Conservatives in government are moving quickly to socialize the US economy. The American taxpayer has bought the world's largest insurance company, AIG. The tax and spend president is trying to fast track a bailout plan allowing tax payers to buy up bad debt like there's no tomorrow. Because bad debt is something we don't seem to have enough of.

The Bush Administration's bailout plan has pushed the price of oil up a whopping $25 a barrel, as the dollar has fallen to about 65 % the value of a Euro. Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley are being brought under increased regulatory scrutiny (which is an admission of failure for laisez faire market types) in exchange for the ability to go straight to consumers to raise capitol.

``The decision marks the end of Wall Street as we have known it,'' said William Isaac, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. ``It's too bad.''

All the growth neocons have been talking about for the past 7 years is purely imaginary - and reality has come knocking. Yet John McCain wants to gamble your retirement in the stock market, because the market has been doing so well. Just like Bush pushed in both terms to gamble Social Security on Lehman Brothers and WorldCom stocks.

Thankfully, Americans aren't forced to suffer having access to health care - even though the American government bought, and looks for all intents and purposes to finance, the world's largest insurance company. The average person on the street gets the worst of both worlds!

As I posted in another thread where you posted, "Why do you spout off this BS"?

Originally Posted by colbyt

As I posted in another thread where you posted, "Why do you spout off this BS"?

So many possible answers to this question, but I'll hazard a guess. Its the slippery slope theory.

1) To acknowledge the financial crisis was caused by loosened regulations means to blame the person who signed those regulations into law for the financial crisis. Bill Clinton.

2) To acknowledge Bill Clinton can be blamed for the worst American financial crisis since the great depression means a president's legacy can dramatically change through the lens of history and the long term impact of their policies.

3) To acknowledge a presidents legacy can change is to acknowledge that George W. Bush may one day be viewed as the greatest president and visionary of our time.

In other words, he needs to focus on his version of the story, no matter how fictional, to avert a complete mental and nervous breakdown. Nobody really wants to see Learning Newbie at the next DNC with his AK47, unloading clip after clip into the crowd before turning the gun on himself. Better to leave the fragile bubble he calls "reality" in tact. Carry on.

Originally Posted by cbwm

3) To acknowledge a presidents legacy can change is to acknowledge that George W. Bush may one day be viewed as the greatest president and visionary of our time.

Just to set the mood: I am not attacking you or Bush or defending Clinton who whoever. I just want to listen to what you have to say. (i don't like violent politic discussions. I would much rather have a respectful constructive discussion where people listen to each other)

Why do you think Bush may be viewed as the greatest president and visionary of our time?

Just curious

Originally Posted by juliensimon

Why do you think Bush may be viewed as the greatest president and visionary of our time?

I don't have a crystal ball looking 40 or even 8 years into the future so how could I possibly know what hindsight at the Bush years might reveal? My point is that neither do the rest of the unwashed and babbling masses repeating the anti-Bush mantras. Clinton was unquestionably our most popular president since Reagan, and is often associated with the financial "good times" of the internet bubble. If our financial markets crash into a worldwide depression and historians determine it was the law Clinton signed into place that caused the entire thing, I guarantee you our children's children will read about the bonehead Clinton who caused a world wide depression, rather than the sax playing free wheeling Clinton who banged his interns in the oval office.

Bush may be remembered as the man who gave birth to real Democracy in the middle east, or any number of other things. History will tell.

Remember how Nixon left office in scandal yet now is seen as one of the great international relations presidents?? Which, of course, may change again depending on how our relations evolve with China..

I just find it humorous that some people like to think that generational change can be narrowed down and blamed on specific administrations when problems like these tend to evolve over decades.. 10 years ago people were warning that the fannie and freddie issue was coming.. Yet a previous administration made it a mandate that mortgage companies find more creative ways to get lower income people in to homes.. He was hailed as a hero at the time for making it easier to allow poor people to by homes that they couldn't afford..

Now we are seeing the collapse of that idea because of deregulation that had previously kept mortgage and insurance separate, a downturn in the US economy, and upswing in the global economy, (not that all of Europe joining together to create the Euro happened in a vacum either), and a change in focus in international relations (from bombing eastern block nations to bombing middle eastern nations)..

For some people to think that the actions of an administration end the day the new one takes office is weak minded propaganda spouted without taking long tern history in to account..