George Bush

[BaseballGenius]

Why does George Bush so often receive negative criticism? I mean, it looks like the economy has been growing quite well during the candidacy. What has he done well during his entire time in office. What has he done poorly?

Personally, Im just not interested in reading articles on politics everyday and its not my strongest subject. So short brief summaries would be better than long-winded explanations. Thats all I want.

[Hakarmaskannar]

Just of the top of my head (I'm busy babysitting at the moment) I'd say that a couple of the major problems would be -

1) After the most horrific modern-day attack on the free world since Pearl Harbor he declared war on a tactic, his "War on Teror", rather than on those who sponsor and supply the terrorists. This is not due to a lack of information, but rather from a basis that holds that we, "The West", cannot judge other cultures by our standards, even if those standards are reached rationally, and therefore we have to adopt a "who are we to judge them" stance. This continues even now, when Allied forces in iraq are being killed by insurgents supplied and trained by Iran, and still nothing but words are issued to protect the lives of the military personnel being put at risk for the ridiculous idea of spreading "Democracy".

2) His numerous comments with regard to his personal beliefs that flatly contradict his position, yet he cannot see his hypocrisy -see the recent article "Taking Faith Seriously" on this website for a perfect example.

I'm sure others here on the forum will be able to give more specific examples with regard to such things as Supreme Court appointments/rulings and so on but being a back-water Brit I sometimes miss all the decent political stuff over in the US

Edited to correct typo

Edited May 15, 2007 by Hakarmaskannar

[DavidOdden]

Why does George Bush so often receive negative criticism?

He has sharply curbed individual rights, and has in fact done nothing for the economy (and it's not his job). His religious facism is eough to get me to vote Democrat for the first time. Praise Jeebis!

[Robert J. Kolker]

He has sharply curbed individual rights, and has in fact done nothing for the economy (and it's not his job). His religious facism is eough to get me to vote Democrat for the first time. Praise Jeebis!

Which individuals and which rights? Please state specifics. Thank you.

Bob Kolker

[LaszloWalrus]

He only used the veto twice, and supported Sarbanes-Oxley.

[Inspector]

You're not kidding that you don't keep up with the news...

Here is an excerpt from The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism, which I suggest you read in full:

Here are some hard facts. Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. During Bush’s first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush’s first term in office. If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush.6

Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush’s much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton’s last year in office. The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled “Cost of Government Day,” sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans. The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton. In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton. When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year. As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: “I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society.”7 Just so, Mr. Feeney.

And here is another:

Take for example the “No Child Left Behind Act,” which Ted Kennedy virtually wrote for President Bush and which represents the greatest expansion of the federal government in education since the creation of the Department of Education in 1979. As a result of this one Act, federal education spending has grown by 100 percent since Bush took office. This is all the more remarkable given that just several years earlier the Gingrich “revolutionaries” of 1994 promised to abolish the Department of Education.

There are more, but you ought to read the whole article.

[DavidOdden]

Which individuals and which rights?

I'll meet you half-way and describe the search algorithm. Check SCOTUS cases involving Ashcroft v. X and Gonzales v. X.

[Korthor]

Iraq. Oh and Iraq. Oh and Iraq again. I'm sorry, did I mention Iraq?

[D'kian]

There's the prescription drug "benefit" he propposed and passed. He has increased spending a great deal, and not particularly for the military, which would make sense given we're supposed to be fighting a war and all.

Speaking of the war, invading Iraq was a mistake. Not, mind you, because the major cause for it, WMDs, turned out to be much less urgent than thought, but because there are bigger threats out there like Iran, Syria and North Korea. If this were WWII, Bush would fixate on defeating Italy while mostly ignoring Germany and trying to appease or negotiate with Japan. And the way the war's been conducted is nothing short of disgraceful.

A president can't do much to help the economy except leave it alone or reduce regulatory or fiscal burdens. This Mr. Bush has done somewhat by reducing taxes (which the democrats will increase shortly). And he has at least tried to prosecute a war, rather than merely appeasing everyone and announcing America's surrender. It shows how low politics ahve fallen when you can see this as a positive aspect of someone's policy.

[BaseballGenius]

A president can't do much to help the economy except leave it alone or reduce regulatory or fiscal burdens. This Mr. Bush has done somewhat by reducing taxes (which the democrats will increase shortly).

Hasnt Bush increased taxes overall since his beginning?

A few negatives have been listed and not really anything positive that he's done. This is probably because Bush hasnt really done much positive, but what were the select few things that he's done well and has accomplished?

Edited May 15, 2007 by BaseballGenius

[softwareNerd]

Other than the gross number: i.e. size of government spending, when it comes to the economy, ome areas a good an American President would attack are:

• Social Security
  
• Medicare
  
• Welfare, including Medicaid
  
• Schools
  
• Healthcare
  
• General restriction and controls on business
  

Bush's hasn't achieved anything doo on any of those. On Medicare, he made things worse. On Social Secutiy and healthcare, he has been saying some a few good things regarding privatization, but not much has happened, nor will it.

[D'kian]

Hasnt Bush increased taxes overall since his beginning?

Not to my knowledge.

Disclaimer: tax codes being the byzantine, over-complicated morassess of minutiae and aglomerations of millions of small rules, it can be hard to tell.

A few negatives have been listed and not really anything positive that he's done. This is probably because Bush hasnt really done much positive, but what were the select few things that he's done well and has accomplished?

It's a lot easier to come up with negatives regarding any politician; in large part because a small negative can undo a large positive. But I do believe I stated some positives. Here's one more: Bush is more persistent than your average politician. He hasn't tried to cure his dismal approval ratings by ending the war in Iraq, and I don't think he will.

Happy?

[BaseballGenius]

Bush is more persistent than your average politician. He hasn't tried to cure his dismal approval ratings by ending the war in Iraq, and I don't think he will.

But isnt Bush continuing with the war only because he doesnt want the billions of dollars and time/effort to seem wasted?

Happy?

Yes. Thanks for asking.

[DarkWaters]

But isnt Bush continuing with the war only because he doesnt want the billions of dollars and time/effort to seem wasted?

Not according to him or numerous Objectivist intellectuals such as Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, John Lewis and C. Bradley Thompson. President Bush's arguments for sojourning in Iraq amount to a claim the Iraqi people deserve their god-given right to "freedom" and democracy. Thus, he intends for the allied forces and their tax-paying citizens to help build schools, roads, electrical networks, plumbing systems, soup kitchens and the like. President Bush's motives for staying in Iraq primarily stem from Christian Altruism.

[BaseballGenius]

President Bush's motives for staying in Iraq primarily stem from Christian Altruism.

Does he have no selfish reasons for it, such as gaining an ally and eventually a trading partner?

[DavidOdden]

Does he have no selfish reasons for it, such as gaining an ally and eventually a trading partner?

Is this an implication that GWB runs an oil business and hopes to gain lucrative oil contracts from the suicidal Christian Altruist war in Iraq? Such a business is, AFAIK, undocumented, so it would be interesting information if so. Or are you suggesting that he is a clandestine rug trader. Hmm, wait, Iran is the rug country. What the hell does Iraq actually have to trade, other than oil?

[BaseballGenius]

Is this an implication that GWB runs an oil business and hopes to gain lucrative oil contracts from the suicidal Christian Altruist war in Iraq? Such a business is, AFAIK, undocumented, so it would be interesting information if so. Or are you suggesting that he is a clandestine rug trader. Hmm, wait, Iran is the rug country. What the hell does Iraq actually have to trade, other than oil?

It wasnt an implication, only a question. What I meant by "eventually trade with" is that once Iraq has a decent govt setup and basic amenities(the plan at least) then the Iraq people can start producing their own goods and the US may get trade value with them. It was only a question though. Did Bush have any other purpose other than to altruistically help Iraq?

[DarkWaters]

once Iraq has a decent govt setup

In terms of governing legislation, Iraq is already off to a bad start. Onkar Ghate's op-ed here argues why nicely.

Did Bush have any other purpose other than to altruistically help Iraq?

President Bush's reasons to remain in Iraq appear to largely be altruistic.

President Bush's reasons to invade Iraq were a combination of errors. The most egregious errors involved:

1.) faulty intelligence concerning Saddam's arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

2.) misbegotten notion that Saddam Hussein (not Islamic Totalitarianism) is the real threat to the United States.

3.) incredibly poor strategic planning of the initial invasion of Iraq (failure to secure borders, failure to secure large caches of weapons, poor troop allocation, failure to understand the region, etc.)

[DarkWaters]

Why does George Bush so often receive negative criticism?

Some other exceptional sources on this include:

Diana Hsieh's Why I am Voting for the Democrats

Yaron Brook's Democracy vs. Freedom: Why the Forward Strategy of Freedom had to Fail video lecture. This is available on the registered users section of the Ayn Rand Institute's website. You can register and watch all of these fantastic lectures for free!

[softwareNerd]

I doubt Bush et al thought Saddam was a serious threat as much as they hoped that if they could into a middle eastern country and give it freedom for a while, a majority of the locals would push to use it as an opportunity for change toward more western values. Other than Afghanistan, Iraq was the only place they could hit without other middle eastern governments being in an uproar. Bush's wanting to give Iraq democracy probably had an altruistic aspect, but would he have sent troops to give democracy to some other nation that had little perceived strategic interest to the U.S.? I think Bush genuinely thought that moving in and modernizing Iraq would be in the long-term interest of the U.S.