98% Of Historians Call Bush Presidency A Failure

reply to post by jsobecky


No I had a software freeze and had to reboot... I didn't think the first had been sent so I rewrote it. Sorry about that....

.... but nowhere near as sorry as we all will be when the full extent of bush minor's screwing of America is fully known.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Liberals seek to even the playing field, with the basic belief that everyone is Elite if they're free to reach their full potential (that includes freedom from economic bondage). Liberalism is anti-Elitism. But, again, they don't care.

"Level the playing field"? How do they go about that? Seems that the just want bigger government handouts to people who don't want to do anything to earn them. Screwing over the middle class that's trying to keep their head above water.

Then again, the Right hasn't done much for the middle class lately, either.

There's many cases in history where the facts were changed as needed. I wouldn't put too much stock in this survey.

Paul Revere was a total failure and rode about 19 miles on his horse to warn of invasion. He basically got to his nearest neighbor. The fact that a book was written and the author didn't want to use Irving Bissel and liked the "listen now children and you will hear..." rhyming ability of Paul's name made Paul the big hero.

That "mistruth" is even taught that way in school.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Liberals seek to even the playing field, with the basic belief that everyone is Elite if they're free to reach their full potential (that includes freedom from economic bondage). Liberalism is anti-Elitism. But, again, they don't care.

"Level the playing field"? How do they go about that? Seems that the just want bigger government handouts to people who don't want to do anything to earn them. Screwing over the middle class that's trying to keep their head above water.

Typical assumption, thinking we just want to hand out cash willy-nilly. There's several ways to fix America's problems:

1) Lower taxes for the middle class, small-business entrepreneurs and the working poor, while increasing taxes on the richest 1% back to where they were during the post-war years (before Reagan reduced them)--arguably one of the most prosperous times in America's history.

2) Simplify tax codes to eliminate the loopholes that corporations and the wealthy use to evade paying their fair share.

3) Fix the IRS with the tools they need to enforce the tax codes with a mandate to concentrate on corporations and the wealthy, instead of the guy who owns the bakery down the street.

4) Fix business regulations to give shareholders more power over the salaries of CEOs and other top corporate officers.

5) Bring back tariffs to make it just as expensive for companies to import goods from foreign companies as it would be to keep manufacturing jobs right here in America, while also bolstering the federal budget for needed services (at the time of this nation's founding tariffs provided the entire federal budget). Bring back good jobs for people who want to work.

6) Implement a New Deal-type plan to inspect, repair, and rebuild crumbling American infrastructure and build new systems, thus providing training for unskilled workers, putting Americans back to work, and laying the foundations for new contractors to start up small businesses.

7) Common-sense immigration laws and enforcement that concentrates on those businesses who hire illegals, with the goal of eliminating illegal hiring practices and drying up the jobs illegal immigrants can take. If there's no work for them to do, they won't come here, more American citizens will have jobs, and wages won't be driven down.

8) Development of new, decentralized energy sources like solar and hydrogen, cutting the strings of influence from Big Energy and freeing the citizenry from slavery to an outdated system--and eventually, eliminating our dependence on foreign oil and our need to meddle in the affairs of oil-producing countries.

9) Controls on banks to prevent predatory lending practices, including those on credit cards. It's hardly fair that banks can charge 30% interest on credit card debt while only paying 1% interest on savings accounts. Also, eliminate transaction fees and usage fees for ATMs nationwide, with a requirement that they allow any bank or credit union's cards to be used in any ATM. Usury is illegal in Europe and banks there do just fine without it. It's time to end it here too.

10) Controls on big business to eliminate hidden fees and secret charges that nickel-and-dime people to death.

That's just ten ideas to put things right. There's plenty more.

Then again, the Right hasn't done much for the middle class lately, either.

That's because the Right hates the middle class and has been waging war against it for 30 years. Read "Screwed" and "Cracking the Code" by Thom Hartmann.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
And yet it created new private enterprises, when the people who did the work took their knowledge and new-found money to start their own companies and hire more people. They also were able to spend money again, instead of hoarding for their survival, thus reviving manufacturing.

Frankly, I disagree. I think that the New Deal did nothing at all to improve America's economic condition, and you've as of yet shown me nothing that would make me thing otherwise.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
But it won't be used for investing. Study after study shows that when Americans have more money in their pockets they don't save it, or invest it--they spend it. Often (like now) they have little choice. Ending Social Security in favor of gambling on the Stock Market would be a financial disaster for tens of millions.

Then spending it is their prerogative. They should be free to spend it in whatever way they see fit.

And if the only form of investment you can think of is through risky stocks, I'd hate to see you manage money.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
It wouldn't be a problem if the rich paid their fair share. Right now SS taxes only count on the first $90K of one's income. If people who made $1Million or more were (rightly) forced to pay SS on their entire income SS would not only be solvent, it would be stronger than ever.

More taxation. Great, that's what we need.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
I was a Libertarian. I read too, and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

That's actually very interesting.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Where do you people get the idea that "Democracy" automatically means "surrender" to the majority? If you don't believe in democracy you're in the wrong damn country, buster. The Founding Fathers believed in Democracy along with Self-Determination. They created a system of checks and balances to preserve it. It took men like Roosevelt to realize that without economic freedom (as in, freedom from being a slave to your boss just to survive), people cannot truly be free.

Nope. The founders were terrified of democracy, you know that. And somehow, you see willing, contractual "slavery" to a boss as wrong, but see no problem with coerced slavery to the state (as is the inevitable reality in a government-run economy). You're simply surrendering your right to free enterprise to the elite and the majority.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
You're denying that capitalism with no limits or regulations results in a slave state? Then yes, your statement about yourself is indeed true.

Depends. I think that the state needs to step in to regulate and ensure that all parties tell the truth. That includes inspection, forcing companies to list ingredients, all the things you need for a fair market.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Any more, they're one and the same. Lie down with pigs and expect to wake up covered in s**t.

Hush, take a deep breath, you're having trouble.


I'm happy we seem to feel the same way (as far as I can tell) about FDR's wartime policies (as opposed to the many mindless Liberals who call him a god), the invasion of Iraq and torture of suspected terrorists. I've cited the same things in my own debates. I'm curious, though -- isn't the sort of "torture" involving drugs potentially useful in the extraction of information? It's been a while.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Where?

Immigration #1, combatting terror, a Strong Military, Education Reform, Social security/Medicare Reform, Tax Reform, Research and Development, Nuclear Proliferation. Heck even Global Warming via Greenhouse emmsissions seems to be on the table. The Two sides aren't really that far apart, both need split the difference. If you think the Democrats win and suddenly the Patriot Act will be burned and buried, you have got a rude surprise awaiting you.

Do you know how many death threats progressives get from whacko right-wingers every single day?

No, please enlighten me, how many "whacko's" issue death threats. And please......stop with the "progressive" tag, just call yourself liberals and be proud of it, you all sound ashamed of it IMO. And stop with all the name calling and insults, it really doesn't advance your cause.

Actually we're well on our way to taking a full, filibuster-proof majority, thank you.

Oh, I see. So your side can now become the "Regime" that tells us what is right and knows better? No need to actually work with the other side for the good of the country right? Nah, thats silly.

Those who count their eggs before they hatch end up with yolk on their face. You weren't predicting a Kerry win too were you? Nah! Now where is that search function........

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Typical assumption, thinking we just want to hand out cash willy-nilly.

Sadly, that's the sort of thing a ton of Liberals seem to champion - communistic wealth redistribution. Hopefully there's more to you than that.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
1) Lower taxes for the middle class, small-business entrepreneurs and the working poor, while increasing taxes on the richest 1% back to where they were during the post-war years (before Reagan reduced them)--arguably one of the most prosperous times in America's history.

You have to look at some of the supply-side logic here. We already have a (very) progressive tax policy. We're taking a larger percentage of someone's income because they're more prosperous than another's. Why doesn't this hurt the economy due to the reduction in his/her ability to invest and whatnot?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
2) Simplify tax codes to eliminate the loopholes that corporations and the wealthy use to evade paying their fair share.

That's really a given, obviously a good idea without going into specifics.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
3) Fix the IRS with the tools they need to enforce the tax codes with a mandate to concentrate on corporations and the wealthy, instead of the guy who owns the bakery down the street.

It really depends on what you mean by "the tools they need." I'd appreciate if you elaborated.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
4) Fix business regulations to give shareholders more power over the salaries of CEOs and other top corporate officers.

How? I was wondering about this sort of thing not to long ago, it's good you brought it up.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
5) Bring back tariffs to make it just as expensive for companies to import goods from foreign companies as it would be to keep manufacturing jobs right here in America, while also bolstering the federal budget for needed services (at the time of this nation's founding tariffs provided the entire federal budget). Bring back good jobs for people who want to work.

I'm split on tariffs. I used to support them, then as I looked into it, I began to oppose them. By raising the price of imported goods through tariffs, aren't you making them more expensive for the average American? Isn't this benefiting the wealthy in a way reminiscent of the supply-side economics of the laissez-faire conservatives?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
6) Implement a New Deal-type plan to inspect, repair, and rebuild crumbling American infrastructure and build new systems, thus providing training for unskilled workers, putting Americans back to work, and laying the foundations for new contractors to start up small businesses.

The mere mention of the New Deal makes me shiver. Inspection is fine, but repairing and rebuilding? What sort of infrastructure do you want to spend tax dollars on?

As for training, I don't think it's entirely necessary for everything, but I significantly deviate from my capitalistic principles when it comes to education. Though I think public education today is a joke.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
7) Common-sense immigration laws and enforcement that concentrates on those businesses who hire illegals, with the goal of eliminating illegal hiring practices and drying up the jobs illegal immigrants can take. If there's no work for them to do, they won't come here, more American citizens will have jobs, and wages won't be driven down.

Might work. I don't think the government should be allowed to intervene in watching over the backs of employees and employers (I don't like having to prove my citizenship and tell Uncle Sam where I'm employed).

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
8) Development of new, decentralized energy sources like solar and hydrogen, cutting the strings of influence from Big Energy and freeing the citizenry from slavery to an outdated system--and eventually, eliminating our dependence on foreign oil and our need to meddle in the affairs of oil-producing countries.

Won't happen any time soon, sadly. I fully support the development of nuclear power, though I don't think government subsidies are useful when setting things up. Technological research and development, yes.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
9) Controls on banks to prevent predatory lending practices, including those on credit cards. It's hardly fair that banks can charge 30% interest on credit card debt while only paying 1% interest on savings accounts. Also, eliminate transaction fees and usage fees for ATMs nationwide, with a requirement that they allow any bank or credit union's cards to be used in any ATM. Usury is illegal in Europe and banks there do just fine without it. It's time to end it here too.

Well, why do people loan money from those banks, then? Would they be denied a loan if they couldn't be charged that rate?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
10) Controls on big business to eliminate hidden fees and secret charges that nickel-and-dime people to death.

That's vague, you need to elaborate.

reply to post by Drewdatt


Nope going to vote GOP and win


I like Bush, he has killed a million plus angry arabs.....Not a single attack on US soil since 9-11.....................Less gun laws, more freedom if you own a biz......I have done well these 8 years....Only burning is at the end of my cigar

As for history....lol...History is 99 percent crap anyway.....who cares...the NOW is what matters in my book...Use history as a map only, not a compass.....or something like that

[edit on 17-4-2008 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

And please note that I don't agree with the post above me. He makes conservatism look retarded.

Each side has its monkeys.

Shouldn't something be history before historian's opinion carry any weight. History implies the perspective of time. He'll be remembered for 9/11, and that no further major attacks occurred during his watch. Iraq is still ongoing and could go either way. It will look really good, or really bad, 10 years from now.

A lot of what Pres Bush has fumbled on, and there is a lot, will be forgotten with time.

The entire concept of this thread is ridiculous. To attempt to put a President in any type of historical perspective while he is still in office is ludicrous at best. I am NOT attempting to defend Bush in anyway. The only point I am attempting to make is that this is seven pages of bull crap that amounts to nothing more than another excuse to bash Bush only this time from a historical perspective.

I have no problem if you want to bash away, but aren't there already enough open threads doing that ?

To attempt to write history while we are still living through the era appears to be the height of arrogance to me.

Let's go back to Bush bashing on the already available threads and allow the passage of time to write the history of this period.

Originally posted by pavil
Immigration #1, combatting terror, a Strong Military, Education Reform, Social security/Medicare Reform, Tax Reform, Research and Development, Nuclear Proliferation. Heck even Global Warming via Greenhouse emmsissions seems to be on the table. The Two sides aren't really that far apart, both need split the difference. If you think the Democrats win and suddenly the Patriot Act will be burned and buried, you have got a rude surprise awaiting you.

But on every single one of those points, the two 'sides' completely disagree on how best to achieve these things. You've listed all the 'whats', it's the 'hows' where the difference lies.

Also, try to remember that Right Wing & Left Wing is not the same as Republican and Democrat.

Night Hawk you get a star for your 'Cold Civil War' - a beautiful description of the current political climate in the US.

reply to post by smokingmonkey


Historians are good at looking at the big picture and how it will be remembered in history. They are the ones who write the history books. Historians are very interested in current events. History is history as soon as it happens, it doesn't take 10 years to become history. I don't think the majority of this administration's actions will be forgotten, not if we historians have anything to do about it. The good thing about the modern age for historians is that the information we need isn't only found on old parchment.

reply to post by Drewdatt


Failure?

Au contraire, Bush's administration was a complete success.

Is anyone still assuming that these guys are working for our wellbeing?

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23



Exxon made record profits of $39.5b in 2006. They also paid $27.9b in income taxes that same year.

Sounds better, when it is put in context.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Exxon made record profits of $39.5b in 2006. They also paid $27.9b in income taxes that same year.

seekingalpha.com...

In 2007, they payed just over $30 billion in taxes. Big numbers indeed. In fact, it would appear as though they must make massive profits from the sale of petroleum products to support such a significant tax liability percentage.

But we must wonder in what state the national economy would be if the extraordinary taxes from extraordinary profits where never collected because of much-lower prices of their products. The 2007 tax translates to $99,000 for every person in the United States... a tax which has been paid by all of us because of the extraordinarily high cost of petroleum products.

A conspiracy theorist would see collusion between government and oil companies because of the high taxes... not comfort.

reply to post by mister.old.school


Of course, $99,000 is more than the average American household income, so to say that is the liability of each individual American is ridiculous, no?

I know *I* didn't pay $99,000 in gas taxes last year. Did you?:

Maybe they got some of that $27.9b from other sources, eh?

That's why I'm not a CT.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by jsobecky]

reply to post by mister.old.school


And from your source:

Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

Originally posted by jsobecky
Maybe they got some of that $27.9b from other sources, eh?

It appears you've missed the point. Let me add some clarity.

Certainly you're not unaware of the numerous government-sponsored programs (some of which have been created and/or accelerated under the current oil-friendly administration) that are enablers for the massive petroleum products profit?

When we have --
-1- state incentives continuing for corporations engaged in historic profits
-2- no state incentives for price management
-3- tax windfalls because of #1 and #2
Those of us who seek to ask serious questions of our government and the entrenched "system" see a collusion that harms the average person via excessive prices for a vital core component of the economy.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Frankly, I disagree. I think that the New Deal did nothing at all to improve America's economic condition, and you've as of yet shown me nothing that would make me thing otherwise.

Why do you believe this? If the New Deal did nothing to help America's economy, why were we so prosperous during the late '40s through the early '70s? Who's re-writing economic history here? Things didn't begin to implode until Republicans took it upon themselves to de-regulate industry so their well-heeled contributors could make more money for less work.

Then spending it is their prerogative. They should be free to spend it in whatever way they see fit.

Which won't actually help our economy or the average American. Frankly, most people are clueless on investing and saving, and until and unless they are better-educated from an early age about these important issues, something else is needed.

And if the only form of investment you can think of is through risky stocks, I'd hate to see you manage money.

Everything is risky right now. For weeks a virtual parade of economists has been telling us how bad things are.

More taxation. Great, that's what we need.

As a matter of fact, YES. You want to live in a civilized society, you pay taxes. If you want education, roads, police, firefighters, military protection, etc. etc. etc. you pay taxes. Right now those things aren't being paid for, which is why roads are cumbling, bridges are collapsing, police agencies are pulling crap like this to raise money, and part of why our military is stretched so thin the National Guard in many states has little or no equipment (besides it all being in Iraq).

Nope. The founders were terrified of democracy, you know that.

What source? If they were "terrified" of democracy and its principles why did they create one? Why have we lived in one for 219 years? Why do we have it now? And please, not the tired "representative republic" line. That's just jargon for democracy separated and concentrated into different levels. We choose our representatives democratically, and their voting on policy is a democratic process. The fact that someone nominally signs off on it (or not) to provide a check can be overridden by a large enough majority. Again, a democratic process. Split hairs all you want, we're a Democracy, with whatever good or bad comes in the package.

And somehow, you see willing, contractual "slavery" to a boss as wrong, but see no problem with coerced slavery to the state (as is the inevitable reality in a government-run economy). You're simply surrendering your right to free enterprise to the elite and the majority.

But in an uncontrolled capitalist environment run entirely by business, for business, you surrender your right to self-determination to the whims of the economy. Business and the monied elite naturally seek to quash upward mobility and stagnate society in order to "stabilize" it. Is that not slavery?

Depends. I think that the state needs to step in to regulate and ensure that all parties tell the truth. That includes inspection, forcing companies to list ingredients, all the things you need for a fair market.

Which isn't happening. Not only have regulations been rolled back, but the agencies responsible for enforcing them have been gutted.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Any more, they're one and the same. Lie down with pigs and expect to wake up covered in s**t.

Hush, take a deep breath, you're having trouble.

My statement is true and I refuse to retract it.

I'm happy we seem to feel the same way (as far as I can tell) about FDR's wartime policies (as opposed to the many mindless Liberals who call him a god), the invasion of Iraq and torture of suspected terrorists. I've cited the same things in my own debates. I'm curious, though -- isn't the sort of "torture" involving drugs potentially useful in the extraction of information? It's been a while.

Torture is torture is torture, and it's illegal. If we are to claim we are a nation of laws we must abide by the law. No if's, and's or but's.