Franklin Roosevelt Had a Better Overall Presidency than George Bush Jr.

For my opening argument, I will list the pros and cons of both FDR’s and Bush’s presidencies. Then, I will show that FDR’S pros outweigh those of Bush and Bush’s cons outweigh those of FDR. Argument #1: Pros and Cons of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Presidency Pros:He helped the American people regain faith in themselves.He created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which brought recovery to business and agriculture, brought relief to the unemployed, and brought relief to those in danger of losing farms and houses.He introduced social security to the US.He created an enormous relief program for the unemployed.He helped the US stay out of the war as possible, while still aiding other countries (Ex. Great Britain).He planned the United Nations, which still helps the world be united to this day. Cons:He limited all future presidents to two terms only.He did nothing to overtake Hitler or prevent Jews from dying. Argument #2: Pros and Cons of George W. Bush Jr’s Presidency Pros:He prevented terrorist attacks after 9/11.He created the biggest tax cut in American history. Cons:He led the nation into war with Iraq on incorrect intelligence reports.Anti-terrorism tactics employed by the Bush administration damaged U.S. standing in the world.He failed to capture bin Laden or secure Afghanistan. Argument #3: Comparison of FDR and Bush Now that we have a list of pros and cons for each president, I will establish the fact that FDR’s presidency was better than Bush’s presidency. First off, Roosevelt has more pros than Bush and Bush has more cons than Roosevelt. This automatically shows that Roosevelt did more good things for the country than Bush did and that Bush did more bad things for the country than Roosevelt did. Secondly, it’s obvious that FDR’s pros are more important than those of Bush. Roosevelt brought an end to the Great Depression and introduced some things that still positively benefit our country today (Ex. Social Security, the United Nations). The only pertinent thing that Bush did was prevent more terrorist attacks after 9/11 (Tax cuts would actually be considered a con my some). Roosevelt’s main contributions to the country as President were more impactful than those of Bush, considering his decisions still positively impact the US today. Lastly, the cons of Bush’s presidency are worse than those of Roosevelt. Bush escalated a war in Iraq that didn’t need to be escalated. In addition, we didn’t meet our objective of capturing Bin Laden during Bush’s presidency. That gave the US a black eye. Roosevelt’s only pertinent con is not intervening in the war and taking down Hitler (the two term limit may be considered a pro by some). While this decision may be considered immoral by some, this decision can be justified. Entering the war against Hitler would’ve caused the US to go into more debt, which could’ve provoked the Depression that Roosevelt was striving to get the US out of. Therefore, Roosevelt’s cons are more justifiable than those of Bush. Conclusion: I have shown the pros and cons of the presidencies of both FDR and Bush. I have also shown that when comparing the pros and cons of both presidencies, FDR’s presidency is better. My opponent must show that Bush had a better presidency than FDR in order to make his argument strong. Resources: http://www.whitehouse.gov...http://www.trivia-library.com...http://blog.sfgate.com...