NationStates Jolt Archive

So, it's been slightly more than 50 days since Obama has been in office. All I remember about Bush in the first part of his presidency, until being reminded about him on 9/11, was a bunch of vacations. Without getting involved in what you think of the quality of productivity (who am I kidding?), which president had a more productive 1st 50 days?

remember the show 'that's my bush'?

The only thing I remember from the early days of the Bush Administration was John Ashcroft having the statue of the Spirit of Justice covered up.

In hindsight, I should have realized what they were hinting at. ;)

remember the show 'that's my bush'?

Ah, yes. Both the show and the porno.

The only thing I remember from the early days of the Bush Administration was John Ashcroft having the statue of the Spirit of Justice covered up.

In hindsight, I should have realized what they were hinting at. ;)

How can you deal out justice if you have a stone breast fetish?

How can you deal out justice if you have a stone breast fetish?

No. How can you deal out justice if you don't have a stone breast fetish?

No. How can you deal out justice if you don't have a stone breast fetish?

This is why you are wise.

So, does anyone actually know what Bush did in his first 50 days?

So, does anyone actually know what Bush did in his first 50 days?

day 1: avoided flying anarchist protesters

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/nyc/image/12/11_1.jpg

So, does anyone actually know what Bush did in his first 50 days?

I bet he took vacation time.

http: //www .presidency.ucsb.edu/

There ya go, go see for yourself...for any President.

remember the show 'that's my bush'?

Heard of it, never saw it.

Any good?

Heard of it, never saw it.

Any good?

it was a simpler, more innocent time, when bush was just a joke who only got to be president at all due to a fluke. i don't think it works once he started vying for the early lead in this century's war crimes. but i liked it when it was on.

it was a simpler, more innocent time, when bush was just a joke who only got to be president at all due to a fluke. i don't think it works once he started vying for the early lead in this century's war crimes.

Yeah, that's true.

but i liked it when it was on.

Was it ever released on DVD?

In fairness to George W. Bush, he didn't inherit the presidency from George W. Bush. That leaves quite a bit more work to do.

The only thing I remember from the early days of the Bush Administration was John Ashcroft having the statue of the Spirit of Justice covered up.
Srsly?

Wow.

Srsly?

Wow.

Yes, apparently he was distracted by the naked stone boobies.

Masturbating too much to get anything done.

Yes, apparently he was distracted by the naked stone boobies.

We have to stop justice in the name of Conservative Values!

We have to stop justice in the name of Conservative Values!

The warning signs were right in front of us. :tongue:

I voted for Obama on this poll because he has in fact done more in his first fifty days then I remember Bush doing. However, I should qualify that by saying that Obama has been announcing at least one controversial action item a week (sometimes two) that ticks half the country off (including me). So Bush was less controversial - at least in his first 50 days.

Hang on - You mean bush did work apart from throwing darts at a map?

In fairness to George W. Bush, he didn't inherit the presidency from George W. Bush. That leaves quite a bit more work to do.

That's not fair. Bush totally inhereted the his first term when he started his second term. Maybe we should compare Bush's second first 50 days to Obama's. That's much more fair.

Masturbating too much to get anything done.
He should've stuck to jacking off.

That's not fair. Bush totally inhereted the his first term when he started his second term. Maybe we should compare Bush's second first 50 days to Obama's. That's much more fair.

True. Let's see, what did George Bush do during the first fifty days of his second term?
*2004 montage plays through New Limacon's head to the song "Hey Ya!"*
Okay, he

Went on a campaign to privatize Social Security, a plan debated over intensively by the twenty-eight people in the US who thought it legitimate enough to listen to.
Umm...
Was this when he choked on a preztel?

There you go, the three most important things of the first fifty days.

There are 4 people so far who think Bush did more... either they are little naughty pranksters or they believe it to be so. Can you enlighten me?


Yeah... yeah, I could go look it up but that would mean typing and searching and then reading or clicking the link that was offered earlier and you know, just tell me.

Bush didn't do much in the first 50 days. Obama seems to be trying to do too much too soon and few, if any, seem to have much to do with fixing the economic mess.

Bush: didn't do much.
Obama: Confused about FDR's presidency. FDR DID have the luxury of choosing between focusing on the Depression and fighting a war that wouldn't start until years later. FDR didn't start his New Deal programs until after trying to fix the Depression.

Bush: Did the tax cuts happen yet?
Obama: spent a lot of money. Pork-related pork spending.

Bush: too little done.
Obama: too much being done for anything to be done.

In conclusion, neither was really productive in the first 50 days of their respective presidencies.
Bush didn't do much. Obama's trying to fix the less important problems and is acting more like President Hoover than President F. Roosevelt, the guy he's trying to mimic.

Obama did more, but with negative results.

If we see him as Obama, he's unproductive.

If we see him as Hussein, he's very productive.

When did we lose that surveillance plane in China?

If we see him as Obama, he's unproductive.

If we see him as Hussein, he's very productive.
What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

It seems like he overheard talking points at a loud party, doesn't know exactly what they were or what they mean but decided to repeat what he thinks they were anyway.

What are you talking about?

A snarkier, somewhat more sophisticated variant of the New Mitanni archetype at first glance.

Honestly don't remember Bush's first 50 days. Probably because since he followed Clinton he didn't have a massive pile of shit to clean up. Just a massive pile of soiled dresses.

From the site Twinpappia suggested:

Tuesday March 10 marked the midway point of the traditional 100 day “honeymoon period” newly elected presidents experience following their inauguration. Through day 50, President Obama has continued to issue orders at a pace exceeding most other modern presidents (F. Roosevelt – present) who ascended to the presidency following an administration controlled by the opposition party. When excluding administrative orders and other non-policy related actions by Franklin Roosevelt, President Obama far exceeds his predecessors. Day 49 (March 9) was especially significant as Obama’s three actions generated significant news coverage.

Honestly don't remember Bush's first 50 days. Probably because since he followed Clinton he didn't have a massive pile of shit to clean up. Just a massive pile of soiled dresses.

However, what about Clinton's first 50 days, or Bush Sr's first 50 days? The last president I can think of with a significant event in their first 50 days was Reagan, but that is because he nearly died.

I remember I was in High School when Bush Sr. was elected. I remember very early in his first year writing an article for the school newspaper entitled, "101 Ways to Waste Time in The Oval Office" in which I depicted his nearly comedic ability to avoid doing anything of actual substance during his first 100 days. In his defense, he was Reagan's veep before that, so he had very little feces to clean up that he hadn't already grown accustomed to living in.

However, what about Clinton's first 50 days, or Bush Sr's first 50 days? The last president I can think of with a significant event in their first 50 days was Reagan, but that is because he nearly died.

Clinton's first 50 days happened when I was 12. I didn't care.

Oughtn't we to wait and see if this bailout package does anything more than lines the pockets of the wealthy and causes inflation before we call it productive? Seriously?

Oughtn't we to wait and see if this bailout package does anything more than lines the pockets of the wealthy and causes inflation before we call it productive? Seriously?

No. And I'll tell you why:

If Barack Obama is the type of politician I actually considered voting for and almost did, and if he can wrangle congress into acting with responsiblity, this stimulus package will be the start of a larger and evolving strategy that will eliminate plans that didn't work as intended and adjust as the months go by. That's the kind of politician Obama seems to be. He's not going to commit for four years to a horrible strategy before deciding that maybe he ought to consider a change of tactic like some Presidents I could name. So the fact that he's begun so quickly right out of the gate on the economy, gitmo, government oversight and scientific progress are what I call pretty damn productive.

Was this when he choked on a preztel?



I thought that was 03

I voted for Obama on this poll because he has in fact done more in his first fifty days then I remember Bush doing. However, I should qualify that by saying that Obama has been announcing at least one controversial action item a week (sometimes two) that ticks half the country off (including me). So Bush was less controversial - at least in his first 50 days.

At least Obama is trying to include the right in his decisions.

What are you talking about?

Obama's trying to destroy the United States, obviously.

At least Obama is trying to include the right in his decisions.

But he only wants them to add shit to the budget. The Right is pissed because Obama doesn't care if the bill contains funds for pigsmell research (lol, pork that actually involves real pork) or other bits of useless pork. He doesn't care if the economy-"fixing" bills don't really do much economy-fixing. He doesn't care if, despite what he (Obama) claims, FDR didn't fight the Depression and WWII at the same time or institute his New Deal Commie policies during his first fifty-days. Obama's going to postpone postpone fixing this mess until his other policies are in effect and his high-popularity dwindles enough to interfere with his Society-changing.

My stance stays.
Bush tried too little. Obama tried too much. Niether got anything done, really.

But he only wants them to add shit to the budget. The Right is pissed because Obama doesn't care if the bill contains funds for pigsmell research (lol, pork that actually involves real pork) or other bits of useless pork. He doesn't care if the economy-"fixing" bills don't really do much economy-fixing. He doesn't care if, despite what he (Obama) claims, FDR didn't fight the Depression and WWII at the same time or institute his New Deal Commie policies during his first fifty-days. Obama's going to postpone postpone fixing this mess until his other policies are in effect and his high-popularity dwindles enough to interfere with his Society-changing.

My stance stays.
Bush tried too little. Obama tried too much. Niether got anything done, really.


Boy, there are a lot of assertions there that rely on nothing but paranoia.

this thread proves that the third option is the correct one. :p

Boy, there are a lot of assertions there that rely on nothing but paranoia.

Paranoia? I can list a number of cases where printing excess amounts of money resulted in massive doses of inflation, and that is what these stimuli packages are essentially being funded with is printed money. If you think I am being paranoid, then I suggest you pay a visit to Zimbabwe.

If you think I am being paranoid, then I suggest you pay a visit to Zimbabwe.

And if YOU think I'm being paranoid, then I suggest you pay a visit to Nazi Germany.

There, the hyperbole to end all hyperboles - until someone suggests a visit to 1984 Oceania.

Productive scale:




Bush 0.



Obama: -2.

Paranoia? I can list a number of cases where printing excess amounts of money resulted in massive doses of inflation, and that is what these stimuli packages are essentially being funded with is printed money. If you think I am being paranoid, then I suggest you pay a visit to Zimbabwe.

Do you not understand the concept of "taxation" or something?

Do you not understand the concept of "taxation" or something?

Ten bucks says he'll claim "taxation equals socialism".

Do you not understand the concept of "taxation" or something?

Good luck extracting an extra $3 trillion in taxes from the people to pay for all the bailouts and stimulus plans. That would just cause economic collapse.

Good luck extracting an extra $3 trillion in taxes from the people to pay for all the bailouts and stimulus plans. That would just cause economic collapse.

Actually, it doesn't take much. See, if the economy rights itself, taxes go up by the nature of them being a percentage of sales and earnings. It's not really magic.

It's funny to me that people presume the economic stimulus won't work because we can't afford it because it didn't work because we can't afford it because it didn't work...

Paranoia? I can list a number of cases where printing excess amounts of money resulted in massive doses of inflation, and that is what these stimuli packages are essentially being funded with is printed money. If you think I am being paranoid, then I suggest you pay a visit to Zimbabwe.

And that has nothing to do with his post...

Good luck extracting an extra $3 trillion in taxes from the people to pay for all the bailouts and stimulus plans. That would just cause economic collapse.
Bailouts aren't stimulus packages. You may wish to read that to which I was responding.

All the stimulus plans come out to about $1.5 trillion combined. How much of it is "extra" is debatable, a significant portion of the stimulus consists of things that would have had to be done anyways.

Actually, it doesn't take much. See, if the economy rights itself, taxes go up by the nature of them being a percentage of sales and earnings. It's not really magic.

It's funny to me that people presume the economic stimulus won't work because we can't afford it because it didn't work because we can't afford it because it didn't work...

Aaaand what evidence do you have that funding community political organizers, ditch-digging and bridges to nowhere are going to stimulate the economy?? The current crisis is a direct result of thinking that consumption=productivity, that "Service" equals "Production", and that you can get something from nothing. This 'stimulus' is all about thinking you can get something for nothing-thinking you can get wealth, from printing paper.

If the Economy rights itself, it will be in spite of, not because of all this pork-spending and dollar-devaluation.

Aaaand what evidence do you have that funding community political organizers, ditch-digging and bridges to nowhere are going to stimulate the economy??

Jesus Christ, is there a GOP talking point you didnt put in there?
The current crisis is a direct result of thinking that consumption=productivity, that "Service" equals "Production", and that you can get something from nothing. This 'stimulus' is all about thinking you can get something for nothing-thinking you can get wealth, from printing paper.
Actually, thats not what caused this crisis. Thanks for playing though.
If the Economy rights itself, it will be in spite of, not because of all this pork-spending and dollar-devaluation.
I see. "Even if the economy gets fixed, Im not giving Obama any credit, but Ill be sure he gets all the blame!"

Aaaand what evidence do you have that funding community political organizers, ditch-digging and bridges to nowhere are going to stimulate the economy?? The current crisis is a direct result of thinking that consumption=productivity, that "Service" equals "Production", and that you can get something from nothing. This 'stimulus' is all about thinking you can get something for nothing-thinking you can get wealth, from printing paper.

If the Economy rights itself, it will be in spite of, not because of all this pork-spending and dollar-devaluation.

Who the fuck gave you the idea that the money is going to come from 'just printing it'? Do you not know what a bond is?

Who the fuck gave you the idea that the money is going to come from 'just printing it'? Do you not know what a bond is?

I don't think you have been properly enlightened. Go watch Zeitgeist: Addendum, there you will learn the factual truths this truthful and factual movie presents.

I don't think you have been properly enlightened. Go watch Zeitgeist: Addendum, there you will learn the factual truths this truthful and factual movie presents.

lol.

Bailouts aren't stimulus packages. You may wish to read that to which I was responding.
There's no economic difference between bailouts and stimulus packages. In both cases the government is spending money to keep private firms from going bankrupt.

Who the fuck gave you the idea that the money is going to come from 'just printing it'? Do you not know what a bond is?
A bond is another form of taxation, except more subtle so the masses don't realize it is taxation and therefore won't complain as much.

A bond is another form of taxation, except more subtle so the masses don't realize it is taxation and therefore won't complain as much.

I am so tired of the internet's "Everyone is stupid but me" conceit. "The masses" know exactly what a fucking bond is, they're not 'being fooled by the shell game.' There might be reasonable disagreement over the cost/benefit or risk/reward, etc., but it's not some elaborate illusion. Seriously, some people need to get the fuck over themselves.

I am so tired of the internet's "Everyone is stupid but me" conceit. "The masses" know exactly what a fucking bond is, they're not 'being fooled by the shell game.' There might be reasonable disagreement over the cost/benefit or risk/reward, etc., but it's not some elaborate illusion. Seriously, some people need to get the fuck over themselves.

Teh herd just does not understand mah intellectz!

Aaaand what evidence do you have that funding community political organizers, ditch-digging and bridges to nowhere are going to stimulate the economy?? The current crisis is a direct result of thinking that consumption=productivity, that "Service" equals "Production", and that you can get something from nothing. This 'stimulus' is all about thinking you can get something for nothing-thinking you can get wealth, from printing paper.

If the Economy rights itself, it will be in spite of, not because of all this pork-spending and dollar-devaluation.

Well, first, PEOPLE dig ditches and build bridges. Not only are they REQUIRED activities we've been neglecting, activities that damage our vehicles, cause accidents, and cost us in a number of ways, but they employ people. See, in preventive maintenance, the majority of cost is labor, like an oil change. In corrective maintenance, the majority of cost is materials, like replacing the engine after not getting an oil change.

In other words, we employ more people AND save money by keeping our infrastructure, which is why no company that's successfull would allow it's building to sit at the level of disrepair this country is at.

The need for repairing our infrastructure won't go away, so we don't save money by not fixing it. So Obama is spending money that HAD to be spent. Money that employs people.

Those people make money. They buy things. Things they couldn't afford if they were unemployed. Those things are built by other workers, who now have more money. And so on. See how that works?

We don't have a shortage of resources, so, in fact, it is in our interest to keep people both consuming and working to provide goods. And Obama is doing that. You're going to have to provide a bit more of an argument than "Obama is destroying the world" to be remotely convincing.

Ten bucks says he'll claim "taxation equals socialism".

Taxation equals Socialism

Do you not understand the concept of "taxation" or something?

I do, however, please explain to me how taxation is going to fix the deficit and associated debt problem? Unless you hike taxes to the extent that a trillion dollars additional is going to come into government coffers, you are going to need other measures. Printing money is a nice one, since it also devalues the US Dollar, decreasing the amount of real money that the United States Government owes its creditors.

If you don't think that something is wrong with the US Government, then you are clearly deluded. The US Government has $53 trillion worth of liabilities and commitments to pay for, and that is a bloody fortune.

i think the more cogent question is "productive of WHAT?"

bush had a very productive term of dismantling the constitution, fallowing the example set by doing so of his father's disasterous predisesor, ronald raygun.

i havent been keeping up entirely so i don't feel qualified to judge on a totally quantitative basis. though i do seriously question the pertinence of quantity as opposed to quality, and especially quality of appearent intent.

i think the more cogent question is "productive of WHAT?"

bush had a very productive term of dismantling the constitution, fallowing the example set by doing so of his father's disasterous predisesor, ronald raygun.

i havent been keeping up entirely so i don't feel qualified to judge on a totally quantitative basis. though i do seriously question the pertinence of quantity as opposed to quality, and especially quality of appearent intent.

I agree with you on the point of which is better: Quality or quantity? Quality wins every time unless you're a successful mass market paper back writer. But my question was more geared towards a "which president is proving to be a harder worker?". Though I don't mind if the topic veers off into quality. In fact, I shouldn't mind as I haven't really been around to do much commenting on my own topic anyway.

So, uh, carry on then.

There's no economic difference between bailouts and stimulus packages. In both cases the government is spending money to keep private firms from going bankrupt.

Bailouts involve giving someone money. Stimulus packages involve paying people to do something. Under any economic theory of which I am aware, the two are completely different things. I think it's safe to say that you don't understand what you're saying at this point.

Bailouts involve giving someone money. Stimulus packages involve paying people to do something. Under any economic theory of which I am aware, the two are completely different things. I think it's safe to say that you don't understand what you're saying at this point.

You're just misrepresenting what a stimulus is. The current stimulus bill amounts to nothing more than a giveaway with no return, which makes it the same as the bailout.

You're just misrepresenting what a stimulus is. The current stimulus bill amounts to nothing more than a giveaway with no return, which makes it the same as the bailout.

You're totally right. I mean, you don't use roads, right? Or bridges? Or parks? Street signs? Airports?

Yeah, me either. I wish they would spend it on something that the government is responsible for the upkeep of and that we all use, like Bush did.

You're totally right. I mean, you don't use roads, right? Or bridges? Or parks? Street signs? Airports?

Yeah, me either. I wish they would spend it on something that the government is responsible for the upkeep of and that we all use, like Bush did.

You'll notice less and less of the stimulus bill is actually being committed to infrastructure and more and more is making it's way into hands of people who should not have it.

I do use roads and bridges (and by extension street signs) but those things have been adequately maintained by the present system - and that's not really what I was referring to in my post anyway. I was talking about the earmarks.

You'll notice less and less of the stimulus bill is actually being committed to infrastructure and more and more is making it's way into hands of people who should not have it.
Specific examples.
I do use roads and bridges (and by extension street signs) but those things have always been paid for by state and local governments with leftover surplus - the government should get the hell out.
Aside from that marginal awesomeness...I'm sure nothing bad could come (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/news/bridge.collapse/) of putting off infrastructure projects.

I dispute the 'left over surplus' characterization. "Hey, we have a few bucks left over, lets rebuild a bridge" is not my impression of how the bridge outside my house is being built. I seem to remember it being more along the lines of "Sweet crap, that thing almost fell down during an earthquake! We need to rebuild that fucker, lets get some bond issues and apply for some federal funding before this thing falls on someone else!"

Even before inauguration, Obama was aiming for a $700 billion bailout...

...which is less than half the $1.6 trillion tax cut Bush was aiming for.

I think it's clear I was referring to the federal misgovernment.

My state is able to raise all of it's road needs through state and municipal taxes. I'm not sure if the gas tax is federal redistributed to states, or a state levy, or a combination of both, but I'm pretty sure funds are used from that tax as well. The point is - only in recent times have states been outright begging the federal government for this kind of assistance when it's clearly outside the scope of federal responsibility.

Of course, what works in my state may not work in yours.