What 8 Years Of Bush Has Done To Our Economy

marleyisalegend

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
6,126
Media
1
Likes
616
Points
333
Age
38
Location
charlotte
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
gross mismangagement? No not really. Gross overspending (not talking about the war)? Definitely. It's not that the republicans are doing a good job - they aren't, but the dems are even worse. My ass still hurts from doing taxes last month and Clinton's and Obama's "big plans" scare the shit out of me.

what would you call these incidents if not gross mismanagement

-politicians spending tax $$ on hookers
-guantanamo bay
-use of retired military officers to give a COMPLETELY BIASED perspective of progression in coverage
-torture practices
-consistent dishonesty with the american public
-hurricane katrina
-national debt
-senseless loss of life
-some of the lowest approval ratings i've ever seen
-lack of decent gun control leading to random public shootings
-economy
-millions of americans who have entered poverty

i don't think even solving world hunger would admonish the fact that the above listed are a result of poor governmental structuring and behaviors
 

Qua

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Posts
1,604
Media
63
Likes
1,268
Points
583
Location
Boston (Massachusetts, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
gross mismangagement? No not really. Gross overspending (not talking about the war)? Definitely. It's not that the republicans are doing a good job - they aren't, but the dems are even worse. My ass still hurts from doing taxes last month and Clinton's and Obama's "big plans" scare the shit out of me.

Amen

i have an excuse, im still in school :biggrin1:

Double amen :biggrin1: I love that excuse. That way I can have vehement opinions and expect people to listen to them yet still have a nice easy logical escape route if I get brutally disproven.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The main problem, as it seems to me, is that "islamist" is a term like "jews" or "blacks". To eliminate and/or repress (or at least try it) a particular part of the mankind, seems wrong to me in any way, not important if in form of the islamist ideology or "war as a defense".


i see your point and i agree with you. unfortunately, what we are involved with right now is a holy war. radical islamics, i guess i could say "extremists" instead, wanting the extermination of the entire christian faith. (notice i said radical) they do not want to repress us, they want to kill us. i see the repression of their beliefs as a better option than the destruction of the entire world. remember...when they die, they get 77 virgins...they couldn't care less about human life, so why would they compromise? (not to mention, who would we talk to even if we could negotiate? it's a religion, not a nation...)
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
what would you call these incidents if not gross mismanagement

-politicians spending tax $$ on hookers
-guantanamo bay
-use of retired military officers to give a COMPLETELY BIASED perspective of progression in coverage
-torture practices
-consistent dishonesty with the american public
-hurricane katrina
-national debt
-senseless loss of life
-some of the lowest approval ratings i've ever seen
-lack of decent gun control leading to random public shootings
-economy
-millions of americans who have entered poverty

i don't think even solving world hunger would admonish the fact that the above listed are a result of poor governmental structuring and behaviors


i would call them "American politics of the last 100 years...":welcome:
 

D_Cyprius Slapwilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Posts
313
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
103
I'd rather have a tax-and-spend government than a borrow-and-spend government, which is exactly what Bush AND his Republican Congress have been since 2000. What that means is that we'll need a tax-and-don't-spend government to save us from the massive amount of debt we've accrued, and unfortunately the Democratic Congress hasn't shown the fiscal restraint they claimed they would in 2006 (even though earmark growth has slowed down under the Democratic Congress, they aren't doing nearly enough).

Even with all war and defense spending ignored, this administration has overseen the highest growth in the size of government and domestic spending since LBJ. Republicans like to scare people away from voting for Democrats by saying how much their taxes will go up, but true fiscal responsibility is more than lowering taxes.

This is why I find it funny that the Republicans have been able to hold onto the mantle of fiscal responsibility for so long. Reagan has been the only Republican to actually cut non-defense spending in the last 30 years, while Nixon, Ford, Bush I and Bush II have all just made government even bigger and more intrusive than their successors. Domestic spending actually grew less during Carter's term than it did under Ford, and it grew WAY less under Clinton than it did under Bush. The truth is that neither political party deserves the claim to small government.
 

D_Neeson Niceone

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Posts
333
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
163
-politicians spending tax $$ on hookers
I'm amused you think this is a new thing. I'm also amused this is the first atrocity of federal spending you listed. At least it's once of the cheaper examples of poor spending. Oh and it's not party specific.

-guantanamo bay
I guess you think we should execute them instead of prisoners of war (in rather decent living conditions I might add)? Or should we wait until after they do something like 9/11?

-use of retired military officers to give a COMPLETELY BIASED perspective of progression in coverage
Or you can be the dems and have people completely fake being retired military officers to attempt some kind of credibility at complete crap. That was a good one.

-torture practices
Officially endorsed torture practices or accidents by people who get out of hand? You can play the good/bad game all day, but I like to play out a hypothetical situation with people:

You are the President. While flying in Air Force One, the Director of the FBI calls to inform you a nuclear weapon is armed and about to detonate in New York. Detonation could happen at any minute and millions of lives hang in the balance. The Bureau has captured one of the terrorist responsible for smuggling the bomb in but he isn't telling where it is. The Director feels extreme torture might be the only way of getting the information in a short amount of time.

What do you do, Mr. President?

Of course, everyone knows you have to torture the terrorist. Most people dodge and talk about how they would avoid said situation but the answer is obvious. Is torture of any degree brutal and uncivilized? Of course. But when the next terrorist attack in America happens (and it will), will you go to the families of those who lost loved ones and explain how our enlightened policy towards torture makes us better as a nation despite that it could have saved those who are gone forever? Do you think they will agree it was worth it to lose them least we pour water on someone's face?

What do you do, Mr. President?

-consistent dishonesty with the american public
Wait, this is new? Are you kidding?

-hurricane katrina
More a failure of the city government than the federal. I bet the Bush Administration caused the tsunami too....

-national debt
Again, amused you think this is new.

-senseless loss of life
War is hell, eh? I guess we could pull out of the middle east and just say "hey guys, lets just be friends", but what do you think would happen? More senseless loss of life is my guess...but on this side of the pond instead.

-some of the lowest approval ratings i've ever seen
Check out that approval rating for congress. Makes Bush look like the life of the party.

-lack of decent gun control leading to random public shootings
If we made guns illegal do you really think shootings would stop? No? What would happen then?

I remember my first economics course where the professor walked out in front of us with a bemused look in his eye. He asked the class which individual did we think had the biggest impact on the economy. The class, being young and ignorant as we were (and are) shouted back "the President!". His eyes sparkled and he replied that we weren't even close.

-millions of americans who have entered poverty
Millions eh? Source? Link? A credible one? Define poverty?
 

D_Neeson Niceone

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Posts
333
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
163
I'd rather have a tax-and-spend government than a borrow-and-spend government, which is exactly what Bush AND his Republican Congress have been since 2000. What that means is that we'll need a tax-and-don't-spend government to save us from the massive amount of debt we've accrued, and unfortunately the Democratic Congress hasn't shown the fiscal restraint they claimed they would in 2006 (even though earmark growth has slowed down under the Democratic Congress, they aren't doing nearly enough).

Even with all war and defense spending ignored, this administration has overseen the highest growth in the size of government and domestic spending since LBJ. Republicans like to scare people away from voting for Democrats by saying how much their taxes will go up, but true fiscal responsibility is more than lowering taxes.

This is why I find it funny that the Republicans have been able to hold onto the mantle of fiscal responsibility for so long. Reagan has been the only Republican to actually cut non-defense spending in the last 30 years, while Nixon, Ford, Bush I and Bush II have all just made government even bigger and more intrusive than their successors. Domestic spending actually grew less during Carter's term than it did under Ford, and it grew WAY less under Clinton than it did under Bush. The truth is that neither political party deserves the claim to small government.

I agree except I'd rather pay national debt with increased tax revenues from economic growth, not hiking up taxes and making my life miserable and really tanking the economy. Tax revenue and tax rate is not a 1:1 ratio. Increasing the latter doesn't have the effect on the former like many think it does.

You raise taxes and all people do is spend less and move money out of the country or into tax free shelters. Economic growth falls, tax revenues rise slightly or even fall.
 

marleyisalegend

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
6,126
Media
1
Likes
616
Points
333
Age
38
Location
charlotte
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
If we made guns illegal do you really think shootings would stop? No? What would happen then?

no but many sides have agreed that its far too easy for criminals and people with mental problems to get their hands on firearms, legally. sure, some are going to find illegal ways to get them but the legal way is certainly a bit more preventable than it is right now
 

D_Neeson Niceone

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Posts
333
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
163
no but many sides have agreed that its far too easy for criminals and people with mental problems to get their hands on firearms, legally. sure, some are going to find illegal ways to get them but the legal way is certainly a bit more preventable than it is right now

That's fair, there was certainly a big mistake with the VATech guy and his records. But it wasn't a lack of law, it was failure to enforce them.
 

D_Cyprius Slapwilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Posts
313
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
103
I agree except I'd rather pay national debt with increased tax revenues from economic growth, not hiking up taxes and making my life miserable and really tanking the economy. Tax revenue and tax rate is not a 1:1 ratio. Increasing the latter doesn't have the effect on the former like many think it does.
That is true, but constantly decreasing taxes doesn't always increase revenue either. If that were true, our nation would be infinitely wealthy if we didn't tax our citizens at all. It's a balancing act. As a follower of Keynesian Economics, I believe that taxing and spending needs to be fluctuated based on the status of the market. Making the tax code more progressive will also help to get inflation back under control. The Bush tax cuts, I think, happened at a pretty good time, but Bush and Congress spent us into oblivion instead of showing "Republican restraint." I believe the tax cuts should be adjusted to today's market.

If there's ANYTHING I like about John McCain (and there isn't too much), it's that he's so vehemently against earmarks. Most Republican Congressmen talk a lot about them, but they claim their fair share of the pork. As much of a Democrat as I am, I would love to see earmarks tossed to the curb forever.
 

Narcisse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Posts
123
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
oh, well ya, bill would be cool, but back to the article, IMO, the money spent on the war is a necessity at this point. there are people out there that want you dead, A LOT of them. does that not worry you? what if i told you these people that want you dead WILL try to kill you if we lose this war? ya, it's a sticky situation, but if the Iraqi government turns corrupt(which it will), and nothing is done, the development of WMDs will ensue in the following ten to twenty years. i don't know about you, but i would prefer not to get nuked.


At lot of people want you dead for starting the war in the first place, on (obviously to everyone except US citizens brainwashed by FOX, CNN and mass paranoia) false premises.

Now, I for one believe you should continue the job, you screwed up REAL bad in Iraq, now make it right

make sure they that government turn corrupt, which would lead to violence and eventually religious fondamentalism, because there's no money to be had and they turn towards their rifles and corans (sounds familiar?)

secure their economy so they dont do like your own redneck evangelists and become fondamentalists for lack of economic benefits

Not so easy, heh ?

Well too bad for you.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
At lot of people want you dead for starting the war in the first place, on (obviously to everyone except US citizens brainwashed by FOX, CNN and mass paranoia) false premises.

Now, I for one believe you should continue the job, you screwed up REAL bad in Iraq, now make it right

make sure they that government turn corrupt, which would lead to violence and eventually religious fondamentalism, because there's no money to be had and they turn towards their rifles and corans (sounds familiar?)

secure their economy so they dont do like your own redneck evangelists and become fondamentalists for lack of economic benefits

Not so easy, heh ?

Well too bad for you.


what was the point of this comment? you have said exactly what i said in my previous posts...and FYI, i am a diest, far different from a "redneck evangelist."

o and fuck you for saying i watch Fox and CNN.
 

B_Trues

Just Browsing
Joined
May 5, 2007
Posts
111
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
i don't think Bush intends to be a bad man, and what he does is out of good intension, the iraq war may have been a good thing, bu for most other things yes he is a freaking idiot!
 

B_Trues

Just Browsing
Joined
May 5, 2007
Posts
111
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
mccain is wayy different to Bush, people only say they are the same because they have the similar iraq policies, i mean if you just want to get out of iraq now and waste the more than ~2 trillion spent on it, while the people there have a chance of becoming liberated and standing an example for the rest of the islamic world- don't be naive
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hightower Lowdown | What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy

and they wanna elect mccain so we can go through it for another 8

For one ...

he inherited the biggest letdown in the dot.com bust.
inherited a recession within his first year of presidency
has maintained an unemployment that bests the 90s, 80s and 70s...


but regardless it's very naive to think the president has much to do with day-to-day economic policy....

thusly why the left mainstream media won't/can't ask Barry Obama what he specifically can do about $4/gallon gas.



the economy is it's own beast... that has so many levers in this modern age, it's frightening.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
mccain is wayy different to Bush, people only say they are the same because they have the similar iraq policies, i mean if you just want to get out of iraq now and waste the more than ~2 trillion spent on it, while the people there have a chance of becoming liberated and standing an example for the rest of the islamic world- don't be naive

Well put...


Clinton is more like Bush, than McCain ever would be.

Obama... who knows... he's about hope and change... whatever that means with zero track record.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
At lot of people want you dead for starting the war in the first place

Who fucking cares.... a lot of those ppl wanted us dead long before that war..... read the Bin Laden 9/11 note to understand the US, nor Bush started this...

I wish we'd be more aggressive, and not surgically strike ... we learned a lot from Hiroshima and Nagasaki... yet FAILED to repeat the deft and swift action....

I'd love for Iran to toss out a nuclear weapon on Israel like they state... then we could instantly change the rules of engagement.... and quit dilly-dallying.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Who fucking cares.... a lot of those ppl wanted us dead long before that war..... read the Bin Laden 9/11 note to understand the US, nor Bush started this...

I wish we'd be more aggressive, and not surgically strike ... we learned a lot from Hiroshima and Nagasaki... yet FAILED to repeat the deft and swift action....

I'd love for Iran to toss out a nuclear weapon on Israel like they state... then we could instantly change the rules of engagement.... and quit dilly-dallying.

Last I checked it wasn't the US or any "Western" nation that has thrown out deathly challenges... the fact that we are stuck with playing by our own rules...... leaves us disadvantaged....


Remember it was 8 years of Clinton policies that led to the anger of 9/11. Bush was in office for a mere 8 months and was still setting up the fax machine ...to "anger" the Islamic freak-ozoids. In other words.... the "Bush' has pitted the world against us... is folly. Who cares. Last I checked... France (a la the whole Freedom Fries) elected the VERY more conservative Sarkozy.... Berlusconi is back in office... and England is still in cahoots with big red white n blue.