Rolling Stone: Bush Worst President Ever?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The repercussions to some of his policies will not be felt for a while. That's why you don't take stock of Bush right now.

Sure you can wait 20 years until your memory has faded and most everything in the good old days seemed rosy but their is no harm in taking stock now or anytime in the future. I'd also suggest not relying on the archives from our newspapers or historians for the mood of the times or the reasons why certain events happened. Just some advice from someone with a longer memory then most of you.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Unemployment is high? Its at 3.7% one of the lowest in the world. As for their currency a weaker dollar will help with thier trade deficit.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Unemployment is high? Its at 3.7% one of the lowest in the world. As for their currency a weaker dollar will help with thier trade deficit.

Unemployment numbers usually look lower at the tail end of a period of slow job growth, because people have given up on looking for jobs. However, you're right--compared to other regions of the world, American unemployment isn't too bad. Now if they could just get some kind of universal health care, they'd be in business....

And the lower dollar might help with the trade deficit. It doesn't do much to help with their other deficit, though--you know, the real deficit, the one where the government spends more money than it has.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you Firefly, maybe they'll listen to you.

Better yet, wait 40 years, then have some 25 year old tell you how things were during the Bush regime. It should be good for a laugh no matter what side of the political spectrum you are.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Better yet, wait 40 years, then have some 25 year old tell you how things were during the Bush regime. It should be good for a laugh no matter what side of the political spectrum you are.

I have to admit, I don't quite understand why people would even use "it's too soon to really assess Bush" as an argument. Why? Because if we assess him by the benchmarks that are currently available he looks really, really bad?

I have some news for you guys. Bush isn't like fine wine--this presidency is not going to look better with age.

I understand the desire for some perspective--but I feel like there's also a little bit of denial going on here. When you're looking at a steaming pile of ****, you don't generally say "well let's wait a bit. Maybe it'll turn into marshmallows overnight!"

Perspective is good. It's also important to call a spade a spade. It's hard to say Bush is the worst president ever, but it's pretty easy to say "man, this presidency has been a disaster." The only ones who can't see that still have the Republican Kool-Aid moustache on their upper lips.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Unemployment numbers usually look lower at the tail end of a period of slow job growth, because people have given up on looking for jobs. However, you're right--compared to other regions of the world, American unemployment isn't too bad. Now if they could just get some kind of universal health care, they'd be in business....

And the lower dollar might help with the trade deficit. It doesn't do much to help with their other deficit, though--you know, the real deficit, the one where the government spends more money than it has.

Low job growth? What the hell are you talking about?

Today, The Government Released New Jobs Figures - 138,000 Jobs Created In April. The economy has created about 2 million jobs over the past 12 months - and more than 5.2 million since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.7 percent - lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Plus, the GDP has grown 4.8% in the first quarter this year. Including an average 3.5% in 2005, highest in the industrialized world.


I really don't know where you're getting your information from.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/


And please don't say the numbers are part of conspiracy theory.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Better yet, wait 40 years, then have some 25 year old tell you how things were during the Bush regime. It should be good for a laugh no matter what side of the political spectrum you are.

And then I'll listen. Outside of examining Bush's policies it is impossible to predict how it will affect the world 40 years from now.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And please don't say the numbers are part of conspiracy theory.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't to my recollection, mentioned conspiracy theories at all, except to say that I don't believe them.

I note that you're using the White House's own numbers. I'm not going to get into a debate on the specifics, except to say that there WAS a slowdown in job growth at the beginning of Bush's term.

I'm not an economist--I don't pretend to be qualified to comment on that, nor do I make any representation as to whose fault it is. However, IIRC, both job growth and unemployment are lagging indicators, unless I'm mistaken. I'd be glad to be corrected on that issue--but it may well be that the root of our disagreement is somewhat semantic.

I've already said that I think this, and other economic problems, was probably not Bush's fault. I've also already said that I highly doubt Bush is the worst president ever.

I really don't think you and I disagree on that much. It may surprise you to learn that I find the left's blind hatred of Bush, and the conspiracy theories it spawns, very silly. That doesn't mean I'm a Bush fan. I don't think he's the root of all evil either--I just disagree with him on several issues of great importance to me. I'm pretty sure that's still allowed.

[Jake]

I will forever hate Reagan just for his political response to AIDs/HIV. He didn't publicly acknowledge the epidemic until 1987 (the epidemic began in 1981).

[Azure]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't to my recollection, mentioned conspiracy theories at all, except to say that I don't believe them.

Comment wasn't directly directed at you. I'm pretty sure there are idiots out there that believe everything that White House says is a lie. They're running the biggest economy based on a lie.

I note that you're using the White House's own numbers. I'm not going to get into a debate on the specifics, except to say that there WAS a slowdown in job growth at the beginning of Bush's term.

Big deal about the slowdown. Jobs have increased in a steady fashion. Can you ask for more?

I'm not an economist--I don't pretend to be qualified to comment on that, nor do I make any representation as to whose fault it is. However, IIRC, both job growth and unemployment are lagging indicators, unless I'm mistaken. I'd be glad to be corrected on that issue--but it may well be that the root of our disagreement is somewhat semantic.

Why would they be lagging? Sure you could argue quality of jobs and such, but thats beside the point. The jobs still exist, and were created, all 5 million of them during Bush's term.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why would they be lagging? Sure you could argue quality of jobs and such, but thats beside the point. The jobs still exist, and were created, all 5 million of them during Bush's term.

Well, by "lagging indicators," I meant that job growth and unemployment may reflect older trends in the economy. In other words, the numbers "lag" behind the root causes that make them change.

And if I'm right (not sure if I am), that's actually good news for Bush--because it means that slow job growth early in his presidency is the fault of the Clinton administration--if indeed, it's anyone's fault at all, which I doubt. It would also mean that current job growth is because of his economic policies early in his presidency.

I think all of these things are matters of debate--and though I'm no Bush lover, I'm not sure that we can evaluate these kinds of benchmarks right now anyway. I don't think we need to wait 40 years, but it's definitely true that in economics, the benefits of hindsight are sometimes great.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Low job growth? What the hell are you talking about?

Ah yes, the boy from Pincher Creek (speck of fly**** on the map, Alberta) is an expert on the American economy. Always good for a laugh.

The White House job growth numbers are very misleading. Yes, job growth has taken place, in certain sectors. That job growth does not take into consideration the offshoring and exportation of jobs to foreign markets. All it does is look at the number of jobs created, not the numbers lost overseas. As well, those numbers don't look at the type of jobs being created. In reality, the jobs being created at low paying, service and retail industry jobs. You have people in America, who were making $70-80,000 a year watching their jobs go over to India or China, or where ever, and then being forced into jobs that pay them $20-25,000 a year. The net job loss factor is zero, but the harm to the economy is very evident.

Plus, the GDP has grown 4.8% in the first quarter this year. Including an average 3.5% in 2005, highest in the industrialized world.

Another midleading stat. Most of that growth is focused on a couple of areas, and that is defense industry focused for the most part. Sadly, that grown is off of the back of the tax payers. Those number indicate that Paul (companies like Halliburton for example) is being paid from dollars stolen from Peter (the tax payer). All of that money being spent in Iraq is inflating the bottom line. Its a classic Enron financial manipulation. The GDP is being inflated by tax dollars being spent in a stream that is used to calculate the growth. What's the net result for the average American?

Look no further than the housing boom (and now bust) for proof of the manipulation. The Republicans were all so proud of the huge numbers in housing starts and sales that were going on, and promoting it as an indicator of a strong economy. Sadly, the bottom has fallen out of that boom and the truth has come out. A large chunk of that housing boom was because of the rich purchasing second and third homes, or investing in new homes hoping to make a quick buck. It worked for a short time, until communities (like mine) started putting in covenants that restricted rentals and required people to spend X days a year in dwelling. That put a halt to the unsustainable inflation and the bottom fell out of the false market. It was all a manipulation, and now Americans in many regions are struggling to deal with the consequences.

I really don't know where you're getting your information from.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/


And please don't say the numbers are part of conspiracy theory.

No conspiracy theory required. The White House is using stats to try and buy themselves some good press. Its been that way for years. The GAO will publish the real numbers in a year, and the truth will come out then. What the White House has to say is irrelevant, as its a manipulation of data for specific purposes. Oversight will tell us how truthful these numbers are, but that won't happen for a year, and by that time the public will have forgotten all about this.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I have to admit, I don't quite understand why people would even use "it's too soon to really assess Bush" as an argument. Why? Because if we assess him by the benchmarks that are currently available he looks really, really bad?

I have some news for you guys. Bush isn't like fine wine--this presidency is not going to look better with age.

I understand the desire for some perspective--but I feel like there's also a little bit of denial going on here. When you're looking at a steaming pile of ****, you don't generally say "well let's wait a bit. Maybe it'll turn into marshmallows overnight!"

Perspective is good. It's also important to call a spade a spade. It's hard to say Bush is the worst president ever, but it's pretty easy to say "man, this presidency has been a disaster." The only ones who can't see that still have the Republican Kool-Aid moustache on their upper lips.

Absolutely the Presidency has been a disaster. However, much like Reaganomics was felt for 20 years after Reagan, the implications of, for example, the war in Iraq will be felt after the war is long over. Frankly, wars are good for the economy. Ensuring that the US has access to the oil supply in Iraq is paramount for a struggling economy. We can play the 'what if' game if you'd like here... What do you think the price of gas would be if the US was not in Iraq right now? In 5 years? Stip away all the nonsense about WMD, and let's admit that the war is for oil. Would over $2/litre not have a negative affect on the economy?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Absolutely the Presidency has been a disaster. However, much like Reaganomics was felt for 20 years after Reagan, the implications of, for example, the war in Iraq will be felt after the war is long over. Frankly, wars are good for the economy. Ensuring that the US has access to the oil supply in Iraq is paramount for a struggling economy. We can play the 'what if' game if you'd like here... What do you think the price of gas would be if the US was not in Iraq right now? In 5 years? Stip away all the nonsense about WMD, and let's admit that the war is for oil. Would over $2/litre not have a negative affect on the economy?

Well, you could be right. And furthermore, any president of the U.S. knows that regardless of what else happens, high prices at the pump are always a disaster for any presidency.

But gas prices are high right now--I assume they're still much higher in Canada, but they're higher in Iowa than they've ever been. I suspect that there are a number of factors influencing this, some of which may have nothing to do with Iraq.

But here's my question--how does a war in the middle east lower gas prices, even in theory? It's part of the calculation that is a little over my head, I have to admit. But again, I'm no expert.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FireFly

However, much like Reaganomics was felt for 20 years after Reagan

Gonna have to explain that one to me.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, you could be right. And furthermore, any president of the U.S. knows that regardless of what else happens, high prices at the pump are always a disaster for any presidency.

But gas prices are high right now--I assume they're still much higher in Canada, but they're higher in Iowa than they've ever been. I suspect that there are a number of factors influencing this, some of which may have nothing to do with Iraq.

But here's my question--how does a war in the middle east lower gas prices, even in theory? It's part of the calculation that is a little over my head, I have to admit. But again, I'm no expert.

Well, if the US ensures their control over the supply, they ensure the price stays down. Here's an interesting chart...
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

You'll notice that after the Iraq-Iran war, the price of gas went down significantly... why? The supply was ensured.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Gonna have to explain that one to me.

Massive debt incurred which has yet to be paid off, leaving other Presidents the task of increasing taxes in order to do so... lots of ways. Granted, the idea looked spiffy at the time as employment increased and the economy started to boom, but even in Canada we're still paying off the debts incurred during the 80s by our own leaders. (Except in Alberta)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well, if the US ensures their control over the supply, they ensure the price stays down. Here's an interesting chart...

Interesting, when the site you quote shows that control over the oil fields does the opposite and raises prices. American control over the oil fields of Iraq has lead to the highest prices in history for crude and for gasoline. Seems to me the argument for securing the oil fields no longer holds water. The American presence in the region has created greater instability and higher prices, which has resulted in substantially greater profits (record profits actually) for the oil companies. I don't think this is what people expected when the invasion took place. I think the opposite was expected because of the securing of the oil fields.

[FireFly]

Um, control doesn't occur until after the war, wars tend to disrupt supply. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Um, control doesn't occur until after the war, wars tend to disrupt supply. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

The "war" was over in a month, or do you forget this beauty?