APP - The Bush Recession... Much worse than the Carter Recession was!

Nobody was worse than Nixon, unless your from the middle east, like a little regulation, or are anti-war.
Ok Bush was worse
 
evince said:
Bush was far worse than Nixon.
Click to expand...
That's highly debatable. Bush may have been incompetent and maybe even corrupt but he was not the immoral son of a bitch to the degree Nixon was. No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did. Nixon certainly had some great accomplishments but that was more then made up for by his personal demons. Though to bolster your argument, Professional historians do rate Bush as worse than Nixon but not by much. Bush is ranked as 7th worst and Nixon is rated as 10 worst. There is still hope for Bush's legacy to be reformed. If Iraq turns into a prosperous and stable Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east, then Bush's legacy would rehabilitate and he would move substantially up the rankings. Alternatively, if a national economic crisis occurs due to our growing national debt then both Reagan's and Bush's legacy's will plummet.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's highly debatable. Bush may have been incompetent and maybe even corrupt but he was not the immoral son of a bitch to the degree Nixon was. No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did. Nixon certainly had some great accomplishments but that was more then made up for by his personal demons. Though to bolster your argument, Professional historians do rate Bush as worse than Nixon but not by much. Bush is ranked as 7th worst and Nixon is rated as 10 worst. There is still hope for Bush's legacy to be reformed. If Iraq turns into a prosperous and stable Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east, then Bush's legacy would rehabilitate and he would move substantially up the rankings. Alternatively, if a national economic crisis occurs due to our growing national debt then both Reagan's and Bush's legacy's will plummet.
Click to expand...

By that standard then Clinton's must as well. Clinton raised the national debt in each year of his eight in office. Despite having the benefit of peacetime and the internet/telecom/tech boom leading a great economy. $1.6 trillion he added to the debt. In a peaceful booming economy.

Reagan's spending was done during the cold war and a large portion of that spending went to that endeavor. Papa Bush was far worse than Reagan in terms of spending. lil' Bush will always be low in my opinion due to his insane levels of debt.

That said, Nixon was worse than lil Bush. Carter is on par with lil Bush. Though I do give him credit for appointing Volcker. (see correct spelling of his name:) )
 
Bush is the worst.

His policies fucked up everything that he touched.

Nixon wasnt great but he was no Bush
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's highly debatable. Bush may have been incompetent and maybe even corrupt but he was not the immoral son of a bitch to the degree Nixon was. No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did. Nixon certainly had some great accomplishments but that was more then made up for by his personal demons. Though to bolster your argument, Professional historians do rate Bush as worse than Nixon but not by much. Bush is ranked as 7th worst and Nixon is rated as 10 worst. There is still hope for Bush's legacy to be reformed. If Iraq turns into a prosperous and stable Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east, then Bush's legacy would rehabilitate and he would move substantially up the rankings. Alternatively, if a national economic crisis occurs due to our growing national debt then both Reagan's and Bush's legacy's will plummet.
Click to expand...


Bush will sink in the light of history.

The endless ass covering of the people associated with him trying to show they tried to fight the corruption will continue.

When they are dead and the papers come out his placement will be sealed.

Bush was a patsi to a large extent but he was a lying dishonest patsi who is not much better than the brighter people like Cheney and Ascroft who pulled the strings.
 
Superfreak said:
:tantrum: YOU STILL HAVEN'T EDITED THE POST JAROD!!! DON'T MAKE ME TELL DAMO ON YOU :tantrum:
Click to expand...

Please report it, what I wrote is not against the rules... Report it to Damo, if he has any integrity he will not edit it...
 
Luckily I dont use name calling as a debate tactict. If I did however I would post where that is allowed.

I personally see name calling as a desperation that illistrates a weakness in ones argument. Sometimes its a desperation other times its a filler to avoid real discussion that one knows would lead them to have to admit a mistake.
 
Jarod said:
Luckily I dont use name calling as a debate tactict. If I did however I would post where that is allowed.

I personally see name calling as a desperation that illistrates a weakness in ones argument. Sometimes its a desperation other times its a filler to avoid real discussion that one knows would lead them to have to admit a mistake.
Click to expand...

or perhaps sometimes it is because the person really is a friggin idiot and needs to be reminded of it.
 
Superfreak said:
By that standard then Clinton's must as well. Clinton raised the national debt in each year of his eight in office. Despite having the benefit of peacetime and the internet/telecom/tech boom leading a great economy. $1.6 trillion he added to the debt. In a peaceful booming economy.

Reagan's spending was done during the cold war and a large portion of that spending went to that endeavor. Papa Bush was far worse than Reagan in terms of spending. lil' Bush will always be low in my opinion due to his insane levels of debt.

That said, Nixon was worse than lil Bush. Carter is on par with lil Bush. Though I do give him credit for appointing Volcker. (see correct spelling of his name:) )
Click to expand...
Hardly. Clinton inherited a debt level from previous administrations that were at very high levels as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced that ratio each year he was in office until he turned defecits into a surplus his last year in office. So Clinton effectively reversed that trend.

Also, claiming Reagan increased spending to pay for the cold war is a red herring. First, previous administrations had affectively fought and contained Soviet expansionism with out resorting to deficit spending. Second, the area of spending that caused the deficits under Reagan was not for defence but was in entitlement programs. In other words domestic spending. In fact, of the 10 trillion dollars in natonal debt we've accrued since 1950 till the end of the second Bush administration 85% of that debt occurred under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with 70% of that total debt occuring under Reagan and BushII. So there's no mistaking about who is responsible for those large levels of debt and if we suffer serious economic consequences as a result both Reagan and Bush II will bear the brunt of the blame.
 
Superfreak said:
or perhaps sometimes it is because the person really is a friggin idiot and needs to be reminded of it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Those who are idiots usually are not helped by being reminded of that condition.

Name calling is childish and pittafull. It illistrates the limits of the mind of the name caller.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hardly. Clinton inherited a debt level from previous administrations that were at very high levels as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced that ratio each year he was in office until he turned defecits into a surplus his last year in office. So Clinton effectively reversed that trend.

Also, claiming Reagan increased spending to pay for the cold war is a red herring. First, previous administrations had affectively fought and contained Soviet expansionism with out resorting to deficit spending. Second, the area of spending that caused the deficits under Reagan was not for defence but was in entitlement programs. In other words domestic spending. In fact, of the 10 trillion dollars in natonal debt we've accrued since 1950 till the end of the second Bush administration 85% of that debt occurred under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with 70% of that total debt occuring under Reagan and BushII. So there's no mistaking about who is responsible for those large levels of debt and if we suffer serious economic consequences as a result both Reagan and Bush II will bear the brunt of the blame.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm misreading this you are saying that Reagan spent the most money not on defense but on entitlement spending? Isn't the usual line that Reagan tried to 'starve the beast' i.e. entitlement programs while spending so much money on the military?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hardly. Clinton inherited a debt level from previous administrations that were at very high levels as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced that ratio each year he was in office until he turned defecits into a surplus his last year in office. So Clinton effectively reversed that trend.

Also, claiming Reagan increased spending to pay for the cold war is a red herring. First, previous administrations had affectively fought and contained Soviet expansionism with out resorting to deficit spending. Second, the area of spending that caused the deficits under Reagan was not for defence but was in entitlement programs. In other words domestic spending. In fact, of the 10 trillion dollars in natonal debt we've accrued since 1950 till the end of the second Bush administration 85% of that debt occurred under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with 70% of that total debt occuring under Reagan and BushII. So there's no mistaking about who is responsible for those large levels of debt and if we suffer serious economic consequences as a result both Reagan and Bush II will bear the brunt of the blame.
Click to expand...

Inncorrect. Clinton didn't reduce/reverse anything. GDP simply grew at a faster pace than the difference between spending and revenues. Each and every year the national debt went up. That has been the case since 1960. So enough with the "BUDGET" surplus fairy tale. At the end of the year, more money was spent than was taken in. Period. In Peacetime, during an economic boom the idiots in DC still raised our debt every friggin year. Bottom line, during Clinton's 8 years the national debt increased by 1.6 trillion. The same as under Reagan in dollar terms, though Reagan increased it more in terms of percentages.

Nice Cherry picking of the stats. You can say the same thing with Clinton and Bush Jr. that you just said with Reagan. In dollar terms he was right on par with Reagan. When you factor in that prior to 1960 (so an entire decade of your stats) the politicians in DC tried to actually avoid deficit spending as much as possible. Next, you are not factoring in the compounding effect of the debt. Presidents prior to Reagan did not have to deal with the same levels of interest burden that Reagan did. Likewise, Reagan did not have to deal with the same burdens Clinton did.... etc...
 
cawacko said:
Unless I'm misreading this you are saying that Reagan spent the most money not on defense but on entitlement spending? Isn't the usual line that Reagan tried to 'starve the beast' i.e. entitlement programs while spending so much money on the military?
Click to expand...

No, Reagan did indeed spend a lot on Johnsons entitlement programs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top