• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush:Great President, or the Greatest President in history?

Is Bush a Great President, or the Greatest President?

  • Great President

    Votes: 8 88.9%
  • The Greatest President

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9
You must be referring to King George Bush. About the only good thing I can say about King George Bush is that he does have some backbone.
 
TimmyBoy said:
You must be referring to King George Bush. About the only good thing I can say about King George Bush is that he does have some backbone.

history cares about the Big Events
they will not care about the minutia, the petty partisan bickering, etc.....
they will see him as a leader who kept the country out of recession/depression through his tax cuts
and that he took the battle to the enemy, resulting in no further attacks on american soil, and establishing true democracies in the ME

whereas Clinton will be remembered for getting impeached for a Blowjob
and just happening to be in office when the Internet/pc revolution took off.....none of which he had anything to do with
 
DeeJayH said:
history cares about the Big Events
they will not care about the minutia, the petty partisan bickering, etc.....
they will see him as a leader who kept the country out of recession/depression through his tax cuts
and that he took the battle to the enemy, resulting in no further attacks on american soil, and establishing true democracies in the ME

whereas Clinton will be remembered for getting impeached for a Blowjob
and just happening to be in office when the Internet/pc revolution took off.....none of which he had anything to do with

You're kidding, right?

Keeping us out of recession? Yeah, that's why the job market reached an all time low, and why we have an $8 trillion DEFICIT, when we had a major surplus to begin with......

And whatever is going to actually be accomplished in Iraq has yet to be seen.....
 
DeeJayH said:
history cares about the Big Events
they will not care about the minutia, the petty partisan bickering, etc.....
they will see him as a leader who kept the country out of recession/depression through his tax cuts
and that he took the battle to the enemy, resulting in no further attacks on american soil, and establishing true democracies in the ME

whereas Clinton will be remembered for getting impeached for a Blowjob
and just happening to be in office when the Internet/pc revolution took off.....none of which he had anything to do with

This is not "bi-partisan" bickering. You can see that some of Bush's own party members have opposed the extension of the traitor "Patriot" Act and you can also see, that a republican, McCain, was the one who forced Bush to the negotiating table. This has nothing to do with bi-partisanship. It has everything to do with keeping the US a free country. It has everything to do with yours and my own freedom. You just can't let the president do whatever the hell he wants and you can't let him get away with destroying our freedoms under the pretexts of "national security" or "fighting terror." And because some of Bush's own party members have begun to oppose him, Bush needs to think carefully about whether his policies are really "fighting terror" and most importantly he needs to be careful about violating our freedoms.
 
I believe Reagan was better. A good president must be able to unify to some degree and I don't believe that Bush has been able to do that. That said, I think the liberals would fight him at every turn if he tried to.
 
Naheeh said:
I believe Reagan was better. A good president must be able to unify to some degree and I don't believe that Bush has been able to do that. That said, I think the liberals would fight him at every turn if he tried to.

Damn liberals and republicans both need to fight Bush at every turn because he has demonstrated that he is willing to use secrecy to violate our freedoms or that he is coming dangerously close and the Congress and the American people need to get some damn balls set his ass straight on a few things. I understand their is a real terrorist threat, but you aren't going to beat these guys by destroying freedom here at home.
 
Stace said:
You're kidding, right?

Keeping us out of recession? Yeah, that's why the job market reached an all time low, and why we have an $8 trillion DEFICIT, when we had a major surplus to begin with......

And whatever is going to actually be accomplished in Iraq has yet to be seen.....

you clearly do not understand the economic implications of the Terrorist attacks and the bursting of the internet bubble.
that is what sent this country into recession, and bush's tax cuts are what turned the economy around
were you aware that when Bush was up for Re-election, the Unemployment rate was the EXACT SAME as when Slick Willy was up for re-election
yet clinton did not have the devastion of 9/11 to deal with
on 9/11 25% of Lower Manhattans office space was destroyed
airline companies went out of business within days of the attack
Pile that on top of the Irrational Exhuberance people had in the stock market, shake some Democratic Tax Increases, and you have the makings for a DEPRESSION
Instead we have very low levels of unemployment
we have record high home ownership for minorities
we have a growing economy that the Euros are jealous of
as far as the 'fantasy surplus' it was all a projection from when the economy was on fire from the internet revolution
there was never Billions, much less trillions of dollars sitting in the treasury that bush stole
and if there was a surplus, i sure as hell would expect a tax refund, because that is my money and yours, not the govt's

and you want to cry about the deficit
are you aware that as a result of the Bush tax cuts
and as a result of Bushs drunken sailor spending
RECORD Dollars are coming into the Treasury
would i rather have a balanced budget?
would i rather have a surplus?
yes.............however only if the Economy was stron
what does a fictitious surplus mean when the economy is tanking and people are losing jobs left and right because the economy is shrinking

The world and the US economy is not as simple as the Anti Bush Liberal Media portray it
 
DeeJayH said:
whereas Clinton will be remembered for getting impeached for a Blowjob
and just happening to be in office when the Internet/pc revolution took off.....none of which he had anything to do with

Exactly. It was Al Gore who invented the internet ;)
 
Naheeh said:
I believe Reagan was better. A good president must be able to unify to some degree and I don't believe that Bush has been able to do that. That said, I think the liberals would fight him at every turn if he tried to.

I agree with that in principle
however, how much of Bush's problems are a result of the Obstructionist Dems?
 
DeeJayH said:
you clearly do not understand the economic implications of the Terrorist attacks and the bursting of the internet bubble.
that is what sent this country into recession, and bush's tax cuts are what turned the economy around
were you aware that when Bush was up for Re-election, the Unemployment rate was the EXACT SAME as when Slick Willy was up for re-election
yet clinton did not have the devastion of 9/11 to deal with
on 9/11 25% of Lower Manhattans office space was destroyed
airline companies went out of business within days of the attack
Pile that on top of the Irrational Exhuberance people had in the stock market, shake some Democratic Tax Increases, and you have the makings for a DEPRESSION
Instead we have very low levels of unemployment
we have record high home ownership for minorities
we have a growing economy that the Euros are jealous of
as far as the 'fantasy surplus' it was all a projection from when the economy was on fire from the internet revolution
there was never Billions, much less trillions of dollars sitting in the treasury that bush stole
and if there was a surplus, i sure as hell would expect a tax refund, because that is my money and yours, not the govt's

and you want to cry about the deficit
are you aware that as a result of the Bush tax cuts
and as a result of Bushs drunken sailor spending
RECORD Dollars are coming into the Treasury
would i rather have a balanced budget?
would i rather have a surplus?
yes.............however only if the Economy was stron
what does a fictitious surplus mean when the economy is tanking and people are losing jobs left and right because the economy is shrinking

The world and the US economy is not as simple as the Anti Bush Liberal Media portray it


I didn't get anything out of this except for your partisan babble.

Give me some neutral sources, and then we can talk.
 
TimmyBoy said:
Damn liberals and republicans both need to fight Bush at every turn because he has demonstrated that he is willing to use secrecy to violate our freedoms or that he is coming dangerously close and the Congress and the American people need to get some damn balls set his ass straight on a few things. I understand their is a real terrorist threat, but you aren't going to beat these guys by destroying freedom here at home.

this is one of my biggest concerns with him, along with border security

if you listened to the Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly you would hear Judge Andrew Napolitano substitute for him
and the Judge has written a book on how the Patriot Act has violated the constitution and numerous civil liberties
However i am torn because we are fighting a new enemy with a new strategy and a new type of organizational structure
for which our old way of fighting things no longer functions
I can be swayed either way on this issue
the only thing that counters the Judges assertions, is that numerous right wingers have called for any and all listeners to report an American who has had their personal civil liberties violated by the Patriot Act
If it is applied appropriately, and no US citizens rights are violated as a result, is it really a major problem?
in principle, yes
but in actuality, i am not so sure
and since it is a temporary measure, i am not as upset, as if it was a permanent amendment to the Constitution
 
Stace said:
I didn't get anything out of this except for your partisan babble.

Give me some neutral sources, and then we can talk.

since there are only Liberal and Conservative media outlets
that is all but impossible

the facts i state are 100% accurate
were you aware that when Bush was up for Re-election, the Unemployment rate was the EXACT SAME as when Slick Willy was up for re-election
on 9/11 25% of Lower Manhattans office space was destroyed
airline companies went out of business within days of the attack
Instead we have very low levels of unemployment
we have record high home ownership for minorities
we have a growing economy that the Euros are jealous of
as far as the 'fantasy surplus' it was all a projection from when the economy was on fire from the internet revolution
there was never Billions, much less trillions of dollars sitting in the treasury that bush stole
RECORD Dollars are coming into the Treasury
But my statements, and your opinions on the subject, is clearly the difference between the Rep/Cons and Dems/ Libs
 
Last edited:
Stace said:
You're kidding, right?

Keeping us out of recession? Yeah, that's why the job market reached an all time low, and why we have an $8 trillion DEFICIT, when we had a major surplus to begin with......

The debt was about $6 trillion when Bush took office, the surplus was only in the budget.
 
The Real McCoy said:
The debt was about $6 trillion when Bush took office, the surplus was only in the budget.

I'm not responding further until you guys can provide me with sources. And yes, there ARE sources out there that aren't partisan. Look, and you WILL find them.

Without sources, all you guys are saying is nothing but hearsay and opinion as far as I'm concerned.
 
Stace said:
I'm not responding further until you guys can provide me with sources. And yes, there ARE sources out there that aren't partisan. Look, and you WILL find them.

Without sources, all you guys are saying is nothing but hearsay and opinion as far as I'm concerned.

:2rofll:
to be young and idealistic again
i am jealous of your youthfulness
 
all these Facts are common knowledge to anybody who listens to more than teh LIBERAL MAIN STREAM MEDIA
prove just one wrong, and i will search high and low to justify the rest to you
thats one fact, not my opinion of them
you are right to be skeptical on the internet, but my opinions are mine
the facts i post are the facts, unless i use quantifiers to show i am not 100% on a statement
which i have to do alot, cause i be ignant on lotsa tings
 
Stace said:
I'm not responding further until you guys can provide me with sources. And yes, there ARE sources out there that aren't partisan. Look, and you WILL find them.

Without sources, all you guys are saying is nothing but hearsay and opinion as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

There ya go, straight from the Bureau of Public Debt... doesn't get any more factual than that.
 
The Real McCoy said:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

There ya go, straight from the Bureau of Public Debt... doesn't get any more factual than that.

Ok, I'll give you guys the info on the deficit/budget, but what about the rest of it, such as these unemployment rates and such?

And where did all of that money that Clinton set aside for Social Security, that money that wasn't supposed to be touched except for Social Security, go?
 
Also, as you'll see from this chart obtained from the Bureau of Labor, unemployment rates were steadily declining under Clinton's administration, and while they are finally coming down again, they skyrocketed in Bush's first four years.
 

Attachments

  • unemployment.doc
    94.5 KB · Views: 10
Stace said:
Ok, I'll give you guys the info on the deficit/budget, but what about the rest of it, such as these unemployment rates and such?

And where did all of that money that Clinton set aside for Social Security, that money that wasn't supposed to be touched except for Social Security, go?

Unemployment rates...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I believe they're a bit lower than that now though, 4.9% or 4.8%, but I can't find anything more recent.


As for Clinton setting aside "money"...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/BG1256.cfm
 
Stace said:
Also, as you'll see from this chart obtained from the Bureau of Labor, unemployment rates were steadily declining under Clinton's administration, and while they are finally coming down again, they skyrocketed in Bush's first four years.

A recession began before Clinton left office (not his fault) as a result of the dot-com market bubble burst and Bush inherited it. Many unfairly blame him for it and the events of 9/11 gave another blow to the economy. Like DeeJayH said, 25% of lower Manhattan's office space was wiped and the airline industry has been devastated.

Bush's tax cuts have brough us out of the recession and now the economy is roaring, even after the damage wreaked by the Hurricanes. The Dow is hovering around 11K, unemployment rates are low, we've had 30 straight months of job growth, home ownership is at an all time high, minority home ownership is at an all time high, the list goes on...
 
I generally disagree that the tax cuts stopped the recession. It had more to do with the "rebate" scam, supplimental (9-11, and unemployment insurance extentions) and deficit spending. Especially, since Bush's tax cuts hadn't really had their effect in the economy by 2001QIV (the first non recession quater, and the first quater of Bush's First full Fiscal year). That early on, all it meant was people were spending some more of their own money, rather than the government spending the exact same amount. (C+tax cuts)+I+(G-tax cuts)+NetX=same GDP really.

Little, or more likely no, actually increase in production would have occured so quickly. (But I guess that could be checked on by comaparing GDP growth OUTSIDE of the government spending of the time, accounting for any inflation, and nixing the effect of the rebate).

With a few percentage of GDP (as in general the recession in terms of actually GDP was rather minor, even less than -1% in QIII) the state can "increase spending" that little bit, and mask any appearence of decline to make it appear to be growth in general. More often than not, it's just an illusion produced deficit or borrowed spending. (Things like the 9-11 victims payout would even be enough to "end the recession") Without, by then, having actually produced anything, and possibly even less. Very clever, and politically a good idea. Economically, not so much.

I don't think this president is really a GOOD president. He is a very PERCEPTION savvy president though. VERY good at making things APPEAR better than they actually are, especailly concerning the economy. To his credit, the appearence of improvement can, and probably did, give consumers and investors the confidence they needed to start making real improvements.

With all the damage and destruction 9-11 caused, and I hate to say it, it may very well have prevented the recession from continuing (infer NO implications from that statement). Then again, because it happened in QIII, it certainly did contribute, but the economic growth in QIV is what ended the recession, at least officially.
 
Oh, and you see that one vote for THE GREATEST PRESIDENT? That was me.
 
Back
Top Bottom