President George W. Bush: Saint or Sinner?

George Bush is a President mired in contraversy, many deem him to be a great President, many a poor President. Currently, his approval rate has slipped from record all time highs, to around the high 50, low 60 percent mark. This year alone has seen a dip of at least 20 percentage points in his approval rating.

This thread is aimed to debate the positives and negatives of President George W. Bush, with each person at the end of the post to summerize and conclude with one word: either he is a Saint or a Sinner.

Here are some example points for and against:

Saint
Bush has been a true leader since September 11, rallying the Western world against the horror of terrorism. He has lead by example, not afraid to speak his mind, and take action against the terrorists.

Sinner
Within months of taking over the White House in January, 2001, Bush ripped up his campaign promise to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions that cause global warming (reductions opposed by the oil industry), announced that the United States had abandoned the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gases, thwarted a tighter limit on arsenic in drinking water and promoted a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

 

Even a conservative like myself doesn't view Bush as any kind of Messiah. He was the lesser of two evils and just better than the rest of the bumbs attempting to run the Republican party. And that applies John McCain for all you McCainanites out there. I consider myself Independent and GW would not have been my first choice. But he is what he is. In this day and age a President has to compromise all the time. Especailly when the national press doesn't really like or support you. So let's look at some of the variables you brought up.

Bush has been a true leader since September 11, rallying the Western world against the horror of terrorism.

Bush did what I expect a President to do. I hated Clinton, but I supported him when he was right. Like when he wanted to attack Iraq in 98. Funny how nobody was against war then. I don't thin Algore would have acted with quite the ammount a character that GW did, and I don't think he would have brought the hammer on Afghanastan, and they certainly wouldn't be as free as they are today. He probably would be talking tough on Iraq because his boss did, and the same people attempting to villify Bush would be singing his praises.

Bush ripped up his campaign promise to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions that cause global warming (reductions opposed by the oil industry), announced that the United States had abandoned the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gases, thwarted a tighter limit on arsenic in drinking water and promoted a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Global Warming is not fact, please try to remember that. The Kytoto protocol was based on bad science and is an attempt by the UN to fleece the US of more money. It should have been abandon.

All oil companies are not evil, despite the frenzied attaempt by simpletons to paint them that way. There are reasonable and responsible ways to drill for oil. Oil companies, like many companies need a fair amount of checks and ballances, otherwise I think it is good that we not be dependent on other countries if we don't have to, and we don't.

GW roll back of some of the tyranous "Clear Air" laws will help us in the end. Under Clinton, if a power plant say, wanted to install more efficient blades in their turbines; they couldn't unless they wanted to bring the whole plant up to current specs. Now, under the Clinton rules, that plant can still run, so long is doesn't upgrade. So it is an all or nothing deal. Under GW; a plant can increase efficiency in small amounts, producing more power for less fuel, without fear that they will have to make HUGE up front investments.

If you had an old car, and you wanted to put a new muffler on Cat on it, and that would reduce your emmissions by 50%; but not bring you to the emmissions standards of current year model; and the government said.. "Nope." You can't upgrade that old car to make it more efficient, you have to buy a brand new one. How would that sit with you? Would you call that environmentaly sound advice.

But it is easier just to say "GW wants to poinson our children....the sky is falling!"
Isn't it?

So GW is not saint or sinner. He is wrong about some things and right about others. He is a man, but as I said earlier, he is a better man than the alternative.

 

Rikalonius

Man, you took all of my good points.

 

Global Warming is not fact, please try to remember that. The Kytoto protocol was based on bad science and is an attempt by the UN to fleece the US of more money. It should have been abandon.



Take a look.

 

Are these the same scientists who said that I would get more snow because of rising temperatures?

Many of those guys are wack-jobs anyway, and the rest are trying to get money for more studies, which lead to few conclusions, thus they need more money to continue studying, etc.

 

Are these the same scientists who said that I would get more snow because of rising temperatures?

You don't know much, do you?

 

Bush's environmental record has been unfairly castigated.

 

Bush's environmental record has been unfairly castigated.

Bill Clinton's private life has been unfairly castigated. What's your point?

 

You don't know much, do you?

What is there to know? Temperatures change constantly. They were high during the age of the dinosaurs, cold during the Ice Age, and now they're rising again. What's the big deal?

BTW, never question my intelligence.

 

never question my intelligence

Your amount of knowledge doesn't indicate how intelligent you are.

 

THE NATION

Advisors Put Under a Microscope

The Bush team is going to great lengths to vet members of scientific panels.
Credentials, not ideology, should be the focus, critics say.

By Aaron Zitner, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- When psychologist William R. Miller was asked to join a panel
that advises the National Institute on Drug Abuse, he thought he had been
selected for his expertise in addiction. Then a Bush administration staff
member called with some unexpected questions.

Did Miller support abortion rights? What about the death penalty for drug
kingpins? And had he voted for President Bush?

Apparently, Miller said, he did not give enough right answers. He had not,
for example, voted for Bush. He was never appointed to the panel.

Researchers are complaining with rising alarm that the Bush administration
is using political and ideological screening to try to ensure that its
scientific consultants recommend no policies that are out of step with the
political agenda of the White House.

Administration officials say they are merely doing what their predecessors
have always done: using appointment powers to make sure their viewpoints are
well-represented on the government's scientific advisory boards, an
important if unglamorous part of the policy-making process. There are more
than 250 boards devoted to public health and biomedical research alone,
composed of experts from outside the government who help guide policy on
gene therapy, bioterrorism, acceptable pollutant levels and other complex
matters.

But critics say the Bush administration is going further than its
predecessors in considering ideology as well as scientific expertise in
forming the panels. A committee that merely gives technical advice on
research proposals, as opposed to setting policy, has even been subject to
screening, something the critics say was unheard of in previous
administrations.

"I don't think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory
committee structure as this one, and I think it matters," said Donald
Kennedy, past president of Stanford University and editor of Science, the
premier U.S. scientific journal. "If you start picking people by their
ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are inevitably
reducing the quality of the advisory group."

Many of the complaints concern agencies within the Department of Health and
Human Services.

On Dec. 10, the Food and Drug Administration rejected a nominee for an
advisory board who is known for his support of human cloning in medical
research.

Also recently, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson's staff rejected a nominee to
a board of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health who
supports federal rules to curtail repetitive stress injuries in the
workplace.

The nominees had been chosen by officials within the FDA and occupational
health agency but were then rejected by more senior officials. No specific
reasons were given, but Bush opposes human cloning and last year signed a
rollback of Clinton-era rules designed to limit repetitive stress injuries.

Those rejections followed incidents this fall in which public health
advocates and Democratic lawmakers alleged that the administration had
placed people sympathetic to industry on two panels at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. One panel advises CDC officials on the
prevention of lead poisoning in children. The other makes recommendations on
issues ranging from environmental toxins to bioterrorism preparations.

"They're stacking committees to get the advice they know they want to hear,
which is a charade," said David Michaels, a professor of public health at
George Washington University, who served in the Clinton administration. "Why
have an advisory panel if you know what everyone is going to say, and they
agree with you?"

Some critics also complain that Thompson has added an ideological cast to
the mission of some advisory panels.

To the applause of antiabortion groups, the administration in Oc

 

Great article, Gath.

 

When you're elected President, you've got 4 years to steer the country in the direction you think it should go. If you haven't figured out what you want to do and what you believe in before you became President, you shouldn't even have the job.

Obviously, hiring experts to endorse your point of view isn't exactly kosher. However, it's stupid to place someone who would thwart your agenda in any kind of important position.

 

OH, I am sure Bill Clinton never would have a litmus test for his appointee's. After all, remember the entire Attorney General debacle, where he simply would not nominate or even consider to nominate any male; how he specifically wanted a woman for the role?

I could go on and on.....

 

I wouldn't put anything past a coke-head.

The fact remains that Bush has been on his ideological high-horse since Gore won the election. He put our Nation in jeopardy with his "Axis of Evil" nonsense. We had very little conflict with North Korea until Dubya started pointing fingers and naming names. Now there is talk of Nuclear war? What the hell...We could have just let it go, and stood by as North Korea's people starved to death, instead of getting entangled in a pissing match with them. They were on the brink of destroying themselves, and now they have a reason more than ever to have that nationalism.

This is all ludicrous. He's playing his political game for his party so that they can control the 3 branches until the day he dies. It's convenient that we will be at war with Iraq, when re-election time comes around in less than 2 years. It's going to be a sad day when a man with the IQ of a grapefruit, gets elected to be the most powerful man in the world...twice nonetheless.

 

White House Says Plan to Benefit 92 Mln Taxpayers

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Monday its new economic plan
would give 92 million taxpayers an average tax cut of $1,083 this year,
promising big breaks for investors and businesses in a bid to boost the
economy, stock market and President Bush's re-election chances.

Bush said his plan, which is expected to cost $600 billion over 10 years,
was "very fair" to American workers and would help increase growth to a more
sustainable pace. "This economy is one of the strongest in the world, but
what we believe is that we can be stronger," Bush said during a Cabinet
meeting.

Democrats countered that the plan, which Bush will unveil on Tuesday in
Chicago, will have little stimulative effect and predominately benefit the
elite. They estimated that 25 percent of the dividend tax break proposed by
Bush would go to people making over $1 million a year. The vast majority of
American stockholders will get less than $50, Democrats said.

 

OrguollDePuma said

I wouldn't put anything past a coke-head.

The fact remains that Bush has been on his ideological high-horse since Gore won the election. He put our Nation in jeopardy with his "Axis of Evil" nonsense. We had very little conflict with North Korea until Dubya started pointing fingers and naming names. Now there is talk of Nuclear war? What the hell...We could have just let it go, and stood by as North Korea's people starved to death, instead of getting entangled in a pissing match with them. They were on the brink of destroying themselves, and now they have a reason more than ever to have that nationalism.

This is all ludicrous. He's playing his political game for his party so that they can control the 3 branches until the day he dies. It's convenient that we will be at war with Iraq, when re-election time comes around in less than 2 years. It's going to be a sad day when a man with the IQ of a grapefruit, gets elected to be the most powerful man in the world...twice nonetheless

I could dissect your post and point out all the bantha poo-doo for you, but I think I can summarize up your post with one picture......


[image=http://win-edge.com/cryingbabynew.gif]

 

I wouldn't put anything past a coke-head.

That really advanced your argument.

We had very little conflict with North Korea until Dubya started pointing fingers and naming names.

Wrong. We've been having constant problems with the North Koreans since the end of the war. Speaking of which, there was never a peace treaty, only a cease-fire. Technically, we're still at war.

Just because the media doesn't mention every moment we butt heads with the N. Koreans, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Now there is talk of Nuclear war?

No one I've heard is talking Nuclear War except those trying to discredit Bush. Why do you bash him for trying to achieve peace? He's taken the diplomatic route here, and the only ones making threats are the N. Koreans.

He's playing his political game for his party so that they can control the 3 branches until the day he dies.

Um, unless he dies in two years, he can't.

It's convenient that we will be at war with Iraq, when re-election time comes around in less than 2 years.

Two points:
1) Convenient like bombing Belgrade right before an impeachment?
2) It'll be over long before then.

It's going to be a sad day when a man with the IQ of a grapefruit, gets elected to be the most powerful man in the world...twice nonetheless.

He's only been elected once, and I think it's a little early to call Florida's vote.

BTW, the man is very intelligent. My father as met the man, and Bush asked nothing but intelligent questions.


EDIT: Democrats countered that the plan, which Bush will unveil on Tuesday in
Chicago, will have little stimulative effect and predominately benefit the
elite. They estimated that 25 percent of the dividend tax break proposed by
Bush would go to people making over $1 million a year. The vast majority of
American stockholders will get less than $50, Democrats said.

Of course the Dems would say that. They don't want a good economy becasue a good economy within the next few years will hurt them in 2004. They don't seem to have a good grasp of economics, with the big-money ivestors having money, they'll buy more stock and invest in buisnesses which means more jobs, which will mean more money for everyone else. It's Trickle-Down economics.

 

the man is very intelligent. My father as met the man, and Bush asked nothing but intelligent questions

I don't deny that Bush is probably intelligent, in an evil way.

 

I wouldn't put anything past a coke-head.

That really advanced your argument.

I call it like I see it. The man sniffed cocaine for many years, and it clearly shows in his lack of intelligence. You may say otherwise, but I haven't heard Mr. Bush utter an intelligent, original thought since innauguration.

Mo one I've heard is talking Nuclear War except those trying to discredit Bush. Why do you bash him for trying to achieve peace? He's taken the diplomatic route here, and the only ones making threats are the N. Koreans.

This comes from FoxNews, a far right news source who has praised W. since day one. They reported that NK has stated that they are willing to use any and all means necessary to defeat any attack by the U.S. Now that may be a blank assumption, but I'd say it's pretty clear the intent of that statement.

He's playing his political game for his party so that they can control the 3 branches until the day he dies.

Um, unless he dies in two years, he can't.

Do you understand how our government works? Congress and the Executive branch are controlled by Republicans. When the retiring Justices choose to do so(I believe there are 2 approaching), our President recommends the replacing Justices with the approval of Congress. It's pretty simple.

It's convenient that we will be at war with Iraq, when re-election time comes around in less than 2 years.

Two points:
1) Convenient like bombing Belgrade right before an impeachment?
2) It'll be over long before then.


My two points:

1.) This has nothing to do with Clinton. I did not support the bombings during the impeachment, nor do I support any similar action to "wag the dog", if you will. The War with Iraq included. Bush will draw out the war with Iraq as long as possible to aid his campaign.

2.) Chances are there will be thousands of troops garrisonned in Iraq until Bush gives their government his own special overhaul, and until we gain control of all their oil reserves.

 

The Dividend Double-Tax Deception

The folly of eliminating taxes on dividends.

By Daniel Gross
Posted Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 3:28 PM PT

This week's harebrained proposal to rocket stocks back up to their late-'90s
peaks: Cut or eliminate the taxes on corporate dividends.

Wall Street economist Henry Kaufman urged abolishing the tax in Wednesday's
Wall Street Journal. Writing in the New York Observer on the same day,
Nicholas von Hoffman said investors' moods would improve if stocks paid 5
percent dividends and that all that's needed to convince companies to start
paying them is a "slight change in ... income-tax law-eliminating the tax on
dividends to people with gross incomes of, say, $300,000 or less." And if
Congress stopped its "double taxation" of dividends, James Glassman, the
co-author of Dow 36,000, argued in the American Enterprise, "shareholder
dividends would recover, and small investors would regain a powerful tool
for separating real successes in business from the impostors."

As someone who would like to see stocks go up rather than down and see taxes
fall rather than rise, I'm sympathetic to the argument. But this proposal
smacks more of bear-market desperation than intellectual good sense.
Dividends, like the Renault Fuego and a Flock of Seagulls, went out of
fashion in the '90s. Instead of cutting checks to shareholders each quarter,
companies retained earnings and invested them to expand capacity and improve
productivity. The companies that notched the most impressive performances of
the decade-Dell, Microsoft, et al.-didn't pay dividends. Investors plainly
prefer their returns in the form of capital gains. After all, since the 1997
capital gains tax cut, such gains are frequently taxed at a lower rate than
dividends. Today, the S&P 500 has an indicated dividend yield of just 1.7
percent-down from 6.3 percent in 1982.

The chief argument of those who advocate eliminating taxes on dividends is
that they are subject to "double taxation." Shareholders pay taxes on
dividends at the rate their ordinary income is taxed. And corporations
cannot deduct dividends from their taxable income, meaning they pay taxes on
them, too. Does that mean that dividends are double taxed? Only if you
subscribe to the belief that corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Under
this theory, since a company's profits are ultimately distributed to owners
and shareholders in some form-dividends, profit sharing, salaries, or
capital gains-any tax on corporate income, or any limits on the
deductibility of items from taxable income, in effect taxes the same dollar
of profits twice. This only makes sense if, like Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill, you don't draw a distinction between a corporation and the people
who own it. "The corporations and businesses are just an intermediary
between the citizens and the government," he said in an interview last year.
(The logic of this dogma naturally leads its faithful to advocate abolishing
the corporate income tax, as O'Neill does.)

But the double-taxation argument reflects a flawed understanding of what
corporations do and why they are formed. Corporations are distinct entities.
They are not merely passive conduits of cash. They are legal beings,
chartered by states to perform certain objectives. They possess all sorts of
prerogatives, rights, and protections not afforded to individuals. That's
why people form corporations, and that's why it is just for corporations to
pay taxes on their income. Too frequently, CEOs like O'Neill have failed to
differentiate between themselves as individual citizens and the companies
they run. (That may explain why Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski and Enron's Kenneth
Lay thought there was nothing untoward about using their corporate
treasuries as ATM machines.)

Besides, if we want to put dividends and capital gains on the same footing,
the answer isn't to stop taxing dividends, it is to normalize the tax rates
on capital gains so they are taxed just like other forms of income. Why
create more invid

 

That's a load of anti-Bush schlock. Microsoft just declared their first ever dividend. Eliminating this tax (and yes, it IS double taxation no matter how the author tries to spin it) is justified and can help spur the stock market.

Anyone who complains this only helps the rich, because only the rich own stock, here's a tip: BUY SOME STOCK! You don't have to have a seven-figure income to do that, you know. One road to wealth is to actually pursue the road to wealth.

"Bush will draw out the war with Iraq as long as possible to aid his campaign. "

Oh yes, a protracted war, which if still going at election time would be almost two years in duration and surely have a high body count, would definitely ensure Bush's re-election. I'm sure this is his game plan.

That, and taking over the world's oil supply. Obviously removing Hussein is the key step in doing this. Imagine all corners of the world crawling to us begging for oil! I'm glad Sean Penn clued me in on this.

I'm having a fun night.

 

This comes from FoxNews, a far right news source who has praised W. since day one. They reported that NK has stated that they are willing to use any and all means necessary to defeat any attack by the U.S. Now that may be a blank assumption, but I'd say it's pretty clear the intent of that statement.

First, FoxNews is not far right. Their biggest guy, Bill O'Reilly, is an Independant like myself.
Second, you implied that Bush was making threats of Nuclear War. I said that is was the N. Koreans doing so.

Do you understand how our government works? Congress and the Executive branch are controlled by Republicans. When the retiring Justices choose to do so(I believe there are 2 approaching), our President recommends the replacing Justices with the approval of Congress. It's pretty simple.

I don't know how the government works?
Listen, I'm a Political Science major and a History minor, I think I know my stuff.
Even should the Republican hold all three branches (which is very unlikely seeing as how the Supreme Court is very independant no matter whose in power), so what? How does that garauntee that they'll continue to hold all three? The Democrats have held all three, are they still holding it? Oh wait, I forgot, the Dems would never do that sort of thing, only the fascist Republicans.

2.) Chances are there will be thousands of troops garrisonned in Iraq until Bush gives their government his own special overhaul, and until we gain control of all their oil reserves.

A few more points:
1) Garisoned troops overseas is never a popular thing with the voters, and Bush would be taking a huge risk having them there. Garisoned troops will hurt his popularity come election time.
2) We aren't in a war for oil. The United States is already the largest consumer of Iraqi oil under the Oil for Food program. We're already getting the oil cheaply, so it's foolish to think we're going to war for something we already have.

The Gatherer, the reason they want to blunt that tax is because it stifles earnings. If they are taxed that heavily, then they will put a cap on what they earn, because why work harder if you're only going to get screwed. They'll earn less and pay little in taxes because they aren't working as hard, thus the economy slows down, thus they lay people off.

The Democrats are the ones trying to kill the economy.

 

The Bush family has consistently helped despotic anti-American regimes come to power, from Hitler, to Castro, to Sadam Hussein, to the Taliban and Al Quaeda, to the bin Laden family itself.

During the years leading up to WWII, Prescott Bush and his father in law, Herbert Walker, directed banking transactions that financed the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. When war broke out they wanted to recoup their investments. The Wall Street lawyer who laundered their transactions was Allen Dulles, who later created the CIA under Truman. At the
end of his last term, Truman warned about the "American Gestapo" he'd created.

From "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush."
-----------------
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government
ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking
operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the
government took over the Union Banking
Corporation, in which Bush was a director.
The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland ``Bunny'' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush's.
------------------
After the war, George Bush Sr borrowed money from his traitorous father's bank to start Zapata Petroleum. They drilled offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, near Cuba. Operation Zapata was the CIA
code name for the secret invasion of Cuba, also known as the Bay of Pigs, that ended in humiliation and defeat for the U.S., as did the Viet Nam war which followed.

The CIA had actually been supporting Castro, apparently unaware he was really a Marxist-Leninist. The Kennedy Administration inherited the Cuba problem
from Eisenhower and Nixon. JFK took the advice of General Ed Lansdale of the CIA, who proposed that terrorism and assassinations were an alternative
to conventional warfare, and that we had to "fight fire with fire" against communist subversion. Scores of illegal operations were launched against Cuba alone, and covert warfare became official U.S./NATO policy.

But these measures failed to oust Castro, and JFK was putting a stop to them when he himself was assassinated. Ed Lansdale had been transferred to a post in the Pentagon where, shunned by most of his peers, he promoted his bizarre ideas to Army Intelligence. Most CIA officers involved in the Cuba fiasco had been fired, including Allen Dulles. These disgruntled ex-employees were OUR terrorists.

Zapata Petroleum drilled all the original wells in Kuwait beginning in the 60's and 70's. U.S. jets have flown missions over Iraq 24/7 for 12 years now, protecting oil industry investments in Kuwait. In the
early 90's when Bush Sr was president, al Quaeda and the Taliban were OUR guys in Afghanistan, and in the 80's when Bush Sr was in charge of OUR terrorism, Sadam Hussein was our guy in Iraq. On 9/11, the bin Laden family members living in the US were quietly rounded up and escorted back to Saudi Arabia on private jets.

 

Gatherer

Guilt by association? That's thin.

You make it seem as if we aren't protecting allies, but oil. That's insulting to all the Airman risking their lives in the No-Fly Zone.