POLL: 44% of Americans want Bush Back as President

5%

Is that because they think there home would be back at the same price as during the bush years?

Ａｂｙｓｓ　－－ｍｕｌｔｉｐｌｅ　ｔｈｒｅａｄ　ｐｏｓｔｉｎｇｓ　ａｒｅ　ＳＴＲＩＣＴＬＹ for reporting mouse infestations.

Really? Where's the link and who conducted the poll?

I like bush.....

Bush, AKA, WPE (Worst President Ever).

Guess I'm with bronxboy on this.

But here is a link.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Bush_closes_the_gap.html

Color me skeptical.

No you misunderstand. No that kinda bush.

I expect a whole lot of folk misunderestimate you, w67.

I Unestimated the se crowd. Wasn't the lower b a dead giveaway?

It's not uncommon for presidents to see their poll numbers rise after they leave office. But if Bush were still president today, I can guarantee you nobody would want him as president.

I can actually understand the desire for Bush to be back in office. While he wasn't our greatest president or anywhere close to it, he was actually far superior to our current defective model. Obama actually has the potential to be worse than Jimmy Carter.

Please give me SPECIFIC examples of why you think Obama is "defective." He really has not done anything other than the stimulus package.

Pelosi played a pivotol role with respect to the super delegates going to Obama & not Clinton. I suspect she has used this and wielded a great deal of influence on a number of matters.

Examples of Obama's defective status: 1)Offered no specifics about what should be non-negotiable in the healthcare plan thereby leaving it up to congress completely to offer their jumble of unworkable ideas. 2) Apologized to the world for how evil America is...in a muslim country no less. 3) Numerous cabinet apointees are inept and way out of their league, e.g. Little Timmy Geithner, Holder, Solis, etc. 4) Waiting 10 months into office to firmulate a plan on Afghanistan and then messing it up by giving a timeline for withdrawl. 5) Allowing Cap and Trade to even be discussed in this awful economic climate.

When are the adults coming back into power?

"3) Numerous cabinet apointees are inept and way out of their league, e.g. Little Timmy Geithner, Holder, Solis, etc."

And Buish was not different? What about Michael Brown over at FEMA? What about the fact that his ex Interior Secretary is now under federal criminal investigation for awarding oil contracts to Shell and then taking a job with Shell?

"1)Offered no specifics about what should be non-negotiable in the healthcare plan thereby leaving it up to congress completely to offer their jumble of unworkable ideas."

Actually, he did. He said any health care plan must be "deficit neutral."

burning bush?

The adults? The same adults that brought America to new lows? Who increased the deficit to astronomical levels after being left a surplus. Who waged an inept and foolhardy war that has cost this country trillions leaving the economy in shambles. Who abandoned the fight against terror in Afghanistan to wage the wrong war. Who watched and did very little as a city was destroyed by a natural disaster. The list is endless. The "adults" will go down as the worst administration in the history of this nation.

Bush was WPE, no doubt, and by a comfortable margin that will take a lot to surpass.

That said, there is quite a bit of validity to robot's criticism of Obama.

And, please, the deficit neutral thing is meant as a joke, no one believes it, period.

i personally think we should have walked away from both iraq and afghanistan but i can understand that if obama had done that, the howling would be even shriller. short of that, i don't see what he could actually be doing differently.

CC,
Thomas Friedman said it best;
Obama's action plan for Afghanistan is akin to and unemployed couple adopting a special needs baby.

That being said, the die has been cast. To walk away is to create a condition that will lead to a further destabilization of the region. What we need is clear cut goals and bench marks. We need to face the realities on the ground and employ what ever means necessary to accomplish those goals. Conducting a police action or a war is not the realm for Robert's Rules of order. It is a savage affair at best. We, as a country, either have the stomach for it or not. The big question is, if we leave, what will become of Afghanistan and more importantly...Pakistan. The last thing I need here in Manhattan is to glow in the dark....then again my glowing body would ultimately reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

You see everything has a silver lining!!!
Plus, an irradiated New York will totally reduce RE values which is at least some small consolation to all the bears.

I like Friedman's description of Germany: a nursing home with turkish attendants.

but...we clearly not have the stomach for it. so...now what?

another opinion phrased as an aggressive question... why?

The magnitude of the potential threat emanating from the region is so immense, so unprecedented in scope, that I don't think "stomach for it" is the right question. Once you decide it is necessary to keep this threat in check , then we have to do what we have to do. It's the threshold question that seems most difficult -- is this really necessary?, will it be of net benefit?, is there a less costly way?, etc.,,,but, for better or worse, Obama bought the military position on all those questions. Personally, I am skeptical.

but, we're not even willing to pay for it.

good one.

If Obama gets voted out in 2012, maybe he can go to China and community organize to begin repaying back his debts.

his debts?

That's better

His stimulus package for starters plus whatever programs he starts that the country can't afford and many don't want.

so..you figure that the stimulus package was a dumb move? any others?

How many episodes did you win on Jeopardy?

Hi hfs.

Hfs you are a piece of shit. Hi.

I'm a piece of shit. Interesting.

You are:
violent
and proud of it

You attack:
people for being "gay accountants" http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/12059-renting-vs-buying-in-this-economy?page=3

For a living you:
buy and sell stocks

but add absolutely no value

the economy doesn't get better because you bought or sold a stock
the companies don't get any better because you bought or sold a stock
no one else gets a job because you bought or sold a stock
yet you think your career is better than others'

I'm a piece of shit.

If 44% of americans want Bush back, it's probably because Michele Obama looks like Patrick Ewing in a dress.

I feel sorry for John McCain, out of the 47% of Republican voters, only 3% are sorry he didn't get elected?

Ｃａｎ　Ｉ　ｒｅｃｏｍｍｅｎｄ　：　　ＴＨＥ ＲＡＰＥ ＯＦ ＴＨＥ ＭＡＳＴＥＲＳ．．．ｂｙ　ｒｏｇｅｒ　ｋｉｍｂａｌｌ

In regards to "spending your way out of the recession," Jim Rogers had this to say:

"The idea you can solve a problem of too much debt and too much consumption with more consumption and more debt defies belief. I cannot believe that grown-ups would stand there and say that."

as has been discussed on many threads, it seems like we are faced with trying to find the least worst answer; not only domestically but internationally.

When Bush was in office, what percentage of Americans wanted Clinton back as president?

I guess it is somewhat relative. I see it as a choice between many years (decades) of moderate pain v a few years of larger pain. So it may be a bit of semantics if we are measuring "worse" in terms of length or magnitude. This is another excerpt of the tech ticker:

---------------
History shows the only way to solve a financial crisis is "when people go bankrupt, you let them go bankrupt," Rogers say. "Then, competent people come in, take over the assets, reorganize and you start over."

But rather than "take the pain and reorganize and start over," as Sweden, South Korea and others have done, Rogers says America is "doing the Japanese model."

-----------

From what you hear in the media, they work hard to make it sound like the path taken was "the only choice" - this is the part I take issue with. I daresay no other alternatives were even considered.

Lecker: While I generally agree with Rogers on general principles, you need to understand the guy 1) has been wrong a lot the last 20 years, 2) is a bit of a kook and 3) is VERY self-serving. He runs a bunch of commodity ETF's and, coincidentally, his investment advice the past 10 yrs has almost universally been "Sell everything and buy commodities!". People who did this in mid-2008 were very, very sorry by year end.

To really get any value out of Rogers, you need to read between the lines. When he says "Well, I'm not selling gold ever, but i'm just not buying any more right now" that's his way of saying "SELL WITH BOTH HANDS!".