The Worst President in History?

"Compassionate Conservative" was a fabulous outfit....

Wasn't that term concocted by the press or started by some political pundit, I don't remember? Of course, compassion is defined by liberals as giving a starving person a fish, so that the next day that person will be knocking on their door asking for more, which always assures the job of the person handing out the fish and so that he can regulate the life of the starving person. This turns out to not be compassion, but instead the controlling personality of a tyrant more interested in their own power over others than truly helping the starving person. Compassion, as defined by conservatives, is defined as teaching a starving person how to fish, and by giving him a fishing pole so he can go catch his own fish.

My first reaction to hearing the word Compassionate Conservatism was to think that they had to tag it as different from REAL Conservatism, especially the kind presently practiced by the current crop of authoritarians in Washington who don't include any such nonsense as emotion or empathy to enter into their thought processes.

ps... all of which tells us why it was that last years TV pictures from the Katrina scene (all the poor folks, mainly black, huddled on buildings and overpasses) hurt Bush so badly. Conservatism, of his sort, was seen to be quite uncaring and devoid of real compassion. The slogan was evident as something quite empty of real meaning...just a slogan.

blatham wrote:

ps... all of which tells us why it was that last years TV pictures from the Katrina scene (all the poor folks, mainly black, huddled on buildings and overpasses) hurt Bush so badly. Conservatism, of his sort, was seen to be quite uncaring and devoid of real compassion. The slogan was evident as something quite empty of real meaning...just a slogan.

Blatham, I thought New Orleans was a product of liberal policies from the decades of Democratically produced welfare programs on a national basis as well as Democrats running Louisiana and liberals running the city, so why wasn't it a picture of utopia down there?

A few years back, a Senator being interviewed on some subject which I can't recall, made a stab at guessing the average income of Americans. He guessed it was about $250,000.

JTT wrote:

Just another fine example that blows apart that old canard that the USA is in any way interested in furthering democracy. The USA is only interested in furthering the USA and their long history of supporting tyrants proves it.

We just got rid of a tyrant in Iraq and you give Bush no credit.

You illegally invaded a sovereign country. You have murdered untold thousands of innocent Iraqis. You have supported and continue to support tyrants the world over as long as they follow the USA line.

The tyrant, Hugo Chavez, is calling Bush an evil man, and I am curious what you think about that?

He is absolutely right. How many people has Bush murdered in Iraq.

The tyrant in Iran is not being supported by us. The tyrant in North Korea is not being supported by us.

You have way more than your fair share of tyrants being supported.

JTT, you are obviously among the "blame America first" crowd. I really have no clue what you are talking about in terms of a long history of supporting tyrants. Sometimes we are presented with tyrants to choose from so supporting anyone at all ends up being support of the apparently most benign tyrant, so what are we to do anyway?

Don't give me this 'blame Anerica first" crap, You have to take responsibility for your evil actions, for the many people murdered by both your direct actions and the complicity with tyrants you have supported.

Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, the list goes on and on. The USA is now committing terrorist actions [by your own defintion] against Cuba and Iran and god knows where else.

Most European nations, including England, have far more generous social safety nets than the US (Canada too) and not only are they doing fine economically and socially but they also tend to be safer and healthier and more congenial places to live.

U.N. debate marked by anti-U.S. sentiment "What it boils down to is a sense that the world doesn't believe that the United States is acting in its interest anymore, whereas it used to at a much greater level," said Nancy Soderberg, a deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N. during the Clinton and Bush administrations.Applause after calling Bush 'the devil'
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was the most bombastic, outstripping even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by branding Bush the devil. What surprised many listeners was not necessarily the remarks, which were typical for Chavez, but the applause and titters of laughter that he received in response.

"A few years ago that would have been heard in stony silence," Council of Europe Secretary-General Terry Davis said. "Not because people were afraid to show their agreement, but because they wouldn't have agreed with it. If I was working for the American government, that's what would worry me."

A June poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that America's image in 15 nations dropped sharply in 2006. Less than a third of the people in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey had a favorable view of the United States. According to that poll, America's continuing involvement in Iraq was seen as a worse problem than Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

The anger toward the United States seems itself to reflect a larger concern about the world. There is a sense Mideast turmoil mirrors a wider division between Muslims and the West. Poor nations seem to want a greater say in U.N. reform, where the United States is only one of many nations pushing for change.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged those divisions in his speech, saying they were so great they now "threaten the very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands."

World in a 'sorry state'Disturbing series of events
Experts and diplomats said the trend was worrying particularly because it coincides with American rapprochement with the U.N. and the international community. Washington worked through the Security Council on Iran, North Korea and Lebanon, and dropped its opposition to a major council meeting on Mideast peace process Thursday. Bolton has turned to the council as the best way to stop the violence in Darfur.

While Bush delivered plenty of criticism toward Iran and Syria in his own speech to the General Assembly this year, he omitted the questions about the relevancy of the U.N. and toned down the doubts about whether it could meet the ideals of its founders.

On the first day of the General Assembly, Bush gave a toast in which he called Annan a "decent, honorable man" and thanked him for 10 years of service to "this important body."

That was the kind of praise Annan probably would have rather preferred to get during the height of the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, when the Bush administration kept silent in the face of calls from several U.S. congressmen for his ouster.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14960588/

Top Ten Ways We Got Jacked by Conservatives
By Nomi Prins, AlterNet
Posted on September 22, 2006, Printed on September 23, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/41921/
Had enough of 'conservative' rip-off artists in Washington? Here's a list of the worst offenses we've seen since 2001.

1) The Bush administration has created the biggest budget deficit, debt, and trade imbalance ever while cutting funding for domestic needs like education, Medicare, and Medicaid.

2) The administration's tax cuts favor the rich, no matter how you look at it. About 87 percent of tax benefits go to the 14 percent of households with incomes above $100,000. Households with incomes below $75,000 -- three-quarters of all households -- get just 5 percent of those benefits.

3) Bush signed the largest corporate tax break package in two decades, $136 billion. After World War II, corporations paid half the cost of running the federal government. Today, they pay 7%.

4) The price of gas doubled under Bush. The top oil companies earned $25 billion during the quarter that Hurricane Katrina struck compared to $50 billion for all of 2004. Former Exxon-Mobil, CEO, Lee Raymond got a $400 million exit package.

5) The Republican Congress has voted against every minimum wage increase, except the one linked to getting rid of the estate tax for the rich. The real income of the average American household has fallen five years in a row.

6) House Republicans chopped education programs by $14.3 billion -- the highest cuts ever. College tuition has increased 34 percent since Bush took office.

7) Since 2001, average monthly health care premiums have risen from $342 to $603. Annual deductibles have doubled. Today 46 million Americans (including 8.4 million children) have no health insurance, an increase of 6 million since Bush took office.

8) The Senate approved the biggest bankruptcy law in a quarter of a century. Republicans voted AGAINST protecting senior citizens, the seriously ill, military members, veterans, and employees.

9) In 1983, the Greenspan Commission put Social Security measures in place that created a $1.7 trillion surplus in the system. This administration borrowed against and cut that to $153 billion while blaming citizens for not dying young enough.

10) In 2005, Americans paid $4.3 billion in withdrawal fees at ATM's and $16 billion to credit card companies in late fees alone. Republicans have suggested no remedies.

Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at the public policy center Demos and author of Other People's Money and Jacked: How "Conservatives" are Picking your Pocket (Whether you voted for them or not)

blatham wrote:

Most European nations, including England, have far more generous social safety nets than the US (Canada too) and not only are they doing fine economically and socially but they also tend to be safer and healthier and more congenial places to live.

That is a pretty big statement, blatham. Have you been there lately? If you wish to take a few examples, how about lets take London first, why don't you go there for a week and then come back here and repeat the above with a straight face, and if you do, I will be the first to laugh you out of town.

As for New Orleans, the people there were not the only ones damaged by Katrina, but boy did they cry the loudest, including the mayor and the governor that did virtually nothing and did not implement their own evacuation plan. FEMA is an agency that repairs damage, but it has little responsibility or authority to evacuate because that is the responsibility and authority of local authorities. I have sympathies, but for crying out loud, blatham, They had decades of warnings, and at least two days to get out of town when the hurricane was obviously going to hit thereabouts. Bush was blamed for Katrina by the main stream press, but people that have any sense at all know better. Don't tell me the people had no warning, because even I saw the warnings on TV days ahead and I live a thousand miles away or so.

Typical Bush supporter...

okie
No, haven't been over there for three decades. But I have friends there with whom I correspond, a brother who returned from England two months ago, and a daughter who travelled through north and eastern Europe this year. I'm not sure what you are suggesting re England. Which of the statements I made seems incorrect? A2k members like Walter, Nimh, Thomas, Old Europe, steve and quite a few others who live over there can provide lots of information for you. There are quite a few important measures by which the US doesn't come off looking either very compassionate or healthy, or happy for that matter.

I'm not sure there's much point in arguing the Katrina event with you. There were responsibilities and failures, it seems, at all levels. For Americans from any other part of the country, the relevant matter was the response of the federal government agencies and leadership - as THAT level of government applies to them (a Washington State citizen doesn't get to vote for the Mayor of New Orleans, but does get to vote for the Presidency). If the Mayor there screws up, local voters and press will be on his case. If the President or federal agencies screw up, voters and press across america will be, and were, on the President's case.

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Typical Bush supporter...

That's McG, isn't it?

blatham wrote:

Most European nations, including England, have far more generous social safety nets than the US (Canada too) and not only are they doing fine economically and socially but they also tend to be safer and healthier and more congenial places to live.

That is a pretty big statement, blatham. Have you been there lately? If you wish to take a few examples, how about lets take London first, why don't you go there for a week and then come back here and repeat the above with a straight face, and if you do, I will be the first to laugh you out of town.

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:

Most European nations, including England, have far more generous social safety nets than the US (Canada too) and not only are they doing fine economically and socially but they also tend to be safer and healthier and more congenial places to live.

That is a pretty big statement, blatham. Have you been there lately? If you wish to take a few examples, how about lets take London first, why don't you go there for a week and then come back here and repeat the above with a straight face, and if you do, I will be the first to laugh you out of town.

I've been to London last month. Wonderful city. Nice people. Just before that, I was in Washington D.C. for a couple of weeks. Very nice place, and lots of lovely people, too.

It's hard to compare those two places, but, by all means, let's get our statistics on crime rates, poverty, immigrants etc. out and let's look at the numbers, eh? That would be a very interesting topic...