What State Would the US Be in if George W. Bush Had a Third Term as President?

[Loren Booda]

If George W. Bush were serving a third term as president now, what state do you believe our country would be in?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Afghanistan.

 

[rewebster]

denial and bankruptcy

 

[MotoH]

The news organizations wouldn't have anything to talk about because there would be no health care reform.

We might owe a little less to China.

The defense budget most likely wouldn't be so over bloated, seeing that the Democrats (and Republicans) took the bill and ran with it this year.

 

[Proton Soup]

the republicans had become complacent and decadent. what's funny is how fast they fell after Bill Clinton. thing is, I'm not sure they're getting the wakeup call this time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The news organizations wouldn't have anything to talk about because there would be no health care reform.

Interesting comment considering that both parties support health care reform.

 

[MotoH]

Interesting comment considering that both parties support health care reform.

You really think that there would have been a universal health care reform if GWB would have been in for a third term? I do not think so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You really think that there would have been a universal health care reform if GWB would have been in for a third term? I do not think so.

Even though there is general agreement that we need reform, it would not happen under Bush. I agree with your statement.

 

[Proton Soup]

Interesting comment considering that both parties support health care reform.

which means what, exactly?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Recall also that the first bailout was under Bush. That was the one thing he did right... that, and when he started ignoring Cheney and Rummy. The fact is that Bush's policies as he left office were quickly approaching those sought now by Obama. The biggest difference is that we are actually going after the terrorist camps and leaders as our primary focus, militarily.

We've gotten something like 13 of Al Qaeda's top 20 leaders in recent months, using drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

which means what, exactly?

I mean exactly what I said. We need it, but under Bush it would never happen; at least not under the Bush that we know. It would violate his beloved ideology that helped to create the mess we are in today.

 

[D H]

the republicans had become complacent and decadent. what's funny is how fast they fell after Bill Clinton. thing is, I'm not sure they're getting the wakeup call this time.

Have you been sleeping for the last four months? The Republicans are giving the wake-up call this time around.

 

[WhoWee]

denial and bankruptcy

Can you please explain?

Isn't Obama outspending Bush? Aren't we seeing a public backlash to Obama's policies? Are we printing money and raising the national debt limit (for the second time in 10 months)?

Is Gitmo closed? Are we out of Iraq? Did the Stimulus contain unemployment at 8%? Were healthcare debates televised on C-span? Were "earmarks" eliminated (over 8,000 on the first Bill Obama signed)? Did Obama run the Lobbyists out of town? Did Caterpillar hire a lot of new workers?

Shall I go on? Denial and bankruptcy - good luck explaining your point.

 

[rewebster]

The defense budget most likely wouldn't be so over bloated, seeing that the Democrats (and Republicans) took the bill and ran with it this year.

"Tuesday, February 6, 2007

President Bush's defense budget request of $481.4 billion -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- pushes U.S. defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html


"WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2008 – President Bush signed the fiscal 2009 defense budget into law today, authorizing a $512 billion base to support military readiness, as well as $66 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51494



Obama can't cut it overnight when he has been handed two 'wars'.

"More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595811964905929.html

 

[WhoWee]

"Tuesday, February 6, 2007

President Bush's defense budget request of $481.4 billion -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- pushes U.S. defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html


"WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2008 – President Bush signed the fiscal 2009 defense budget into law today, authorizing a $512 billion base to support military readiness, as well as $66 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51494



Obama can't cut it overnight when he has been handed two 'wars'.

"More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595811964905929.html

Wasn't the Stimulus Bill $787 Billion?

 

[rewebster]

Can you please explain?

Isn't Obama outspending Bush? Aren't we seeing a public backlash to Obama's policies? Are we printing money and raising the national debt limit (for the second time in 10 months)?

Is Gitmo closed? Are we out of Iraq? Did the Stimulus contain unemployment at 8%? Were healthcare debates televised on C-span? Were "earmarks" eliminated (over 8,000 on the first Bill Obama signed)? Did Obama run the Lobbyists out of town? Did Caterpillar hire a lot of new workers?

Shall I go on? Denial and bankruptcy - good luck explaining your point.

"Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The Public debt quintupled in nominal terms. In nominal dollars the public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3T in 1992 to $3.4T in 2000. But if measured in constant 2008 dollars the public debt actually fell over the period. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] rising from 58% of GDP to 70.2% of GDP."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


America wasn't in the greatest financial condition when Obama took over---maybe you weren't aware of things that were going on prior to and in Jan. of 2009, and what lead to the present situation.


"Wasn't the Stimulus Bill $787 Billion? "

what? do you think someone can end/stop a flood AFTER the dam has already broken?

 

[MotoH]

Recall also that the first bailout was under Bush. That was the one thing he did right... that, and when he started ignoring Cheney and Rummy. The fact is that Bush's policies as he left office were quickly approaching those sought now by Obama. The biggest difference is that we are actually going after the terrorist camps and leaders as our primary focus, militarily.

We've gotten something like 13 of Al Qaeda's top 20 leaders in recent months, using drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And 50 top taliban leaders in the Helmand province of Afg. have been killed by the SAS and SEALs.

I believe that with Obama under control of the Afg. conflict, it will be a lot different. Most of GWB's plans were for large scale ground warfare, and this isn't what Obama is going for. Sure there will be a troop surge, but it is needed since the summer is when wars start back up again. Obama is going for a more technological approach, with a lot of quick strikes.

 

[WhoWee]

"Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The Public debt quintupled in nominal terms. In nominal dollars the public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3T in 1992 to $3.4T in 2000. But if measured in constant 2008 dollars the public debt actually fell over the period. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] rising from 58% of GDP to 70.2% of GDP."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debtAmerica wasn't in the greatest financial condition when Obama took over---maybe you weren't aware of things that were going on prior to and in Jan. of 2009, and what lead to the present situation."Wasn't the Stimulus Bill $787 Billion? "

what? do you think someone can end/stop a flood AFTER the dam has already broken?

You used the words "denial and bankruptcy ". Now you seem to be pretending that Obama's spending over the next few years will not far exceed Bush's spending. Next, you fail to recognize that Obama's Stimulus Bill was larger than the military numbers you've posted. Plus, you've evaded answering my question regarding Obama's broken promises altogether - in my world - THAT is denial.

 

[Proton Soup]

I mean exactly what I said. We need it, but under Bush it would never happen; at least not under the Bush that we know. It would violate his beloved ideology that helped to create the mess we are in today.

it would be fairly easy for all sides to say they are for something that is politically popular, but not well-defined.

supposing i tell you i am also for health care reform, what do you suppose it is that I'm for?

i am also for peace, prosperity, patriotism, and family values.

 

[rewebster]

You used the words "denial and bankruptcy ". Now you seem to be pretending that Obama's spending over the next few years will not far exceed Bush's spending. Next, you fail to recognize that Obama's Stimulus Bill was larger than the military numbers you've posted. Plus, you've evaded answering my question regarding Obama's broken promises altogether - in my world - THAT is denial.

evading? denial? sorry, I'm not used to the Rush Limbaugh approach in the way of your responses.

If you just want to jump around, I'll let someone else with a similar approach as yours to continue the debate if someone wants to.

 

[WhoWee]

evading? denial? sorry, I'm not used to the Rush Limbaugh approach in the way of your responses.

If you just want to jump around, I'll let someone else with a similar approach as yours to continue the debate if someone wants to.

The Rush Limbaugh approach - really?

It's quite apparent you could not defend your post or respond to mine.

 

[Gokul43201]

Can you please explain?

Isn't Obama outspending Bush? Aren't we seeing a public backlash to Obama's policies? Are we printing money and raising the national debt limit (for the second time in 10 months)?

Is Gitmo closed? Are we out of Iraq? Did the Stimulus contain unemployment at 8%? Were healthcare debates televised on C-span? Were "earmarks" eliminated (over 8,000 on the first Bill Obama signed)? Did Obama run the Lobbyists out of town? Did Caterpillar hire a lot of new workers?

Shall I go on? Denial and bankruptcy - good luck explaining your point.

You can go on...but go on doing what?

The fact that the stimulus didn't contain unemployment to 8% is largely revealing of the ineptness of the Obama team at forecasting economic indicators. Everyone seems to note how poorly they forecast the ability of the stimulus to limit unemployment to 8%. Yet no one notes how badly they underestimated the unemployment situation left behind in the wake of Bush's departure.

Raising the debt limit twice in 10 months is not noteworthy, primarily because it is too short a period of time, and a particularly rocky one economically, to try to make any reasonable long term estimate of behavior (especially if you're using a proxy that is highly susceptible to short term fluctuations). I call your twice in 10 months under Obama and raise you a twice in 4 months under Bush. Both are statistically weak arguments.

As for running the lobbyists out of town, all Obama has done so far is reduce the number of lobbyists in the administration by over an order of magnitude compared to Bush. Using the term in its literal sense, that's better than a decimation. But jeez, if cutting down lobbyist presence by some 90% is reason for trashing Obama, then I don't see how a rational discussion is to be salvaged here.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Obama's governance so far, but dowsing that with a healthy sprinkling of kitchen sink only devalues the good arguments.

 

[Gokul43201]

The defense budget most likely wouldn't be so over bloated, seeing that the Democrats (and Republicans) took the bill and ran with it this year.

"Tuesday, February 6, 2007

President Bush's defense budget request of $481.4 billion -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- pushes U.S. defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html


"WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2008 – President Bush signed the fiscal 2009 defense budget into law today, authorizing a $512 billion base to support military readiness, as well as $66 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51494



Obama can't cut it overnight when he has been handed two 'wars'.

"More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595811964905929.html

Wasn't the Stimulus Bill $787 Billion?

What rewebster did was respond to a very specific assertion - one about military spending. What you did was post a non sequitur.

 

[WhoWee]

What rewebster did was respond to a very specific assertion - one about military spending. What you did was post a non sequitur.

If you'd like to defend rewebster, then defend the correct post and keep my response in context - please.

"
Originally Posted by rewebster View Post

denial and bankruptcy

Can you please explain?

Isn't Obama outspending Bush? Aren't we seeing a public backlash to Obama's policies? Are we printing money and raising the national debt limit (for the second time in 10 months)?

Is Gitmo closed? Are we out of Iraq? Did the Stimulus contain unemployment at 8%? Were healthcare debates televised on C-span? Were "earmarks" eliminated (over 8,000 on the first Bill Obama signed)? Did Obama run the Lobbyists out of town? Did Caterpillar hire a lot of new workers?

Shall I go on? Denial and bankruptcy - good luck explaining your point. "

 

[Gokul43201]

If you'd like to defend rewebster, then defend the correct post and keep my response in context - please.

Of course I'm defending the correct post. Can you not read posts #4, #14 and #15, that make up that exchange, or do you want me to post screen shots for you?

You however, are now citing a completely different post than the one you quoted in post #15, which both immediately followed as well as quoted rewebster's post #14, which in turn quoted and responded to a specific part of post #4.

Sheesh!

 

[zomgwtf]

What rewebster did was respond to a very specific assertion - one about military spending. What you did was post a non sequitur.

Lol, finally someone points it out to WhoWee. I got so confused while reading this what exactly WhoWee's problem was.

WhoWee if you can take what's been presented to YOU in regard to YOUR post (specifically not take a reply to someone elses post and apply it to what you said for some odd-reason) and rebuttle then I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.

 

[russ_watters]

As for running the lobbyists out of town, all Obama has done so far is reduce the number of lobbyists in the administration by over an order of magnitude compared to Bush. Using the term in its literal sense, that's better than a decimation. But jeez, if cutting down lobbyist presence by some 90% is reason for trashing Obama, then I don't see how a rational discussion is to be salvaged here.

Has he? What I recall is he made a promise and then immediately started making "exceptions" to it - before he even got into office. But in any case, I'd like to see a citation of that 90% reduction. According to CNN, the lobbyist business is booming:

Lobbying appears to be recession-proof, according to a report out by the Center for Responsive Politics today.

Companies and interest groups spent a record $3.47 billion on federal lobbying in 2009, a 5% increase over the year before, according to the watchdog group, which tracks money in U.S. politics at its site OpenSecrets.org.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/12/news/economy/lobbying/index.htm

And politifact.org considers this a "promise broken"

Former lobbyist in the White House? It's okay if they say it's okay.
Updated: Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

Of the 513 promises we're tracking, this one has become the most controversial. It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests.

During the campaign, Obama said many times that lobbyists would not run his White House, and the campaign delighted in tweaking rival John McCain for the former lobbyists who worked on McCain's campaign.

Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect.

But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver.

After examining the administration's actions for the past two months, we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise.

The waiver process in the executive order is certainly official-looking. But the waivers are granted by the Obama administration itself, and are little more than the administration saying a former lobbyist is okay. For a candidate who pledged to conduct business out in the open, there is little transparency about when a waiver is required. Even good-government advocates we spoke with who praised Obama's overall policy found the waiver process to be unclear.

By itself, the nomination of former Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn to be deputy defense secretary provides sufficient evidence for us to rate this a broken promise. Lynn's waiver requires that he not participate "personally and substantially" in any matter in which Raytheon is a party for one year, which directly contradicts Obama's campaign pledge and executive order to make ex-lobbyists wait two years.

But there's more than just Lynn. The administration's handling of other former lobbyists provides further evidence that the promise has been broken:

* In some cases, the White House apparently has decided that former lobbyists don't need waivers at all. If the former lobbyists simply recuse themselves from discussions concerning whatever interest it is for which they used to lobby, then that suffices.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

So to sum up:
-He made a promise.
-He enacted new rules designed to keep the promise.
-The rules included loopholes to allow him to get around the promise - and he invoked them almost immediately.
-Later, he stopped bothering even to invoke the loopholes...which is a sticky situation, since that seems to put him in violation of his own ethics rules. But no matter, I guess - since he's the arbiter of his own rules, there's really no enforcement or penalty for breaking them anyway.


I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that "rational discussion" thing...

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, regarding the question in the OP itself, it is a little tough to know what Bush would have done since he had no real adjenda for the last several years of his presidency. All we can really know is things that Obama did that Bush would not have, such as the stimulus bill (and no, TARP, was not a stimulus bill, it was a bailout) and related follow-on spending. Other than that, Obama has mostly failed to get anything done, which is a little shocking considering how strong the Democratic party was. If he can't even get his own party to follow his adjenda when he has a filibuster-proof majority, then he has no hope of getting anything done for the rest of his term now that he's lost it.

So near as I can tell, if Bush were in office, we'd probably be in about the same place economically as we are now, just with a little less deficit and debt. There still wouldn't be health care reform - yeah, everyone wants it, but it is just too big of a monster for any Congress to handle.

 

[CRGreathouse]

All we can really know is things that Obama did that Bush would not have, such as the stimulus bill

Really? I don't think it would have been a $787 billion monstrosity under Bush, but I certainly think there would have been a many-billion-dollar stimulus act under him.

But no one's really going to argue that Bush was a fiscal conservative... had he dared to pass a 'stimulus' bill that size, I'm sure he would have laden it as full of pork as the Democratic Congress did.



I must complain about rewebster's response to WhoWee, though -- comparing Bush's spending to Obama's plans for spending seems more than slightly questionable. Bush's plans for military spending were far lower than Obama's plans; we'll see if Obama hews more closely to his than his predecessor. (Well, almost surely so -- but more to the point, we'll see how the spending itself compares.)

 

[Gokul43201]

Has he? What I recall is he made a promise and then immediately started making "exceptions" to it - before he even got into office. But in any case, I'd like to see a citation of that 90% reduction.

I heard it on NPR - albeit several months ago - but I'll dig up some citations (or retract the claim). What I recall hearing was that the number of lobbyists and former lobbyists has gone from a couple hundred under Bush to a couple dozen under Obama. I also recall that Bush started off by filling [large number - can't recall exactly, but many dozens - will look for reference] positions in his transition team with lobbyists (i.e., he got off to a running start with appointing lobbyists into the administration). And then there was something about how many of the lobbyists (again, I believe many dozens) hired by Bush were in positions where they were regulating the same industry they had/were continuing to be lobbying for (or at least continuing to receive paychecks from their firm, or something similar).

According to CNN, the lobbyist business is booming: http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/12/news/economy/lobbying/index.htm

This is interesting and easily worthy of a thread to itself.

And politifact.org considers this a "promise broken" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

So to sum up:
-He made a promise.
-He enacted new rules designed to keep the promise.
-The rules included loopholes to allow him to get around the promise - and he invoked them almost immediately.
-Later, he stopped bothering even to invoke the loopholes...which is a sticky situation, since that seems to put him in violation of his own ethics rules. But no matter, I guess - since he's the arbiter of his own rules, there's really no enforcement or penalty for breaking them anyway.

Broken promises - sure! Relevance to this thread - none!

I was probably the first person on this forum to call out Obama on breaking his promise by appointing Lynn via an executive excuse (about this time, last year), but this thread is not about Obama's promises. It's about how things might be now, if instead of Obama, Bush were still in office.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that "rational discussion" thing...

Yes, I guess we will...once the thread starts showing some resemblance to being on topic again.

If you (or whowee) want to compare the situation under Obama vs. what the situation might be under Bush (based on any reasonable extrapolation of the past), then, by all means, feel free to get rational. If you want to simply discuss the broken Obama promises, there's always the option of starting a thread (unless you wish to compare Obama's broken promises with Bush's - that might perhaps be obliquely relevant to this thread).

 

[BoomBoom]

So near as I can tell, if Bush were in office, we'd probably be in about the same place economically as we are now...

Or we could be in a major depression with 15% unemployment...since we are just throwing speculation out there anyway.

 

[MotoH]

I would much rather go to a bar with Bush than with Obama.

Do you want someone who will shotgun PBR's with you, or do you want someone who will drink appletinis?

BTW Cheney isn't invited. . . He will take shotgunning literally.

 

[DavidSnider]

Do you want someone who will shotgun PBR's with you, or do you want someone who will drink appletinis?

Maybe if Bush drank appletinis he could still have a beer once and a while.

 

[CRGreathouse]

BTW Cheney isn't invited. . . He will take shotgunning literally.

Arguably Bush's two worst qualities were his unwillingness to fire Cheney and Rumsfeld. (I'm not sure how to order those two.)

 

[WhoWee]

Of course I'm defending the correct post. Can you not read posts #4, #14 and #15, that make up that exchange, or do you want me to post screen shots for you?

You however, are now citing a completely different post than the one you quoted in post #15, which both immediately followed as well as quoted rewebster's post #14, which in turn quoted and responded to a specific part of post #4.

Sheesh!

I would prefer the screen shot.

I responded to post #3 - "denial and bankruptcy"

In spite of your best efforts to defend, rewebster has never explained what he meant by "denial and bankruptcy ". If you believe his post about Bush's military spending explains his post - it's laughable when you consider Obama's $787 Billion stimulus Bill dwarfed the military budget.

Sheesh is correct.

As for zomgwtf - hopefully this clears up your confusion.