george bush designed the fiscal cliff.

I believe the article quoted in the OP is wroing in stating that the Bush tax cuts were designed to expire after 10 years because they knew they would blow a hole in the budget. As I recall, the reason they had a 10 year limited life was due to the fact they were enacted using the budget reconciliation rules, which prevent a filibuster.

Boehner and McConnell obviously committed a huge error is agreeing to extend them to the end of the year, thus handing Obama a class hatred issue gift wrapped.

I was not a big fan of the Bush cuts because they were insufficiently supply side, but raising taxes is the wrong solution. I don;t trust the republicans on this issue much more than the democrats. So-called tax reform, which involves giving up deductions for a promise of lower rates, has a poor track record. We'll never get the lost deductions back, but you can count on higher rates the next time democrats get in control.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

this is just not accurate dude.

Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil, no one saw 9/11 coming and it sure as shit would have happened if obama was pres. This is Bush's victory, ditto for bin laden.

Obama has expanded the federal govt.

Obamacare is arguably the most egregious assault on civil liberty EVER.
More...

1.9-11 happened on Bushs watch


2.Intelligence officials did see 9-11 coming and informed Bush



Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US


Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.


Some arguments have focused on clear warnings in this letter, specifically that:



the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

a large attack was planned

the attack would be on United States soil

target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C.

the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned

hijacked plane missions were anticipated

people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved

recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed."







3.Obama got Bin Landin ,not Bush



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ntkoqiNJunE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JRY_BOYeySc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





4.Obama has not expanded the government as much has Bush did


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275512887811775.html



Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster


Now that George W. Bush has finally left office, here's a challenge to a nation famous for its proud tradition of invention: Can somebody invent a machine capable of fully measuring the disaster that was the Bush presidency?

Yes, yes, I know that attitudes towards presidencies are volatile. Harry Truman was hated when he left office and look at him now; he's so highly regarded that President Bush thought of him as a role model. There are, I'm sure, still a few William Henry Harrison dead-enders around, convinced that the 31 days the broken-down old general spent as president will someday receive the full glory they deserve.

In a way that was inconceivable when he took office, Mr. Bush -- the advance man for the "ownership society," smaller and more trustworthy government, and a humble foreign policy -- increased the size and scope of the federal government to unprecedented levels. At the same time, he constantly flashed signs of secrecy, duplicity, ineffectiveness and outright incompetence.

Think for a moment about the thousands of Transportation Security Administration screeners -- newly minted government employees all -- who continue to confiscate contact-lens solution and nail clippers while, according to nearly every field test, somehow failing to notice simulated bombs in passenger luggage.

Or schoolchildren struggling under No Child Left Behind, which federalized K-12 education to an unprecedented degree with nothing to show for it other than greater spending tabs. Or the bizarrely structured Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the largest entitlement program created since LBJ. Or the simple reality that taxpayers now guarantee some $8 trillion in inscrutable loans to a financial sector that collapsed from inscrutable loans.






5.Obamacare is nothing compared to Bushs patriot act
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

this is just not accurate dude.

Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil, no one saw 9/11 coming and it sure as shit would have happened if obama was pres.
More...

You have no clue if it would or would not of happened if Obama or anyone else was president.

The only fact is it did happen while Bush was president...FACT.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Not all tax cuts are created equal. Keynes' focus was employment and aggregate demand. Our "job creators", Romney's constituency, have never had lower taxes or more cash, so cutting their taxes is useless. Actually, worse than useless, since cutting spending (sharply) to account for the reduced revenue simply adds velocity to the negative feedback loop we're experimenting with this recession.
More...

I would like to see the data supporting your argument.

In this argument I did not suggest sharply cutting spending. ..you can cut taxes and cap spending and grow out of the imbalance... which is what Keynes suggested.
 
Quote from Brass:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/us/bush-was-warned-bin-laden-wanted-to-hijack-planes.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-05-15/us/bush.sept.11_1_hijacking-bin-terror-attacks?_s=PM:US
More...

From your article: "President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.

But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort."

I'd like to point out to everyone who bashed Bush for Iraq, that he had received similar information from our intelligence agencies.. but you guys were against that right? And by against it, in mean in hindsight after the Dems in Congress who voted for the war then decided that Bush 'lied' afterwords. My point, should all of this information be acted upon, or can the decision go either way, I mean at the time, not in hindsight?

Also lefty fav bill clinton didn't do shit about bin laden, who was a suspect in the '93 WTC bombing, on his watch either.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/60-minutes-clinton-administration-passed-opportunity-kill-bin-laden-1999

www.mrctv.org/videos/60-minutes-clinton-administration-passed-opportunity-kill-bin-laden-1999

Quote from bigarrow:

You have no clue if it would or would not of happened if Obama or anyone else was president.

The only fact is it did happen while Bush was president...FACT.
More...

You're right there is no way that I can KNOW if it would have been different under another president, but not have a clue? According to the 2 videos posted above, it is certainly reasonable to assume that it would have happened under clinton, right? Isn't it also reasonable to say that 9/11 was a well thought out and well executed attack and since we were in peace time it is highly unlikely that any sitting pres could have stopped it? How do we know how many of these 'possibilities' get thrown at a sitting pres each week? Without concrete evidence of the plot, what was Bush supposed to do, ground every flight indefinitely?
 
Quote from Lucrum:

There is much more to him being worse than just the budget deficit.
More...


Good job on accepting the fact that when it comes to the deficit Bush is far worse then Obama Luke.Pretty soon you might realize that Obama is better then Bush in every way
 
Quote from jem:

I would like to see the data supporting your argument.

In this argument I did not suggest sharply cutting spending. ..you can cut taxes and cap spending and grow out of the imbalance... which is what Keynes suggested.
More...
That's a lot of work for a casual forum, jem. The recession is 4+ years old now, and the analysis of it is voluminous.

You do raise a good point here (which I take liberty to derive and combine from arguments you've made before), and that is that not all spending is created equal, either.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

You have no clue if it would or would not of happened if Obama or anyone else was president.

The only fact is it did happen while Bush was president...FACT.
More...

Bush inherited terrorism.
 
Quote from Ricter:

That's a lot of work for a casual forum, jem. The recession is 4+ years old now, and the analysis of it is voluminous.

You do raise a good point here (which I take liberty to derive and combine from arguments you've made before), and that is that not all spending is created equal, either.
More...

1. by extension -- if we were going to spend, I did not my spending on infrastructure. So little of the stimulus was useful spending on infrastructure.

2. if we are going to spend on infrastructure the money should be spent on american firms and jobs. something over 80 percent of the infrastructure spending is going overseas.

I can not believe it but apparently CA is building bridges with firms and workers for China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top