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

News What GOOD has George W. Bush done for the USA?

  1. Aug 8, 2008 #1
    I hear people snarl and foam at the mouth when our president comes up in conversation. Everyone talks about how horrible he has done, and you never hear his *good* accomplishments for the USA. What *has* he accomplished?

    If you're a Bush bashing person, I won't mind if you state his negative accomplishments, but I really would like to hear about what good things he's done (I doubt any president can be all bad - I'm sure the Democrats would like to make things sound worse than they are). However, whatever you say about him I want HARD PROOF (sources), NOT HEARSAY, NO OPINIONS! I cannot stress this enough. If, for example, it's economics - give some numbers and a cited source saying where you got your information. I don't want opinionated crap (ex. "he was strong when we went to war"). Anyway, I hope you can help.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    He's still married.
    That's the end of my list.
  4. Aug 8, 2008 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've heard he's actually becoming a good ambassador.

    Just look at how he ragged on China before attending the Olympics, they were thrilled.

    He says it's not a political visit, it's just to enjoy the sports. Ok, uhm, why are we taxpayers paying for him and his family to be there then?
  5. Aug 8, 2008 #4
    Why not? I'm not big on paying for most things for our political leaders but I think it's ok for us to foot the bill and send our Prez to the Olympics. Just my opinion. Having our Senators run around in limos and luxury vehicles (which many do on our dime) is something I do not support. We pay them enough that they can buy their own damn cars and actually pay for gas out of their own pockets. Then they can feel what we feel when it comes to the cost of fuel.
  6. Aug 8, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm far from a Bush supporter. But I like some things about what he's done.

    First, his AIDS policy in Africa. He has put a lot of money into AIDS treatment and education, but I must admit the priority of his prevention policy I disagree with. That policy is "ABC" - stresses Abstinence before marriage, Be faithful after marriage, use Condoms.

    Well, preaching to people when and with whom they have sex is probably useless. Condom use is not useless and, in my opinion, should have been the primary front on this battle, not behind abstinence and faithfulness. (If I were president I wouldn't even include those - so instead of the "ABC" policy it would be the "C" policy. Now you know why I'm not president.)

    The program has been generally well-received in Africa. It funds counselors to educate people about condom use.

    Second - elements of his immigration policy. Too bad most of his own party opposed it.

    If I think of more I'll post again.
  7. Aug 8, 2008 #6
    Hilarious. Do you really think these people are going to feel the gas prices if they drive themselves. They have the money to still be driven around town from their own pockets.
  8. Aug 8, 2008 #7
    He cut taxes for a majority of Americans. He also has kept us safe from terrorism since 9/11. And he refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, which would have severely hampered our economy. And yes, although it's not really our business, and kind of terrible for this to be a "plus" for a politician, he didn't cheat on his wife, which I think says something at least, considering so many seem to have been caught up in various scandals. He also has done exactly what he said he would and has never wavered once, even in the face of fierce opposition. He is a hardworking President who has some of the biggest cajones I've seen. Very few politicians I think would have the guts to invade a country, especially in their first term, and then to keep at their goal even when so much seems to go wrong (people hate you, media hates you, no WMDs, war taking much longer than planned, etc...). The fact that he did invade Iraq and got re-elected to this day still baffles his staunch critics. I do not agree with everything he's done, but I hardly think he has been a terrible President.

    He did spend too much, but he spent it mostly I believe on healthcare, education, alternative energy, etc...all the things people like (I might be wrong on that though, but I believe he outspent every other president on alternative energy and signed one of the largest pieces of healthcare legislation).

    And if you favor illegals, President Bush was plenty friendly to them.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2008
  9. Aug 9, 2008 #8
    Yes, I do. I make close to what a Senator makes a year and I FEEL IT.
  10. Aug 9, 2008 #9
    He slept with the Evangelical Right and then dropped them like hot rocks the next day. Big points in my book.
  11. Aug 9, 2008 #10
    You make close to a Senator's salary, or close to what they make? Because both Obama's and McCain's wives make more than they do. Kerry's wife makes more than he does. Edwards makes a lot of money too, doesn't he? I'm not big into Congress, so I don't know how many of them actually have "Senator" as their main source of income.
  12. Aug 9, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And the CBO said the Bush Tax cuts, along with his spending habits, are what have given us the 7 years of amazing deficits we've seen.

    In the Global war on terror it doesn't matter if the rest of the Globe suffers from more terrorist attacks, so long and we are safer.

    Did you mean to say 'may' instead of "would"?

    Wait, are you talking about his campaign promises of a non-interventionist foreign policy, bringing integrity back to the White House, etc.?

    I can't speak for all the cojones you've had the opportunity to see (though I think you could be mistaking Cheney's cojones for Bush's), but on what basis do you say the President that has taken more vacation time (as well as the longest single continuous vacation) than any other President in history is hardworking?

    ...and defeats the point you were making in the previous sentence.

    I guess the people were going to like Bush's Healthcare Bill so much that he decided it couldn't hurt to hire some actors to stage fake news about it. And also, I guess it doesn't matter that Congress has had to over-ride Bush vetos on Healthcare spending.

    That's like saying Clinton outspent every other President on Computer Technology - it's completely meaningless.

    That did what - took money from the people and gave it to HMOs?

    Spending itself is not an accomplishment. The accomplishment ought to be the positive benefits gained from such spending. Has healthcare for the average American improved significantly, thanks to Bush's spending and policy?

    And do you "favor illegals"?

    Here's what I think are some of the the good things:
    - North Korea could turn out to be a big one
    - Efforts in Afghanistan, if substantially rethought and stepped up, might turn into a net positive
    - Libya, may be a small (even if mostly symbolic) positive
    - Improved relations with China and India could be fairly big positives over the long term

    ...will think of more with time.
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2008
  13. Aug 9, 2008 #12
    He has united the country behind a single cause.
  14. Aug 9, 2008 #13
    Sentors make around $160k a year. If you make $160k a year and are hurting from gas prices, someones not managing their money well. But thats besides the point, what I was getting at is they dont do the job for the money. They already have money, lots of money. Do you think G. W. or Cheney needs a dime from the gov? They could have done the job for free and would still be LOADED.
  15. Aug 9, 2008 #14
    What cause? The cause of despising him and bringing him to justice?
  16. Aug 9, 2008 #15
    No he hasn't. There have been plenty of terrorist attacks since 9/11.

    Deciding to hamper the atmoshphere and long term global climate instead.

    How do you know?

    The guy has a notorious history of NOT doing what he said he would.

    He said when he was trying to sell the patriot act legislation that wiretaps would still require a warrant. He only said that as lip service, because a year later he was fighting to wiretap withOUT a warrant.

    He even said that he would uphold the constitution. He PROMISED us this. He then has consistently done the oppositte whilst he uses the constitution for toilet paper.
  17. Aug 9, 2008 #16
    but you just can't remember what it is

  18. Aug 9, 2008 #17
    A senator's main source of income is not necessarily their salary or their spouse's.. It can also be in the forms of bribes, kickbacks and payouts from corporate lobbyists who dictate their legislative policy.

    I'm sure not all senators are corrupt but human greed for money is natural.. Once they have access to that corporate money trough it's hard to resist.
  19. Aug 9, 2008 #18
    Fixed that for you.
  20. Aug 9, 2008 #19
    It should be unacceptable. But surprisingly the public really doesn't seem to care and just look the other way. They then continuously vote in a nonstop chain of corrupted republicrats.
  21. Aug 9, 2008 #20
    The deficit shrank in 2007 from what it appears, but perhaps because of the housing bubble? (it will probably enlarge now). However, I agree on the spending habits. The Republicans could likely have kept the deficit a lot smaller if they hadn't gone on such a wild spending spree. A temporarily increased deficit, to cut taxes, I think is okay, if government is truly reigning in spending at the same time, but when they openly go and spend so much money, that is wrong.

    A true Republican, even if they cut taxes and tax revenues start going up highly, still should have the discipline to reign in spending as much as possible.

    My fear is if they raise taxes to try and "fix" the deficit, I believe all that will happen is they will end up spending more (Republican or Democrat from what I've seen). I think the best way to stop government from spending so much is to starve it of revenue partially, not so much that disaster results, but enough to make it wake up and start working to fix the problem.

    Kind of like people who spend themselves into massive debt, and then win the lottery for $100 million; most of them end up either right back where they started or even worse. More money will just accentuate the current spending habits.

    Another example could be California, which has some of the highest taxes in the nation, yet they have still managed to spend themselves into a hole.

    How does protecting America make the rest of the globe more prone to terrorist attacks?

    From everything I have read it would have: http://www.accf.org/publications/testimonies/test-impactkyoto-march25-1999.html [Broken]
    It also did not demand the same from countries such as China and India, which are huge releasers of carbon. Kyoto called for some severe carbon constraints on American industry and would have also made America answerable to the United Nations, infringing on our national sovereignty.

    Well the thing is, that was before 9/11 occurred. Things changed. And I think he did bring back some integrity to the White House.

    If that is so, then I will have to stand corrected.

    How so?

    I'm not meaning to imply his spending on it was a "good" thing, I just mean, usually the Left prefers spending on something like healthcare over something like the missile defense system for example.

    I wouldn't say so necessarily. It would mean he has tried more than other Presidents to aid in developing new forms energy. Politicians have been talking about dependence on foreign oil and so forth all the way back to Jimmy Carter.

    Nope, and I agree fully. Spending itself means nothing.

    I really don't know where to stand on the issue of illegals. On the one hand, they are illegal, and I don't think they should get things like education, healthcare, etc...off the back of the taxpayer who struggles to afford these things; on the other hand, I think they do lower prices for things like food and so forth by providing cheaper labor (however certain companies have been found to be abusing them as well, which isn't good).

    Also, it's not like we can just round up these millions of illegals and ship them out of the country.

    So I have mixed feelings about the issue.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  22. Aug 9, 2008 #21
    Not in the United States. There have been plenty of attempts though.

    Doing something that would have hampered the economy and infringed on national sovereignty for something that is still not even fully known (if the Earth is warming from carbon emissions or not), is not a good step to take. It also did not apply to China and India, two enormous CO2 emitters.

    Remember, global warming is as much an economic issue as it is a scientific one. We need to greatly weigh the cost-benefits first of different policies and learn more about the science as well.

    Global warming is the perfect excuse for governments to use to gain more control over our lives.

    No one can know for sure, but I think it would have come out by now if he was. These politicians that do this, so many end up getting caught, I think with President Bush, he especially would have been caught by now.

    The surveillance program, from my understanding, is for intercepting signals coming in from outside the United States. It isn't a "warrantless wiretapping" program the way the New York Times originally hyped it up. President Bush, according to that very NYT article: "The Bush administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues."

    Also check here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/29/20060329-120346-1901r/

    I think if President Bush had really abused his powers, he'd have been impeached.

    I'd have to disagree for the most part, although I don't like that he said he would re-sign the Assault Weapons Ban if the Congress would support it.
  23. Aug 9, 2008 #22
    What is wrong with greed for money? Greed, when it drives a person to lie, cheat, steal, and harm other people, to get money, is evil. Greed, where you are willing to work very hard and do productive things that create wealth and help humanity at the same time, to make yourself very wealthy, I see nothing wrong with.

    Greed can be good or bad, it depends.
  24. Aug 9, 2008 #23


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I thinik by "us" he meant people in the United States. And it is a fact that there has been much less in the past 7 years than in the previous 7 years. In particular, zero attacks by al qaeda.

    Here's a list:
    Another list, only to 2003:
    List of thwarted attacks:

    So really there are only two possibilities here: either we've been spectacularly lucky or the ant-terror policy (ie, the DHS) has been very succesful.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  25. Aug 9, 2008 #24
    Could you explain? From what I could make out, the terrorist attacks in the US in the previous 7 years were all by domestic terrorists (i.e. crazy people). None by foreign terrorists. The number of foreign attacks in the US was exactly the same under Bush as under Clinton if you count 9/11 as one attack. That is one. Could you correct me if I am wrong?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  26. Aug 9, 2008 #25
    Of course the DHS has been very successful. If I put bars over all my windows and doors and just stay home 24/7, I'll never get robbed, either. If I hire 50 people to put those bars on, where it normally takes 3 or 4, I'll make sure they are done correctly, too!

    I love expanding the government, don't you?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook