Conservatives to Bush: You Suck

[Arlos]

In my case, Martrae, negative 5.5, and those two paragraphs disgusted me, too.

-Arlos

[Drem]

How many years until you hit 30?

Who cares? Does it somehow have anything to do with my opinion? I just disagree with almost everything Lyion said. I didn't make fun of him, or say anything to you. But, I'll remember never to post an opinion again, though, since being under 30 makes it invalid, apparently. Bitch.

[Martrae]

Cranky today, aren't you? I meant it as a humorous post, you dick.

And, Arlos, you are the exception that makes the rule. :P

[Drem]

Just so I don't pull a Finawin and not have any back-up, I'll talk about one the many things Lyion discussed that I disagree with: Iraq.

Lyion thinks one of Bush's better items from his presidency (if it all turns out well, that is) is this war. I disagree. What's our big push in Iraq? Democracy for the Iraqi people, right? So one of our first steps, IMO, should be to listen to the people there (the majority, from what I understand) that want us to leave. That might be a silly reason, but it's fundamental, imo, considering we're being hypocrites about what we're trying to instate there. It's little things like that that make me dislike this administration, not blind partisan anger or being under 30.


And about Carterr vs. Reagan... I'm not sure what you think puts Reagan ahead of Carter. Please don't say Reagan saved the economy that Carter ruined. Please have a better reason that isn't wrong. I would actually enjoy arguing this topic.

[Lyion]

Lyion thinks one of Bush's better items from his presidency (if it all turns out well, that is) is this war. I disagree. What's our big push in Iraq? Democracy for the Iraqi people, right? So one of our first steps, IMO, should be to listen to the people there (the majority, from what I understand) that want us to leave.

I do? I thought I typed this out

I think his legacy depends on how Iraq and the terror war ends up.

Which I believe is pretty accurate, and different from what you said. How things pan out in the war on terror is the centerpiece of his administration.

And about Carterr vs. Reagan... I'm not sure what you think puts Reagan ahead of Carter. Please don't say Reagan saved the economy that Carter ruined. Please have a better reason that isn't wrong. I would actually enjoy arguing this topic

Winning the cold war was a pretty big thing, as well as slightly reducing the massive federal government spending that is the hallmark of fiscal conservatism. I remember Carter, and he was not fit to lead, as his legacy has proven. Reagan had a vision. Carter did not know his head from his ass.

[Arlos]

Actually, compare the deficit by percentage of GDP pre-Reagan and Post-Reagan. Pre-Reagan, it was a miniscule percentage. POST-Reagan, it was a huge value. Reagan-era administration members even admitted exactly why they ran the deficits up to such a level; it was to squeeze out social programs. Their aim was to run the debt up to such a level that the only thing the government could afford to spend money on was debt service and the military. This is well-documented, and rather easy to find if you look. So are the federal deficit numbers.

Also, Reagan did *NOT* win the Cold War. Period. He happened to luck into being President at a time when their Economies reached the point of inevitable collapse, but nothing his adminstration did did anything to hasten that collapse by more than a week or so, tops. He also presided over illegal arms sales to Iran less than a decade after they took the embassy personnel hostage, with the money going to fund "revolutionaries" that had death squads that were roaming the countryside slaughtering innocent civilians, priests, tourists, etc.

Also, remember, Reagan was the proponent of "Trickle-Down economics" which was proved time and time again to be laughably invalid. Giving the rich more money has no necessary correlation to the poor getting more money, it just means the rich keep more of the pie. Look at the gap between the richest percentage of the population and the poorest before and after Reagan. Bet you anything that that gap grew, significantly.

Reagan was a flaming idiot who was suffering from Alzheimers during most of his second term anyway, so things were run by Nancy and Baker, with him trotted out to occasionally read stuff off of teleprompters for important speeches. He was an abject failure as governor of California, and an abject failure as President. I remember at 14 being bitterly disappointed that I wasn't old enough yet to attempt to vote him out of office in 84.

This is not to say Carter was a great president, he wasn't. I think he was a far more honest individual than Reagan ever was, and far far far more concerned for the country as a whole instead of just the richest 5% of it, as Reagan was. Carter has easily been one of our greatest-ever EX-presidents, however, with all that he's done world-wide towards certifying legitimacy of elections, promoting peace, as well as the work he's done in the US with habitats for humanity, etc. What'd Reagan do when he retired? Sat on his ranch and drooled a lot, because his IQ had dipped to that of vegetable matter.

-Arlos

[Captain Insano]

You guys should vote me president if you want things to be set straight.

[Drem]

The difference in GDP between Reagan and Carter is about 1.7%... if that little difference creates high inflation and lots of unemployment, then you're implying that the economy is extremely sensitive to taxation, which any econ major can tell you is not true. Germany's GDP was 39% in the '80s (ours was 29, about), so with a number that high, Germany's economy should've been dead, right?

Our economy was inflating since 1965 and Carter happened to be president when it crested 15 years later and the unemployment inflation factor was at the highest it'd been at since WW2... then Carter appointed a mister Paul Volcker to take care of spending. Volcker intentionally induced a recession in 1980 when he tightene dthe supply of money. Job growth stopped even more and he tightened it further in 1982. Everyone hated it, but Wall Street wanted him to keep going with it and then in about August, he increased the spending quite a bit and the economy took off for seven years, when Reagan just happened to be president.

Neither one of them had anything to do with any of the economy... if anything, Carter saved it by appointing Volcker, who was unanimously re-elected by Reagan's administration after he beat inflation at the end of '82

[Ouchyfish]

(the majority, from what I understand) that want us to leave.

Your whole argument hinges on what the liberal media has tried to brainwash you with. They (Iraqis) know what will happen if we leave. Sure they have a protest here and there, but when they go back to their shantys they sit around goin "man I'm glad Americans don't take our horseshit serious...we're gonna be fucked when they leave, ya know? Pass me some more camel piss."

[Drem]

hah

[Tossica]

You guys should vote me president if you want things to be set straight.

Fuck that. I'm running for president. Vote for me!

[Lyion]

Jimmy sucked as a leader and provided poor executive direction and decision making. He failed miserably in his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Iran rescue attempt was abominable. His whining about energy, while Reagan walked in, removed price controls and did more for the average American immediately than Carter could have dreamed really says a lot. He had double digit unemployment. Double digit inflation. He wanted to be buddy buddy with the Soviet Union, also, instead of seeing them clearly as a rival and a threat, which they were.

The 'stagflation' period was not good. There's a reason Reagan won 91% of the electoral votes. Carter was a good man, but an inept and poor President. Reagan inherited a mess and fixed it.

Reagan was the biggest reason for the end of the cold war. Soviet Documents have confirmed this. Anyone who is objective can read about the build up, the speeches, and the policies we had in the 80s which got us there. More importantly, he recognized the truth of the situation and provided both avenues to traverse and win for the United States.

The sustained economic growth we are still experiencing to some degree today is a result of Reagans policies. High Growth Rates, full employment, and low inflation were considered unachievable in Carters time.

The most important thing is Reagan worked to instill pride of America, which far left whackos hate and despise him for to this day still.

[Jimmy Durante]

Jimmy sucked

[mofish]

(the majority, from what I understand) that want us to leave.

Your whole argument hinges on what the liberal media has tried to brainwash you with. They (Iraqis) know what will happen if we leave. Sure they have a protest here and there, but when they go back to their shantys they sit around goin "man I'm glad Americans don't take our horseshit serious...we're gonna be fucked when they leave, ya know? Pass me some more camel piss."

80% of them want us to leave. Is that a 'protest here and there?'

Oh I forgot, polls are the creation of the liberal media Empire that is out to get the Rebellion (that controls all 3 branches of government and a large portion of the media) Right and the GOP.

You also forgot to bash gays and black people in this post. Youre slacking.

[Captain Insano]

You guys should vote me president if you want things to be set straight.

Fuck that. I'm running for president. Vote for me!

My platform will involve strippers, beer, porn and the occasional high piracy against other weaker nations!

A vote for Tossica is a vote for communism!

Vote me!

[Spazz]

id vote for tossica cuz he used to be a punk rocker

[Lyion]

You guys should vote me president if you want things to be set straight.

Fuck that. I'm running for president. Vote for me!

My platform will involve strippers, beer, porn and the occasional high piracy against other weaker nations!

!

So, essentially you are a Clinton/Bush Hybrid Presidency?

[Goose_Man]

(the majority, from what I understand) that want us to leave.

Your whole argument hinges on what the liberal media has tried to brainwash you with. They (Iraqis) know what will happen if we leave. Sure they have a protest here and there, but when they go back to their shantys they sit around goin "man I'm glad Americans don't take our horseshit serious...we're gonna be fucked when they leave, ya know? Pass me some more camel piss."

80% of them want us to leave. Is that a 'protest here and there?'

Oh I forgot, polls are the creation of the liberal media Empire that is out to get the Rebellion (that controls all 3 branches of government and a large portion of the media) Right and the GOP.

You also forgot to bash gays and black people in this post. Youre slacking.

80% want us to leave? Thats news to me - My question is how do you tally and poll that?

[Lyion]

Maybe he used Zogby, too.

[Drem]

He had double digit unemployment. Double digit inflation.

The 'stagflation' period was not good. There's a reason Reagan won 91% of the electoral votes. Carter was a good man, but an inept and poor President. Reagan inherited a mess and fixed it.

Okay, you obviously didn't read my three paragraphs about why that's wrong. Reagan won the White House because he blamed the misery index on Carter. It wasn't Carter's fault, and it wasn't Reagan that fixed it. Read the facts or study economics. Don't totally ignore my whole post that completely disputes your stupid arguement that I even told you you shouldn't have used.

The other points I can agree on, but stagflation had nothing to do with Carter and if anything, Carter nudged the economy in the right direction with his capital gains tax cut, deregulating of many gov't aspects, and the appointing of Volcker.

[Sorina S]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_pf.html

Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?

Because they already have everything the ever wanted and they won't be running for re-election. Why answer any questions they can easily avoid.

Pearle and Wolfowitz got what they wanted, Rumsfeld got what he wanted, Cheney got what he wanted. All they need to do now is hang on for 2 years. They couldn't care less who inherits this mess after that. Need proof? DB-World.

I think when the tale is told 20 years from now, no President ever stole as much and did so little for his country as G.W. Bush.

I find it interesting to see folks like Lyion saying you can't place judgements on an administrations responces to natural disaters and terrorist attacks. Carter had his plate full of those things too and you happily lampoon him, oh he had 3 mile island rolled up in there somwhere too. Carter is 10X the man Bush is, I know I'm in trouble for saying that. But I believe it.

Okay so enough "I told ya so" where do we go from here, do we preserve the Republican congress? Is that helping us or hurting us when we know our Prsident is a beard for his buddies interests. Thats the debate now I think.

I was happy to see the Republicans embrace their constituency last week even though I personally think they're a rabble of xenephobes. Question is can the Reps really take charge of things now? Can they dismiss the adminitration as inept and self serving and do the will of the people?

My feeling is they better. You think John Kerry was a bad choice? You have no idea what's coming down the pike.

[Gidan]

(the majority, from what I understand) that want us to leave.

Your whole argument hinges on what the liberal media has tried to brainwash you with. They (Iraqis) know what will happen if we leave. Sure they have a protest here and there, but when they go back to their shantys they sit around goin "man I'm glad Americans don't take our horseshit serious...we're gonna be fucked when they leave, ya know? Pass me some more camel piss."

So anything that is against our being in Iraq must be liberal media brainwashing? Where are your sources for them wanting us to be here? If you want to argue that somone is wrong, present a decent argument as to why rather then just pulling somehting out of your ass.

[Lyion]

Given Congress was completely controlled by Jimmys party, I lay the blame for Stagflation directly at Carter's feet.

Inflation did not turn around until 83, and really it's arguable if Volker was the reason. I don't think he was. Any monkey can crank up interest rates to fight inflation, that obviously isn't the sole solution. It's NEVER been the case, and its just one thing that is done. Cranking up interest rates definitely stops inflation, because it fucks up the economy. There are other issues to the economy, such as unemployment, commodities, supply and demand, and trade. Carter dropped the ball in all of this.

The bottom line, when the economy is down, and especially when people are hurting the President needs to take action. Carter didn't, outside of asking Business to help, which was a joke. Waiting for a bean counter to crush America with ludicrous interest rates wasn't and isn't the answer to solving inflation.

Inflation is a multifaceted thing.and this is merely a simplistic and boorish attitude about a large and complex issue.

I don't think Volokh is a genius anymore than I think Greenspan is one, and I think he had a lot less to do with solving the economic woes than you give him credit for.

[Sorina S]

I knew I'd get troubles for that. Fair enough. I lived through that strife too, OPEC embargo, huge debt after the VietNam war. The first elected Prsident after Nixon resigned. The man came in on a very low point in our economic and political history no doubt.

I do think Volker set us on the right track and even Reagan, reluctantly, listened to him. Here's the thing, we're headed for that same place again, and very soon. In 3 years of war we've spent 450 billion dollars. Sombodies gonna pay that. My point though is that sombody spent all that wildly. Guess who.

And more to the point, who can we trust to put all this on a forward track. I don't belive in the Democrats any more than you do at this point. But I'm bloody tired of being ripped off by Republicans. Aren't you?

As far as Carter, well we can can both agree, he one of our great ex-Presidents. Will we say that about Bush in 20 years? I think that Bush will be the only President in my lifetime that when retired will be welcome nowhere (even Nixon was welcome in China). That's a sad state of affairs.

[Drem]

Given Congress was completely controlled by Jimmys party, I lay the blame for Stagflation directly at Carter's feet.

Inflation did not turn around until 83, and really it's arguable if Volker was the reason. I don't think he was. Any monkey can crank up interest rates to fight inflation, that obviously isn't the sole solution. It's NEVER been the case, and its just one thing that is done. Cranking up interest rates definitely stops inflation, because it fucks up the economy. There are other issues to the economy, such as unemployment, commodities, supply and demand, and trade. Carter dropped the ball in all of this.

The bottom line, when the economy is down, and especially when people are hurting the President needs to take action. Carter didn't, outside of asking Business to help, which was a joke. Waiting for a bean counter to crush America with ludicrous interest rates wasn't and isn't the answer to solving inflation.

Inflation is a multifaceted thing.and this is merely a simplistic and boorish attitude about a large and complex issue.

I don't think Volokh is a genius anymore than I think Greenspan is one, and I think he had a lot less to do with solving the economic woes than you give him credit for.

Inflation is a simple concept. In this 21 year period from 61-82, inflation was created almost solely due to merchants increasing prices in anticipation of inflation, which in turn actually created all the inflation.

Carter did nothing to increase it, either. The economy had been inflating steadily since '61 and he happened to sign on right about the time of the second oil shock, which sent inflation soaring (like the first one did) from 7.6% to 11.3%. The appointing of Volcker to head the Federal Reserve Board was the best thing this country could've asked for. By sending us intentionally into a recession that peaked in 82 (under Reagan's watch, after his tax cuts were implemented), we were in a recession only bettered by the Great Depression. When the threat of inflation abated in August '82, he influxed a great deal of money into the economy and slashed interest rates and in the next couple of months the economy took off into the Seven Fat Years or whatever it was called of flourishing economic expansion.

Everyone hated was Volcker was doing. He killed millions of jobs, cost the country about one trillion dollars, and even most in Reagan's administration were fervently opposed to what he was doing. But like I said, Wall Street demanded that he stay his course and in the end that is what saved our economy. Funny, though, that after they were so angry with him, the Reagan administration unanimously re-elected him for his position after he saved the economy.

Reagan's "helpful" tax cuts were total bullshit, too. Tax cuts, according to conservative theory, are supposed to help the economy by liberating entrepreneurial dollars and reinvesting them into more productivity and jobs, right? Well, why did investment fall during the '80s then? Because the rich people pocketed the savings. Then with each tax cut, you have to pay interest on the deficit. Bush senior and Clinton both had to raise taxes to counteract this. Reagan's tax cuts, if anything, fucked the economy a lot more than they helped.

It's completely assinine to blame the misery index on Carter. All Reagan did to win the White House was blame the entire situation on Carter and used the public's economic ignorance for his own gain. Any serious economist (or I bet even a poli sci student) will tell you that your arguement is incorrect. You're just following in the footsteps of all conservative revisionists when you say Carter ruined the economy and Reagan fixed it.