It's official: Bush beats Carter

[Rio Rebel]

And now Carter seems to play the gadfly role of there is no fool like an old fool. While GWB&co. manages to totally trump that with there is no fool like a complete fool. And as we look back at former Presidents we tend to look at their big mistakes and amplify them. With GWB, its going to be far easier---just take the things he has done right and you have a list of almost nothing to talk about.---is there a virtue in that kind of consistency?

This was so well stated that I had to put it back up. Well done.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JD50
While Bush is a pretty horrible president, I wasn't around during the Carter years and I'm not going to just go off what people say about him. Say what you will about Bush, but the economy has been pretty damn good.

The economy is in fact quite poorly. The US is drowning in red ink and dependent on foreign bankers to stay solvent. If foreigners did not lend the US $2 billion + a day the economy would look quite different. Bush has basically handed the fate of the US economy to communist China and predatory Japan on a golden platter. Bush will leave office riding "high" on a recession, leaving for a grownup to clean up the mess. If it the situation is salvable anymore at all. During Bush's time it is China, Japan, Luxembourg and Bermuda that has had the strongest economic growth. Luxembourg and Bermuda are tax havens and money launderies for the rich elites of course.

The blame for the budget rests squarely on Congress.

President's submit budgets, Congress has the ultimate authority in crafting and approving them. Without Congress no President gets a budget through.

Face it, they think they are above the law and for the most part we let them be so.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JD50
While Bush is a pretty horrible president, I wasn't around during the Carter years and I'm not going to just go off what people say about him. Say what you will about Bush, but the economy has been pretty damn good.

The economy is in fact quite poorly. The US is drowning in red ink and dependent on foreign bankers to stay solvent. If foreigners did not lend the US $2 billion + a day the economy would look quite different. Bush has basically handed the fate of the US economy to communist China and predatory Japan on a golden platter. Bush will leave office riding "high" on a recession, leaving for a grownup to clean up the mess. If it the situation is salvable anymore at all. During Bush's time it is China, Japan, Luxembourg and Bermuda that has had the strongest economic growth. Luxembourg and Bermuda are tax havens and money launderies for the rich elites of course.

The blame for the budget rests squarely on Congress.

President's submit budgets, Congress has the ultimate authority in crafting and approving them. Without Congress no President gets a budget through.

Face it, they think they are above the law and for the most part we let them be so.

You forgot something.....

The President submits a budget which is crafted by the OMB ( The Executive Office of Management and Budget ) to Congress. True

Congress then uses that budget as a template to develop their own budget proposals via spending bills. True

Once there are enough votes to pass a budget proposal in Congress it is then shipped back to the President for approval. If it does not meet the approval ( if it differs to much from his own proposal or several key items were left out or something else put in ) the President can veto the budget or he can sign it into law or he can allow it to pass through without his approval after ten days.

Seems you forgot this last and very important part. Now lets factor in the GOP majority that this President enjoyed for the greater part of his presidency you'll might want to re-adjust your statement there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
I know is the in thing to think Bush as the worst President but I lived through Carter... he was hands down the worst President I can recall. The costs of living were stagnating the economy, with high interest and inflation.

Look, the federal deficit doubled under Carter (the numbers are a pittance compared to Bush's numbers), Inflation nearly doubled to closing in on 12% by the time he got out, unemployment ballooned to nearly 8%, and the dollar had eroded so bad in foreign markets people were seriously worried.

Sorry, Bush's big faults are not standing up to a Republican controlled congress, and republican voters punished him and the Republicans in Congress for it. He also can be faulted for going into Iraq without a sufficient end-game.

when you run the numbers I would rather live under a Bush Adminstration than anything Carter dreamed up, or worse piloted.

Now, compare Bush and other Presidents, hell his father was easily better, Reagan just stomps him into the ground. Clinton was great in that he would stand up to Congress, something he had to do because he could not even get cooperation from a Democratic controlled one.

I lived through those times as well. He didn't screw up the economy, he was steamrolled by it. The economy was more about (but not solely) Nixon, who had instituted price and wage restrictions, which were lifted. The economy that resulted during the Carter years had more to do with that than Carter.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Shivetya
I know is the in thing to think Bush as the worst President but I lived through Carter... he was hands down the worst President I can recall. The costs of living were stagnating the economy, with high interest and inflation.

Look, the federal deficit doubled under Carter (the numbers are a pittance compared to Bush's numbers), Inflation nearly doubled to closing in on 12% by the time he got out, unemployment ballooned to nearly 8%, and the dollar had eroded so bad in foreign markets people were seriously worried.

Sorry, Bush's big faults are not standing up to a Republican controlled congress, and republican voters punished him and the Republicans in Congress for it. He also can be faulted for going into Iraq without a sufficient end-game.

when you run the numbers I would rather live under a Bush Adminstration than anything Carter dreamed up, or worse piloted.

Now, compare Bush and other Presidents, hell his father was easily better, Reagan just stomps him into the ground. Clinton was great in that he would stand up to Congress, something he had to do because he could not even get cooperation from a Democratic controlled one.

I lived through those times as well. He didn't screw up the economy, he was steamrolled by it. The economy was more about (but not solely) Nixon, who had instituted price and wage restrictions, which were lifted. The economy that resulted during the Carter years had more to do with that than Carter.

The Vietnamn war basically bankrupted the US. Nixon had to abandon the gold standard because foreigners had looted the US of three quarters of it's gold reserves by demanding gold for their dollars. Ford kept interest rates low in the face of rampant inflation. And the US had just reached it's own Hubbert Peak Oil and had a brouhaha with OPEC and had to adjust. Carter had to deal with a whole host of chickens coming home to roost. In fact Carter and Volcker curbed inflation and balanced the trade deficit.

 

[Lemon law]

Some Presidents inherit a bad economy and have to deal with it. Other get lucky and inherit a better or improving economy. In a sense GHB got unlucky---and after eight years of Reagan deficit spending, any new President had to gasp---read reality and add new taxes. And after four years of restrain the economy was finally starting to pick up when lucky Bill Clinton got elected by running on a platform of improving the economy. But in the early years of the Clinton administration, the credit for an improved economy had to partly belong to GHB who was out of office when his economic policies bore fruit. But the credit for keeping the economy in good shape has has to belong to both Clinton and congress.

Of course GWB is somewhat of a repeat of the Reagan years--where deficit spending has reached a limit and any new President in 08 will have to get real.

 

[Stunt]

If GW.Bush goes below 22-23, he will have the record for the highest (92%) and lowest approval ratings in recent history (since 1940's).

Oddly, the president with the lowest peak approval rating is Reagan (since the 1940's); kind of makes you wonder why Republicans are always referring to his legacy and ideals.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Oddly, the president with the lowest peak approval rating is Reagan (since the 1940's); kind of makes you wonder why Republicans are always referring to his legacy and ideals.

Mythology.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: GrGr
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Stunt

Oddly, the president with the lowest peak approval rating is Reagan (since the 1940's); kind of makes you wonder why Republicans are always referring to his legacy and ideals.</end quote></div>
Mythology.

Maybe it's just to help them win the primaries as Regan is popular with the base, and they will not defend or mention him in the general election...

 

[Lemon law]

At least during the Reagan orgy of deficit spending, Reagan and his advisers had the brains to not start any expensive wars. They may have gigged the Russian bear on Afghanistan,
and really screwed up on Iran contra, Saddam was their man in the mid-east, the legacies of all these policies are questionable, but you really screw the pooch when you commit to a long term expensive war. Reagan's advisers were hyper-sensitive on public opinion and GWB flat out does not care about making anyone but a very rich few happy.

 

[ericlp]

Bush is the worst period. To even try to defend him makes you look like a real tard....

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Jimmy Carter failed to stop the Iranian Revolution.
He could have protected the Shah and his military, but he acted like a chicken. Told the Shah to run and that the Shah did.

If he kept the Shah in power, Iraq would not have chemical weapons.

Bush would not have invaded Iraq.

Chain Reaction.

thats a stretch at best and your entire premise is broken.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: dmens


Here's your BDS kicking in. I don't even agree with Bush's original reasoning for the war, but given Saddam's history of lying to inspectors, the CIA's previous findings, there is no reason to think he really had WMD. Arab pride was his reason to keep bluffing. The west cannot be expected make the choice to live under the threat of a potentially nuclear capable Iraq simply because Saddam *might* be bluffing.

So the CIA and Bush were wrong. Doesn't make them "evil", no matter how much you hate the guy. Carter on the other hand knowingly sold out every Middle East ally America had, among other things. Active intent makes Carter far worse than Bush, in my book.

when did saddam bluff? I think he was fairly to the point that he didn't ave mwd in any real quantity.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
I know is the in thing to think Bush as the worst President but I lived through Carter... he was hands down the worst President I can recall. The costs of living were stagnating the economy, with high interest and inflation.

Look, the federal deficit doubled under Carter (the numbers are a pittance compared to Bush's numbers), Inflation nearly doubled to closing in on 12% by the time he got out, unemployment ballooned to nearly 8%, and the dollar had eroded so bad in foreign markets people were seriously worried.

Sorry, Bush's big faults are not standing up to a Republican controlled congress, and republican voters punished him and the Republicans in Congress for it. He also can be faulted for going into Iraq without a sufficient end-game.

when you run the numbers I would rather live under a Bush Adminstration than anything Carter dreamed up, or worse piloted.

Now, compare Bush and other Presidents, hell his father was easily better, Reagan just stomps him into the ground. Clinton was great in that he would stand up to Congress, something he had to do because he could not even get cooperation from a Democratic controlled one.

the difference is that bush inherited a country in fairly decent shape, which was heading to a very mild recession, etc etc. Carter inherited a cluster****.

 

[miketheidiot]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmens

allies "by definition"? is that like how france is technically an ally of the US even though they withdrew from NATO?
</end quote></div>

after the uk and canada, france is out next closest and strongest ally, and they are by far our longest lasting ally, at roughly 235 years give or take.

 

[Siddhartha]

It has to be getting harder and harder for the Bush supporters to deny GWB's political status. Diverting attention by mentioning Clinton does not work anymore.

I thought it would take a generation before Clinton's historical standing would be able to recover from being impeached. GWB's performance has allowed that to happen in less than ten years. And now it looks like GWB is going to help make Carter look historically better by comparison.