2
   

George Bush's Legacy

 
 
View Profile dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:22 pm
That's one hell of a table.

You think their numbers accurate?

(Just off to look at the site)
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:37 pm
Quote:
You think their numbers accurate?


The implications are often unfair, regardless of the accuracy of the numbers. Bush is not responsible for a lot of that.
View Profile dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:39 pm
Aha????

Dunno about you, but I think the insured/uninsured is down to him...

I think the dollar stuff is a whole lot of stuff coming home to roost...I'd be interested to hear what you think about the trade deficit.

I think the view of the USA has a lot to do with him.

He's certainly been on watch for a lot of bad military decisions....
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:42 pm
Not sure if that's a question (edit: ahh, you edited more in. I was responding to "aha??") but if you are going for specifics one example is that Bush is not responsible for high gas prices. The prices should be higher.

So listing the gas price in the chart is an implication that is not fair. But it is, of course, common partisan attack. Like this image I've seen in countless places:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3977/gaspriceseb1.jpg
View Profile dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:45 pm
Yes, it was a question, and I'd be interested to see you do a detailed breakdown.

I agree about petrol prices...though I am concerned about the huge effect they are having here on poorer people...but for global good, yes, they should be higher.

I am still thinking about other things on the chart.

I note that is a strongly partisan site.
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:48 pm
I don't have time to do each, but I think a good chunk of them (perhaps the majority even) say more about the economic periods than anything he did. Big economic trends almost never boil down to one guy, even if it's someone as ambitiously wrongheaded as Bush.
View Profile dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:50 pm
Fair enough, and I agree to a fair extent.

But, if/when you do have time, I'd be interested to at least see what, if anything, you DO ascribe to Bush.
0 Replies
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 10:50 pm
Here is a bit of nonsense.
"History can be very harsh and subjective. It seems that the significant accomplishments of U.S. President Bill Clinton will be unfortunately overshadowed by his personal indiscretions while in office. Historians will never shy from emphasizing that he was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Clinton's legacy, as a result, has been sadly tarnished.

How will historians judge the legacy of U.S. President George W. Bush? And, as he approaches the end of his second term, is it possible for him to influence or redefine this legacy?

The answer to the first question is not a favorable one. "
Raja Kamal is associate dean at the Harris School for Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama..... not religious? - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 11/21/2009 at 11:55:50 Top End