The legacy of 'W'?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just an FYI, he has tried twice for immigration reform and was shot down. The president can only do so much cause that's how our system was made.

Exactly. I think it was shot down, in part, because many didn't like the package, and secondly because Bush himself hasn't shown a capacity to compromise and reach accross the aisle on key issues. I think it just came back to bite him the ass, politically.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

No hard feelings at all. That's what discussion is all about, and in the end if we have to agree to disagree and move on, that's fine with me.

exactly. See, that was my point...I think people that have known me over the years know enough to know I'm not an attacker. I knew we had an understanding!

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Exactly. I think it was shot down, in part, because many didn't like the package, and secondly because Bush himself hasn't shown a capacity to compromise and reach accross the isle on key issues. I think it just came back to bite him the ass, politically.

While I do agree...it think it has a lot to do with the fact that it has become PC to dislike Bush. Someone has to be "to blame" for this war in Iraq, and even though it was agreed with overwhelming support, those old fogies don't want to point their finger at themselves, so Bush is the one everyone is pointing to. It happens even here. Fact is, he said it would be a long hard fight, and he would see it through...well he actually was honest about it and we don't like that for some reason.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How about these:
1- he has helped to lower interest rates to the best in history.
2- He has helped the economy to one of the most successful in history.
3- He has had VERY good unemployment rates all the while lowering taxes for everyone including the poor.
4- He has hit his objectives and stuck to his word, something we commonly criticize presidents for. (read my lips, no new taxes comes to mind)
5- His unwaivering support for the protection of this country.
(Apparently he is a genius too cause he started this war all by himself, and he has fought this war all by himself. But that is sarcasm, not an actual good job)
6- He prevented Nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
7- Getting Lybia to give up its WMD programs and renounce terrorism.
8- Getting North Korea to shut down it's nuclear reactor.
9- Decapitating Al Quaeda's top leadership and preventing another massive attack on US soil.
10- Boosting Aid to Africa by three times the current aid...and vowed to double it again by 2010.

I'll start with those.

On the flipside what do you think he's done poorly?[/QUOTE]

Well, I am supposed to be the pro side, you're supposed to be the con side. There are enough people here to give the negatives that I don't need to...but since someone is going to bring it up anyway, I will say this one thing:
I am not thrilled with his lack of support for alternative fuels. In fact, if I remember correctly he took away 50% of the funding to research. I firmly feel that oil is America's downfall, and if we rely on corn for our fuel, we'd have the market cornered. We are the #1 producer of corn in the world, and we could have the other countries by the balls, but Bush has too much loyalty to the oil companies.

OK, Since I gave a con of Bush in good faith, Matty, what do you think Bush has done correctly.

[12thMan]

Let me say this too, I'm a Dem...if you hadn't guess that by now. But I'm thoroughly disappointed with the brand of politics we've shown since taking over Congress.

It seems they are so utterely consumed with investigating every tacit of the White House's internal dealings, and yes, corruption. They say they've forgotten about how the Repubs were after Clinton and this is a new day. But every other day, it seems, there is somone new being subpoenaed to the Hill to testify about this or that. And they wonder why people like us are so cynical about our leadership and politics in general.

Let's get on with the business of the Nation and tend to the needs of people that sent you to Washington in the first place! It seems like they prefer investigation over legislation, and I'm damn tired of it!

[jsarno]

Just an FYI for everyone...no president ever did everything 100% correctly. For those that loved Clinton, there were those that thought he was the worst president ever. To me, Clinton ended his presidency on a very high note, and now almost 8 years later, his tenure has been tarnished with comments of what he didn't do as a president and what he ignored that created other issues and problems.
Same goes for all presidents in the modern era of media. I think the only president in that history to be considered nearly perfect was Kennedy and only because people feel bad for picking on a president that was assissinated.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just an FYI for everyone...no president ever did everything 100% correctly. For those that loved Clinton, there were those that thought he was the worst president ever. To me, Clinton ended his presidency on a very high note, and now almost 8 years later, his tenure has been tarnished with comments of what he didn't do as a president and what he ignored that created other issues and problems.
Same goes for all presidents in the modern era of media. I think the only president in that history to be considered nearly perfect was Kennedy and only because people feel bad for picking on a president that was assissinated.

Good points. You'll rarely, if ever, hear the media say anything negative about Kennedy. But off the record, and I've heard this from some old timers, they didn't care for him as much as some would lead you to believe.

[FRPLG]

I am not a Bush basher but I am going to respond to some of these:

Originally Posted by jsarno

How about these:
1- he has helped to lower interest rates to the best in history.

Yeah so he has exactly zero control over this. Giving him credit is silly. He has absolutely no impact on interest rates. Totally market and Federla Reserve driven.

2- He has helped the economy to one of the most successful in history.

Presidents get too much credit for this both ways, good and bad. The first Pres Bush got too much heat for the bad economy and Cliton and Bush both get too much credit for the good. Presidents have very little effect. Bush maybe more than others because of the tax cuts but that is debateable.

3- He has had VERY good unemployment rates all the while lowering taxes for everyone including the poor.

Well yes unemployemt is lower. See above. Same thing. As for lowering taxes, that is a weird one. Yes he lowered taxes and yes he lowered taxes mostly for rich people. That is because rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. He didn't really lower much in taxes for poor people because they don't pay much to begin with.

6- He prevented Nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

All by himself?

9- Decapitating Al Quaeda's top leadership and preventing another massive attack on US soil.

Al Queda is as strong as ever. There's not much he could have done either way. To destroy terrorists group like that will take decades at least.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am not a Bush basher but I am going to respond to some of these:

Yeah so he has exactly zero control over this. Given him credit is silly. He has absolutely no impact on interest rates. Totally market and Federla Reserve driven.

Presidents get too much credit for this both ways, good and bad. The first Pres Bush got too much heat for the bad economy and Cliton and Bush both get too much credit for the good. Presidents have very little effect. Bush maybe more than others because of the tax cuts but that is debateable.


Well yes unemployemt is lower. See above. Same thing. As for lowering taxes, that is a weird one. Yes he lowered taxes and yes he lowered taxes mostly for rich people. That is because rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. He didn't really lower much in taxes for poor people because they don't pay much to begin with.

All by himself?

Al Queda is as strong as ever. There's not much he could have done either way. To destroy terrorists group like that will take decades at least.

Good points, especially about monetary policy.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I can think of nothing but sarcasm to this post, so I will keep it short and sweet. You came out of your little retirement to post this?

While I am sure Matty and I don't see eye to eye, I would hope we have enough of an understanding to speak open with one another. I have no ill feelings for Matty, in fact he was the one that helped me come back to this site after my daughter died...and I hope Matty has no ill feelings towards me. We just have vastly different opinions when it comes to politics.

I find it funny how some people find it neccesary to always have to brown nose the people in charge, may it be here or at work, or where ever. I am not talking you Jsarno.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Same goes for all presidents in the modern era of media. I think the only president in that history to be considered nearly perfect was Kennedy and only because people feel bad for picking on a president that was assassinated.

On the flip side, you've got someone like FDR who had the benefit of no term-limit to see his policies through. What if some two-term Presidents that followed FDR such as Ike, Reagan, and Clinton had the opportunity to spend another 6 years in office? Who knows what they could have done?

[FRPLG]

I tend to side with Bush when it comes to many points of view. I think his political tactics suck and curse him every day for how he sold this war, and now how he has managed it. On a personal level I really think the George W Bush is a good guy. I really think he is trying to do the right things. In the end though I hope to God he is looked at as the worst president ever.

If so it would most likely mean:

That he was wrong about the threats that he sees.
That he was wrong about taking to the fight to them on their land.
That he was wrong that knocking down tyranny and building democracy in the middle east will straighten it out.

Really I feel that the only way Bush is looked at as a good President is if the next few Presidents roll back his policies and we end up getting mauled by terrorists due to that. He can only be looked at positively if it is proven that that he was right. I don't want him to ever be proven right. I'd rather us be totally safe and him looked at as terrible.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am not a Bush basher but I am going to respond to some of these:

Yeah so he has exactly zero control over this. Giving him credit is silly. He has absolutely no impact on interest rates. Totally market and Federla Reserve driven.

Presidents get too much credit for this both ways, good and bad. The first Pres Bush got too much heat for the bad economy and Cliton and Bush both get too much credit for the good. Presidents have very little effect. Bush maybe more than others because of the tax cuts but that is debateable.


Well yes unemployemt is lower. See above. Same thing. As for lowering taxes, that is a weird one. Yes he lowered taxes and yes he lowered taxes mostly for rich people. That is because rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. He didn't really lower much in taxes for poor people because they don't pay much to begin with.

I will comment on these together since they are so closely related.
If you use those as a negative against the presidency, then they have to be a positive if they do a good job. Fact is, Bush has policies in place to help stimulate the economy and the interest rates. Sure it's not him 100%, but you can't deny he has helped the situation.

All by himself?

Considering India and Pakistan have been arch rivals since 1947 and no one has done anything about it, and had nuclear capabilities that were ignored by previous presidents (especially clinton), and India tested their first Thermonuclear weapon in May of 98 to no comments, I'm going to say yes. Sure he didn't act alone in this, but he made it a priority and put a stop to a 50 year problem. I'm sure those ill feelings are still there between the countries, but Bush and Bush alone made it a priority, and I for one and glad he did or Pakistan would have been wiped off the planet by now.

Al Queda is as strong as ever. There's not much he could have done either way. To destroy terrorists group like that will take decades at least.

Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

On the flip side, you've got someone like FDR who had the benefit of no term-limit to see his policies through. What if some two-term Presidents that followed FDR such as Ike, Reagan, and Clinton had the opportunity to spend another 6 years in office? Who knows what they could have done?

well, there is no way of knowing. I feel that Reagan's legacy would have been tarnished cause the economy had no real structure to it...the booming 80's were bound to crash and daddy bush took the blame. Ike, I'm not so sure...we could have benefited from another term of his I would imagine. Clinton most certainly would not get this high praise cause 9/11 would have happened under his tenure then all the information about him helping terrorism and ignoring intelligence about terrorism would have surfaced and killed any positive notions about him.
But you're right...who knows. Anything could have happened.

[saden1]

If we're going to give him credit for low unemployment and interest rate are we going to give him credit for mortgaging the future for temporary high? To be reduced to borrowing from the Chinese is an absolute low.

I'm interested to know who in here manages their personal finances the way the U.S. manages it's finances.