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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Term
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around speculations regarding the potential state of the United States if George W. Bush had served a third term as president. Participants explore various implications on domestic policies, particularly health care reform, defense spending, and the economy, while considering the political landscape and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that without health care reform, news organizations would have less to report on during Bush's third term.
  • Others argue that the defense budget might not have been as inflated, attributing current spending levels to bipartisan actions taken after Bush's presidency.
  • There is a viewpoint that universal health care reform would not have occurred under Bush, despite a general agreement on the need for reform.
  • Some participants note that Bush's policies were evolving towards those later adopted by Obama, particularly regarding military focus on terrorism.
  • Concerns are raised about the economic state, with references to denial and bankruptcy, questioning the fiscal policies of both Bush and Obama.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the first bailout under Bush and how it set the stage for subsequent economic challenges.
  • There are references to the public debt increase during Bush's presidency and comparisons to the financial conditions when Obama took office.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of a third Bush term, particularly on health care reform and economic policies. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the outcomes or the effectiveness of policies from either administration.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of fiscal data, the impact of historical events on current policies, and differing opinions on the effectiveness of military strategies employed by both administrations.

  • #61
I think it was a Bill Moyer's 'person' that he was interviewing, and that person said that a republican spokesperson back in the 1920's set the goal for the republican party that they are still using, which is that the republicans WANT bad government so that they can make more money for themselves (the politicians) and for their contributors.

With bad government in place, there is less oversight to making money, he said.

Bad government is the goal of the Republican party.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
rewebster said:
I think it was a Bill Moyer's 'person' that he was interviewing, and that person said that a republican spokesperson back in the 1920's set the goal for the republican party that they are still using, which is that the republicans WANT bad government so that they can make more money for themselves (the politicians) and for their contributors.

With bad government in place, there is less oversight to making money, he said.

Bad government is the goal of the Republican party.

Now that you've had your fun, I have a few questions.
1.) Going back a few posts - what percentage of the total taxes paid did those upper income people pay?
2.) What percentage of those upper income people taking advantage of Bush tax cuts are actually Republicans and how many are Democrats?
It's time to support your nonsense.
 
  • #63
WhoWee said:
Now that you've had your fun, I have a few questions.
1.) Going back a few posts - what percentage of the total taxes paid did those upper income people pay?
2.) What percentage of those upper income people taking advantage of Bush tax cuts are actually Republicans and how many are Democrats?
It's time to support your nonsense.

what? you can't do your own research?

or are you just trying to get a liberal to do it for you...

so you can deny it anyway due to something else that you don't agree with?


Like I said, I am not defending the republicans morality of being greedy and self-serving--I'm just presenting the info...
 
  • #64
rewebster said:
what? you can't do your own research?

or are you just trying to get a liberal to do it for you...

so you can deny it anyway due to something else that you don't agree with?

Believe it or not - the rules also apply to liberals on the PF.
You need to support your nonsense.
 
  • #65
WhoWee said:
Believe it or not - the rules also apply to liberals on the PF.
You need to support your nonsense.

again, I did---read my posts--- and do your own research in a non-biased way

or just go ahead and believe only what just the republican spokes people like Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc say
 
  • #66
This thread has devolved into liberal/conservative bashing. Closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
14K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
15K