Everything is Bush's fault?

[Rukas]

AM posted this in the Nuclear thread and I thought the discussion that is invokes deserved its own thread.

all the things that are going wrong have everything to do with him and his cronies and very little to do with the U.S. in a broader perspective.

Ive noticed that a lot of American's explain away the things wrong with America as being Bush's fault, as if they are using his stupidity as a scape goat for the problems with their nation. And they are some serious problems.

Bush is an idiot, but a lot of things are not his fault. The CIA lied to Congress and Bush regarding Iraq; that isnt really because of "Bush or his cronies," it is a lot bigger than him.

Geeez, FEMA took 5 days to get water to the Super Dome, thats a big issue that represents a big inability by the US government as a whole to respond to a problem, not to mention the preventability of 9/11.

I think Bush is becoming a scapegoat for America's problems, much like I think Hitler has become a scapegoat for the actions and beliefs of Germany as a whole during WW2, as if he magically persuaded everybody to follow him and as soon as he died the spell was magically lifted again. The issues of both nations are bigger than just one man and "his cronies."

 

[Sebastian]

Its not his fault alone. Its the american elite, if you wanna call it like that. Or just the people in charge, those with power....combined with citizens who dont know shit about all the stuff going on in the world (or as AM said: people who are clueless about their own history) makes it all worse.

 

[Devious]

well i have to agree, at least partially with Rukas. i'm certainly no fan of W, but it seems to me that everyone wants to blame anything bad involving the US on him. i suppose that since he is the President that should be no surprise that he catches the criticism. to use a football (American football) analogy, it's like a quarterback. since he is usually seen as the leader of his team, he gets too much credit when things go as planned and gets too much blame when things go bad.

the flipside to that tho, is that a lot of shit that has gone down IS his fault. you brought up the Katrina debacle. while most sensible people wouldn't try to blame the hurricane on Bush (i've heard some people try lol), his government's response was pitiful. hell, a major US city was underwater, and Bush didn't even leave his vacation for 2 or three more days after! what kind of leader is that? and we all saw how bad FEMA's response to the situation was, so what does Bush do? congratulate the head of FEMA and tell him he's doing "a heck of a job, Brownie." so i think it's his competence that really bothers people. but i think there is hope for Bush. i mean after all, childrens do learn, right?

 

[AmerikazMost]

AM posted this in the Nuclear thread and I thought the discussion that is invokes deserved its own thread.



Ive noticed that a lot of American's explain away the things wrong with America as being Bush's fault, as if they are using his stupidity as a scape goat for the problems with their nation. And they are some serious problems.

Bush is an idiot, but a lot of things are not his fault. The CIA lied to Congress and Bush regarding Iraq; that isnt really because of "Bush or his cronies," it is a lot bigger than him.

Geeez, FEMA took 5 days to get water to the Super Dome, thats a big issue that represents a big inability by the US government as a whole to respond to a problem, not to mention the preventability of 9/11.

I think Bush is becoming a scapegoat for America's problems, much like I think Hitler has become a scapegoat for the actions and beliefs of Germany as a whole during WW2, as if he magically persuaded everybody to follow him and as soon as he died the spell was magically lifted again. The issues of both nations are bigger than just one man and "his cronies."

When I said that, I was referring specifically to international affairs and other actions taken by the executive branch. America's ideals, government generally, and the people are not the ones at fault (these last two points I shall return to later).

There are MANY things wrong with America that were not direct consequences of Bush's presidency. Many of these same things--financial priorities, defense, poverty, health care systems, infrastructure, etc--are problems in other countries as well.

As for the government generally. After 9/11, there was a great reaction by the public. It called for the President to act strongly, flex his muscles, and use his power to right the wrongs that were done to our friends, families, and fellow Americans. Bush, however, used it as an opportunity to accumulate excess power by fear-mongering and slandering. I like to call it the "Brown Scare," paralleling the Red Scare during the Cold War. Just about every action taken by the American government since 9/11 has been derived from this fear-mongering, the same tactics used in say Germany during World War II and in Romania after Communism.

Now, knowing this to be a very influential force, it is easy to see why the country would put some trust in the Chief Executive. This blind decision to trust the most powerful American against the foreign brown people is why many continued to support Bush through his second election. With this mass, unquestioning following, however uninformed (and irritating to me, even back in 2001-2003), the President and his administration had supreme power, even over the Democrats (and some Republicans) in the Congress. Anyone who did not cooperate fully with the measures proposed by the administration would be blackballed and crucified on their own handmade, unpatriotic cross in front of the entire country (just as McCarthy would have done). That is why the PATRIOT Act got passed without review. That is why Congress approved Iraq without complete evidence or debate.

This why it is faulty to blame America for what has happened on the global sphere under this Administration. Were most of the Americans politically dumb and/or uninformed? Yeah, just like most people of every other nation. The same thing would have happened to Britain or France (where the reaction may have actually been stronger and more unified) or Germany.

Is it the fault of the Members of Congress? In part. They were cowards to not stand up to the Executive, but on some level I understand. It happened very fast with a lot of pressure. Even the best people made the wrong vote--many for the wrong reason (to keep constituent support) and many for the evil reason (to reap benefits from the actions), and I'm sure some just didn't know what to do under the pressure.



And Bush is not stupid--well, maybe--but everything that he or his people have done has been calculated and profitable. Bush is no Harding, believe me.

I like to believe that he doesn't reflect the American perspective, and that his success in doing what he has done reflects the general political passivity of the general population of any country. It's not analogous to the German population during Hitler by any means.

 

[AmerikazMost]

By the way...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03cnd-veto.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[PuffnScruff]

By the way...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03cnd-veto.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

it's not like that wasn't expected. congress put 30 billion more in the bill than the he had asked for. every time in the past that congress has put extra pork and tens of billions of dollars more in the bills they have been asked to do so it has got a veto. for a bunch of politicians that were last year screaming about out of control spending they sure don't seem to mind it this year.

the bill proposed $35-billion expansion of taxpayer-funded insurance made possible by a huge tax increase on tobacco users many of whom are poor, burdening the same families the program is suposed to help.

one of the things pointed out in this, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119094410979842201.html , article about how people are getting it wrong on this, especially the media,

“Naturally, however, there's a budget sleight-of-hand,” “Known as a ‘funding cliff,’ the yearly Schip layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65% below current funding levels. This helps ‘score’ the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls.”

interestingly, four presidential candidates abstained from voting: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Joe Biden (D-Dela.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas).

Bush wanted to expand SCHIP by about $5 billion over the next five years (a 20-percent funding increase) as opposed to the bill passed by the Senate and House, which would have added $35 billion over the same period (a 140-percent increase).

the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] reports, for example, that 77 percent of children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the federal poverty level already have private health insurance.

the original intent of SCHIP was to provide health insurance for poor children. the congressional expansion, however, would help cover children in families with incomes of more than $60,000 in some cases, even up to $83,000 in extreme cases. the median household income is a little more than $48,201.

 

[AmerikazMost]

it's not like that wasn't expected. congress put 30 billion more in the bill than the he had asked for. every time in the past that congress has put extra pork and tens of billions of dollars more in the bills they have been asked to do so it has got a veto. for a bunch of politicians that were last year screaming about out of control spending they sure don't seem to mind it this year.

the bill proposed $35-billion expansion of taxpayer-funded insurance made possible by a huge tax increase on tobacco users many of whom are poor, burdening the same families the program is suposed to help.

one of the things pointed out in this, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119094410979842201.html , article about how people are getting it wrong on this, especially the media,

“Naturally, however, there's a budget sleight-of-hand,” “Known as a ‘funding cliff,’ the yearly Schip layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65% below current funding levels. This helps ‘score’ the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls.”

interestingly, four presidential candidates abstained from voting: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Joe Biden (D-Dela.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas).

Bush wanted to expand SCHIP by about $5 billion over the next five years (a 20-percent funding increase) as opposed to the bill passed by the Senate and House, which would have added $35 billion over the same period (a 140-percent increase).

the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] reports, for example, that 77 percent of children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the federal poverty level already have private health insurance.

the original intent of SCHIP was to provide health insurance for poor children. the congressional expansion, however, would help cover children in families with incomes of more than $60,000 in some cases, even up to $83,000 in extreme cases. the median household income is a little more than $48,201.

I actually figured you would come in and say all of this. The bill is just really a political ploy to ensure the veto and make Bush look bad for doing it, which truthfully it does.

Really, the point I was trying to make (which, in retrospect, could not have been construed by what I posted alone) was that this administration has almost zero concern for the impoverished of this country.

Now Puff, I know we're not going to agree on this concerning the health issue, but private insurance just won't cut it in the U.S. There needs to be at the very least a public alternative in a country with rising health prices and rising income gaps. S-CHIP may not be the way to do it, but it couldn't hurt.



Tobacco taxes should be raised regardless though.

 

[musolini]

911 was all in the plan. its not like they used their own people to do it. they just let it happen cause it would be GOOD for the country, or at least some of the people like bush.

is that a wooden knife sir!?!, better take this stainless steal one sir. good day.

funny 911 facts. no jews in the trade center, while it normally was filled with jews. the gold was gone just before the planes crashed in the towers. buildings were set up with bombs to make them go down fluidly and not crash into other buildings. pentagon wasnt even hit by a plane. and what else not.

 

[PuffnScruff]

I actually figured you would come in and say all of this. The bill is just really a political ploy to ensure the veto and make Bush look bad for doing it, which truthfully it does.

Really, the point I was trying to make (which, in retrospect, could not have been construed by what I posted alone) was that this administration has almost zero concern for the impoverished of this country.

Now Puff, I know we're not going to agree on this concerning the health issue, but private insurance just won't cut it in the U.S. There needs to be at the very least a public alternative in a country with rising health prices and rising income gaps. S-CHIP may not be the way to do it, but it couldn't hurt.



Tobacco taxes should be raised regardless though.

i know that your views on the issue could not be seen just by your post alone but i wanted others to see what the media isn't reporting and isn't told in that article

i agree health care needs fixing but i don't think a free health care system like canada would do it

911 was all in the plan. its not like they used their own people to do it. they just let it happen cause it would be GOOD for the country, or at least some of the people like bush.

is that a wooden knife sir!?!, better take this stainless steal one sir. good day.

funny 911 facts. no jews in the trade center, while it normally was filled with jews. the gold was gone just before the planes crashed in the towers. buildings were set up with bombs to make them go down fluidly and not crash into other buildings. pentagon wasnt even hit by a plane. and what else not.

ok, you are in idiot. no jews in the wtc? yea go read up on the real facts. about 11 percent of the people that died in ther wtf were jewish. if you spent half the time reading up on the real facts instead of the pseudo facts put out there by conspiracy theorists you might actually learn a thing or two. how anyone could say the pentagon wasnt hit by a plane when there are tons of pictures of plane debre and parts all over the internet is beyond me. i have been trying really hard not to call people names in the section of the board but when it comes to this topic it is hard not to do that. you are fucking idiot. you can post up any topic about CTs regarding 9/11 and i will debunk or debate every single one and make you look stupid

 

[S O F I]

There is no excuse for not passing the S-CHIP bill. You know you're fucking up when you have republican senators disagreeing with you.

 

[PuffnScruff]

actually you have to look at who those senators are. those senators, at least the ones i have seen so far, are not really considered to be conservative but actually more to the left than they are the right.

as i posted, i think the democrats that didn't vote for it speak bigger volumes

 

[AmerikazMost]

There is no excuse for not passing the S-CHIP bill. You know you're fucking up when you have republican senators disagreeing with you.

It's also the safe move. There isn't any person who doesn't think children shouldn't be insured. I'm sure they'll be able to use that in their next campaign.

There are probably better ways of doing it though.