AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That would be nice if Congress had some backbone and actually did it, eh? They have to do it and do. No one else can. A U.S. President has never balanced a budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 They have to do it and do. No one else can. A U.S. President has never balanced a budget. Clinton balanced the budget without a single Republican vote. He got the Dems in line and politicked his way to economical immortality. They do not call it the Clinton Economy for nothing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 As a registered Republican, I would have no hesistancy in saying the man is an embarrassment to the party and politics in general. Worst President since Carter. Poor leadership skills and and presidency full of lies and deceipt. Just today we find out he gave the ok to the sale of port control to a Middle Eastern Country with ties to terrorism. This is typical for this hypocritcal administration that says we are fighting a war on terrorism, spends a 10000000 dollars a day to fund a war against the wrong country and yet okays terrorists countries to control our ports and approves the reduction of funds to military equipment and gear. Not to mention he is surrounded by crooks and incompetence in his administration. Only shows you how pathetic the Democratic party is because they couldn't field someone to beat this guy. I say elect OM in 2008, if he could run the country with 50% off the effiency he and other staff run this board the country would be a better place to live. (Okay, I'm kidding on the last point, but trying to make a point!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Clinton balanced the budget without a single Republican vote. He got the Dems in line and politicked his way to economical immortality. They do not call it the Clinton Economy for nothing . If Clinton ever balanced the budget then he violated the seperation of powers among the branches of government. Arn't liberals supposed to get angry about things like that? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LApunkrocker72 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think he is. And where to start? Lackluster economy, a war based on lies, the bungled handling of Hurricane Katrina, wiretapping, Patroit Act. I could go on and on. Bush should never become President in the first place, the way he and his cronies stole that election in 2000. Although he sits in the White House, he's not my president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If Clinton ever balanced the budget then he violated the seperation of powers among the branches of government. Arn't liberals supposed to get angry about things like that? :laugh: He wasn't in the Senate, he did not vote for anything, and yet HE was the driving catalyst. Quick, explain to me how he got the budget passed without a single Republican vote? If you know so much about government that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 As a registered Republican, I would have no hesistancy in saying the man is an embarrassment to the party and politics in general. Worst President since Carter. Poor leadership skills and and presidency full of lies and deceipt. Just today we find out he gave the ok to the sale of port control to a Middle Eastern Country with ties to terrorism. I haven't learned enough about this story yet to comment, but the Saudi government has been cooperating in the WOT from an information standpoint, even though they have some radicals amongst their population. This is typical for this hypocritcal administration that says we are fighting a war on terrorism, spends a 10000000 dollars a day to fund a war against the wrong country Iraq was by no means the wrong country. It was a logical domino. And funding is approved by Congress. They had to vote on it. and yet okays terrorists countries to control our ports and approves the reduction of funds to military equipment and gear. When did he approve that? A reduction in forces could have called for it, if that is true. Not to mention he is surrounded by crooks and incompetence in his administration. I don't know on what you're basing that statement. Only shows you how pathetic the Democratic party is because they couldn't field someone to beat this guy. I say elect OM in 2008, if he could run the country with 50% off the effiency he and other staff run this board the country would be a better place to live. (Okay, I'm kidding on the last point, but trying to make a point!) The Democrats certainly nominated a real loser, and they will do the same if they nominate Hillary. I like Guliani for President. I think he would clean house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 He wasn't in the Senate, he did not vote for anything, and yet HE was the driving catalyst. Quick, explain to me how he got the budget passed without a single Republican vote? If you know so much about government that is. I don't know what you're referring to. I know balancing the budget is the responsiblity of Congress and the President has the power to veto a budget. It gives him leverage, but balancing the budget is still not a constitutional power of the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't know what you're referring to. I know balancing the budget is the responsiblity of Congress and the President has the power to veto a budget. It gives him leverage, but balancing the budget is still not a constitutional power of the President. Sigh... not one republican voted to balance the budget. 50-50 tie in the senate. You know how they resolve ties in there? A fight to the death maybe? A dance-off? No, just a little ol' VP casting the deciding vote. You should be familiar with the process, that is how Bush got his tax cuts passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think he is. And where to start? Lackluster economy, By far the word's strongest economy with home ownership at an all-time high and an exceptionally low unemployment rate. The American economy lost a million jobs in the month that followed 9/11, and it was Bush's policies that played a big part in rebounding that economy big time when no one knew for sure if that was going to happen. a war based on lies, A war based on truth, and a protest Democratic leaders based on lies. the bungled handling of Hurricane Katrina, In which state and local governments share a great deal of blame. wiretapping, Patroit Act. Keeping us alive right now. I could go on and on. I bet. Bush should never become President in the first place, the way he and his cronies stole that election in 2000. Although he sits in the White House, he's not my president. I know. It's very fashionable in the watered down punk scene to hate the same authority that gives you the freedom to be a "punkrocker." Your friends from Green Day and The Offspring wear those same t-shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 He wasn't in the Senate, he did not vote for anything, and yet HE was the driving catalyst. Quick, explain to me how he got the budget passed without a single Republican vote? If you know so much about government that is. They must teach some alternate universe history where you went to school. Read Gingrich's contract with America. Clinton did nothing for the budget except lip service until the Repubs came along in 94 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Sigh... not one republican voted to balance the budget. 50-50 tie in the senate. You know how they resolve ties in there? A fight to the death maybe? A dance-off? No, just a little ol' VP casting the deciding vote. You should be familiar with the process, that is how Bush got his tax cuts passed. I understand that the VP can act as a tie breaker. No one's strategy is to always rely on the tie-breaker. My point still stands. *sigh* :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That honor belongs to Jimmy Carter. I think Andrew Jackson was pretty bad, just ask the Cherokee! :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think Andrew Jackson was pretty bad, just ask the Cherokee! :whoknows: The trail of tears... Jackson was an interesting character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36SKINS56 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I gotta go with the dude who only lived 30 days - put on a coat, jackass. Thank God someone made me laugh a few posts in...becuase the fact that people would say "yes" infuriates me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 They must teach some alternate universe history where you went to school. Read Gingrich's contract with America. Clinton did nothing for the budget except lip service until the Repubs came along in 94 Last time I checked the Repubs fought the budget claw tooth and nail. Alternate history I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA Skin Fan Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Anyone who says that George W. Bush is the worst president ever has absolutely NO knowledge of history. We have had some really terrible presidents! Like Bush or not, he has been very productive in getting things accomplished - bills passed, etc, especially in his first term. It remains to be seen whether the things he has done will be successful or not in bettering the country - we probably won't know this for 20-40 years. He has faced one of the largest challenges any president has ever faced (an attack on American soil) and boldly has done what he thought was right to react to it. We will see if his actions help to defeat this threat or not..... But for someone, during his term in presidency, to say he is the absolute worst when you see all that he is done in the midst of terrible circumstances, you must be either a liberal democrat idealogue that is still bitter that he won the election in 2000 or a reactionary who over-reacts to one news story or another - history takes several years to decide. Now, Jimmy Carter is a nice man, but truly can be judged as one of the worst presidents in American history based on his utter lack of results as president. Look at the statistics- the inflation rate was in double digits, interest rates over 15%! He was unable to solve the Iran hostage crisis due to his weakness in foreign policy! There are very few accomplishments to speak of over his four years in office. For those who put Bill Clinton as one of the worst, he did have the impeachment scandal, but in fairness, there were some major successes that occurred while he was president - for instance welfare reform, and the passage of NAFTA (which is admittedly controversial). He also did nothing to majorly screw up the good economy that he presided over as president. He seemed less able to handle foreign policy challenges such as the rise of terrorism. History will likely rank him in the middle, probably not at the bottom or top, but again, more time needs to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The trail of tears...Jackson was an interesting character. Not a proud part of US History and that is why I do not like Andrew Jackson. http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Warren Harding, Lyndon Jonson were the worst Pres. Bush is trying hard to get there First of all it's Johnson, not Jonson. Secondly, Johnson's mention on any list of worst presidents is an amazing notion. Thirdly, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights legislation, Voting Rights legislation, the first environmental laws, Head Start, the Job Corps. These are some of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed in this country. As much as I deplored and fought his war, I cannot ignore the incredible advances his personal power and tenacity won for millions of Americans who most needed it. Lyndon Johnson was one of our greatest presidents, despite the war and despite his personal history of corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 As a registered Republican, I would have no hesistancy in saying the man is an embarrassment to the party and politics in general. Worst President since Carter. Poor leadership skills and and presidency full of lies and deceipt. Just today we find out he gave the ok to the sale of port control to a Middle Eastern Country with ties to terrorism. This is typical for this hypocritcal administration that says we are fighting a war on terrorism, spends a 10000000 dollars a day to fund a war against the wrong country and yet okays terrorists countries to control our ports and approves the reduction of funds to military equipment and gear. Not to mention he is surrounded by crooks and incompetence in his administration. :notworthy :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Ultimate responsibility for the economy rests on Congress since the constitution gives them the power to balance the budget. Yes, I understand whet you're trying to say (or spin, dependiing on your choice of words), but I don't recall the words "balance the budget" being mentioned once in the entire Constitution. Yes, I understand that in theory, the government can't spend money without congressional approval. (I have to say "in theory", because Reagan aparantly found one of those implied powers that says the President has the authority to spend money on his own if he wants to.) OTOH, that same theory says the government can't spend money without Presidential approval, unless congress overrides a veto. (Remember vetos? That's something liberal presidents do with pork spending bills.) Frankly, the same kool-aid wasn't true under Reagan, either. (The whole "well, the way we got this budget was that the President and Congress negotiated this deal together, which clearly means that the entire thing is Congress' fault." kool-aid.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 They have to do it and do. No one else can. A U.S. President has never balanced a budget. Translation: The budget is a joint effort between the President and Congress, and in recent history, the Presidents who've been best at negotiating balanced budgets have been Democrats, and the worst have been Republicans, but I like Republicans and hate Democrats, so therefore I'll deny that it's happened at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If Clinton ever balanced the budget then he violated the seperation of powers among the branches of government. Arn't liberals supposed to get angry about things like that? :laugh: Aha! I've figured it out! In addition to discovering "implied" powers in the Constitution for a President to kidnap American citizens, torture prisoners, ignore every single part of the Bill of Rights (except the Second Ammendment), and any law passed by Congress specifically for the purpose of preventing a Presidential action. . . In addition to the "implied" Constitutional requirement that all citizens are required to publicly agree with any war once declared. . . In addition to the "implied" Constitutional requirement that all judicial nominees must receive a simple-majority confirmation vote, regardless of any rules the Senate may have established to the contrary. . . It has now been discovered that the Constitution now "imples" that vetoing a spending bill is an unconstitutional violation of the seperation of powers. That's why Bush has never vetoed a single bill during his entire term of office! It's because of his respect for the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 He is right up their in the top 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell1106 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Pierce, Bill Clinton are at the bottom.Bush has been ranked by historians as mid-range, around the 20s... Liberated 27 million human beings, economy better now than in the 1990's, home ownership at highest level in history, unemployment rate 4.8%.. Economy better than in the 90's? I want whatever you are smokin. :insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.