Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

According to Politico 44% of the people in America wish that George W Bush was still President of the United States instead of Barack Obama. I find this amusing in that I don't see much difference between them except that Pres. Obama is a much better speaker, and isn't as publicly religious. Other then that they both spend insane amounts of money, they both have great relationships and terrible relationships with nations all over the world, both escalated wars, both are actually hated by the opposing part, etc. Say what you like, but they are very similar in many regards, albeit I haven't covered their differences in great detail. I just personally find them to be similar. This isn't a redemption of GWB's shortcomings, nor is this a criticism of BO, rather I am just posting about my amusement with the fickle nature of society and with being provided further evidence to have a healthy disdain for all that is so focused on democracy, in reality or in name, it makes no difference.

So, down 1.7% from the percentage who voted for McCain.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/71_angry_at_federal_government_up_five_points_since_september

Count me among that 71%.

I thought about 44% or so of people had voted for the Republicans anyway.

It just seems like a "No Gak, Sherlock!" piece of so-called news.

But they have different words in the faction slot on their stat sheet! They're totally different!

44% of Americans are jingoistic idiots with no conception of economic theory, political theory, or governmental practices. Actually, that number is probably higher, we just have a floor that it can't go below now.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

No gak. Point out a single recession or war period in history that didn't have people who are "Somewhat angry". Thats so meaningless of a term that I'm surprised it's even visible when written down.

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought about 44% or so of people had voted for the Republicans anyway.

It just seems like a "No Gak, Sherlock!" piece of so-called news.

It would be if this were for Johnny Mac, but the difference is this is the GOP punching bag GWB! Politico saw this as a vindication of sorts of Bush and his administration. The reason its significant is because compared to his approval ratings this is invariably better. I thought you would get that KK....

Other then that they both spend insane amounts of money,

Would you like to do a comparison between the two of them and earlier Presidents? Perhaps reference a graph showing Federal spending? There are a number of extremely high expenses that started under GWB (two wars, bailout) which have carried over into BO’s, and aren’t really practical to suddenly cut off.

they both have great relationships and terrible relationships with nations all over the world,

The nature of the relationships a president has with other countries is largely that of the face for their political and economic relationship with us as a country. With most nations, this doesn’t change very quickly or very often. A person doesn’t really have a relationship with a nation, unless you mean in the sense of what is the opinion held of them, in a given country. I would submit that the data does not support the idea that they are viewed similarly.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264

both escalated wars,

One of them started two wars. The other has been given a bad situation and is trying to figure the best way out of it, which has included sending more troops.

both are actually hated by the opposing part, etc.

Dogma had some relevant comments here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/268755.page

This is part of a general trend of both parties (though mostly the Repubs, since they came up with it) acknowledging the success of Karl Rove’s strategy of winning through rhetoric and mudslinging.

You know I am a middle ground voter when it all comes down to it, and since I am for the most part unbiased when it comes to this president I might as well put my two cents in. First off I hate his "closing" of Guitanimo Bay(however it's spelled) this to me is stupid, and to even considering putting P.O.W's on trial is well crazy, but whatever. That said I feel he is being given a hard rap being as he is comming into 16 years, YES 16 PEOPLE, of incredably bad leadership.

For Starters Clinton screwed us over in many ways the first being selling off the U.S's gold reserves to pay out most of our national debt, the second in not dealing with terrorism for the most part and thus allowing more attacks under his presidency then any other in our past. The Cole, Our embassy's in Africa, Waco, Oklahoma City do I need to go on. Then his idiodic invasion of Haiti a sovergn nation in our own hemeshpere. Also his downsizing of the military would screw us over for when the U.S went to war the next go around as Bush needed to spend more money to bring us back on par for war.

Bush well do I really need to go into his presidency I mean truthfully after the first few months he was in trouble. really.

All this said Obama is comming into this game with 16 years of two previously horrible presidents, and that is a lot to fix. What most Americans don't understand is since we have such a large Gov't this means things move very slowly, and anything we hope to seen fixed soon would be lucky enough to been seen fixed in the next two presidency's. all this coupled with our constant envolvement in a war were outsourceing has become a way of battle has made us a well poor nation. Now I open the floor to your insults, and arguements, with the great rebutal. The fact is if you are a diehard to either end of the house then no matter what I say will convince you otherwise.

The Green Git wrote:Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/71_angry_at_federal_government_up_five_points_since_september

Count me among that 71%.

That number would exactly the same, or higher, had the government not bailed out the banks, voted down the stimulus package, and never broached the healthcare issue.

I'd be interested to see the results of a poll which compared the number of people who want a free market economy against the number of people who believe the government should do something about unemployment.

dogma wrote:I'd be interested to see the results of a poll which compared the number of people who want a free market economy against the number of people who believe the government should do something about unemployment.

Lol.

There's no way of knowing.

I still do not understand why it is a surprise that 44% of the electorate would prefer to have Bush than Obama.

The US electorate seems quite polarised (not to say they aren't in other countries too) so if given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican it seems completely sensible that Republican voters would opt for the Republican.

Empchild wrote:The Cole, Our embassy's in Africa, Waco, Oklahoma City do I need to go on.

You at least need to explain why you're lumping attacks perpetrated by US citizens into the same category as those perpetrated by foreign ones.

One thing that I do find amusing is that the last 20-25 years have seen a dramatic reversal of roles with respect to who gets blamed for attacks on America. Throughout most of history the people who perpetrated the attacks took most of it, now its almost as though anything which happens to an American citizen is the fault of the American government. Its really bizarre; probably part of the complex attached to our superpower status.

Empchild wrote:
Also his downsizing of the military would screw us over for when the U.S went to war the next go around as Bush needed to spend more money to bring us back on par for war.

The alternative would have been not going to war. You could argue that Afghanistan was necessary, though I'd argue that it was excessive, but Iraq certainly wasn't. Anyway, you'll be upset in the coming decades: the military budget it expected to drop by as much as 1/3 by 2025.

Kilkrazy wrote:I still do not understand why it is a surprise that 44% of the electorate would prefer to have Bush than Obama.

The US electorate seems quite polarised (not to say they aren't in other countries too) so if given a choice between a Democrat and a Republican it seems completely sensible that Republican voters would opt for the Republican.

The thing is KK, that Republicans don't have nearly that many voters or party members. They have roughly 16% of the total population and maybe 30% of the eligible voting population. This poll is indicating a swing in terms of independent voters...at least according to Politico...

Kilkrazy wrote:There's no way of knowing.

That's true. I should have included some element of uncertainty in that comment.

dogma wrote:One thing that I do find amusing is that the last 20-25 years have seen a dramatic reversal of roles with respect to who gets blamed for attacks on America. Throughout most of history the people who perpetrated the attacks took most of it, now its almost as though anything which happens to an American citizen is the fault of the American government. Its really bizarre; probably part of the complex attached to our superpower status.

Its even better when we get blamed for attacks in Europe. I remember when the bombings in Spain happened, a bunch of Dems were on the news blaming our government and President Bush for not stopping it. I couldn't believe it! How was that our responsibility?!?! I agree with you on this Dogma, the blame game has changed considerably....

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? In some ways I agree although Obama's administration is notably different and an improvement over Bush Jr's imo. Presidents in general do share a lot of similarities namely trying to make the executive branch stronger and more powerful with each term; and that their decisions are largely affected by the strength of their advisors. They are also heavily affected by past president's decisions especially their long term plans ie Iraq.

Presidents also share common weaknesses: the government is more or less middle management to the "haves" in our economy. Powerful economic players shaped the legal and political system in their favor to the point where they're the Yankees and everyone else are the Pirates to use a baseball example. The amount of effort in order to put a "salary cap" on their power just doesn't seem feasible unless there's a revolution.

However Obama is significantly different to the Texan wannabe. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" discredits these notable characteristics. For example compare Iraq 2.0 to Obama's health care plan. On the one hand you've got the most controversial war in American history since Vietnam that many of us lost friends and family to; and then on the other you've got a debate for health care reform to help those that can't afford insurance (also a way to put a "salary cap" on the ethically challenged status quo where those who need insurance can't get it...a lot of people seem to romanticize capitalism and while it can be great it isn't right now whether its Enron, the recession, or death panels aka insurance companies). Obama also reached out to the public more than Bush has IIRC, and Bush has the record for taking the most vacation days out of any other president in history. Obama also won the Noble Peace Prize for simply being different and more open in context of foreign policy and his public image and speaking ability trumps Bush Jr. Says a lot about how the world thought of the US of A and especially Bush Jr but its not like Bush Jr didn't have several American TV shows that focused on caricaturing him (Bush cartoon, Bush live action comedy, Will Ferrel's tour, etc).

On issues like bailing out companies; imo this is where all presidential candidates would act the same once in office. Letting huge icons like General Motors fail and whither away is not something any president would do; also a case of "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't". Similar to Bush's years where he had to strengthen America's defense except the part of selling a war for oil and basically lying to the nation (imo anyone not from the Bush family would've instead focused on Afghanistan instead of trying to finish up family business).

All in all, Obama so far has tried to make some significant changes and arguably already has whether its health care, foreign relations, respectability, etc. However Obama barely has a year in office whereas we've got 8 years of Bush Jr to look back on.

dogma wrote:

Empchild wrote:The Cole, Our embassy's in Africa, Waco, Oklahoma City do I need to go on.

You at least need to explain why you're lumping attacks perpetrated by US citizens into the same category as those perpetrated by foreign ones.

One thing that I do find amusing is that the last 20-25 years have seen a dramatic reversal of roles with respect to who gets blamed for attacks on America. Throughout most of history the people who perpetrated the attacks took most of it, now its almost as though anything which happens to an American citizen is the fault of the American government. Its really bizarre; probably part of the complex attached to our superpower status.

Empchild wrote:
Also his downsizing of the military would screw us over for when the U.S went to war the next go around as Bush needed to spend more money to bring us back on par for war.

The alternative would have been not going to war. You could argue that Afghanistan was necessary, though I'd argue that it was excessive, but Iraq certainly wasn't. Anyway, you'll be upset in the coming decades: the military budget it expected to drop by as much as 1/3 by 2025.

Yes, because cutting our military defense of this country is a good thing. I hope whoever is even THINKING about this gets shipped out of this country onto some island out in middle of nowhere.

Try looking at a Federal spending chart sometime, and looking at what percentage is military spending.

Then take a look at the Pentagon budget, and count the number of weapons systems which are flat-out useless for fighting terrorists and guerilla conflicts.

Oh I'm sure there are weapons and systems we don't need to use but just like GW whenever budget cuts are made the Admins swing the pendulum too far and close down bases and send soldiers back to civil life.

Granted a base in the middle of nowhere that doesn't need to be there shouldn't exist but closing down bases in the coastal states which is our first line of defense and demilitarizing men and women to civilians does not exactly do much good for our security.

Perhaps if bases stayed open and soldiers remained soldiers (not necessarily to be sent off to some gak hole) than it wouldn't look as if we were getting lax in our defense efforts.

It's akin to a King declaring that he not only refuses to drop boulders and boiling oil over his castle walls to cut back on spending/resources but he intends to pull his first line of troops and guards as well and rely on the 2nd and 3rd strings that are garrisoned closer to the center of his keep.

Not to mention if deficit budget cuts should come from anywhere it should be the current welfare system, NOT the military. Instead of cutting military spending by 1/3 in the next 15 years cut the damn welfare benefits. Of course that won't happen during Obamanation as the Dems are more interested in feeding the lazy than they are of keeping the bad guys out.

ShumaGorath wrote:44% of Americans are jingoistic idiots with no conception of economic theory, political theory, or governmental practices. Actually, that number is probably higher, we just have a floor that it can't go below now.

Ah, what would any political discussion be without namecalling and condescension. Thanks for that most informed and enlightened bit of drivel. The Left is nothing if not predictable.

dogma wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

That number would exactly the same, or higher, had the government not bailed out the banks, voted down the stimulus package, and never broached the healthcare issue.

...and you can substantiate this statement HOW exactly?

Fateweaver wrote:Oh I'm sure there are weapons and systems we don't need to use but just like GW whenever budget cuts are made the Admins swing the pendulum too far and close down bases and send soldiers back to civil life.

We have almost 900 bases on foreign soil. We don't need them all. There's no clause in the Constitution which states that we must be a global superpower.

Fateweaver wrote:
Granted a base in the middle of nowhere that doesn't need to be there shouldn't exist but closing down bases in the coastal states which is our first line of defense and demilitarizing men and women to civilians does not exactly do much good for our security.

You think military bases in the continental US enhance our security? Who are they defending us from? Canada?

Fateweaver wrote:
Perhaps if bases stayed open and soldiers remained soldiers (not necessarily to be sent off to some gak hole) than it wouldn't look as if we were getting lax in our defense efforts.

You do realize how much we spend on the military, right? It will take a lot more than a cut of 1/3 to make it look as though we are lax on defense.

Fateweaver wrote:
It's akin to a King declaring that he not only refuses to drop boulders and boiling oil over his castle walls to cut back on spending/resources but he intends to pull his first line of troops and guards as well and rely on the 2nd and 3rd strings that are garrisoned closer to the center of his keep.

That's not really much of an analogy. Elite soldiers don't serve on the wall, nor is a sprawling complex of bases tacit to a castle.

Fateweaver wrote:
Not to mention if deficit budget cuts should come from anywhere it should be the current welfare system, NOT the military.

It will come from both, and taxes will go up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:
...and you can substantiate this statement HOW exactly?

Electoral precedent given the reaction to Hoover and the Republican Party following the onset of the Great Depression. Certainly not proof, that would be impossible. Its more a comment on my opinion with respect to the source of the nation's anger. Namely economic hardship, rather than the ideological affiliation of federal policies.

The US could be akin to Soviet Russia, and so long as there was near 100% employment, with no more than 10% poverty, people would be happy.

I'm just saying if we are going to make cuts anywhere military shouldn't rank above welfare and as long as leftist humanitarians all in support of people not wanting to work and getting money or popping out kids to get money remain in office than of course military will get cut before welfare does.

I also meant bases in the country. I've stated my ideas for dealing with foreign entities and it doesn't entail setting up shop (and also gets me called a Nationalist amongst other things). If you want a reminder think back to Nagasaki.

I'm just saying that cut spending elsewhere first, mainly where it doesn't actually help the country at all (and no, the government using tax dollars to help the lazy and the baby factories get through life does not help our country one bit, don't care how much people want to argue it).

That's an argument from false premises. Sorry.

ShumaGorath wrote:44% of Americans are jingoistic idiots with no conception of economic theory, political theory, or governmental practices.

OF the PEOPLE,
BY the PEOPLE,
FOR the PEOPLE.

ALL of the PEOPLE, Not just those in their skyscrapers or churches or bunkers who think they're somehow qualified to decide how things ought to be done.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm just saying if we are going to make cuts anywhere military shouldn't rank above welfare and as long as leftist humanitarians all in support of people not wanting to work and getting money or popping out kids to get money remain in office than of course military will get cut before welfare does.

Its not a matter of order. They should be cut concomitantly in order to reduce the impact on both.

Since, no matter what happens, a tax increase is certain to occur in the future it is politically infeasible to take all expenditure reductions out of welfare. When you raise taxes, you almost always increase unemployment, and the poverty line. This is a large part of what welfare is intended to mitigate.

Fateweaver wrote:
I'm just saying that cut spending elsewhere first, mainly where it doesn't actually help the country at all (and no, the government using tax dollars to help the lazy and the baby factories get through life does not help our country one bit, don't care how much people want to argue it).

It doesn't, you're right, but that's not the primary purpose of welfare. You're focusing on the problems rather than the net effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:
ALL of the PEOPLE, Not just those in their skyscrapers or churches or bunkers who think they're somehow qualified to decide how things ought to be done.

That would be through education, and observation. The people have no voice because the people are largely ignorant. That's why we live in a representative system, and not a pure democracy.

One great thing came out of the Bush administration and his close wartime partnership with Tony Blair.

All the movie bad guys went from being British to French!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a serious note however i would say (regarding military spending) The doesnt the USA currently spend more than the rest of the European Union and China combined?

I mean, i love the military, and i love the US military for saving my ass several times over (the A-10 is a god of war and we aint got none!) but, dont you think maybe you guys could drop a few billion dollars out of the budget to help balance the books and it wouldnt even be a big deal anyway?

Is it just me, or is Fateweaver at this point a professional strawman? I mean, if I were a hard core liberal, and I wanted to create a satire of a right winger to rebut, it would be pretty close to Fateweaver.

You know, I'm personally in favour of spending large sums on the military in any question.

However, that post by Fateweaver hurts my head so much I'm actually changing sides just so I don't have to be associated with such a bad argument.

He could be playing with our heads?