Do you blame Ex-president Bush for our economic and foreign relation problems? Is it really his fault?

Comments

• i agree, thank you for your answer

  • Report
  

  by Advice Doctor on April 18th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Great answer. +4

  • Report
  

  by Advice Doctor on April 22nd, 2009

Comments

• Very true. +4

  • Report
  

  by Advice Doctor on April 21st, 2009

• But what has that to do with the question?
  Bush had a very unified party and government for 6 of his 8 years - and the split, if you want to call it that, is largely due to Bush's popularity nosedive so even that can be blamed on him and his incompetence.
  +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 23rd, 2009

• sorry I didn't answer sooner skidoo. Bush had some ideas that would eventually help the country's money to trickle down to the lower classes. The problem with that are the two words eventually and trickle. These ideas could have worked but unfortunately everyone got impatient. The policies would not have been truly effective until after both of Bush's terms. The unpopularity of his ideas caused the party to split ealier than some believe. Just like in Lincoln's term the idea of him freeing the slaves made him unpopular with his party because they believed that he freed them too soon. The only reason he won the second election was because he ran on the Union Ticket instead of the Republican that had also split at the time. The Democrats just weren't popular at all with how conservative they were. (Ha! conservative Democrats)

  • Report
  

  by sam sorce on July 13th, 2009

• Trickle down is much older than Bush. Regan was a big proponent and since then, the difference in relative wealth between middle and upper classes has widened hugely.
  .
  Utterly unregulated trickle down doesn't work because there is no incentive to invest in jobs in the US that pay well (money trickling down) rather than maximize profits by creating jobs in China that are much cheaper.
  .
  Also - the Republicans since Regan have all broken debt records in order to pay for the tax breaks for the rich, who were supposed to create high wage jobs in the US but did't. So the money is actually moving upward in a torrent - much of it from the earnings of our kids and grandkids, thus diluting middle class incomes for generations to come.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 13th, 2009

• And Roosevelt? Not Teddy of course he is my favorite president but Franky? Of course we could all say that he made the deficit of the country bigger for the sake of getting out of the great depression. It's undeniable that thanks to him every American owes more than fifty-thousand dollars. I'm still not angry. Why blame Bush? While we're at it why not also blame Obama? He didn't make a solution to pay it off either. No I refuse to blame Bush at all like the citizens of the great depression era blamed Herbert Hoover, saying that he was for rich people when in fact he was the a genuinely good guy especially during Warren's term.
  In conclusion: I don't blame Bush.
  
  P.S. Trickle down is much older than Bush but also older than Reagan. It comes from Hoover's term.

  • Report
  

  by sam sorce on July 14th, 2009

• Bush wasn't responsible for the global economy and the turns it takes.
  .
  But he is responsible for taking the budget surplus he inherited from Clinton and squandering it on tax cuts for the very rich, for not pushing regulation of the finance industry while he ad his 8 years, for launching a very expensive and unnecessary war, and for his lack of investment in education, science etc without which innovation and high paying jobs eventually move elsewhere.
  .
  As for foreign policy - of course you can blame him. He set the policy and tone of Idiot Cowboy diplomacy. Again, squandering what goodwill Clinton built and especially that he got after 9-11.
  .
  Can't blaome Obama (yet) because he's trying to fix a problem that can't have been his making and we won't see results for months or years. But he's certainly doing well on the foreign relations side. Again - the ultimate results will be seen as time goes by - it's not like fixing a window.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 15th, 2009

• Trickle down is older, yes. But Hoover could much more reasonably assume that much of the money from tax saving actually will be invested in the US - creating or enhancing the US middle class job area since he didn't have globalization and the ultra cheap workforce elsewhere. Also in his day the difference between top salaries in a company and lowest ones was much smaller. I think I remember reading that top was about 50 times more back then while today it's well over 1,000 times more.
  .
  So it wasn't quite the same animal as today.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 15th, 2009

• it was more then because we were on the gold standard but now the value of a dollar simply floats. (you know rises and falls) I don't think it was that bad of an idea to take it off the gold standard but now it isn't worth much. However, I take offense to your use of "Idiot Cowboy" in there (not that much though). My family's full of cowboys and Teddy Roosevelt loved 'em. He created the rough riders after all. Back on subject though, I don't see how Clinton had any good will built up (though I was only 7 when he was president). (parenthesee overload)

  • Report
  

  by sam sorce on July 17th, 2009

• I didn't mean to imply all cowboys are idiots - that would have made the word "idiot" redundant :-)
  .
  Just that Bush acted like a cowboy out of a wester AND was an idiot to boot. :-)

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 18th, 2009

• it sounds like you're saytin that being a cowboy was a bad thing though there's more to it than branding cattle, making swift justice and eating cow-fries. o well i don't think you meant anything bad by it. :P

  • Report
  

  by sam sorce on July 18th, 2009

• No. Nothing. :-)

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 19th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• I'm curious - do you get outside the US much?
  .
  I live in Eastern Europe. Bush wasn't too popular here. Obama got a nice welcome and we can only see if that holds.
  .

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 23rd, 2009

• i travel VERY often, mainly Eastern Europe anf the middle east. Of course, he got a nice welcome, he did nothing but insult and verbally attack his own people. Leads people to falsely believ that he has good intentions, which we are seeing here, he doesnt.

  • Report
  

  by ladyshakespeare on April 23rd, 2009

• I watched the whole speech on tv - I didn't hear anything that could be construed as badmouthing the US.
  .
  What are you seeing the shows his lack of good intentions?
  .
  But - if the US were seen in a positive light, badmouthing it wouldn't earn many points. Seems you're arguing both sides of the issue.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 23rd, 2009

• I am, dont get me wrong, i am an ardent patriot, and I hope he does well, but he is losing a tremendous amout of support here by putting his people down, degrading the good things we have done, calling our military murderers and rapists, trying to take guns away from the citizens (who havent committed a crime) He has also made anti caucasion remarks, and is tryin to outlaw the mention of God in public. Im not a huge Bush fa either, but at least he considered the security of our people, Obama doesnt care.

  • Report
  

  by ladyshakespeare on April 23rd, 2009

• just this week his people put out a false notification to law enforcement that our military was going to commit crimes against american people. when confronted on it, there was no reason for the suspicion, he just wants people to hate the military for some reason. The US military and law enforcement are VERY concerned about orders he may issue against the people. thats not good.

  • Report
  

  by ladyshakespeare on April 23rd, 2009

• Can you show me a link to any of the things you said he's done or said? I'd love to see where he calls your military murderers and rapists, or "outlaw the mention of God in public" for instance. I'd love to hear his justification of having multiple preachers at his inaugural and his own fairly liberal use of the word.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 24th, 2009

Comments

• what makes you think that?

  • Report
  

  by Advice Doctor on April 26th, 2009

Comments

• Great answer. +4

  • Report
  

  by Advice Doctor on April 25th, 2009

Comments

• Are you high?

  • Report
  

  by SanityClause on April 18th, 2009

• no check it out the economy was fine until the power in the house shifted

  • Report
  

  by OttoZone on April 18th, 2009

• Foreign relations?
  .
  And I'm sorry - but then housing bubble was being reported on long before the dems took power in the house. And since Bush's first veto in 6 years was at that time too - they couldn't do much of anything without his approval - which of course he didn't give to Dem bills.
  .
  I'd love top see a single Dem bill on anything that could have been linked to this mess during that time.
  .
  Or do you think they did it with their Evil Dem Powers? :-)

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 22nd, 2009