• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2010 Census Conclusions: Bush II was a catastrophe

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
just out! 2010 Census Data! 8 years of clinton... 8 years of bush.

clinton was the last 8 years of the prior decade, bush the first 8 of 2010, makes for a nice comparison.

clinton, income up about 20 % (28% in the lowest brackets)
bush: income down about 8% (11% in the lower brackets)

clinton: poverty down 4 million souls (children: down 3m)
bush: poverty UP 12 million (children UP 4m)

Clinton: uninsured americans down about half a percent (via workplace, up 30m)
Bush: uninsured Americas UP 3 percent. (via workplace, up each and every year of his admin - total 10m)

Clinton: New jobs - 20m
Bush New jobs - 7m (fewer each year of his admin)

and the Big Bell Ringer....
It's worth noting that this dismal performance occurred almost entirely after the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were in place. That record offers little reason for confidence that extending the tax cuts will ignite recovery, as their advocates argue. The economy produced more vibrant and broadly shared growth in the 1990s after Bill Clinton raised taxes than it did after Bush cut them.
- Ronald Brownstein, The National Journal

and now these fine republicans offer us a NEW contract.... run, hide.

geo.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Geesh I had no idea that a president, on his own, can directly control the economy and the lives of millions of people.

Simply astonishing.
Lets dump our archaic religions and instead worship these super powerful men, they seem to be true gods.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Geesh I had no idea that a president, on his own, can directly control the economy and the lives of millions of people.

.
convenient.... when it shows what you do not want to see, there harry.

of course, a president does NOT do it all alone. it is irrational to hold the president accountable for all that happens.

still, we do. and not entirely without reason. one year, nah.... one policy... well, we would have to take a look and do some critical evaluations and.... emmm....

but c'mon.... 8 YEARS? there is something there. without hesitation, the Bush tax cuts, especially in light of his expenditures, most especially the two wars... there are the makings for a national catastrophe.

Lets dump our archaic religions and instead worship these super powerful men, they seem to be true gods
dunno about worshipping these or any other men... i think i will pass. but you are free to dump all the archaic religions (there are no othere kinds) and i will be glad to help dig the hole.

geo.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
convenient.... when it shows what you do not want to see, there harry.
What do I want to see?

of course, a president does NOT do it all alone. it is irrational to hold the president accountable for all that happens.
Then why are you presenting it as such?

still, we do. and not entirely without reason. one year, nah.... one policy... well, we would have to take a look and do some critical evaluations and.... emmm....
You crediting/blaming one person for something that millions of people have control over.
It doesn't make any sense to me.

but c'mon.... 8 YEARS? there is something there. without hesitation, the Bush tax cuts, especially in light of his expenditures, most especially the two wars... there are the makings for a national catastrophe.
Bush, nor Clinton, were the elected dictators of the U.S. during those years.

dunno about worshipping these or any other men... i think i will pass. but you are free to dump all the archaic religions (there are no othere kinds) and i will be glad to help dig the hole.

geo.
You're inflating the importance of these people, I think you should tone it down a bit.
 

soccerboy22

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
10,723
Reaction score
4,120
Location
A warm place
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Geesh I had no idea that a president, on his own, can directly control the economy and the lives of millions of people.

Simply astonishing.
Lets dump our archaic religions and instead worship these super powerful men, they seem to be true gods.
For real. I am taking a Presidential Leadership class and the evolution that has taken place is amazing. I always thought we gave the president too much credit/blame, but damn.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What do I want to see?
well, it would seem something other than the content of the OP.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
well, i cannot be held accountable for what makes sense to you, nor what fails to make sense to you.
Bush, nor Clinton, were the elected dictators of the U.S. during those years.
"was". 'neither' is singular....

and no, they were the presidents of the United States. They do not create policy in a vacuum, but in cooperation with other elected representatives.... well, except when we have a black, muslim, socialist foreigner traitor in office... we always have to allow for exceptions. They bring with them large staffs of people (hopefully) highly qualified in a variety of policy areas to assist them with the specific intent of crafting policy that will, they hope, become practice. that those hopes are often fulfilled is no coincidence.

in particular, the fact that they are elected by ALL the voters provides them with the aura of a 'national will' which all those with whom they cooperate lack. because of this the wield considerable power in policy. that is why they are often referred to as the most powerful individuals in the world and that is why they go to such an extent to convince us to elect them. that is, in fact, why we elect them and that is why the policies that are enacted under their aegis are often inseparable from them such that we refer to them with the presidents name: The Bush Tax Cuts, ObamaCare.

that no president can be held wholly responsible for what happens during his term is certainly true. that no president can be held responsible at all... doesn't even come close to being true.

critical evaluation... yep. let's do a little.

was bill clinton responsible for the huge boom during his term? hell no. certain of his policies were beneficial to an upward swing already in place... most of which, by the way, such as crushing what little remained of welfare, creating NAFTA to make the rich richer... I very much disagreed with. can he be credited with at least not creating policies that interfered with it. certainly, many of the very same ones i disagreed with. and some policies did, in fact, benefit us, specifically, increasing federal revenues - raising taxes contributing to a comfy surplus.

can GW be held accountable? well, for the wars, yes. he IS the commander in chief. for cutting taxes while fighting the two most expensive wars we have ever fought? yes. for the resultant contributions to the economic descent? damn right.
You're inflating the importance of these people.
which, no doubt, accounts for all those posts you make advising the antiObamistas that they are holding him accountable for things he has had no influence on.

perhaps you are not affording them enough importance. the president is more than an executive, he is a symbol and rallying point. the presidential persona effects the thinking of all americans and influences our own attitudes toward the direction we are taking and the road we are on. they may, in fact, wield the as much power in their persons as in their office. and they may reasonably be held accountable for that influence when it affects attitudes in voters that sway public policy.
I think you should tone it down a bit
and i think i should turn it up a bit... the irrational right is getting pretty loud. we are gonna have to shout to be heard.

geo.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes, because as every professional economist knows, it's best to draw sweeping conclusions about the quality of presidents based on macroeconomic trends.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,074
Reaction score
32,898
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The thread title implies this is a conclusion made and endorsed by the US Census Bureau.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Surely we cannot hold Bush solely responsible but this did happen under him and a republican legislature...I find it funny though how some are just brushing these numbers off, if it were Obama instead of Bush conservatives would be on this like a pack of dogs.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, because as every professional economist knows, it's best to draw sweeping conclusions about the quality of presidents based on macroeconomic trends.
Presidents don't control the economy. Nor does congress. Bush was a poor president because he did reckless and crappy things. But he was not controller of the ecoonomy.

That said, the poster above is correct, Obama haters sing a different tune when the president in question is Obama. Sadly.

:neener
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Presidents don't control the economy. Nor does congress. Bush was a poor president because he did reckless and crappy things. But he was not controller of the ecoonomy.
So you agree with me that the thread title and the OP are crap.

That said, the poster above is correct, Obama haters sing a different tune when the president in question is Obama. Sadly.

:neener
And I agree with you that many people have no problem blaming Obama for general economic trends when they would have been outraged if people did that to Bush (and vice versa).
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Roll GWB in glitter, he's still a turd.....
But given the democrat options, I voted for the turd...
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
they would have been outraged if people did that to Bush (and vice versa).
people ARE outraged. YOU are jumping up and down BECAUSE it was a fella you liked, not because it was bull****. If you wanted to refute the the bull**** partisan criticisms on the basis of bull**** and party rather than the merit of the criticism, you would do it regardless of the individual being criticized. you do not.

what the hell do you think i posted it for?

geo.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
people ARE outraged. YOU are jumping up and down BECAUSE it was a fella you liked, not because it was bull****. If you wanted to refute the the bull**** partisan criticisms on the basis of bull**** and party rather than the merit of the criticism, you would do it regardless of the individual being criticized. you do not.

what the hell do you think i posted it for?

geo.
In probably a dozen different threads, I've defended Obama from the ridiculous claim that the poor economy is somehow his fault.

Just because you're a rabid partisan doesn't mean that everyone else is.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes, because as every professional economist knows, it's best to draw sweeping conclusions about the quality of presidents based on macroeconomic trends.
Excellent refutation. I have said countless times in my conversations with friends "This recession was not made by Bush. Presidents and Congress do not create economic cycles, at least not in such short terms (8 years really is not that long, people)."

However, in the longer term, in general, Conservative policies do cause the economy to suffer, while Liberal ones bring long term and more resilient prosperity. That is another matter outside the scope of this thread, but I always include that caveat, in the hope of opening discussion/debate on the matter.

Finally, as long as both sides are having success with blaming the current president (whoever that may be) for the state of the economy (whenever that may be), I guess the kind of misinformation in the OP is as good as any.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,249
Reaction score
3,976
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't think a President nor Congress "controls" the nation's economy, but the legislation Congress compiles and the President subsequently signs into law can and do have a dramtic impact on the way the private sector works. To that degree, yes, the President and Congress can affect the nation's economic output. For example, in the thread, I highlighted the four major pieces of legislation since the Reagan era that many believe had a significant impact on our nation's economy and led directly to our current economic problems:

-- Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act(R) signed in 1982 (House majority: Democrat; Senate majority: Republican)

-- Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act(R) signed in 1982 (House majority: Democrat; Senate majority: Republican)

-- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(D) signed in 1999 (Congress majority: Republican)

-- Commodity Futures Modernization Act(R) signed in 2000 (Congress majority: Republican)

Note:
(R) = Act signed by Republican president
(D) = Act signed by Democrat president

To understand the economic crisis itself, you first have to understand the significance of each Act. From there, you can better understand how the policies as derived from each Act set the "economic engine" in the private sector in motion (i.e., banks and other lending institutions and their relationship to the housing market). The resulting "economic shift" can be traced to what is called "financialization". Until recently, I'd never heard of the term before (of course, I'm not an accountant, so there is that...), but it's very interesting (and refreshing) to finally have your views validated, towit: this country stopped being an "manufacturing" nation and turned into a "capitalization" nation long ago. (Meaning we moved from being a country that produced goods to a country that made money by moving money via speculation and figures on a ledger.) Turns out, like Enron, we're not the smartest guys in the room after all.
 
Last edited:

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
just out! 2010 Census Data! 8 years of clinton... 8 years of bush.

clinton was the last 8 years of the prior decade, bush the first 8 of 2010, makes for a nice comparison.

clinton, income up about 20 % (28% in the lowest brackets)
bush: income down about 8% (11% in the lower brackets)

clinton: poverty down 4 million souls (children: down 3m)
bush: poverty UP 12 million (children UP 4m)

Clinton: uninsured americans down about half a percent (via workplace, up 30m)
Bush: uninsured Americas UP 3 percent. (via workplace, up each and every year of his admin - total 10m)

Clinton: New jobs - 20m
Bush New jobs - 7m (fewer each year of his admin)

and the Big Bell Ringer....

- Ronald Brownstein, The National Journal

and now these fine republicans offer us a NEW contract.... run, hide.

geo.
Nice view from a liberal reporter
 
Top Bottom