Did Bush do anything right?

[TheDoctor455]

Uh... I assume that he was able to eat breakfast without choking to death... oh wait. Nevermind.

 

[RebelRising]

Aid for Africa. That was nice of him.

As opposed to national health care for us?

You do realize that national health care would suck ass right?
Yeah it's free...but it's also unavailable due to the massive waiting lists their would be.

Again, it's all a matter of where resources are expended; cutbacks on unnecessary militarization and faulty foreign policy (i.e., most of it) could result in being able to afford sufficient healthcare for everyone. Sure, it's unlikely to be the same quality as now, but at least people won't be dying because they couldn't afford to go to the doctors. Medicaid and Medicare can only do so much, but without a more secure health safety net, our taxes will be going into entirely unprofitable ventures.

But hey, at least those Ethiopian hut dwellers will be a smart investment when, in maybe twenty years, they has some semblance of an economy.

It isn't necessarily about the money. More of how many people there would be overflowing doctors with the most meager of problems, now that they didn't have to pay for it. I think there should be a system where those who truly need it, or as you said are dying, should be covered under some form of a government program.
Nationalizing anything is a terrible idea because the government hasn't the slightest idea what they are doing.

Well, you do have a point about our government. As my friend would say, It's "frickackta." Still, I maintain that nationalized health-care, amongst other things redirected spending of some sort could fix. I don't claim to be an expert.

 

[Barry93]

Also, I applaud Bush for using harsh interrogation against terrorists

So, when do you think we should start using "harsh interrogation" against domestic criminals, if it's so wonderful?

Stupid fascist torturemonkey.

Sorry but i don't consider Al-Qaeda terrorists human beings at all. Waterboarding isn't nearly as bad as it's portrayed. It's only about 40 second intervals and there's a doctor on standby as well. Also the info we got from them proved invaluable in stopping terrorist attacks. "stupid facist torturemonkey" ? When all else fails, pull out the name-calling.

 

[cannot_aim]

This is going to end very badly for all of us so instead of elaborating I'm just going to say no and not respond until someone really tries to get a reaction from me.

 

[dnnydllr]

Aid for Africa. That was nice of him.

As opposed to national health care for us?

You do realize that national health care would suck ass right?
Yeah it's free...but it's also unavailable due to the massive waiting lists their would be.

Again, it's all a matter of where resources are expended; cutbacks on unnecessary militarization and faulty foreign policy (i.e., most of it) could result in being able to afford sufficient healthcare for everyone. Sure, it's unlikely to be the same quality as now, but at least people won't be dying because they couldn't afford to go to the doctors. Medicaid and Medicare can only do so much, but without a more secure health safety net, our taxes will be going into entirely unprofitable ventures.

But hey, at least those Ethiopian hut dwellers will be a smart investment when, in maybe twenty years, they has some semblance of an economy.

It isn't necessarily about the money. More of how many people there would be overflowing doctors with the most meager of problems, now that they didn't have to pay for it. I think there should be a system where those who truly need it, or as you said are dying, should be covered under some form of a government program.
Nationalizing anything is a terrible idea because the government hasn't the slightest idea what they are doing.

Well, you do have a point about our government. As my friend would say, It's "frickackta." Still, I maintain that nationalized health-care, amongst other things redirected spending of some sort could fix. I don't claim to be an expert.

I'm not an expert myself, I just have strong opinions. But believe me if the government(they'd really have to wise up to get this right) finds a way to make nationalized health care work, I'd love it. I just don't see that happening with the current elected officals...RALPH NADER FTW!!!!

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

In the Golden Age of the 1950s, the top income tax rate was around 75%, and the USA flourished. Taxes were higher under Blessed Saint Reagan than they are now.

I'll just be polite and say that the correlation isn't anywhere nearly as strong as you think, and that the Republican/Libertarian/Corporate Greedhead "TAXES BAD!" reflex isn't the law of physics they like to pretend it is.

Economies have momentum, and the general rule is applied to less than ultra-high income people (ie people who are noticeably affected by tax changes, not those who can only buy one sports car next year).

 

[dnnydllr]

I said nothing of it being immoral. I'm saying that they would crowd hospitals and doctors across the nation, and unless the government plans for this(which they won't), then it's absolutely screwed up the pood! I'm not saying the poor don't need health care, god knows my family could use it, I'm just saying providing free everything to 300 million people is a task too big for our present government.

 

[Seekster]

Also there is one thing that Bush did do right that nobody can deny and still be considered credible. Under Bush's watch there was not another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil after the year 2001. Whether or not his policies had anything to do with it will be decided by history but it should be fairly obvious that his policies did keep America safe.

The argument that "Al Qaeda didnt attack the USA because they could attack us in Iraq doesnt fly (no pun intended) because we know that they would want to attack the US mainland because it would be a propoganda victory of the highest degree. If Al Qaeda had attacked us (or rather been able to attack us) again after 2001 then it would have shown that they can attack us as they please and we can not stop them, it would be a huge blow to morale for our side and a boon for Al Qaeda.

 

[dnnydllr]

Nationalizing anything is a terrible idea because the government hasn't the slightest idea what they are doing.

I have two possible replies here:

"Unlike, say, Enron, who knew EXACTLY what they were doing, right?"

And

"Which is why the Army should be a privately-held corporation, right?"

They're not mutually exclusive, so I'll just leave them both up.

In response to ENRON, how bout freddie mac? In response to the Army, no. That's a completely different story. The army is OWNED by the government. Therefore they can control it. They didn't nationalize anything, and there are no problems with the army as of now.

 

[Seekster]

Oh I also forgot:

Bush did finally pardon those two border patrol agents who shot that Mexican drug smuggler on the border. It happened in the last few days of his admin so didn't really get much coverage but he did pardon them.

 

[RebelRising]

Aid for Africa. That was nice of him.

As opposed to national health care for us?

You do realize that national health care would suck ass right?
Yeah it's free...but it's also unavailable due to the massive waiting lists their would be.

Again, it's all a matter of where resources are expended; cutbacks on unnecessary militarization and faulty foreign policy (i.e., most of it) could result in being able to afford sufficient healthcare for everyone. Sure, it's unlikely to be the same quality as now, but at least people won't be dying because they couldn't afford to go to the doctors. Medicaid and Medicare can only do so much, but without a more secure health safety net, our taxes will be going into entirely unprofitable ventures.

But hey, at least those Ethiopian hut dwellers will be a smart investment when, in maybe twenty years, they has some semblance of an economy.

It isn't necessarily about the money. More of how many people there would be overflowing doctors with the most meager of problems, now that they didn't have to pay for it. I think there should be a system where those who truly need it, or as you said are dying, should be covered under some form of a government program.
Nationalizing anything is a terrible idea because the government hasn't the slightest idea what they are doing.

Well, you do have a point about our government. As my friend would say, It's "frickackta." Still, I maintain that nationalized health-care, amongst other things redirected spending of some sort could fix. I don't claim to be an expert.

I'm not an expert myself, I just have strong opinions. But believe me if the government(they'd really have to wise up to get this right) finds a way to make nationalized health care work, I'd love it. I just don't see that happening with the current elected officals...RALPH NADER FTW!!!!

No way! You're a Ralph Nader fan? Same here! It's too bad that the two-party monopoly has pretty much corrupted any hope for real change. *sigh*

 

[stewart34]

One, this thread is going to get some flame wars.
Two,he lowered gas right before the end of his term

 

[dnnydllr]

Aid for Africa. That was nice of him.

As opposed to national health care for us?

You do realize that national health care would suck ass right?
Yeah it's free...but it's also unavailable due to the massive waiting lists their would be.

Again, it's all a matter of where resources are expended; cutbacks on unnecessary militarization and faulty foreign policy (i.e., most of it) could result in being able to afford sufficient healthcare for everyone. Sure, it's unlikely to be the same quality as now, but at least people won't be dying because they couldn't afford to go to the doctors. Medicaid and Medicare can only do so much, but without a more secure health safety net, our taxes will be going into entirely unprofitable ventures.

But hey, at least those Ethiopian hut dwellers will be a smart investment when, in maybe twenty years, they has some semblance of an economy.

It isn't necessarily about the money. More of how many people there would be overflowing doctors with the most meager of problems, now that they didn't have to pay for it. I think there should be a system where those who truly need it, or as you said are dying, should be covered under some form of a government program.
Nationalizing anything is a terrible idea because the government hasn't the slightest idea what they are doing.

Well, you do have a point about our government. As my friend would say, It's "frickackta." Still, I maintain that nationalized health-care, amongst other things redirected spending of some sort could fix. I don't claim to be an expert.

I'm not an expert myself, I just have strong opinions. But believe me if the government(they'd really have to wise up to get this right) finds a way to make nationalized health care work, I'd love it. I just don't see that happening with the current elected officals...RALPH NADER FTW!!!!

No way! You're a Ralph Nader fan? Same here! It's too bad that the two-party monopoly has pretty much corrupted any hope for real change. *sigh*

I know...he wasn't even allowed to run in my state...he's definitely a better candidate than anyone from either side...

 

[Seekster]

Wait wasn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks? Your right we shouldn't have water boarded him to get his info. We should have water boarded him and then shot the bastard. Yeah I know its not very American of us to do that but if he wanted Americans to act American then he shouldn't have planned an attack to piss us off.

Also I heard somewhere that some of the so called "torture" techniques (not water boarding) used at Gitmo are similar to techniques used during U.S. military training (might have been Marines or some special forces unit).

 

[dnnydllr]

]In response to ENRON, how bout freddie mac? In response to the Army, no. That's a completely different story. The army is OWNED by the government. Therefore they can control it. They didn't nationalize anything, and there are no problems with the army as of now.

And if they take over Merril Lynch, they will own it, so....?

There must be some subtle distinction between "nationalized" and "owned" that my feeble Liberal Brain cannot grasp. Please enlighten me.

Well, the army is more or less as old as the government, it is for the government, by the government, and so on. As it is more or less a branch of the government, it is there's, therefore they own it. When you nationalize something, you give it to the public, or the nation as a whole. At least that's how I see it, and there is certainly a distinction.