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

[Winslowalrob]

No, the President deserves credit for his contributions. As I've said repeatedly (in other threads as well), his ability to veto gives him leverage. They are forced to negotiate. But, spending money is a legislative power and Congress is on the other end of the bargaining table. Congress' spending is often done to in some way benefit lobbyists, interest groups, or constituents in their states. You could argue that Bush is not strong-arming some of the big spenders in Congress like he probably should.

Probably not as easily and with so little cost. Jackson was far more ambitious than probably any other American General in history. Spain called him the American Napolean. In fact, if he hadn't become sick on that campaign, he said that he would have conquered Cuba too.

Ok, so we agree that Clinton deserves credit for his contributions.

Probably not as easily? Do you know WHO he fought in Florida? Any general would have had the same success. He was a sickly man who had the good luck to fight rather one sided affairs for most of his military career. There is nothing to laud about this man. Other than his heroism during the Mexican American War.

He did not do jack during the Revolutionary war, remember. He was 13 and got captured. Crappy man and crappy president, not the worst but down there.

[Winslowalrob]

That was definitely a factor seeing as how the constitution gives Congress the power to spend federal funds.

Oh god no it wasn't. The Republican congress tried to block every bit of legislation he proposed. Because of Clinton's leadership he got the dem's in line (hard to do) when it came to voting. Don't give the Republican congress any credit if they blocked every piece of good legislation thrown their way.

[Cdowwe]

Chom pulling out the graphs...impressive. But that stock market up 300% quote, does the dot com bubble go into this number?

[AbleDanger]

Oh god no it wasn't. The Republican congress tried to block every bit of legislation he proposed. Because of Clinton's leadership he got the dem's in line (hard to do) when it came to voting. Don't give the Republican congress any credit if they blocked every piece of good legislation thrown their way.

Good is a reletive term. The fact remains that Congress during the Clinton era didn't dish out the expenditures that our current Congress is dishing out.

[Winslowalrob]

That was one statement, which I later recanted. And it has no bearing on the discussion between you and I.

I didn't say that.

You are very child-like. It's comical. :laugh:

The graph does indicate that it just barely fell below 4%, but it does not show that it came anywhere near 3%.

I never made such an affirmation. :laugh:

A time that did not require a war on terror and did not have the most devestating attack on American soil in history. And the economy started to slow down at the end of Clinton's administration. Maybe those higher taxes eventually caught up to us.

Go read the constitution. I still don't think you grasped the concept of legislative and executive powers in relation to goverment spending.

Well, you do have an air of arrogance in your posts . You do use undisputed facts, after all. No one is disputing the Constitution here, it was designed to give Congress the greatest power of government, however you basically throw away Clinton's influence on Congressional spending while praising Bush. The president does have influence over the budget, not in voting for it, but in shaping the debate about what is important.

[Winslowalrob]

Good is a reletive term. The fact remains that Congress during the Clinton era didn't dish out the expenditures that our current Congress is dishing out.

Good is totally a relative term, but can you agree that the Clinton budget was a good budget, and that it is called the Clinton budget because he lined up the dems to vote for it and the republicans voted against it?

[Cdowwe]

Just Three

Unemployment lowest ever

Do you want me to go on, or should I stop now and catch my breath?

I went to that site...it says the lowest average in his administration was 4.0, with that dip in your graph. But in 1953 the avg was 2.9, obviously lower. Am I missing something or you trying to blow steam up my shorts Chom

[AbleDanger]

Well, you do have an air of arrogance in your posts . You do use undisputed facts, after all. No one is disputing the Constitution here, it was designed to give Congress the greatest power of government, however you basically throw away Clinton's influence on Congressional spending while praising Bush. The president does have influence over the budget, not in voting for it, but in shaping the debate about what is important.

That is not entirely accurate. I critized Bush for not strong-arming Congress. One could argue that the reason he shares blame for the spending is because he is not utilizing his veto power like he should, and he is being soft with the big spenders in Congress. I realize any President has influence in that situation, but Clinton did have a less demanding Congress (as far as expenditures are concerned), and he did not need the same military funding that we need now.

[AbleDanger]

Good is totally a relative term, but can you agree that the Clinton budget was a good budget, and that it is called the Clinton budget because he lined up the dems to vote for it and the republicans voted against it?

It's the Clinton budget because he proposed it to Congress. I don't know what the vote count was.

[Winslowalrob]

It's the Clinton budget because he proposed it to Congress. I don't know what the vote count was.

50-50, with Gore breaking the tie.

[AbleDanger]

50-50, with Gore breaking the tie.

Oh, right. You said that earlier. I never disputed that.

[Duncan]

Just Three

Crime decrease

GDP increase

Stock Market up 300%

Unemployment lowest ever

Fewest %of people on Welfare

College for every American that wanted to go

Balanced Budget

$200 Billion Surplus

Do you want me to go on, or should I stop now and catch my breath?

I'll play

Crime decrease – Are crime rates higher now, I have no idea?

GDP increase - So I guess that will be on your list of great Bush accomplishments.

Stock Market up 300% - Complete bubble, absurd P/E ratios, how is your tech stock portfolio doing these days? Bill Gates is more responsible for the tech boom in the 90's than any politician.

Unemployment lowest ever - so he presided over an unemployment rate 1% better than it is now. Better start rewriting the history books. For the record, 6% unemployment historically is considered full employment.

Fewest %of people on Welfare - Clinton finally signed the welfare reform bill proposed every year the republicans controlled congress. He vetoed the exact same bill three times but I do give him credit for finally signing it.

College for every American that wanted to go - Another historic accomplishment? So today Americans can't go to college?

Balanced Budget - This is certainly debatable. I recall a partisan struggle that resulted in compromises on both sides, but if you want to give Clinton all the credit then that’s fine. There is nothing historic about a balanced budget unless you were a Perot voter ogling his little charts.

$200 Billion Surplus - Clinton never addressed any of the entitlement issues that are going to really cause problems when we hit retirement age. Again, congress gets zero credit for the budget agreements?

I'm no Bush fan but to say Clinton was solely responsible for the economy is absurd. There are so many factors that influence the economy Chom. Clinton never had to deal with a complete shutdown of the travel industry after 9/11 and by all measures the economy is humming along at a very strong pace. Why do you think the fed keeps ratcheting up interest rates?

Listing historical rankings on the performance of the economy is laughable.

Catch your breath and give me something else, something historic.

[AbleDanger]

Listing historical rankings on the performance of the economy is laughable.

Catch your breath and give me something else, something historic.

That is true. 100 years from now no one will remember Clinton for the economy. He will become another Calvin Collidge: A relatively popular president in his day with an economy that prospered under his administration ("the roaring 20's"), but did nothing really significant and memorable during his presidency.

[chomerics]

Chom pulling out the graphs...impressive. But that stock market up 300% quote, does the dot com bubble go into this number?

And the 300% is where it ended up. If I remember correctly, I think he came in with the marlet around 3.5K and he left with the market over 12K, and it leveled out to around 10K. If I was not taking the bubble into account, I would have said over 400% which is what it did during his term, but I actually took into account the downturn after, hence you have a 300% increase. . . As for Bush. . . ummm. . . the market has lost since he took office, and that is over 5 years time.

[chomerics]

I'll play

Crime decrease – Are crime rates higher now, I have no idea?

Yes they are, crime decreased to an all time low in 2002 I believe and it has been climbing since. . .

GDP increase - So I guess that will be on your list of great Bush accomplishments.

Any monkey can increase the GDP by cutting taxes and increasing spending, it is false growth, and it is masking the true economy. You know this Duncan, hell you're a supply sider, aren't ya?

Stock Market up 300% - Complete bubble, absurd P/E ratios, how is your tech stock portfolio doing these days? Bill Gates is more responsible for the tech boom in the 90's than any politician.

I don't necessarily disagree with ya, but it did happen under his watch. Gore pushed through the bills to get the internet available to the public and it opened us to the information age. Would it have happened without Clinton? Probably, but if Dubya was in there, you can bet there would not be the internet porn industry ther is today

Unemployment lowest ever - so he presided over an unemployment rate 1% better than it is now. Better start rewriting the history books. For the record, 6% unemployment historically is considered full employment.

Yes, almost 2% better then now. 4% is the number economists use now for cyclical unemployment, they had to re-write the text books because of Clinton

Fewest %of people on Welfare - Clinton finally signed the welfare reform bill proposed every year the republicans controlled congress. He vetoed the exact same bill three times but I do give him credit for finally signing it.

Haven't we gone through this before? I though I already went through the entire welfare reform BS with you, but maybe it was someone else. It was not the Exact Same Bill, as he got what he wanted, and the republicans backed down to him. It was a very good bill BTW, and it helped take people off welfare and reassimilate them into society.

College for every American that wanted to go - Another historic accomplishment? So today Americans can't go to college?

They can, but they still need to pay for it and the government has not increased their loans to keep up with the rising cost of tuition. He funded things such as Pell Grants, Stafford Loans and others which put my sorry ass through college because I didn't have the money.

Balanced Budget - This is certainly debatable. I recall a partisan struggle that resulted in compromises on both sides, but if you want to give Clinton all the credit then that’s fine. There is nothing historic about a balanced budget unless you were a Perot voter ogling his little charts.

It was historic to balance a budget, especially with big spending republicans everywhere. I mean look at Reagan, Bush I & II, all big spenders. A balanced budget is HUGE news when you are dealing with trillions of dollars.

$200 Billion Surplus - Clinton never addressed any of the entitlement issues that are going to really cause problems when we hit retirement age. Again, congress gets zero credit for the budget agreements?

Ummmm, he got us to a point where we could PAY for the entitlement programs with the surplus until Dubya took over. . . Don't you remember all the money we had? I do, those were the days huh.

I'm no Bush fan but to say Clinton was solely responsible for the economy is absurd. There are so many factors that influence the economy Chom. Clinton never had to deal with a complete shutdown of the travel industry after 9/11 and by all measures the economy is humming along at a very strong pace. Why do you think the fed keeps ratcheting up interest rates?

I was not the one that brought up this argument, another poster was, when he said the economy was as good as it was under Clinton. I agree with most of what you say though. . . but the intrest rate creep up is due to inflation, not the economic growth.

[Winslowalrob]

That is true. 100 years from now no one will remember Clinton for the economy. He will become another Calvin Collidge: A relatively popular president in his day with an economy that prospered under his administration ("the roaring 20's"), but did nothing really significant and memorable during his presidency.

Umm Calvin Coolidge gave some useless group the right to vote too. That is what he is usually remembered for, not for his business acumen. So far, Clinton is remembered for his business skeelz (hence why so many of us are up in arms).

[Cdowwe]

And the 300% is where it ended up. If I remember correctly, I think he came in with the marlet around 3.5K and he left with the market over 12K, and it leveled out to around 10K. If I was not taking the bubble into account, I would have said over 400% which is what it did during his term, but I actually took into account the downturn after, hence you have a 300% increase. . . As for Bush. . . ummm. . . the market has lost since he took office, and that is over 5 years time.

What about this post Chom...

I went to that site...it says the lowest average in his administration was 4.0, with that dip in your graph. But in 1953 the avg was 2.9, obviously lower. Am I missing something or you trying to blow steam up my shorts Chom

[Duncan]

Yes they are, crime decreased to an all time low in 2002 I believe and it has been climbing since. . .

OK, then crime was lower in the 1990’s. I guess Bill waved his magic wand.

Any monkey can increase the GDP by cutting taxes and increasing spending, it is false growth, and it is masking the true economy. You know this Duncan, hell you're a supply sider, aren't ya?

Any monkey can also shift long term government bonds into short-term debt to take advantage of low short-term interest rates, thus reducing the deficit. I’m definitely for lowering taxes across the board which ultimately grows the federal treasury. I’m also adamantly opposed to bloated federal spending which causes deficits.

So if you get a raise at your job and you spend more than you earn do you blame your debt on the rise in your salary?

I don't necessarily disagree with ya, but it did happen under his watch. Gore pushed through the bills to get the internet available to the public and it opened us to the information age. Would it have happened without Clinton? Probably, but if Dubya was in there, you can bet there would not be the internet porn industry ther is today

Without Al Gore I would currently be unable to look at college girls live on the internet flash their boobs during Mardi Gras? Wow, despite the fact that he was probably the lamest presidential candidate I’ve EVER seen you have convinced me. I’ll vote for him next time.

What is there to disagree with? The tech boom was caused by entrepreneurial capitalism. Clinton and senior internet had very little to do with it.

Yes, almost 2% better then now. 4% is the number economists use now for cyclical unemployment, they had to re-write the text books because of Clinton

I have been out of school since 2000 so I won’t argue your claim of modifying the current basis for full employment. Again, you give full credit to Clinton?

Haven't we gone through this before? I though I already went through the entire welfare reform BS with you, but maybe it was someone else. It was not the Exact Same Bill, as he got what he wanted, and the republicans backed down to him. It was a very good bill BTW, and it helped take people off welfare and reassimilate them into society.

I don’t think we ever debated the issue but I love the welfare reform Bill and I give Clinton credit for signing it (in case you didn’t read what I wrote). I do find it a little strange that he apologized to his base when he did and vowed to “fix it”. The liberals in Congress were not happy about it at all and now they try to take credit for the reduction in welfare rolls.

They can, but they still need to pay for it and the government has not increased their loans to keep up with the rising cost of tuition. He funded things such as Pell Grants, Stafford Loans and others which put my sorry ass through college because I didn't have the money.

They still need to pay for it, what an amazing concept. I won’t dispute that you are a sorry ass.

It was historic to balance a budget, especially with big spending republicans everywhere. I mean look at Reagan, Bush I & II, all big spenders. A balanced budget is HUGE news when you are dealing with trillions of dollars.

Since when has government spending been a concern to liberals Mike. Come on let’s be a little honest here. I haven’t voted republican for that exact reason for the last 10 years but to say liberals are fiscally conservative is crazy. You guys are totally schizophrenic. Clinton is a conservative/moderate or a liberal depending on what political point you are debating. Is it too much to ask to be just a little politically consistent?

Ummmm, he got us to a point where we could PAY for the entitlement programs with the surplus until Dubya took over. . . Don't you remember all the money we had? I do, those were the days huh.

OK, here is where you are way off base. The republicans, when they actually stood for something, tried to take social security off budget and the liberals went into the typical “they are trying to kill old people” frenzy. There was never a $200 billion surplus in the bank, it was a projection. Please address the issue, Clinton never proposed any remedy to the problems our generation is going to face due to entitlements. In addition, even if the money was in the bank $200 billion is a squirt of piss compared the the outlays necessary to meet the looming crisis in entitlements. Entitlements you champion for the record.

Bush and the republican congress are worse than liberals when it comes to spending. I can’t, nor would I, argue that with any intellectual honesty. All you have to do is look at the numbers. I’m not debating my positions from a republican viewpoint. I know it makes it harder to debate me because you glean the majority of your info from anti-republican websites. You are so brainwashed you are unable to process factual information that does not jibe with your thinking.

Clinton also signed into law a substantial capital gains tax cut and I’m sure you supported it back in the day when a democrat was president. If Bush proposed the same reduction today we would have endless posts deriding the greed and callousness of a heartless regime.

I was not the one that brought up this argument, another poster was, when he said the economy was as good as it was under Clinton. I agree with most of what you say though. . . but the interest rate creep up is due to inflation, not the economic growth.

I know you didn’t start the debate but I had to take issue with your claims of Clinton been a great president.

Washington , Lincoln, FDR and Reagan are examples of great presidents regardless where you stand politically.

Clinton isn’t even close.

[Duncan]

Double post

[Winslowalrob]

I know you didn’t start the debate but I had to take issue with your claims of Clinton been a great president.

Washington , Lincoln, FDR and Reagan are examples of great presidents regardless where you stand politically.

Clinton isn’t even close.

Agreed, except I'll take out Reagan and insert Clinton in his stand. You didn't prove a thing . In fact, you glumly agreed with a lot of what Chom said, and then disregarded it because you just hate Clinton all that much. Thanks for playing though!

[Duncan]

OK, then crime was lower in the 1990’s. I guess Bill waved his magic wand.

Any monkey can also shift long term government bonds into short-term debt to take advantage of low short-term interest rates, thus reducing the deficit. I’m definitely for lowering taxes across the board which ultimately grows the federal treasury. I’m also adamantly opposed to bloated federal spending which causes deficits.

So if you get a raise at your job and you spend more than you earn do you blame your debt on the rise in your salary?

Also, remind me to look up false growth in one of my econ textbooks. Is that a new concept?

Without Al Gore I would currently be unable to look at college girls live on the internet flash their boobs during Mardi Gras? Wow, despite the fact that he was probably the lamest presidential candidate I’ve EVER seen you have convinced me. I’ll vote for him next time.

What is there to disagree with? The tech boom was caused by entrepreneurial capitalism. Clinton and senior internet had very little to do with it.

I have been out of school since 2000 so I won’t argue your claim of modifying the current basis for full employment. Again, you give full credit to Clinton?

I don’t think we ever debated the issue but I love the welfare reform Bill and I give Clinton credit for signing it (in case you didn’t read what I wrote). I do find it a little strange that he apologized to his base when he did and vowed to “fix it”. The liberals in Congress were not happy about it at all and now they try to take credit for the reduction in welfare rolls.

They still need to pay for it, what an amazing concept. I won’t dispute that you are a sorry ass.

Since when has government spending been a concern to liberals Mike. Come on let’s be a little honest here. I haven’t voted republican for that exact reason for the last 10 years but to say liberals are fiscally conservative is crazy. You guys are totally schizophrenic. Clinton is a conservative/moderate or a liberal depending on what political point you are debating. Is it too much to ask to be just a little politically consistent?

OK, here is where you are way off base. The republicans, when they actually stood for something, tried to take social security off budget and the liberals went into the typical “they are trying to kill old people” frenzy. There was never a $200 billion surplus in the bank, it was a projection. Please address the issue, Clinton never proposed any remedy to the problems our generation is going to face due to entitlements. In addition, even if the money was in the bank $200 billion is a squirt of piss compared the the outlays necessary to meet the looming crisis in entitlements. Entitlements you champion for the record.

Bush and the republican congress are worse than liberals when it comes to spending. I can’t, nor would I, argue that with any intellectual honesty. All you have to do is look at the numbers. I’m not debating my positions from a republican viewpoint. I know it makes it harder to debate me because you glean the majority of your info from anti-republican websites. You are so brainwashed you are unable to process factual information that does not jibe with your thinking.

Clinton also signed into law a substantial capital gains tax cut and I’m sure you supported it back in the day when a democrat was president. If Bush proposed the same reduction today we would have endless posts deriding the greed and callousness of a heartless regime.

I know you didn’t start the debate but I had to take issue with your claims of Clinton been a great president.

Washington , Lincoln, FDR and Reagan are examples of great presidents regardless where you stand politically.

Clinton isn’t even close.

[Duncan]

Agreed, except I'll take out Reagan and insert Clinton in his stand. You didn't prove a thing . In fact, you glumly agreed with a lot of what Chom said, and then disregarded it because you just hate Clinton all that much. Thanks for playing though!

Is that a serious reply or are you a lummox?

I actually agree with Chom on a lot of issues so please don’t chime in unless you want to take me to task on a specific issue.

How could I hate a president that is insignificant?

[JimmyConway]

Too soon to revisit this thread?

[PleaseBlitz]

Yes.

...

[Winslowalrob]

I'm no Bush fan but to say Clinton was solely responsible for the economy is absurd. There are so many factors that influence the economy Chom. Clinton never had to deal with a complete shutdown of the travel industry after 9/11 and by all measures the economy is humming along at a very strong pace. Why do you think the fed keeps ratcheting up interest rates?

Catch your breath and give me something else, something historic.

Actually, 9/11 really did not have that much of an affect on the economy. All the money saved for travel was used in other sectors, notably a minor building boom in the subsequent period. Economics is not a zero-sum game after all. Where the originator of this economic myth came from, THAT is interesting and up for debate.