Thoughts on Cheney, Bush on C-Span, what legacy (unemployment, Taliban, statistics)

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

M
3. Bush had a great economic record until the dems took control of comgtess in 2007. Look it up.

Second, the number of Americans below the poverty level increase at a faster rate under the Bush 43 Administration than under any two term presidential Administration since they started keeping records of this information in 1959.

Bush 43
Americans Below The Poverty Level
2001 - 32.907 million 2008 - 39.829 million - increase 21.04%

Overall Population Growth
2001 - 281.475 million 2008 - 301.041 million - increase 6.95%

During the Bush 43 Administration poverty INCREASED three times faster than rate of population growth.

Clinton
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1993 - 39.265 million 2000 - 31.581 million - decrease 19.57%

Overall Population Growth
1993 - 259.278 million 2000 - 278.944 million - increase 7.58%

During the Clinton Administration poverty DECREASED 2.5 faster than the population grew.

Reagan
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1981 - 31.822 million 1988 - 31.745 million - increase 0.24%

Overall Population Growth
1981 - 227.157 million 1988 - 243.53 million - increase 7.21%
During the Reagan Administration poverty was relatively flat compared to population growth.



Nixon-Ford
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1969 - 24.147 million 1976 - 24.975 million - increase 3.43%

Overall Population Growth
1969 - 199.517 million 1976 - 212.303 million - increase 6.41%

During the Nixon - Ford Administrations poverty INCREASED about half as fast as the population grew.


Kennedy-Johnson
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1961 - 39.628 million 1968 - 25.389 million decrease 35.93%

Overalll Population Growth
1961 - 181.277 million 1968 - 197.628 million increase 9.02%

During the Kennedy-Johnson Administration poverty DECREASED about four time faster than the population grew.

An strong argument could be made the economic stewardship of the Bush 43 Administration was the worst of any President post World War II.

[vamos]

Originally Posted by Guamanians

In addition, fighting the waron terror is very costly (both financially, and with human lives)
It is much easier to just let the US fight the war ourselves

I understand how one would arrive at this conclusion. However, I can't help but remember the millions of people who demonstrated against the attack on Iraq both here in the US and abroad.

Just Rome alone saw 3 million anti-war protestors - the largest anti-war protest in history. Estimates for global participation on February 15th, 2003 range from 6 to 30 million in a total of 60 countries. In total, some estimates state that 36 million people protested this war in the months leading up to it.

That alone is a rather pressing argument that allied nations (and others, of course) deemed this war unjustifiable and wrong.

The only remaining super-power was apparently confronted with the power of general world opinion. And it did not come out as a winner!

That, indeed, is part of the Bush legacy!

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by Guamanians

You obviously have forgotten history. If you had asked people on sep 10, 2001 who was the #1 most dangerous threat to America. Most epople would have said Saddam. We had already attacked him in 1991. he had continued to defy the US, and the UN. He was calling our bluff. you act like Saddam was no problem

The Government, tomorrow, could come out and name YOU as the #1 most dangerous threat to America, and the number of people who believed that Saddam was, would believe YOU are.

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

M
3. Bush had a great economic record until the dems took control of comgtess in 2007. Look it up.

The Bush 43 Administration was the WORST post World War II presidential administration that served two terms in terms of creating jobs.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

On a quarterly basis the annual GDP growth rate under the Bush 43 Adminstration was 2.1% under the Clinton Adminstration it was 3.869%. On a quarter to quarter basis the economy peformed 80% better under the Clinton basis than it did under the Bush 43 Administration.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades - washingtonpost.com

In short, unless you were wealthy or an investor or speculator the Bush years were disastrous and we will be feeling the effects of his poor leadership for at least a decade if not longer.

You asked me to look it up and I did.

Bush's ability to grow federal tax revenue by cutting taxes, FAIL! It's a contributing factor to the ongoing deficit problems we have now.

Bush's ability to reduce poverty in America, FAIL. Poverty in America dramatically increased under the Bush Administration.

Bush's ability to create an economic climate with government policies that promote job growth FAIL!

Blaming Congress for Bush's economic f**k ups, FAIL! Bush had to sign into law every bill that crossed his desk or he could have vetoed it.

We won't even discuss how the Bush 43 administration totally took its eye off of rebuilding the national infrastructure.

What is so significant is not only did the Bush 43 Administration fail in terms of economic policy HE FAILED WORSE THAN ANY OTHER POST WORLD II PRESIDENT THAT SERVED TWO TERMS.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by odanny

I think they were the worst President and Vice President in United States history, and also the most egregious in breaking established laws and conventions, they were incredibly corrupt, as well as being spectacularly incompetent in BOTH foreign and domestic affairs.

A stain on humanity and the United States contribution to world history of petty tyrants

they were no different than any other president to include clinton , or the present crook

[LexusNexus]

I don't think there is ANY doubt that these two ruined the economy. Their damage however was far, far deeper. They didn't create systems that work to solve the problems which plague this country, only make them worse, or allow them to get worse. Every domestic issue they failed at. They also failed miserably on the foreign front. Just two pathetic individuals who solved NOTHING.

Pubs can't distance themselves from these two repulsive individuals because they selected them, promoted them, supported them. Now they're trying to resusucitate them. It's really a sad, sad commentary on the state of the Republican party.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by Alexus

I don't think there is ANY doubt that these two ruined the economy. Their damage however was far, far deeper. They didn't create systems that work to solve the problems which plague this country, only make them worse, or allow them to get worse. Every domestic issue they failed at. They also failed miserably on the foreign front. Just two pathetic individuals who solved NOTHING.

Pubs can't distance themselves from these two repulsive individuals because they selected them, promoted them, supported them. Now they're trying to resusucitate them. It's really a sad, sad commentary on the state of the Republican party.

what ruined this country is progressive liberal fascist policies that kill freedom

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

what ruined this country is progressive liberal fascist policies that kill freedom

So now you're calling George Bush a progressive, liberal fascist?

[vamos]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

what ruined this country is progressive liberal fascist policies that kill freedom

Somehow you must have convinced yourself that statements like this:

a.) are constructive.
b.) sound intelligent
c.) make people take you seriously.

From the perspective of a casual reader of this forum, I can assure you that neither is the case.

[nature's message]

It's amazing that some of these posters think that some of the ignorant crap that come out of their mouths are intelligent.

On topic; Bush and Cheney were some of the biggest morons that I've ever seen. They were POOR diplomats, his acts made the problems that plague the country even worse, I can just go on and on.