George H.W. Bush

Did I Really Once Think That George H.W. Bush Was the Worst President of My Lifetime?

A presidential derangement syndrome for all seasons

|

The Simpsons

The weird thing about George H.W. Bush's term in the White House, looking back a quarter-century later, is that back then I thought he was the worst president of my lifetime. Bear in mind that I was born when Richard Nixon occupied the Oval Office, so worst president of my lifetime was a pretty high bar to clear. But I was in college in the Bush years, old enough to pay attention to what was happening in the world and young enough to lack perspective on just how bad things could get. There's a certain sort of apocalypticism that comes easily to you when you're 20 and you want to stop a war.

The conflict in question was the first Gulf War. I'm just as opposed to it now as I was then—more so, given what was set in motion by stationing U.S. troops on Saudi soil—and I stand by most of my other reasons for cursing H.W.'s time in power. I think he was wrong on issues ranging from drugs to taxes to the S&Ls, from the Iran-contra pardons to the invasion of Panama. But it soon became clear that he was far from the worst president I'd live to see. He wasn't even the worst one named Bush.

So here's to the times he moved in the right direction. Here's to keeping his head as the Communist bloc collapsed, and here's to overseeing an actual reduction in military spending after the Cold War ended. Here's to a relatively even-handed approach to the Palestinian conflict. Here's to easing up the saber-rattling in Nicaragua and letting a Central American–led peace process play out. None of those policies were perfect, but I can imagine how another leader in a similar situation could have done worse. In some cases, I don't have to imagine it.

And here's to demonstrating that you can win a war and still lose the next election. Though I don't think the lesson took.

Advertisement

NEXT: George H.W. Bush's Legacy Holds Little, Nothing for Libertarians To Celebrate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Everyone keeps forgetting Bush Sr.’s contributions to the Uruguay Round of GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA.

    I guess Clinton gets credit for not screwing them up, but the extent to which the U.S. has enjoyed free trade over the past 20+ years is largely due to the efforts of George H. W. Bush.

    1. That was the end of the Cold War. That was why the future couldn’t be communist anymore–because we were to have free trade between nations instead. It was a huge achievement that he created.

      1. Yeah I was wondering if anyone was going to do that. As it happened, the most momentous breakthrough until the Rand McNally round. (This was the only thing I could find on the first page of Google results.)

  2. Bush’s election loss in 1992 had nothing to do with the war. It was caused by Ross Perot and the spoiler effect. The lesson that should be learnt from it is for independent or Libertarian candidates to refrain from running against any Republican unless the Republican is worse than the Democratic candidate, at least until we can enact Ranked Choice Voting.

    1. I didn’t say he lost because of the war. I said the war didn’t guarantee his victory. (Or that’s what I was getting at, anyway.)

      That said, it’s an open question whether Perot hurt Bush more than he hurt Clinton. I think the biggest reason Bush lost in 1992 was the recession (which was actually over before November, but public perception hadn’t caught up to that yet).

      1. Liberating Kuwait was the right thing to do. Period. And if you think that Saddam would have stopped there if left unchallenged, then you’re incredibly naive.

        1. And…?

        2. Liberating Kuwait was the morally right thing to do. Leaving troops in the region was stupid.

          1. Yeah, liberating the oil Kuwait was slant-drilling from under Iraq.

            1. ^This. People forget Saddam had a semi-legitimate reason for invading Kuwait. Peoole also forget that Bush 41 initially gave him the go-ahead and told him the US would not interfere. I am not saying Saddam’s actions were justified, but it wasn’t all black and white.

              1. Your link fell off.

        3. “Liberating Kuwait?” What a laugh. Those national boundaries were drawn by Westerners hoping to fragment the area and split up power and keep them beholden to the west so oil would remain cheap. Kuwait was nothing, just an artificial creation, a leftover.

          Desert Storm was all about saving the Saudi’s royal ass. If you’re going to pick sides in a local dispute, at least pick the less harmful side, and Saddam was far more benevolent than the Saudi royal family. The MidEast would have been a far less volatile place with Saddam chasing the Saudis out.

          Morally right my royal fucking Saudi ass.

          1. The MidEast would have been a far less volatile place with Saddam chasing the Saudis out.

            Please. Saddam had just gone bankrupt fighting Iran. You really think he would have maintained that momentum all the way to the Hejaz?

            1. Saddam was bankrupt? I guess the Kuwaitis invited him in then. All those soldiers on the border with Saudi Arabia were fake news, I suppose.

          2. “Kuwait was nothing, just an artificial creation, a leftover.”

            The Kuwaitis I helped liberate don’t agree with you. Saddam was a tyrant, amd he invaded a sovereign nation (an ally) and conquered them. Stopping them was the correct action, and diplomacy didn’t work.

            “Saddam was far more benevolent than the Saudi royal family”

            An analysis not based on facts. The Saudis are bad. Saddam was far worse.

            1. Saddam didn’t force ultra-fundamental religion on anybody; the Saudis did and still do. Women wore western clothes with Saddam in charge; Saudi women have just barely gained the right to drive.

              There’s not a single area where Saddam was worse than the Saudis. Gassing the Kurds was no worse than what the Saudis are doing right now in Yemen.

              1. “Gassing the Kurds was no worse than what the Saudis are doing right now in Yemen”.

                Wow. Talk about false equivalence.

                Saddaam was estimated to kill more than 250,000 of his own countrymen through genocide, purges, etc. That’s before we even get into the Iran-Iraq war. Yemen isn’t even in the same ballpark.

              2. “There’s not a single area where Saddam was worse than the Saudis”

                If you really believe that then you’ve clearly never been over there, as you have no sense of reality. I got to see a lot of the Iraq military’s handiwork first hand. I have also spent a fair amount of time in Saudi Arabia.

                Saddam and his boys were sadistic monsters. The Saudis have nothing on them. Freeing the Kuwaiti people was absolutely the right thing to do.

                It’s too bad your limited perspective deludes you to the contrary.

            2. So, nuke them all?

              1. From orbit, etc…

              2. Why would we nuke any of them? They are Muslim countries, run by Muslims. So of course they’re bad. Most of them are not threats. Iran’s current regime being a notable exception. Best cure for that is a more secularist internal revolution. Unfortunately, Obama worked hard to prevent that.

      2. The exit polls show Perot made no dif between Bush & Clinton on election day, but some say Perot’s entries into & exit from the campaign were timed to be momentum-breakers vs. Bush.

        1. Perot drew more from Clinton than Bush?

          1. Asked in exit polls who they voted for, & then who they’d’ve voted for had Perot not been running, Bush’s & Clinton’s % increased nearly equally, & the changes state by state wouldn’t’ve changed a single electoral vote.

            But observers also say that Perot’s effect was mostly mos. before election day, getting people to not prefer Bush at times Bush otherwise stood to increase attraction for votes, & that Perot seemed to time these moves, jumping into, then out of, then back into the race, just to hurt Bush’s ultimate chances.

          2. In other words, if you look at the effect of having Perot as a choice only on election day, you get 1 answer that’s easy to quantify. But, knowing that people don’t just make their minds up in the voting booth, if you look at Perot’s being a choice throughout the campaign, you get a different answer, but it’s hard to quantify. The polls seemed to show points of inflection in the Bush nos. when Perot got in, got out, & got in again, but who knows if there was cause & effect there? We know Perot wanted to hurt Bush, but it’s hard to tell whether he did.

            It seems whoever comes in #2 at an election blames #3 for spoiling, so you probably would’ve gotten the same complaints about Perot from Clinton backers had Clinton lost.

    2. The lesson that should be learnt from it is for independent or Libertarian candidates to refrain from running against any Republican unless the Republican is worse than the Democratic candidate

      And vice versa? lol

    3. Another reason from what I remember (and I recall Bush blamed himself), is that he did almost nothing and waited until the last minute to start campaigning, while Clinton was campaigning his head off all over the country. It gave many of us the impression that Bush didn’t really care if he won or lost.

  3. Not everyone has to write a blog post about the guy, you know.

    1. Yeah really. Let’s pick at the guy right after he drops dead.

      1. Where did Mr. Juice say people should shit-talk him? He’s just saying there are too many Bush pieces, positive or negative (and in fact Gillespie’s was quite negative); rightly or wrongly, they seem to strike him as redundant.

        1. I was criticizing Jesse Walker for writing the article, not Juice.

          Apologies to Juice if it came off that way to him.

      2. I called it. I said that all the media propagandists would come out of the woodwork to talk about Bush Sr.

        1. Its’s not propaganda unless it has the typical bullshit, like his “bad” tax increase. Which was a MASSIVE success.

          1. Figures, Lefties like you dont know what propaganda is.

            They use it so much, that techniques of lying come as second nature.

            1. Oh, goodie! I get to HUMILIATE LC1789 AGAIN (in defense of aggression) WITH PROOF!

              Bush1 committed the ultimate heresy to libertarian goobers. He increased taxes …. in a recession Despite “Read my lips.” WHY?

              He made a better deal. With Democrats,
              GOOBER VS INCONVENIENT FACTS

              Dems abandoned their most sacred principles, by NOT seeking stimulus in a recession, and NOT seeking expansion of safety-net programs. What happened was LITERALLY amazing. But you’re not allowed to know it,

              The recession ended quickly, at 8 months, the second shortest since 1918. That means a recovery began. What kind of recovery?

              Clinton took office in the 22nd month of a recovery, then the longest EVER for an incoming President.
              It continued for the entre Clinton Presidency, even despite HIS tax increase. It ended only with the Clinton recession, in Bush’s 2nd month.

              At precisely 10 years, it was the longest recovery ever .. as in EVER (data begins in 1857)
              The goober shouts down ? the longest recovery in 161 years! (goobers be shameless)

              This is a CRITICAL lesson. But goobers join Reps and Dems, in not allowing us to know it.

              Proof! Official business cycle dates https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

              Anything else, punk?

            2. Hihn the Troll exposes his multiple socks.

              1. What happens when you humiliate a wacko goober like lc1789 … TWICE … on his REPEATED blunder?

                Hihn the Troll exposes his multiple socks.

                Having TWICE humiliated himself on he Facts …. and POVEN a wacko …he “shoots the messenger” with more Trumptardation. …. Exactly like his Orange Jesus (the WORST President on debt EITHER)

                ALSO STUPID ON WHAT TROLL IS!!!!

                Three strikes, You’re out. Now batting .009

        2. Wow, what amazing predictive powers. The media is doing exactly what they always do when an former president dies.

          1. That’s OK. Half of the young “reporters” don’t know that we had two Bush presidents.

          2. Denying that Bush’s tax increase … in a recession … was followed by the longest recovery EVER? (records go back “only” 161 years)

            The bastards.

            (Does Earth Skeptic, below, know more than the “young reporters?”)

  4. Here’s to a relatively even-handed approach to the Palestinian conflict.

    “Fuck the Jews; they didn’t vote for us anyway.”

    –James A. Baker III, U.S. Secretary of State 1989-1992

    1. One of those poorly sourced quotes that will probably live forever, no matter how shaky the evidence that he said it.

      1. It was anonymously sourced, and was later confirmed–not by a member of the “Jewish lobby,” as Bush called it in a 1991 press conference, but by a Jewish friend and ally of both Bush and Baker, Fred Zeidman. Zeidman claimed it was taken out of context, which I think is a far more promising way to defend Baker. (Not that someone who openly treated Israel like garbage is in the best position to be defended, but everyone deserves some charity.) Most private quotations attributed to public figures from “respected” sources should be as probable as this one.

        Which, I agree, isn’t saying much. We should be a lot more skeptical about such attributions in general. This one just ain’t particularly high on the list.

        1. Incidentally, I would never criticize Bush’s overall (very long) career record as being inimical to the Jews or anything like that. It’s actually not at all a criticism of Bush, may he rest in peace, and more a criticism of you (whom I like just fine, for what it’s worth) and your cheering for Baker’s open antagonism toward Israel (for instance, calling them the biggest obstacle to peace) as “even handed.”

          1. This.

            There’s no merit in being even-handed between right and wrong.

  5. He understood that the Soviet Union was our enemy.”

    –Eulogizing Bush on MSNBC right now

    1. It is truly remarkable that the party that cheered “The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back.” thinks that it can accuse others of not being sufficiently worried about Russia with a straight face.

      Even Trump is harsher towards Russia in policy than Democrats of any recent vintage.

    2. From the people who cheered on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, …

      He who controls the past controls the future
      He who controls the present controls the past

  6. Go Dawgs!!!!

  7. Can’t really say who was best or worst in my lifetime.

    In terms of likability and political style Reagan and to some extent Bill Clinton I think were pretty good. Reagan talked a good game of small government even if it was mostly just talk, something he excelled at. Clinton had this kind of aw shucks way of pulling though his worst messes. HW Bush gave you the impression that he was a steady hand on the wheel, if true or not. That is something I miss in today’s political climate.

    But none of them have had much to offer for a libertarian.

    1. Reagan talked a good game of small government even if it was mostly just talk.

      You’ve been brainwashed. By progressives and anti-gummint conservatives and libertarians. Google the Grace Commission, the other half of Reagan’s campaign agenda, tax AND spending cuts.

      Peter Grace had been in Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet” as California Governor, all self-made billionaires (without a huge boost from daddy). Grace assembled a task-force of hand-on business managers and accountants to go out into the departments, looking for the largest possible “safe” spending cuts. No congressional bullshit committees. If their proposal had passed, Cato estimates spending cuts would have saved roughly $10 trillion by 2000, 18 years ago. What happened?

      The cuts were buried. In a GOP Senate. That’s when Reagan began asking for a Line Item Veto … against his own party! And his party lost the Senate.

      The GOP also screwed his New Federalism. New, because it matters less where government programs are, than consolidating them all at ANY one level of government. When they’re each run from all three levels, NOBODY could be held accountable That was intentional, and still is. Reagan’s brilliant entrepreneurs/advisers knew Step One is to hold SOMEBODY accountable. It was a swap, major safety net programs consolidated with either the state or federal. Praised by even the New York Times, but Republicans fucked that, too.

      Cont’d

      1. Reagan doubled or tripled the national debt. The year after he left office, co-workers thought it a fantastic deal to get mortgages for only 21%. That was all on Reagan.

        All talk, all bluster. Anyone who actually *believed* that communism was inefficient and doomed to failure would have let capitalism and free markets roar ahead and left the communists to modernize and liberalize, or sink their own boat. That would have done far more to bankrupt the USSR than bluffing them with Star Wars at our own expense.

        1. Democrat-controlled congress controlled spending and a lot of that debt went to defeating the Soviet Union.

          1. Blame President Obama for his budgets but blame Congress for Ronnie’s budgets? Congratulate President Ronnie for outspending the USSR and blame Congress for raising the budget over Ronnie’s veto?

            Partisan hackery, I call it. Try again.

            1. Obama wholly owns his budgets from when his party controlled both houses of congress.

            2. Blame President Obama for his budgets but blame Congress for Ronnie’s budgets? Congratulate President Ronnie for outspending the USSR and blame Congress for raising the budget over Ronnie’s veto?

              Partisan hackery, I call it. Try again.

              I have ORIGINAL sources. What do YOU have?

              And it was ME pointing out that Trump had already added more new debt than Obama’s 8 years.
              Obama began with the 2nd-worst recession since the 1930s, and left Trump the longest recovery EVER.

              Which exposes YOU as the partisan hack!

              Left – Right = Zero
              Libertarians oppose BOTH.
              So do a growing majority of Americans.

              1. David Nolan – Sock = Hihn

                1. He has original sources So you talk nonsense
                  You Lose.

          2. Republicans held the Senate until 1982 — after they had buried Reagan’s massive tax cuts

            of that debt went to defeating the Soviet Union.

            True — need not have.

            After Republicans killed the spending cuts, Reagan shifted to using defense cuts from the Cold War to offset the tax cuts, but Congress spent nearly 2/3 elsewhere. (gasp)

            Our “depleted” defense budget is larger than the next 14 countries combined, 12 of which are allies, nearly triple China+Russia, and prox 2.5 x China.

            Congressional GOP also fucked Reagan on the 1986 Tax “reform” when Dems and Reps conspired to cripple outr industrial base and CAUSE the growing increase in inequality.

            THIS is why the Trump tax cuts will FAIL on industrial base and offshore jobs. Compare with Canada
            Our corporate rate 21% vs 15%.
            Our depreciation on factory equipment 7 years vs 5 years.
            Our special rates on dividends vs ZERO in Canada
            Canada indexes capital gains for inflation. We tax inflationary gains.

            Where would YOU invest, sucker? IT’S NOT JUST TAX RATES.

            And fuck corporate loopholes. Most stock is owned by EMPLOYEE PENSION FUNDS, probably well over 25 trillion at today’s market. So the loopholes.go to … workers! OUR workers own the means of production, Karl

            1. “THIS is why the Trump tax cuts will FAIL on industrial base and offshore jobs. Compare with Canada
              Our corporate rate 21% vs 15%.
              Our depreciation on factory equipment 7 years vs 5 years.
              Our special rates on dividends vs ZERO in Canada
              Canada indexes capital gains for inflation. We tax inflationary gains.”

              I agree on all that. Although I put more of the blame on not having a more aggressive cuts package on our weak, RINO run, feckless GOP congress than anything else.

              1. I’ll suggest the entire thing was structured wrong. We hear Supply-side vs Demand-side. Libertarians don’ts take sides, which is NOT how the economy works

                Only two tax cuts have created booms in the postar years, and they were identical. Kennedy then Reagan. “Across the board, top to bottom, personal and corporate,” sounds like Reagan, but it was Kennedy!

                Why? A growing economy is like a 3-legged stool — consumers, employers, investors. If they ALL don’t have confidence, the stool falls over. Obama’s stimulus failed because workers feared for their jobs Instead of consuming, they paid down debt, for greater security.

                If they buy, employers won’t expand unless they are confident. Expansion requires … investors.

                Trump COULD have gone corporate ONLY, and BETTER by repealing the ENTIRE corporate income tax. REVENUE NEUTRAL . SHIFT it all to investors. INSTEAD of a tax cut for rich guys to eliminate double-taxation, go the other way.

                Share prices are a multiple of retained earnings. HUGE increase in retained earnings = 30X that in higher stock prices. We’d have many TRILLIONS of new investment capital. Investors will pay higher tax RATES on a LOT more income so net ahead.,Bails out pension funds (who own most of the stock). Become the manufacturing tax haven to the world.

                I THINK you said larger tax cuts. But ZERO cuts are MUCH better For everyone. Once!

        2. Reagan doubled or tripled the national debt.

          Repeat: Google the Grace Commission

          The PRIME rate was 21%. He inherited that, and ended it

          Anyone who actually *believed* that communism was inefficient and doomed to failure would have let capitalism and free markets roar ahead

          The are no free markets in Russia.

          and left the communists to modernize and liberalize, or sink their own boat.

          umm, HE sunk it. Ended the Cold War

          I have TONS of proof. Requires a part 2

          1. You didn’t read squat that I wrote. For instance, your “The PRIME rate was 21%. He inherited that, and ended it” shows you didn’t read my “the year after he left office”.

            My remark about free markets meant the US, idiot. And yes, the USSR did have a few free markets, very small, with an inordinate influence on the economy, and maybe the USSR would have expanded them,but any idiot could tell what I wrote.

            Which was that if Ronnie had actually BELIEVED that communism was inefficient and doomed to failure on its own account, he wouldn’t have felt the need to bluff them into spending more by spending more himself.

            Blaming the Democrats for Ronnie’s budgets is a joke. You can’t blame the Democrats for everything, bud. Either Ronnie was in charge for all the congratulation you want to give him, or he wasn’t and the Democrats get those too.

            Obama spent too much, but Ronnie had his hands tied. Gosh how original.

            1. (sigh)

              You didn’t read squat that I wrote.

              Wait for it …

              For instance, your “The PRIME rate was 21%. He inherited that, and ended it” shows you didn’t read my “the year after he left office”.

              HERE is what you said

              The year after he left office, co-workers thought it a fantastic deal to get mortgages for only 21%. That was all on Reagan.

              You said morghavbe were at 21% — which NEVERT happened … AFTER Reagan left office.
              You lied, YUGELY. But WERE the partisan hacks!

              Obama spent too much, but Ronnie had his hands tied. Gosh how original.

              With sources. And said Obama added LESS debt than Trump, starting from far worse economy.

              I’m done with you, and I suspect nobody else has to pay you any mind at all.

            2. “You didn’t read squat that I wrote. For instance, your “The PRIME rate was 21%. He inherited that, and ended it” shows you didn’t read my “the year after he left office”.”

              In 1990, the prime rate was around 10%. Fixed mortgage rates were 9-10%. So I don’t know what you think was circa 21%, but it had nothing to do with any kind of mainstream mortgage program. If you don’t believe me, go to bankrste monitor or any of other sources of that kind of data.

              1. In 1990, the prime rate was around 10%.

                Reagan was not President then, Seriously.

                Noww yoou flip from prime to mortgage rates. They are different/

                Fixed mortgage rates were 9-10%. So I don’t know what you think was circa 21%,

                The PRIME rate (all caps) is not the mortgage rate. He linked it PROOF of a 21% PRIME rate. JUST BELOW THIS. David Nolan|12.1.18 @ 6:44PM

                YOU pasted PRIME in all caos!!!

                but it had nothing to do with any kind of mainstream mortgage program. If you don’t believe me, go to bankrste monitor or any of other sources of that kind of data.

                The PRIME rate (all caps) has been linked 7 hours before you posted that. With a BOLD headline.

                If you don;t believe me google the definitions for PRIME rate (all caps) and mortgage rate.

                1. I quoted different things because Mr. Alphabet upthread keeps jumping around, so I don’t know what he was getting at. The point is that when Reagan left office, or a year later (1990) there were no mainstream mortgage loan products, or major indexes that were “around 21%” that he keeps claiming.

                  1. NOLAN CLAIMED … AND PROVED … A 21% PRIME rate
                    PRIME rate …
                    PRIME rate …

                    WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE …. 1981
                    WHEN REAGAN TOOK OFFICE …. 1981

                    You typed PRIME (iAll caps) rates… then flipped to mortgage rateS… were corrected … and STILL confused on prime vs mortgage rates …

                    1990 is NEVER been mentioned … until you mistook the entire discussion.

                    The point is that when Reagan left office, or a year later (1990) there were no mainstream mortgage loan products, or major indexes that were “around 21%” that he keeps claiming.

                    NOLAN SAID 21% AND AND DOCUMENTED IT. … I CORRECTED YOUR ERROR ON THAT, AND DOCUMENTED THAT … AND YOU STILL REPEAT IT WRONG!!!

                    1. He also said ‘the year after Reagan left office’ more than once. I’m not sure why you’re fixating on any of this where I’m concerned since I’m only trying to correct him using historical data sourced from Bank Rate Monitor. I’m also rounding a little as rates fluctuate throughout each year.

                    2. NEVER-ERNDING BULLSHIT FROM LASTOFTHE SHITHEADS

                      He also said ‘the year after Reagan left office’ more than once

                      FOR 21% MORTGAGE RATES — A MASSIVE FUCKUP —- BY YOUR SOCK — THAT ONLY YOU REPEATED

                      The year after he left office, co-workers thought it a fantastic deal to get mortgages for only 21%. That was all on Reagan.

                      I’m not sure why you’re fixating on any of this

                      Self-defense from a fucking PSYCHO stalker … who creates a sock to attack me … because you attack anything I say, snowflake.

                      Then YOU are the ONLY one repeating he TOTALLY INSANE CLAIM of 21% “fixed mortgage rates” …. when 21% was the PRIME rate.

                      Bullshit. Thirty year fixed rates were around 9% in 1989. The only time they were near 21% was 1981.

          2. The Great Recession? Reagan vs Obama
            (Connect the links)

            Reagan’s stock market was still crashing to 70%. Obama’s had rebounded to -46%
            h ttp:// observationsandnotes blogspot.com/ 2011/03/ stock-market-100-year-inflation-history.html

            Reagan tax policy began with 10.8% unemployment, down to 5.8% in TWO years. Obama’s stimulus began with 8.3% unemployment, INCREASED to 10.0%, was 9.8% after two years and took 69 months to hit 5.8%
            ht tp://research.stlouisfed.org/ fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

            Reagan inherited the highest prime-rate ever at 21.5% Obama at 3.25%
            ht tp:/ /www.fedprimerate.com/ wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm

            Reagan began with a far worse recession, but in his first 4 years, real GDP had increased 12.6%. Obama’s first four years saw only 3.3% TOTAL.
            ht tps://ww w.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm? reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3= 1&1921=survey&1903=1

            Now compare business cycles with prime rates. http://nber.org/cycles.html
            Libruls claim the recovery was launched by the Fed lowering interest rates, The recession ended in Nov, 1982, with the Prime Rate at 11.5%. Never saw single digits until June, 1985 — just shy of three years into the recovery — and did not see historic averages until December of 1991 (6.5%).

            Anything else?

            1. Yes, Reagan beat inflation in his first years. I was reporting that after 8 years in office, co-workers were scrambling for 21% mortgages. Try reading next time.

              1. was reporting that after 8 years in office, co-workers were scrambling for 21% mortgages

                PROVEN wrong on both,

                Try reading next time.

                I read that you confused the prime rate with the mortgage rate. And confused the PRIME rate he inherited, with the WRONG rate and WRONG amount after he left.

                The year after he left office, co-workers thought it a fantastic deal to get mortgages for only 21%. That was all on Reagan.

              2. Bullshit. Thirty year fixed rates were around 9% in 1989. The only time they were near 21% was 1981.

                1. Shitliord AGAIN????

                  Bullshit.

                  (smirk) It NEVER ends

                  Thirty year fixed rates were around 9% in 1989. The only time they were near 21% was 1981.

                  THAT WAS THE PRIME RATE.!
                  THE MORTGAGE RAGE WAS UNDER 15% (miine was 12%)
                  And NONE were fixed-rate!

                  THINK THINK THINK …. MARKETS.!

                  YOU BELIEVE ANYONE (smarter than you) , WOULD SIGN A FIXED RATE 21% MORTGAGE …. FOR 30 FREAKING YEARS. !!!!

                  There were ZERO fixed rate mortgages, because lenders, who DO know markets switched to ROLLOVERS of 1-3 years/

                  Guess why?

                  When rates came down, which was soom, you’d rollover — at the lower rate …AUTOMATICALLY …. do nothing . So at each rollover for (I believe) about 10 years … YOUR rates kept falling … as the MARKET fell.

                  It was like having a mortgages, at the peak, matching the market rate — which HAD to go down sharply.

                  We bought our house at 12.x%, in late 1980. When we sold, 9 years later, it was 8.25%, automatically.

                  Elementary-school stuff

                  This is for your cheap insult lower on the page ..because you screw up like this, EVERY time you anything of substance

                  1. Yeah, which is why I said “anywhere near”. And some areas, and some loan products featured higher rates than what you’re quoting for a time

                    For once we’re pretty much on the same page here. That alphabet guy is just way off.

                    1. Yeah, which is why I said “anywhere near”.

                      YOU SAID MORTGAGE … NOT PRIME … and are STILL doing it!

                      And some areas, and some loan products featured higher rates than what you’re quoting for a time

                      Fifth repeat:
                      PRIME rate is NOT on a “loan product” (mortgage rate) … and is the same NATIONWIDE

                      How can ANYONE confuse the PRIME rate … with the MORTGAGE rates ,…. after FOUR corrections???? You were asked, respsetfully, to google both definitions

            2. I guess if there still is Reagan Derangement Syndrome 30 years later, we can look forward to the same with Trump 3o years from now. Well, that’s only fair, since we still have Hillary Derangement Syndrome 30 years later.

              1. One more time. Trump is a fiscal disaster.

                Left – Right = Zero
                Libertarians are neither.
                Both combined are a shrinking minority of voters.

                So I have proven I am not the partisan hack,. Twice now.

              2. You don’t appear to know what you’re talking about. Maybe you should be quiet.

                1. And for once this is not directed toward Hihn.

                  1. This whole conversation was an idiot fight between Hihn and ahful.

                    1. Indeed. I was trying to straighten the guy out when Hihn jumped in.

                    2. Indeed. I was trying to straighten the guy out when Hihn jumped in.

                      THE GUY YOU CALL HIHN STARTED THE TOPIC

                      Then corrected your fucklup of year. Here!
                      LOL

                    3. Is Hihn honestly trying to claim credit for starting a piss fight?

                    4. Is Hihn honestly trying to claim credit for starting a piss fight?

                      Are you drunk?

                      The guy that you trolls call Hihn posted DETAILED financial data, on every relevant metric, with links to original sources for each.

                      educate yourself here.

                      The fights were started by goobers posting bulshit conttent , — bellowing — with NO sources.

                      You switchee you lie from this:

                      This whole conversation was an idiot fight between Hihn and ahful.

                      which is also a lie.(for the guy that goobers call Hihn)

                    5. I even backed him up in refuting the nonsense the guy was spewing. But a Hihn can’t help himself. Even Tony and PB have more self control than that.

                    6. And this kind of sit is why everyone loathes you here. Can’t even agree with you without being attacked.

                    7. Not once You are one sick fuck

                      STILL confused who said 21% PRIME rate.
                      STILL confuse PRIME and mortgage rates.

                    8. Since I’ve actually owned and managed a mortgage company, you might not want to make such an assertion. I promise you my understanding of moartgave rates and mortgage lending is vastly superior to yours. And just because you got a particular rate around 1980 on a particular loan in a particular geographic area doesn’t mean that throughout an entire year, throughout the entire country, that every loan would have near identical rates. I can provide anecdotal examples from members of my own family from that time period with interest rates that are different from yours.

                      Mortgage lending is not very homogeneous that way.

                    9. STALKING PSYCHOPATH?

                      Last of the Shitheads
                      Since I’ve actually owned and managed a mortgage company, you might not want to make such an assertion. I promise you my understanding of moartgave rates and mortgage lending is vastly superior to you

                      (SMIRK)
                      Last of fhe Shitheads
                      Bullshit. Thirty year fixed rates were around 9% in 1989. The only time they were near 21% was 1981.

                      Mortgage genius confuses PRIME RATE with fixed mortgage rate. Then goes psycho.

                      Verbal AggressionA personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

                      Cyberbullying

                      Stalker

                      psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

                      Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain. and most fools do. -Benjamin Franklin

        3. Interest rates were that high during Carter’s administration.

          1. Intentionally. By Fed Chair Volcker. Reagan saved us from that.

      2. Part 2/2

        States would have a net gain in costs. But revenue transfers would DECLINE EVERY YEAR TO ZERO. Republicans cut NOTHING. They’d dump programs on states, keep the savings at federal ?. to INCREASE spending elsewhere.

        Governors walked away.

        Major tax cuts. Major spending cuts. And new accountability, toward more savings, Yet, Nick Gillespie, and too many others, whine that Reagan increased Social Security taxes instead of cutting them, to a Trust Fund careening toward bankruptcy. Politically impossible. And bitch about spending increases they know nothing about.

        Liberty has been losing ever since, on the very thing they hate most, the size of government.

        Blame Reagan, THE most libertarian elected politician ever. (He and Goldwater were defending gays in the 1970s, two decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT, and nearly four decades before Obama “evolved.”)

        There WAS a libertarian moment. Decades ago. Killed by the anti-gummint mentality that now dominates conservatives and MOVEMENT libertarians. Cato reports the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of those who self-identify with libertarian values.

        Voters are open to even radical change, which happens only once or twice per century.

        Our time is NOW. We’ve had 50 years to prepare. The clock is ticking. Anti-government is NOT pro-liberty, The movement is rejected by its own majority.

        Anything else on Reagan’s spending?

    2. “But none of them have had much to offer for a libertarian.”

      Some crazy racists think that defeating Soviet communism was a plus.

    3. For worst during my lifetime, hard to pick between Kennedy, Johnson, & Nixon. For best, if I can prorate the current term, Trump.

      1. What if it came to a golf-off between Eisenhower & Obama? Or a music playoff between Nixon & Clinton? Or poker between Nixon & Bush Jr.?

  8. “Bear in mind that I was born when Richard Nixon occupied the Oval Office, so worst president of my lifetime was a pretty high bar to clear.”

    Hey, I can top that. I think. I was born fairly late in the Eisenhower administration. My only memory of the Kennedy administration is the day that it ended – I was in the first grade. Nixon resigned right before I started my senior year of high school. So from the time I can remember until I was almost a legal adult, the Presidents I experienced were LBJ and Nixon. I mean, damn, is it any wonder I learned to be cynical about government?

    Seriously, Bush may have been the best President of my lifetime, warts and all. It’s either him or Reagan, I guess. They were flawed, but not nearly so much as the other post-JFK administrations.

    1. I’m a year older than you so l mostly agree. But Carter did the the least damage so there’s that.

      1. Carter: malaise, selective service, Department of Education, Iran hostage crisis, stagflation…

  9. The best Bush eulogy? Or the frankest?

    Only one miss, but a far too common one. He left Clinton a 22-month recovery. Clinton left us a recession, and even the New York Times predicted he’d cause he 2008 crash — by forcing mortgage lenders to massively increase subprime mortgages, then pressuring Fannie and Freddie to lower their standards and accept them Standards which, by hindsight, had protected taxpayers since the 1930s.

    Ooops, one more, what really cost him the White House, The tax increase. Look again. It was a deal, and a MASSIVE victory. In return for the tax increase, Democrats agreed to NOT demand a typical “stimulus” spending binge. The result? The 2nd shortest recession since 1918, handing Clinton the longest recovery for an incoming President since 1918 .(22 months) … until Trump inherited the 7th year of a recovery from Obama,

    That deal was a stunning success. Tax increases NEED NOT be satanic. GOP rage led to Perot, and began the party’s collapse into anti-gummint failures. The precise opposite of the Reagan/Kemp/Friedman/Bush pro-growth agenda.

    Consequently, Trump’s GOP was the first ever to double the deficit, in a single year, during a recovery. And has already added more new debt than Obama (or any President), despite that seven-year recovery. (Obama actual vs CBO 2024 forecast.) And now they want even more new debt!

    Ronnie and George, we barely knew ya.

    1. It’s actually pretty easy to double the deficit in a single year, during a recovery (or economic expansion). 1958 to 1959 is an easy example. 1966-1967 is another

      1. In the 7th year of a recovery?

        Inheriting the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President? — From a President who started with the worst recovery t since the 1930s??

        Then adding more new debt in less than 2 years than Obama did after 8 years … with another “free” tax cut on the table?

        NO debt doubling form 58 top 59 , 6 B to 8 B, in round numbers True for 66 to 67. During an actual war.

        1. OK, we’re starting to play word games and being ultra-selective here with our statistics.

          “In the 7th year of a recovery?”

          Long economic expansions are less common in the United States. One of the longer ones has been the current one, and the 1961-1969 expansion. So, the 66-67 doubling was in the 6th, not the 7th year of an expansion. In addition, if you’re going one war, but not another, it seems odd

          “Inheriting the longest recovery ever…”
          Again, that’s an N=1.

          “Then adding more debt in 2 years than Obama did in 8 years”.
          This is just inaccurate, unless you insist on including future flows. If you do you’re clearly not including the ATRA of 2012.

          Moreover, you’ve switched from the deficit to the debt, which are different terms.

          I’m happy to talk about this honestly, but you need to set aside your biases and look at the numbers honestly. For example, there’s no year to year deficit doubling under Trump.

          1. OK, we’re starting to play word games and being ultra-selective here with our statistics.

            PROVE IT

            One of the longer ones has been the current one

            From OBAMA,

            and the 1961-1969 expansion.

            Bush1’s was TEN years PROOF

            So, the 66-67 doubling was in the 6th, not the 7th year of an expansion.

            RELEVANCE?

            In addition, if you’re going one war, but not another, it seems odd

            IRRELEVANT. The longest expansion INHERITED by a incoming President.

            “Inheriting the longest recovery ever…”

            Again, that’s an N=1.

            PROOF

            “Then adding more debt in 2 years than Obama did in 8 years”.

            This is just inaccurate, unless you insist on including future flows.

            YOU AGREE.!!
            YOU would compare two years with EIGHT! WTF?

            If you do you’re clearly not including the ATRA of 2012.

            NOT RELEVANT

            Moreover, you’ve switched from the deficit to the debt, which are different terms.

            LIAR

  10. I honestly can’t remember a damn thing about the guy. His term came and went without much to remark on besides Kuwait and “Read my lips!”. I tend to view him as the big vacant lot in between the Reagan and Clinton estates.

    1. Bush issued an executive order banning the importation of “assault weapons”. I joined the NRA the same week.

      1. Why do you reject the Constitution? Bans on assault weapons have been constitutional since 1939 (Miller), and reaffirmed by Scalia (Heller)

        That’s why the NRA was totally powerless against the Assault Weapons Ban floor 10 long years.

        1. “Bans on assault weapons have been constitutional since 1939 (Miller)”

          I must have missed the constitutional amendment passed in 1939 that overturned the 2nd. Remind me which one that was.

          1. Ever hard of SCOTUS Rulings?. Two. Miller (1939) reaffirmed by Scalais’s Heller

            Scalia’s Heller
            1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

            We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

            … as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

            “At the time” means at ratification. As does bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons”

            Anythjng else?

  11. Which war, Jesse? The war on plant leaves (death sentence demanded by Holy War Bush)? It says sth abt voters that Slick Willie also wanted the death sentence for weed and still beat Mr CIA.

      1. Hey, Hank’s even crazier than you are. I got nothing when it comes to his ranting and raving.

        1. You lose again. Several; hours ago.
          Reply with another childish insult, which is all you have.

          Left – Right = Zero
          Two authoritarian tribes, a shrinking minority of Americans.
          That’s why God invented Libertarians. All we need now is to dump our establishment.

          1. Actually it was almost a backhanded compliment. But take it however you choose.

            1. THIS is why I kicked Shitlord to the curb ,…. here

              NOW HE SAYS CALLING SOMEBODY CRAZY IS A … COMPLIMENT!
              (but he’s NOT a crazy fucking cyber-bully!!!)

              1. Yes. You’re unbalanced. A few people here won’t even respond to you because they pity your mentally unstable condition. You attack anyone for the slightest deviation from your opinion, or for some perceived error in minutia on even the most trivial point. You even attack people who agree with you. Then turn around and okay the victim card and cry “bully” when people hit back. And I’m not even going to get into your bizarre and irrational employment of sock puppets.

                That’s you. It’s also why everyone here thinks you’re unbalanced, or even completely nuts. Maybe some kind of narcissistic personality disorder combined with OCD and paranoid personality disorder.

                Since your moods tend to vary greatly, I’m guessing you are medicated at least part of the time. Am I close on any of this? It wouldn’t surprise me to find out you’ve had a professional diagnosis somewhere in the direction I’ve just described.

                1. Not only is she completely and totally batshit crazy, she’s also a pathologically lying cunt.

                2. THIS is why I kicked Shitlord to the curb ,…. here

                  NOW HE SAYS CALLING SOMEBODY CRAZY IS A … COMPLIMENT!
                  (but he’s NOT a crazy fucking cyber-bully!!!)

                  And TOTAL pyscho here

                  1. Weigel’s Cock Ring|12.2.18 @ 9:15PM|#
                    Not only is she completely and totally batshit crazy, she’s also a pathologically lying cunt.

                    THIS psycho says I’m REALLY Mary Stack — the craziest of all

                    Calls me a liar. NEVER proves it like I do, BELEEBS readers are as stupid as he is.

                    The aliases the use show their mentality. (smirk)

                  2. You’ve never kicked anyone to the curb. You’ve never won a single argument against anyone here, ever.

                    Do you understand that you’re seen as a crackpot nutcase, amd a pathetic joke? Most people don’t even read your ranting bullshit. You’re just an insane shitposter.

                    My guess is that harassing people here is pretty much your whole life. Given what a deluded self important fool you are, there is no way you could maintain relationships with friends or family. And you probably belong in a mental institution.

                    I’m guessing the only reason you haven’t ended your own life is that your narcissism won’t allow it. Then you would have to acknowledge what a laughably homogeneous failure you are.

  12. Young Mr Walker was right at the time. Bush 41 was the second-worst president of my lifetime in the early 1990s (LBJ worst by far, natch)

    1. Because he launched the LONGEST economic expansion ?

      …. EVER?

      ….. from a tax INCREASE?

      … IN A RECESSION?

  13. This is so disappointing. I was hoping he was going to run against Trump in 2020.

    1. Bush/Weld 2020, as Libertarians?

      1. Maybe in a bizarro world or Qwardian universe.

    2. The Bush twins are old enough now. Bush/Bush?

      1. They’re 35 already? Remember when they needed Secret Service protection to stay out of trouble for underage drinking?

        1. Alternate joke: “Wait, before I give the order to launch, are you the President or the Vice President? It’s hard to tell you two apart.”

      2. You can never get enough Bush….

  14. No, that would be George W. Bush.
    For all the wars and blowing up the debt and creating the demand for TARP and for ushering in Obama.

  15. Bizarro:

    “In her insightful and politically charged new novel, Barbara Kingsolver finds deep resonances between the Victorian era’s attitudes towards science, and our own. Unsheltered begins on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, when Willa, a freelance journalist whose family has fallen on hard times, discovers that the house they’ve moved into has a “nonexistent foundation.” Hoping to enlist restoration help from a historical society, Willa traces the origins of the house to Thatcher Greenwood, a science teacher who lived there in the 1870s, and his neighbor, a real-life woman biologist named Mary Treat, whose research supported Charles Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. Just as Darwin’s theory challenged the Victorian belief in the Judeo-Christian creation myth, so too, in Willa’s era, does global warming challenge prevailing myths about the future of civilization.”
    https://www.amazon.com/Unsheltered-Novel-Barbara
    -Kingsolver/dp/0062684566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8=
    1543696699&sr=8-1&keywords=unsheltered+a+novel

    Pretty sure drawing equivalence between Darwin, climate change and a failed building inspection is gonna need some Hihn-level idiocy.

    1. Ot Koch idiocy????
      Cato idiocy?
      Reason idiocy?

      1. Fuck off, idiot.

  16. Thanks for civil forfeiture, you prick.

  17. What part of pusilanimous doesn’t Jesse understand?

    When Bush was in charge, the Afghans were on our side.

    1. There was a time under Bush Sr., that much of the Muslim World kind of liked the USA.

      Bush Sr had gotten 20+ Muslim nations to fight along side the USA to expel Saddam’s forces from Kuwait.

      1. On behalf of Kuwait

        1. Yup.

        2. The older Kuwaitis still love us.

  18. Lefty Brains:
    1) The current leader of the Republican Party is literally Hitler
    2) The last leader really wasn’t so bad

    Year after year after year after year

    1. Nobody says that.
      Get a grip.

  19. Nixon and HW Bush were the worst presidents in your lifetime???
    Did you die and resurrect from 78-82?

    1. woops, meant 76-80

      1. You mean the Democrat who deregulated a shit ton of stuff and didn’t get us into any wars? As in, the only one since Grover Cleveland? He was actually in charge from 77-81.

        1. (And I am the dude who opened by bitching about Bush‘s attitude toward Israel, so you can imagine how inclined I am to dole out affection here!)

  20. Please, Carter and Obama were far, far worse.

    1. Mr. Carter and friends celebrate America’s soon-to-be-worst president.

  21. GHWB triggered decades of US war in the middle easy and contributed to the rise of al qaeda.

    This derailed W’s effort to reform social security.

    So, I think it is ok to think he did was among the worst.

    Iraq liberated Kuwait from an autocracy. Change my mind.

    1. Iraq liberated Kuwait from an autocracy. Change my mind.

      I would never do any such thing, as I’d be embarrassed by the fact that your claim is certainly correct. Molotov and Ribbentrop did the same for Poland in 1939, and the world still remembers them.

  22. I think a truly libertarian website would have more articles about GHB.

  23. HW Bush, a ww2 era president, lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton, baby boomer. Very important. Here come the millennials.

  24. HW Bush WAS the worst president in your lifetime at one time. Then Clinton, GW Bush, Obama and Trump followed. That changed things “in your lifetime”.

  25. To be fair, every president since him has been progressively worse.

    1. Rest assured though that Walker never thought this for a moment about Obama, because he, like most of the Reason “libertarians” worship, adore, and venerate him like he’s a god.

      1. Better than Trump! Who takes credit for inheriting the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President — from Obama … three times longer than the previous record, (Bush 1 to Clinton, was 22 months )

        Trump parlayed that into ALREADY adding more new debt than Obama (who inherited the 2nd WORST economy since the 1930s)

        Much like Trump;s life — where he was born on third base,($400 from daddy) and thinks he hit a home run.

    2. True, but what most Americans expect from the presidency has also gotten progressively worse.

      1. Judging from the adoration directed at Obama, all that’s required now is a nice speaking voice and a tan.

        Oh, and rolled-up sleeves help.

        1. Says the bigot, apparently ignorant thar Trump has already added mote new debt that Obajma.

          Crazy since Trump wad handed the longest recoverty EVER for an incoming President — three times longer than the previous record — from Obama — who had inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s.

          Some make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
          Others make a sow’s ear from a silk purse

  26. George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.
    Pick your poison.

    1. Trump is easily the most deadly.
      Even if he wasn’t a psychopathic liar.

  27. Working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    HERE http://www.SalaryHD.Com

  28. hi everyone i say found a powerful formula that combines the highest quality ingredients to address your weight loss from multiple perspectives, 24 hours per day. By
    increasing your metabolism both during the day and night, increasing your energy levels, and promoting and restful sleep get more info here… http://www.argeosaly.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.