The George W Bush Legacy

[hcap]

All Hail George W. Churchill and his repug enablers (rhinos?)

http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView

[Snag]

All Hail George W. Churchill and his repug enablers (rhinos?)

http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView

Your chart did not say anything about our being at war.

Would you like to suggest that the figures be adjusted with that in mind?

[hcap]

Bushs' choice.
Bin Laden attacked us. Not Iraq.
George W Churchill the so-called "War President" is the very reason we are in this mess. All hail.

Say, while your at it why not post a few choice CLINTONDIDITTOOs?
That way you will never assign the blame to where it belongs.

Bush, the repugs, and all their enablers and supporters like you.

[bigmack]

Indonesia & Turkey have a less favorable view of us? Oh me - Oh my!!!

While I'm not a big fan of W, might I ask Hcap, what further need is satisfied by you & your comrades picking data for all the wrongs (both rightly & make believe) that you'd like to attribute to the hand of Bush?

[Snag]

Bushs' choice.
Bin Laden attacked us. Not Iraq.
George W Churchill the so-called "War President" is the very reason we are in this mess. All hail.

Say, while your at it why not post a few choice CLINTONDIDITTOOs?
That way you will never assign the blame to where it belongs.

Bush, the repugs, and all their enablers and supporters like you.

Dude, it's your post and you posted the chart. I said nothing about Clinton. You are the one that wants to place blame.

I didn't say we were at war with Iraq.

Care to reconsider?

[JustRalph]

some of that shit is just stupid............

100% readiness versus a military engaged in combat operations..........

pretty easy to be ready when you are sitting on your ass for 7 or 8 years while the terrorists plan and blow up shit...........and there is no response

[riskman]

The important thing to note is that in a year he will be gone. And with him the movement that has covered for him. Maybe his policies of welfare-warfare will take a hit too. That would be pride, fall, and justice after all.

[Tom]

Legacies written in the futures, after things are put into historical perspective. No matter what hcap and 46 would like to believe, Bush's highlight accomplishments will rise above thier childish hatred of him.

Just look at Clinton's legacy - it is being written as we speak, as years laters, he demonstrates that he was nothing more than a vindictive little liar with no integrtiy. And a racist.

[ddog]

call the WH and ask Pres.Bush to strip all the 2008 congress-passed-porker earmarks for 2008 and withdraw this stupid welfare state based bailout for chumps bill.

Show the people someone cares about this countries budget disaster and future.

He is not running again - there is no reason for him not to drop the hammer on these wastefull pigs.

walk the talk when it matters , not just during campaigns.

[ddog]

if the vote goes as the polls would indicate now, the clintons have PLENTY of company in the racist camp not to mention sexist camp in this country.

Not that I am surprised, no news flash required.

[hcap]

Some political history.

----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------

1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003

2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.

[lsbets]

Hcap - with the exception of government jobs, which are paid for by you and I the taxpayer - no political party has ever created a job. Businesses create jobs. So to say that Democrats, or to flip it and say Republicans, is just plain wrong. All politicians do is get in the way of job and wealth creation.

[Snag]

hcap, your lastest chart (I guess you have given up on your first one in this silly thread) spans the years of five wars. You may want to explore the effect of this ecomomic factoid. I know that does not fit your I HATE BUSH routine but it is another set of data that you have chosen to overlook.

[hcap]

Hcap - with the exception of government jobs, which are paid for by you and I the taxpayer - no political party has ever created a job. Businesses create jobs. So to say that Democrats, or to flip it and say Republicans, is just plain wrong. All politicians do is get in the way of job and wealth creation.Here is Bush....

"President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I want to thank the business leaders here from the Chicago area for sharing with me their concerns about our economy. I think it's safe to say most people share the sense of optimism I do, but recognize there's still work to be done, particularly when it comes to job creation.

President George W. Bush discusses the economy with local business leaders in Chicago Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2003. "The thing I'm concerned about is people being able to find a job. We put the conditions in place for good job creation, but I recognize there's still people who want to work that can't find a job," said the President during his remarks after the meeting. "And we're dedicated to hearing the voices of those folks and working hard to expand our economy." White House photo by Tina Hager We talked about good legal policy. We talked about the need for an energy plan. We talked about fair trade for American manufacturers. We talked about the need for China to make sure that China's got a monetary policy which is fair. And I assured the leaders here that I would work to -- I'd represent the manufacturing sector and the -- all sectors of our economy when it comes to world trade.

The thing I'm concerned about is people being able to find a job. We put the conditions in place for good job creation, but I recognize there's still people who want to work that can't find a job. And we're dedicated to hearing the voices of those folks and working hard to expand our economy.

.................................................. ..

Political decisions have a strong influence on the business environment.
Overall economic policies absolutely affect job creation.

[hcap]

hcap, your lastest chart (I guess you have given up on your first one in this silly thread) spans the years of five wars. You may want to explore the effect of this ecomomic factoid. I know that does not fit your I HATE BUSH routine but it is another set of data that you have chosen to overlook.It may be that wars have spurred economies. WWII perhaps, but if that is your argument, why has the Iraqi invasion not done the same?

Is it only coincidence that the Dems appear better equipped to boost the economy historically than the repubs?

[lsbets]

Yes Hcap, Bush like all politicians wants you to think they can snap their fingers and make your life better. If you are the look to government to cure all type, as you appear to be, its easy to buy into that lie. However, those who really understand what it means to create jobs know what you will never get - government does infinitely more harm than good when involved in the economy, and there are other forces with much more influence on job creation and growth/recession. I'd explain it to you, but it would probably be a waste of time. It doesn't fit with your Bushitler/repug model.

[hcap]

There are such commonwealth items as the post office, police and fire departments, the entire military, and public work programs. Corporations are kept in existence and therefore jobs maintained by Federal bail outs-mostly supported by republicans, although the Dems have done that as well, and let's not forget Welfare to Work programs.

I don't expect government to CREATE JOBS in the private sector out of thin air, but certainly providing confidence in long standing institutions such as the banking industry, transparency in stock information, and a bit more regulation in the sub-prime lending brokers would be a valid role for government.

The fact remains, however the Dems have been more successful historically.
Why?

[Burls]

No matter what hcap and 46 would like to believe, Bush's highlight accomplishments will rise above thier childish hatred of him.

??????????????


Just look at Clinton's legacy - it is being written as we speak, as years laters, he demonstrates that he was nothing more than a vindictive little liar with no integrtiy. And a racist.

?????????????


Surely you are aware, Tom, of the substantial humanitarian projects that Bill and GHW Bush have accomplished.
These days, GHW thinks of Bill as the motivated, intelligent son that he never had.

[Snag]

It may be that wars have spurred economies. WWII perhaps, but if that is your argument, why has the Iraqi invasion not done the same?

Is it only coincidence that the Dems appear better equipped to boost the economy historically than the repubs?

The Iraqi "invasion" is not complete yet. Your time line with President Bush is to short although I'm sure you have already determined otherwise. If you have a valid point, you won't cut it so short.

What gives the Dems a better position to boost the economy based on your time line? I would rather deal in facts than your I Hate Bush position.

[lsbets]

The fact remains, however the Dems have been more successful historically.
Why?

That would not be a fact. That would be your interpretation based on a flawed understanding of how the economy works. I don't expect you to understand it, everything has to fit your nice little model.

[hcap]

Some political history.
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------

1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003

2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.

????????
And?

[Snag]

Some political history.
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------

1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003

2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.

????????
And?

Your posts do not take into consideration the Baby Boom. You may want to consider that the jobs and GDP were were impacted along your time line for that effect. That is unless you have already made up your mind.

[Tom]

Still looking for that elusive relavent reply, huh Burls?
Not yet....keep looking.:lol:

[hcap]

Your posts do not take into consideration the Baby Boom. You may want to consider that the jobs and GDP were were impacted along your time line for that effect. That is unless you have already made up your mind.Baby boomers came after WWII. The time line extends back to 1921.

Maybe we should however consider Herbert Hoover and the crash of '29?

[Snag]

Baby boomers came after WWII. The time line extends back to 1921.

Maybe we should however consider Herbert Hoover and the crash of '29?

It's your post and your "facts" jerk around. Maybe you want to reconsider now? No time line or results are a straight line unless you try to alter the outcome. You are trying to make a point and it has come full circle to make you look foolish.

[Burls]

Still looking for that elusive relavent reply, huh Burls?
Not yet....keep looking.:lol:

You really shouldn't bad mouth the next President's husband; the first 'first gentleman', Tom.

[Tom]

That's not it either.
Keep looking...you and OJ. :lol:

[Burls]

That's not it either.
Keep looking...you and OJ. :lol:

Don't worry, President Clinton has promised that, when she is ushered into power, she will do the best she can to undo the damage that 'The Pretender' has caused.

[dav4463]

We probably will have a democrat in office soon and maybe all the incessant whining about how horrible the USA has become will be over.

Hopefully, Hillary or Obama will get in and take care of business and we will once again take our place as the most respected nation on earth........

IF the terrorists we try to appease and reason with don't blow our asses away!

[PaceAdvantage]

Hmmmm....Bush Legacy.....hmmmmmm......ok......

Bush has been defined by 9/11....no question about that.....since it happened a mere eight months into his presidency.....

So, he places a nice, big fat American military presence right into the heart of the Middle East....a move which will be looked upon by history much kinder than you are looking at it now....

Let's see, what else.....

Oh, the economy.....ok....after 9/11, everyone said everything was going to go into the shitter.....for years and years.....but, only one year after 9/11, everything starts to turn around, in a BIG WAY....


Since spring '03, the economy has had average growth of over 3%
8.2 million jobs have been created
inflation rate has stayed low.
Unemployment rates are low
There have been 47 consecutive months (almost four years) of job growth. (as of mid 2007)
In the last three years, workers’ salaries have risen by $1.2 trillion, or $8,000 per worker, and consumer confidence recently reached its highest level in almost six years.
People have pointed out that journalists were trumpeting economic statistics during the Clinton administration that were not as good as those we have now, hence the “greatest story never told.” I think they want to play down how well we’ve done with lower tax rates, because it interferes with the ability of their friends in Congress who believe that a virtuous society is one that divides the economic pie, taking more out of taxpayer pockets and letting government do more with those dollars. To them, growing the pie means taxing the people more, which then gives the government more money to transfer to others. But conservatives know better. The economy can only really grow when you let people keep more of what they earn.

http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/the-economic-reality/

[Burls]

So, he places a nice, big fat American military presence right into the heart of the Middle East....a move which will be looked upon by history much kinder than you are looking at it now....

How many more times does this unsubstantiated claim need to be posted before it counts as spam?

[PaceAdvantage]

How many more times does this unsubstantiated claim need to be posted before it counts as spam?Yes, usually, you have to wait for history to judge...unless you're from the far-left, which insists that history has already judged GWB, even though he isn't out of office yet....

You want to talk spam? Ballsy....I'll give you that....

[ddog]

the only part of the legacy that is even open for debate is the Middle East.
the economy stuff from below is nuts and meaningless.

avg worker salary - give me a break, that's like saying I won 100.00 yesterday and you broke even , what's the avg winner.
Oh, by the way the cost to play went up 15% during the winning of that 100.00, now where are we?

I mean , people may not care to dig into much as it's not their primary focus here, but really, that is an extreme "use" of stats.

The economic policies followed have been bad and will be shown going forward to have been reckless in the extreme.

[ddog]

i looked at the link ,

please define "not" "abandon" "fiscal" and "restraint".

Now how exactly would that apply to the recent policy?

A third world bananna republic would possibly trumpet our recent policy as "restraint".
Bush never saw a dollar he wouldn't spend.
No matter what it costs us going forward.
Of course, one can inflate your way into an easier payoff, which is where we are going.

I like to get a good laugh by watching Kud-high-low , but he is really a huckster and that's about all.

By the way, unemployment 6.5-8% by election.

Throw up the pub/priv job growth chart for the perod.
poor.


I didn't think 9/11 was going to result in everything going to hell, so the "everyone" is wrong as well,needless to say.

Only people that thought that needed a little tough times to starch their backbones a little.

Adjust for current dollars and compare out of WW2 to out of 9/11.

9/11 wasn't no WW2 my man.

[Tom]

You guys would love to have his legacy written right now.
It doesn't work that way, but hey, dream away. Your guys will only try to re-write it anyway. :lol::lol:

[DanG]

A true republic must judge, criticize, advice, suggest in real time or the process collapses. This role was designed for our state representatives to carry out, but that crucial aspect has often fallen to party allegiance.

The worst thing possible for a nation with our strength (therefore responsibility) is to give carte blanche to elected officials under the premise that history will sort it out.

[Tom]

That isn't what I said. Only history can properly judge a legacy because it depends on future events as a result of those actions. Washington and Lincoln - our two most famous presidents - had nowhere near the legacy at the time as they enjoy today.

[Lefty]

Legacies written in the futures, after things are put into historical perspective. No matter what hcap and 46 would like to believe, Bush's highlight accomplishments will rise above thier childish hatred of him.

Just look at Clinton's legacy - it is being written as we speak, as years laters, he demonstrates that he was nothing more than a vindictive little liar with no integrtiy. And a racist.
Tom, so righton. I remember when they(dimdems)blamedReagan for everything wrog in the world. They called him anout of control cowboy, portrayed him as an actor just acting the part of Pres, portrayed him as an out of touch old man etc.
Look at how he's viewed now...

[Lefty]

Don't worry, President Clinton has promised that, when she is ushered into power, she will do the best she can to undo the damage that 'The Pretender' has caused.
She's talking about the damage he's done to the Dem party. They're still pissed. They called him dumb and he outsmarted them at every turn.

[ddog]

That isn't what I said. Only history can properly judge a legacy because it depends on future events as a result of those actions. Washington and Lincoln - our two most famous presidents - had nowhere near the legacy at the time as they enjoy today.

One of the problems is that's what Bush said, many times.

That nobody can know what it will be, only history will judge , so I don't worry(care) about the now or near future that much, history will sort it out, so WHO? me worry, about the details, no way.

That sounds like a good way to run things.

One shouldn't adopt the attitude that the legacy will control and thus be absolved of due diligence in the now.
Talk about passive-aggresive!

That seems to be his point though.


Has nothing to do with Clinton-scum.

That's all on GW.

:ThmbDown:

[Tom]

The legacy is the last thing a president should worry about - a legacy is a result, not a goal. You do your best, at the time, and let history judge it.

[Marshall Bennett]

The legacy is the last thing a president should worry about - a legacy is a result, not a goal. You do your best, at the time, and let history judge it.
Liberals had already passed judgement on the guy before he was ever sworn in .

[46zilzal]

Liberals had already passed judgement on the guy before he was ever sworn in .


Don't think so, but SINCE being sworn in the evidence to the conclusion of total incompetence is based upon reams of data.

Every day he just adds to the belief.

"Front lines of this efforts are parents, are teachers, are counselors who are sending our kids a clear message, drug use is not fun. It is not glamorous. It is harmful. And I want to thank those who are making that — a clear message. Drugs destroys lives."
Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2007