an honest question regarding george w bush

Post Reply New Topic

has he done anything positive within his two terms as president?

note: iraq and afghan wars don't count.*

*i feel the need to justify this but i can't dedicate that kind of time at the moment...maybe someone else could help pick up the slack on this?

Last edited by skafather84 on 09 May 2008, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

deleted

Last edited by burnse22 on 10 May 2008, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm racking my brain... not really finding anything. Sorry. I really tried, too. Oh wait, he... no never mind. Wow, we would probably have been better off had a chimpanzee been in the White House. That's pretty sad.

aye...but i want serious responses to what's perceived as something positive about his terms in office.

maybe a discussion/debate on those points too when they're brought up.

The economy was going to crap when he entered into office. Trade center made it worse. Mortgage lending, what else? "His" policies, and his war-making abilities have made the economy regain a bit and keep from entering into a full recession.

It was serious. I paused for a few minutes and honestly tried to find something positive about his administration. I failed.

Oscuria, I can't think of any specific economic policies Bush has implemented that have prevented a recession. BTW, we're kind of heading into a recession now, so that argument doesn't work. The economy has consistently gotten worse during his term of office, and we actually are seeing a declining standard of living for the first time in America. Per capita real GDP is down, and inflation continues to be a major problem. We have ruined our position internationally and jeopardized our superpower status (hey, this may actually be a good thing, no one country will dominate the world anymore unless the Chinese continue to increase their influence).

George did wonders for public health.

Laughing is healthy.

and he did nothing in his first 100 days and then took a vacation then 9/11 happened.

deleted

Last edited by burnse22 on 10 May 2008, 3:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The idea of a superpower is long gone. Seriously, there's no reason to think of it considering that many economies have grown substantially and there being little threat to their sovereignty. They can afford to shun "big players".

The economy was already declining when Bush entered office, and there has been many other events that have, and would have, occurred if any other President was in office. Bush's "policies" (granted he does not control the economy) have kept it from reaching its full impact. We are still not in a recession. So his policies appear to be working, if only for the meantime.

Yes, the economy was already declining when Bush took office. That is not an explanation for the consistent, sustained decline that we have seen. A better explanation might be that fact that Mr. Fiscal Conservative spent us into a hell of a lot of debt. Since recessions are defined after-the-fact, I would say that we probably are in a recession right now, it just hasn't been officially recognized yet. And anyways, a lot of numbers have been fudged on economic data. His policies are NOT working. Stop trying to use the fact that the economy was beginning to decline 8 years ago as an excuse for why its bad today. Not everything wrong in the world is Clinton's fault.

You are adding words, Mr. Do-Not-Insult-My-Hero-Clinton.

Let us see. Dot Com crash, Mortgage lending, World Trade Center, Rising Gas/Oil, a growing China and India, yet where are we? We are still here. We are not yet heavily hit like other countries. I am not beating up my neighbors over rice and wheat. Neither are you, I would hope.

Seems to me that the policies are working.

I think its completely in the eye of the beholder in terms of their political stance, their view of how the world works, and whatever suspicions they entertain regarding conspiracy theory. Being that the media and culture in general have been rampant with everything and have done their best to subdue pretty much anyone who thinks they have a solid understanding one way or the other - almost seems better keeping to yourself unless your writing a column or have a talk show.

I actually am not a fan of Clinton, but I do get tired of so often hearing Bushites claim that Clinton is the reason for all the economy's woes. OK, Dot Com Crash. That happened a long time ago, economy is not still being affected by it. Same for WTC, airline industry would probably have recovered better without all the new regulation and systemic harassment and humiliation of passengers mandated by the DHS. Mortgage lending... pretty recent. Bush appointees encouraged that fiasco through inflationary policy, though to be fair Bush can't be expected to have the economic acumen to know which economist to appoint to important positions. Rising gas/oil, and a refusal to invest in plausible alternatives. such as nuclear, as well as a refusal to deal with OPEC's cartel behavior. What countries have been heavily hit whose economies weren't already crap? Europe hasn't taken as much of a hit as we have.

Which of Bush's policies have helped the economy? Was it the tax break only for his wealthy friends and not for the middle class? Or was it spending us into record levels of debt?

that's irrelevant anyways. clinton sucked too. just because someone else sucked doesn't mean it's acceptable for someone else to do a bad job.

also: please quit trying to redirect the discussion towards clinton. we're not discussing his presidency here.

I don't really think he was responsible for 911, he did steal his way into the presidency by having his brother rig the ballots in Florida, he's been about the worst president in regards to foreign policy. I sort of thought the economy was doing great under Clinton