Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?

[Lemon law]

It seems to me that this thread has three different answers depending on income.

Pre-September 2008, in which the GWB tax cuts overall hurt those who made under 100K/yr and helped those who made much above that amount, we actually saw the middle class move backward while the gap in incomes kept rising, and in that sense, Hannity could honestly say he did better. As the middle class got a little bitty tax cut, the Rich got a huge tax cut, and the rest of the spend and borrow was simply put on the national credit card. And certain industries like defense contracting and de-regulated investment firms did way way better.

Post September 2008, when the poison pills GWB&co had been feeding the economy inevitably caught up and hatched into the festering monsters they have become, both Rich and poor now suffer, and if nothing else, as the bigger part of the food chain is now really sickened, the Rich are going to have to increase their share of the economy or fall behind in the shared misery.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The title of this thread is a joke, uh, right? What I find amazing is that eight morons voted that the country is better off in 2009. The five who voted "same" are also suspect of mental deficiency.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Obama, being the smartest person to ever become President surely can overcome these challenges. So far he hasn't shown me he is much different than Bush on foreign policy.. and economically he is making Bush look like a true fiscal conservative. Are we better off after 8 years of Bush? Perhaps not. Are we going to be better in 4 years of Obama? Thats all we should care about now. Its looking like one big ass mistake, America..

I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The title of this thread is a joke, uh, right? What I find amazing is that eight morons voted that the country is better off in 2009. The five who voted "same" are also suspect of mental deficiency.

I wanted to hear from the eight people who voted that the US was better off on 1/20/2009 than 1/20/2000.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama, being the smartest person to ever become President surely can overcome these challenges. So far he hasn't shown me he is much different than Bush on foreign policy.. and economically he is making Bush look like a true fiscal conservative. Are we better off after 8 years of Bush? Perhaps not. Are we going to be better in 4 years of Obama? Thats all we should care about now. Its looking like one big ass mistake, America..

I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

Actually this thread is not about Mr Obama. Maybe you will want to start one that discusses your post.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama, being the smartest person to ever become President surely can overcome these challenges. So far he hasn't shown me he is much different than Bush on foreign policy.. and economically he is making Bush look like a true fiscal conservative. Are we better off after 8 years of Bush? Perhaps not. Are we going to be better in 4 years of Obama? Thats all we should care about now. Its looking like one big ass mistake, America..

I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

You have deftly managed to avoid answering the question at hand, and mock the current President. Kudos to you, Mister Partisan Hack!

 

[Extelleron]

The U.S. was in much better shape in 2000 than it is now. Whether or not our current difficulties can be blamed on Bush is another question. I'm not sure there is anything Bush could have done to prevent the Dot com bubble from popping or 9/11 from happening. There are decisions he made that, in hindsight, definitely were not the right ones to make (such as the decision to invade Iraq), but I'm not sure we would better off with Gore....

 

[jonks]

How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

 

[daniel1113]

While there is no question that the US was better off before Bush took office in 2000, it's not really any better now, nor was what he did much different than what has been going on in Washington for decades.

 

[brandonb]

I have to say that its just a matter of perception. If you think today is worse, then it's going to be worse. Honestly though, when I look back at year 1999 or 2000 and compare to today, I don't honestly see much difference in standards of living or anything else. I still make a decent amount of money (I make more but with inflation I might make a bit less), have a job, have opportunities in my lifetime. However, the only thing I see drastically changed is how much money has been pumped into schools, huge fields, playgrounds, and I always see a ton of cops going up and down the streets. Even in a small 18,000 population city I see cops all over the place. Before back then, not many, I'd go weeks without seeing a cop, now I see 4 everytime I go to work and back.

So I can honestly say we are having higher taxes to pay for these schools and alot more cops, which can be good or bad depending on your perception of cops (I think they are just wasting tax dollars, how much crime does a 18,000 population city produce?)...

And I'm no fan of any administration. But I don't agree with Hannity, because he is just saying its better to be a friggin moron... Then again, I don't see anything better now that Obama is at the helm... So! Its politics as usual.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama, being the smartest person to ever become President surely can overcome these challenges. So far he hasn't shown me he is much different than Bush on foreign policy.. and economically he is making Bush look like a true fiscal conservative. Are we better off after 8 years of Bush? Perhaps not. Are we going to be better in 4 years of Obama? Thats all we should care about now. Its looking like one big ass mistake, America..

I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

You have deftly managed to avoid answering the question at hand, and mock the current President. Kudos to you, Mister Partisan Hack!

Actually.. I did answer it.

 

[teclis1023]

Well, certainly the economic situation of the USA is significantly worse than it was back in the states. Furthermore, one could argue that Clinton's multilateral foreign policy had put us in very good standing in the world. We had a budget surplus for the first time in two or three presidencies.

On the other hand, Macintosh was still using PPC processors, and Intel was pushing Rambus.

So, you know... about even

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: juiio
The housing bubble, tech bubble, and credit bubble would have burst, even without Bush.

Is the country in a better state in 2000 or 2009. Finger pointing aside.

2000.

but the OP seems to be laying all the blame on Bush's feet, who's to say what Gore would have done differently? 9/11 would have still likely happened, the bubbles still would have burst, and we'd probably still be bogged down in Afghanistan (or worse, not have gone there at all)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

The U.S. was in much better shape in 2000 than it is now. Whether or not our current difficulties can be blamed on Bush is another question.

< cough > The Bushwhackos ignored warnings by Richard Clarke and others about impedending Al Qaeda attack using hijacked aircraft before 9-11. :thumbsdown:

< cough > The Bushwhackos pulled troops out of Afghanistan, the war we SHOULD HAVE won years ago, to pursue his ELECTIVE war of LIES in Iraq. As of 5/21/09 he has squandered the lives of 4,299 American troops, left tens of thousands more American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life.

Their war of LIES has wasted trillions of dollars in current and future expenses and trashed the reputation of the United States of America in the world community.

< cough > The Taliban now a greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan than they were before starting the war in Iraq. :thumbsdown:

< cough > The Bushwhackos shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution with illegal unwarranted surveillance and detention without habeas corpus. :|

< cough > The Bushwhackos committed horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity, further disgracing the entire nation both to ourselves and to the world at large. :shocked:

I'm not sure there is anything Bush could have done to prevent the Dot com bubble from popping or 9/11 from happening.

The Bushwhackos dismembered all oversight and control over their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors, the ones who raped our economy to pay for their giga-zillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. Remember, the warnings went back to and before your EX-Traitor In Chief's good buddy, disgraced Enron head, Kenny Boy Lay, and things only went down hill from there. :|

There are decisions he made that, in hindsight, definitely were not the right ones to make (such as the decision to invade Iraq), but I'm not sure we would better off with Gore....

What you smokin', Rufus? :roll:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira
No way would Al Gore have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Tweaked

Former Vice President Al Gore Iraq and the War on Terrorism Commonwealth Club of California San Francisco, California September 23, 2002

Oh look... it's Al Gore armchair quarterbacking with impunity.

FWIW, I realize I am too.

He wrote this BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

He said armchair quarterbacking, not Monday morning quarterbacking.

At the time Gore gave this speech, Bush/Cheney were stirring up the case for invading Iraq, and a solid majority of the American people were gung-ho for slamming Saddam. Gore was definitely in the minority in his views.

He was right and YOU were WRONG.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks
Would anyone care to articulate by what metric, indicator, measurement, statistic, poll, or other, how the US is better off in 2009 than it was in 2000?

How about the fact in 2009 that we don't have to look forward to eight years of a simpering idiot in the White House?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks
Would anyone care to articulate by what metric, indicator, measurement, statistic, poll, or other, how the US is better off in 2009 than it was in 2000?

How about the fact in 2009 that we don't have to look forward to eight years of a simpering idiot in the White House?

Obama has been replaced?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks
Would anyone care to articulate by what metric, indicator, measurement, statistic, poll, or other, how the US is better off in 2009 than it was in 2000?

How about the fact in 2009 that we don't have to look forward to eight years of a simpering idiot in the White House?

Yeah - the simpering idiot is in the US Naval Observatory residence now.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Considering we have a new Administration, promising all sorts of change, we sure have a lot of threads about the old Administration and talk radio hosts in this forum. Apparently Obama isn't doing anything which interests anyone.

nice avoidance there... cant you answer the question of the OP?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

After 8 years of Bush, are we better off? Certainly not. Some of our fucked'ness is coincidental, some of it is directly attributable to the man. Will we be better off after 4 years of Obama?

It's not looking good. I know we're only ~6 months in, but the number of mistakes he's managed to squeeze into that time frame doesn't inspire confidence for the next 3.5 years.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: jonks
How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

argumentum ad populum

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: jonks
How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

As long as people *feel* good, everything's OK!

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

After 8 years of Bush, are we better off? Certainly not. Some of our fucked'ness is coincidental, some of it is directly attributable to the man. Will we be better off after 4 years of Obama?

It's not looking good. I know we're only ~6 months in, but the number of mistakes he's managed to squeeze into that time frame doesn't inspire confidence for the next 3.5 years.

No, this thread is not about Mr Obama. Why do some posters bring up Mr Obama in a thread about how people think about the US before he was elected?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

After 8 years of Bush, are we better off? Certainly not. Some of our fucked'ness is coincidental, some of it is directly attributable to the man. Will we be better off after 4 years of Obama?

It's not looking good. I know we're only ~6 months in, but the number of mistakes he's managed to squeeze into that time frame doesn't inspire confidence for the next 3.5 years.

No, this thread is not about Mr Obama. Why do some posters bring up Mr Obama in a thread about how people think about the US before he was elected?

Because the question begs further discussion. Quit getting your panties in such a twist just because people take it in its natural direction :roll: . I answered the question, then I expounded; so what.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Obama, being the smartest person to ever become President surely can overcome these challenges. So far he hasn't shown me he is much different than Bush on foreign policy.. and economically he is making Bush look like a true fiscal conservative. Are we better off after 8 years of Bush? Perhaps not. Are we going to be better in 4 years of Obama? Thats all we should care about now. Its looking like one big ass mistake, America..

I think most of these threads are purposely trying to set expectations low for Obama as they realize is isn't doing much to change things for the better.

You have deftly managed to avoid answering the question at hand, and mock the current President. Kudos to you, Mister Partisan Hack!

Actually.. I did answer it.

Sort of. I guess it would be pretty difficult for someone as dedicated as you to just say "yes, we were better off before Bush" when that might imply that Bush was anything other than a totally awesome dude. But what you said isn't a direct answer to the question of whether or not we were better off before Bush. You just said "maybe we're not better off after his presidency"
When do you plan on running for office? You're already talking the talk