Is Bush doing a good job as president.??

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Ah, the conservative Bush slappies.

Typical response.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The levees didn't breech until after the Hurricane had passed. In fact, most of the news orgs covering Katrina had been commenting about how N'awlins had dodged the bullet for the most part until they noticed that the water level was starting to rise.

*edit*
Of course, we all know Bush ordered the Army Corp of Engineers to blow up the levees after he saw that mother nature hadn't done her job and wiped out the minority population in the area.

*dola edit*
Make that Cheney...since we all know he is the Shadow President. Bush is just his puppet.

I am not sure what your point is about the timing of the flooding, but here is a brief synopsis of the timing of the flooding.

Katrina initially made landfall late Sunday night in Plaquemines parish. During the night, there was catastrophic flooding in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, extreme eastern Orleans, and St. Tammany parishes. The storm made its final landfall in Mississippi early Monday with by far the highest storm surge ever observed in the US. It basically hit the same place as Camille did, so the comparisons between a "weak" Katrina and a very strong Camille are easy.

Inside the levee system in New Orleans, the first flooding (which was all due to levee failures/breeches) was probably in the lower ninth ward and was caused by water being pushed in from the south. The most destructive flooding (by whatever measure, dollars, deaths, area) began sometime Monday morning and was apparent to everyone by late Monday. It was caused by water being pushed into the city from the lake by north winds.Only winds from the north can flood the city (otherwise the water is pushed elsewhere), and this, technically, only occurs after the storm passes. The levees along the 17th St. Canal and the London Ave canal failed as more and more water was pushed into them.

Word of the devistation to the city was slow to come for a few reasons. First the new media was set up downtown and the French Quarter which escaped most of the flooding. To them everything looked fine. Power and communication lines were down which prevented information from getting out from the flooded areas.

And to address your early shot at the La. politicians (Nagin and Blanco, both democrats suprisingly), by any objective measure the evacuation of the city was a huge success. 80% of the people left with minimal difficulty (as compared to Houston with Rita a few weeks later or Georges in N.O. in 1998). Prior to the storm, FEMA and other's models predicted only 60-65% of the people leaving. In almost all cases, people who stayed behind did so by choice, not because they were not put into school buses. The crisis only developed later as more and more were forced from their homes and into increasing smaller areas of the city as the flooding grew. At that point, the city or even local region had no ability to handle the crisis. All of the local resources were destroyed or scattered. At that point, the state or federal government has to step in. That is the whole point of having an organization like FEMA. Its purpose is to step in when a disaster is of such a magnitude that it overwealms the locals ability to respond. FEMA failed, perhaps becuase it had been reorganized into something to handle an unlikely event over more likely disasters. This reorganization of FEMA and the creation of the DHS occured under Bush's administration and thus they must accept some of the blame.

Well this post sure went off on a tangent. I guess it sort of fits here -- I voted "No".

[JPhillips]

The Army Corp of Engineers has been warning about the levees in New Orleans breaching during a major hurricane since the mid to late 1980s.

If you want to play a stupid game of "gotcha" with Bush, please feel free.

That's a pretty convenient way to look at things. Better yet, it works for all of Bush's problems.

People were warning about a Bin Laden attack for years.

People were warning about sectarian violence in Iraq for years.

People were warning about massive debt for years.

People were warning about cronyism for years.

People were warning about Medicare Drug problems for years.


There's really nothing that you can't dismiss with this!

[Masked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The Army Corp of Engineers has been warning about the levees in New Orleans breaching during a major hurricane since the mid to late 1980s.

If you want to play a stupid game of "gotcha" with Bush, please feel free.

Ray Nagan has been caught in a good number of misstatements or outright lies about his city's preparation and response to the disaster. Where's the outrage toward him? Or the governor of the state?

Neither Nagan nor Blanco are very popular in New Orleans right now.

edit to add a bit of a source

From NOLA.com

Poll has mixed news for N.O. mayor

ALSO: Some candidates still exiled; Fahrenholtz not yet in that number; First mayoral forum set
Thursday, March 02, 2006By Bruce Eggler
Staff writer
The results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of New Orleans voters -- at least, those living here now -- released this week offered good and bad news for Mayor Ray Nagin and his chief challengers in the April 22 mayoral election.

A small majority of those polled, 54 percent, said they approved of the job Nagin did in responding to Hurricane Katrina, which ranked the mayor slightly ahead of the New Orleans Police Department, at 50 percent, but well ahead of Gov. Kathleen Blanco, at 33 percent, President Bush, at 23 percent, and the much-derided FEMA, at 22 percent.

But 43 percent said they disapproved of Nagin's Katrina performance, virtually the same as the 44 percent who said they will "definitely" not vote to re-elect him.

...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Even before his numbers tanked, I felt that we wouldn't know what kind of President Bush was for a good twenty to thirty years. His legacy will be determined largely by the progress of Democracy in the Middle East.

It's going great in Iraq and Iran!

It's always interesting when a group of people try and force their "morals" on a completely different culture.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

I'd be interested in reading a good argument for a "yes" vote other than the stupid balance argument made earlier.

I'd be interested in reading this as well.

[JPhillips]

SFL: I forgot one thing. There is a huge difference between Clinton appointing James Lee Witt and Bush appointing Michael Brown. I'll see if you can spot it!

Previous job before FEMA:

Michael Brown: Running an Arabian Horse Association

James Lee Witt: Running emergency management operations for Arkansas

I'll even help by saying one of them had been praised nationally for tornado and storm recovery efforts!

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I like Ray Nagin just because of his "Chocolate City" speech

MMMmmmmmm

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: I forgot one thing. There is a huge difference between Clinton appointing James Lee Witt and Bush appointing Michael Brown. I'll see if you can spot it!

Previous job before FEMA:

Michael Brown: Running an Arabian Horse Association

James Lee Witt: Running emergency management operations for Arkansas

I'll even help by saying one of them had been praised nationally for tornado and storm recovery efforts!

You're doin' a heckuva job Phillips

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

I'd be interested in reading a good argument for a "yes" vote other than the stupid balance argument made earlier.

I'll have a stab: taking the thread title to mean 'job' as it does in pro-wrestling, then there can be no dispute: he is making other presidents look fantastic

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Typical response.

Well, when you post nonsense like that you shouldn't expect anything but. Heck, I even through a little Homer Simpson quote in there far ya. More than your post deserved, I tell ya.

Besides, we all know the score. . .

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Well, when you post nonsense like that you shouldn't expect anything but. Heck, I even through a little Homer Simpson quote in there far ya. More than your post deserved, I tell ya.

Besides, we all know the score. . .

I made my comment towards the news story and this topic of this thread, not towards you. I don't think that deserved for you to make it fair game for a personal attack on me.

[Kevin]

I did not vote because I live in a different country. But how can a President that is spending his country into oblivion be any good? (that seems to apply to all US Presidents of both parties lately)

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: I forgot one thing. There is a huge difference between Clinton appointing James Lee Witt and Bush appointing Michael Brown. I'll see if you can spot it!

Previous job before FEMA:

Michael Brown: Running an Arabian Horse Association

James Lee Witt: Running emergency management operations for Arkansas

I'll even help by saying one of them had been praised nationally for tornado and storm recovery efforts!

Apparently you've never lived in Arkansas. I have.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I did not vote because I live in a different country. But how can a President that is spending his country into oblivion be any good? (that seems to apply to all US Presidents of both parties lately)

At the risk of getting flamed, there was actually a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's term. There were a lot of reasons, namely the dotcom boom, but there was a positive number at the end of the budget year.

That's another reason I had to vote no. Bush has let Congress run roughsod with spending. He has yet to veto any bill, much less a spending one. So far this admin has run up $2.5 trillion extra on the national debt total, and the projection is another $2.5 trillion more over the next 10 years, at the current spending pace.

It was argued that deficits don't matter, using the Reagan years as an example. The main difference between then and now is that under Reagan, we were a world wide creditor, meaning that other countries owed us $1 trillion more than the amount of our national debt. Now we are $7 trillion plus in the hole and climbing.

[JPhillips]

SFL: No, I'm sorry that;s not the right answer!

The correct answer is:

Clinton's appointee, James Lee Witt, had emergency management experience and was seen nationally as a good choice to run the agency. He rewarded this faith by proving exceptional in his job and earning the praises of none other than George W. Bush!

You are now free to report to the loser's lounge.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I did not vote because I live in a different country. But how can a President that is spending his country into oblivion be any good? (that seems to apply to all US Presidents of both parties lately)

You need to read the thread "Party of Davos' and check out the link. This is covered in Mr. Faux's book and talks. There will be dire consequences in the near future. Warren Buffet has stated that with the 'decline' of American's standard of living due to large trade and budget deficits 'political upheaval' will also occur. Sleep tight and dream of those 'wearing tinfoil' at your peril.

[SFL Cat]

Budget surplus wasn't in Clinton's vocab before the Republicans took Congress away from the Dems during the midterms. In fact when Clinton took office, his people were projecting mammoth deficits for the foreseeable future, and the Slickmeister blamed the Reagan and Bush I admins for handing him the deficits "worse than I ever imagined."

Of course, the Republicans initiated Welfare Reform and other spending reform measures that Clinton signed (making sure his complaints were loud enough to be heard by the other Dems), and suddenly everyone is talking about surpluses. Personally, I don't think there was ever a "cash" surplus (just as there isn't a 'Social Security Trust Fund') that Clinton and the Republicans were crowing about, but hey, it sounded good.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Sleep tight and dream of those 'wearing tinfoil' at your peril.

Why? Are they going to come to life in my dream like Freddy Krueger and murder me before I can wake? Seems like they may be more dangerous than previously thought!

[JPhillips]

Cartman: I think all your billions should be trillions.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cartman: I think all your billions should be trillions.

Dang it, I knew I opened to edit for a reason.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Budget surplus wasn't in Clinton's vocab before the Republicans took Congress away from the Dems during the midterms. In fact when Clinton took office, his people were projecting mammoth deficits for the foreseeable future, and the Slickmeister blamed the Reagan and Bush I admins for handing him the deficits "worse than I ever imagined."

Of course, the Republicans initiated Welfare Reform and other spending reform measures that Clinton signed (making sure his complaints were loud enough to be heard by the other Dems), and suddenly everyone is talking about surpluses. Personally, I don't think there was ever a "cash" surplus (just as there isn't a 'Social Security Trust Fund') that Clinton and the Republicans were crowing about, but hey, it sounded good.

So why is it now, with the same Republican controlled Congress, that spending is so far out of control?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: No, I'm sorry that;s not the right answer!

The correct answer is:

Clinton's appointee, James Lee Witt, had emergency management experience and was seen nationally as a good choice to run the agency. He rewarded this faith by proving exceptional in his job and earning the praises of none other than George W. Bush!

You are now free to report to the loser's lounge.

Hmmm, Bush has also lauded Clinton as a man of "virtue," so I chalk things like that up more to "politico-speech" than anything else.

[JPhillips]

SFL: It was Clinton's tax package that was most responsible for the extra revenue that led to a budget surplus. (There really was one BTW!) Spending went up during the Clinton years.

The problem with Bush and this Congress is that revenues are going down due to tax cuts while spending is going through the roof. Its unsustainable, but we all know people have been warning about fiscal crises for years, so.....

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by cartman

So why is it now, with the same Republican controlled Congress, that spending is so far out of control?

Because the Republicans have apparently decided they would rather spend like Democrats.

[JPhillips]

SFL: So you believe Bush is a liar?

Cause I do too!

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: It was Clinton's tax package that was most responsible for the extra revenue that led to a budget surplus. (There really was one BTW!) Spending went up during the Clinton years.

The problem with Bush and this Congress is that revenues are going down due to tax cuts while spending is going through the roof. Its unsustainable, but we all know people have been warning about fiscal crises for years, so.....

Wrong, tax cuts spur business spending. I think you guys call it "trickle-down."

As tax burdens increase, business will find ways to cut costs...i.e. downsizing, since human resources are generally the highest expense most business have and people tend to restrict spending of their disposable income.

[andy m]

i think he has been the best US president of the past 4 years.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: So you believe Bush is a liar?

Cause I do to!

I'm not sure about Bush, yet. But I know Clinton was.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Because the Republicans have apparently decided they would rather spend like Democrats.

So at least on that point you agree that Clinton was a better president than Bush. Since Clinton actually vetoed spending bills and told Congress to get spending under control.

[JPhillips]

SFL: Please explain the post tax cut 90s economic boom using your theory. If that won't work you can also explain the boom of the 1950s.

BTW- Tax increase(provided its not too extreme)=increase of revenue.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

It's funny - because both sides spin doctor, talk out of both sides of their mouths, etc., but you would swear that the administration in power (whether it be Republican or Democrat) invented the entire process.

Whoever wins, it's 4 years of the opposite side swearing for change, indignant calls for justice, etc. Then the opposite team wins and we all swap sides.

In the meantime, hopefully we all have jobs and can feed, clothe and shelter our families. The political posturing on both sides grew tiresome sometime around the ancient Greeks.

I've never understood this attitude. "They're both bad/the same so let's not call them on any of it". That's a load of crap and intellectually lazy.

SI

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by andy m

i think he has been the best US president of the past 4 years.

I'd say he was better than Clinton
better than Bush I
not as good as Reagan
better than Carter (worst prez in my lifetime)
better than Ford
better than Nixon (had a good first term, but like Clinton spent his second term embroiled in scandal)
better than LBJ

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Wrong, tax cuts spur business spending. I think you guys call it "trickle-down."

As tax burdens increase, business will find ways to cut costs...i.e. downsizing, since human resources are generally the highest expense most business have and people tend to restrict spending of their disposable income.

I'm amazed that anyone actually believes in trickle-down economics anymore.

[JPhillips]

SFL: I should mention that if you can prove that business tax cuts always spur economic growth there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: Please explain the post tax cut 90s economic boom using your theory. If that won't work you can also explain the boom of the 1950s.

BTW- Tax increase(provided its not too extreme)=increase of revenue.

Actually, if you look at the numbers, the econom was rebounding during the election year. Unfortunately, whether it was because of the ineptness of Bush I campaign managers or brilliant spin of Clinton's people, that never really got into the mainstream. So Clinton had the advantage of coming into office with a strengthening economy. Also, if you look at the numbers, the economy didn't really "take off" until after the mid term elections in 96. This is one reason I think "gridlock" is good. The more politicians argue back and forth means the less they can muck with the economy, allowing it to follow its natural cycle. Now since all the big companies were apparently "cooking their books" during the late 90s, one has to wonder just how well the economy was really doing during that time, especially since I did notice that the economic numbers starting falling and big corps started doing some major "downsizing" during Clinton's final year in office.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: I should mention that if you can prove that business tax cuts always spur economic growth there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Trickle-down economics has never, to my knowledge, been tested. Both Thatcher and Reagan claimed to support the theory, but their actual policies were pure Keynesian.

[JPhillips]

SFL: So the economic boom of the 90s was due to Bush1's tax increase? It still doesn't seem to fit with your theory.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: So the economic boom of the 90s was due to Bush1's tax increase? It still doesn't seem to fit with your theory.

No, Bush caused his own recession with those tax increases. They also weren't helped when the Fed bailed out all those S&Ls, which went belly-up when Reagan signed into law the Dems measure to close all the loopholes in real estate investing, which the S&Ls were heavily invested in.

Reagan also raised taxes several times, but with the Democratic promise that spending would be cut...didn't happen....higher deficits.

[JPhillips]

SFL: So tax increases and cuts don't effect the economy?

I'd swear if I didn't know better that you were arguing that whatever Repubs do is good and whatever the Dems do is bad.

[Julio Riddols]

Just an observation here.. Currently, 18.7 percent of people here believe he is doing a good job, and that is based on 23 votes. One assumes one or two pity votes are thrown in there.

The trout option has almost as many votes, with 16.

The No option has 84 votes.

To get to my point - I think that a 34 percent approval rating is pretty dead on with what I would expect from our small cross-section.

[TwinCitiesFan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I'd say he was better than Clinton
better than Bush I
not as good as Reagan
better than Carter (worst prez in my lifetime)
better than Ford
better than Nixon (had a good first term, but like Clinton spent his second term embroiled in scandal)
better than LBJ

Somebody has been drinking a little too much of "Karl Rove's Kool Aid"

[Grammaticus]

What good is a poll like this if it is not open?

[Julio Riddols]

Dude, Grammaticus.. your post count at this time is frightening.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by cartman

Wow.

Just... wow.

I can't... wow.

How on earth can you say he is being misquoted? Here is a copy of his EXACT statement from his appearence on GMA: ""I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html

Yes but Bush had mentioned in a speech some months before that HE KNEW one of the greatest potential disasters confronting our nation was a Category 5(he may have said 4 or 5) directly hitting New Orleans. It makes NO sense to apply his comments above as him saying he had no clue this could ever happen in New Orleans. Yet that is exactly what you are doing. If you are going to resolve his statements, I think concluding that he was talking about Katrina specifically makes sense.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFL: So tax increases and cuts don't effect the economy?

I'd swear if I didn't know better that you were arguing that whatever Repubs do is good and whatever the Dems do is bad.

What is so hard to follow?

Reagan tax cut -- good -- awakens stagnant economy resulting in growth unseen since post-war 50s. Despite naysayers, tax revenues grow.

Reagan tax hikes -- bad -- especially since Democrats don't implement promised spending cuts. Removing tax shelters on real estate inadvertantly result in S&L collapse of the late 80s.

Bush tax hikes -- bad -- leads to recession that costs Bush re-election, especially since he alienates supporters with his "read my lips," promise.

Clinton tax hikes -- bad -- keeps a recovering economy essentially flat during his first term.

Republican Revolution -- neutral to good -- talk of NAFTA, welfare reform and fiscal responsibility stimulate markets and economy. After trying to socialize medicine during his first term, Clinton wisely moves to the middle and basically rubberstamps major items on the Republican agenda while mouthing Democratic rhetoric to show that he still "cares" for the little guy. Gridlock and Clinton scandal during his second term allow economy to roll along without much interference from Washington politicos.

But is it really the best economy in the past 40 years? Considering boom is largely driven by highly speculative dot.com stocks (most of which have lousy P/E ratios) and cooked "profits" from major corps, one has to wonder. Massive corporate layoffs during the last year of Clinton's administration indicate economy may be softening.

Bush tax cuts -- good -- spurs economic growth for an economy that was already heading south when Bush came to office, and was made worse by aftermath of 9/11. Economy grows at an even higher rate than when *gasp* Clinton was in office and unemployment drops to 40-year lows.

Alan Greenspan -- good -- can probably take more credit for the economy than either Clinton or Bush.

[Buccaneer]

I voted for the Trout option not because I think he's not doing a bad job (he pretty much is) but one cannot even begin to assess his presidency when we are in the middle of it and waaaayyyy too close to it. Compare it to, say, the Buchanan presidency.

But even knowing how Bush is turning out, I would STILL vote against Gore and Kerry. I think it has been said that all the Dems had to do was to put a trained monkey up against Bush and he would win. They couldn't even do that.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But even knowing how Bush is turning out, I would STILL vote against Gore and Kerry. I think it has been said that all the Dems had to do was to put a trained monkey up against Bush and he would win. They couldn't even do that.

This is kind of my thinking as well. I didn't vote for Bush last time (I did the first time around), but there is no way in hell I would have voted for Gore or Kerry.

[Edward64]

I 'tend' to like his foreign policy.
I 'tend' to dislike his domestic policy.

I voted 'yes' because I'm not convinced Gore or Kerry could have done better in GB shoes.

[JPhillips]

SFL: Its breathtaking the way you are able to connect the economic ups and downs to tax policy so directly. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you need to collect your Noble Prize.