Two Questions About the Bush Family

[Bo]

Greenspan was reappointed by Clinton. You didn't know that but you do now.

He was reappointed by Clinton in 2000 and then by Bush in 2004.

So you fault Clinton for that?

No, because Greenspan didn't do anything wrong between 1996 and 2000.

Lmao right it's only when a Republican is in office that things can be done wrong. Look 1996 was the start of mistakes that led to the housing collapse. It needed to be much harder to get loans in this country and Clinton and the democrats scared the Republicans into supporting a bill that made it easier for minorities to get loans regardless of whether or not they could pay them back. It was the politics of race and fear in the mid 90's that helped to cause the collapse of 2008. Anyone that doesn't admit that is a liar.

First of all, Greenspan had nothing to do with the deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I admit that Clinton did a stupid thing by deregulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by pressuring banks to give loans to poor people who couldn't afford them. The Republicans weren't intimidated into doing this, though. They agreed to support Clinton in this because they didn't want their popularity among poor people to be damaged. Also, it was the Republicans' idea to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives. That's what caused the financial crisis to occur and that's what made this recession much more severe than it would have been otherwise. Also, the housing bubble was blown when a Republican Fed Chair (Greenspan) kept interest rates too low for too long with the support of a Republican President (Bush Jr.). So, in conclusion, both parties are to blame for our current mess. You can't just blame the Democrats because the Republicans have earned their fair share of blame as well.

[pbrower2a]

Long term, I think G W Bush increases. At worst, it is a Ford analogy on the economy.

GW Bush makes Gerald Ford look like a fine President by contrast. What Gerald Ford wasn't was a competent campaigner on any level beyond a Congressional district, and that is the difference between Gerald Ford losing to a weak challenger and Dubya winning against a weak challenger. 

The Ford economy had inflation that had started before he took office. But Ford didn't ride a corrupt speculative boom that went bust as did Dubya. Ford did not start any wars for his own glorification or for the enrichment of his cronies.

Gerald Ford was a man of principle. Dubya wasn't.

[J. J.]

Long term, I think G W Bush increases. At worst, it is a Ford analogy on the economy.

GW Bush makes Gerald Ford look like a fine President by contrast. What Gerald Ford wasn't was a competent campaigner on any level beyond a Congressional district, and that is the difference between Gerald Ford losing to a weak challenger and Dubya winning against a weak challenger. 

The Ford economy had inflation that had started before he took office. But Ford didn't ride a corrupt speculative boom that went bust as did Dubya. Ford did not start any wars for his own glorification or for the enrichment of his cronies.

Gerald Ford was a man of principle. Dubya wasn't.

Ford was a competent president only compared to predecessor, in terms of honesty, and his successor, in terms competence. 

[Lincoln Republican]

1. Truman is viewed as a great President by historians, not simply as an average President. And even if Iraq becomes a permanent democracy and causes a domino effect throughout the Middle East causing the other dictatorships there to collapse as well, Bush would still be regarded as a miserable failure due to the financial crisis.
2. Jeb certainly doesn't have a political future. Maybe George P. or some other younger Bush does, but probably not for 20-30 years. Many young people still remember Bush pretty well and view him as a horrible President, and they are still going to be a large voting bloc for 20-30 more years.

If that happens (bolded) GWB would go down in history as a military and diplomatic genius, although still as a failure on the economic front.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And even if Iraq becomes a permanent democracy and causes a domino effect throughout the Middle East causing the other dictatorships there to collapse

No chance.

[BritishDixie]

Uber thread bump

And even if Iraq becomes a permanent democracy and causes a domino effect throughout the Middle East causing the other dictatorships there to collapse

No chance.

I think you are now eating you words my friend.

[Donerail]

And even if a Tunisian fruit vendor sets himself on fire and causes a revolutionary wave of demonstrations throughout the Middle East causing the other dictatorships there to collapse

The guy the US put into power there (as well as several provincial governors and other officials) was forced to resign by 2014. That suggests they aren't a fan of him either.

[AmericanNation]

Greenspan was reappointed by Clinton. You didn't know that but you do now.

He was reappointed by Clinton in 2000 and then by Bush in 2004.

So you fault Clinton for that?

No, because Greenspan didn't do anything wrong between 1996 and 2000.

Lmao right it's only when a Republican is in office that things can be done wrong. Look 1996 was the start of mistakes that led to the housing collapse. It needed to be much harder to get loans in this country and Clinton and the democrats scared the Republicans into supporting a bill that made it easier for minorities to get loans regardless of whether or not they could pay them back. It was the politics of race and fear in the mid 90's that helped to cause the collapse of 2008. Anyone that doesn't admit that is a liar.

First of all, Greenspan had nothing to do with the 1)deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I admit that Clinton did a stupid thing by deregulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by 2)pressuring banks to give loans to poor people who couldn't afford them. The Republicans weren't intimidated into doing this, though. They agreed to support Clinton in this because they didn't want their popularity among poor people to be damaged. Also, it was the Republicans' idea to *4)repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives. That's what caused the financial crisis to occur and that's what made this recession much more severe than it would have been otherwise. Also, the housing bubble was blown when a Republican 3)Fed Chair (Greenspan) kept interest rates too low for too long with the support of a Republican President (Bush Jr.). So, in conclusion, both parties are to blame for our current mess. You can't just blame the Democrats because the Republicans have earned their fair share of blame as well.

Democrats are responsible for at least 2.5 of the 3 major causes.  The 4th isn't a cause -- it was an accelerant -- which wouldn't have been all that bad if the democrat time bomb didn't go off.

Than you have Obama screwing up the recovery for three years... how that's Bush's fault I have no idea.

IF you correctly separate the democrat engineered economic problems from the Bush administration, than you would have to put him above Truman -- In the top ten.  If he was telegenic -- he'd be right behind Reagan somewhere in the top 5. 

An interesting comparison/juxtaposition:
similar Cakewalk presidencies:
Coolidge > Clinton

tough decision presidencies:
W. Bush > Truman

...probably the two best democrat presidents outside of FDR3.0 are pretty easily bested by very comparable republicans. 


4 to 8 years and Jeb is a presidential/VP player.  He's "laying low right now" waiting for his brothers approvals to go up -- which they are --- just like his dads did.