Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the president?

[Soh]

I was wondering whether your life got better or worth since Bush became the president. If you found "the" girl and got married and are very happy, that's great, but that's not what I'm asking here.

My question is how did what Bush did since he became the president affecting your life.

Personally, I can't think of single thing that changed my life because of him. I know he changed the tax law, but since I don't make much money, the difference isn't much.

[Misfire]

My lithe ith bether, but no thankths to Buth...

[Stu Pidasso]

Under Clinton my annual income decreased more than 50%
Under Bush my annual income more than doubled.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is how did what Bush did since he became the president affecting your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

My brain hurts.

[JimBob2232]

1) I pay less taxes
2) An attack has not happened on us soil since 911
3) Judges nominated to the supreme court are less likely to rule in favor of cases such as emminent domain.
4) Stock market has increased nearly 50% since the start of FY '03. (For those that dont know, the buget is established 2 years in advance. FY'03 would be the first budget under the bush administration).

But, sadly...the correct answer to this question is that what gore or kerry didnt do is far more important than what Bush did. This my friends...is the problem with politics today. Is a lesser of 2 evils approach.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
But, sadly...the correct answer to this question is that what gore or kerry didnt do is far more important than what Bush did. This my friends...is the problem with politics today. Is a lesser of 2 evils approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush did get us out of the ABM treaty. Kinda hard to measure how that has improved peoples lives. I suspect, at some point, its effect will be enormous.

Stu

[bruceypants]

North Korea just conducted a nuclear test. George Bush sat by and did nothing. Iran is also on the verge of going nuclear. Unfortunately, our idiotic president has all our troops amassed in Iraq. The world has become a much less safe place under Bush and his fellow Republicans.

Many experts are predicting that Japan will now demand nuclear weapons and that nuclear weapons will continue to proliferate from there. Eventually I fear that one of these weapons will reach the U.S. from the hands of someone who hates America and cares not a whit whether they live or die.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
North Korea just conducted a nuclear test. George Bush sat by and did nothing. Iran is also on the verge of going nuclear. Unfortunately, our idiotic president has all our troops amassed in Iraq. The world has become a much less safe place under Bush and his fellow Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to defend our current policy on either NK or Iran, but I think it's a little whimsical to suppose that another president would have done better.

One thing that all three "Axis of Evil" countries (maybe not such an overly simplistic category after all?) have or had in common was a sophisticated understanding of Western democracies and the multilateral diplomatic forces arrayed against them. In addition, they're all led by individuals or groups bent on using this understanding and whatever leverage they have to divide their opponents and frustrate attempts to contain and overthrow them.

Saddam got a fair amount done through bribes and kickbacks before being removed from power by a despicably unilateral action. North Korea has used all its artillery and its relationship with China to thumb its nose at everyone while still receiving food aid it needs to survive. Iran has used energy contracts and dilatory negotiations (another commonplace) to obtain protective UN vetoes and frustrate Western attempts to curb their nuclear program.

That's obviously a rough sketch, but I think what we're seeing is a systematic exploitation of weaknesses in the existing multiateral system and the UN. Clearly Bush has failed to solve this problem, but I can't really imagine John Kerry going abroad and forging a coalition to bomb Iran, can you?

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
That's obviously a rough sketch, but I think what we're seeing is a systematic exploitation of weaknesses in the existing multiateral system and the UN. Clearly Bush has failed to solve this problem, but I can't really imagine John Kerry going abroad and forging a coalition to bomb Iran, can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand what happened. North Korea did not go nuclear because they thought Bush wouldn't bomb them. To the contrary, Kim Il Jong was very afraid of regime change. He saw what happened in Iraq and figured his only chance of survival was to go nuclear.

Basically, Bush and Cheney tried to get tough with North Korea. They sanctioned them and refused to negotiate with them. This spurred North Korea to forge ahead with its nuclear program. Previous administrations had all been willing to negotiate with North Korea in order to keep them from going nuclear. Bush and Cheney tried to get tough and the proliferation of nukes in North Korea was the result.

As far as bombing North Korea, I think that option would still be open if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq. Bush spent all of the goodwill (and most of our military resources) with his ill-advised Iraq war. I don't believe that Kerry would have ever gone in to Iraq and that he would have had more options open to him.

The one lesson we should take away from all this is that chickenhawk foreign policy doesn't work.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, our idiotic president has all our troops amassed in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have all our troops amassed in Iraq. Some of them are in Afghanistan as well. Like Iraq, Afghanistan boarders Iran. Bumbling Bush has effectively surrounded Iran with US forces. If you undestood anything about military strategery this puts us in a very powerful position should push ever come to shove.

Stu