Who do you think will go down as the better President, Obama or George W Bush?

Deficit hawks, like Cato? Cato consistently criticized president Bush for his spending increases and his foreign wars.

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]Unless it causes hyper-inflation or tax hikes in the middle of a recession, spending will have no immediate negative affect on our economy.HomicidalCherry

well not as drastic, but it certainly has a negative effect by distorting the structure of production.

A large contraction in government spending would actually hurt the economy, if anything as it is just one less entity that is actually buying and spending money and encouraging growth.HomicidalCherry

Puh-leeze! You and your keynesian economics. An economy is human interaction that "seeks" to solve the problem of scarcity, which is the limited amount of resources that must satisfy unlimited demand. So an economy is measured by how much it produces, not really by how much it demands. You can't spend or demand your way to growth.

Now, that being said, cutting government spending is necessary for the economy to readjust. Government spending creates entities which are totally dependent upon government spending for their survival, rather than actual consumer demand.

Government spending can actually be a very powerful catalyst for economic growth or (in this case) recovery. The Great Depression itself was ended by the massive government spending that followed our entry into WWII.

HomicidalCherry

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well the U.S. military is a civilian-run military. It's always been that way, and for a reason. Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan is much more than a purely military matter, and there are a number of people in the Administration, some with a great deal of military experience, who disagree with McChrystal's strategy. And besides, Bush dedicated months to debating what eventually became known as the "surge", and during that period Iraq was in much worse shape than Afghanistan is in now. airshocker

I have much more faith in a four-stal general with 34-years of service than I do a pencil pusher in D.C.

The surge worked in Iraq. If McChrystal gets all the troops he's asking for, I think it can work in Afghanistan. Time will tell.

I agree, the surge worked in Iraq, after it was debated on within the administration for four months. If you have no respect for Obama for taking a number of weeks debating the strategy in Afghanistan, than surely you can't have much respect for Bush who took four months debating the surge.-Sun_Tzu-

I have no respect for someone, after seeing the surge work in Iraq), who needs more time to decide on what to do with Afghanistan.

The General already did all of the work in coming up with the plan. Let him do his job. Bush let Petraeus do his job and Iraq was all the better for it.

I have no respect for someone, after seeing the surge work in Iraq), who needs more time to decide on what to do with Afghanistan.

airshocker

Obama: *cricket noise*

Bush: 9/11

I'd go with Bush.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I agree, the surge worked in Iraq, after it was debated on within the administration for four months. If you have no respect for Obama for taking a number of weeks debating the strategy in Afghanistan, than surely you can't have much respect for Bush who took four months debating the surge.airshocker

I have no respect for someone, after seeing the surge work in Iraq), who needs more time to decide on what to do with Afghanistan.

The General already did all of the work in coming up with the plan. Let him do his job. Bush let Petraeus do his job and Iraq was all the better for it.

I listen in to people who people on these forums have never heard about that talk about bigger and darker things about the goverment, their theory is that they're trying to get all our military out of the country so they can't protect us for the up coming revolution they're planning to run once the system collapses.

you have no respect for someone double checking that their plan works despite the fact that these are two completely different settings to work with.Hewkii

Why do we even have generals, then, if not to listen to them on all matters concerning the military? Might as well get rid of them all and appoint some bureaucrats.

Why do we even have generals, then, if not to listen to them on all matters concerning the military? Might as well get rid of them all and appoint some bureaucrats.

airshocker

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I agree, the surge worked in Iraq, after it was debated on within the administration for four months. If you have no respect for Obama for taking a number of weeks debating the strategy in Afghanistan, than surely you can't have much respect for Bush who took four months debating the surge.airshocker

I have no respect for someone, after seeing the surge work in Iraq), who needs more time to decide on what to do with Afghanistan.

The General already did all of the work in coming up with the plan. Let him do his job. Bush let Petraeus do his job and Iraq was all the better for it.

Iraq =/= Afghanistan. They are different countries with very different histories, different populations, and a different geography. Just because something works in Iraq does not mean that it would necessarily work in Afghanistan. To blindly send 40,000 troops into Afghanistan just because the situation in Iraq improved after there was an increase in troop levels, without any sort of meaningful strategic review within the administration is a horrible way to govern. -Sun_Tzu-

I disagree that there has been any 'meaningful strategic review' in the Obama administration. And again, time will tell. Generals are there for one purpose alone, to lead our troops and win wars. They need to be allowed to do their jobs just like the CIA needs to be allowed to keep it's privacy and do it's job.

hmm, yes, this would make sense if the general in question was the only person in the military.Hewkii

Then you obviously don't know anything about General McChrystal. If you put someone in charge of an AOR, you need to listen to that man.

Then you obviously don't know anything about General McChrystal. If you put someone in charge of an AOR, you need to listen to that man.

airshocker

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Iraq =/= Afghanistan. They are different countries with very different histories, different populations, and a different geography. Just because something works in Iraq does not mean that it would necessarily work in Afghanistan. To blindly send 40,000 troops into Afghanistan just because the situation in Iraq improved after there was an increase in troop levels, without any sort of meaningful strategic review within the administration is a horrible way to govern. airshocker

I disagree that there has been any 'meaningful strategic review' in the Obama administration. And again, time will tell. Generals are there for one purpose alone, to lead our troops and win wars. They need to be allowed to do their jobs just like the CIA needs to be allowed to keep it's privacy and do it's job.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Iraq =/= Afghanistan. They are different countries with very different histories, different populations, and a different geography. Just because something works in Iraq does not mean that it would necessarily work in Afghanistan. To blindly send 40,000 troops into Afghanistan just because the situation in Iraq improved after there was an increase in troop levels, without any sort of meaningful strategic review within the administration is a horrible way to govern. airshocker

I disagree that there has been any 'meaningful strategic review' in the Obama administration. And again, time will tell. Generals are there for one purpose alone, to lead our troops and win wars. They need to be allowed to do their jobs just like the CIA needs to be allowed to keep it's privacy and do it's job.

And so long as Obama is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, he's the one the field generals need to get permission from to implement any sort of major change in the war strategy. If you don't like it, why not come back and start up a military coup d'etat because that's the only way it'll change.

Oh, and when the job of the CIA is to spy on the people that they serve without their consent (PATRIOT act, illegal wiretapping of phones, etc.), I don't give one damn about their "privacy."

What makes you doubt the fact that there was a substantive strategic review? What evidence do you have of that?-Sun_Tzu-

I just don't trust the guy. I don't have any proof that he hasn't discussed this in-depth, but not complying with the entire recommendation General McChrystal gave doesn't make me feel like he has any trust in our man leading the war effort in Afghanistan.

It would have spoken very highly of him if he completely listened to the General. That's just my opinion.

And so long as Obama is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, he's the one the field generals need to get permission from to implement any sort of major change in the war strategy. If you don't like it, why not come back and start up a military coup d'etat because that's the only way it'll change.

Oh, and when the job of the CIA is to spy on the people that they serve without their consent (PATRIOT act, illegal wiretapping of phones, etc.), I don't give one damn about their "privacy."

tycoonmike

Have you been spied on? I mean, do you have any tangible proof that you have been spied upon by the CIA?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]What makes you doubt the fact that there was a substantive strategic review? What evidence do you have of that?airshocker

I just don't trust the guy. I don't have any proof that he hasn't discussed this in-depth, but not complying with the entire recommendation General McChrystal gave doesn't make me feel like he has any trust in our man leading the war effort in Afghanistan.

It would have spoken very highly of him if he completely listened to the General. That's just my opinion.

too early to tell for Obama. Let's give him a chance.

As for Bush, I think the media was heavily slanted in making him look bad, but he also could have defended himself better.

I commend Bush for personally writing every soldier's family that passed, and I think what he did for Africa was incredible, but few people know about that.

Time will tell.

Well if there is no evidence that Obama didn't actually perform an in depth strategic review, there is no reason to believe otherwise, especially when considering the countless leaks and media reports from and about said review-Sun_Tzu-

I have to disagree with that as well. Unfortunately, a government that thinks socialism is the best route for this country is a government I don't trust.

Good discussion all and good night. Wish I could stay up late and argue some more, but sleep takes priority.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]9/11 wasn't the only attack against America during the Bush administration...airshocker

I don't recall anything that compares to the devastation 9/11 caused.

Yes, that's true. But I remember when the trade centers were bombed during the Clinton administration. No one took that very seriously even after that (I mean, what if they succeeded then?!!?!

And I'm not saying the dems or repubs were to blame, because EVERYONE didn't take it seriously. It should have got us alerted then. And obviously it didn't, because 9/11 caught EVERYONE by surprise.

Unfortunately, it seems that the economic and social troubles that arose while Bush was in office will out-shine the good he did. Obama, however, will be remembered as the first inter-racial president. And it seems that will out-shine any bad he can do in the same way that J.F.Kennedy's religion and death out-shine the short-commings of his presidency.

Of course, it's far to early to make a definitive statement.

Christ, you guys talk as if you have were former commander-in-chiefs of a military and know how everything works :|F1_2004

Thats a great point too. There has to be so much intel that we couldn't possibly know, and so many things that effect decisions. I mean, i worked at a place for YEARS and I still don't know everything that goes on in the company, and I'm there practically every day.

That's why it's so easy for an opposing political party to attach so much spin to the opposition's decisions/actions.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]9/11 wasn't the only attack against America during the Bush administration...flazzle

I don't recall anything that compares to the devastation 9/11 caused.

Yes, that's true. But I remember when the trade centers were bombed during the Clinton administration. No one took that very seriously even after that (I mean, what if they succeeded then?!!?!

And I'm not saying the dems or repubs were to blame, because EVERYONE didn't take it seriously. It should have got us alerted then. And obviously it didn't, because 9/11 caught EVERYONE by surprise.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And so long as Obama is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, he's the one the field generals need to get permission from to implement any sort of major change in the war strategy. If you don't like it, why not come back and start up a military coup d'etat because that's the only way it'll change.

Oh, and when the job of the CIA is to spy on the people that they serve without their consent (PATRIOT act, illegal wiretapping of phones, etc.), I don't give one damn about their "privacy."

airshocker

Have you been spied on? I mean, do you have any tangible proof that you have been spied upon by the CIA?

The thought and the deed are one and the same thing. Simply being able to be spied on despite the fact that I've never done anything worthy of spying on (at least not to my knowledge) is enough to make me very angry at any organization, especially a government that's supposed to represent the people's interests. I recognize that it can happen no matter what I do, but once it comes out that an organization has been doing so at the behest of any president it's enough to make me want to smack Leon Panetta or the present director.

Probably Obama. Right or wrong, Bush will always be associated with the economic meltdown. He also was behind the Iraq war which many people feel was unecessary and unjustified.

It would be hard to get a worse rep than Bush, but Obama still has a lot of time.

Probably Obama. Right or wrong, Bush will always be associated with the economic meltdown. He also was behind the Iraq war which many people feel was unecessary and unjustified.

It would be hard to get a worse rep than Bush, but Obama still has a lot of time.

sonicare

It would be a hard job to get a worse reputation than Bush Jr. but that's only because people fail to realize that the economic meltdown had nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with Clinton. Given the state of our bureaucracy, it takes at least five years for economic policies to be fully implemented. If anything, the whole stimulus money for non-existent congressional districts fiasco is proof of that. Bush's economic policies are only being felt now, in Obama's presidency and, indeed, Obama's policies will be felt next term. Whether or not he reaps what he's sewn is up in the air, but I can guarantee you we'll only feel the policies being laid down now in the 2012 presidency.

In a thousand years there will be very simple little quibs for both presidents that will read like this

G W Bush- 9/11

Obama- First black president

Nifty_Shark

OBAMA IS BLACK! HE WINS!!
Cause he'll be more famous.People only remember bush for his funny name, and 9/11.

Given that Bush is widely regarded as one of the worst presidents in a long time, I think it'd be pretty impressive if Obama were to become regarded as worse.

Way too early to tell, and those who tell you otherwise know nothing about politics nor history.