2007-02-16 05:23:57 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Is Bush the most expensive President in history? Yes, and that is even when you adjust for inflation. He has needlessly expanded the government with massive bureaucratic institutions like the Department of Homeland security, and has been involved in dubious military campaigns overseas that can go on indefinitely, which in turn costs the American taxpayer billions per month.
Now is he the least effective President of all time? Mmm…maybe. It depends on what one means by ineffective. William Henry Harrison, our 9th President, was only in office for 32 days before he died. He wasn’t able to exercise his presidential powers long enough to be effective. So I would deem him to be the LEAST EFFECTIVE president of all times.
I think Bush is quite effective in one sense - a very negative sense. After all, he has incited global conflict, stoked the fires of global Islamic militancy, allowed for the wholesale shipping of highly skilled jobs to other countries, aided and abetted illegal immigration, alienated the United States from the rest of the world, and let us not forget that he has decimated whatever little faith the American people have left in the democratic system.
In brief, Bush has been very effective. The only problem is he has been very effective at doing things very wrongly.
2007-02-16 09:23:23 · answer #1 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
As for most expensive...
Most of the federal spending is supposed "manditory" spending that the president is not even allowed to change in the budget. Due to growth in the economy, inflation etc, every budget except one since 1955 has increased and been the most "expensive". The one exception was 1966...
Every presidential 4 year term has been the most expensive with the two exceptions of after WWI and WWII.
As for our current war spending, in terms of our countries economy it is still minor. Our military spending today at war is lower than it was as a fraction of our economy than any of the peacetime military spending in the 1940s 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s.
As for effective, you may not like the fact that GWB did invade Iraq but he did manage to do it. Ineffective leaders do NOTHING.
There will always be a fringe that irrationally hate the current leader in power.
Millions of people hated Clinton, Bush#1, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc.
But you are convinced in your hatered for the guy so these details are meaningless.
2007-02-16 05:50:11 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Fred 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Least effective? Wasn't the motto of the Clinton administration "Do as little as possible"? Each President seems to spend more mostly because of inflation. A dollar now can't buy as much as a dollar could 10 years ago.
2007-02-16 05:27:45 · answer #3 · answered by Abu 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Gosh, there were so many... Harrison, Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt -- we're STILL paying for all of his programs... "Mr. Jelly donut" Kennedy, who got us into Vietnam and intentionally killed 2,510 men in two days at the Bay of Pigs... Johnson -- Fortunately, Tricky Dick was their to cancel most of his spending... Carter, who gave away the Panama Canal, single handedly turned OPEC and the entire Arab world against us all while driving up inflation at a break-neck speed never before witnessed by this nation before or since... Please note that most everyone listed here, without intent, is Democrat. I know through your blind hatred, you'll not see the forest through the trees. But Bush really has little to fear on this point.
2007-02-16 06:02:05 · answer #4 · answered by Doc 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
properly the main distinction if this: recession economics as against in basic terms conflict economics and normality economics. besides, i'm no longer so confident you may properly be so confident Obama plans to place money in the non-public sector. lots as we desire to think of it, neither you nor I (democrat supporter) can study Obama's strategies. enable's no longer forget approximately, Obama won't be in a position to in easy terms do issues. Congress has the potential, Obama could be waiting to push his schedule, yet he can't make it regulation as president. i could be extra disturbing on the subject of the Democrats brushback administration in congress removing between the staples of yank politcs that carry issues mutually. the theory of the contest occasion could be maintained to ensure that American politics to be triumphant. I in basic terms desire the republicans, with fewer seats can supply suited resistance to specific deomcrat regulations (abortion is erroneous).
2016-09-29 05:03:17 · answer #5 · answered by truesdale 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say William Henry Harrison was the least effective president, he was only in office for 30 days.
2007-02-16 05:30:17 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Pibb 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Most wasteful (a better word than expensive)? Absolutely one of the top 3, though I think Johnson (who was the main culprit for the Vietnam War) was more wasteful.
Least effective? One of the least effective, but not the worst. I think Warren G. Hardin was worse. Thomas Jefferson on his second term was very bad as well.
2007-02-16 05:36:56 · answer #7 · answered by silhouette 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
How can you judge by expensive? You would have to assume that every president had a war in progress during their term in office! Impossible. Rethink your question!
2007-02-16 05:33:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
History will read the correct verdict. I think it will rate Bush quite high. Leaving "Peanuts" the sole honor of most inefective and stupidist pres. of all times.
2007-02-16 05:35:54 · answer #9 · answered by Leroy 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Most expensive, yes. Least effective, not by a long shot.
2007-02-16 05:28:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋