USA better or worse now then it was 6-10 years ago?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
:rolleyes: The world hates us, and that doesn’t count ? Being “westernized” makes someone our ally ? Interesting; I didn’t realize we were allied to Nazi Germany and Great Britain in WW2.
[/quote]
I’m trying to go home, so I’ll try to make this quick. Is there any Western power since WW2 who has broken off all diplomatic ties with us? Are we embargoing any western nation other than Cuba? No. That’s what counts. Bullshit rhetoric to gain political capital is still bullshit. Why do you continue to undermine the US’s place in the world? I’m actually suprised that the world isn’t more worse off than it already is, seeing how the balance of power is so immensely in the US’s favor.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Any evidence of that ? As far as I’m concerned, Reagan began the transformation of America into something resembling an overlarge, nuclear armed banana republic. A nation of the impovershed and the very rich; a far right nation devoted to corruption and brutality and religious fanaticsm.
[/quote]
How do you sleep at night? If you look at the leading economic indicators are economy is very strong. We have the largest economy we have ever had. Unemployment is low (last I looked 4.6-4.7% which is near the optimum level of unemployment, much better than those socialist countries). We’re not investing in wild bubble speculative investments. We have positive population growth rate. Inflation is low, steady and stable. The economy looks fantastic compared to an economy that has suffered in the last decade: tech bubble collapse, outsourcing boom (well, generally, not considered to be a detrimenet, but public perception of it is poor), war, depression, and Katrina, to name a few things).

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

And no, I don’t think America is better off; I think America is on an irreversable slide towards collapse. The sooner the better.
[/QUOTE]
And, just when did you think that America was better off? I would think that general political apathy (lack of voting, for example) would show that things will continue as they are.

22

[QUOTE=Oregon sunshine]
Not us.
[/QUOTE]

Who’s ‘us’, kimo sabe? The question is about the US as a whole. If its a personal question, then I would have to say that I’m better off today than I wasn 6-10 years ago. Instead of working for someone else, and making money for them, I now work for myself…and keep all the money.

I just find it interesting though that the OP chose a 6-10 year time frame…squarely in the Clinton period, but not at the beginning of the Clinton period (which wasn’t so hot). IOW, I smell a fix…and perhaps an agenda. Be like asking folks in 1933 if the country was better or worse off 6 to 10 years earlier. Well doh! Of course they were better off…there was a huge boom going on, and it was before the bust. Sort of fixing the dice there, no?

-XT

23

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Who’s ‘us’, kimo sabe? The question is about the US as a whole. If its a personal question, then I would have to say that I’m better off today than I wasn 6-10 years ago. Instead of working for someone else, and making money for them, I now work for myself…and keep all the money.

I just find it interesting though that the OP chose a 6-10 year time frame…squarely in the Clinton period, but not at the beginning of the Clinton period (which wasn’t so hot). IOW, I smell a fix…and perhaps an agenda. Be like asking folks in 1933 if the country was better or worse off 6 to 10 years earlier. Well doh! Of course they were better off…there was a huge boom going on, and it was before the bust. Sort of fixing the dice there, no?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

xtisme: I"m sorry that the comparison was with the years 6-10 years ago bothers you so much…if you can put aside your arrogance for a moment, the current outcries hear all around the world is that Bush is one of the worse presidents we ever had…ruining the entire fabric of our country and so on.

Good things about the Bush regime?: He and many of his conservative supporters has supported Israel since he took office…he helped keep the capital gains tax lower and the death tax deductions higher…I do not like his anti abortion stance…his anti stem cell stance and his super religious stance…

He has been called the ultimate of liars…frankly, I don’t believe there is such a thing as an honest politician no matter what side of the aisle he/she sits on.

The world is much more complex, xtisme than it was 70 years ago…comparing the past 6 years with the 4 years before then makes more sense to me.

24

Flatness

25

[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]

For those of you who believe the USA is better off under George W. Bush’s
administration, would you please state reasons to support your opinion?
[/QUOTE]

Fewer blowjobs received by high public officials. Everything else pales in comparision.

26

[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
xtisme: I"m sorry that the comparison was with the years 6-10 years ago bothers you so much…if you can put aside your arrogance for a moment, the current outcries hear all around the world is that Bush is one of the worse presidents we ever had…ruining the entire fabric of our country and so on.
[/QUOTE]

No sweat. If I let stupid questions bother me I probably wouldn’t be here. As for arrogance…yeah, I have more than my share. I don’t see how its showing by me pointing out what I have, but hey, if it floats your boat, go for it.

As for whether or not Bush is perceived by The World™ as the worst president in our history…well, forgive me if I simply say ‘Meh’. That spelled M E H btw. I could give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks is or is not our best/worst president, or what their opinion is of Bush. I’ll form my own opinion, thanks. BTW, thats NOT the question you asked in your OP…though it wasn’t hard to puzzle out thats what you were REALLY getting at.

Which is why, in my ‘arrogance’ I pointed out that it was a loaded question or dubious worth. Why didn’t you simply ask the question you wanted to ask? ‘Is Bush the worst president in US history?’ Or perhaps ‘Is the US in worst shape now than in any other time in its history?’ Or maybe ‘Is Bush in fact evil incarnate, the Devil…or just a minor demon from one of the outer circles of hell?’

[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
Good things about the Bush regime?: He and many of his conservative supporters has supported Israel since he took office…he helped keep the capital gains tax lower and the death tax deductions higher…I do not like his anti abortion stance…his anti stem cell stance and his super religious stance…
[/QUOTE]

This again isn’t the question you asked. You simply wanted to compare the US today to the peak of the goodness under Clinton. I’m not sure what the answer means to you…seems like kind of a silly question to me, as I pointed out with my analogy.

BTW, since you seem to be laboring under the impression I’m defending Bush here, let me point out that in your rant list above, I mostly agree with you…those are all black marks against this administration in my mind as well. In addition, I’m not overly fond of how Bush et al has handled the economy, nor am I pleased by our Iraqi adventure.

[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
The world is much more complex, xtisme than it was 70 years ago…comparing the past 6 years with the 4 years before then makes more sense to me.
[/QUOTE]

The world is more complex today than it was 70 years ago? Um…where do you get that startling impression from? Today the world is quite simple compared to how things were when the Euro’s were a force to be reckoned with, when there were several world powers vieing for top honors. The ME? It was vastly more complex when it was even more tribally oriented, but also under the various Euro’s thumbs. The US? I’d have to say we’ve faced much greater challenges than having Bush the Bozo in charge…and have been in much greater straights. Little things like the great wars and Vietnam, not to mention that little dust up during the 1860’s.

Makes one wonder how old you are, Oliver, if the last 6-10 years seems like its overly complex, or that its the only real active period in US history to make comparisons of…

-XT

27

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
…The war in Iraq has been handled badly, but it was/is not just necessary but critical…
[/QUOTE]

Critical to the pursuit of what ends?

28

[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
the current outcries hear all around the world is that Bush is one of the worse presidents we ever had
[/quote]
Well, if the rest of the world doesn’t like him, they can vote against him in the next election.

… Of course, he won’t be running. And “the rest of the world” doesn’t get a vote in American elections. But maybe there’s something to that.

I have no idea what this means, other than “I think he’s doing some unnamed thing that I don’t agree with.”

Well, Heaven forfend! How can Bush support Israel when we all know that it’s a country run by Joooos

And how has this effected us negatively? I ask because you present it as something that’s clearly made things worse for us. I doubt seriously that any of us have felt any negative effect from these things.

Me neither. But as far as I can tell, he hasn’t made abortion illegal, has he? In fact, abortion is just as readily available as it was 6 to 10 years ago.

Again, I am in favor of stem cell research. But Bush is the first President ever to give federal funds for stem cell research. He just limited that research to existing stem cell lines. So while we can all say that he didn’t support it as strenuously as we would have liked, we can’t say that his stance has made us worse off than 6 to 10 years ago, because he’s funded it more than was done 6 to 10 years ago, and we’re deriving greater benefits from it than 6 to 10 years ago.

And how has this effected us, exactly? Because if it’s just offensive to you that people are religious, I’d point out that the President that was in office 6 to 10 years ago went to church on Sunday, too.

So was the guy that was in office 6 to 10 years go. Although again, I doubt either accusation effected us much.

The world is no more complex now than it was a decade ago. It’s changed and technology has increased exponentially, but not necessarily in ways that make our lives materially worse or more complex. Human nature is the same as it was 6 to 10 years ago. Moreover, the changes have little or nothing to do with Bush.

29

I appreciate the opinions pro and con of why you feel we are better or worse off now than we were 6-10 years ago.

I tried to present the markedly opposing opinions that a discussion group had on the above topic…I’m not arguing pro or con…just presenting the views that I remember were given to support each side.

For my 2 cents, I believe the answer is based on a matter of opinion and very few people are going to change their opinion no matter what responses are given.

30

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
Well, Heaven forfend! How can Bush support Israel when we all know that it’s a country run by Joooos
[/quote]
It drags us into yet more conflicts that aren’t our business. I don’t care if Israel is run by Scientologists.

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
And how has this effected us negatively? I ask because you present it as something that’s clearly made things worse for us.
[/quote]
By concentrating yet more wealth at the top.

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
Again, I am in favor of stem cell research. But Bush is the first President ever to give federal funds for stem cell research. He just limited that research to existing stem cell lines. So while we can all say that he didn’t support it as strenuously as we would have liked, we can’t say that his stance has made us worse off than 6 to 10 years ago, because he’s funded it more than was done 6 to 10 years ago, and we’re deriving greater benefits from it than 6 to 10 years ago.
[/quote]
That is a a lie, yours or that of whomever you listen to is the question. He chose useless ( or nonexistant IIRC in some cases ) stem cells for his “permitted” research, in a rather blatant attempt to sabotage it. Anything done in the field has been in spite of his malice, not because of his benvolence.

31

Well, I think we are worse off for one reason, 9/11. It changed everything and the world we live in now, and in my miind it is just not as nice a place. There is more fear, more fear mongering, greater threats and greater abuse of power to combat those threats. I am financially beter off, but the country now lives under a cloud where fear seems to be the dictating principal of our lives.

32

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Did you? Thought not…
[/QUOTE]

Oh, the irony.

Just call me Knorf, the properly chastised.

33

I think we are significantly worse off…although it may not appear as dramatic now because a lot of the ways in which we are worse off have not yet come home to roost. For example, the economy looks pretty good in some ways (although mainly for those near the top) because we are now mortgaged to the hilt…on a fiscal course that is completely unsustainable.

Our policies, e.g. in Iraq, are breeding terrorists so fast that I imagine there is no way Al Qaeda and other budding terrorist organizations can keep up with all the fresh recruits.

And, furthermore, the U.S. is losing our moral authority in the world as we become a nation that has secret detentions, kangaroo courts, and torture. (Just read a piece tonight that “waterboarding” is a technique that we actually got from the Khmer Rouge, who needless to say, were not so interested in extracting good information as they were in extracting confessions without regard to whether they were true or false.)

I actually never imagined that one President could cause so much long term damage to our nation as this one has…and his legacy of that damage is likely to long outlive his term of office.

34

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
Well, if the rest of the world doesn’t like him, they can vote against him in the next election.

… Of course, he won’t be running. And “the rest of the world” doesn’t get a vote in American elections.
[/QUOTE]

Ah well, since the ballot box option is out, I guess they’ll have to go with the Armalite then. I wouldn’t mind so much, except that I work for an american company and many of my colleagues are in the firing line when those furriners decide to demonstrate their displeasure by destroying some american assets.

35

They’re not attacking Americans because of their displeasure with George Bush. They were attacking Americans long before he got into office, and they’ll be attacking them long after he gets out.

36

[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
They further point out that the great majority of senators who voted AGAINST English becoming our official language were democrats…catering to the potential Hispanic votes in their individual states.
[/QUOTE]

Why is that relevant to the discussion?

37

For a very judicious and well-researched analysis of how and why we are worse off, see American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, by Kevin Phillips.

38

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
They’re not attacking Americans because of their displeasure with George Bush. They were attacking Americans long before he got into office, and they’ll be attacking them long after he gets out.
[/QUOTE]
Really ?

[QUOTE=Boston Globe]
WASHINGTON – New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank – both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States – have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.

The studies, which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush’s claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the ''central front" in a battle against the United States.

''The terrorists know that the outcome [in Iraq] will leave them emboldened or defeated," Bush said in his nationally televised address on the war at Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month. ''So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction." The US military is fighting the terrorists in Iraq, he repeated this month, ''so we do not have to face them here at home."

However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.

A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

''Only a few were involved in past Islamic insurgencies in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Chechnya," the Israeli study says. Out of the 154 fighters analyzed, only a handful had past associations with terrorism, including six who had fathers who fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, said the report, compiled by the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel.

American intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, and terrorism specialists paint a similar portrait of the suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq: Prior to the Iraq war, they were not Islamic extremists seeking to attack the United States, as Al Qaeda did four years ago, but are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from ''crusaders" and ''infidels."

''The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created," said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.
[/QUOTE]

39

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Really ?
[/QUOTE]
I’m willing to listen to counter-arguments, but you’d have to explain to me how Bush and/or his policies caused al Qaeda to bomb hotels where American troops were staying in Yemen in 1992, possibly shot down a US helicopter in Somalia in 1993, bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, planned to blow up a flight from the Phillipines in (I believe) 1993, possibly bomb a US military base in Riyadh in 1995, bomb the Khobar Towers in 1996, blow up the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, plan to bomb the LA airport in December 1999, planned to attack the USS Sullivans in January 2000, attack the USS Cole in October 2000, and begin preparations and training for 9/11, all of which occured before GW Bush got into office.

But yes, I’m sure those are his fault, too.

As for the alleged justification that the terrorists are radicalized by the presence of infidels in their Arab lands, as stated in your link here:

Hmm, where have I heard that before?

[concentrates really hard]

… Oh, yeah. It came from Osama bin Laden. In 1995 (emphasis added).

1996:

Later in 1996:

1997:

1998:

Again in 1998:

And again in 1998:

So I’m willing to listen to arguments as to how Bush is responsible for this desire to rid Arab lands of infidels, but it appears to have started nearly a decade before the Iraq war, so you’ve got your work cut out for you on that one.

40

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
They’re not attacking Americans because of their displeasure with George Bush. They were attacking Americans long before he got into office, and they’ll be attacking them long after he gets out.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, but George is the guy who took a small campfire and dumped 50 gallons of gasoline on top of it.