What major Cheney-Bush policies have worked out well for America?
Can anyone name a major Cheney-Bush policy that has worked out well for the American public?
- Iraq - $10-12 billion a month, 80-100 U.S. deaths a month, almost 20,000 injured, military stretched to the breaking point
- Oil/gas prices - Highest ever recorded
- Deficit - From a budget surplus to a current estimate of $9 trillion
in debt with a renewed threat of inflation
- Home foreclosures - Remember Bush touting the record number of Americans who owned their own homes in State of the Union addresses? Yeah, how has that worked out?
- Medicare D - A big boon to the pharmaceutical giants, an incredibly complex mess for seniors, and a huge drain on the treasury... all-in-all, another Cheney-Bush winner!
Any ideas on major Cheney-Bush initiatives that have paid off handsomely for Americans? (And, no, I'm not talking about the executives at Halliburton who garnered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts in Iraq, or the oil giants who sat secretly with Cheney and dictated U.S. energy policy.)
Submitted by CheneysLoveChild on Tue, 2007-09-18 11:24
-->
- CheneysLoveChild's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Home Ownership rate
Graph up to 2006
Wiki through end of 2005
end year 2000 - 67.4%
end year 2005 - 68.9% (highest ever)
end year 2006 - 68.8%
Now unless you can prove that the rate has dropped well below even 68% (still higher than all other presidents) - your contention about a rather small % of foreclosures invalidating Bush's contention, (compared to the whole homeownership number, does not hold water.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We need a term for this kind of polemic
Disclosure: I don't like GWB.
That said, regardless of who is talking about whom, I find this all-too-common act of pulling random data from a complex world and then just magically blaming presidents for it with a HUGE unfilled gap between cause and effect to be laughably inadequate and pointless.
Anything having to do with Iraq, its expenses and problems is fair game....after all, the spark that ignited all of it came DIRECTLY GWB's mind.
But all these domestic figures and stats cannot simply tied to the White House without a directly causal link or links.
One thing has to deductively lead to another and there are lots of moving parts to sift through. You can't just look at economic activity and say "Ah, Bush's policies suck!". It's very weak.
How this term?....
Unsubstantiated Phantom Attribution of Guilt....or (UPAG) for short.
yeah
like - Stop Upagging us!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I would use it like this, Ender
Stop right there, I call UPAG!
What's the term for
... Unsubstantiated Phantom Attribution of Credit as Ender did in the first post?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
ummm
I simply wanted to disprove your contention that Bush's statement was false. I did not give Bush any credit but instead cited neutral stats.
For the record I am not attributing any credit to Bush.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oh, so Bush is using a UPAC, not you.
Hey, what has been a primary policy issue of this administration that has improved the lives of Americans?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
tax cuts n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ditto.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
More analysis needed here
Just saying "tax cuts" doesn't tell the whole story. The question is whether such cuts were in fact a net benefit.
I could cut taxes 100%, would that be good for America?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Who said anything about Net Benefit?
Stop changing the goal posts. But as long as "I" get to define "benefit" then yes, even a 100% tax cut is a benefit simply because I say it is. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's all you've got?
Even I am embarrassed for you.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Tax cuts? I agree with Greenspan.
They were reckless and led to the massive deficit we now face. Kind of a special gift for our children and grandchildren.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
As opposed to the spiraling economy that Clinton left us with?
(downward, of course)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
UPAG (Guilt)
Unsubstantiated Phantom Attribution of Credit....this could be the opposite...like crediting your favorite candidate for the nice weather.
Let's see...
Medicare D was pushed by Cheney-Bush with the help of a Republican House and Senate.
Cheney-Bush started with a budget surplus, and, as Alan Greenspan has pointed out, insisted (with the the help of a Republican House and Senate) to continue with their ill-advised tax cut policies in light of a rising deficit.
Weren't we promised lower oil and gas prices as a consequence of Mission Accomplished in Iraq?
Okay, home foreclosures may not be all on the backs of Cheney-Bush, but ol' George sure wanted to claim credit for it (as Ender did in the very first post here, though I note not a peep from you.)
I also note that there has yet to be any post outlining the great policy successes for Americans that flowed from Cheney-Bush.
So if you want to call this a "polemic" be my guest, but I don't find it to be any more polemical than your libertarian economic screeds, frankly.
Talk about "true believers"...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Yeah...
While I know the complaint John makes is often valid it really doesn't apply to this diary in which the mentioned issues are all directly related to the actions by the whitehouse.
Even the home foreclosures is related to the constant use of the fed to keep the system inflationary and stave off any meaningful recession and correction. (which every modern president has been guilty of doing, Bush is merely continuing the terrible tradition)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Low interest rates were the drivers of the economy...
... not tax cuts as Cheney-Bush liked to claim.
Between home purchases and the massive refinancing/home equity boom, that's where the cash came from the last six years. Not some tax cut that went primarily to the top 2%.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Exactamundo
Low interest rates spurred the economy, not tax cuts.
We can thank Greenspan for that.
It is the economy, stupid.
Speaking of interest rates ...
Lets take a look at the historical trend
:
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: Let's see...
OK, there's on benefit.
Umm, no. Are you just making that up?
Where did Bush want to take credit for the home foreclosures? Oh you mean (as opposed to said) he wanted to take credit for the home ownership, even with the foreclosures where does home ownership stand? I mean actual foreclosures not planned and yet to be turned into reality by Democrat policies and rhetoric foreclosures.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Bush takes credit
...for record home-ownership. He takes credit for 8 million new jobs. So we're just supposed to listen to him take credit for all of that as layoffs are spiking and foreclosures are thru the roof? You ask a lot, John.
And the fact is that government policies have a great deal to do with the health of the economy. Bush has cut taxes on income and capital gains. He's incresed the size of government and run huge deficits. These policies have stimulated the economy in the short term, but there's a big question mark as to the wisdom of these policies over the long term. People I trust, such as David Walker, have been ringing alarm bells for years over the loose fiscal policies of Bush. So yes, I think the Bush "borrow and spend" policies "suck". Bush has bought a very artificial "recovery" with borrowed money.
CLC just put some stats out there as a starting point for discussion. He doesn't pretend to be impartial. Nothing wrong with that.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
The answer appears to be no (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson