Jump to content

RIP George H. W. Bush

TexArcher

By TexArcher
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

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.

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
bolverk

bolverk 30242

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 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.

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
bolverk

bolverk 30242

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, 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

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
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, 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.

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
bolverk

bolverk 30242

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 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

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
Trey3216

Trey3216 15450

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, 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

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
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, 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.

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
Kyle

Kyle 207

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, 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.

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, 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.

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
bolverk

bolverk 30242

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, 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. 

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.

Spoiler

 

Thirty years ago, crafting international agreements to address climate change was a Republican concern. Bush’s presidency was a different era for Republican environmental policy, but also a turning point that shifted away from aggressive actions, said William Reilly, who served as EPA administrator under Bush.

“Bush did everything anyone could have asked of on him on climate except commit to stabilization,” he said. “He committed to very substantial research budget to major investments by NASA on upper atmospheric ozone monitoring and on climate monitoring. NOAA was well-funded.”

Bush’s actions on climate change came after what may be his strongest environmental legacy, the signing of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The revisions to the act changed the way the country regulates several key pollutants.

“Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation’s environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions,” EPA states on its website. “The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.”

Significantly, the amendments targeted acid rain that was destroying forests and lakes, dramatically reducing the pollution that caused the problem to such an extent that it is no longer a major issue in the United States.

But the political capital Bush spent on the Clean Air Act diminished his work on climate policy, Reilly said. At the Group of Seven meeting in Paris in 1989, environmental groups trashed Bush for not committing to a stabilization of greenhouse gases, Reilly recalled.

That convinced Bush that pushing too far on environmental policy would hurt him politically with his base while failing to win any converts on the other side.

“That was kind of the beginning of Bush’s disillusion about his likely winning popularity by things he did in the environment,” Reilly said. “From the point of view of the environmentalists, he was Reagan’s vice president. And he did the Clean Air Act, he got really nothing for it ... Bush decided finally, and the people around him had decided long before, that the environment would not work for him politically.”

Since Bush left office, his Republican predecessors, George W. Bush and Trump, have been increasingly hostile to climate science and have resisted meaningful policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Much of their criticism has centered on the economic costs of environmental policy, a stance that environmental groups have widely denounced.

The latest National Climate Assessment shows that climate change will kill more Americans, displace thousands and cost tens of billions of dollars annually. Democrats have touted the findings as evidence that the government needs to craft significant climate policy and have promised to use its revelations in court cases challenging the administration. Some Republicans have acknowledged that the report requires action from Washington, as well, but most have questioned its findings without presenting any evidence to the contrary.

Trump has said he doesn’t “believe” the report. The United States was the only country at the Group of 20 meeting this weekend to refuse to sign a statement reiterating support for the Paris climate accord (see related story).

By contrast, the late Bush was able to craft bipartisan environmental policy that has had a lasting effect, said Jason Bordoff, a former Obama administration energy and climate policy aide and the founder of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

“From promoting cap and trade to curb acid rain to an international agreement protecting the ozone layer to climate change research, President George H.W. Bush was part of a Republican tradition of support for environmental protection, science and bipartisan cooperation that unfortunately is too rare these days,” he said.

Environmental groups have been some of the harshest critics of George W. Bush and Trump. By contrast, they issued a number of statements of praise for the environmental legacy left by George H.W. Bush.

“By cutting pollution from cars, trucks, power plants and other sources, the measures have sharply reduced toxic chemicals in the air we breathe, dangerous ozone and the acid rain that was destroying American forests,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “The measures decreased asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart disease and other ills, preventing some 200,000 premature deaths and 20 million lost days at work or school every year to deliver up to $90 in public health benefits for every dollar invested in compliance.”

Bush was capable of seeing that protecting the economy and the environment did not have to be in contrast, said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, who worked with Bush to help pass the bipartisan Clean Air Act amendments as well as ratify the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Krupp said Bush deserves credit for curbing acid rain pollution that was devastating Northeastern forests in the 1980s. He noted that sulfur dioxide pollution, which caused the acid rain, has been cut 88 percent since 1990.

“He knew that our country matters far more than political party or personal ambition, and that the national interest demands that we protect America’s precious natural heritage,” Krupp said in a statement. “And he knew that there is no inherent conflict between environmental progress and economic progress, because the well-being of the nation requires both.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3507

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, 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

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
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, 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.

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
horn4life

horn4life 3829

Posted
Posted

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
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

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
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 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.  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, formermav43 said:

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

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
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, 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.  

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
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, 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.

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
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, 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?  

 

 

Edited by formermav43
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...