the expense of others. His policies definitely favor the rich. His will be the presidency that people will look back on and be able to say that this is when the country began its economic slide. He's put the country on roller skates and greased the wheels.

er wait, now you're talking about Hoover.

That is true.

Tsunami-
First of all, the majority of Americans have no concept of the severity of the problem, and it's not even their fault. I knew nothing of the national debt before I began studying economics years ago. But the fact that the majority of the Americans who actually voted chose Bush says nothing about my argument.
Second, a president who does wrong is far worse than a do-nothing president. It's a very famous credo in the medical profession: "If you can do no good, at least do no harm".
And third, great change can happen in 8 years. It can happen in 4 years. It can happen in a single day. Unfortunately, the quicker the change happens, the more often it tends to be catastrophic.

So you are basing your entire argument on the national debt?

There have been plenty of presidents who had terrible economic records.

Again, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I think you need FAR more to say that he is the worst one ever.

Remember, there are plenty of people on the otherside of this argument that would say much worse about Clinton.

It's absolutely their fault. It's their responsibility to keep tabs on the government in office. Ignorance is no excuse. Everybody understands the simple concepts of debt/surplus.