Why Bush's last two years were so bad. (Congress, Iran, Iraq)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone ever tried to figure out why those last two years were so bad? If so have you noticed that the Democrats controlled Congress during both of them and the House two year earlier than that? Is there a chance that too many of the troubles of that period had something to do with the Democrats being in control with Bush forced to be a lame duck. I got to wondering today about this and here is a good explanation.
The original post is a fallacy. Most of the entire 8 years was a failure not just the last two. The last 2 were just the worst of a bad time. Ironically, some of those making the most noise and throwing the most stones at Bush2, ALSO bear part of the blame for the banking mess along side Bush2.
The original post is a fallacy. Most of the entire 8 years was a failure not just the last two. The last 2 were just the worst of a bad time. Ironically, some of those making the most noise and throwing the most stones at Bush2, ALSO bear part of the blame for the banking mess along side Bush2.
The really sad things is, as bad as he did he would still likely beat Gore and Kerry today.
Has anyone ever tried to figure out why those last two years were so bad? If so have you noticed that the Democrats controlled Congress during both of them and the House two year earlier than that? Is there a chance that too many of the troubles of that period had something to do with the Democrats being in control with Bush forced to be a lame duck. I got to wondering today about this and here is a good explanation.
Yeah you got to thinking about that and magically found something that matched your opinion. Sorry, but your nose is growing there.
Perhaps you should rephrase it to you were wandering around the biased, pathetic, one sided quasi journalistic blogs written by guys who live in their parent's basement. You then came across this, like to you do other various poorly written articles, that appealed to your emotions and felt the need to share it with the forum as you can't come up with your own ideas and in real life nobody wants to hear from you.
Bush's last two years were bad as the bubble was building, the economy was overstimulated and nobody in the White House wanted to do anything about it. The Democrats in Congress were perfectly contained as they couldn't really pass much of anything without getting past a Presidential veto.
Bush's last two years sucked because in the first 6, Republicans had full control of the House, Senate and White House and did pretty much nothing of any worth. They could have balanced the budget, stayed out of Iraq, not focused the majority of their time on social issues, regulated the sub-prime mortgage market, regulated mortgage backed securities, etc. They didn't do any of that. They cared more about Janet Jackson's tit than they did balancing the budget.
Democratic Congresses and presidents more often coincide with high economy scores than do Republican Congresses and presidents. Presidents' and Congresses' Economy Scores
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why Bush's last two years were so bad.
