Let's impeach the president.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Come on Smootsmack, it's not unfair to ask someone to point to policy successes when arguing that a president will be judged favoribly by history. By your logic we can't even talk about the efficacy of a current president because we lack appropriate historical perspective. I think that's bogus, and I think the fact that so many people struggle to point to concrete things that this president has accomplished is a problem.

Some liberals aren't very smart or articulate, but when they are smart and articulate they do an excellent job breaking down in detail how the Bush agenda has failed. Jsarno argued twice in this thread that Bush will go down well in history, and I don't think it's unfair to ask why.

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

Not entirely true. Kennedy had a hand in pushing for social and civil rights. LBJ was his VP and picked up where Kennedy left off after his assasination. In all fairness, Truman never got the chance to finish what he started. Eisenhower pretty much dropped the ball on it and then Kennedy picked it up. This is a very rudimentary explanation, I know. LBJ would have probably been an excellent president had it not been for the whole Vietnam thing. A little wrinkle. He was an expert on domestic issues and got bogged down with foreign affairs, of which he had absolutely no experience hence leading to the ouster of the one man in his cabinet that did: McNamara.
Nixon was very flawed but even DURING his tenure, there were positives that could be isolated. Where are they with GW?

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

Didn't answer my question. Who are you? Alberto Gonzalez? jk

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

Fair take. I just don't think it's too much to ask a Bush supporter to discuss what it is about his legacy that will be positively remembered.

[SmootSmack]

Of course, when talking in historical terms history has a way of coloring itself. If we were living during Lincoln's time we'd probably say "How dare our President suspend habeas corpus" Yet today he's one of the greatest president of all time, during FDR "How dare he put Japanese Americans in internment camps" Yet today, he's one of the greatest ever, "How dare Truman bomb millions of civilians" Yet today he's one of the greatest ever.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

On health care, there is no doubt the system we have in the United States isn't perfect. But if your only solution is for the government to assume control of it, it will get far worse, not better. Don't believe me? Ask just about any veteran about VA hospitals. Didn't we learn anything about the fiasco at Walter Reed? That's just the latest example of what can happen with government-run health care.

Go to your local post office and ask yourself if that's the environment you'd like to find yourself in when it's time to visit the doctor. With nationalized health care, you should expect all the compassion of the IRS, and the efficiency of FEMA.

Social Security -- all it has ever done is create dependency. Over the long haul, private investments through the stock market have consistently out-performed the return on social security. And the government gets to decide at what age your entitled to it, the rate at which they can send it to you, and thanks to Clinton/Gore, they can tax you AGAIN on the payments you receive. Then when you die, all the money you've paid into it for your whole life goes to the government, not your family. Sure, it's a safety net. But a really bad one. If the people had that money to save and invest as they saw fit, they'd be in an infinitely better situation.

Price controls/windfall profits tax -- what do you think will happen with the price of gas when the government takes more of the profits from oil companies and their shareholders? The price will go up. There is no better economic system than when a business owner or corporation is motivated by seeking maximum profits on the products or services they provide. When that happens the consumers get better quality. As an aside, do you believe the quality of a product is better when it's free? Or when the person behind that product is motivated by getting as much money as they can for creating the best product they can?

Price controls do nothing but create scarcity of goods and services. When the government steps in to dictate how much anyone can make on a product, the incentive for the creation of that product declines.

Free markets work, Saden. Government control does not.

[FRPLG]

I do wonder if in 20 or 30 years our current approach to combating terrorism will be viewed as misguided, as it is widley viewed now, or prophetic. Smott mentioned that a lot of things we look at historically were very unpopular in their day.

[Hog1]

I heard an interesting survey today. To paraphrase:
About 30% of Americans support GW's current war effort in Iraq.
About 65% of Americans support GW's current effort to combat terrorism against the US.

No connection between the two? Interesting...........

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

I guess the question is "Is our children learning how to spell?"

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

There are aspects of NCLB that are an abomination.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I guess the question is "Is our children learning how to spell?"

I hop they can spel beter than me. I always find it somewhat amusing and kind of sad that all of the wonners of the spelling B are either home schooled or from private schools.

[FRPLG]

mee two

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There are aspects of NCLB that are an abomination.

I'll agree with you on that. I feel the federal gov. should get totally out of the education system and give the money back to the states to decide what is best for the children.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

??????

This has got to be sarcasm right?

Not at all. I was thinking of the political apathy of some Americans contrasted with, for example, the Palestinians who run out into the street and demonstrate at the drop of a hat. Look what political activism has gotten them. It's forever 1968 for them and they're miserable. A society that keeps the importance of government in perspective, that understands that politics is a means and not an end, is a happy society. It's all just fun and games.