THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[Freak Out]

I think its funny how everyone blames Congress for sucking and claims that the president is pretty much just a title yet they consistently claim how much Bush sucks.

If he sucks so much, take some accountability and do something about it. Unless you're proactive, I think you suck.

Fuck you....I've been trying for what seems like an eternity. Have you ever contacted your congressional delegation about anything? I use the process and the means at my disposal to do all I can. I email, call and try and meet them when they come back to Alaska and I never miss a vote. I work locally to try and get the people I want to run and into office. I've done just about everything but take up arms.

Congress has failed in their sworn duty and thats all there is to it.

[Freak Out]

Oh ya.....I forgot to say I have plenty of money and am happy!

[MJZiggy]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

[bobblehead]

I'm not a GW fan, but he is only a failure depending on what topic we are talking about, and your political ideology.

War... Rid the taliban,

For a little while, maybe, but you're not seriously trying to argue that Dubya's Afghanistan policy could be called a success, are you??

doing ok in iraq, has put some serious pressure on Iran. But...botched the midgame in iraq, you might argue we shouldn't have gone in (I don't), and we spent way too much money nation building without requiring iraq to pay for it..

Oh yeah, that little detail you call the "midgame." What about the abject failure to think realistically, from the very beginning planning stages, what it would take to rebuild Iraqui infrastructure and help ensure social stability? That was a complete failure.

Economy...Created a new entitlement program, expanded gov't spending and increased debt and deficit. but, unprecedented growth, stock market had a record run, 7 of 8 years all economic indicators were good despite taking over a recession and 9/11 hit to the economy.

Unprecedented economic growth? What figures have you found to support that notion? Real GDP growth rates under Dubya have been very mediocre compared with JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton and Carter administrations. On a par with Nixon. Only Bush I is worse. So at least he beat his Daddy in something. If you're going to talk about economic growth, I think you also have to talk about income distribution. What has happened to the gap between very rich and poor in the US under Dubya?

1) Yes I do.
2)That is exactly what I have said in every post I have made on the war, thank you for repeating my words.
3)I addressed income distribution in another post where I pointed out that as a % poor people improved more under bush than rich did. As for unprecedented growth, he took over a recession, add in 9/11, had .8% GDP growth in '01, and then went to 1.6, 2.5, 3.9 before tailing off a bit to 3.2, all the while the cost of oil (which our economy is dependant on) was skyrocketing. Thats not all bad.

Look, I pointed to bush's successes AND failures, and you basically got a mocking tone, and dismissed what I called his successes. In your eyes he is a complete abject failure in everything he did by the sounds of it, and I can't take you seriously when you sound like that.

If you can offer up an economic model where the standard of living of everyone increases every year, and the gap between rich and poor doesn't move at all I'd be willing to listen. Its a tired arguement that plays to the ignorant and incites class warfare. The capitalist model is responsible for most great advances the world has seen and raised the bar on life for the entire world...and you wanna be upset because bill gates got rich while helping make this conversation between us possible.

[hoosier]

I addressed income distribution in another post where I pointed out that as a % poor people improved more under bush than rich did.

I must have missed where you posted about this, but it's still not really clear what you're trying to say--what do you mean that "as a percentage poor people improved more than rich under Dubya"??? There are many ways of measuring income and wealth disparity, and I'm not aware of ANY metric that would refute the claim that income disparity has GROWN under Dubya instead of declining. In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

To be fair, it should be noted that the disparity between rich and poor has been increasing for more than two decades, and is surely a reflection of societal trends that go much deeper than just economic policies set by Congresses and Presidents. The transformation of the US economy from industrial to service and financial speculation clearly favors certain sectors more than others, and that isn't Bush's fault, or Clinton's, or Reagan's.

But each of those presidents CAN and HAS played a role in how government responds to such societal trends. And Bush's response--in teh form of tax cuts that favor investors--IMO clearly contributes to the growing disparity.

You imply that there is no economic model that can guarantee that disparities won't increase, and that may be true, but I'm not quite sure what conclusions you are suggesting that we draw from that claim. Do you think we should just accept growing income disparity and a shrinking middle class without taking any responsibility for trying to change the situation because we now know there is no perfect system? Why do you feel that talking about income disparity is equivalent to class warfare? (Admittedly I'm paraphrasing you here, feel free to correct me if you think I'm summarizing your position unfairly.)

[bobblehead]

In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past, as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history.

My mother grew up shitting in an outhouse. I grew up with 3 channels. Microwaves? Radio stations? Wealth isn't a static thing that only the rich are accruing at the expense of the poor, everyone from a street sweeper to the CEO of exxon is gaining wealth. I have a friend who is borderline "poverty"(by gov't definition) who has a computer and 50" TV.

You imply that there is no economic model that can guarantee that disparities won't increase,

I'll take full credit for implying this (sort of). In any societal model where there is incentive to create/produce there will be a widening gap between rich and "poor". Sure, we could be socialist and the gap would be nil, and we would never move forward. Only through reward for achievement can EVERYONE move forward. All this means in real terms is that as the rich get "filthy rich" things that the poor could never afford anyway go up in cost....things like oceanview houses, high end cars, penthouse sweets. Basic costs for normal needs remain relatively low and as a percentage of earnings are actually going down as compared to the past (because of the economic incentive to bring them down)

[hoosier]

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past , as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. ) Poor is poor, and it makes no sense to say that the poor are "richer" today than in the past. Poverty is a measure of your inability to buy basic necessities. What would it mean to say that someone who doesn't earn enough money to feed a family of three is "richer" today than someone in the same situation thirty years ago?

Instead of relying on anecdotes about poor friends who can afford to buy plasma TVs, let's try a slightly more scientific approach. According to US Dept of Labor, the income disparity in the US as measured by the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the 1960's, and at its present rate of increase by 2045 the US will have matched the income disparity of Mexico in 2000. By that standard, if the projection were accurate, the US would have become a third world country.

[oregonpackfan]

Not only is the disparity between the rich and poor increasing but the number of Americans who represent the middle class is shrinking as well. Read Thom Hartmann's book Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class.

Here is a review of his book:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Reviews/Screwed-Hartmann.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that what the sick America-hating leftist media have been saying might happen to be reported because it has truth to it? Every single thing you ever hear out of the media can't possibly be wrong or they'd have no credibility with anyone. Maybe they actually kind of like America and are trying to report what they learn.

Perhaps you would like to point out sonme of that "truth"--but, I say again, you won't because you can't. It doesn't exist.

[texaspackerbacker]

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past , as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. ) Poor is poor, and it makes no sense to say that the poor are "richer" today than in the past. Poverty is a measure of your inability to buy basic necessities. What would it mean to say that someone who doesn't earn enough money to feed a family of three is "richer" today than someone in the same situation thirty years ago?

Instead of relying on anecdotes about poor friends who can afford to buy plasma TVs, let's try a slightly more scientific approach. According to US Dept of Labor, the income disparity in the US as measured by the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the 1960's, and at its present rate of increase by 2045 the US will have matched the income disparity of Mexico in 2000. By that standard, if the projection were accurate, the US would have become a third world country.

Who in this country today does not have hte "ability to buy the basic necessities"? That's as good a definition of being poor as any. I'll give you credit for that. As Bobblehead said, lifestyles of the poor and unfamous improved more than those of the rich in the Bush years. I'll go that one better, though. There simply aren't more than a handfull of "poor"--by that definition in the whole country, and haven't been since well before Bush. Other than a few street people--homeless--usually certifiable crazies who get off their meds, there simply ARE NO people in this country who are "incapable of buying the basic necessities".

The bottom line of all these leftist complaints is CLASS ENVY--either genuine or just demagoguery, it depends on the liberal. There whole agenda is based on punishing the achievers--the winners in the American system. It simply means less to them for lower income people to have adequate lives than it does to prevent others from enjoying great lives.

[bobblehead]

Nothing could be further from the truth, by any measure imagineable the poor are infinately more rich than they were in the past , as a matter of fact, by most measures todays poor are richer than the rich of the past. This is why I call this class warfare bullshit (I hope you don't take that as disrespectul, it sounds as such in type, but if you could hear my voice you wouldn't be offended) The only reason for such a statement is class envy, as the poor have it better than at any time in history

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. ) Poor is poor, and it makes no sense to say that the poor are "richer" today than in the past. Poverty is a measure of your inability to buy basic necessities. What would it mean to say that someone who doesn't earn enough money to feed a family of three is "richer" today than someone in the same situation thirty years ago?

Instead of relying on anecdotes about poor friends who can afford to buy plasma TVs, let's try a slightly more scientific approach. According to US Dept of Labor, the income disparity in the US as measured by the Gini coefficient has been rising steadily since the 1960's, and at its present rate of increase by 2045 the US will have matched the income disparity of Mexico in 2000. By that standard, if the projection were accurate, the US would have become a third world country.

I guess my fantasy world is called america. You seem to miss my whole point. The standard of living in this country improves every single year. When my mother was a child they had an outhouse. Most every american has indoor plumbing now. They didn't have TV, most every american has cable now. They rode a buggy, most every american has a car now (or bus access minimum). Your point on income disparity does nothing to disprove my arguement....I swear you didn't even read it. How can you possibly say the poor aren't richer than the past. Any american can walk into an emergency room and get care, when my mom was young if you got a hand caught in the bailer they tied it off and waited hours for doc martin to come.

Penicilin, Ibuprofen, Claritin, none of these were around years ago, now they are affordable by nearly every american. Yes my friend, my fantasyland is called the USA, what is yours called?

[bobblehead]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in? (I hope that doesn't sound disrespectful. )

I find myself saying this constantly to Bobblehead & Tex.

I think many conservatives are very narrow in what they will read or listen to. But maybe they think I am the same way.

Incidentally tex is closer to you than me.

Here, in case you all missed it I'll copy/paste my "income disparity" point.
=========================================

In any societal model where there is incentive to create/produce there will be a widening gap between rich and "poor". Sure, we could be socialist and the gap would be nil, and we would never move forward. Only through reward for achievement can EVERYONE move forward. All this means in real terms is that as the rich get "filthy rich" things that the poor could never afford anyway go up in cost....things like oceanview houses, high end cars, penthouse sweets. Basic costs for normal needs remain relatively low and as a percentage of earnings are actually going down as compared to the past (because of the economic incentive to bring them down)

[hoosier]

In any societal model where there is incentive to create/produce there will be a widening gap between rich and "poor". Sure, we could be socialist and the gap would be nil, and we would never move forward. Only through reward for achievement can EVERYONE move forward. All this means in real terms is that as the rich get "filthy rich" things that the poor could never afford anyway go up in cost....things like oceanview houses, high end cars, penthouse sweets. Basic costs for normal needs remain relatively low and as a percentage of earnings are actually going down as compared to the past (because of the economic incentive to bring them down)

Bobblehead, you are misinformed and just plain wrong about this. Inflation has been increasing more rapidly than middle-class wages in this country for more than two decades. CEO salaries, of course, are a different story.

You seem to think that there are only two possible models: a "socialist" one in which there are no income disparities (such a model has of course never existed in reality) or the one we have had in the US for the last three decades in which wealth is increasingly concentrated among the rich. Your refusal or inability to consider a more complex array of choices is very limiting for conversation.

[bobblehead]

I am simply not wrong, I have pointed out more examples of goods that are available to all classes now that didn't even exist in the past than I can count. You are trying to say that because the tv of today is 60" and the past was 24" and the cost comparison is that the 60" is a bit more that the cost of living has gone up. Lately we are having a little bit more of a problem because oil is skyrocketing due to global demand and that is causing inflation on the low end (this I agree with, but it is a very recent problem).

Overall, affordability of basic needs is getting easier and easier, you are simply raising the bar on basic needs to try and claim its getting more expensive. And I am very open to other models, please present one and I will be happy to consider/discuss it.