I find it amusing that people get touchy when Bush's failures are brought up, but it's okay for the same people to contrast Bush to Obama if it makes Obama look bad.
P.S. This thread uses a blog link so it's posted to the wrong section.
I'm very honest and accepting of Bush's spending failures, it happened, what I don't like is the false criticism of people then who want more of it now from Obama. I would say I've been very consistent on spending. I didn't like TARP, I dont like TARP 2, and will probably dislike TARP 3 if and when it passes.I find it amusing that people get touchy when Bush's failures are brought up, but it's okay for the same people to contrast Bush to Obama if it makes Obama look bad.
P.S. This thread uses a blog link so it's posted to the wrong section.
All you have to do is look at the state of the Country when he took office v. when he left. That should tell you whether he was a failure or a success.
Thread already exists ... again
After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' ThanBush's - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com
Hehehe, I'm sorry but that's gotta chap Obama's ego...
Definitely! The exercise would allow you to educate yourself. Good idea!You seriously want me to sit here and list all of GWB's and the GOP Congress policies, bills and positions for the 8 years of his Presidency. . .?
Sorry dude.
I completely disagree, I remember the coverage of Bush being negative until 9/11 and about three months afterwards, then the coverage went negative for the rest of his term. Admittedly, some of the negative criticisms were deserved, but done for the wrong reasons. Spending, Democrats had no high ground to criticize, they were as guilty as the majority Republicans for demanding earmarks and other budget increases, they attacked on it because it gave them a public perception of being against the spending, it was partisan politics ad-infinitim.Bush was seen as a great President when he came into office with a surplus and a booming economy.First off, the analysis is a little too simplified here. Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac were in the middle of catastrophic failure, certain reps from both sides warned against it, but the congress sat on their collective hands and let the bubble burst, 9/11 exposed quite a few bad records keeping practices in many publicly traded companies, leading them to failure, they were no longer around to act as cornerstones to buffer against the massive housing bubble that hit in late '07, in '06, when the Democrats took over, they did absolutely nothing to correct governmental excesses that were choking the market, and in fact added TARP with Bush's approval, which exacerbated the market hit that the country took, now we have a new president doing exactly the same thing and we are paying for it, so it is grossly unfair to blame Bush at this point, the congress and president now own this turd of an economy.It wasn't until he actually started taking action did the country crumble beneath his tenure and it took him longer then 6 months to do anything. Why? Because there was nothing to be done. In relative terms he inherited a great thriving country, unlike Obama.
Bush was seen as a great President when he came into office with a surplus and a booming economy. It wasn't until he actually started taking action did the country crumble beneath his tenure and it took him longer then 6 months to do anything. Why? Because there was nothing to be done. In relative terms he inherited a great thriving country, unlike Obama.
I completely disagree, I remember the coverage of Bush being negative until 9/11 and about three months afterwards, then the coverage went negative for the rest of his term. Admittedly, some of the negative criticisms were deserved, but done for the wrong reasons. Spending, Democrats had no high ground to criticize, they were as guilty as the majority Republicans for demanding earmarks and other budget increases, they attacked on it because it gave them a public perception of being against the spending, it was partisan politics ad-infinitim. First off, the analysis is a little too simplified here. Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac were in the middle of catastrophic failure, certain reps from both sides warned against it, but the congress sat on their collective hands and let the bubble burst, 9/11 exposed quite a few bad records keeping practices in many publicly traded companies, leading them to failure, they were no longer around to act as cornerstones to buffer against the massive housing bubble that hit in late '07, in '06, when the Democrats took over, they did absolutely nothing to correct governmental excesses that were choking the market, and in fact added TARP with Bush's approval, which exacerbated the market hit that the country took, now we have a new president doing exactly the same thing and we are paying for it, so it is grossly unfair to blame Bush at this point, the congress and president now own this turd of an economy.
Good lord Gib, what parallel universe do you Liberals inhabit? Bush was constantly impugned as a usurper and stealer of the election which they claimed Gore had won.
I am constantly fascinated at how willing Liberals like you are to fabricate your own set of facts and reality without any credible evidence of truth. You’re much smarter than that I thought.
Bush didn't cause it, but he didn't stand up for what needed to be done, so he was moderately complicit in it, he does share some blame, but not enough of it to take any away from the congress or current president, they are all guilty.I just want to clarify some points you made; see above videos for the reasons of collapse; it had NOTHING to do with Bush and almost....I typed almost, everything to do with Democrats in Congress.
Completely true.The notion that it was due to laissez faire economics is laughable.
Minus Bush's general political ideals, the negative was around the election in which Bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral. The issue here is the ignorance of the American populace thinking the the popular vote had any baring on who is elected President.I completely disagree, I remember the coverage of Bush being negative until 9/11 and about three months afterwards, then the coverage went negative for the rest of his term. Admittedly, some of the negative criticisms were deserved, but done for the wrong reasons. Spending, Democrats had no high ground to criticize, they were as guilty as the majority Republicans for demanding earmarks and other budget increases, they attacked on it because it gave them a public perception of being against the spending, it was partisan politics ad-infinitim.
First off, the analysis is a little too simplified here. Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac were in the middle of catastrophic failure, certain reps from both sides warned against it, but the congress sat on their collective hands and let the bubble burst, 9/11 exposed quite a few bad records keeping practices in many publicly traded companies, leading them to failure, they were no longer around to act as cornerstones to buffer against the massive housing bubble that hit in late '07, in '06, when the Democrats took over, they did absolutely nothing to correct governmental excesses that were choking the market, and in fact added TARP with Bush's approval, which exacerbated the market hit that the country took, now we have a new president doing exactly the same thing and we are paying for it, so it is grossly unfair to blame Bush at this point, the congress and president now own this turd of an economy.
Gotcha, that's a perfectly fair assessment of the situation.Minus Bush's general political ideals, the negative was around the election in which Bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral. The issue here is the ignorance of the American populace thinking the the popular vote had any baring on who is elected President.
I'm talking public interpretation here the time of. We know things weren't as peachy as they seem but the POPULACE didn't see that at the time. Thus Bush's approval rating vs Obama's.
Your asinine ideals keep me entertained daily. :2wave:
I think more people actually had expectations for the Obama presidency. Whereas, with Bush, very few people thought he was going to do a good job, he just seemed less inept than Gore.
I may have to revisit that opinion. I can't figure out which of them would have been worse.
I wish Dole had won the primary.
Really Gib; what "asinine" ideals would those be? Come and entertain us with YOUR version of ME. :rofl
Linking to every post you make would be a derailment of this thread.
Stop trying to make this thread about you.
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Really Gib; what "asinine" ideals would those be? Come and entertain us with YOUR version of ME.
How does one “link” ideals to this thread; you can’t simply summarize them here by typing them?
Trite, yet ineffectual hyperbolic blather is what this amounts to.
How ironic coming from someone who obviously attempted to make this about me by suggesting that my ideals are, what did you say, “asinine?”
Then when called on what those ideals are, can only come up with more banal blather that this is not about me and no time for links.
Perhaps I “overestimated” your intelligence Gib and perhaps gave you too much credit.
Or perhaps you are unable to debate the topic at hand and must always resort to derogatory statements when you run out of talking points.
I think more people actually had expectations for the Obama presidency. Whereas, with Bush, very few people thought he was going to do a good job, he just seemed less inept than Gore.
I may have to revisit that opinion. I can't figure out which of them would have been worse.
I wish Dole had won the primary.
Really; what derogatory statements would that be Gib? The one where I claim someone's ideals are asinine? Oh wait, that was you; there's that irony again.
P.S. You claimed my ideals were asinine, not my statements; sheesh, can't even get them Liberal talking points straight can we Gib?
Carry on. :rofl
Dole was a statesman and a hero. We apparently don't look for those qualities in our political leaders anymore.Dole was not charismatic enough to get elected unfortunately; Americans are terribly shallow and uninformed and therefore need someone who looks and talks good, forget the substance.
Here's a clue for you; the collapse of the Real Estate market and stock markets was set up when Democrats refused to do anything about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae when Republicans held their hearings on the matter.
The notion that Democrats would have protected consumers from the eventual collapse due to Sub prime Loans sparked by the CRA and highly leveraged derivatives requires willful denial. Here is a videos and link to the reason for the Lehman Brothers collapse to educate you.
...the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.
''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''
Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ''seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.''
''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,'' Mr. Wellstone said. ''Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''
The really funny thing about this poll is that it measures each 6 months into their Presidency before their policies have really had much of a chance to effect anything.
6 months into GWB's Presidency, I doubt anyone would have expected the damage that his policies would do to the United States. A more accurate number would be "What percentage view his Presidency as a success/failure" after he has left office.
Get back to me in 7 years, 6 months and lets compare the real numbers.
:2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?