Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
QuantumE

George W. Bush

GWB  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Is GWB a good president?

    • Yes
      3
    • No
      31
    • Sometimes
      10
  2. 2. Who or what made you come to your conclusion the GWB is a bad president?

    • Media
      22
    • friends and family
      3
    • First hand account
      19


113 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

PLO

Under President Clinton, the U.S. poverty rate dropped from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000, close to the record low of 11.1 set in 1973. In the initial year of the Bush regime, the poverty rate climbed for the first time in eight years. With tax cuts for the wealthy and cruel budget cuts for social safety net programs, some believe the poverty rate for 2002 is really closer to the Bush I regime figure, that the Republicans are playing with figures and that the bureau's estimates fall far short of reality.

Some 12.2 million children - or 17 percent - lived in poverty last year. Many people in the U.S. love to say that their the best in the world, but the fact is that the child poverty rate in your nation is among the highest of major industrialized countries.

Jay Shaft, editor of the Coalition For Free Thought In Media, wrote in an excellent article earlier this year that homelessness and poverty in the U.S. has grown by more than 35 percent since the end of 2000. Cities like Phoenix, Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago reported increases of around 50 percent between January 2001 and July 2003. Homeless shelters are overcrowded; in 2002, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that 30 percent of all requests for shelter went unmet.

Another indication of Bush's inability to help the poor is that the number of Americans suffering from hunger rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soup kitchens and similar places report huge increases in needs.

now call it all dangerous lefty propaganda, but is this is a good thign?, or am i being deceived by these crooked liberals and its actually to Bush's master plan?

Edited by PLO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QuantumE

Under President Clinton, the U.S. poverty rate dropped from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000, close to the record low of 11.1 set in 1973. In the initial year of the Bush regime, the poverty rate climbed for the first time in eight years. With tax cuts for the wealthy and cruel budget cuts for social safety net programs, some believe the poverty rate for 2002 is really closer to the Bush I regime figure, that the Republicans are playing with figures and that the bureau's estimates fall far short of reality.

Some 12.2 million children - or 17 percent - lived in poverty last year. Many people in the U.S. love to say that their the best in the world, but the fact is that the child poverty rate in your nation is among the highest of major industrialized countries.

Jay Shaft, editor of the Coalition For Free Thought In Media, wrote in an excellent article earlier this year that homelessness and poverty in the U.S. has grown by more than 35 percent since the end of 2000. Cities like Phoenix, Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago reported increases of around 50 percent between January 2001 and July 2003. Homeless shelters are overcrowded; in 2002, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that 30 percent of all requests for shelter went unmet.

Another indication of Bush's inability to help the poor is that the number of Americans suffering from hunger rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soup kitchens and similar places report huge increases in needs.

now call it all dangerous lefty propaganda, but is this is a good thign?, or am i being deceived by these crooked liberals and its actually to Bush's master plan?

Nice copy and paste, next time provide a source :tu:

I guess you missed this:

Short-Term Gain for Long-Term Pain:

Center for Economic and Policy Research

November 11, 2005

Paper presented at the Hofstra University 11th

Presidential Conference: William Jefferson

Clinton, the “New Democrat” from Hope.

Introduction

A mythology has developed around the economics of the Clinton era. According to the mythology, the policies designed by Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin laid the basis for the prosperity of the late 1990s. These policies centered on getting the deficit down, and later running budget surpluses. The short-term pain associated with higher taxes and lower spending had a payoff in the form of more investment, more rapid productivity growth, higher job growth and rising real wages and income.

This is nice mythology, but it is almost completely at odds with the reality. The growth burst of the late 1990s had little to do with deficit reduction (at least directly) and had everything to do with two unsustainable bubbles – a stock market bubble and a dollar bubble. The

Clinton administration chose to ride the prosperity from these bubbles, even though it should have recognized that this prosperity was artificial, and would inevitably lead to a crash, followed by a painful adjustment process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLO

mate u already posted that, it contains absolutely no accumlative data concerning the effects of how economics and politics affect the american people, nothing.

and yes it is a cut and paste, the sources are provided in the actual cut and paste for you to check. Man, your crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dnb420

notice how only 2 people voted saying bush is doing a good job lol. something is telling me those 2 people are QuantumE and Stellar. hahahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

notice how only 2 people voted saying bush is doing a good job lol. something is telling me those 2 people are QuantumE and Stellar. hahahaha.

Funny... I didnt vote. Good job making assumptions. Gee, I must have voted for Bush being a good president because I dont agree with dnb420s fanatical view of things :rolleyes:

Its ironic that you call other people ignorant, lmfao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLO

"fanatical view of things"

hardly fanatical. I'd say something like "all dangerous right winger neo-con Republicans should be the first up against the wall" would be fanatical. IF someone where of course to say something so clearly, fanatical.

Edited by PLO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

hardly fanatical. I'd say something like "all dangerous right winger neo-con Republicans should be the first up against the wall" would be fanatical. IF someone where of course to say something so clearly, fanatical.

Hardly fanatical? He's quite close to it at least. I wouldnt call someone who says "all people who like bush are ignorant, closed minded, dumb republican sheep" a balanced and realistic person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dnb420

Well most of you are, so its safe to make that assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Well most of you are, so its safe to make that assumption.

Just like it was safe to assume that I voted for Bush being a good president?

:rolleyes:

Now, until you address my request by posting your facts, all you're doing is mindless trolling.

Please, show me your facts which show all your claims to be true... go on... I dare you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QuantumE

They cant stellar, thats why they resort to name calling. Everytime Ive asked for evidence I was called a crazy right wing neo-con that is dangerous, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
side show bob

What a stupid poll I though your people beleived in freedom of ballot box you should be ashamed. I voted on your poll just for interest saying that GWB was doing a good job I was then asked where I learned GWB was doing such a bad job, what is that all about .Why not just say that GWB is screwing up and ask where I got most of my information from. If this is what you call democracy in action is it any wonder that the US has such trouble winning friends. Yes GWB may indeed be screwing up but please let me make up my own mind DON'T TELL ME HOW TO VOTE :no::no::no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

and i thought PLO was bad enough

whats with the idiotic moonbat posting by dnb420?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
They have never asked for it, and that's what I find disturbing. If you try to "democratize" a country(to no avail), that doesn't even want to be "democratized"(they didn't even have the option of NOT having a democracy, but at least they are FREE now rolleyes.gif ), you are either blind and deaf or the dumbest man on earth......or you have different plans with that country.

this is irrelevant

Japan never asked for its emperor to be turned into a powerless figurehead

Germany never asked for the removal of the nazi party.

as arrogant as it may sound, we are replacing something with a far greater system, this whole 'not giving the iraqis a choice' is empty rhetoric, should a child be given the choice to live with an abusive parent if a superior alternative is available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I'd really like to vote in the poll but, there is no option in "What brings you to this conclusion" that fits. Personally, I'd really like to check off with "Since the Soviet Union didn't work out so well I ain't a Leftist Commie and common sence therefore indicates that I should support him because he isn't a socialist like Madam Clinton". Eh, maybe next poll.

Now, before I get any flak on this post, I DID use the formal term "Madam" when refering to Slick Willie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SnakeProphet

this is irrelevant

Japan never asked for its emperor to be turned into a powerless figurehead

Germany never asked for the removal of the nazi party.

as arrogant as it may sound, we are replacing something with a far greater system, this whole 'not giving the iraqis a choice' is empty rhetoric,

....or you have other plans with that country.

I see you do agree with me that the removal of Saddam had nothing to do with the people there, but the only purpose of it was to take advantage of the situation and further their own interests in that region, providing a base for american imperialism.

should a child be given the choice to live with an abusive parent if a superior alternative is available?

We are not dealing with children here and the alternative is not superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jk57j

PLO, like i said before, these republicans are ignorant and don't really want to listen to what you have to say. It's like talking to a brick wall. Let them live in their own little worlds.

While this may be true in some situations, I don't believe the problem is with either party specifically, personally what I think the problem is, is those who are very extreme, right or left. For example, I believe much of the current administration is very extreme right and fits what you were saying, but then you look at republicans like John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, in my opinion these are both very intelligent and reasonable men. I am a registered democrat (although I have very seriously thought about becoming an independent lol) but if either of these men were to run for president in '08 I would absolutely vote for them. Conversely if you look at someone like Howard Dean who is a democrat, he is very extreme left and seems to have a problem censoring himself, which, in politics, is a very bad thing.

I would never expect to find anybody ESPECIALLY a politician who agrees with everything I believe, but what I would like to find is someone who can step back, look at the facts, and form an opinion without blindly following the opinions of one party. I do see your point in this post and unfortunately much of the republican party has become this way but it's unfair to generalize and say they are all that way. I've spoken with quite a few republicans who are just as sick of, and worried, about the direction this country is going right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

to be fair the poll is flawed.

how many of us have had a first hand account, ie: met the man?

very few.

in my opninion the man isn't fit to lead a bannana republic less the most powerful nation on earth but , is suppose thats down to the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Albatross

The media is where we get most of our information, they know it, and they can control us by it if we let them. :rofl: I hate politics.

~The Albatross~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BuyMeAPony

See, the media is portraying only the negatives on him, so everytime you listen/read it's always bad stuff, I dont blame you for wanting to hear about negative things all the time. But dont let the media turn him into something he's not.

I am not in the United States so the access to international newspapers is quite easy. I have a hard time believing that every newspaper that I read (ones from London, Paris, New York, etc) portrays him wrongly or out of character. At some point you have to concede that perhaps they are portraying him simply as he is. Trust me when I say that your country manipulates your news and gives you only half stories. That is why it is so important to read international newspapers.

On your part I hope that it was a typo when you say that I want to hear negative things all the time. I want to hear facts, I honestly don’t give a monkeys fart whether those facts are negative or positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

:lol: You make it sound like we are a third world country and don't have 'access to international newspapers'. Believe it or not an awful lot of us get international news off the internet, too.:o

;)

US news media is just as hard, if not more so, on Bush as other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BuyMeAPony

For the sake of being civil I wont answer that. Even though Im damn near busting. Civil Em civil now. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor

ah but michelle , we all know the US is a third world country lol.

nah in all seriousness though some of the poverty in the USA and the whole katrina disaster proved that in many places in america it is not dissilmilar to a third world country.

so much polar opposites in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLO

lol mate if ur fi glasgow then you'll ken our NHS is pretty much on par with a third world country, and our transport serives are goin that way too eh.

CMON THE GERS

Edited by PLO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

There are large pockets of fairly uncivilized, or what you and I would think of as uncivilized places, especially in the deep South. I think it has a lot to do with isolation that people of those regions prefere, not the lack of opportunity.

But, that is a different topic....back to Georgie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.