Was Bush the worst President ever?

[Oldstyle]

What? Surely you are not serious. Obama presented Congress with a "job bill" and Republicans in Congress thumbed their nose at it. If you're not even going to be honest, there's no point in even discussing it.

Senate Republicans Block Another Jobs Bill, Face Backlash From American Public


House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase


The Sequester Is a Republican-Inflicted Wound | TIME.com

Another jobs bill? That is what you consider 'helping.' Exactly what would have made this jobs bill any different from the Jobs Bill of 2009, or the Jobs Bill of 2010, or the American Jobs Act of 2011?

As if jobs come from the swish of a pen.

Well, for one thing, all the others were passed and helped create jobs. This last one was not. So, why should it be different? The others created jobs - did you want this one not to create jobs?

The point being that your vapid statement that Obama has not offered anything is just that, vapid. And my claim that Republicans have been voting "no" is still true.

And, it's not just a swish of a pen, there was money invested in stimulation for jobs, but of course Republicans want to save money, that is why they want to start another war.

I hate to burst your progressive "bubble", Mertex but if you took the total cost of the Obama Stimulus and divided it by the number of jobs that were actually created (not "saved")...a number that's verifiable...the cost per job is staggering. Yes, you can make a claim that the Obama Stimulus created jobs but if each job created came at the cost that these jobs did...how can you REALLY call it successful? Especially when so many of them were simply temporary jobs that ceased to exist once the stimulus money ran out?

 

[Faun]

What? Surely you are not serious. Obama presented Congress with a "job bill" and Republicans in Congress thumbed their nose at it. If you're not even going to be honest, there's no point in even discussing it.

Senate Republicans Block Another Jobs Bill, Face Backlash From American Public

Another jobs bill? That is what you consider 'helping.' Exactly what would have made this jobs bill any different from the Jobs Bill of 2009, or the Jobs Bill of 2010, or the American Jobs Act of 2011?

As if jobs come from the swish of a pen.

House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase

So you consider making labor more expensive, helping? Interesting logic.

The Sequester Is a Republican-Inflicted Wound | TIME.com

What percentage of the Sequester of GDP?

Well Obama's doing something right as we're now in the 37th consecutive month of job growth in the private sector to the tune of 6½ million jobs.

 

[newpolitics]

Well.. not one of the better ones or even a 'good' one.. but far from the worst... not even the worst during my lifetime.. That goes currently to Carter with Obama nipping at his heels...

Bush did some things very badly.. namely the fiscal aspects.. and you will always have anti-war and college professor types that will bitch about the Iraq and Afghan wars... but other than that he was a pretty average or uneventful President...

Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, and Tyler and Pierce have to be the bottom 5

Lincoln and FDR the most overrated.. (With Kennedy not far behind.. and Lincoln and Kennedy overrated there because of the emotional assassination aspect)

Maybe Adams and Madison the most underrated...

Nixon the most maligned (rightfully so for Watergate) but people forget the many things he did good...

And Bush II has to have the most rabid haters we have ever seen (yes, even worse than the Birfers, etc with Obama)

So much delusion in such a small amount of words. How?

Bush's was an uneventful and ordinary presidency? I'm not sure how you reached such a conclusion, but I can assure you, its batshit crazy. No offense.

 

[AmazonTania]

What percentage of the Sequester of GDP?

Well Obama's doing something right as we're now in the 37th consecutive month of job growth in the private sector to the tune of 6½ million jobs.

That's nice. What kind of jobs are you creating? And how great can those jobs be if more people are leaving the labor force than are actually finding jobs.

You're trying to create value, not just create work. 37 months of consecutive job is hardly a cause for celebration in this 'recovery.'

 

[Faun]

Another jobs bill? That is what you consider 'helping.' Exactly what would have made this jobs bill any different from the Jobs Bill of 2009, or the Jobs Bill of 2010, or the American Jobs Act of 2011?

As if jobs come from the swish of a pen.

Well, for one thing, all the others were passed and helped create jobs. This last one was not. So, why should it be different? The others created jobs - did you want this one not to create jobs?

The point being that your vapid statement that Obama has not offered anything is just that, vapid. And my claim that Republicans have been voting "no" is still true.

And, it's not just a swish of a pen, there was money invested in stimulation for jobs, but of course Republicans want to save money, that is why they want to start another war.

I hate to burst your progressive "bubble", Mertex but if you took the total cost of the Obama Stimulus and divided it by the number of jobs that were actually created (not "saved")...a number that's verifiable...the cost per job is staggering. Yes, you can make a claim that the Obama Stimulus created jobs but if each job created came at the cost that these jobs did...how can you REALLY call it successful? Especially when so many of them were simply temporary jobs that ceased to exist once the stimulus money ran out?

Only an idiot would apply 100% of the cost of the stimulus to nothing but the jobs saved and created. Much of the stimulus was in tax cuts and much of it was for infrastructure growth.

 

[Faun]

What percentage of the Sequester of GDP?

Well Obama's doing something right as we're now in the 37th consecutive month of job growth in the private sector to the tune of 6½ million jobs.

That's nice. What kind of jobs are you creating? And how great can those jobs be if more people are leaving the labor force than are actually finding jobs.

You're trying to create value, not just create work. 37 months of consecutive job is hardly a cause for celebration in this 'recovery.'

You don't think 6½ million jobs added in 3 years is worth celebrating??

Damn, you must be a Conservative.

 

[AmazonTania]

You don't think 6½ million jobs added in 3 years is worth celebrating??

Let's just forget for a moment that your math is wrong.

Less than 10% of all your job creation is in Manufacturing and Construction. Majority of the Jobs you have created within the last 3 - 4 years are in Retail, Wholesale, and Service Providing. These are generally low skill, low paying, non-production jobs. All these jobs entail is taking money from people and adding to your ever growing trade deficit, which shrinks your economy and devalues your dollar.

Exactly why would this be a good thing? Again, how bad are the jobs being created that people would rather be unemployed than take them? If you want the economy to be filled with underemployed, low skilled workers, then yes. I guess you should celebrate.

Damn, you must be a Conservative.

Sad attempt to label is sad. I'm not a conservative. I'm just well avast in the area of economics. Perhaps it would have been better if you were too.

 

[Faun]

You don't think 6½ million jobs added in 3 years is worth celebrating??

Let's just forget for a moment that your math is wrong.

Less than 10% of all your job creation is in Manufacturing and Construction. Majority of the Jobs you have created within the last 3 - 4 years are in Retail, Wholesale, and Service Providing. These are generally low skill, low paying, non-production jobs. All these jobs entail is taking money from people and adding to your ever growing trade deficit, which shrinks your economy and devalues your dollar.

Exactly why would this be a good thing? Again, how bad are the jobs being created that people would rather be unemployed than take them? If you want the economy to be filled with underemployed, low skilled workers, then yes. I guess you should celebrate.

Damn, you must be a Conservative.

Sad attempt to label is sad. I'm not a conservative. I'm just well avast in the area of economics. Perhaps it would have been better if you were too.

It's not "my math," it's the BLS's ...

Feb/2010: 106,850,000
Mar/2013: 113,330,000
Total ......... 6,480,000

BLS: Total private

As far as underemployment, that is also down during those 37 consecutive months.

Also, when Bush because president in 2001, there were roughly 10½ million under/unemployed/discouraged workers.

By the time he left office in 2009, that number swelled to 22 million. It would peak a few months after the recession ended at over 26 million. That number is also down about 5 million over the last 37 months.

 

[AmazonTania]

As far as underemployment, that is also down during those 37 consecutive months.

No. No it hasn't. It's been typically the same at around 13 - 14%.

Also, when Bush because president in 2001, there were roughly 10½ million under/unemployed/discouraged workers.

By the time he left office in 2009, that number swelled to 22 million. It would peak a few months after the recession ended at over 26 million. That number is also down about 5 million over the last 37 months.

That's nice. Any more deflections you'd want to discuss except for the types of jobs in this recovery we are suppose to be experiencing?

 

[Esmeralda]

Obama the worst,followed by Jimmy Carter.
You must be pretty fucked up to beat Jimmy Carter.

GW Bush was by far the worst president in the 20th century. No one else even comes close.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama the worst,followed by Jimmy Carter.
You must be pretty fucked up to beat Jimmy Carter.

GW Bush was by far the worst president in the 20th century. No one else even comes close.

Carter was the worst in the 20th century.
Obama the worst in the 21st.

 

[Faun]

As far as underemployment, that is also down during those 37 consecutive months.

No. No it hasn't. It's been typically the same at around 13 - 14%.

Now you're simply being absurd. It was 17% at the start of the this 37 month streak. To claim it hasn't come down since then is to deny reality.

You may say you're not a Conservative, but you sure are as delusional as one.

That's nice. Any more deflections you'd want to discuss except for the types of jobs in this recovery we are suppose to be experiencing?

Service-providing ........................... 4,880,000
Professional and business services .......... 1,780,000
Trade, transportation, and utilities ........ 1,234,000
Education and health services ............... 1,191,000
Other services .............................. 1,040,000
Goods-producing ............................... 995,000
Retail ........................................ 620,000
Durable Goods ................................. 522,000
Manufacturing ................................. 521,000
Construction .................................. 280,000
Mining and logging ............................ 194,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, for one thing, all the others were passed and helped create jobs. This last one was not. So, why should it be different? The others created jobs - did you want this one not to create jobs?

The point being that your vapid statement that Obama has not offered anything is just that, vapid. And my claim that Republicans have been voting "no" is still true.

And, it's not just a swish of a pen, there was money invested in stimulation for jobs, but of course Republicans want to save money, that is why they want to start another war.

I hate to burst your progressive "bubble", Mertex but if you took the total cost of the Obama Stimulus and divided it by the number of jobs that were actually created (not "saved")...a number that's verifiable...the cost per job is staggering. Yes, you can make a claim that the Obama Stimulus created jobs but if each job created came at the cost that these jobs did...how can you REALLY call it successful? Especially when so many of them were simply temporary jobs that ceased to exist once the stimulus money ran out?

Only an idiot would apply 100% of the cost of the stimulus to nothing but the jobs saved and created. Much of the stimulus was in tax cuts and much of it was for infrastructure growth.

Come on, Faun...only an "idiot" wouldn't realize that the tax cuts were also supposed to create jobs. And you'd have to be a REALLY big idiot to laud the "infrastructure jobs" that were supposedly created by the Obama stimulus. Or don't you remember Barry's brief moment of candor when he admitted that the "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs they said were going to be created vis a vis the stimulus never materialized?

The uncomfortable truth for you progressives is that the Obama people never would have come up with the whole "jobs saved" thing if their stimulus had actually done what they said it would going in. The very fact that they needed to try and run from the numbers that showed how many jobs were created is ample proof that they didn't create even close to what Obama's folks SAID the stimulus would.

 

[Lakhota]

Back in 2000, Bush v. Gore saw the Supreme Court use the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause to halt a recount of votes in Florida. The process was sparked by concerns over the reliability of ballots. Federal Election Commission data shows that while Bush won by five electoral votes, he took Florida by a margin of only 537 votes.

More: Al Gore Responds To Sandra Day O'Connor's Bush v. Gore Comments (VIDEO)

 

[Oldstyle]

You don't think 6½ million jobs added in 3 years is worth celebrating??

Let's just forget for a moment that your math is wrong.

Less than 10% of all your job creation is in Manufacturing and Construction. Majority of the Jobs you have created within the last 3 - 4 years are in Retail, Wholesale, and Service Providing. These are generally low skill, low paying, non-production jobs. All these jobs entail is taking money from people and adding to your ever growing trade deficit, which shrinks your economy and devalues your dollar.

Exactly why would this be a good thing? Again, how bad are the jobs being created that people would rather be unemployed than take them? If you want the economy to be filled with underemployed, low skilled workers, then yes. I guess you should celebrate.

Damn, you must be a Conservative.

Sad attempt to label is sad. I'm not a conservative. I'm just well avast in the area of economics. Perhaps it would have been better if you were too.

It's not "my math," it's the BLS's ...

Feb/2010: 106,850,000
Mar/2013: 113,330,000
Total ......... 6,480,000

BLS: Total private

As far as underemployment, that is also down during those 37 consecutive months.

Also, when Bush because president in 2001, there were roughly 10½ million under/unemployed/discouraged workers.

By the time he left office in 2009, that number swelled to 22 million. It would peak a few months after the recession ended at over 26 million. That number is also down about 5 million over the last 37 months.

Are you really here trumpeting as a "success", Barack Obama's spending trillions of dollars in stimulus...not to mention nonstop quantitative easing by the Fed that's shrunk the value of every dollar Americans have in the bank...and in almost 5 YEARS getting that number back down to essentially where it was when Bush left office? That's doing a good job with the economy? Really?

If you look at the history of economic recoveries from the dozens and dozens of recessions we've had in this country...the only one that recovered slower than this one is the one overseen by FDR back in the 30's. Most recessions rebound rather strongly. This one bounced about as much as a basketball with all of the air let out of it. We've got record numbers of people on long term unemployment...we've got record numbers of people on food stamps...we've got record numbers of people who have simply given up looking for work and dropped out of the official unemployment counts.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
High corruption never works. The media won't talk about that though. They're too busy worshiping at the altar of Obama.

 

[Faun]

I hate to burst your progressive "bubble", Mertex but if you took the total cost of the Obama Stimulus and divided it by the number of jobs that were actually created (not "saved")...a number that's verifiable...the cost per job is staggering. Yes, you can make a claim that the Obama Stimulus created jobs but if each job created came at the cost that these jobs did...how can you REALLY call it successful? Especially when so many of them were simply temporary jobs that ceased to exist once the stimulus money ran out?

Only an idiot would apply 100% of the cost of the stimulus to nothing but the jobs saved and created. Much of the stimulus was in tax cuts and much of it was for infrastructure growth.

Come on, Faun...only an "idiot" wouldn't realize that the tax cuts were also supposed to create jobs. And you'd have to be a REALLY big idiot to laud the "infrastructure jobs" that were supposedly created by the Obama stimulus. Or don't you remember Barry's brief moment of candor when he admitted that the "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs they said were going to be created vis a vis the stimulus never materialized?

The uncomfortable truth for you progressives is that the Obama people never would have come up with the whole "jobs saved" thing if their stimulus had actually done what they said it would going in. The very fact that they needed to try and run from the numbers that showed how many jobs were created is ample proof that they didn't create even close to what Obama's folks SAID the stimulus would.

It remains idiotic to think that 100% of the stimulus was spent on jobs. You're even trying to attribute the tax cuts as a "cost" per job, when in fact, it's money NOT spent. And infrastructure was not just jobs, but also materials and equipment. As far as how many jobs were saved/created, the best the CBO was able to do was to estimate the number of jobs between 1½ million and 3½ million. Some economists put the number closer to 3 million.

Are you really here trumpeting as a "success", Barack Obama's spending trillions of dollars in stimulus...not to mention nonstop quantitative easing by the Fed that's shrunk the value of every dollar Americans have in the bank...and in almost 5 YEARS getting that number back down to essentially where it was when Bush left office? That's doing a good job with the economy? Really?

If you look at the history of economic recoveries from the dozens and dozens of recessions we've had in this country...the only one that recovered slower than this one is the one overseen by FDR back in the 30's. Most recessions rebound rather strongly. This one bounced about as much as a basketball with all of the air let out of it. We've got record numbers of people on long term unemployment...we've got record numbers of people on food stamps...we've got record numbers of people who have simply given up looking for work and dropped out of the official unemployment counts.

What is it with Conservatives and math? Go ahead and prove Obama's stimulus spent "trillions." Don't forget, almost $300b of it was in tax cuts, not money spent.

And to compare this recession with others is rather meaningless in that this recession was far worse than others and the causes of it were far deeper. Real estate, a reasonable chunk of our economy was absolutely decimated. That market is still reeling from that crash.

In the 18 month period of the recession, 12½ million people lost their job and fell to under and unemployment. GDP fell by 4.7%. No recession since the Great Depression was that deep. And it's not "almost 5 YEARS," but your exaggeration is noted.

 

[Oldstyle]

Only an idiot would apply 100% of the cost of the stimulus to nothing but the jobs saved and created. Much of the stimulus was in tax cuts and much of it was for infrastructure growth.

Come on, Faun...only an "idiot" wouldn't realize that the tax cuts were also supposed to create jobs. And you'd have to be a REALLY big idiot to laud the "infrastructure jobs" that were supposedly created by the Obama stimulus. Or don't you remember Barry's brief moment of candor when he admitted that the "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs they said were going to be created vis a vis the stimulus never materialized?

The uncomfortable truth for you progressives is that the Obama people never would have come up with the whole "jobs saved" thing if their stimulus had actually done what they said it would going in. The very fact that they needed to try and run from the numbers that showed how many jobs were created is ample proof that they didn't create even close to what Obama's folks SAID the stimulus would.

It remains idiotic to think that 100% of the stimulus was spent on jobs. You're even trying to attribute the tax cuts as a "cost" per job, when in fact, it's money NOT spent. And infrastructure was not just jobs, but also materials and equipment. As far as how many jobs were saved/created, the best the CBO was able to do was to estimate the number of jobs between 1½ million and 3½ million. Some economists put the number closer to 3 million.

Are you really here trumpeting as a "success", Barack Obama's spending trillions of dollars in stimulus...not to mention nonstop quantitative easing by the Fed that's shrunk the value of every dollar Americans have in the bank...and in almost 5 YEARS getting that number back down to essentially where it was when Bush left office? That's doing a good job with the economy? Really?

If you look at the history of economic recoveries from the dozens and dozens of recessions we've had in this country...the only one that recovered slower than this one is the one overseen by FDR back in the 30's. Most recessions rebound rather strongly. This one bounced about as much as a basketball with all of the air let out of it. We've got record numbers of people on long term unemployment...we've got record numbers of people on food stamps...we've got record numbers of people who have simply given up looking for work and dropped out of the official unemployment counts.

What is it with Conservatives and math? Go ahead and prove Obama's stimulus spent "trillions." Don't forget, almost $300b of it was in tax cuts, not money spent.

And to compare this recession with others is rather meaningless in that this recession was far worse than others and the causes of it were far deeper. Real estate, a reasonable chunk of our economy was absolutely decimated. That market is still reeling from that crash.

In the 18 month period of the recession, 12½ million people lost their job and fell to under and unemployment. GDP fell by 4.7%. No recession since the Great Depression was that deep. And it's not "almost 5 YEARS," but your exaggeration is noted.

You just can't help yourself...can you? No matter what...you've got to fall back on jobs "saved" instead of simply using the number of jobs that were created. Admit it, Faun...you've got no more idea of how many jobs were "saved" than the CBO or the majority of economists do! Why even use jobs saved instead of jobs created? Because it allows you to claim things like that you "saved" millions of jobs which sounds a heck of a lot better than admitting that you spent all that money and didn't create half the jobs you said that it would. What is it with conservatives and math? LOL...what is it with progressives and using bullshit numbers?

As for the depth of this recession? Did it ever occur to you that the policies of this Administration are to blame for the length and depth of it? When you've got a White House that's calling for tax increases in the middle of a deep recession...something that even it's Chief Economic Adviser Christina Romer and former President Bill Clinton advised against and go completely against Keynesian economic policy...is it any wonder that the economy HASN'T recovered as well as it should? When you've got people in positions of power with this Administration that put ideology before sound economic policies and threaten increased costs through Cap & Trade legislation and an increased minimum wage...should it really surprise anyone when people in the private sector are hesitant to invest capital to create new jobs? When you've got a government that uses it's power to shut down oil production in the Gulf even amongst segments of the industry with virtually spotless safety records and delay construction of a pipeline for year after year saying that more research needs to be done on it's environmental impact...even though we've done more studies on that than any construction project EVER...then should it really surprise you that jobs aren't being created? When you've got an Administration wasting billions of dollars on ill advised "green energy" companies...while threatening to shut down the coal industry completely...is it any wonder you get a negative reaction from the economy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's cool how the two sides are arguing over which murderer of innocent children and thief of people's property and liberty is more awesome.

Barack Obama ordered the murder of a 16 year old American citizen who was charged with no crime nor on any watch list.

Obama is guilty of 1st degree murder.

Can you please show where Bush ordered murder? Fucknut bullshit of casualties of war are just stupidity - you need actual orders.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pretty ironic coming from you, huh? Given how you lied yesterday about the labor force participation ending up higher when Bush left office than it was when he started?

I don't lie - and even agreed to use your numbers.

Now quite blowing smoke and address the subject of this thread.

Obama only got his signature legislation, ObamaCare, through the Senate without them being able to maintain a filibuster.

Probably the worst mess in history, and as you said, they pushed even that pile of shit through - over the objections of the American people.