The Vindication of George W. Bush

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
InigoMontoya said:
I’d be inclined to agree, many of the underlying issues do stem from there. Unfortunately during Bush’s two terms in office he not only ignored them, but greatly compounded them.
Click to expand...
People seem to think that if Obama is bad, then Bush must be good.
 
InigoMontoya said:
I’d be inclined to agree, many of the underlying issues do stem from there. Unfortunately during Bush’s two terms in office he not only ignored them, but greatly compounded them.
Click to expand...
Nope - Bush tried to get Barney Frank under control but couldn’t. Barney said there is no problem. Now we know Frank lied.
 
ProVobis said:
But would they have wanted to have their taxes raised to pay for it?
Click to expand...
One could argue that if Bush the elder has gone after Saddam he would have saved us a lot of money for there would be no Iraq war.
 
buffalo said:
Nope - Bush tried to get Barney Frank under control but couldn’t. Barney said there is no problem. Now we know Frank lied.
Click to expand...
But Barney wasn’t in charge the whole time. He couldn’t get his own party to do anything about the problem. Either he was incompetent or he really didn’t care. Which was it?
 
tabycat said:
Let me see now, it took Bush EIGHT years to double the national debt; it took Obama THREE years double it againl
Click to expand...
Government revenues dropped precipitously starting in the year 2007, much thanks to the housing and banking collapse and ensuing massive unemployment since then.
 
buffalo said:
One could argue that if Bush the elder has gone after Saddam he would have saved us a lot of money for there would be no Iraq war.
Click to expand...
Or if Bush had the morals to pay for the war, we wouldn’t have had it either.
 
InigoMontoya said:
Another view would be that it took only eight years of Republican fiscal and legislative irresponsibility under the Bush administration to absolutely devastate our economy and place the entire world at risk of fiscal collapse and create the second Great Depression.

Even if one only wants to take a casual look at the issue, The Economist has issued startling reports about how something akin to eighty-five percent of the debt occurred under Obama are directly linked to Bush. With the vast majority coming from unfunded corporate tax credits/loopholes, tax breaks primarily for those over $500k a year, a bailout of the banking system, and two overseas wars of at best ambiguous reasons.
Click to expand...
That’s what happens when your Vice-President starts preaching “Deficits don’t matter.”

(unless of course a Democrat gains the White House.)
 
buffalo said:
One could argue that if Bush the elder has gone after Saddam he would have saved us a lot of money for there would be no Iraq war.
Click to expand...
But Bin Laden was the greater threat and admittedly Clinton as well as W should have done something about that.
 
buffalo said:
Nope - Bush tried to get Barney Frank under control but couldn’t. Barney said there is no problem. Now we know Frank lied.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of what you’re referring to and that was only the tip of the iceberg. More so as president and leader, Bush had other avenues to fix many of the issues. Instead he followed, from my view, his advisors and political rhetoric to compound and expand the wrecking bars that besieged the pillars of our economy. Additionally he had two entire terms and at times a favorable congress.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
But Barney wasn’t in charge the whole time. He couldn’t get his own party to do anything about the problem. Either he was incompetent or he really didn’t care. Which was it?
Click to expand...
Barney and Dodd created a lot of problems. Your either or does not apply. Remember the balance of power between the branches?

The Glass Steagall repeal didn’t help either.
 
buffalo said:
Barney and Dodd created a lot of problems. Your either or does not apply. Remember the balance of power between the branches?

The Glass Steagall repeal didn’t help either.
Click to expand...
How did they create problems when the republicans controlled the house and senate?
 
ProVobis said:
But Bin Laden was the greater threat and admittedly Clinton as well as W should have done something about that.
Click to expand...
In 1992? At that time Bin Laden invaded no one. Saddam was the aggressor.

I fear we may open up the entire WMD debate again.😦
 
buffalo said:
Nope - Bush tried to get Barney Frank under control but couldn’t. Barney said there is no problem. Now we know Frank lied.
Click to expand...
Hank Paulson was the problem. He shouldn’t have bailed out Bear Stearns for starters. And Bush’s Fed appointee Bernanke was not free of blame either.
 
ProVobis said:
Hank Paulson was the problem. He shouldn’t have bailed out Bear Stearns for starters. And Bush’s Fed appointee Bernanke was not free of blame either.
Click to expand...
Yes there are a lot of names and so called experts to blame. We should focus on the idealogy that drove much of this.
 
buffalo said:
You must have a very naive view of how government works or you think we are a dictatorship or are just being cute…
Click to expand...
You are saying that Barney was so powerful he could keep the republicans from voting him down even though they controlled the house?
 
buffalo said:
In 1992? At that time Bin Laden invaded no one. Saddam was the aggressor.
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80’s.

And prior to the Gulf War, Saddam had been our big ally against Iran. Check the history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top