Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush

President Bush's job was to fight terrorists. Attacks on the terrorists put them on the defensive as the Department of Homeland Security was built. President Bush attempted to reign in the bad loan policies of Fannie and Freddie that led to the melt down of the economy, but was blocked by filibustering Democrats. Bush achieved eight bipartisan budget agreements. President Obama's job is rebuilding the economy. He promised do so with transparency and bipartisanship. He has failed to fix the economy and has brought an unprecedented level of secret deals. Obama has never completed a successful budget negotiation. New arguments cannot be made in the final round, as my opponent has done. I will respond to Con's new arguments anyway, insofar as they are specific. He adds lists of vague accusations without argument or valid support. Those I merely deny, which suffices.Economic HistoryCon claimed, citing his mother, that Republicans always want to spend. I gave reference showing multiple occasions when Republicans want to cut. Con claimed that the president is unilaterally responsible for the budget. I gave references showing that both Bush and Clinton negotiated budget deals with Congress. Moreover, Obama published proposals, but did no negotiate the budget with Republicans, and there has been no approved budget for 2010 and 2011, and none expected for 2012. Con claimed the budget is the President's responsibility, so this establishes a failure of leadership unprecedented in modern times.I showed that Bush attempted to regulate Fannie and Freddie to stop their practice of issuing bad loans and buying bad loans on the secondary market. Democrats filibustered to block the regulations. This was the principal cause of the financial meltdown. Con offered no rebuttal.Claimed Obama AchievementsCon gives very few references to support his arguments. It's not my job to research Con's case and guess what arguments he is trying to make. If I can make a guess at what he's talking about, I have responded. 1. Con did not deny that the troop withdrawal schedules are the same as what Bush proposed. Secretary Clinton publicly affirmed that this week. http://www.rawstory.com...2. Yes, General Patreaus was given high positions by both Bush and Obama.3. My opponent des not deny that Bush made the first appointments of openly gay people and was the first to openly recruit them. 4. I granted that Obama's overseas "apology tour" was warmly received. Con did not deny the polls showing that the US is now held in lower regard on all three measures. The policies failed.5. Con gives no link to a source claiming that more than three terrorists were waterboarded. Past claims by critics were shown to be false. Con doesn't even claim a total. Was it four? five? GITMO had about 1200 detainees, and nearly all talked without waterboarding.6. Con grants the evidence that Halliburton made little profit. Con claims that support services could have been provided without contracting. A CBO study showed that doing so would require 190,000 additional troops and would have cost the Government substantially more. http://www.cbo.gov... Contractors rely on local labor for 80% of the support tasks. The National Guard was called up, so getting 190,000 additional troops was impractical.7. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix published a book revealing that at the time he thought Saddam had WMDs, but could not prove it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Other world intelligence agencies confirmed the assessment. http://www.freerepublic.com... There were bad sources of intel, but the main reason for the error was "Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture." http://articles.cnn.com... 8. Con grants that Bush acknowledged global warming. The hole in the ozone layer is unrelated to global warming, as even the left-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists acknowledged. http://www.ucsusa.org... The past decade had hot and cold years, but the trend was for no temperature rise. The New York Times acknowledged "... Global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." http://www.nytimes.com...9. I cannot understand my opponents claim about schools.10. Con proposes that the Nobel Committee that selects the Peace Prize recipients be disbanded. I concur. Their track record is poor.11. My point is that rules of evidence will free terrorists tried in civilian courts. Con says that can't be prevented by Obama, so they'll have to be let go. However, the military tribunal system set up by Bush was passed by Congress and approved by the Supreme court, and it works successfully. Obama is now using it, with a few exceptions.12. There is no such thing as free health care. Governments like Cuba set a budget for health spending and then ration care to fit the budget. Budget estimates for Obamacare are now up to about $2.3 trillion http://usactionnews.com..., and major pieces have been dropped by the Administration as unsustainable. http://www.npr.org... Official "childhood" has been raised to age 26. That's ridiculous.13. Con obliquely references a Tea Party rely in Montana where participants were asked to bring unloaded weapons to show support for second amendment rights. It was a minor event, no laws were broken, and there was far from any threat of violence. My opponent claims it's more threatening than the frequent "Kill Bush" signs, ad the actual physical assaults on Tea Party protesters carried out by union thugs. An unloaded weapon. though perhaps unnecessarily provocative, is not a threat, and no threat was implied. A call to actually kill President Bush is a real threat.14. Con's sentence lacking a verb is incomprehensible.15. Obama began with nearly 70% approval rating. He immediately broke his campaign promise by crafting secret backroom deals on health care and refusing to meet with Republicans. Republicans worked in the Senate Baucus Committee to reach compromises, all of which were trashed by Majority Leader Reid. It is absolutely false that Obama had "meeting after meeting" in the White House on health care. There was a total of one highly publicized half-day event in which all Republican proposals were rejected. Republicans do not compromise much on big spending. Obama had two years with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, which passed failed programs. Republicans have supported Obama's military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tax cutting aspect of stimulus, and, with some reservations, recent actions in Libya. New Bush CriticismsIs it really unreasonable to support building roads for forestry? The National Forests are multi-use resources that include forestry and cattle grazing. It was wise of Bush to promote use of renewable resources. Con provided no evidence that curbing the regulatory appetite of the EPA was unwise. "The [Obama FDA] said that ... Organic arsenic ... passes through the body quickly and isn’t harmful. It’s inorganic arsenic that can be toxic and cause cancer." http://www.longislandpress.com...Neither Bush nor Obama ere perfect Presidents, but Bush did his job and Obama has not. Obama's unrelenting vision of government control has destroyed hope of recovery.