The legacy of President George W. Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bush suggested allowing individuals to invest up to TWO percent of their Social Security payroll taxes in privately controlled equity accounts. Wow that is so radical! That means the government would have only been allowed to control 98 percent--instead of 100 percent--of our social security funds. We wouldn't want that now would we?


2% really ?

The president plans to ask Congress to allow younger Americans to put at least one-third of the 6.2 percent payroll tax into private accounts, which will offer a set number of investment options similar to the thrift savings plans provided to federal workers. The administration has also signaled that it will propose changing the formula that sets initial Social Security benefit levels, cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades.

With resistance hardening among congressional Republicans, the White House is escalating efforts to get Social Security restructured this year. There will be campaign-style events to win support and precision targeting of districts where lawmakers could face reelection difficulties. As Republicans signaled earlier, they have begun hard-hitting television ads to discredit opponents and prop up the Bush plan.

1/3 of 6.2 % is about 2 %

1/3 does not equal 1/50 or 2% (2/100)

A starting point is a plan proposed by a presidential commission in 2001 that would divert 2% of workers' payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2% — and the Social Security taxes employers pay — would go into the system, helping fund benefits for current retirees. That leaves a shortfall of at least $2 trillion to continue funding benefits for those current retirees.

Social Security Push to Tap the GOP Faithful (washingtonpost.com)



Is that what he wanted though?


yes, he, Dick Cheney, and Rove wanted to privatized SS. Absolutely.

Bush moves to privatize Social Security
 
I don't see it as a big deal then, if he never actually made plans.

Republicans are STILL talking about it, it's part of the party's platform. Many conservatives want this, but they just don't have the ability to see the big picture. They can't see beyond their own wallets.
 
Bush's book, "Decision Points," is full of anecdotes and behind-the-scenes details of eight eventful years that began with the Sept. 11 in 2001 attacks and ended with an economic meltdown in which "I felt like the captain of a sinking ship."

Bush wrote of many errors involving the Iraq campaign and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction there, despite numerous intelligence reports pointing to their existence.

"No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do," Bush writes.

The book includes the revelation that the controversial Cheney had volunteered to step down in 2003 so Bush could pick someone else as his 2004 campaign running mate.

Bush wrote that he considered the offer, writing that while Cheney "helped with important parts of our base, he had become a lightning rod for criticism from the media and the left."

While Bush did not like Cheney's image as described by critics, accepting his resignation offer would help "demonstrate that I was in charge," he writes.

Bush said he talked to aides about asking Republican Senator Bill Frist to run with him instead of Cheney, but ultimately stuck with Cheney because he valued his steady hand.

I still think W was the worst President ever.

But after I read that, if he sent Cheney packing in 2003 and replaced his with Bill Frist, I can't help but think things would not have been near as bad.
 
Try as I might I just can't tar Dubya Bush as pure evil.

He's a weak man; a weak, weak, buffoon of a man. Allowed those around him to wield all the power, come up with a legal explanation and excuse for the U.S. Government to torture prisoners, mismanaged disasters...good times everybody!

I almost pity him. It's like the presidency was a speeding freight train and he was struggling to hold onto the back rail of the caboose, while other people were in the engine setting the pace.
 
I don't, never hated him

But, I still think his was the worse Presidency, ever.

reading that, it almost makes me a little upset, that there was talk of changing course as early as 2003, and he didn't do it.
 
Try as I might I just can't tar Dubya Bush as pure evil.

He's a weak man; a weak, weak, buffoon of a man. Allowed those around him to wield all the power, come up with a legal explanation and excuse for the U.S. Government to torture prisoners, mismanaged disasters...good times everybody!

I almost pity him. It's like the presidency was a speeding freight train and he was struggling to hold onto the back rail of the caboose, while other people were in the engine setting the pace.
I know he's not evil, I've always said he wasn't. He was a not stupid but not bright man who realized quickly what he needed to do to get elected. The man ran a good campaign, that is for sure. Unfortunately, he surrounded himself with malicious, controlling people, and he didn't have that edge to him that they did, so they called the shots. Weak is a good word. Or indifferent even. I don't think he really cared all that much, honestly. I think Rove and Cheney told him things that didn't sound too unreasonable, so he just went with it.

I don't feel pity for him and never will, though. Being weak or indifferent isn't a defense, it's an indictment.
 
and posting a thread about it is even more troubling, but all one can do is attempt to bring equilibrium into a lopsided discussion.
 
People like Dubya. Seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. I might cheer him riding around on a riding cart after a few beers too, because I really like those baseball stadium riding carts.

Anyway, nice guy, bad president.

Speaking of ex-presidents, I doubt Dubya will be as literate and productive as Carter in his post POTUS career :lol: Does anyone know if he has kept the ranch he picked up when he adopted that "cowboy" image to run for political office?
 
"Labling [sic] people" is not against the forum rules, Sting.

.

Actually it is- see name calling:

Policies and Rules



Why are threads closed?
There are many reasons why a thread is closed. The most common reason is that the thread has evolved into heavy bickering, name calling or other childish behavior. Personally attacking other members of the forum is unacceptable and may result in an individual warning to the members in question, which may ultimately lead to banishment from the forum. If the thread has racial slurs or other derogatory comments it is subject to closing.

If a moderator or administrator posts in a thread to warn participants against continuing in a harsh or unacceptable manner, and the warnings are not acknowledged, the thread may be closed.

What constitutes a post or thread worthy of being closed, deleted, or edited by the forum moderators?

Anything that is a personal attack (by personal attack,
we also include yawns, rolleyes, etc. that are directly intended to annoy, or used excessively).


Cross-posting your topic in multiple forums is not allowed. Please just choose one forum to post your topic.

Anything that is "inappropriate" (overly sexual, excessive profanity, etc)

Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Arguing and debating are fine, just avoid the above and you'll be fine. Play nice

What do I have to do wrong to get a warning or banned from the forum?
There are many reasons why you may be removed from the forum.

If you have been warned by the administrators on more than one occasion to not personally attack other members of the forum, or for any other reasons, and do not agree to comply, you may be banned. Name calling is absolutely not allowed. Members who do not listen to moderator/admin warnings and continue to carry on after a mod has warned them in the thread(s), may be temporarily suspended from one or all of the forums for a week or longer, depending on what they did and how they cooperate during the suspension.

Any member sharing their Interference account with a banned member may be banned.


If you personally attack a moderator or administrator in a harsh manner, you may be banned immediately.

Please do not alter other members' quotes. If this is done in a malicious or instigating way, member may receive a warning.


If you are trolling the forums you may be banned.

Trolling: Intentionally disrupting a forum by posting obviously inaccurate or inflammatory information and/or hoping to get a rise out of people. The perpetrators are known as "trolls". This also may also apply to our members who decide to 'troll' other forums. Should this lead to problems on OUR forum because of it, you may be banned.

*An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous or sarcastic messages to bait people to answer.

Personally attacking other members via pm on these boards may also result in a warning and/or suspension/banning from the forums.


Graphic sexual comments about the band in general will not be allowed. There is a level of decency and respect for the band we need to follow.



What is sad is selective enforcement of forum rules.

Labeling someone a troll that you don't agree we is acceptable, which sometimes is name calling but profanity and personal attacks are ok these days with some moderators.

I say enforce all the rules with equanimity.

<>
 
Bringing up a 5 month old post seems like you're trying to get a rise out of a moderator, by definition you're trolling.

No, the thread was on the first page and I was reviewing the last few pages to bring me up to speed.

Nice try.

<>
 
Actually it is- see name calling:





What is sad is selective enforcement of forum rules.

Labeling someone a troll that you don't agree we is acceptable, which sometimes is name calling but profanity and personal attacks are ok these days with some moderators.

I say enforce all the rules with equanimity.

<>
Profanity is fine, actually. You noted a part that says excessive profanity. That's subjective.

It's fun to read.
 
People like Dubya. Seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. I might cheer him riding around on a riding cart after a few beers too, because I really like those baseball stadium riding carts.

Anyway, nice guy, bad president.

I agree.

I actually feel sorry for him. He seemed deluded, especially about Iraq. And he did surround himself with the wrong people. Rumsfeld should never had been Defense Secretary.
 
Does anyone know if he has kept the ranch he picked up when he adopted that "cowboy" image to run for political office?



I believe he still has the ranch in Crawford as well as his home in the Dallas area.

Here is a video from retired Col Mark Tillman, former Air Force One pilot for GWB.



http://premierespeakers.com/mark_tillman/video/14296

It is kind of long but a really interesting account of what it was like behind the scenes on 911, among other things.
 
Actually it is- see name calling:

What is sad is selective enforcement of forum rules.

Labeling someone a troll that you don't agree we is acceptable, which sometimes is name calling but profanity and personal attacks are ok these days with some moderators.

I say enforce all the rules with equanimity.

<>

and if i called you a colossal tool, that'd be name calling and trolling. but i'm not going to :)
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Talking about someones legacy so soon after they left office really shows how much of an a.d.d. culture we've become.

I agree with you here. Only in the fullness of time can a balanced judgement can be formed. It may be to his favour or his disfavour but it is too early to tell.
 
Actually it is- see name calling:

What is sad is selective enforcement of forum rules.

Labeling someone a troll that you don't agree we is acceptable, which sometimes is name calling but profanity and personal attacks are ok these days with some moderators.

I say enforce all the rules with equanimity.

<>

Diamond, public threads are not the place to debate forum rules and call into question moderating styles. If you have concerns, private message the appropriate people. As to the rest, it might be helpful for you to understand that your interpretation of the rules isn't necessarily the same as the mods' interpretation of the rules.

And as far as quoting the FAQ goes, there's a very germane reason you forgot to include in your quotation of "What constitutes a post or thread worthy of being closed, deleted, or edited by the forum moderators?"

Topics that are dragged on or 'bumped' up for no legitimate reason or to start a fight/get a rise out of people...etc.

Check your PMs.
 
Apparently he's pissed at Kanye too...:lol:

That's the worst moment of your presidency, George? THAT? Really?

Not, say ... oh, I don't know ......... the day your country was attacked and thousands of people died?

Kanye had a very mature response to Bush's comment. It threw me for a loop.
 
That's the worst moment of your presidency, George? THAT? Really?

Not, say ... oh, I don't know ......... the day your country was attacked and thousands of people died?

That's kinda what I was thinking, too.

I could probably have a very pleasant non-political conversation with Bush if I ever met him. I've no problem believing that. Just for the love of all that is good, don't let him run (or attempt to run) anything anymore, please. I fully agree that it's difficult to properly judge somebody's presidency so soon after they leave, but this one, I'm thinking won't be that difficult. There may have been a couple decent moments here and there. But only a couple. The end days of his presidency involved someone throwing a shoe at him, for cripes' sake.

Angela
 
How bad a drunk was George W. Bush before he gave up alcohol at the age of 40?

"I wasn't a knee-walkin' drunk," the former president tells Matt Lauer in an interview previewing his new memoir, Decision Points. "I could easily have a beer or two, or a martini, before dinner, bourbons, B&Bs. I was a drinker."

Of his relationship with alcohol, Bush says, "It became a love and, therefore, began to compete for my love with my wife and my daughters."

It also got him in trouble with his parents.

Bush recounts for the special Matt Lauer Reports, airing Monday, Nov. 8 at 8 p.m. ET, what he calls one of the worst examples in which alcohol combined with his "wise-ass" personality.

"So I'm drunk at the dinner table at Mother and Dad's house in Maine. And my brothers and sister are there, Laura's there. And I'm sitting next to a beautiful woman, friend of Mother and Dad's," says Bush. "And I said to her out loud, 'What is sex like after 50?' "

After that, one could hear a pin drop. It was "total silence," says Bush. " And not only silence, but like serious daggers" from my mom and my wife.

He says that, with a case of "after-dinner remorses," he later called the woman to apologize. But she got the last laugh. Bush says that on his 50th birthday, when he was Texas governor, the woman sent him a letter reading: "Dear Governor, Well, what's the answer?"

He never answers that particular question but does tell Lauer that he quit drinking cold turkey the day after his 40th birthday in 1986 and never once fell off the wagon – not even a sip of wine with communion in church.

"I hope somebody reads this book and says, 'If Bush can quit, I can quit,' " he adds.
 
Maybe he should have Josh Hamilton waterboarded...

"Damn right."

That's what former president George W. Bush told CIA officials when they came to ask him for permission to waterboard alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, according to a Washington Post report on the 43rd president's forthcoming book, "Decision Points."

Mohammed supposedly had knowledge of brewing terrorist plots against the United States, and Bush had little reservation about using the practice of simulated drowning on the detainee to extract them.

"I'd do it again to save lives," Bush, who refused to call the interrogation technique "torture" during his presidency, said at a forum earlier this year. He repeats this willingness to use the procedure and maintains that it isn't torture in his book, according to the Post.
 
What I have seen of this book, it seems like it will lose W more fans.

He really is tone deaf, just an over-grown 'frat boy'.
 
Back
Top Bottom