Bush worst president in 100 years.

[LiberalMedia]

Only right-wing loons would see it otherwise. Us neutrals and the left have said this all along.

Bush worst president in 100 years.

Yeah another "Bush is the worst" thread is what we need. Yet every time we criticize Obama we're told Bush did the same thing. So maybe Obama is worse than Bush?
In fact Bush was a good president. Low unemployment, low inflation, won two wars, put al Qaeda on the run--you know, all the stuff Obama takes credit for.

Define "low unemployment" and specify which two wars Bush won and how he won them.

As to your al-Qaeda claim, you do realize that al-Qaeda is a strike-from-the-shadows terror group specializing in sudden suicide attacks and guerrilla warfare, right? And that they are by their nature constantly on the run as part of their tactics, thus making the claim of "putting them on the run" completely worthless?

 

[Listening]

Only right-wing loons would see it otherwise. Us neutrals and the left have said this all along.

Bush worst president in 100 years.

An opinion poll says BHO is the worst since WWII.

The OP is a based on an article that some turd decides is gospel.

Sorry folks...it's all opinion and the article is nothing but a subjective rant.

An opinion poll is just that...an opinion poll.

 

[Listening]

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

If it doesn't fit with their narrative...they'll pull reams of horseshit out of their ears to obfuscate the premise and the conclusions.

These lengthy posts by DudAssBe are all to much an example of a monkey throwing crap when it gets all wound up.

 

[Dad2three]

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

If it doesn't fit with their narrative...they'll pull reams of horseshit out of their ears to obfuscate the premise and the conclusions.

These lengthy posts by DudAssBe are all to much an example of a monkey throwing crap when it gets all wound up.

CONCLUSIONS? Oh right, you meant the hoops right wingers have to jump through to explain a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. One that Dubya ALLOWED and cheered on in the US of AmeriKa

Jun 16, 2005


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China (AND DOZENS OF NATIONS) . Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs

The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist


"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Allen Greenspan.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.



Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

If it doesn't fit with their narrative...they'll pull reams of horseshit out of their ears to obfuscate the premise and the conclusions.

These lengthy posts by DudAssBe are all to much an example of a monkey throwing crap when it gets all wound up.

CRA makes no mention of race, ethnicity or any other prohibited factor.

Its explicit purpose is to require regulators to encourage banks "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered."


Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks



Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.

 

[Dad2three]

Big Lie is, blaming someone else. Then you activate your PR groups, starting with Fox and the RW think tanks. Then you go further and have the Wallisons of the world throw pure bs into the mix. Stir frequently.


You don't need a model to know that loans that ignore DTI and LTV are more risky than loans that do not ignore DTI and LTV. The "trick" of the financial crisis was getting AAA ratings for MBSs that ignored DTI and LTV. Investment banks did that by mixing up a bunch of loans and paying off the rating companies.

I have been looking for almost a decade now for government policies that forced the banks to do so, but strangely enough I have not been able to find any.

 

[Vigilante]

And to stay within Topic....

Poll: Public perceives Obama as worst president!!!

Wow. A reputable poll shows the public believes Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II. Worse than Richard M. Nixon, driven from the presidency by Watergate? Much. Worse than Jimmy Carter, for decades the very symbol of the feckless chief executive? Loads. Worse than George W. Bush, still a lightning rod on the left and a symbol of disappointment on the right? Definitely.
These startling poll results set loose the predictable reaction: A flurry of told-you-so nods on the right and a fusillade of this-tells-us-nothing assertions on the left. For once, they’re both right.
Obama is in trouble, no matter how carefully you peel through the Quinnipiac University poll that is causing such a firestorm. There’s almost no good news there, or anywhere else, for the president. Then again, this worst-president poll sheds little light. Almost every veteran observer of polls and presidents will likely attest to that.
Obama has it, in several dimensions. The public is split evenly -- 48 percent to 48 percent -- on whether the president is honest and trustworthy. It’s split fairly evenly on whether he has strong leadership qualities, with a slight advantage to those who think he doesn’t. The same for whether the president cares about “people like you,” with the same slight advantage this time to the president.
Here’s the big one. By a fairly substantial margin (45 percent to 38 percent), the public believes the nation would be better off had former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts been elected two years ago rather than Obama.
No one can possibly argue that these figures are good news for the president, who is dealing with an immigration crisis at the Mexican border, a crumbling Iraq, an uncertain Afghanistan and an economy that hasn’t bounced back fully. How Barack Obama, employing the idiom of hope and change, would love to run against an incumbent president with a portfolio like that!
Now, the sobering bucket of cold water for the Obama critics.
With the exception of three occupants of the White House (all war presidents), presidents tend to grow in stature as their administrations grow more distant in the rear-view mirror. The exceptions, according to Gallup figures in The New Republic, are three of the most beleaguered modern presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam), Richard M. Nixon (Vietnam) and George W. Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan).
Foreign crisis doesn’t assure that phenomenon, however. Jimmy Carter is rated substantially more favorably today than he was when he was in office, and he dealt with a hostage crisis in Iran that persisted for 444 days and, arguably, doomed his presidency. George H.W. Bush is also more favorably regarded today than he was while in office, and he was a war president.
The canary of caution in this political coal mine is the poll rating for Harry Truman, who left office with a 32 percent approval rating -- and a 56 percent disapproval rating, according to Gallup. That represented, by the way, a substantial improvement from his ratings (23 percent approval, 67 percent disapproval) a year earlier, just before Sen. Estes Kefauver of Tennessee upset Truman in the New Hampshire primary and prompted the president’s withdrawal from the 1952 race.
But the country, which was, as the phrase went, mild about Harry and had concluded, as another aphorism of the time put it, that to err was Truman, changed its mind, albeit slowly.
One of the signposts along that journey was Merle Miller’s “Plain Speaking,” an oral biography of the 33rd president that emphasized his down-home attitudes and attributes, a marked contrast at the time of its publication (1974) with Nixon, who resigned that year. Indeed, it is instructive to realize that “Plain Speaking” reached booksellers’ shelves just a year after Arthur M. Schlesinger published his “The Imperial Presidency,” aimed in large measure at Nixon.
Truman’s revival was sealed less than two decades later when the historian David McCullough published his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of the man whose hometown of Independence seemed to be a description of his character. Suddenly Truman, regarded as an accidental president who was also accident-prone, took on a heroic aura, one that persists to this day.
In the Quinnipiac survey, zero percent of Americans singled out Truman as the worst of the last dozen presidents. That figure applies to Republicans as well as Democrats.
Now have a look at George H.W. Bush, who was soundly defeated for re-election only 22 years ago, dismissed as a fusty symbol of the past and considered out of touch with the public, a hopeless elitist with an awkward bedside manner. This summer, Bush, at 90 a beloved figure and an unassailable symbol of American prudence, wisdom and grace, was considered the worst president by only 2 percent.
The same phenomenon applies to the man who defeated him in 1992, Bill Clinton, who left office with unusually high ratings for a president who had been impeached. Eight years ago, 16 percent of those surveyed considered him the worst president. This summer, only 3 percent do.
One final example: Dwight Eisenhower, regarded as a duffer at his departure from the White House, so much so that John F. Kennedy, who tried to make vigor a qualification for leadership, used Eisenhower as a foil. Today, only 1 percent of Americans surveyed consider Eisenhower the worst president. The revival of his reputation was begun by Fred I. Greenstein’s “The Hidden-Hand Presidency” -- and by the realization that, aside from wrapping up the Korean War, which he inherited, he sent few Americans into combat during his two terms in office....


Poll: Public perceives Obama as worst president

 

[Dad2three]

Federal Reserve Paper (San Francisco) on California

long paper: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

short paper:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdf

"... we believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas. First, the data show that overall, lending to low- and moderate-income communities comprised only a small share of total lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of subprime lending in California.

Second, we find loans originated by lenders regulated under the CRA in general were significantly less likely
to be in foreclosure than those originated by IMCs (Independent Mortgage Companies). This held true even after controlling for a wide variety of borrower and loan characteristics, including credit score, income, and whether or not the loan was higher priced."


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.

Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by “non-bank” lenders which were not covered by the CRA.

 

[Listening]

Federal Reserve Paper (San Francisco) on California

long paper: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

short paper:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdf

"... we believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas. First, the data show that overall, lending to low- and moderate-income communities comprised only a small share of total lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of subprime lending in California.

Second, we find loans originated by lenders regulated under the CRA in general were significantly less likely
to be in foreclosure than those originated by IMCs (Independent Mortgage Companies). This held true even after controlling for a wide variety of borrower and loan characteristics, including credit score, income, and whether or not the loan was higher priced."


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.

Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by “non-bank” lenders which were not covered by the CRA.

Start another thread.

You are and have been off-topic.

IOW: STFU

 

[Dad2three]

Federal Reserve Paper (San Francisco) on California

long paper: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

short paper:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdf

"... we believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas. First, the data show that overall, lending to low- and moderate-income communities comprised only a small share of total lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of subprime lending in California.

Second, we find loans originated by lenders regulated under the CRA in general were significantly less likely
to be in foreclosure than those originated by IMCs (Independent Mortgage Companies). This held true even after controlling for a wide variety of borrower and loan characteristics, including credit score, income, and whether or not the loan was higher priced."


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.

Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by “non-bank” lenders which were not covered by the CRA.

Start another thread.

You are and have been off-topic.

IOW: STFU

You mean showing it WASN'T CRA or the GSE's but DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE CAUSED HIM (PARTIALLY) TO BE THE WORST PREZ IN MODERN HISTORY, is off topic?

Weird


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


OH I DID, BTW

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Listening]

Federal Reserve Paper (San Francisco) on California

long paper: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

short paper:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdf

"... we believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas. First, the data show that overall, lending to low- and moderate-income communities comprised only a small share of total lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of subprime lending in California.

Second, we find loans originated by lenders regulated under the CRA in general were significantly less likely
to be in foreclosure than those originated by IMCs (Independent Mortgage Companies). This held true even after controlling for a wide variety of borrower and loan characteristics, including credit score, income, and whether or not the loan was higher priced."


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.

Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by “non-bank” lenders which were not covered by the CRA.

Start another thread.

You are and have been off-topic.

IOW: STFU

You mean showing it WASN'T CRA or the GSE's but DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE CAUSED HIM (PARTIALLY) TO BE THE WORST PREZ IN MODERN HISTORY, is off topic?

Weird


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


OH I DID, BTW

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

You have not shown anything. You've simply put forth an argument based on premises that not everyone agrees upon. You've clearly ignored that other side of the argument....so spare men.

Now start your own thread and STFU.

 

[influenzapoop]

OMG I can't believe seemingly intelligent people can differ as far as the east is from the west, to say Bush is the worst in the midst of THE ONE just says to me one of us is brain dead and asleep, hope it's me because if things are really the way i see them to be this country is about to enter the scariest segment of our history I've been alive to witness and i just pray I'm wrong. Bush may have been incompetent, but Barry is destroying on purpose, hates America, thinks we need to be taken down several notches and is going to do everything in his power to see that's exactly what happens

 

[Dad2three]

Start another thread.

You are and have been off-topic.

IOW: STFU

You mean showing it WASN'T CRA or the GSE's but DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE CAUSED HIM (PARTIALLY) TO BE THE WORST PREZ IN MODERN HISTORY, is off topic?

Weird


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


OH I DID, BTW

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

You have not shown anything. You've simply put forth an argument based on premises that not everyone agrees upon. You've clearly ignored that other side of the argument....so spare men.

Now start your own thread and STFU.

"You've simply put forth an argument based on premises that not everyone agrees upon. You've clearly ignored that other side of the argument"

Weird, I thought I refuted it quite well, over and over and over


I know AEI, Peter Wallison, Ed Pinto, are trying to bring about 'truth' right? WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, BROUGHT ABOUT BY CRA AND THE GSE's... lol

Forget the auto subprime bubble AND commercial R/E bubble in the same period, NEITHER that have GSE's or CRA to blame. Weird

CRA? F/F?

Despite greatly relaxed lending standards and low interest rates, many regions of the country saw very little growth during the "bubble period". Out of 20 largest metropolitan areas tracked by the S&P/Case-Shiller house price index, six (Dallas, Cleveland, Detroit, Denver, Atlanta, and Charlotte) saw less than 10% price growth in inflation-adjusted terms in 2001–2006.


During the same period, seven metropolitan areas (Tampa, Miami, San Diego, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Washington, D.C.) appreciated by more than 80%.

"S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices-historical spreadsheets".

GOV'T POLICY HUH?


The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud.



Don't ask; don't tell: book profits, "earn" bonuses and closet your losses

The first document everyone should read is by S&P, the largest of the rating agencies. The context of the document is that a professional credit rater has told his superiors that he needs to examine the mortgage loan files to evaluate the risk of a complex financial derivative whose risk and market value depend on the credit quality of the nonprime mortgages "underlying" the derivative. A senior manager sends a blistering reply with this forceful punctuation:

Any request for loan level tapes is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!!! Most investors don't have it and can't provide it. [W]e MUST produce a credit estimate. It is your responsibility to provide those credit estimates and your responsibility to devise some method for doing so.


Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending. It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files.


. These two documents are enough to begin to understand:

the FBI accurately described mortgage fraud as "epidemic"

nonprime lenders are overwhelmingly responsible for the epidemic

the fraud was so endemic that it would have been easy to spot if anyone looked

the lenders, the banks that created nonprime derivatives, the rating agencies, and the buyers all operated on a "don't ask; don't tell" policy

willful blindness was essential to originate, sell, pool and resell the loans

willful blindness was the pretext for not posting loss reserves

both forms of blindness made high (fictional) profits certain when the bubble was expanding rapidly and massive (real) losses certain when it collapsed

the worse the nonprime loan quality the higher the fees and interest rates, and the faster the growth in nonprime lending and pooling the greater the immediate fictional profits and (eventual) real losses

the greater the destruction of wealth, the greater the (fictional) profits, bonuses, and stock appreciation

many of the big banks are deeply insolvent due to severe credit losses

those big banks and Treasury don't know how insolvent they are because they didn't even have the loan files

a "stress test" can't remedy the banks' problem -- they do not have the loan files

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

 

[Dad2three]

OMG I can't believe seemingly intelligent people can differ as far as the east is from the west, to say Bush is the worst in the midst of THE ONE just says to me one of us is brain dead and asleep, hope it's me because if things are really the way i see them to be this country is about to enter the scariest segment of our history I've been alive to witness and i just pray I'm wrong. Bush may have been incompetent, but Barry is destroying on purpose, hates America, thinks we need to be taken down several notches and is going to do everything in his power to see that's exactly what happens

Poop in your name is fitting....

 

[Listening]

OMG I can't believe seemingly intelligent people can differ as far as the east is from the west, to say Bush is the worst in the midst of THE ONE just says to me one of us is brain dead and asleep, hope it's me because if things are really the way i see them to be this country is about to enter the scariest segment of our history I've been alive to witness and i just pray I'm wrong. Bush may have been incompetent, but Barry is destroying on purpose, hates America, thinks we need to be taken down several notches and is going to do everything in his power to see that's exactly what happens

The whole point is that the moron author in the OP is just offering up his case. He can't refute the fact that more people feel Barry is the worst since WWII than any other.

Next we see the continual bleating of the left using whatever sources they feel support their case to somehow tell this group that they are wrong. Somehow, I'll bet the same poll will show the same results.

Which is really what this thread is about.

If anyone thinks they are providing new information on what a bozo Bush was, they are kidding themselves. Bush was a moron.

However, Barry has turned out to be a big dick.

BTW: using the FBI as a reporting and analysis source is always good for a belly laugh.

 

[1776]

Eating shit with your inbred brain ensures retardation.

Only right-wing loons would see it otherwise. Us neutrals and the left have said this all along.

Bush worst president in 100 years.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

If it doesn't fit with their narrative...they'll pull reams of horseshit out of their ears to obfuscate the premise and the conclusions.

These lengthy posts by DudAssBe are all to much an example of a monkey throwing crap when it gets all wound up.

Anytime someone throws up 4 replies for one post, you know they are desperately trying to throw up anything they can find in order to find ANY points they can try to make "stick".

He tried to blame Bush for the bad home mortgages [FAILED] - as I clearly pointed out the CRA was changed under the executive pen of Preident Clinton.

He tried to blame banks themselves for purposely accepting bad loans to benefit themselves. [FAILED] - Banks since then could no longer determine the risk factor of those borrowers in need of a home mortgage loan, as it could be deemed "discriminatory" towards lower middle income families.

He tried to say Fannie and Freddie was not to blame for their part in this mortgage mess [FAILED] - Fannie and Freddie also loosened their lending standards as well, according to the liberal New York Times (not FOXnews).

Then there is the Congressional testimony where Democrats claimed Fannie and Freddie were sound and secure, and had no need of government oversight to look into their lending practices. They even blocked any proposal of oversight from going forth.

So in essence, Dad2three in blaming Bush, doesn't know what he is talking about, and chooses to be completely ignorant of the issue.

 

[Listening]

So in essence, Dad2three in blaming Bush, doesn't know what he is talking about, and chooses to be completely ignorant of the issue.

I seriously doubt he is ignorant.

I suspect he knows just what he is saying is Bullshit.

However, like most libs, that won't stop him from saying it.

I've enjoyed your posts.

Getting back to the OP....like it or not, President Obama has a real bad perception problem. That is usually the case for a sitting president. However, he's got nothing but scandal to color his time in the White House and I am quite certain that while Bush will continue to rank low...Obama will rank at the bottom.

The Quinnepac Poll shows he's already going in that direciton.

 

[rdean]

After what he did to this country and middle east, he's the worst ever.