What State Would the US Be in if George W. Bush Had a Third Term as President?

[Gokul43201]

If you believe his post about Bush's military spending explains his post - it's laughable when you consider Obama's $787 Billion stimulus Bill dwarfed the military budget.

His post #14 is directed at MoToH's post#4 - period. It aims to do nothing more, and claims to do nothing more. It is you that is seeing connections to other posts where none is explicitly intended.

 

[rewebster]

I would prefer the screen shot.

I responded to post #3 - "denial and bankruptcy"

In spite of your best efforts to defend, rewebster has never explained what he meant by "denial and bankruptcy ". If you believe his post about Bush's military spending explains his post - it's laughable when you consider Obama's $787 Billion stimulus Bill dwarfed the military budget.

Sheesh is correct.

As for zomgwtf - hopefully this clears up your confusion.

did you read the title of the thread?..., or

are you here to defend Bush, or do you just want to try to make Obama look bad?


I see you're not arguing about the 'denial' part anyway.

 

[WhoWee]

did you read the title of the thread?..., or

are you here to defend Bush, or do you just want to try to make Obama look bad?


I see you're not arguing about the 'denial' part anyway.

You still haven't explained your post.

 

[rewebster]

You still haven't explained your post.

you just haven't accepted or, maybe you don't understand, what I have posted...

Instead of attacking what I have posted, why don't you read the first post and give your opinion.

Bush's administration was filled with over spending, and denial of the truth for the benefit of his own party and for those who contributed to his campaign.

Do you think Halliburton would have been selected for so many contracts if it weren't for Cheney?

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Reminder: read the first post (it doesn't include Obama, does it?)--read it twice if you have to

 

[Gokul43201]

I heard it on NPR - albeit several months ago - but I'll dig up some citations (or retract the claim). What I recall hearing was that the number of lobbyists and former lobbyists has gone from a couple hundred under Bush to a couple dozen under Obama. I also recall that Bush started off by filling [large number - can't recall exactly, but many dozens - will look for reference] positions in his transition team with lobbyists (i.e., he got off to a running start with appointing lobbyists into the administration). And then there was something about how many of the lobbyists (again, I believe many dozens) hired by Bush were in positions where they were regulating the same industry they had/were continuing to be lobbying for (or at least continuing to receive paychecks from their firm, or something similar).

Progress update: I haven't been able to find the specific NPR story referred to above. I will look for alternative references.

 

[WhoWee]

you just haven't accepted or, maybe you don't understand, what I have posted...

Instead of attacking what I have posted, why don't you read the first post and give your opinion.

Bush's administration was filled with over spending, and denial of the truth for the benefit of his own party and for those who contributed to his campaign.

Do you think Halliburton would have been selected for so many contracts if it weren't for Cheney?

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Reminder: read the first post (it doesn't include Obama, does it?)--read it twice if you have to

I didn't attack you, I requested an explanation of your post #3 "denial and bankruptcy". Now your response that "Bush's administration was filled with over spending,..." confirms my belief that YOU are in denial about Obama's spending.

As for political favors - are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

 

[CRGreathouse]

As for political favors - are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

I would like that can of worms to be opened.

 

[rewebster]

I didn't attack you, I requested an explanation of your post #3 "denial and bankruptcy". Now your response that "Bush's administration was filled with over spending,..." confirms my belief that YOU are in denial about Obama's spending.

As for political favors - are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

since you didn't understand my post, or the first post in the thread, you should start your own thread about Obama spending.

After two or three times of trying to get you read the first post, and suggesting to stay on the thread topic, you are just trying to hijack this thread with your own agenda.

 

[Skyhunter]

Do you want someone who will shotgun PBR's with you, or do you want someone who will drink appletinis?

For President?

I would rather have the designated driver.

 

[Skyhunter]

it's laughable when you consider Obama's $787 Billion stimulus Bill dwarfed the military budget.

No it did not. The stimulus is spread out over a few years. The military budget is for one year.

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx"

So far only $272 billion of the stimulus has been spent. The stimulus was passed almost one year ago to the day. During the same year the defense budget was $515 billion, almost twice the stimulus spending for the same year. Also, 2009 was Bush's budget and it does not include $141 billion in supplemental funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If you include the supplemental spending, defense spending dwarfs the stimulus spending. Obama's 2010 budget is $534 billion with another $130 billion in supplemental funds for the ongoing wars.

 

[WhoWee]

No it did not. The stimulus is spread out over a few years. The military budget is for one year.

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx"

So far only $272 billion of the stimulus has been spent. The stimulus was passed almost one year ago to the day.

Silly me. I must have gotten caught up in the fervor when Congressional leaders said they didn't have time to read the $787 Billion Bill...and Obama said the "shovel ready projects" were in place and that without this spending unemployment would exceed 8%. Again, silly me.

 

[WhoWee]

since you didn't understand my post, or the first post in the thread, you should start your own thread about Obama spending.

After two or three times of trying to get you read the first post, and suggesting to stay on the thread topic, you are just trying to hijack this thread with your own agenda.

What exactly is it that you think I don't understand? Your 3 word post wasn't that insightful. If you could learn to respond directly to a challenge, the post would not stray from the focus. For the record, your arrogance is quite unattractive.

 

[Skyhunter]

Silly me. I must have gotten caught up in the fervor when Congressional leaders said they didn't have time to read the $787 Billion Bill...and Obama said the "shovel ready projects" were in place and that without this spending unemployment would exceed 8%. Again, silly me.

Confirmation bias always gets in the way of knowledge.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Confirmation bias always gets in the way of knowledge.

Wise words for all in this thread.

 

[Skyhunter]

Wise words for all in this thread.

Right on.

BTW - I am speaking from experience.

 

[rewebster]

Can you please explain?

Isn't Obama outspending Bush? Aren't we seeing a public backlash to Obama's policies? Are we printing money and raising the national debt limit (for the second time in 10 months)?

Is Gitmo closed? Are we out of Iraq? Did the Stimulus contain unemployment at 8%? Were healthcare debates televised on C-span? Were "earmarks" eliminated (over 8,000 on the first Bill Obama signed)? Did Obama run the Lobbyists out of town? Did Caterpillar hire a lot of new workers?

Shall I go on?

yes, please do "go on"...

get it out of your system. Maybe if ANY of those things you brought up has anything to do with what would be if Bush had a 3rd term, I'd like to know how "can you please explain"---


if you can explain how each and every one of those points preceding a question mark (I counted ten) has to do with what if Bush had a third term, I and maybe everyone would like to know.

If you can't, I understand that all your comments are just a diversion on your ability to imagine about how bad (or good) Bush's third term would have been, and you don't or can't express an individual (your own) response.

Please try to avoid falling back to the--"you didn't explain the "denial and bankruptcy" post ---it's getting old...

 

[WhoWee]

yes, please do "go on"...

get it out of your system. Maybe if ANY of those things you brought up has anything to do with what would be if Bush had a 3rd term, I'd like to know how "can you please explain"---


if you can explain how each and every one of those points preceding a question mark (I counted ten) has to do with what if Bush had a third term, I and maybe everyone would like to know.

If you can't, I understand that all your comments are just a diversion on your ability to imagine about how bad (or good) Bush's third term would have been, and you don't or can't express an individual (your own) response.

Please try to avoid falling back to the--"you didn't explain the "denial and bankruptcy" post ---it's getting old...

lol...so you STILL can't explain your 3 word post?

 

[rewebster]

lol...so you STILL can't explain your 3 word post?

are you one of those conservatives/repubs who wouldn't care if the government fell apart and went into default as long as you kept a few bucks for yourself?

LESS TAXES AND LESS GOVERNMENT! ---and let the republicans use the government as their own personal credit card?--like Bush and Reagan?

We all know that republicans generally don't care about the American government as long as they get more money in their own pockets---that's been the republican way for years now--just look at the numbers.

Republicans just don't care, except for how much money they can keep for themselves. That's why they vote as a group--they get more money from their supporters that way.


I'm not here to defend republicans for the things they do, its just the way is it. If it was any different, I'd say it.

 

[WhoWee]

are you one of those conservatives/repubs who wouldn't care if the government fell apart and went into default as long as you kept a few bucks for yourself?

LESS TAXES AND LESS GOVERNMENT! ---and let the republicans use the government as their own personal credit card?--like Bush and Reagan?

We all know that republicans generally don't care about the American government as long as they get more money in their own pockets---that's been the republican way for years now--just look at the numbers.

Republicans just don't care, except for how much money they can keep for themselves. That's why they vote as a group--they get more money from their supporters that way.


I'm not here to defend republicans for the things they do, its just the way is it. If it was any different, I'd say it.

Are you serious?
Do you have any links to support your statements?
Also was THAT your clarification of the 3 word post?

 

[rewebster]

"Harding's Treasury Secretary, financier Andrew Mellon, cut income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans from 73% to 25%. The capital thus liberated fueled the skyrocketing stock market and helped the Jay Gatsbys of the world to achieve an unprecedented level of material affluence, but it also exacerbated the maldistribution of wealth between rich and poor—by 1929, the richest one-tenth of one percent of Americans owned as much wealth as the bottom 42%9—and may have created an unsustainable financial bubble that led directly to the Great Depression."

"Due to endemic corruption such as that of Teapot Dome, historians today usually consider Warren G. Harding to be a leading candidate for the dubious title of "worst president ever."10 Fortuitously, perhaps, Harding himself did not live to receive this judgment; he died of a stroke while on a speaking tour of the country after less than three years in office, before the worst revelations of corruption in his administration were widely publicized."

sound familiar? change the dates and the names and get the same result as what happened recently---money, money, money----generally, Republicans care about money, Democrats care about people.

http://www.shmoop.com/1920s/politics.html

 

[WhoWee]

"Harding's Treasury Secretary, financier Andrew Mellon, cut income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans from 73% to 25%. The capital thus liberated fueled the skyrocketing stock market and helped the Jay Gatsbys of the world to achieve an unprecedented level of material affluence, but it also exacerbated the maldistribution of wealth between rich and poor—by 1929, the richest one-tenth of one percent of Americans owned as much wealth as the bottom 42%9—and may have created an unsustainable financial bubble that led directly to the Great Depression."

"Due to endemic corruption such as that of Teapot Dome, historians today usually consider Warren G. Harding to be a leading candidate for the dubious title of "worst president ever."10 Fortuitously, perhaps, Harding himself did not live to receive this judgment; he died of a stroke while on a speaking tour of the country after less than three years in office, before the worst revelations of corruption in his administration were widely publicized."

sound familiar? change the dates and the names and get the same result as what happened recently---money, money, money----generally, Republicans care about money, Democrats care about people.

http://www.shmoop.com/1920s/politics.html

You can't be serious.

 

[rewebster]

You can't be serious.

There's no reason to believe me. Republican followers believe their party leaders, in that they're trying to 'get less government, get less taxes' for their followers; and, if you don't want to see what they're really doing, you won't look for it--it will go against their core beliefs.

Republicans work more with cliches than democrats---just look at Palin for example. Cliches are easy to remember, especially if they're repeated over and over again.

"We need to push the reset button on health care" for example. The longer the republicans can keep the bill half way alive, and still keep it from passing, the more money they get from people who oppose it. If there was no money coming in, they'd get some kind of a bill through, because even they admit health care reform is necessary.

"Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The Public debt quintupled in nominal terms. In nominal dollars the public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3T in 1992 to $3.4T in 2000. But if measured in constant 2008 dollars the public debt actually fell over the period. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] rising from 58% of GDP to 70.2% of GDP."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

from post 16

and:

"Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade"


"By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers. "

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm


compare that with the info in post 55---just different names and dates basically

IF republican followers don't care to look into things, it may be because they don't want to look into things----if republicans want to blame Obama for the recession, their followers may even believe that. They've been told by the republican leaders that all the problems are from Obama, and a lot of them believe it.

Like I said, I'm not here to defend what republicans think, say, or do---I just point things out, and if they don't want to believe it, they probably won't.

If republicans group and vote together as they're doing, it APPEARS to their followers that they all agree--but, is that realistic? no, its just to get more money.

 

[Proton Soup]

sound familiar? change the dates and the names and get the same result as what happened recently---money, money, money----generally, Republicans care about money, Democrats care about people.

barney frank is just as bad as phil gramm was

 

[rewebster]

barney frank is just as bad as phil gramm was

well, how about comparing Barney Frank with Tom Delay----do republicans remember Tom Delay and all of his 'money' dealings?---or do they admire him?

One of the main reasons Sarah Palin quit is money---


--think about Palin---she ran a state where there is no taxes and the revenue is basically from oil---she's making a lot more money now with very little responsibilities--a perfect job for her.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One that gets me is the latest battle cry from what was once considered to be the fringe right - the CPAC.

One headliner statement was the following: Government needs to get out of the way and let the markets work.

What do they think caused this disaster! Government didn't almost destroy the global economy; it was the lack of government oversight of corporate crooks and charlatans. If anything, and according to Greenspan himself, what we have learned is that the financial sector is not self-regulating. The heart and soul of the Republican philosophy is a failed paradigm. Yet, even in the face of a near global meltdown that was a direct result of a core Republican principle, the Republican cheerleaders haven't change a note. They still want government to "get out of the way". This makes me wonder just whose side they are on. What do they want; more of the same? It seems to me that they would destroy the country before admitting to an obviously failed philosophy... and they very nearly did take us and everyone else down.

Now they have the nerve to complain about what it takes to help repair the damage. I'm not sure if they are weasels or fools, but what is clear is they pander to fear and sell rage on Fox TV, in order to compensate for having no answers, no credible platform, and no fiscal compass.

 

[rewebster]

I think it was a Bill Moyer's 'person' that he was interviewing, and that person said that a republican spokesperson back in the 1920's set the goal for the republican party that they are still using, which is that the republicans WANT bad government so that they can make more money for themselves (the politicians) and for their contributors.

With bad government in place, there is less oversight to making money, he said.

Bad government is the goal of the Republican party.

 

[WhoWee]

I think it was a Bill Moyer's 'person' that he was interviewing, and that person said that a republican spokesperson back in the 1920's set the goal for the republican party that they are still using, which is that the republicans WANT bad government so that they can make more money for themselves (the politicians) and for their contributors.

With bad government in place, there is less oversight to making money, he said.

Bad government is the goal of the Republican party.

Now that you've had your fun, I have a few questions.
1.) Going back a few posts - what percentage of the total taxes paid did those upper income people pay?
2.) What percentage of those upper income people taking advantage of Bush tax cuts are actually Republicans and how many are Democrats?
It's time to support your nonsense.

 

[rewebster]

Now that you've had your fun, I have a few questions.
1.) Going back a few posts - what percentage of the total taxes paid did those upper income people pay?
2.) What percentage of those upper income people taking advantage of Bush tax cuts are actually Republicans and how many are Democrats?
It's time to support your nonsense.

what? you can't do your own research?

or are you just trying to get a liberal to do it for you...

so you can deny it anyway due to something else that you don't agree with?


Like I said, I am not defending the republicans morality of being greedy and self-serving--I'm just presenting the info...

 

[WhoWee]

what? you can't do your own research?

or are you just trying to get a liberal to do it for you...

so you can deny it anyway due to something else that you don't agree with?

Believe it or not - the rules also apply to liberals on the PF.
You need to support your nonsense.

 

[rewebster]

Believe it or not - the rules also apply to liberals on the PF.
You need to support your nonsense.

again, I did---read my posts--- and do your own research in a non-biased way

or just go ahead and believe only what just the republican spokes people like Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc say

 

[Evo]

This thread has devolved into liberal/conservative bashing. Closed.