If it wasn't for the war in Iraq, liberal-left Americans would LOVE Bush

[Mensch]

Then why don't more conservatives appreciate Obama for continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't more conservatives appreciate Obama for trying to cut taxes on the middle class and shift more of the tax burden away from them? Why don't more conservatives applaud Obama for not abusing the powers of his office during the BP oil spill? Why don't more conservatives applaud Obama for how he let the private sector deal with it? Why don't more conservatives celebrate Obama for not passing any major legislation that increases gun control? Why don't more conservatives sympathize with Obama for not repealing the PATRIOT Act and allowing America to retain the tools they need to ensure our national security?

Instead, Obama is being demonized as the worst President in history and the single source of why the U.S. is going down the crapper.
e
So both sides can play this game.

The great thing is that I'm not on either side. But I am presenting facts that imply the democrats have been extremely hypocritical, or downright inaccurate:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2008/pdf/FederalSpendingByTheNumbers2008.pdf

 

[Mensch]

Even if Bush wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, he's still a creep.

Sorry, this isn't conspiracy theories. That's down the hall.

 

[Mustachio]

I've heard it all before. The question is, how will Obama be any better or wiser? Why isn't Obama reversing the 9/14 order? Why isn't he trying to reverse the Patriot Act? Why is Gitmo still open? Why are we fighting a harder, longer war in Afghanistan? Is it truly any different than the war on terror? Making a greater enemy out of the people of Pakistan, and lingering in Afghanistan like the Soviets- how is he doing any better?

I don't know if he's doing better, but he addressed health care and the legislation has been infinitely more progressive during the last two years. It's a different kind of administration. Yeah, he's not working to reverse the things that Bush did. I wasn't posting in this thread to claim he was. I was saying the idea that liberals would like Bush if it weren't for the war is just not true. There's a difference between not fixing something and breaking it.

 

[Mensch]

The spending has never really bothered me from either president. I think its too high, but I don't think its the trap that many fear it to be.

Also, I don't hold the view point that all spending is equal. I generally applaud infrastructure spending as it will help make us more wealthy (like a capex project), while I dislike spending that has no return.

Ryan can argue it better than I can.

 

[Mensch]

I don't know if he's doing better, but he addressed health care and the legislation has been infinitely more progressive during the last two years. It's a different kind of administration. Yeah, he's not working to reverse the things that Bush did. I wasn't posting in this thread to claim he was. I was saying the idea that liberals would like Bush if it weren't for the war is just not true. There's a difference between not fixing something and breaking it.

Watch the video in my previous post.

 

[Mensch]

In 20 years, I will probably be living in another country if my current plans come to fruition. Once I finish paying off everything (4 years at current rates), the next step is to save up enough money to be independent and able to take risks that won't ruin me (about 12-15 years if I invest all of my wife's teaching salary), then I will probably move to Canada or Australia. Why stay on a sinking ship?

There are few alternatives to live in this world of jealous nations. The United States has a wonderful history and strong principles. Canada and Australia are not extremely different from us. Nor are the Europeans. They spend more of OPM than we do, and their demographic shifts-to-entitlement programs pose far greater problems than our own.

 

[Mensch]

I don't know if he's doing better, but he addressed health care and the legislation has been infinitely more progressive during the last two years. It's a different kind of administration. Yeah, he's not working to reverse the things that Bush did. I wasn't posting in this thread to claim he was. I was saying the idea that liberals would like Bush if it weren't for the war is just not true. There's a difference between not fixing something and breaking it.

How's this for the oil spill...?

 

[Slartibartfast]

WOW! I would keep your xenophobic, ethnocentric thoughts to yourself. Obama would never say anything like that, and neither would I.

:shrug:

You need certain cultural norms and expectations to achieve a republic/democracy/capitalism. Those guys do not have those and from their perspective, many of those norms do not make sense.

And what is your thoughts on the civil trials in NYC? Shouldn't they be military tribunals?

I wish I had a good answer for this one, but I don't

Hmmm. Obama has no intention of reversing this order or doing anything about reversing the Patriot Act, and yet people on the far left (and I'm not saying you are) continue to call Bush the war-mongering fascist. Obama has not reversed the fundamental laws and decrees that make this war on terror what it truly is- just another goverment failure.

Unfortunately the hawks have won the argument one the secrecy issue

 

[Mensch]

:shrug:

You need certain cultural norms and expectations to achieve a republic/democracy/capitalism. Those guys do not have those and from their perspective, many of those norms do not make sense.

That's different than labeling a massive group of individuals "primitive." Though I'm not 100% I can agree with you. I'm not sure I even know what it takes to keep and maintain a republic/democracy/capitalism.

I wish I had a good answer for this one, but I don't

What's wrong with tribunals? After all, this is a war, is it not? And they're certainly not civilians.

Unfortunately the hawks have won the argument one the secrecy issue

I guess that means now you're for wiretapping because Obama seems to be for it?

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's different than labeling a massive group of individuals "primitive." Though I'm not 100% I can agree with you. I'm not sure I even know what it takes to keep and maintain a republic/democracy/capitalism.

Tribalism and its cultural norms are more primitive.

What's wrong with tribunals? After all, this is a war, is it not? And they're certainly not civilians.

I would be fine with the idea if their human rights were assured, but the existence and abuses at Gitmo are proof that they are not.

I guess that means now you're for wiretapping because Obama seems to be for it?

Where did you get this conclusion from?

 

[Deuce]

Premise of OP fundamentally flawed because it's working with percentage of taxes rather than total taxes. It wasn't a tax cut, Bush took out a loan from China on our behalf.

 

[samsmart]

ElijahGalt, it seems to me that you are for some reason surprised at the realization that politicians are neither completely honest nor absolutely straightforward with regards to their actions in office.

Ah! To be young again...

 

[joe six-pack]

Bush was a tactless rascal, who handle both wars poorly, suppressed scientific and medical advancements, and had a lot of unpopular policies not supported by this Admin.

In case you haven't noticed, the current President is making changes to unpopular decisions. Also, Obama was elected because people want Democrats to handle the economy, not Republicans, when things are bad. Republican policies made the Depression the "Great Depression" and Federal war-spending helped the US recover to become an economic super-power. If we had stayed out of the war and just cut all taxes, we would never have become the worlds most powerful country.

But keep complaining... it's fun to listen to.

 

[Mensch]

Tribalism and its cultural norms are more primitive.

Said Gen. Custer.

Where did you get this conclusion from?

Because you said the hawks were <unfortunately> right on this one (this one being wiretapping). Did you come to this conclusion only after the election of Obama, or while the hawks still controlled the government?

 

[Mensch]

Premise of OP fundamentally flawed because it's working with percentage of taxes rather than total taxes. It wasn't a tax cut, Bush took out a loan from China on our behalf.

And who is financing the bailout of banks and auto companies? Who is financing the stimulus package?

 

[Mensch]

ElijahGalt, it seems to me that you are for some reason surprised at the realization that politicians are neither completely honest nor absolutely straightforward with regards to their actions in office.

Ah! To be young again...

I probably understand it better than anyone else on this forum. But if you are a paleoprogressivist, then I suppose you're willing to let these dishonest, corrupted officials do all the city planning and regulating that makes up a progressive government.

 

[Mensch]

Bush was a tactless rascal, who handle both wars poorly, suppressed scientific and medical advancements, and had a lot of unpopular policies not supported by this Admin.

In case you haven't noticed, the current President is making changes to unpopular decisions. Also, Obama was elected because people want Democrats to handle the economy, not Republicans, when things are bad. Republican policies made the Depression the "Great Depression" and Federal war-spending helped the US recover to become an economic super-power. If we had stayed out of the war and just cut all taxes, we would never have become the worlds most powerful country.

But keep complaining... it's fun to listen to.

This post isn't worth my time.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Said Gen. Custer.

You are aware that if we wanted to, we could pretty much burn the whole country, right? We are being nicer than we otherwise could be deliberately.

Because you said the hawks were <unfortunately> right on this one (this one being wiretapping). Did you come to this conclusion only after the election of Obama, or while the hawks still controlled the government?

I am saying that I dislike the fact that Obama seems to have listened to the hawks on this one issue.

 

[samsmart]

I probably understand it better than anyone else on this forum. But if you are a paleoprogressivist, then I suppose you're willing to let these dishonest, corrupted officials do all the city planning and regulating that makes up a progressive government.

Actually, I'm a neopaleoprogressivist - get it right. As for dishonest, corrupted political officials doing city planning and regulating, how is that any worse than letting dishonest, corrupted corporate executives doing city planning and regulating that makes up the libertarian movement?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, I'm a neopaleoprogressivist - get it right. As for dishonest, corrupted political officials doing city planning and regulating, how is that any worse than letting dishonest, corrupted corporate executives doing city planning and regulating that makes up the libertarian movement?

I think samsmart just wants the longest ideology name in politics. :mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

And who is financing the bailout of banks and auto companies? Who is financing the stimulus package?

The same? You're still missing the point. The rich ended up paying a higher percentage of total taxes, but their tax burden still went down, and that decrease was paid for via loan from China. Not too many liberals support borrowing money from China to give to the rich.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I have lost faith in the long term viability of this country. We have a load of problems and nobody is being serious about actually fixing them. The US will probably survive, but in a much diminished capacity and I don't want to be here for the fall-out.

Well in that case you can crash on the couch for awhile...

 

[Compatibilist]

BTW, I am NO fan of Bush or the republican party.

It's good you clarified that... now you can be taken seriously and avoid any potential bashing.

 

[Ikari]

I was just reading up on some CBO stats and I was considering the differences between Bush and Obama's domestic shop-till-you-drop spending. I hear from so many different people on the left, whether they be respectable men like Obama or so-so men like Bill Maher, that republicans are hypocrites for criticizing Obama's hefty spending exercises while Bush "started the mess." If Bush started the process of bailing out banks, and Obama accelerated this process, is Bush wrong because he somehow didn't spend enough?

Bush, as president, dealt legislation that spent more on prescription drugs for seniors than any previous president. More direct spending on education (of course coupled with some heavy testing). More direct spending on welfare programs, despite what so many people argue. He also tilted the tax burden MORE towards the wealthy...and here's the CBO to prove it:

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005

From 2000 through 2005, income Taxes paid by the wealthiest 20 percent increased from 81 percent of all income tax revenue to 86 percent despite no change in income distribution. This resulted from low-income tax cuts removing 10 million filers from the income tax rolls.

Despite his verbal stupidity, his hawkish war policies, or his hyper-Christianity, liberals should love this guy for getting the ball rolling for Obama. Hell, if he didn't...there would be no one to blame for TODAY's massively increased deficit spending. And of course, when you have someone you can always blame, you're able to divert attention elsewhere.

BTW, I am NO fan of Bush or the republican party.

I really do think that if it weren't for the Iraq War, Bush wouldn't have been so horrible a President. If the worst thing he did was No Child Left Behind (failed program) and Medicare Part D (give away to pharmaceutical companies), it's not all that bad. Plus the spending wouldn't have been so out of control. Had he stuck to his word from the primaries; he could have been a decent President.

But as they say, if "ifs" and "buts" where candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

 

[samsmart]

I really do think that if it weren't for the Iraq War, Bush wouldn't have been so horrible a President. If the worst thing he did was No Child Left Behind (failed program) and Medicare Part D (give away to pharmaceutical companies), it's not all that bad. Plus the spending wouldn't have been so out of control. Had he stuck to his word from the primaries; he could have been a decent President.

But as they say, if "ifs" and "buts" where candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

You're forgetting his responses to Hurricane Katrina, as well as his responses to other hurricanes during his 2nd term. He was pretty damn ineffectual with regards to how he treated domestic disaster response. I think that in the South, where he had the most supporters, that was his biggest criticism.