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

News George W. Bush's 3rd term?

  1. Feb 15, 2010 #1
    If George W. Bush were serving a third term as president now, what state do you believe our country would be in?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 15, 2010 #2
    Afghanistan.
     
  4. Feb 15, 2010 #3
    denial and bankruptcy
     
  5. Feb 15, 2010 #4
    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.
     
  6. Feb 15, 2010 #5
    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.
     
  7. Feb 15, 2010 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Interesting comment considering that both parties support health care reform.
     
  8. Feb 15, 2010 #7
    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.
     
  9. Feb 15, 2010 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even though there is general agreement that we need reform, it would not happen under Bush. I agree with your statement.
     
  10. Feb 15, 2010 #9
    which means what, exactly?
     
  11. Feb 15, 2010 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  12. Feb 15, 2010 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. Feb 15, 2010 #12

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Have you been sleeping for the last four months? The Republicans are giving the wake-up call this time around.
     
  14. Feb 15, 2010 #13
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  15. Feb 15, 2010 #14
    "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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  16. Feb 15, 2010 #15
    Wasn't the Stimulus Bill $787 Billion?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  17. Feb 15, 2010 #16
    "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?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  18. Feb 15, 2010 #17
    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.
     
  19. Feb 15, 2010 #18
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  20. Feb 15, 2010 #19
    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.
     
  21. Feb 15, 2010 #20
    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.
     
  22. Feb 15, 2010 #21
    The Rush Limbaugh approach - really?

    It's quite apparent you could not defend your post or respond to mine.
     
  23. Feb 15, 2010 #22

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  24. Feb 15, 2010 #23

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What rewebster did was respond to a very specific assertion - one about military spending. What you did was post a non sequitur.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  25. Feb 15, 2010 #24
    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. "
     
  26. Feb 15, 2010 #25

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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!
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook