Is George Bush the right leader for America?

[Haggis@wk]

It could be that, after retirement, President Bush will become as much a household name as Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale.

More like Jimmy Carter...

Somehow I can't see him undermining the presidency of the U.S. unlike said Carter. I DO believe that Carter will continue to be an embarrassment even to Obama, it's just his nature.

GWB will gratefully retire to Texas where we will honor him.

I can't recall another president who's respect and reverence for the office never once permitted him to lash out at his detractors, however justified. He's a gentleman's whose like we'll not see anytime soon. Reminds me of Robert E. Lee.

I have noticed that a lot of press is saying nice things about him, things they always knew were true; whether out of embarrassment or fear that once he's free from the office he can respond I don't know.

[Shapley]

It looks as if President Bush, whether to endear himself to liberals or simply to anger conservatives, is seeking to override the Senate's veto of the proposed automaker bailout by diverting some of the $700 billion banking bailout to the cause....

I liked him better when he took a 'hands off' approach to the economy. The economy can recover if the government doesn't try to fix it.....

[jamiebk]

Wow....maybe he's really a liberal in Republican clothing. Unfettered from having to maintain his image as President (lame duck) perhaps now he is voting his mind. Who knew?

[analog]

It looks as if President Bush, whether to endear himself to liberals or simply to anger conservatives, is seeking to override the Senate's veto of the proposed automaker bailout by diverting some of the $700 billion banking bailout to the cause....

let's do a thought experiment for perspective.......
the dollar amounts are so staggeringly huge, let us speak of than as billion dollar bills and call them gigabucks.

Before "it" hit the fan, Fed quietly loaned or gave away two thousand gigabucks they won't talk about.

Next they doled out 700 more with the great fanfare we remember.

So there's been 2,700 giga$ handed to wall street.

here comes Detroit asking for a mere 15 giga$ more.
$15 on top of $2700, giga or not, is barely a half percent - a seventh of what sales tax would be!

It causes a media frenzy and every politician who can leaps before a camera.

Why would a rational man do it?

Maybe Bush wanted to let congress save face,

or maybe given the time of year he didn't want to be Scrooge to the industry that actually produces something; or the Grinch that stole Christmas from Michigan,,,

i sure don't know.

But i don't buy he's the villian.

a.

[Shapley]

There actually was much fanfare about the first 2,000 gigabucks, raised mostly by the ones who are now orchestrating the giveaway of the next 725 gigabucks. 'They' thought it was attrocious that the President drove us deeper in debt, from 8,000 gigabucks to 10,000 gigabucks, over the course of eight years. A legitimate gripe, except that the President doesn't really write the checks for those gigabucks, the Congress does. But I digest.....

The first 2,000 gigabucks were spent doing the things government does legitimately (we'll accept, for now, that entitlements are a legitimate part of the business of government...) - fighting wars, building roads and airports, funding those things that we elect congressmen to keep funding - It was not, or rather we assume it was not, used to buy shares in corporate America. Now comes the bailout - the government gives monies to corporate America, in return for a vested interest in those corporations. That runs entirely counter to the things we've always believed to be the legitimate business of government, and it puts those business at an unfair advantage in the competitive market, since they now have a partner with lots of leverage to control the competitive playing field.

If you are Toyota or Honda, and you've invested large sums of money building plants in America to help you be more competitive with the 'big three', you might think it a little dangerous that your main competitors, whom you've been beating in the open market, suddenly take on the government as a partner.....

[analog]

The first 2,000 gigabucks were spent doing the things government does legitimately (we'll accept, for now, that entitlements are a legitimate part of the business of government...) - fighting wars, building roads and airports, funding those things that we elect congressmen to keep funding -

Shap i'm not talking about the normal expense of gov't, but instead this "emergency loan" of TWO THOUSAND giga$ that got quietly hid behind the 700 billion (700 giga$)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion [that's two thousand giga - a. ] of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return

while i don't favor the auto loans they're a mosquito bite compared to what Wall Street's sharks took out of us last couple months. (15/2700)) = .00555 ,,, as i (shoulda) said less than a tenth of most states' sales tax.



a.

[jamiebk]

If you are Toyota or Honda, and you've invested large sums of money building plants in America to help you be more competitive with the 'big three', you might think it a little dangerous that your main competitors, whom you've been beating in the open market, suddenly take on the government as a partner.....

Why not? Most of the US companies compete against foreign companies that have government ownership or support.

[Serenity]

Survival of the fittest.....if it doesn't work, it should disappear. Let the corporation fail. Let the union fail. Let only the most successful parts succeed.

[Haggis@wk]

Survival of the fittest.....if it doesn't work, it should disappear. Let the corporation fail. Let the union fail. Let only the most successful parts succeed.

Damn, Serenity! You're starting to sound like a proper Capitalist!! Good for you!!!!

[jamiebk]

Thirty seven more days and we can officially rename this thread "WAS George Bush the right leader for America?"

[dai bread]

Survival of the fittest.....if it doesn't work, it should disappear. Let the corporation fail. Let the union fail. Let only the most successful parts succeed.

Damn, Serenity! You're starting to sound like a proper Capitalist!! Good for you!!!!

I hope American unemployment provisions are up to the job of looking after all those Auto workers. Not to mention all the non-banking staff in Wall St. etc. All the secretaries, filing clerks, IT people, cleaners...

[jamiebk]

Survival of the fittest.....if it doesn't work, it should disappear. Let the corporation fail. Let the union fail. Let only the most successful parts succeed.

Damn, Serenity! You're starting to sound like a proper Capitalist!! Good for you!!!!

I hope American unemployment provisions are up to the job of looking after all those Auto workers. Not to mention all the non-banking staff in Wall St. etc. All the secretaries, filing clerks, IT people, cleaners...

No worries...Haggis wants to put them to work pumping oil

[navneeth]

Thirty seven more days

Anyone want do a x number of bottles on the wall...? Or maybe x number of days in the calendar on the wall.

[analog]

Thirty seven more days and we can officially rename this thread "WAS George Bush the right leader for America?"

who knows how history will look back.

Seems to me the financial collapse is a crop sewn in late nineties by Barney & Friends to socialize lending. Also something changed about same time that allowed these "mortgage backed derivatives" to proliferate, which amounted to legitimized counterfeiting for opposite end of economic food chain.
"Something for Everyone, a Comedy Tonight!!", Clinton's legacy?
In a way it's fitting the democrats get to deal with it.


If Obama prevails in Afghanistan, as Bush appears to have very nearly done in Iraq, we'll have Pakistan sandwiched between two allies of the west. Iran too.

Time will tell.

a.

[Haggis@wk]

George W. Bush, Liberator

Much of the condemnation of his policies though is driven by a venomous hatred of Bush’s personality and leadership style, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush’s actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America’s 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Stay tuned.

[dai bread]

I think that article is premature. American troops haven't left Iraq yet, and the Mehdi army is lying low.

[shostakovich]

George W. Bush, Liberator

Much of the condemnation of his policies though is driven by a venomous hatred of Bush’s personality and leadership style, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush’s actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America’s 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Stay tuned.

I completely agree with DB about the prematurity of the claim. Nile Gardiner seems to be planning a book on the Bush years that might get some traction in 10 or 20 years. Distance (in time) will certainly lend some enchantment to the era, since current memories will be pushed aside by what happens in the next decade or two. I don't think "liberate" is the right word for what happened in Iraq, which has become destabilized since the overthrow of Saddam, an acknowledged monster. Can the country stand alone (as a democracy, yet)? I think Saddam has been replaced by Bush as one who wants to shape the country with his ideals. Thanks to our constitution, Bush is about to be removed from that role. I do not have a "hatred of Bush's personality". His "leadership style" is another matter. He is spoiled and immature, and wants what he wants when he wants it. His thinking is imperial, and he has little regard for the constitution. I doubt that he has read much of it or understood its meaning. He also sees only what he wants to see. The "Bush bubble" kept him from seeing what he didn't like. It continues as he tries to create an acceptable legacy, a job that others will take up after he leaves office. I would describe his regime as one which favored the rich at the expense of the poor (e.g. Katrina), and big business at the expense of the environment. He has been, and continues to be, a DISASTER as a president.
No Fan of Bush

[Shapley]

He has been, and continues to be, a DISASTER as a president.
No Fan of Bush

I have defended President Bush in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, with regard to many of his efforts, though not all of them. I do not defend him as a conservative, as he is not one. His prescription drug benefit plan, with an estimated 10-year price tag of $1.2 trillion (or higher) is far from conservative in nature. His excessive spending on education, despite giving lip-service to States' rights regarding the issue, is also nothing more than big-government liberalism, even if it does impose some level of accountability to a government department run amok. While I admit to not fully understanding the concept of the government 'bailout' of the finance/insurance industry (who does?), I have not been willing to defend him on it. I detest the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and this is sugar-daddyism at its worst.

I do defend him on his willingness to stick to his guns. He promised a prescription drug benefit, and delivered it (even though I didn't support the concept, and don't like the program). He promised Social Security reform, and he fought for it (he was defeated, but he did deliver a plan and he did push for its' passage). He stood his ground on the war, on the surge, on education reform, etc. He didn't succumb to the whims and fancies of willy-nilly shifts in public mood. He displayed the type of fortitude that we used to hold in high regard. He was not a great President, but he was a good one, better than some, worse than some. He still rates higher than ex-President Carter, IMHO.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

So, when, in you estimate, will Iraq be accorded your approval of a peaceful country? Don't forget that you new president had already declared the war lost and the surge a complete disaster and was willing to throw the country to the terrorists less than a year ago.

And despite the current situation girls go to school in Afghanistan. Not too long ago a sick woman was condemned to die in her home if she didn't have a male family member take her to the hospital.

Quite simply, people in Afghanistan and Iraq are better off now than they have been in their entire lives. That is due to President Bush. I agree with Shapley comments above. He wasn't a great president but he was a good one.

he has little regard for the constitution.

Sadly, you have no idea how prophetic your comment is going to be in the next four years. Congress has already begun it walk back of the Constitution. Having appointing an unselected person, the Sec. Of the Treasury, as the most powerful man in the U.S. (unfortunately, with Bush’s approval) the congress has serially ignored the Constitution, abrogating more amendments in the past 5 months than it has in the past 200 years. There appears to be no possibility that Congress will stop in the new administration and every evidence that they will accelerate the process. The only thing they haven’t done in (fatally?) trammeling the Constitution is put on sheets and set fire to the original document.

You are going to see more courts ignoring the Constitution and more emphasis on a “living Constitution.” If Obama’s successful you will progressively lose any control of your personal life from medical care to retirement planning.

On the darker side you have already seen the results of the electronic brownshirt admirers of Obama punishing those who criticize him or just want to ask a question the brownshirts deem unacceptable. That will continue.

[shostakovich]

Hi Shap. Your admiration of fortitude seems not to be qualified by the direction it takes. Hitler had fortitude. Stalin had fortitude. Nero had fortitude.

Haggis, you are probably correct about improvements in Afghanistan as a result of American presence. I don't think you are correct about brownshirts around Obama. He will come in for criticism simply because he will be president. I'll criticize him when I think it's justified, but not before he takes office.
Shos