Bush's Real Legacy

[Mr._johngalt]

That's why it's going bankrupt and will not be there by the time I am eligible. If the government would have kept it status quo and raised the minimum eligibility age as the life expectancy raised it would be in good shape, but that would be seen as anti-old people and the Senators and Congressmen would be quickly voted out. Who was it that said, the Republic will be short lived once the people realize they can vote themselves benefits (or something like that)?

I prefer "The Republic is never in more danger than when the legislature
is in session."

JG

 

[jeff2006]

That's why it's going bankrupt and will not be there by the time I am eligible.

Bunk!

 

[lets-retire]

Bunk!

Well there's no debating that logic. :

 

[kcowan]

... Then he lies about it in sworn testomony. He could have said he did it and it was fully consensual and it would have ended. The purjury created the stir.

This is the similarity with Nixon. If Nixon had come clean on Watergate right away the outcome would have been different. The coverup and the behaviour demonstrated in all the tapes were his undoing.

Clinton made a severe error in judgement regarding Monica. Aside for a poor choice to do it with (hey he picked Hillary ), he must have believed she would continue to keep their secret. But she caved when threatened with purjury. Purjury is what got Martha in the end.

 

[jeff2006]

Well there's no debating that logic. :

Agreed! So there . . .

 

[sgeeeee]

So, who is this "everyone I know" group of folks?

I could name several of them, but it would not affect the argument. Do you really not understand the difference between these two cases?

Allow me to explain. . . In an earlier post, you made a broad generalization implying that all people wanted the rich to be defined only as people more wealthy than themselves. Your justification for this is that you had talked to people. The size and make-up of that sample you talked to is critical to the conclusion. Your reasoning goes something like this:

I talked to 2 friends and 3 relatives who were X.
Therefore all people are X.

This, of course, is not logical. The conclusion does not follow from the first fact.

In contrast, the current thread made a statement implying that everyone now recognized Nixon to be a great President. I've never talked to anyone who believed that Nixon was a great President, and have talked so some who think he is not a great President. The reasoning goes something like this:

hypothesis: All people are X.
I know 2 friends and 3 relatives who are not X.
therefore the hypothesis is false.

The sample size (for any sample greater than zero) and make-up is irrelevant to the conclusion.

 

[youbet]

I think it would be easier to understand where you're coming from if you would confine your statements to the truth and not wander off into other territory.

 

[FinanceDude]

The perceptions of Nixon and Bush may be relative. I thought that Nixon was an incompetent crook, until Bush came along and set a completely new standard. Now even Nixon doesn't look too bad. But you're right -- it's really all Clinton's fault!

The people who still defend Bush are Republicans in name only, and certainly are not conservatives in any meaningful sense.

Spoken as a true Democrat..............

 

[jeff2006]

Spoken as a true Democrat..............

Whoops, financedude, not so -- I voted Republican more often than not in the past. Would be glad to vote Republican again if they had a candidate who cared about anything beyond advancing corporate power at home and killing people overseas.

 

[brewer12345]

I cannot fathom how anyone could consider the current occupant of the Oval Offce (not Dirty Dick) to be a success. Can one of the true believers articulate why they think this is a great pResidency?

 

[FinanceDude]

I cannot fathom how anyone could consider the current occupant of the Oval Offce (not Dirty Dick) to be a success. Can one of the true believers articulate why they think this is a great pResidency?

Never said he was..............but to label "anyone who is a Republican is NOT a conservative" is bunk............

Here's a better question: Who are the Dems putting their hopes on, Obama, or Kerry?

 

[brewer12345]

Never said he was..............but to label "anyone who is a Republican is NOT a conservative" is bunk............

Here's a better question: Who are the Dems putting their hopes on, Obama, or Kerry?

Changing the subject. eh? Any other True Believers want to take a crack at it?

 

[FinanceDude]

Changing the subject. eh? Any other True Believers want to take a crack at it?

Nah, just seeing if you were paying attention.............

It is well documented how much you hate Bush and his staff...........

Well, the economy seems to be doing well, the tax cuts have allowed the govt to collect the 3rd highest capital gains taxes in history, and the deficit is smaller than expected. Isn't that a good start?

Oh, that's right, all you care about is Iraq.............

 

[brewer12345]

Well, the economy seems to be doing well, the tax cuts have allowed the govt to collect the 3rd highest capital gains taxes in history, and the deficit is smaller than expected. Isn't that a good start?

Oh, that's right, all you care about is Iraq.............

How about things Bush should have control of? It is debatable whether any president has muc to do with the general economy. Clinton got the benefit of an economic upswell he had little to do with and Daddy Bush got the short end of the economic stick through (largely) no fault of his own.

Tax cuts? Deficit? Please. We are still drowning in gouts of gummint debt being issued. Neither Bush nor his co-religionists fellow party members supposedly controlling the purse strings over in Congress ever seem to have heard of the words "fiscal restraint." In the meantime, income and wealth disparities in the US continue to grow at a surprising pace. Remind me why we tax income derived from labor at much hgher levels than income derived from capital?

And, yes, I don't think you can ignore Iraq, Afghanistan, the botched/dropped hunt for Osama, the trashing of our military, the complete loss of political capital with the rest of the world, the shredding of the Constitution, etc. But I am still waiting for a cogent argument as to why Monkey-boy has been a good president. Something more is required than a vague comment about how the economy seems to be doing OK...

 

[FinanceDude]

I'm a conservative, and I will not tell you GWB has been a good president, I don't think he has. Has he been (as some Dems have labeled him) the worst president ever? Well, I don't think so either......

The farther we get away from 9/11, the more the country forgets. You really think Gore and Lieberman would have done a good job post-9/11?

I would like to hear how the military is "trashed", when Clinton was the one who did the largest slashing of military budgets in the nation's history..........

 

[brewer12345]

I would like to hear how the military is "trashed", when Clinton was the one who did the largest slashing of military budgets in the nation's history..........

Easy. Pretend there is a big problem somewhere on the planet that needs the intervention of the US military (for real this time, not some trumped up nonsense cooked up to finish Daddy's business). Something like the Sudan invading Egypt, a North Korean issue, a beligerant Iran going after Turkey, whatever. Where would you like to pull troops out of to respond? What shape do you think those units will be in? How much longer do you plan on stop-lossing soldiers?

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . You really think Gore and Lieberman would have done a good job post-9/11?
. . .

Yes. I can't imagine them doing a worse job than chimpy. What is it that you think was done well?

 

[brewer12345]

Yes. I can't imagine them doing a worse job than chimpy. What is it that you think was done well?

He already told us: tax cuts for the wealthy and lots of military spending.

 

[lets-retire]

Easy. Pretend there is a big problem somewhere on the planet that needs the intervention of the US military (for real this time, not some trumped up nonsense cooked up to finish Daddy's business). Something like the Sudan invading Egypt, a North Korean issue, a beligerant Iran going after Turkey, whatever. Where would you like to pull troops out of to respond? What shape do you think those units will be in? How much longer do you plan on stop-lossing soldiers?

Not all of the troops are being deployed. There are some who are in a stand down position. The situation you are presenting is what the military had been cut to under Bush I. The feds can call up for an indefinite amount of time, the National Guard and the Reserves. Granted some of those troops have been used, but in a far more limited capacity than is possible. Not too mention many active duty forces, though they have been deployed, can stay in theater for much longer periods. The out and come back for a period of stand down is something relatively new coming from about Vietnam.

That is just the US troops, don't forget about the French German, Russian, Italian, and various other countries that have a respectable military that are not deployed heavily.

It's interesting to see people who blame Bush for a recession are the same one who say he doesn't have control of the economy during the good times. :

 

[eridanus]

It's interesting to see people who blame Bush for a recession are the same one who say he doesn't have control of the economy during the good times. :

Yes, it reminds me of people who did the same with Clinton.

 

[brewer12345]

It's interesting to see people who blame Bush for a recession are the same one who say he doesn't have control of the economy during the good times. :

Eh, the recession was already in the cards when Dopey took the reins. Big bubbles usually result in nasty downward swings. Housing-led recession, anyone? That should just about completely sink and R hopes of putting another disaster candidate in the WH in 2008. Not that I think it makes sense, but the Merkin public has an attention span about as long as their genitalia, so a spike in unemployment tends to result in blame being placed on the incumbent and his party.

 

[jeff2006]

Oh, that's right, all you care about is Iraq.............

Yeah . . . that darn thing about killing people by the tens of thousands because they . . . well . . . because they . .. . well, just because. . .

 

[FinanceDude]

Easy. Pretend there is a big problem somewhere on the planet that needs the intervention of the US military (for real this time, not some trumped up nonsense cooked up to finish Daddy's business). Something like the Sudan invading Egypt, a North Korean issue, a beligerant Iran going after Turkey, whatever. Where would you like to pull troops out of to respond? What shape do you think those units will be in? How much longer do you plan on stop-lossing soldiers?

I'm not the Joint Chiefs, deciding where to send troops and tracking hotspots. Since when does the US military have to do ALL the world's military work? Sudan wouldn't get far in Egypt, North Korea may invade South Korea, but that is doubtful considering China isn't too happy about it, and what good does invading Turkey do to Iran?

You're cooking up "maybe's", not concrete facts...............

 

[brewer12345]

Since when does the US military have to do ALL the world's military work?

Since the Supreme Court put King George on the throne, apparently.

 

[FinanceDude]

Since the Supreme Court put King George on the throne, apparently.

Ah ha..........now we have the REAL ISSUE........... You're one of those folks who think the Supreme Court GAVE the election to Bush and company. Interesting..........

Brewster, you're a smart guy, why were the Florida election commission and the Florida state Supreme Court wringing their hands and wondering what to do?

What the Supreme Court basically did was tell the Florida Supreme Court to "do your jobs"............is that not within the jurisdiction of the highest court?

Man, that was SIX YEARS AGO!!