What does McBush bring that we haven't already seen from Decider Bush? - Political Forum

HartParr · #1 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:34 PM

John McBush is another chapter of what we have right now.

Take a look around you.

Things that have increased under Decider Bush:

Prices are skyrocketing for everything. EVERYTHING.

Inflation numbers are going to shock everyone once we get an honest number, likely well over 10%.

Things that have decreased under Decider Bush:

Security, freedom, civil rights, privacy, personal savings, profit.

It looks like the dems are playing to lose. I can't say I blame them considering the gargantuan economic fuck up Decider Bush is leaving behind.

Would you want to walk into the disaster Decider Bush leaves behind Jan 21st, 2009?

TokenLiberal · #2 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:38 PM

This is why I'm glad I have Irish citizenship... things start really going to hell and I can up and out

Not everything on that list is Bush's fault, to be fair, and I really don't think McCain will be as bad, but in general I share your concern.

Vandal · #3 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:40 PM

While it seems pretty clear that McCain is going to maintain many of the policies Bush started I don't think they are that similar. At least in respects to spending, McCain is probably going to squash wasteful spending at least for the duration that he is in office.

I don't agree with McCain on social issues and I'm disgusted by his courting of right wing extremist, but I know that's not him.

Caltex · #4 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HartParr

John McBush is another chapter of what we have right now.

Bush and McCain are very different. Calling them the same is a fallacy.

Quote:

Take a look around you.

Things that have increased under Decider Bush:

Prices are skyrocketing for everything. EVERYTHING.

Inflation numbers are going to shock everyone once we get an honest number, likely well over 10%.

Blame the Federal Reserve for its mishandling of the currency, which has lef to high inflation. This isn't Bush's fault. The President has no direct control over inflation.

Quote:

Things that have decreased under Decider Bush:

Security, freedom, civil rights, privacy, personal savings, profit.

Security has probably increased at the cost of civil liberties, I don't think anything significant has happened as far as civil rights go at the national level. The economy had a good 5 years under Bush. Besides that the President has no direct controls to make the economy good or bad. You can hit Bush on legitimate issues like the patriot act, or the Iraq war, but attacking him based on the economy is foolish. The President does not control the economy.

Quote:

It looks like the dems are playing to lose. I can't say I blame them considering the gargantuan economic fuck up Decider Bush is leaving behind.

The economic situation we are in has a number of causes, Bush being President is not one of them. The economy is always going to have cycles of prosperity and recession. We happen to be going into a recession at the moment, this is not due to a mishandling by Bush. If any one entity is to blame for exacerbating this recession it is the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates too low for too long and pumping too much money into the economy, which has resulted in high inflation and increased the number of sub prime loans made by banks, which has led to this whole crisis. None of which were within Bush's control.

Quote:

Would you want to walk into the disaster Decider Bush leaves behind Jan 21st, 2009?

He's left a messy situation in Iraq, a larger national debt because of his unwillingness to veto, and has taken away our civil liberties with acts such as the patriot act. The President does have much control over foreign policy, so that's an area where criticism is mostly warranted, but to blame the economic situation on him is scape goating.

HartParr · #5 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 10:52 PM

McBush has already said he's planning to keep the US in the Middle East for another hundred years. We won't survive as a nation for another decade if we stay there.

Bush's wild uncontrolled spending is coming home to roost already. How can we expect to pay off ANY debt if we stay in a 6 billion a month police action?

The Senate and House may shift further left so McBush will just veto everything they want to do, good or bad, while he stands up there waving his arms around, claiming it's not his fault.

He will be a bigger do-nothing than Lurleen has been in her brief NY Senate career.

Gridlock.

wes445 · #6 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

Bush and McCain are very different. Calling them the same is a fallacy.

Blame the Federal Reserve for its mishandling of the currency, which has lef to high inflation. This isn't Bush's fault. The President has no direct control over inflation.

Security has probably increased at the cost of civil liberties, I don't think anything significant has happened as far as civil rights go at the national level. The economy had a good 5 years under Bush. Besides that the President has no direct controls to make the economy good or bad. You can hit Bush on legitimate issues like the patriot act, or the Iraq war, but attacking him based on the economy is foolish. The President does not control the economy.

The economic situation we are in has a number of causes, Bush being President is not one of them. The economy is always going to have cycles of prosperity and recession. We happen to be going into a recession at the moment, this is not due to a mishandling by Bush. If any one entity is to blame for exacerbating this recession it is the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates too low for too long and pumping too much money into the economy, which has resulted in high inflation and increased the number of sub prime loans made by banks, which has led to this whole crisis. None of which were within Bush's control.

He's left a messy situation in Iraq, a larger national debt because of his unwillingness to veto, and has taken away our civil liberties with acts such as the patriot act. The President does have much control over foreign policy, so that's an area where criticism is mostly warranted, but to blame the economic situation on him is scape goating.

Wow if the President doesn't affect all these things, why did Bush and his neocon blame the Clinton for downturn of the stock market after tech bubble burst during his first four years? How about that huge debt he rack up with the republican congress? How about that dimwitted Fema director he appointed before that Katrina incident in New Orlean? You know the one who ran horse shows. How about those generals he ignore during the war and the lies he told to get in it? Didn't he dereluglate alot of the check and balance in the banking to encourage growth which led to abuse? How about cutting taxes while starting a second war in Iraq? How about the money he gave the oil company during their period of record profits? And McCain wants this President endorsement and going to follow Bush's economy plan? I know, I know the President wasn't his ...............

Strat God · #7 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HartParr

McBush has already said he's planning to keep the US in the Middle East for another hundred years. We won't survive as a nation for another decade if we stay there.

Bush's wild uncontrolled spending is coming home to roost already. How can we expect to pay off ANY debt if we stay in a 6 billion a month police action?

The Senate and House may shift further left so McBush will just veto everything they want to do, good or bad, while he stands up there waving his arms around, claiming it's not his fault.

He will be a bigger do-nothing than Lurleen has been in her brief NY Senate career.

Gridlock.

Well, you are wrong. We've been in Japan and Germany since WWII and it hasn't killed us. We need to stay in the mideast to keep tabs on the badguys . Even my young daughter knows that.

Hussain Obama and Hillarious both want to remove troops and make the USA more dangerous to live in. Do YOU want the US to be more dangerous to live in?
McCain wants to keep the USA SAFER. That's a good thing.
Sometimes I worry about you lefties thinking things all the way through sometimes......

Caltex · #8 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wes445

Wow if the President doesn't affect all these things, did why did Bush and his neocon blame the Clinton for downturn of the stock market after tech bubble during his first four years?

If they did do that, which I have never heard, they were wrong too. The President does not control the economy, and actually has limited impact on it. He does have large impacts on foreign affairs, and can have some measure of power on legislation with vetoes, but the President cannot make a good economy or a bad one with his powers. Congress has much greater powers when it comes to the economy.

wes445 · #9 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strat God

Well, you are wrong. We've been in Japan and Germany since WWII and it hasn't killed us. We need to stay in the mideast to keep tabs on the badguys . Even my young daughter knows that.

Hussain Obama and Hillarious both want to remove troops and make the USA more dangerous to live in. Do YOU want the US to be more dangerous to live in?
McCain wants to keep the USA SAFER. That's a good thing.
Sometimes I worry about you lefties thinking things all the way through sometimes......

Yeah we have their citizen killing our troops and we totally holding up their government and spent billions of dollars a month to support Japan and Germany....NOT... It isn't the same. The Iraq people expect us to leave real soon and not stay there for decades. News flash the muslim don't like or tolerate us like Japan or germany. Plus Japan fears China and N.Korea and the German are leery of the Russian while the Iraq are leery of us.

wes445 · #10 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

If they did do that, which I have never heard, they were wrong too. The President does not control the economy, and actually has limited impact on it. He does have large impacts on foreign affairs, and can have some measure of power on legislation with vetoes, but the President cannot make a good economy or a bad one with his powers. Congress has much greater powers when it comes to the economy.

True to a point, but he can lessen the pain the people feel and don't mean tax rebate. He don't have to go as far FDR did during the depression , but could have done something besides giving the oil companies our tax dollars. Dude 98% of presidential historians rate this buttwipe of a President one of the worst. He going to get a Library named after him and doesn't even read a book or newspaper. Isn't it ironic. What about mine other points I stated?