Jump to content

I don't comprehend why Bush is being criticized


Recommended Posts

He has been promoting world peace and democracy, handling the economy well, and cutting taxes off of low income families.

By invading Iraq, he has saved 20 million people from a ruthless dictatorship, and has set up a strong democratic government in Iraq.

So frankly, Bush is doing a great job(after he finishes his term, he could be ranked near the top 10 presidents if not actually one of the top ten). I don't get why lefties and Liberals keep on criticizing this great president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His approval rating isn't just low among lefties and liberals but also conservatives.

He himself has admitted errors in the Iraq operation.

The budget has ballooned under his administration.

Gas prices have risen faster than inflation of late.

His initiative to pardon illegal immigrants is highly unpopular.

His political appointee in FEMA looked like an ill-prepared flunky during hurricane Katrina.

Those are the few that I can think of off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of American cottagers in our area when Nixon was president, couldn't figure out why Canadians critized him. Will this turn out the same way, does history repeat itself?

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of American cottagers in our area when Nixon was president, couldn't figure out why Canadians critized him. Will this turn out the same way, does history repeat itself?

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Only because they did not learn anything the FIRST time :)

This is the reason why most Christians are 'born again' . :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has been promoting world peace

By invading Iraq?

and democracy

By not allowing a re-count in Florida? That's democracy? In Canada, there would have been an automatic recount.

handling the economy well

With record-breaking deficits? Sure the economy is doing alright, but it's doing so on borrowed money. That money will have to be repaid, and that will hurt the economy.

and cutting taxes off of low income families.

Bush cut taxes for everybody...but much more so for high income people, not low income families.

By invading Iraq, he has saved 20 million people from a ruthless dictatorship, and has set up a strong democratic government in Iraq.

And killed over 100,000 people at a cost of $300 billion? With no end in sight, and possible civil war? That same 300 billion dollars could have saved a lot more lives if spent effectively. I could write pages about how the iraq war was a bad idea, but I will keep in concise.

So frankly, Bush is doing a great job(after he finishes his term, he could be ranked near the top 10 presidents if not actually one of the top ten).

Only if americans drastically change their opinions of bush, considering his approval rating is so low.

Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has been promoting world peace

By invading Iraq?

Call it the Pax Americana.

and democracy

By not allowing a re-count in Florida? That's democracy? In Canada, there would have been an automatic recount.

Come on gc. There were three recounts in Florida, all of which confirmed that Bush won. The SC decision meant that there could not be unlimited recounts because of time constraints on certifying a result. Further, a private organisation paid for another state-wide recount (after the vote had been certified) and it confirmed again that Bush had won.

handling the economy well

With record-breaking deficits? Sure the economy is doing alright, but it's doing so on borrowed money. That money will have to be repaid, and that will hurt the economy.

Not record-breaking. Reagan still holds the record from his 1987 deficit. Anyway, this argument is largely driven by people who, if given the option, would outspend Bush and for whom stratospheric deficits used to be justified by a lop-sided Keynsian economic viewpoint (back before they completely fell out of power).

and cutting taxes off of low income families.

Bush cut taxes for everybody...but much more so for high income people, not low income families.

So? The people who pay the most into the IRS' coffers are paying a little less, which only makes sense. A tax break that cuts across the progressive board is by it's nature going to have a larger effect on thos who pay the most taxes. Besides which, those living under the poverty line already pay almost no federal income tax, and so handing them their own seperate tax break is largely meaningless.

By invading Iraq, he has saved 20 million people from a ruthless dictatorship, and has set up a strong democratic government in Iraq.

And killed over 100,000 people at a cost of $300 billion? With no end in sight, and possible civil war? That same 300 billion dollars could have saved a lot more lives if spent effectively. I could write pages about how the iraq war was a bad idea, but I will keep in concise.

You're going to have to do better than relying on made-up statistics for how many civilians have died. Civil war, by the way, would mean that the Americans had pulled out: it won't happen until they've left, and so "with no end in sight, and a possible civil war" is oxymoronic from an American standpoint. The 300 billion being spent other ways and "saving lives" is a pipe dream and ultimately self-defeating: American vigilence and defense spending has made the world a safer place for the democratic West. American isolationism would be essentially handing the world over the the most insane and agressive regimes. Pol Pot killed a million people for crimes such as being too educated. Imagine a world full of Khmer Rouges.

So frankly, Bush is doing a great job(after he finishes his term, he could be ranked near the top 10 presidents if not actually one of the top ten).

Only if americans drastically change their opinions of bush, considering his approval rating is so low.

Agreed. During his first administration I felt that history would overlook some of his weaker aspects in favour of his strength of purpose in the fight against terrorism. Ironically, his success in taking the terrorism fight back to it's roots has left him enough room to screw everthing else up so badly that even his base is turning on him. (The anti-war anti-Bush people love to jump on the assumption bandwagon and pretend that his low approval ratings are only related to foreign policy. Not true, at all. Foreign policy is the only thing keeping his approval ratings up and away from zero. It's his non-stop bungling of domestic politics that have driven once loyal supporters out of his camp. His approval ratings split neatly along 2004 voting patterns until the Harriet Myers fiasco.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on gc. There were three recounts in Florida, all of which confirmed that Bush won. The SC decision meant that there could not be unlimited recounts because of time constraints on certifying a result. Further, a private organisation paid for another state-wide recount (after the vote had been certified) and it confirmed again that Bush had won.

I agree that if a recount had occured, bush probably still would have won. However, the fact that he did not allow the recount to occur suggests that he is not as concerned about democracy in the U.S. as he is in the middle east.

Not record-breaking. Reagan still holds the record from his 1987 deficit. Anyway, this argument is largely driven by people who, if given the option, would outspend Bush and for whom stratospheric deficits used to be justified by a lop-sided Keynsian economic viewpoint (back before they completely fell out of power).

Not true.

The deficit hit $375 billion in 2003, the highest in dollar terms ever. The previous record was $290 billion in 1992.
In August, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst envisioned shortfalls of $480 billion for this year and $341 billion for 2005

Link

Now I'm no economist, but common sense would seem to indicate that reducing the deficit (or even paying down the debt) would be good for the future of the U.S. economy, and contrary to what you say that's what I would do if I had the option.

and cutting taxes off of low income families.

Bush cut taxes for everybody...but much more so for high income people, not low income families.

So? The people who pay the most into the IRS' coffers are paying a little less, which only makes sense. A tax break that cuts across the progressive board is by it's nature going to have a larger effect on thos who pay the most taxes. Besides which, those living under the poverty line already pay almost no federal income tax, and so handing them their own seperate tax break is largely meaningless.

I wasn't arguing that bush should only cut taxes of low income families, I was simply pointing out to windyman that bush cut taxes mostly for the rich. I understand that the rich pay more taxes and will benefit more from the tax cuts, but I believe that his tax cuts disproportionately favour the rich. Here are some interesting links:

Link

Link

You're going to have to do better than relying on made-up statistics for how many civilians have died. Civil war, by the way, would mean that the Americans had pulled out: it won't happen until they've left, and so "with no end in sight, and a possible civil war" is oxymoronic from an American standpoint. The 300 billion being spent other ways and "saving lives" is a pipe dream and ultimately self-defeating: American vigilence and defense spending has made the world a safer place for the democratic West. American isolationism would be essentially handing the world over the the most insane and agressive regimes. Pol Pot killed a million people for crimes such as being too educated. Imagine a world full of Khmer Rouges.

I'm not making up my statistics. There is no way to know the exact number, but most estimates would put the number at over 100, 000 civilians dead.

Link

even bush acknowledges that at least 30,000 have died, and if anything bush is going to underestimate that number. Not to mention close to 3,000 american/coalition troops dead.

Link

There is no way to guarantee that civil war won't break out even with american troops in iraq...

Link

...but that's not what I was arguing. What I meant is that there is no end in sight because of a possible civil war. As soon as america pulls out there is a much better chance of a civil war, and I don't see any solution to that problem. Should american troops stay there indefinately?

If bush was a real humanitarian, he could have spent that 300 billion more effectively. For example, how about wiping out malaria and other diseases in africa?:

Link

Link

Agreed. During his first administration I felt that history would overlook some of his weaker aspects in favour of his strength of purpose in the fight against terrorism. Ironically, his success in taking the terrorism fight back to it's roots has left him enough room to screw everthing else up so badly that even his base is turning on him. (The anti-war anti-Bush people love to jump on the assumption bandwagon and pretend that his low approval ratings are only related to foreign policy. Not true, at all. Foreign policy is the only thing keeping his approval ratings up and away from zero. It's his non-stop bungling of domestic politics that have driven once loyal supporters out of his camp. His approval ratings split neatly along 2004 voting patterns until the Harriet Myers fiasco.)

I disagree. Even though I disagree with many of bush's domestic policies, a lot of his supporters probably enjoy all those tax cuts they've been getting. In terms of foreign policy, I think afghanistan may be helping his approval, but iraq is hurting it. I think you can agree that the iraq war is an important issue? And the majority of americans disagree with the war:

Link

Interestingly, the number of people who approve of the war is about the same as the number who approve of bush (not suggesting they are 100% linked).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on your standards Bush could be doing a great Job, but then I think the problem is that you are setting your standards far to low. Its a bit like leaving a teen at home and upoun returning you find that half the house is burnt down. From there you go on to proclaim your child was very responsible because only half the house burnt down. I think the standards need to be raised slightly higher. But at the very least I can explain to you why I crisize bush on all fronts, not just Iraq and why you should begin to realise that Bush is not above critiscim and is not doing a wonderfull job.

Seeing as how Iraw is the topic de jour I will start with it.

Iraq was made out to be a splendid little war for America, they coulld go in, collect some rose petals, set up a government and walk out. The unfortunate thing is that seems to be the attitude the planners had for Iraq. It has been shown that America invaded Iraq with out a comprehensive plan in place for the establishment of peace and democracy in the country. That is irresponsible policy of the highest order, it is tough to make the invasion of Iraq look responsible when there was no comprehensive plan for peace, only war and the truth is you reap what you sow and if you only plan for war, you will be stuck fighting a war.

Furthermore in Bush's declaration of War against Iraq he said "Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory." However, he started on the wrong foot by not planing for true victory, that being the establishment of peace. He further fowled by declaring victory much to soon. If this was a war against terror and tyranny in Iraq it was simply absurd to declare victory as soon as you pulled down the statue of one tyrant. There is still terror and tyrrany present in Iraq and victory is not yet upoun us. Beyond that Bush said the only way to limit the duration of this war is to apply decisive force. I believe now we will find that troop numbers in Iraq are declining from their peak numbers. True decisive force would not stop, slow down, or lessen itself, especially as the danger rises and the need gets higher. On September 11th we didn't actually see fire fighters running away from New York because it looked a little dangerous, there was a job to be done.

As far as the economy is concerned Bush has made Trudeau look like a fiscally responsible leader. He has spent money like it grows on trees and is going out of style. Its not small government, its stupid government. He has excessive spending habbits and poor priorities, he is like a fat person at Mcdonalds. The money increases in spending under Bush's watch far outweight those of recent longterm presidents, and that Includes Clinton and this is a verified fact. All the while Republicans and Bush claim to be a party about small government and fiscal responsibility. Yet actions speak louder then words, and bush's actions are in clear contradiction to his own words and the words of his party. That in and of itself is reprehensible. The democrats under clinton were able to show some fiscal restraint, Bush seems meerley content to preach it.

Bush is far from being above critiscim almost anyone living in America no matter what their political leanings should easily able to find something bush has done that is worth critisizing. To suggest that Bush is doing a wonderfull job and is above all Critiscim is an insult to the intelligence of a two year old. Wether you are a Democrat, Republican, Green, Communist, or Libertarian. His leadership, planing and decision making has failed all stripes of the political rainbow. And if you cannot find something Bush has done that is worthy of critiscim, I can only ask you to take your blind fold off, you are not even looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike American foreign policy. The reason for this is that they have so many interests that it looks like they have their finger in every pie on the planet. In truth, it is their business people out there creating wealth, and the government looks after its citizens and companies. The citizens of the USA are good people, but their foreign policy sucks!

The Americans are under the gun big time right now. Already involved in two seperate fronts a third may be cooking right now. Bush is trying to hold down the fort and avoid a North Korea conflict, it won't be easy to do that. Meanwhile its getting a bit expensive fighting the battles he currently finds himself trapped in. I sort of like the guy, if he still drank beer I would enjoy sitting down for a couple with him. Al Gore didn't give me that feeling. My only hangup with Clinton was that he lied to save his own butt. I couldn't care less what he did with his cigars, but the Paula Jones thing was another matter.

I am afraid the sun is setting on the American Empire. There are too many short memories in the world today. America has made a lot of enemies, any one of which they could handle in a heartbeat but things are starting to stack up a tadd. Unless they develop some new "edge" either military or economic there could well be problems in the near future. The scariest scenario on the economic side is if the Euro becomes the standard currency for oil. On the military side the worst case scenario is North Korea.

But there are other hidden dangers lurking around out there. Look at South America. There is a bunch of economic trouble there for US business in the oil patch. In fact there seems to be a growing lefty trend down there that simply won't be good news for the USA.

Bush is holding his own, not by much, but he is doing what he is supposed to do. Of course opinion polls show that he is way down in the basement. What can you expect having to fight a war where the end is not in sight and the body bags are stacking up.

The real trouble will start when his term ends. Hillary may have a viable shot. Can you imagine how the middle east diplomats will view this? Actually I think she will win, and get blamed for everything under the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has been promoting world peace and democracy, handling the economy well, and cutting taxes off of low income families.

By invading Iraq, he has saved 20 million people from a ruthless dictatorship, and has set up a strong democratic government in Iraq.

So frankly, Bush is doing a great job(after he finishes his term, he could be ranked near the top 10 presidents if not actually one of the top ten). I don't get why lefties and Liberals keep on criticizing this great president.

Is there anything that Bush has done that you don't think was well handled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gc:

(also, newbie)

My apologies. I've gone back looking for the deficit information I found last year and have been unable to locate it. I didn't link to it at the time. It seems my information was incorrect in any case, and that in unadjusted dollar values the current President has the highest deficits on record. Though interestingly, I've found another link that suggests Reagan's budget deficits composed the largest percentage of GDP. Though, surfing around, those figures also seem to be in some dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:
I don't comprehend why Bush is being criticized

Can anyone remember the last president that was NOT criticized???

There was that guy who died after thirty days in office, but I think people criticized his lack of stamina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...