It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

98% Of Historians Call Bush Presidency A Failure

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Immigration #1,


Offering what amounts to amnesty for millions of illegals, while simultaneously gutting the INS and Dept. of Labor to keep them from enforcing anti-illegal-immigrant hiring regulations, does not exactly put "Immigration #1" in my book.


combatting terror,


Most of which we created and funded through our meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Besides which, "terror" is a "tactic". You can't "combat" a "tactic".


a Strong Military,


So strong Army Generals are complaining it's stretched too thin. And how strong would it really need to be if we concentrated on true self-defense, rather than on "force projection"?


Education Reform,


Destroying the educational system in this country in favor of "faith-based" private schooling is not "education reform".


Social security/Medicare Reform,


The only reforms needed here are expansion of Medicare and greater funding paid for by making the rich pay their fair share.


Tax Reform,


Setting things up so the rich pay a lower percentage of their income than someone doing clerical work in an office is not "reform".


Research and Development,


Mostly on new ways to kill people.


Nuclear Proliferation.


Which cannot be solved by the U.S., and certainly not with airstrikes. If Bush really wants to stop nuclear proliferation he should dismantle all of OUR nukes. Then maybe we'd have some moral hiogh ground to stand on in dealing with other countries who want to join the "nuclear club".


Heck even Global Warming via Greenhouse emmsissions seems to be on the table.


What Bush has said on this issue and what he has done are two very different things.


The Two sides aren't really that far apart, both need split the difference. If you think the Democrats win and suddenly the Patriot Act will be burned and buried, you have got a rude surprise awaiting you.


Are you in favor of domestic spying on innocent Americans or against it?

No, please enlighten me, how many "whacko's" issue death threats.

Here's a couple. I've been threatened on this very site at least once as well.

Death Threat against Stephanie Miller
Melanie Morgan


And please......stop with the "progressive" tag, just call yourself liberals and be proud of it, you all sound ashamed of it IMO. And stop with all the name calling and insults, it really doesn't advance your cause.


Liberals are "Progressive". We believe that by freeing people from economic slavery society will progress. And yes, I'm very proud to be a Liberal, a Progressive, a Democrat, and a Socialist, thank you.


Oh, I see. So your side can now become the "Regime" that tells us what is right and knows better?


Why not? Your side does the same damn thing. Hey, welcome to Democracy!


No need to actually work with the other side for the good of the country right?


Since when have Republicans truly worked with Democrats "for the good of the country"? Clinton tried that--the Repubs wanted a balanced budget, so he gave them one, and some six years earlier than they themselves had outlined. They hated him for it, and still do to this day. Why? Because the Right does not have the best interests of Americans at heart. Only the rich. It's the God's Honest Truth.


Those who count their eggs before they hatch end up with yolk on their face. You weren't predicting a Kerry win too were you?


Nope, especially after he refused to fight back against the lying scum of the Swift Boaters, and stated off the record he knew the voting machines in Ohio were rigged and refused to fight that battle too. Kerry wimped out trying to be the nice guy, and your side, playing dirty as always, walked all over him.




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 



Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by jsobecky
Maybe they got some of that $27.9b from other sources, eh?

It appears you've missed the point. Let me add some clarity.

Certainly you're not unaware of the numerous government-sponsored programs (some of which have been created and/or accelerated under the current oil-friendly administration) that are enablers for the massive petroleum products profit?

When we have --
-1- state incentives continuing for corporations engaged in historic profits
-2- no state incentives for price management
-3- tax windfalls because of #1 and #2
Those of us who seek to ask serious questions of our government and the entrenched "system" see a collusion that harms the average person via excessive prices for a vital core component of the economy.


Our gov't does not have total control over prices, esp. when the source of the goods is from another country. I'm sure you know that.

You may as well ask OPEC to lower their prices in a gesture of altruism. Or the traders that deal with speculation. Or the tree-huggers that stifle new refineries and oil exploration. They all have much more effect on prices than Exxon does.

You're lashing out at the wrong people when you blame Exxon for high oil prices. Do some research into the oil business; you'll be surprised.

The problem with most CT'ers here, is they stop asking the questions when they reach the shores. To them the US is the source of all that is wrong in the world.

As far as state incentives, they almost always return many times the investment in the form of jobs and taxes paid.

But you seem to think this is evil, even though it has been shown that one corporation alone pays more in income taxes than do 65 million individual taxpayers.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by Johnmike
Frankly, I disagree. I think that the New Deal did nothing at all to improve America's economic condition, and you've as of yet shown me nothing that would make me thing otherwise.


Why do you believe this? If the New Deal did nothing to help America's economy, why were we so prosperous during the late '40s through the early '70s?

It was because of a post-war economic boom fueled by the return of many soldiers. The main components were steel, concrete, coal, oil, plastics, communications, etc. Our highways were rebuilt. We were still an industrial producer nation at the time. After the war, the world needed to be rebuilt, and we were there to help. We were still the #1 steel producer at the time.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Who's re-writing economic history here? Things didn't begin to implode until Republicans took it upon themselves to de-regulate industry so their well-heeled contributors could make more money for less work.

I remember the catastrophic effects that the Carter administration had on the economy. He was a Democrat, btw.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drewdatt

98% Of Historians Call Bush Presidency A Failure


www.usnews.com

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.presstv.ir

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Meltdown of U.S. Dollar Underway as China Dumps the Currency

What true historian would can something a success or failure before it was over?

This has bias written all over it.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


If you really look at it though Jsobecky, and leave party affliation out of it, the oil embargo and all that happened in the late 70's was what took its toll on the economy, not the Carter administration... in fact the recession in the first years of the Reagan administration was far worse jobs wise than anything that happened under Carter.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by grover]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Sorry, but any comments right now, are not by "historians" per se. They are being made by contemporaries, and they have about as much historical context asd a melting snowflake.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why do you believe this?

Because it's true?


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
If the New Deal did nothing to help America's economy, why were we so prosperous during the late '40s through the early '70s?

Economic prosperity doesn't come from government policy. It usually comes from the lack thereof, with regulations acting as an obstacle. Some of these obstacles are necessary, to ensure a somewhat free market (which is why I don't take only from the Austrian School of economics), such as proper labeling and testing. I want to know my Merlot is really Merlot.

jsobecky's reponse to the same question is great, too.

Here's a short essay by the Cato Institute. You might like it.
How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

I'd take excerpts for you to read, but the whole thing is very to the point, and I can't pick just one.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Which won't actually help our economy or the average American. Frankly, most people are clueless on investing and saving, and until and unless they are better-educated from an early age about these important issues, something else is needed.

And you show your true colors - you must hate liberty and personal responsibility. I advocate being able to spend my money as I see fit, but you want to tell me how to do it. You want to steal it from me and make me beg for it later! It's a truly disgusting concept.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Everything is risky right now. For weeks a virtual parade of economists has been telling us how bad things are.

Again, this shows that you are completely ignorant in how to manage money. Christ, just look into certificates of deposit and whatnot.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
As a matter of fact, YES. You want to live in a civilized society, you pay taxes. If you want education, roads, police, firefighters, military protection, etc. etc. etc. you pay taxes. Right now those things aren't being paid for, which is why roads are cumbling, bridges are collapsing, police agencies are pulling crap like this to raise money, and part of why our military is stretched so thin the National Guard in many states has little or no equipment (besides it all being in Iraq).

We already pay nearly one third of our money to the government, what more do you want? The reason they're crumbling is because we're spending billions and billions of dollars and useless social programs! I don't mind paying my share, but when it gets to the point where government is becoming a massive, useless money sink, yes, it's gone too far. Unless, to go with the whole "true colors" bit, you want us to be less prosperous.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
What source? If they were "terrified" of democracy and its principles why did they create one? Why have we lived in one for 219 years? Why do we have it now? And please, not the tired "representative republic" line. That's just jargon for democracy separated and concentrated into different levels. We choose our representatives democratically, and their voting on policy is a democratic process. The fact that someone nominally signs off on it (or not) to provide a check can be overridden by a large enough majority. Again, a democratic process. Split hairs all you want, we're a Democracy, with whatever good or bad comes in the package.

Oh my God, I don't know what to say. Am I really debating with someone as ignorant and clueless as you? Are you really that idiotic? I'm not even going to go into it, if you want to learn you can research history yourself; then you won't sound like stupid, rambling 12-year-old.

1) The United States was founded as a republic.
2) The Founding Fathers explicitly loathed democracy.

There's far, far more, but I'll simply link you to Federalist #10 and leave it at that.
Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 10
Note how he advocates a republic.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
But in an uncontrolled capitalist environment run entirely by business, for business, you surrender your right to self-determination to the whims of the economy. Business and the monied elite naturally seek to quash upward mobility and stagnate society in order to "stabilize" it. Is that not slavery?

Only in an anarcho-capitalist society. Today, we have government to regulate contract. Unless there's some reason that new enterprise is prevented from entering a field, not including the simple fact that existing enterprise is more efficient, the market works fine.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Which isn't happening. Not only have regulations been rolled back, but the agencies responsible for enforcing them have been gutted.

Really? There's isn't FDA labeling on your food and OTC medication?



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Torture is torture is torture, and it's illegal. If we are to claim we are a nation of laws we must abide by the law. No if's, and's or but's.

I just asked if it would be useful.
 


[edit on 19-4-2008 by Johnmike]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Excellent post. I gave it a star, but it deserves more than that. How about two thumbs up?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


There is most certainly a time and a place for governmental involvement in the economy.

While there are plenty of instances of too much regulation, for the most part they help far more than they hurt because they create standards which all the players in any given field are required to go by. To think that the market will sort out the bad apples on its own is just plain naive. Yes it happens...eventually, but generally speaking it usually happens too late... like the tainted dog food incident for example, and the damage is already done before its caught. Regulations help prevent that (when properly enforced) in the first place, not after the fact.

Regulation helps prevent fraud and establishes standards... even ancient and Medieval governments understood this. One of the most famous is the 500 year old German standard as to what is to go into beer... water, yeast, barley and hops. The establishment of a standard rail gauge is another, one which helped knit this country together as opposed to each rail line having its own gauge. The Chinese did the same thousands of years ago when they established the width of axles. Regulations and standards help insure that when you buy something that supposed to weigh a pound, it weighs a pound. They insure (or are supposed to) that industries do not dump their waste into the town drinking water or pollute the air so bad you can't breath it. Regulation also insures quality when enforced. Tainted or diluted products (from China for example) are exactly what you get when regulations are either absent or not applied. Poor quality is the result because it has been proven time and again, that if businesses think that they can get away with something, they will try. After all they are out to make a buck, and regulations and standards prevent them from cutting corners... and we all benefit because of it.

To suggest that any and all regulations hurt industry is a blatant fallacy. There is most certainly over regulation, but when judiciously applied; regulations works... and, again I stress, they work for all of us... the manufacturer, since it sets uniform standards, knows what they need to do, and the consumer, because anti-freeze isn't added to their pet's food or toothpaste.

In the great depression, and in the aftermath of World War Two, it was governmental spending that first gave jobs where there were none, and later helped speed up the switch over from a wartime economy and industry, to a peacetime one. Generally speaking one of the most effective ways to get an economy going again is for the government to start spending on public works. The New Deal projects did far more good than harm, the private sector was not supplying jobs at the time so the government stepped in and did so until business were able to again.

Taxes are the price you pay to live where we do and in the manner which we have become accustomed. No matter what the anti-tax zealots claim, if it weren't for both regulations and taxes, our quality of life would be far lower. Taxes pay for all the services we take for granted, services that would cost far more, if offered at all, if it were left up to business to provide them. Despite the feel good rhetoric... once paid they are not your (or my) tax dollars, they are our government's revenue. And, what you (or I) might want really ceases to matter. The wants of the individual gives way to the needs of community. The problem is knowing when to regulate and tax and when to leave well enough alone. To tax just for taxes sake or to regulate just for regulation's sake are both wrong, at the same time both are needed for a well ordered society.

If it weren't for federal spending, if it were left to the states or private enterprise, the interstate system which makes so much of our life today possible, would have never been built... it was too damned expensive... just look at the problem here in Virginia, I81 is so overcrowded that even though its only forty years old (through this part in central Appalachia anyway) it needs to be widened, but the Republican controlled legislature throughout the nineties refused to fund it and tried to get private enterprise to do it; and while there are some ideas on the table, the work needed to begin week before last; and nothing will happen, if it does at all, for the next decade at least. And what is the solution according to the companies bidding for the job... create a for profit toll road out of the interstate our tax dollars built. Now I don't know about you, but I find that notion far more outrageous and offensive, than my tax dollars being spent to build it in the first place.

There are many other examples but consider, governmental regulation of industry began (in this country) in the last part of the nineteenth century because of the behavior of the "robber barons". Market pressure and voluntary self policing of industry simply did not work. They did not work then and they do not work today. Just look at the recent problems with airline companies having to ground whole fleets because they simply were not doing the job they agreed to and in the long run endangering passengers. Deregulating the electric companies directly gave rise to the energy meltdown in California in the 2000 and 2001. If the opportunity had not presented itself, Enron would not have been able to pull what it did... indeed the burst of the housing bubble and the credit crunch is directly due to slack regulation of the banking sector... and as a result we all suffer.... same sort of thing led up to the great depression, stock brokers were encouraging the average person to buy stocks on credit, promising hefty enough returns that they could pay off the loans and still make a nice profit. Then the collapse came and millions lost everything. Foolish yes, but hasn't a sales pitch ever talked you into buying something that you did not want, need or could afford? Add to that greed on the part of both the buyer and the seller and... well we all know what happens, we are living through the results now... again. The same sort of thing happened in the late eighties with the credit union scandal. Deregulation opened the door to unprincipled characters (like Neil Bush) to milk the system for all they could and the taxpayer ended up bailing them out.

The idea of privatizing the government is another load of bull hooey. It simply does not work... just look at the price gouging Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root have indulged in, in Iraq. The city of Atlanta tried privatizing its water system and ended up demanding it back due to both price gouging and a failure to maintain the system. The list goes on. All privatizing does is allow companies to suck more greedily at the government teat, it does not make the government more efficient. Hell... they have even tried to privatize the oversight of privatization. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

The end result of this madness is not government by the people, for the people, but rather government by corporation... which by the way is a definition given by Mussolini for fascism. "the perfect marriage of government and corporation"... and if anyone should know, its Mussolini. And, in case you haven't noticed... when government and corporations marry, the people are not invited. Case in point is the Republican controlled FCC forcing through a ruling allowing for mixed media ownership (as in papers owning television stations or radio stations) in the same market despite overwhelming public outcry against it, indeed against the wishes of congress as well.

While I don't think that taxes, governmental oversight and regulations are the cat's meow, I don't think that they are the root of all evil either.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Economic prosperity doesn't come from government policy.


It does, actually, especially when private enterprise refuses to do what's right because it's not "profitable". Case in point: Health care. Right now the majority of health care decisions are not being made by doctors, but rather by HMO and insurance company boardrooms. If they won't cover something, regardless of how necessary it is to the patient, that patient has few options: Go into massive debt slavery to pay for it (assuming they can get a loan for the procedure) or live with it (or, in serious cases, die). Because the health care system is always, at some level, for-profit in this country, health decisions are not being made in the best interest of the patient but rather being based on the bottom line. And if you don't have insurance at all, well, sucks to be you, right?

There are other cases to point out how wrong this is, including Big Energy's refusal even into the fifties in some areas to run power lines to rural areas. Government had to step in, force them to do it, and even subsidized them for it, because they didn't see a big enough return on the investment. As Grover pointed out so succinctly, without government intervention the interstate highway system would not exist.


It usually comes from the lack thereof, with regulations acting as an obstacle.


Most regulation exists for a good reason. Often, if there's some pointless-sounding regs on the books, it means someone, usually a competing interest, bought a politician to write it. Big business essentially writes its own regulations right now because lawmakers have abdicated their responsibilities in favor of campaign money and perks.

Here's one to consider: The recent troubles with airlines cancelling flights for inspections is directly attributable to the FAA's own lack of discretion and irresponsible behaviour. Right up until the latest round of problems, the FAA was referring to the airlines as its "customers". Now doesn't it seem fundamentally wrong that an agency charged with regulating a mutli-billion-dollar industry and protecting the safety of millions sees its job not as that of a watchdog, but as one of customer service and sales? It's only because bad things happened, and they got caught enabling the people they were supposed to be regulating, that the problem is now being solved. And, this should make it obvious, the private sector is disinclined to fulfill its duties unless forced to do so.


Here's a short essay by the Cato Institute. You might like it.


Aside from the fact that Cato has always been against any kind of welfare program since its inception and its bias is well-known, it is also bought and paid for by the very same Big Business interests who stand to profit by the policy advice it publishes. Studies in favor of less regulation, funded by companies that benefit from said reductions, have absolutely zero credibility. It's the political equivalent of a prescription drug addict "doctor shopping".


And you show your true colors - you must hate liberty and personal responsibility.


First, this is a baseless personal attack, and has no place here.

Second, quite the opposite. I just believe liberty includes freedom from the predatory practices of the private sector, which, left to its own devices, will ALWAYS resort to cannibalism of the community--and that "personal responsibility" includes recognizing one's interdependence on the community and contributing to its welfare.


I advocate being able to spend my money as I see fit, but you want to tell me how to do it.


No, I want you to realize you are not a sovereign country unto yourself, nobody is, and that you have a duty to the country (and the world) that raised you and still to this day provides so much for you.


Again, this shows that you are completely ignorant in how to manage money.


I admit I am as yet uninformed about investing. But, I'm in the American majority. Most of us know little, if anything, about it, and the fact that there are plenty in the private sector who seek to capitalize on this is part of why things aren't going so swimmingly today.


The reason they're crumbling is because we're spending billions and billions of dollars and useless social programs!


Like corporate welfare for military contractors? Because that's exactly what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are. We spend far more on killing people and bailing out failing big businesses than we do on social programs for the poor.


when it gets to the point where government is becoming a massive, useless money sink, yes, it's gone too far.


The biggest drain in the U.S. is the "defense" budget.


Unless, to go with the whole "true colors" bit, you want us to be less prosperous.


I'm saying nothing of the kind. I just want a level playing field so everyone has an equal opportunity to be prosperous. Right now that is simply not the case.


Oh my God, I don't know what to say. Am I really debating with someone as ignorant and clueless as you? Are you really that idiotic?


Thanks for violating the T & C.


1) The United States was founded as a republic.
2) The Founding Fathers explicitly loathed democracy.


And the Founding Fathers didn't do their homework, because they'd have realized that a "Republic" is based on Democratic Principles. Pure democracy they did indeed hate, but a Republic, as I stated above, is just a fancier version of the same damn thing. ANY governmental system "for, of, and by the People" is, at its core, inherently Democratic. A "Republic" is just a refinement of the base principle of rule by mandate of the populace. I defy you to prove, on a factual basis, how this is not so.


Only in an anarcho-capitalist society.


Which is exactly what most of the right-wing zealots, including Bush, want.


I just asked if [torture] would be useful.


No, actually, it's not, torture very rarely produces usable results. Even if it did, it doesn't matter, because it's against US and international law. And, it's simply wrong. How anyone could advocate torture as "right" and "proper" is beyond reason.


[edit on 4/21/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
An excellent response night hawk... so many of these right wing libertarian types fail to understand that they actually are part of a living community instead of isolated islands unto themselves. There comes a point when the wants and desires of the individual must needs give way to the needs of community... at the same time there has to a point where the rights of the individual take precedence over those of community. It is a two way street. If everyone adapted this every man is an island attitude society would fall apart... and I for one say this rabid individualism is one of the things that is tearing our society apart as it is.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Why wouldn't a historian be able to state their opinion on the current issues? Because it is too soon?

History is always changing. Every year, I have textbooks that contain new information in reference to all of the different time periods in history. Just because he isn't out of office yet does not mean that a historian cannot state an opnion about it. Granted the article in question does sound a little bias, but that does not mean that a historian would not be able to give statements and make judgements about the topic in question. Thats what people on here do all day and night long. You must see that just because this is happening in present times, does not mean that it can't be looked at from a historical perpective. There are SO MANY events, meetings, conversations, documents, newscasts, interviews etc that ARE NOW IN HISTORY that have played major roles in the making of the current state of the nation. Imagine yourself sometime in the future and look at the history of the U.S.'s take on these issues that you are debating, and think about how this current administration's actions will fit into the big scheme of things. It does not look pretty. It is true however, that the ordeal is not over, and we may not know about everything that has gone on under our noses just yet. But history is always changing and it is the duty of historians to document it all. And, being human, historians sometimes portray their views in a somewhat bias fashion, but the good ones do their best to present the information with as much indifference as possible.

It is not arrogance to perform the tasks that your jobs entails.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by annelidhunter
 


But the major historical thing the Bush Admin will be judged on is their response to the 9/11 attacks. Quite frankly, every thing else will pale in comparision to how this aspect of his Presidency pans out.

Was he right to oust the Taliban, Was the invasion of Iraq the right thing, was the disarming of Libya enough, was the policy vis a vis North Korea the proper course and was trying to slow Iran's nuclear ambitions done in the right manner, Was the expansion of NATO and it's role the right move. 9/11 is most definetely the watershed event of his Presidency.

All of those are incomplete answers at best and I would think most historians would acknowledge that there are many chapters still to be written in those books.

That is what history will judge Bush by.

Just like Carter gets judged by the Iranian Embassy takeover, Nixion Water Gate, LBJ Vietnam, Reagan , the final moves of the Cold War, Bush Sr., the inital end of the Cold War and the response to the invasion of Kuwait, and Clinton the relative peace and prosperity following the end of the Cold war.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
You are right in saying that many chapters have yet to be completed. But we do still have facts that can be documented that play parts in on going issues.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I wrote a great reply to grover, and it was lost. I'll redo it, if not reply to Nighthawk first.

Ugh.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join