Jump to content

RIP George H. W. Bush


TexArcher

Recommended Posts

From NYT obit:

 

  Quote

Barely a year after the world had hailed his success in Iraq, Mr. Bush found himself almost losing the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire to the conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan. Mr. Bush won the nomination but was weakened by the Buchanan challenge and accordingly veered sharply to the right. He then lost to Mr. Clinton. Mr. Perot’s 19 percent of the popular vote helped deny both Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton a majority.

Expand  

I had no recollection of that.  How embarrassing.  I think that can be seen as the the seed that grew into the weed that is the GOP voter today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 7:59 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

From NYT obit:

 

I had no recollection of that.  How embarrassing.  I think that can be seen as the the seed that grew into the weed that is the GOP voter today.

Expand  

Buchanan was Trump before Trump with his stupid "culture war" bullshit. That time period was definitely when the GOP really began to swing to the far right. The other big event around then was the Republican takeover of the House and that asshole Gingrich's divisiveness and Contract with America.

Of course, preceding both events was Reagan's invitation to the fundagelicals to the GOP which led to fucking Pat Robertson running as a nominee for the Republican Party in 1988 and beating Bush in Iowa, I believe.

It was the combination of those events that forced me to reconsider my Republican upbringing. Had the party stayed on the sane side (and embraced science like Bush's early action on climate change and clean air, while also rejecting supply-side voodoo economics), this country would be much better off today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:24 PM, Fozzz said:

Concentrating wealth and income to the highest possible degree is practically the entire point of their project.  Why would they ever reject supply-side economics? lmao

Expand  

You do know that Bush, himself, was quite vocal in his criticism of it, right? There once was a wing of the GOP that actually did believe in good governance and fiscal responsibility. Hell, even Reagan raised taxes to balance the budget.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:33 PM, bolverk said:

You do know that Bush, himself, was quite vocal in his criticism of it, right? There once was a wing of the GOP that actually did believe in good governance and fiscal responsibility. Hell, even Reagan raised taxes to balance the budget.

Expand  

He was forced to raise some taxes when the budget deficit grew to the largest share of GDP since the WWII era, but the tax increases were mainly payroll taxes, which are regressive.  When you look at the trends in income inequality in this country, something very mysterious happened at around 1980.  I wonder what that could have been?  Nixon was really the last "centrist" (he would probably be seen as a communist today) on economics from the GOP.

161221173430-inequality-piketty-1-780x43

https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/index.html

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:46 PM, Fozzz said:

He was forced to raise some taxes when the budget deficit grew to the largest share of GDP since the WWII era, but the tax increases were mainly payroll taxes, which are regressive.  When you look at the trends in income inequality in this country, something very mysterious happened at around 1980.  I wonder what that could have been?

 161221173430-inequality-piketty-1-780x43

https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/index.html

Expand  

Oh, I know it was the Democratic majority that forced his hand. I also know that Reagan was the first major candidate to support supply-side economics. My main argument was simply that Bush was the last of the Republican presidents with reasonably rational views on economic and fiscal policy - not that I always agreed with the dude. I'm just lamenting the loss of his kind of Republicans and contrasting him to what has become of his party since he left office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:46 PM, Fozzz said:

He was forced to raise some taxes when the budget deficit grew to the largest share of GDP since the WWII era, but the tax increases were mainly payroll taxes, which are regressive.  When you look at the trends in income inequality in this country, something very mysterious happened at around 1980.  I wonder what that could have been?  Nixon was really the last "centrist" (he would probably be seen as a communist today) on economics from the GOP.

161221173430-inequality-piketty-1-780x43

https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/index.html

Expand  

The removal of the gold standard was a major cause of this.  As was the technological boom that really took shape in the early 80's, the shift from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution Plans, and a hundred other factors.  But everyone has to have a donkey on which to pin a tail.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 10:02 PM, Trey3216 said:

The removal of the gold standard was a major cause of this.  As was the technological boom that really took shape in the early 80's, the shift from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution Plans, and a hundred other factors.  But everyone has to have a donkey on which to pin a tail.

Expand  

lol are all conservatives gold bugs now?  That's very retro.  Somehow, the gold standard did not prevent the last explosion in income inequality during the gilded age.  If you recall, the populists of that day were very much opposed to the gold standard.  Moreover, somehow the massive economic growth that took place during the long boom of the 1940s - early 1970s did not result in a dramatic increase in income inequality.  What has changed dramatically from before/after 1980 is tax policy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:20 PM, bolverk said:

Buchanan was Trump before Trump with his stupid "culture war" bullshit. That time period was definitely when the GOP really began to swing to the far right. The other big event around then was the Republican takeover of the House and that asshole Gingrich's divisiveness and Contract with America.

Of course, preceding both events was Reagan's invitation to the fundagelicals to the GOP which led to fucking Pat Robertson running as a nominee for the Republican Party in 1988 and beating Bush in Iowa, I believe.

It was the combination of those events that forced me to reconsider my Republican upbringing. Had the party stayed on the sane side (and embraced science like Bush's early action on climate change and clean air, while also rejecting supply-side voodoo economics), this country would be much better off today.

Expand  

In fairness, both parties embrace "science" very selectively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:20 PM, bolverk said:

Buchanan was Trump before Trump with his stupid "culture war" bullshit. That time period was definitely when the GOP really began to swing to the far right. The other big event around then was the Republican takeover of the House and that asshole Gingrich's divisiveness and Contract with America.

Of course, preceding both events was Reagan's invitation to the fundagelicals to the GOP which led to fucking Pat Robertson running as a nominee for the Republican Party in 1988 and beating Bush in Iowa, I believe.

It was the combination of those events that forced me to reconsider my Republican upbringing. Had the party stayed on the sane side (and embraced science like Bush's early action on climate change and clean air, while also rejecting supply-side voodoo economics), this country would be much better off today.

Expand  

What did Bush 41 ever do with regard to global warming? (The right hadn't rebranded it as "climate change" yet in order to distract from its anthropogenic nature while he was in office.) Banning CFCs because of the hole in the ozone layer wasn't climate related. He didn't care much about environmental causes. I recall a speech he gave in opposition to some environmental cause lamenting that we'd lose jobs and be up to our necks in owls. He was totally part of the Republican war on science ushered in by Reagan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 5:42 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

What did Bush 41 ever do with regard to global warming? (The right hadn't rebranded it as "climate change" yet in order to distract from its anthropogenic nature while he was in office.) Banning CFCs because of the hole in the ozone layer wasn't climate related. He didn't care much about environmental causes. I recall a speech he gave in opposition to some environmental cause lamenting that we'd lose jobs and be up to our necks in owls. He was totally part of the Republican war on science ushered in by Reagan. 

Expand  

It's been almost 30 years, so I had to go back and refresh my memory. You're right, he didn't do nearly as much as I had recalled but I don't think he was a climate change skeptic. Insofar as doing anything, the National Climate Assessment report is about all he can be credited for on that front, but we can also thank him for signing the Clean Air Act.

Here's a pretty decent piece outlining those events that I found this morning:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bush-had-a-lasting-impact-on-climate-and-air-policy/

Bush Had a Lasting Impact on Climate and Air Policy

The late President George H.W. Bush is the reason why President Trump has been asked about climate change in the last week more than at any other time in his presidency.

Through legislation he signed in 1990, Bush started the National Climate Assessment, a sweeping study documenting climate change’s impacts on the United States. The Trump administration released the latest iteration on Black Friday and has since downplayed its definitive body of research, making false claims about its accuracy and inadvertently drawing more attention to the clear science that shows Americans will be increasingly at risk as a result of climate change.

Bush’s presidency came during a different time, when bipartisan actions to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants seemed possible, observers said. The very existence of the NCA is a reminder that Republicans in Washington once crafted aggressive climate policy.

“We know that the future of the Earth must not be compromised,” Bush told the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. “We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here and a covenant with those most precious to us—our children and theirs.”

Bush died Friday in his Houston home. He was 94.

It was during Bush’s presidency that the federal government stepped up its work on global warming and established an ongoing account of the latest research into how the country would be affected by climate change. Bush was also president during the development of the Montreal Protocol, which drastically cut the chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the ozone layer.

Through a 1989 presidential initiative, Bush established the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a program encompassing 13 federal agencies that seeks to understand the changing Earth system. The following year, he signed into law the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which mandated that the National Climate Assessment come out every four years.

Top Bush aides recognized that climate change was a serious issue that would require a policy response, according to a series of formerly classified memos released to The Washington Post in 2015 by the National Security Archive.

“If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound,” acting assistant secretary of State Richard Smith wrote in a 1989 memo.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/3/2018 at 9:46 PM, Fozzz said:

He was forced to raise some taxes when the budget deficit grew to the largest share of GDP since the WWII era, but the tax increases were mainly payroll taxes, which are regressive.  When you look at the trends in income inequality in this country, something very mysterious happened at around 1980.  I wonder what that could have been?  Nixon was really the last "centrist" (he would probably be seen as a communist today) on economics from the GOP.

161221173430-inequality-piketty-1-780x43

https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/index.html

Expand  

Nixon also gave us OSHA and EPA, oh the horror.  He has also been described as the last of the "new dealers".  He would be laughed out of the party now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 2:16 PM, Jiggy-Z said:

Nixon also gave us OSHA and EPA, oh the horror.  He has also been described as the last of the "new dealers".  He would be laughed out of the party now.

Expand  

Imagine if a president today issued an EO like Nixon's EO 11615.  They would probably be impeached, or have the 25th amendment used against them or something.  Hard to even imagine a world where in the US democratic governance had a say in how society actually functions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like GHWB and I voted for him because I thought he was still the best candidate at the time.  His campaign did play on racism though he himself did not seem racist. Back then you could not pass off to dirty hands ads like Willie Horton to outside groups. I super praise him for handing of the falling of the berlin wall, especially when you compare how our current Prez would have shit the bed managing that situation, with his endless grandstanding and imaginary ball spiking already. Imagine actually having something of achievement to point at? 

I also think unfortunately a lot of the issues we have relating to migration from gang violence in Honduras and Guatemala was birthed from our arming Contras in these areas. When you arm gangs you don't have control over what they do. Like murdering nuns for example. Only reason I really know details about all this was my term paper in Latin American Studies in the early 1980's. When we stopping supporting the armed gangs (Contras) we created, they simply found other means of income, and are still at it today.

I think overall Bush was a good and honorable man.  But he also made some poor decisions that still have ramifications today.  I know he was a great family man, and in the end being a good father and husband are really our highest callings in life IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't know how you square 'yeah, he did things that caused horrible suffering and violence' with he was a 'good and honorable man.'  I know the moral bar for our presidents is extremely low, but that kind of calculus seems pretty insane.  Would someone apply that same logic to serial killers or other mass murders?  lol  It's not like anyone forces the US government to do the horrible things that it does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 2:31 PM, Fozzz said:

Imagine if a president today issued an EO like Nixon's EO 11615.  They would probably be impeached, or have the 25th amendment used against them or something.  Hard to even imagine a world where in the US democratic governance had a say in how society actually functions.  

Expand  

It’s harder to imagine how you can reconcile that expansive executive power with “democratic governance.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 4:41 PM, formermav43 said:

It’s harder to imagine how you can reconcile that expansive executive power with “democratic governance.”

Expand  

I may be misremebering, but I believe Nixon was elected, and not by a board of directors.  The public may not have directly voted on the EO itself, but I think it's fair to argue that they had more influence upon its passage than they do, for instance, on the actions of our financial institutions which are almost entirely removed from the purview of the public.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 4:49 PM, Fozzz said:

I may be misremebering, but I believe Nixon was elected, and not by a board of directors.  The public may not have directly voted on the EO itself, but I think it's fair to argue that they had more influence upon its passage than they do, for instance, on the actions of our financial institutions which are almost entirely removed from the purview of the public.  

Expand  

As long as you’re recollecting, you can recall how the Cost of Living Council established by that unilateral Executuve Order was democratically elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 5:03 PM, formermav43 said:

As long as you’re recollecting, you can recall how the Cost of Living Council established by that unilateral Executuve Order was democratically elected.

Expand  

So something must be directly voted on and/or administered by the public to count as democratic?  If the public had issue with that council's actions, then they could remedy the situation in future elections.  What remedy does the public have when they are unhappy with the actions of Comcast, for example?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/4/2018 at 5:48 PM, Fozzz said:

So something must be directly voted on and/or administered by the public to count as democratic?  If the public had issue with that council's actions, then they could remedy the situation in future elections.  What remedy does the public have when they are unhappy with the actions of Comcast, for example?  

Expand  

 

 

Edited by formermav43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you can cut the cord.  But for many people that clearly isn't a meaningful option, particularly for those whom Comcast is their ISP.  If that were the case then there would be real consequences for Comcast being one of the most reviled companies year, after year, after year.  Yet in terms of revenue and profitability they are doing just fine.  Indeed, in spite of its loathsomeness, Comcast is continuing to gain control over the broadband market.  imo, that's just how capitalism works - it trends towards monopsony.  

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180314/09251639423/cable-industry-is-quietly-securing-massive-monopoly-over-american-broadband.shtml

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...