Who's worse: Bush or Hoover?

Question

Will Bush's inaction on the mortgage crisis, his obstruction to stem cell research, his stubborn foreign policy, and his failed reincarnation of Reaganomics doom him to a lower historical legacy than Hoover's? You tell me!

Answer 1

Definitely Bush.

Answer 2

That's a tough question to answer. The mortgage crisis isn't, and stem cell research is a tempest in a teapot. The foreign policy is Bush's real problem.

It's hard to compare any of this to Hoover, who did not preside over a foreign policy crisis (the run-up to WWII took place under Roosevelt). I'd say Hoover got a raw deal, and that he was nowhere near as bad as his reputation.

Bush's reputation will have a rebound some years after he leaves office, but I'd guess most historians will rate him in the 25% to 50% range...below average as a President, but not terrible. However, that's also about where Hoover rightly rates, so I'd say it's a toss-up.

Now, if you want a truly horrendous President, take Harding.

Answer 3

Different reasons why some would consider each a failed President. Hoover had an economic disaster happen under his watch though hardly his fault which wrecked the country financially and affected the worldwide economy as a whole, taking years to fix. Bush's failure has to do with mainly foreign policy which hasn't had an economic or wordwide effect nearly as great as the Depression. History will decide which was worse, but since America is still the world leader, my guess is Hoover ranks lower.

Answer 4

It is hard to compare any pre-world war two presidents with currents ones. The philosophy on how Presidents governed are so different than today. Before FDR presidents were seen as care-takers of the government and road blocks to keep congress from spending too money. Presidents did not dabble in social engineering, attempt to regulate or deregulate businesses. Most Presidents achieved greatness or infamy due to world or national crisis.
A fairer comparison would be to post-1933 presidents when Presidents had greater influence in world and national events by foreign policy initiatives or legislation.
My own thoughts is G.W. Bush is going to be judged on how Iraq turns out and not on the economy or anything else. Lyndon Johnson suffered a similar fate. No one remembers his administration for the "Great Society" or Civil rights. He is forever linked to Vietnam. Bush no-doubt will suffer the same fate. So he better hurry up an win it.(whatever "win" means.)

Answer 5

#a million) Herbert Hoover no longer basically sat atop a melancholy.. he instituted many regulations that made it worse, and did regulations that would desire to have helped to late and made it even worse nevertheless. #2) The financial gadget has been growing to be and wealthy for many of he Bush tenture. till George Bush has some thing as undesirable Economically and Socially because of the fact the melancholy ensue on his watch he's genuinely above hoover (however in fairness to vacuum he did no longer start up the matters which lit the journey.. he basically made them worse)

Answer 6

The subprime mortage fiasco was brought about by greedy private banks and not the federal government. President Bush has nothing to do with irresponsible loan officers giving out loans to unqualified people.

The Treasury department, and not the Federal Reserve Bank, is working with three of the largest private banks in the U.S. (Citicorp; Bank of America; and MorganChase) to pool together a large block of money to infuse it into the banks making them solvent again.

The Federal Reserve Bank might increase interest rates again in order to stave off inflation but it too has nothing to do with the irresponsible actions of private banks.

Answer 7

When it comes to cleaning the carpet, I would use a Hoover every time-A Bush leaves to many leafs on the floor.

Answer 8

I'd say Hoover. As far as I know there are no shanty towns called Bushville.

Answer 9

Bush, horrible

Answer 10

B was doomed even before he took office