What was that again?

[Charles_Main]

OMFG.. boo.. you dumbass redneck... bush has already proven that more government doesnt work... what we need is more efficient government...

Bush proved it, and time and time again Democrats have proved it before him. Less gov = better, more gov = BAD!!!!!!

 

[Doug]

Up to a point.

 

[frazzledgear]

Took you wingnuts about seven years to start blaming SOME of what happened in Bush's presidency on Bush and not the Clintons. Yee reap what yee sew fella..

It didn't take 7 years but it is foolish to think a new President starts off with a clean slate, that all policies of the outgoing one and all effects of any actions taken by the last President stop upon inauguration of the new President. We have a continuous form of government which means there is no such thing as starting with a clean slate for any President. For the entire first year of a new Presidency, he serves under the last budget approved by the outgoing President, including outlays for that President's policies -which is necessary because it takes more than a year for a new President to get his feet under him, get his full team assembled and confirmed by the Senate and to get a real handle on the job. All existing policies of the last President continue without interruption until and unless a President specifically alters or stops it -assuming it is a change that doesn't also require Congressional approval but usually does. And unless your an idiot, we all know that the full consequences, including unwanted and unplanned consequences of decisions made by any President may not reach full bloom for many years after they leave office.

So that means Bush really did have to deal with the impending crises Clinton knew were brewing and chose to just foist off on the next guy rather than make the controversial and decisive actions necessary to head them off -and it was legitimate to critize Clinton for it. Far more important to Clinton than to any previous President in my lifetime, were his approval ratings. He willing chose to sacrifice making the necessary, difficult and at times controversial decisions even when he knew they would be in the nation's best interests -all because he knew doing so could only lower his approval ratings. So he just chose to avoid making potentially controversial decisions at all. What he never understood is that refusing to make a difficult decision IS a decision as well. And history will judge him for that -and probably not very kindly either. Clinton's Presidency is the one time in history we didn't really need a President at all. Could have just taken a poll and gone with the majority opinion -its what Clinton did anyway.

The problem with doing that is we elect a President with the expectation he will stand up and make those tough decisions in the belief that person will have far more information, some of which may be classified and unavailable to the public, but at all times with far better access to the best expert advice to guide him in making those decisions. And not so he will rely instead on polls reflecting the fickle public opinion that changes with the winds.

Unfortunately for Clinton - history's judgment about past Presidents has never been determined by their approval ratings at the time they served. Franklin Pierce enjoyed very high approval ratings while in office but history has judged him to be one of the worst Presidents ever. Abraham Lincoln had wretched approval ratings while in office yet is consistently ranked one of our greatest Presidents.

A President's true legacy can never be determined by the approval ratings they had at the time. Not only is it irrelevant, it is often in direct inverse to history's final judgment. And in Clinton's case, I think his high approval ratings in light of the fact he headed THE single worst administration in modern history for the sheer numbers of political appointees, friends, business partners, campaign personnel, donors, political associates and "Clintonites" who ended up as convicted felons, outstripping every President before and since in the level of overall corruption of those he chose to surround himself with, as well as his own personal corruption, immoral and unethical actions - is more of a statement about the sad state of our own morally bankrupt and decaying society than says anything of value regarding the Clinton Presidency. The final act of that man before leaving office was just one more morally bankrupt and corrupt act. In spite of the advice of his own advisors, he pardoned Marc Rich in what certainly looks like a "pardon-for-sale bought and paid for" act of the rankest sort. An act that even some of his most ardent but naive admirers attacked him for but was actually quite consistent with the guy's history. Didn't make a dent in those approval ratings though, which says something about the morality and intelligence of those who found nothing Clinton could do to affect their admiration.

You want to criticize Bush for the decisions he made when some really are going to be decisions that cannot help but affect the next President's administration -go ahead. No incoming President can escape having to deal with the policies, actions and inactions of the previous President. But unlike with Clinton, you will never be able to claim that Bush refused to confront the tough decisions he was faced with head on and make them -instead of simply foisting them off to explode on the next guy because he wanted to protect his approval ratings far more. Putting their personal approval ratings above having to make tough decisions for best longterm interests of the nation is a loser strategy that we and future generations all pay a heavy price for. But in the end, so does that President who chose to place such value on what are in the end, just meaningless approval ratings that bear no reality and make no statement at all as to the quality of ANY President's administration.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bush has the veto pen dumbass.. bush is the reason congress is being stymied...

Please show us what Bush has vetoed

Congress has raised the minimum wage, named a couple of building, and that is about it... in 2 freaking years...

they are an abysmal failure... yet the mindless lib-drones, Obamabots, and socialists will blindly follow and support, and go pull the lever for them again in the ballot box

 

[Gunny]

It's called the GW flow on effect. On a more serious note, when are you Yanks going to get a real third option up and running?

Never. Not without a revolution. The Republicans and Democrats effectively keep everyone else shut out, and the sheeple here are so focussed on their government programmed hatred of the other side they can't think think outside the two-choice box. It's "us or them."

Our government plays us for fools, and why not? We play right along.

And what exactly would a third party accomplish? A third party President would be a lame duck.

 

[Jeepers]

Please show us what Bush has vetoed

Congress has raised the minimum wage, named a couple of building, and that is about it... in 2 freaking years...

they are an abysmal failure... yet the mindless lib-drones, Obamabots, and socialists will blindly follow and support, and go pull the lever for them again in the ballot box

Hmm. just a few more accomplishments that you failed to mention...

Democrats Passed First Minimum Wage Increase in a Decade. “The nation's lowest-paid workers will soon find extra money in their pockets as the minimum wage rises 70 cents to $5.85 an hour today, the first increase in a decade. It ends the longest span without a federal minimum wage increase since it was enacted in 1938. The previous increase came in September 1997, when a bill signed by President Bill Clinton raised the minimum 40 cents, to $5.15 an hour. Legislation signed by President Bush in May increases the wage 70 cents each summer until 2009, when all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.” [Associated Press, 7/24/07]

Democrats Passed War Spending Bill that Included $6 Billion for Hurricane Relief. “The war spending bill provides about $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30 and billions in domestic projects, including more than $6 billion for hurricane relief.” [Associated Press, 5/25/07]

Democrats Passed Wounded Warriors Bill to Upgrade Military Health Care and Provide a 3.5% Pay Raise for Our Troops. “Senate Democrats scored a crucial pre-recess legislative win Wednesday, as a veterans’ healthcare measure and military pay raise previously attached to the stalled defense authorization bill passed unanimously. Republicans sought to add the 3.5 percent pay increase to the healthcare bill, dubbed the Wounded Warriors Act, before allowing immediate passage of the package.” [The Hill, 7/26/07]

Democrats Passed Legislation Out of Committee Providing the Largest Increase for Veterans Affairs Funding in History. “House and Senate appropriators are both confidently moving forward with their proposals to give the Veterans Affairs Department its largest-ever budget increase to address the increasing health care needs of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed its version of the fiscal 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (HR 2642) June 15 by a vote of 409-2. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved, 28-1, its draft version on June 14.” [CQ Today, 6/15/07]

Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill Included Additional $1.8 Billion for Veterans’ Health Care. “The House and Senate approved the $120 billion package yesterday. The president had requested $103 billion, but Congress added additional spending requirements to increase veterans’ health care programs by $1.8 billion, military construction and realignment by almost $5 billion, and homeland security by more than $1 billion.” [VFW Press Release, 5/25/07]

Democrats Passed Bill to Implement 9/11 Commission Recommendations. “The Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday to implement many of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, answering its three-year-old call for better emergency communications; more money for cities at high risk of terrorist attacks; and tighter security for air cargo, ports, chemical plants and rail systems.” [Washington Post, 3/14/07]

Democrats Passed Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill. “Senate Democrats and Republicans broke a difficult stalemate last night and approved 96 to 2 expansive legislation to curtail the influence of lobbyists, tighten congressional ethics rules and prevent the spouses of senators from lobbying senators and their staffs. The Senate legislation, hailed by proponents as the most significant ethics reform since Watergate, would ban gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists, and would force lawmakers to attach their names to special-interest provisions and pet projects that they slip into bills. Lawmakers would have to pay charter rates on corporate jets, not the far-cheaper first-class rates they pay now.” [Washington Post, 1/19/07]

Democrats Passed Bill to Cut Subsidies to Student Lenders and Provide $17 Billion in Grants and Other Student Aid. “The Senate overwhelmingly approved a wide-ranging overhaul of student loan programs early today that would pay for more than $17 billion in grants and other student aid by slashing subsidies to lending companies. Democrats and student advocates said the legislation, which passed in a 78 to 18 vote, would help millions of Americans pay for college in a time of steady and often steep tuition increases.” [Washington Post, 7/19/07]

Democrats Passed a Bill to Better Regulate the Student Loan Industry. “Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts made the comments shortly after senators passed legislation (S 1642) to reauthorize the primary law governing colleges, universities and federal aid by an overwhelming margin of 95-0…. The underlying bill would increase the amount of information that schools and lenders must provide to students — including up-front disclosure of loan rates and terms and data on total school costs — and would ban lenders from giving schools financial aid funds or any other perks to get on a preferred lender list…. The bill would require colleges and universities to draft codes of conduct governing relationships with lenders; shorten the application form for federal student aid; and authorize a pilot program to allow students to learn the total aid they can expect to receive up to two years in advance.” [CQ Today, 7/24/07]

Democrats Passed a Fiscally Responsible Budget. “Congress gave final approval on Thursday to a $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for education and health care and a federal surplus in five years… Democrats said their budget measure would put the government $41 billion in the black by 2012, after steady deficits since 2002. They said the measure also would reversing Bush's clampdown on domestic agencies' annual budgets passed by Congress… The budget plan would lock in a promise by Democrats to restore pay-as-you-go rules. Republicans abandoned these in 2001 to pass Bush's tax cuts.” [Associated Press, 5/17/07]

Democrats Passed Energy Bill That Increased Fuel-Efficiency Standards for First Time Since 1975. “The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters… The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.” [Washington Post, 6/22/07]

 

[Jeepers]

Here is a breif record of all the wasted time dealing with bush vetoes...

April 11, 2007

The Senate votes 63–34 in favor of legislation that eases restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. President Bush says he will veto the bill, as he did to a similar bill in 2006.

April 26, 2007

The Senate follows suit, passing by a 51-46 margin war-funding legislation that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. This sets the stage for a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

May 1, 2007

Congressional Democrats deliver — and President Bush vetoes — the Iraq war spending bill that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals.

May 2, 2007

The House of Representatives fails to override President Bush's veto of the Iraq war spending bill with timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals. The 222-203 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto override.

June 7, 2007

The House passes bill on stem cell research, voting in favor of legislation that eases restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The Senate approved the bill in April. President Bush vetoes the bill on June 20.

Sept. 27, 2007

Eighteen Republicans joined a solid Democratic block when the Senate voted 67-29 for a $35 billion increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The House passed the bill two days earlier, 265-159, with 45 Republicans voting for it. The bill vetoed by President Bush on Oct. 3, 2007.

Oct. 18, 2007

House Democrats failed to override President Bush's veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children. The bill had bipartisan support but the 273-156 roll call was 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to enact the bill into law despite Mr. Bush's objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a bigger than two-thirds majority.

Nov. 1, 2007

Revised State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)legislation cleared the Senate once again after passing the house the week before, but supporters remained short of the two-thirds majority needed to override President Bush's threatened veto.

Nov. 8, 2007

Congress handed President Bush the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite the president's protests that it was filled with unnecessary projects. The vote was 79-14 to pass the bill. The House of Representatives voted 361-54 to override the veto two days before.

May 22, 2008

Congress enacted most of a massive election-year farm bill by overriding President Bush's veto, sending new and bigger subsidies for farmers and more food stamps to help the poor with rising grocery prices. The 82-13 vote in the Senate following a 316-108 vote May 21 in the House provided Democrats only their second veto override in Mr. Bush's presidency.

June 18, 2008

Congress enacted a massive $290 billion farm bill for a second time after a clerical error in the first bill threatened delivery of U.S. food aid abroad. The Senate voted 80-14 to override President Bush's veto of the legislation, more than the two-thirds majority necessary to enact it. Mr. Bush had vetoed the bill for a second time, and the House voted 317-109 to override it a few hours later.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

April 11, 2007

The Senate votes 63–34 in favor of legislation that eases restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. President Bush says he will veto the bill, as he did to a similar bill in 2006.

April 26, 2007

The Senate follows suit, passing by a 51-46 margin war-funding legislation that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. This sets the stage for a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

May 1, 2007

Congressional Democrats deliver — and President Bush vetoes — the Iraq war spending bill that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals.

Wow he vetoed two bills and that is your claim the Dems are not at fault?

 

[Jeepers]

Wow he vetoed two bills and that is your claim the Dems are not at fault?

Hey dumbass.. how much time and energy was wasted trying to negotiate around presidential vetos.... take the context of everything I posted.. while your at it consider this...

Democratic rule has produced:

•More floor time. As of June 30, the House had logged 16 more days in session than it did during the first six months of the last Congress; the Senate, 19 more.

•More filibusters. In the Senate, where a minority of 41 can block bills, Reid has had to schedule votes on breaking filibusters 43 times.

wow.. maybe if the pubs were concerned with doing something for america for a change they could have actually tried 43 times to work with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle

•More Iraq votes. The Senate has voted seven times and the House six to change Iraq policy. Senate filibusters prevented the bills from reaching Bush's desk.
---

hmmm... if it wasnt for procedure, there would be another 6 vetos..

•More investigations. The White House press office says administration officials have spent 87,000 hours responding to congressional queries.

 

[Article 15]

So for how many years after Bush is no longer President do you leftoids get to pretend he is to blame for everything? Just curious how long democrats get to pretend they are not part of the problem.

LOL

For the past 7 years the right has been telling the left that everything is Clinton's fault, Carter's fault, shit even FDRs fault ...

Sooooooooooooooooo ...

Anywhere from 8-76 years ... maybe longer ...

Get used to it ...

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

It's called the GW flow on effect. On a more serious note, when are you Yanks going to get a real third option up and running?

At about the same date as the Brits run Charlie and his ugly off the island, lol.

If he dies of old age it don't count.

 

[Charles_Main]

Anyone actually know how many bills Bush has used a veto on?

I bet most of you Bush haters think it is far more than it actual is.

 

[Jeepers]

Anyone actually know how many bills Bush has used a veto on?

I bet most of you Bush haters think it is far more than it actual is.

Learn to both read and count putz...

 

[Charles_Main]

Learn to both read and count putz...

And how did I miss count when I did not give any figures? Dumbass

but if you want facts he has used only 2 times. He has threatened to use it about 40 times, but only actually did it 2 times.

Maybe you need to learn to count.