So basically after 7 3/4 years of Bush......

[techs]

The stock market is lower than when he took office.
The national debt has nearly doubled.
We are facing our first TRILLION dollar debt this year (counting bailout money).
Middle class incomes rose at their lowest level versus inflation since the 1970's.
Health insurance and college costs increased far faster than worker income.
We have lost over half our manufacturing jobs.
We are behind most industrialized countries in internet speed and we pay more for less.
Russia has turned into a dictatorship.
Housing prices are plummeting back towards their traditional levels.
We have gained fewer jobs accounting for population than we did during the 7.5 years before Bush, and we are losing them at the fastest rate since the Great Depression.
Speaking of the Great Depression, for the first time since it happened people are seriously talking about having another one.
The dollar has free fallen over 50 percent against most freely traded currencies.
Our trade deficit has increased despite the huge loss in the value of the dollar.
And according to nearly everyone, including Bush, its only going to get worse.

Have I missed anything?

 

[MikeyLSU]

so according to you, just a couple of years ago he was a great president, because most of what you said is only recent.

If you think even half those are due to Bush you are somewhere off the deep end.

Bush sucked no doubt but to blame him for that stuff is just insane.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
Bush sucked no doubt but to blame him for that stuff is just insane.

It is zealotry, not insanity. This is a war.

 

[fleshconsumed]

You can't really blame him for Russia and house values going down to historical values is a good thing.

You missed Patriot act, telecom spying and subsequent immunity as well as rise of RIAA/MPAA czar.

 

[Drakkon]

Froze Pell grant funding after campaigning in 2000 to raise their limits..and then after finally unfreezing them only committed to a fraction of what he originally campaigned for.

 

[StageLeft]

Personally, I'm doing much better, but then my life had only just begun around then from an employment perspective, so it's not really relevant. I would say I did well despite, not because of, his tenure.

Nationally, the country is demonstrably worse off. Employment is ok (at the moment), but people's investments are not, the country has a wild deficit, which will cost in the future, and wages haven't risen adjusted for inflation, plus the country is losing its spot as top-dog in the world (it still has it, but has some scars).

BTW you also forgot state-sanctioned torture and legalization of shipping people to other countries where real torture occurs.

 

[heyheybooboo]

George W. Bush: How'd He Do?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Personally, I'm doing much better, but then my life had only just begun around then from an employment perspective, so it's not really relevant. I would say I did well despite, not because of, his tenure.

Nationally, the country is demonstrably worse off. Employment is ok (at the moment), but people's investments are not, the country has a wild deficit, which will cost in the future, and wages haven't risen adjusted for inflation, plus the country is losing its spot as top-dog in the world (it still has it, but has some scars).

BTW you also forgot state-sanctioned torture and legalization of shipping people to other countries where real torture occurs.

Have I missed anything?

 

[nageov3t]

should I be voting for John McCain because my income has more than doubled in the past eight years, then?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs
Have I missed anything?

Just a never-ending war.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: techs
Have I missed anything?

Just a never-ending war.

D'oH!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: loki8481
should I be voting for John McCain because my income has more than doubled in the past eight years, then?

You're managing the McDonalds now??

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: loki8481
should I be voting for John McCain because my income has more than doubled in the past eight years, then?

Sure. If you beleive that you will benefit greater should the current admin's policies continue, then you should.

Having said that, you now realize why most people want change.

 

[techs]

What did Reagan ask?
Oh yeah.
"Are you better off now then you were 8 year ago?"

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: techs
What did Reagan ask?
Oh yeah.
"Are you better off now then you were 8 year ago?"

Yes.

Bush still has done very poorly. My guess is he will not be well regarded when the historical verdict comes in. All the things mentioned above. What is left out is how much the dems are involved as well over the last two years they have held both houses of congress.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: techs
The stock market is lower than when he took office.

You lost me here. More smart, less ignorant.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: techs
The stock market is lower than when he took office.

You lost me here. More smart, less ignorant.

Dow Jan 20, 2001 10,587
Dow Oct. 7 2008 9,503

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: techs
The stock market is lower than when he took office.

You lost me here. More smart, less ignorant.

Dow Jan 20, 2001 10,587
Dow Oct. 7 2008 9,503

That's how you go about drawing conclusions? I think even the most hardcore liberal would tell you you're off your rocker.

I agree he's one of the worst presidents, but you stumbled upon the right answer by sheer accident.

Carry on with your a + 4 = &

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: techs
The stock market is lower than when he took office.

You lost me here. More smart, less ignorant.

Dow Jan 20, 2001 10,587
Dow Oct. 7 2008 9,503

That's how you go about drawing conclusions? I think even the most hardcore liberal would tell you you're off your rocker.

I agree he's one of the worst presidents, but you stumbled upon the right answer by sheer accident.

Carry on with your a + 4 = &

Numbers aside, are you trying to argue that the stock market has seen more positive changes than negative changes overall in the past 8 years?

I think anything beyond that is just arguing details for the sake of arguing details. The man is one of many who is responsible for the well being of this country which includes our economy and he is also the #1 head honcho. That's the bottom line.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: techs
The stock market is lower than when he took office.

You lost me here. More smart, less ignorant.

Dow Jan 20, 2001 10,587
Dow Oct. 7 2008 9,503

That's how you go about drawing conclusions? I think even the most hardcore liberal would tell you you're off your rocker.

I agree he's one of the worst presidents, but you stumbled upon the right answer by sheer accident.

Carry on with your a + 4 = &

Numbers aside, are you trying to argue that the stock market has seen more positive changes than negative changes overall in the past 8 years?

I don't think I've argued anything other than correlation != causation. Not to mention that the OP is essentially blaming a market crash on Bush, which is ridiculous to anyone even remotely familiar with the background of our current economic problems.

Remember folks: just because Pelosi says it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

I don't think I've argued anything other than correlation != causation. Not to mention that the OP is essentially blaming a market crash on Bush, which is ridiculous to anyone even remotely familiar with the background of our current economic problems.

I understand what you are arguing, but understand that the actual person or thing which causes something that goes wrong (doesnt matter what it is) is not always the person or thing which people have granted the true responsibility.

The most general way to say this is what is going on here is a failure of proper enforcement and checks and balances. A big part of that responsibility lies in the hands of the Executive Branch of the government and the president specifically. He accepted that responsibility when he chose to become president. That doesn't mean he should be the only person to blame, but he is most certainly one of them.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

I don't think I've argued anything other than correlation != causation. Not to mention that the OP is essentially blaming a market crash on Bush, which is ridiculous to anyone even remotely familiar with the background of our current economic problems.

I understand what you are arguing, but understand that the actual person or thing which causes something that goes wrong (doesnt matter what it is) is not always the person or thing which people have granted the true responsibility.

The most general way to say this is what is going on here is a failure of proper enforcement and checks and balances. A big part of that responsibility lies in the hands of the Executive Branch of the government and the president specifically. He accepted that responsibility when he chose to become president. That doesn't mean he should be the only person to blame, but he is most certainly one of them.

I think we're beyond the typical Bush-bashing, which is all this thread was about. Bush sucks, we all know it, and he eats babies.

Any new material OP?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I understand what you are arguing, but understand that the actual person or thing which causes something that goes wrong (doesnt matter what it is) is not always the person or thing which people have granted the true responsibility.

The most general way to say this is what is going on here is a failure of proper enforcement and checks and balances. A big part of that responsibility lies in the hands of the Executive Branch of the government and the president specifically. He accepted that responsibility when he chose to become president. That doesn't mean he should be the only person to blame, but he is most certainly one of them.

I think we're beyond the typical Bush-bashing, which is all this thread was about. Bush sucks, we all know it, and he eats babies.

Any new material OP?

Yes, back to the original topic at hand. Tech, add baby eating to the list. :laugh:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
George W. Bush: How'd He Do?

Damn, he looked 30 years younger.

 

[blackangst1]

To answer the OP...I am FAR better off than I was 8 years ago, but not BECAUSE of Bush. Only because of my own personal lifestyle changes.

Make more money adjusted for inflation - check.
Health insurance better - check.
Live on less than what I make - check.
Have more in retirement - check.

*shrug* One of these days people qill quit blaming the POTUS for your own lack of planning and laziness.

One of these days.