Why are people STILL complaining about George Bush the 2nd, when Obama has turned out to be much worse?

Question

Bush was not a good president. Obama is a worse president than Bush. Move on, do we still argue about how bad Taft was?

Answer 1

Because they actually LIKE having that huge stick up their asses!

Answer 2

It's only been 2 years and 4 months. Some people are still complaining about Clinton. We are still suffering the effects of things that happened during the Bush administration. All the political and economic fallout of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the first bailouts and the very unbalanced budget, starting with the tax cuts of 2001. Also, Obama is continuing a number of unpopular Bush policies. Tax cuts for the rich. Guantanamo Bay. Wars. More bailouts. That keeps Bush in the public debate. People don't move on quite that quickly.

Answer 3

Because Bush was in office for 8 years, and Obama has only been in office for 4 months. And the consequences of Obama's presidency have not been seen yet, but as of now, the war, bad economy, and such are all because of Bush.



And it's way too early to tell if Obama is a bad president or not. Shortly after 9/11, Bush's approval rate was sky high, and even after 4 years of office, he was still re-elected. Keep in mind back then the economy was still decent.



Now that Obama's president, he's being bashed for his inexperience and stimulus bill. It's way too early to tell.



My Prediction: Recessions don't last forever, and some time in the next 4 years, during Obama's presidency, the economy is bound to get better, I predict that Obama will be honored and regarded as bringing the economy back, whether he actually helped it or not.



Think of it this way, when Clinton started out, the economy was bad. His presidency was the only time we had a surplus. And what did he do? Nothing, he was having fun with his intern the whole time.



Back to the point, if we judged Bush as fast as you judge Obama, people wouldn't complain. Just wait until Obama's term is over to make judgements.

Answer 4

I guess the same reason the republicans are still complaining about Jimmy Carter being a "bad president" and Bill Clinton getting oral sex.



I'll decide on whether or not Obama was a terrible president when the 4-8 years are up. I don't expect things to be great in a few months, especially when he even said things aren't going to look better until a year or so. Bush takes 8 years to screw it up this much. It's ridiculous to think things can be fixed in a few months. And republicans swear we are the ones who thinks Obama is God.

Answer 5

I see those republicans who constantly complain that George Bush is being the scapegoat, as a person who avoids being hit by a bus running to get in front of bus and hoping to outrun the bus. It’s stupid logic. Have the debate on Bush our don’t but you don’t get to the end the debate on Bush policy by making him a martyr. He made the policies, he made the statements in the press, he issued the executive orders and he signed the signing statements.



If you don’t want to have a conversation on the Bush impact in the country then you don’t get to discredit those who do by painting him the victim. He’s not the victim he’s the president who sent us to Iraq, declared mission accomplished, gave tax breaks to the company of his vice president then billions in no bid contracts, tortured, said we didn’t, corrupted under Albert Gonzales the department of justice and the list goes on. He wasn’t a visitor to the planet he was a president of the United States and his actions have consequences.



As far as I’m concerned until those of you who liked Bush can actually have a lucid debate on the issues without painting him as an observer on the outside looking in you ought just give it up. Stop pretending that you care about balances of power and legal prescient or balance budgets. The Republican party and Bush are about as creditable on fiscal responsibility as they are on marriage and homosexuality. As the evidence mounts as to the incompetence of the Bush administration you rubes keep defending him by painting him the victim it’s pitiful and without merit. If he was well intentioned then he was a weak leader who let others make decisions for him. He let the military take the blame for his executive order to torture and still you people consider him the victim. He threw the military under the bus with Iraq and with torture he would have thrown the CIA under the bus domestic spying but they had the sense to get legal memos on spying and torture.

Answer 6

people should stop worrying about bush, and start focusing on whats going on now, Its way to early to label obama as a bad president though.

Answer 7

Because the media loves Obama and hates Bush, and people believe the media.

Answer 8

The liberals are still stuck on Bush! They are trying to keep the focus off what a lousy job Obama is doing!

Answer 9

LOL Obama has only been President for three months. Bush was President for eight years. You can't come to the conclusion that Obama is worse than Bush yet, That's ridiculous. LOL

Answer 10

It's the Dem's scape goat. If Obama turns out to be an awful president, they'll just say it was "all Bush's fault" and that no one could have cleaned up his "mess".



I kid you not. I first started reading such posts by Libs only a few days into Obama's term.

Answer 11

Is that just your own personal feeling?



Approval ratings show Obama much more liked by the people.

Answer 12

Empirical data showing President Obama, who has been in office less than four months, is worse than the worst president ever?

Answer 13

They are both puppets...our government is controlled by the higher unknown 2%.

Answer 14

You can't compare 100 days to 8 years, that's ridiculous. I am not a Bush or Obama supporter, but seriously...It's going to take a lot longer than 100 days to fix all the damage that's been done over the past eight.

Answer 15

There is no one living who will ever be able to convince you that George Bush is worse than any president in recent memory.

Answer 16

i like your argument, you believe that obama is worse, therefore it is true for everyone.



obama isn't good but i still think he is better than bush. i care more about social issues than economics though, which is why i think that.



libertarian

Answer 17

Yeah!!!!...wait, did Obama start an illegal war? It's way worse to help out struggling Americans than it is to send poor peoples kids off to fight in illegal wars! That Obama is so evil....he actually care about poor people. Isn't that evil?

Answer 18

Millions of people lost their jobs under Bush. Thousands of families lost loved ones in his illegal war. Tens of thousands lost their homes. He alienated our allies and tarnished the reputation of our country. You expect us to forget?

Answer 19

Bush was president for 8 years and left office 3 months ago. he did tremendous damage to America that it will take years to undo. Why should we forget?

Answer 20

Because they are a bunch of Liberal *******. They should move to France with all the other sissys

Answer 21

2nd part of your question is not true, that's why.

Answer 22

Explain in detail what Obama has done or proposed that you find so terrible.

Answer 23

The "hype and change" crowd is still drunk on the Obama Fool-Aid.

Answer 24

Hope and Change!

Plus great public relations.



Give it another year,,,,

Answer 25

My answer to a different question, so it doesn't fit your question exactly. But it gets across the point.



_____________________________________



1) Some of you guys say taxes are too high. This, despite the fact that taxes are currently lower for the Middle and Lower Classes and equal for the Upper Class as they were under Bush. And even when they go up in 2011, and only for the Upper Class, they will be significantly LOWER than they were under Reagan. SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER.



2) Some of you say that it is crazy government spending. This, despite the fact that Obama has actually cut spending. Republicans like to bring up that Obama's budget calls for $3.5 trillion spent. What they don't tell you is that Bush's final budget was for $3.1 trillion. Already within $400 billion of Obama's spending.



There are multiple reasons why this is important. We'll start with previous deficits. Bush's final budget was hampered by the $500 billion he got in a deficit from his previous year's budget. But Obama's current budget is being hampered by the $1.4 trillion deficit that Bush's final budget gave to him. That means that Bush put Obama $900 billion in the hole more than he put himself. Obama was only ahead in spending by $400 billion; so now he is actually behind by $500 billion.



There's also the fact that, while Obama's budget does include the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Bush's final budget did not. In fact, not one of his budgets EVER included the costs of either war. The estimated cost of the Iraq War at the time Bush left office was $3 trillion; Afghanistan another $1 trillion. That is $4 trillion that Bush just up and ignored.



But since we are only working with the one year budget, we won't count that much against Bush. The estimated cost per year for the Iraq War (not including interest for Bush but does include interest for Obama in his budget) is $120 billion. For Afghanistan (again interest for Obama but not for Bush) is $24 billion. So total for the year that needs to be added to Bush's spending is $144 billion.



He was ahead in spending by $500 billion, it is now $644 billion ahead in spending over Obama.



And finally, the bailout from last year. Remember when it began, it was $700 billion. House Republicans voted it down, and were hailed as Conservative heroes. So the authors of the bill went back and added $150 billion in Republican pork to the bill, making it a total of $850 billion; and guess who voted for it. That's right, the Republicans.



Now that $150 billion was already earmarked, and nobody controls it once approved by Congress and signed by President Bush. The remaining $700 billion was given to Bush and his Sec. of Treasury Hank Paulson. But they felt they could not spend it all in the time they had left, so they came up with a plan. They'd keep half the money, and give the other $350 billion to Obama and his team.



Bush and Paulson then promptly lost their $350 billion by not having a tracking system in place. It's in the economy somewhere, but no one can figure out where. This is where Limbaugh and Hannity take over.



Since we didn't figure out Bush lost that money until after Obama took over, Hannity and Limbaugh tried to blame him for that $350 billion. And that Republican pork totaling $150 billion? That also was blamed on Obama, because while it was approved during Bush's term it was spent during Obama's term. So that is $500 billion that was given to Obama in spending, when in reality it belonged to Bush and the Republicans.



Bush was ahead by $644 billion in extra spending. We now add that $500 billion, and now he is ahead in spending by $1.144 TRILLION. But that $500 billion was given to Obama unfairly, and now needs to be taken away from him. By doing so, we now see that Bush is ahead of Obama' spending by a grand total of $1.644 TRILLION.



So Obama has now cut spending by $1,644,000,000,000 from Bush's budget. He was in put in the hole by Bush's deficit by $1,400,000,000,000. Which means that Obama has actually balanced the budget, and actually came up with a surplus of $244 billion.





3) And you guys won't admit this, but I think this is the real reason. You lost because Republicanism FAILED. You don't want to admit it, so you come up with these tea parties to suggest this is somehow Obama's fault.

Answer 26

Please refer to the one as President Obama.



Thank You.





Mr. News

Answer 27

after 8 years of failed polices and one quarter of more positive action than those previous 8 years combined your going to make that determination...gimme a break!

Answer 28

True they both suck