Bush is Least Popular President Ever

[bean]

. . .or at least since they started tracking approval ratings back with Truman.

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15478.html) has a chart showing that President Bush has a 76% disapproval rating, making him even more unpopular than Nixon before he resigned.

[Shadowstorm]

I thought this was common knowledge.

[Ancalagon]

Cant say I'm surprised

[bean]

I thought this was common knowledge.

Well, yes. . . he's been the most unpopular President ever for a long time now. This is only interesting because it is the rating with which he will exit the White House.

[National Kato]

Don't forget: history will redeem him!! :D

[fitbabits]

Don't forget: history will redeem him!! :D
History as taught by evangelical nutjobs, perhaps.

[Schnoogs]

Don't forget: history will redeem him!! :D

There's actual truth to this.

Truman had a similarly low rating but history has been quite kind to him. It's very possible that someday people will look back and realize that Bush had to deal with three major issues....any one of which would have defined a Presidency in and of itself.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Don't forget: history will redeem him!! :D
It's entirely possible if things go very well in Iraq from here on out - remember, Truman is generally considered to have been a fantastic president, but was incredibly unpopular.

I'm not saying it WILL happen, but if what Bush hoped would happen in the middle east does happen, he'll be remembered fairly positively.

edit: Schnoogs, will you list what the three are? I've got 9/11 and Iraq, is your other one Afghanistan?

[Schnoogs]

It's entirely possible if things go very well in Iraq from here on out - remember, Truman is generally considered to have been a fantastic president, but was incredibly unpopular.

I'm not saying it WILL happen, but if what Bush hoped would happen in the middle east does happen, he'll be remembered fairly positively.

edit: Schnoogs, will you list what the three are? I've got 9/11 and Iraq, is your other one Afghanistan?

I got my list of 3 from a CNN article talking about Bush's legacy.

They listed:

9/11
Katrina
Economy

[Rock Bandit]

9/11 - My Pet Goat.

Katrina - Heckuva job Brownie.

Economy - President Barack Obama.

[Schnoogs]

9/11 - My Pet Goat.

Katrina - Heckuva job Brownie.

Economy - President Barack Obama.

My secret decoder ring is broken

[Rock Bandit]

My secret decoder ring is broken

Free form word association coupled with being an ass and shitting on a lame duck.

[Generation ABXY]

Free form word association coupled with being an ass and shitting on a lame duck.

Only slightly related, your comment reminded me of this:
*NEVERMIND*

Also, I tend to think history will redeem Bush...but perhaps not by much.

EDIT: Sorry if that video offended anyone. Looking at the YouTube comments, it would seem some Obama supporters are really up in arms about it. I thought it was just a good-natured ribbing, a la the Jay Leno political debates and interviews we've seen this past year. Guess I was wrong.

[Schnoogs]

Free form word association coupled with being an ass and shitting on a lame duck.

Thanks for playing...please try again!

[Rock Bandit]

Thanks for playing...please try again!

You're an interesting guy Schnoogs.

[Schnoogs]

You're an interesting guy Schnoogs.

If by interesting you mean I prefer people who speak coherently. :p

[JayVe]

The destructive attitude our current administration has had on science, eduction and the arts will be felt for years to come. Policy based on faith instead of facts, smoke-screen legislation, and the cuts to scientific research has set our country back for a generation. We now spend less on scientific research that we did 8 years ago. How are we supposed to remain the world leader if we rest on our laurels and ignore the facts that got us here?

[National Kato]

Kam, that might change if Obama follows through with reversing some of Bush's errors right off the bat. One can...dare I say, hope?

[BlackPete]

Yeah and history has been kind to this guy as well:

http://www.livius.org/a/1/emperors/nero_mus_munchen.JPG

EDIT: Oof, that was a bit bigger than I expected.

[KingGorilla]

I was hating Bush long before it got cool.

[Rock Bandit]

If by interesting you mean I prefer people who speak coherently. :p

Fair enough:


9/11 - When I think of Bush and 9/11 I think of his failed promise to relentlessy hunt down those responsible. Instead of pursuing the dissolution of the Taliban and the capture of Osama Bin Laden he divided our toops and recources off into Iraq. He put his idealogy of establishing democracy in the Middle East as a way to battle extremist Islam over the immediate goal of finishing the job in Afghanistan. As he leaves office we find a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and hope of seeing Bin Laden brought to justice all but nil.

I thus summed up my view of his failure there with My Pet Goat, the book he was reading to some kids when he was informed of the first plane hitting. I'm sure we all remember his deer-in-the-headlights look, completely lost as the seconds ticked by, and then resuming to read the book. That's my view on Bush on 9/11 and it's aftermath, a man who was way over his head and not up to facing the task before him.

Katrina - The government's handling of Katrina was atrocious, going way beyond the usual "the goverment couldn't scratch it's own ass if you gave it a road map" crap we get from them. Days went by with no relief and the situation just kept going from bad to worse to GODDAMN! As bloated bodies float down the flooded streets and stranded people scream for help from their rooftops our president flashes a big thumbs up and tells FEMA director Michael Brown "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie." Brown resigned 10 days after this statement.

Economy - Short and sweet; Bush letting the economy slide into the gutter on his watch all but guaranteed an Obama victory in the last couple months of the campaign.

But that's just my opinion, and I vehemently despise all politicians so maybe I'm more bitter than most.

[JayVe]

Kam, that might change if Obama follows through with reversing some of Bush's errors right off the bat. One can...dare I say, hope?

Hope so, but a generation of kids (and college students!) have grown up listening to baseless arguments that are contrary to the scientific process. Our nation's PATHETIC stance on global climate change is deplorable, cherry-picking 'evidence' in a successful attempt to cloud real facts. The same can be said about their closed-minded approach to stem-cell research, causing many of our nation's top biologists to flee to other countries in order to continue real research. Then there's the whole teen pregnancy issue, and the administration's narrow-minded approach that abstinence is the ONLY answer instead of being part of a broad solution.

I had a recent college graduate tell me that global warming is a lie. Why? Cause it wasn't very hot this past summer where he lived. :confused:

*boggle*

Edit: Not only that, but our stance on climate change for the past 8 years means there are 8 years of MORE greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, since we didn't start curbing emissions years ago, now we need to make bigger cuts, faster. Keeping your head in the sand is a terrible government policy.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Economy - Short and sweet; Bush letting the economy slide into the gutter on his watch all but guaranteed an Obama victory in the last couple months of the campaign.

Bush did a lot of things that undoubtedly strengthened the economy - increasing the deficit actually almost undoubtedly makes the economy stronger, he cut taxes, and increased government spending - and there is almost nothing about what he did that was related to the recent disaster.

[Re3x]

The destructive attitude our current administration has had on science, eduction and the arts will be felt for years to come. Policy based on faith instead of facts, smoke-screen legislation, and the cuts to scientific research has set our country back for a generation. We now spend less on scientific research that we did 8 years ago. How are we supposed to remain the world leader if we rest on our laurels and ignore the facts that got us here?


Scientific research? Like stem cell research?

[JRR006]

One of my deepest regrets about having a finite lifespan is I won't get to see what historians are saying about Bush in 200 years. Maybe some things will play out completely unexpectedly and there will be praise for him, or maybe he'll be vilified now and forever.

[Rock Bandit]

Bush did a lot of things that undoubtedly strengthened the economy - increasing the deficit actually almost undoubtedly makes the economy stronger, he cut taxes, and increased government spending - and there is almost nothing about what he did that was related to the recent disaster.

So....he went from a surplus to a massive deficit and ferociously spent more than he was bringing in.....for the good of the economy? Forgive me if I raise a quizical eyebrow.

[JayVe]

Scientific research? Like stem cell research?

You got it.

Recent Pew survey results point to Americans in favor of NOT cutting spending money on scientific research (http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/few-americans-say-they-would-decrease-spending-scientific-research).

Hell, Bush cut the damn space program! How are we supposed to progress when we can't keep our people healthy and shoot for a better tomorrow?

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Yet our leaders seem intent on creating war anywhere possible, even unwinnable, vapor-wars like the War on Terror.

[JayVe]

Here is an excellent article on the pathetic state of science in our country (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/379857_mcfeatters20.html).

Some choice quotes:

we spend less than $4 billion a year on clean energy R&D, less than the bill for three days worth of imported oil, less than 2 percent in today's dollars of the total cost of the Apollo program. Yet our thirst for oil -- 21 million barrels a day -- clearly threatens our national and financial security.

In the 1970s, gas lines and oil prices scared us, and our government pledged action, long forgotten. We spend 50 percent less on energy R&D than we did then.

Let us insist that Obama and McCain tell us why we should go into more debt for $300 billion to bail out mismanaged companies but won't spend $12 billion to secure our country's future.

[TheFlyingOrc]

So....he went from a surplus to a massive deficit and ferociously spent more than he was bringing in.....for the good of the economy? Forgive me if I raise a quizical eyebrow.
Because that's how deficits work.

The government wants to fund project X, so it borrows 1 million dollars, let's say through government bonds - you'll get 10% back on your invested money in 5 years. It sounds like a sweet deal to you!

Let's say inflation is at 2.5% over the next 5 years. 1.025^5 = 1.1314. So, in our hypothetical 2013, the government owes 1.1 million dollars, but each dollar is now worth 1/1.1314 dollars. Multiply that by the 1.1 that the government owes, and you get 977K, LESS than the amount the government originally borrowed. In effect, the government MADE money off their deficit during those years.

Deficits, if not overly large as compared to GDP, are a good thing.

[Rock Bandit]

Because that's how deficits work.

The government wants to fund project X, so it borrows 1 million dollars, let's say through government bonds - you'll get 10% back on your invested money in 5 years. It sounds like a sweet deal to you!

Let's say inflation is at 2.5% over the next 5 years. 1.025^5 = 1.1314. So, in our hypothetical 2013, the government owes 1.1 million dollars, but each dollar is now worth 1/1.1314 dollars. Multiply that by the 1.1 that the government owes, and you get 977K, LESS than the amount the government originally borrowed. In effect, the government MADE money off their deficit during those years.

Deficits, if not overly large as compared to GDP, are a good thing.

Interesting. How does our current deficit compare to the current GDP (if you don't mind me picking your brain)?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Interesting. How does our current deficit compare to the current GDP (if you don't mind me picking your brain)?

Let me find my chart. I'm pretty much quoting a very smart economist, I'm not very good myself. Perhaps I should BECOME good.

edit: Looks like about 70% of GDP is debt. I know this guy has a chart somewhere on his website showing percentage for like the last century. Give me a bit.

[Ancalagon]

Because that's how deficits work.

The government wants to fund project X, so it borrows 1 million dollars, let's say through government bonds - you'll get 10% back on your invested money in 5 years. It sounds like a sweet deal to you!

Let's say inflation is at 2.5% over the next 5 years. 1.025^5 = 1.1314. So, in our hypothetical 2013, the government owes 1.1 million dollars, but each dollar is now worth 1/1.1314 dollars. Multiply that by the 1.1 that the government owes, and you get 977K, LESS than the amount the government originally borrowed. In effect, the government MADE money off their deficit during those years.

Deficits, if not overly large as compared to GDP, are a good thing.

Okay, I dont understand much about government bonds, but wouldnt the interest rates be specified annually instead of over the whole life of the bond? I mean, if it really was as cut and dry as you say, no investor with access to a calculator would take out bonds, yet clearly they do.

Also, he cut taxes mostly for the rich, and I think we've all heard how much of a failure trickle down economics is, because funnily enough, capitalism doesnt reward people being nice, it rewards people being greedy.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Also, he cut taxes mostly for the rich, and I think we've all heard how much of a failure trickle down economics is, because funnily enough, capitalism doesnt reward people being nice, it rewards people being greedy.
No, we really haven't. My understanding is that economists are fairly divided on how well "trickle down" works. Trickle down is not based on the idea of charity, it's based on the idea that if the rich spend more the general economy improves meaning everyone benefits. It has never depended on kindness, and I'm confused why you think it does.

BTW, I don't specifically defend trickle down, because I know this stuff is, for the most part, out of my league.

[Ancalagon]

No, we really haven't. My understanding is that economists are fairly divided on how well "trickle down" works. Trickle down is not based on the idea of charity, it's based on the idea that if the rich spend more the general economy improves meaning everyone benefits. It has never depended on kindness, and I'm confused why you think it does.

BTW, I don't specifically defend trickle down, because I know this stuff is, for the most part, out of my league.

Well, as far as I understand it, the American economy was tanking even before the mortgage crisis, and the wage gap was increasing year on year. The mortgage crisis, as far as I understand, was a separate and unrelated crisis that would have eventually happened when banks started to realize the debt they had bought was worthless (roughly correct in a nutshell?), whether or not the economy was tanking.

As for trickle down.... it relies on the premise of rich people spending the extra cash they have in the USA. I think thats an entirely unrealistic premise, for several reasons.

1. the more money you have, the more you can do with it, and the greater the likelihood that at least some of it will go overseas. If you are a factory worker, and you now have $100 extra, I can guess fairly reliably that money isnt leaving the country.
2. Corporations aim to reduce expenses - if their expenses are reduced for them, they wont spend that money somewhere else unless it will result in a net increase in revenue. ie, just because you have money, doesnt mean you will spend it. It also does nothing to stop outsourcing to foreign countries.

#1, I think, is the much stronger point. No matter how you slice it, if you give money to poor folk, it (generally) gets spent locally, benefitting local industry. The same cant reliably be said of a tax cut to businesses.

[JayVe]

1. the more money you have, the more you can do with it, and the greater the likelihood that at least some of it will go overseas. If you are a factory worker, and you now have $100 extra, I can guess fairly reliably that money isnt leaving the country.
2. Corporations aim to reduce expenses - if their expenses are reduced for them, they wont spend that money somewhere else unless it will result in a net increase in revenue. ie, just because you have money, doesnt mean you will spend it. It also does nothing to stop outsourcing to foreign countries.
You got it! In a small, enclosed bubble where every dollar spent goes back to the American people, trickle-down economics may work. in a global economy, it is senseless since your wealthy people are funneling money overseas, where things are cheaper. This leaves the Americans that are supposed to have money trickle down to them, are left in a lurch.

[TheFlyingOrc]

So, I couldn't for the life of me find the chart I remember seeing (I like optimist123.com - found it on accident, and the guy really seems to know his economics), but found a blurb where he stated that publicly held debt was like 120% of GDP after WW2.

At the very least, we shouldn't be concerned about the DOLLAR value of the debt increasing, as that's a moving target from year to year. As long as our GDP grows very steadily, our debt can grow steadily, too. In 2007 and early 2008, before the first shockwaves of this mortgage crisis hit, debt was actually decreasing as a percentage of GDP.

@ancalagon - the points you make are why I won't flat out defend it, although if you make it VERY easy for businesses to make money, you'll see more people making businesses, which then makes for more jobs, which then makes for more money. Remember, all businesses aren't Exxon or Microsoft.

[Schnoogs]

Also, he cut taxes mostly for the rich, and I think we've all heard how much of a failure trickle down economics is, because funnily enough, capitalism doesnt reward people being nice, it rewards people being greedy.

Instead of talking about cliches perhaps maybe you should explain why rich people should be taxed at a higher rate to begin with.

People always make tax breaks for the rich sound like they're only paying 1% while I'm paying 40%. In many cases the tax breaks for the rich simply put them in line with everyone else.

[bapenguin]

The most interesting thing about that chart is - for the most part everyone thinks the president (past and present) can do a better job than he's doing.

[LongStepMantis]

Instead of talking about cliches perhaps maybe you should explain why rich people should be taxed at a higher rate to begin with.

People always make tax breaks for the rich sound like they're only paying 1% while I'm paying 40%. In many cases the tax breaks for the rich simply put them in line with everyone else.

I say we just eat the rich. We can them claim all of their assets on top of gaining the powers they had in life. ;)

[Schnoogs]

I say we just eat the rich. We can them claim all of their assets on top of gaining the powers they had in life. ;)

I think the price of admission should be the same for everyone...if the government wants 30 cents on the dollar then that should be the same for everyone. They can think of other ways of raising money OR....GASP...they can lower their budget. :cool:

[Re3x]

You got it.

Recent Pew survey results point to Americans in favor of NOT cutting spending money on scientific research (http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/few-americans-say-they-would-decrease-spending-scientific-research).

Hell, Bush cut the damn space program! How are we supposed to progress when we can't keep our people healthy and shoot for a better tomorrow?


Yet our leaders seem intent on creating war anywhere possible, even unwinnable, vapor-wars like the War on Terror.


The problem with the stem cell issue is that Bush did not want to fund it. It's not a ban on the research. Kerry ran hard on stem cell research and promised money if elected, which actually turned out to be less money than what the State of California gave away in Prop 71 wich passed in 2004.

I dont see it as losing a generation of research or good health. Anyone can pursue the research of embyonic stems cells.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Instead of talking about cliches perhaps maybe you should explain why rich people should be taxed at a higher rate to begin with.

People always make tax breaks for the rich sound like they're only paying 1% while I'm paying 40%. In many cases the tax breaks for the rich simply put them in line with everyone else.

Right. Although I am not against a graduated tax plan of some sort, this doesn't mean it is always right to increase the tax burden on the rich - they're already being taxed at a higher rate, and we really need to say as a country "this is what's fair", rather than just always assuming we can hike taxes on the rich.

[ShivaX]

Technically Bush is the least popular president since they've been recording it. Unless I'm mistaken that started with Truman, so that leaves out some major hitters.

Hoover surely did worse and I think Grant could probably beat or at least tie him.

Edit: It says Gallup started the poll in 1938, so it started with FDR then, still missing Hoover.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The problem with the stem cell issue is that Bush did not want to fund it. It's not a ban on the research. Kerry ran hard on stem cell research and promised money if elected, which actually turned out to be less money than what the State of California gave away in Prop 71 wich passed in 2004.

I dont see it as losing a generation of research or good health. Anyone can pursue the research of embyonic stems cells.

People come to the government for grants because they can't find people to fund them in the private sector. This is crazy, because Infinium Labs, maker of the coming out someday Phantom video game console, have gotten investors 3 times, and their product is stupid.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think Grant could probably beat or at least tie him.
The real question is which of the two could win a drinking contest.

[ShivaX]

The real question is which of the two could win a drinking contest.

I think Grant, but I always vote for the dude with the beard in those situations.

[Rock Bandit]

Clinton 54% Sept. 1994

Weird, why's Clinton's date 1994 and not the end of his term in 2000?


Also;

Eisenhower 36% March 1958

Ha, I guess "I Like Ike" was more than just a campaign slogan. Thank you, a little '50s humor for you there.

[Ancalagon]

Instead of talking about cliches perhaps maybe you should explain why rich people should be taxed at a higher rate to begin with.

People always make tax breaks for the rich sound like they're only paying 1% while I'm paying 40%. In many cases the tax breaks for the rich simply put them in line with everyone else.

Even after Bush's tax cuts, businesses and rich people still pay more tax than poor people. I just have a problem that the people who least need a cut, were given one.

But since you ask, I think that progressive tax cuts are a necessary evil. The thing is, the government needs money, a lot of it. They cant possibly reduce spending enough to have a low, standard tax rate. If you want a one size fits all tax rate, for the government to get the money it needs to work, it needs to raise taxes for poor people. Simply put, they cant afford it, but rich people can.

Is that socialist? Probably. But no society is purely capitalist or purely socialist, as I said, you guys already have a progressive tax system. You also have social security etc. Its the best of a whole bunch of crappy solutions to the problem of how to tax people.

[sparkfizt]

@ancalagon - the points you make are why I won't flat out defend it, although if you make it VERY easy for businesses to make money, you'll see more people making businesses, which then makes for more jobs, which then makes for more money. Remember, all businesses aren't Exxon or Microsoft.


It's almost like people work for corporations.... and as you raise their taxes you reduce their operating capital. Raise them too much and they'll leave to countries that are tax havens. The other side of that coin is if your corporate taxes are low enough you'll encourage successfull business to leave their home countries.

I'm always saddened by the inevitable class warfare. I intend to work myself to success and hold onto what I earn because damnit, I worked for it. It's always annoying when I bust my ass to make a project successful and end up getting a bonus. Because when I look at the bonus a good 30ish% of it goes poof right off the top.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Because when I look at the bonus a good 30ish% it goes poof right off the top.
Maybe you should stop looking at it.

[sparkfizt]

Maybe you should stop looking at it.

schrodinger's bonus check? If I dont observe it it will be in a state of untaxed/taxed flux? And only by observing it does it actually manifest?

hmmmmmm......

[TheFlyingOrc]

schrodinger's bonus check? If I dont observe it it will be in a state of untaxed/taxed flux? And only by observing it does it actually manifest?

hmmmmmm......

Give it to me, and tell them that your name was changed to "CASH".

[muddi900]

No, we really haven't. My understanding is that economists are fairly divided on how well "trickle down" works. Trickle down is not based on the idea of charity, it's based on the idea that if the rich spend more the general economy improves meaning everyone benefits. It has never depended on kindness, and I'm confused why you think it does.

BTW, I don't specifically defend trickle down, because I know this stuff is, for the most part, out of my league.

The Trickle down theory was a joke when 19th century pseudo-nihilists Europeans were championing it. No matter what rhetoric the proponents of the theory present, I can tell you by personal experience that it doesn't work.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The Trickle down theory was a joke when 19th century pseudo-nihilists Europeans were championing it. No matter what rhetoric the proponents of the theory present, I can tell you by personal experience that it doesn't work.
Personal experience is absolutely the least relevant thing to the discussion. I can say that I'm doing fine, so trickle down must be effective. The only way to understand these things is to watch economies, and economists heavily disagree on these points.

[Ox]

As for trickle down.... it relies on the premise of rich people spending the extra cash they have in the USA.
Not really. I suppose if you conceive of "abroad" as a black hole where money goes and never comes back, that maybe makes sense. In truth, most economists today recognize that nations with a reasonable level of trade -- including the US -- are parts of a broader world economy. What happens here affects Germany, which affects Brazil, which affects Japan, which affects here.

1. the more money you have, the more you can do with it, and the greater the likelihood that at least some of it will go overseas. If you are a factory worker, and you now have $100 extra, I can guess fairly reliably that money isnt leaving the country.
Factory workers never buy Toyotas, t-shirts, or Tonka trucks for the kids?

2. Corporations aim to reduce expenses - if their expenses are reduced for them, they wont spend that money somewhere else unless it will result in a net increase in revenue.
Actually competitive firms they try to maximize profit. But if the tax burden is lower, then more marginal investments will generate profit, no? A factory that would cost $100 billion a year and generate $110 billion in revenue might not be worth it if that revenue is taxed. But if it's not, then the factory will generate a reliable stream of profit.

It also does nothing to stop outsourcing to foreign countries.
Actually, rich people tend to buy things that require a fair amount of skill to make: art, for example, or fine food. They also buy stuff that requires local staff: massages, say. Poorer people tend to buy manufactured goods which can cheaply be made abroad. I don't think you can draw a clear distinction between rich and poor in terms of who does more to encourage offshoring.

What's odd is that people who talk about "trickle-down" economics (a political pejorative, not an actual theory) want to go back to a 1950s-style economy of fast growth, good wages, and lots of manufacturing. But the only reason we had a 1950s-style economy is because we were pretty much the only industrialized country in existence: we bombed the shit out of Japan and Europe in the Second World War, so every car, fridge, airplane, toaster, t-shirt, and every other manufactured good anyone on Earth wanted to buy had to be made in the USA. I suppose we could have an economic plan of blowing up the world again, but short of that, we have to conceive of foreigners not as foes but as fellow participants in the world economy. Part of that means not viewing offshoring as tantamount to treason, but instead the same thing as a business moving from New York City to Newark to save money.

[JayVe]

Rich people don't buy Mercedes?

Bet the German economy loves American trickle-down economics. ;)

[Ox]

Sure they do. Both rich and poor buy imported goods. What's interesting is that this isn't an exclusively American phenomenon: rich and poor people all over the world buy a surprising fraction of their goods from abroad, either directly or by purchasing products that are partly produced with foreign labor or materials.

What that means is that, if a rich person buys a Mercedes, that money doesn't disappear into the ether: the German line worker who built that Mercedes will take some of his wages and go watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster, eat a burger made with American wheat and beef, and drive home in a Ford.

EDIT: In this respect, all the talk of "competition" and "competitiveness" is misplaced. World trade isn't a competition. It's not a zero-sum game. We're all better off.

[Ancalagon]

This is a good read on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on)

It seems that, while he kept the country out of recession, its growth slowed, and the income inequality worsened considerably.

[TheFlyingOrc]

It seems that, while he kept the country out of recession, its growth slowed, and the income inequality worsened considerably.
Income can be as unequal as you want, as long as the problem is the rich getting richer, not the poor getting poorer. Last I looked, the poor are, on average and accounting for inflation, about 1% better than they were when he took office. The rich just got richer faster than the poor did.

[Ox]

It also seems he damaged the economies of Japan, Canada, and the European Union even more than he did ours. Does Bush's iniquity know no end?

[National Kato]

I had a recent college graduate tell me that global warming is a lie. Why? Cause it wasn't very hot this past summer where he lived. :confused:

*boggle*

Hell, we had that type of reasoning in the old EvAv threads on climate change. People like to hold tight to the NIMBY world view.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Hell, we had that type of reasoning in the old EvAv threads on climate change. People like to hold tight to the NIMBY world view.
Unfortunately, I've also seen it used by idiots on the other side of the argument "It rained a lot more this summer, there must be global warming!"

I'm definitely a global warming skeptic (skeptic, not denialist), and it's frustrating to me that many people in the majority position do not want to recognize that a large number of legitimate scientists do not agree with the IPCC's position on climate change, even if they're not the majority.

[bean]

There's actual truth to this.

Truman had a similarly low rating but history has been quite kind to him. It's very possible that someday people will look back and realize that Bush had to deal with three major issues....any one of which would have defined a Presidency in and of itself.

I think that history will show that he had more scandals and incompetency in his administration than any other. It will be interesting to read books by Bush administration insiders once his term is over to see what was actually going on. Clinton may have gotten a blowjob and lied about it, but I prefer that to a President that is responsible for Katrina, Halliburton corruption, Abu Ghraib and the support of torture, 9/11 intelligence failures, HHS Scully scanda and deceptive ad campaigns, firing of federal attorneys due to their political agendas and their replacement by conservative graduates of an evangelical school who subsequently faced many ethics charges, mounting national debt coupled with tax relief for the wealthy, skewed and/or suppressed scientific research (particularly in regards to alternative energy), promotion of key White House administrators after they are found incompetent, anti-terrorism boondoggle, etc. etc.

It is a credit to our nation that despite having an administration so self-serving and incompetent, we are still in a recoverable position.

[Schnoogs]

but I prefer that to a President that is responsible for Katrina

Karl Rove and that damn weather making machine...oh well...they can always try to wipe out the black population some other day.

Hopefully history will look back and see failures at the Mayor, Governor and Federal level before it points the finger at Bush. I like how Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco and FEMA can completely drop the ball yet still come out smelling like roses...clearly it was Bush's fault. Those other levels of government are just for show including a department whose soul purpose is to to respond to such incidents.

[TheFlyingOrc]

President that is responsible for Katrina
Bush controls the weather, news at 10.

Halliburton corruption
And apparently the internal workings of a single company. Unless you're referring to the ludicrous "Cheney worked there and the government hired them for stuff = corruption".

9/11 intelligence failures
How is that not someone else's fault?

firing of federal attorneys due to their political agendas and their replacement by conservative graduates of an evangelical school who subsequently faced many ethics charges
Unethical because...?

mounting national debt coupled with tax relief for the wealthy
National debt is not a problem, I'm sorry rich people have more money. This is a fiscal policy, not a scandal.

Some of the other things you quote are reasonable accusations, but you're just mad because he represented the opposition's mindset through most of this.

[bean]

Instead of talking about cliches perhaps maybe you should explain why rich people should be taxed at a higher rate to begin with.

People always make tax breaks for the rich sound like they're only paying 1% while I'm paying 40%. In many cases the tax breaks for the rich simply put them in line with everyone else.

The reason that the wealthy should be taxed more than normal people is that the incredibly wealthy have ownership of companies (partial or complete) and thus are served more by our country. National security, economic stability, education, and public health benefit everyone, but they create a profitable environment for the wealthy. You cannot run a business selling high-priced lattes or luxury automobiles if people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

That is a moral argument. . . that it is fair for people to benefit from government most to pay more for that government than those who benefit from it less. However, there is also an economic argument.

Taxing the rich and having that money reinvested either by lowered taxes for the other 98% of the nation or increased social spending redistributes money that is often cached away in stocks, bank accounts, and trust funds so that it is injected back into the economy. While there are many wealthy people who continuously spend their money by expanding their businesses or buying luxuries, there are also very many extremely wealthy people who are already so invested in their corporation and others through stocks that merely managing their ever-accumulating wealth is so big a job that they must hire accounting firms to handle it. Injecting this money back into the economy allows more people to buy goods and services which helps create jobs.

[Ancalagon]

Unfortunately, I've also seen it used by idiots on the other side of the argument "It rained a lot more this summer, there must be global warming!"

I'm definitely a global warming skeptic (skeptic, not denialist), and it's frustrating to me that many people in the majority position do not want to recognize that a large number of legitimate scientists do not agree with the IPCC's position on climate change, even if they're not the majority.

I think National Kato's statement was more against poor scientific reasoning than against global warming. He was just using it as an example.

Myself.... I think global warming is mostly a scapegoat. I think its fairly obvious that destroying natural habitats and polluting the atmosphere is a bad idea, whatever your position on AGW. Just look at what they had to do for the Beijing Olympics to get the air there breathable, thats just air pollution.

[Schnoogs]

The reason that the wealthy should be taxed more than normal people is that the incredibly wealthy have ownership of companies (partial or complete) and thus are served more by our country. National security, economic stability, education, and public health benefit everyone, but they create a profitable environment for the wealthy. You cannot run a business selling high-priced lattes or luxury automobiles if people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

That is a moral argument. . . that it is fair for people to benefit from government most to pay more for that government than those who benefit from it less. However, there is also an economic argument.

Taxing the rich and having that money reinvested either by lowered taxes for the other 98% of the nation or increased social spending redistributes money that is often cached away in stocks, bank accounts, and trust funds so that it is injected back into the economy. While there are many wealthy people who continuously spend their money by expanding their businesses or buying luxuries, there are also very many extremely wealthy people who are already so invested in their corporation and others through stocks that merely managing their ever-accumulating wealth is so big a job that they must hire accounting firms to handle it. Injecting this money back into the economy allows more people to buy goods and services which helps create jobs.

There are so many falacies in this post I don't even know where to begin.

Then again you're the guy who described socialism as "a government where people help each other".

I've learned my lesson...not even gonna waste my time with you on this one. If I want cliched responses from the leftwing handbook I'll just go and buy the book (or wait for Obama to issue me one)

[bean]

Hopefully history will look back and see failures at the Mayor, Governor and Federal level before it points the finger at Bush. I like how Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco and FEMA can completely drop the ball yet still come out smelling like roses...clearly it was Bush's fault. Those other levels of government are just for show including a department whose soul purpose is to to respond to such incidents.

The President is held responsible for making certain his administration (including the National Guard and FEMA) handles natural disasters. Other persons who handled the disaster poorly should also be held accountable, but President Bush is absolutely responsible for the incompetence of the members of his administration just as any other president is responsible for the executive branch.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Taxing the rich and having that money reinvested either by lowered taxes for the other 98% of the nation or increased social spending redistributes money that is often cached away in stocks, bank accounts, and trust funds so that it is injected back into the economy.
Stocks and banks use the money you put in them to do stuff. That 20 dollars you invested in company X bought them paper which went straight to Dunder Mifflin's pockets.

[Schnoogs]

The President is held responsible for making certain his administration (including the National Guard and FEMA) handles natural disasters. Other persons who handled the disaster poorly should also be held accountable, but President Bush is absolutely responsible for the incompetence of the members of his administration just as any other president is responsible for the executive branch.

Noone is saying he shouldn't be held accountable at some level...it just gets nauseating reading posts like yours where he not only gets the soul blame of the response but also gets the blame for the storm itself.

The only reason you're even acknowledging that the mayor, governor and FEMA dropped the ball is because I called you out on it.

You were hoping your Anti-Bush cliché's would go unchecked.

[bean]

There are so many falacies in this post I don't even know where to begin.
Really? Name one. If you can manage to discredit my logic, I'll actually grow from it.

Then again you're the guy who described socialism as "a government where people help each other". I've learned my lesson...not even gonna waste my time with you on this one.

Is that what I said, or was I talking about the basic principles of different types of government but then going on to talk about how, in practice, they are not ultimately successful?

Why do you retreat into childish behavior like this when you are incapable or too lazy to create an on topic argument? This is immature, but it is also feeble, because I'm not bothered by your failure to comprehend a years-old discussion. I ask this because while you are not as sharp as Oxonian, you do seem to actually have a brain and I'm interested in what intelligent people with opposing opinions have to say. Thus I'm disappointed every time you retreat into childishness.

[Ancalagon]

Unethical because...?


Separation of powers, quite simply.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Separation of powers, quite simply.
I can see the argument, but Bush technically had full authority to fire them for any reason. It might have been kinda skeezy, but he didn't do anything even close to illegal or even in the neighborhood of impeachable.

[bean]

Noone is saying he shouldn't be held accountable at some level...it just gets nauseating reading posts like yours where he not only gets the soul blame of the response but also gets the blame for the storm itself.

The only reason you're even acknowledging that the mayor, governor and FEMA dropped the ball is because I called you out on it.

You were hoping your Anti-Bush cliché's would go unchecked.

1. You know I did not blame him for a hurricane. That was your own childish assumption meant to belittle my argument, and thus was ignored (after I chuckled at it. . . it is a funny false assumption and I thought you meant it as a joke; not an actual argument).

2. I did not mention the incompetence of local and state officials because I was only talking about Bush's responsibility for FEMA and the National Guard. My other examples are about the incompetence of poor ethics of his administration more often than Bush himself too, but he is responsible for his administration and his policies.

[Schnoogs]

Really? Name one. If you can manage to discredit my logic, I'll actually grow from it..

Your first sentence...way to trip out of the gate.

I like how the wealthy all own corporations. :p

[Schnoogs]

1. You know I did not blame him for a hurricane. .

Oh really?

President that is responsible for Katrina.

Wow...that was easy. :cool:

[Ox]

Taxing the rich and having that money reinvested either by lowered taxes for the other 98% of the nation or increased social spending redistributes money that is often cached away in stocks, bank accounts, and trust funds so that it is injected back into the economy. While there are many wealthy people who continuously spend their money by expanding their businesses or buying luxuries, there are also very many extremely wealthy people who are already so invested in their corporation and others through stocks that merely managing their ever-accumulating wealth is so big a job that they must hire accounting firms to handle it. Injecting this money back into the economy allows more people to buy goods and services which helps create jobs.
This is exactly the argument used by Eugene V. Debs, who was a (no joke, no insult) socialist. Moreover, it's kind of facially ridiculous. How exactly do those accounting firms the idle rich hire handle the massive trust funds (which are a lot less common than you think)? Do they stuff the money under mattresses?

No, they do not. They take that money and use it to purchase stock and bond issues by private corporations. You might be familiar with this process under the name "investment." You can pretend that money is simply sequestered in a Scrooge McDuck Swimming Pool O' Cash, but that doesn't make it true.

[Schnoogs]

This is exactly the argument used by Eugene V. Debs, who was a (no joke, no insult) socialist. Moreover, it's kind of facially ridiculous. How exactly do those accounting firms the idle rich hire handle the massive trust funds (which are a lot less common than you think)? Do they stuff the money under mattresses?

No, they do not. They take that money and use it to purchase stock and bond issues by private corporations. You might be familiar with this process under the name "investment." You can pretend that money is simply sequestered in a Scrooge McDuck Swimming Pool O' Cash, but that doesn't make it true.

Ox for the win

[TheFlyingOrc]

No, they do not. They take that money and use it to purchase stock and bond issues by private corporations. You might be familiar with this process under the name "investment." You can pretend that money is simply sequestered in a Scrooge McDuck Swimming Pool O' Cash, but that doesn't make it true.
I missed an opportunity to reference Scrooge McDuck. Welp, Sepeku time,

[Dorkandproudofit]

I missed an opportunity to reference Scrooge McDuck. Welp, Sepeku time,

You mean "seppuku", don't you? :D

[sparkfizt]

You mean "seppuku", don't you? :D

with a frisbee!

[TheFlyingOrc]

You mean "seppuku", don't you? :D

Firefox does not help me spell in Japanese and I'm lazy.

[bean]

No, they do not. They take that money and use it to purchase stock and bond issues by private corporations. You might be familiar with this process under the name "investment." You can pretend that money is simply sequestered in a Scrooge McDuck Swimming Pool O' Cash, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm well aware of how invested funds can create new growth. This is the concept of trickle-down economics. . . more money to the wealthy should increase the growth of industry and thus create jobs that result in more money for consumers to spend. Likewise, "trickle up" economics gives more money to consumers which creates more spending for goods and services which creates profits for the wealthy and increases growth of industry.

There is some truth in both models, but because most of us aren't willing to read pages and pages of explanations of both models, I used simple terms to talk about one model. . . an inadequate answer.

So, if you aren't willing to read pages and pages of studies by economists promoting one theory or the other (and I am not), then you might simply look at economic results. For whatever reason, "trickle up" economics seems to increase our nation's economic stability while "trickle down" decreases it. I've been shown those numbers, and because I've only had one course in economics and thus I clearly do not have the doctorate I would need to make a truly comprehensive (and debatable) explanation about why this economic model is more beneficial, I simply go with what works and leave the "why" to the professors.

[Schnoogs]

Am I the only one that gets a huge kick out of his posts? It's the fact that not only does he take himself way too seriously but he expects us to as well.

[Ox]

For whatever reason, "trickle up" economics seems to increase our nation's economic stability while "trickle down" decreases it.
I don't know who showed you the "numbers" to which you refer, but I think he or she may have cherry-picked them. It's certainly true that Keynesian demand-side stimulus through funding low-income groups with a low MPS tends to create more Keynesian cycling than similar stimulus to high-income groups with a relatively high MPS. As a mirror image of that, investment tends to rise more when government deficits are targeted toward groups with a high MPS.

Whether this creates more or less "stability," however, is highly dependent on the situation. If nothing else, our 20th-century fascination with chasing the Philips curve should tell us that. I note, for example, that you do not discuss the influence of inflation on this issue. That's somewhat understandable since many Americans have never lived in a time of significant inflationary concerns, but you can't look at fiscal policy in a vacuum any more than you can any other aspect of economic policy. Excessive demand-driven growth without regard for inflation will inevitably bring harsh monetary-policy repercussions, which will serve to thwart the growth sought for in the first place. This is particularly true where, as has been true up to recently, the economy is also suffering an energy-price supply shock.

[bean]

Ox, you clearly know more about economics than I do. I'm not prepared to debate you on this, but I also know too little to simply agree with you. Perhaps someday I'll learn enough to form an opinion that I can support, but you've convinced me that I don't know enough to trust either side's opinion on which is the superior economic model.

Am I the only one that gets a huge kick out of his posts? It's the fact that not only does he take himself way too seriously but he expects us to as well.

Again, why retreat into childish behavior Schnoogs? You have demonstrated that you have a brain when you choose to use it. I'm not sure when I'm supposed to take you seriously or not. . . for instance, I assumed you were making a joke when you preposterously stated that I faulted President Bush for creating the destructive hurricane Katrina, but then you repeated this as support for your argument in your next post as if it wasn't a joke and you really believed someone blamed Bush for weather.

[Schnoogs]

Again, why retreat into childish behavior Schnoogs? You have demonstrated that you have a brain when you choose to use it.

Calling it childish is meaningless.

[bean]

Calling it childish is meaningless.

My parents taught me that calling people names and dismissing them when I'm too lazy to convince or correct them is rude and childish. You must have been taught a different set of "right and wrong".

[Ox]

Ox, you clearly know more about economics than I do. I'm not prepared to debate you on this, but I also know too little to simply agree with you.
That is a totally reasonable response. The last thing I wish to suggest is that people should agree with me simply because I'm a fast talker.

They should agree with me because I'm very handsome. :)

Perhaps someday I'll learn enough to form an opinion that I can support, but you've convinced me that I don't know enough to trust either side's opinion on which is the superior economic model.
My point is that neither is the superior economic model. There are situations in which a demand deficit can best be solved with a demand-side stimulus like an increase in EITC. There are times when the situation requires a tax cut heavily weighted toward the rich. People who insist that one or the other is always and everywhere the right solution are ideologues who are trying to manipulate the science of economics for partisan gain. You wouldn't trust a doctor who prescribed the same drug for every ailment or a general who used the same tactic in every battle; why trust a politician who thinks the same economic policy is always the right answer?

[Schnoogs]

My parents taught me that calling people names and dismissing them when I'm too lazy to convince or correct them is rude and childish. You must have been taught a different set of "right and wrong".

In my house hold that's called efficiency.

[JayVe]

In my house hold that's called efficiency.

In my house, it is called being a douche. ;)

We have a rule in our house. Anyone that can't form an argument, loses. The first person to say "nuh-uhh", gets an instant fail. Boy, they got rid of that whining REAL QUICK!

Better than the rule in my Uncle's house... where the youngest was always right no matter WHAT logic or reasoning said.

[MagGnome]

I was hating Bush long before it got cool.

I knew things would be bad the moment he took office. I just had no idea how bad things could get.

I wanted to add that JayVe's posts in this thread have been nearly spot-on. I really couldn't agree more.

Edit - After reading a bit further I should clarify that my post was in reference to the first page of the thread. I'm not getting involved in the whole argument. :p

[MagGnome]

I finished reading the thread.

As usual, Ox comes in and makes me feel as if he's wearing big-boy pants while I'm still sporting underoos. :p

[JayVe]

I wanted to add that JayVe's posts in this thread have been nearly spot-on. I really couldn't agree more.Aww. I'm all warm and glowy. :o

[MagGnome]

Aww. I'm all warm and glowy. :o

I kept nodding in agreement as I read your posts, so I figured some accolades were in order.

[Schnoogs]

In my house, it is called being a douche. ;)

We have a rule in our house. Anyone that can't form an argument, loses. The first person to say "nuh-uhh", gets an instant fail. Boy, they got rid of that whining REAL QUICK!

Better than the rule in my Uncle's house... where the youngest was always right no matter WHAT logic or reasoning said.

Anyone who feels its worth their time arguing with nonsense needs to take a long look in the mirror. My time is too valuable to waste any brain cells on that nonsense.

But hey...the world also has room for people with low standards! :p