Is Bush the worst President the U.S. has had?

[darrell1106]

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.

No. Just a smart thing to do when your country is regularly in the hole and the Japanese and Middle Eastern aristocrats are financing U.S. bonds to fund everything under the sun; or at least every spending bill this President receives from his compatriots in the Senate:doh:

[Zguy28]

Economy better than in the 90's? I want whatever you are smokin. :insane:

I blame NAFTA for the economy and job losses occuring. Guess who signed us up for the Outsourcing in 1994? I don't hear Clintonites bringing that up. I must admit that I was dissapointed when Bush resigned it. Also it is true that the state of the economy is "better" now, even though prices on everyday items and oil are higher. There has been a net of 2.6 million jobs created here since 2000 according to factcheck.org. 2 million have lost jobs while 4.6 have gained jobs and unemployment is at around 4.9% while under Clinton it was around 6%.

[Winslowalrob]

I blame NAFTA for the economy and job losses occuring. Guess who signed us up for the Outsourcing in 1994? I don't hear Clintonites bringing that up. I must admit that I was dissapointed when Bush resigned it. Also it is true that the state of the economy is "better" now, even though prices on everyday items and oil are higher. There has been a net of 2.6 million jobs created here since 2000 according to factcheck.org. 2 million have lost jobs while 4.6 have gained jobs and unemployment is at around 4.9% while under Clinton it was around 6%.

It was also at 3% under Clinton. Unemployment umm kind of jumps around, there is no set presidential rate. Oh, and I am pretty sure that after NAFTA real wages kept up with inflation for the first time in like a really long time. And our unemployment rate was pretty awesome too. So I don't think NAFTA screwed us over.

[darrell1106]

I blame NAFTA for the economy and job losses occuring. Guess who signed us up for the Outsourcing in 1994? I don't hear Clintonites bringing that up. I must admit that I was dissapointed when Bush resigned it. Also it is true that the state of the economy is "better" now, even though prices on everyday items and oil are higher. There has been a net of 2.6 million jobs created here since 2000 according to factcheck.org. 2 million have lost jobs while 4.6 have gained jobs and unemployment is at around 4.9% while under Clinton it was around 6%.

I'm a math/statistic kind of guy, with the exception of economic facts. The jobless numbers you just mentioned are moving targets. Jobless rates are accounted for by the number of unemployment applicants (how baseless is that; but I guess there is nothing else one can go off of right now.) That equation slightly changes over the years and thus does not correctly represent how the economy is doing. The best way, IMO, to accurately judge the health of the economy is to look at the income tax dollars being collected on a biannual basis and compare that to previous years, inflation included. Just a suggestion.

NAFTA is an entirely different topic that we can discuss at another time.

[Larry]

There has been a net of 2.6 million jobs created here since 2000 according to factcheck.org. 2 million have lost jobs while 4.6 have gained jobs and unemployment is at around 4.9% while under Clinton it was around 6%.

Yep, you're right.

We've lost 2M jobs in areas like manufacturing (and, I've read, there are now actually less engineers employeed in the US then 5 years ago).

And we've created 4.6M other jobs. The areas of biggest gains are in waiters and bartenders, and customer service.

(And I don't recall any 6% unemployment under Clinton. I remember numbers like 3, and experts on the radio telling me that Wall Street was worried because unemployment was too low, and this could lead to inflation. (Translation: the economy might have expanded to the point where it might actually "trickle down", which must not be permitted.))

[Gamebreaker]

No, the left wing media is trying hard to get him there.

He's not making it hard on them. :laugh:

[Thiebear]

You'd have to wait till he's out and see what some of the things attempted actually came too?

Wouldnt that be the minimum?

But I'd say he's up there on spending....

[Gamebreaker]

The tax cut thing is also very stupid....in our system of government the rich pay more taxes yearly then the poor....therefor if we have a tax cat the rich would get more then the poor.

What you fail to realize is the poor would benefit more from that tax cut than the rich. A bigger tax cut for the poor helps people who are unfortunately living from paycheck to paycheck, or helps a poor family out in bad times. A bigger tax cut for the rich just goes right into their bank accounts, which benefits the economy how?? :doh:

[bricucci]

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.

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. - with the political pressure of 9/11 I think was necessary, but it was the wrong country. Hussein was our puppet that we installed, this was revenge from his father and was planned long before he took office, if you don't think so your just navie

When did he approve that? A reduction in forces could have called for it, if that is true. It passed through congress, we allocated more funds that we account for to Iraq, yet our soldiers equipment, personal and vehicluar funds were reduced by Congress and approved by your president. You may want to dig in a little further.

I don't know on what you're basing that statement.

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.

I am by no means a liberal, but I am also not a blind homer (when it comes to Politics, the Skins are a different story) but George Bush is an embarrassment to himself, to his country, and to the Office of the Presidency.

And the statement about being surrounded by crooks and incompetents not being true. Do you know anything about Dick Chaney's background? Have you heard of Haliburton? Do you not think our presidency is in bed with major oil companies? Were you awake to witness the performance of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, (A Bush appointee who had no business running the Federal Emergency Managent division of the govenrment.) I admired Reagan, I admired George Bush Sr and can defend him, but Jr needs to go, at this point I would take the Governor from Arkansas in place of him.

[Darth Tater]

The worst is a toss up between FDR and Hoover.

[DieselPwr44]

A bigger tax cut for the rich just goes right into their bank accounts, which benefits the economy how?? :doh:

Or is invested in stocks or bonds, used as start up capital for a new business or get this.....actually spent on goods and services in this country and thus put back into the economy.

[AbleDanger]

Not a proud part of US History and that is why I do not like Andrew Jackson.

http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html

Congress didn't like him either, and that is why they literally stole the election from him the first time he ran for President, which was the race against John Quincy Adams. Despite some very crass things Jackson did, he did have some strong qualities, and he was a war hero. Like it or not, men like Andrew Jackson helped to build America into what it is today.

[AbleDanger]

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.

You're right. I don't think it uses those precise words, but it does give Congress control of the money...

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1

No where does the constitution give the President the authority to spend, borrow, or tax money...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

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.)

Congress followed Reagan's lead with military spending just as they followed Bush's lead with military spending and tax cuts. Congress chose to act on the President's plan.

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.)

Yes, as I've stated in other topics, the power to veto gives the President leverage.

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.)

The point I'm trying to make is that government spending is a joint venture between the President and Congress. They both bear responsibility. The liberal media has prepared some kool-aid of their own. :laugh:

[AbleDanger]

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.

It's easy to propose cuts to national defense and military when you don't feel we need it.

[AbleDanger]

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. . .

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing that one.

In addition to the "implied" Constitutional requirement that all citizens are required to publicly agree with any war once declared. . .

If that's true, then you and everyone else opposed to the war should just stop discussing it right now. :laugh:

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.

I don't know from where you're getting that.

[Larry]

The point I'm trying to make is that government spending is a joint venture between the President and Congress. They both bear responsibility. The liberal media has prepared some kool-aid of their own. :laugh:

No, that's the point I've been making. The point you've been (failing to) make is that it's all Congress' fault and the President has no responsibility whatsoever.

It's a spin that was invented so that Reagan could try to claim that the defecits he created weren't his fault. (Everything good that happened was because of him, everything bad that happened was because of Congress.) It wasn't true then and it's not true now. (Although it is somewhat amusing watching a GOP President attempting to dump blame for his own policies onto a GOP Congress.)

[MisterPinstripe]

Best five:

Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, FDR

Clinton is not the very worst, but because he committed legal perjury, and had scandal after scandal, let the North Koreans get the bomb, did not act on Al-Queda, he will go down in history as among the worst rank..

It is truly amazing that everyone thinks Lincoln was so great. The only reason for that is because everyone has been told repeatedly lies. The main argument? He freed the slaves. Yep, that he did. A great thing no doubt. But that man was a HUGE racist, but no one is told that now. All you have to do is look at all of his qoutes. He was qouted many times as saying "If I could end the war without freeing one single slave I would." And the leader of the black movement during that time, can not remember his name right now, said that the black people should ignore what Lincoln says and back him because it would come to a good end, the end of slavery. And he was right. Plus the fact that the civil war costs a horrific amount of american lives. But of course people are going to bash me and call me an idiot... Before you do that why dont you do some research instead of accepting everything you hear blindly. Lincoln was horrible.

[rincewind]

It is truly amazing that everyone thinks Lincoln was so great. The only reason for that is because everyone has been told repeatedly lies. The main argument? He freed the slaves. Yep, that he did. A great thing no doubt. But that man was a HUGE racist, but no one is told that now. All you have to do is look at all of his qoutes. He was qouted many times as saying "If I could end the war without freeing one single slave I would." And the leader of the black movement during that time, can not remember his name right now, said that the black people should ignore what Lincoln says and back him because it would come to a good end, the end of slavery. And he was right. Plus the fact that the civil war costs a horrific amount of american lives. But of course people are going to bash me and call me an idiot... Before you do that why dont you do some research instead of accepting everything you hear blindly. Lincoln was horrible.

Okay then. You completely took the "If I could end the war..." quote out of context. He also said if he had to free them all or only some them, he would do either of those options. The point of what he said was that, in his mind, the Union was the most important thing.

Also, he was VERY good friends with Fredrick Douglas - who looks pretty black in all of the pictures i've seen. You may want to back up that **** you're slinging with some evidence.

[Larry]

I'm don't know from where you're getting that.

Where I'm getting that is from your claim that Bush has no responsibility for his defecits because for him to even attempt to balance the budget would violate the Constitutional seperation of powers.

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:

[MisterPinstripe]

Okay then. You completely took the "If I could end the war..." quote out of context. He also said if he had to free them all or only some them, he would do either of those options. The point of what he said was that, in his mind, the Union was the most important thing.

Also, he was VERY good friends with Fredrick Douglas - who looks pretty black in all of the pictures i've seen. You may want to back up that **** you're slinging with some evidence.

Fine here is some information for you. The fact is the reason for the "freeing" of the slaves was to keep the French from coming to the help of the south. The French were planning on helping the south, but feared that they would be perceived as supporting racism after Lincolns act. Which was his purpose.

The first one is that the principal witness against Abraham Lincoln on this point is Abraham Lincoln, who said that he opposed equal rights for black people, who supported the black laws of Illinois, and who wanted to deport all black people.

All you have to do is read any copy of the Emancipation Proclamation to find out the document did not in fact in and of itself free any black people. Worse, Abraham Lincoln did not intend for it to free black people.

It's written in the document, and there's no doubt about it. And I would be very surprised to hear any literate historian maintain that the Emancipation Proclamation freed black people or that Abraham Lincoln freed black people

What Abraham Lincoln did was to free black people where he could not free them -- it's in the document -- and to lead them in slavery where he could have freed them. He said he specifically accepted the slaves in Louisiana where union troops controlled the area, he specifically accepted slaves in the eastern shore of Virginia. Where he had the power on January the 1st, 1863 to free black people, Abraham Lincoln kept them in slavery. Where he could not free them, where Confederate forces controlled the area he freed them. He freed the slaves in the south where he did not have power at the time, but in the northern states and other ones controlled by the union he freed none.

Frederick Douglass made at least 1000 quotes. At least 973 of them say out of Frederick Douglass' mouth that Lincoln was a pro-slavery racist, who was, as Frederick Douglass said, the white man's president, pre-eminently the white man's president.

While what eventually happened, the ending of slavery, was a huge step, he was still a racist.

[rincewind]

Almost your entire post only argues that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves - that doesn't prove he was a racist. I know he wasn't for total equality - but, back then that didn't necessarily make you a racist.

As for Douglass saying that Lincoln was a racist - never heard that, could you provide a link to some of these quotes?

[Pskins]

Um, are you on something :doh:

WOW....The Cheney thing is SO STUPID, this stuff happens all the time in every state every year. The stupid liberal biased media spins this to hate on him.

The Patriot act is a good thing but many of you guys wouldn't know that (but I maybe a little biased also since i'm training to become a C.I.A. agent).

The tax cut thing is also very stupid....in our system of government the rich pay more taxes yearly then the poor....therefor if we have a tax cat the rich would get more then the poor.

Iraq....also a good thing, we are not getting told the whole story in iraq because of media biased. People don't realize that Sadam was killing,raping,torturing his own people (sounds like they needed help).

Thank you Bush

MEDIA BIAS?????? God gave you a good brain use it!

So do't believe everything Limbaugh and O'rielly shill out!!!!

[MisterPinstripe]

Almost your entire post only argues that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves - that doesn't prove he was a racist. I know he wasn't for total equality - but, back then that didn't necessarily make you a racist.

As for Douglass saying that Lincoln was a racist - never heard that, could you provide a link to some of these quotes?

Here is a quick blurb I wanted to add

Lincoln said "that I struggled for nearly 18 months to save slavery in the United States. During his first two terms, he asked generals to return fugitive slaves to America to their slave owners. And he, as late as 1865, he said that the Emancipation Proclamation had never been his policy."

As to a link, the quotes I speak of are in a book. As I do not recall the name of the book as I read it a couple years ago. I shall try to find it and give you the name of the book as well as some mroe direct quotes.

[rincewind]

Here is a quick blurb I wanted to add

Lincoln said "that I struggled for nearly 18 months to save slavery in the United States. During his first two terms, he asked generals to return fugitive slaves to America to their slave owners. And he, as late as 1865, he said that the Emancipation Proclamation had never been his policy."

As to a link, the quotes I speak of are in a book. As I do not recall the name of the book as I read it a couple years ago. I shall try to find it and give you the name of the book as well as some mroe direct quotes.

Once again - you are confusing the slavery issue with racism. Plus he realized that 'saving' slavery could be a key to saving the Union - that is if slavery was left alone, the South wouldn't break off.

[PokerPacker]

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing that one.

If that's true, then you and everyone else opposed to the war should just stop discussing it right now. :laugh:

I'm don't know from where you're getting that.

wasn't that how andrew jackson felt? when you veto a bill, you are ignoring what the people want, and they are who should be running the country.