Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

[doom&gloom]

Pick your poison. By the end of his term, will it have been Obama, or will it be Bush?

[Ghent12]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

I think it depends on whether President Obama has a second term or not. He certainly has a great deal of momentum, but he's busily pushing us off the cliff much harder than former President Bush was. That's saying quite a lot, given the degree to which Bush was destroying us.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

It absolutely depends on whether Obama has a second term or not.

The Republicans are a stronger opposition party than the Dems.

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Pick your poison. By the end of his term, will it have been Obama, or will it be Bush?

A hundred years from now people will put Bush 2 in the category with Andrew Jackson, Grant and Nixon and maybe Carter. They will put OBam in the category with Lincoln, Kennedy and maybe FDR.

OBam can only do worse if another country drops a nuke on us.

In my opinion I do not see how anyone can do worse than Bush and I voted for him. WMD/Iraq/the market crash/the economy depression/9/11/New Orleans/tax breaks for the rich/housing crisis/lack of regulatory supervision by the exectutive branch/Gas went to $4.00 a gallon/Bush appointed Greenspan and bubblemania in 2004 - Thats a pretty good start I think. Do you really think Obam can top that?

Cindy

[jtabeb]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

A hundred years from now people will put OBam in the category with Lincoln, Kennedy ...

Both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated, I don't think that Obama wants that kind of "legacy".

For the record, his economic policies have managed to be far, FAR worse than GWB, and THAT'S saying something.

Well at least according to:

Simon Johnson
Michael Hudson
Joe Stiglitz
William K. Black

You know, the only reputable economic policy folks that have a clue. That ain't good (when the people that actually have any brains say you should go one way and you turn around and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction).

Wonder if Larry Summers can tell us how much the Harvard Endowment lost in '08-'09, or if Geithner can tell us how to file a 1040 EZ?

No doubt, he inherited a terrible economic situation. But to then turn around and score an "own Goal" on the economic policy front, well, that's gonna hurt.

What were Obama's latest approval ratings again? (Even Better, what is the Slope of the Decline in his approval ratings? That looks like a 6th order polynomial decline in my book)

You can ride the "reform train" into town all you want, but if you fail to deliver, it can take you home just as easily.

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated, I don't think that Obama wants that kind of "legacy".

For the record, his economic policies have managed to be far, FAR worse than GWB, and THAT'S saying something.

Well at least according to:

Simon Johnson
Michael Hudson
Joe Stiglitz
William K. Black

You know, the only reputable economic policy folks that have a clue. That ain't good (when the people that actually have any brains say you should go one way and you turn around and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction).

Wonder if Larry Summers can tell us how much the Harvard Endowment lost in '08-'09, or if Geithner can tell us how to file a 1040 EZ?

No doubt, he inherited a terrible economic situation. But to then turn around and score an "own Goal" on the economic policy front, well, that's gonna hurt.

What were Obama's latest approval ratings again? (Even Better, what is the Slope of the Decline in his approval ratings? That looks like a 6th order polynomial decline in my book)

You can ride the "reform train" into town all you want, but if you fail to deliver, it can take you home just as easily.

When bush marched us off to Iraq we were as close to anarchy as I have witnessed in my life and when Bush was on the way out we were as close to melt down in the US economy as I have seen in my life.

Bush has nearly destroyed the country: His failed policies are still doing us in. When Bush came in Clinton had a surplus. Obam aint gonna come close to Bush in the end.

Greenspan attacks Bush on fiscal role

By Edmund L. Andrews and David E. Sanger

Published: Sunday, September 16, 2007

WASHINGTON — Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir is harshly critical of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress for abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits.
In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, as essentially powerless.
Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," wrote Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican."
"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.



Words from the master of syntax

Cindy

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Cindy, jtabeb:

You two are just arguing "He sucks worse. No, he sucks worse."

You're both right :eek:.

The rot goes far deeper than any President can change. No one who was actually going to the right thing would be allowed anywhere near the White House anymore.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

You're both right :eek:.

Matt Taibbi says this better than I did, in his blog on Jan 4, 2010 at Fannie, Freddie, and the New Red and Blue. Here's an excerpt; the whole thing is a good read.

For what we’ve learned in the last few years as one scandal after another spilled onto the front pages is that the bubble economies of the last two decades were not merely monstrous Ponzi schemes that destroyed trillions in wealth while making a small handful of people rich. They were also a profound expression of the fundamentally criminal nature of our political system, in which state power/largess and the private pursuit of (mostly short-term) profit were brilliantly fused in a kind of ongoing theft scheme that sought to instant-cannibalize all the wealth America had stored up during its postwar glory, in the process keeping politicians in office and bankers in beach homes while continually moving the increasingly inevitable disaster to the future.

That is a terrible story and it is also sort of a taboo story, since we don’t really have a system of media now that is willing or even able to digest that dark and complicated truth. Instead, our media — which has always been at best an inadvertent accomplice to these messes — is basically set up to take every revelation about the underlying truth and split it down the middle, feeding half to one side of the political spectrum and one half to the other, where the actual point is then burned up in the useless smoke of a blame game.

The essentially complicit nature of the two ruling political parties was in this way covered up for decades, as the crimes of the Democrats were greedily consumed as entertainment by the Limbaugh crowd while the crimes of the Bushies became hot-selling t-shirts and bumper stickers for the Air America listenership. The abiding mutual hatred the red/blue groups shared consistently prevented any kind of collective realization about the structure of the overall scheme.

What worries me is that we’re now reverting to the same old pattern with the financial crisis story. We’re starting to see fault lines develop, where one side blames the government while another side blames Wall Street for the messes of the last two decades.

(A tip of the hat to Jim Willie, CB for noticing this in his Golden Jackass newsletter. Emphasis mine.)

[Chomsky]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

No hat tip to me?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

No hat tip to me?

Oh dear. Now I am reminded why so many authors end their list of Acknowledgements with an apology for all those they missed .

A tip of the hat to a true gentleman.

[jtabeb]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Are you SUPPORTING the Obama Administration's Economic Policies? (Cause it seems like you are).

If so, I think that would place you in a minority of ONE (at least among the Itulip Readership). Even the Big Cheese here (EJ) has a none-too-nice opionion of them.

[c1ue]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Greenspan was first appointed by Reagan, but served for 20 years.

This means 5 years of Reagan, 8 years of Clinton, 7 years of Bush.

Hard to lay Greenspan on Bush given the 4 terms before him. If anything, Clinton can be blamed since Clinton had a theoretical opposing party affiliation to a Republican appointee and 2 shots to remove Greenspan.

Of course in reality we all now know that all 3 of these Presidents as well as Greenspan were serving the same master(s).

To me, though, Obama clearly is the worst.

Not because he's a Democrat.

Because he had the means (Presidency), the emergency (financial meltdown), the Congress (Democrat), the platform (Change), and the popular vote - and did nothing. Worse than nothing, he extended and pretended the very policies and behavior he had campaigned against.

Bush did exactly what he promised: cheap populism, Joe Six Pack foresight, Doing Something against terrorism.

What has Obama promised vs. accomplished thus far?

Even McCain could not possibly have done worse if for no other reason than Congressional deadlock would have killed much, if not all the legislation which is passing under Obama.

The history books will focus on Obama being the first African American president. The people who really understand history will write off Obama as an ineffectual smooth talker.

We can only Hope that this will change.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

good points by c1ue

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Are you SUPPORTING the Obama Administration's Economic Policies? (Cause it seems like you are).

If so, I think that would place you in a minority of ONE (at least among the Itulip Readership). Even the Big Cheese here (EJ) has a none-too-nice opionion of them.

Not in my post thus far - Ive been answering the original question

I have been trying to say who will be the worst in General - Bush hands down,

I have been trying to say "why" using some details.

Now about supporting the OBam economic policy - what is the economic policy Of OBam as stated on the record. Does he personally have a stated economic policy that I can read with you that we both could critique. If so, I'll read it and comment on it then.

Cindy

[Ghent12]

Re: Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?

Not in my post thus far - Ive been answering the original question

I have been trying to say who will be the worst in General - Bush hands down,

Would your opinion change under any of the following circumstances?
1) We are pushed as close to anarchy under President Obama.
2) We are pushed as far into the financial abyss under President Obama.
3) We are pushed further into those types of chaos under President Obama.

Because that's part of this thread too. Predicting what might happen under our Hoper-In-Chief.