I cannot handle all of the stupid fucking stupid
Phatscotty wrote:Dude, I am no George Bush lover, but that's just a bunch of crap. The economy did not fall apart until about 6 months after 2006 elections, when the Democrats took Congress. Before that, this country had 54 straight months of job growth, even in the aftermath of 9-11. Also you cannot lay the major factor of the real estate crash at Bush's feet, when it's Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd who took the regulations off of the big banks and also pushed for people to get houses that they had no way of paying for long term.
You know what Barney Frank is up to today? He was on NPR on Tuesday talking about his retirement, and the mistake he made with the housing credit. He knows where his mistakes were, and he's writing a new bill that will allow low-income families to get a rebate or reduced rate for RENTALS. Of course, he also laid some blame at the feet of the Capitalist-Darwinist bankers who profiteered from the housing credits. But that's not important. The fact is, that the Republicans had many warnings that the housing market was going to crash. And they had complete control of all three branches of the Government.
I know what everyone's thinking. . . How did they have control of the Judicial Branch? Look at how many conservative federal judges were appointed under George II. It's a record. There's too much f*ck here for me to go into details about everything, but Republicans are sick of never having support for anything, so they bandied together and pushed a shitload of retirements off until they had a conservative president who would appoint conservative judges to replace them.
Now, where did George II admit to ever going wrong? His book certainly doesn't provide any examples.
To me though, I think that the Republicans did nothing about the warnings of a housing crash because of a combination of absurd stupidity, and greed. Aren't Conservatives the ones who bitch about too much government regulation? I see no reason for them to want to regulate banks when it stands against what they preach about, which is a Capitalistic-Darwinist society. Not that it matters, because if Bush hadn't added several trillion dollars to our nations deficit, we would have done a much better job of weathering the storm. His lack of foresight is a major problem that Americans will deal with for generations.
To your point of Job Growth, that's a "duh" point. George II ordered an illegal war for oil against a nation that did not threaten us. And he paid for it the same way that FDR paid for his Depression-era policies, which is printing money and taking loans. OF COURSE there's going to be job growth, we were sending hundreds of thousands of workers over seas and running the American War Machine back home. HOWEVER unfortunate, sooner or later those loans would come due. Sooner or later, that job growth was going to reverse on itself. And it did in 2008.
Phatscotty wrote: Sure he took advantage of 9-11 with Iraq, but does that even compare to other presidents and their decisions to go to war/escalate in Vietnam?
Yeah, it's pretty much the same. George Bush murdered thousands, perhaps a million people in the name of EXXON, BP, CONOCO and others. This kind of Neo-Conservatism is frustratingly perverse, and it's equally perverse to see you defending it. He bankrupted us and sent a decades worth of American youth to a war zone. . . IT'S NOT OKhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 69610.htmlhttp://www.iraqbodycount.org/http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html
Phatscotty wrote:Does Bush really compare to other eras where tax rates were 90%?
When people read about the problems of Truman, or Eisenhower's presidencies, what they read about is the Red Scare. They read about accusations, the hollywood black list, and other thought crimes that were popular tools of the day. They read about American economic expansion. They read about secret spy programs. But they don't read all about how Truman or Eisenhower fucked everything, bankrupted America, and declared war on an innocent country. That is Bush's legacy. You're welcome to try to post facts and make an argument here, but I'll f*ckin' come back ten times stronger.
Phatscotty wrote: How about presidents that promised to keep us out of a war, then immediately sent us to war (wilson). What about FDR, who prolonged the depression far longer than any other country in the world and saw unemployment rates of 20% and higher?
While both FDR and Wilson promised not to go to war, then did anyway, you're a fucking loony if you think that WWI and WWII are comparable to George Bush's war-for-corporate-profit. FDR's America was attacked by the Japanese. Then the Germans declared war on us. We didn't declare war or attack either one of them first. And we didn't fight them for a natural resource. We gave their lands back to them.
And with Wilson, bless his heart, he took the time to craft a way to end all wars. Germany prayed for an honorable surrender under Wilson's 14 points. The League of Nations was then supposed to provide a way for nations to peacefully end their disagreements. But because of European Jerkyness, Wilson pulled us out of the League of Nations to avoid being pulled into another fucking war. damn it
Do you really need a history lesson?
FDR's New Deal may or may not have extended the Great Depression. As far as I know, Scholars are still debating that, and it's important to note that the Depression was worldwide. America was not the world's breadbox or machine shop. Furthermore, though you're right that the Depression lasted longer in the US; By this time half of the world was spending money building up for war. It seems stupid to compare Warlike-Germany in 1939 to Isolationist-America in 1939.
What you can't tarnish is that fact that FDR was loved during his time and that love continues today. That says a lot about his policies. And personally, I don't care if the New Deal did prolong the Depression in the USA. FDR was doing everything human to help the meek, and he did it in a way he was certain was also in his country's best interest. That's the Jesus lesson in this.
Back to Bush, what's the Jesus lesson in bombing Iraqi civilians for profit?
Phatscotty wrote:What about mortgage rates at 18% and stagflation like under Jimmy Carter? Did anyone have to wait for 3 hours just to get a maximum limit of 5 gallons during Bush's terms? Doesnt even compare.
Does compare. There haven't been that many presidents over such a long period of time that we can't compare them.
As a man, Jimmy Carter is one of the nicest.... he's definitely one of my favorite politicians. However, as the President, he was God-Aweful and weak. Again, personally, I don't know how American's expected his presidency to go well. I do love his stance against social-engineering and government expansion, but that's hardly the point.
Yeah, during the Carter Years people waited in line for fuel, and there were rules about when you could get it and how much you could have. And no, I wasn't there. But at least Jimmy Carter didn't kill anyone to get more of it. George Bush killed innocent people for oil while we still had plenty. And he lied about it. And once, he said that God told him to attack Iraq. Fucking awesome.
Besides this, why do you believe that we should have unrestricted access to Earth's limited resources anyway?
So Jimmy Carter had fuel lines, and George Bush had $4 fuel. The reason gas cost so much during Bush's presidency is because he stupidly invaded Iraq. The Bush administration got permission from Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq. Then it got the Saud's promise to keep fuel costs down once we did. . . but once we were irreversibly committed, the Saud's jacked up the price. "No sweat" said the Neo-Conservatives, "because we will just pump out cheap oil from Iraq's wells!" But no, the Saudi's said "no, that's Iraq's oil." And the oil companies we promised those oil fields to decided that they were making too much money doing what the Saud's told them to do, so they wouldn't risk taking over the oil fields.
Because of this, George Bush ordered Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to pump out a shitload of cheap oil for us (that's how we ended the Carter Fuel crisis). "f*ck you Bush, I'm with OPEC" was Chavez's reply. And that is why the media attacked Chavez so much back in the day.
Hey, you know what the difference between Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush is?
Hugo Chavez was democratically election.
Phatscotty wrote:You can only have that opinions because #1 you don't even know what hard times are like, and #2 "George Bush brought us the worst economy since the great depression" was the big lie repeated a million times and got Obama elected. Well, the economy has gotten far worse since 2007, so this must be the worst worst economy since the great depression.
How about debt and gov't spending? You cant even compare Bush to Obama.
Ok, this is all fucked and stupid. The Washington Times
has it's own graph. I call it "Holy Graph of Obvious."
Everyone remembers that the first thing Obama
did when elected, after erasing a shitload of Bush's Imperial PD's was cut $150 billion from government spending. The following year he cancelled thousands of orders for new boats, planes, and artillery for our military. On the other hand, Bush invaded two countries and swelled up the size of the Federal Government., He created the domestic spy agency, the Department of Homeland Security. So immediately I am suspicious of your stupid-looking graph.
According to the Washington Post, Bush-era policies increased our national debt by $5.07 TRILLION DOLLARS, while Obama
policies add $1.44 trillion in debt. Also, a point of note, is that a fair portion of Obama
's debt was temporary and caused directly by Bush's incompetence. Obama
's economy saving stimulus and temporary tax breaks are two examples.
Finally, since the Republican's lost control of Congress, they've done everything they can do to keep Democrat's from lowering our nation's debts. They've had a record number of filibusters. And they force "compromises" on every issue while blaming Obama
for not getting anything done. It's fucking retarded.
Sure, you've go to be willing to compromise and you've got to be able to bring the parties together to get shit done. But I imagine that's hard to do when the other party is fighting every proposal and then blaming you for not doing anything. . . even though Obama
has severely reduced government spending by almost 4 trillion dollars, apparently. Over and over again we hear the same sound bite "It's about defeating Obama
Anyway, Congress sets the budget, not the president.