• 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.

What good has Bush and his government done for the US the last 6 years? (1 Viewer)

Maximus Zeebra

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
468
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Simple question, what good has George W. Bush and his government done for America and its people during his presidency.?

Please explain if you give an example..

Like..

Economy, tax cuts, because........
 
Seen the Dow? Unemployment? Growth rate? Bush cutting taxes for "the wealthy" (which is liberal for small business owners/those who create 80% of the jobs in this country) saved us from the spiraling fallout from the left's 8-year non-response to Al Queda and sustained tremendous, unprecedented economic growth.

After the Democrats' Al Queda mess came back to bite us months into Bush's presidency, he responded by taking out the Taliban and another genocidal terror-sponsor after 15 years of failed diplomacy. Democrats voted for war in Iraq, and then immediately started relentlessly undermining it, just as they did with Afghanistan, and they thought 15 years of failed multi-lateral diplomacy wasn't enough.

Bush also reversed the left's policy of appeasement and used multi-lateral diplomacy against North Korea (which Democrats thought was unacceptable to even TRY ONCE...but only on North Korea, apparently), and then Kim Jong Il expressed regret for resuming his nuclear program (which started while the Democrats who appeased him were still in office), reversed course, and came back to the table.

And Bush put judges on the Supreme Court who will resist the left's incessent attempts to nullify what the Constitution was written to accomplish.
 
I don't agree with President Bush on every issue and he has made some mistakes, all presidents do, but overall I think he has been and excellent president for the reasons Aquapub has cited.................
 
Originally posted by aquapub:
After the Democrats' Al Queda mess came back to bite us months into Bush's presidency, he responded by taking out the Taliban and another genocidal terror-sponsor after 15 years of failed diplomacy. Democrats voted for war in Iraq, and then immediately started relentlessly undermining it, just as they did with Afghanistan, and they thought 15 years of failed multi-lateral diplomacy wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
Ya know, pubby, you should take your blinders off once and a while and see the world for what it really is. It is interesting that you left out the part where the Bush Administration "praised" the Taliban government and sent them $43 million dollars in May of 2001 because they supposedly declared a ban on opium production.
How Washington Funded the Taliban
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 14 books on international affairs including the forthcoming "Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on Drugs in Latin America" (Palgrave/ St. Martin's).

The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees.

Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy.
Click to expand...
We all know what happened a few months later...
 
Billo_Really said:
Ya know, pubby, you should take your blinders off once and a while and see the world for what it really is. It is interesting that you left out the part where the Bush Administration "praised" the Taliban government and sent them $43 million dollars in May of 2001 because they supposedly declared a ban on opium production.We all know what happened a few months later...
Click to expand...

Yeah, pubby, take the blinders off and see the world as Billo sees it - by reading Op-Ed pieces that support his extremist viewpoints.
 
aquapub said:
Seen the Dow?
Click to expand...
The performance of the Dow has been sub-par over Bush's term, was a little better than average last year, and well below how it did during Clinton's term.

Unemployment?
Click to expand...
It was better when Clinton was president.

Growth rate?
Click to expand...
It was better when Clinton was president.

Bush cutting taxes for "the wealthy" .
Click to expand...

Tax cuts are the major reason the nation's debt has increased $3 trillion (50%+ increase) since Bush took office.

and sustained tremendous, unprecedented economic growth
Click to expand...

Economic growth has been neither tremendous nor unprecented. Whether it is sustained or not will have to be seen, but the economic growth during Clinton's presidency was sustained far longer.
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
Yeah, pubby, take the blinders off and see the world as Billo sees it - by reading Op-Ed pieces that support his extremist viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

Is that all that's happening here? An Op-Ed I cherry-picked to "support my extremist views?" Is that the only point being made? There is nothing more to my post than a desire to psuedo-justify my bombast? If that's all you want to see, I'm cool with that. Whatever makes your boat float.

The fact that Bush did praise them and did send them the money should be considered bullshit because it was presented in the form of an Op-Ed.

WTF ever, tripper...
 
Billo_Really said:
Nice try.

Is that all that's happening here? An Op-Ed I cherry-picked to "support my extremist views?" Is that the only point being made? There is nothing more to my post than a desire to psuedo-justify my bombast? If that's all you want to see, I'm cool with that. Whatever makes your boat float.

The fact that Bush did praise them and did send them the money should be considered bullshit because it was presented in the form of an Op-Ed.

WTF ever, tripper...
Click to expand...
The point is this billo... whether it is your opinion or the Op-Ed commentator's opinion, it still is just an opinion. You often try to 'prove' your points by finding someone else that shares your viewpoint, but it's not based on anything concrete. That's why they are in a section of the newspaper all to their own. But in the end, we haven't accomplished anything other than finding two people who claim the moon is made out of cheese.
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
The point is this billo... whether it is your opinion or the Op-Ed commentator's opinion, it still is just an opinion. You often try to 'prove' your points by finding someone else that shares your viewpoint, but it's not based on anything concrete. That's why they are in a section of the newspaper all to their own. But in the end, we haven't accomplished anything other than finding two people who claim the moon is made out of cheese.
Click to expand...
There is more than one source commenting on this story. And will it still just be an opinion after the new energy law is signed by the Iraqi puppet government?
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
If they are something other than op-ed, I would have cited them over what you chose.
Click to expand...
It was on my lunch hour and I was kind of pressed for time. Even so, if the new energy law is signed and the oil companies take advantage of it, is it still an opinion from an Op-Ed? What has to happen before you finally admit that an opinion is now a fact? At which point you still have the option of saying,
"Okay, you called that one....... so what!"
 
No more than one guy can say what good Bush has done for his country?

I dont nessecarlity agree with that guy, I will respond to that later.
 
Because of Bush:
  • I am more involved in politics than at any time in my life.
  • I feel more like an American citizen than at any time in my life.
  • And I have more desire to do my civic duty more than anytime in my life.
And I also think it is because of Bush more people have voted in record turnouts at the past two national elections.
 
aquapub said:
Seen the Dow?
Click to expand...

The Big Picture | 100 Year Dow Jones Industrials Chart
According to this graph, the dow jones had enourmous growth under Bill Blinton and no growth under George Bush..

Here is a second source.
Chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Averages since 1974
You see how it grew under clinton and then stopped growing under Bush?

aquapub said:
Unemployment?
Click to expand...

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/pdf/usadj.pdf

According to this, unemployment was incredibly high(almost 7%) when Bill Clinto came to office after George Bush senior and Ronald Reagan, Both Republicans.
After a steady fall through the term of Bill Clinton, it was at a record low of 3.9% in december 2000.. In jarnuary when Clinto left office he left office after lowering the unemployment level in the US from 7% to 4.2% during his time in office..

By September 2001, the unemployment rates had already risen to 5%, in just over 7 months of Bush in office. By June 2003, the unemployment level in the US had reached 6.3%, or almost reversed the effect of the Clinton administration.. Bush has SINCE done a pretty decent job and lowered the unemployment level in the US to 4.5%, but never reached the low of 3.9% that Clinto reached, and will probably never do.


aquapub said:
Growth rate? Bush cutting taxes for "the wealthy" (which is liberal for small business owners/those who create 80% of the jobs in this country) saved us from the spiraling fallout from the left's 8-year non-response to Al Queda and sustained tremendous, unprecedented economic growth.
Click to expand...

Al Quaeda has nothing to do with the American economy or American politics, Bush was the one who ignored all the FBI and CIA warnings before 911 that something could happen.

Besides, growth rate... Hmm.

Grading GDP Growth on a Curve | Gongol.com

Last comment on this page is very interesting..

"It's also worth noting that the mean quarterly growth rate has declined each decade, except during the 1990s"

Now, wasnt that the decade of Clinton?

aquapub said:
After the Democrats' Al Queda mess came back to bite us months into Bush's presidency, he responded by taking out the Taliban and another genocidal terror-sponsor after 15 years of failed diplomacy. Democrats voted for war in Iraq, and then immediately started relentlessly undermining it, just as they did with Afghanistan, and they thought 15 years of failed multi-lateral diplomacy wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, there was no al quaeda mess after the Clinton administration..

aquapub said:
Bush also reversed the left's policy of appeasement and used multi-lateral diplomacy against North Korea (which Democrats thought was unacceptable to even TRY ONCE...but only on North Korea, apparently), and then Kim Jong Il expressed regret for resuming his nuclear program (which started while the Democrats who appeased him were still in office), reversed course, and came back to the table.
Click to expand...

And because of the US sanctions and especiallu the Bush policy towards North Korea, they now did a nuclear test while Bush was the president in America.

aquapub said:
And Bush put judges on the Supreme Court who will resist the left's incessent attempts to nullify what the Constitution was written to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose the republicans prevented that with the patriot act..


I think that you should take a real look at who did good for your country, personally I would classify Clinton as an American genius who did wonders for the American economy and America itself, while Bush has managed to ruin all that..

but hey, he did good with lowering unemployment since 911, that he shall have credit for.
 
As far as I AM CONCERNED Bush haven't did anything good with his vote stealing ***. He has given the USA a bad image in the eyes of most countries,
and he is responsible for the useless deaths our many of our Sons, Daughters,
Husbands,Wives,and love ones. Sure the Republicians love the smell of the farts he let out each time he say.....Ain't that right. When Clinton lied nobody
died, and when Bush lied over 3000 americans have died.
 
Billo_Really said:
Ya know, pubby, you should take your blinders off once and a while and see the world for what it really is. It is interesting that you left out the part where the Bush Administration "praised" the Taliban government and sent them $43 million dollars in May of 2001 because they supposedly declared a ban on opium production.We all know what happened a few months later...
Click to expand...

:lol:

Yeah, Clinton's 8-year non-response to Al Queda attacks, refusal to kill Bin Laden time and time again, PC policies that prevented the FBI from communicating with the rest of the government about terror threats...

That all had nothing to do with Al Queda being emboldened enough to attack us on 9/11. The real source of 9/11 was Bush trying to help the pre-9/11 Taliban fight the opium trade.

:roll:

BTW, if liberals are going to start claiming that Bush should've known to sever all ties with anyone remotely involved with terrorists, then they might want to stop whining that Bush won't negotiate with rogue terror states feverishly trying to mass murder us like Iran.
 
Iriemon said:
[the growth rate] was better when Clinton was president.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. All Clinton had to do was take credit for the prosperity of the tech boom he was relentlessly squandering with record high tax hikes on small businesses.

There's a reason liberals can never name one thing Clinton did that couldn't have logically contributed to any economic progress. Clinton's policies gave us the Clinton recession.

Bush has had the devastating aftermath of the Democrats' Al Queda mess, Katrina, Enron, etc...AND THE ECONOMY IS STILL TREMENDOUSLY STRONG.

And it will remain strong unless Democrats are prevented from what they are trying to do. The policies they are pursuing right now will raise gas prices, senselessly create rampant inflation, and kill jobs.
 
You call 744,000 homeless in America signs of a good economy?
 
Simple question, what good has George W. Bush and his government done for America and its people during his presidency.?
Click to expand...

Raised the blood pressure of people like you, thus ensuring your early demise? I dunno, I'm just a stupid fascist republican.
 
PoliticalActivist said:
As far as I AM CONCERNED Bush haven't did anything good with his vote stealing ***. He has given the USA a bad image in the eyes of most countries,
and he is responsible for the useless deaths our many of our Sons, Daughters,
Husbands,Wives,and love ones. Sure the Republicians love the smell of the farts he let out each time he say.....Ain't that right. When Clinton lied nobody
died, and when Bush lied over 3000 americans have died.
Click to expand...

Clinton was a brilliant man and one of the best presidents the US have ever had.
 
aquapub said:
It is 4.5%. That's amazingly low. Clinton's policies all relentlessly worked against job creation, hence, the Clinton Recession.

;)
Click to expand...

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/pdf/usadj.pdf

According to this, unemployment was incredibly high(almost 7%) when Bill Clinto came to office after George Bush senior and Ronald Reagan, Both Republicans.
After a steady fall through the term of Bill Clinton, it was at a record low of 3.9% in december 2000.. In jarnuary when Clinto left office he left office after lowering the unemployment level in the US from 7% to 4.2% during his time in office..

By September 2001, the unemployment rates had already risen to 5%, in just over 7 months of Bush in office. By June 2003, the unemployment level in the US had reached 6.3%, or almost reversed the effect of the Clinton administration.. Bush has SINCE done a pretty decent job and lowered the unemployment level in the US to 4.5%, but never reached the low of 3.9% that Clinto reached, and will probably never do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom