Cougar wrote:
Also the whole "BSUH SUXZ A BIGG COCKZOR!!!!111" is really just getting old. It's pointless, dull, and is seriously worn out. If you think about it, not a whole lot of people give a flying fuck about your opinion on Bush now,
I'd say my posts were pretty far from that kind of ad hominem attack. As far as anyone caring about my opinion goes, you may be right...but this IS a forum. You know...where we discuss things.
Cougar wrote:
but what is really important is that in 15-20 years, no one is going to give a flying fuck about what anyones opinion on Bush was. Look at Truman, when he was in office people hated his guts, called him a war criminal, called for impeachment (sounds familier huh) but now a days the view on Truman is plutonic at best and on a really good day most people revere him with respect and admiration. So it really doesn't matter what you and I think because in a few years no one will remember, what does count is what our children will think, and that Sir, is simply up to how history remembers him.
History is written by Historians and is influenced by the opinions of people. I'm hardly an expert on Truman (actually, I'm an expert on Nixon) but I'm pretty certain that the analysis of his Presidency goes a bit deeper than what the people who elected him (or didn't elect him) think. The same will be true of Bush, and if you read my posts you will see my dislike of him isn't for the standard, "He's a nasty Republican" reasons of the knee jerk left. A study of the accomplishments of the Bush Presidency reveals mediocrity at best; and unfortunately I think it is a bit worse than that. His handling of economic matters borders on incompetence. It's not all negative...he has done a few good things (e.g. tax cuts, bailing on Kyoto - a notoriously bad deal for the US), but the bad far outweighs the good. I strongly suspect that history will not look kindly upon the latter Bush.
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
DOW above 11,000
Unemployment ~5%
I don't usually credit Presidents with the results of economic performance, good or bad, unless they do something extraordinary to affect the economy. Bush has.
Historically, if one studies the economies of nations, one will dicover a couple of things. 1) Economies are cyclical. 2) It is almost impossible to correllate the actions of government with growth - except for tax cuts which almost always are followed by a period of growth.
Bush started well (with a tax cut) but then spent so much that he trashed world confidence in our economy. As a result of his economic mismanagement, the dollar was in free-fall until recently and our bond performance was tragic. Not so long ago, our economic imbalances were so bad 'The Economist' headlined with an article questioning how long the dollar would remain the worlds reserve currency.
Bush continues to throw good money after bad with Hundreds of Billions on Iraq and New Orleans, WITH NO SIGN OF A CUT ANYWHERE TO ACCOMODATE THE EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURES! Sure we got a tax cut, but how long do you thing that is going to last when we have to pay the piper for Iraq and N.O.? We have borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and eventually, we are going to get hit hard by the results. (I am not evaluating the moral rectitude of the reasons for Bush's spending on Iraq or N.O.- only noting that his spending patterns, in sum, are not wise.)
Currently, we still have an economy that is performing fairly well, but this is financed by the housing bubble, which is in the process of deflating (mercifully, it doesn't appear to be bursting). What does that mean? It means people are taking the equity out of their houses and spending it. The result is that the economy hasn't tanked, but the savings rate in the US is well below zero, which means there is masses of private debt. Eventually the debt will come due, and it won't be pretty. Thankfully (again) our situation doesn't appear to be even remotely as bad as that of Japan in the '90s; but the point is that you are looking at an artificially inflated economy. It is doing as well as it is in part bcause of Bush's tax cuts (it could be doing a lot better if his spending wasn't so out of control), but we are in serious danger of a nasty recession and a future tax increase because of his out of control spending.
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
He's done more for minorities than Clinton.
Please enlighten me. (N.B. Comparing particulars of his administration favorably with Clinton's isn't a very good tactic for convincing me that Bush is a good president; prior to Bush's election I thought Clinton was the worst President in my lifetime. It's like asking which is better? Gonnorhea or Syphilis?)
I like his policy on Mexican immigration. But he hasn't gotten it implemented yet, so it doesn't really count as an accomplishment.
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Tax breaks.
As I indicated, his other disasterous economic proclivities have virtually cancelled out the stimulus created by the tax cuts.
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Those are a few for starters.
Not really impressed. Got anything else?
Edit:
Someone wrote:
...the topic of this thread is the Middle East.
Oh yeah. Sorry. Um...I'm against it.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-02-24 16:34:15)