Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush sucks as President

  1. Oct 20, 2003 #1
    Anyone care to argue against the obviousness of this? Aside from hunting down Al Queda after 9-11, what has he done for the country?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2003 #2
    He hasn't had oral sex with an intern, and he, umm....is destroying social programs, and funneling tax dollars to churches, and heping the rich get richer and the poor remain umemployed...all good things, according to the brand of 'conservatism' to which he belongs.
     
  4. Oct 21, 2003 #3
    He believes that God placed him in power to fight evil.... Who is going to argue with God?
     
  5. Oct 21, 2003 #4
    I see, so, how is going to fight himself? :P
     
  6. Oct 21, 2003 #5
    With a pretzel?
     
  7. Oct 21, 2003 #6
    Hmm. Just like Osama.
     
  8. Oct 21, 2003 #7

    megashawn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The only thing Clinton did wrong was get caught.

    I will if the panzy would show himself.


    But we can't blame it all on bush. How about the people who voted for him. Of course, you can't help but wonder what kind of disaster Gore would have left us with after 911.

    The only good thing Bush did was his actions after 911. But then again, all the negative things this has spawned sucks too. Not to mention that they knew about the attacks, and didn't warn anyone.

    Yup, I can't think of one thing that disagrees with this thread.
     
  9. Oct 21, 2003 #8
    Assuming 911 would have happened if Gore was president. A lot of people had to screw up to allow 9-11 to happen.
     
  10. Oct 21, 2003 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Poor guy.

    - Warren
     
  11. Oct 21, 2003 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could you clarify please? Do you think there would have been a reasonable chance of Gore preventing 9/11? Like what kind of odds are we talking about?

    Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.
     
  12. Oct 21, 2003 #11
    I agree that fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover are major issues, they just are not the only major issues (health care, the environment, and civil liberties are all also major issues). Apart from your parochial view of what are major issues, I am having a lot of trouble seeing Bush as being positive in the two areas you listed, terrorism and economics. First, on terrorism, Bush in many people's minds has been a failure at combating terrorism because of his neocon approach.

    The Bush administration puts far too much emphasis on states - this became all too apparent with his war on Iraq. From the article I posted in the thread “Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence”: By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed. The war on Iraq has taken valuable resources away from the war on terrorism.

    On the economy, will the economy recover? Yes. Will the economy recover to the degree that it should? No. Are Bush’s tax cuts going to create jobs? Yes, of course. Are the tax cuts a good[ approach to creating jobs? Hell no. As I have stated before in this forum, because the marginal propensity to consume decreases significantly as incomes increase, cutting taxes for the rich is not an effective way to spur the economy. Tax cuts for the middle and lower classes are much more effective in creating jobs as the middle and lower classes spend a greater percentage of their tax breaks and the money they do spend goes into goods rather than investments. To quote the billionaire Warren Buffet:

    Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

    And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be…

    Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets.


    So, even if one limits the scope of major issues to the economy and terrorism, Bush doesn’t seem to be a positive leader at all.
     
  13. Oct 22, 2003 #12
    Bush hasn't done anything especially positive in his nonsense 'war on terror'...when you declare 'war' on nouns, you are doomed to failure. Bush keeps making missteps, mostly because he has the attitude that whatever he wants to do must be the right thing...and he is very often wrong! You don't spur the economy by cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations, for the simple(and simplified for this post) reason that by doing so you maintain their wealth without their having to do anything to increase productivity. Increased productivity is where you see jobs and sustainable growth. A tax cut for the middle class, and heck, free money for poor people, would have created spending on goods, and the increased demand would have created jobs. This 'jobless' recovery isn't a positive step for anyone but the wealthiest few.
     
  14. Oct 22, 2003 #13

    kat

    User Avatar

    erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun.......Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
     
  15. Oct 22, 2003 #14
    I think you know exactly what I mean. Declaring war on a country is one thing. Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy!! Honestly, this whole 'war on terror' is 1)overblown, 2) doomed to fail, 3)bound to cause more harm than good, 4)trade liberty for 'safety', and we won't even get safety. Terrorism isn't as much of a threat to America as the 'war on terror' is. What a joke, the idea disgusts me on an intellectual as well as emotional level.
     
  16. Oct 22, 2003 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    By this I simply meant that if you ask people after an election to give the main reason they voted for/against a candidate, the vast, vast majority will cite one of these two. I didn't mean to imply that there aren't other problems in this country.
    I don't disagree with him often, but on this one I do (its a popular article and I've read it and seen it cited before). The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us.
    Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was.
     
  17. Oct 22, 2003 #16

    megashawn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, I'm probably considered middle or low class. I can assure you that since Bush has been in office, things have been more difficult for me. I won't say its his fault, (International conspiracy theory to make shawn's life dificult) but I do not think the things he's done to "help the economy" are working. If they are, why is there daily job cuts, companys going under, etc, etc?

    I agree with Zero. How can you fight a concept? Better yet, how can you send thousands of troops to fight a concept? Terrorism is not warfare, its not groups of people who pick a nice open field and line up and shoot at one another. Its not even opposing forces in foxholes and bunkers. Its not war at all.

    How can you declare war on something that is not war? Its not like Al-queda has an organized state and military. The only way to stop terrorism is to prevent it. Just like the kid from NC that put the packages of box cutters on the plane to show how weak our security is, after the things Bush put in place to combat such actions. Now they are talking about giving him 10 years for it, when he should apparently be running the show.

    But basically, what has Bush done to combat terror? Essentially nothing. If a kid can sneak weapons on a plane 2 years after 911, whats to say a terrorist can't do the same? The only thing bush has done, IMO, is spread more terror around the world.
     
  18. Oct 22, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."
     
  19. Oct 22, 2003 #18
    Gotta love cliche conservative responses... What does this have to do with anything? From what I can tell it is merely a move to shift focus away from the undeniable growing disparity between the upper middle class and the lower middle class. Such statements are, of course, irrelevent to any discussion about economics and/or politics within the United States, but none the less give conservatives a mantra to latch on to. Funny how things work out... Sudenly the simple fact that poverty is always relative to a specific socio-economic spectrum does much more than it rationally should... It should just lead one to draw a picture of the socio-economic spectrum in question, but conservatives somehow miss the whole point...
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2003
  20. Oct 22, 2003 #19
    Actually it means A LOT to the rest of us. The fact that part of the Bush plan gives what will amount to billions of dollars a year in tax breaks to the super rich, the people who need the money the least, when giving the middle and lower classes, the people who actually need the money, comprable tax breaks would stimulate the economy more, creating more jobs. How is this fact irrelevent?
     
  21. Oct 23, 2003 #20
    WWI...Woodrow Wilson said it in 1917 or 1919. You know, back when wars were actually wars, and not the new type of insanity we have now.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush sucks as President
  1. Bush, wartime president (Replies: 18)

Loading...