The Results of Conservative Republican Policy

[Chris]

A failure - and yet there are many who still argue for policies that move us closer to third world status.

"The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent."

'Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy' by Ronald Brownstein

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet."

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic Politics Channel

It's amazing isn't it?

Borrowing $700 billion dollars from China to invade Iraq made us weaker, not stronger.

Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

 

[trueblue]

A failure - and yet there are many who still argue for policies that move us closer to third world status.

"The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent."

'Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy' by Ronald Brownstein

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet."

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic Politics Channel

These observations are correlations but provide no evidence of causation. The reason no real evidence is provided is because there are way too many lurking variables here with no attempt to account for them. Was it Bush policy that brought about those results or were they caused by decreasing consumer confidence, terrorist attacks, economic cycles, or a host of other possibilities. Correlation is different than causation-- so, where's the beef?

 

[OneWorld]

Shrub and the bureaucracy expanding spendthrift congress during his tenure were NOT, in any way shape or manner, "conservative".

Hack.

It's completely conservative actually. Almost the entire Regan staff was on for Bush. Since the 1976 the average median income in America has had a -.02% growth when adjust for inflation. This is a DIRECT result of almost 25 years of Republican rule. But the top 1%, 340%+ growth.

Average worker works longer hours for less, benefits stripped away, rights stripped away, attacks on our educational system (go look at what these guys vote for, they are always voting against education), pensions GONE, wealth disparate grows, incarceration rate doubles, and the list goes on....

This is Republican policy, and hopefully soon enough of you wake up the the facts and the truth.

 

[OneWorld]

These observations are correlations but provide no evidence of causation. The reason no real evidence is provided is because there are way too many lurking variables here with no attempt to account for them. Was it Bush policy that brought about those results or were they caused by decreasing consumer confidence, terrorist attacks, economic cycles, or a host of other possibilities. Correlation is different than causation-- so, where's the beef?

Well, coincidentally all of the worst economic president when ranked are Republicans. They happen to be in power in most houses when they dominate offices. And the top positive economic growth are always democratically ruled.

I had a really good link that had very dry data that indexed all presents the last 50 years in over 45 economic growth categories. It was pretty clear who managed the economy better. This one is pretty clear though in terms of showing what the Republican agenda is. It's to destroy the middle class, and you can do that by sinking us into massive debts... I want to find that chart because it scores based on several factors, not just debt. Debt is one factor only.

Increases in the National Debt Chart

 

[Fatality]

There are lots lots more, that Bush is now not a conservative makes my head spin and is the epitome of hypocrisy.

what do you mean "not now?" he never was, neither was his pappy. he was more like one of the blue dogs, you people called em "bush dogs" lest you forget.

 

[rdean]

First of all, that's not ABOLISHING entire regulatory agencies, like they've been promising to do since Christ was an altar boy....Timidly nibbling around the edges doesn't count by a dam sight.

Secondly, which environmental regulations did they remove altogether, and were they even relevant to begin with?

That sounds good. The problem is that

Here is a timeline of the Bush environmental record.

The Bush Administration's Environmental Record: Environmental enforcement

The problem with these links is that conservatives will automatically say, "That's from a liberal site, it doesn't count". But as long as they have facts that we can independently verify, then what's the difference.

Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bush not only removed regulations concerning the environment, but many scientists quit his administration because they attempted to "fix" data to match administration policy.
This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for the last 8 years.

The Bush administration is one of the dirtiest ever in the history of the US. There is nothing they wouldn’t do. No lie they wouldn't tell. No scam too low.

 

[skookerasbil]

Shrub and the bureaucracy expanding spendthrift congress during his tenure were NOT, in any way shape or manner, "conservative".

And why not? Is there a thought in your usual three word meaningless replies?

Bush cut taxes - conservatives cheered
Bush invaded a country - conservatives cheered
Bush selected ideologues to the SC - conservatives cheered
Bush vetoed child care - conservatives cheered
Bush started faith based initiatives - conservatives cheered
Bush reduced aid to our veterans - conservatives cheered
Bush engaged in illegal wire tapping - conservatives cheered
Bush reduced environmental regulations - conservatives cheered
Bush tried to outsource SS - conservatives cheered
Bush reduced taxes - conservatives cheered

There are lots lots more, that Bush is now not a conservative makes my head spin and is the epitome of hypocrisy.

s0n..............not for nothing, but you have the political IQ of a small soap dish!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

First of all, that's not ABOLISHING entire regulatory agencies, like they've been promising to do since Christ was an altar boy....Timidly nibbling around the edges doesn't count by a dam sight.

Secondly, which environmental regulations did they remove altogether, and were they even relevant to begin with?

That sounds good. The problem is that

Here is a timeline of the Bush environmental record.

The Bush Administration's Environmental Record: Environmental enforcement

The problem with these links is that conservatives will automatically say, "That's from a liberal site, it doesn't count". But as long as they have facts that we can independently verify, then what's the difference.

Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bush not only removed regulations concerning the environment, but many scientists quit his administration because they attempted to "fix" data to match administration policy.
This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for the last 8 years.

The Bush administration is one of the dirtiest ever in the history of the US. There is nothing they wouldn’t do. No lie they wouldn't tell. No scam too low.

lmao............as per an environmental k00k who endorses protection of the minnow fish in California at the expense of thousands of farmers jobs who now cant get water due to the k00ks protecting a........................



fcukking fish!!!!!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

A failure - and yet there are many who still argue for policies that move us closer to third world status.

"The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent."

'Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy' by Ronald Brownstein

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet."

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic Politics Channel

Thanks for creating such an awesome and informative thread.

See the link in my siggy for more of the same info. And it was written by a conservative.

Shrub and the bureaucracy expanding spendthrift congress during his tenure were NOT, in any way shape or manner, "conservative".

Hack.

Yet all the Republicans, self-proclaimed conservatives and neo-cons were all in lock goose-step with Herr Bush all the way. Spare me the lies.

LOL - but 'conservative' has substance today even though that substance meant failure and still today is about nothing but whining and saying 'no' to anything that helps people. You 'conservatives' were going to fix the world, what happened!

They lied, people died.

I'm not a "conservative", numbnuts.

And they haven't enacted s single one of the bureaucracy cutting policies they campaign on -save for a a few measly tax cuts- in my lifetime.

As has been already pointed out, the Shrub was no more "conservative" than LBJ.

You're worse...a neo-con.

hey Midcant....look you have an apostle....and yet to your narrow view....this guy is a right winger....amazing....

 

[Harry Dresden]

A failure - and yet there are many who still argue for policies that move us closer to third world status.

"The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent."

'Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy' by Ronald Brownstein

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet."

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic Politics Channel

It's amazing isn't it?

Borrowing $700 billion dollars from China to invade Iraq made us weaker, not stronger.

Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

at the bottom of the barrel with Carter.....

 

[rdean]

First of all, that's not ABOLISHING entire regulatory agencies, like they've been promising to do since Christ was an altar boy....Timidly nibbling around the edges doesn't count by a dam sight.

Secondly, which environmental regulations did they remove altogether, and were they even relevant to begin with?

That sounds good. The problem is that

Here is a timeline of the Bush environmental record.

The Bush Administration's Environmental Record: Environmental enforcement

The problem with these links is that conservatives will automatically say, "That's from a liberal site, it doesn't count". But as long as they have facts that we can independently verify, then what's the difference.

Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bush not only removed regulations concerning the environment, but many scientists quit his administration because they attempted to "fix" data to match administration policy.
This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for the last 8 years.

The Bush administration is one of the dirtiest ever in the history of the US. There is nothing they wouldn’t do. No lie they wouldn't tell. No scam too low.

lmao............as per an environmental k00k who endorses protection of the minnow fish in California at the expense of thousands of farmers jobs who now cant get water due to the k00ks protecting a........................



fcukking fish!!!!!!!

Less than 6% of scientists are Republican. When a Republican speaks, that point is driven home with a sledgehammer.

I know this is way, way over you head, but I will make the attempt. It's not about saving a few fish. It's about keeping these populations as intact as possible. Fish or frogs or many other type critters are "sensitive" to changes in the environment. Even a slight change, chemical for example, can have devastating consequences. Better we see it in them before we see it in us.

Believe it or not, we are still connected to our environment, even though we live in constructs.

 

[midcan5]

It was good to see some rational people chime in here.

The conservative wingnuts live in an echo chamber that requires no thought, but when shown their failures, tell you they aren't conservative or they run from whatever the particular conservative did, arguing they weren't really conservatives. They are all like small children who when caught say it wasn't me even as you watched them do it.

I wrote this long ago and perspicaciously it still fits the conservative republican wingnuts perfectly. Can any answer my question in URL below. By the way the proof is in the pudding; I still have not received a single positive accomplishment conservatism has contributed to the nation - not one.

What is a conservative? – Political Pass


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[Oddball]

First of all, that's not ABOLISHING entire regulatory agencies, like they've been promising to do since Christ was an altar boy....Timidly nibbling around the edges doesn't count by a dam sight.

Secondly, which environmental regulations did they remove altogether, and were they even relevant to begin with?

That sounds good. The problem is that

Here is a timeline of the Bush environmental record.

The Bush Administration's Environmental Record: Environmental enforcement

The problem with these links is that conservatives will automatically say, "That's from a liberal site, it doesn't count". But as long as they have facts that we can independently verify, then what's the difference.

Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bush not only removed regulations concerning the environment, but many scientists quit his administration because they attempted to "fix" data to match administration policy.
This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for the last 8 years.

The Bush administration is one of the dirtiest ever in the history of the US. There is nothing they wouldn’t do. No lie they wouldn't tell. No scam too low.

Don't read for comprehension well, do you??

Not a one of those environmental regs were repealed....They were merely ignored.

As for ignoring the gullible warming scaremongers, that's one of the handful of things that bungling and intellectually bankrupt administration did that made any sense.

Next lame attempt?

 

[Oddball]

It was good to see some rational people chime in here.

A tragedy that you aren't one of them.

The conservative wingnuts live in an echo chamber that requires no thought, but when shown their failures, tell you they aren't conservative or they run from whatever the particular conservative did, arguing they weren't really conservatives. They are all like small children who when caught say it wasn't me even as you watched them do it.

Project much?

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

I guess I'm the only one here to see the irony of a far leftist wingnut calling all who don't throw in with his far leftist wingnuttery wingnuts, attempting to back up his wingnuttery by quoting one of the most wingnuttiest of leftist wingnuts of the last century!! ...Priceless.

 

[trueblue]

These observations are correlations but provide no evidence of causation. The reason no real evidence is provided is because there are way too many lurking variables here with no attempt to account for them. Was it Bush policy that brought about those results or were they caused by decreasing consumer confidence, terrorist attacks, economic cycles, or a host of other possibilities. Correlation is different than causation-- so, where's the beef?

Well, coincidentally all of the worst economic president when ranked are Republicans. They happen to be in power in most houses when they dominate offices. And the top positive economic growth are always democratically ruled.

I had a really good link that had very dry data that indexed all presents the last 50 years in over 45 economic growth categories. It was pretty clear who managed the economy better. This one is pretty clear though in terms of showing what the Republican agenda is. It's to destroy the middle class, and you can do that by sinking us into massive debts... I want to find that chart because it scores based on several factors, not just debt. Debt is one factor only.

Increases in the National Debt Chart

And you say Republicans are the fear-mongerers? You're right that debt is only one issue; it's also a place where Obama far surpasses any democrat or republican with his projections to double the national deficit. Bush did that too, you say? Yeah. He did. But Obama has plans to double the now much-larger result.

Your other claims are still only correlations at best and more likely politically-driven rumors.

 

[Contumacious]

"The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

Mr Dumb Ass Sir:


Please identify - by paragraph section and clause - that Constitutional proviso which authorizes congress to make sure that children do not live in poverty.


.

 

[rdean]

"The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

Mr Dumb Ass Sir:


Please identify - by paragraph section and clause - that Constitutional proviso which authorizes congress to make sure that children do not live in poverty.


.

Are you saying you want children to live in poverty?

 

[Oddball]

Reddest of red herrings.

If gubmint had the solution to poverty, 50 years and more than $7 trillion should have solved it by now.

Conversely, if that's not enough time and money, can you come up with a time line and budget for the full eradication of poverty?

 

[Harry Dresden]

It was good to see some rational people chime in here.

The conservative wingnuts live in an echo chamber that requires no thought, but when shown their failures, tell you they aren't conication for selfishness.

to bad your not one of them Midcant....and speaking of Echo chambers....when are you going to crawl out of that Sphincter you dwell in.....you are one of the most hypercritical sonofabitches i have ever seen post....and asswipe....i will remind you of this every time i see one of your pathetic posts.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Reddest of red herrings.

If gubmint had the solution to poverty, 50 years and more than $7 trillion should have solved it by now.

Conversely, if that's not enough time and money, can you come up with a time line and budget for the full eradication of poverty?

maybe Midcant....who is far more intelligent than any of us will grace us with an answer to that Dude.....that is if he can pull his fucking head out of his ass long enough....