Bush 41 in icu
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
A friend of mine who is retired Secret Service, served on the Bush detail up in Kennebunkport when he was President. He said they were both thoughtful, considerate and a pleasure to serve. Quayle used to ask the agents to play basketball with him.
I have mixed feelings about the Bush family. They have some shady connections in their past and I didn't agree with much of their politics but they seem to be good people on the surface.
In contrast, the current president seems like a jerk with his share of shady connections but his actual politics have been a welcomed change. I like that he's shaking up the establishment and focusing on America first. The perfect president would be someone with a handful of Trump's policies but the grace and kindness of a Bush.
George Bush was an underrated President. The first person to really argue against “trickle down” economics calling it voodoo economics. I always liked him and respected him. Would have been a two term President except he went against the all time best politician.
It’s funny you like how Trump shakes up the establishment. But isn’t he creating his own swamp of corruption ? Tom Price, Ryan Zinke, Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt. All within a year of taking office abusing their office and the tax payers. Forget Mueller. Isn’t this environment of corruption and abuse enough?
Did Bush lie a lot or was he terrible at lying?
It was an innocent age where a broken campaign promise could swing regular Republicans into the arms of the Democratic Party. That will not happen in 2020.
It was an innocent age where a broken campaign promise could swing regular Republicans into the arms of the Democratic Party. That will not happen in 2020.
Mr. Establishment Republican Bush never ever went all the way in Gulf War to kill Saddam. This strategy bit us in the butt several years later.
He lied about taxes.
And without "I'm Ross and your the boss - Perot" splitting the vote - Clinton is a distant memory. Happy to see the clueless Bush family exit politics just like the Clintons.
Clinton was brilliant politician though. I'll give you that!
He was not clueless at all.
Sorry, not going into Iraq to remove Hussein was brilliant on his part. He knew at the time by taking out Sadaam there would be a power vacuum that would probably be filled at the time with the Iranians. With Sadaam there, he provided a balance of power in that area without affecting US national interest. Unfortunately, his son did not heed this advice and started a war in Iraq for no reason whatsoever. This led to unbelievable instability in the region and the rise of ISIS.
Second, so what Bush raised taxes. He had to. The debt was skyrocketing due to voodoo economics. Clinton raised taxes after Bush and the US then entered the longest spell of prosperity with 3 years of surpluses and almost wiping out the entire national discretionary debt.
I disagree on everything you wrote. High taxes are never good for an economy - only less and less government that pays for it. Private sector pays for public sector - not the other way around.
I'm more curious to know what a second term for Bush would have been like. Would we have gone into Iran and nuked their nuclear facility and attempted regime change?
George Bush 41 was both a good man and a good President. He served his country well & deserves respect for that.
Tom K
Tom K
That is demonstrably not true. Many periods of economic growth after a tax increase.
There is a balance and sometimes it makes economic sense to raise taxes, sometimes it makes economic sense to lower taxes.
And it always make sense to manage expenses, but unfortunately it never happens with government.
What facts do you disagree with?
1) Bush 2 going into Iraq led to a power vacuum and the rise to ISIS?
2) After Clinton raised taxes, the country went into a prosperous economy?
3) The Clinton economy was so good that there were three consecutive years of surplus budgets
4) The National debt was almost eradicated?
The first George Bush was smart enough to know that it was not in our best interest to occupy Bagdad. The second George Bush did not understand this & it led to chaos with our troops remaining there for prolonged periods of time and it also led the rise of ISIS.
TK
Huh??
1) Fact, agreed.
2 and 3) Only happened after Balanced Budget and spending was reined in. Who engineered that?
4) The National debt went up every year under Clinton except for his last year.
The deficit decreased every single year Clinton was in office... Trend occurred way before the republican balanced budget amendment. A lot had to do with a booming economy but that was the perfect time to raise taxes. The growth in spending was about 3.2% under Clinton prior to the republican bills and after their engineering, the growth in spending was about 3.2% for the rest of Clinton's term. Sure, you could argue that could have been higher, but the gap was closed because of increased revenue..
There was a surplus each year form 98-2001. 3 years under Clinton, not just 1.
Ok so you agree with 1,2 and 3. With regard to 4, my original post stated this was discretionary debt which was indeed paid down. However, I think you are including the Social Security and Federal reserve debt and then you would be correct that this did not go down.
Indeed - Got home late last night. Misread SPK's post.
I thought he was saying there was only a surplus for 1 year. So we were making payments on our debt for those other years but it would have been lower than the interest. My mistake.
That said - other points still stand. The biggest reason we were able to get to a surplus was a thriving 90's economy. I don't think Clinton or the republican congress deserve the credit there. However, I do think Clinton did the right thing in increasing taxes - The continued boom after the increase shows that it didn't hurt growth and our revenue increased quite a bit after that.
The gulf war was never about killing Saddam it was about getting Iraq and their inferior military to leave kuwait
You are correct , but my point is - why did they stop there and not finish out the war by killing Saddam and ensuring fair democratic elections?
Because by taking out Saddam, you create a power vacuum in Iraq which could and did lead up to a worse situation. Moreover, Iraq under Sadaam proved to be a check on Iran's power. Taking out Saddam is easy. What happens after that is not. This is chess not checkers.
I see both sides of it, Cernj, but it's a debatable point. I feel sometimes USA aligns with weak and/or corrupt leaders and Iraq had weak post-Gulf War leadership. Think Vietnam, Cuba, Iran (Shah).........
Didn't USA align with Iraq when they killed Iran civilians with chemical warfare in the 80s? In the early 90s at least it wasn't the USA MO to go overtake a foreign government leader post WW2 in 20th century USA didn't have glowing reviews for overtake and occupy foreign areas because they felt communism and the fear of its spread to other countries was a threat to the western world
I could not agree with you more. There can be no doubt that he was a reasonable and thoughtful President. Whether you agreed with his positions or had honest disagreements, the Republican Party needs to get back to this.
I do disagree with you why Bush lost. This is a fallacy without any proof. It was the economy and he was facing a very charismatic opponent. Very hard to say who Perot stole votes from. He probably stole votes from each candidate fairly evenly and really had no impact on the outcome of the race. It wasn't like Perot was this conservative that would clearly split the vote. He was a populist that some Dems liked and some Rep liked for his plain speak.
