Bush: Hate Him or Love Him (split from UK terror thread)

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

@Hazzle: Mainly just point 1...
"Odd that, since the US approval rating in Iraq has shot up and the Iraqi president has thanked the US for freeing the country"
Just wanted some clarification on who runs the approval rating polls and also if they actually have relevance etc. Many a time, one candidate had a majority vote in popularity polls, then the poor guy receives a landslide loss in the actual election.

This was a poll done by the Guardian, I believe. A paper that's been overtly anti-Bush. The same poll showed support for OBL has dropped, not increased, since the war in Iraq. Of course the relevance/accuracy can be overstated but if noone wanted the US there, approval would be 0, surely?

Also, not sure who the president for Iraq is, but do some people claim him to be a puppet, or that's only referring to Afghanistan?

A fair point, it's an opinion, though, and I disagree with it. I don't think I could claim to be right or anyone else could. He was elected by their public though, so he speaks for them. I think what he says holds merit.

"Soldiers and blogs"
Ratio of Iraqis that stayed inside in fear of rebels compared to Iraqis that came out to thank soldiers?

Irrelevant. My point was simply that not ALL Iraqis don't want the US there. Minority or otherwise. Only a minority of Americans want the US there!

Blogs is... I've got a generalised view of the academics and such, not a large majority of people, who can get access to a computer/net and would post their opinion on the medium. Under the impression that they can't exactly tell the whole story for the rest of the country. It'd be like myself trying to comment on how the Australian Aborigines are suffering in the Outback while living in a city...

That's a massive assumption. A lot of these blogs are written by young people, not old academics. Young people who're the future of Iraq. It's actually wrong to suggest that only a minority have access to computers or the internet, or use that medium. It's massively popular in the middle east, and in fact computer literacy in the region is probably higher than a lot of "western" countries.

Originally Posted by Leonie

I didn't mean that either. I meant that in the event of a large number of people losing their homes, their possessions and their pets, he could have sent help a tad quicker. If the reason for tardiness was the lack of priority, then that in itself is enough to fault Bush.

Not sure it is. Hurricanes are a natural part of life in the US, Louisiana, given its location, should've been better prepared. As Florida is. It's a state issue, and I think the Federal help given, however late, is a bonus they should get on their knees and be thankful for. It's not Bush's fault Louisiana is so badly run. Equally Bush's other priorities must surely rank above that. A war where millions of lives are at stake, not to mention the potential history-making rammifications of it, must be number one priority. A failing domestic economy must be second. He can't devote his time to a minority who should really have been taken care of by their state.

[duckula]

Originally Posted by Liam

Do yourself a favour and do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who has studied the area for the last 10 years.

May I?

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by haz

Not sure it is. Hurricanes are a natural part of life in the US, Louisiana, given its location, should've been better prepared. As Florida is. It's a state issue, and I think the Federal help given, however late, is a bonus they should get on their knees and be thankful for. It's not Bush's fault Louisiana is so badly run. Equally Bush's other priorities must surely rank above that. A war where millions of lives are at stake, not to mention the potential history-making rammifications of it, must be number one priority. A failing domestic economy must be second. He can't devote his time to a minority who should really have been taken care of by their state.

This is where we disagree. I think it Bush's job to make sure the state takes care of its people. He hadn't. Full stop. Before you go "saving citizens from a tyrant" in Iraq, save your own bloody people first eh? Just an idea.

[ryan]

Originally Posted by Leonie

This is where we disagree. I think it Bush's job to make sure the state takes care of its people. He hadn't. Full stop. Before you go "saving citizens from a tyrant" in Iraq, save your own bloody people first eh? Just an idea.

how can one man take on the additional responsibilities of 50 states on top of all of his federal and international responsibilities?

some of it has to fall on the state.

[Hazzle]

In fact all of it does. It's not the Presidents job to ensure the State takes care of its people at all. If it's in the constitution I'd love to see where. Prevention of hurricane damage would not be acceptable Federal spending. Once the bloody thing had hit, it was a bit late to take care of anyone. Blame Louisiana for not being prepared, but after it hit, blaming anyone for the aftermath is like blaming Chris Evans for having ginger pubes. A lack of preparedness was the cause of the problem.

As for "saving people from a tyrant" vs taking care of his own, I believe I adequately explained the geopolitical rammifications of that attitude. In fact, but for America "saving people from a tyrant", there's every possibility we'd both be speaking German right now. A cliched argument but nonetheless true.

True, America didn't "save" Europe but it was an allied effort and unlike Britain and Russia, America was fighting a war which didn't technically involve her. Hitler's declaration of war on America was never serious and had she wanted to, the US could simply have focussed on bombing the fuck out of Japan and leaving the Europeans to take care of their own mess.

Katrina was so overblown by the media and the left-wing. It killed less 2,000 people! Unless we're being racist and suggesting an American life is worth more than that of a foreigner, what about the Asian tsunami which killed 100 times that many people? Should America have sent more relief efforts there?

[Leah]

I don't have much more to say about Iraq or even foreign affairs for that matter but I agree with Leonie on Katrina and the reaction time. It's a common misconception that New orleans wasn't prepared...they thought they were. After recent storms their levees grew weak and no one knew despite checking them. The people of Lousiana (the majority of them anyways) do have hurricane supplies to sustain them for a while but Katrina came mildly as a shock to the people of Louisiana people didn't think it would be as bad as it was. Those people who were elderly, or didn't have much money, or had some ailment keeping them from leaving the coast and heading north were stuck. Mainly buses came AFTER Katrina hit to haul people away. It is most likely Ray Nagin's fault that he failed to get people out of New Orleans before hand on school buses because there obviously were buses; but even if he had used the buses the gas stations were shut down and the highways out were already at stand stills. So for those people who didn't get out in advance they were seemingly doomed. New Orleans was virtually leveled and because the levees broke at contact they had no way to get the water out. Now heres where I come to Bush. Bush is the president of our country first and last, he is the leader of the world super power and because of that he has to play cop around the world but America did not become a world super power by forgetting about domestic affairs. First and foremost comes our country and our well being. Apparently Bush forgot this commitment. He left the people there for days without food, without water, without medicine for the sick, without a way out. They should have done something.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

In fact all of it does. It's not the Presidents job to ensure the State takes care of its people at all. If it's in the constitution I'd love to see where. Prevention of hurricane damage would not be acceptable Federal spending. Once the bloody thing had hit, it was a bit late to take care of anyone. Blame Louisiana for not being prepared, but after it hit, blaming anyone for the aftermath is like blaming Chris Evans for having ginger pubes. A lack of preparedness was the cause of the problem.

As for "saving people from a tyrant" vs taking care of his own, I believe I adequately explained the geopolitical rammifications of that attitude. In fact, but for America "saving people from a tyrant", there's every possibility we'd both be speaking German right now. A cliched argument but nonetheless true.

Katrina was so overblown by the media and the left-wing. It killed less 2,000 people! Unless we're being racist and suggesting an American life is worth more than that of a foreigner, what about the Asian tsunami which killed 100 times that many people? Should America have sent more relief efforts there?

You keep making it sound as though Katrina was just your average storm they should have been prepared for. Fact is, it wasn't. It was an extroardinarily heavy blow; a special hurricane that required special attention. This wasn't average state business - it was a natural disaster on America's own soil that killed many people, and left others homeless till today even. When a state is in way over its head, it is the umbrella organisation that needs to take action.

Next point: I'm talking about America having the responsibility to take care of it's own people. That's not racist, it's logic. It would make little sense to pass on the charity all over the world, letting another country take care of your problems every time, like a big chain of goodwill.

You are also taking my argument out of context: I am merely suggesting that before America goes off to save the world, they may want to look at a few things that are harming their own people. After all, America is one of the Western countries where you can happily die of starvation still. There weren't enough soldiers left to help in an emergy such as Katrina. To my mind, that sounds as though there wouldn't be enough to help out in the event of say... a terrorist attack either? You may want to leave your people well and safe before you rush off overseas. That's not to say you can never go overseas to fight a war that, to my mind, isn't unjust, unless your country is perfect. It does mean that you have the obligation to take care of emergencies on home soil before you put all your money in overseas warfare.

Seeing how you're a war expert, surely you know that WWII was a good thing for the home economy of America. There were no urgent matters that needed taking care of within borders at that stage. That's when you can afford to give others a hand. To compare this to the current situation in America seems strange.

Originally Posted by ryan

how can one man take on the additional responsibilities of 50 states on top of all of his federal and international responsibilities?

some of it has to fall on the state.

I think you know that all these responsibilities only officially rest upon his shoulders. Unless you have fifty clones of your president to deal with it all on time. Then you must know I meant part of the government needs to take on that umbrella function and merely check whether America's states are taking accurate measures to ensure the safety of their people.

Taking care of people overseas should not be mutually exclusive with providing means to survive in your own country.

Haz! Look what you've done to me! Now I'm as wordy as you!

[Leah]

and you're exactly right!

[kingdumbass]

Liam, the Nazi invasion of Russia failed for many of the same reasons that Napoleon's invasion of Russia failed....
Sure, numbers were a factor, but not the only factor.

[Hazzle]

I'll keep this brief.

Katrina killed less than 2,000.

9/11 killed over 3,000.

Without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened by now. It's all good and well having troops in your own country to prevent terrorist attacks Leonie, but how exactly do troops on the ground prevent planes flying into buildings? Troops in the US would've been wasted on saving Nagin's arse. If a few thousand people had to die to prove what an inept cunt he was, so be it. Better than another 9/11 killing even more people, which presumably Bush would've been slated for too. Let's face it, the knives were out because of how he won the election, who his father is, and his low IQ.

You also act as if the war began AFTER Katrina, what was Bush supposed to do, withdraw troops in mid-conflict? Presumably if he had and millions of Iraqis died in insurgency, he'd have been blamed for that too. As you point out, Katrina was unexpected. Or was Bush supposed to predict it when Nagin couldn't? As it happens the proof is that Nagin's infrastructure wasn't prepared, for any hurricane, it just so happens that he got hit by a particularly bad one and it caused more damage.

Priority-wise Katrina had to rank lower than the war. It would do with me, it would do with any sane President. Perhaps this is why they let men rule the world ladies

[kingdumbass]

Oh, give me a break, Hazzle....
Bush handled Katrina poorly. It's incredibly obvious. Even hard core Republicans here in the United States will admit that.

I think that if Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president at the time of Katrina, they would have been working at the White House, observing events as they unfolded, and making sure that their political cronies were managing their respective agencies in an appropriate manner in order to respond. Bush was at his Texas ranch, playing in the woods.

The handling of that entire disaster was shameful. Watching the television coverage of people sitting on rooftops, THREE DAYS after the floods hit, waiting for water or some kind of rescue, was outrageous. Made us look like some kind of second-rate, third-world country. Horseshit. It was a fucking embarassment.

Bush has dealt with terrorism pretty well; but that hurricane was another matter entirely. You can't even ATTEMPT to argue otherwise. And there's no reason why he could not have been expected to be on top of BOTH issues.

[Hazzle]

Really? So you mean my post wasn't an attempt to argue otherwise? How strange.

I read a lot of "I think" in your post but no cold hard facts or reasoning. So "I think" you can shove that in your pipe and smoke it. Come back to me with something worth arguing. Using Clinton or Gore as examples of good presidency? Fuck's sake, Gore didn't even get to prove it (although I think he would've been a good president) and you have no idea what Clinton would've done in the same situation, to say otherwise is mere speculation. The truth of the matter is Clinton or Gore probably would've responded to 9/11 with a couple of missiles launched into Afghanistan, and that's it. So they would have no other issues to contend with but Katrina. Entirely different situation.

It would, of course, help if you could read. I merely stated that priority-wise Katrina ranked lower than the war. Oh, and the Hurricane WAS handled poorly. But not by Bush. It wasn't his job to handle it, that was Nagin's job, and he fucked up royally. In fact noone's logically stated a damn thing Bush could've done in the event.

He was on top of both events, as best he could be. Try and come back with something other than another "blah blah blah" post with no substance, ok?

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

I'll keep this brief.

Katrina killed less than 2,000.

9/11 killed over 3,000.

Without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened by now. It's all good and well having troops in your own country to prevent terrorist attacks Leonie, but how exactly do troops on the ground prevent planes flying into buildings? Troops in the US would've been wasted on saving Nagin's arse. If a few thousand people had to die to prove what an inept cunt he was, so be it. Better than another 9/11 killing even more people, which presumably Bush would've been slated for too. Let's face it, the knives were out because of how he won the election, who his father is, and his low IQ.

You also act as if the war began AFTER Katrina, what was Bush supposed to do, withdraw troops in mid-conflict? Presumably if he had and millions of Iraqis died in insurgency, he'd have been blamed for that too. As you point out, Katrina was unexpected. Or was Bush supposed to predict it when Nagin couldn't? As it happens the proof is that Nagin's infrastructure wasn't prepared, for any hurricane, it just so happens that he got hit by a particularly bad one and it caused more damage.

Priority-wise Katrina had to rank lower than the war. It would do with me, it would do with any sane President. Perhaps this is why they let men rule the world ladies

You make it sound as though I want ground troups to prevent a 9/11. I merely suggested some troups would have been helpful in evacuating people out of the struck area. He left his country in such a state that no people were available to help New Orleans. My point is: if there aren't enough soldiers to help out in the event of a natural disaster, Lord knows what could happen if they were needed after a terrorist attack. Like you said: it was unexpected, and the state failed on many levels, but isn't it a country's duty to ensure help is on its way in such an event? The FBI and the regular police and no doubt many a SWAT team can deal with 'regular' criminals, but wouldn't you want trained fighters up against deranged terrorists planning attacks on home soil, London-style for example?

Like I said before: I believe that fighting wars overseas should not mean that people struck by Katrina are left to fend for themselves. Going into a flooded area and saving those left there, locked in, is an army's job (Where I'm from it would be anyway: we've had many river floods and dams breaking, and the army there to try and keep the water out, get people out if need be. If the Netherlands are the only country in which this would be an army's job then I'll leave that point, and put it on the pile of "cultural differences.") They weren't there to do it. I do not disagree with Bush's foreign policy, but again, it shouldn't be mutually exclusive with caring for your people at home.

Lastly: without the war in Iraq, another 9/11 would have happened? Bollocks, there's absolutely no proof for that. I'll give you this: without the war in Afghanistan, another 9/11 could have happened. I don't think the war in Iraq is unjust, but I do believe that Afghanistan is a far more dangerous area than Iraq ever was. They're too busy killing their own people to make plans for an overseas attack. If we go by your logic, dividing the troups over the two areas is entirely unhelpful and will only weaken the US' force. I have nothing against the war in Iraq, but wish they'd focus on what has been proven to be a terrorist fieldtrip destination.

[kingdumbass]

The truth of the matter is Clinton or Gore probably would've responded to 9/11 with a couple of missiles launched into Afghanistan, and that's it.

You weren't here in this country when 9/11 happened....
I was. And believe me -- people would not have accepted just a few lobbed missles. Everyone wanted WAR. In fact, many people at the time would have been perfectly in favor of nuking someone. I had never seen such bloodlust.

The FACT is that Bush is a shitty president domestically. He's packing the courts with conservative nutjobs, ignoring the environment, allowing the worst elements of society to get away with whatever they want, and mismanaging just about everything but his ranch. His presidency is DAMAGING this country in the long-term.

Oh, and your claim that it was Nagin's responsibility to deal with Katrina is laughable on its face. You obviously are ignorant of how things work here. The mayor of a city is not the one who is expected to coordinate a response to something like that. He would naturally lack the resources. We have a little federal agency called FEMA to manage those things, and FEMA FAILED.

End.
Of.
Story.

[Hazzle]

I don't need to have been there to know the bloodlust. I also don't see what people would've "accepted" making any difference. Even if Clinton or Gore had been president, they'd have bombed Afghanistan, and certainly not gone into Iraq. So when Katraina hit there would've been no war to distract either.

I'm also well aware of the role of FEMA. AFTER an emergency has occured. It was too late by then. Nagin was to blame for the poor infrastructure that ensured the roads were blocked and noone could get out. That was his responsibility. FEMA have no jurisdiction over issues like that, their job is to coordinate RESPONSES to emergencies, not deal with issues like road traffic management.

Bush "packing" the courts is no different to what any Democrat would have done, except the court would've been packed with liberal nutjobs instead. And that's just as bad. Who gives a fuck about the Environment? My worry with the right-wing court is stem cell research, overuling Roe v Wade, bans on gay marriage etc.

I'm not pro-Bush, I just don't think you can slate him for the economy or Katrina. There are lots of things you can slate him for (his policies on the above topics, stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage) and those are what I criticise him for. FYI I was pro-Gore when he stood against Bush, and I only supported Bush against Kerry, as Kerry was an inept twit, Bush isn't. It's a common misconception that he is.

Bush's failing isn't his IQ, it's his extreme politics, although arguably that's the fault of the Democrats, because this partisanship was definitely a beast of their creating after Gore lost. Bush stood as a moderate against Gore, and an extremist against Kerry, yet won more support in the latter election. I think that suggests the blame for these right-wing extremist policies rests with the US electorate, not Bush.

Leonie: I think we're suffering from a communication break-down as you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. So I'll try again:

1) You said that a lack of ground troops to deal with Katrina suggests the US was ill-prepared for another terrorist attacks. Having the soldiers at home wouldn't have been any assistance with Katrina, or with any terrorist attack. You don't send soldiers to clean up wreckage, and that's all there would've been with another 9/11 attack, surely? A London-style attack could never happen in the US, security to get into the country is too tight. Equally Katrina was an issue because there wasn't enough air support, but there isn't an overwhelming amount of air support in Iraq. It's mainly in Afghanistan.

2) I didn't mean that the people struck by Katrina were left to fend for themselves. Only that response times would be slower, the priority would be lower than the war (more lives at stake) and resources would be lower. The war was already in full flow, it's not like Bush could have brought resources back. He had no way of knowing they'd be needed for Katrina before it hit.

3) Without the war in Iraq another 9/11 would have happened. Not because Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. But because 9/11 didn't happen because of terrorists. Islamic terrorists have been around for decades, how come this was the first successful attack on US soil? Because America had disengaged from the world. Without the war in Iraq, America would equally have been seen as disengaged. Afghanistan was retaliation, Iraq wasn't.

[acliff]

Leonie, I don't think that the US was short of soldiers on its own soil in the aftermath of Katrina. I do not believe that there will ever be a lack of soldiers on US soil in the case of a terrorist attack.
The biggest issue is the delay of response. I don't believe the soldiers were particularly well versed in mass flood rescue either, or at any rate not as the Dutch military might be.

In terms of a terrorist attack, a great deal of the ground work is done by the police, ambulance and fire/rescue services. This is assuming that a terrorist attack would be in the form of explosions and hijacks. As a direct response to a terrorist attack, the military is pretty useless except for additional manpower and policing. Unless martial law is declared.
The military response to a terrorist attack would be action overseas, with counter terrorism units (which there are many) to do their job. Counter terrorism units are designed for extremely quick response and extreme competence in their field, mobilising the army in my opinion would be way too slow.

Edit: If I'm talking bollocks, let me know.

[AureaMediocritas]

Originally Posted by Leah

Hazzle I never said he didn't have an affect on you I said you didn't have to live under his governing. And another thing, if you had actually read what I'd said about the war you would have read the part about "other country's citizens". That includes yours too. Yeah as a world super power we have a pretty good economy compared to other countries but have you checked out the exchange rates lately? Hello? Your fuel prices are high but you have to recognize the difference in the way our countries are built. London is close together, has an underground, and taxis running throughout. In my country there are very few cities like that. Where I live everything is spread out and we use cars to get every place we need to go. Think about how cost effective it would be to add a subway to a city that spread apart? Thus we use alot of fuel. The US is a market economy, the more we need the more we get. The more there is the cheaper it is. Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country. I didn't say there was ONE reason for the flipping war either you just assumed that was the only one I thought there was because I didn't list the reasons. Media soundbites? That's bull. I can SEE, I have family members in the military. I don't need the media to know what happens in Iraq. Do you think that just because the amount of deaths for civilians is low it makes it okay? Do you think gang raping a 14 year old girl and murdering her parents and sister in front of her is okay?

"because you don't live in my country, and you may know what goes on but you don't live under him."

"I don't need to "live in your country" to know all this."

That's funny I didn't say you did.

"so if anyone should feel resentful about being drawn into an "unnecessary" conflict, it should be us, not you."
Excuse me but last time I checked Al Qaeda does not make up 100% of the Iraqi population so why wage war on the soil of a country who does not want us there? If waging a war like that isn't unnecessary I don't know what is. It's unnecessary to everyone involved just because we were attacked doesn't make it any less unnecessary. Enough people died win the towers fell, we don't need more to die over there. Freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam? Yay good plan but not when our president has enough problems to deal with in his OWN COUNTRY. Last time I checked Osama Bin Ladden was the one who decided it would be fun to knock down our towers. So what business do we have in Iraq? We're pulling regiments from Afghanistan but...(I'm really not sure about this one) isn't that a plausible place for him to be? Didn't we get news that he was there?


But actually you know what you probably know more about the technicalities of that war and the US economy than I do. I just know what I've learned and how this whole thing has effected me so whatever it doesn't really matter, does it? I know my opinions of him will never change.

Hear, hear, a reasonable American . Quite an interesting perspective.

[Nuck-39]

Hate'em

[hasselbrad]

Oh, and your claim that it was Nagin's responsibility to deal with Katrina is laughable on its face. You obviously are ignorant of how things work here. The mayor of a city is not the one who is expected to coordinate a response to something like that. He would naturally lack the resources. We have a little federal agency called FEMA to manage those things, and FEMA FAILED.

You are so wrong it hurts.
It is the mayor's responsibility to take the necessary measures on the local level. That did not happen. He didn't order a mandatory evacuation until nineteen hours before landfall. I have never, in 34 years of living in a coastal environment, seen a mayor do less than Nagin did to secure the well being of his constituents. His reasoning was that they didn't want to adversely affect the tourism by evacuating, only to have the storm miss the area.
There was no contra flow on the interstates leading out of New Orleans. I recall sitting there watching the shots of people leaving the city and wondering "why are lanes into New Orleans not being used to funnel people out?"
Of course, you are right, it wasn't all Nagin's fault. Most of the blame falls squarely on the, weak and ineffective shoulders of Gov. Blanco. For days, all she could say was "we're in crisis mode" whilst Govs. Barbour and Riley were moving forward with the recovery efforts in Mississippi and Alabama, respectively. The main reason there were too few troops to effectively deal with the situation is that she failed to call out the National Guard soon enough. That's her job, and she didn't do it.
Have you ever taken a gander at the State of Lousiana's plans for just such a disaster? I have. One of the first items it covers is the use of public transit systems to get people in the endangered areas (i.e.: those in the Old 9th Ward) to less vulnerable parishes to the North. Hundreds of buses were flooded where they remained parked because this did not happen! How is it George Bush's fault that these two elected officials didn't do what the state's plan specifically called for?
Was Mike Brown the best guy for the job? Probably not. Is FEMA over politicized? By all means. However, FEMA can only deal effectively with the situation they find when they get there, and I heard many FEMA people remark about the utter lack of preparation they found in New Orleans and Louisiana. Had public transit been used effectively (or, for that matter, at all) we would not have witnessed the humanitarian disasters that occurred when those who didn't get out became stranded.
Does anyone else remember the young man who commandeered (nautical term) the school bus and drove it to Houston? He managed to get roughly fifty people to safety. Just imagine if all the buses had been used in this manner. Fifty people on 250 buses is 12,500. Now, multiply that by the number trips each bus could have made if Nagin had ordered the mandatory evacuation the standard 48-72 hours out, and you start to see a vastly different situation unfolding once Katrina comes ashore.
As far as I'm concerned, FEMA's management should be gutted and replaced with retired military men. They understand moving men and material. Bureaucrats only understand moving paper from one pile to another. However, many of FEMA's "failures" were indicative of serious failures on the local and state level, and the errors and/or failures at those levels simply compound and magnify the problems as the situation unfolds.

Cliff's Notes:
Local...clusterfuck
State...bigger clusterfuck
Federal...clusterfuck on top of clusterfuck

Now another flaw I see is this...where do you think Bush gets the money for his war? where do you think he got the money to pay for the clean up of NYC? From our TAXES. He lowered the taxes the wealthy people have to pay significantly not that of the middle or lower classes of our country.

Ahem...what's so hard to understand about this. John Kennedy understood that if you cut taxes, the Federal Government takes in more money. It's simple economics. When taxes are cut, more money is spent on capital investment. Businesses expand. Greater tax revenues are enjoyed from a smaller percentage and the economy is strengthened. Reagan's tax cuts were what got us out of the disaster we call the Carter Administration, and these tax cuts are what have gotten us out of the mess the dot com collapse rendered.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas

Hear, hear, a reasonable American . Quite an interesting perspective.

May be "reasonable" or "interesting". It's also very very wrong.

The geopolitical rammifications of a "there are enough problems in my own country" attitude have already been discussed. But by all means feel free to ignore those because they don't fit in with your dislike of Bush. It's not like that attitude is why 9/11 happened or anything...

Well put Brad. Glad to see an American understanding why Bush's economic policy is the way it is. Like I said, I completely disagree with his stance on stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage and the like, but I entirely agree with his handling of the economy. Even the Fed acknowledged a slowing US economy by pausing its tightening policy, so tax cuts fit in with this. Few Americans actually grasp how close the US is to being gripped by stagflation (stagnation coupled with inflation) and how tax cuts are the only viable way to deal with a potential recession that could be looming.

Rudimentary understanding of macro economics required.