If George HW Bush didnt get re-elected - why should Obama?

[Neotrotsky]

Geroge Bush I was a fine POTUS.

I particualrly admire his bravery in changing his mind when he went from NO NEW TAXES to new taxes.

He actually set up this nation for the CLINTON ERA by striaghtening out the mess left from Reagan's tax policies.

AND THAT cost him a reelection and he KNEW that would be the outcome, too.

So the man did the RIGHT THING and his fellow GOPers punished him for doing so.

Technically, would it not have been the "American People"
Ross Perot running did not help
Clinton never got 50+ majority of the Popular vote, in both elections

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."

Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.

Bush I didn't have a decent economy.he had a recession. and he was disengaged.

but the reality is, there was a better candidate running against him.

so far the GOP seems dead set against picking a candidate that could get anyone other than "the base" to vote for him.

i also dont think Bush wanted it as much as he should of......Clinton campaigned like he did.....one had fire the other.....not so much.....my take anyway....

 

[Harry Dresden]

George HW Bush - the best president to lose re-election.

Resume dwarfs Obamas.

WW2 hero. Head of CIA. Conressman. VP etc...................

More people voted for the other guy.

Go figure.

That said..he wasn't a bad President. In comparision to his son he was an absolutely great President.

In comparison to Clinton he was a fair president.

have to concur....

 

[Full-Auto]

Oh, so you are voting because he hurt your feelings? Really?

wtf? Maybe you don't mind being insulted by this man pretending to be a President..so by all means go out and vote for him..

He's not pretending.

He actually went and killed the terrorist that attacked New York City.

Unlike the guy before him.

True story.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o]Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version) - YouTube[/ame]

More excuses.............

Obama had made similar comments. But thankfully Leon outsmarted the President and got it done despite a Valerie objection.

 

[JoeB131]

I can't think of any reason why Obama should of been elected in the first place, let alone be re-elected..

He's been a horrible President, divisive, calls us names like flat earthers, and just plain sucks as a person let alone as our President..

I hope the people have seen and had ENOUGH..

Oh, so you are voting because he hurt your feelings? Really?

wtf? Maybe you don't mind being insulted by this man pretending to be a President..so by all means go out and vote for him..

He's not insulting me, and if you are insulted by what he says, you are taking it all too personally.

DOn't like Obama, but I like Romney less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Geroge Bush I was a fine POTUS.

I particualrly admire his bravery in changing his mind when he went from NO NEW TAXES to new taxes.

He actually set up this nation for the CLINTON ERA by striaghtening out the mess left from Reagan's tax policies.

AND THAT cost him a reelection and he KNEW that would be the outcome, too.

So the man did the RIGHT THING and his fellow GOPers punished him for doing so.

I couldn't disagree more. He didn't stick to his guns. The economy is not efficient on more taxes and his economy reflected that. He paid the price b/c he gave into Democrats. Well played Democrats.

And Clinton wasn't financially strong either. He wanted to pass big govt. measures like Obama. The difference was a Republican House and the net boom. And it was Clinton that started the ticking clock on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac by lessening oversight and regulations.

Clinton was financially "strong". So much so..that unlike Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II there weren't any bailouts. And you guys seem to forget that Reagan raised taxes more then any President in US history.

And as for all this austerity you guy advocate..which is unusual because when the President is Republican..there is no austerity..is ridiculous. The government has to spend money..like it or not. This is a huge country..with financial hooks into every part of the world. That has to be maintained. And NOT by a big military.

Oh..and austerity doesn't work. Both Britain and Japan tried it with horrible results.

And you guys seem to forget that Reagan raised taxes more then any President in US history.

Yup, he raised the top rate all the way from 70% to 28%.

He did raise the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 28%.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Geroge Bush I was a fine POTUS.

I particualrly admire his bravery in changing his mind when he went from NO NEW TAXES to new taxes.

He actually set up this nation for the CLINTON ERA by striaghtening out the mess left from Reagan's tax policies.

AND THAT cost him a reelection and he KNEW that would be the outcome, too.

So the man did the RIGHT THING and his fellow GOPers punished him for doing so.

I couldn't disagree more. He didn't stick to his guns. The economy is not efficient on more taxes and his economy reflected that. He paid the price b/c he gave into Democrats. Well played Democrats.

And Clinton wasn't financially strong either. He wanted to pass big govt. measures like Obama. The difference was a Republican House and the net boom. And it was Clinton that started the ticking clock on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac by lessening oversight and regulations.

Clinton was financially "strong". So much so..that unlike Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II there weren't any bailouts. And you guys seem to forget that Reagan raised taxes more then any President in US history.

And as for all this austerity you guy advocate..which is unusual because when the President is Republican..there is no austerity..is ridiculous. The government has to spend money..like it or not. This is a huge country..with financial hooks into every part of the world. That has to be maintained. And NOT by a big military.

Oh..and austerity doesn't work. Both Britain and Japan tried it with horrible results.

Distorting Reagan's Record - Reason Magazine

Great opening to this article:

Remember the big Reagan tax increase of 1982?

Well, certain elements of the press do, all of a sudden, and, lo and behold, after years of demonizing Ronald Reagan as a fiscally irresponsible tax-cutter, they are now trying to resurrect the Gipper as a tax increaser.

BTW - Reagan took the top federal income tax rate from 60 to 28. Obama has taken it from 35 to 40 (and he'd love to get it to 50 or 60 in a second term). Don't try and compare the two. They have very different philosophies.

 

[ginscpy]

Still not sure what went wrong -George HW Bush should have been re-elected in a landslide.

After the Gulf War - his approval ratings were at a historic high.

Coulndt have been all the Read My Lips gaffe.

 

[JoeB131]

Still not sure what went wrong -George HW Bush should have been re-elected in a landslide.

After the Gulf War - his approval ratings were at a historic high.

Coulndt have been all the Read My Lips gaffe.

A lot of things went wrong for Bush.

The Read My lips thing wasn't a gaffe. It was a promise he couldn't keep because of the S&L Crisis. So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy. He made the right call, but it cost him politically. Too bad we don't have men of such integrity today.

This in turn lead to a conservative disaffection with him. That begat Buchanan and then Perot peeling off votes.

You see, here's the rub. Clinton actually got LESS of a percentage of the vote in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988. He got more votes because the electorate grew, but as a percentage, he got less.

And when those Perot voters eventually came home to a major party, they came home to the Democrats, not the Republicans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still not sure what went wrong -George HW Bush should have been re-elected in a landslide.

After the Gulf War - his approval ratings were at a historic high.

Coulndt have been all the Read My Lips gaffe.

A lot of things went wrong for Bush.

The Read My lips thing wasn't a gaffe. It was a promise he couldn't keep because of the S&L Crisis. So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy. He made the right call, but it cost him politically. Too bad we don't have men of such integrity today.

This in turn lead to a conservative disaffection with him. That begat Buchanan and then Perot peeling off votes.

You see, here's the rub. Clinton actually got LESS of a percentage of the vote in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988. He got more votes because the electorate grew, but as a percentage, he got less.

And when those Perot voters eventually came home to a major party, they came home to the Democrats, not the Republicans.

So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy.

The Bush tax hike prevented the collapse of our economy? Wow! You're confused.
How'd it help the boat builders on the east coast?

 

[ginscpy]

Still not sure what went wrong -George HW Bush should have been re-elected in a landslide.

After the Gulf War - his approval ratings were at a historic high.

Coulndt have been all the Read My Lips gaffe.

A lot of things went wrong for Bush.

The Read My lips thing wasn't a gaffe. It was a promise he couldn't keep because of the S&L Crisis. So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy. He made the right call, but it cost him politically. Too bad we don't have men of such integrity today.

This in turn lead to a conservative disaffection with him. That begat Buchanan and then Perot peeling off votes.

You see, here's the rub. Clinton actually got LESS of a percentage of the vote in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988. He got more votes because the electorate grew, but as a percentage, he got less.

And when those Perot voters eventually came home to a major party, they came home to the Democrats, not the Republicans.

I recall Dukakis The Tank Guy.

 

[JoeB131]

Still not sure what went wrong -George HW Bush should have been re-elected in a landslide.

After the Gulf War - his approval ratings were at a historic high.

Coulndt have been all the Read My Lips gaffe.

A lot of things went wrong for Bush.

The Read My lips thing wasn't a gaffe. It was a promise he couldn't keep because of the S&L Crisis. So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy. He made the right call, but it cost him politically. Too bad we don't have men of such integrity today.

This in turn lead to a conservative disaffection with him. That begat Buchanan and then Perot peeling off votes.

You see, here's the rub. Clinton actually got LESS of a percentage of the vote in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988. He got more votes because the electorate grew, but as a percentage, he got less.

And when those Perot voters eventually came home to a major party, they came home to the Democrats, not the Republicans.

So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy.

The Bush tax hike prevented the collapse of our economy? Wow! You're confused.
How'd it help the boat builders on the east coast?

Todd, are you still eating the paint chips?

 

[editec]

Did REAGAN raise taxes enormously?

Yes, in terms of dollars going INTO the government coffers, I believe that his tax increase was the largest in US history

and by doing so he saved Social Security from going belly up

Employee.......................................Self employed
............OASDI...HI.........Total....OASDI...HI.........Total....
1982-83 5.400... 1.300 .... 7.00 ,,,,,,8.050... 1.300...... 9.350

1984 a.. 5.700.... 1.300.. 7.005... 11.400 ....2.600 ....14.000

Note that the vast majority of NEW TAX REVENUES he took in fell on the WORKING CLASS?

 

[Article 15]

Geroge Bush I was a fine POTUS.

I particualrly admire his bravery in changing his mind when he went from NO NEW TAXES to new taxes.

He actually set up this nation for the CLINTON ERA by striaghtening out the mess left from Reagan's tax policies.

AND THAT cost him a reelection and he KNEW that would be the outcome, too.

So the man did the RIGHT THING and his fellow GOPers punished him for doing so.

He was also smart enough not to invade, occupy, and rebuild Iraq.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Yeah....I'm surprised that "conservatives" (even) CONSIDERED that.....

....Crime Family....

....for a second-shot at the Oval Office!!!

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A lot of things went wrong for Bush.

The Read My lips thing wasn't a gaffe. It was a promise he couldn't keep because of the S&L Crisis. So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy. He made the right call, but it cost him politically. Too bad we don't have men of such integrity today.

This in turn lead to a conservative disaffection with him. That begat Buchanan and then Perot peeling off votes.

You see, here's the rub. Clinton actually got LESS of a percentage of the vote in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988. He got more votes because the electorate grew, but as a percentage, he got less.

And when those Perot voters eventually came home to a major party, they came home to the Democrats, not the Republicans.

So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy.

The Bush tax hike prevented the collapse of our economy? Wow! You're confused.
How'd it help the boat builders on the east coast?

Todd, are you still eating the paint chips?

Making you look silly is so easy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did REAGAN raise taxes enormously?

Yes, in terms of dollars going INTO the government coffers, I believe that his tax increase was the largest in US history

and by doing so he saved Social Security from going belly up

Employee.......................................Self employed
............OASDI...HI.........Total....OASDI...HI.........Total....
1982-83 5.400... 1.300 .... 7.00 ,,,,,,8.050... 1.300...... 9.350

1984 a.. 5.700.... 1.300.. 7.005... 11.400 ....2.600 ....14.000

Note that the vast majority of NEW TAX REVENUES he took in fell on the WORKING CLASS?

You're right, he should have privatized Social Security instead of rescuing it.

 

[JoeB131]

So he had a choice. Keep with a foolish promise and let the economy completely collapse, or break a foolish promise and salvage the economy.

The Bush tax hike prevented the collapse of our economy? Wow! You're confused.
How'd it help the boat builders on the east coast?

Todd, are you still eating the paint chips?

Making you look silly is so easy.

Todd, you don't even come with serious arguments, much less an understanding of economics. Most people agree the S&L Bailout was necesssary... except like, retarded people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, are you still eating the paint chips?

Making you look silly is so easy.

Todd, you don't even come with serious arguments, much less an understanding of economics. Most people agree the S&L Bailout was necesssary... except like, retarded people.

So he couldn't have bailed out the S&Ls without hiking tax rates?
Silly argument.
Does low IQ run in your family?
Or do you have a brain injury?

 

[JoeB131]

Making you look silly is so easy.

Todd, you don't even come with serious arguments, much less an understanding of economics. Most people agree the S&L Bailout was necesssary... except like, retarded people.

So he couldn't have bailed out the S&Ls without hiking tax rates?
Silly argument.
Does low IQ run in your family?
Or do you have a brain injury?

Where would the money come from? Borrowing? That was the point, no one was going to loan the government money to bail out the S&L's. ONLY by raising taxes could the governmetn show it was serious about making good on underwriting the S&L industry.

That's the whole point of the FSLIC and FDIC- the government backs your money, so it's safe to put it in there. Of course, they'd have never gotten into trouble then (or now) if regulation wasn't so lax.

You just aren't very smart, are you.