Skip to main content
Home Politics

Replies

  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Senior Member Edgewater, FLPosts: 14,632 AG
    Old old news. That's no revelation. I think most intelligent people, whether democrat or republican, understand that Clinton's housing policies contributed greatly to our economic meltdown. Thing is, Bush had 8 years to recognize the problem and make necessary corrections in an effort to prevent the meltdown. Instead, he exacerbated the problems with unfunded wars, unfunded prescription drug programs, and tax cuts for the 1%ers. The housing bubble was not the only factor in the meltdown.

    Reagan's lame duck session was consumed with trying to stay awake.
    Clinton's lame duck session was consumed by his impeachment proceedings.
    Bush's first term was consumed by 9/11 and invading countries.
    Bush's lame duck session was consumed by tax cuts for his rich buddies.
    Obama's first term was consumed with health care reform.
    Obama's lame duck session will be consumed with his trying to establish a legacy... immigration reform, ss reform, etc.

    Who had/has time and energy to pay attention to that pesky economy?
  • NACl H2O LuvrNACl H2O Luvr Senior Member Posts: 12,387 AG
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    I think most intelligent people, whether democrat or republican, understand that Clinton's housing policies contributed greatly to our economic meltdown.

    Phlatsphil, that is one of the smartest things anyone has ever said on here, do you mind if I put that in as my signature line for the next 24 hours?
  • jlh49jlh49 Senior Member Posts: 3,127 Officer
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Old old news. That's no revelation. I think most intelligent people, whether democrat or republican, understand that Clinton's housing policies contributed greatly to our economic meltdown. Thing is, Bush had 8 years to recognize the problem and make necessary corrections in an effort to prevent the meltdown. Instead, he exacerbated the problems with unfunded wars, unfunded prescription drug programs, and tax cuts for the 1%ers. The housing bubble was not the only factor in the meltdown.

    Reagan's lame duck session was consumed with trying to stay awake.
    Clinton's lame duck session was consumed by his impeachment proceedings.
    Bush's first term was consumed by 9/11 and invading countries.
    Bush's lame duck session was consumed by tax cuts for his rich buddies.
    Obama's first term was consumed with health care reform.
    Obama's lame duck session will be consumed with his trying to establish a legacy... immigration reform, ss reform, etc.

    Who had/has time and energy to pay attention to that pesky economy?

    You are on target with some of your assessment, but are lacking in "objective" facts about most.

    Bush was not alone in his feelings about Iraq and WMD.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

    Bush did what was necessary to pull the economy out of the toilet due to the horrendous effects of 9/11. Tax breaks for everybody (Hello!) helped the economy come back. How soon we forget!

    The Prescription Drug Program was Bush's attempt to work with Democrats (Ted Kennedy), who then stabbed him in the back once they got it. (Surprise! Surprise!)

    Bush made his share of mistakes; as have other Presidents, and spent too much money trying to be all things to all people.

    At the time of his Presidency, Bush did more for Blacks and other minorities than any President before him. But yet, is still hated by so many. Why, because he stood up for what he believed in, which offended so many without value systems!

    Other than that, have a nice day.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Senior Member Edgewater, FLPosts: 14,632 AG
    Phlatsphil, that is one of the smartest things anyone has ever said on here, do you mind if I put that in as my signature line for the next 24 hours?

    It's a free country. Do whatever makes you happy.

    jlh49 wrote: »
    You are on target with some of your assessment, but are lacking in "objective" facts about most.

    Bush was not alone in his feelings about Iraq and WMD.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

    Bush did what was necessary to pull the economy out of the toilet due to the horrendous effects of 9/11. Tax breaks for everybody (Hello!) helped the economy come back. How soon we forget!

    The Prescription Drug Program was Bush's attempt to work with Democrats (Ted Kennedy), who then stabbed him in the back once they got it. (Surprise! Surprise!)

    Bush made his share of mistakes; as have other Presidents, and spent too much money trying to be all things to all people.

    At the time of his Presidency, Bush did more for Blacks and other minorities than any President before him. But yet, is still hated by so many. Why, because he stood up for what he believed in, which offended so many without value systems!

    Other than that, have a nice day.


    Bush's legacy is war and unfunded tax breaks for the rich. That is indisputable. Yeah, we all got that $300 tax rebate one year... I think it was $300. Big deal.

    But, in defense of Bush, here is something I just read that describes a program he apparently gets little or no credit for. And Obama is trying to claim credit for it.

    Fewer homeless, a Bush legacy

    (CNN) -- Have you noticed that homelessness isn't worse? Here we are, living through the most protracted joblessness crisis since the Great Depression -- and surprisingly, fewer people are living on the street.

    The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that the number of the chronically homeless declined by 30% between 2005 and 2007. You might have expected the numbers to spike again when the financial crisis hit but no. Since 2007, the number of chronic homeless has dropped another 19%.

    A broader measure of the number of homeless counts the number of people living out of doors on one randomly chosen night. That broader measure has also improved through the economic crisis. Between January 2011 and January 2012, homelessness among veterans dropped by 7%.

    To what or whom do we owe this good news?

    In very large part, we owe it to the president whose library opened in Dallas last week: George W. Bush.

    For three decades, we have debated what causes homelessness and how to deal with it. Is homelessness a mental health problem? A substance abuse problem? A problem caused by gentrification and urban redevelopment? Or something else again?

    The Bush administration substituted a much simpler idea -- an idea that happened to work. Whatever the cause of homelessness, the solution is ... a home.

    In 2002, Bush appointed a new national homeless policy czar, Philip Mangano. A former music agent imbued with the religious philosophy of St. Francis of Assisi, Mangano was seized by an idea pioneered by New York University psychiatrist Sam Tsemberis: "housing first."

    The "housing first" concept urges authorities to concentrate resources on the hardest cases -- to move them into housing immediately -- and only to worry about the other problems of the homeless after they first have a roof over their heads. A 2004 profile in The Atlantic nicely summarized Tsemberis' ideas: "Offer them (the homeless) the apartment first, he believes, and you don't need to spend years, and service dollars, winning their trust."

    Many old school homeless advocates resisted Mangano's approach. They were impelled by two main objections:

    1. They believed that homelessness was just the most extreme form of a problem faced by low-income people generally -- a lack of affordable housing for low-income people. Focusing resources on the nation's hardest cases would (these advocates feared) distract the federal government from the bigger project of subsidizing better housing for millions of people who did not literally live in the streets.

    2. By 2002, the nation had been worrying about homelessness for several decades. Countless programs from state and local agencies responded to some separate part of the problem; tens of thousands of people earned their livings in those state and local agencies, disposing of massive budgets. "Housing first" threatened to disrupt this vast industry. "Housing first" was comparatively cheap, for one thing: a homeless shelter might look squalid, but it cost a great deal to operate -- more, oftentimes, than a proper apartment with kitchen and bath. The transition to "housing first" threatened jobs and budgets across the country.

    There was only one counterargument to these objections: "Housing first" worked. It worked from the start, and it worked fast. It worked so well that the Obama administration has now claimed the approach as its own, even keeping Mangano on the job for the first weeks of the new administration.

    Bush remains one of the more controversial and less popular ex-presidents. But if in the next days you happen to walk down a city street, take a moment to notice how many men or women are sleeping there. Results will vary from place to place, but on average, there are probably fewer than half as many as a decade ago. The job is not completed yet. But for the first time since the 1970s, the abolition of homelessness has become a real and near possibility. Whatever else you think of the 43rd president, that achievement is part of Bush's legacy, too.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/opinion/frum-less-homelessness/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
  • jlh49jlh49 Senior Member Posts: 3,127 Officer
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    It's a free country. Do whatever makes you happy.





    Bush's legacy is war and unfunded tax breaks for the rich. That is indisputable. Yeah, we all got that $300 tax rebate one year... I think it was $300. Big deal.

    But, in defense of Bush, here is something I just read that describes a program he apparently gets little or no credit for. And Obama is trying to claim credit for it.

    Fewer homeless, a Bush legacy

    (CNN) -- Have you noticed that homelessness isn't worse? Here we are, living through the most protracted joblessness crisis since the Great Depression -- and surprisingly, fewer people are living on the street.

    The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that the number of the chronically homeless declined by 30% between 2005 and 2007. You might have expected the numbers to spike again when the financial crisis hit but no. Since 2007, the number of chronic homeless has dropped another 19%.

    A broader measure of the number of homeless counts the number of people living out of doors on one randomly chosen night. That broader measure has also improved through the economic crisis. Between January 2011 and January 2012, homelessness among veterans dropped by 7%.

    To what or whom do we owe this good news?

    In very large part, we owe it to the president whose library opened in Dallas last week: George W. Bush.

    For three decades, we have debated what causes homelessness and how to deal with it. Is homelessness a mental health problem? A substance abuse problem? A problem caused by gentrification and urban redevelopment? Or something else again?

    The Bush administration substituted a much simpler idea -- an idea that happened to work. Whatever the cause of homelessness, the solution is ... a home.

    In 2002, Bush appointed a new national homeless policy czar, Philip Mangano. A former music agent imbued with the religious philosophy of St. Francis of Assisi, Mangano was seized by an idea pioneered by New York University psychiatrist Sam Tsemberis: "housing first."

    The "housing first" concept urges authorities to concentrate resources on the hardest cases -- to move them into housing immediately -- and only to worry about the other problems of the homeless after they first have a roof over their heads. A 2004 profile in The Atlantic nicely summarized Tsemberis' ideas: "Offer them (the homeless) the apartment first, he believes, and you don't need to spend years, and service dollars, winning their trust."

    Many old school homeless advocates resisted Mangano's approach. They were impelled by two main objections:

    1. They believed that homelessness was just the most extreme form of a problem faced by low-income people generally -- a lack of affordable housing for low-income people. Focusing resources on the nation's hardest cases would (these advocates feared) distract the federal government from the bigger project of subsidizing better housing for millions of people who did not literally live in the streets.

    2. By 2002, the nation had been worrying about homelessness for several decades. Countless programs from state and local agencies responded to some separate part of the problem; tens of thousands of people earned their livings in those state and local agencies, disposing of massive budgets. "Housing first" threatened to disrupt this vast industry. "Housing first" was comparatively cheap, for one thing: a homeless shelter might look squalid, but it cost a great deal to operate -- more, oftentimes, than a proper apartment with kitchen and bath. The transition to "housing first" threatened jobs and budgets across the country.

    There was only one counterargument to these objections: "Housing first" worked. It worked from the start, and it worked fast. It worked so well that the Obama administration has now claimed the approach as its own, even keeping Mangano on the job for the first weeks of the new administration.

    Bush remains one of the more controversial and less popular ex-presidents. But if in the next days you happen to walk down a city street, take a moment to notice how many men or women are sleeping there. Results will vary from place to place, but on average, there are probably fewer than half as many as a decade ago. The job is not completed yet. But for the first time since the 1970s, the abolition of homelessness has become a real and near possibility. Whatever else you think of the 43rd president, that achievement is part of Bush's legacy, too.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/opinion/frum-less-homelessness/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

    Thanks for the insight on the "Housing First" program; I was not aware of it.
  • CyclistCyclist Senior Member GvillePosts: 23,340 AG
    Americans blame bush for the wars. Overwhelming majority say they were a bad idea.

    Americans blame bush for the economy tanking.

    The ONLY thing he gets credit for, is helping Africa.

    He pretty much sucked. Suckiest president EVER.
  • jlh49jlh49 Senior Member Posts: 3,127 Officer
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Americans blame bush for the wars. Overwhelming majority say they were a bad idea.

    Americans blame bush for the economy tanking.

    The ONLY thing he gets credit for, is helping Africa.

    He pretty much sucked. Suckiest president EVER.

    Obviously in your world if the majority believes it, then it is absolutely true, regardless of the facts.

    Opinions do vary. But in the arena of "Sucking" Presidents, Clinton might hold a slight edge on all the rest.
  • KeysbearKeysbear Senior Member Posts: 132 Deckhand
    One of your "suckiest" posts ever. You really have nothing of value to add-ever.
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Americans blame bush for the wars. Overwhelming majority say they were a bad idea.

    Americans blame bush for the economy tanking.

    The ONLY thing he gets credit for, is helping Africa.

    He pretty much sucked. Suckiest president EVER.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

Preview This Month's Issue

Buy Digital Single Issues

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Buy Single Digital Issue on the Florida Sportsman App

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Florida Sportsman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.

To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now