• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush's Presidency

How do You rate George W. Bush's Presidency?

  • He's The Best President We've Ever Had

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • He Was One Of The Best

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • He Was Pretty Good

    Votes: 8 9.8%

  • He's Alright

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • He Was Kind Of Bad

    Votes: 13 15.9%

  • He Was One Of The Worst

    Votes: 35 42.7%

  • He Was The Worst

    Votes: 11 13.4%
  • Total voters
    82
wbreese91 said:
Don't worry the name calling has already begun. I agree. Both sides tend to disregard midigating circumstances when talking about the other side. Republicans and Democrats alike. Clinton may have gotten closest, but he did so by weakening our military significantly. Personnally, I think the cuts should have come more equally from a large number of federal programs, not just the armed forces.
Click to expand...

The weakening of the military under Clinton is greatly exaggerated.
 
Redress said:
The weakening of the military under Clinton is greatly exaggerated.
Click to expand...

Also agreed. Conservative nut-jobs greatly exagerrated it, but he still cut from the military disproportionally compared to other areas of government.
 
wbreese91 said:
It was FDR who started deficit spending actually.
Click to expand...

Actually, it started before we were even a country. Washington took over a country in debt. The permament deficits began under FDR and Reagan took them to unprecedented levels. Until his GOP friends George Bush and George Bush II, of course. And it's likely Obama will beat them all. And when he does the GOP partisans can't really say a ****ing word because we'll all just point and laugh.
 
wbreese91 said:
Also agreed. Conservative nut-jobs greatly exagerrated it, but he still cut from the military disproportionally compared to other areas of government.
Click to expand...

Largely continuing the start from President Bush the elder. At times, the military needs to be cut, to force it to attack head on the "waste, fraud and abuse" problem.

Further, the cuts in the military come nowhere close to explaining why the debt goes up least under democratic presidents. Interestingly, if you look at the deficit in relation to GDP, both the last 2 democratic presidents reduced the deficit as a portion of GDP.
 
stekim said:
Actually, it started before we were even a country. Washington took over a country in debt. The permament deficits began under FDR and Reagan took them to unprecedented levels. Until his GOP friends George Bush and George Bush II, of course. And it's likely Obama will beat them all. And when he does the GOP partisans can't really say a ****ing word because we'll all just point and laugh.
Click to expand...

But they will say something, you know it. Anyway, I can agree that we need to cut our federal budget massively and probably raise taxes a bit (unpopular as this may be) to get ourselves out of this hole. Obama, however, seems blissfully unaware that money doesn't just shoot out the mint's butt like diahrea from someone who just chugged a whole bottle of X-Lax.
 
Redress said:
The weakening of the military under Clinton is greatly exaggerated.
Click to expand...
Based on what?
DOD spending FY1989-2001 ($1B)
1989: 304.0
1990: 300.1
1991: 319.7
1992: 302.6
1993: 292.4
1994: 282.3
1995: 273.6
1996: 266.0
1997: 271.7
1998: 270.3
1999: 275.5
2000: 295.0
2001: 306.1
 
wbreese91 said:
But they will say something, you know it. Anyway, I can agree that we need to cut our federal budget massively and probably raise taxes a bit (unpopular as this may be) to get ourselves out of this hole. Obama, however, seems blissfully unaware that money doesn't just shoot out the mint's butt like diahrea from someone who just chugged a whole bottle of X-Lax.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to. I thought no one could outspend W, but that didn't last long.
 
Redress said:
Largely continuing the start from President Bush the elder. At times, the military needs to be cut, to force it to attack head on the "waste, fraud and abuse" problem.

Further, the cuts in the military come nowhere close to explaining why the debt goes up least under democratic presidents. Interestingly, if you look at the deficit in relation to GDP, both the last 2 democratic presidents reduced the deficit as a portion of GDP.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in researching this. It seems very counter-intuitive. Don't forget to factor in inflation, and who was controlling Congress at the time though.
 
Goobieman said:
Based on what?
DOD spending FY1989-2001 ($1B)
1989: 304.0
1990: 300.1
1991: 319.7
1992: 302.6
1993: 292.4
1994: 282.3
1995: 273.6
1996: 266.0
1997: 271.7
1998: 270.3
1999: 275.5
2000: 295.0
2001: 306.1
Click to expand...

If you cannot defend the world's most nuclear armed nation on $266 billion you really need to find a new line of work. Because you frankly suck at your job.
 
stekim said:
If you cannot defend the world's most nuclear armed nation on $266 billion you really need to find a new line of work. Because you frankly suck at your job.
Click to expand...
Defend this position.
Show how it can be done just as well, for less.
 
Goobieman said:
Based on what?
DOD spending FY1989-2001 ($1B)
1989: 304.0
1990: 300.1
1991: 319.7
1992: 302.6
1993: 292.4
1994: 282.3
1995: 273.6
1996: 266.0
1997: 271.7
1998: 270.3
1999: 275.5
2000: 295.0
2001: 306.1
Click to expand...

Spending is not a measure of the ability of a military.
 
wbreese91 said:
Also agreed. Conservative nut-jobs greatly exagerrated it, but he still cut from the military disproportionally compared to other areas of government.
Click to expand...

True, but remember that Clinton was following the same path blazed by Reagan and expanded by Bush HW. The detractors of Clinton tend to ignore that it was Reagan who started gutting the military. Cheney himself proposed cutting many of the weapons we use today as a cost cutting tool. This often gets lost in the partisan vomit.

Furthermore, remember at the time, our military was geared towards fighting a conventional war against Soviet forces. That threat disappeared in 1991. It makes little sense to keep funding a large force designed to fight an enemy that no longer exists.
 
Goobieman said:
Defend this position.
Show how it can be done just as well, for less.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's start with a simple question. When was the last time Russia or China were attacked by another country? I chose them because they have the second and third most nukes and both have very large standing Armies. Just like us! How much do they spend on defense in U.S. dollars? Is it:

A) $266 billion,
B) More than $266 billion, or
C) Less than $266 billion?

I'll wait here for the answer. If it's C (and it is, no need to look it up) I have just demonstrated that you can effectively defend your country from attack for less than $266 billion. And, in the case of China, you can also do it with a budget surplus! Isn't it ironic that Communists are better able to manage their money? It's also good given we need them to fund our deficits, but when you are taking money management 101 from Communists you really need to start electing better people.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Spending is not a measure of the ability of a military.
Click to expand...

Yep, just look at how badly the Afghans beat up the Soviets...
 
stekim said:
Sure. Let's start with a simple question. When was the last time Russia or China were attacked by another country? I chose them because they have the second and third most nukes and both have very large standing Armies. Just like us! How much do they spend on defense in U.S. dollars? Is it:

A) $266 billion,
B) More than $266 billion, or
C) Less than $266 billion?

I'll wait here for the answer. If it's C (and it is, no need to look it up) I have just demonstrated that you can effectively defend your country from attack for less than $266 billion. And, in the case of China, you can also do it with a budget surplus! Isn't it ironic that Communists are better able to manage their money? It's also good given we need them to fund our deficits, but when you are taking money management 101 from Communists you really need to start electing better people.
Click to expand...

Russia has the 1st with regards to amount of nukes
The USA is 2nd with regards to amount of nukes
France is 3rd with regards to amount of nukes
China has the 4th with regards to amount of nukes


The USA spends 48% of the World's Military Spending
China spends 8% of the World's Military Spending
Russia spends 5% of the World's Military Spending


Now, can they defend their countries just as effectively as we can? You didn't prove it at all... at best it is a hypothetical. I would say that we have the ability to take an offensive war abroad much better than they could, and consequently we could defend our nation better than they could, based off of the navy alone...
 
stekim said:
Actually, most Presidents had deficit spending. Reagan simply took it to a whole new level. See? Numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...

You mean Reagan had to repair the damage to the military Carter incurred.

So one first must figure out how much The Idiot should have been spending to maintain the military, subtract that amount from The Great One's deficit and add it onto The Idiot's deficit where it belongs.

stekim said:
I love how you protect the writers of bloated budgets when they are "your" guys. It's pathetic, but cute in its own way.
Click to expand...


I love the way you're adamantly refusing to understand what happened before you were born.
 
stekim said:
Where does it say defense is "first"?
Click to expand...

Right there where it says Congress can only spend money on specific areas, in Article 1, Section 8.

The military is listed, the entitlements and socialist nonsense is not allowed at all.

The Tenth Amendment states that if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow the Congress to do something, that something is reserved to the states. Ergo, the socialist spending is a state responsiblity, not a federal one, and all federal spending in those areas are both illegal and clearly secondary to those allowed expenditures.

stekim said:
And if the other spending is not allowed I suggest you sue.
Click to expand...

This is what you use instead of logic?
 
If you want to get technical, the 10th amendment effectively died with the American Civil War.

The Civil War basically wrote in blood no less the complete superiority of the federal govt. over the states.
 
wbreese91 said:
The Constitution allows Congress to pass laws to "promote the general welfare."
Click to expand...

No. The Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress specific powers to promote the general welfare.

The Congress in limited by law (the Constitution) in it's fields of interference.


wbreese91 said:
This is a rather obscure phrase,
Click to expand...

Not for you, not any more. I just fixed up what you didn't understand about it.

You can say thanks if you have manners.
 
obvious Child said:
True, but remember that Clinton was following the same path blazed by Reagan and expanded by Bush HW. The detractors of Clinton tend to ignore that it was Reagan who started gutting the military.
Click to expand...

Substantiation?

wbreese91 said:
Furthermore, remember at the time, our military was geared towards fighting a conventional war against Soviet forces. That threat disappeared in 1991. It makes little sense to keep funding a large force designed to fight an enemy that no longer exists.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Under The Rapist President the Left steadfastly refused to fund ABM technology citing the ABM treaty. A treaty with a nation that no longer existed. Thus the nation lost a full eight years of R&D time, because the Left had no interest in defending the evil United States.

I certainly will not argue that post-Cold War military spending should have decreased.

Post Cold War spending was decreased, with The Oath Breaking President submitting a plan of rational draw-downs that did not conflict with national security. The Rapist President went beyond that, also, much of the Rapist Presidency was spent wasting time and money invading Haiti and Yugoland and bombing camel butts in Afghanland (okay, that one didn't cost much, but it highlights his complete ignorance of military effectiveness).
 
Dayton3 said:
If you want to get technical, the 10th amendment effectively died with the American Civil War.

The Civil War basically wrote in blood no less the complete superiority of the federal govt. over the states.
Click to expand...

If you want to get technical, the Constitution before the bill of rights limited the power of the Congress. The Tenth Amendment merely made totally explicit what was already clearly implicit in Section 8 of Article 1.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Russia has the 1st with regards to amount of nukes
The USA is 2nd with regards to amount of nukes
France is 3rd with regards to amount of nukes
China has the 4th with regards to amount of nukes


The USA spends 48% of the World's Military Spending
China spends 8% of the World's Military Spending
Russia spends 5% of the World's Military Spending
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point for me. I appreciate it! None of those countries is unable to defend itself, nor have any of them been invaded since WWII for that very reason (and they defended themselves in WWII). And yet they can do it far more cheaply. Thanks for helping out there. Good to have you onboard.

Now, can they defend their countries just as effectively as we can? You didn't prove it at all... at best it is a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You can either defend your country or you cannot.
And it's patently clear both countries can do that. Unless you would like to explain who could take them over, knowing NO ONE has ever done so from outside. Worst case? Mutual destruction. But we lose there, too. So technically, we cannot even defend oursleves for $266 billion should they decide to end us. But yes, you are right. Unless we spend endless amounts of Chinese money to pay for big guns we are doomed. No one else needs to do that to be safe. Just us. No, we're not stupid at all.....
 
stekim said:
Thanks for making my point for me. I appreciate it! None of those countries is unable to defend itself, nor have any of them been invaded since WWII for that very reason (and they defended themselves in WWII). And yet they can do it far more cheaply. Thanks for helping out there. Good to have you onboard.
Click to expand...

Do you think that I was trying to disprove you, or something? Dude, get over yourself, it is lame. I am posting facts, nothing more and the facts tell the truth, regardless of whoever is stating what.


No it's not. You can either defend your country or you cannot.
And it's patently clear both countries can do that. Unless you would like to explain who could take them over, knowing NO ONE has ever done so from outside. Worst case? Mutual destruction. But we lose there, too. So technically, we cannot even defend oursleves for $266 billion should they decide to end us. But yes, you are right. Unless we spend endless amounts of Chinese money to pay for big guns we are doomed. No one else needs to do that to be safe. Just us. No, we're not stupid at all.....
Click to expand...

Since WWII has anybody tried to invade Russia, the USA, France or China? Nope, then it is a hypothetical. Sorry, it simply is so...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean Reagan had to repair the damage to the military Carter incurred.

So one first must figure out how much The Idiot should have been spending to maintain the military, subtract that amount from The Great One's deficit and add it onto The Idiot's deficit where it belongs.




I love the way you're adamantly refusing to understand what happened before you were born.
Click to expand...

I can give Reagan alot of slack for that, but he still shouldn't have cut taxes so much because of the huge defecit.

A tax cut was NEEDED because of the insane tax increases under Hoover (and no other president besides Reagan seemed to see that it was a problem) but there should of been slightly less tax cuts under Reagan.

But since I don't know where to draw the line, Reagan's fiscal policy was acceptable
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Substantiation?
Click to expand...

Man, this should be common knowledge.

More Military Bases Need to Be Closed

Base closures were one of the major areas of reducing the military.

People tend to view just the first term and early second term of Reagan. They ignore how in the later part of his second term he started reducing the military and raising taxes.

SecDef Histories - Richard Cheney

Cheney wanted to cut the B-2.

HW continued Reagan's military cuts.

George H. W. Bush - MSN Encarta

Clinton didn't come up with the military reduction idea. In fact he's kind of lame in that he just followed Reagan and Bush HW.

Please format your posts in rational, cohesive statements that intellectually honest people won't reject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom