George W. Bush's 3rd term?

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • #1
3,077
4
If George W. Bush were serving a third term as president now, what state do you believe our country would be in?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #3
794
1
denial and bankruptcy
 
  • #4
19
1
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.
 
  • #5
100
1
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.
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
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.
 
  • #7
19
1
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.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
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.
 
  • #9
100
1
Interesting comment considering that both parties support health care reform.
which means what, exactly?
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
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:
  • #11
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
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.
 
  • #12
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685
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.
 
  • #13
149
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
794
1
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
149
0
"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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
794
1
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
19
1
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.
 
  • #18
149
0
"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?
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:
  • #19
100
1
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.
 
  • #20
794
1
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.
 
  • #21
149
0
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.
 
  • #22
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
149
0
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. "
 
  • #25
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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!
 

Related Threads on George W. Bush's 3rd term?

  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
7K
Replies
88
Views
10K
Replies
55
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
102
Views
15K
Top