This is not a flame, this is a chance for Bush Supporters to tell the anti-Bush crowd what Bush has done RIGHT. We hear far too much about what he does wrong. Proceed.
The 'Right' thing for Bush to do is to resign or face impeachment next year........Likewise, Cheney too.
Nothing. Worst. President. Ever. I don't think he is evil, I think he has good intentions, but his decisions are just bad. His programs are short-sighted, underfunded, unnecessary, terrible. The only positive thing I can say about him is it's hilarious to make fun of him. The way he speaks, his hand gestures, the way he leans his head in and smirks whether he is talking about Hurrican Katrina or chocolate, it's too funny. He's better comedic fodder than Clinton ever was. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the best thing he has done are his 3 month long vacations on his ranch...(when he isnt making decisions to fuck the common man.)
the dow went over 11000 for the first time since 9/11. and, im sure you could argue this one way or another, but i think it was bush's completely inept reaction to 9/11 that prevented the the dow from cresting over that point a couple of years ago instead of right now. the iraq war has been a total waste of time and funds and hasnt exactly been good for us or for the dollar or even for oil prices.
So, what has to happen in order for him to get impeached? I mean... Clinton almost got impeached for a couple quickies in the oval office, and Nixon got the boot for spying on America. Now Bush is spying on America, wasting billions on a misleading war effort, and taking ridiculous vacations while laughing in the face of all american citizens. Can someone start rolling that wheel already?
Clinton was impeached, and Nixon resigned. Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are all controlled by Conservatives and Republicans, Bush getting impeached is about as likely as pigs developing wings and flying away.
For Bush supporters, he can do no wrong. For those opposed to him, it's not so much mistakes as deliberate criminal actions.
Don't post unless you know what you're talking about. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/238784.stm He was impeached by both Congress and the Senate for perjury. Being impeached doesn't mean he had to resign. It's up to him, face trial or resign and he chose to face the impeachment trial. Which he was than found not guilty.
Impeached means to be formally charged. clinton was impeached by the house, he was not convicted by the senate. Were he to be convicted, he would have been removed from office.
clinton was impeached. impeachement however, is nothing more than congress's official declaration levelling criminal charges at the president. get a clue.
And how much did the Dow increase under Clinton? http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000001 Have the tax cuts really helped? Very little, if any. The rationale for the Neocon-Artist tax cuts has always been dubious. Though there's some theoretical basis for the tax cuts, the reality does NOT support their tax cuts. Tax cuts put more money back into the private sector of the economy. Part of the money goes back into the economy as either consumer spending or capital investment. (This is if imports and exports are excluded.) The part that goes into savings does not go back into the economy. Savings do NOT cause economic growth. In fact, increased savings shrinks the economy (unless 100% of that savings is invested.) Whether the tax-cut money goes into consumer spending, capital investment, or savings depends on what tax bracket receives the tax cuts. The more the tax cuts are slanted toward the affluent, the more that goes into capital investment and savings. The more the tax cuts go to the less affluent, the more that goes into consumer spending. Cutting taxes exclusively on the non-affluent would stimulate consumer spending mostly. Cutting taxes exclusively on the affluent would mostly increase capital investment or savings. If tax cuts were overly slanted toward the affluent, and consumer spending did not increase any, the tax cut money would go disproportionately more into savings than to capital investment. This is because consumer spending is necessary to create demand for capital investment. Consumer spending is necessary to create demand for the production that capital investment would facilitate. If high-income tax cuts cannot be productively invested, they "leak" out of the economy as savings. Thus, the degree of economic stimulation from tax cuts is determined by how much of it is recycled into the economy. The benefits of the tax cuts are greater if given to those who will SPEND it, rather than save it. (Again, this explanation excludes money "leaking" in or out of the economy through foreign trade.) The benefits of tax cuts on the wealthy is to create more capital to increase investment. The benefits are limited by investment opportunities. These investment opportunities are limited by anticipated returns on that investment. Anticipated returns are determined by anticipated demand for the production the investment facilitates. Demand for production is created by consumer spending, and to a lesser extent by demand for capital equipment. (However, demand for capital equipment is also limited by consumer demand for the production of that capital equipment.) The markets are currently "glutted with capital" according to the Wall Street Journal. Other sources maintain that the markets are "awash with cash." Earlier this year Warren Buffet stated there was a lack of investment "opportunities." All current indications are that there is abundant investment capital at present, but a lack of places to invest it. This argues against any further benefits to our economy by further tax reductions on the "investor" class. There is simply more than enough investment capital. In contrast, reducing the tax burden on consumers would help utilize the already over-abundant amount of investment capital.
I'll tell you what he's done right. He knows how to be an idiot proper. And he does it well. So well in fact, that humorous books are based on the plenitude of wisdom that falls from his mouth nearly everytime he says something of import. Or at least, tries to say something of import! He's good for this country for that very fact! Let's preserve his brain if he should pass on, I think it would be noble, and quite excellent, dude!
Although I think, GW Bush will go down in history as the US President who destroyed America and US dollar by foolish economic policy - tax cut for the rich etc. (Total reversal of Clinton’s surpluses to trillion dollar a year “twin deficits“) not to mention invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11; but Iraq, unlike Sadie Arabia, (that did supply 19 of the 9/11 gang) Iraq's oil contracts were all sewed up by the French and Russian. Thus, he did two things right: (1) He got the French and Russian oil contracts cancelled and re assigned to his major campaign supporter’s companies. (2) He had realistic ideas about illegal migrant, usually Mexican, labor in US (Recognize we need them, register and provide them some rights, send them home after a few years, etc.) What happened to this plan? It would be nice if atleast one thing of benefit (cheap food*) to the average (not wealthy) American were done during his 8 years. ______________________________________ * Unfortunate, GWB has continued the stupid US policy of high tariffs, quotas, plus farm price supports etc. that benefit only few large agro-businesses that contribute to election campaigns and, in effect, use the citizen’s tax dollars to significantly increase (40% on OJ, >100% on sugar, etc) the cost of putting food on the table. (I know about the OJ & sugar as Brazil would and could deliver them to US with these savings. I do not know what you pay for sugar in the store now. Brazil sells refined white sugar for 14.7 cents per pound, and this is a 10 year high!)
