USNWR: Dubya Ranked #36 of 42 in Worst Presidents.....

[dbackjon]

Do you honestly think the Dow would be any different if McCain had won?

yes because mccain wouldn't be raising taxes

Obama hasn't raised taxes yet - so fail on that logic.

It is the lack of tax revenue that is causing the deficit. Obama is addressing that.

You can not tax cut your way out of a recession.

[clenz]

yes because mccain wouldn't be raising taxes

Obama hasn't raised taxes yet - so fail on that logic.

It is the lack of tax revenue that is causing the deficit. Obama is addressing that.

You can not tax cut your way out of a recession.

But you can stop spending your way into one....

[Col Hogan]

Obama hasn't raised taxes yet - so fail on that logic.

It is the lack of tax revenue that is causing the deficit. Obama is addressing that.

You can not tax cut your way out of a recession.

But you can stop spending your way into one....

FOLKS... WE HAVE A DIRECT HIT....

[dbackjon]

But you can stop spending your way into one....

FOLKS... WE HAVE A DIRECT HIT....

Not really. Spending out of recession has worked, and will work this time

[dbackjon]

Slashing spending at this point would only make things worse, BTW

[UNI88]

if things keep on going down the toliet obama will be the worst ever. the best sign that obama is not the answer is what wall street is been doing since he took office. it had started to doing better before bush left office

wall street this... wall street that... i dont give two shits about wall street. the fvcking stock market is not how we ought to be measuring our success. fact is wall street is crawling with the greedy, piggish assholes that got us in to this mess... their wonderful judgment was so great that it wrecked our economy fvck what they think about anything... they should be happy they weren't strung up from traffic signals.

I didn't know that Franklin Raines was part of Wall Street. Throw him and every other inept or corrupt politican up on the traffic signals and you've got my support.

[AZGrizFan]

Slashing spending at this point would only make things worse, BTW

Well, with the $800 Billion stimulus package passed, the recent $420 Billion spending bill passed (early this week I believe) and Pelosi's bleating about ANOTHER stimulus package, they're certainly putting the "spending your way out of a recession theory" to the test, no?

[UNI88]

FOLKS... WE HAVE A DIRECT HIT....

Not really. Spending out of recession has worked, and will work this time

That's debatable. Some would argue that increased government spending prolonged the Great Depression.

The question of whether we would be better off under McCain than Obama is an irrelevant circle jerk. The economy would still be in the toilet and we could argue forever about whether it would be worse under Obama or McCain.

IMO, the impact of all of the planned spending on the deficit is going to cause huge problems down the road and we're going to regret it in the long run. We're asking our children and grandchildren to pay to get us out of a mess that we created (and by we I mean our elected Congress, Wall St, banks, domestic auto manufacturers, etc.) and it's going to bite someone in the a$$ down the road.

[Appaholic]

Slashing spending at this point would only make things worse, BTW

Well, with the $800 Billion stimulus package passed, the recent $420 Billion spending bill passed (early this week I believe) and Pelosi's bleating about ANOTHER stimulus package, they're certainly putting the "spending your way out of a recession theory" to the test, no?

Of course they are AZ....there's still some take home pay floating around out there that the government could use.....

[JMU DJ]

Just wondering, Bush didn't but three others did, though Bush does fall before Tyler.... But how shitty of a president do you have to be to fall behind William Henry Harrison? He died during his first month of presidency

[ASUMountaineer]

Just wondering, Bush didn't but three others did, though Bush does fall before Tyler.... But how shitty of a president do you have to be to fall behind William Henry Harrison? He died during his first month of presidency

Well played

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Not really. Spending out of recession has worked, and will work this time

That's debatable. Some would argue that increased government spending prolonged the Great Depression.

The question of whether we would be better off under McCain than Obama is an irrelevant circle jerk. The economy would still be in the toilet and we could argue forever about whether it would be worse under Obama or McCain.

IMO, the impact of all of the planned spending on the deficit is going to cause huge problems down the road and we're going to regret it in the long run. We're asking our children and grandchildren to pay to get us out of a mess that we created (and by we I mean our elected Congress, Wall St, banks, domestic auto manufacturers, etc.) and it's going to bite someone in the a$$ down the road.

"some would argue" "some say..."

Conservative pundits say... and revisionist historians say...

the only reason we're in this situation with massive deficits is Bush's incessant demand that we cut taxes despite a minor recession. (early 02 - early 04)... he was trying to cram supply-side bs down the maw... even if all we did was allow the bush tax cuts to expire, we'd make a HUGE dent in the deficit... had we never invaded Iraq, well... there's almost a trillion dollars right there.

thing is... the notion that the New Deal prolonged the Depression is a pure right-wing fantasy. In fact, the only thing that shook us out of the Depression was the largest military mobilization in world history... you know... that massive government spending program called WWII.

I would add.. the New Deal seems likely to have saved democracy in this country... radical political movements both left and right were growing VERY strong in the 30's... but the New Deal was a pressure valve, and defused a ticking time bomb.

[houndawg]

Just wondering, Bush didn't but three others did, though Bush does fall before Tyler.... But how shitty of a president do you have to be to fall behind William Henry Harrison? He died during his first month of presidency

Pretty darn shitty. BUT....... Boy George was more than ready for the test. Worst Ever, going away........the Tiger Woods of shitty Presidents, all others are fighting for the scraps.

[UNI88]

That's debatable. Some would argue that increased government spending prolonged the Great Depression.

The question of whether we would be better off under McCain than Obama is an irrelevant circle jerk. The economy would still be in the toilet and we could argue forever about whether it would be worse under Obama or McCain.

IMO, the impact of all of the planned spending on the deficit is going to cause huge problems down the road and we're going to regret it in the long run. We're asking our children and grandchildren to pay to get us out of a mess that we created (and by we I mean our elected Congress, Wall St, banks, domestic auto manufacturers, etc.) and it's going to bite someone in the a$$ down the road.

"some would argue" "some say..."

Conservative pundits say... and revisionist historians say...

the only reason we're in this situation with massive deficits is Bush's incessant demand that we cut taxes despite a minor recession. (early 02 - early 04)... he was trying to cram supply-side bs down the maw... even if all we did was allow the bush tax cuts to expire, we'd make a HUGE dent in the deficit... had we never invaded Iraq, well... there's almost a trillion dollars right there.

thing is... the notion that the New Deal prolonged the Depression is a pure right-wing fantasy. In fact, the only thing that shook us out of the Depression was the largest military mobilization in world history... you know... that massive government spending program called WWII.

I would add.. the New Deal seems likely to have saved democracy in this country... radical political movements both left and right were growing VERY strong in the 30's... but the New Deal was a pressure valve, and defused a ticking time bomb.

First, as someone who is a fiscal conservative and social liberal, Bush was about as bad a fit for the Presidency as I could imagine.

Second, I could argue just as convincingly that tax cuts and trickle down economics are good for the federal budget (and job creation) as you could that tax increases on the middle class/wealthy and percolate up economics are. But I don't think we're going to change the other person's opinion. IMO, Bush's problem wasn't the tax cuts it was the out of control spending that helped contribute to this mess (and all of Congress, Democrat & Republican are accomplices in that crime).

Regarding the New Deal, I didn't say that I agreed with people who believe it prolonged the Depression but their opinion is worth considering (I haven't studied the situation enough to form a definitive opinion). To dismiss someone else's opinion as fantasy just because you disagree with it is narrow-minded and intolerant. Not traits normally associated with a "progressive".

My problem with the New Deal is that it helped to create an entitlement mentality. America didn't become a great country because of the government fixing everyone's problems, it became a great country because of individuals going out and taking chances and moving the country forward. The more that people expect the government to do for them and the more we punish (higher taxes) the overachievers, the less we'll accomplish and eventually we'll start to sink into oblivion.

[bulldog10jw]

how can clinton be above bush no impeached president should be ranked high

Please - Clinton was 1000 times the President that Bush was.

[houndawg]

"some would argue" "some say..."

Conservative pundits say... and revisionist historians say...

the only reason we're in this situation with massive deficits is Bush's incessant demand that we cut taxes despite a minor recession. (early 02 - early 04)... he was trying to cram supply-side bs down the maw... even if all we did was allow the bush tax cuts to expire, we'd make a HUGE dent in the deficit... had we never invaded Iraq, well... there's almost a trillion dollars right there.

thing is... the notion that the New Deal prolonged the Depression is a pure right-wing fantasy. In fact, the only thing that shook us out of the Depression was the largest military mobilization in world history... you know... that massive government spending program called WWII.

I would add.. the New Deal seems likely to have saved democracy in this country... radical political movements both left and right were growing VERY strong in the 30's... but the New Deal was a pressure valve, and defused a ticking time bomb.

First, as someone who is a fiscal conservative and social liberal, Bush was about as bad a fit for the Presidency as I could imagine.

Second, I could argue just as convincingly that tax cuts and trickle down economics are good for the federal budget (and job creation) as you could that tax increases on the middle class/wealthy and percolate up economics are. But I don't think we're going to change the other person's opinion. IMO, Bush's problem wasn't the tax cuts it was the out of control spending that helped contribute to this mess (and all of Congress, Democrat & Republican are accomplices in that crime).

Regarding the New Deal, I didn't say that I agreed with people who believe it prolonged the Depression but their opinion is worth considering (I haven't studied the situation enough to form a definitive opinion). To dismiss someone else's opinion as fantasy just because you disagree with it is narrow-minded and intolerant. Not traits normally associated with a "progressive".

My problem with the New Deal is that it helped to create an entitlement mentality. America didn't become a great country because of the government fixing everyone's problems, it became a great country because of individuals going out and taking chances and moving the country forward. The more that people expect the government to do for them and the more we punish (higher taxes) the overachievers, the less we'll accomplish and eventually we'll start to sink into oblivion.

You must be kidding. You really think anyone would buy that argument today's in economy?

[Cap'n Cat]

Please - Clinton was 1000 times the President that Bush was.

Typical bulldog bullshit, giggle and run. No substance.

Be a man, for once. Enumerate the issues with Jon's declaration, Dog.

[bulldog10jw]

deleted

[bulldog10jw]

Ditto!

Typical Cap'n bullshit, giggle and run. No substance.

Be a man, for once. Enumerate the issues with AZG's declaration, Cat.

[UNI88]

Second, I could argue just as convincingly that tax cuts and trickle down economics are good for the federal budget (and job creation) as you could that tax increases on the middle class/wealthy and percolate up economics are. But I don't think we're going to change the other person's opinion. IMO, Bush's problem wasn't the tax cuts it was the out of control spending that helped contribute to this mess (and all of Congress, Democrat & Republican are accomplices in that crime).

You must be kidding. You really think anyone would buy that argument today's in economy?

Just because a person's personal biases have caused them to make up their minds and prevent them from considering alternatives doesn't make those alternatives any less valid.

First, economic cycles are natural. The Federal Reserve has worked very hard to try and smooth out those ups and downs but they are going to happen regardless of public policy (by the Fed or Executive or Legislative branches). This downturn was going to happen sometime regardless of who was POTUS and what their policies were.

Second, a President's economic policy typically has very little effect on the economy while they are in office. The true impact usually isn't felt until 10+ years after the policy was implemented. I say typically because I think the cycle might be shortening and because I believe that the impact of Bush's tax cuts combined with his spending like a drunken sailor in Manilla on the deficit has had a destabilizing affect on markets and economies around the globe which has made the current downturn much worse.

I've made the argument on AGS and won't completely repeat it here that Reagan's tax cuts created the environment and incentives that made the economic boom of the 90's possible. Clinton gets far too much credit for that boom (although his taking advantage of the situation and reducing the deficit was a positive factor). Without those tax cuts would people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, etc. have started and built their companies to where they are; creating thousands and thousands of jobs and turning many of their shareholders into wealthy people? Without those tax cuts Gates would probably be working as a Senior Director at IBM.

Third, as mentioned above, government spending has contributed just as much if not more to the current economic crisis as tax cuts. Obama is continuing to spend our money like a drunken sailor. While this might or might not provide a short-term boost to the economy it ignores the long-term impact of an out-of-control deficit on the U.S. and world economies.

Fourth, tax cuts are not the root of the problem. Greed is! The same greed that caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out loans to people who couldn't really afford them. The same greed that caused banks to package these loans and sell them as can't miss investments. The same greed that caused (and still causes) companies to focus on short-term stock market results rather than building a company for the future. The home loan crisis has really helped to exasperate a natural downturn in the economy and as a result, Franklin Raines and Congress are just as culpable in this mess as the Chairman of AIG is. Now you want me to trust that same Congress to fix the current mess? Pardon me if I'm a skeptical.

A socialistic economy run by big government is just trading one evil master for another. Greed for profit will be replaced by greed for power and control. Government regulation of the market is not a bad thing but government management of the market is.

[Cap'n Cat]

Ditto!

Typical Cap'n bullshit, giggle and run. No substance.

Be a man, for once. Enumerate the issues with AZG's declaration, Cat.

Ditto means I couldn't say it any better that jon could, Slappy.

Read my posts, bitch. I enumerate five hundred times more than you.


Now, bring it on, Junior, and don't deflect.

Out of ammunition, eh? Never had it?

Thought so. Again, typical no-mind hit-and-run message board Conk chihuahua.


"Yap, yap, yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap! Cap'n sucks! Yap yap yap-yap-yap-yapy-ap!! Liberals suck! Yap, yap-yap YAP!"

[bulldog10jw]

Typical Cap'n bullshit, giggle and run. No substance.

Be a man, for once. Enumerate the issues with AZG's declaration, Cat.

Ditto means I couldn't say it any better that jon could, Slappy.

Read my posts, bitch. I enumerate five hundred times more than you.

Nice try. You ARE the master of the one liner, I'll give you that.

But you are the last person that should complain about the substance of someone else's posts.

It's nice to have a reputation though, even if undeserved. Shows what personality can accomplish.

I still like you though.

[AZGrizFan]

Typical bulldog bullshit, giggle and run. No substance.

Be a man, for once. Enumerate the issues with Jon's declaration, Dog.

Bush was 1000 times the president Clinton EVER was, or could be.

There. Enumerate THAT, bitch.

[houndawg]

Typical bulldog bullshit, giggle and run. No substance.

Be a man, for once. Enumerate the issues with Jon's declaration, Dog.

Bush was 1000 times the president Clinton EVER was, or could be.

There. Enumerate THAT, bitch.

True, if you're comparing time spent on vacation.

[houndawg]

You must be kidding. You really think anyone would buy that argument today's in economy?

Just because a person's personal biases have caused them to make up their minds and prevent them from considering alternatives doesn't make those alternatives any less valid.

First, economic cycles are natural. The Federal Reserve has worked very hard to try and smooth out those ups and downs but they are going to happen regardless of public policy (by the Fed or Executive or Legislative branches). This downturn was going to happen sometime regardless of who was POTUS and what their policies were.

Second, a President's economic policy typically has very little effect on the economy while they are in office. The true impact usually isn't felt until 10+ years after the policy was implemented. I say typically because I think the cycle might be shortening and because I believe that the impact of Bush's tax cuts combined with his spending like a drunken sailor in Manilla on the deficit has had a destabilizing affect on markets and economies around the globe which has made the current downturn much worse.

I've made the argument on AGS and won't completely repeat it here that Reagan's tax cuts created the environment and incentives that made the economic boom of the 90's possible. Clinton gets far too much credit for that boom (although his taking advantage of the situation and reducing the deficit was a positive factor). Without those tax cuts would people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, etc. have started and built their companies to where they are; creating thousands and thousands of jobs and turning many of their shareholders into wealthy people? Without those tax cuts Gates would probably be working as a Senior Director at IBM.

Third, as mentioned above, government spending has contributed just as much if not more to the current economic crisis as tax cuts. Obama is continuing to spend our money like a drunken sailor. While this might or might not provide a short-term boost to the economy it ignores the long-term impact of an out-of-control deficit on the U.S. and world economies.

Fourth, tax cuts are not the root of the problem. Greed is! The same greed that caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out loans to people who couldn't really afford them. The same greed that caused banks to package these loans and sell them as can't miss investments. The same greed that caused (and still causes) companies to focus on short-term stock market results rather than building a company for the future. The home loan crisis has really helped to exasperate a natural downturn in the economy and as a result, Franklin Raines and Congress are just as culpable in this mess as the Chairman of AIG is. Now you want me to trust that same Congress to fix the current mess? Pardon me if I'm a skeptical.

A socialistic economy run by big government is just trading one evil master for another. Greed for profit will be replaced by greed for power and control. Government regulation of the market is not a bad thing but government management of the market is.

You said exasperate.

I'm with you 100%. Einstein said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. The chips should have been allowed to fall where they would, no pun intended. Unfortunately we're being forced to prop up the carcass of free-market capitalism instead of letting it die it's natural death.

BTW, how can you have capitalism without the greed you assert to be the real problem? Greed is to capitalism what oxygen is to carbon-based life forms.