Opinion about Bush...

[Cancel11]

No, there was simply more flowing in than was "budgeted" for. The national debt has increased every year since 1960. More and more in the red we go. Call it what you want, but during the "surplus", the government still ran in the red to make ends meet.

Be that as it may, we were still in a lot better of a situation than we're in now.

 

[Beefy]

Be that as it may, we were still in a lot better of a situation than we're in now.

I agree with that. However, there was never more coming in than going out like you said. There was just some faux accounting shit happening, which was possible because the deficits were much smaller.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Bullshit, he returned our tax dollars to us without spending it.

The "surplus" was an accounting gimmick anyway, it was the inclusion of social security trusts into the general fund, so they could be included in the budget... money that was intended for us to retire on, was used to "balance" the over-bloated budget, and Clinton sold this to you as a "surplus" or "windfall" when in fact, it was your retirement money.

The money came from a tax. They just decided to basically use a different tax to make up the difference so that it wouldn't be so apparent and they wouldn't have to raise the taxes Americans normally pay attention to. If it ever went awry again they could just raise the social security tax.

You conservatives should be glad, the SS tax is ridiculously regressive.

 

[Cancel11]

You conservatives should be glad, the SS tax is ridiculously regressive.

How do you conclude that conservatives intentionally want to screw over the worker? Typical marxist drivel. Conservatives (such as myself) want to repeal payroll taxes, and privatize SS and Medicare, for the benefit of all.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How do you conclude that conservatives intentionally want to screw over the worker? Typical marxist drivel. Conservatives (such as myself) want to repeal payroll taxes, and privatize SS and Medicare, for the benefit of all.

I don't think Marx said anything of the sort. What your doing bringing him into the debate I'm not sure, but I assure you that liberal democracy is no closer to Marxism than conservative monarchism.

And if by "all" you mean "the rich", then your statement is correct.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I personally dont consider Bush merely a bad president, in the way I consider his father a poor president. To me Bush is in a league all his own.

There are bad presidents, but to me, Bush has been in a catagory all his own, does anyone else agree...?

I dont think there has ever been a worse president by a LONG shot. Any canidates for a worse president? Its more than merely disagreeing with his policies or the way of doing things.

Who agrees?

Time will tell. Bush's partisness, his inability to work across the aisle, his extreme ideolgy, his horrible economic policies, dropping the ball on he war in terror and over reaching in Iraq will probably means that he was surpass U.S. Grant as our worst two term President. IMHO, Buchannon, Cooledge and Harding were worse with Harding being the worst.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bullshit, he returned our tax dollars to us without spending it.

The "surplus" was an accounting gimmick anyway, it was the inclusion of social security trusts into the general fund, so they could be included in the budget... money that was intended for us to retire on, was used to "balance" the over-bloated budget, and Clinton sold this to you as a "surplus" or "windfall" when in fact, it was your retirement money.

Oh Please Dixie, there isn't a thing you can say, in this reality based world, that is going to change the fact that Bush and Reagan are the two most fiscally irresponsible Presidents in US history.

 

[Diuretic]

How do you conclude that conservatives intentionally want to screw over the worker? Typical marxist drivel. Conservatives (such as myself) want to repeal payroll taxes, and privatize SS and Medicare, for the benefit of all.

How would privatisation of those things benefit all?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Put it another way, I am voting for Obama, but I belive McCain would be a million times better than Bush ever was.

I never liked Regan or Bush Sr. much but Id vote for them over Bush any day of the week.

I would feel okay with Nixon (were he alive) being president again before Id be okay with having Bush back.

I think your right. McCain with Warner, Grahm and Hagel are some the very few sane Republicans in a party that's gone crazy.

We have some huge issues that need to be dealt with, one's that Bush has been either to incompetent to deal with effectively or, as in the case of Iraq, disasters he's created.

I believe McCain has the courage to deal with these issues effectively. Obama in a short time has demonstrated a remarkable degree of political skill combined with knowledge of policy, the question on him is experience which he lacks. The question on McCain is one of temerment.

Either way I'm really happy with this election. Both parties have put forth remarkably talented individuals. It's the best slate of Presidential candidates in my adult life time.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bush is not evil or psychotic. He is completely and totally incompetent. He has shown a complete inability to handle the job. He was unable to see the possibility that more troops would be needed after Iraq fell. He fired men who disagreed with him about the after effects of the war. He just recently acted like a member of the press was on drugs when they talked about gas going to 4 dollars per gallon. He misused the DOJ and when certain US attorney's would not prosecute political cases they were fired. I would suggest you all read David Iglesias' book about the aftermath of that ordeal. This mans presidency has been a clusterfuck from just after 9-11. When that first happened American's were united in getting the "evil doers", but he squandered that political currency and still over half the US voted for him again. All of you that did were wrong. You were wrong about him being better than Kerry. But then hindsight is always 20/20. He is the worst president of my lifetime. He has thrown Carter a life ring. The incompentency that this man has done will live after him and we and our children will pay for it.

A pretty succinct analysis. I'm sure time and history will prove you correct. I don't think Bush is evil, spoiled, stupid. He's certainly not the later. I believe Bush is a man with blinders on. He has an insulated group of advisors that he genuinely listens to and heeds. Outside of this insulated group he's reluctant to listen. But once he makes up his mind on a decision he is convinced with an illogical degree of certainty, despite the evidence that he is right. This is his major down falling as an effective chief executive.

So I agree. If anyone word describes Bush it's incompetence. It's been clearly demonstrated through both primaries that what the public wants is change and a person with the political and executive skill to address some huge problem that need change. Competence will really be the main issue of this next election.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bush 43 = beginning of the end of America.

No, that's not true King. If you had said that W. was the beginning of the end as the worlds lone super power you may be right. History has been harsh with imperial powers that over reach and you can make specific comparisons with the great empires of history, Rome, Spain, the Dutch, Great Britain.

But that's not neccessarily a bad thing. Just like China and Russia and Great Britain we will remain a great nation and a great civilization even if we are no longer the worlds lone super power.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

When you evaluate a presidency still 6 months away from beginning its legacy, it is important to compare it with evaluations of other presidents at the same point in time. 6 months before the end of Lincoln's presidency, about 75% of the country thought he was a madman. He had suspended Habeas Corpus, for you pinheads, that means we had no justice or rule of law, it was probably the only time in American history we were a fascist totalitarian government. Now, in retrospect, we all love Lincoln and praise him as one of our greatest presidents, but such was not the sentiment of the day, in fact, it resulted in his assassination. He literally divided this country against itself and engaged in an all out civil war, something Bush never did, in spite of the liberal treason and attacks on America.

Another president we may consider is Andrew Jackson. While we see him on our $20 bill, and think he was one of our greatest leaders, his policies as president often met with disfavor. He completely oppressed the Native Americans, relegated them to savages and barbarians, and marched them to their deaths along the Trail of Tears because he was prejudiced against them.

There are any number of presidents who, 6-months before the end of their presidency, people viewed as "bad presidents" or "the worst ever" president. In fact, it is precisely where the term "lame duck" came from, people who were disgruntled with the lack of achievement in the last days of an administration.

Bush made his share of mistakes and blunders. The objective and purpose behind Iraq was good, but the planning and implementing was not as good as it should have been, and the administration sorely lacked the communication abilities to combat the anti-war arguments along the way. Like his father, Bush literally ignored public sentiments and failed to address the issues raised at the time, which led to catastrophe. Like his father, he assumed the record high approval numbers he enjoyed would last, and he wouldn't have to do a thing to make that continue. I rank him just below his father as presidents go, and his father is along the same lines as Gerald Ford, nothing much to brag about. The Worst Ever? I don't know about that, history will tell.

Dixie! I'm shocked. This is the closest I've ever seen you come to being objective.

I agree that Bush is not the worst ever. You are also right that history will have the final say on his legacy. If political stabilization and modernization of the middle east occurs as a result of his policies he will be considered a significant President. I'm not optimistic that will happen but you are correct that their are comparisons in History.

Harry Truman for example who was extremely unpopular for a number of reasons, the war in Korea and containing communism and his policies on civil rights which alienated the south were the main reasons. But he was correct on those issues, as history proved, Truman was the architect of the downfall of the Soviet empire, not Reagan. This, as well as how he lead this nation at the end of WWII have caused him to be evaluated now as a near great president. But I must stress. I seriously doubt that the views on Bush will change substantially.

I think you also give Gerald Ford short shift as a President. First, Ford inherited the Presidency under extremely unusual circumstances. Second, he committed political suicide when he pardoned Nixon and though Nixon was a scumbag who would have deserved what he got Ford genuinely did the right thing in pardoning Nixon and bringing our long national nightmare to an end. In the process he comitted political suicide but it was a hugely courageous act and it was the right thing to do for our country and for this Ford earns a great deal of respect. He was not the inept non-entity that some try to paint him as.

Having said all this I don' think Bush is the worst ever either, though I disagree that he's a step under his father. Poppi Bush was an average President and given the quality of Presidents we have had, that's on hell of a compliment. His son though will not be considered an average President but a poor or bad one, though certainly not the worst.

 

[Jarod]

My point was, the same exact statement was made for a number of presidents on the twilight of their presidency.... Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon... the list is endless. You can not judge a presidency accurately from this close. It requires years and years of time to pass, and for history to evaluate what/how their policies changed things.... THEN, you can make this determination, not NOW! Understand my point?

Right now, you are too close to it, nothing has been realized to you because we live in the moment, we can't see into the future. During Clinton's last few months, I thought he was one of the worst presidents in history, but as time has passed and we can objectively look back at those years, he wasn't as bad as I had thought at the time, the same is true with Nixon, and Carter... well, I actually still think Carter was one of the worst.... but the point is, time and history must be applied to gain an accurate evaluation of a presidency.

Take a look at President Clintons popularity 6 months before leaving office.

 

[Jarod]

Ar you serious? Look at how much spending increased under Bush from the onset. Republican President flat ass rubber stamping everything the Republican Congress sent his way. "without spending it" ????? Out of your tree Dix.

And I agree that the so called "surplus" wasn't really an honest surplus, but a paper shifting snow job, but it was ass loads better than what's happened since. But since you and I agree that there was never really a surplus, how can you possibly say Bush gave back money that was never spent when our borrowing was increasing during that time?

He raided the treasury, gave money out to try to improve his popularity, and then spent more than what was brought in ten times over.

 

[Jarod]

I belive my point is proven, Dixie disagreed so its sure to be true.


Had Dixie agreed, Id have to reevaluate.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

d

to date, the only president possibly worse than gwb is harding

with regard to our civil war, the south wanted an aristocracy (while slavery was important to their mainly agrarian economy, it was not what the war was really about) so in order to permit such a thing they seceeded from the union - please note that the original government formed by the rebellious states was a confederacy and it failed only to be replaced by a federal government - the federalist and anti-federalist papers detail the hopes and fears regarding a federal system -

Lincoln wanted to keep the southern states in the union and the southern states wanted out - the northern states won...so lincoln is a hero to the north and a devil to the south...oh well

while gwb has almost 7 months to pull his chestnuts out of the fire, it does not look good for him to do so - as you say time will tell

some other lousy presidents were van buren, grant, harding, hoover, coolidge


but for gwb, he needs a miracle

You forgot to mention Buchannon and Pierce. I think Pierce, as an ex-President, was treasonous in his behavior. I rate Pierce, Buchannon, Coolidge and Harding as worse then W with Grant and Hoover being a wash.

In fact I think Hoover get's a bit of a bum rap. Hoover had just became President when the Great Depression occured it was really the Coolidge administrations policies that helped lead the the great depression. Having said that Hoover proved rather inaffective at dealing with the crisis (and so did FDR for the first 6 years of his Presidency). Hoover, however, like Carter and John Quincy Adams was one of our best ex-Presidents. Hoover was a great humanitarian and an out standing elder statesman who's work on reforming and improving the function of the Federal Government, via the Hoover Commision, was of inmeasurable value to this country. Hoover may have been an ineffective President but he was a great American leader who's services were of huge value to this nation.

In fact I rate John Q. Adams, Hoover and Taft as our best ex-Presidents as most Presidents drop out of public life after their terms of office. Adams served in congress and became our nations greatest diplomat. Taft become the only person to head two branches of government, the executive branch and the judicial branch and he was certainly a more effective Chief Justice than a President and is considered one of our best Chief Justices of SCOTUS. Hoover services in modernizing our Federal government under Truman and Eisenhower were incredibly important too.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Clinton did pull some lousy shit his last days in office. He pardoned people that should not have been pardoned. As they exited they stole everything that wasn't nailed down. And he did some stuff expressly designed to screw Bush up.

As an example, he signed an executive order lowering the acceptable level of arsenic in water to ridiculous levels. If these levels were the law, more than half the tapwater in the USA would have been labelled toxic waste. But he didn't have it take effect while he was in office. No...he set the effective date for just after Bush took office. So that Bush had to start his presidency by raising the acceptable level of arsenic in the water. And this fact was widely reported, but somehow the story about clinton lowering them was ignored.

You don't know what you're talking about on the Arsenic Sol.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

In many ways, Bill Clinton was a decent President. Fiscally speaking he was more conservative than Bush. Bush spent our surplus on a tax cut, and while I support the tax cut, it should have been accompanied by a cut in government spending. John McCain is absolutely correct on this issue. We must cut spending.

The FY2000 budget was in the area of $1.8T, as a recall, and the budget was balanced. Currently, the Federal budget exceeds $3.0T, we are running a massive deficit, and the national debt is growing rapidly.

Incoming President McCain needs to commit to cutting spending by at least 5% per year for the next 4 years if we are to secure our nation's future.

Bush's biggest domestic fuck up was allowing a republican congress to eliminate "PAYGO".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bingo on all points.

I think ya'll just hung Dixie on his own petard. lol

 

[Onceler]

Any casual observer can see that Bush is a man who is hopelessly unqualified for the job which he has, and is in way over his head.

The judgment of "history" won't change that. It won't make his incompetence on Katrina go away; it won't suddenly make Iraq "necessary" for our national security; it won't turn rebate checks into "great economic policy"; it won't make massaging the German Chancellor's shoulders smooth international relations; it won't make "bring 'em on" any less stupid.

Saying he's "the worst" may be premature, but there is no way this guy climbs out of the bottom 5, unless future history is only judged post-lobotomy, while tripping on acid.