Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
The legacy of Bush’s presidency: (PIC)
thinkprogress.org — The legacy of Bush ’s presidency: the country he inherited, the country he left behind (pic)
QGYH2- 5050 diggs
- digg it
- blindhammer, on 01/24/2008, -146/+30Apparently you're half-empty glass kinda person.
- ClockworksNine, on 01/24/2008, -6/+125This isn't about half-empty/full, Bush broke the glass.
- funkytaco, on 01/24/2008, -1/+14"I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be -- hold hands." --George W. Bush, on how he can contribute to the Middle East peace process, Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2008
Maybe he pressed the glass when he should have held it instead?- MtheoryX, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Might I remind you:
http://digg.com/comedy/President_Bush_My_Anti_Drug
He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.
- MtheoryX, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Might I remind you:
- funkytaco, on 01/24/2008, -1/+14"I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be -- hold hands." --George W. Bush, on how he can contribute to the Middle East peace process, Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2008
- Terr01, on 01/24/2008, -8/+62Don't get you it? Every single one of these things are totally because of the liberal media conspiracy! Unemployment? Bad media coverage caused it. Debt? Bad media coverage caused it. Government budget? Bad media coverage caused it.
Look how effective it was! Obviously if you libtards would start talking about how great things are, we'd soon have world peace and fusion power and Santa Claus would be real!
/sarcasm, obviously- subgeniusd, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1Oh you know the right-wing crybaby mantra - "It's all Clinton's fault".
- sjl127, on 01/24/2008, -82/+7This is inaccurate - and buried as so. Terrible references and application of them.
- syowr, on 01/24/2008, -4/+89yea terrible...
1 Bureau of Economic Analysis
2 Department of Treasury
3 Congressional Budget Office
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics
5 United States Census Bureau
6 United States Census Bureau
7 Kaiser Study of Employer Health Care Benefits
8 United States Census Bureau
9 Energy Information Administration
10 Higher Education Coordinating Board of Washington State
11 Bureau of Economic Analysis
12 Insurance Information Institute
13 United States Census Bureau
14 OANDA.com: The Currency Website
15 Speaker of the House Fact Sheet, 11/29/07
16 Energy Information Administration
17 Testimony of Andrew Kohut; President, Pew Research Center; 3/17/07 - Delphium226, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10Proof or your GOP handlers will sack you.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+12Your avatar is an insult to primates everywhere.
- RandomGorilla, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4You mean that wasn't Bush? DAMN! Fooled again.
- victorypup, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1This is all because Bush is a blatant liberal himself.
- syowr, on 01/24/2008, -4/+89yea terrible...
- blindhammer, on 01/24/2008, -6/+32Apparnetly no one got my sarcasm. Probably a problem with my delivery. :)
- lobsterxcore, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4I chuckled and dugg you up. not that it mattered at -83
- Fozefy, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5The glass isn't half empy, it just isn't the most optimal size! (The engineers point of view)
- mlwarrior, on 01/25/2008, -1/+6Bush is terrible, that's true, but some of these stats are sorta bad. For example, the "Americans in poverty" should be a percent. Populations do grow. There are some startling stats in their, though.
- BossKey, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5With Bush the glass is either half-empty or empty.
Or the glass is filled halfway, with water that had to be borrowed from another glass! - threemagic, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3What? Bush left some water in the glass??? That doesn't sound right at all!
- ClockworksNine, on 01/24/2008, -6/+125This isn't about half-empty/full, Bush broke the glass.
- bsgates18, on 01/24/2008, -26/+253Just goes to show how much of an absolute disaster this man has been for our country. But hey, at least he's bringing freedom to them islamo-terrorists!
- fadetoone, on 01/24/2008, -39/+6Yeah, because the rest of the government obviously had nothing to do with every single factor on that table.
- sibhod, on 01/24/2008, -1/+27So then who neutered the Legislative branch, and stacked the Judicial with like-minded ideologues?
- funkytaco, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10fadetoone, begin your education here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy - buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -1/+16The neocons were in charge of everything for 6 years. What is your next excuse?
- MoneyShot, on 01/24/2008, -35/+5No doubt that he's be a disaster for us when it comes to foreign policy, but how much influence any President has over the economy is debatable. I mean, can you really blame Bush for Americans not saving more? And the increasing trade deficit and a lot of the related stats are the result of globalization (which actually got a large boost when Clinton signed NAFTA into law). Yes, I'm anti-Bush, but I'm also anti-stupidity. We don't need to distort facts to prove Bush is a horrible President., so it's a shame when someone does try that tactic.
- sibhod, on 01/24/2008, -1/+26Our economy is in shambles because we have been spending more and more on the military industrial, while at the same time slashing taxes for the wealthy. Who's fault do you really think that is, hmm?
- 5urr3al5am, on 01/25/2008, -6/+1you cant cut taxes on the poor because they already pay so little, the rich pay about 75 to 80% of all taxes. If you DID reduce taxes for everyone equally, by say, 5% the rich would take that money and invest it, which would refuel the economy and bring in more taxes back to the government. try reading a book once in a while.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+7The third-richest man in the world says you (and the Rush Limbaugh phony stats you parrot) are full of *****.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/mon ... - 5urr3al5am, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1@Rationalist:
if you actually read the article you'd realize that based on its title and what actually in it.. it makes no sense at all??
The Tiltle: "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary" and the article goes on to say that
--Buffet was taxed 17% on his $46 Million - a calculated tax of $8,142,000
--The Secretary was taxed 30% on their $60k - a calculated tax of $18,000
Why are you quick to point out articles that have out right lies for titles and have faulty math?
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+7The third-richest man in the world says you (and the Rush Limbaugh phony stats you parrot) are full of *****.
- 5urr3al5am, on 01/25/2008, -6/+1you cant cut taxes on the poor because they already pay so little, the rich pay about 75 to 80% of all taxes. If you DID reduce taxes for everyone equally, by say, 5% the rich would take that money and invest it, which would refuel the economy and bring in more taxes back to the government. try reading a book once in a while.
- MoneyShot, on 01/24/2008, -18/+2Oh noes! I'm going against groupthink and getting dug down because of it! You're all tools if you honestly think Bush is the sole cause for this nation's woes. But keep giving money to Ron Paul or Hilary Clinton if it makes you feel better.
- threemagic, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11If I said 2+2 = 5 and everyone dugg me down, I could say the same thing.. that I went against groupthink.. or I could just realize I was WRONG
- 5urr3al5am, on 01/25/2008, -4/+3@MoneyShot - You're right - dumb people believe the crap that they want to believe .. and then bitterly blow off the truth went it comes to light
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6I dare you to actually, substantively, address even one of the actual statistics cited in the chart.
- useraccess, on 01/24/2008, -2/+6No, you're just a dumb ass!
- 5urr3al5am, on 01/25/2008, -2/+1Even someone like Obama blames Clinton for NAFTA
- sibhod, on 01/24/2008, -1/+26Our economy is in shambles because we have been spending more and more on the military industrial, while at the same time slashing taxes for the wealthy. Who's fault do you really think that is, hmm?
- cnot3, on 01/24/2008, -14/+19Its not just Bush, its all of government. Congress isn't doing anything to make things better, and the common interests tugging on Bush and Hilary's strings are aiming to keep things this way.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+13Neocons were in charge of everything for 6 years strait. They have no one to blame but themselves for the state of this country.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+9If it were "all of government," how come the statistics for the 8 years prior to Bush are so much better than the 7 with him in office?
- scimitar91, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11Yeah about half of these are cyclical and have little to nothing to do with Bush. But the other half, yeah ***** Bush.
- walkea1, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3yeah, and no matter what, college was gonna get more expensive
- roodammy44, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Medical costs though... 100% more expensive?
- walkea1, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3yeah, and no matter what, college was gonna get more expensive
- KireGoTI, on 01/25/2008, -4/+13This is dumb.
Now, look. I'm not a Bush fan, but can't you guys identify a misuse of statistics? Why are we judging an economic boom in the 90's against the two recessions (which were already predicted to occur and not Bush's fault) of the last seven years? Does George Bush really determine the cost of college? No. We all know there's been a price boom. Does he control consumers spending on credit? No. It's a lack of foresight due to Bernankee's interest-rate cut, which saved the economy in 2001. And are we forgetting that the Euro is a fantastic currency that in only a few weeks, with negligible change in the dollar's value, went from just over 80 cents to more than $1.30? Is that really a reasonable point of comparison? Why not use the Yen, which has been relatively stable over the last few years, or even the pound?
The only relevant statistics here are the ones about the world's view of the U.S. Of course, we chose England, Germany, Turkey, and Indonesia, all countries that have gained abnormal hostility towards the U.S. in recent years. Why two countries in Europe and two Muslim regions? What is the view of the U.S. in Africa, Asia, South America? Couldn't we at least put Canada and Mexico, our neighbors, on that list?
If you think Bush was a bad President, that's fine. I think Bush was a bad President. But facts are being hidden, and it's obvious, and you should never fall for that.- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11When were the recessions predicted, and why are they not, at least in part, Bush's fault?
Yes, the president can influence things such as the price of college, by using the power of the office in many ways, chief among them suasion and negotiation. Bush has chosen deliberately not to.
Yes, the president can influence consumer spending on credit- which Bush has, and continues to do, by urging Americans to "go shopping" when our nation faces a crisis.
Your comments on foreign policy reveal most of all your utter ignorance of reality and the fact that, while you use fancy words, all you are interested in is pushing a political agenda. The view of the US in the countries left out are actually worse than the ones included, who are strong allies of the US. The "gain" in "abnormal hostility" in recent years is precisely the point.
The facts are spelled out plainly, and the statistics sourced from reputable, verifiable sources.
Your critique, on the other hand, is nothing but ideological cant, proving, once again, that reality has not old on the Right.- donmanguno, on 01/25/2008, -1/+0Actually, I think the burden of proof is on the accuser. Why are the recessions Bush's fault? These recessions were predicted before Bush took office, so KireGoTI's point seems fairly valid on that point at least.
You say: "The view of the US in the countries left out are actually worse than the ones included, who are strong allies of the US." Sources?
I also think it's funny that you didn't address his point about comparing the dollar to the Euro. Against the Japanese Yen:
2001 1 USD = 121.52 Yen
2008 1 USD = 106.18 Yen
That's a 12% change - not good, but much less dramatic than the 63% change in vaule against the Euro.
As a matter of fact your post is considerably less based on information than the one you are criticizing, and sentences like this:"Your comments on foreign policy reveal most of all your utter ignorance of reality and the fact that, while you use fancy words, all you are interested in is pushing a political agenda," don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny at all.
Also, I saw no responses to mlwarrior's above comment: "Bush is terrible, that's true, but some of these stats are sorta bad. For example, the "Americans in poverty" should be a percent. Populations do grow. There are some startling stats in their, though." Here:
US population 2001 ~283 Million with 31.6 Million in poverty (11.16%)
US population 2008 ~303 Million with 36.5 Million in poverty (12.05%)
Again, a small rise but not as dramatic as it seems when presented as it is in the picture.
I hate Bush, I really do, and I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative. I do think, however, that NO argument is legitimate unless it is well-informed and demonstrates a responsible use of statistics.
- donmanguno, on 01/25/2008, -1/+0Actually, I think the burden of proof is on the accuser. Why are the recessions Bush's fault? These recessions were predicted before Bush took office, so KireGoTI's point seems fairly valid on that point at least.
- Viend, on 01/25/2008, -2/+4I'm from Indonesia. When I saw 12% approval I was happy, then I realised that was for Turkey.
30% approval? What the ***** is wrong with my people. It should be less than 3%.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11When were the recessions predicted, and why are they not, at least in part, Bush's fault?
- badjokes, on 01/25/2008, -5/+2bush was just a puppet. this was going to happen no matter who was president.
politics is just a way to keep 'the people' from revolting by giving them the illusion of control.- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5Then why were the results so different in the 8 years before Bush, when supposedly everything was the same except a different "puppet" sat in the Oval Office?
- MacEnvy, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2He's not even a very good puppet, I guess.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5Then why were the results so different in the 8 years before Bush, when supposedly everything was the same except a different "puppet" sat in the Oval Office?
- fadetoone, on 01/24/2008, -39/+6Yeah, because the rest of the government obviously had nothing to do with every single factor on that table.
- lhbaker, on 01/24/2008, -8/+433$1.39 a gallon for gas. I'd almost forgotten.
- StatiK69, on 01/24/2008, -2/+120Heck, I remember gas at 89 cents back in 97/98... and always complaining if I had to pay 99 cents. Makes me feel old, but I miss the good ole days.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -0/+24I remember gas at 30 cents a gallon. I'm in my fifties. No need for you to feel old.
But feel free to feel abused by gasoline pricing; that's true enough.- battletrax, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3Actually in 2001, it was 89 cents in San Antonio, Texas.
Digg if your Texan - Jirachi, on 01/25/2008, -0/+8...if my Texan what?
- battletrax, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3Actually in 2001, it was 89 cents in San Antonio, Texas.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -0/+24I remember gas at 30 cents a gallon. I'm in my fifties. No need for you to feel old.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -53/+9Maybe liberals will stop preventing us from drilling in ANWR and off the coast in the Gulf of Mexico.
- MasterPain, on 01/24/2008, -26/+4***** the environment its to late anyways
- StaticThunder, on 01/24/2008, -3/+33Just as soon as conservatives explain how giving Exxon the rights to that oil is going to tangibly lower the cost of gas at the pump, instead of just enriching some corporate exec at the cost of the environment.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -21/+1I guess supply and demand is a concept that are to complex for some.
- StaticThunder, on 01/24/2008, -1/+12Yeah, supply and demand says that opening up ANWR helps China more than it helps us. I'm smart enough to see that the situation is more complicated than simple supply and demand.
Since when was the price of oil running on supply and demand. Demand is fixed and ANWR is a drop in the supply bucket.
You want to lower the price of oil? Build more refineries in the gulf states. - fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -0/+18No, don't build more refineries at all. Build electric cars and nuclear, solar, tidal, hydro and wind power plants. Use (and re-use) oil for lubrication. Stop burning it. Stop burning coal. Wake the heck up. Let the fuel oil companies die. They've had their turn.
- StaticThunder, on 01/25/2008, -2/+6@fyngyrz That doesn't lower the cost of oil, which is apparently what Red Bull wants.
Weaning us off the fossil teat is just smart, I wouldn't expect him to get it. - rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5Ah, yes, drilling in ANWR would have reversed all of these statistics you choose not to address directly.
- StaticThunder, on 01/24/2008, -1/+12Yeah, supply and demand says that opening up ANWR helps China more than it helps us. I'm smart enough to see that the situation is more complicated than simple supply and demand.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -21/+1I guess supply and demand is a concept that are to complex for some.
- MattB123, on 01/24/2008, -2/+21If the oil isn't available maybe we'd take alternative energy more seriously.
- tattonchantry, on 01/24/2008, -4/+3except that china is drilling for it twenty five miles off our coast where we can't
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -13/+2You can't have it both ways. Either high oil prices are good, or they are not. Which is it?
- MattB123, on 01/24/2008, -0/+7They're good. I'm not trying to have it both ways.
Economic pressure is probably the only thing that would really make alternative fuel source development a top priority. - natterca, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5exactly. look at the increase in fuel efficiency of cars since 1973. Look at the success of the Japanese car makers who built smaller cars.
I'm not an eco-nut who thinks we should all abandon our cars but we have to get make them less polluting. If gas prices continue to rise, better alternatives will be developed.
- MattB123, on 01/24/2008, -0/+7They're good. I'm not trying to have it both ways.
- fmaxwell, on 01/24/2008, -2/+10@DRINKxREDxBULL:
"You can't have it both ways. Either high oil prices are good, or they are not. Which is it?"
They are good. We need something that will shock short-sighted Americans who buy 13mpg SUVs into considering more ecologically and economically sound vehicles. It makes no sense for a suburban housewife to be driving a Ford Excursion or Cadillac Escalade to the grocery store, mall, dentist, and to pick up one or two kids at a school. As long as we keep allowing that kind of thing to occur, we will remain under the control of OPEC.
As to drilling in ANWR, what you fail to acknowledge is that the oil extracted from there will be sold by the oil companies on the world market at the going rate. Exxon, Shell, Texaco, etc. have not agreed to limit the sale of that oil to the U.S. consumers or to give us "special" discounts. And even the most optimistic (even unrealistic) estimates show that it would be years before reaching its peak production and, at its peak, it would provide just a tiny fraction of the amount of oil that we use -- not enough to significantly affect world oil prices.
Besides, why would you want to use up our oil before we exhaust supplies in other countries?- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -11/+2How stupid is that. Um...yeah...its going to be about 5-10 years before we can start actually getting oil, so we are just not going to start. Come on, I know you have to be smarter than that. We have been debating this (and liberals have been blocking it) since 2000 - SEVEN years ago.
As for sweetheart pricing on oil, if that was the issue, then such a provision would be created, and drilling would starting now.
And lastly, if it will only produce a small amount of oil, why would companies want to invest billions there in order to drill? Private companies can't just make money out of thin air like government can, so they have to actually use the resources they have wisely. - logandurand, on 01/24/2008, -3/+3Why should energy companies give special rates to U.S. companies? It's their oil, and they can sell it to whoever pays the most.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4@ logandurand
Isn't a lot of that oil taken off public land? What do the oil companies pay the tax payers for that oil? - fmaxwell, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1@DRINKxREDxBULL
Are you just playing dumb for the sake of arguing? If we would see peak production that contributed a SIGNIFICANT percentage to satisfying the oil consumption, then you might have an argument. But even the most optimistic figures are predicting single digit percentages.
You claim that "sweetheart pricing" would be so easy to come by, but I have yet to hear the oil companies or any of their right-wing shills in Congress propose anything like that. They don't want that. They want to take oil that is owned by U.S. taxpayers and sell it on the world market to the highest bidder. Your claim about the ease with which such provisions could be created, and approved, is completely without supporting evidence.
The reason that they would invest billions to drill there is because they would make a profit. And the higher the price of oil, the more profit that they would make. You act like oil companies are only willing to drill a well if the reserves into which they would tap would be huge. Not true. If that was the case, we'd have a handful of oil fields supplying all of the needs of the country. There are about 300 million people in the U.S. If the oil in Alaska could provide even 1% of the oil needs of our country, what would that work out to in dollars? - fmaxwell, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1logandurand wrote:
> Why should energy companies give special rates to U.S. companies?
> It's their oil, and they can sell it to whoever pays the most.
How is oil that they extract from government-owned land (that means land that you, me, and every other taxpayer owns) "their oil"? What kind of twisted logic is that? They get to endanger the wildlife in a national wildlife reserve, scar the land, suck the oil out, and then it's somehow "their oil"? What kind of right-wing loony are you? - logandurand, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Sorry for being unclear, you people made good points. I believe that, assuming they have properly compensated the taxpayers for their use of public land, *then* is is their oil and they can do with it what they please.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -11/+2How stupid is that. Um...yeah...its going to be about 5-10 years before we can start actually getting oil, so we are just not going to start. Come on, I know you have to be smarter than that. We have been debating this (and liberals have been blocking it) since 2000 - SEVEN years ago.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -0/+19"You can't have it both ways. Either high oil prices are good, or they are not. Which is it?"
No, you CAN have it both ways. Things are not black and white (unless mentally, you're still twelve.)
High oil prices are good because they accelerate the move away from oil.
High oil prices are bad because at this stage, oil is the source for vehicle fuels, and many people are hurt by high prices on a day to day basis.
High oil prices are good because they reduce the use of may types of plastics;
High oil prices are bad because ease of travel is an important component of liberty.
High oil prices are good because high prices work to reduce frivolous consumption.
Etc.
Shades of grey are normal in this world, as are conflicts of interest. When you grow up, you'll learn that.
- JamesAJanisse, on 01/24/2008, -5/+14Maybe idiots (I don't even want to group all conservatives in my comment) will care about resources and the planet for our offspring.
- MrThirsty, on 01/24/2008, -3/+65Price of oil per barrel in 2008: $100
Price of oil per barrel in 1998: $11- bagelmaster, on 01/25/2008, -0/+9Well I'm glad someone has had a 10x increase in their salary over the last 10 years...
- lcohiomatty86, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3i wonder who was making the killing on gas back when oil was $11 a barrel... because the price of gas has only tripled, but apparently the price of a barrel has increased 9 fold
- bagelmaster, on 01/25/2008, -0/+9Well I'm glad someone has had a 10x increase in their salary over the last 10 years...
- Hendrek, on 01/24/2008, -1/+40Watching Die Hard the other day was a shock, you can see a gas station with posted prices of 79 cents.
- bagelmaster, on 01/25/2008, -0/+15It's sad to say that if I saw gas for even $2.79 I'd be all excited and fill up right there...
- stillasleep00, on 01/24/2008, -3/+88Forgotten? I never even knew- I just got my license last year.
Seriously, my generation's about to enter society, and it's as though Bush is saying "Hi, here's your war debt, recession and draft card. Oh, and the rest of the world hates you now. Good luck!"- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -1/+31As his daddy did to my generation.
- MixMastaKooz, on 01/25/2008, -1/+10But at least we had good angst ridden grunge music to rock out to in 91 and 92. Kids today have emo....how sad....
- kjm16, on 01/25/2008, -0/+7Not this bad though.
- HeLLFyRe490, on 01/25/2008, -4/+2yeah...its gonna be one swift kick in the butt
maybe..just maybe we'll get lucky
*insert Ron Paul 08 praising here* - stylerm, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5Think of all the people who live paycheck to paycheck and saw their gas expenditure triple... at least it's good for the environment if less people can drive.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -1/+31As his daddy did to my generation.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+12I remember the neocons in congress complaining about President Clinton's policies making gas so expensive back them.
- MixMastaKooz, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6Or how they complained about nation buidling in Bosnia/Kosovo when we didn't lose a single soldier.
- xaxxon, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3we lost soldiers in dumb 'wars' during the Clinton administration. Just not so many. And it didn't cost so much.
- Compuwiz, on 01/25/2008, -16/+9Vote Ron Paul
- coviecarbine, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4Real supporters digg this ***** down, this is spam.
- Chirp08, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1well at least he managed to reuse the digits, just in orders that don't have the 1 coming first.
- olliholliday, on 01/25/2008, -4/+8£1.05 per litre here.
$2 a litre ... makes it about $6.50 a gallon.
my car does 55mpg average, 80 on motorways.
i bet i still pay more per mile than you lot so stop whinging!- leahcim, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3What's your petro tax anyway? 70%?
- roodammy44, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Something like that.
On my 50cc I get a week's constant use out of £5
Scooters FTW
- roodammy44, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Something like that.
- leahcim, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3What's your petro tax anyway? 70%?
- heystoopid, on 01/25/2008, -2/+1Ah , but on the other aspect thanks to rapidly declining value of the US Dollar and increasing fuel prices he has brought to an end the practice of selling waste of space S(uck)U(gly)V(ehicles) and F(ound)O(n the)R(oadside)D(ead) trucks to urbanites first began in the Chairman Ronnie Era in the early eighties to end the US dependence on imported Yugo's as cheap people movers and replace them with something uniquely bigger way more expensive but far less fuel efficient US designed fat mobile road dinosaurs !
- Corinthos, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2I remember when I refused to pay to pay over $1 a gallon for gas because I knew within 2 weeks I should be back under and I'm only 24.
- Cine, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Gas here costs 12 kroners per litre. Google tells me that...
12 (Norwegian kroner per litres) = 8.23331609 U.S. dollars per US gallon
So you can all quit complaining. ;) - bambam630, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1In 2000-2001 when I had my permit I filled up for the first and last time at 69 cents, a fluke even for the times.
- StatiK69, on 01/24/2008, -2/+120Heck, I remember gas at 89 cents back in 97/98... and always complaining if I had to pay 99 cents. Makes me feel old, but I miss the good ole days.
- lazycat, on 01/24/2008, -21/+153Only the United States can afford to have a clown as a president for two terms and don't go completely bankrupt. Not as if I am proud of it though...
- Herolint, on 01/24/2008, -20/+2What are you talking about? We've had clowns for presidents for the last 20 years.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5That's why the results shown in this chart differ so much for the 8 years under Clinton vs. the 7 under Bush.
- Efilnikufesin, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1You're saying Reagan wasn't a clown?
- sprintmarathon, on 01/24/2008, -11/+61FYI, your country is completely bankrupt.
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5Not yet... maybe a miracle will happen.
- MattB123, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4I saw an ad on TV the other day that implied claiming bankruptcy will cure my financial problems. Maybe we should give it a go?
- regeya, on 01/24/2008, -0/+10Erm...we've been bankrupt since before World War II. We've just had varying levels of broke.
Again, giving tax breaks to the rich is a good idea HOW? - nimbleprune, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1@ regeya :I make 23K a year and am getting some of those tax breaks for the rich....so you consider me rich then? What about the middle class person making 40-50k a year are they rich beyond your wildest dreams?
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5U.S. Treasury Bill's are still rated AAA by Moody's and every other credit agency. Being in debt is completely different than being bankrupt.
- xaxxon, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I think he meant morally bankrupt.
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5Not yet... maybe a miracle will happen.
- way2muchsense, on 01/24/2008, -3/+47We got what we deserved. Think about it. Over 60 million people voted for the idiot the SECOND time around. If the idiots are taking over for good, it would be nice to know now so I can go look for a job in Canada.
- sibhod, on 01/24/2008, -1/+20Considering the extent to which this administration went on a crusade of lies and misdirection, and how the media followed, and continues to follow, in lock-step, I can't entirely blame the US public.
- altgeeky1, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8I don't think it's a GOOD think that Bush's banking buddies (the Chinese military government, and the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) keep lending him money.
If I had a parent with a BAD gambling or drinking addiction, I'd rather the bank or the bar start saying "No" instead of OK.
Thanks to the well-predicted mortgage bubble, the biggest land owner in the USA is about to be... China!
I guess that's why they're better than Cuba's government (I always get confused there)- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1"If I had a parent with a BAD gambling or drinking addiction, I'd rather the bank or the bar start saying "No" instead of OK."
Yeah, right up to the point where they stopped feeding you and taking care of you, you would. Without those funds, the USG could not support both its wars and other corporate welfare efforts, AND the usual government services. Guess which one would go first?
We need to change the political landscape to not be making war, not having foreign bases, and supporting other countries before we can afford to reduce our borrowing.
As for the mortgages, blame yourselves. Buy your home when you can afford it, you'll pay less and you won't worry about some bank taking it. If you borrow, you took a risk. Don't bitch when the risk comes home to roost. Maybe next time, you'll behave more responsibly and buy what you can afford, instead of borrowing.- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6If the broker lies about the terms to the consumer, and lies about the consumer's finances to the bank, and the bank looks the other way, and hides its variable rates in the middle of pages and pages of legal gobblebygook, which is utterly incomprehensible to the poorly educated folks preyed upon by the broker and the lender - poorly educated because selfish bastards like you have raped our public education system so you can buy more foreign oil for your gas-guzzler with the made-in-China "support our troops" magnet on the back - and the banks and the brokers get away with it because of the gutting of consumer protection and enforcement of existing laws by the federal government,
then, why, again it is the fault of the consumer again?
I suppose you blame rape victims for having a vagina, blame crime victims for not living in a bank vault, and blame war victims for living in the wrong country when we drop cluster bombs on their playgrounds, too.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6If the broker lies about the terms to the consumer, and lies about the consumer's finances to the bank, and the bank looks the other way, and hides its variable rates in the middle of pages and pages of legal gobblebygook, which is utterly incomprehensible to the poorly educated folks preyed upon by the broker and the lender - poorly educated because selfish bastards like you have raped our public education system so you can buy more foreign oil for your gas-guzzler with the made-in-China "support our troops" magnet on the back - and the banks and the brokers get away with it because of the gutting of consumer protection and enforcement of existing laws by the federal government,
- nimbleprune, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1we could get rid of social security since it wont exist by the time 70% of our population alive now is able to us it. that would save about 400 billion a year...get rid of the fed reserve...slim down the IRS...I bet we could cut our costs by at least 800 billion a year if we really tried.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1"If I had a parent with a BAD gambling or drinking addiction, I'd rather the bank or the bar start saying "No" instead of OK."
- molecool, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Wait for it! 11 more months to go ....
- Quakee, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3YES!! 11 MORE MONTHS!! Until the media, the idiots of America, and the filthy rich looking to get richer, elect (place?) another clown into office who has their own personal interests 50 miles ahead of that of the people of this country.
- DrummerAndrew, on 01/25/2008, -0/+9We're worse than Bankrupt! We're in debt over our heads.
- moush, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2It's not only the current president, previous plans set out by presidents have a big impact too.
- Herolint, on 01/24/2008, -20/+2What are you talking about? We've had clowns for presidents for the last 20 years.
- MonsterChaOS, on 01/24/2008, -13/+298It amazes me that Bush is still considered by some right wing mouth breathers as a fiscally conservative president.
- LiquidIse, on 01/24/2008, -3/+96It amazes me that Bush is still president
- thedragon4453, on 01/25/2008, -0/+9No ***** kidding. Take the CEO of any company. ANY company. They'd have been fired twice over. Then you think about all the impeachable offenses.
- allatti2d, on 01/24/2008, -17/+4Really??? Name three.
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -0/+11More than 3 people watch FOX News.....so there you go.
- Efilnikufesin, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5There are more than 3 people ON Fox news...so there you go.
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -0/+11More than 3 people watch FOX News.....so there you go.
- LucasVB, on 01/24/2008, -2/+18It amazes you? Have you actually seen those people?
- Shiftgood, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2yeah, they're poor.
- Efilnikufesin, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3And in the south. And Christian. And the only station they can get is Fox News.
- Shiftgood, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2yeah, they're poor.
- tgc1, on 01/24/2008, -1/+25Dugg for the term "Mouth Breathers" Hahahahaha
- Hoogie7Dowser, on 01/24/2008, -1/+29This chart is preaching to the choir. All the terms used in this chart are understandable only to the intellectual elite. Pro-bush mouth breathers have never uttered the words "deficit", "sector", "GDP". All they know is "Jesus", "Terrorism", and "ATV"
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -1/+13don't forget NASCAR
- spyd3rweb, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6Don't forget WWE and ECW.
Why is that on Sci-Fi channel again??? - CelloZach, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Non Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks
- spyd3rweb, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6Don't forget WWE and ECW.
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -1/+13don't forget NASCAR
- LiquidIse, on 01/24/2008, -3/+96It amazes me that Bush is still president
- hartmoney, on 01/24/2008, -12/+16Amazing.
- verevi, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4In all seriousness. I'd love to see a "right" version of his presidential report card filled with positive statistics. (Not "He spread more freedom than any other president") Actual, hard facts and numbers that show improvements to specific areas. There has to be a "right" spin on this somewhere.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -0/+11Their best defense might be that he 'took more vacations than any President.'
- Efilnikufesin, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2He will be remember for the president who partied the hardest.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -0/+11Their best defense might be that he 'took more vacations than any President.'
- verevi, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4In all seriousness. I'd love to see a "right" version of his presidential report card filled with positive statistics. (Not "He spread more freedom than any other president") Actual, hard facts and numbers that show improvements to specific areas. There has to be a "right" spin on this somewhere.
- Boshow, on 01/24/2008, -9/+109-.5% savings rate. I feel sick.
- cptshamrock, on 01/24/2008, -15/+10So Bush makes people spend more than they earn?
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -6/+44More like earn less than they need.
- RedHeadedFreak, on 01/24/2008, -24/+5What in the hell are you talking about? The left wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts...keyword cuts. This picture is pretty stupid, but what's even dumber are the comments. Bush has nothing to do with half of the things on that list.
- balazs, on 01/24/2008, -3/+12That's exactly why prices rise and more debt occurs. All this tax cut nonsense seems good, but they have to make up for it somehow.
- Smoozle, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9OK, who has then?
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6Bush has a lot to do with everything on this list. The Republican Party, which typically acts as a unified front, have had control over every federal government institution for 7 years. The people Bush and his party appoint to run these institutions have clearly done a worse job than those who held the positions previously. Very clearly, this data indicates that Republican Policy is a system-wide failure. Did Bush consciously choose to get these results? Probably not, although you could make a case that he doesn't care about poor people. Did he alone have the responsibility to ensure that the Government that he heads was run well by people who are right for their jobs? Yes.
- piesforyou, on 01/24/2008, -1/+7Bush is the President, yes? Then he is ultimately responsible for the well-being of the country!
- logandurand, on 01/24/2008, -10/+1To everyone who just replied to RedHeadedFreak's comment
The government does not have control over how much money people choose to save.
It does not control the creation of jobs.
It does not control poverty.
It does not control how many people have insurance.
It does not control how much people are paid.
It does not control our dependency on foreign oil.
In short, the government, much less the president, has no control over anything that is not included in the Constitution. - roodammy44, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2@logandurand
They don't have *direct* control, like a totalitarian govt, but they do have indirect control.
It does not control the creation of jobs - It controls tax breaks/overheads for companies and research. Important to creation of jobs
It does not control poverty - It controls unemployment benefits and in other countries have plans for getting people back to work
It does not control how many people have insurance - Some governments require people to have insurance. It could control if it wanted
It does not control how much people are paid - It controls the rate of inflation (by how much it spends) and other economic factors which result in your wage cheque
It does not control our dependency on foreign oil - Who sets energy policy? The govt. - logandurand, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Okay, I revise my statement - the government *should* not have control over these issues. Sorry for the unclear diction.
- kingmanic, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6You must understand there is more then one way to tax a populace. Not trying to spout gold standard ***** but economically inflations, deflation, and national debt are 3 very real ways to "tax" your people. Inflation means that your dollar is worth less over time. So even though the tax rate decreases the amount you need to spend ot live increases. Deflation reduces the value of the goods you own thereby stealing from you by reducing the worth form your property. And national debt means that while you cut Taxes, it's only a temporary reprieve because debt must be repaid with interests. So basically Bush glad handed you gave you back a bunch of your own money and proceeded to steal form you in other ways. Increased Inflation, Increased national debt.
- RedHeadedFreak, on 01/24/2008, -24/+5What in the hell are you talking about? The left wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts...keyword cuts. This picture is pretty stupid, but what's even dumber are the comments. Bush has nothing to do with half of the things on that list.
- b0rg, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4The cause is irrelevant; you'll be feeling the effects of this presidency for decades.
- roodammy44, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1No, it's because the interest rate is below inflation.
Any money you keep in a bank devalues.
And that's not even *thinking* about how it devalues compared to the rest of the world.
A savings account is not a good investment under these conditions - that's why everyone put their money in stocks and property. Whoops!
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -6/+44More like earn less than they need.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -12/+23I hate it when he forces me to sign up for more credit cards.
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -4/+9He does force you to sign up for more credit cards when you have no money and bills due at the end of the month.
- beansac, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Too bad he's not the one buying the Tivo, Xbox 360, house you can't afford, car you don't need and ***** you don't want.
- BTraina, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0"I'm in debt up to my eye balls."
- phike, on 01/25/2008, -4/+9He does force you to sign up for more credit cards when you have no money and bills due at the end of the month.
- tehxen3, on 01/24/2008, -19/+1Like you know what that means.
Negative rate is a good thing since people are confident they will earn more money in the future.- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -2/+13Right. People I know living paycheck to paycheck and accumulating credit card debt are NOT doing so because they thing things are going to work out for them... it's mostly stupidity at their situation, or an unfortunate medical situation or something.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -7/+2But confidence in earning more money in the future is a bad thing because then they will work less hard.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4But working less hard is a good thing because it raises the standard of living by increasing the amount of time people have to be leisurely.
- insertcleverid, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5But leisure is a bad thing because people have more time to spout off nonsense on the internet.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4But working less hard is a good thing because it raises the standard of living by increasing the amount of time people have to be leisurely.
- molecool, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Exactly - btw, a decent savings rate is around 15% - 20% - that's how things used to be.
- doyoulikeworms, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2This includes corporate investment.
- cptshamrock, on 01/24/2008, -15/+10So Bush makes people spend more than they earn?
- davertim, on 01/24/2008, -20/+93This makes me glad that I'm Canadian!
- natedouglas, on 01/24/2008, -2/+36It's all fun and games until we move in with you. My wife and I will see you in 2011, if you live in the Prince Rupert area.
- drew29, on 01/24/2008, -3/+6No offence, but why the hell would you want to move to Prince Rupert?
- gadgetlust, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4--- And you'll be most welcome here, eh?
- assbeard, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0i agree... why Prince Rupert?
- jessejardim, on 01/24/2008, -5/+36Most of us are very jealous.
- cptshamrock, on 01/24/2008, -4/+22Thats why there are US citizens streaming over the boarder like to become illegal immigrants
- joshuagor44, on 01/24/2008, -3/+5They're not THAT jealous.
- cptshamrock, on 01/24/2008, -4/+22Thats why there are US citizens streaming over the boarder like to become illegal immigrants
- Subiklim, on 01/24/2008, -39/+7Things may be bad here, but I'd rather be dead in New York than alive in Canada.
- petermac99, on 01/24/2008, -1/+20The reason being?
- Trublmakr, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3Must just really love the smell of urine and car exhaust.
- cnot3, on 01/24/2008, -13/+6Because he likes his country? Just because Bush is a fagot doesn't mean we should all leave. We need to take our country back and restore our government to what it was supposed to be: by the people, for the people.
- LordVance, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10Okay, re-read his post. He didn't say "I would rather be living in New York than Canada." He said "I would rather be dead in New York than alive in Canada," as in... he would rather die than even so much as visit Canada... A bit harsh, don't you think?
Petermac99 asked for a reason because he knows damn well that Subiklim is some elitist that has probably never so much as left his home state, but he knows damn well that state is the best place on the planet to live.
- LordVance, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10Okay, re-read his post. He didn't say "I would rather be living in New York than Canada." He said "I would rather be dead in New York than alive in Canada," as in... he would rather die than even so much as visit Canada... A bit harsh, don't you think?
- assbeard, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1and that's the reason Canada would never welcome you. We don't need any more ***** pricks here.
- petermac99, on 01/24/2008, -1/+20The reason being?
- GravityExNihilo, on 01/24/2008, -2/+8I may just become a canuckistanian too.
- lgc90, on 01/24/2008, -2/+19Depending on the outcome of the election, you might be seeing me over the border pretty soon.
- bagelmaster, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6Pretty much if any Republican (except RP I guess) or Hillary wins, I will make serious plans to move up when I finish college.
- tehxen3, on 01/24/2008, -26/+4Yeah especially since Canada has $10,000 lower living standard than US and an omnipresent nanny state.
- Mjolniir, on 01/24/2008, -2/+20Yup, lets see 10,000 less per year, but no 12,000 health care premium...looks like I'd be a couple of Grand ahead.
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -12/+3I don't pay anything remotely close to that per year in health care. I wouldn't pay that if I maxed out my deductible. I wouldn't pay that if my wife and I both maxed out our deductibles. Break out your abacus and try again.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -2/+13And with two diabetics (myself, the wife) and one cancer survivor (the wife) in the family, I couldn't get even slightly adequate health care insurance, never mind the health care itself, for 12 grand a year from any company in the country. No abacus required.
- roodammy44, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2@fyngyrz
That's ***** up, no health insurance?
Come to live europe where there's no fear about financial problems with illness. - cmackattack, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1yet this is one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in America most recently....much of which the gov't does to us. We have no healthcare. We have sickcare. Kill the farm bill, kill HFCS/CS (high fructose corn syrup/ corn syrup). Start preventative maintenance for healthcare!
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -12/+3I don't pay anything remotely close to that per year in health care. I wouldn't pay that if I maxed out my deductible. I wouldn't pay that if my wife and I both maxed out our deductibles. Break out your abacus and try again.
- gadgetlust, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6I'd prefer a nanny state to a fascist one, but that's just me.
- Mjolniir, on 01/24/2008, -2/+20Yup, lets see 10,000 less per year, but no 12,000 health care premium...looks like I'd be a couple of Grand ahead.
- TheG2, on 01/24/2008, -24/+1To everyone leaving to Canada, good!
No one cares. - enchantedsky, on 01/24/2008, -2/+36I'm proud to be a dual-citizen (Canadian and American). When one country fails, you can always jump to another......it's like a RAID-controlled hard drive. America is like a Maxtor hard drive dropped many times, and Canada is like the Seagate 1 TB hard drive, brand new and always running.
- skankyBacon, on 01/24/2008, -1/+21I've heard their grass is also greener.
- Memitim, on 01/25/2008, -1/+9It helps when you don't have a car up on blocks in the lawn.
- Uranium118, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Not in winter though, the grass is pretty white right now.
- cmackattack, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Not the safest place for fault tolerance though...you might think you are doing disk duplexing, but you are going to ***** your pants when that single raid controller fails, multi-disk or not; http://spp.gov
- Zippo, on 01/24/2008, -2/+15You win one free Internet.
- mCanada, on 01/25/2008, -3/+1With RAID your hard drive's fail sooner due to more usage. wait. wtf that analogy is meaningless.
- Hobolord, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Yeah, good luck when mountain goats invade your frozen log cabin villages.
- skankyBacon, on 01/24/2008, -1/+21I've heard their grass is also greener.
- Daemion43, on 01/24/2008, -3/+19Enjoy it while it lasts because in a few years you will be debating whether or not to build a giant fence to keep out the illegal immigrant Americans flooding across your borders.
- gadgetlust, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3true enough...
- Trublmakr, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Then wait for summer.
- Trublmakr, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Then wait for summer.
- da_bradler, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3no way it's too cold up here. from mexico if you have a t-shirt and shoes your good for a border crossing. to get into canada you need like snow shoes and a backpack worth of survival gear.
Unless you go to BC but if you go there you'll have to fight it out with the millions of asians that arrive daily from the pacific
- gadgetlust, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3true enough...
- mCanada, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2I hate to brake the news, but if we didn't have the oilsands we'd be pretty screwed right now too. The manufacturing sectors are getting beat from the poor exchange rate (US being the main trading partner). Claims that we'll be insulated from the recession are IMO overstated. Luckily we have a fair bit of natural resources and that's what's saving us ATM.
- carve, on 01/25/2008, -3/+1Oops- wrong spot. Digg me down.
- mCanada, on 01/25/2008, -2/+1sure :) :P
- carve, on 01/25/2008, -3/+1Oops- wrong spot. Digg me down.
- carve, on 01/25/2008, -4/+3Traveling around the world as I am, I've met a lot of people who are just sick and tired of holier than thou Canadians. People used to love Canadians abroad (thus the whole Canadian-flag-on-the-backpack thing), but that is quickly changing. Don't be a bunch of dicks.
- Trublmakr, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3So what to they say about Americans?
- Jawsh91, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1Holier than thou Canadians?
You've obviously never been up here...
- natedouglas, on 01/24/2008, -2/+36It's all fun and games until we move in with you. My wife and I will see you in 2011, if you live in the Prince Rupert area.
- malfourmed, on 01/24/2008, -6/+210The source for the picture also cites the sources for each statistic: http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D68CD ...
1 Bureau of Economic Analysis
2 Department of Treasury
3 Congressional Budget Office
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics
5 United States Census Bureau
6 United States Census Bureau
7 Kaiser Study of Employer Health Care Benefits
8 United States Census Bureau
9 Energy Information Administration
10 Higher Education Coordinating Board of Washington State
11 Bureau of Economic Analysis
12 Insurance Information Institute
13 United States Census Bureau
14 OANDA.com: The Currency Website
15 Speaker of the House Fact Sheet, 11/29/07
16 Energy Information Administration
17 Testimony of Andrew Kohut; President, Pew Research Center; 3/17/07- badjokes, on 01/25/2008, -12/+1bush was just a puppet. this was going to happen no matter who was president.
politics is *****, the people aren't the ones in control.- RoloTomasie, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11So Bush's inciting an incredibly expensive war is absolutely unrelated to the increase in budget deficits and resulting public debt? Get your head out of your ass.
- badjokes, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1like i said there all puppets, certain ones take a fall. if they were all ***** up it wouldn't really work now would it?
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+9Then why were the results so different - as these statistics plainly show, across the board - when the previous "puppet" was in office?
- badjokes, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1like i said there all puppets, certain ones take a fall. if they were all ***** up it wouldn't really work now would it?
- RoloTomasie, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11So Bush's inciting an incredibly expensive war is absolutely unrelated to the increase in budget deficits and resulting public debt? Get your head out of your ass.
- Izult, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3and yet it's been reported as possibly inaccurate... i guess the sources are lying too? aren't sheeple funny?
- HippyInASuit, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Digg needs to start requiring people provide some sort of evidence before simply marking an article as inaccurate. I'm really starting to hate Digg lately. Anything not supported by the MSM is marked as inaccurate, anything from Alex Jones is handled with special care to ensure it never reaches the front page.
Digg is not what I would consider alternative or progressive media, which was my assumption when I first signed up here.- MadCactus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Alex Jones. Accurate?
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
- MadCactus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Alex Jones. Accurate?
- MadCactus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the original link. I don't have to rip apart the internet trying to find it now.
- badjokes, on 01/25/2008, -12/+1bush was just a puppet. this was going to happen no matter who was president.
- espempire, on 01/24/2008, -9/+17"what is this some sort of numberology, everybody knows more is better for the american people, just like in texas, pass the rolled 20 Condi I need a duster" GB
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3"Condelicious is that you?" - GW
- j0hnb, on 01/24/2008, -3/+16Mirror:
http://www.smoothmarketplace.com/rchart4.gif - Jeffmr1, on 01/24/2008, -11/+137I often find myself in total agreement that 'its all Bush's fault' but i think things like this (although correct) paint the wrong picture. Although the executive branch makes the budget, remember that our representatives have a say in it too; basically blaming Bush is good, but don't forget that there are others who have failed us just as much!
- allatti2d, on 01/24/2008, -3/+15Yes, but remember -- "The buck stops here." [here=president]
- MasterPain, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5The government is broken it just helps itself
- biotch, on 01/24/2008, -1/+17Yeah well for the first 6 years the majority of representatives rubber stamped anything Bush wanted.
- kashk5, on 01/24/2008, -1/+8Exactly, which is why it's Bush's fault.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6It's Bushes fault because he got 100% of what he wanted, and 0% of what he didn't want.
- kashk5, on 01/24/2008, -1/+8Exactly, which is why it's Bush's fault.
- tgc1, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6Pigs feeding on the poor.
- tabularassa, on 01/25/2008, -0/+12But ultimately, the person in command is responsible for the results of his team as a whole
- Kopiok, on 01/25/2008, -4/+3But he's not in command of congress. There's a common misconception going around that the President is the head of Congress. He is no such thing. He is the head of the Executive branch which can only do what congress lets it. The Vice-President is the head of the Senate, but he can't really do much unless there's a tie vote. It's the representatives that have all the power here, and they've failed. Hard.
- Shiftgood, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2I often find myself blaming bush... but then i need to blame the Bechtels and alike for pulling his strings...
but then you get to blame bush for being a weak-minded puppet. - chesstwin, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4Thank god for the Dem congress its SAVED US ALL. ITS DONE SOOOOO MUCH w00t w00t. It stopped bush terrible rule!!!!!
oh wait---it did nothing except give me a pelosi to laugh at-- well good enough for me!- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5We don't have a "Dem Congress" yet - the Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to invoke cloture, nor the votes in either House to override a presidential veto. Just yesterday, The House failed again to override Bush's veto of health care for four million uninsured children. ALL Democrats but ONE voted to override; they got 42 Republicans to join them. Still, the 151 Republicans (and one single Democrat) that voted against the override were enough to block it.
In the Senate, Democrats don't even have 50 votes; they have to rely on neo-con "Independent" Joe Lieberman to even reach a bare majority. For much of this first term of the "Dem Congress", they didn't even have all 49 Democrats available in the Senate, because one (Tim Johnson of South Dakota) was hospitalized after suffering a massive hemorrhage, and only returned to work this past September.
Nontheless, a hell of a lot *has* been accomplished. Check the Congressional record, its all freely available to the public.
Take some time to educate yourself about how your government actually works, rather than just parroting foam-at-the-mouth rhetoric from demagogues. If you want real change, you need to elect a really changed Congress.- chesstwin, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1i didnt read that sry! too long, but i did bury you cause i know its all bogus
- MadKennyP, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Moron.
- chesstwin, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah he really is, writing so much in a digg comment thinking id actually read it haha.
- chesstwin, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1i didnt read that sry! too long, but i did bury you cause i know its all bogus
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5We don't have a "Dem Congress" yet - the Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to invoke cloture, nor the votes in either House to override a presidential veto. Just yesterday, The House failed again to override Bush's veto of health care for four million uninsured children. ALL Democrats but ONE voted to override; they got 42 Republicans to join them. Still, the 151 Republicans (and one single Democrat) that voted against the override were enough to block it.
- MadKennyP, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3Right. Republicans ran Congress for Bush's first 6 years.
- AriaStar, on 01/24/2008, -18/+120His legacy is one of death, terrorism, and fear.
- BadseedJR, on 01/24/2008, -8/+4He has a legacy?
- CrazedLeper, on 01/24/2008, -2/+16Correction: *false flag* terrorism.
- AriaStar, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2HE is the terrorist. Nothing false about that.
- soulkitchen, on 01/24/2008, -1/+16Worst president EVER.
And that is saying a lot, consider Warren G. Harding.- Barbosa, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1He's the worst so far, but november is fast approaching.
- soulkitchen, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Now that is some die-hard pessimism.
- Barbosa, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Maybe so, but look at the remaining candidates. (Now that Kucinich is out) My only remaining hope lies in his ability to influence the Dem race from the sidelines.
- soulkitchen, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4Now that is some die-hard pessimism.
- Barbosa, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1He's the worst so far, but november is fast approaching.
- dagnabbit, on 01/24/2008, -41/+61God help us if we get another Republican in November.
- GravityExNihilo, on 01/24/2008, -10/+32Democrats are capable of being complete screw-ups too- let's try to be aware of these things in order to avoid, no matter what party is president.
- da_bradler, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3Clinton did a good job Nixon did a good job and jimmy carter got screwed by the saudis. Basically all the democratic presidents since WWII have been good and all the Republicans have been bad
- MacEnvy, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1???
Nixon was a Republican, dude. Unless I'm somehow misreading what you wrote.
- MacEnvy, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1???
- da_bradler, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3Clinton did a good job Nixon did a good job and jimmy carter got screwed by the saudis. Basically all the democratic presidents since WWII have been good and all the Republicans have been bad
- BadseedJR, on 01/24/2008, -6/+47Republican or democrat, god help us. We are just screwed.
- klax89, on 01/24/2008, -27/+12Don't say that . . . it's people like you who are misinformed about the party system. . . not all republicans are crazy religious zealots who spend trillions more than we make. . . Perfect example: RON PAUL!
- wc3452, on 01/24/2008, -11/+16Uh...Ron Paul is a religious zealot
- LordVance, on 01/24/2008, -4/+4Yea, he could only really have done worse if he gave Huckabee as an example.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -1/+8...but he isn't one that spends more than he makes, or encourages congress to do so.
80+ percent of the country are religious; and its impossible to be elected if you don't say you are, as well. Something to keep in the back of your mind.- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2The issue is not being religious, the issue is being a religious zealot. Way to erect a straw an and completely avoid addressing the actual comment.
Ron Paul publicly calls the separation of church and state "a myth", keeps re-introducing the "Sanctity of Life Act", which would impose a religious definition of the beginning of life on all Americans - and the States - by Congressional fiat. He includes in the "Act" a clause which would bar citizens from petitioning the Supreme Court in cases where the executive branch - Federal *or* State - violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Incidentally, he does *not* opposed federal spending, only federal spending on things based on post Dark Ages science. For example, in the same year, he voted against federal funding for family planning education including birth control, but FOR federal funding for abstinence education. He also denies evolution and believes the trumped up "War on Christmas" is real (of course, he also believes the tin-foil "North American Union" is real, along with the mythical "NAFTA super-highway".)
He is also virulently homophobic for purely religious reasons. Oh, and he regularly votes to help the oil industry, whether through government bail-outs or by shielding companies from MBTE contamination lawsuits. - fyngyrz, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3The nature of being religious is to be a zealot; to believe in an imaginary being, in that being's "plan", to believe that being "cares", to believe that one's behavior should follow that being's "plan" or the organizations formed around those "plans." Religion is the inability to face reality, to accept that some questions don't have answers and others make no no sense when even formulated as questions, it is the fear of the unknown manifest as self-deception. Gullibility figures largely as well. There is no reason to expect rational behavior from any religious person, nor is there any particular record of same -- once religion enters into the subject at hand, all bets are off.
Having said that, I find Paul's insistence on his own religious precepts no more startling than anyone else's; and there are NO candidates that do not make such claims. Obama is currently jumping up and down about the risen Christ, Hucklebee about the constitution, Romney about angels and golden plaques, etc. They're all religious nutcases. I'm perfectly ready to call Paul a religious nutcase, zealot, etc. But Paul is the nutcase with the clearest vision of what the constitution was meant to be; hence, he's the best one to vote for.
I've read some of his religious pandering and meandering, and it is about as easy to chop holes in as any other religious stream of bunk is. Which is to say, very easy. He gets kind of stupid when he talks religion. Even mis-characterizes the constitution. Doesn't concern me much; it would if there were an alternative, that is, an atheist who would support the constitution - but there isn't.
Also - I have not seen any particular evidence of homophobia on Paul's part, kindly provide a reference for that if you would. Thanks.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2The issue is not being religious, the issue is being a religious zealot. Way to erect a straw an and completely avoid addressing the actual comment.
- Disneyisevil50, on 01/25/2008, -3/+5uh, no he's not
- biotch, on 01/24/2008, -0/+11Reagan, Bush sr., Bush jr.
Each consecutively held the record for largest deficit and largest debt this nation has ever seen.
What did Clinton do? Turned it into a surplus.... even after the economic downturn in 2000- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Funny how the right-wingers can simultaneously say none of the bad results are Bush's fault, because the president "doesn't control anything", and, at the same time, it's all "Clinton's fault".
- BAFrayd, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Clinton had little, if anything, to do with the tech boom economy, (which, BTW, turned out to be little more than a stock market bubble) and America was never "in the black" during the Clinton years.
The national debt was between 5 and 6 TRILLION dollars while Clinton was in the White House. There was a budget surplus for a few years in Clinton's second term, chiefly due to the tech boom, and the debt was insignificantly lowered overall during his presidency, mainly due to a fiscally conservative congress.
Nonetheless, the US government was then, and is now, in debt, and has been since the mid 1830s!
- wc3452, on 01/24/2008, -11/+16Uh...Ron Paul is a religious zealot
- Herolint, on 01/24/2008, -11/+21That is an ignorant stance to take. You should find out as much as possible about each person and vote for who you think is the better leader. I hate party line voters because most of them don't know what they are voting for; and that's somewhat retarded in my opinion.
Personally, I am a conservative and a registered indepentant. I get to know what each person is about and vote for who I think will do the better job. I voted for Clinton his first term and voted against him his second because he sucked. I voted for Bush both terms because I didn't think much of Gore (due mainly to his close association with Clinton) and I absolutely hated Kerry because all he ever did was whine about Bush and completely failed to say what he would do as president. So, I voted for Bush not on his own merits, but the lack of merit in the other candidates.
This time around, if Obama wins the primaries, I'll vote for him. If not, I'm voting Republican. If the world was flooded with piss and the only way to get a dingy was to vote for Hillary, I still wouldn't vote for her.
That's how it should be done, in my opinion.- regeya, on 01/24/2008, -4/+12Don't agree with your politics, but if I had a slew of +1s to give you, I would. More people should be like you.
People have to wake up to the fact that partisan politics at the current level is just bad for everyone. Democrats: It's not all the Republicans' fault. Republicans: It's not all the Democrats' fault. And if any of you from either party feel that it is, do us all a favor and leave America and let it be run by the adults who can think. We need real solutions, not kneejerk "it's the other guys' fault" business as usual, and if you can't handle that, then fine, as I said before, get out. At the very least, if you feel that way and you're in politics, please stop because you're not serving the public. - nicktx, on 01/24/2008, -3/+12I'm amazed how you have no remorse about voting for Bush, twice! I'd be ashamed to admit it in your place. Like he said, "fool me once....". But there are those pesky 28% who apparently will never learn.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -3/+2The left side of the Gaussian has a very large supply of such idiots. The extras that float in from the right side are just icing on the cake.
- Herolint, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Huh? Why would I have remorse? It wasn't like I had much of a choice. I was presented with a chimp who could fumble through the English language enough to say, "My plan is..." on one hand, and on the other, I had some butt bulb whose entire platform was how chimpy the other guy was. Kerry didn't offer me anything to vote for. "He's a dick" isn't a political platform.
I can't believe you would vote for someone without knowing what he stands for.
- bagelmaster, on 01/25/2008, -0/+7I completely agree with you. I think people forget that Bush got elected the second time mostly because Kerry blew donkey balls.
- da_bradler, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2What exactly didn't you like about clinton? the fact that the economy was sky rocketing? the fact that he wasn't fighting any wars?
It's people like you that have ***** this country up so bad. I would bet a lot of money that you watch a lot of fox news and listen to a lot of Rush limbaugh because that's the only way you would get a negative view of the clintons and all the good they did for your country.- Spymodhf, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2You're obviously the misinformed one. Go research what Clinton actually did. He got a BJ, that's about it. Other than taking credit for Bush Sr.'s raising of taxes to stabilize economy and indeed fighting menial battles in many foreign countries, he took a policy of...not having a policy.
- girlpirate, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldnt it be better to not vote at all than to vote for someone simply because you hate them less than the rest?
I was with you up until around this point "So, I voted for Bush not on his own merits, but the lack of merit in the other candidates."
- regeya, on 01/24/2008, -4/+12Don't agree with your politics, but if I had a slew of +1s to give you, I would. More people should be like you.
- YellowSnowDemon, on 01/25/2008, -8/+1What this country needs, good sir, is a Jew.
- Psi57, on 01/25/2008, -1/+10What this country needs, fool, is to stop supporting Israel.
- brownr21, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2I think it's too late no matter who's president.
- atticus8, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3Any Republican would be better than Bush. Most Republicans are not criminals and do not conduct themselves in that fashion. Bush has behaved (or let others behave) the way criminals behave, and that is an enormous difference.
The worst thing about Bush is not his Republicanism (although he is barely, by even the loosest definition, a Republican in some key areas). The worst thing about him is his criminality. When Alberto Gonzalez called the Geneva Conventions "quaint", I knew these people were of the type that did not take the law seriously when it was inconvenient. That type is the criminal type, because that is how criminals think. They are no less criminals because they wear expensive suits and are on television. - badassninja, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Republicans,,,, democrats... these things don't matter. I wish they would push aside all of that bull ***** and just have "people" running. I have always voted for Republicans but if Ron Paul was on the other side I would switch in a heart beat. Stop being such a tool.
- ChrisViz, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1You don't need "God" to help you vote. If the constitution was changed to allow another term, Bush would probably still recieve quite a good share of the vote, although its unlikely he would win.
- GravityExNihilo, on 01/24/2008, -10/+32Democrats are capable of being complete screw-ups too- let's try to be aware of these things in order to avoid, no matter what party is president.
- mazerrackham, on 01/24/2008, -28/+50I dislike Bush quite intensely, but some of these statistics smack of bias manipulation. Why are the timeframes for comparison so different? 2 years vs. 6, 8 years vs. 6, etc.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -26/+10They are "cherry picking and massaging the data."
- hierophantus, on 01/24/2008, -3/+5So make the chart that matches the timeframes up completely.
- way2muchsense, on 01/24/2008, -2/+14So how would YOU measure Bush's performance? Hmmm? Is there some magic metric out there that actually shows that Bush changed the country for the better? Does it involve LSD?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -6/+3I would rate him as a very poor president. The only thing he was successful at was "compassionate conservatism" (acting like a liberal on welfare/fiscal issues and a religious nut on others, with the obvious exception being the tax cuts). He was very ineffective at pushing his own agenda, and now real conservatives (who are not the same as W) are going to have to pay for it. The only thing he did with great approval was the Iraq war, which was wanted by all and suffered from some very poor decisions in the beginning (like disbanding the Iraqi army).
Over all, I give him a D - biotch, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5The Iraq war was NOT wanted by all. It was wanted by a majority after he lied to the people and to congress about the existence of WMDs, Iraq's connection to 9/11, and the level of threat Iraq posed to us.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -5/+3How about you step out of your revisionist history bubble. The official policy of Clinton was regime change. Bush was using the same intelligence that Clinton had. Hillary voted for it. If it was all made up, don't you think Bill would have taken here aside and said "hey, this all trumped up?"
Here is a video of vice president Al Gore berating the first Bush for not following through with regime change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 - buckrogers1965, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3@ DRINKxREDxBULL
Oh please, anytime Clinton tried to do anything all the republicans screamed, "We are not the world's policemen," and demanded exit strategies and withdraw time lines before he could commit any troops.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -5/+3How about you step out of your revisionist history bubble. The official policy of Clinton was regime change. Bush was using the same intelligence that Clinton had. Hillary voted for it. If it was all made up, don't you think Bill would have taken here aside and said "hey, this all trumped up?"
- rowjimmy, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2trust me, LSD + thinking about the legacy of Bush's administration does not make for a good time.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -6/+3I would rate him as a very poor president. The only thing he was successful at was "compassionate conservatism" (acting like a liberal on welfare/fiscal issues and a religious nut on others, with the obvious exception being the tax cuts). He was very ineffective at pushing his own agenda, and now real conservatives (who are not the same as W) are going to have to pay for it. The only thing he did with great approval was the Iraq war, which was wanted by all and suffered from some very poor decisions in the beginning (like disbanding the Iraqi army).
- bahamutxd, on 01/24/2008, -8/+17Bush has been President for 7 years, data still isn't in for 2007. Clinton was president for 8 years.
- wheresjim, on 01/24/2008, -2/+10Yeah, you're right. He's really gonna pull it out in the last year of his lame-duck term. Could you please pass the psilocybin?
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -3/+7He was just explaining why the chart compares 7 years against 8 years. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -3/+7He was just explaining why the chart compares 7 years against 8 years. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
- wheresjim, on 01/24/2008, -2/+10Yeah, you're right. He's really gonna pull it out in the last year of his lame-duck term. Could you please pass the psilocybin?
- cgbspender, on 01/24/2008, -1/+20Sometimes it is hard to find other data, like when Bush has only been President for 7 years.
You can still compare them if you paid attention in school. It is obvious that an increase of 6000 over 8 years is better than 1100 decrease in 6 years. - allatti2d, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4It doesn't really matter... it's pre-Bush vs. post-Bush ("today" being post-Bush, so it's not perfect). He has made the fallout what it is today from his Administration.
I think the bigger consequences will be seen in the year following Bush's last day. It's gonna take a tough person to clean up the mess he's leaving behind, and that mess will continue for some time to come, and probably will be blamed on the next president. - rupaw, on 01/24/2008, -3/+9Yeah, this is fu***** unfair because it requires us rednecks to use elementary arithmetic by dividing the given number by the number of years. Here is a link for you, genius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(mathematics ... - MoneyShot, on 01/24/2008, -7/+3Exactly. It's simplemindedness to think that *all* of these problems are caused my one man. A President has very little impact on the economy, good or bad (foreign policy is a whole 'nother matter). China's booming economy and exports have had *much* greater impact on our economy than Bush's dog and pony shows. So has the rise of technologies such as VoIP, which allows companies to more easily--and cost effectively--offshore jobs. The Internet itself has allowed big box retailers to more tightly integrate their supply chain with oversee vendors. Etc, etc... Blame Bush for America's image as a global bully, but you're an idiot if you think he's causing unemployment to rise.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3If you don't want the responsibility, don't sit in the hot seat. Good or bad, the buck stops on the presidents desk.
- BAFrayd, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3It's not that simple. But your sound-bite "wisdom" is just about as complicated a formula as most folks can handle when it comes to politics. As you age, you will realize this, unless you choose to not apply yourself, like most people.
Unfortunately, many people can only be bothered with yes/no, black/white choices, and never achieve a real appreciation for the complexities involved.
This is why we are left with choices like Bush or Kerry for president. If more people applied themselves, we would have candidates that truly represent, and advocate for, the populace, and not solely for the commercial interests that donate to them.
- BAFrayd, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3It's not that simple. But your sound-bite "wisdom" is just about as complicated a formula as most folks can handle when it comes to politics. As you age, you will realize this, unless you choose to not apply yourself, like most people.
- down4twenty, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3Sure the president can't cause the problems( can you imagine the chaos if he really had that much control?), but the president needs to work to improve our nation, not start useless wars.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3If you don't want the responsibility, don't sit in the hot seat. Good or bad, the buck stops on the presidents desk.
- cptl, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3Yeah it's not as if it was George Bush (and his hand-picked cronies) who led us into a war that destabilized the middle east, wasted billions upon billions of dollars, and destroyed our good will worldwide.
When you think about how much power this guy abused and how much of a mess he made, it makes you wonder how he can sleep at night. - SlimFastForYou, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1It seems the statistic you are trying to question isn't biased against Bush but rather for him. The statistic in question was "Americans Uninsured and Change in Insurance Level". Right before Bush assumed office, the change in insurance level was 4.5 million people (who became insured) in just 2 years. However with Bush, 8.5 million people actually dropped out of health insurance programs over 6 years. Perhaps they should have compared the 6-year insurance level to the 6 year before Bush. However, if the rates didn't change, we would be seeing 4.5 million * 3 = 13.5 million. So +13.5 million vs -8.5 million.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -26/+10They are "cherry picking and massaging the data."
- SamWest3, on 01/24/2008, -11/+39If there was ANY lingering doubt as to whether or not Bush was a good President, this pretty much proves it. I've known America was in trouble since Bush stole the 2000 elections. I thought you might try to remedy your mistake in 2004 but you screwed that up too (assuming Bush even won THAT election legally, but that's only my paranoia at work...). Now you're looking to elect another brainless, spineless moron (I speak for all of your current candidates, except maybe Ron Paul, but the Republican Machine would never let him be nominated). Way to go, America! You've officially run your own country into the ground!
- cambob76, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5The future is bleak. There are very bad times ahead.
- rationalist, on 01/25/2008, -2/+1Your brainless, spineless, moronic support for Ron Paul negates any value in the rest of your comment.
Go back to voting for the next American Idol.- SmileyBri, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are America's best hope. If you don't know that then you are only paying attention to the talking heads and not doing your research. They are the only candidates who actually stand for something other than getting elected.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -53/+18Buried as inaccurate
Attempts to claim that the military was under a high state of readiness. Which is a total lie, because it was still recovering from when Clinton neutered it (I should know, I enlisted into Clinton's broken army).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0 ...- sibhod, on 01/24/2008, -4/+15Why exactly do we need more military might than the rest of the world combined? The US is quickly losing it's economic superiority to countries that don't suffer from the US "big dick" complex. Clinton "neutered" the military because we were leaving the Cold War and had no need to pour our budget into the military-industrial bottomless pit. Bush had to construct a foreign boogyman of the same scale of the Communist Reds to inflate our military budget to absurd and unnecessary sizes again.
If we were able to combat Russia, a nuclear superpower, without preemptive wars, stripping civil rights, thousands of dead troops, or trillions of dollars, why the hell do we need these things to combat a couple hundred religious fanatics with AK-47s on the other side of the world.- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -12/+2So you are agreeing with me when I say that to claim that "the military was under a high state of readiness" when Clinton left office is a lie.
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3Are you suggesting that Bush has some kind of a 'big dick' complex? That he is, in a sense, obsessed with large penises?
That's a funny thought.
- sibhod, on 01/24/2008, -4/+15Why exactly do we need more military might than the rest of the world combined? The US is quickly losing it's economic superiority to countries that don't suffer from the US "big dick" complex. Clinton "neutered" the military because we were leaving the Cold War and had no need to pour our budget into the military-industrial bottomless pit. Bush had to construct a foreign boogyman of the same scale of the Communist Reds to inflate our military budget to absurd and unnecessary sizes again.
- suzywang3000, on 01/24/2008, -47/+15who cares what indonesia and turkey think of us?
- Briggykins, on 01/24/2008, -1/+18As a Brit, thanks for the implied compliment
- AnEmpress, on 01/24/2008, -1/+20Indonesia and Turkey are also nations where Islam is the majority religion, and are being pressured by radical forces within Islam. Kind of a good idea to try to stay on their good side, no?
- fyngyrz, on 01/24/2008, -7/+1No.
- Trublmakr, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Don't mention the fact Turkey is a NATO ally - that might spook the cattle.
- m4uric3, on 01/24/2008, -20/+0Wth even is Indonesia and Turkey... atleast pick real countries.
- sliksta, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1They are real countries. And real people live there. AKA human beings.
- sliksta, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1They are real countries. And real people live there. AKA human beings.
- finbec, on 01/24/2008, -0/+13I'm sure Bush is thinking the same thing. Simplistic minds think alike.
- slundal, on 01/24/2008, -0/+10Isn't it thinking like that which got you in this mess in the first place?
- MrThirsty, on 01/24/2008, -0/+13Kind of important considering all military aircraft stop in turkey to refuel going to Iraq from the US...
- joshuabowers, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I actually thought that chart would be more amusing (in the "wtf is this *****?" sense) if it featured a country who, before Bush, hated us and, after Bush, loved us more. I don't know of any off the top of my head, though. China, maybe? Possibly Iraq, if the president is to be believed.
- JulyZerg, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0Nobody likes america anymore... at least under bush. Cause bush is a cryptorchid!
- flavioribeiro, on 01/24/2008, -6/+44Yet most Americans think Bush is fiscally conservative. There's this culture that Democrats promote the welfare state and Republicans cut spending. Most Americans haven't realised that the US economic policy has gone to hell over the last 8 years, and now both the neocons and democrats collude in favor of more borrowing and living on credit.
The people who demand change yet vote for Hillary or McCain are full of crap. These two are textbook examples of financial ignorance -- Hillary will bankrupt the country with Medicare, and McCain will bankrupt with his foreign policy and by provoking/bombing Iran.
A candidate who's ignorant in economics is running on appearances alone. Ideas like universal healthcare in the US are absolutely ridiculous once you look at the numbers, because THE US CAN'T AFFORD MORE SPENDING.
Voters should always look at proposals and ask themselves: "can the US afford this?". But Americans are so addicted to credit that they have no concept of sound investment and financial discipline.- bahamutxd, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9There are very few fiscal conservatives left. In terms of pork barrel spending, both parties are guilty. It's just sad.
- allatti2d, on 01/24/2008, -2/+11It's interesting you say that, because America got into the black during the (Bill) Clinton years. He was somehow able to clean up the financial mess that his republican predecessors left behind (thank you, trickle-down). I guess Bush just wasn't happy not owing money. Conservative my ass.
- nicktx, on 01/24/2008, -2/+6Your "Medicare" argument is totally flawed. Today we spend twice the amount of money per capita other developed countries with national health care systems do. Yet we have mediocre results, millions of uninsured, and millions insured in financial ruin because insurance doesn't fully cover costs. Common sense says we need universal health care to SAVE money as a country. Only losers in that plan are HMOs and Big Pharma.
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -4/+3Your statistics are off. We pay more because America largely pays the development costs of pharmaceuticals / developing new technology as our IP laws in our country are such that companies can recoup expenses on us. Why do you think our meds cost so much more?
And the idea that we get mediocre results... don't ever spread that filth again. You don't see all the wealthiest people in the world headed to any other country to get medical care; they head here, to our best hospitals. I saw a guy from Canada once who got his leg broken. He couldn't get into surgery for 7 months. WTF?! In American, insurance or not, you'd be in in a week. Our medical care system, in the parts of this country with good hospitals, is absolutely outstanding; far better than anywhere else in the world.- buckrogers1965, on 01/25/2008, -1/+8Oh please, if you need surgery in Canada you get it in days, usually faster than in America. They have more doctors per person than we do here. Back home in Ohio I knew a lot of people with missing fingers from farming and saw accidents. Couldn't afford to have them reattached. In Canada every finger that can be is reattached. No charge. If you need 5 surgical teams with dozens of people each and it needs to be done right now, they do it.
- nicktx, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2My numbers aren't that off. Yes, our flawed laws allow pharmaceuticals to recoup their expenses here. They also allow them to spend on direct to consumer advertising 2x the amount they spend on R&D. Other countries ban this type of advertising and for good reason - it's an insane waste of money. 8 of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies are foreign. Why should the American consumer be subsidizing them so they can sell cheap medications in their home countries?
I never said we don't have outstanding hospitals, we have many of the very best doctors, research, and care facilities in the world. No question. However, you can't compare just John Hopkins, MD Anderson, or UCLA Medical Center vs. the rest of the world. The overall picture isn't as good. Our statistics are improving at a much lower pace than other developed countries and we've been surpassed in many areas. Look up infant mortality rates for example. While the wealthiest are coming to the USA for care, the average Joe is increasingly going to places like Singapore or India to have surgery. It's not a matter of nationalistic pride, it's the cold harsh reality. - Mesmorize, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1This is true, my uncle in Canada is in treatment only available in the US right now.
- slicerace, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1@nicktx: Oh boy - our laws ALLOW pharmaceuticals to recoup their expenses? Call the cops! How dare a company ever try to recoup its expenses and *gasp* how dare they even THINK about making a profit! Pharmaceutical companies need to make back their money so that they can make more drugs and stay in business. The costs of human trails etc. for FDA approval are staggering and I'm very glad that the companies are willing to pay for them... with money they received from recouping expenses from other drugs.
And who are you to tell a company how to run its business? If its making bad decisions, it will become insolvent and die off -- it's none of your business to regulate how much a company spends on advertising versus how much it spends on R&D. Indeed, wouldn't it be sad if a company developed a drug but so few people knew about its existence that their sales weren't enough to recoup their expenses and they went under? I think the ads are stupid, but telling companies how much they should spend on certain items is a slippery slope.- nicktx, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1You misunderstood me, I never claimed any company should be prevented from recouping expenses and turning a good profit. What I don't agree with is that the major pharmaceutic companies, all giant multinationals, should be recouping the vast majority of their expenses from the American consumers alone. Why should the same brand name medication sell for a fraction of the price in Europe or Asia, in countries with similar standards of living?
Do you know that in the last 20 years the number of drug-resistant bacteria has increased substantially while the discovery of new antibiotics has slowed alarmingly because companies are pulling out of R&D and focusing on "lifestyle" drugs? The same drugs that are being pushed heavily with endless ads, creating demand without real need? If the government can force me to drive 55 mph for the public good why shouldn't it be able to push companies towards serving the same purpose? And I'm not even advocating legal mandate, it could be done with incentives for R&D and disincentives for excessive marketing.
- nicktx, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1You misunderstood me, I never claimed any company should be prevented from recouping expenses and turning a good profit. What I don't agree with is that the major pharmaceutic companies, all giant multinationals, should be recouping the vast majority of their expenses from the American consumers alone. Why should the same brand name medication sell for a fraction of the price in Europe or Asia, in countries with similar standards of living?
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -4/+3Your statistics are off. We pay more because America largely pays the development costs of pharmaceuticals / developing new technology as our IP laws in our country are such that companies can recoup expenses on us. Why do you think our meds cost so much more?
- biotch, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9Yeah when you look at the numbers, universal health care saves us 33% in costs right off the bat because currently 33% of our health care payments go to health insurers profit.
So yeah ... if you look at the numbers, universal health care SAVES money.
Thats not even counting the money saved by using preventative care for all rather than waiting for those without care, till a problem is fatal resulting in higher medical bills in the long run.- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -4/+2You don't think a Government bureaucracy would eat 33% as well? Or more?
- simonwright, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6It doesn't in other countries.
Even the US Medicare system is running at 2% right now.
- simonwright, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6It doesn't in other countries.
- da_bradler, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Plus Bureaucracy is just money that gets re-injected into the middle class, as opposed to insurers profits which go right to the most wealthy.
Socialist nations are much more successful at managing money. All a fiscally conservative economy does is make the rich richer and everybody else stays the same. Taxs are there to protect the middle class not hold them back as everybody thinks.
- Outdoor83, on 01/24/2008, -4/+2You don't think a Government bureaucracy would eat 33% as well? Or more?
- insertcleverid, on 01/24/2008, -3/+23Maybe now all everyone who supports right wing fiscal policy will rethink their belief system. Look at the tax-cuts for the rich, trickle down 'voodoo' economics, pro-military-industrial complex foreign policy, even governmental subservience to corporations, or any other right-wing neo-con attempt to 'govern;' the Republicans have had every opportunity to implement their political ideology into our infrastructure, and find proof that their theories work. Total Failure. Its time for them to give it up.
- biotch, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8Seriously, they keep promoting tax cuts and increased spending. Then they get mad when Dems propose tax hikes for the rich. Did everyone just think we werent going to have to pay it back?
- buckrogers1965, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3The plan of the rich is to move to Abu Dhabi and stick the rest of the Americans with the bill.
- prahareturns, on 01/25/2008, -3/+0The rich are already paying the bills. Since you don't know who actually pays federal income taxes I have provided some high level numbers for you.
Top 1% = 33.7%
Top 5% = 54.1%
Top 25% = 83.6%
Top 50% = 96.4%
That leaves only 3.6% of all federal income tax revenues coming from the bottom 50%. There are 37million tax filers per year who end up paying $0 or receiving back more than they contributed. These statistics are from the IRS and based on 2005 numbers...I could not find the 2006 numbers.<
- prahareturns, on 01/25/2008, -3/+0The rich are already paying the bills. Since you don't know who actually pays federal income taxes I have provided some high level numbers for you.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3The plan of the rich is to move to Abu Dhabi and stick the rest of the Americans with the bill.
- biotch, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8Seriously, they keep promoting tax cuts and increased spending. Then they get mad when Dems propose tax hikes for the rich. Did everyone just think we werent going to have to pay it back?
