Is Bush the Worst President in American History?

[kluge]

<p>Well, here’s what I know the founding fathers all agreed upon, because they signed it at the end:

Preamble.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

Then, blah, blah, blah…As it turns out, every legislator, as well as the President and VP are elected by - the people. And if we don’t like any of the things that are in the Constitution:

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …

So what I read is that the ultimate authority for the constitution is - “We the People”; the responsibility for running the country is placed in the hands of people elected by - “We the People”, and if we want to amend the constitution, “We the People” can do it.
What about that makes this “not a democracy?”</p>

[w1cked]

<p>Here:</p>

<p>*“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”
James Madison Federalist 10.</p>

<p>“There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual”*
James Madison Federalist 10.</p>

<p>*“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide”
John Adams</p>

<p>“It is…as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a democracy as against the king in a monarchy”
John Adams</p>

<p>“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos”
John Marshall</p>

<p>“We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”
Alexander Hamilton</p>

<p>A democracy is … “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”
Benjamin Franklin</p>

<p>“to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
Article IV, Section IV</p>

<p>“Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses”
**H.L. Mencken<a href=“:”>/b</a> )</p>

<p>Tell me, do you pledge “To the democracy, for which it stands”, or “to the republic”? Is there a song called “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”, or is there one called “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy”?</p>

<p>You know what democracy is? It is the city states of ancient Greece, where you could be ostracized, or even put to death if you went against norms. It is the Weimar Republic (no, it was not a constitutional republic, before you point it out), which elected Adolf Hitler. It is Palestine in 2005, which voted the terrorist organization HAMAS into place.</p>

<p>Of course, you cannot even make the case that America is a democracy. Does it appear once in the Constitution?</p>

[kluge]

<p>It always cracks me up when people get all exercised over the assertion that “America is a Republic, dammit, not a democracy!” - as if they are actually making a point that means something and when it’s pointed out that America is, in fact, a democratic, federal, republic, they feel the need to define “democracy” in a way which makes them right. What’s the point?

democracy:
n 1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

• Kind of hard to argue with that as a good basic description of the United States, eh? In fact, between “democracy” and “republic” - both of which are equally correct - republic is the less specific and instructive term. There are lots of kinds of “republics”. This ain’t ancient Greece.</p>

[w1cked]

<p>Can some admin please just delete my posts in this topic? I just came to the realization that I am having a one sided conversation with people with no knowledge of history. I prefer to leave them in their blissful state of ignorance.</p>

[filler]

<p>This is one sickening thread. Isn’t Huffington Post enough of a garbage heap without having to import all of it, off-topic, here to CC??</p>

[filler]

<p>I grew up in, probably, the bottom of the top quintile in the '60’s and '70’s. Now our family is in, probably, the top of the bottom quintile. But because of material progress and a somewhat-freer economy, our family lives now as well as may family did when I was growing up!</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>For the most part, w1cked, your life experience may be limited to the era of GWB. For those who are a bit older, our life experiences have been a little wider. The erosion of many of the things you see as normal is not normal to many of us. Be careful with History, History is made by people to suit their own purposes.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Funny, Wicked, but for some of us, the 50’s and 60’s aren’t history, they’re part of our lives, experiences that inform our current attitudes.</p>

<p>And fwiw, I’ve probably forgotten more history than you’ll ever know.</p>

[carlmom]

<p>Wicked: Those who believe they know the most often know the least. That’s what my blissful ignorance of history has taught me.</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>Count #6. (from another thread) The Republic can’t even get an honest debt collector for our tax cheats, deadbeats, and evaders. </p>

<p>USTODAY 04/04/2006
<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-05-03-irs-collection-usat_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-05-03-irs-collection-usat_x.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>IRS plan to use private tax collectors runs into snags
Posted 5/3/2006 10:53 PM ET by Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>LOL! No knowledge of history! LOL!</p>

<p>I have had several such LOLs on this thread, by people who purport to “know and understand” more than those of us who question the rapidly declining status quo.</p>

<p>One more…LOL!</p>

[texas137]

<p>check out the countdown clock with the time until the end of the Bush presidency. Currently 990 days, 21 hours, 41 minutes, plus seconds:
<a href=“http://www.backwardsbush.com/[/url]”>http://www.backwardsbush.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[originaloog]

<p>Headline on Bloomberg.com</p>

<p>Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on Rich</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Well, as long as you are making up headlines, let me take a stab at a more realistic version of what the headline should be:</p>

<p>“Republicans vote to continue the vibrant economy which has benefited all by voting down tax increases proposed by Dems”</p>

[kluge]

<p>I tell you what, FF - how about we make a deal: I’ll suck up to Bush if you or your kid(s) will pay my kids’ share of the national debt, okay? Let’s see, that comes to $74,000 and change - with interest accruing daily.</p>

<p>I think I can master the “What, me worry?” mentality of the Republican faithful if you come up with the cash.</p>

[originaloog]

<p>FF here is the link to my made up headline. looks like Bloomberg News to me!</p>

<p><a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg;

[fundingfather]

<p>oog, it would have helped if you had provided the link to begin with. When you go to the Bloomberg site and link to the news, this is what you are presented:
<a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg;

<p>You must be getting the special feed for Dems.</p>

[driver]

<p>That’s really funny, FF. Both versions are by the same writer. The one you linked is straight news. The other one seems to be an editorial or a blog commentary.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>kluge, your kids and mine have a chance to be employed if we keep the economy strong. Low taxes are the way to do that. And that is not just me saying that; that is the view of a Nobel Prize winner:
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005800[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005800&lt;/a&gt;

This analysis has important implications for policy–and not just for Europeans, but for the U.S. as well. For example, much has been made during this election season about whether the current administration’s tax cuts were good or bad for the economy, but that is more a political question than a policy consideration and it misses the point. The real issue is about whether it is better to tweak the economy with short-lived stimulus plans or to establish an efficient tax system with low tax rates that do not change with the political climate.
What does this mean for U.S. tax policy? It means that we should stop focusing our attention on the recent tax cuts and, instead, start thinking about tax rates. And that means that we should roll back the 1993 tax rate increases and re-establish those from the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Just as they did in the late 1980s, and just as they would in Europe, these lower rates would increase the labor supply, output would grow and tax revenues would increase.

Some say that the 1993 tax-rate hike was responsible for erasing this country’s debt problems because it increased government revenues. This is false. The ratio of U.S. debt to gross national income continued to increase in the years following those rate hikes and did not fall until the fortuitous boom that occurred in the late '90s. The high-tech boom meant that people worked more, output increased, incomes climbed and tax revenues followed suit. You cannot tax your way to that sort of prosperity.

You may want to create a European economy for your kids, but not me.</p>

[kluge]

<p>FF - are taxes ever too low? Is there ever a point at which borrowing to meet expenditures instead of meeting them through current taxation is a problem? Can the process of juicing the economy short-term by lowering tax rates ever hit bottom? One more question - has there ever been a point in American history when the economy was as strong or stronger than it is now and taxes were higher? I know you have a knee jerk reaction to the subject - I’m just curious to see if you are willing to actually think about the substance instead of repeating sound bites.</p>

<p>Oh, and my bad - it’s $84,000 in debt for my three kids, not $74,000. Republican debt. I know you don’t care - but I’ll remind you anyway.</p>