• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Do You Think Has Done More Damage to the Country, Bush or Obama?

Who's worse Bush or Obama?

  • Bush

    Votes: 72 64.3%
  • Obama

    Votes: 40 35.7%

  • Total voters
    112

Arcadius

Active member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
390
Reaction score
72
Location
Somewhere far away.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm going to keep my opinion out of the first post. I think the title pretty much sizes things up. George W. Bush vs. Barack Hussein Obama
 
I believe this is a really difficult question because they're both... not my favorite. But I would say Obama because of his ridiculous inflation of the debt. Bush screwed us too... but it was for less. I think the national debt is our largest problem in America, period. I will say that Obama is better on a few things. Aka - trying to wind down the Iraq War is a good thing IMO. Also, I applaud his efforts to stop the raids on medical marijuana users who are in unambiguous compliance with state laws.
 
Started 2 wars, high oil prices as a result of those two wars, Patriot Act, faith based initiatives, associating political opponents with terrorism(which has been used by the Republican party well after they left), demonstrated nepotism, completely denied the concept of waterboarding as a torturing method(even though the US had convicted Japanese soldiers of doing the same), "Brownie"...

The list of crap that the Bush administration has tied its name to is simply too long to remember.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to keep my opinion out of the first post. I think the title pretty much sizes things up. George W. Bush vs. Barack Hussein Obama

As far as reputation goes? Bush.

As far as taking away rights? They are about even.

As far as spending money like its going out of style? Obama.

So all in all I would say that they are about even.
 
I don't think you can really judge how much damage either has done for some years yet.
 
Started 2 wars, high oil prices as a result of those two wars, Patriot Act, faith based initiatives, associating political opponents with terrorism(which has been used by the Republican party well after they left), demonstrated nepotism, completely denied the concept of waterboarding as a torturing method(even though the US had convicted Japanese soldiers of doing the same), "Brownie"...

The list of crap that the Bush administration has tied its name to is simply too long to remember.

What about the debt? I agree Bush was worse for reputation purposes but what's more important... our reputation with other countries or ability to stay afloat financially?
 
As far as reputation goes? Bush.

As far as taking away rights? They are about even.

As far as spending money like its going out of style? Obama.

So all in all I would say that they are about even.

Agree, agree, agree. But I just find the financial issue to be the most important which I why I went with Obama.
 
At this point, Bush has done way more damage. But don't count Obama out, the man ain't done yet.
 
What about the debt? I agree Bush was worse for reputation purposes but what's more important... our reputation with other countries or ability to stay afloat financially?

Realize that the majority of the debt was inevitable with the recession when Obama took office. When the economy hits recession, revenue drops like a rock from where it would be without the recession for obvious reasons. You really cannot judge Obama's debt at all until the final story is done.
 
Realize that the majority of the debt was inevitable with the recession when Obama took office. When the economy hits recession, revenue drops like a rock from where it would be without the recession for obvious reasons. You really cannot judge Obama's debt at all until the final story is done.

I personally don't blame Obama for the debt. As you said that was inevitable. However spending like he has in the middle of a recession just makes things worse.
 
Realize that the majority of the debt was inevitable with the recession when Obama took office. When the economy hits recession, revenue drops like a rock from where it would be without the recession for obvious reasons. You really cannot judge Obama's debt at all until the final story is done.

More debt = worse in my book. He could've tightened the purse strings but instead, he ran up the deficit even more and spent a ton of money that has not necessarily produced tangible results.
 
I personally don't blame Obama for the debt. As you said that was inevitable. However spending like he has in the middle of a recession just makes things worse.

Depends. It is entirely possible that without the spending the economy would be in worse shape, which means correspondingly lower revenue, and thus still much debt and a longer time to come out of the recession and the downturn.
 
Too early to tell in reality but Bush is clearly way out front.

It also depends on what you value the most and your own opinions of those things. This question is very subjective.

For me 2/21/11 is clearly bush, no debate at all but ask me again 2 years after obama is done, maybe my answer will change
 
Depends. It is entirely possible that without the spending the economy would be in worse shape, which means correspondingly lower revenue, and thus still much debt and a longer time to come out of the recession and the downturn.

I agree that it might have taken longer to get out of the recession...(though I still think that we are in the recession) However all that has happened is at best a bandaid affect. What should have happened is to let those big corporations fail and collapse. Yes that would have meant harder times. But I think it would have been better in the long run.

Big corporations have a tendency to stomp out the little guys. Half the time without even realizing it. This leads to monopolies, which in turn leads to stagnation because theres no real competition to make the corporation try to stay on top. By letting those corporations fall it would have allowed more competition to surface. Which is good for the common consumer. Competition means lower prices, which in turn means more spending because people can afford <X item here>.

This post is of course just a small part of why I think Gov spending in the middle of a recession is bad. I won't get into more of it as this is neither the thread, nor do I really feel like getting into such a debate.
 
I don't think you can really judge how much damage either has done for some years yet.

true-I voted Bush because he let the dems get hold of congress:mrgreen:
 
Bush, hands down.

Well. That was easy-peasy. :)
 
Bush, hands down.

Well. That was easy-peasy. :)

Obama will most likely surpass Bush by a wide margin though

the GOP congress though might put a leash on sham wow
 
Obama will most likely surpass Bush by a wide margin though

the GOP congress though might put a leash on sham wow

Maybe he will. I'm not all that happy with Obama either. However, Bush is the one who got us into two unwinnable wars and turned a balanced budget into the worst deficit in our history. Obama inherited all that, then turned around and made it worse.
 
Maybe he will. I'm not all that happy with Obama either. However, Bush is the one who got us into two unwinnable wars and turned a balanced budget into the worst deficit in our history. Obama inherited all that, then turned around and made it worse.

I would definitely agree with at least "one" unwinnable war. But two? Last I knew Iraq was considered as a win?
 
I agree that it might have taken longer to get out of the recession...(though I still think that we are in the recession) However all that has happened is at best a bandaid affect. What should have happened is to let those big corporations fail and collapse. Yes that would have meant harder times. But I think it would have been better in the long run.

Big corporations have a tendency to stomp out the little guys. Half the time without even realizing it. This leads to monopolies, which in turn leads to stagnation because theres no real competition to make the corporation try to stay on top. By letting those corporations fall it would have allowed more competition to surface. Which is good for the common consumer. Competition means lower prices, which in turn means more spending because people can afford <X item here>.

This post is of course just a small part of why I think Gov spending in the middle of a recession is bad. I won't get into more of it as this is neither the thread, nor do I really feel like getting into such a debate.

First, realize that I am a deficit hawk. I think it is a significant problem that needs to be fixed, and we should only run deficits when the economy sucks. Want to get that out front.

Now, There are two things to realize with what both Bush and Obama did with relation to the recession. First: deficit spending is, if handled, a short term problem, even when quite large. The economy grows at ~ 3 % per quarter, which means that in the short term, you can simply grow and the spending becomes a smaller problem.

The other important thing to realize is that when the recession hit, and when things went bad, the potential was for a complete "meltdown" of our economy, causing huge problems for many years to come. That is a huge thing to gamble on and take chances with. If you act, you get a large chunk of debt, but that is a solvable problem. If you don't act, you may, but maybe not, have the economy of the US become essentially nonfunctional. Would you want to roll those dice? I don't think I would.

You are right, spending is a bandaid, but bandaids do serve a purpose. The problem is not that Obama spent alot, but that Obama spent alot, and the presidents(and congresses, and to an extent those who elected them) before him did not have the courage to take care of the problem when times where good. If going into the recession the budgets had been balanced, the spending would be no big deal. Since it was not, it makes fixing things all the harder. However, I do think it is still fixable, and I think the spending to keep things from being any worse than they are now was the right call.

What does have to happen, and we no longer can accept any excuses, is that going forward we do have to fix the deficit. The next recession we cannot go into it with a deficit like we have now.
 
I would definitely agree with at least "one" unwinnable war. But two? Last I knew Iraq was considered as a win?

Yes the mission was accomplished in 2003.
 
I'm going to keep my opinion out of the first post. I think the title pretty much sizes things up. George W. Bush vs. Barack Hussein Obama

The inability to actually accept that other people's might have differnet views than yours - and then the following inability to compromise between the conflicting views has led to a breakdown of government, economics and so on.

Self-preservation for one's own values or views with disregard for others is the key problem in almost every single situation.
 
at leat Obama was elected legit.
 
Back
Top Bottom