The Story of Bush

[13Gigatons]

President Bush will write a book about his time in office. I expect it will start off with a bang, then turn into a disorganized mess that becomes a torture to read before ending with Chapter 11. It should also be written in red ink and fall apart after a year.

Mike Mosser, Chicago

I found this comment funny.

 

[Kirby]

Ok.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

 

[Farang]

I found my balls itched this morning.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

Not just blind facts. Blind facts spoken by Paris Hilton.

 

[dbk]

I look forward to reading his book.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think if Bush is writing a book it should be one that he himself is able to read. Ideally a pop-up book. I heard he loves those.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

I'm sorry but Presidents are suppose to balance budgets and keep us out of unnecessary wars.

Most of the trouble with Wall Street was wall street's own fault for being greedy and corrupt. They had a responsibility to their investors, the country and themselves.

Unfortunately we all have money invested in wall street.

Ten years from now Bush will still be a lousy President.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

I'm sorry but Presidents are suppose to balance budgets and keep us out of unnecessary wars.

Most of the trouble with Wall Street was wall street's own fault for being greedy and corrupt. They had a responsibility to their investors, the country and themselves.

Unfortunately we all have money invested in wall street.

Ten years from now Bush will still be a lousy President.

From all indications by Barack, it seems that he will continue what Bush started in regards to the war on terror. So apparently, the security briefing he received before his inauguration was enough to convince him to continue this path.

You don't know if that war in Iraq will lead to a stable democracy or not. With the current volatility in that area it may prove to be critical. But we won't know until time has passed.

As far as the economy, the mortgage crisis specifically, it was the democrats who wrote up and lobbied to get a law passed that forced mortgage lenders to maintain a certain percentage of money be used for "sub-prime" loans. If they didn't they would be penalized. This was before the Bush presidency.

There are a bunch of other issues that were created before the Bush presidency. I'm not saying he did everything right but it wasn't all his fault. People keep saying things like "he's the worst president ever". But compared to whom? Most people wouldn't be able to name any other presidents besides ones from the last two decades. Was Bush worse than Carter? I think not. People thought Woodrow Wilson wasn't that great of a president, but in hindsight some of the things he tried to do had a lot of foresight and could have changed history if they were followed at that time.

You don't know for sure and you have no idea what you are saying. All you are saying is the same thing the media spits out. Why not wait and see what history reveals about Bush? Whether Barack serves 1 term or 2 terms; if he doesn't solve the economic crisis would you call him a lousy president himself when the changes he makes won't really affect the economy until years later?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

I'm sorry but Presidents are suppose to balance budgets and keep us out of unnecessary wars.

Most of the trouble with Wall Street was wall street's own fault for being greedy and corrupt. They had a responsibility to their investors, the country and themselves.

Unfortunately we all have money invested in wall street.

Ten years from now Bush will still be a lousy President.

From all indications by Barack, it seems that he will continue what Bush started in regards to the war on terror. So apparently, the security briefing he received before his inauguration was enough to convince him to continue this path.

You don't know if that war in Iraq will lead to a stable democracy or not. With the current volatility in that area it may prove to be critical. But we won't know until time has passed.

As far as the economy, the mortgage crisis specifically, it was the democrats who wrote up and lobbied to get a law passed that forced mortgage lenders to maintain a certain percentage of money be used for "sub-prime" loans. If they didn't they would be penalized. This was before the Bush presidency.

There are a bunch of other issues that were created before the Bush presidency. I'm not saying he did everything right but it wasn't all his fault. People keep saying things like "he's the worst president ever". But compared to whom? Most people wouldn't be able to name any other presidents besides ones from the last two decades. Was Bush worse than Carter? I think not. People thought Woodrow Wilson wasn't that great of a president, but in hindsight some of the things he tried to do had a lot of foresight and could have changed history if they were followed at that time.

You don't know for sure and you have no idea what you are saying. All you are saying is the same thing the media spits out. Why not wait and see what history reveals about Bush? Whether Barack serves 1 term or 2 terms; if he doesn't solve the economic crisis would you call him a lousy president himself when the changes he makes won't really affect the economy until years later?

All 42 previous ones? lol

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: Eli
All 42 previous ones? lol

lol one zinger substantiated by another zinger

 

[Amused]

The truly sad thing is people think economic policies have an immediate effect.

The housing crisis was not brought on by Bush, nor did he have anything to do with the idealism behind offering home loans to less than worthy debtors. He also had nothing to do with the housing bubble, or it's collapse.

To blame our current economic situation on Bush is just silly.

Has Bush been a failure as President? Pretty much. I have plenty I can fault him for. But he had little to nothing to do with the situation we are now in. The policies that led to this are decades old and decades in the making. It was inevitable as soon as banks were encouraged to give loans to people who had no business getting a loan.

Once the market was overbuilt, a crash in housing prices was inevitable. And with the crash in housing prices, came the collapse of banks as they could no longer rely on simply getting their money back on defaulted housing loans by repossessing the property and selling it... all caused by giving loans to less than worthy debtors. This took more than a decade to come about.

However, the current bailout is crap and is coming from both sides of the aisle. Bush only reinforced what a complete failure he is when he supported the bailouts.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
President Bush will "write" a book about his time in office.

But will he read it? :laugh:

 

[sdifox]

my only question is will the word "nucular" make an appearance

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Amused
The truly sad thing is people think economic policies have an immediate effect.

The housing crisis was not brought on by Bush, nor did he have anything to do with the idealism behind offering home loans to less than worthy debtors. He also had nothing to do with the housing bubble, or it's collapse.

To blame our current economic situation on Bush is just silly.

Has Bush been a failure as President? Pretty much. I have plenty I can fault him for. But he had little to nothing to do with the situation we are now in. The policies that led to this are decades old and decades in the making. It was inevitable as soon as banks were encouraged to give loans to people who had no business getting a loan.

Once the market was overbuilt, a crash in housing prices was inevitable. And with the crash in housing prices, came the collapse of banks as they could no longer rely on simply getting their money back on defaulted housing loans by repossessing the property and selling it... all caused by giving loans to less than worthy debtors. This took more than a decade to come about.

However, the current bailout is crap and is coming from both sides of the aisle. Bush only reinforced what a complete failure he is when he supported the bailouts.

Yes and no.

While it is true that economic policies take time to evolve and show whether their true nature will be positive, neutral or negative, it takes a nanosecond for policy changes of deregulation and the lack of desire to punish those that are willing to do anything in their power for another 7, 8 or 9 digit stock option to take advantage of it.

You act like these CEOs and other board members that have hid or lied about their true exposure to the sub-prime crisis is the result of Clinton policies to attempt to help the poor get houses instead of what it truly is....Absolute greed with the knowledge that they will never be held responsible for their actions.

Hell, instead we threw billions of taxpayer dollars at them which they are now trying to figure out ways of getting even more bonuses from.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

Bush apologists have been blaming Clinton for the last 8 years...it's getting old.

 

[Zebo]

I want to read this book but only if written by Bush personally and unedited. More new words could be added to my lexicon besides misunderestimated and hispanically and I actually think Bush is best unscripted raw - pop-up book would be fine - I'd buy it.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

Bush apologists have been blaming Clinton for the last 8 years...it's getting old.

Hopefully it will end soon. And I say hopefully because the bush apologists might still be blaming Clinton even after Bush leaves office.

 

[Zebo]

The Bush economy is NOT Bush's fault if you like wealth/income inequality, too much debt, asset bubbles, deregulation/lax regulation, billions taken from us and given to billionaire buddlies, cheap labor, trying to bankrupt middle and lower class Americans, and trying to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, finally, once and for all, by bankrupting the federal government entirely.

Bush's 10 Trillion dollar hangover

You guys have no idea how bad Obama will fail too... hiring a guy in Michigan to fill pot holes in Alabama, etc. He's doing just the opposite of what's needed. A massive addressing of our deadbeats down to person all the way up to biggest corps like AIG.. Govt does not create wealth can only redistribute overachievers wealth, which is fine and allowed for in Art1sec8, but we have a system which rewards and encourages failure and corruption.

 

[geno]

n/m Zebo took care of that

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Farang
I found my balls itched this morning.

1. Lord loves a workin man.
2. Don't trust whitey.
3. See a doctor and get rid of it.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Hopefully it will end soon. And I say hopefully because the bush apologists might still be blaming Clinton even after Bush leaves office.

Don't count on it. They're still blaming Carter for Nixon's, Ford's, Reagan's, Bush I's, and Bush II's messes. I'm sure that in 2020 when the American people once again vote for a Republican, the Republicans will still be running againt Carter, and Roosevelt as well.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Hopefully it will end soon. And I say hopefully because the bush apologists might still be blaming Clinton even after Bush leaves office.

Don't count on it. They're still blaming Carter for Nixon's, Ford's, Reagan's, Bush I's, and Bush II's messes. I'm sure that in 2020 when the American people once again vote for a Republican, the Republicans will still be running againt Carter, and Roosevelt as well.

What do you mean thats nothing the right wing still blames FDR.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Amused
The truly sad thing is people think economic policies have an immediate effect.

The housing crisis was not brought on by Bush, nor did he have anything to do with the idealism behind offering home loans to less than worthy debtors. He also had nothing to do with the housing bubble, or it's collapse.

To blame our current economic situation on Bush is just silly.

Has Bush been a failure as President? Pretty much. I have plenty I can fault him for. But he had little to nothing to do with the situation we are now in. The policies that led to this are decades old and decades in the making. It was inevitable as soon as banks were encouraged to give loans to people who had no business getting a loan.

Once the market was overbuilt, a crash in housing prices was inevitable. And with the crash in housing prices, came the collapse of banks as they could no longer rely on simply getting their money back on defaulted housing loans by repossessing the property and selling it... all caused by giving loans to less than worthy debtors. This took more than a decade to come about.

However, the current bailout is crap and is coming from both sides of the aisle. Bush only reinforced what a complete failure he is when he supported the bailouts.

Yes and no.

While it is true that economic policies take time to evolve and show whether their true nature will be positive, neutral or negative, it takes a nanosecond for policy changes of deregulation and the lack of desire to punish those that are willing to do anything in their power for another 7, 8 or 9 digit stock option to take advantage of it.

You act like these CEOs and other board members that have hid or lied about their true exposure to the sub-prime crisis is the result of Clinton policies to attempt to help the poor get houses instead of what it truly is....Absolute greed with the knowledge that they will never be held responsible for their actions.

Hell, instead we threw billions of taxpayer dollars at them which they are now trying to figure out ways of getting even more bonuses from.

First, the policies preceed Clinton.

Secondly, what is your point? The CEOs and board members do not control housing prices, or set federal policy on making housing loans available to non-creditworthy borrowers.

And, in the end, that is who we blame. The people with bad credit who defaulted on their loans. You can take the nanny state approach that more regulation would have stopped this, but then... it was regulation that CAUSED it in the first place. High risk loans are not something the banks would deal in were it not for incentives provided by the feds in the first place.

The leftist ideal of "everyone deserves a house/loan has come back to bite us in the ass. It's time to face the fact that people do NOT deserve things... they must earn them.