The legacy of 'W'?

[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.

[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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

Use what? Huh? All I said was Presidents don't have much of an impact on the economy. End of story. Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is uninformed or just playing politics. The vast majority of Aemricans do not understand this, which is why administrations take as much cerdit as they can when it is good. But in the end our economy is a free market economy which is by defintion free of influence as much as possible. To say he helped is to give an opinion on the effectiveness of tax cuts as a economic stimulus. This is a highly debateable subject and by no means a fact. I tend to think tax cuts at any level do spur economic growth but that is simply a position. At the end of it there simply isn't any evidence past or present to suggest otherwise.

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.

won't argue

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.

Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.

Woh, I didn't say it wasn't strong. I said it's getting weaker, and since Bush has gone after terrorism, there is generally no debate that Al Qaeda has gotten weaker. How can it not with all the terrorists that the Bush administration has aprehended?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com

^^^This sort of thing has been the top political news story all week long.

This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that /topics/al_qaeda" class="cnnInlineTopic">al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001. Watch Chertoff explain his "gut feeling" »

Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."

The interesting thing is that we're not actually going into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda (which I'd probably be for); I wonder if it's because they have nukes and it might piss them off if we stormed in there, guns blazing. I really can't say, but I think something more needs to be done about there presence there.

Ok, now I really have to go.